Why I don't put my slides online - <AUTHOR> http://coffeeonthekeyboard.com/where-are-james-slides-670/

<comment><USER2> I'm a big fan of Zack Holloman's approach:

 _Something I've been doing recently is making a screen recording of my talks using QuickTime on my Mac. It'll record both my voice and my slides as I flip through them. It's a much better experience than just posting contextless slides._

[http://zachholman.com/posts/what-they-dont-tell-you-about- pu...](http://zachholman.com/posts/what-they-dont-tell-you-about-public- speaking/)

<comment><USER3> This is the ideal solution. All the better if the presenter makes the online version more concise than the in-person presentation.

<comment><USER4> I recently tried this with something I talk about often, which is The Overview Effect and why I think it's important to think about in relation to data visualization. Using a tool that was more visual than a blog post, but not clickclickclick like slides + speaker notes was really helpful.

<http://shashashasha.thenewhive.com/the-overview-effect>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I agree that slides should not be the whole story. Whats the point of having slides if the speaker is basically reading them? Whats the point of the speaker if the slides contain everything that is being said?

On the other hand, I do love when slides act as a brief summary of the talk because I often don't want to spend 45 minutes to listen to a talk when all I want is a summary or if I don't yet know if the talk is interesting to me, or if I can't watch a video right now for whatever reason and want to know if I should bookmark it for later. But thats not the real reason I like slides to be made available.

The biggest reason of all for you to put your slides online is that I have seen countless videos of talks where the slides are unreadable (too small, too blurry, too low resolution - whatever) or the camera focused completely on the speaker and never showed the slides at all. Not all videos make the slides available (eg if its on vimeo or youtube, rather than something like infoq) - in these cases, often the video is worthless unless the speaker makes the slides available on their website.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's totally fair. With the types of slides I try to make, they're usually legible on the video, but if they aren't, and there is video to accompany them, I'd be happy to share.

The point is just getting the whole story, together. And, personally, I prefer something like a blog post because I can read faster than I can listen to the whole talk. Even if I miss out on some of the funny or other moments.

<comment><USER5> As long as the slides are legible, then thats perfectly fine. My concern there is really the same as yours: to get the whole story together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ack, that still doesn't prevent slides from going online. Just include your speaker notes. Problem solved. More work of course, but problem solved. Here's a fantastic example.

[http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2012/GDC2012_Ruski...](http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2012/GDC2012_Ruskin_Elan_DynamicDialog.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Speaker notes are definitely one option (as is the video mentioned in other comments) but I feel like they're a lazy/weak way of telling the story, compared to actually writing a blog post about the same topic.

<comment><USER6> I strongly disagree. Presentations are often almost an hour long and may contain over 100 slides + images. That format does not translate particularly well to a blog post.

Did you look at the link I posted? It's a far more enjoyable, engrossing, and informative format than the equivalent multi-post blog series.

<comment><AUTHOR> If your slides are like this, sure, it'd need to be a multi-post series or an ebook (though, ebook might not be a bad option) or something like how Seth Godin presented his iconic "Really Bad Powerpoint": <http://www.sethgodin.com/freeprize/reallybad-1.pdf>

..edit: I like Markdown too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am amazed the OP is never asked for their slides, even though they are not useful by themselves. I once gave an hour-long talk using no slides at all (I basically talked over a demo of live screens) and I _still_ got asked for my slides at at the end.

<comment><AUTHOR> I added that in because I thought about it and realized it was true, and it kind of surprised me, too. I get asked for the URL at the end sometimes, or to put that back up or email it out, but never the slides.

Which I personally take as evidence that I'm either a) writing slides the way I want to, or b) writing really bad slides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think if you want to make something for the web, put up a video of the talk, or write and article as well.

I hate slides being put up, it makes people put stupid crap that doesn't belong in slides, in slides.</comment>


Twitter Is Pushing Celebrities and Publishers to Stop Using Meerkat - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/12/this-stream-aint-big-enough-for-the-both-of-us/

<comment><USER2> Lost me at 'sources say'.

</comment><comment><USER3> Meerkat will have no chance against Periscope with the support of Twitter. In two years we will hardly remember what Meerkat was. Sad but true.

<comment><USER4> Not convinced either will last, but Twitter is effectively mashing on a pimple and making it worse. Prediction: this will help Meerkat's brand + hurt Periscope's.</comment></comment>


Nixie – Wearable camera that can fly [video] - <AUTHOR> https://flynixie.com/ <comment><USER3> > Nixie is in development.

What kind of development? Are you trying to figure out if you can do it? Are you building the first prototype? Do you have a prototype? Are you working towards making it mass-producable?

Don't just waffle, actually tell people where you are. Otherwise you run a good risk of being mistaken for snake oil peddlers.

<comment><USER4> It's the usual waste-of-space website design. Let's fill the front page with photos and bios of ourselves, while not bothering to include any useful information about the actual product.

<comment><USER5> Or maybe the team they've assembled is working on exactly that. At this stage - it's not really yet a product, but a concept. Instead of shitting on their website design, why not wait a while to see if this collection of seemingly talented people with a common goal are able to accomplish what they've set out to do?

<comment><USER4> Sorry, 'design' was a poor choice of words by me. It is the content on the page that annoys me. Even if they are just at a concept stage, they could have useful information on the page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Huh. Why make this _wearable_? Isn't that kind of an insane design constraint? I mean, what's the battery life on something small enough to wrap around your wrist - five minutes?

I mean, you go and do whatever you want. I'm just really enjoying imagining that meeting.

Is this something the lead was just passionate about? Are they serious about the "friends walking around in a park who casually want aerial selfies" use case? Are they serious about the "people who go adventure sporting but can't plan ahead to carry an extra couple lbs of gear" use case?

Do any of them regularly think "geez, if only I could spontaneously capture aerial footage at any given moment of any given day"?

Did they assemble a team of experts, and this one guy just stonewalled them because his flexible wing design was a pet feature and they had no other way to incorporate it into the product?

Did they approach an investor, and the investor said "Nah, someone's already working on next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones. You know what's sexy? _Wearable_ next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones".

<comment><USER7> For climbers and maybe surfers(water proof ?) this might be handy...

Sometimes it's not about planning... When climbing for example it's really hard to take decent pictures, because it's hard to go to the places where the picture would look good.

Their focus should probably be more like sports than "friends in the park"

I also think they will face some serious issues with making this thing work and I don't know how big the market is.

But I would really consider buying one if they made this thing work.

<comment><USER8> As a climber, I don't see how the design constraint of it _wearable_ makes it any more useful. It being reasonably small and lightweight (and robust) would be nice for me to actually carry it with me regularly, but I don't want it on my wrist. I want it on my harness or in my pack since having things on your wrist can make some holds virtually unusable, especially if you're crack climbing.

<comment><USER7> Hi, fellow climber!

As a bracelet it will easily fit your harness rings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's clever psychology to place the (3D-rendered?) product shot right next to the mountain climber action shot. But it's trickery and leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

Failing to include any actual pictures (or in this case, real footage) of a product "in development" always undermines my confidence by giving me the vaporware vibe.

I'm a much bigger fan of Oculus' "in development" communications. "Here's what we built, here's what works and doesn't work about it, and here's where we're going next and why."

<comment><USER10> How does one include real footage when the product does not exist yet?

<comment><USER11> They have a working development prototype, as seen in the video on this page:

[http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/29/nixie-wearable- drone/](http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/29/nixie-wearable-drone/)

I presume that that's what they're shooting the video from currently...

<comment><USER12> At 0:12 in the youtube video you can see how it's done: you fake it like the big guys[1]. That white thing on the left looks exactly like a Phantom[2] landing gear.

The trouble with these small drones is that they are too light to be stable - the video will be shaky unless they do a lot of post-processing.

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview- sti...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-still-photos- also-include-fakes)

[2] [http://www.dji.com/product/phantom](http://www.dji.com/product/phantom)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Personally, the ability to wrist-wear this doesn't intrigue me at all. I have several small flying things (Blade nano qx, mcp-x, msr-x), so I'm somewhat familiar with what's currently possible on a production scale in terms of battery life, weight, etc. It shouldn't be a problem for them to get ~10-minute flight times out of this, or keep it stable in wind (though larger, heavier craft with gyro-stabilized gimbals will have a large advantage).

What I see as the biggest problem is exactly the thing that doesn't seem to add any value for me: being able to wrist-wear it. While small-scale RC flying things are incredibly durable these days (material scaling and all that), I think it'd be much too heavy, much too fiddly, and much too fragile to also make it wrist-wearable.

</comment><comment><USER14> The problem I see with the product so far is that all the images appear to be renders, and not actual product shots.

Also the demo video shows shots from what appears to be a drone; is it the actually Nixie, or is it another drone used to exemplify what the Nixie would be able to do?

I want this to be real.

</comment><comment><USER15> Looks pretty cool. Of course, it's all in the execution. If the thing takes bad video and doesn't consistently record the action that you want it to - <USER2> doesn't matter how cool it is.

</comment><comment><USER16> So putting together: Quality Video + Small Size + Aerial Mobility + Flexibility + Weatherproofing(presumably, even just sweat on a wrist or fog could be a problem) seems incredibly ambitious (and of course, super neat).

However, I can't picture something comfortably wrapping around my wrist that also has enough battery power to have any significant flying time and deal with basic weather conditions, like a breeze. Just in trying to remember tiny copters and things I've had in the past, it would be kind of amazing to me if the power supply and utilization has advanced that much.

Any new action-cam is going to be referenced against the ubiquitous GoPro, so I feel ok making a comparison. I have a GoPro Hero 3+, and filming at 1080 the battery only lasts a couple hours. Turn on the wifi, and that time takes a significant hit. As far as I can tell from the renders in the video, this would have a smaller battery than those in a GoPro, but would need to provide more power, since the thing is flying. Maybe I'm wrong about this, again, just eyeballing form the renders.

It's a neat concept, and when I first got a GoPro I was surprised by how damn small the thing was, so I imagine camera boards will only get more intriguingly small and effective. I do wonder about the lens though, as it appears to be tiny. Perhaps more is explained in the video which I watched on silent. Would be nice if there was some text to parse somewhere for people without sound.

</comment><comment><USER17> I was really interested when I saw this the other day and it is an awesome idea but as others have mentioned I wish they would give some details on how they plan to address some of the key issues.

Most importantly and an issue which seems to have been affecting drones in general is battery life. Even current commercially successful drones only last a matter of minutes before needing to be recharged and they are several times the size of the nixie and dont have cameras to deal with. What happens if you are climbing as in the video and 3 minutes later the battery starts dying while you are stuck on a mountain face?

I've liked the concept ever since I heard about quadcopters though and I think it has a lot of potential. From the video I think they're suggesting that you could have an option which sets the Nixie up so that you basically just throw it in the air and it will track + record you. This is obviously a big software challenge (motion tracking the target) that they will have to face although still arguably easier than battery life or flight stability in bad weather conditions.

If they launch it as a glorified selfie taker though I think it would be a shame as it could do so much more. As shown it could compete with the GoPro - hands free and a much desired camera angle - for filming sports, as well as things like amateur TV/film recording, surveying, mapping, etc. That extra functionality could all be added with software updates, its the hardware and physical design which I'm hoping they have a secret answer to.

<comment><USER18> No matter how incredible the software is, I don't see a solution for the core problem that they will need to solve: battery vs weight. It's revealing that there are no prototypes shown at all.

Very curious what their weight goal is and how they plan to deal with physics.

<comment><USER17> Yeah especially as they plan for it to be wearable. It needs to be light enough to comfortably stay on your wrist for a period of time. Taking the climbing example again, having even a few pounds extra weight on your arm makes things a lot more difficult. If they added battery packs which the Nixie could recharge from to compensate then it kind of defeats the point of it being wearable and so portable.

<comment><USER19> "If they added battery packs which the Nixie could recharge from to compensate then it kind of defeats the point of it being wearable and so portable."

Would depend on how it's done, of course, but just because something is able to use battery packs doesn't force me to carry them with me all the time. Just having some I could keep in a car to replace quickly while 'out' would be sufficient for some (many?) use cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wouldn't the battery for that thing be far bigger than your wrist?

We're not talking thifty cpus at idle here, it's four motors at high rpm.

Even LiPo has its limits and I sure wouldn't want a high capacity LiPo on my wrist without a shield.

The protox only has 4 minutes of flight time and it doesn't have a camera or gps. [http://www.revell.com/radio- control/estescontrol/4606.html](http://www.revell.com/radio- control/estescontrol/4606.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> See some huge design issues with this

Drones are not that safe unmanned yet.

Something this small will never deal with wind.

The flexible spars that form the bracelet need to be rigid to reliably transfer force from the rotors to the frame.

Battery life will be terrible

</comment><comment><USER22> But do you need to control it with your phone? It looks awesome if you can just release and that's it, without the need to control the camera.

<comment><USER23> I think that would defeat the purpose, I'm sure you can set waypoints, like with current off the shelve drones, or have auto target tracking software (already exists in some cameras).

The real difficulty as far as I know (for automated drone cameras) is tracking elevation without an operator, for what I know the error via GPS data is really large *like =- 5000 ft, and completely unreliable with real features (like the cliff the rock climber is on).

<comment><USER24> Using the wrist thingy as a beacon, and assuming you can detect the angle and distance with decent accuracy, wouldn't it be possible to detect where you are relative to the user? Then you could film her/him from a few meters away without really caring where you are relative to "the world". You wouldn't even need GPS, just the beacon sensor and a 3-axis accelerometer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hi, Nixie looks super cool, but without a spec it's really hard to tell how useful it is.

How long does it fly? How to control it (especially during a rock climbing...)? What's it's range? How does it land? How to find it after landing? Which flight controller is used? Does it have GPS?

I am super curious of the answers.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think the headaches of the FAA in their efforts to define the approved use of drones, has yet to begin.

<comment><USER27> I could be mistaken, but I thought the various aviation organisations only needed to be involved if the drones reach a certain altitude.

At least I believe this is the rules for flying model planes in the UK. Other countries might differ.

<comment><USER10> In the US, the FAA makes a distinction between recreational and commercial usage. For example, it is perfectly legal to take pictures of your home from a radio-controlled vehicle. But, if you sell those pictures, now you've broken the law -- even if you are selling the pictures well after the flight. (Don't try to apply logic, it doesn't make sense)

The FAA controls all airspace in the US. It's not true that they don't control airspace below 400ft. However, FAA has published guidance for operation of radio-controlled vehicles that includes altitude restrictions.

<comment><USER27> > The FAA controls all airspace in the US. It's not true that they don't > control airspace below 400ft. However, FAA has published guidance for > operation of radio-controlled vehicles that includes altitude restrictions.

I didn't say the FAA don't control airspace below _n_ feet. I appreciate my wording was rather vague, but by "involved" I meant that model plane pilots don't require prior permission to fly in the aforementioned airspace (presumably bar some caveats such as whether you're sat next to an airport).

Above a certain altitude and you need that area submitted and signed off as a flying club / whatever. Below that altitude and you can basically just fly your models on an adhoc basis.

Again, I accept I could be completely wrong on this so appreciate your input :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The drone cameras from The Artificial Kid are arriving, eh? [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Artificial_Kid.html?...](http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Artificial_Kid.html?id=E6osAQAAIAAJ)

</comment><comment><USER29> I wasn't going to post this comment...but...so be it.

I continue to be disappointed every time I see projects or companies with teams full of PhD's. I am sure there are some that are fantastic, but that has not been my experience.

We have a number of PhD's in our family and circle of friends. Some have trouble putting together Ikea furniture or can't fix a toilet. Maybe they just don't want to. And maybe that's the root of the problem.

I don't know what it is in PhD education that might cause this. I stopped after my BSEE due to life circumstances (parents sick, had to go to work and provide for the entire family). Yet, having come from an entrepreneurial family my life has been about just that. Because of this I like to think I became a Computer Scientist (more on this later), Mechanical Engineer, Optics Engineer, Manufacturing Engineer, Machinist (CNC and manual), Expert Welder, Expert Woodworker and a whole pile of other skill sets I can't even recall now.

In other words, having acquired a solid technical and scientific foundation through my EE education I launched into entrepreneurship. This forced me to learn other disciplines because back then I didn't have the money to hire people. So it was years and years of 18 hour days doing and learning at the same time. Devouring books with a purpose and applying the knowledge right away in real world practical scenarios. When I wrote an occasional paper, article or ran training sessions at conferences they were always characterized by real-world applicable and actionable information rather than the walls and walls of unintelligible formulas that characterize PhD publications.

On the Computer Science part. I don't think a Computer Science degree existed when I was in school (early 80's). If it did it may have existed in places I could simply not afford to attend. These were the days of such things as the Elf single board computers (google it). If you wanted to work with computers you had to become an EE and build them yourself, sometimes out of raw chips (as I did many times with 6502's, 8080's, 8085's, 8086's, 68K, etc.). If you have experience wire wrapping you are my people.

I know solid experienced PhD's exist. I do know a few of them. Most of them are in aerospace. And most of them got there by being tinkerers since before going to college. I other words, they were natural-born makers before they entered academia. This meant building things in the real world, failing, learning, trying again, etc. Some of these guys have worked on some really amazing projects anyone would recognize when mentioned, for example, stealth technology.

The one characteristic that distinguishes these PhD-led projects from the ones that make me say "Yup. Another bunch of clueless PhD's" is that they are practical, very real and have goals and milestones that are met or exceeded. No pie in the sky stuff. At least none I've been aware of.

I am not criticizing this project in particular as much as making a general statement and asking the question: What is it about PhD education that creates this kind of an effect? Are they too used to functioning in a world of grants for research that seldom touches reality (or leads to anything in the real world)?

To speak to this project. This looks like a bunch of guys who are really good at writing grant proposals who got together and got some money from Intel to play. I remember attending an SBIR converence many years ago. I walked away calling it the "PhD club of America". It's PhD's giving PhD's money to play. And in a lot of cases --not all-- nothing practically useful come out of the process. Yet it feeds the PhD machinery.

Interesting.

</comment><comment><USER30> Another similar product is AirDog: [https://www.airdog.com/](https://www.airdog.com/) ...except the curious feature of being wearable.

</comment><comment><USER31> At the end of the promo video the suggestions to watch next are unfortunate.

[http://i.imgur.com/21olI3n.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/21olI3n.jpg) (NSFW)

</comment><comment><USER32> This seems like a pretty cool product. I'd be interested in one if they deliver on the promise.

</comment><comment><USER33> Looks super cool. Let's see how well it works, can't wait to try it out myself.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm curious if there is any object avoidance technology on-board?

</comment><comment><USER35> The person in the picture isn't wearing one.

</comment><comment><USER36> Nice shot of Red Rock Canyon.

</comment><comment><USER37> It makes me sad when I see a device like this advertised as just another way to take selfies. It could be so much more.</comment>


Cmmr Clyburn: Debunking Chairman Pai's Claims About Net Neutrality [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-348016A1.pdf <comment><USER2> I'm torn. While I tend to be on the pro-net neutrality/Title II side of things, this document seems to have no supporting data/evidence. I don't think it's going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.

Then again I'm not sure you can convince the people who take regulation=dead world as a given.</comment>


Can We Trust the Libraries We Use? - <AUTHOR> http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0271/ <comment><USER3> Of course not. You can't even trust the firmware on the storage your OS runs on. We're in a very weird period of time computer security wise. There was the first golden age, when computers weren't easily connected and harmful software was generally not very impactful. Then there was a brief dark age when computers became connected and the utter lack of concern for security was revealed to be hugely exploitable on an unprecedented scale with an enormous impact. A lot of the worst mistakes were corrected and a lot of the most important software was tightened up, leading to a long "security cold war" lasting from roughly the late '90s or early 2000s to today. Right now we're sort of in a cuban missile crisis period in the cold war, or something similar, the impact of computer security holes could result in events (of several possible kinds) which might have as much global economic and geopolitical impact as a major war. Whether that happens or not is as yet unknown, but the potential is there, and will remain there for likely quite sometime (several key vulnerabilities: core libraries such as openssl, essentially every major operating system, firmware on usb devices and storage devices in general, BGP, and SSL/TLS under the CA system).

I don't think most tech companies and governments are taking the risks and threats seriously enough as of yet so I suspect some sort of calamity will have to happen first before things are truly tightened up well enough for anyone to be able to trust anything and not be deluding themselves in doing so.

<comment><USER4> My opinion is that technology development is going to have to bifurcate -- or perhaps even split into three paths. No longer can you simply sit down and code something. Instead, you'll need to code some set of "rules" (this system can't use the internet, it should never access the GPS, and so on) at the same time. Technology will "run" when all the separate systems agree that everything is behaving correctly.

We've tried to do this with various XML/manifest declarative constructs, but the problem is that these constructs just rely on subsystems which are themselves insecure.

These systems will have to be baked into the metal, and they're going to need to come from different vendors.

Unlikely to happen, but that looks like the way forward.

<comment><USER3> Well, yes. A big part of the problem is the lack of terminology and models. "Software development" is a stupidly large scope, it encompasses activities that are comparatively as varied as backyard astronomy and heart surgery. There are many different kinds of developers and many different kinds of software, but we lack the words to express the differences clearly. Which makes it that much more difficult to improve processes and standards. It's common for bromides and recommendations to be made as blanket statements applying to all software development, when it's clear that no one set of practices could possibly apply universally.

Worse, many devs aren't even aware this is a problem, and few people are working on fixing it. We're deep in a morass that will take a long, long time to get out of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Code coverage and static analysis are such valuable tools, I can't believe they are not used more and more frequently .. it really seems that a lot of open source projects would benefit from a coverage/analysis phase on checkin.

<comment><USER6> It seems that Coverity[0] is offering free static analysis to open source projects. Even if it is a marketing move, it will benefit the open source ecosystem in the long run. You'll waste some time analyzing false positive defects, the handful of critical/security error found make it worth it in my opinion. Notably the duplicate "goto fail" in one of the recent apple vulnerability should have triggered the dead code detection.

[0] [https://scan.coverity.com/](https://scan.coverity.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The PVS-Studio team also does a great job: [http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0084/](http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0084/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title doesn't really fit the article. The author just picked up an open source C/C++ library and found some bugs in its dependencies using their commercial static analysis tool.

This is hardly a surprising result, and does not tell us anything new about how one might evaluate or build highly trusted software.

</comment><comment><USER8> You can't guarantee trusted software even your code and the libraries are 100% trusted / bug less, as the combined software creates emergent properties which will also have to be properly tested. As such you can only trust a software system if it has been properly tested.

If this is the case, then you can provide 100% trusted software even if it has been built with insecure code bases / libraries, as long as all the external interfaces has been tested for all possible inputs.

Off course this is extremely difficult / impossible. This is why we will never arrive at a point where software is 100 trustworthy.

edit - <USER2>

<comment><USER9> Your comment provides no value. The OP has specific examples of tools being used to find bugs in software all without the need for testing. Testing is the least efficient way to fix those bugs. Tooling, as demonstrated in the OP, and other applications of programming language theory are far more efficient ways to have correct software. First, let the computer find the bugs we don't know about, then we can focus on higher goals.

<comment><USER10> _Testing is the least efficient way to fix those bugs._

Testing isn't a way of fixing bugs. It's a way of making sure you don't introduce bugs when things change. The important thing to remember that 'code the first implementation' \- where you go from having no code to having some code - is a change _just like any other_.

Writing code without bugs is a lot more efficient than writing code with bugs and then fixing them.

<comment><USER11> It's a pretty rubbish way of checking whether you've introduced bugs when things change as well.

Testing is good for doing one thing: Validating that the code meets a specific quality target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Depends where they come from. The average Python or Perl library seems better written and more tested that something I would write myself. JavaScript seems to have a lot less quality in my experience.

<comment><USER13> I was thinking about that in response as well; then I began to wonder. Is it that the quality is actual higher, or that I'm more likely to gravitate towards established, well-tested libraries (of which there are fewer in javascript)?

The more I think about it, the more I think it's the latter. There are tons of crap libraries out there for any language - but the more mature languages/ecosystems naturally tend to have a wider selection of more mature libraries.

<comment><USER14> Think about node modules. How often have you done an n install only to have 10+ other libraries brought in. Some are going to be decent, some not.

I've found oddities like improper implementations of http digest auth and what not. When libraries are small you can sometimes catch these things easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > A variable is assigned its own value.

Self assignment is used to silence overly aggressive and incorrect uninitialized warnings in GCC (esp prior to 4.5).

I'm not sure if thats what the code there is doing— not enough context, but I'd guess it's likely. Odd that the author hasn't seen that before.

<comment><USER16> That seems unlikely to be the case; the variable being assigned is through a pointer to a struct, which is already being accessed in the context. (Plus, of course, __attribute__((unused)) or similar in a macro would be preferable for silencing warnings) It's pretty likely that, had this occured at the top of a function, and been a direct assignment, the author would not have flagged it (indeed, perhaps PVS-Studio ignores that case; seems easy enough to implement).

<comment><USER17> __attribute__((unused)) indeed would be the best option when using gcc. I believe when using C++11, this can be replaced by [[gnu::unused]].

Another one that I've seen quite often is casting to void.

<comment><USER15> Not unused. Uninitialized.

E.g. in older GCC you would get int x; switch (!!foo) { case 0:x=0;break; case 1:x=1;break; / _no default_ / } print(..x)

Or many other cases and the compiler will give an erroneous uninitialized warning. you can assign x to itself at the stop to eliminate the warning without changing the generated code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Java has a very good sand-boxing mechanism (AcessController), which helps limit the effect of bugs in libraries. Firstly, the memory model is highly abstract; no pointer arithmetic and type-less references. To mess with the memory, the thread needs to drop down to native code, and this where sandboxing can trap this behavior.

The same mechanism can also help increase trust in a third-party library from a security point of view. Every access to a file or network resource, for example, is checked before being granted.

<comment><USER19> Compare this with the worst library include language: JavaScript. There is no sand-boxing at all - code is simply inlined. (PHP's require does this too.) But for some reason web developers pile on the shady libraries when they should be extremely discerning.

<comment><USER20> How many wheels have been rediscovered in the Javascript ecosystem? It seems to be a symptom of the ecosystem as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Of course you can not trust them. Just look at OpenSSL. If you truly need "safety critical" there are no shortcuts.

</comment><comment><USER22> Typically you test your software to your needs. If there's a bug in a library you use it would show up when testing your code that uses the library.

<comment><USER23> > If there's a bug in a library you use it would show up when testing your > code that uses the library.

That's not true at all. You may catch some lib bugs, but not all, even through testing of your own code that leverages the lib. Unless you're implying that you'll pass every possible value to your tests which will then cover 100% of any and all code in the lib.

<comment><USER24> You, the user of the library, don't care about finding any bugs in parts of the library that your application isn't using.

Your tests will be testing the parts of code in the library that your application uses, which is the part that matters to you.

<comment><USER25> You can still have bugs in parts of code that you use (or would use) given the right inputs. The problem is making your tests so diverse that they test every possible input.

<comment><USER22> You could. But you'd miss those bugs if you write that code yourself any way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Another PVS Studio advert

<comment><USER27> Who cares. It's finding and reporting genuine bugs in widely used open source libraries, and most of the times it's even suggesting a fix or a workaround. Think about it: each article is worth half a dozen to a dozen high quality bug reports.

Moreover, the guys behind PVS-Studio seem like great guys. The CTO, Andrey Karpov, was interviewed in early 2014: [http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0231/](http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0231/).

Selling software development tools isn't easy. PVS-Studio "adverts" are interesting and useful to the community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Test the hell out of anything you use, both hardware, software, and infrastructure -- and write the tests before you write any code. Double-down on that for stuff like medical tech.

Now, is anybody doing that? Anybody? (Sound of crickets chirping)

<comment><USER9> The article is about static analysis. Static analysis is the most efficient way to catch a whole host of bugs. Testing would be a waste of everyone's time for these types of bugs. Now, the tools in the article are commercial and perform static analysis on C and C++. Other programming languages have static analysis and code path coverage analysis built into their compilers. Many of those languages are free. Writing tests to cover those types of bugs is time wasted on a problem that is already solved.

<comment><USER28> Funny enough in a sad way, static analysis tooling was part of the original C tooling, but when developers started creating C compilers for systems other than UNIX, lint seldom came along.

It also did not help the way C compiler phases were split.

If anything, we have to thank LLVM guys for making static analysis part of clang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ugh more spam for this product.

</comment><comment><USER30> Do you have a choice?

</comment><comment><USER31> Depends what your use case is.

<comment><USER9> In this case it is bugs that can be discovered and fixed through static analysis. What about this case?

<comment><USER31> If your definition of trust is that it passes static analysis without throwing any warnings, then you probably can't trust it. But this is hardly a new or useful insight, almost all code has known bugs in it at the time it ships and the additional value of discovering another bug is generally quite low. The value of discovering bugs lies in understanding how they relate to an undesired behaviour of a running system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I hope so

</comment><comment><USER33> You have to, because there's no alternative. And even if it were possible to assure 100% safety from 100% of the code that runs on your computer, how do you know you can trust your hardware?

<comment><USER9> Let's down-vote these types of comments that answer, vaguely, the question proposed in the headline and reveal that they did not even skim the topics in the OP. Totally worthless.

<comment><USER33> Maybe the title shouldn't propose a question that is controversial (and obviously click-bait), and then have the bulk of the article be about something completely different.

You're right, I should have read more of the article to realize that it's basically about nothing (someone looking for, and fixing bugs in a library he uses, which everyone who cares does).</comment></comment></comment>


In Prague, CorruptTour takes tourists sightseeing sites of political corruption - <AUTHOR> http://www.springwise.com/tourism_travel/czech-republic-guided-tour-offers-taste-corruption/

<comment><USER2> I'm all for holding government officials more accountable. The only issue here in Canada is that the political corruption is so far removed from what your average joe understands as corruption that no one cares.

We've currently got major election fraud under investigation and the provider of air ambulance services, a non-profit, of creating for-profit subsidiaries for the non-profit to buy services from.

That's not even covering your usual fraud, like provincial governments holding standing comities that haven't met in years, but the members still get paid monthly at the tax payers expense.</comment>


Should your driverless car kill you to save a child? - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/245142/should-your-driverless-car-kill-you-to-save-a-child/ <comment><USER2> This scenario should never be possible.

An autonomous vehicle should never be traveling fast enough to not be able to stop for any objects that could potentially jump out in front of it.

If there is a blind spot, slow the vehicle down. If there is a crosswalk, slow down.

What about animals though? I often see squirrels, geese, and deer in the middle of the road. Does the vehicle honk the horn and inch forward? Geese are dumb and will stand in the middle of the road until you scare them or they decide they want to cross, squirrels will actually challenge the vehicle many times.

Someone will die from an autonomous vehicle eventually, there's no way to prevent that just because of the odds of some fluke happening. If someone trips or purposely jumps in front of an autonomous vehicle then there is nothing that could have been done, don't kill the driver for the pedestrians mistake.

<comment><USER3> Autonomous cars should obviously be programmed to obey all traffic laws. However, since human drivers don't, this in and of itself may create the impression for passengers that autonomous cars are inexorably slow. If one assumes that even a human driver obeying the traffic laws and speed limits is still too unsafe, having them move even slower than _that_ may be intolerable.

Because they're considered more safe and more efficient, autonomous traffic may be designed to move even faster than is legal for humans (they would be subject to their own distinct traffic laws.) This may be especially likely for automated trucks, which will be expected to deliver their cargo as fast as possible, as often as necessary.

<comment><USER2> I agree with everything you said, as long as the vehicle has a clear line of sight of the road ahead and there is enough room to drive off of the road if something unexpected happens.

In the situation mentioned there is a blindspot where a child could be (for whatever reason) and a wall on the other side of the road. The vehicle was traveling fast enough so that it could not stop or avoid the child and if it crashed into the wall it would kill the passengers, in my opinion this vehicle in this situation was traveling too fast.

How about this scenario, say you purchase an autonomous supercar that can travel at 150+ MPH down the highway and a deer approaches the road, the vehicle should slow down to a point where it can safely avoid the deer no matter what random action it takes, correct? If the deer hits the car, everybody loses so it is in everyone's best interest to avoid that situation even if it means that person gets to work a few seconds later every day because there are always deer at a certain place on the highway.

This is especially true in cities, yes, autonomous cars could probably "safely" travel at 100+ MPH but if something unexpected happens it would not be acceptable to hit several pedestrians due to the unknown happening, like someone or an animal running out into the street.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" When robot cars must kill, there are good reasons why designers should not be the ones picking victims."_

There are also good reasons for them to be picking victims, in the case presented, switching control to the driver may increase the chance of both the child and the driver dying. The designers of roads made the decision anyway, roads for motor vehicles could all have big sidewalls and be up on stilts and never be a threat to pedestrians or wildlife, if we wanted them to. It would be very expensive to do this, so we accept the deaths.</comment>


A Step Toward a Universal Cancer Blood Test - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/11/universal-cancer-test/

<comment><USER2> I don't think a blood test alone it good enough.

By the time cancer is getting close to/effecting blood, you're pretty far along for some cancers.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is not just about cancers that affect the blood. From the article:

        By sequencing the abnormal DNA that a tumor releases into a person's
        bloodstream, researchers are now one step closer to a universal cancer
        test. Although the technique is now only sensitive enough to detect
        advanced cancers, that may be a matter of money: As sequencing costs
        decrease, the developers of the method say, the test could eventually
        pick up early tumors as well.

<comment><USER2> >By sequencing the abnormal DNA that a tumor releases into a person's bloodstream.

I didn't say just ones that effect the blood. Getting to a blood supply is pretty bad too, makes it so the tumor can grow more. Many non-blood cancers can spread via the blood, which is also very bad.</comment></comment></comment>


Raise Ducks, Not Chickens - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/bangladesh-climate-change-floods-ducks/593581/ <comment> Pick-A-Hill2019 Fav Quote from the article

"Ducks," Akter told me matter-of-factly, "can swim."

(context snippet) " Climate change has made that way of life unpredictable, though—sudden floods caused rice crops and chickens to perish and incomes to plummet. Recently the couple switched and began raising ducks, a business that is now prospering. The reason for their success? "Ducks," Akter told me matter-of-factly, "can swim."

(Weirdly enough I only came across this post by tosh when I stumbled across the source article and tried to submit it to HN and it hit the duplicate article error screen. Good to see the duplicate submission functioning correctly again!)</comment>


Leonard vs. Pepsico, Inc - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc. <comment><USER2> Lol:

> the court made several observations regarding the nature and content of the > commercial. These included (among others) that:

> "The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, > one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less > the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps."

> "The teenager's comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school 'sure beats the > bus' evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative > difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area."

> "No school would provide landing space for a student's fighter jet, or > condone the disruption the jet's use would cause."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Read this after someone shared the story in a comment here on Hacker News [0].

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20726855](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20726855)</comment>


Did you know that China is run by engineers?  I didn't. - <AUTHOR> http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-chinese.html

<comment><USER2> Chinese here. Did you know that China is run by assholes with an engineering degree? Seriously, Chinese officials tend to buy a degree to make themselves look more educated.

<comment><USER3> Indian here. There are a few leaders in India who can't speak one coherent sentence in english, even though they have a masters degree in english,

<comment><USER4> I second that. India desperately needs better quality leaders.

(me injun)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Singapore's rise as an economic power is also something to be marveled at. The country was nothing till 1965 when they achieved independence, and separated from Malasia.

I dont remember where I read this- Singapore government had a similar policy of choosing extremely qualified people as their top level politicans- Look at what they have achieved in such a short time!

Would love to learn more about what shaped Singapore politics and their economic miracle-Please post links, if you have any.

<comment><USER6> having lived in Singapore for 6 years now, i can tell you its a fascinating story.

Start with this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Lee-Kuan-Yew- Singapore/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Lee-Kuan-Yew- Singapore/dp/9812616764) \- It's basically a free ranging interview with Lee Kuan Yew, the man who essentially engineered Singapore.

if you dont want to get the book, just google him and read. Lots of very interesting articles.

<comment><USER7> Never lived in Singapore but read about it. The trick is apparently to keep the Confucean culture alive and open it to new technologies. It is exactly what Chinese reformists wanted to do one century ago, but failed. China is a bigger stone to roll than Singapore...

Confucianism is not very cool: it's all about respecting your parents, your spouse, your boss, your friends, and educating well your kids. Not a trendy form of gouvernment, as it may not allow open rebellion against authorities, but it worked not so bad for nearly two millenaries, before collapsing under its own weight. In China they would like to get it back somewhat. NB: Confucianism is only very remotely related to Confucius' actual teaching.

<comment><USER8> I think that Pa Chin's classic novel _Family_ is a pretty good exposition of the cruelties of Confucianism, as practiced in the Chinese middle class last century. Highly recommended.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There was an article in the economist a few years ago about the dominant professions of government leaders for various countries. I couldn't find it, but the basic gist was it is more a reflection of the most accessible prestige positions in a given country rather than the values of that country. If I remember correctly the study was inconclusive as to whether this actually effected governance in any meaningful way.

I'm disappointed I couldn't find the article cause it was interesting to see the dominance in various countries: engineers in china, businessmen in japan, lawyers and legacy wealth in the us, lawyers in the uk, teachers and doctors in france, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> it merely reflects what professions attract the smartest students (or at least the most ambitious) in the different countries. (by the way, Chinese here, living in China). In the States, 30 years ago, the most ambitious kids went to study law; in china at the time, the most ambitious/intelligent studied engineering. A friend of mine from latin america pointed out that in there, political leaders tend to be medical doctors.

at any rate, I certainly have no problem with china rising, but i sure hope the China model doesn't gain credit and acceptance, with economic growth at the expense of sacrificing the environment and personal liberty. I don't know if the US was anything like this at a comparable stage of economic development, but lving in beijing for just a couple of days and you'll realize the heavy environmental toll that the Chinese are paying.

</comment><comment><USER11> " We're run by a combination of lawyers and lunatics; how could a society run by wise engineers not surpass us?"

Well, first of all the "lunatics" running the US (and for that matter almost all democracies) at least don't kill their own citizens for disagreeing with them. Quite an accomplishment in my view.

Besides you have to put Chinas growth in perspective. They started with an economy that was closer to the mid-ages than anything. Growing from this base makes it much easier to get high percentage growth rates over the years. The GDP per capita ist still more than 12 times higher in the US than in China which as a whole is still a developing country (according to the IMF).

</comment><comment><USER12> America isn't exactly a Taliban with nukes. Just yet.

Hoover was an engineer, but that was a long time ago.

I think a country needs more historians at the helm. They might take a slightly longer view.

<comment><USER13> I disagree. Historians are over-specialized, and seem to always recognize the particular pattern they did their thesis on, no matter what the subject at hand.

The same goes for foreign policy majors, who actually run our country.

<comment><USER12> > seem to always recognize the particular pattern they did their thesis on.

That'll only be true if Hoover ran the country like a mine, or Reagan ran the country like a movie set.

<comment><USER13> The sentence you quoted was about historians. I'm pretty sure your reply makes no sense at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Presumably a society run by engineers will at least not neglect to invest in infrastructure like we do."

Are you considering all of China? I'm pretty sure the U.S. overall infrastructure is still better than theirs. They wouldn't build up anything that wouldn't profit the state.

Maybe eventually that will change.

<comment><USER15> Maybe not now but it certainly _will_ be in a few years for the simple reason that they rebuild everything from scratch and can leapfrog technologies. China doesn't care about being backwards-compatible: they'll just tear down & rebuild whole districts every few years. And they still have the cheap labour to do it at a far faster pace than _any_ public infrastructure project in the western world.

<comment><USER7> Yes, I second that (living in China, they redo ring roads overnight here). I also heard that in China in one year they currently build more kilometers of _bridges_ than in US they build kilometers of highways. (No link to back that, just a hearsay.)

<comment><USER16> Does China have have many American style highways? When I visited Beijing and area - the multilane roads weren't connected with overpasses and ramps like the American system. This resulted in incredibly slow traffic. Also results in things like the 100km+ traffic jam they had this summer.

Their subway system in Beijing was very large and well connected but was still overcrowded to the point of being unusable during rush hour.

Such a large population - must be an engineers dream.

<comment><USER7> I had the same feeling when visiting New-York. Their highways have overpasses. What you saw in Beijing is probably not highways, it is just the normal 8-lanes roads that squares the city. Traffic is a mess in the city, for sure. I heard they sell 1000 new cars everyday in Beijing, so it is not an easy task to dissolve the jam. They have a law forbidding every car one day per week, based on your plate number, so wealthy people buy two, and less wealthy use public transport or bike once a week at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It is great for building up the hardware side of nation, but not "software" side. The cultural advancement is lagging behind the infrastructure improvement planned by engineers.

<comment><USER18> Technocrats understand that technology is the only thing that reduces cultural lag, _more or less_. _On the other hand_ , artificial scarcity keeps it going strong. These two processes are inversely proportional in respect to time, meaning the effect of artificial scarcity will eventually become trivial in effect on cultural progression as it follows the rate of technological advancement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Responding to all the comments saying "engineers are better" or "historians are better" or someone is else better, I think all those arguments are just moot.

To effectively lead big nations or corporates, doesn't one need to be able to comprehend and deal with issues much beyond just ones education or work background?

Wouldn't it require an engineer who understand the non-engineering aspects or vice-versa?

Once, I got a list of CEOs of fortune 100 companies compiled with their education background researched. The education column was half full, my contractor could not find the education of all (nor I think, I could). Of those, whose education we could find, it was all over the place, engineering, psychology, accounting, law, chemical and what not.

</comment><comment><USER4> I read an article last year or the year before (could have been in Time or Fortune). It was about China's Politburo - the 10 men council at the very top of their administration. They literally set the direction and policies for their country. Some 6 out of 10 of them had Ph.Ds in Engineering/Science.

That was definitely very admirable, for a country in their position, where they have to bring out large masses of people out of poverty, as quickly as possible, you need such leadership.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is about to change. Due to the way seniority and retirement ages are respected by the Chinese leadership you can track very clear generational shifts. In 2012 the fourth generation is going to mostly give way to the fifth generation, which has a much wider educational background. There will still be plenty of engineers in charge, but also many with majors in the social science -- e.g. Li Keqiang, expected to be the next Premier, has a PhD in economics.

</comment><comment><USER20> The relative starting points of China and USA are very far apart. Post-WWII, the United States has had top notch science, commerce, inventing, trade, entertainment, and been a very desirable location for emigration to. China went a little differently.

The Japanese attacks ravaged a lot of the wealthiest parts of China, then the Chinese civil war destroyed a lot more infrastructure, and then the cultural revolution killed millions of talented people. Deng Xiaoping inherited a real mess, very little, and it's amazing how he turned it around. Probably the greatest statesman of the last 100 years, Deng Xiaoping.

The United States is still ahead of China, but USA is trending slowly downwards where China is trending moderately quickly upwards. Still a lot of advantages for the United States, and it could get turned around. But yes, a government run by lawyers and lobbyists is not a sustainable governance model. We'll see though, things could get turned around pretty quickly in America. Still the best place in the world for technology, inventing, entrepreneurship, and research, which is huge. China seems to have emerged as a legitimate world power though, no doubt about that.

</comment><comment><USER21> A fairly large fraction of "terrorists" are engineers. Do the same predictions apply to them?

</comment><comment><USER22> The rise of China will most likely prove the communist model to be the best model of governance.

The growth that China has seen over the last 20 years has surpassed anything that any other country has ever achieved - even the US.

And if a country throws up a George Bush for 10 years and then an Obama who doesnt seem to deliver much, democracy has already lost. Similarly with India, democracy simply does not work, and Singapore where communism has done wonders.

Somehow I have always seen an American corporation as having a communist structure and rarely experimented (mostly unsuccessfully) with a democratic one.

<comment><USER8> China is not a Communist country, and is not following a "communist model." Not to mention Singapore -- who on earth are you?

Moreover, China's growth is nothing compared to Japan's economic miracle. The fact of the matter is that China has far better national resources than Japan ever did, and should have succeeded decades ago. It was the early leadership that held it back.

<comment><USER16> Another Asian tiger, Taiwan is democratic and had one of the fastest and most sustainable growth stories from the 60s onward.

Their government picked some key industries like semiconductors and invested a lot of resources towards training a workforce and stimulating business. It has paid off in huge dividends. All done democratically.

Additionally their recent environmental push is driven by local people and very democratic - individual recycling rates have skyrocketed. It will be interesting to see if they can do the same with renewable energy.

<comment><USER23> Taiwan's first election was in 1996, though there was very gradual political reform from 1978 onwards. Before that the Guomindang Party ruled Taiwan using the sort of party-state capitalist Leninist system that the Chinese Communist Party rules mainland China with today.

<comment><USER8> A good model, perhaps, for the Beijing government?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to write a successful blog post - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2010/06/how-to-write-successful-blog-post.html

<comment><USER2> 1\. Buy this book. Then read it. [http://www.amazon.com/Associated-Press- Guide-Newswriting-Pro...](http://www.amazon.com/Associated-Press-Guide- Newswriting-Professional/dp/0768919797/)

2\. Avoid injecting yourself into the story. Before hitting publish, do a text search for 'I', 'me', 'my' etc. You'll be amazed what you find.

3\. Read and re-read before publishing. Delete, cut, slash, burn. Make it concise without losing the emotion or human aspect.

4\. Do your research! Data is the real value. Take the time to Google and include links for readers that want to go into more depth.

5\. As you're writing, if you feel it's not coming together or you don't have enough to write about, hit save-draft and move on. My save-draft button is really my way of deleting a potential post without feeling like I lost the sunk cost.

6\. Try to keep it under 400 words.

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one" ~Mark Twain

<comment><USER3> Wrong. Blog posts are _not_ AP releases. Most of your tips are either irrelevant or downright wrong if trying to write a successful blog post.

Regurgitating generic advice without adapting it to the current topic is a very, very bad habit.

<comment><USER4> His advice is mostly spot-on for the type I write. You are being a little overly general and harsh there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think you mean: "9 hot tips for a successful blog post".

See this guide on "Great literature retitled to boost website traffic": <http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/27lacher.html>

<comment><USER6> Hmm, I didn't catch all of them. Well, none, in fact, except the first: 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell.

What are the others?

<comment><USER5> The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, um not sure actually, 1984, The Sound and the Fury

Edit: Google tells me it's The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Spend offline time thinking about the post_

This is the one that has always bugged me; I am writing a novel at the moment (when I get chance). Composing chapters in my head is really easy and I get a good flow going - till I get home and sit down at the computer and it gets all stilted.

I reckon I've "written" some chapters ten times over in my head before they made it to the computer :)

<comment><USER8> I've heard the following tips:

\- write a first draft (not in your head)

\- keep consistent daily writing schedule: either time-based (e.g. 5 - 8am); or output-based (e.g. 2000 words, no matter how long it takes)

\- write a lot

<comment><USER7> Cheers, I'll try those out. I do think, actually, that trying to write X amount per day are a set time (or whatever) is one of the things that is causing problems - I guess different things work for different people.

One thing I am trying is getting out my phone and recording it as dialogue when it occurs to me - then transcribing it later. I really want something to do that automatically but not luck yet :)

<comment><USER9> The best advice I've ever heard about writing is this:

Write.

At the end of the day, that's what it comes down to. Don't pussy foot around and talk about feeling or emotion or mood. Sit down and write. Or stand and write. Or lay down and write.

But write. There is no magic bullet. Nothing that will make the words flow all the time, every time. Successful, prolific writers all share one thing in common: they write.

You say you can think about writing, but when you sit down, you can't. Yes, you can. The problem is you aren't writing. Writing is easy. The hard part is accepting that what comes out isn't going to be highly polished glass. What you write first is gonna be hard, grainy sand. It's gonna have rocks. It's gonna have bits of dirt. It's gonna be rough, and it will get everywhere. Later on, after you are done writing the entire thing, you can go back, gather the sand, get rid of the rocks, dirt, twigs, dried figs and dead fish, and start turning that sand into glass.

But write. Don't wait for inspiration. Write! Don't stop. Keep writing once you start. So what if your writing might come out like Saturday night's offerings to the porcelain god, that's why you rewrite.

But you aren't rewriting. Get the story out. Get it down. Get it done.

Write.

Edit: Because I wrote the post. Now I can go back and rewrite it. =)

<comment><USER7> Yeh, for the most part I agree with you (and stopping myself from writing is becoming a problem). But I've sat down in with a clear construct of a section in my head (that I've rehashed and rehearsed during the day) and what comes out is garbage :D

I usually end up rewriting it a few times and then scrubbing it entirely. And I can do that maybe three or four times before a section is complete.

I've partially figured out the reason for this; for some reason it is difficult to "read" while you write. So what sounds great is actually awful when you come to read it back.

I'm not a snob but I don't like bad writing - so I will just scrap it :P

It's just inefficient that is all and I'd love to hack a better way.

EDIT: plus I am determined not to fall into the typical genre of fantasy writing: not particularly brilliant writing but full of sexual angst (and sex scenes to make up for it).

<comment><USER9> The problem is, you spend time rewriting during your session.

Let me help.

Everything you write is garbage. Everything I write is garbage. Everything Robert Jordan wrote was garbage. Everything Stephen King writes is garbage.

Writers write garbage.

However, the good writers are the ones that can take that garbage, and turn it into something nice. However, you can't do that while you are writing.

"plus I am determined not to fall into the typical genre of fantasy writing"

Ignore this. Just write. You can do this during your rewrite. For now, just get the story finished. Getting a story finished is worth more than twenty rewrites of chapter 1.

<comment><USER7> No, this isn't great advice (at least according to writer, even the ones you list, interviews I've been investigating for tips).

Yes you should write a lot and constantly - but you should also rewrite consistently. There is very little point writing a 15 chapter novel (with a couple of versions of each chapter) and then trying to shape it into something - you will end up having to write the book 10 times over just to get it finished.

The way I have always seen it is that you need to assemble a set of raw material and then refine it into a piece of prose. Then assemble all the prose into a book.

> The problem is, you spend time rewriting during your session.

I'm currently writing about one chapter a month (this is pretty productive for me). I write for around 4 or 5 sessions a week (when I get time). That breaks down into, say, 3 sessions of pure writing in which I will complete a couple of sections - but end up writing each of them up to 5 times. Then a session refactoring/rewriting, then a session building it together (this is a bit vague - I tend to get to the end of the month with lots of rewrites ready for a "build" in one go). What I want to do is cut down the amount of pure writing I need to do.

One successful thing I have done is get a three big whiteboards. One tracks the story as a whole (this is somewhat redundant because I've had the story in mind for about 5 years :)), One tracks the chapters I am currently working on and the last one I sketch out the current section/chapter.

At the start of the session I review the first two boards (and my memory) then start drafting ideas/timeline onto the third board. I deliberately pick points in the timeline that are "fixed" and start with them - drafting out a quick list of how it will work. Then you fill in the blanks with writing sessions.

This avoids the major problem with "just writing". In the past what has happened is I would sketch out a couple of chapters. Then I'd want to change something and it would mean that a whole lot of the chapter had to be reorganized. Or something had to push back into the previous chapter to make sense. Or.. You get the picture.

Writing a novel IMO needs one of two things: extreme natural talent (King et al) OR planning :)

(good discussion!)

<comment><USER9> > No, this isn't great advice (at least according to writer, even the ones you > list, interviews I've been investigating for tips).

Actually, that advise was basically ripped from Stephen Kings book, On Writing. He basically advises to write. Finish. Set aside the novel for several weeks, then pick it up and reread it fresh.

Read that book. It pretty much get's it down for you.

One thing to keep in mind is that interviews are pretty bad for finding tips on writing. In On Writing, Stephen King pretty much says that what he says in interviews is made to sound good, because the truth isn't as interesting.

But seriously, that book right there pretty much nails it in the head.

Now, at the end of the day, you do what works for you, of course. But at the end of the day, it's all about writing. If you've found some other method to get your writing done, great. Who am I to argue. But seriously, the best advise I can give to someone having trouble writing is to just write. You don't seem to have that problem, if your schedule is set and you've been doing it.

I guess my advise is more geared toward those who aren't writing, and want to. They ask the questions like: what word processor do you use? or do you use a notebook and pen? or when do you write? Questions that sound interesting. It's soft of like the GTD fad. Everyone is so consumed with the tools of GTD and ignore actually getting things done!

=)

And yes, good discussion. Wish I could give more karma!

<comment><USER7> _I guess my advise is more geared toward those who aren't writing, and want to. They ask the questions like: what word processor do you use? or do you use a notebook and pen? or when do you write? Questions that sound interesting. It's soft of like the GTD fad. Everyone is so consumed with the tools of GTD and ignore actually getting things done!_

Yeh I hear you; that's a good point :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A cross post of my comment on the OP's blog:

Great list and advice. A couple things I'd add:

10\. As a mashup of points 3 and 6, Start Talking to Yourself. Pretend you are on stage at a conference giving a talk, and just talk. Then write that stuff down. You'll find the stuff that you write down from your talk sounds a lot more like you really sound. And you start finding some of the things you are thinking about don't hold water when you say them outloud. Or the opposite, things are much clearer when you are hearing them come out of your mouth.

11\. You should be nervous hitting the publish button. It's like releasing software. If you aren't a little nervous about how this post will be received or criticized or you aren't a little nervous you just pushed some boundaries, you might not have tried hard enough. It's similar to point 7. You're creating something new here. If you aren't nervous, if you aren't a little uncomfortable, you probably are just regurgitating someone else's lessons. Making something new usually involves putting something very sensitive about yourself out there for people to crap on or love. :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Blogging is kind of a mystery to me. Since discovering Hacker News is probably the first time I've regularly been reading news/information in the form of (good quality) blogs. Even here, though, the discussion is just as important to me as the blogs.

I'm planning to put together a website to showcase my various projects (for employers' sake), and was thinking of putting up my own blog, or at least PG style essays, after having worked on them for a few months. The goal being to be more impressive to employers, who can verify that I actually care and/or think deeply about this stuff.

Is that why most people blog? Or is it to make money? Or just cause they like writing (/want to practice)? Or like the attention? It seems like a major amount of effort/energy is spent on blogging and I can't say I know why.

<comment><USER12> I write because it helps me think. Actually, it helps me learn what I'm thinking. It's one thing to have some vague ideas and beliefs floating around in your head, quite another to put it into words and make a cogent point.

I could do this for myself, keep it private, but the idea of making something public pushes me to be at least somewhat more rigorous. And getting feedback is fun and often educational.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _Reread your blog posts aloud_

One of the more important points in that list IMHO. Also, don't write and publish a post before going to bed; you'll read your post again in the morning, and yes, you're going to alter it (yes, that's actually me sometimes).

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm by no means a popular blogger by any stretch, but I love writing (even if I'm not great at it), so I collect ideas in a notebook, specifically a Moleskine notebook because they're made well ([http://www.moleskine.com/catalogue/classic/soft/plain_soft_n...](http://www.moleskine.com/catalogue/classic/soft/plain_soft_notebook__pocket.php)).

I'll save up about 10 potential blog entries and then start to write them out. Ones that flow naturally become posts, ones that I struggle to come up with a few sentences are just deleted.

To me, the hardest part is finding things to write about that haven't already been rehashed a million times before.

</comment><comment><USER15> Helpful advice and links for For Journalists and Bloggers Online Journalism Handbook - 200 + tips and tools and counting <http://bighow.com/journalism> Professional Blogging Handbook - 250 + resources [http://bighow.com/blogging- handbook-for-professional-blogger...](http://bighow.com/blogging-handbook-for- professional-bloggers.php) The Ultimate list of free tools and resources for journalists and bloggers [http://bighow.com/guides/online-journalism-handbook- the-ulti...](http://bighow.com/guides/online-journalism-handbook-the-ultimate- list-of-free-tools-and-resources-for-journalists-and-bloggers)

</comment><comment><USER16> _First, a quick clarification of 'successful'._

This should almost be one of his points. (I agree with his enumerated points.) Figuring out what you want from blogging or writing or anything really is half the battle.

<comment><USER17>
      This should almost be one of his points. (I agree with his enumerated points.)
      Figuring out what you want from blogging or writing or anything really is half
      the battle.

That's a great point. Half (or more) of the blog posts I write are actually more of me "thinking out loud" than anything. So they're full of stuff that you would normally look at and say "well that's rubbish." Well, it _is_ rubbish if the goal is well-written prose designed to convey a message with some particular aesthetic sense. But if the goal is "give me an avenue to think through this problem, while potentially communicating something of value to somebody thinking about the same things, and maybe elicit a comment that helps my thinking" then what I write is (more or less) adequate.

<comment><USER16> We agree: <http://pathdependent.com/2010/04/29/why-i-blog/> ;)

My metric is comments and emails elicited.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How to write a successful blog post: Know your material.

</comment><comment><USER19> This might make a good or well-written post, but for successful -- defined as he says by page-views -- he is leaving out half of the story.

Popularity is largely dependent on promotion or communication of some form. You have to tell people about your blog -- widely and often, for best effect. It won't simply follow from the content.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. I almost added a section about the importance of channel and promotion, but decided not to because that's about how to promote your blog post and not how to write it.

<comment><USER19> Oh, well, you must post that next week then!

(From which we may perhaps draw another guide: focus on one topic, and break substantially separate items into separate posts -- where they can be properly addressed . . .)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The advice seems pretty similar to any other sort of writing that is done for other people.

Here is a blog full of advice on how to write admissions essays: <http://blog.gurufi.com/> which follows many of the same themes.

</comment><comment><USER21> This leaves out the most important part! If at all possible, get someone else to review your post before publishing it. This helps you find out if the post is really as well written as you think it is.</comment>


Mainframe Revival - <AUTHOR> http://esj.com/articles/2011/09/26/mainframe-revival-has-legs.aspx

<comment><USER2> I'm curious, why? I havent worked with mainframes for a couple of decades. Is it because they are running legacy apps in Cobol? Or havent they figured out how to parallelize the apps to run distributed? (Going from serial Cobol to Erlang would reduce the hardiest HNer to tears.) Or are they conservative enough to not to want to risk $B if they screw up? I suppose all the govt. failures would be a cautionary tale.

<comment><USER3> Why distribute apps and deal with network latency when you can use Hipersockets to run at memory speeds. Even if it's been a couple of decades you should know that there are certain workloads that the mainframe excels at. Check out the z196 sometime. :)

I'm a Unix/Linux Sysadmin with 10 years experience and recently took the plunge as a mainframe software system programmer. It's taking some getting used to but I really like the platform. I had no idea how much tech that is old hat on a mainframe is thought to be so new in the distributed world.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Bubblin Superbooks - <AUTHOR> https://bubblin.io <comment><USER2> Very interesting! How hard is it to create a Superbook (why not simply call it a book?) on your site? I have been meaning to write a book that explains the connection between math and music visually. Looks like your site might just solve that for me. How does the authoring process work?

<comment><AUTHOR> > How hard is it to create a Superbook…?

It's actually quite simple, though basic understanding of HTML and CSS is required. Each page on the book is a virgin iframe so you can use your standard frontend skills on it. Or use one of the several layout templates to begin writing.

At this point we get involved with the writers directly to help them produce or adapt their work. It takes a few hours to migrate depending on body of work. We're documenting each step at this stage and also developing the tooling required for Superbooks [0].

> I have been meaning to write a book that explains the connection between > math and music visually.

Cool, let's connect for sure then! I'm at marvinAtBubblinDotIo.

> why not simply call it a book?

Superbook means _superclass_ of a book, magazine or comics here [1]. Basically, longform.

[0] [https://bubblin.io/tools](https://bubblin.io/tools)

[1] [https://bubblin.io/docs/concept](https://bubblin.io/docs/concept)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN!,

Meet Bubblin Superbooks—a social book reader for web.

Bubblin is _iPad first_ and also offline-first; though it will work just about on any browser or device. No signup is required to read.

Good or bad, all feedback and recommendation is welcome. :-)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you feel about HBO's Silicon Valley? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I actually liked Betas, which is Amazon's Silicon-Valley-based show. I hated it at first (it made me cringe a lot), but then I realized it wasn't that the writing was _bad_. Rather, it was so spot on, it made me cringe because I know people (and companies) like that.

Once I realized they were in on the joke, I liked it a lot better.

They clearly knew SV culture really well. There were a lot of great references, and many scenes were clearly shot in SF.

[http://www.amazon.com/Pilot-HD/dp/B00CDBX1PA](http://www.amazon.com/Pilot- HD/dp/B00CDBX1PA)

<comment><USER3> I felt beyond the specific area, it was extremely good at capturing the weird zeitgeist of millennial culture - not the living-with-parents-unemployed-loser stereotype, but the confused generation of people who grew up along with the internet. I can't really think of a specific instance of this, but the characters on the startup team had very specific, subtle character traits that I associate with people I know who are 20-30 right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a liquified HackerNews shooter.

Which means: I loved it, and we will be quoting these episodes ad nauseam.

Couple of duds in terms of jokes, but the ones that hit pierced the heart.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you haven't seen it yet, HBO have put the whole first episode on youtube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvkmsI54ss4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvkmsI54ss4)

</comment><comment><USER6> It was excellent.

Spot on. Every company changing the world with <some random buzzword infested phrase>. Great.

Like the Thiel spoof.

</comment><comment><USER7> In my experience, people in SV are not nearly as awkward as the show portrays them.

</comment><comment><USER8> I liked original versions of Pirate of Silicon Valley, and original Office Space - nothing beats those two movies on Startups.

However, the theme (and reality) of entrepreneurs facing all sorts of challenges and storms, and still stand like a mountain to support their products/platforms/ideas reminds us how power a human being is! just amazing...

</comment><comment><USER9> I hated the first ten minutes of it, but by the end I found myself laughing, so I'm curious for more.

Particularly the "I memorized the hexadecimal times tables when I was 14 writing machine code", for whatever reason, made me laugh a lot.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think it's hilarious, and unlike lots of "nerd" based shows I think it's even MORE funny as someone who knows the industry. Then again, I've always been a sucker for T.J. Miller.

</comment><comment><USER11> Question from someone who hasn't seen it: would an average non-startup culture person (e.g. my wife) possibly enjoy this show? I'm worried it's too niche...

<comment><USER12> I don't think so but with that said the show is only 30min so you don't lose much by watching 1 episode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a constant stream of ridicule. Would be much better if it slowed down at least once in a while. Think Valleywag but even shallower and more intense.

</comment><comment><USER14> It was witty, charming, and cringe worthy. Reminded me of The Office. I am probably a sucker for single camera comedies, but it seems worth watching.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is it worth downloading and watching?

<comment><USER16> I think so -- in some of the show's scenes, you actually feel like you're watching reality...which makes it a good deal funnier to me. Then again, I am a bit of an SV cynic myself, so YMMV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Very much a caricature, though some of the details were funny. Is Peter Gregory supposed to be PG?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think Peter Gregory is supposed to be Peter Thiel considering they described Gregory's 100,000 grant similar to the Thiel Fellowship. But it might be PG.

<comment><USER18> I'd like to see a real debate over whether the Peter Gregory character is based on Theil or pg, that would be something entertaining to hash out.

<comment><USER19> There's a very good chance he's simply based on prominent VCs in general (Theil, pg, maybe a little Andressean).

<comment><USER16> Agreed -- seems like an amalgam. Another possible debate: who is Uhlrich based on? Proto-Sean Parker?

<comment><USER4> Spoiler.

The actor (Christopher Evan Welch) who plays him passed away from cancer this past January. Not sure how much of the show was shot before he died.

Had the same thought about Uhlrich--Sean Parker, but only based on seeing "The Social Network" caricature, with added Mike Judge doofus flair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very cringe worthy but I'll probably still watch it since it comes on after GoT

<comment><USER20> The cringe factor is intentional. That's Mike Judge's style.</comment></comment>


How do I price a self published book? - <AUTHOR>

I am almost done with my first self-published book on leanpub (https://leanpub.com/intermediatepython). How do I decide on a good price for it? <comment><USER2> Lots of good discussion on this can be found on bootstrapping forums.

Generally accepted wisdoms is to do 3 price tiers, general at 1x, 1.5x and then 3-5x the base price. Add-ons per tier can be case studies, extra chapters, specific examples, videos, offers for your time, etc.

Most people bought mine at the top tier, which to me signals that I underpriced it by a lot: [https://book.serversforhackers.com](https://book.serversforhackers.com)</comment>