Boaty McBoatface: What You Get When You Let the Internet Decide - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/world/europe/boaty-mcboatface-what-you-get-when-you-let-the-internet-decide.html <comment><USER3> They should run with it, the positive PR now and in the future when the RSS Boaty McBoatface docks would be worth it.

It would also show a sense of humour and make it something fun.

<comment><USER4> I'm from Gothenburg, Sweden, which is a city known for its bad puns and where most larger buildings are usually referred to by silly nicknames. Last year, there was a competition to name the new swimming pool by the harbor which they put there to keep people from swimming in the rather filthy water of the nearby river.

As expected, most of the names which received a lot of votes were silly puns and, you know what? They did accept the winning entry. Which means the pool is officially named "Pöl Harbor" ("Pöl" meaning puddle in Swedish). I myself was very pleased with this, though I was unsure whether I preferred this name or the rather gruesome runner-up: "Inälvsbadet". This literally means "the entrails bath", though the word for entrails could also be interpreted as "in- river", hence the pun.

<comment><USER5> I'm probably going to have my foot in my mouth pretty quickly about this but how bizarre is the Swedish language that "entrails" and "in-river" could be the same word? lol

Is it a slang term of some kind?

<comment><USER6> No more bizarre than Ent Rails (you know, railways for Tolkien Ents) is the same as entrails in English.

Just as you can't actually say inriver and pretend it means something in the river in English, you can't say inälv and mean something in an älv in Swedish. But as a pun it is okay, everyone gets the word play.

<comment><USER7> > Just as you can't actually say inriver and pretend it means something in the > river in English

I think "in-river" is pretty acceptable in speech, and mildly so in writing. If you said there was an "in-river pool", I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

That said, the relation between the adjectivizing(?) morphemes "in-" and "at-" (e.g. "at-home bar") and their corresponding prepositions is weird and makes my brain hurt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To be clear, the U.K. Govt website [1] allows people to submit suggestions, and the NERC are not obliged to use the highest ranking suggestion. Although personally I liked 'what iceberg' as a name

Edit: added link

[1] [http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2016/10-ship- naming/](http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2016/10-ship-naming/)

<comment><USER9> > Although personally I liked 'what iceberg' as a name

That's a very Culture ship name.

<comment><USER10> I was musing on a Culture-type name last night, and came up with;

Anticipation Of A New Iceberg's Arrival, The

<comment><USER11> They See Me Trawling...

<comment><USER12> Ice, Ice Baby

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Although these pranks are funny they highlight a something very serious - <USER2> failure case of direct democracy. When minor issues come up for vote not everyone cares. The people who do care enough to vote can easily be trolls.

As an example, imagine that a vote comes up for raising tolls from $1 to $2 on little used street. It's one of 1000 votes a month in a direct democracy. There's little chance of getting attention if you get a bunch of people together to vote "no" but what if you get a bunch of people together to vote "no" on all odd numbered streets?

A large number of contests with low voter interest, plus the potential for publicity is fertile ground for trolling.

<comment><USER14> I always thought that a direct democracy where you can by default delegate your vote to one of the elected politicians, but you override whenever you want, would be the best of both worlds (representative democracy and direct democracy). That wouldn't necessarily work on this kind of votes (names for stuff), but I think it would work well on the regular issues that politicians make decisions about.

<comment><USER15> I went to the Pirate Party conference in the UK a few years ago. This method of decision making was proposed, but issue that was recognised was that of absenteeism. What happens when Alice gives her vote to Bob, but then gets disillusioned with the entire system and disengages without de-registering her delegation. Any liquid democracy system needs a strong way of differentiating between genuine delegation and disinterest, in order to stop legacy power accruals.

<comment><USER16> Couldn't the delegation have a time-out, such that Alice must renew her commitment to delegate her vote to Bob every 6 months or whatever we decide the optimal period is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Similar thing happened in Iceland a few years ago. Before starting work to review the constitution, they ran a facebook poll to get input from the population. Top suggestions were "Free Ice Cream"and "More Volcanoes": [http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/31/icelands-crowdsourced- con...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/31/icelands-crowdsourced-constitution- submitted-for-approval-nyan/)

<comment><USER18> More Volcanoes? That's just greedy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What is so wrong with it?

Does it sound like every other seagoing vessel before it? No but who cares. It's unique and wonderful that human beings have a sense of humor. Maybe public works projects need more of this.

<comment><USER20> Well for one She is a Ship not a Boat - and Maritime types get quite upset if you refer to their ship as a boat. (think Pissed off Gibbs from NCIS)

I did like that "Forward Unto Dawn" (the ship in halo) was 4th at one point

<comment><USER21> Well you could hardly call it Shippy McShipface could you? (Try saying it 5 time fast)

<comment><USER22> I for one would immediately vote for calling a ship The Shipfaced.

<comment><USER23> How about "Royal Research Ship Happens"?

<comment><USER24> Sounds like an Iain M Banks ship name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Here's a entertaining/embarrassing story from Spain, related to this.

A few years ago (2008), the Spanish organisers of the Eurovision contest thought it would be a great idea to allow the public to decide who should represent the country in the Eurovision contest. Amongst all songs entered was this silly parody from a comedian, playing a fake musician called Chikilicuatre [0].

So well... After some heavy campaigning/trolling by the TV channel that 'created' this character and song, it came out as the winner. You can imagine the organisers' face after this! But they sullenly accepted it and let him join the contest [1].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Chikilicuatre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Chikilicuatre)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQhZtbm97I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQhZtbm97I)

P.S. They learned their lesson and changed the voting system so it could not be exploited again.

<comment><USER26> Eurovision is supposed to be fun though. At least, that's the UK's perspective. Everyone else takes it more seriously and submit almost exclusively tedious rock ballads. They're been a few non-boring entries though, including a finish metal band and a pair of clowns from Ireland.

<comment><USER25> Well, it's fun nowadays... Before 2008 the fun entries were still novelty rather than the norm (it had pretty much been only Lordi until then - and I would consider them awesome rather than fun :)).

<comment><USER27> The ESC is definitely seen as a fun contest for longer than that, at least in Germany. Case in point:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3q7Y3fgTIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3q7Y3fgTIc) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJgszpNj7dY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJgszpNj7dY)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan to all-Stations, all-Stations, all-Stations, this is RSS Boaty McBoatface. We are currently not sure where we are and are suffering from a social media crisis. Please advise whether we should follow the masses or maintain our stiff upper lip

</comment><comment><USER29> Why on earth does the naming of a boat need to be a solemn affair? Why is it a bad thing that "what we get" is lighthearted? Won't this make more people invested in and engaged with the research purpose of the boat?

This excerpt from a speech John Cleese gave on creativity was the first thing to come to mind when I read this headline: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fyOLe- xn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fyOLe-xn4)

</comment><comment><USER30> I love this kind of british humour, however crude. In my mind, it's similar to the campaigns (most years?) to have a non-christmas song be the #1 christmas single.

<comment><USER31> There's nothing particular English about "Boaty McBoatface" to my mind, it's just standard internet humor.

<comment><USER32> It's absurd and mocks authority, which are staples in British (not just English) humour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This reads less like a thoughtful consideration of what happens when you let the Internet decide than a naked attempt by NYTimes to grab a quick hit of local search traffic around 'Boaty McBoatface.'

</comment><comment><USER34> Possibly a bit late, but I'd love to suggest:

"Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall"

<comment><USER35> Going to have to agree here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Well, they should have known better. When they were searching a name for a bridge close to the new Wembley Stadium, german fans hijacked the Poll and voted for "Dietmar Hamann Bridge", a german national soccer player.

Also, in a small town in germany, people voted for a "Bud Spencer Tunnel". As a concession, the city council named the local swimming pool for him, after they found out he had been training there when a olympic swimmer prior to his acting career.

<comment><USER37> In Australia - we have a swimming pool named after a former Prime Minister.... who drowned while in office.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Holt_Memorial_Swimming_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Holt_Memorial_Swimming_Centre)

<comment><USER38> Porto's main airport is named after a former prime minister who died in a plane crash while flying to that airport.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_S%C3%A1_Carneiro_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_S%C3%A1_Carneiro_Airport)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Better than paying a group of "naming experts" some huge amount of money, only for them to come up with a generic-sounding name.

The Internet can be very silly but also a great source of creativity.

</comment><comment><USER40> Back in the 90's, People magazine ran an internet competition for the most beautiful person alive. Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf won by a mile.

<comment><USER41> That is the first thing that came to my mind as well. Must have been the first popular internet voting campaign to go wrong.

And for those that do not know the story, Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf (RIP) was very much a real person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> There's a Obi-Wan Kenobi sreet in Poland [0].

[0] [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ulica_Obi- Wana_Kenobiego](http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ulica_Obi-Wana_Kenobiego)

<comment><USER43> There's an Incognito St. in Oslo, Norway.

<comment><USER44> Letsby Avenue - [http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/12/martinwainwright](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/12/martinwainwright)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Remember that episode when Colbert managed to get 17 million votes to get a new Hungarian bridge named after him? That's versus ~10 million of total population of Hungary. The outcome was highly predictable, but it didn't make the process any less entertaining :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megyeri_Bridge#Results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megyeri_Bridge#Results)

</comment><comment><USER46> Truly the wisdom of crowds. I am reminded once again of the perils of direct democracy.

<comment><USER47> Ah now that's an excellent topic, because the root of the problem is the participants don't think wisdom is the correct source for boat names. Some may not like it, but its still their culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> What you get when you let the internet decide what words to put in a haiku: [http://www.crowdhaiku.com](http://www.crowdhaiku.com)

</comment><comment> J-dawg Related:

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/13j3hs/laughed_my_as...](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/13j3hs/laughed_my_ass_off_when_i_saw_this_good_job/)

and

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10506482](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10506482)

</comment><comment><USER49> One of the best "when you let internet decide" moments was the Eurovision 2008 contestant for Spain. Organizers tried online votation and this guy won: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A47UTfzoj-Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A47UTfzoj-Q)

</comment><comment><USER50> Similar to the famous Glasgow statue with the now traditional traffic cone: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow- west-24907190](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24907190)

</comment><comment><USER51> A few years ago, there was an online poll to name the next Mountain Dew flavor, which was supposed to taste like granny smith apples.

The winner was "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong". Other top contenders included "Gushing Granny" and "Fapple".

</comment><comment><USER52> I was unable to read the article at first due to a malfunctioning scroll hijacking script. [http://livememe.com/nyt.webm](http://livememe.com/nyt.webm)

Reloading the page fixed the issue. Bad ad network?

</comment><comment><USER53> So, basically what we're learning is that the internet _as a whole_ will tend to act in trollish, hilarious ways for things that don't matter.

I might be okay with that.

</comment><comment><USER54> This is 2016's "Mr. Splashy Pants".

<comment><USER55> Which shows the right way to do this: don't provide a free form text field, and give one really silly option that you can live with. The internet piled into the silly option and created a massive public awareness swarm for their cause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Well they asked internet for suggestions and got some good ones and some bad ones. Plus some extra publicity. So it worked

</comment><comment><USER57> Meanwhile, someone has already registered BoatyMcBoatface.com

</comment><comment><USER58> I dislike the NYT more and more these days. I knew as I read that the title the article was from NYT. They are becoming very predictable in their biases.

</comment><comment><USER59> Well just give people a vote but secure veto rights so you can pick from a runner-up.

Not that complicated.

Crowdsourcing can be wonderful but it does have its pitfalls for the lowest common denominator.

<comment><USER60> How is this the lowest common denominator? I'd say "Shackleton" or "Falcon" are lowest common denominators. They're basic ones that nearly everyone can accept. Isn't that the definition of lowest common denominator when it comes to people?

What's wrong with a comedy name? Google managed OK being called Google. DuckDuckGo isn't doing too badly either. But SpoonRocket recently shut down, so I guess it doesn't guarantee success.

<comment><USER33> I can't imagine Google would have done so well if they'd stuck with BackRub.

<comment><USER61> "I BackRubbed for car dealers." Nope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> They should just admit that Boaty McBoatface is a stupid name, that asking "the Internet" to decide was a stupid idea, and quickly bury this idea behind them. At least it would set a precedent. I can't ever remember anything like this turning into something cool or favorable.

I know it was for the publicity. It worked, so good for that boat-line.

<comment><USER63> It didn't work well enough if you think it's a boat-line doing this.</comment></comment>


Sizing Up Consciousness by Its Bits - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21consciousness.html?src=twr <comment><USER2> From what I can tell from skimming Tononi's papers 'integrated information' means the relative entropy between the full joint distribution (of variables/nodes of a network) and the distribution that results when you cut the network into particular partition, and assume that each of the resulting subsets is independent of the others. The unsatisfying part of this (for me) is that so far as I can see, by this definition, lots of pieces of software and signals processing stuff should have some measure of 'consciousness'.</comment>


Google bans its ads on sites that use annoying 'pop-unders' - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/11/google-bans-its-ads-on-sites-that-use-those-annoying-pop-unders <comment><USER2> The apis used to control focus should just be put behind a permission, as microphone/camera access etc. are. If a site wants to control window focus, I should have to explicitly allow it.

<comment><USER3> No focus APIs are necessary to implement pop-unders.

AFAIU, the way modern implementations work, is that they make some link (occasionally the entire body) a target=_blank link, which points to some other part of the website. This causes the link target to appear in a new tab. Now, the _original_ tab has its contents changed to that of an ad; when the user finishes browsing the website and closes the newly-opened tab, they will see the "pop-under" tab (which is actually the original tab the user entered the website with).

<comment><USER4> Couldn't this be avoided by refusing to run onclick/similar events for target=_href links?

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, preventing those events from running code could be easily programmed around, if, as I assume you mean, you let the rest of javascript run as normal. If you're trying to run code in response to someone clicking on link A but the browser had disabled onclick for link A, you could still register an onclick for the entire page and in that listener examine the coordinates of the mouse to see if it's over link A and then run code "in response" to the click. This is just one of countless ways you could get around the rule I'm sure.

<comment><USER6> Maybe the browser itself should have more efficient anti-clickjacking tech, such as blacklists and spam classifiers. Users should be able to block all popups from a specific site when protection doesn't work well automatically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For Google to do this, there is a competition aspect to it. Pop-unders compete with Google.

That said, something needs to give. Particularly disturbing is news sites. Otherwise reputable news sites are willing to put up the sleaziest "monetization" on their sites. Pop unders, pop overs and extremely dishonest advertising, especially under the "native ads" umbrella. Many of these are advertising fake news, fake products, fake customer stories.

There is such a thing as advertising standards, where advertising standards. It works differently in every country, but the mechanism is generally 2-fold. (1)Some sort of advertising authority regulates the media side: they can complain/accuse TV stations or print papers. (2)Regulated industries (drugs, financial services) have a regulator that holds them to advertising standards. This part still works, but no one seems to have the ability/jurisdiction to complain about online advertising.

At the very least, I'd like to see national advertising standards authorities ban the use of certain ad aggregotors on local news sites, if they violate advertising standards. Many of these ads are ilegal anyway, I think.

</comment><comment><USER8> wouldn't it be better to just find a way to prevent pop-unders in the first place. Why is it so hard to thwart them? All these sites use the same script that evades the popup blocker built into chrome yet none of google's 1000's of engineers can do anything about it apparently.

<comment><USER9> >All these sites use the same script that evades the popup blocker built into chrome yet none of google's 1000's of engineers can do anything about it apparently.

Because it's really hard to differentiate between legit popups (that the user wants) and popups that are unwanted.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_ad#Pop- under_ads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_ad#Pop-under_ads)

<comment><USER10> Why would anyone ever want a pop-under for any reason? I would be satisfied with a solution that turned any pop-under into a pop-up.

<comment><USER11> That's actually an interesting point. I wonder how many sites would be broken by disabling methods that shift window focus, like Window.focus() and Window.blur()? Probably not many...

<comment><USER12> Every bank website I've used so far does forced pop ups, as well as websites that want you to authenticate yourself using some other service (such as Google, or Facebook.)

<comment><USER13> > Every bank website I've used so far does forced pop ups

But why do they do this? I have yet to have someone give me a good explanation.

<comment><USER14> It's done to escape from iFrame jail attempts. Rogue site loads bank site in iFrame, end user types in their password...

<comment><USER15> Browsers are not supposed to let javascript access the DOM or events in a cross-domain iframe, is that not correct?

<comment><USER16> Correct, but it's still possible for the parent page to overlay invisible textboxes and buttons in order to capture input.

<comment><USER17> Wow, what a tire fire the web has turned out to be.

Can we just throw the whole thing out and start over? I miss the 90s...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pop-unders are extremely annoying, not only do they slow the browser but they are always filled with malware. Good move by google.

</comment><comment><USER18> I didn't know these had become a thing, due to my use of ad blocking.

Thanks, ad blocking.

</comment><comment><USER19> this is not because google is your friend, this is because they want you to have less reason to use adblock.

<comment><USER20> But in this case I align with their decision. I don't mind websites that have advertisements as long as they aren't intrusive, and my privacy is maintained. If those demands were met on all of the sites I frequent I would uninstall my ad-blocker

<comment><USER9> >I don't mind websites that have advertisements as long as they aren't intrusive, and my privacy is maintained

It would be a cold day in hell if google stopped tracking people.

<comment><USER21> Agreed, Google is unlikely to stop trying to track it's users; it's too profitable.

On the other hand, privacy is more about choosing what you share than not sharing things, and imo Google does an okay job at letting users control what they share; better than most companies operating at that scale. And while their privacy controls are not very fine grained, there seems to be an emphasis on making sure even non-technical users understand what is being shared and why.

<comment><USER22> FWIW, [https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols](https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols) to control what data they'd use and how it's used, and [http://history.google.com](http://history.google.com) lists the data they've collected. You can delete some or all from there.

<comment><USER23> I highly doubt it and derived data are actually deleted, it merely stops you from being able to view it.

<comment><USER24> That's a pretty serious claim. Do you have anything other than scepticism behind it?

[Disclaimer: I work at Google. Every team I've interacted with takes this very seriously]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm surprised they didn't ban them already. I mean, Google Adsense already had rules about not being able to use too many ads on one page, or about displaying them next to ads from other providers.

Honestly though, I'm quite happy they're doing this. Yeah some people may say its anti competitive or what not, but the type of ads many sites run are ridiculous. Sometimes even your basic news site or forum is literally packed with ads from top to bottom, with everything from overlays to transitions and pop ups/pop unders and auto playing video going on at once.

If this sort of thing discourages that, it'll make the internet a hundred times more tolerable for everyone (especially those unfortunate souls who can't use Adblock for whatever reason).

</comment><comment><USER26> That's a great step. I can think of a few more steps they could take, such as removing ads from fake news sites.

Of course that gets into difficult judgement calls, whereas this pop-under case is pretty clear cut.

It makes sense if they want to move slowly and deliberately, but I hope they won't stop here.

<comment><USER27> Any particular fake news sites you had in mind?

<comment><USER26> Stuff like outbrain.com, scribol.com, travelwhip.com, and their ilk. Obviously these are not strictly "news" but you get the idea. I think of them as sites that will do almost anything to increase clicks, ad impressions, and affiliate revenues, including presenting severely compromised content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> My father encountered a clickbait site a few weeks ago that would spawn pop- unders playing continuous video ads, muted, which closed as soon as they were focused.

It was bizarre. My only guess was that the site was trying to scam advertisers by "showing" lots of ads to users, without the users actually seeing/hearing them and getting annoyed.

</comment><comment><USER29> Are these honestly more annoying than YouTube ads?

</comment><comment><USER30> Or fix Chrome that allows this kind of abuse? Google doesn't give a shit about protecting users.

<comment><USER31> > Google doesn't give a shit about protecting users.

> Article about Google protecting users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Antitrust regulators should look into this one.

EDIT: ...because the policy punishes advertisers use of _other_ advertising providers.

<comment><USER33> I developed malware that injects spammy ads into people's browsers.

Google banned my site from their index! Antitrust regulators need to look into this because it costed me my business and my employees! </sarcasm>

<comment><USER34> This is why US antitrust law focuses on harm to consumers, not companies. I don't see much harm to consumers if Google refuses to do business with websites that annoy consumers. Google already has a lot of rules that websites have to follow in order to be eligible for AdSense.</comment></comment></comment>


Distraction is a kind of obesity of the mind - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/12/matthew-crawford-distraction-is-a-kind-of-obesity-of-the-mind-the-world-beyond-your-head <comment><USER3> One of the interesting things to me is what we do when a commodity switches from scarcity to abundance.

In particular, when I was a kid a big problem for me was information scarcity. I remember reading the cereal box over and over because it was the only thing to read at breakfast. I read everything in the newspaper because that's what I had. Library trips were a big deal.

Now, though, I have an elaborate series of tricks for managing information abundance. Inbox zero. Browser tab zero. Instapaper, Pinboard, Amazon wishlist, Netflix queue. And Leechblock, beloved Leechblock. I have two laptops, work and fun, and the main difference is that on the work one I can't access certain sorts of information.

What will be especially interesting to me is to see how kids who are growing up now end up handling this stuff. I expect they'll be much better than me at this.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I agree with you so much.

I used to beg my parents to order me various forms of an encyclopaedia, I used to devour bookshelves. I remember reading every breakfast food box and piece of junkmail, just because it was something new.

I remember my mom telling me how shocked she was when I was like 6 or something - she didn't believe me that I read one of these young adult books in a day, and so I then rambled the entire story out, and she was proud of that for a while. I told my mom recently that I was watching an anime, and she was surprised and happy that "I watch TV again", because I've pretty much stopped watching TV for the past 10 years or so. The contrast of these worlds is stark.

I remember this stuff and I feel like I've become dumber, because I feel like I can't hold as much information. What is really happening, is I can't hold as much information as a computer can. But then there's some kind of process that seems to run on top of the memorization, that feels more like it's something I'd call a sense of self. Sometimes it is tiny iterations of a swift selection mechanic operating on information that has already been indexed, sorted, qualified, quantified, translated and weighted countless times, other times, it is a way of being intelligent that I don't ever think I could ever program. It is the kind of thing that makes the comparison of AI to actual intelligence laughable and ridiculous to even begin to pose the question.

To me, it's more about being able to find a real signal in a world that is constantly producing enough noise to consume us all.

<comment><USER5> You're an interesting dude and it would be cool to hang out with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Something feels wrong about this article; I can't quite put my finger on what it is. It's like a lot of pop-psych claims are being thrown out there with nothing to back them up. I think I'll wait for more Amazon reviews before picking up this book, if at all.

His previous book sounds interesting though. This just smells too much like a PR piece I think.

<comment><USER7> You can read the entire book, minus a couple pages redacted here and there, with Amazon's "Look Inside" feature. I don't know if this is intentional -- you usually only get the first 10 pages or so -- but I've just done it successfully on two different computers with different IP addresses, one logged into an account and one not, so you should be able to.

Having scanned the book for about 15 minutes over my morning coffee I think he has an insightful thesis: things we had to work really hard for and/or make major life sacrifices for a half-century ago are now free and abundant; simultaneously, society has gotten a lot less structured and communities (both in the literal-geographical sense and the activity-based sense) are generally weaker. As such, we've become prisoners of the infinite options available to us, and our lives become diluted as a result; e.g., we'd rather get our sexual gratification by opening up an anonymous browser window and visiting Redtube than put in the work to ask someone out on a date and build an actual physical relationship with another human being.

The author's thesis is that we need to train our self-control by doing things that require self-discipline and focus. What I find interesting about it is it really flies in the face of other pop-psych books (e.g., Tierney's _Willpower_ ) that suggest that we have a finite reservoir of self-control that we should expend wisely.

<comment><USER6> That actually sounds fascinating and changes my thoughts, such that I'll probably pick this up.

I've been trying to figure out what bothered me about the way the thesis was presented in the article. I think I picked up on the bit about 'video games, pornography and gambling apps on your phone' and assumed the author was making a moral judgement on those things. That doesn't sound like the case though - <USER2> think I was just quick to judge.

Another one to add to the growing Kindle pile :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know folks who consume food to relieve stress. When I was at MIT, I would do the same with international news until discovering [http://selfcontrolapp.com/](http://selfcontrolapp.com/), which was the reason I switched from Linux to OS X.

<comment><USER9> I've just switched the LeechBlock Firefox extension because you can delay the page loading (thus making you think why you went there in the first place).

<comment><USER3> Yes! A 10-second delay is enough to make me think, "Do I really want to spend time on this?" But not enough to make me circumvent the filter. I also really like its lockdown mode, so that I can say, "For the next 2 hours, no distractions."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Meditation has been an invaluable tool for me in fighting distraction. Investing a small amount of time practicing everyday yields huge returns in the long run. As the forces competing for your attention become stronger in the coming years, the ability to maintain focus will become more valuable. I see programs that block websites as only treating the symptoms of lack of focus, whereas meditation is a way to directly develop the skills to overcome it.

<comment><USER11> 1\. How long do you meditate? 2\. What's your pre-meditation trigger? 3\. How many times a day? 4\. How often do you miss a day (like when travelling), and do you have any technique for getting back into the habit?

<comment><USER10> I usually just meditate for ten to fifteen minutes in the morning before I've had any coffee. I focus on my breathing, and when my mind wanders, I refocus. I don't notice much difference from longer meditation, and I'm always able to set aside ten minutes, so it is easier to maintain the habit. My advice for getting back into meditation is to just force yourself to do it for the first couple weeks, even if it doesn't feel worthwhile. It is hard at first, but you will soon notice that you're getting better. Here is a free online book for anyone interested in getting started: [http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html](http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I should probably get back to work instead of reading this.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been a Matthew Crawford fan since reading _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ back in 2010. It completely changed the way I viewed my work and my career.

<comment><USER14> I found one of his best insights to be that the factory model has been shifting out of blue-collar work, where factories are automated and many people now work essentially as craftsman, into white-collar work, where much office work has become rote. (I would put programmers into the craftsman category.)

"Yet there is evidence to suggest that the new frontier of capitalism lies in doing to office work what was previously done to factory work: draining it of its cognitive elements. Paradoxically, educators who would steer students toward cognitively rich work might do this best by rehabilitating the manual trades, based on a firmer grasp of what such work is really like."

On the office environment: "Either you can bend conduit or you can't, and this is plain. So there is less reason to manage appearances. There is a real freedom of speech on a job site, which reverberates outward and sustains a wider liberality. You can tell dirty jokes. Where there is real work being done, the order of things isn't quite so fragile."

On learning a hands-on trade: "Occupations based on universal, propositional knowledge are more prestigious, but they are also the kind that face competition from the whole world as book learning becomes more widely disseminated in the global economy. Practical know-how, on the other hand, is always tied to the experience of a particular person. It can't be downloaded, it can only be lived."

<comment><USER13> There has been a lot of effort to try to shift programming into a clerical work mindset, a process to be Taylorized rather than a craft to be mastered. But given the nature of the work, there's a fairly narrow gap between "This kind of code can be Taylorized" versus "This kind of code can be automated out of human hands altogether".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Ads were everywhere: on hotel-room key cards, on X-ray trays at airport security, on the handrails on escalators."

One of the great things about living in a foreign country and not speaking the language especially well, many of the subtleties of advertising are lost on me.

Conversely when I was in the US for a few hours flying back from Mexico, wow, everything is being blasted at you on all fronts. I have read a fair bit about NLP and it just feels like pure brainwashing there. The lounge "serving them who serve us" and the likes. I was glad to get away.

</comment><comment><USER16> Slightly OT: has anyone read the other book mentioned in the article, 'The Case for Working with Your Hands'? [1]

The premise sounds interesting, I'm not sure about the execution though.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Working-Hands-Office-Fixing- Things/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Working-Hands-Office-Fixing- Things/dp/0141047291)

<comment><USER17> I haven't read it, but I'm thinking to buy it. I read few months ago other book (The shadows, what the internet is doing to our brains by Nicholas Carr) and it's a very interesting topic (more in current times).

<comment><USER18> It's called 'The Shallows', and is an interesting read: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Shallows-Internet-Doing- Brains/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Shallows-Internet-Doing- Brains/dp/0393339750)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was just thinking of using this metaphore with my son who wastes way too much time on video games. Entertainment is fine after important things are done (school) but can't become the main focus.

<comment><USER20> When I was growing up, I was always taught to do my chores, then I could play. But rather than simply enforcing the rule, I remember my dad actually explaining the logic to me while I was young -- basically, if you start to play first, the whole time you're having fun, you've got your responsibilities in the back of your mind (unless you're just a total slacker).

By getting the work done first, you actually _enjoy playing more_.

(Plus, if you play first then try to force yourself to work, it gets harder to switch context into a "work mode" and you end up not getting around to it a lot of the time)

I definitely notice that in my life now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A useful tool to fight against the modern distraction epidemic: [http://focusr.co](http://focusr.co)

</comment><comment><USER22> and hackernews is foie gras

<comment><USER23> A luxury product created by gratuitous cruelty? Seems a bit harsh.

<comment><USER24> Truffles then? A rare luxury food found by digging in the earth :)

<comment><USER23> But what is luxurious (or even exclusive) about HN? If you are going to generate some culinary comparison perhaps a niche burger (tofu?) would be more appropriate.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to rip apart a programmers CV - <AUTHOR> http://codercramp.com/2014/06/29/how-to-rip-apart-a-programmers-cv/ <comment><USER2> Oh god. Most of this is hilarious.

"A seasoned C developer with 10 years experience can not instantly morph into an advanced front end web application developer"

True, but they'll be a damn sight quicker at picking it up than anyone else. And they'll write far better code when they're there.

If you're looking for a permanent employee, all development experience is relevant -- there is a huge amount of overlap and retraining just for a different language is no biggie. They'll also have solved (i'd bet) far harder problems than "HOW DO I GET THIS UI WIDGET TO UPDATE WHEN THIS HAPPENS".

If you're looking for someone to hit the ground running from day 1, or work as a contractor, it's different. But you generalise too far here.

"However, they have failed to mention anything else to back it up. I would expect to see some of the following throughout their CV; Design Patterns (MVC, Factories, Singletons, ActiveRecord), Classes, Objects, UML…"

In my CV (highly rated by everyone i've given it to) you won't find a single one of these. Instead, you'll find _real descriptions_ of what i've accomplished, who I worked with (mentoring etc), my methodology (agile, test driven development) and so on.

And UML... holy shit, yeah, no.

Community work? See Ashe Dryden's "The Ethics of Unpaid Labor and the OSS community", [http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor- an...](http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss- community), and James Coglan's "Why GitHub is not your CV", [https://blog.jcoglan.com/2013/11/15/why-github-is-not- your-c...](https://blog.jcoglan.com/2013/11/15/why-github-is-not-your-cv/).

Hiring the right people has always been, and will continue to be, a hard job. The only way to do it is to use common sense and actually read the CV's you're being sent, then talk to the people you think could do the job to see if they can.

<comment><USER3> Ya, I'm not sure if the OP was a troll HN post or what the goal was but the bit about keywords to me made me immediately shake my head. The only people who want keyword stuffed resumes are recruiters.

Also, the poor capitalization/grammar in places. e.g. (which i will cover shortly)

I'm amazed this was upvoted.

<comment><AUTHOR> No troll. The typos etc are explained here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/29yq47/how_to_r...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/29yq47/how_to_rip_apart_a_programmers_cv/)

Mainly to do with the fact I am from the UK and we spell things differently to people in the US.

<comment><USER3> In the UK, you still use I and not i.

Fair enough but I'd suggest in the future you proofread more before self- submitting to HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Correct, and we also spell things with an s where you use a z and others such as we spell "color" as "colour". The problem is, if I were to correct it for the UK, the US complain, if I correct it for the US, the UK complain. Since I am from the UK I will definitely make US related mistakes because I have not learnt your English.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We haven't seriously looked at a resume in 2 years.

Phone screeners --- who barely count for anything in our process, but don't get me started on that --- might skim a resume just so they have something to start talking about.

Otherwise, our hiring process is resume-blind.

We bring people in directly out of school, from random line-of-business programming jobs all around the country, and from networking jobs for people who want to transfer into something more developer-y.

I should mention: our work is not easy. I can hold my own in an argument that says we're significantly more technical and significantly more sophisticated than the median Silicon Valley startup.

Resumes are worthless. Do not bother. If you're screening with resumes, you're doing something wrong.

<comment><USER5> A bit black and white there. I generally agree that resumes should not be a top indicator, but they can be useful to screen out some people.

For example, I once posted a job that included the word "Ruby". I thought the job posting made it clear that Ruby was a very, very small part of the job. But I still got several resumes from people who were Ruby experts or at least claimed to be, and that is all the experience they had given their resumes. They had little or no non-Ruby experience. At the time, I needed someone who could write Ruby code but had much more experience elsewhere.

So the resumes helped me screen out those candidates. And I also learned that my job posting was worded incorrectly.

<comment><USER4> And you talked to none of them? You just assumed that their resume told you everything you needed to know about their capabilities? And if it didn't, too bad for them for writing a shitty resume?

<comment><USER5> In this particular case, I received ~20 resumes for 1 job and 80% were not Ruby-only resumes. So yes the Ruby-only screened them out. However I would have gone back and contacted them if none of the other 80% of candidates worked out.

<comment><USER4> You will get better results if you build a process that doesn't screen people out because of their resumes. That doesn't mean you don't screen candidates, and it doesn't mean that you don't have a funnel that knocks out a big chunk of them before you get on the phone.

It just means: don't select people for their getting-a-new-job skills. Those skills aren't relevant to software development work.

<comment><USER6> Based on your other comment, does this mean you use a commercial or custom general mental ability test in the funnel before screening and interviews?

It would be helpful to know more about what you do versus what you don't.

<comment><USER7> You can read about tptacek's company's process here: [http://matasano.com/careers/](http://matasano.com/careers/). It really does seem like a good way to learn whether a candidate will be able to perform the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> V-2 "Any experience, languages or technology that does not apply to what we need in the team. Let us say we are looking for "A junior front end web application developer". A seasoned C developer with 10 years experience can not instantly morph into an advanced front end web application developer"

I think this is a bit contrived. It's a long way from C to modern web development, but I see no reason why to skip extensive C# experience applying for a Java shop etc.

Or even experience with a different paradigm (such as functional programming). Having worked with a multitude of technologies is beneficial for a programmer. It enhances one's understanding of the craft. It also proves the programmer has flexed their "learning muscles" a lot, which again is an advantage in its own right, since learning is a job never done. Even if you have the just right experience right now, what happens in 3 years?

Of course directly relevant experience should be given clear priority over "other stuff", but I wouldn't be so harsh as to say it better be skipped altogether.

<comment><AUTHOR> Think i've already replied to this (sort of) here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7994877](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7994877)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Do you really believe that your 10 years of C# would keep you more efficient than say...John Carmack...after a few weeks on the job?

If you find a great programmer and they don't have your keywords you shouldn't turn them away. As long as they are excited about learning a new language they will be out performing some of your veterans in little time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Think I have sort of replied to your comment in another comment on this topic: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7994877](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7994877)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I cannot imagine an article more wrong than this one.

* "A seasoned C developer with 10 years experience can not instantly morph into an advanced front end web application developer" \- yes he can. Knowing things on bottom easily allows one to move up. It is the reverse that usually cannot happen.

* "Ignore the usual template based CV padding" \- if you got the resume through an agency, it would have never made it to you without this bullshit. Sad but true

* "You often need specialists and not generalists." \- false Specialists will become useless when that technology is no longer in use (you move form C# to java, for example). generalists will just help you with your next thing.

* "If you are looking for a C# or Java developer. You would expect their CV to contain those keywords, in context quite a few times." \- false. If you have enough interesting things to put in your resume, there is no space to write "java" 1000 times.

* "I would expect to see some of the following throughout their CV; Design Patterns (MVC, Factories, Singletons, ActiveRecord), Classes, Objects, UML" \- who the hell puts "classes" and "objects" on their resme. If i have to explain to you what OOP is and includes, I do not want to work for you!

* "Community participation" \- maybe accurate. Some people do not like handing out their code for free on github, and instead get paid for it (people who contract for a living, for example). Really want to disqualify them?

* "if it becomes the next big thing, this person could be the one to keep your company at the forefront!" \- If you hire based on technology instead of actual understanding (which it sounds like you do) then you will lose long term. Hire people who can actually learn, not those who happen to claim to know the latest buzzwords.

Of all the brilliant people I know, you would have discarded 100% at resume review stage. Probably not the best of ideas, that.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Of all the brilliant people I know, you would have discarded 100% at resume review stage."

Not really, because no one would tick all the boxes. If they haven't keyword dropped, then you can't apply that filter. if they have a brilliant track history then that pulls up the others that have been missed far greater than if they had keyword dropped.

Unless you're someone like Jon Skeet or Douglas Crockford you can't get away with an average CV. Those people have ticked the other boxes so much (social side, conference speaking, etc) which would greatly outweigh some of the other points which may be all the "junior" has got.

Although, like what that blog posts states, if you were Jon Skeet or Douglas Crockford you would already have ticked several of those things in that blog post ;)

Just because I have some pointers does not mean common sense must go out the window.

So no, the brilliant people you know would not of had their CV discarded at the review stage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My method:

1\. Take a section of their C.V.

2\. Ask about their strongest points in that section.

3\. Then go deep on their strongest point.

4\. Note their ability to follow your deep dive

5\. Repeat this multiple times

6\. Review notes:

      - The more sections they have where they can dive deep to a reasonable level the more senior they are.

      - The deeper they can go, the more difficult an actual problem in the prospective job can be that you can throw at them.

So far, this gave me a very accurate picture of their skill set.

</comment><comment><USER11> The keyword matching thing is one of my pet peeves. I was discussing a position once where they wanted firmware AND machine control AND computer vision AND WPF AND C++ AND SQL for their machine. Now this a machine I could produce myself from scratch I think. But the client wanted his keywords met I didn't have them all.

The recruiter had a laugh when I wrote this:

I'm not sure Michelangelo had painted a ceiling before he painted the Sistine Chapel. "Hmm, Mike I don't see any ceiling painting experience on your resume'..."

</comment><comment><USER12> Article missed to ignore gigantic blocks of technologies used. This is not a good place to figure out what the person is current in.

Side question: I keep hearing that ATS have filtering systems to block and auto reject candidates' resumes if they don't hit targeted keywords. Would like to know some of these companies / what the ATS actually is. I have worked with several ATS systems with several companies and each one always have to a human going through every single resume.</comment>


Amazon's heavy investing eats into bottom line, shares drop - <AUTHOR> http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/24/amazon-results-idINKBN0FT2ON20140724 <comment><USER2> There's a very old case, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., in which the Dodge brothers sued Ford for plowing all the profits from the company back into new factories and increased production, instead of issuing dividends.[1] Henry Ford said: "My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business." Ford lost the case. The court held that the purpose of a corporation was to maximize shareholder value, not to employ the most people.[2]

Amazon reminds me a bit of Ford back in the day. Profitability is nice for the shareholders, but at the end of the day, the net benefit they create to the economy, just by employing all those people and spending all that money on development, isn't really a function of their profitability.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company#Fac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company#Facts). A fact often glossed over is that the Dodge brothers wanted Ford to pay dividends because they were investing money in launching a competing car company.

[2] Although that's unlikely to be good law today.

<comment><USER3> > Although that's unlikely to be good law today.

Can you explain further here? It seems to me that maximizing shareholder value is, at least today, the exclusive purpose for which corporations exist. The law seems to require this.

<comment><USER4> In what timeframe? Every quarter? Amazon is in it for the long haul and will likely make shareholders a lot of money in the end.

<comment><USER5> They've already made shareholders a lot of money. Future returns have been pulled forward substantially. The stock should have been sold by now, the returns to be had on the stock are in the past.

Even being generous and giving Amazon a future 20 pe ratio, at the recent highs, would require roughly $9 billion in profit. Once again being generous and assuming they can ever reach a 5% net income margin, they need $180+ billion in sales. Let's recalculate for a 15 pe ratio and 3.5% net income margin: $342 billion in sales (that's the Walmart scenario).

The stock has nowhere to go for a decade from the recent $400x levels. The party is over.

<comment><USER6> I'm confused why you would tie Amazon's future, an eCommerce company who also has a strong cloud (AWS) and digital media division and a growing hardware division (Kindle, Fire) to a brick and mortar retailer such as WalMart.

Even discarding all other revenue streams, you want to compare the company to a retailer growing sales at 1% y/y (WalMart), while they grow sales at 22%? All this while only being in 12 international markets and citing a lack of non-English content as holding them back in the high margin area of digital content.

Your evaluation seems entirely misguided and ham-handed to be honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It saddens me that people are bothered about this. It highlights the continued disconnect between the interests of the companies traded on the market and those of the investors at large.

Bezos has been completely transparent about his philosophy regarding long-term and short-term profitability. This is not out of character for Amazon. Rather the opposite: the day I hear Amazon cutting long-term projects to boost short- term profitability is the day I would sell my Amazon stock. This is the way Amazon has operated for most of its history. They've already built up enough of a track record for us to trust that they know what they're doing. It is stupid to expect them to behave like other companies when we have seen them operate in this manner for some 20 years successfully. Maximizing short-term profitability is not a high priority for Amazon, and it never has been. Why is the market surprised then when they re-invest in growth? Because the market can be stupid.

<comment><USER8> It shouldn't sadden you, because Amazon is a pretty extreme case of this behavior. They've been unprofitable for a very, very long time, _and_ they command a very high multiple of earnings. Matt Yglesias has suggested that they're less a business than a charity run by Wall Street. At some point, they need to demonstrate that the land they're grabbing can be both defended and put to productive use.

Amazon's performance in the public market is more or less than only communication channel that exists to prompt Amazon to shift from Alexander the Great mode to Qing Dynasty mode.

<comment><USER7> The land they have _is_ being put to productive use. Unless I am very misled, they have many revenue streams that are profitable. No one is successfully invading their space, so I would argue they are defending their territory quite adequately. Alexander only stopped because his troops wouldn't keep going. Why should Amazon stop?

Also, I liked Eugene Wei's response[1] to the comments of Yglesias and others.

[1]: [http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2013/10/25/amazon-and-the- prof...](http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2013/10/25/amazon-and-the-profitless- business-model-narrative)

<comment><USER8> Nobody is successfully invading their space because those spaces are, to painfully stretch the analogy, still under martial law: Amazon is aggressively subsidizing them with sweet terms for customers.

<comment><USER7> But that's working. And unless I'm mistaken (which is quite possible) those spaces under martial law are profitable. If people were pointing out that Amazon wasn't generating revenue, that would be a different story.

<comment><USER8> I'm not saying it's not working. I'm making descriptive statements, not normative ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Trading at 2x Sales still seems a little high. They bought Zappos for 1x Sales and Zappos was profitable. Now the cloud services will have different multiples, but from my understanding that's not where most profits can be forecasted in the next 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER10> It will be interesting to see if this is the inflection point where Amazon is held to the same standard as other companies (finally).

<comment><USER11> This is probably the 10th time this has happened in Amazon's history. I am invested and not worried at all, FWIW.

<comment><USER12> Can I ask what you expect to occur that will produce the upside or dividend on your investment and what kind of time frame you're operating on?

<comment><USER11> Sure I think that's a reasonable question.

On a basic level I expect that Amazon will continue to grow, and that in the future the value of the stock will be increased and that I'll be able to sell it. I think an Amazon that was paying dividends could be great, or not, but it doesn't sound like a business that I understand so I wouldn't invest in that because I don't think I could evaluate it. I'm investing in Amazon because I believe in Jeff Bezo's thesis and like what he's doing. It's also a significant but not life changing amount of money invested, so I'm comfortable having my own investment ideas here instead of playing safe with mutual funds, which is what I usually do.

But more importantly: why do I expect Amazon will continue to grow? Because they have an extremely large e-commerce business that is providing a base for them to expand into other markets, and because they have demonstrated ability to do so. AWS, Fire, Prime, content etc., are all built on an extremely solid e-commerce foundation. AWS is huge, and is expected to be more and more of Amazon's total business (7% in 2015), and I am betting that they will continue to make new business lines like AWS.

My time frame is very long, I'm young and don't need the money anytime soon.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tesla sending flawed parts from suppliers to machine shops for rework - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/tesla-sending-flawed-parts-from-suppliers-to-machine-shops-for-rework.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cstory%7C&par=yahoo&yptr=yahoo <comment><USER2> Reheated story (March 14): [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/tesla- manufacturing-high-vol...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/tesla- manufacturing-high-volume-of-flawed-parts-employees.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Chinese alu castings, no wonder they need machining before use. I bet even with machining they are 1/2 cheaper than US made ones.</comment>


The Genius of iMessage - <AUTHOR> http://uxhero.com/blog/the-genius-of-imessage/

<comment><USER2> That isn't the genius of iMessage. The genius is that it's built in, activated by default and seamless with SMS. If my recipient has iMessage, it sends over iMessage. If my recipient does not it sends over SMS.

<comment> mike-cardwell The carriers will love this

<comment><USER3> The rumor is that the carriers didn't hear about iMessage until Jobs announced it at WWDC.

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/06/06/imessage>

<comment><USER4> Don't worry, I'm sure AT&T will filter all your iPhone traffic and count 1 iMessage as 1 SMS message regardless so there's no "confusion" for the end user trying to figure out why their SMS usage has gone down by 80%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A few people have mentioned how difficult it will be to get people to upgrade to iOS 5 in order to use iMessage. Yes, a lot of people never sync and a few don't even connect to WiFi, but it's important to remember Apple is in this for the long haul. iPhones are going to be around for a while. When my iPhone 3 dies I'm going to go to the nearest Apple store and get a new iPhone with iOS 5 or higher. In other words, even if I don't sync I will eventually be upgrading. Apple would love it if everyone upgraded tomorrow, but they will settle for everyone upgrading eventually.

</comment><comment><USER6> Actually, iMessage is a great example of Apple taking a succesful third-party concept and making it their own in the OS, like Dashboard (Konfabulator) before, they now do the same to WhatsApp, only this is iOS only and Whatsapp is crossplatform.

<comment><USER7> iMessage is more akin to BBM than to WhatsApp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My Dad had never connected his iPhone to a computer, until he ran into a specific problem (the proximity sensor wasn't working well) and Apple told him to update.

On the surface this sounds great… but my Dad has never attached his phone to a WiFi network either.

OTA backups and updates would need to work on 3G (so that the user doesn't have to do anything special to get them) to help everyone.

</comment><comment><USER9> WhatsApp (<http://www.whatsapp.com/>) lets you do something similar, and to any other smart phone.

I have enough trouble manually updating my iphone's OS and manually syncing it while keeping all my apps and media. The thought of them introducing more automation terrifies me.

</comment><comment> captain-asshat I'm sorry but users aren't going to upgrade to iOS 5 for the same reasons they haven't upgraded in the past: they just dont care.

Unless a user is actually frustrated with something, they won't bother investigating how to fix it. Most of the time they probably won't even know there IS a fix unless someone tells them.

Users aren't going to want to use an iOS only messaging service, and they certainly won't want to use two different services depending on who they're messaging. This has already happened before with FaceTime; some people used it and found it interesting but there was no mass appeal because not everyone has an iOS device.

<comment><USER10>
      > I'm sorry but users aren't going to upgrade to iOS 5 for
      > the same reasons they haven't upgraded in the past: they
      > just dont care.

What are you talking about? [http://www.macpost.net/221/apple-ios- distribution-stats-95-o...](http://www.macpost.net/221/apple-ios-distribution- stats-95-of-iphones-adopts-ios-4/)

<comment><USER11> The article points to [http://onefps.net/post/6496478249/50-percent-of-iphone- owner...](http://onefps.net/post/6496478249/50-percent-of-iphone-owners-dont- backup) which tells a somewhat different story.

One article sources "A little bird" and the other its own customer base. I wouldn't take neither as a definitive answer..

<comment><USER10> There is one more: [http://www.marco.org/2011/03/24/ios-device-and-os-version- st...](http://www.marco.org/2011/03/24/ios-device-and-os-version-stats-from- instapaper-3-0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 75% of my contacts who use a smartphone, already use WhatsApp. i dont see this taking off unless they provide some kind of bridge to existing services to ensure cross plattform capabilities.

<comment><USER13> The bridge is SMS. It's seamless with SMS. I would guess that mobile usage of SMS is still more common than mobile usage of IM. Instead of picking some IM app as a brdige Apple decided to pick SMS which seems like the right choice to me.

I don't think iMessage will convince many people to update. Most people probably won't even know that they are using iMessage. The only effect they will see is a shrinking phone bill.</comment></comment>


Steve Yegge - where are you? - <AUTHOR>

Do you know that feeling when your favorite TV show gets canceled after 7 seasons? You've grown attached to the characters and their lives and you actually feel loss... That's how I feel about Steve Yegge's blog posts. He apparently made his threats true and stopped blogging. Does anyone share that feeling, and more importantly, does anyone have any insights whether there may be a chance for his blog to get revived? <comment><USER2> I miss his posts too. But Steve yegge occurred to me like a character who sticks to his decisions(which are usually made after a lot of thought). So i doubt if we can revive his blogging, but if someone manages to do that kudos... i miss his blogs.

</comment><comment><USER3> What bugs me is that his last post from about a year ago says that there are still three more. I've found all of his writings very interesting, and am kind of sad that there probably won't be any more.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think that he blogs internally a lot @ Google. But he might have quit that too, IDK.</comment>


Metamarkets Open Sources Druid, A Real-Time Analytics Data Store - <AUTHOR> http://metamarkets.com/2012/metamarkets-open-sources-druid/

<comment><USER2> This is great news for the broader community, even if you do not have a use for Druid per se.

Database engines designed for real-time analytics have a significantly different internal structure than either traditional OLTP or popular analytical systems like Hadoop. Most people just try to (badly) fit real-time analytic workloads into a database engine not designed for it. Druid is the first open source example I am aware of that has internals designed for these types of workloads.

Few software engineers know what the inside of a real-time analytical database looks like. This will provide a great starting point. (The only major missing component is the non-trivial, custom I/O scheduling engine required to back these engines to disk instead of in-memory.)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is great. I've been keeping an eye on the meta markets blog for entries about Druid because we've been doing something similar and it's always useful to see how other folk are solving a shared problem.

Regarding what's on github: a lot more documentation / examples would make working out how to use it a lot easier.

<comment><USER4> I too have been following these blog posts. I'm happy to see they've open- sourced Druid but I agree that some more documentation and examples would go a long way. Presumably this will be coming in the future, for now it's nice just to be able to grab the code and play.

I'd be interested to hear about how you tackled the realtime analytics problem? We're doing a shootout between HBase, Riak (w/ map-reduce), Hypertable and Postgres at the moment - so far there's no clear winner.

<comment><USER3> We went old school. We have a whole bunch of MySQL instances that we've sharded (using consistent hashing). Queries are sent to all of the shards and then aggregated on one of our query servers.

We also aggregate as we go which means there's just less data around to have to store (the disadvantage being that we need to decide up front what we want to aggregate but that has been less of an issue). We can't do accurate unique counts on pre aggregated data but we've added hyperloglog into the mix as most of our use cases can tolerate a small amount of error.

We partition our MySQL tables, which means we can archive old data easily and don't need to run any repair jobs.

Disadvantages:

* Column oriented is a better fit for this kind of data (somewhat mitigated if the data isn't sparse and we store id's instead of values e.g. city_id rather than city_name).

* Schema changes are not pleasant. We found some deadlock with partitions and running alter table statements which locks up the entire server.

Advantages:

* It performs well enough for our needs

* Having SQL as a query language is very pleasant

* MySQL is well understood, which makes looking after it quite easy

<comment><USER4> Thanks for sharing this info! Of all the points you listed I think the most important for me is "MySQL is well understood, which makes looking after it quite easy". Personally I think that our analytics requirements can be satisfied by at least half a dozen different systems out there, so management, optimisation and maintenance will be major factors. For my part, these are my thoughts on the systems we've looked at:

1\. Riak: K/V stores are conceptually simple, secondary indexes look nice, and the consensus from RICON was that scaling by adding nodes pretty-much Just Works. However, no-one at RICON seemed to use MapReduce, particularly not for real-time analytics. No SQL-like querying.

2\. HBase: Built on popular technologies. Amazon provides it as a service, but altogether it's very complex (a lot of components, and we're not a Java shop) and we have had trouble achieving the performance we need - although it seems from various blogs and books that it must be possible.

3\. Hypertable: Still testing it, hard to find much information about it outside of the main site.

4\. Postgres: Everyone knows and loves Postgres. Scaling (and performance after scaling) are concerns - we might have to go down the sharding route, and may never be able to store raw events data as it comes in.

Haven't looked at Cassandra yet, but most likely will do that soon.

<comment><USER5> The trick to hbase performance almost always relies on getting the row key and column qualifier design right. Your keys and qualifiers should be chosen to exploit bulk scans. If you have any specific questions, shoot me an email I can give you some pointers (email in profile).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Infobright made waves as a column store analytics database. It's performance was awesome when dealing with billions of rows. Having druid use distributed machines with the data in memory is a different approach though.

</comment><comment><USER7> <https://github.com/metamx/druid></comment>