A Central Asian version of the Middle East's hyper-saline Dead Sea - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20190207-asias-dead-lake-where-boats-cant-float <comment><USER2> As others have noted, the issue isn't that boats can't float — it's that they float too much and can become unstable.

The counter-intuitive title that makes this such juicy clickbait should be changed to "a lake so salty that some boats capsize". Much less interesting- sounding, and rightly so.

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't a pontoon boat be able to float on top of the water? I mean, not perfectly, but it should work.

<comment><USER4> Sure, any sort of catamaran would work fine.

<comment><USER5> Or raft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Additionally, Karakul is so salty, it's almost impossible to navigate a boat on it without capsizing due to the vessel riding so far out of the water.

If people really wanted to use boats on the lake this would be a non-issue. Sure a deep V hull might not be very stable but any low and wide flat bottomed boat would be fine. Floating "on top" of the water so to speak is their purpose. Humanity has been building boats that float high in the water (how else do you deliver cargo where there isn't a dock) for thousands of years.[1] We've gotten good enough at it that we can do it even in sub-ideal conditions.[2]

The title is making much to do about nothing.

[1] [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J_kPe7lgMkY/hqdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J_kPe7lgMkY/hqdefault.jpg) (yes I know this isn't a the best example)

[2][https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/...](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/b5/1b5e5772-0b76-5f1d-8e8a-ac12d0e05c8f/59374c19a7a05.image.jpg?resize=400%2C294)

<comment><USER7> Your images indicate a confusion of deep-v vs displacement hulls; whereas what the intention is a displacement vs planing hull.

Merchant vessels, and historic sailboats (pictured), even the WWII troop carriers were _displacement_ hulls. Traditional navy sail ships carried additional stones as ballast to create stability. Mono-hull sail boats use a deep weighted keel to increase stability. On a displacement hull, the deep-vee design increases stability when compared to a flat bottomed boat, and has more space for ballast (at a low center of gravity)

Planing Hulls are more commonly used for recreation or speed, and are often those those that have a "deep-v" bow. Planing hulls are designed to lift mostly out of the water, while the deep-vee is across the beam and facilitates cutting through rough water.

A deep-v displacement hull is great for crossing rough oceans, or keeping a boat stable as cannons are firing, but not a great choice for fuel efficiency or landing on beaches as a flat bottomed displacement boat.

A planing hull is great when you have a modern gasoline engine and plan to be going > 15mph. A deep-vee allows that to come down through a wave, cut through the wave and lift back up. [Salinity would have very little effect on the stability of a planing hull as its stability is mostly provided by speed, though, launching or sitting would be unstable with it's half "flat" hull]

About deadrise [https://www.tropicalboating.com/2010/04/deep-v-shallow-v- or-...](https://www.tropicalboating.com/2010/04/deep-v-shallow-v-or-variable- deadrise-hull)

The Vasa (Swedish Ship) is a great example of poor initial stability, center of gravity understanding, and how a deeper keel (with more stones) OR removing higher mounted cannons in briney water could have changed things. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)#Causes_of_sinking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_\(ship\)#Causes_of_sinking)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> According to this paper [1], the salinity is 7.5-10 g/L, which is one quarter to one third of ocean salinity. Wikipedia [2] also states the lake is "brackish" \-- meaning less salty than seawater but more salty than freshwaster -- but hardly a problem for boats. I guess the article is mistaken?

The Dead Sea [3], meanwhile, has order 340 g/L of salt, roughly 10x ocean salinity.

[1] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018210000672)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakul_(Tajikistan)#Lake_desc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakul_\(Tajikistan\)#Lake_description)

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

</comment><comment> m-i-l Article mentions the Roof of the World Regatta. It provides a F--ebook link which I'm not clicking on, but an internet search returns e.g. [https://caravanistan.com/trip-reports/roof-world- regatta/](https://caravanistan.com/trip-reports/roof-world-regatta/) . Short summary - you can kite surf, and use an inflatable raft, at least, assuming you can get there with your equipment.

<comment><USER9> >F--ebook

I'm no fan of Facebook, but don't you think this is a little childish?

<comment><USER10> [https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/](https://www.penny- arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "stone loach, a freshwater fish that can live on sandy-bottom lakes"

So what's the technical difference between fresh and salt water fish if freshwater fish can happily live in very salty water?

Edit: Digging just raises further questions. The Stone Loach is apparently European, and no mention of tolerating salt water is mentioned [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_loach](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_loach)

<comment><USER12> All I can say is that Loaches hate salt in water (as many other scaleless related fishes). Maybe is another species.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just came here since I saw my name mentioned in the thread. Dave Stamboulis, whoever he is, should be banned from media.

Karakul is not incredibly salty (there are other very salty lakes in Central Asia, though).

It was not christened Lake Victoria by the British (that's Lake Zorkul). I corrected it on Wikipedia but it's still in the (really bad) Bradt Guide to Tajikistan.

The lake is not home to the ROTW regatta: last time it was held was in 2018 and there are no plans of it returning.

Karakul was never "an inhabited Central Asian crossroads."

"...its recent status as part of the Tajik National Park ensures that it will be on the intrepid travel list of many for years to come." Not sure what that even means.

Finally, Karakul does not look like a Greek island. At all!

</comment><comment><USER14> Isn't it so salty that they float too MUCH?

<comment><USER15> A certain amount of the boat has to sink in order to stay level. If the bottom of the boat doesn't sink, it's balancing on a knife's edge - and topples over.

<comment><USER16> Right; I suspect a raft or any other flat bottomed boat would be fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If there's no other marine life that fish species would have nothing eat. Am I right?

</comment><comment><USER18> " _Additionally, Karakul is so salty, it's almost impossible to navigate a boat on it without capsizing due to the vessel riding so far out of the water._ "

Tl:dr: additional salt makes them float too well.

<comment><USER19> It increases the density of the water. On the plus side if you capsize it's much easier to keep your head above water.

<comment> shaki-dora But then again, one or two large gulps of water may kill you.

<comment><USER20> That's if you land face first into the water. If you land any other way, your face will probably stay dry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So add lots of ballast?

</comment><comment><USER22> Just use a flatboat.

<comment><USER23> Or a catamaran

<comment><USER24> You think those puppies would just fly if their nearly entirely out of the water and just skimming along.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Karakul means "Black Lake" in most of the local languages, except ironically, Tajik, although it is located in Tajikistan.

</comment><comment><USER26> The Pamirs are so beautiful. Definitely near the top of my list of places to go once that region calms down.

<comment><USER27> The region is fine. Thousands of people car / motorcycle / bicycle / walk through all the stans every year without issue. It is more and more accessible for tourists with infrastructure ..

Don't believe everything you read on a government "do not travel" list. Heck, you can even pop across the tadjik border and stay in Afghanistan safely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's strange that despite "boat" being in the title, it's only mentioned once in the article.

tl;dr for people wondering why:

>Karakul is so salty, it's almost impossible to navigate a boat on it without capsizing due to the vessel riding so far out of the water.

<comment><USER29> I think the title is also misleading, because the boats float, just too well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sounds like a cool place to stand up paddle-board.</comment>


AngularJS 1.4x and ES6 application boilerplate /w testing practices using Webpack - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ziyasal/ng-espack-boilerplate <comment><USER2> I'm not the hippest with the newest front-end libraries, but doesn't Webpack replace Bower? And also Gulp?</comment>


Ask HN: What topics are a must have for a JR server side Java dev? - <AUTHOR> I've trying to leave IT Support to move into development and I've been teaching myself front end JS for a few months. However, my employer always seems to have open positions for server-side Java and got me thinking that I should probably learn something related to what I have available instead.<p>I've started the Hyperskill Java course, but I don't want to be forever stuck in tutorials as I've done in the past. I honestly don't know what are some real-life scenarios of Java development for a server so I don't know what to look into after learning the syntax of Java. What are some valuable resources and must-know topics to be a good candidate for a JR position? <comment><USER2> Depend on where you work. Most places I've worked however JPA was part of it.

Spring used to be big but today JavaEE is probably better (I've used both.)

I learned a lot from Adam Bien, he is both entertaining and he keeps it down to earth, useful and real.

Three more things:

1\. Invariably someone will come to trash Java. Don't care about them. Modern Java is decent.

2\. Learn an IDE. Again, someone will probably say you should learn without one and that is about as smart as saying a "good carpenter never uses power tools" i.e. batshit crazy.

Java is pretty much dependent on using tools. I can enjoy both NetBeans, Eclipse and IntelliJ. All three are better than anything you can get in any other language (except reSharper, but that is basically IntelliJ for C#)

3\. Learn Maven and/or Gradle. Learn to love it. I learned to love it after that time I spent three days hunting for libraries for an older (non Java) maintenance job. Coming back to a system that will happily download and setup everything is lovely.

edit: FWIW i wrote this lar year. It is kind of indirectly related : [https://erik.itland.no/questions-about-why-i-like- java](https://erik.itland.no/questions-about-why-i-like-java)

<comment><USER3> >Spring used to be big but today JavaEE is probably better Could you elaborate on that? I am seeing Spring (Boot) used everywhere, only JavaEE projects I came across were legacy N>8 years old.

<comment><USER2> I can see that is confusing.

Spring is probably the biggest.

My point was that I personally find JavaEE better.

Edit: Personally I'd also look into Quarkus etc if I were to set something up today, but I don't belive it to be relevant to the original question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can tell you the topics but I can't recommend any resources. You can acquire and read the source for all the following. Also, reading the JDK source for classes that you use all the time is very educational.

Spring (core, testing, web (classic, reactive), data, security) Hibernate: sucks but learn it. Basic app container: Tomcat setup. Building with Gradle and Maven

If you have your own toy SPA toy product, use it as a vehicle to apply coursework.

Modern Java is perfectly fine. Try to learn idiomatic 9 or 11, most employers will still be on 8 but know they need to upgrade eventually.

</comment><comment><USER5> For devs transitioning into modern java development, I always suggest:

[https://spring.io/guides/gs/rest-service/](https://spring.io/guides/gs/rest- service/)

Lots of new java stuff (for example newer springboot tools and projects) and old stuff (custom built applications that are no longer being updated and dynamic web applications that uses older building tools or older frameworks no longer supported like struts) are used at companies simultaneusly, so if you learn the new stuff, which is probably easier and more rewarding because its faster to build applications with, keep in mind you will eventually need to learn about the "magic under the hood" so dont hesitate to learn and read how things work.

If you want to learn about legacy dynamic web app or legacy spring (not springboot just spring, as they are different), google a tutorial for that and you will learn more about how annoying java web development used to be (and still is at most fortune 500 companies unable to upgrade to newer infrastructure, people that complain about java probably worked with one of these old applications),

If u are unfamiliar with the tools required to run these applications (like maven or gradle, or installing the java sdk and setting it up, getting your IDE working), you will learn about setting up a java dev environennt, as it can be a very frustrating, bug filled experience, dont get frustrated just google the error messages you will learn a lot,

Real life java application scenarios/projects that you can build for your portfolio:

-a SQL DB (google: how to connect java springboot to mysql database tutorial) connected to a Java API(google: springboot rest api tutorial) that talks to a JS front end

-a java powered calculator, chess, or hangman application to be run in terminal/console

-A java api that can send out json responses of true or false based on question and answers

The main reasons companies use java is because they built java apps ten years ago, and its easier to hire java engineers who can maintain that code, rather than get the company's major apps on a new language that would be harder to hire to support for

Im sure most companies wouldnt use java if hiring/they didnt have active users wasnt an issue, but regardless of that, the java development industry is very healthy and people are optimistic about its career growth for devs

Also suggested:

-improve ability to be able to complete "easy" java leetcode questions so if they give you those you arent caught off gaurd</comment>


Fasty – A New CMS / App Builder Based on Openresty and ArangoDB - <AUTHOR> https://fasty.ovh <comment><USER2> I've played with ArangoDB[1] last year, when I was doing a self-learning sprint. While I never reached any level of proficiency in it, I did enjoy using it, and I'm still intrigued by the idea of a combined "graph, document, and key/value [data models] in a single core with the same query language"

I put my 'boilerplate experiment' code up on GitHub[2] after my self-learning sprint petered out, mainly in the hope that one day someone will come along and point out some of the more obvious errors and bad assumptions I made when building the boilerplate - I learn best from my errors!

[1] [https://www.arangodb.com/](https://www.arangodb.com/) [2] [https://github.com/KaliedaRik/boilerplate- experiment](https://github.com/KaliedaRik/boilerplate-experiment)

</comment><comment><USER3> Note to anyone curious: the gTLD does not mean this is related to OVH, the domain is open to all OVH customers. [https://www.ovh.co.uk/domains/dotovh.xml](https://www.ovh.co.uk/domains/dotovh.xml) I didn't know, I looked it up, maybe it's interesting to others as well.

<comment><USER4> Yes, you can get a free one if you sign up to any OVH service, which includes their cheapest webmail. I needed an email on OVH for spam testing purposes and for peanuts I have one on my own .ovh domain which is kinda neat.

<comment><USER3> That is superb handy, I didn't know that.

<comment><AUTHOR> you can take a small VM and test my CMS as well ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Would like to see an example of the API Builder generated Foxx service. I currently use Gridsome and Fasty looks like the perfect replacement the Netlify CMS that I currently use.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://fasty.ovh/en/show/post/slug/7787706-using-the-api- bu...](https://fasty.ovh/en/show/post/slug/7787706-using-the-api-builder) here a little documentation

</comment></comment><comment> G-Bob the quickest and best CMS ever.</comment>


As Kubernetes grows, a startup ecosystem develops in its wake - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/07/as-kubernetes-grows-a-startup-ecosystem-develops-in-its-wake/ <comment><USER2> Kubernetes is one of those rare cases where the industry is rallying around a technologically sound platform that emerged from the trenches, and not something that was designed to create jobs for consultants. It's great. Right now, there's a bunch of fairly traditional players such as Red Hat, but none of them are in a position to mess it up.

What I'm waiting for, though, is for a big player to do a modern, clean "Kubernetes first" cloud offering. We're currently on Google Kubernetes Engine, and I'm disappointed in the lack of integration throughout Cloud Platform. GCP is great in many areas, but the Kubernetes offering is clearly an afterthought. As an example, if you create an ingress, this creates a bunch of load balancer objects (forwarding rules, URL maps, backends). But these are all given obscure names (k8s-um-production-zippediboop-f8da5e6c92f38300), and none of the Kubernetes labels transfer over. Same with disks; GCE disks don't even have labels, so they put a bunch of JSON in the "description", which of course cannot be filtered or queried. Similar things happen with VMs and other things; the "mapping" of Kubernetes to GCP concepts is basically either lossy or non-existent. Many other similar weaknesses exist: Cloud SQL (if you want to use Cloud SQL, you have to manually run the Cloud SQL Proxy as a sidecar), GCP service accounts (different from Kubernetes service accounts!), etc. GKE is solid, but everything seems like it's been put together without any over- arching design; GKE is just another thing buried in a somewhat ramshackle jungle of different services.

There's an opportunity for a vendor to come in and offer a platform where you _start_ with Kubernetes. In particular, this means that the platform should be manageable _from_ Kubernetes, through the use of CRDs and pluggable controllers. For example, I should be able to define a persistent disk using a Kubernetes manifest, instead of having to go through some web UI or CLI ("gcloud compute disk create" or whatever).

That said, it's hard to compete with GCP at this point. Whoever wants to compete in this space have to compete not just with GKE, but with the technical awesomeness of GCP.

<comment><USER3> Many of the k8s founders have left google. Google doesn't use it internally. I'd actually start looking _away from_ gcp at this point for k8s, given google's history of dropping stuff that they're bored with.

<comment><USER4> Many of the founders (e.g. Brendan Burns) are still working _on_ Kubernetes, so I don't see how that's relevant. Google is heavily invested in Kubernetes, and so is a bunch of other companies.

According to googlers here on HN, Google does use Kubernetes internally via GCP/GKE. But clearly those apps are in the minority, given Google's huge investment in Borg.

<comment><USER3> I thought Brendan Burns went to Microsoft and was working on something unrelated now?

<comment><USER4> Last I checked, he's working on Azure's Kubernetes solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I didn't realize all the pieces of the cloud stack that CNCF was working on and how each piece gives you more flexibility to move between cloud providers. Kubernetes and rkt replace servers and orchestration of course but you also have Open Policy Agent and Spire to replace IAM, Envoy and Jaeger replace X-ray, VPC, Security Groups, Rook replaces S3, etc.

It's kind of interesting because Google and Microsoft have opened a new front against Amazon to counter their strategy of locking you in with services. If software from CNCF is good enough to be used in place of these services on each cloud provider then you can nullify AWS's advantage there and Google can lure you in with ML and Microsoft with their enterprise experience.

But I'm not sure these projects can make progress faster than AWS can release and update their fantastic array of services. Kubernetes being the obvious exception (when is EKS GA?!?!)

</comment><comment><USER6> Really glad to see K8 getting this level of investment. Even if it will take a month to explore all the links in the CNCF landscape ;)

Just want to remind anyone who hasn't tried K8. You can run MiniKube locally right on your laptop to get a taste of its power (and complexity):

[https://kubernetes.io/docs/getting-started- guides/minikube/](https://kubernetes.io/docs/getting-started-guides/minikube/)

For example, a 3-node Redis Enterprise cluster, all run locally:

[https://redislabs.com/blog/local-kubernetes-development- usin...](https://redislabs.com/blog/local-kubernetes-development-using- minikube-redis-enterprise/)

Currently using GCloud and Stackdriver monitoring, but a few of the tools I am excited about include:

Prometheus / Granafa / KSonnet

KubeFlow ML

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6iMznIYwM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6iMznIYwM8)

Istio, for programmatic routing

[https://istio.io/](https://istio.io/)

And, Agones, for game hosting

[https://agones.dev/](https://agones.dev/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Kubernetes is cool and all, but there needs to be a lot of simplification for it to be "nice to use". Essentially the problem is that it's the "opposite" of Golang - the number of ways to do the same thing is massive leading to huge numbers of headaches in trying to get things done.

Recently, I spun up a simple pod-to-pod communication example but I found it pretty difficult. If you look up cluster networking in Kubernetes ([https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster- administration/n...](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster- administration/networking/#how-to-achieve-this)) you'll find a whole fire hose of different options from ingress to calico to fabric and on and on.

This was what it took for me to try and rubber ducky my way to getting networking to work on Kubernetes, and in the end I had to get help from a friend at work ([https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50195896/how-do-i-get- on...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50195896/how-do-i-get-one-pod-to- network-to-another-pod-in-kubernetes-simple)). It may be better than what came before, but it's not great.

<comment><USER8> Kops, kubeadm, rancher, kubespray all do what you want, but differently depending on your needs. What were you looking for?

<comment><USER7> __EXACTLY __

<comment><USER8> I don't see your point, but I should have clarified more:

Kops == AWS install Rancher == Easy small cluster on-prem or private cloud. GUI push-button setup kubeadm == CLI tool to set up a cluster manually with basic settings. Not very flexible, but can get a cluster working in minutes. kubespray == Ansible playbooks for setting up k8s cluster. The most powerful of the bunch, especially if you're familiar with ansible. This is the preferred way to run it in production I believe, along with customizations on top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Recently I have been playing with kubernetes through Rancher. I like how easy it is to install kubernetes through rancher, essentially I ran 2 commands: 1. on the machine that runs rancher and 2. on the first node in my cluster.

After a few days of playing I set up lets encrypt with load balancing, a running app (Rails). A remaining issue are persistent volumes and how truly persistent these are. I haven't found out yet which solution I should pick for this. Longhorn is a Rancher product, which is probably what I will read more about now, but I cannot be sure. There are so many concepts and terminology that you need to figure out. Having Rancher in between is not helping me get a hang of kubernetes itself more purely of course.

A while back I was playing with Docker Swarm and I must say that I like Docker Swarm better in the sense that it feels closer to the source and because it is built into Docker. I get a feeling however that Kubernetes is where the future is so learning more about Docker Swarm is probably less worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER3> There needs to be a digitalocean or heroku for containerization. Currently to start a k8s whatever you need to go through various manual rigamaroles and spend a lot of money, or go through the big lockin providers and spend a lot of money.

For those of us not backed by venture capital and not charging SV ex-googler rates to our clients, we need something to say "we'll host you on this git push containerization thing, it'll be cheap and easy, and we'll expand when the time comes, and that'll be cheap and easy too".

<comment><USER10> Check out [https://hasura.io](https://hasura.io) \- you get git push based deployment on a kubernetes cluster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm curious: how does containerization work for systems that utilize kernel- bypass? Is it even possible?

I did a (admittedly short) search for kubernetes and kernel bypass, and the only thing that seem remotely relevant was [0], however it didn't indicate whether they work together.

For background, I work for a Dark Pool Alternative Trading System, and we currently utilize kernel bypass for all of our networking using Solarflare NICs & openonload [1].

In the same vein, curious how containers work with CPU shielding and pinning threads to specific cores. Is it possible, and how do multiple containers on the same box interact in that regard. Do they need to be quasi-aware of each other so as to not pin a thread to the same core?

I'd greatly appreciate if anyone with experience with containers can answer these questions. I'm genuinely curious, but it's not worth researching further if there's no solution that can handle these strict requirements (e.g. it's a non-starter if containers increase latency).

[0] [https://thenewstack.io/life-post-container- world/](https://thenewstack.io/life-post-container-world/) [1] [http://openonload.org/](http://openonload.org/)

<comment><USER12> I've not had direct experience with it but do recall Intel covering their work with DPDK and Core pinning. I think they got something like 96% line rate on 25GbE. - [https://networkbuilders.intel.com/network- technologies/conta...](https://networkbuilders.intel.com/network- technologies/container-experience-kits)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is true for startups new and old.

At Datica (where I work), we started in 2014 with a bespoke container orchestration layer. This powered our HITRUST certified Platform. Think Heroku for regulated industries (like Healthcare). After years of hardship trying to keep up with the market we finally decided to go all in on K8s.

Kubernetes gives us the flexibility and community to focus on the compliance and security layer, while not having to build a Platform in house. Until now, no other open source solution had given us this type of flexibility. We're still working toward a GA release, but the speed at which we've been able to move has been incredible.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's always nice when there is some sort of consensus in the industry, however, there is one thing I worry about.

Now that there is a usable solution for complex orchestration, many newcomers will consider it the goto solution, regardless of scale. You need nginx and some python scripts? Kubernetes! You have 100 daily visitors? Kubernetes!

It's not really their fault, it's just a sad consequence of a convenient cloud solution.

<comment><USER15> Is that really a problem though? The entire history of software development is just building on one layer of abstraction over another. Is it sad that people these days don't write their own web server for new projects?

<comment><USER16> A lot of people are only adopting Kubernetes because they think they will benefit from Dockerized microservices when they don't even have most of the problems that solves. There's a lot of extra development and operations effort going into things for no real reason other than mistaking this technology for a silver bullet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone knows a very good CD for k8s?

I found that only bitbucket deployments is a good one in terms of simplicity of managing deployments (just like Heroku). Most vendors forces me to use their crappy CI solution for doing CD. Why they want me to migrate to your (very limited) build system? I can pay you for a fancy dashboard, but please, allow me to use whatever i need to build my software. There are many options on the market for CI and you just can't build them for everybody. But good CD is a way to go and easier to manage. Just give me a hook for registering for a new build (say docker image versions) and help me manage this stuff. I have tried Spinnakle, but it is too fragile for me - there are no simple way to install it (k8s even easier!) and UI is too bad for a small project.

Good CD is still missing in k8s ecosystem.

<comment><USER18> Closest I've got was Spinnaker. Support for K8s was very hit and miss (some concepts did not translate properly), but it is getting much better now.

<comment><USER19> I assume you mean the Spinnaker/K8s v1 provider abstracted away the K8s primatives. The new v2 provider allows you to deploy manifests and supports all K8s objects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think the real advantage of k8s is the ease to scale bare metal. This just isn't that important for the next 5 years or so. On the other hand, azure and gke make k8s easy enough if you are already using docker. Containers on the hand, the developer experience is still very mixed. OSX still doesn't have great container support and I honestly can only guess how well windows can handle my docker-compose workflow.

One great k8s tool I like is kompose. It allows our devs a very similar interface around secrets, networks, volumes, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> [https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/07/mesosphere-hauls- in-125-m-...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/07/mesosphere-hauls- in-125-m-series-d-investment/) seems apt and got very little attention in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012856](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012856), given the size of the round.

</comment><comment><USER22> Honestly, the K8S ecosystem is so wide now I'd love to see an up-to-date explainer piecing it all together. What folks need, what they don't, etc.

<comment><USER23> Try the cloud native trail map linked at the top of [https://l.cncf.io](https://l.cncf.io)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> How do you pronounce Kubernetes?

<comment><USER25> κυβερνητική (almost)

It's actually the same root word as cybernetics. Meaning governance. Hence tools named like Helm etc.

I believe it's the root of words like 'captain' too. Maybe even related to Caesar / Kaiser via Latin.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics#Etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics#Etymology)

<comment><USER8> It means navigator in Greek.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does anyone know if Apple uses Kubernetes in their cloud?

<comment><USER27> They use Nomad from Hashicorp in certain parts of their cloud.

<comment><USER28> Do you have more info on this?</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Track your time in a google calendar and share it - any feedback ? - <AUTHOR> https://klocky.io <comment><AUTHOR> All you need to try it is a google account. Please keep in mind that the app is not fully validated yet by google, so that google will tell you that it's unsafe regarding the calendar authorizations (we create and fill a google calendar for you with this app).

Feel free to use a "trash" gmail to try the app if you need to :)

</comment><comment><USER2> Perhaps add a demo video or more screenshots of the features. It's not really clear what your product does.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback. Actually, you can try the product (button "start" at the top right).</comment>


Show HN: My First React Project – Advanced Calculator - <AUTHOR> https://alexeynoir.github.io/react_advanced_calculator/ <comment><AUTHOR> Repo: [https://github.com/AlexeyNoir/react_advanced_calculator](https://github.com/AlexeyNoir/react_advanced_calculator)

</comment><comment><USER3> looks like a success it is encouraged to publish it under a license - <USER2> when you press "e" twice it shows something weird

<comment><AUTHOR> I fixed the bug with "e", you can check again if you want. Thank you again for telling me!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> nice work! if you press the Pi key twice it appends the numbers together

<comment><AUTHOR> I fixed the bug with Pi, you can check it again if you want. Thank you again for letting me know!)</comment></comment>


The Fake Townhouses Hiding Mystery Underground Portals - <AUTHOR> http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/ <comment><USER2> A better headline would be "Fake houses hiding tunnels and shafts whose existence is reasonably well documented, well known to those working in specific fields, and neither rare nor mysterious in anyway" but that would generate fewer clicks....

<comment><USER3> An even better headline would be "Serverless Architecture," but that's already in use today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even better are the manholes you can see near major satellite earth stations labeled "TELEPORT"

[http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hVfE2qcyzXU/TJvJ6mq58zI/AAAAAAAAAhA/uW...](http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hVfE2qcyzXU/TJvJ6mq58zI/AAAAAAAAAhA/uWHBE1MPp4A/s800/manhole- art-teleport.jpg)

Teleport, of course, is a common industry term for any facility that serves two way Tx/Rx satellite services... But ordinary people find it amusing to stand on them and take a photo.

</comment><comment><USER5> Here's one in a suburb in Vancouver close to where I used to live. It's for a railway tunnel that runs to a bridge leading to the north shore.

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-123.0184348,3a,75y,...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-123.0184348,3a,75y,4.96h,89.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZy- DF793NXKBCn3eD9tiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

I agree with the above commenter though. These aren't that unique and I'm sure they exist in most cities.

<comment><USER6> What object do you want to call attention to in the Street view image you linked

<comment><USER7> [http://www.vanrail.ca/railfanning](http://www.vanrail.ca/railfanning) Look under "Railroad Oddities" \-- in street view here, there's a house with no windows...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've seen some nice telco central offices in small towns that blend right into the residential subdivision neighborhood.

Usually they screw up the illusion by installing enough "property of xyz telco" signs and maybe a bucket truck or two in the driveway, but the CO itself is just residential house.

Must be some weird story behind that.

<comment><USER9> I remember seeing one in St. Louis - it was just an ordinary drab, beige-brick corner office building, and you wouldn't pick it out besides the 'AT&T' signs and the blinking rows of servers barely visible behind barred first-story windows.

Interestingly, it was right across the street from a gas station that often had a 'Nuisance Abatement Vehicle' (Bearcat) parked outside which was covered in cameras and painted with a gaudy, "We are watching you!" slogan complemented by an icon of an eye inside of a magnifying glass. But I think that was just the PD trying to justify its budget expenditures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Downtown Chicago has a number of electrical substations that are disguised as buildings. If you are just driving past you would probably have no idea. See photos here: [http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/12/13/lights-on-but- nobod...](http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/12/13/lights-on-but-nobody-home- behind-the-fake-buildings-that-power-chicago/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I think my favorite part is the fake door installed by an artist. Are there other examples of this sort of thing?

It reminds me a bit of power outlet stickers.

</comment><comment><USER12> i wish they would do this in LA. our transformers, water pumps/storage, and subway access are out in the open and ugly as hell.

<comment><USER13> LA actually has a ton of oil wells hidden behind building facades, dotted all around the city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is really fascinating. Reminds me of cell towers disguised as trees in uptown NY. Would definitely love to see more of modern infrastructure blending in their environment!

</comment><comment><USER15> Charming variation of how civilization is a thin veneer.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra [http://www.bunker42.com/eng/](http://www.bunker42.com/eng/)

There's also this one, the entrance tries to look like an ordinary house.

</comment><comment><USER16> One such row of "houses" was featured in an episode of "Sherlock".

<comment><USER17> In fact, they used the exact one that is mentioned in the article: 23 and 24 Leinster Gardens (although incorrectly called Terrace in the article)</comment></comment>


Being VP of Engineering Is Harder Than Being CEO - <AUTHOR> https://linearb.io/blog/being-vp-of-software-development-is-harder-than-being-ceo/ <comment><USER2> _Right now it is especially hard to be CEO._

Not even.

Feeding your family (on top of paying for health insurance and rent) as a gig worker, or other low-paid service sector employee (which generally make up the bulk of the workforce for these companies) is _hard_.

"Being a CEO is hard." Please. Who comes up with this kind of crap?</comment>


Kinect and Google chromecast - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/18/homebrew-kinect-app-steers-chromecast-streams/

<comment><AUTHOR> Will Google shut this down as well since they don't like it when Microsoft tech interfaces with Google products?</comment>


Ask HN: When do you use SQL vs NoSQL? - <AUTHOR>

Some people like SQL, some like NoSQL.. some have used PostgreSQL and moved to MongoDB, and some vice versa. But at the end of the day, it usually comes down to "use whatever you're comfortable with"..<p>So I'm wondering, what data patterns are more appropriate to SQL vs NoSQL datastores? Can such a decision even be simplified to 'data pattern'? <comment><USER2> So it depends... And my list isn't all inclusive/exclusive, just a general starting point I like to use.

I generally use SQL when I have really well defined relationships that change rarely and where I have data that needs to be shared amongst many disparate systems (especially if I don't control one or more of them).

NoSQL I use more as an application specific data source and cache. Many times this means warming up the NoSQL from the relational side for some data elements. I really don't like to pollute a SQL datastore with application specific components unless they need to be shared and I don't control all the applications.

I don't agree with people that draw the line at the need for transactions. Transactions can be managed in either SQL or NoSQL and even across them both with some care.</comment>


Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test... - <AUTHOR> http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

<comment><USER2> Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in something without external evidence, I did not say it was ok to act on those beliefs without external evidence. Huge massive difference here.

Logical Fail Here: "Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"

<comment><USER3> Actually, the question was not whether Sutcliffe was justified in committing rape, but whether he was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. If "firm inner conviction" justifies a belief, and Sutcliffe had firm inner conviction, then Sutcliffe was justified in his belief.

<comment><USER4> Well, it's a bit like this:

1\. Is it justifiable to walk into a shop?

2\. John Does walked into a shop and murdered all present. Was he justified in walking into the shop?

Answering yes to 1 and no to 2 is a contradiction in the same way. But, is it really valid to separate the action of walking into the shop with the murder of those present? Is it really valid to separate Sutcliffe's belief from his actions?

<comment><USER3> To answer your questions, yes and yes. It's clearly possible to walk into a shop without killing anyone, and the analogy to Sutcliffe holds: it's possible to believe that God wants you to rape and murder prostitutes, without actually doing it.

Condoning rape and murder only comes into play if you also answer that God is the source of all morality. In that case, doing God's will is by definition moral, and if he wants you to rape and murder, well, you bite the bullet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Question 12 asks: "If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.".

Which I deem to be true. I earlier responded "God does not exists". So there really is not contradiction as claimed by the game

"You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering."

since I deem the premise of question 12 false (God does not exist). Again "If God exists than she can do such and such ..." is always true if God does not exist.

Furthermore I also think there might be a semantical problem in the analysis. The game did not establish that sin implies suffering.

</comment><comment><USER6> _You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true._

It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to physical evidence of evolution.

The author of this test loves playing semantic games.

<comment><USER7> I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require _certain, irrevocable_ proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent.

I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory.

Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct.

\-- Ayjay on Fedang

<comment><USER6> The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it.

I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)

<comment><USER8> I think the important word here is "irrevocable". Saying you don't need irrevocable evidence doesn't mean you don't need any evidence. Irrevocable seems to me to be pretty much the same as unfalsifiable which doesn't make much sense and would not be good evidence for the existence of god.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A useful and somewhat though-provoking test.

But, it feels really _frustrating_ not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)

<comment><USER10> You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do you prove something and then revoke it?

Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.

<comment><USER9> Yes, that's what I meant to write. English is such a moving target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false).

Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create".

Squares and circles are _not_ physical things. They are mathematical concepts. We don't create them, we _imagine_ them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a fact, that's a tautology. It says _nothing_ about our world[1].

Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it true. That just would make us irrational.

[1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought the concept says a _lot_ about us and our universe.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you really believe that god can do anything. Wouldn't a god that can do anything truly be able to do anything, even logically inconsistent things?

You to me seem to believe that god can do a great many things but not anything. Your answer to 5 doesn't seem to be your actual belief.

<comment> loup-vaillant First, I don't believe in God, so this isn't a matter of belief but a matter of definition.

Second, I have no problem with God creating a world where the principle of contradiction doesn't hold. What I have a problem with, is God modifying a realm that depend only on a set of fixed definitions. This is not impossible, this is _unthinkable_.

Also, we have complete control over such realms. These are just concepts. There is no notion of "can" or "can't" there. Mathematical realms are just self consistent. By definition. So, talking about what God "can" or "can't" do in these realms is meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just worth highlighting this (as a lot of discussion seems to be on the bullets and contradictions):

Rules of the game

The aim of the game is to get across the intellectual battleground unscathed. There are two types of injury you can suffer.

A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you'd rather not make.

You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!

</comment><comment><USER12> _You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful._

This is stupid. I said that god COULD change what is considered sinful and that god would WANT to minimize suffering. Being able to do something isn't a contradiction with wanting something else if they never do it. I'm ABLE to kick the cat, but I don't WANT to hurt it - my beliefs about the cat aren't a contradiction.

I never said that such a god would change the definition of sin to make decreasing suffering a sin, just that they would be able to and wouldn't want to. Where is the contradiction?

<comment><USER13> You're right, the explanation of the contradiction is poor. The true contradiction is that your definition of sin is arbitrary -- if God simply decides what is "sin" and that definition is in and of itself malleable, what makes an action "sinful?"

Tomorrow I will see if I have my Socrates texts. I think he spoke about this in the _Creeto_ (piety under the Gods).

<comment><USER12> If god couldn't redefine sin, then god would not be all powerful, which, in my opinion, is a requirement of being considered "god".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have not taken any direct hits, but three bullets. Which means (slightly paraphrased): Your beliefs are consistent, but people may find them strange (sometimes). I'm still trying to analyze if this is a problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> I escaped unscathed, but I will say this: I was squirming as I answered a lot of the questions. Having denied the existence of God, how am I to have an opinion the nature of divinity?

But it made me realize that I'm actually more sympathetic to the notion of God than I had thought. Apparently, a preponderance of evidence suggesting the existence of a very wise and powerful being would be enough to make me a believer. That's a much lower bar than I would have expected.

<comment><USER13> Is that not the most logical answer? I am an atheist (and philosopher) only because there is no direct evidence for the existence of God. If extraordinary evidence would present itself to the contrary (e.g., lightning striking Mount Rushmore to write out, "I AM THE LORD, YOUR GOD") I'd have some serious praying to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> No hits, but only because I'm familiar with the questions being posed. For example, the statement about God being able to do anything was clearly an allusion to the Philosopher's God (i.e., most agree that the Philosopher's God can perform any action which is logically possible). Similarly, the question about "God exists. True/False" is clearly designed to get someone to make a straight statement about the existence of God, which the only logical answer is "unknown." The question about moral justification in absence of a God is tricky, mainly because of the wording. The wording implies that there can be no moral system outside of a theological system. Technically, it's not that there is no moral system, but only that all moral systems are essentially equivalent in fundamental foundation. This is ideally trying to trap one in the same well that Kant fell into.

</comment><comment><USER15> The line of questioning struck me as odd, roughly paraphrased as:

"Does god exist?"

"No"

"Erm, well, _if_ god existed, what would the nature of god be?"

Isn't that following an irrelevant line of enquiry?

</comment><comment><USER16> Hm, it does not even use the same logic I do. I don't believe anything. There are just likelihoods (or proofs).

So how am I supposed to answer "is it rational to believe that Nessie does not exist if there has never been any evidence for it"? I don't think it is likely that Nessie exists, but I can not prove the opposite either. So I can not claim to believe that Nessie does not exist.

<comment><USER8> Sure, there are only liklihoods, I can never be absolutly sure of, well, anything, really. Defining 'truth' as something I am absolutly certain of wouldn't make much sense.

But why should I define 'truth' that way? I have no problem calling something 'true' which merely has a high enough liklihood. It's a useful approximation, it basically dichotomizes a scale which is quite often pretty useful.

I also don't have many semantic worries. We seem to be well aware of the double character of 'truth' and usually say something like 'absolute truth' when we refer to statements of which someone is absolutly certain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There are so many problems with this test.

For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory.

But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.)

Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?

<comment> loup-vaillant You play with the words too much here. _Any_ theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?

<comment><USER18> What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).

<comment> loup-vaillant EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place.

That's because fundamental physics _seeks_ to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in terms of string theory, but that would hardly help us in finding new fossils, or build a safe plane.

<comment><USER17> That they seek it doesn't mean it's so.

Kuhn and Popper for instance is in disagreement about what making a model more precise means.

Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold if you ask me. It's assuming certainty where none really exist.

<comment> loup-vaillant > That they seek it doesn't mean it's so.

True. I got carried away.

> Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold

Seeking something doesn't mean we assume that we will find it. The fact that it's unattainable doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Like perfection.

<comment><USER17> It might just be a matter of semantics or taste, but what about just seeking better predictability. How is that leaving us worse of?

Truth, objective, rational etc. is covered with all sorts of baggage.

<comment> loup-vaillant > How is that leaving us worse of?

It doesn't. I just haven't thought of this "third alternative".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> this is very logical. Well built and programed. But humans are not logical. You ask questions for the reason to contradict. The fact the Sutcliffe raped people based on that God told him to...Uhm I dont think so. Ask your self this, if this "God" told him to do so; then who is this God? If you read in the bible it sais who God is. And that is not who God is, love does not harm any one. God did not tell him this, unfortunately he was fooled. Making the Q's not valid IMO

<comment><USER19> A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of "accepting it as a proof".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Definitely helped me to refine my beliefs a bit; finally got by unscathed: TFFFFTFFTTFFFFFFF</comment>


5 Minute Delay Scuttles Chance at $40 Billion Air Force Deal - <AUTHOR> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/minute-delay-scuttles-chance-40-billion-air-force/story?id=11342682

<comment><USER2> Why would you leave only 30 minutes before the deadline to hand in a proposal for billions of dollars?

<comment><USER3> Indeed.

And there's a view that if you couldn't get the proposal in ahead of the deadline then just how are you going to get the project in on a deadline? Even with a proposal you should attempt to get it in early and to exceed expectations.

<comment><USER4> Have you ever prepared an estimate for a project with any unknowns? Can you make sure that plane on the blueprint can be successfully manufactured? Can your vendors deliver on time? Where are your vendor quotes? Are they all on time?

Having done quotes for a government agency, they always ask for you to do these estimates in half the normal time, but then take four times as long to get back to you with an answer.

And really, the quote was _at the door of the base_ before the deadline. Do you really need to have it on a certain desk 500 yards away from the front door to be considered in? That's just being pedantic at that point.

<comment><USER3> > Have you ever prepared an estimate for a project with any unknowns?

Yes.

I've been involved with major IT delivery within the UK for GCHQ and the Home Office.

It sucked in a major amount of resource to get it done, and we still made sure that we submitted it a week early.

If there are further questions that your proposal didn't cover you can always answer them later. Miss the deadline, and there will never be questions.

<comment><USER4> This last quote I worked on required the proposal to be uploaded to the agency's fancy new web server. Efficient and technologically savvy, right?

Wrong. Every vendor tried to upload their 2GB proposal to the server about 15 minutes before the deadline, crashing their server in the process. Thankfully _no_ vendor got a quote in on time, so the deadline was extended three hours to let uploading finish. But I'm guessing if one or two got completed and the rest were still in HTTP limbo, they would have let those vendors fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, they decided, a week before the deadline, to bid. Then they had to ask for two extra months because they weren't prepared. Then they sent it in at the last minute, and, predictably, it didn't get there on time. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

It's worth noting that the airforce told them, after the delay at the gate prevented the papers from getting there ontime, that "the company should have anticipated this potential snag and planned appropriately." Not being able to get the papers there by the deadline, and planning to get them there just before the deadline, does not say anything good about their ability to actually fulfill the contract, were they to be granted it.

</comment><comment><USER6> The idea of importing a plane manufactured by Antonov, of all manufacturers, would have been really interesting--the US armed forces have never adopted, wholesale[1], equipment from the former Soviet Union, despite many good arguments to do so. Soviet equipment was always cheaper to maintain, and since they are our primary rivals, we can keep up just by importing their stuff instead of wasting money designing our own.

[1] For intelligence purposes, the US has always at least tried to get a few MiG's and Sukhoi's over the past few decades, and keep them in flying condition. Nowadays they can outright buy them--Wikipedia says the military bought two Sukhoi's from Ukraine in 2009.

<comment><USER7> >Soviet equipment was always cheaper to maintain, and since they are our primary rivals, we can keep up just by importing their stuff instead of wasting money designing our own.

The US has virtually always been a generation ahead of Soviet/Russia military technology. There was a mythology about Soviet military prowess during the cold war that was based more on lubricating incredible military spends ("Better checkbox that new project because of that dominant new Soviet fighter") more than it was based on reality.

<comment><USER6> That's always been the difference though--American equipment is more advanced but with tighter tolerances and harder to maintain, Soviet equipment is less advanced but more fault tolerant and easier to maintain. So you end up with stuff like the M16 jamming in Vietnam or the Apache completely crippled by sandy conditions in Iraq.

<comment><USER8> This may be true for basic equipment like assault rifles, but I haven't seen any indication that more complex equipment like fighter aircraft are cheaper to maintain or more reliable in Soviet/Russian guise.

As a case in point, I've spoken to some people involved in a project to re- engine the South African Air Force's Mirage F1AZ fighter aircraft with the Russian Klimov RD-33 engine as used in the MiG-29. Technically, the project was a success as all the technical obstacles were overcome and aircraft's performance figures improved significantly, but the project was scuppered in the end by Klimov's apparent inability to get the engine's reliability and ease of maintenance to anywhere close to that of the aging Snecma Atar 09K50s originally fitted to the aircraft. The conclusion in the end was that if the SA Air Force wanted to go ahead with the project it would need to stockpile a large quantity of spare engines and other parts and swap them out frequently, something that introduced enough cost and difficulty to negate the performance gains that would've been achieved, so the project was shelved.

The SA Air Force has remained wary of Russian military equipment ever since. When the time came to order a new fighter it decided on the cheap to maintain JAS-39C/D Gripen from Saab in Sweden despite having received an attractive price on new MiG-29s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Rules are rules.

As a CS student many years ago we had a 10am deadline for all work - I missed it once by less than 60 seconds.

The punishment was always 20% of your mark deducted immediatly, with no excusses.

A great learning experience at an impressionable age, so now in my professional life I've never missed a deadline though my own fault.

</comment><comment><USER10> Alternate title: $40 billion deal blown by unprofessional company who couldn't be bothered to show up on time.

</comment><comment><USER7> The less interesting version: A completely unprofessional company with a ridiculously unsubstantiated bid can't read rules.

Seriously, though, in bidding processes like this rules _have_ to be enforced. One of the reasons the first, expensive round of bids got nullified was because rules weren't always followed.

<comment><USER6> The main reason is that in the original competition, Boeing (a huge American company with senators pulling for it from at least one state) lost to a foreign company, which pissed off the protectionists and jingoes enough to want to run the whole thing over again.

<comment><USER11> Northrop isn't a foreign company and as the party delivering the actual planes, a substantial amount of the money would have gone to them.</comment></comment></comment>


YC Winter 2009 application is due today (Friday). - <AUTHOR>

Who's giving it a shot?
We're a bit too far along, but we might.
http://ycombinator.com/w2009.html <comment><USER2> I organize Hackers and Founders, a a meetup in the Bay area: <http://www.hackersandfounders.com>

We held a meetup last night, and had the founders of Heysan and Snipd talk about the YC funding experience and about having a startup.

I was really surprised that out of 40-45 attendees, only about 3-4 were thinking about applying for YC funding. Everybody else was bootstrapping. Some of the guys have really cool web apps that they've built in their spare time like <http://www.dabbleboard.com> .

I wonder if people's attitudes towards getting funded is changing, or if it's just the demographic of the group that we're attracting. Most of the group is fairly ambivalent towards getting funding.

</comment><comment><USER3> No such thing as too far along. Speaking as a YC founder who had angel money and a product going in, you'd have to be post-series A for YC not to make sense. The YC logo on your slide deck alone is probably enough to boost your valuation by more than 6.4%.

<comment><USER4> YCombinator required 6.4% of your already funded company? How much funding did you secure before?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just noticed that the application deadline is listed as 10PM EST (not PST) on the "Y Combinator Funding Page", though it's listed as 10PM PST on another page. I wonder if this will have any repercussions on anybody...

<comment><USER6> I noticed that too. But I remember that several hours before 10pm PST on my "Y Combinator Funding Page", the application deadline was still shown as 10PM PST.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am just wondering how many actually submit their applications. Feel free to cast your vote here if you did apply - [http://siong1987.com/yc- winter-2009-is-due-today-at-10pm-pst...](http://siong1987.com/yc- winter-2009-is-due-today-at-10pm-pst/) .

Current Number of Applications: 23

Then, we can see how competitive it is for Winter 2009 application.

Thanks.

P/S: I will update this comment with the latest number of applications.

<comment><USER8> probably not as competitive as before. The whole point of YC is to get contacts so its easier to get VC funding. And with the current economic situations and VCs being stingy most will probably wait for the market to stabilize

<comment><USER9> Not sure I agree that the whole point of VC is to raise VC funding.

The whole point of YC is to get connected with some great people and build something people want.

<comment><USER10> Agreed, but I also think it varies for the individual/team. Some groups gain mostly from VC exposure, some gain mostly by being able to talk to PG & Co. and others gain molsty from the smart people they're now surrounded by for three months (that was us).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Old, but good: <http://particletree.com/notebook/today-is-the-day/>

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone else feeling nervous?

I hope we at least get an interview so we can present to PG & Co.

<comment><USER13> No, but this is also my second time applying. Given how ridiculously competitive it was during the summer round, I feel it's probably unreasonable for just about anyone to get their hopes up.

My advice is, don't bank your startup dreams on getting in. If your team and idea truly have merit, you can and should have a startup plan that does not depend on getting into YC. View it as the best-case scenario instead.

Not getting in, by the way, does not imply that your team and idea don't have merit. Last time they couldn't accept many that did.

<comment><USER14> Does YC publish the number of applicants for past rounds?

<comment><USER12> I saw the number 600 a few times, not sure which round it was for.

Only 50-60 groups will get invited to the interview. :(

Also I read that 75% of the apps are submitted in the week before the deadline.

<comment><USER15> 50-60..that is alot, so how many from that group actually get picked?

<comment><USER12> Ycomb alumni bloggers say around 20-22. Tough odds!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anyone of you apply with a ready prototype?

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I was able to get a rough prototype together this week. It doesn't have some of the better features I'm aiming for, but I think it helps to have something visible.

We got our app in this morning. We listed about 4 or 5 other ideas in the app too. Not sure if that helps or hurts.

Sometimes I go back and forth on what idea is most attractive/viable/appropriate.

<comment><USER16> Yeah I applied, they have a rough prototype that they can hopefully look at.</comment></comment></comment>


Python and PHP Scripts to Update Digital Ocean DNS Records for Dynamic DNS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bensquire/Digital-Ocean-Dynamic-DNS-Updater <comment><AUTHOR> You do need to have the record _already created_ before running the updater (because it is not a creation script, only an update)</comment>


BCM64: A "bare Metal" C64 Emulator for Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> http://accentual.com/bmc64/ <comment><AUTHOR>
      * Runs without OS, direct to the hardware (via Circle)
      * Boots quickly (6 seconds)
      * Very low video and audio latency
      * Based off VICE so very high level compatibility
      * Done by my coworker & friend, with nagging from me :-)</comment>


Hispanic New York Project: Hispanic or Latino? By Marlene Peralta (amNewYork) - <AUTHOR> http://hispanicnewyorkproject.blogspot.com/2010/10/hispanic-or-latino-by-marlene-peralta.html?spref=tw <comment><USER2> So, why is Latino better than Hispanic? They explain why "Hispanic" is a poor choice (one I agree with, it's like using 'Anglo' for white people, which is a category a Slav with Jewish ancestry like me doesn't fit into on any level) - but why is Latino a better choice?

</comment><comment><USER2> Blogspam. The actual content is here: [http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/the-debate-is-it- latin...](http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/the-debate-is-it-latino-or- hispanic-1.2343407)</comment>


Top reasons your WiFi is slow - <AUTHOR> http://blog.metageek.net/2018/05/why-in-tarnation-is-my-wifi-so-slow-part-3-top-10-reasons-why-your-wifi-has-low-throughput/ <comment><USER2> I radically improved my home wifi by installing UniFi kit. It's a huge step up to have multiple high quality APs distributed throughout the house rather than just one AP trying to blast ever higher power. It also means that I can use much more of the available spectrum and there's far less interference. Enterprise-class wifi is just so much better than the stuff aimed at consumers (especially the gamer market like the nighthawk router series).

Edit:

For the most part though when I speak to people who aren't your typical HN crowd, they complain about slow WiFi when they mean that their internet is slow. The WiFi is usually way faster than their internet connection so it doesn't really matter at all. The other big factor is latency, and basically nothing in a home network is adding an appreciable amount of latency to their connection. It's only when you are dealing with FTTP that things like good WiFi tend to matter.

<comment><USER3> A lot of SOHO kits also have multiple antennas per band allowing for more devices without sharing a connection. Usually worth it.

Also, I've seen #4 (interference) happen a lot, cutting the channel width tends to lead to much more stable (though slightly slower max) connections... Much improved streaming consistency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my apartment building, hundreds of wifi devices sharing the same radio channels.

Currently, my network runs on an ancient Apple "Airport Extreme" base AP.

Upstream is an 80 Mbps internet connection.

Would upgrading to enterprise kit make any difference?

<comment><USER5> In my experience, in a crowded single-AP situation, the most bleeding-edge grotesque looking Netgear Nighthawk you can afford will probably do better than spending the same money on SMB/Enterprise gear. Ubiquiti UAP-AC-HD / UAP- AC-SHD reportedly do well in crowded space but I've no experience with those models.

Disable 2.4GHz if you can. Use separate 2.4GHz and 5GHz SSIDs to force everything 5GHz-capable to that band. Use the smallest channel width. Use the lowest transmit power and highest receive sensitivity that gets the coverage you need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have an issue I haven't been able to diagnose. The further the distance from my router, the slower the internet speeds, but not proportionate to the strength. If I move 20 feet away, my signal is still quite strong, but my speeds drop from 150mbps to 60mbs, another 10 feet and it's down to about 15mbs. Luckily I live in a very small apartment. If anyone has any ideas, it would be appreciated!

<comment><USER7> You could be either dropping off the 5Ghz band and onto the 2.4Ghz one (5Ghz has much less penetration and so it dies off way before 2.4Ghz does), or just getting closer to a source of interference.

<comment><USER6> Hmm, thanks that makes sense. Gives me something to look into anyways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> By using OpenBSD as an AP I have never been able to get speeds above 10 Mbps even with excellent signal strength. Just by booting Linux on the same AP I can connect with 150 Mbps, but I like the OpenBSD way of doing things so much, that I choose the slower speed instead.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find #4 is really a frequent improvement... just cutting the channel width to half the router's default leads to much more stable and better performing connections.</comment>


How to Keep Capitalism and Democracy Working for Us All - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/a-new-angle-to-activate-our-better-angels-594fa72f4545 <comment><AUTHOR> This is a well-thought-out and super interesting piece about "why global problems keep getting worse, and how to fix this". The author discussed the large-scale relationships of public and private organizations in a way I haven't seen before. And makes really solid arguments explaining why we are in the spot we find ourselves today.

It's a 45-min read but _well_ worth it IMO.</comment>