Carmack: Unquestionable that mobile will surpass consoles - <AUTHOR> http://www.industrygamers.com/news/john-carmack-unquestionable-that-mobile-will-surpass-current-consoles/ <comment><USER3> Title is misleading...

If you read the article Carmack is saying that the processing of power of mobile devices will exceed current generation consoles, not that the sales will.

About sales he says:

"Could the bottom drop out on the triple A market because everyone's playing Angry Birds? It doesn't seem to be happening. The numbers don't show that. We're selling more big titles than ever before, despite having all of these other platforms out there."

About processing power he says:

"it's unquestionable that within a very short time, we're going to have portable cell phones that are more powerful than the current-gen consoles."

<comment><USER4> The title is not misleading. You missed the next sentence in the quote from John Carmack:

"So it looks like it's parallel growth rather than one stealing from the other."

My interpretation is that there is a massive market for convenient casual games that has been neglected for a long time. That market is exploding and represents huge revenue opportunities, but because it targets an entirely different customer base, it is not hurting sales in the serious gaming market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think that it's a bit surprising that a company like say SEGA or EA or whoever hasn't got together and put out a gamer-oriented Apple/GoogleTV type device. Think Apple TV size that used existing bluetooth PS3 or Wii controllers or controllers designed for the system.

Certainly with dual/quad core chipsets, we are close to or past the power of the Wii and if there was a better industry standard around such things you could even create a kind of built-in "meta console" platform within TV's. Then you don't even have to buy a separate device, your TV just plays games as long as you have a controller. That would probably sell more HDTV's than 3-D TV technology would.

All I know is if you can get an ARM chipset that can reliably spit out 720p games at 30fps with reasonably good quality, built into a TV that had say 10,000 games available for under $10 (I'm looking at you iOS and Android), parents woudln't buy their kids 360's or PS3's. They'd just buy apps that run on their tv.

<comment><USER6> How is that different at all from the online distribution systems that the PS3, 360, and Wii already have? The 360 has a fantastic low price indie market in Xbox Live Arcade, the PS3 does pretty well, and the Wii is steadily gaining the entire Nintendo back catalog.

What would people gain from buying yet another device, and what do you mean by a "meta console"? Something like OnLive? Because otherwise, you're not going to see anywhere near the performance that the current consoles get. While graphics don't make the game, shiny graphics do help to sell games.

<comment><USER7> "How is that different at all from the online distribution systems that the PS3, 360, and Wii already have?"

The product that the parent post describes is priced like an impulse buy ($99), has no monthly fee , integrates beautifully with millions of popular devices (Airplay with iTunes, iPads, iPhones, iPods) and Apple would make it as trivial as possible to port games/apps from their already popular platforms to the new TV format... If they indeed keep the pricing as cheap as Apple TV, it could be practically ubiquitous and the network effects for social games and Facetime-like apps would thus be a major competitive edge.

I don't think it's hard to imagine Apple disrupting the consoles. Of course, it's more likely that they'll try to stay intensely focused on their two existing platforms for the foreseeable future. Then again, I have a feeling that the merging of Android with Google TV makes the marriage of iOS and Apple TV more likely - they know that the home's "big screen" is a future battleground for these platforms.

<comment><USER8> The AppleTV is already iOS behind the scenes (and uses the same A4 chipset as the current iPhone and iPod touch). Technically, it'd be possible to run iOS games on the Apple TV nearly unmodified, and use your other iOS devices as controllers. Also, the iPad 2 will be able to do full video mirroring over the network to the Apple TV as of iOS 5; presuming the performance is up to spec it'd be possible to "invade" living room gaming that way as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It will happen, and Sony and Microsoft only have themselves to blame for failing to figure out the console upgrade path and what consumers want. The hardware in the latest xbox and playstation is now over 6 years old, and what you can buy with a $150 mobile device almost surpasses it in pushing polygons.

I don't understand why they do not keep the console operating system consistant, and update hardware every 18 months. xbox loading times, game prices etc. are a pain when the alternative is to boot up your phone or browser and play for 5-10 minutes at a time. Sony had the Ericsson partnership they did nothing with, and Microsoft had Microsoft .. and nothing came of either.

The more exciting element is gaming moving to the browser. webgl is coming to the mobile browsers soon. I just happen to be watching this demo video yesterday of RAGE running on webgl in a browser:

<http://youtu.be/d0S2dsuSxHw>

bit of a 'holy shit the world is changing' moment

<comment><USER10> A $150 mobile device is far from surpassing the Xbox 360 and PS3 in polygon pushing power. Ignoring that the hardware isn't going to be fast enough until Kal-El shows up (and even longer until Kal-El-type hardware is $150) the consoles also permit writing much closer to the metal than most mobile devices.

Consistent hardware is the reason consoles have been so attractive to develop for -- you don't have to worry about leaving 30% of your market behind because you want to use OpenGL ES 2.0, you don't worry about having performance differences between different phones, you don't worry about one configuration having multiple cores and another not. Microsoft went so far to ensure consistency in their hardware performance profile that when the Xbox 360 was moved from discrete CPU/GPU to a SoC for their new slim version they built a front-side bus on die.

Different hardware profiles is why AAA games just seemed to evaporate on the PC for a while. Even now with Direct3D 10 and 11 having given developers a much more stable target to aim for it's still a pain to develop for them. With the mobile market's mix of instruction sets (NEON, VFP, soft FP), graphics libraries (GLES 1.1, 2.0) and their different implementations (necessitating things like this: <http://aras-p.info/blog/2010/09/29/glsl-optimizer/>), plus core counts, clock speeds, screen sizes, and operating systems, it's getting worse in mobile than it was for PC.

For the most part console/PC games and mobile games are different in player usage too -- saying "why play a console game when you can boot your phone or browser for 5-10 minutes at a time" is like saying "why watch a movie when you can watch cat videos on Youtube". Different audience, different itches scratched.

As for the "WebGL Rage" demo, it's neat but it's very misleading. First he's just displaying assets from the iOS version of Mutant Bash, it's not even the full Mutant Bash game, let alone the full game of Rage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've said it many times: Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony need to be worried about... Apple. The iPad (more than the iPhone IMHO) is becoming and will become a massive gaming platform.

The move towards 3D realism on modern consoles (Xbox360, PS3 and successors) has driven up costs, driven down release cycles and basically given things that many (if not most) people don't actually care that much about.

The App Store has proven there is a serious market for lower-priced games with wide distribution, something the content industry as a whole has failed of grasp over the last decade or more in spite of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

<comment><USER12> Certainly 3D realistic games (AAA FPS titles, for example) are very expensive to make. However, many of them also have fantastic returns and have generated extraordinary revenues. Just as in the movie industry there is a place for both high and low production values.

Modern Warfare 2, for example, was the highest grossing entertainment launch in history, including blockbuster movies, making a third of a billion dollars in a single day. Today only perhaps 2 or 3 films have had higher box office revenues than Modern Warfare 2 has made. No sane person would pass up a chance for such revenues. More so when you consider that at that scale games cost far less than movies to produce: MW2 cost about $60 million to make, whereas Avatar had a budget of $237 million, Titanic had a budget of $200 million, and even the Return of the King had a budget of $94 million.

Hollywood seems to be chugging along just fine, and the gaming industry seems to have lower costs and comparable revenues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anybody who thinks that mobiles will replace consoles for gaming doesn't actually seriously game (or perhaps it's more accurate to say that they aren't interested in games more complicated than farmville or Angry Birds).

Consoles (and PC's for that matter) offer up several things that phones can not offer.

1) Decent controls. Controls for phone based games are terribly imprecise; to the point where even games specifically designed for phone controls don't always do what you want them to do. Even phones with hardware controls are uncomfortable for someone like me to use for a long period of time (Such as the PSP Go and it's new mobile successor)

2) Gaming on large displays. I don't mind my mobile gaming - I've owned most handhelds since the gameboy - but I don't want to play Rage or Skyrym on a screen less than 11" diagonal.

3) Stable hardware specs. I don't have to worry that my 3 year old 360 won't play Skyrym when it's released. I do have to wonder if my original droid will play the latest hotness in games.

4) Stable internet connections. I've tried an MMO on a phone; the lag was unacceptable.

5) I can play on a console all day long and not worry about battery life.

6) Textures. No handheld can match the texture resolution of the consoles, simply due to the storage requirements for the graphics & limitations on realistic bandwidth use to download a game on a phone.

Sure, the current consoles are starting to show their age. But their _launch_ titles still look better than any phone game I've ever seen, and we're nearing the point where new consoles will start making their appearance (see Nintendo's recent announcement about their new console).

<comment><USER14> > Anybody who thinks that mobiles will replace consoles for gaming doesn't > actually seriously game (or perhaps it's more accurate to say that they > aren't interested in games more complicated than farmville or Angry Birds).

Most of the market doesn't "seriously game". Most of the market isn't interested in games more complicated than farmville or Angry Birds.

"Most of the market" is where the majority of the money is to be made is found.

<comment><USER13> EA and Activision, with their single title console releases of over $500 million would beg to differ.

Zynga may be making money by the bucketload, but Zinga is the exception (and very heavily dependent on Facebook; there's plenty of horror stories around about how this kind of dependency can bite you in the end). Most other developers of casual games are not so lucky (with an average of $3,800 per title). Not exactly blockbuster hits, let alone a "majority" of anything.

<comment><USER12> There is both a "casual" and a "hardcore" game market (or market segment, if you like). The existence and size of one doesn't negate the existence and size of the other. Both are multi-billion dollar industries.

<comment><USER13> I agree with you. The problem is that the title of this article and many comments within (including the GP I was responding to), indicate that the casual market (smartphone gaming) will completely eclipse the hardcore market (console gaming).

That's the conclusion I'm arguing against.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Disruption occurs when the incumbent _more_ than meets the needs of its customers ("overserves"), and the entrant meets those needs well enough - <USER2> also meets the next-most important need of customers. (A very simple model of customers is that they have ranked needs - once the first-ranked need is met, they focus on the second-ranked need etc)

So, mobile phone voice quality is not as good as landline quality, but good enough - plus, you can use it wherever you are. Microcomputers are not as powerful as mainframes, but powerful enough - plus cheaper and smaller. While some customers in some circumstances may still need the extra quality/power of the incumbent, the big profits go to the disruptor.

Do console graphics overserve most customers? If not, how close are they to it? (Note: while there is obviously room for improvement, the key question is whether customers _want_ that improvement. If they are overserved, the improvement just doesn't matter.) Apart from the popularity of casual games, one test is that PC versions of games have better graphics than current consoles - yet, the console editions are outselling them. It seems that customers value something other than graphics.

</comment><comment><USER16> I could see the gaming market being split fundamentally between the casual and high end experience. You either play HTML 5-like games or you want 3D kinect- driven large-screen immersive experiences. They're almost fundamentally different experiences, trying to serve both of them with 1 device seems foolish.

<comment><USER6> Thank you. I've seen so much proclamation ( _especially_ on Hacker News) about how mobile and casual games are totally going to overtake console and PC gaming, and the current players are totally oblivious to this massive revolution.

No, no they aren't. Traditional gaming and the current mobile gaming are completely different experiences. It's like the difference between someone who plays games and a "gamer" (forgive my Scotsman here, it's for an analogy).

While both someone who plays games and a "gamer" might put in a decent amount of hours a week on Angry Birds, Tiny Wings, or whatever the mobile fad of the moment is, the "gamer" is not going to be as satisfied with that. They're going to be drooling over the latest videos for Skyrim, the next Battlefield game, or Deus Ex. A simple mobile game does not scratch that itch. They're completely different experiences, and I've gotten so tired of people equating the two.

It's like saying YouTube is going to overtake movies, because people totally love watching videos of cats. Sure, they spend hours doing that, but no matter how many cute animal videos, vlogs, or LPs they watch, it's never going to serve the same need as a nice big screen movie.

</rant>

<comment><USER17> Please, everybody talking about winning, overtaking, etc. provide the clear metrics you are talking about. Overtaking ir market share, games available, money earned? If for every ten seriuos gamers who will pay $20 for new console game there are 100 casual gamers paying $2.99 for some little game on iOS — whats would that mean in "overtaking" terms?

<comment><USER18> In these arguments, its never concrete like that, because what people are fretting over is not actually about a particular metric, about revenue, etc. It's personal, and it's cultural. When someone says "casual games will take over console and pc games!" what they mean is "people's first impression of the word 'gaming' will be rewritten to point to a part of games culture that I don't like or participate in, which is troubling to me personally."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think iPads and Android tablets could completely swallow the console market if they had more sophisticated control inputs. Right now touch screen controls are a really limiting factor for games, and I hope someone figures out an elegant solution to this.

<comment><USER20> Yes. The virtual d-pads are terrible. The biggest limiting factor in the growth of touch devices as gaming machines is that touch control is _very_ different. You have to design for it from the ground up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I may have missed it in the article (I didn't think Carmack mentioned this), but I think the main reason mobile gaming will surpass consoles is the speed of mobile device hardware evolution vs the consoles. iOS devices get major changes / upgrades approx every 2 years, while Android devices get major changes / upgrades every 6 months or less. Compare this to the traditional console hardware life cycle where you only get major changes at a minimum of five years, but typically at 7-8 years before they retire something after a decade.

<comment><USER20> I wonder if this will cap out eventually though. How much power does the average user really _need_ in a phone? Size and battery life will be more important than anything else before long I suspect.

<comment><USER21> Maybe, but I don't think it will happen before a decade. Besides people were using your argument as to why the 1st iPhone would fail.

<comment><USER20> That was clearly premature, but I don't see why we won't eventually arrive get to the same point we've reached with laptops & desktop computers where aesthetics and battery life count more than stats for most people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> 2010 app store game revenue: About 1 billion

COD Black ops sales in first 44 days: over 1 billion

References:

[http://blog.itchannelplanet.com/2011/02/apple-dominates- glob...](http://blog.itchannelplanet.com/2011/02/apple-dominates-global- mobile.html)

[http://www.bgr.com/2010/12/21/call-of-duty-black-ops- sales-s...](http://www.bgr.com/2010/12/21/call-of-duty-black-ops-sales- surpass-1-billion/)

Note: To calculate app store game sales I am taking the total sales and inferring the amount through the statement that "over half of sales are games".

</comment><comment><USER22> I am just one data point, but I used to be a hardcore console guy and now mostly play games on my phone + ipad. There are more interesting things happening via touch and/or mobile than what I am finding in console games.

My home theater system is my ideal gaming setting, but being able to play virtually anywhere has a lot of appeal too.

I can look into actual figures, but I haven't spent more than $20 in the last 5 months on console games and have bought 20-30 ipod/iphone games in the same period, some over $15 themselves.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are still physical limits with battery power and overall heat dissipation. Perhaps they'd be overcome with a new power source, like a fuel cell.

</comment><comment><USER24> If people would pay $650 for their consoles, they would have faster processors.

This is a place where the subsidized phone model really helps.

<comment><USER25> The answer is subsidized consoles. Microsoft and Sony are already moving there with the paid online experience. They just need to codify it into a 2 year contract.

<comment><USER12> Consoles are typically subsidized. Only Nintendo prices their consoles so they make a profit on them from day one. Both MS and Sony subsidize console sales at the start of a new console generation, trusting to game sales and licensing for their profit margins. Eventually the cost of the hardware comes down and they usually end up making a slim profit on it, but that's not typically where they assume to make their money from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A _big_ problem with the future of mobile gaming in my opinion is the incredibly low software prices. Making a AAA title, then selling it for $2.99 is going to be very difficult. Raising the floor of mobile software pricing to something more akin to today's console pricing would be even harder.

</comment><comment><USER27> Most of the people that play Angry Birds weren't gamers before these type of games came out on smart phones. It is these gamers and others that don't currently play these casual games that will make up the vast majority of game players in the future.</comment>


Why do people always want to quit their jobs BEFORE starting their own business? - <AUTHOR> http://www.shadeofinfo.com/quit-your-job-and-start-a-business/

<comment><USER2> \- I don't think starting a business has something to do with people wanting to quit their jobs. I just think that alot of people just don't like their jobs at all.</comment>


Satellite Babies - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_babies <comment><USER2> Some folks do the opposite and have extended family visit to take care of the children. One of my friends' parents joked at immigration¹ when asked what they were visiting for. "Babysitting" they smiled. They were sternly rebuked, saying they did not have a Visa that would work for employment. They did get let in, in the end, though.

¹ A lesson you learn very fast is to never joke while at immigration or customs.

<comment><USER3> Well, yeah. As an immigrant couple living far away from either of our families, I have no idea how you'd raise children otherwise without spending literally all of your money on daycare/nannies. Everyone else I know has the incredible luxury of being able to just call over their parents/grandparents/uncles/cousins to come over and help with kids(or leave the kids to them for a little while at least), but if you moved abroad, then raising kids without the support network of your family is incredibly difficult. Basically either one of you has to stop working, or you can both work but you need to basically arrange for your entire salary to be transferred directly to the account of the nearest daycare - and that also doesn't strike me as the right way to raise children.

Like, I wouldn't do that personally, but as an immigrant I totally get why people would send their kids to live with their grandparents until they are of school age.

<comment><USER4> Daycare doesn't have to be extremely expensive.

Where I live the cost is dependent on the parents' income, and where I come from it's a fixed cost that is low enough for most people to be able to afford it. Even if they lived in my country, I don't think I would call my parents to take care of my children very often.

<comment><USER5> Where i live day cares are free - only Problem is that there zero spots available. Maybe try again in 2022.

<comment><USER6> Yes, artificially fixing prices below the market clearing price inevitably leads to shortages. If the government wants to ease the financial burden on parents then a better solution would be to just give them money and let them pay for day care on the open market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sounds very related to the situation with "left-behind children" in China[1] (留守儿童), where parents leave their children with their extended family so they can work in larger cities. This has already caused massive social problems.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left- behind_children_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left- behind_children_in_China)

</comment><comment><USER8> How is this different than giving your children to orphanage?

<comment><USER9> How is it similar? A grandparent is nothing like an orphanage.</comment></comment>


Boston Dynamics has a new creepy dog-like robot called SpotMini - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1128469/softbanks-boston-dynamics-has-a-new-creepy-dog-like-robot-called-spotmini/ <comment><USER2> Why is this considered "creepy"? For all I care this is super awesome. Of course there are military applications but there are also a lot of non- military applications (i.e. pallative care for elderly!)

<comment><USER3> Because people know that ultimately this will be used for military/policing applications and aren't excited for an inhuman future where AI and robots dispense "justice" and keep "peace"

<comment><USER4> Seriously? Isn't that a very dystopian view of the future?

<comment><USER5> Yes, but makes sense - Boston Dynamics have funding from the US military and military tech seems to end up in the hands of police forces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh. This article is just click-bait copy with with a link to a Youtube video and no original reporting. Just link the video directly rather than sending traffic to junk like this.

<comment><USER7> [https://youtu.be/kgaO45SyaO4](https://youtu.be/kgaO45SyaO4) for those interested

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Google made a mistake. Those droids are amazing.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, you want to be in control of the company making the horrifying robots.

If you aren't controlling them, somebody else is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If my interpretation of the sound is correct, this is running on battery, not on an internal combustion engine.

I may be mistaken but that's the first time I hear about Boston Dynamics switching to battery operated robots.

That's a big step I think!

<comment><USER11> Earlier models were supposed to be robotic mules for military use.

This one seems to be aimed at domestic "helper dog" tasks.

Thus much like a roomba they will have a charging station sitting in a corner somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> direct link to video [https://youtu.be/kgaO45SyaO4](https://youtu.be/kgaO45SyaO4)

</comment><comment><USER13> > The sale came about in part because of the reputation Boston Dynamics had > developed for making robots that were too creepy for the general public.

Is this really true? Because this sounds like a stupid reason, even _in part_ , to make a sale.

<comment><USER14> I thought it was less about "creepy" and more about the military aspect. It's hard to "don't be evil" when you have a subsidiary building what people were describing (hyperbolically) as some kind of precursor to the Terminator. If they put some big anime eyes and a cute tail on the new one, rather than an empty face place, it'd probably go down just fine.

Edit: Boston Dynamics also didn't help themselves with the "dog kicking" video. It (sort of) looks like a dog, and people were kicking it (well, not really, they were pushing it with their feet to show it good it was at balance). Obviously it's just a machine, but a lot of people saw some dudes kicking a dog.

<comment><USER15> There was also a big internal fight because Google thought the future robots should use wheels, but the engineers at Boston dynamics wanted to keep betting on legs.

An hybrid was made that was awesome [1], but I think that in the end, both companies had a different vision for what they wanted to build.

[1]

<comment><USER16> I think you mean this one... Handle Robot.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_NCB3KkiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_NCB3KkiY)

It is impressive, especially the jumps, lifts, and spins.

<comment><USER15> Ups, yeah, I forgot to paste the link, Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What would it cost them to attach a friendly dog head and a wagging tail on this headless monster? It would make it more appealing to the public and improve PR. Imagine thousands of these things walking up and down the sidewalks of NYC. They would scare the crap out of everybody.

<comment><USER18> The problem with that is that you would get further into the uncanny valley, it would actually make the problem worse before BD gets effective enough to make it out of the uncanny valley.

<comment><USER11> Sony's Aibo suggests otherwise.

The trick is to aim for stylistic rather than photorealistic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's incredibly scary to see this technology in current political and media climate of extensive and easily created distractions, smokescreens and outright lies.

Some technology can wait till we humans can handle it.

It might be difficult to copy nuclear bombs, but this will be easy to replicate and unleash upon the world.

</comment><comment><USER20> This seems like they are going to sell it? I certainly hope so.

</comment><comment><USER21> Tell me that doesn't look like the Terminator version of the Demidog from Stranger Things 2

</comment><comment><USER22> Do they yet have a use case for these things that doesn't involve military?

<comment><USER23> Maybe they could be used for hikes and climbs where you could put all of your camp gear on it and have it follow behind.

<comment><USER22> How do would you recharge the batteries?

<comment><USER24> Ethanol power generator and a couple of vodka bottles maybe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Stop it Boston Dynamics. You're the scariest of them all.

</comment><comment><USER26> Do they have commercially available products or just R&D?

</comment><comment><USER27> How DARE you call spotmini creepy!!</comment>


Announcing Two Scoops of Django 1.6 - <AUTHOR> http://pydanny.com/announcing-two-scoops-of-django-1.6.html <comment><USER2> Dead-tree edition exclusive is the most draconian DRM of them all in 2014. I bought the first, but won't be a customer anymore. I'm also surprised it's a full price upgrade so soon.

<comment><USER3> I do agree that the current price seems a bit high, but there are significant changes from the first edition:

[http://twoscoopspress.com/pages/two-scoops-of- django-1-6-cha...](http://twoscoopspress.com/pages/two-scoops-of- django-1-6-change-list)

In the comments of the announcement, PyDanny lists their reasons why they skipped an ebook format this time:

\- _The print version of Two Scoops of Django 1.5 has been by far the most popular version of the book with readers, selling several times more than the e-books. In addition, the feedback we 've gotten has been that technical books are generally better to have in print than as an ebook._

\- _Creating and proofing each ebook format is not a trivial effort. It involves reformatting every code sample to work on every ebook reader, accounting for differences in screen contrast, accessibility testing, and proofreading the text and code samples several times on each device. Instead of spending our time struggling with reformatting, we 're choosing to focus on improving the technical material._

\- _Considering that we publicly offered a free electronic copy to those who requested it, seeing piracy of the electronic editions from the first day of sales has been disheartening. As indie authors, it hurts to see this happening._

They can't produce a digital edition without extra cost and it would be frustrating to make that investment only to see people immediately circulating copies. Yes, they'll loose readers, but they've estimated that is an acceptable trade off at this time.

<comment><USER4> If epub formatting is a problem, they can actually release a PDF version.

They probably not realise that printed book also can be pirated. Someone will painstakingly scan the book into PDF.

<comment><USER3> Good point on the PDF version, especially if Amazon allows PDF sales (instead a Kindle version). I am a bit surprised that pirating was a significant issue with the first book. Didn't they offer free or discounted versions if people requested they didn't have the money? If so, that might have gave people the impression that passing around copies wasn't a concern of the authors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I loved the 1.5 version, and just ordered the new version. If Pydanny or Audrey stops by to read this, I have a suggestion.

You two should write a book aimed at someone entirely new to Django. I've seen your book often recommended as the second book on Django you should read. However, there isn't a good first book that isn't very outdated. How about "One Scoop of Django", as an intro for someone brand new to Django? Perhaps more example based, but still with your fun style. Or you could expand your current book with some new chapters.

Thanks!

<comment><USER6> I think the actual Django manual _is_ One Scoop, at least if you already have a basic understanding of webdev and Python. It's fantastically well written. I downloaded the PDF version and read it pretty much cover to cover to learn Django. To me, Two Scoops picks up right where the manual leaves off. Maybe the biggest problem is that the manual maybe doesn't present itself as totally valid linear resource.

<comment><USER5> It is a great resource, but it is getting out of date. They even have a disclaimer on that page [1] now:

        While the book mentions Django version 1.4 in places,
        the vast majority of the book is for Django version 1.0,
        which was released over four years ago.

        Therefore this resource is extremely out of date and,
        until the book is finished being updated, we ask that,
        at this time, djangobook.com not be used for educational purposes.

That matters most to a beginner. If you're following along at home with Django 1.6, and the code doesn't work like it says, then you're stuck.

[1] [http://www.djangobook.com/en/2.0/index.html](http://www.djangobook.com/en/2.0/index.html)

<comment><USER7> I think he is talking about this [https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.6/intro/tutorial01/](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.6/intro/tutorial01/)

Indeed, it is One Scoop of Django

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just to add to the HN echo chamber, I bought and love the 1.5 ebook, but the lack of a digital version for this new edition means I won't be updating. When I am building new projects I often find myself using ctrl+F to search for specific mentions of variables or settings. A print book adds "stuff" to my life, gives me another thing to carry between work and home, and makes it harder for me to find the information I need. But I understand that as a member of the minority (i.e. ebook purchasers) I am in a strategically disadvantaged position and accept that. I can live without it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Kind of shocked they won't be offering a Kindle version. I was a big fan of the 1.5 edition.

<comment><USER10> No digital version ? I think that's absolutely ridiculous!

I read their reasons for not having one but lets be honest, this is a book for programmers ? And it doesn't have a digital version ? Someone's clearly lost the plot here!

I supported the previous edition of the book since the beta version. I'm a digital nomad, I work all over the world, I'm not about to lug a 446 page django book with me wherever I go.

There are several developers who like to search for and bookmark stuff in their ebooks. Now it's impossible to Ctrl+F.

Some of us like to read on the train or like to read on different platforms (kindle/ipad/iphone/android/etc).

I recommended the first version of this book to several fellow django programmers. Unfortunately I am really disappointed by this print-only decision. The fact that piracy was a reason for it disheartens me even more.

I guess these guys have never heard of anyone scanning in a physical book and sharing PDFs over the internet. Providing a print only version will just hurt legitimate customers, the pirates are still gonna pirate :( I can count down the days that this shows up on the pirate bay.

As for the fact that "The print version sold the most". Well, were the print people supporting your book while you were in beta releasing new versions every week ? Did they give you feedback on how good/bad the content was ?

Seriously guys, your next book should be about "How not to do programming books".

<comment><USER11> Yeah. Fairly disappointed. I just paid print+epub version of "Two Scoops of Django 1.5" very recently, and now out comes this. Not saying that I should get a free copy, no. But I don't have a choice but to pay another $40.

(Not that I -have- to.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Funny how I said to pydanny (on Reddit) a couple days ago that i'd buy the new Two Scoops as soon as it came out. Little did I know that it would not be a digital release.

In the conversation, pydanny did mention that nearly everything in Two Scoops 1.5 should apply to 1.6, and it does (as I went through the book with a fresh 1.6 install). So for those of you contemplating the books for current use, I'd say, go ahead!

You can definitely count me out for this new version of Two Scoops, I have no need for a print copy of any programming book. I just recycled some old PHP and Javascript books I had laying around for years unused. It seems useless to me that in 2014 we'd forgo printing this kind of book when the coding and reading/learning are happening on the same screen.

So thanks pydanny for Two Scoops, but I've unsubscribed from your mailing lists and will be opting out of this release.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I think people just pretty much assume that a programming book would have a digital version these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bought 1.5 ebook, received email about 1.6, no mention of "no ebook" anywhere in email. Found FAQ. Lists reasons why "no ebook" is best for them, not their customers.

I like supporting authors, but not by buying paper books. O'Reilly and PragPub have figured this out which is why I support them.

Edit: Wow, three emails to the list of folks who bought the ebook version of 1.5. The third to email the entire faq out. Self publishing apparently isn't for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER15> Here, there are two pain points--one is that this is a "minor" version change of the core library and the second is that there is no electronic version. If there were an electronic version, I would still buy it, but it's not worth it for the shelf space...I would recommend the earlier version to people, it was an excellent resource. Reading their explanation, perhaps if they just provided a pdf?

<comment><USER16> I completely agree with this. I own the ebook of the last edition, but the combination of a new edition for 1.5->1.6 and the lack of an electronic version for the new copy is more than I'm willing to swallow. Here's to hoping the authors change their mind...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've probably recommended earlier versions of this book to everybody who uses Django I've met in the flesh, so I may as well do so here as well.

It's been a great resource, full of years of accumulated wisdom from the authors and the wider community.

</comment><comment><USER18> Maybe I misread originally, but I didn't expect to have to buy a new ebook to go from 1.5 -> 1.6.

I understand why the authors have decided to produce a new* book, but I don't think they've thought about the emotional impact from a customer's perspective.

*new for existing owners, who have to buy it all over again

<comment><USER6> I would check out the page for an explanation: [http://twoscoopspress.com/products/two-scoops-of- django-1-6](http://twoscoopspress.com/products/two-scoops-of-django-1-6)

Basically, the book is now 1.5x the size as it was before. To me, this totally justifies releasing a new book. Having taken a chance on the early release of the original book and having my mind blown, I give these guys the benefit of the doubt.

My biggest disappointment is the lack of eBook. That's how I read the first version, and that's how I would read this version. I'd be glad to pay the price for a physical book, but I definitely want to actually read it electronically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Looks promising. I will wait for the Ebook though (I know authors don't plan on releasing one, but their plan has to fail ;) ).

<comment><USER20> Same: can't wait to read it, wake me up when there is a pdf.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Haven't seen this version yet, but the 1.5 edition was a great resource for me. If you've done _something_ with Django already and are trying to improve, this book is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER22> Me too, I bought the first and would not have minded paying full price for again for an ebook of the second. It's up to the authors of course. They seem like very nice people online so it's a shame they're getting so much criticism. Nevertheless, here's my bit of criticism: This is obviously BS and so a bit annoying to include: "In addition, the feedback we've gotten has been that technical books are generally better to have in print than as an ebook."

</comment><comment><USER23> I've said as much to @pydanny already on Twitter, but I think it bears repeating.

Piracy absolutely does exist, and it will continue. This is the ugly part of society, that some feel entitled to steal and rob others from the fruits of their labor. This is absolutely wrong.

That said, it's also not right to punish your honest customers by not providing the material that they are _MORE THAN HAPPY_ to pay for - in the medium they want.

I'm not arguing that ebook prep is easy. I'm sure it is very laborious. I have no personal experience with this, so I will take your word for it.

That said, you deserve to be compensated for your efforts. If it's more work to do the digital stuff, then charge enough to cover your work. Charge the same price for digital, as you do for print.

I know that some will object. I do not. I'd be HAPPY to pay a higher than normal price (since many publishers discount digital vs. print)

I understand your discouragement, based on previous experience. I'd be pissed off too. That said, if I were writing, and selling it for profit... I would welcome revenue from as many legitimate sources as I could get it from.

Like others, I've moved nearly everything in my technical library to digital format. I don't want to carry a book, if I don't have to. There's enough in my backpack already.

Since you currently only offer print for the new version, I bought it.

As a paying customer, who wants to support your continuing work, I hope you will reconsider your decision to discontinue offering ebooks.

Thanks,

Aaron Kulbe

</comment><comment><USER24> One point made me wondering. From the article:

> "for the same reasons developing on SQLite causes problems"

I've used SQLite with Django and Flask where it was appropriate option (i.e. as a low-traffic low-volume simple database) and never had any problems. While there are things about SQLite one certainly has to be aware of (mostly related to the type system), I doubt SQLite causes more problems than any other RDBMS, as every one has its own specifics and quirks.

Am I unaware of something?

EDIT: Thanks, now I get it. Misunderstood what this quote was about.

<comment><USER25> That quote is about developing and testing on SQLite but deploying on another database such as PostgreSQL and MySQL. Unsurprisingly, doing so is likely to result in bugs that only occur in production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I bought the 1.5 version and I consider it a technically well written book. However, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the examples (too ice- cream centric)

In my opinion, it's better to take generic models that represent a real world scenario that most people would be familiar with e.g. an e-commerce catalog like Amazon's. I would have found it much enjoyable to read as compared to a database of ice creams which sounds fun but not practically intuitive as a db.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sorry, without an ebook I'm going to pass - I read/utilize most of my tech books on my iPad.

I purchased the original as an ebook, and even went back and bought a physical copy to because I thought what Dan and Audrey were doing was pretty cool. I really don't need a second physical book, but could use an updated epub. Too bad.

</comment><comment><USER28> While I'm disappointed that there is no eBook, I'd have been happy to pay full ebook price for the upgrade, I'm more disappointed that getting the book into Canada is going to cost almost $60US with shipping and end up being much less useful.

</comment><comment><USER29> Well no e-book (my preferred format for technical books) and no shipping to where I live (in Asia) so, despite liking the 1.5 version, I won't be getting the 1.6 version. Not that I have much of a choice in the matter.

</comment><comment><USER30> Apparently, a used 2nd edition can cost $999.11?

[http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?ie=UTF8&field-a...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?ie=UTF8&field- author=Daniel+Greenfeld&search- alias=books&text=Daniel+Greenfeld&sort=relevancerank)

<comment><USER31> Pricing bots gone wild?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Perhaps the authors will do some market research here on HN? I'm not sure what price point would get me to "repurchase" the electronic version, but I'm unlikely to get the paper version until it's steeply discounted.

</comment><comment><USER33> Should be heavily discounted for those of us who bought the first edition

</comment><comment><USER34> I'll never forget the day I had this book recommended to me. It's fortunate that I was two-handing old-fashioned's since I have a fear of resting on best practices akin to the way a Midway albatross fears the Pacific garbage gyre; the ocean seems to be moving, so I'm not stuck in one place, yet the garbage just keeps floating by, and every time I eat some, I'm a little closer to dying.

Months later, my conclusion is that web is pretty irritating, and never call Django MVC. Calling it MVT is kind of like waking up in front of a mirror and realizing you've been sawing your hand off with a fork -- a rude awakening. Think about it, templates do _absolutely nothing_ that controllers do, nothing. MVC is convergent evolution in application programming, yet web programming kind of doesn't have it directly.

Probably the best recommendation I can make to any web developer, is to work in application programming. The biggest difference is in application state persistence and the massive indirection across caches, http, databases, sessions, message queues etc that one finds in web programming.

The second biggest difference is that instead of relying on a variety of run- times that are supposed to match a standard, there is a single run- time/program that has to rely on features of the OS and a lot more platform specific deployment hoops to jump through. However, internet explorer.

History of web development: Used to, the internet was used to network applications together. Then one day, we put the entire application on the internet. 50% of the indirection is still geared towards networking application instances, the whole global community part of the internet. _The other 50% of indirection is geared towards recovering through abstraction what is missing when doing application development._ Hybrid API architectures make this explicit.

I'm saying that the best way, in my experience, to get better at web development, is to work outside of web, where you find the stark lack of indirection somewhat awesome, and when going back into the web world, all of this indirection now speaks to me as if a kind of synesthesia where badly arranged furniture appears to be on fire.

Not node.js, rails, meteor, flask or cold-hard gevent http servers will make this apparent. All of web development is riddled with this indirection, top to bottom. It's almost painful to me to be helping someone learn how to program LAMP because I'm doing them the greatest good on their current trajectory while 100% conscious of how all the problems they're experiencing are in trying to pierce the indirection that is web application programming.

Let's just start calling web programming mainframe programming with soft client terminals in virtual machines called browsers and where UNIX has been replaced with a relatively massive software stack because not many people like writing OS's but _everyone_ likes writing http servers and libraries. Don't get me wrong, I'm still making a ton of skrill on Django and web programming in general, but can we just raise the alarm a little bit? Web application programming does not seem to have the goal of abstracting on top of web stacks to make it into application programming, but rather stops at a C-like worldview where it's still possible to utterly destroy all that is consistent application state for the sake of being able to run trampolines written in assembly.

<comment> lhc- You do realize that django is MVC, but that templates are not the C right? Their naming convention is kinda terrible, but the M is the models (obviously), the V is the templates (the "views") and the C is the views.py file (this is the poorly named part). If you compare to other MVC systems, those are the appropriate parts of django.

<comment><USER34> Roles are mixed in Django almost without exception. I blame this on the fact that you want to make changes to M, V, and C during a UI interaction while usually only one URL gets called, and so the view updates the M, V, and C. It's like having a layer cake to keep things separate and then cutting it from the top into pie-slices. Sure it makes sense somewhat, but each slice now contains every layer. That is typical web programming.

Unless you're using class-based views or Meteor etc AND hybrid-style API's, things aren't even beginning to resemble application programming with a separate network aspect to the application. These days I'd just about rather print HTML/CSS onto paper so I can at least burn it. The whole web-standards movement never grasped me as egalitarian or a good way to get FOSS into closed platforms. I know there are supporters to web, but basically I view web as pretty limited in spite of all the work that's been done with it.

Templates in Django are nothing that I would call views in application programming. If I use data binding to hook up my controller state (in some way a wrapper around the model), then this has nothing to do with the M, V, or T in Django. It's a js object and not part of Django at all.

Templates _are_ a decent way to somewhat modularize HTML/CSS without falling back to generating HTML/CSS from objects and giant data-structures, which would be torture. This is not what views do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So would you guys recommend getting this book or going a little bit more cheap and getting the older version?

</comment><comment><USER36> Is Django still relevant in the web community? I watched "Making Disqus Realtime" a year ago, where they were talking about building a real-time system using Django, gevent, gunicorn, Redis, Flask, nginx, haproxy. The entire stack could be condensed into node.js + socket.io.

<comment><USER37> Still relevant? You've got to be kidding me. Sure node is the new cool thing, but Django is going to "relevant" for years to come. Even just looking at job openings in very tech forward places like SF the Django jobs out weigh node jobs 5 to 1.

Keep in mind not everything needs to be that "real time" and it is also a horrible business decision to rewrite your core apps in the latest framework without reason.

<comment><USER38> Where do you get the 5:1 ratio?

Jobs in SF Bay Area on Craigslist: Node 95, Django 50

[http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/?sort=rel&areaID=1&subAre...](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/?sort=rel&areaID=1&subAreaID=&query=node&catAbb=jjj)

[http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/?sort=rel&areaID=1&subAre...](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/?sort=rel&areaID=1&subAreaID=&query=django&catAbb=jjj)</comment></comment></comment>


Lost Passport in Dubai – Cruise Leaves Soon. Help - <AUTHOR> Lost German passport in Dubai – Cruise leaves tomorrow. What should I do? I desperately need this vacation. Burnt out already. <comment><USER2> Call your consulate. Call your cruise company.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the German consulate will likely have an office or at least some way of contact. You may also need to report the loss to the police - so do that first to avoid wasting time.

I am a UK citizen and had my passport stolen in Spain, I got a temporary travel document sorted the next morning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Call any EU consulate present in Dubai. EU citizen is entitled to consular help from consulate of any member-state.

German consulate would be the most obvious for you of course.

</comment><comment><USER5> I know from friends that Germans can get a travel pass issued in one hour at the German Int'l. airports. Maybe the same can be done in German consulates?</comment>


How To Take Down an F-117 - <AUTHOR> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx <comment><USER2> We recently discussed this in another thread, but one of the low observability (stealth) characteristics of the F-117 was a reduced radar cross section (visibility) using flat sections of fuselage in a faceted manner.

This was calculated by hand by Skunk Works engineers. They didn't have the benefit of computerized physical modeling back then. They were able to reduce the radar visibility to a size about that of a bird (it's actually a little larger, iirc).

My understanding with Zoltan is that he just looked birds flying at 500-600mph. He claims that he invented all this complex, custom gear accompanied by advanced-sounding jargon, but the US military dismissed it as hyperbole (which Zoltan is known for).

The B-2 had the benefit of computer-aided physical modeling which explains it's lack of facets. The B-1 and B-52 also have low observability characteristics to reduce their radar and infrared characteristics (although they aren't known as "stealth" aircraft).

I think that stealth aircraft as we know them are largely obsolete. Hence, the increased focus on UAVs and satellites. I have some ideas about where to go next, but the costs would make the B-2 look like a Girl Scout cookie sale.

Disclaimer: I worked on many of the above-mentioned aircraft.

<comment><USER3> _This was calculated by hand by Skunk Works engineers. They didn't have the benefit of computerized physical modeling back then._

Half true.

Stealth had been known to be theoretically possible [edit] for a long time. I want to say the critical ideas date to papers in the 1930's, but I'm not sure on that. I do know there were flying attempts at it in the 40's. [/edit] But nobody could really pull it off due to the sheer computation required.

Stealth happened when computers got good enough. The critical breakthrough was a computer program. Not a full blown physical model, mind you; a very specific program to solve a very specific mathematical problem created by a very clever mathematician.

But a computer program nonetheless.

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

<http://www.456fis.org/F-117_STORY.htm>

       In early 1975, the initial Skunk Works Project Team
       consisted of Ed Martin (Project Manager), Dick Schemer
       and Denys Overholser. Overholser had recalled a
       discussion with his then boss, Bill Schroeder, some years
       earlier, concerning the mathematics and physics of
       optical scattering. The two had concluded that detectable
       signatures could be minimized utilizing a shape composed
       of the smallest number of properly orientated flat
       panels. In addition, Schroeder believed that it was
       possible to develop and resolve a mathematical equation
       capable of calculating analytically, the reflection from
       a triangular flat panel; this in turn he hypothesized
       could be applied in a calculation relating to RCS.
       Overholser had hired his former boss out of retirement
       and as Schroeder's mathematical computations became
       available, Overholser and his team of two engineers were
       able to use these to write the computer program that
       could evaluate the RCS of prospective design submissions
       nominated by Dick Scherrer and his group of preliminary
       design engineers. Derys and his team worked night and
       day, and in just five weeks produced an RCS prediction
       program known as 'Echo 1'. The resultant model was a
       faceted delta wing design which had more than its share
       of skeptics within the Skunk Works, some in aerodynamics
       referring to the shape as 'the Hopeless Diamond'.

[Edit: Fact check]

<comment><USER4> The computer's were important not just for calculating the shape of the airframe, but how to fly the damn thing. You could in theory calculate the F-117 (but not the B2's) frame by hand. But flying the F-117 -or any stealth airframe - requires computer guidance.

In act, the prototype (Have Blue) just recycled some extra flight computers from the F-16 (which is unstable in one axis... the F-117 is unstable in all three).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> More info here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani>

Looks like Zoltan is a baker now in his home village in Serbia after retiring from the military.

If he was a US general, he'd have a book, do media tours all over the country, and perhaps even run for office.

<comment><USER5> He was a colonel, not a general. And even then, the US has hundreds of generals and admirals, most of which just retire and go on to a quiet 2nd career or retirement. The ones you see on CNN are the exception.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is really hard to read. It basically boils down to:

"He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didn't make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was. Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed open"

I wish they went into more detail as to _how_ they did that.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps something along the lines of "Use the radar to look for the bird flying at 600mph"...

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure why andyv was downvoted, other than the fact he quoted me in a prior thread without citation? ;)

This is the conclusion the US military drew and was corroborated by Ben Rich (the "father" of the F-117) in his book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personally, I think this bit was the key: The Serbs had spies outside the Italian airbase most of the bombers operated from. When the bombers took off, the information on what aircraft they, and how many, quickly made it to Zoltan and the other battery commanders.

My guess is, if you know how many airplanes are on their way and at what time, you can prepare. Knowing the ground speed, you can estimate when they're going to be above you and quickly light up your radar, take a pot shot, and then turn it off and scoot.

</comment><comment><USER9> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=799494>

</comment><comment><USER10> So he used training and tactics - isn't that rather unsporting? I thought the idea was we only flew expensive aircraft against people living in caves (or at weddings) or at least stuck to bombing those with no anti-aircraft ability.

Poor people shooting back at $Bn aircraft just isn't fair.

<comment><USER11> Who said it was unsporting?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have to check, but I thought they used AAA to take the F-117 down. If so, such things are statistical - put enough metal in a volume of space suspected of having a plane, rinse, repeat.

If he had the intel to guestimate the location or path of a plane, it's just a matter of time before the thing gets hit.

update: some searching revealed that low-frequency/old radars picked it up and some form of SAM got it. But there were bullet holes in the wing, too. If there was a hostile fighter up, that would work if it could be guided close enough. I've read previously that old/low-freq radars would be more effective as they weren't what was modeled when the thing was built.

The stuff's not magic, although the press and popular literature makes it out as such. Far better to fly things w/o a pilot, as holding missile fragments for hostage doesn't generate much interest.

<comment><USER13> It was the missile. However, he did know where to point it well ahead of time before firing. As the article mentions, he used visual cueing and short-range shots to minimize the time his radars were transmitting.

One thing this article didn't mention: when it came to predictability, NATO aircraft were the polar opposite of Zoltan--they often flew the same routes, at the same times, using the same radio callsigns, day in and day out. This made it very easy for him to predict where an airplane would be. In the case of the F-117, I have heard that the pilot made back-to-back passes over the same target and was shot down on the second pass.

I also heard an apocryphal story about Zoltan: After the war he was "debriefed" (not really an interrogation, since the war was over and he hadn't committed any war crimes, but not exactly a friendly chat, either) in order to learn his tactics. After a while, his interviewers realized that he believed that the NATO forces were so arrogant that they had deliberately tipped their hand to him: he couldn't understand any other plausible reason why they had been so bad at keeping secrets, especially in regards to the movements of their aircraft. When they tried to explain that they had thought they were practicing good security, he refused to believe them and accused them of lying --nobody could be THAT bad at keeping secrets!

<comment><USER14> I hadn't heard that story, but I think I'd believe it.

There are a few references around to how some of his intelligence network involved people sitting outside (military) airports in Italy and _phoning in_ when F-117's were taking off.

<comment><USER15> I just read a story written by Jeremy Clarkson where he visited Iraq. His transport arrived and departed in the middle of the night, lights off, so that spotters couldn't determine direction or type of aircraft. So it would seem that they are acutely aware of the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The writing is difficult to read, but the moral of the story is good: Effectiveness = Technology * People. Zoltan had good people to compensate for antiquated technology, whereas NATO had modern tech, but the human factor negated much of the tech advantage.

Also, the title is misleading. The article is more about how to hide than how to neutralize the F-117. Being nimble, using landlines, and understanding the enemy helped Zoltan outfox those who would try to stop him.

</comment><comment><USER17> There was also this rumour going around that f117 can in fact be detected by passive systems Tamara and Vera. see <http://220.127.116.11/~gbpprorg/mil/radar/tamara02.htm>

<comment><USER18> Optimisation for stealth against bistatic and multistatic radar systems is a different problem from the monostatic case. The important thing is the split between the position of the transmitter and receiver. In the monostatic (transmitter and receiver in the same place) case, you need to optimise to reduce radar energy reflected back in the direction of the transmitter.

When the receiver and transmitter are split, this problem gets harder, because you need to optimise to reduce radar energy transmitted back in the direction that recievers are likely to be (or don't reflect any, but that's a different problem). This becomes even harder in multi-receiver systems, and even harder in multi-receiver-multi-transmitter systems. As computation power and communication bandwidth becomes cheaper, lower power, smaller and easier to hide, many of the assumptions used during the development of the current generation (and past generations) of stealth aircraft are becoming invalid.

Passive location systems, either secondary radars or systems using 'transmitters of opportunity' also reduce the effectiveness of anti-radiation weapons significantly.

The radar vs. stealth arms race continues.</comment></comment>


XKEYSCORE, Explained - <AUTHOR> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/01/nsas-google-worlds-private-communications/

<comment><USER2> Is there like a government class on how to make incredibly shitty powerpoints?</comment>


Max Levchin learned to code in the Soviet Union writing Tetris clones on paper - <AUTHOR> http://pando.com/2014/03/13/max-levchin-i-learned-to-code-in-russia-by-writing-clones-of-tetris-and-snake-on-paper/

<comment><USER2> I've worked with quite a number of former Soviet block programmers, and a common story I heard was how limited access to actual computers meant they had to write their programs out and hand validate them so that when they got their actual time-slice on the real thing, the program ran the first time. Almost every one of them was a very, very good programmer.</comment>


Animated short about science by comedian Tim Minchin - <AUTHOR> http://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U

<comment><AUTHOR> The best ten minutes of entertainment I've seen in a long, long time. Brilliant wordplay and beautiful, _beautiful_ animation. Most importantly, this is how a badass argues with cliches and science-deniers.

Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER2> Tim Minchin who wrote/narrated this poem is a brilliant comedian and musician. I saw him live in Dublin last October and I'm seeing him again in Malvern this summer. I don't know what it is about him, but I can watch him again and again - same goes for his music. Cheers me up no-end.

</comment><comment><USER3> I love Tim Minchin. Saw him when he came to Minneapolis.

</comment><comment><USER4> To use science, reason, and logic to try to convince or correct a person who has based their view on emotion, fellowship or intuition is a huge mistake. (emphasis subtracted).

If you want a person who holds a crazy idea based on emotion to change their view, don't ask them logically or scientifically, go after the support structure of their view.

I see the main character there as projecting a lack of self confidence. Those unsure of their views usually get very emotional and try very hard to push it onto others.

<comment><USER5> >To use science, reason, and logic to try to convince or correct a person who has based their view on emotion, fellowship or intuition is a huge mistake.

On the other hand, if you're a professional comedian (as Tim Minchin is), telling a story that helps your core audience laugh about a common situation that normally stresses them (as Tim Minchin did) is simply doing your job (and Tim did it well).</comment></comment>


Website Marketing Turnoffs  - <AUTHOR> http://entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2009/june/201614.html

<comment><USER2> _Sites without Delicious, Digg and Fark bookmarks_

I find those to be just dumb and extraneous information on a usually already too busy page. But, I'm not selling my site, I'm using my site to sell things. So maybe the things I find important don't quite align with a guy with a blog.

<comment><USER3> Ideally you want to make it easy for people to save/share your page on the services they use, and to not show links to the services they don't use.</comment></comment>


Python 101 - <AUTHOR> I'm looking to learn python, any suggestions on books or online resources. <comment><USER2> * Beginner to programming - [https://automatetheboringstuff.com/](https://automatetheboringstuff.com/) and [http://greenteapress.com/wp/think-python-2e/](http://greenteapress.com/wp/think-python-2e/)

* Already know a language - [https://learnxinyminutes.com/docs/python3/](https://learnxinyminutes.com/docs/python3/) and [https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/)

* In depth - Fluent Python ([http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032519.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032519.do))

* Pythonic way - [https://gist.github.com/JeffPaine/6213790](https://gist.github.com/JeffPaine/6213790) and [http://www.effectivepython.com/](http://www.effectivepython.com/)

* Practice - [https://www.codewars.com/](https://www.codewars.com/)

For more links, see a list I made([https://github.com/learnbyexample/scripting_course/blob/mast...](https://github.com/learnbyexample/scripting_course/blob/master/Python_curated_resources.md))

</comment><comment><USER3> This is pretty good for beginners.

[https://automatetheboringstuff.com/](https://automatetheboringstuff.com/)

What I found helped me the most was find some real world things that you'd like to accomplish and just start digging in. You'll learn the things you need along the way. I don't usually find tutorials very helpful as they just tell me to type some exact thing and surprise surprise I get the response from the tutorial, that doesn't really teach me much.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is great, thx

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.reddit.com/r/learnpython/](https://www.reddit.com/r/learnpython/)

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://docs.python.org/3.6/tutorial/](https://docs.python.org/3.6/tutorial/)

There are probably other resources, but I've honestly found this to be an effective way to introduce people to Python. Go through it, practice it, then read the rest of the documentation as you need it.

If you have a specific application in mind, people may be able to offer additional input. But for just learning the language, this is effective.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the responses, helpful!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://learnpythonthehardway.org/](https://learnpythonthehardway.org/)

<comment><USER7> I, along with many others, have several criticisms ([https://sopython.com/wiki/LPTHW_Complaints](https://sopython.com/wiki/LPTHW_Complaints)) of LPTHW.

<comment><USER8> I'm working my way through LPTHW, and from what I can tell (I'm at exercise 35 now) most of these criticisms are now out of date with what he's currently teaching.

From what I understand, LPTHW was essentially a book/course that the author had written to help a friend with zero programming knowledge learn how to write code, so with that in mind I can let some of the criticisms go, namely the weird order in which things are taught compared to other beginner language books and the condescending tone. I can also let some of the naming conventions go, because the book is meant to be followed in a linear fashion.

Given that many of these criticisms are out of date, and given that Zed Shaw is teaching Python 3 despite having some strong opinions, it's entirely possible that Zed the person can continue to hold these opinions, but can swallow his pride enough to fix issues other experienced developers have found with the book, and has chosen to teach Python 3 without pushing an agenda.

As for my opinions on the book, as an experienced .NET developer trying to enter the Python/Linux world I find it a bit too basic at times. What I've really enjoyed has been the rote learning aspect. Paired with the videos for each chapter, forcing myself to write the code, follow the study drills, and then watch the video after each chapter to compare approaches has resulted in me retaining much of what has been taught. As a book it feels lacking, but as a packaged course it feels good.

Once I finish his course, I'll probably follow up with another Python book to fill any holes before I move onto any particular web framework stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Obviously youtube is your best friend here, but once you are ready to give things a try I'd hop straight onto Kaggle and play around with some code and look at what code other people have created for the same challenge

</comment><comment><USER10> CPython source. Once you understand the implementation the syntax will come naturally. I've been reading CPython for a few years now and it's very readable C code.

</comment><comment><USER11> [https://python.swaroopch.com/](https://python.swaroopch.com/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Codecademy

Learn Python the Hard Way

Core Python Application Programming(2nd, 3rd edition)</comment>


China just laid out how it wants Google to help it persecute its Muslim minority - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/china-likely-laid-out-how-google-can-help-persecute-uighur-minority-2018-10 <comment><USER2> Does this mean Bing is already doing this?

<comment><USER3> Yes, it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't be evil?

</comment><comment><USER5> Bing is already operational in China. This headline is clickbait - these rules apply to all online media companies, domestic and foreign. Google's current rounds in the news cycle landed it in the headline - nothing more specific.

<comment><USER6> Nobody is debating that it's not already happening. We're merely pointing out that it's morally wrong. (Save me the false equivalences in the USA — we're far better off than nearly every county wrt free speech).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's impossible to take American journalists seriously after decades (almost two now) of apologizing for the systematic murder, torture, and displacement of Muslims across the world. Google understands that America is in decline and China ascendant, it's future depends on access to the Chinese market. The American bourgeoisie are so blinded by ideology they can't see how they are on the cusp of being superseded. Articles demanding censorship appear weekly in American media. Suppose it's freedom of speech for thee, and not for me, then?

<comment><USER8> Are you aware that there is more than one journalist in America? Some are for censorship and oppression, some are against. Don't act like they're all some sort of hypocritical hivemind.

<comment><USER7> American journalists from various media outlets all propagandized the Iraq war to the point of deceiving the public:

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070403153921/http://65.109.167...](https://web.archive.org/web/20070403153921/http://126.96.36.199/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War)

Stepping back from the liberal imagination that we are all self-actualizing, free individuals, it's easy to see how journalists function within society and the economy according to class politics.

Just look at how American media & technology companies all shut down Alex Jones:

* [https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/6/17656840/alex-jones-infowa...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/6/17656840/alex-jones-infowars-facebook-twitter-youtube-platform-moderation-hate-speech)

American elites have been clamoring for corporate and state censorship for years.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple's 'Slide to Unlock' patent worries Taiwanese government - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/10/27/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-worries-taiwanese-government-forces-investigation/ <comment><USER2> Does this patent cover any gesture like patterns or circles too --or just the slider? If it's the slider only, then that's an easy hurdle to overcome.</comment>


Top green living myths - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/26/top-10-green-living-myths

<comment><USER2> Some of it is useful, some of it is useless nonsense, perpetuating other myths.

If you want to learn how negligible the effect of turning off your lightbulbs or converting to a gas heated kettle is, read "without the Hot Air" by David McKay: <http://www.withouthotair.com/> It's transport and domestic heating that are the major energy consumers in the west. It's barely worth focusing on anything else.

 _"wood is a green fuel because the CO2 released when it gets burned will be sucked from the air by the trees planted to replace the felled ones"_

What? No. Wood is a green fuel because all the CO2 released when burned was previously captured by the plant itself! What you replace it with is irrelevant.

The "Buy local" section is very good though. Local purchases will in general be a lot more wasteful than purchase of mass produced food which takes advantage of economies of scale.

<comment><USER3> _What? No. Wood is a green fuel because all the CO2 released when burned was previously captured by the plant itself! What you replace it with is irrelevant._

So burning oil into the atmosphere is green because the CO2 and other dangerous substances were previously captured by the oil itself? (though it takes a bit more for an oil deposit to form than for a tree to grow)

<comment><USER2> You're right: the duration over which the CO2 was captured is important. The argument doesn't apply to burning the whole of the amazon at once! But burning growth which has happened since we started caring about CO2 has no net effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> However well-intentioned these articles are, I think it's intellectually dishonest to focus on such ridiculously irrelevant things as heating the water for your coffee when the fact is that it won't make any difference.

If you want to reduce your energy footprint, buy insulation for your house and stop driving. Really, everything else is insignificant in comparison.

<comment><USER5> _Really, everything else is insignificant in comparison._

The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else. The UK shouldn't bother about efficient energy use or renewable sources as China is a far greater consumer and anything we do will be insignificant. I shouldn't bother insulating my house because my neighbour owns a mansion and heats it to 25 degrees C all year and keeps the windows open. There's no point in fitting loft insulation as my car wastes more energy that that would save. There's no point turning the tap off when I brush my teeth because the tap at work drips all day and wastes just as much water ... you get the idea anyway.

Millions of people doing small things in lots of instances creates a large(r) difference. It's a sort of bystander effect that prevents such things; no-one acts because someone else could do more - like #6, if everyone signs up for the renewable then they're not going to be able to meet the demand and will have to bring online more sources of renewable energy.

The reusable nappies issue, #9, is that they assume the nappies are not reused. We bought most of ours 3rd hand on ebay (some 2nd hand) and also used moltex nappies that can be degraded completely by vermiculture within 1 year (though we simply composted them) - our second child is now using the reusables (4th hand) so that makes manufacturing cost just over a quarter (due to disposable paper liners) what they were considered to be in the study mentioned. If you use nappy liners then cleaning is easier. There are other benefits including end-of-life reuse (floor cloths) too.

<comment><USER6> "The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else."

Yes. Yes it is. Welcome to reality, and engineering. The problem with _your_ statement is that if you're burning a lot of time and mental energy on the insignificant things, then you are wasting your time.

If you, personally, have already taken the time to secure your housing's heating situation, already have an energy-efficient car and minimize driving anyhow, then maybe _for you_ worrying about your kid's diapers is the lowest hanging fruit. I mean that completely straight, not sarcastic at all. However, if you're sitting here encouraging _others_ to worry about their diapers while their homes sit there blowing 75% of their heat out a leaky door, then you're just wasting time.

It's the 80/20 principle, only when it comes to things like energy budgets it's more like the 95/5 principle; one or two things make up 95% of your energy budget and the rest is fiddling around the edges. Optimize the 95% first. Worry about the 5% later, if at all.

(Fiddling around making optimizations smaller than the noise threshold is _also_ a waste of time. "Noise threshold" may sound like a weird concept to apply here, but it does; making a small food optimization that, even if applied by a million people, is still less than the daily variation in the amount of food thrown out by restaurants daily would be a complete waste of time. This is an example, I have no specific optimization in mind. The temptation is to say "Well, these things add up", but in fact when you're dealing with these sorts of distributions, sometimes they _don't_! Even ten .001% optimizations don't add up to much, and for the effort of getting those you probably missed out on a 1% somewhere else. These distributions can be very counter-intuitive, we don't do well with such large order-of-magnitude ranges.)

<comment><USER7> This is a brilliant comment. You should rework it into a blog post so that it can be shared with a broader audience. (That is, of course, if you don't consider it a waste of time!)

Well done.

<comment><USER8> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=964020>

Share away!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To quote from the article:

 _In particular hard cheese, which takes a lot of milk to produce, can have a bigger footprint per kilo than chicken._

This is super stupid. Hard cheese contains more than double the calories of chicken. And nobody in their right minds will consume hard cheese as the main food item.

<comment><USER10> From the Volkskrant (newspaper): cheese takes more kg of food for the cows to produce _per protein_ than chicken. For vegerarians cheese _is_ an important source of protein.

<comment><USER9> _For vegerarians cheese is an important source of protein._

Sorry, but the vegetarian you talk of is doing it wrong.

My primary source of proteins is pulses. Especially the red kidney beans contain the same amount of protein as chicken, 24 gm out of 100 gm.

Reference:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(food)>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_bean#Red_or_kidney_beans>

<comment><USER2> Interesting. Sainsbury's has chicken at 30g and kidney beans at 7g. You can search for nutritional information very easily here:

<http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp>

Wolfram Alpha agrees, for what it's worth:

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kidney+bean+100g>

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia to give correct nutritional information. I've noticed they've been incorrect about this before.

<comment><USER11> More generally, "I wouldn't trust Wikipedia to give correct $TOPIC information. I've noticed they've been incorrect about this before."

Articles like the one under discussion would be a helluva lot more persuasive if they linked to some resources for their stats. The claims about vegetarianism struck me as clutching at straws just to be contrarian.

<comment><USER2> To clarify what I meant, for what it's worth, _I_ have personally experienced Wikipedia to be inaccurate with nutritional data, and that's something I've spent a deal of time looking at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One thing that's always puzzled me: surely in the winter, when you have heating on, it doesn't really matter how efficient your appliances are - 'waste' heat from inefficient appliances will just replace heat that the heating system would generate otherwise?

<comment><USER13> Only if you have electric radiators. If you heat your home in any other way, you're wasting some energy, since electric energy is the least efficient to use for simple heating.

<comment><USER14> Well, not entirely true, depending on what you're optimizing for.

If it's cost, you need to see if gas bill savings + price difference of appliance < electric bill savings.

If you're optimizing for CO2 emissions, and live in France, with many nuclear plants, maybe using less electricity doesn't do much.

(I have ground source heating in my home, btw, and it's great for both!)

<comment><USER15> But in France the problem is that they built their houses according to the maxim "we have abundant cheap nuclear energy" to use marginal insulation and electric heaters, so these days they have to buy electricity produced in Germany's dirtiest coal power plants during winter...

Here is a (German, sorry) text from last winter: [http://www.sol.de/titelseite/topnews/Strom-EDF-Frankreich- Ko...](http://www.sol.de/titelseite/topnews/Strom-EDF-Frankreich-Koelte- Winter-Heizung-freiren-ueberlastet-Stromnetze-in-Frankreich-wegen-Kaelte- ueberlastet;art26205,2840399)

This winter may become even more problematic, since about a quarter of their nuclear power plants are down for maintenance. [http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear- reaction/2009/11/france...](http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear- reaction/2009/11/frances_notsonuclear_winter.html) [http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssUtilitiesElectric/idUSLU2...](http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssUtilitiesElectric/idUSLU26856720091030)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _2\. What they tell you: Buy a greener car_

The perfect examples of this myth are the Toyota Prius and alike, it amazes me how wrong they are.

I've read that the production of these cars is more wasteful than the usual (because of the batteries that have to be shipped), that the global shelf life of the car is poor, that it is difficult to recycle them and finally that the fuel consumption is not extraordinary low (equivalent to a small car).

Yet they receive an enourmous media coverage because they seem to be the response to a greener car.

<comment><USER17> You have been misinformed about batteries and shelf life, the mileage is variable, it depends on the driver.

If you drive a prius with a thought toward efficiency it is quite good. If you are a pedal masher it won't be so good.

There are other, cheaper, paths to efficiency. A tiny diesel in a tiny car will get about the same mileage as the prius, but you will have to put up with slower acceleration. Most Americans do not tolerate slow acceleration. (The 1980s diesel rabbits were 50+mpg cars. 0-60 in 22 seconds with the air conditioner on, and they would fail modern emissions tests miserably, but cheap and efficient they nailed.)

<comment><USER18> _If you drive a prius with a thought toward efficiency it is quite good. If you are a pedal masher it won't be so good._

I have found this to be true for any car. The question for hybrids is if it's any more or less so. That is, is the effect of a "lead foot" more or less pronounced on average fuel consumption when compared to a non-hybrid economy car?

My anecdotal experience with economy cars versus a similarly small, "sportier" car (Honda Prelude) is that efficient driving has more effect on the the latter (17 to 30 mpg, factor of 1.76) than on economy cars (25 to 36 mpg, factor of 1.44)

 _they would fail modern emissions tests miserably, but cheap and efficient they nailed_

IIRC, the high-efficiency "HF" version of the 80s Honda Civic CRX typically got 45-50mpg, with the same caveat that it couldn't be produced today due to more stringent emissions standards and the added one that it only had two seats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Spain has just passed a law to regulate temperature in public places like government offices, bars and shops. It shouldn't be higher than 21ºC in the winter, it shouldn't be less than 25ºC in the summer. Of course, what it's being regulated is the heating or AC devices! :-)

Hopefully this law will prevent us to freeze in theatres in the summer. And of course, it will reduce energy comsumption. There are more measures like forcing locals to have automatic-closing doors.

</comment><comment><USER20> The buy local meme is everywhere and sadly like so much of environmentalism it is short on smarts, case in point:

 _What they don't tell you: The transport of goods accounts for a small but significant proportion of the human impact on the climate. It generally makes environmental sense, therefore, to favour local food and other products. However, it's not always true that local is best. One study suggested that lamb from New Zealand, with its clean energy and rich pastures, has a lower footprint when consumed in the UK than locally produced lamb, despite the long-distance shipping. Another study showed that cut flowers sold in Britain that had been grown in distant but sunny Kenya had a smaller carbon footprint than those grown in heated greenhouses in Holland. So while transport is important, it's not the only factor to consider._

</comment><comment><USER21> "especially in colder months when any heat from the flames that escapes around the side of the kettle will warm the room, reducing the burden on the central heating system"

this article is nonsense. Excess heat from an electric heater is going to warm the ambient air just the same as a gas burner will.

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe one thing that could help cut domestic energy consumption in the UK is the introduction of decent real-time meters. Getting a massive bill through the post once every three months doesn't really help you understand where your money's going, especially as they usually have confusing terms (kW/H, BTU etc) and strange pricing structures.

Look at these new ones from British Gas:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8375711.stm>

If you could see how much you were spending each minute, do you think that would encourage you to optimize your usage?

<comment><USER23> Or even better, see how much you are using each second [My company] <http://www.gridspy.co.nz/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Very good info!

A rule of thumb: the cheaper it is, the less energy it took to make it. Some more details: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=346912>

Be aware that less energy is not always equal to better for the environment.

<comment><USER25> Of course, something may have been cheap because it was produced in a place with lax environmental regulations (so lower compliance costs) and shipped via bulk freight options which dump a lot of nastiness into the atmosphere...

<comment><USER24> Yes, certainly. But if you compare two products made in the same country/area they nearly always have about the same pollution load, so price is an excellent way to compare them.

"bulk freight" being a problem is not correct. Bulk freight is probably the best way to ship something, and any energy cost is contained in the final products price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> As usual the single most important advice is missing:

 __* Don't have (more than one) child. __*

We could build an everlasting eden for humankind if we could persuade everybody to limit themselves to one child for couple for the next two or three generations and then switch to two children for couple.

Lacking that we are doomed to damnation.

<comment><USER24> No you couldn't. Instead you would doom billions to death and starvation, because during the transition time you need young people to support the old.

And who exactly would operate this "everlasting eden"?

Just about every single technology we have only exists because there are so many people in the world, which makes the cost of the item bearable.

<comment><USER26> Overpopulation is a menace and family planning is the only viable solution. Two or three billions of healthy, nourished, educated human beings are more than enough to substain our economical, social and scientific structure.

<comment><USER27> Why two or three and not twenty or thirty, if we're specifying that they're healthy and educated? :) Overpopulation (in the sense of too many meat humans) is no longer particularly relevant to our future; simple copying seems likely to be more important.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What questions do you _wish_ you could ask your co-workers? - <AUTHOR>

Things you just keep to yourself, maybe because you don't want to come across as whiney, confrontational, demoralizing or for some other reason. <comment><AUTHOR> Here are some: Am I the only that...

1\. is tired of the semi-mandatory Friday afternoon karaoke sessions? If I hear One More Time one more time it's not going to end well. If you saw Falling Down you know what I mean…

2\. thinks there's no way this product is going to ship on time even if Linus Thorvalds himself descended from the heavens on a white horse to join the dev team?

3\. would like the CEO to share more information? I feel like I'm running around blindfolded.

4\. is stressed out by the CEO sharing too much information. Sometimes the truth hurts.

5\. That thinks we should work harder and more focused? Sometimes this office feels like a f-n day care center! What are we, a bunch of 6-year olds? I wanna change the world.

6\. That feels our product decisions are too data-driven? I thought I joined a group of human beings when I took this job, not a bunch of nodes in a datacenter.

7\. That feels our product decisions are too gut-driven? It's like we're in Las Vegas on the wrong side of the table… "This is not a good town for psychedelic drugs. Reality itself is too twisted."

(I collected a few more at <http://blog.otelic.com/?p=198>, but no need to visit that page - I'm just wondering what people out there are curious about)

<comment><USER2> 2\. I remember being at a release meeting for a quarterly software update for a mainframe manufacturer. As they went around the room everyone declared their projects were ready. Until they got to me. I said our test suite was way behind schedule. (It was our first release.) Then they went around the room again and it seemed that everyone else was behind also. We actually did make the original schedule, but no one else did. (I make no claim that it always worked out that way. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> The truth tends to have interesting domino effects :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> * Why don't we invest more energy into preventing fires and less into fighting them?

* How many times must I recommend approach A only to be told to try approach B, and then when approach B doesn't work be told to implement A?

* When is our CTO going to step out of the "first developer" role and into something approximating technical leadership?

<comment><USER4> _Why don't we invest more energy into preventing fires and less into fighting them?_

I would upvote this 500 times if I could.

I was a homemaker and homeschooling mom for many years, so I had enormous power to say "Okay, I'm done with this stupidity. How do we fix it once and for all?" and then making it happen. Thus I have a rather low threshold of tolerance for the slow bureaucratic process at work. I am currently on a pilot team that handles complaint files and I have tried to actively advocate for more fire prevention, less fire fighting. I think we are getting some good things done but I still feel there is too little emphasis on fire-prevention activities.

Sorry for, oops, deleting my earlier version of this post a hair before your reply showed up.

<comment><USER3> No worries. My reply was basically to say that I know what to say to make my case, but I don't know how to make the CTO listen. This is his first CTO position, and up until August he was the only developer, so a lot of bad practices we have (e.g. no process whatsoever) are holdovers from the way he worked for a year and change. The obvious problem is that working alone dodges an awful lot of problems that arise when you have to work together. Now, we're running into these problems but the CTO isn't dealing with them - he just disengages whenever they get brought up and says something like "You're right, that's important, but first let's work on ...". Quite frustrating.

And again, no worries on the delete.

<comment><USER4> FWIW: If you have a solution rather than a complaint, that tends to go over better and has more hope of being acted upon. Also, I have found that opportunistically grabbing people in the break room (by themselves, with no one around) and talking for a minute is sometimes way more effective than the formal process I am supposed to go through (proviso: I am not in IT).

Take care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> * Sales guys - Does every request have to be called "urgent"? Have you ever had a non-urgent request?

* Why do things seem to pop up at the last minute, giving us nowhere near enough lead time?

</comment><comment><USER6> 1) How much do you make 2) How many stock options did you get 3) What was your bonus last year 4) Why the #& _@_ #$ is <fill-in-the-blank> paid more than us???

<comment><USER7> glassdoor.com helps for this but not for startups

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Are all you guys as fucking bored and burned out as I am since the acquisition? Counting the long days until we're vested?

</comment><comment><USER9> why the hell did you create soooo many layers of abstraction and obfuscation for such a simple CRUD requirement? seriously. WHY?</comment>