We need a new platform before we can #deleteFacebook - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@damiensbell/we-finally-need-a-for-facebook-for-x-1878147f1950 <comment><USER2> At some point, people merely adopted these platforms, transitioning from nothing to something. The notion that we can't simply transition from Facebook to nothing is nonsense.

<comment><USER3> Couldn't agree more... it's called keeping in touch with a face to face, a phone call, a letter, an email, a text etc. Your Facebook "friends" who do that are your real friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Its called calling, or writing those important to you. This has always existed. Quit trying to app the problem away. Its social, not technical.

<comment><USER5> I have a "friend" from university that I occasionally emailed links or articles. Months went by and he never wrote me back, so I questioned him about it and he said "you know I've been busy with the wedding and all".

"What wedding?"

"Yeah I got married, I guess you don't go on facebook. I don't reply to emails, just facebook me next time."

Obviously our friendship fizzled away, and wasn't worth keeping up, but some people _only_ use facebook and won't communicate with people other ways. It's weird.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, sometimes the issue isn't ourselves but those we want to stay connected to and some of them really don't desire to stay connected any other way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Facebook free for 6 years and I find no reason to have it. At most when Facebook loyals use it to organize events. And I find it about those through actually seeing people. Plus I love shocking people with "yeah I don't use that crap" to see how they react. Maybe given recent events they will react differently?

</comment><comment><USER8> No problem. I found some cool new facebook replacements the other day.

1\. IRC 2\. Email 3\. Forums 4\. Blogs 5\. RSS

</comment><comment><USER9> for sure decentralised. I want to be running a node

<comment><USER10> I would hope so too, but without _massive_ changes I sincerely doubt the general public would adopt a decentralized social network.</comment></comment>


The first photos of Tesla's electric SUV the Model X - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-first-photos-of-teslas-electric-suv-the-model-x/ <comment><USER2> For anyone doubting that Tesla can hit the mass market because they arent making competitors to the Camry or Civic: they have just made a wonderful looking competitor to BMW's X-line, Lexus' RX, and etc. Way to go.</comment>


Motorola 6809 emulator in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/maly/6809js

<comment><USER2> Excerpts from Wikipedia:

Like the 6800, it included an undocumented address bus test instruction with the nickname Halt and Catch Fire (HCF)[

Williams Electronics was an especially prolific user of the processor, which was deployed in arcade hits such as Defender, Joust, Sinistar, and Robotron: 2084. Williams also utilized the processor in many of its solid-state pinball machines; the 6809 CPU formed the core of the successful Williams Pinball Controller. The KONAMI-1 was a modified 6809 used by Konami in various arcade sets such as The Simpsons.

The very first Macintosh prototype, wire-wrapped by Burrell Smith, contained a 6809.

</comment><comment><USER3> The dual accumulator and dual stack pointer design seem like they would make this one of the most straight forward 8-bitters to program. What home computers used this?

I remember reading about a Hitachi clone that extended it to use four accumulators that could either be paired into two 16-bit accumulators or all joint into a single 32 bit accumulator.

<comment><USER4> The Radio Shack TRS-80 Color Computer was the most popular home computer in the USA to use the 6809.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Color_Computer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Color_Computer)

Motorola intended the 6809 as a transition between their popular 6800 series and the future 68000 line. The '09 could execute 6800 code with minimal modification.

<comment><USER5> I learned BASIC, Forth and 6809 assembly on one of these. Fond memories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I thought it was going to be a transistor-level one, like this: [http://visual6502.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motorola_6800](http://visual6502.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motorola_6800)</comment>


Ask HN / Review my startup: DocuHarvest - <AUTHOR>

DocuHarvest extracts data from documents (PDFs only for now) in a way that is accessible to nontechnical users and economical for small workflows or one-off jobs.
https://docuharvest.com
The original launch announcement is on my blog here, which provides more background:
"Getting valuable data out of documents should not require an I.T. staff, outside consultants, building or buying software, or an up-front investment of hundreds or thousands of dollars, regardless of how many documents and how much data is involved."
http://muckandbrass.com/web/x/CwBi
To answer probably the three most common questions:
1. Yes, we have a HTTP API coming, probably along with client libraries for some subset of {Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, C#/.NET, ...}.
2. More job types are incoming.  As noted in the announcement and on the site's front page, imaging-related jobs are up next.  Lots more in the works after that as well.
3. DocuHarvest is largely written in Clojure, and currently uses CouchDB as a backend.  More info here: http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_frm/thread/c1c11390caac3dc
SMB is my initial focus (intentionally wide for now).  Good potential verticals include legal & public records, medical, finance & accounting.  That's all up for grabs depending on how forthcoming job types are received and by whom.
Feedback and suggestions are most welcome, either here or via the feedback boxes on the DocuHarvest site, twitter messages @docuharvest or @cemerick, or you can email email@example.com or email@example.com.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> With all due respect, if you're looking to extract text and images from documents, there are free and open-source options. DocuHarvest looks like a great service for an end-user, but if you're a programmer, I recommend you take a peek at Docsplit, an open-source project of ours that extracts text, images, and metadata from documents, including non-pdfs.

<http://documentcloud.github.com/docsplit/>

Or the Python port:

<http://github.com/anderser/pydocsplit>

It's thin wrapper on top of a number of excellent open-source projects that do the real work:

* OpenOffice / JODConverter, to convert ".doc", ".ppt", ".xls", ".rtf" into PDFs.

* GraphicsMagick and Ghostscript, to render PDFs into images of any size and format.

* Apache PDFBox, to extract UTF8 plain text and metadata from PDFs.

We're thinking about adding Tesseract-based OCR into the text-extraction, but it's still a little difficult to figure out how to package that up portably for multiple platforms. Full Disclosure: Docsplit is part of DocumentCloud, a non-profit project funded by the Knight Foundation to help journalists work with primary source documents.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing you didn't read the first sentence in my text opening the thread. :-)

DocuHarvest is for those that don't know what open source is, or those that don't want to pay for someone to monkey with it enough to make it work in their organization.

FWIW, open source solutions have fairly poor support for newer revs of various document formats.

<comment><USER2> It's a great service to offer. I just figured that being HN, the open-source alternatives should have their place at the table, for the interested, at least in a comment. Good luck with DocuHarvest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a cool idea (assuming it works)

I think that the 'What does docuharvest do' section of your video was way too long! Just give 3 examples then show the cluttered bit :) And go a bit less technical. Instead of "You often want to have the data held within the documents in a more useful form" how about "All the data is spread across a ton of different formats. Word, powerpoint, pdf.. it's hard to keep track of!"

Again "typical docuharvest workflow" makes this sound BORING and ENTERPRISE! This could be a great tool for anyone to use, don't relegate it to the cubicles!! :) tell me what it does like "Let's see how you can save time with docuharvest" or "Let me show you how easy it is to make all your documents searchable" or whatever point you're trying to get across :)

'workflow' is not fun :) Or even friendly!

Hope this helps.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback -- maybe I should just show the demo straight off? I felt like some background was necessary, but I certainly don't want to bore anyone away! :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I liked the free trial, but garbling part of the text is not a good idea. I glanced through the text to see what sort of output I got and thought "oh, that's rubbish, it's made tons of mistakes". It was only by chance that I actually read the bit at the top saying parts were garbled on purpose.

Why not just give 50% of the text and cut off with a message saying that's all you get in the trial? It give a better impression IMO.

Good luck with the startup!

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, no one reads documentation / site messages. :-)

Cutting off content halfway through with a message at the end would work well for text extraction and other long-format sorts of data, but what about form data extraction and such? That's where the munging of content started really, and I'm not sure what a better solution would be for short key/value pairs.

<comment><USER5> combine the mangling with the message. Meaning, change the real result to "Result omitted in free version"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I'm non-technical, the term "job" is throwing me a bit. I'm thinking job as in employment, which doesn't makes sense in the context. Maybe call it a "Harvest". "Harvest a document in seconds" instead of "Start a new job in seconds." The "New Job" button could be labeled "New Harvest" etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've struggled with the "job" terminology quite a bit, having used "run", "batch", and "task" in prior iterations. (Whoa, think I'm a backend dev or something? ;-)

I'll mull over the "Harvest" idea. Seems like a good way to provide a verb for people to use to reference the site/process, e.g. "I'll just harvest these docs" :: "I googled and didn't find anything".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a more complex task, but would you consider engineering an OCR data extractor from image PDFs? I can tell you there are thousands of companies that run into the problem of converting columns of data from paper-only documents or fax machines into usable Excel data. And it's usually in one-off settings, where not having to buy a software package would be hugely appealing. Spending $0.10 - $0.25 per page would be far better than the labor cost of doing the same thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> This sort of thing is absolutely on the drawing board. There's a lot of unknowns here for us: in particular, which OCR package to use -- none I've used are satisfactory IMO -- as well as figuring out the paper problem, which we don't want to get involved in directly. I'm sure a complementary partnership on the latter will make sense.

Anyway, follow @docuharvest or join the mailing list if you want to keep up with goings-on. I think you'll be pleased over time. :-)

EDIT: note that our pricing is per _document_ , not per page. I'd hope that keeping the simplicity of that model remains possible semi-forever, regardless of the sort of processing DocuHarvest offers in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> First of all, great presentation. I looked at the site and your phrasing combined with the domain name gave me an instant idea of what you do. Maybe some examples of use-cases would help me understand why I would you use, but I suspect that is more me not needing that service.

I love the interface that let's you just jump right in without signing up first. Trial run with mangled results is appealing.

Are there any direct competitors for you?

<comment><USER9> There's certainly a good amount of text extraction work in the recruitment industry - that's what the company I work for does and we have several competitors.

In those cases, though, you're talking about taking CV/resume files in Word, PDF, HTML, whatever and extracting structured data for populating a recruitment company's databases. It's a bit more advanced than the kind of thing being done here, but it also requires special integration work to match the databases and handle things like candidate deduplication.

CV/resume parsing isn't going to be an industry that you can get into unless you can hire some good sales guys and are ready to spend a lot of time figuring out how to integrate with a dozen different database products.

<comment><USER10> Hmm that's extremely interesting. My company has developed technology to extract structured data from business websites, data types such as postal addresses, contact details (person name, phone, fax, email, job title, headshot), company logo, products (product name, prices & descriptions), food and drink on menus, business description, keywords/tags and so on. There's a fair amount of text and language analysis, machine learning, clustering algorithms. We can process a million sites (~100 million pages) in a few days.

One of the pivots we were considering for this was Word/pdf docs, specifically CVs. We figured that these big recruitment companies and websites must have to process millions of loosely structured CV documents, and would need to extract specific data from these. I don't know what they do now, but I reckon we could do it pretty well.

<comment><USER9> What they do now is use my employer's software or one of our competitors.

There's several people already moving in this market, so it would be tricky to enter. One of the big things is going to be integrating with recruiter's databases - that's where most of our time is spent these days. That, and widening our language support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <https://docuharvest.com>

</comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't Adobe have a product that takes care of the Interactive PDF form part? I think one of the products in the LiveCycle family does exactly this. Pricing is probably not as variable as yours though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, they've got a variety of solutions. Of course, the point is that that's a pretty huge up-front cost compared to (for example) $10 to get the data from those 100 PDF forms you've got in a folder somewhere.

The vast majority of the functionality we'll be offering has no direct parallel to any existing software package. That will become very clear as we flesh out the types of jobs that are available.</comment></comment>


Loren Feldman is hilarious but cruel at the same time - <AUTHOR> http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/03/loren-feldmantech-nigga-at-last-nights.html

<comment><USER2> Strange that I never saw this.

The guy acted like an ignorant douche, putting on a cliched minstrel show. I think you're giving him too much credit calling him hilarious or even cruel . . . try pathetic.

<comment><USER3> It's easy to make a self-righteous anti-racist statement. They bore me, and I am mystified as to why everybody rushes to be the first to condemn someone whenever they step over a racial line. The correct response to an unfunny idiot performance is to ignore it, not to seize the opportunity to proclaim loudly how non-racist you are.

Also, I don't think it's wrong to joke about race. By joking about racial stereotypes, people are more comfortable discussing and confronting the uneasiness they feel when interacting with people from other races, nationalities, and cultural backgrounds. Plus, race jokes are probably more funny because they are so taboo, see Chris Rock, Dave Chappel, et al.

This dude has an execution and taste problem, that's the story.

<comment><USER2> _Also, I don't think it's wrong to joke about race. By joking about racial stereotypes, people are more comfortable discussing and confronting the uneasiness they feel when interacting with people from other races, nationalities, and cultural backgrounds. Plus, race jokes are probably more funny because they are so taboo, see Chris Rock, Dave Chappel, et al._

Interestingly, I mostly agree with you. If you read what I said carefully, I didn't call the guy a racist and I specifically said the headline calling him "cruel" was too much. That'd imply that he went out of his way to try to hurt people with what he said. Hell, I mostly like the guy and have posted some of his stuff on News.YC myself.

I think that if you reread my comment, you'll see that even Loren Feldman himself would probably agree with what I said. What he did _was_ a cliched minstrel show. He tried to be funny, but instead he ended up being hurtful and looking like a racist douchebag. He's essentially said as much himself in subsequent postings.

The bigger question is why the black guy is being attacked for commenting on the original video. ;)

<comment><USER4> > The bigger question is why the black guy is being attacked for commenting on > the original video. ;)

We're all #828282 here (oh, except nickb on his 10k day) . You were probably downvoted because your post looked like it was copy/pasted from Digg.

<comment><USER2> I criticized an offensive video and that means my posts look like they're from Digg? I don't think that's particularly fair.

<comment><USER4> Just imagine 20 more one-line posts like yours that call him a "douche" and you can see how it'd fit right in on Digg.

You seem pretty interested in arguing with someone about this guy. I think it's pretty obvious to most people that this guy just isn't worthy of discussion. He's clearly an asshole, what's there to talk about? (that's a rhetorical question).

<comment><USER2> Actually, arguing with anyone about this is a waste of time. I made one post deriding it, people started criticizing me, so I'm answering them. End of story.

I post technical articles here and contribute tips to other hackers every day; I really don't need you to lecture me about the quality of my posts.

<comment><USER4> I was just taking a shot at answering your question and I wasn't commenting on any other of your posts except the one you asked about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. That was truly horrible. I'm shocked that this crap is getting played. I'm also really surprised that there were people who up-modded this to the front page.

I'd like to make a motion to move this post to [dead].

<comment><USER6> I think the real problem here is: bad submission headline, "Loren Feldman is hilarious but cruel at the same time".

The link goes to a blog post where a software hacker -- the creator of a early piece of Mac software I really liked, DayMaker -- comments on Feldman's work and Feldman's inclusion in a tech industry panel. By mere virtue of having open comments, that was an invitation for other discussion. And, as the issue relates to tech bloggers and the online video market -- popular topics here -- it arguably fits at HN.

But the submission headline injects a strong opinion -- that the Feldman work is 'hilarious' and 'cruel'. (Even 'cruel' can imply some level of affirmation; nonsensical insults like "your mama wears combat boots" aren't 'cruel'.) That initial spin has polluted the later discussion.

At the risk of offending another group, I will also point out the original submitter does not reside in North America. He may not be familiar with North American sensitivity taboos, and may mainly know about American race relations and ethnic groups through the distorted lens of exported entertainment mass media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've got to go along with pius on this one. This offends me. It's that smarmy, ingratiating racism that seems to be all over the internet. It's not funny, it's not clever.</comment>


You should do coding challenges - <AUTHOR> http://nortonwang.com/2014/01/you-should-do-coding-challenges/

<comment><USER2> I'll stick to my hobby project, thanks.</comment>


'People don't go out': the town where half the pubs have vanished - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/01/half-pubs-vanished-people-dont-go-out-hyndburn-lancashire <comment><USER2> I wonder why they don't mention that less young people are drinking these days.

</comment><comment><USER3> The story fails to elaborate on the very lead example, a pub turning into a halal butcher's shop.

If there's neighborhood demand for halal, doesn't that mean there are more Muslims in the area? And don't Muslims generally abstain from alcohol?

Why would Muslims want to go to a pub?</comment>


Space Shuttle Orbiters Full Size - <AUTHOR> http://www.spacetoys.com/products.php?product=Space-Shuttle-Orbiters-Full-Size

<comment><USER2> Probably the biggest thing we can order online.

</comment><comment><USER3> > "This replica will not fly."

Hey, thanks for the clarification.</comment>


RocksDB vs. the world - <AUTHOR> http://smalldatum.blogspot.com/2016/02/rocksdb-vs-world-for-loading-linkbench.html <comment><USER2> I'd be very interested in seeing a comparison between storage engines like rocks, wiredtiger, leveldb, sqlite4-lsm, heck even kyotocabinet and berkeleydb. The comparison would describe what workload each storage engine optimizes for, what tradeoffs were made, and a basic feature matrix (multiple process? transactions / nested transactions? etc).

There are a lot of options out there but beyond pure speed or latency measures, its hard to get a high level understanding of what distinguishes one storage engine from the next.

</comment><comment><USER3> So... we should all move to MySQL+Rocks?

Sounds like it's 2005 all over again!

[https://www.pinterest.com/pin/87890630203282087/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/87890630203282087/)</comment>


Impact of individual exposure histories to coronaviruses on severity of Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20154369v1 <comment><AUTHOR> Title modified due to length, actual title: "Potential impact of individual exposure histories to endemic human coronaviruses on age-dependence in severity of COVID-19"</comment>


Browserify v2 released - <AUTHOR> http://browserify.org/announcing_browserify_v2

<comment><USER2> For front end dev, is there a reason to prefer this over requirejs ?

<comment><USER3> Clean syntax. Minimum excess download.

Use it if you want to deliver your js in one bundle.

<comment><USER2> Thanks !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is this?

<comment><AUTHOR> browserify is a javascript bundler that recursively analyzes all the node- style require() calls in your program to create a single javascript bundle for serving up to browsers.

<comment><USER4> Why use this over require.js? What benefits does this bring to the table?

<comment><USER5> You don't have to mangle your code to get it into the AMD format. Just require() like node.js or CommonJS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great new site, love the 'browserify v2: less features, more unix!'

Look forward to trying to this out.

</comment><comment><USER5> Awesome. Thanks substack!

</comment><comment><USER7> Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER8> this is how we do!</comment>


Software Product Granularity: building depth-first vs. breadth-first - <AUTHOR> http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/6/3/software-product-granularity-building-depth-first-vs-breadth.html <comment><USER2> Am I missing something, or is this the old top-down vs bottom-up debate given a different name?

(I'm genuinely asking too...)</comment>


Being Shy Is Just a Bad Habit, and You Can Break It With Regular Practice - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5909696/being-shy-is-just-a-bad-habit-and-you-can-break-it-with-regular-practice <comment><USER3> Mention introversion and shyness, especially around geeks, and many people will come out saying, "I like being shy," "I'm an introvert, that's just the way I am," and things like that.

Different people learn social skills differently. For me they were incredibly hard to learn, but my life improved so much with each bit that learning each bit motivated me to learn the next. Now nobody can believe I was ever not outgoing.

Saying "I'm X" doesn't mean you have to be X forever. But putting it that way reinforces your X-ness. Some people say shyness is like gayness, something your born with. I haven't observed that to be the case, not that I've researched it.

To me the problem with being shy isn't that others look down on it. It's that it prevents you from solving many problems. Most of life's hardest problems as well as greatest solutions are social.

Saying "I like being shy"... well, everyone likes being shy sometimes. But I doubt anyone who also knows a million other ways of being would prefer losing everything but shyness. Do you like having no option other than being shy?

To anyone who says you can't learn social and emotional management skills to overcome shyness, that wasn't the case with me or others I know. You can say those cases are anecdotal, but so is yours.

<comment><USER4> >Different people learn social skills differently. For me they were incredibly hard to learn...

Precisely. I like the introvert/extrovert description of recharges alone/recharges with other people. I grew up as a serious introvert, but my parents knew the value of social skills. One day my father turned it from a chore into an introvert-style learning exercise by framing it as a skill to be learned and not a quality to be had.

I joined the orchestra, got comfortable with public speaking, learned how to make small talk. I'm not a natural at it, but get by fine today, even in very public sales and lecture/teaching roles.

I still like to go home at the end of a day and recharge alone, but I can use it like a skill and it's been incredibly valuable.

<comment><USER5> I read your definition, and thought, "Yeah, I'm an introvert because I like to recharge alone." But then my next thought was, "Actually, it depends on how I'm feeling." Often I seek company because I like to recharge with other people.

Am I an extrovert or introvert? I don't feel like I'm in one or the other for the particular majority of time. I don't believe it's a great model for describing everyone.

For the record, I used to be shy but forced myself out of it. I also felt I had to learn new skills (sometimes a painful process), but I still don't believe I'm naturally either introverted or extroverted - neither really describe me or my behaviour.

<comment><USER6> It's a continuum, not a constant, and can definitely be based on the situation or who you're with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This comment nails it:

"""Please read "Quiet - The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking" by Susan Cain

Saying its a habit is saying that you can easily overcome it. I don't feel it's a choice, do you know how many times I thought about ending my life because I hated being born an introvert and shy?

This article might as well be called: If you are shy, its you're fault, stop being lazy and change.

Once gays are accepted the biggest issue is probably going to be that introverts dont feel accepted in this extravert world."""

The conflation of terms like shyness and introversion (etc) has been discussed before, so I'll leave that one alone. The last two sentences of the comment are more interesting. If you are shy, is that necessarily bad? And is it your "fault"?

The other issue applies as well. It's not OK to fire someone because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc; but firing someone because they are "shy" or "introverted" or "not a people person" seems to be perfectly acceptable and legal. Shouldn't that be considered discrimination as well? (Assuming that "being good with people" isn't a requirement of the job.)

<comment><USER8> > This article might as well be called: If you are shy, its you're fault, stop > being lazy and change.

There seems to be a tendency to conflate someone saying "You can change X" and "If you suffer from X, you're a lazy and bad person." That's not productive. It's an emotional response to a logical issue. pg goes into depth about these responses in the article "Keep Your Identity Small": <http://paulgraham.com/identity.html>

A huge percentage of people _can_ improve their social skills to practice, and we as a community can accept that without taking it as an insult to anyone who has weak social skills.

<comment><USER9> Ironically, this thread has degenerated in to exactly what pg is describing. People are binding their identity to their preferred style of social interaction.

"I'm an extrovert..." "Oh well, I'm an introvert"

<comment><USER10> seeing as personality is defined as a preferred set of reactions to external events, your preferred style of social interaction is part of your identity by definition.

this is shorthand for saying "I prefer alone time to recharge" or "I am energized by the company of others," which is a fundamental aspect of identity.

factor analysis of personality breaks down personality into related sets of consistent behaviors. introversion/extroversion exists in even the simplest model. the distinction was first noticed by Jung. it was even observed in dogs by Pavlov, who found that dogs that were active around other dogs fell asleep when left alone, where as dogs that seemed exhausted by the same events perked up when isolated.

introversion/extraversion is not a constant preference. sometimes introverts like parties. but individuals have a preference for one or the other that forms a preferred set of responses to external events, which makes it part of the definition of personality.

this is an article based on folk psychology written in ignorance of thousands of articles on this subject, starting with Jung, experimentally noted by Pavlov in animals, and made rigorous in the work of Hans Eysenck. Eysenck used factor analysis to rigorously define extraversion and identified it as a basic dimension of human personality.

this is an incontrovertible finding of modern psychology. extraversion/introversion form one of the parts of the five factor model, which uses factor analysis to identify five core factors of human personality. some models have more, some less - that's the art of the technique. but they all have introversion/extraversion.

there is a distinction between shyness and introversion, where the former is mostly likely meant to mean socially anxious. however, introversion is an enduring personality trait that factor analysis consistently identifies.

<comment><USER11> Sure it's part of your personality, but that doesn't mean it _has_ to be part of your identity. There are people who don't consider their gender part of their identity, there are people who don't consider their (lack of) religion part of their identity, and there are _definitely_ people who don't consider intro-/extrovert part of their identity.

(Note that "identity" has the same meaning as in pg's article, above.)

<comment><USER10> well, pg is some dude defining identity on a blog, and the people i mention are famous scientists who quantified personality and isolated introversion/extraversion using a statistical theory with predictive value. this theory explained the behavior of dogs that Pavlov had noted in the fifties. the preference was eventually linked by Eysenck to levels of cortical arousal.

whether you consider it part of your identity or not is moot since introversion/extraversion still defines a consistent set of reactions to external events.

the article is wrong on every level. introversion has nothing to do with confidence. i speak very confidently when i want to. i was an excellent ta and can present on subjects clearly. in the course of my studies and career i have had several people tell me that i was the only person who could clearly explain complicated mathematical concepts to them. i enjoy talking to people and discussing with them.

i am still an introvert and have a preference for isolation that is consistent in my reactions to external events. this preference does not determine my reaction to all events. how introverted i am is a measure of the consistency of my preference towards solitude. i like talking with people - i just don't like it all the time.

i'm sure some people don't consider them introverts or extraverts. they usually fall on the middle of the scale, with no distinguished preference towards either category. however, their existence does not disprove that other people have strong preferences towards introversion or extraversion.

<comment><USER11> Nobody is arguing that intro-/extraversion does not exist and is not a valuable component in predicting human behaviour. pg 's article predicts that people self-identifying as X will have certain hangups around X, e.g. people self-identifying as shy are less likely to learn to be less shy, even if this would be desirable. Looking at this thread, that is exactly what happens. (And I'm done with this thread.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As I read the comments, I see people becoming polarized very quickly. People are comparing shyness to homosexuality, etc.

I think we need to calm down. As I read the article, it is saying that if you think you're handicapped (as in, at a disadvantage, before someone brings up physically disabled people) in society due to shyness, then it is possible to work on it and overcome the handicap to a large extent. If you are happy with being shy, it's OK; no one wants you to change :)

I find being shy an impairment to making new friends and dating, and it bugs me. The weird part is: I used to be a TA in the university, and did a great job. I was able to lecture very well, and got good reviews. But in a social setting, I clam up. However: if I know the people well, I can become quite the life of the party. But when I'm with strangers, I can't just come out of my shell. For example: I could never go to a bar by myself and strike up a meaningful conversation with a strange woman.

<comment><USER13> Saying "shyness is ultimately a symptom of you being uncomfortable with who you are" in the first sentence of the article does not sound like "it's OK; no one wants you to change :)" to me. That is the problem with the article, it presumes that there is something wrong with shy people. It could instead presume that there is something wrong with outgoing people, or that they are simply two equally reasonable ways of being, but it doesn't.

It's too bad that it bugs you - your way of being makes sense to me, you open up with those who have put in the time to deserve your openness and don't with those who haven't. Contrary to popular American male belief, pretty much everything in life is more important than being able to go to a bar and talk to a woman you don't know.

<comment><USER12> "Contrary to popular American male belief, pretty much everything in life is more important than being able to go to a bar and talk to a woman you don't know."

That may as well be; but not being able to initiate a meaningful conversation with a stranger won't get you into a relationship (if that's what one desires, of course). Once you get out of college and move to a strange town, it's very hard to strike up friendships; especially so if one is a shy person.

<comment><USER14> Not really if you approach it correctly. Find people that share interests with you, that enjoy same things you enjoy, etc. - internet makes that much easier. Visit places where such people assemble. Chances are you will encounter some people that you enjoy keeping company with. Then you will discover when you are in a suitable company, you're not shy at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It seems to me this article has been pitched badly. It does come across as "If you're shy, you're broken", where in my opinion it's actually trying to say:

"If you're worried that your shyness is stopping you enjoying yourself/making the most of opportunities then don't worry, it is possible to get past that".

I think it's a poor decision that they didn't differentiate between people who are quiet and happy with it, and people who are quiet and are frustrated by it.

I used to be the latter, and now even though I'm still pretty quiet, I'm a lot happier knowing I _can_ open up a conversation or get involved in a group if I want to.

And I do have to say that I think it's a lot better having gotten over that bump, certainly I've been able to make a lot more opportunities for myself. But it does take work and it does take other people to help you.

</comment><comment><USER16> For a lifehacker article, that contained very little of pithy, "try it now" practical advice one expects from that blog.

</comment><comment><USER17> Some people have sensory issues. Too much, too loud, too long is physically overwhelming.

They can be plenty communicative in smaller, quieter settings.

Contemporary society can drive them nearly crazy, insisting they "speak up", over the din of dozens crammed into a loud, poorly ventilated room. Insisting they tune out multiple conversations 3, 5, 10 feet away from them, for 8 or 10 or 12 hours a day, every day.

Give them some peace a quite, and they are quite effective. Give them high signal to noise ratio, and they exceed their peers.

One size does not fit all. The first thing a "shy" person often needs to learn, is this. _Really_ learn this.

P.S. They can even learn to do the "crammed room" thing, for limited stretches and when _there is a specific purpose_ that centers on those people being gathered together in that setting. (E.g. presentations, conferences, etc.)

That doesn't mean that the goal should be to thrive in such, 24/7. Nor to indiscriminately partner up with whoever happens to be in the room, just because they're sharing physical proximity.

/grump

</comment><comment><USER18> If anyone is shy and wants to reduce it, here is a simple, tested, and effective method: Say "Hi" to strangers, people at work, anyone you bump into. I do not mean a low hi, without eye contact. I mean a LOUD "hi," with a It's-nothing,-I-am-just-happy-to-be-alive smile on your face, and keep the eye contact.

<comment><USER19> Turbo mode: say "Hi, ___" whenever you know their name too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There are underlying reasons why people are 'shy.'

Shyness could just be being shy talking to girls or boys you're attracted to, it could be shy talking to anyone. It could be shyness that occurs when presenting.

Shyness has a base of one having their guard up. Their energies will lock up, close off, and then it's difficult to impossible to use feeling to know you're safe (or not) in a situation.

Figuring out what these guards are, allowing the thoughts that come up and feelings triggered that cause your guard to go up is the only way to let your guard start to come down and stay down when it doesn't need to be up; If you go on medications you could even further distance yourself from being able to connect to your inner-self (to your body and emotions, and 'intuitive' understanding that comes from that connection).

</comment><comment><USER21> The most effective treatment for shyness I've found, was by far retail customer service.

Anyone can get these jobs, probably even somewhere fun part-time. The bar is so low for this type of job they will take almost anyone. It's very easy to distill a business interaction down to a short, easy script. Then repeat that dozens of times a day for a year and suddenly you're an expert at small talk with every kind of person.

It really worked for me, highly recommended.

<comment><USER22> Or do some charity collecting. I mean with a tin in the street, not the UK thing we have at the moment of hordes of paid street spammers trying to get contact details.

Similar situation to shop work, but only nicer people will approach you, the ones who know the charity and want to give something. People like to tell their stories as well, which can help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Didn't read the article, but I read the headline to my wife who has a Masters in Clinical Psychology and is studying for her MFT license exam. Her response, "That's garbage. Shyness isn't a bad habit, it's a personality trait; and it's perfectly normal." She went on, "The American culture tends to favor the extraverted, but studies show that introverts have just as meaningful lives as extraverts. They tend to have a more refined sense of self, they tend to know what they like, and they tend to be more selective with their friends. Introverts make great leaders and work well in groups, they don't demand extra attention."

She points out that people conflate anxiety with shyness. Same with anti- social habits and behaviors. Being under-socialized and not open to new experiences... I'd guess that's what this lifehacker article is doing. So if it's encouraging people to open themselves up a little more, more power to it. But please stop making "shyness" out to be some kind of defect!

</comment><comment><USER24> Being introverted is one thing, being shy is another.

Introversion is a personality trait. It means you tend to spend more of your time on internal thought processes - that is, you tend to "reflect" more, as opposed to "interacting" more. Also, introverts are more self-aware. That's completely normal.

On the other hand, being shy is just avoiding exposing yourself. If taken to extremes, it keeps you from living life. That's _not_ normal.

It's perfectly possible to be introverted but not shy. In fact, if you talk to actors and musicians (or anyone involved with artistic expression), you'll find a surprinsingly high number of them consider themselves introverts.

</comment><comment><USER25> The last bit the author mentions is something I've thought about recently, which is - where do I live? Inside my head or outside of it? I find myself primarily living inside my head, which is a very different world than the one around me.

While the inside vs outside distinction likely correlates to intro/extraversion, I think it's quite likely a scale of its own. I think this is a much more interesting topic than the introvert extravert war this thread became and is worth everyone taking a second (or a day) to think about - <USER2> do you live?

</comment><comment><USER26> Shyness is NOT "ultimately a symptom of you being uncomfortable with who you are." What an offensive statement to make!

Sure, shyness is easily surmountable--just start talking. It's like jumping off the high dive 'cause everyone behind you's already started climbing the ladder.

Awkwardness, however, is not so easily dispatched. So shyness has its uses and I'm perfectly comfortable resorting to it when necessary.

</comment><comment><USER27> That's a rather ableist point of view. Being shy may be a "habit" for some people, but some of us actually have anxiety disorders.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think I finally realized why Internet flamewars are as a rule comprised of insults and poor spelling and grammar:

Passive aggressive, thinly polite, well written (In a grammatical and syntactic sense.) posts on the same flame-inducing subjects are actually _more painful_ to read.

</comment><comment><USER29> _writes article about his own experience accounting for an infinitesimally small fraction of all cases, gives advice to all cases with a boatload of preconceptions_

</comment><comment><USER30> its a survival technique.

</comment><comment><USER31> Response to Kodess's comment on the site, being approved:

Agreed, being scared of a situation isn't necessarily habit, but it's definitely not good, and as you mentioned, can even cause you to become suicidal. Put into that perspective, it seems it would definitely be beneficial to not be shy if you had the choice - and that's what the author here is trying to get at. I was suicidal and shy all throughout school, until sophomore year of high school. That's when I became so fed up with my piece of shit life that I gave myself an ultimatum to change it. Started throwing myself into social situations (for me, it was primarily my utter inability to be attractive to girls that was making me suicidal - I couldn't even _start_ to speak to a girl - _any_ girl), and bit by bit, sophomore year entirely changed the trajectory of my life.

In retrospect, I was enormously awkward in all my first attempts to break my shyness, and it was entirely fueled by feelings of inadequacy and coming to _identify_ with my current state - seeing it as an inherent part of me. I was _born_ shy, this _is_ the way I'm am, I can't change it, it's impossible, this is just who I am and it sucks shit and I'll kill myself eventually. Utterly defeatist talk. If you think that way, if you never even make the concerted attempt (do it for 3 months, at least, concerted full force and then you can say you've made the attempt and it failed miserably), then of course you're never going to change and it might as well not be a choice, even though it truly is.It's tough as shit, but you can get over it. And over time, what the author means is that it becomes more than habit - it becomes so deeply ingrained into your own perception of yourself that you can't escape it. At some point, you don't even try, and you condemn yourself to a pointless life of suffering and missed potential. Don't let it happen.

Anyway, to finish up my personal story - I've fairly completely lost all my shyness, though there are still times where I can't think of anything to say and am entirely out of my element at a social gathering. I'm just now realizing that I'm almost certainly a massive introvert, but as has been said already here, introversion isn't the same thing as shyness. Those who are shy will very likely tend towards introversion and those who are introverted may quite likely become shy as a lack of exposure to social situations, but learning how to cope with social situations and not be afraid is simply a result of experience, practice, and exposure. Do it enough and you'll realize there's nothing to be afraid of.

As a result of my first forays with girls in sophomore year, I realized I could change almost anything about myself that up to that point I had assumed were inherent failings in my being - I started taking the hardest classes in school, joined cross country (had never been athletic before), hell, even joined Speech and Debate Team and started my own microfinance organization...went on to fairly unequivocally become the highest achiever in my school, first person in its history to attend Harvard, now on leave to build a startup, traveled to all 7 continents last year largely on my own, etc. etc. No longer suicidal at all. Needless to say, my life was entirely transformed by that one simple decision I made in the summer before sophomore year of high school - to be fed up with the subpar person I was being, to refuse to accept my shyness, and to do something about it. Small changes can take you a far way.

Tangential, but pertinent in attitude: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qX9FSZJu448)

Best of luck!</comment>


New MacBooks Said to Launch in 2017 with Price Cuts and Up to 32GB of RAM - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/31/macbooks-2017-price-cuts-32gb-ram/ <comment><USER2> _" Finally, Kuo expects refreshed MacBooks Pros to be launched in the second half of 2017 with support for 32GB of RAM. However, Kuo says this is dependent on whether Intel launches Cannonlake processors on time."_

Wonder how this will affect sales now. It's likely going to be a year until the new machines ship. What percentage of people will wait?

</comment><comment><USER3> Bad title on the article, there's no credible source to say "said". "Conjectured" would be appropriate. Or maybe "rumored"…</comment>


Some radical thoughts about Sci-Hub - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2016/03/03/some-radical-thoughts-about-scihub/ <comment><USER3> I was recently playing the 1995 space exploration game Ascendancy. One of the structures that you can build on a planet is an internet. The effect of building this on a planet was to double a planet's total research output. That's how the internet was viewed in 1995 by starry-eyed game developers.

I wish we returned to that 1995-era optimism of what the internet was about. An internet should have made traditional journals obsolete. It shouldn't be taking this long.

<comment><USER4>
      > An internet should have made traditional journals
      > obsolete. It shouldn't be taking this long.

The futurists failed to see the negative value points of advertising, and how it drags everything down into a pit where "you won't believe what happens next."

<comment><USER5> For every starry-eyed and future creating technologist, who really does see the best-case scenario for what current and near-future technologies can accomplish, they need to always be shadowed by a team of altruistic business/PR/advertising-savvy advocates who can remind them how the worst among us are going to screw it all up so that our hero-geniuses can bake safeguards into the systems they create from the onset.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Awesome, TIL: the U.S. ignored international copyrights in the 19th century. I don't think most Americans know that either.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. And this quote is priceless:

> As one Senator said in voting against the [1888] bill [to recognize foreign > copyrights]: "An international copyright is simply a monopoly … what is > known as protection, or taxing the people to make a few persons rich … It > seems to me that there can be no excuse for carrying this restriction upon > human knowledge."

It was a gradual process. Also, for context, it wasn't until the mid-late 1800s that private corporations were legitimized in the US. Corporate charters needed to specify what public interest they'd serve. Canal and railroad corporations were the first. And it wasn't that long before railroad corporations has bought the government. So it goes.

<comment><USER8> Ecomist Ha-Joon Chang (Cambridge University) makes this point quite eloquently in several of his books, notably _Bad Samatarians_ , which rather convincingly guts free-trade rhetoric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I know this has been talked to death, but there's an aspect I haven't seen addressed.

This piece says "and in disregard of the rules imposed on distribution by the copyright holders." Others say something similar.

How many of those articles in SciHub are not covered by copyright? For example, if the author is a US government employee, then there is no copyright. I've seen many articles with a footnote that says it isn't covered by copyright because of that, though I can't tell if it's even 1%.

There are also articles which are just the schedule for an upcoming meeting. (This is especially true in the older literature.) These aren't covered under copyright because there is no creative input.

I don't think it's enough to be really significant, but it does make me wonder what the reaction would be to a no-copyright-applies version of Sci-Hub.

It would still be in "disregard of the rules imposed on distribution by the" distributor, but at least it would help tease out which complaints are due to copyright infringement and which are due to breaking a distribution agreement.

<comment><USER10> > For example, if the author is a US government employee, then there is no > copyright.

Mind-twistingly, it's not covered by copyright _in the U.S._, but probably is in other countries.

<comment><USER9> If that were the case, then the publishing companies are violating copyright law as there is no copyright transfer agreement from the author or employer.

<comment><USER10> I don't really know what you mean.

But here's the wikipedia article:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government)

Which says:

"This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries."

With a couple cites. You can google more about it too. It is the U.S. government's position that they do hold copyright to such works in other countries, and I believe they have generally succesfully enforced their copyright in other country's courts. (I don't know if they have ever failed in other country's courts, on the grounds that U.S. law says the U.S. goverment can't hold copyright? I'm not sure what bearing such a U.S. law would have in another country's courts, which is the whole idea).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's crazy how expensive science journals are. Philosophy journals are much more reasonable, typically 35-50 dollars a year for an individual subscription. That gives you some idea of what it actually costs to produce a journal.

Unrelated point: with 50 million articles, I wonder if Sci-Hub is looking into ipfs. That would solve the danger of getting knocked off-line by legal action.

<comment><USER12> Philosophers still don't understand that value of of information is not the total sum for the articles available but the relevant one?

Funnily enough the keywords are making search way more efficient than google learning algorithms.

Anyone could now write a good search engine for this problem now that I think of it with some xhi². With a good tokenizer we could even use scholarship keywords to tag the rest of the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Scientific publishing is different from other things.

If it is an ordinary book or a movie or something, the creator(s) of the creative work gets paid for it through royalties.

Scientists, for the most part, receive public money to do research, and then Elsevier expects to get paid again for what we already paid for. It seems to me that if my taxes go to support research I should be able to read it, and if it is the developing or developed world it doesn't matter.

</comment><comment><USER14> If we, as the human race, want to avoid upcoming desasters, not that i am summoning them, neither predicting those, we have an obligation to make research and its gains available to all mankind.

Financial burdens are a stone in our all way, be it in the taxpayer who funds R&D, or be it the institutions that want to profit from it.

There cannot be a "middle ground", we all have to stand back for the greater benefits of free flowing knowledge.

That is a principle of the "web" itself, profit from open data, but also keep personal data protected. Easy as that.

There will be no win in restricting access to scientific research in the end, but to keep corporate interest and greed alive. I fear that future.

Edit: Institutions.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. The next step to opening up research is to make it easier. That's what we are about publicly to launch over at [http://www.myire.com](http://www.myire.com) in the coming months. We are battle testing it with phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials in enterprise before the launch. After the launch it'll be far easier for any researcher to do their job and to publish their work.

If you work in research and want a peak into the future email lane (at) myire dot com and I'd be happy to demo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> People keep on saying that academic journals provide no value, since all of the work is being done by the scientists anyway. I have another take on this. I think that they're providing a (virtual) meeting place for scientists. Just like banks, whose job is to provide a meeting place for people who want to stash away their money in a deposit and other people who need to buy a new house. From this point of view, the sooner journals stop extorting readers for reading the articles, the better. The readers are innocent bystanders in this game, and in any case free distribution of research is in the best interest of the players (the scientists).

<comment><USER17> Your metaphor is a bit confusing. Do you mean that both services depend on the network effect to provide value? The more scientists contribute and take from a piece of work, the better it becomes, and the more people deposit and borrow from one bank the more it can provide for new customers. The comparison might be a stretch but I can see where you were going with it.

<comment><USER16> If I saved some money, I'd rather stash it in a trustworthy institution like Bank of America (bear with me for a moment) than search for someone to lend it to on my own. Similarly, if I wrote a research article, I will submit my article to Nature or Science, who will find an esteemed scientist to referee my paper and give it their stamp of approval. I could try to find such a scientist directly and ask them to write an endorsement letter for my research, but Nature or Science are much more likely to be successful at this due to their stellar reputation.

<comment><USER18> When you are at the cutting edge of your field (able to publish in Nature or Science), you know exactly who the peer reviewers are (there is usually only 5 to 10 teams in the world who are experts in your area). So you know it's one of 20 to 60 people (roughly).

That part is actually very easy. The job the journal does is to randomly and anonymously assign the reviewer (sometimes not entirely randomly, giving it to your critics). But all that could be automated (taking into account top publishers in the field, newcomers to the field, conference publications, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It still leaves the discussion of _"what motivates people in a non-profit economy?"_. In the science community - probably more than anywhere else - <USER2> is peer recognition (which can eventually be turned into money in the form of higher research budgets / government grants / salaries).

As it's perfectly established to compete for peer recognition online (Hackernews frontpage, Facebook likes, Retweets...) I think Sci-Hub can do wonders here. Why not introduce "Paper of the day", "Most read article in Neuroscience this month", "most discussed research"?

<comment><USER20> Your apparent inability to understand how someone could be motivated by anything other than profit and fame I find more than a little disturbing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why are these discussions always so short sighted?

People seem to continually tunnel in on tiny aspects of the world.

It doesn't matter whether my car has a carburettor or not. What matters is that the wheels turn and I get where I need to go.

What matters, is that people who produce research, useful research, are permitted to eat, to raise families, to learn, to live a generally reasonable life.

How we do that is the interesting question. Not these myopic arguments about IP and copyright.

</comment><comment><USER22> I suggest to anyone interested in this subject to read the book "Piracy" by Adian Johns, [http://www.adrianjohns.com/piracy/](http://www.adrianjohns.com/piracy/)</comment>


Microsoft In Talks To Buy Shoutcast And Winamp From AOL - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/21/source-microsoft-in-talks-to-buy-shoutcast-and-winamp-from-aol/ <comment><USER4> Starting a Winamp fund. 100k to join. If >9 other people join me we will make AOL an offer. Contact in profile.

<comment><USER5> I get it's a piece of history, but how do you monetize this? Convert it to paid software? Streaming service subscription?

<comment><USER6> Winamp has a 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 installs android app, that opens up a lot of possibilities.

<comment><USER7> What kind of add revenue can you get from that user base?

<comment><USER6> No idea but I don't think display ads would be that great since it's mostly passive software. I would think there are better ways to monetize it - <USER2> enhancements, amazon/itunes referrals, cloud backup/streaming your library, even just selling it for a buck ... 'best' trumps 'free' a lot of the time on mobile.

<comment><USER8> I swear I was reading a different HN thread on this topic yesterday or even today, and the very idea of paying for a music service was considered extremely offensive.

<comment><USER9> I pay for rdio and SubSonic. Granted my subsonic license is grandfathered in from before the developer changed to a subscription model, but the point remains.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Did a monkey write this?

"picked up through its 1999, $80 million acquisition of Nullsoft in 1999. But today Techcrunch has learned that AOL is talks with Microsoft"

<comment><USER11> not time 4 profred, in internets FIRST post winner!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure if the posters on this thread are serious (w.r.t fundraising/designing/contributing for Winamp), but here's is my thought:

I would venture that doing this exact same thing for Foobar2k is going to have a higher possibility of success than for Winamp. Secondly, while Winamp has mostly been in maintenance, Foobar is now considered an audiophile grade player (bitperfect?) (e.g. [1]) . There's also this team that has built a stripped down version of Windows 8 with Foobar for audiophiles ([2]) There is usually a post every now and then on Hydrogenaudio forums, asking if Foobar2k can be opensource/ported to linux, and the answer is the same - the authors have no plan to make it so, because in all probability they are waiting for a financial outcome of all this work.

Be warned that the authors can come off a bit... prickly. But I suspect that is the side effect of handling a huge freeloading community for many years.

Disclaimer - I have moved off PC audio for a while now. I prefer listening to my audio on the phone streaming from my laptop over Plex (however, I got interested in Foobar again while trying to build a stripped down Windows 8 using AudiophileOptimizer[2])

[1] [http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-part-ii- bi...](http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-part-ii-bit- perfect.html) [2] [http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/iso-usb- key-i...](http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/iso-usb-key- installer-preconfigured-and-stripped-down-audiophile-version-windows-8-pro- including-jriver-and-foobar-14390/)

<comment><USER13> I agree that the posters might be more successful in getting the source code from Foobar than Winamp, but I don't think it's a better move.

The post regarding Winamp closing has 892 points and 520 comments now, which I think it's the largest number of comments I've seen in a HN history - <USER3> it's probably not the overall largest, it's a clear sign that the Winamp brand is still incredibly valuable.

Compare that to Foobar2k. In that thread it was consistently rated as the best alternative, and yet how do the users see it? "Closed source, confusing at best, current authors come off a bit prickly".

Winamp is not just a media player - I'd argue that by now it's closer to an ideal. Getting the rights for _that_ brand sounds to me like the best idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was really hoping they would just open source it.

<comment><USER15> Would love if this happened, but I wasn't hoping for it. It's a shame, though.

<comment><USER16> It's more to it than simply open source it. I work for AOL, and know some folks who worked on Winamp on a personal level. Winamp has proprietory licenses for some of its codecs for every install AOL pays licensing fees which it does recoup via other services (such as search agreements with GOOG or Shoutcast major partners). If it were to AOL to open source it, it need to strip our those pieces, translating into few months of work on the clock.

<comment><USER4> Can you contact me? Info in profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why is MS doing this? They should just leave WA alone.

IMO, every passing day SME-sized consumer software companies are going to find it harder to survive. I wish there was a consumer market for well written compact software that just does its job well, doesnt mine your data, doesnt try to push some shitty subscription model or advertisement crap onto users.

<comment><USER18> Given the choice between WinAmp disappearing and Microsoft adopting it, what would you pick?

In the first case, your only solution is to stick with one of the older versions that are offered for download on some OldVersions page (since AOL is apparently removing their download links). In the latter, you still have that solution, but now there's also the possibility of Microsoft keeping it available, or screwing up newer versions.

All I can see is hope.

<comment><USER19> Winamp disappearing by far. I haven't used it since my Windows days but it should die with dignity rather than turn into another Skype.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow, if they replace Windows Media Player with it, and embrace shoutcast, that would be great. But probably not going to happen, so I wonder what they're thinking.

<comment><USER21> They're probably thinking "We can co-opt the userbase and make media-sharing lucrative".

What'll most likely happen is that they'll buy it and let it hang on in its current state like some half-wounded animal, kind of like Skype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> That would be a win, sort of. If they could map WMP more like WinAmp at least

<comment><USER23> You really think that would ever have a chance to happen?

<comment><USER22> Well I thought the chance was none zero when WinAmp was going to expire directly. I upgraded it to 'slim' in the event Microsoft actually buys it from AOL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I fear that these technologies will suffer the same fate as Caligari TrueSpace: the IP is purchased, thrown into a bin somewhere on campus, and abandoned.

<comment><USER25> Hadn't heard of Caligari TrueSpace before now.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSpace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSpace)

Winamp probably has a huge userbase compared to Caligari though.

<comment><USER24> Yes, I'm sure it did (does). TrueSpace was priced around $300, which tended to put a damper on adoption.

As a 3d modeling and animation package, it served as a poor man's Lightwave 3D or Maya. The interface would probably give some designers fits. Still, it was a useful and nimble application and one of my first experiences with CGI. If I could get it to reliably run on an XP SP3 box or in a VM, I'd probably still be playing with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Have to wonder if this is one of those situations where Microsoft wants to buy it to figure out later what to do with it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Better to die a hero than live to see yourself become the villain.

<comment><USER28> No. This is now wrong. Microsoft is reformed.

<comment><USER27> [http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/Scroogle...](http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/Scroogled/categoryID.67575900)

<comment><USER29> Ya know, I'm over the whole trendy hating on MS, I was ready to argue with you.... but that link crushed me. I just hope they don't mess with Shoutcast too much; I _love_ their 70's & 80's stream.

<comment><USER30> I'm actually a fan of it. Its about time Microsoft stopped quietly accepting every slur against them and dish some out. Examples would be the famous Apple Ad's, the negative press about Vista etc...

I know that's a very high school view but it does make things more interesting.

<comment><USER31> what slurs did Google levy against Bing?

<comment><USER30> The Yahoo attempted takeover springs to mind (mentioned already), and the accusations of copying search results,

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/microsofts-bing- us...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google- search.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I feel like Winamp should be open sourced. There's enough enthusiasm here to guarantee a fairly healthy dev community. How does it compare with the default KDE/gnome players _? Would it add anything of value to what is already out there?

_ (never used them since my linux boxen are all either networking or imaging focused, not desktop)

<comment><USER33> Decent options. Amarok, Rhythmbox, Clementine. I'm happy with Clementine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think it's a great opportunity. Shoutcast has a greater installed base than Icecast. But more importantly a really passionate user base.

However there is broken feature by design on _ALL_ those streaming services: they stop for whatever reason.

As a listener it's a terrible experience. It's alaways when you start listening something you really like that it stops.

And you could think it stops because I try to listen on the mobile, so that's normal. NO it stops even at home on your desktop. When you start listening a stream, you're 100% of one thing : it will stop but NOT when you decide to stop it.

But it wouldn't be that hard to build a system that actually use a better caching system and pretend to be live instead of trying to stream a live content.

Listeners already grasped the idea of listening events which are not "live" thanks to podcasts.

In fact what is streamed nowadays is mainly pre-recorded songs/stories. So the notion of "live" is absolutely _not_ necessary unless you're broadcasting sports or once-in-a-lifetime events. And then TV / FM does a much better job.

That said, Shoutcast services are mainly non-live type of streams anyways.

So there is a great opportunity to buy the installed base of Shoutcast creators and listeners and Winamp userbase (pro-anti itunes).

The main idea is you change the sofwtare to make it work even when there is no internet connection.

A better caching system needs to be made on the device itself and on the server side.

In terms of monetization, it's easy: audio adverts have already proved financial success.

It does work only because of their repetition AND their relation with the audience.

The best example of audio adverts are the songs with high rotation counts: they are the adverts of the big labels.

Here you got a system of dedicated listeners that you can target repetitively, endlessly, fairly (you don't have to stream blocks of minutes of adverts)

Audio ads on webcast radio start to catch up with Radionomy systems by example.

AOL proved they couldn't leverage that community. I don't think Microsoft will do any better job as their main focus will be "integrate". A strategy that rarely works.

Of course "a non-stop stream even without internet connection" can happen without buying Shoutcast & Winamp, but what a fantastic opportunity and shortcut for those who can.

<comment><USER35> Oh man, Shoutcast brings me fond memories. There used to be some very good (albeit illegal) show providers like EveryShowSucks (ESS). The nice thing about the shoutcast model, is that you could just tune into a channel and consume whatever was available (knowing it was going to be good).

It is something that is not available in the Netflix-es, and Hulus of the world (and something that Cable still has).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if they're going to get the rights to Gnutella and W.A.S.T.E. in the deal too.

<comment><USER37> Not much rights to use, both projects have been living in the wild for a decade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Am I the only one that noticed the article that AOL declined to comment on is by a company they own?... I find that rather humorous. AOL owns TechCrunch according to TechCrunch themselves.

</comment><comment><USER39> I've got to say, never saw that coming. Good for the WinAmp team - better than having to just shut down the business.

</comment><comment><USER40> Remember all that fun we were having yesterday?

</comment><comment><USER41> Step 1. Insert backdoor</comment>


David Graeber Left Us a Parting Gift – His Thoughts on Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid" - <AUTHOR> https://truthout.org/articles/david-graeber-left-us-a-parting-gift-his-thoughts-on-kropotkins-mutual-aid/ <comment><USER2> The problem is that we _understand_ why animals work together in "mutual aid" and unlike what Kropotkin thought, it doesn't really apply to human societies. It's not a general instinct of helpfulness, it's just kin selection -- that is animals help other animals related to them because genes that make animals do that get spread more than ones that don't. Graeber seems to have understood this at one level and even dismissively mentions "selfish genes" and Haldane's joke about dying for eight cousins, but he seems to have thought that this is some sort of reactionary political belief rather than just actual science.

<comment><USER3> It's not actual science though. The "selfish gene" explanation is just wrong. There are plenty of traits that have nothing to do with spreading genes. Some traits simply have no measurable impact on gene selection and therefore just exist and can pass along without cost.

By putting every trait through the "it must help gene selection somehow" is simply wrong and isn't scientific.

Also, why doesn't mutual aid apply to human societies? I haven't seen any evidence why it wouldn't considering the fact that its so pervasive. I literally see it everyday.

<comment><USER2> No. There are certainly _mutations_ that have no measurable impact on fitness (as per Kimura's neutral theory), but the very reason they don't affect fitness is because they don't have any impact on traits. The problem with imagining a trait that has no selective impact is that there is no way it could have come into existence in the first place. Even the simplest trait would require many mutations to evolve, and without the power of selection driving it, that would be just statistically impossible.

In terms of mutual aid not applying to human societies I mean Kropotkin's idea of it as something he thought was a natural instinct of helpfulness. Obviously humans can and should help each other, but this has nothing to do with our instincts. Humans share the genetic programming of other animals, but because of our greater reasoning powers we can go beyond our instincts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I read this in David Graeber's voice. Beautiful read.</comment>