Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc2 has been released. - <AUTHOR> http://www.erlang.org/news/71

<comment><USER2> Does this release include the new syntax Joe was blogging about recently?

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you elaborate on what exactly that is, please? I don't see mention of any new syntax on the 'Armstrong on software' blog [0]. The highlights of R17 include maps and named funs, both of which add to the grammar of the language!

[0] [http://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com/](http://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com/)

<comment><USER3> He is blogging on a GitHub pages domain now:

[http://joearms.github.io/](http://joearms.github.io/)

The new syntax is described in the post "Big changes to Erlang".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much! I did not realise that he had moved.

Looks like it was maps and named funs - 2 pretty exciting features :)!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Erlang/OTP has been ported to the realtime operating system OSE.

Great news! I hope Erlang will get more adoption inside Ericsson after this.

<comment><USER5> I work with OSE at Enea, so seeing this makes me happy. I knew that it was being worked on but not that it was done!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > native code can not be generated for modules using maps

Does it mean HiPE or something else?</comment>


TechShop buyout fails - <AUTHOR> http://techshop.ws <comment><AUTHOR> On November 15, 2017, all TechShop locations closed, employees were laid off, and an impending Chapter 7 bankruptcy was announced. Then, a windmill entrepreneur from Kansas, Dan Rasure, proposed to buy the chain.

Despite optimistic PR, the deal just fell through. The proposed buyer didn't have enough cash and TechShop had too much debt.[1] TechShop apparently owes about $21 million.

Currently, the business is in limbo - bankruptcy has not been filed, but the company isn't operating and debts are not being paid.

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/groups/1555642407859618](https://www.facebook.com/groups/1555642407859618)

</comment><comment><USER2> TechShop is an incredible important and valuable resource in the communities it serves. Please find a way to allow it to continue.</comment>


Guenon Monkeys Cross Species Boundary - <AUTHOR> https://leakeyfoundation.org/guenon-monkeys-cross-species-boundary/ <comment><USER2> Many many species pairs only have pre-zygote isolation[1], meaning they could have common offspring but avoid doing so, as such mixed offspring would be at disadvantage.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation#Pre- cop...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation#Pre- copulatory_mechanisms_in_animals)

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought "species" meant their offspring was not going to be fertile, such as mules for example.

So how can they use this term "species", isn't it a contradiction? So they are NOT distinct species, then? Like dogs?

<comment><USER4> Often the issue isn't two organisms _can_ mate and have fertile offspring but whether or not they often _do_. A species can still be "real" if their gene pool is not shared to a great degree. Yes, wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all interbreed, but there are real behavioral differences due to differing genetics -- their gene pools are not the same.

<comment><USER5> It may make sense to say two populations should be considered separate species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring if they almost never do. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. 15% "hybrids" is huge.

<comment><USER3> Right, so is this kind of a non-story? They are basically not distinct species, according to the story, so its premise is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's how the species count goes down without any going extinct.

<comment><USER7> Actually true, even amongst dinosaurs.

Jack Horner is decreasing species counts: [https://youtube.com/watch?v=kQa11RMCeSI](https://youtube.com/watch?v=kQa11RMCeSI)

<comment><USER6> That's a great talk, thanks for pointing it out.</comment></comment></comment>


Effort to Scrap Alabama's Constitution (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php <comment><USER2> The link does not work.</comment>


Where are the South Asians in FLOSS? - <AUTHOR> http://www.asheesh.org/note/debian/indians.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I can think of two (related) reasons:

a) We're more into entrepreneurship than open source. My record is unfortunately one sample point in support. I've put code up, but never contributed to an existing project.

b) It hasn't filtered through certain social networks. Like say indians in universities.</comment>


Why you should host in Switzerland - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ungleich.ch/en-us/blog/2017/05/09/why-you-should-host-switzerland/ <comment><USER2> The link to "www.datacenterlight.ch" in the end of the blog doeas not work. When I press "buy now" at "www.datacenterlight.ch" nothing more than the page jumps up to the start happens. Spelling mistake on blog post "Switzerland has been save from natural disasters." Should be "safe" instead of "save".</comment>


Chapter 7: Real-Time Communication - <AUTHOR> https://zapier.com/learn/apis/chapter-7-real-time-communication/?utm_campaign=Chapter%207%20Real-Time%20Communication&utm_medium=email&utm_source=blogblogposts

<comment><USER2> What about websockets? This is very similar to subscription webhooks, but also different. Websockets have been gaining in popularity due to easy of use and implementation and low overhead. Plus, a typical server can hold open thousands of connections since many might just be waiting for an event to send/receive.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. With current browser support ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket#Browser_support](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket#Browser_support)) and fallback libraries (like [http://socket.io/](http://socket.io/)), I believe WebSockets are usually the best choice when it comes to real time communications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Webhooks are great, although most "client" applications as commonly known (browsers, mobile) aren't able to act as servers in order to receive them.

One way around this problem is to route through some kind of bridge service. We've done this with [http://webhookinbox.com/](http://webhookinbox.com/) which can receive webhook calls on behalf of clients.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ah, at the title I thought this was going to be about WebRTC, something I'm pretty excited about, even though it has a quite a ways to mature yet ([http://caniuse.com/rtcpeerconnection](http://caniuse.com/rtcpeerconnection)).

Interesting that they left out websockets. At this point Websockets seem to be reasonably mature, and with Socket.io/Primus/etc are dead easy to use, and allow for near-real-time 2 way communication. There do appear to be some scaling issues past a certain level with websockets though, a topic I haven't been able to find too much literature about.

As for webhooks, are these more geared towards Server-to-server communication, like consuming an API on the back end? Is there any chance that in the future browsers will begin listening on our ports too?</comment>


Reversing Lyft's ride history API to analyze 6 years worth of rides - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jonlu.ca/posts/reversing-lyft <comment><USER2> Given how large Lyft is, it's surprising there is no web-based UI for viewing ride history: there's only the app.</comment>


Ask HN: who is looking for a summer intern? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm also looking for a summer internship.

I've been programming for the past 4 years or so (Python, Ruby, node.js, HTML5/CSS/JS, a lot of web tech). Here's my website ([http://jawerty.github.io](http://jawerty.github.io)) and Github ([https://github.com/jawerty](https://github.com/jawerty)) if anyone is interested.

My email is firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment><comment><USER3> I know that Khan academy is actively looking for summer interns. Mattermark (YC W13) is also looking for summer interns right now (found in the jobs section of this site).

Another great place to check for internships is angel.co, ventureloop, and also the great HN thread "Who's Hiring April 2014".

Another trick I use to get summer internships is by emailing small companies, (who usually do not have the staff/resources to post on job sites) in the tech industry, and ask them about possible internships. While this approach certainly doesn't work for everyone, the networking/connections you can make are well worth the effort even if you don't land a job.

<comment><USER4> As a Canadian student with no previous experience working in the US, I find it nearly impossible to get an internship at startups in the states. I'm not sure if it's my own problem or it's because of visa/relocation costs, I have no trouble landing interviews with Canadian companies. :(

Any fellow Canadian students have successful experience getting an internship in the states, and would like to share?

<comment><USER3> I have got an interview with Khan Academy, so it is definately possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We will be launching our summer intern program next week, July 7th to mid September based in London (will fly in non-UK based interns).

Project just funded but still under partial wraps, deals with Religion (almost all of them), technology, big data, behavioural design and all sorts of interesting stuff with a diverse range of colleagues.

Will be immense fun, drop me a mail on email@example.com if you'd like to receive the info once it becomes public.

</comment><comment><USER6> Looking for a summer internship as well. Currently studying at the University of Calgary, just finished my second year. I've been programming a bit longer than that however, and I do most things in Python, Java or Qt. I know a bit of C++ and I'm currently learning some HTML5 stuff. My github is here if anyone is interested: [https://github.com/krruzic](https://github.com/krruzic) (only a few projects there).

</comment><comment><USER7> What are your skills and experience?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm coding in C, PHP, Python, Javascript. I'm doing a master of cryptography in Bordeaux (check my blog! www.cryptologie.net) and I have several apps online. My last one is www.3pages.fr that is being used by ~100 of people to write everyday.</comment></comment>


Body Doubles: A New Way to Work from Home - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLQuiZH7EPY <comment><AUTHOR> Seems like a great idea, however I'm guessing that perfecting the incoming and outgoing audio would be the real challenge here.

Also, it should be interesting to see how John Carmack's work at Oculus Rift will influence this technology.</comment>


Does this mystery vehicle belong to Tesla or Apple? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/car-tech/here-s-a-new-sighting-of-a-van-that-might-be-testing-apple-car-self-driving-tech-1326541 <comment><AUTHOR> I saw this vehcile mapping a cul-de-sac in Burlingame.</comment>


How to make MongoDB not suck for analytics - <AUTHOR> https://www.scaleapi.com/blog/athena <comment><USER2> An open source implementation which anyone could roll out would be pretty cool :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great idea!! :)</comment></comment>


French pilot beats Airbus to first electric cross-Channel flight - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11729838/Airbus-E-Fan-2.0-set-to-recreate-aviation-history-with-cross-Channel-flight-only-this-time-its-electric.html

<comment><USER2> Seems like just desserts after Airbus appeared to have pressured Siemens to withdraw its engine from an attempt by rivals Pipistrel, thus scuppering their chances of being the first.

Siemens, it turned out, are going to be working with Airbus on electric engines.[1] Funny how things work out...

[1] [http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation- news/newsfeed.php?artnum=232...](http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation- news/newsfeed.php?artnum=2327)</comment>


Ask HN: What criteria do you use to {up,down}mod submissions? - <AUTHOR>

...e.g. do you upmod a submission if it's personally interesting to you, or do you consider what might be interesting to other people? <comment><USER2> i upmod sparsely. there's only 3 reasons i'll upmod:

1) a new Ask YC/HN type thread that pertains to my interests. i want to see more experienced people respond to it, so i'll upmod it.

2) a thread that has an interesting discussion in which i want to see more responses. i'll upmod it to get more eyes and answers.

3) a submission or discussion i want to save for later reference/use.</comment>


Sorting Visualizations - <AUTHOR> https://imgur.com/gallery/RM3wl <comment><USER2> Mike Bostock, the author of d3.js, has a similar post in which he uses angled sticks to indicate sorting order, and also touches on some other algorithmic visualizations.

[https://bost.ocks.org/mike/algorithms/](https://bost.ocks.org/mike/algorithms/)

<comment><USER3> Wow - those are simply amazing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The use of the vertical axis here is brilliant! I've seen visualizations where time is one of the axes, but showing a random sampling of arrays really lets you see the "ensemble behavior" of the algorithms.

</comment><comment><USER5> My favorites have always been the folk dance versions!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROalU379l3U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROalU379l3U)

<comment><USER6> My favorite, possibly by nostalgia, is the 1980 film "Sorting Out Sorting". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJwEwA5gOkM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJwEwA5gOkM)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really wish the frame rate was every n comparisons or seconds instead of the rate of the outer loop. In the first four, the boundary between sorted and unsorted should accelerate and the progression of merge sort should be constant. Heapsort should also accelerate, but at a different rate from the n^2 sorts. It would be so much more satisfying.

</comment><comment><USER8> Good stuff, except for the rainbow color scales [1]. I'd much prefer to see the same in viridis [2] or something similar. The color boundaries on the rainbow scale are not perceived uniformly by human eyes (there might even be a cultural bias at play, i.e. we may distinguish blue from green more readily than different shades of blue, even if they may be objectively at the same distance)

[1] [https://visual.ly/blog/rainbow-color- scales/](https://visual.ly/blog/rainbow-color-scales/)

[2] [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/viridis/vignettes/in...](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/viridis/vignettes/intro- to-viridis.html)

Edit:

Here's my demo, in Viridis: [http://gph.is/2xZnKxl](http://gph.is/2xZnKxl)

(Generated in ipython + numpy + matplotlib + seaborn)

<comment><USER9> Sorting is about relative distance anyway. "Am I closer than you to negative infinity?" Why does having absolute perception matter? (Indeed, all but radix sort use comparison-based strategies. There's _some_ notion of a "less than" operation being used to make decisions.)

Viridis is useful for scientific plots where scale perception is important in making a good conclusion. I don't think demonstrating sorting requires the same perception.

<comment><USER10> One real problem in using the hue component of HSL is that it wraps around perceptually by design. There's no "greatest" or "least" hue. And the ordering isn't exactly intuitive because we don't perceive colors based on the order of their respective wavelengths on the EM spectrum. Varying the saturation or luminance component while keeping the other two constant makes it much easier to perceive the relationship of two colors at a glance. Or just take a gradient between two appropriately contrasting colors which is exactly what viridis is about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this project, reminds me a lot of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg)

What was used to generate the gifs?

<comment><USER12> "The algorithms were written in C# using visual studio, and i used GIMP to make the actual gifs." [https://imgur.com/user/FishyMcFishFace](https://imgur.com/user/FishyMcFishFace)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Challenge: look at just the visualization and NAME! THAT! ALGORITHM!

<comment><USER14> Oh, this, this is a great idea. Do it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> one of my favourite [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcwwM6EoveA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcwwM6EoveA)

</comment><comment><USER16> Compared to other visualization, having the extra axis dimension just means what, that the sorting is being done as if each row was an independent sort, and all rows are being sorted simultaneously?

<comment> cup-of-tea Yeah it's one sort per line all running in parallel. The lines start off shuffled independently and have the same algorithm run on each line.

A nice side effect of this is that some lines of quicksort finish much more quickly than other lines. That is the major downside to quicksort (other than being non-stable in its fastest versions).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> That was a lot of fun. I remember seeing the visualisations from lowest to highest on a bar chart but this gives a different perspective on how the algorithms work.

</comment><comment><USER18> Well, these are really beautiful. I've seen a lot of sorting visualizations, but these were the first that kind of took my breath away.

</comment><comment><USER19> just throwing this out there. found it was not clear how to count operations for more complex algos

[http://greggman.github.io/doodles/sort.html](http://greggman.github.io/doodles/sort.html)

</comment><comment> cup-of-tea These are neat but it's a bit odd to call heapsort and mergesort bizarre. Sure if you just think about them as operating on arrays they would seem strange, but if you think about them more abstractly they make complete sense.

</comment><comment><USER20> What are the odds, just posted one myself with audio, and intended to have level of details but there are just balls and bars at the moment.

Think I'll adopt a color scale for the denser datasets, looks great.

</comment><comment><USER21> Very cool, I love how new ways of visualising sorting keep appearing.

</comment><comment><USER22> My favourite sorting algorithm is multiverse sort, which runs on O(n): First, check if the list is sorted. If not, destroy the universe.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder how they created this visualization?

<comment><USER10> Create a two-dimensional array of width w and height h. Fill each row of the array with the numbers 1..w randomly shuffled. Pick a sorting algorithm, implement it so that you can run it one elementary sorting step at a time and observe the partial result. For each row in your array, execute a single step of your algorithm. Store the partial result as an image, with the elements of the array interpreted as the hue component of a HSL color coordinate. Repeat until the algorithm has halted for every row in the array. Make an animation out of the resulting frames.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Really cool! Is the code posted anywhere? Would like to see how some of these work.

</comment><comment><USER25> I always have difficulty mapping the algorithm with visualization. Probably d3-dyslexic.

<comment><USER26> You should make en entry on Urban Dictionary for "dddyslexic"

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> really amazing job!

</comment><comment><USER28> The GIFs take forever to load, bad format chosen for displaying the animations.

<comment><USER29> Those are mp4's.</comment></comment>


Google's chief legal officer: live Q&A - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google-chief-legal-officer-david-drummond-live-q-and-a

<comment><USER2> Interesting how they're doing this Q&A in the same format and on the same site as Snowden's Q&A the other day. That looks like a much smarter move than putting up questions on some internal Q&A tool where people might suggest that they have a motive to censor questions.

For everybody reading into the ambiguity of terms like "direct access", Google seems to be trying really hard to remove any uncertainty about their position:

"There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box."

<comment><AUTHOR> It think the 'direct access' issue is an irrelevant distraction for most of the Guardian's readers since NSA don't need any kind of warrant to access the data of non-US persons. For non-US users what is the meaningful difference between 'direct access' and a system that just approves every NSA request?

I would ask: how many requests for data on non-US persons has Google denied? They want to give the impression that they fight requests on behalf of their users, but I have trouble imagining how that would actually work. In my mind it goes more like this:

NSA> We need all the emails for the non-US user of account email@example.com

Google> We can see that user has a non-US IP but what evidence do you have against that user?

NSA> That is classified. Hand over the data.

Google> Okily-dokily.</comment></comment>


Asperger's syndrome dropped from the DSM psychiatrists' handbook - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsm

<comment><USER2> This is barely newsworthy. It's being incorporated under the broader (and more nuanced) diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders.</comment>


Please help me identify this physical phenomenon [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_MVQ-G_K74

<comment><USER2> These are vapor trails and the shape is because they follow local airflow. What's happening is that the engine is changing the pressure/temperature in such a way that the localized atmospheric humidity is equal to its dew point. Basically the air has reached the maximum humidity and the water is condensing. It's also really cool to see, since normally it would be invisible, but the angle of the sun makes it possible to see.</comment>


ACLU sues Homeland Security over airport face recognition program secrecy - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/12/homeland-security-airport-face-recognition/ <comment><USER2> > The ACLU said that its recent Freedom of Information Act request to better > understand the system has been ignored. Now it's suing to ask a judge to > turn over the documents.

I'm not certain, but it seems like the government ignoring FOIA requests has been an ongoing problem for years. I'm reading FOIA.gov right now, and don't see anything yet, but are there any explicit deadlines for a reply or automatic penalties for dropping requests on the floor instead of replying? Are there good reasons why some requests should be ignored, as opposed to, say, citing an exemption?

<comment><USER3> FOIA has no real penalties for noncompliance. In Washington State, our public records law has penalties (legal fees + $100 per day of noncompliance), and as a result, state agencies tend to actually follow it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, I actually didn't even know you could opt out of this. Delta really should have made that more clear, but I suppose that's less conducive towards a police state.

<comment><USER5> You can only opt out if you're belligerent and willing to waste your time. On a trip back from Spain, flying in to Dulles, the agent immediately took my picture, even though I specifically said I did not want to. The agent said I had no choice, even though I knew this was false. I was then escorted to a supervisor who questioned me for ~20-30 minutes. He said that if I had nothing to hide, I shouldn't need to worry. I argued for as long as I could, but I had a connecting flight and needed to leave.. so I just gave up.

<comment><USER6> I've opted out 3 times so far, without incident. Twice in LA, once in Seattle. While heading to the door to board I didn't look at the scanner and told the gate agent that I'd like to opt out. They said okay, I got on the plane, and that was it. Not even an alternative screen.

Not to say that your experience is invalid, but it's not universal. Tho I am fundamentally against the technology in the first place, hence the opt out.

<comment><USER7> If you're against the technology, don't waste your time opting out (said as someone who spent way more effort over years of opting out of millimeter wave backscatter scans on principle). Support the ACLU, call, write, and meet with your representatives, do things that matter. Opting out simply causes you pain without any benefit.

Tools are never the problem; it's their implementation, use, oversight, and governance. Seek change at the appropriate layer.

Disclaimer: I'd embrace any auth system that streamlines my travel process (facial recognition at TSA checkpoint and the airline gate), but also believe one should be able to opt out and downgrade to traditional documents if desired.

<comment><USER8> Continue to opt-out. It annoys the TSA. That's a good thing. I do it if I'm "required" to go through the body scanner.

<comment><USER9> Thank you for doing your part. Every time you opt out, people may notice. The more you opt out, the more you may inspire others to do so. The parent's argument is a self fulfilling prophecy.

<comment><USER8> When I do, it really break's people's pattern because they think I'm waiting to go through the scanner. I'm just waiting beside of it like I'm told.

<comment><USER10> "Are you waiting?" "Oh, no. I'm not going _in that thing_ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here are some questions I have:

1\. How do I actually opt-out?

2\. If I opt out, does this affect Global Entry or TSA Precheck?

3\. Does opt-out have any bearing on renewal of Global Entry or TSA Precheck?

<comment><USER12> Are there people who are both have Global Entry/Precheck and are against govt facial recognition?

I'm curious how those two get reconciled.

<comment><USER13> The difference is that Precheck is a voluntary, opt-in program - you give up personal information in exchange for expedient security check. Big difference from doing it for everybody indiscriminately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why is the US becoming more of a police state, and how can we stop this?

<comment><USER15> Why? 9/11 and the Patriot Act. How? Be mad and let your elected officials know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> FWIW, for non-Americans (like myself) ... you apparently cannot opt out of this photo/face initiative. TSA/airport full-body scanners are still opt-out for all.

<comment><USER17> Don't visit the US. I've not been since they started fingerprinting us _Untermensch_

<comment><USER18> That's been me too. Obviously they don't want us Mexicans in the US, so why would I go?

I'm hoping to get a Canadian passport soon (although with what's happening in the world, who knows), and I think for immigration and travel purposes, Canadians are treated almost the same as US citizens (no fingerprinting). I might visit the US again under those terms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> No provisions for non-US citizens to opt out. Can't say I'm surprised.

</comment><comment><USER20> is there a place to check which airports and which airlines have implemented this? I traveled over the holidays and didn't even notice the face scanning.

</comment><comment><USER21> Mirror: [https://archive.is/Ka7zO](https://archive.is/Ka7zO)</comment>


The Art of Rendering (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/the-art-of-rendering/ <comment><AUTHOR> I found this link on Wikipedia, and it was a surprisingly good read. A great overview on the algorithms, costs, and overall market of 3d rendering movies back in ~2012.

Hopefully someone else finds an interest in this!</comment>


The 7 Biggest Problems Facing Science - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process <comment><USER2> > Another worry: When independent, government, or university funding sources > dry up, scientists may feel compelled to turn to industry or interest groups > eager to generate studies to support their agendas.

And here we have the unspoken premise that somehow government money is unbiased and not driven by any _political_ agendas which is laughable on its face. I think a stronger argument could be made that it is government money that has corrupted science.</comment>


HP and Meg Whitman: signs of a Silicon Valley in transition - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0924/HP-and-Meg-Whitman-signs-of-a-Silicon-Valley-in-transition

<comment><USER2> Sorry, how is HP transitioning to a B2B business? They started in test equipment, and calculators. Later got into computers. THey make some of the largest general purpose systems out there - HP super dome 128cores in a single system. Plus they bought Tandem computer.

They are a corporate behemoth. That happened to sell printers.</comment>


Quantum Probability Explanations for Probability Judgment 'Errors' - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2789 <comment><USER2> Perhaps a simpler (less than 49 pages) explanation is that our ability to make nuanced decisions is clouded by our survival instinct to make quick decisions in the face of danger, hunting, or competition.</comment>


Why programmers in the far future will be almost all women. - <AUTHOR>

As computers and programming languages become more sophisticated and AI-like, programming a computer will become more like teaching a human.
And teaching is something that mostly interests women today.
So one would expect that programmers in the far future will be almost all women. <comment><USER2> Guys . . .

The hope is that you won't need programmers in the far future!

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you have it backwards:

As computers and programming languages become more sophisticated and AI-like, programming a computer will become more like teaching a human.

And programming is something that mostly interests men today.

So one would expect that teachers in the far future will be almost all men.

<comment><AUTHOR> If programming in the far future is more like teaching humans, why would men still be interested?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the far future, programming will work the other way around.</comment>


We Can Achieve Anything If We Stop Trying To Do Everything - <AUTHOR> http://dariusforoux.com/the-power-of-compounding/ <comment> d--b ugh, I can't stand this.

1\. No, it will not _necessarily_ happen. You can focus on one thing and _still_ fail. See the story about the guy who dropped everything to try and be a professional golfer.

2\. When you spend 20 years of your life doing that one thing, you'd better succeed because if not, it means you failed _everything_.

3\. You need to define success. Being awesome at one thing is not for everyone. Steve Jobs' last words were about how giving everything to being the best at business stripped him from a good chunk of enjoyable things life has to offer.

4\. Some people are excellent at a lot of stuff - Leonardo da Vinci is a good example.

5\. Everyone should learn not to expect to become someone exceptional. You'll live happier if you accept the fact that you may never be in the top 0.1% of anything. As a consolation, you'll be like the remaining 99.9% of humanity.

<comment><USER2> > _1\. No, it will not necessarily happen. You can focus on one thing and > still fail. See the story about the guy who dropped everything to try and be > a professional golfer._

That's a matter of ambition/risk. That guy will still be a very good golfer if he focuses on that. It's just that he many not be good _enough_ to make a career of it. So yes he will look foolish but in the end, he will still be better than the rest.

If we scale back the risk levels, then this is probably true. For instance, focus on a particular field of software _where there is a decent demand_ and you will very likely be able to live off of it.

Focus on being the founder of a successful company in a space that can only tolerate at most a handful of players (that's pretty much any business, once you properly define it) is a LOT harder and sheer willpower is not the only thing required to be successful.

<comment><USER3> > _Focus on being the founder of a successful company in a space that can only > tolerate at most a handful of players (that 's pretty much any business, > once you properly define it) is a LOT harder and sheer willpower is not the > only thing required to be successful._

I agree with your whole post, but I urge caution at your parenthetical because it could easily play into the VC mentality of needing 9-10 figures to consider a company successful. Of course it's easy for them to take the risk with other people's money, but as a founder you need to ask yourself what your goal is.

It's dangerous for two reasons: first, you may build something amazing that would easily have been sustainable but fails because unchecked greed demands that it be the biggest even if that is not it's fundamental value (ie. see Twitter). The other is that billion dollar companies are not built by dreaming of the perfect vision, but rather smart execution leveraging available resources and opportunities—the vision sounds good in Wired article, but there are millions of dreamers with visions that never accomplished anything; you need execution and relentless learning, and that is very hard if you are not focused on where you are now and where you want to be in a few weeks or months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There seems to be an assumption here (which I've seen in many other places) that ordinary people are somehow missing this trick, are failing to grasp this. I think everybody knows this - more or less explicitly perhaps. The fact is we might talk about becoming rich, but most of us don't really want to - not in a real way. Not to become worth "millions" in our sixties like this guy's mentor.

People want to live rich, varied, exciting lives: Now. Sure, getting rich or being rich would help...but if it means living in a way that is controlled, patient and strategic for 30 years...well then no they don't really want that.

<comment><USER5> Not only that, but saying "rich" is usually shorthand for famous and/or having high social status. The money itself seems to me the least interesting aspect of "making it". Especially in the startup world, what most of us dream of (in my experience), is recognition from our peers, attention, etc, not zeros on a bank statement.

<comment><USER6> Quoting Talib Kweli, "Give me the fortune, keep the fame".

Though I agree with your sentiment as it applies in broad strokes I'd like to sell some software, make ~$10M, and be a recluse.

I don't even need the $10M, though, I'd be happy to not have to wake up at 7 o'clock, rush to the train, then sit at a desk all day.

<comment><USER7> Debbie Harry sang this in 1989:

"I'll keep the money, you can have the fame"

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

<comment><USER8> Huh, didn't realize this was such a popular sentiment: Tupac, 1996: "All I want is money, fuck the fame, I'm a simple man" [https://genius.com/41188](https://genius.com/41188)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > it's much more effective to focus your effort on one thing.

This is the gist I got from this post, and while I agree with the statement I think it is too simplistic.

I am one of those persons that "have a long list of goals, desires, and wants for your life" as teased in the article. I think it's clear that focus helps to achieve an item on that list. It's the issue of deciding what to focus on, when multiple items are competing for the 24 hours we have per day. Most life- advice, as the article, starts off with stating the conflict and immediately jumps to the conclusion. The hard part is in the middle.

Personally, I came to the conclusion that everything I postpone to a later stage in life might just as well never materialise. If I can't live with that thought, then it has to be done concurrently.

That's probably different for short-term project that the article uses as examples, but these typically aren't the items I'm conflicted about.

<comment><USER10> > Personally, I came to the conclusion that everything I postpone to a later > stage in life might just as well never materialise. If I can't live with > that thought, then it has to be done concurrently.

Sheryl Sandberg recently gave a talk to Inc. where she used the term 'ruthless prioritisation' to describe her decision-making process. It basically comes down to finding the best thing you can do and making a lot of tough choices.

Now, she was discussing this concept from a business point of view, but speaking as someone who works from home, minds children, and runs a house, it also resonated with me. I have a long list of things to do on any given day, and only a certain number of hours in which to do them. Most days, I end up feeling guilty about not getting something done; it feels like I'm failing in one of my areas of responsibility. Or, worse, as you say, I try to get everything done concurrently and either fail or risk burnout.

The main thing that ruthless prioritisation does is give me the space to forgive myself for the things I couldn't do. I know that I calculated the best thing I could do on a given day and I worked on _that_. It makes postponing things a lot easier to handle.

<comment><USER11> Reminds me of John Doerr's advice on how to be successful: "Be ruthlessly intellectually honest about the biggest threat to your business and marshall all available resources to solve that." Rinse and repeat. The key is not just to do just one thing. You need focus _and_ vision, then you'll get to your most successful as soon as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In open source, I take the opposite approach. I tend to take on large, difficult projects and get burned out working on them for too long. Combine this with wanting to get a lot of cool projects done, and my approach is to have lots of things in progress and switch between projects often. When I start to get tired or bored of a particular project, I switch gears so I can continue working at my usual pace without getting burned out.

I feel satisfied with the success of this approach so far. Among my large (with a scope of, say, 1000+ commits and/or 10000+ LoC), 2 are mature, 2 are WIP but suitable for practical use, and 2 are in their early stages. Among medium projects, maybe about 3 are mature and 5-10 are WIP. Dozens of smaller projects and experiments exist in various stages of completion as well.

I haven't finished _everything_ yet, but I have got a lot done and I'm happy with the results. Getting over the initial hump is also a great way of getting others interested in contributing to open source projects, which expands thoroughput significantly. My advice is not to be scared of taking on lots of projects :)

</comment><comment><USER13> The only things I've truly succeeded at were simple: I didn't have a choice but to succeed.

I guess it's on par with this article, you can't lose focus when you have your back against the abyss. It's your real focus.

<comment><USER14> When backed against the wall I have 101% of brain capacity. Otherwise it's 70% at best. And that's when my ISP is down.

<comment><USER15> David Allen, has said this in his TEDx talk. In moments of crisis and duress, its very easy for the brain to reserve all its cycles to the one task at hand.

However once that moment slips, your mind begins to wander. So a degree of constancy of purpose is needed. And you need a kind of GTD system to prioritize and eliminate what is unnecessary.

<comment><USER14> Surely. I also believe we need some training. If you give up at the first mental shortcoming you will take a lot of time. Making a habit of having thinking runs of 30min or a long enough period.

Also, I believe there's another factor at play in crisis, you don't hesitate. Any option will do as long as it's not too absurd. Your brain is full on, but your mind is also more open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The author suggests that good things take time (there are no shortcuts), and focus on a primary goal is how you achieve.

Then his instagram bio;

I write, run a business, podcast, draw, run, and lift weights. Get my free ebook that teaches you to 2X your productivity.

</comment><comment><USER17> this is classic survivorship bias. in order to reach incredibly high levels of success, of course you have to dedicate all of your energy to it.

Of course, this ignores all the people who dropped everything to pursue something and failed, catastrophically too, because they let everything else suffer in pursuit of this objective.

It's like singling out big slot machine winners and saying, "look! the common thread among all these people who won it huge is that they spent thousands of dollars, all day, every day, playing the slots, and eventually they made it. So if you want to make money playing slots, you have to just keep at it!"

</comment><comment><USER18> It's fun to touch at every thing especially in a start up. This summer I was on the phone, at the clients office, documenting everything with a videographer, mentoring the interns, making youtube videos, building the website, building the app, meeting with investors...

Mid August came and I looked back, everything was only partially done. Not only I was exhausted of everything, I wasn't having fun anymore.

I have decided to put everything aside and focus on the one thing i know how to do well. I am only programming, and in two weeks i have done more then I did all summer long.

</comment><comment><USER19> I didn't put much toughs about it regarding life goals and aspirations, but regarding little creative projects, I've found that it's really hard to focus just on one thing because passion for the project progressively drops while ideas for new projects flourish.

I've tried sticking to doing one and only one project, but all what happened is that my passion dropped to the point of zero productivity and I was doing nothing. Can't start a new project because this one isn't finished. Can't finish this project because new ones are more interesting.

I imagine that it's about the same for life, and that the solution is so much more complex.

</comment><comment><USER20> I appreciate the post, and it would do good for most of us to understand how compounding works in so many things in our lives, also in relationships etc. But it isn't one thing vs. everything, there is also a balanced middle ground. A generalist might be interested in several things, and not care if as a specialist she could be "more successful", usually measured by an oversimplified metric, e.g. number of dollars or books sold. But this is a very good topic.

</comment><comment><USER21> One thing at the time is never really just one thing in real life, specially if you have a family. But lets say a few important things, and doing it for a limited period of time (weeks, months, a few years), then I can accept this as a solid advice. Otherwise, IMHO life is just to damn short to waste it all on a single goal, even if you make it in the end. As they say traveling is not about destination, but what you choose to do along the way...

</comment><comment><USER22> I'd add to that: if you always aim too high, take on too difficult tasks, then you'll end up nowhere (but you might learn a lot).

<comment><USER23> Or: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." [1]

I'm not strongly for/against either position: both can be true in different contexts.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4324-shoot-for-the-moon- eve...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4324-shoot-for-the-moon-even-if-you- miss-you-ll-land)

<comment><USER24> I think shooting for the moon works when there's several rungs of possible results to land on.

In startups, the results tend to be so polarized that shooting for the moon again and again can burn you out.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, better to aim a little lower, earn some money, and _then_ shoot for the moon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I agree that it is a good mindset. But i think the advice to spend a little time each day on something consistently is more important. That allows you to improve several things concurrently.

</comment><comment><USER26> Buffett would agree with everything written here, including not trying to get rich by actively investing in the stock market. He recommends index funds.

</comment><comment><USER27> Not everyone in the olympics can get the gold.</comment>


A Physics-Based Coronavirus Infection Risk Estimator for Leaving the House - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/so-youre-going-outside-a-physics-based-coronavirus-infection-risk-estimator-for-leaving-the-house-d7dcae2746c0 <comment><AUTHOR> It's pretty high quality! I wish it was a bit more user friendly / lay-person friendly, but still good info.</comment>


Dangerous Gems - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/08/31/Gem-Paranoia <comment><USER2> This story is pretty ridiculous. The risks involved with installing packages from a community repository are universal.

<comment><USER3> Unless you can sandbox them. Which you can't with gems, or admittedly with any other package manager I know of.

<comment><USER4> Actually, you can with gems. It will happily install to ~/gems or some other place.</comment></comment></comment>


Are Frequent-Flier Miles About to Lose Value? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-your-frequent-flier-miles-about-to-lose-value-11545228909 <comment><USER2> To anyone who wishes to simply not have to deal with airline miles earned on credit cards ever again, here's a great option I found: if you have $100k+ across checking + investment accounts at Bank of America + Merrill Edge (their low-cost brokerage arm) you get...

1) 2.625% cash back on BofA's Premium Rewards/Travel Rewards credit card. No messing around with airline miles. Just buy whatever ticket you want. Or, you know, pocket the cash.

2) 5.25% cash back on BofA's Cash Rewards card for "online purchases," up to $2500 per quarter.

3) 100 free trades per month at Merrill Edge. You're not locked into any fund companies and can buy whatever you want. I buy-and-hold Vanguard ETFs.

4) Free BofA checking account, with unlimited ATM rebates + a free safe deposit box. It pays negligible interest, so you may want to use another checking option if you hold larger cash balances, but it's helpful to have around just in case you need a physical branch for anything.

It's really a great deal, and it's wonderful to never have to think about the "gotchas" of redeeming airline miles.

<comment><USER3> But this requires dealing with BoA who are a terrible company. No thanks.

<comment><USER4> BoA service is proprotional to how much money you have with them. If you've got one of their status tiers you'll get significantly better service.

<comment><USER5> Sounds just like dealing with an airline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Are Your Frequent-Flier Miles About to Lose Value?

The answer to this question is always "yes". Quite some time ago, the Economist estimated that the "money supply" of miles expands by 20% every year, which means that existing miles get devalued at roughly the same rate.

[https://www.economist.com/leaders/2002/05/02/frequent- flyer-...](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2002/05/02/frequent-flyer- economics)

</comment><comment><USER7> I think rewards and upgrades should actually cost less if airlines want to increase brand loyalty.

I signed up for Delta's frequent flyer program because i frequently took cross country trips and decided I needed to take full advantage of the fact that only one airline provided a non-stop route from my location to this destination. Being apart of this program led me to choose international flights with this carrier over others because I would earn miles.

Once another airline with cheaper fares took on this route I completely abandoned optimizing for miles and simply started optimizing for cost like many travelers do.

Miles take too long to earn for travelers who fly less than 5 times a year, especially if these flights are domestic. If I were guaranteed to earn at least enough points for pay for a round trip around 500-750 miles from my nearest airport in exchange for flying with one airline consistently I would definitely consider it.

<comment><USER8> I think they're relying on the theory that a lot of people will drastically over value miles in their mind when calculating which ticket to purchase.

<comment><USER7> You're probably right, also, since most travelers optimize for cost it will take longer to earn enough points for substantial rewards.

It took me at least a half dozen cross country flights and at least two international flights to earn enough miles for a free one way cross country flight, the benefit just isn't there for normal travelers but I guess this is why it's called a "frequent flyer" program.

<comment><USER9> I honestly wouldn't bother committing to any single airline until you were traveling enough to qualify for some kind of reward tier somewhere - I go all- in on Delta/Skyteam when I can because the miles I earn get reward status that includes free checked bags and seat upgrades and other perks like that, being able to eventually redeem some miles for flights is an almost inconsequential perk for me.

I get waaaaay more value out of buying regular economy tickets and flying (most of the time) in at least economy plus, if not first class on small regional routes on the free upgrades than I could out of tickets purchased on miles.

(I'm typically around a couple dozen flights a year, so frequent enough to have basic status, but nowhere near frequent enough to get top-tier business traveler level status...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The primary reason I spend more on United (from O'Hare), which is consistently more expensive is the 24-hour change policy. After 50,000 butts-in-seats miles customers are able to change to another flight within 24-hours of the original, free of charge. This has been invaluable over the years, since I can easily add a meeting or buy the cheapest, most inconvenient flight and know (has only failed me once) I can change the ticket later.

<comment><USER11> [I believe] the 24 hour change is legally mandated for all the airlines.

[https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/all-major-u-s- ai...](https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/all-major-u-s-airlines- offer-free-cancellations-within-24-hours-except-one/)

<comment><USER12> Changing your flight within 24 hours of purchasing it is different than changing to a flight within 24 hours of the original.

The latter doesn't need to happen within 24 hours of purchase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why did I have to read through several paragraphs of speculation and hand wringing to learn that a basic economy award ticket costs fewer miles than regular?

<comment><USER14> Yeah good question considering they offer less benefit so they should naturally cost less. Seems like something the author could lead with.

I subscribed to Scott's Cheap Flights to see some new (to me) parts of the world on the cheap. I'd say 80% of the flight deals are basic-economy-class seats and it's exceedingly rare to see a similar deal for the next fare class up. In other words if the normal difference between basic economy (can't pick your seat, luggage is extra) is $200, the difference between basic and regular is now far more. In fact it's so much more the flyer may as well pay the upcharge to take a bag.

I'm not sure if this is airlines dumping basic economy seats because they simply don't sell, or if they're trying to make flyers used to paying for upgrades since it's still all in cheaper than the next fare class.

Regardless it makes sense for airlines to price basic economy for the least amount of air miles as the seats again offer the least benefit and the airline will make their money up billing cash rather than miles for the extras.

<comment><USER15> I wish they wouldn't advertise basic economy tickets. They're a terrible value.

<comment><USER16> As long as customers are shopping on basic price, [un]bundles like Basic Economy tickets will be a thing.

For some people, they're exactly what is needed.

<comment><USER17> The one thing I find baffling is the luggage angle.

"We're going to charge you $25 for a checked bag" triggered everyone to stuff everything in the universe into a carry-on.

Now you end up with half the flight being told "the carry-on space is full, but we'll check the bag for free" at that point. So they're checking bags anyway.

I wish they'd let travelers choose either a checked or carry-on bag for free. I honestly don't need my carry-on during the flight, so long as I can stuff a snack and book into an under-the-seat laptop bag, and if I can check the bag instead for free, then I don't have to schlep it across the airport.

<comment><USER16> Random trivia: airlines don't have to weigh your carryon nor count it against performance criteria. Bags that go underneath are weighed and "count" for performance calcs.

Obviously, it affects the airplane either way and there are some safety margins built-in, but the airlines have some reason to push people to maximize use of carry-ons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It works both ways. If there is less incentive for me to stick with a single carrier, I'll always go for the one offering me the best price, regardless of my status on any given carrier.

<comment><USER16> If you fly only a handful of times per year, optimizing for current cost is probably the best plan anyway.

If you fly a lot for work, the company may have a preferred carrier (ours is Delta), and the status you accrue from work travel may allow you to book domestic economy and almost always get upgraded to First class. (Basically, unless I'm flying out of Atlanta on Friday eve or into on Sunday PM/Monday AM, I'm >75% for an upgrade.)

This makes me fairly likely to choose Delta for personal domestic travel, as long it's within a couple hundred bucks of another carrier (or unless that other carrier is Spirit and the price difference is less than $500,000...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> [https://outline.com/SM59JB](https://outline.com/SM59JB)

<comment><USER20> Thanks much for this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The value of loyalty programs, for the customer, tends to inversely correlate to the state of the economy.

In very broad terms: tourism is a larger part of the travel market than business travel. When the economy is bad, fewer people travel for pleasure, and those who do don't fly as much. So loyalty programs ramp up the rewards for the people who are still flying, in order to hang onto them. Then when the economy recovers and tourism picks up again, there's less need to desperately keep customers by any means available, so loyalty programs start getting slashed.

On top of that, at all times the big US airlines tend to hand out redeemable- only miles like candy (elite-qualifying miles are the ones that are hard to accumulate¹), which makes them a heavily inflationary currency and requires jacking up the redemption rates every so often to soften the blow of all those outstanding miles.

\--

¹ Airlines in the US issue two types of miles. Redeemable miles, usually abbreviated "RDM" in the frequent-flyer forums, do what the name implies: you can redeem them instead of using cash to purchase a ticket. They offer no other perks. The other type is the "elite-qualifying mile" ("EQM"), which can be redeemed for a ticket but also contributes toward qualifying for some level of "elite" frequent-flyer status with the airline. Elite status is what gets you free upgrades and free checked bags and all the other perks.

Elite-qualifying miles, with very few exceptions, can only be earned by actually purchasing a ticket, getting on the plane and flying (sometimes this process is also referred to as "BIS" \-- "Butt-In-Seat" \-- miles). All the "50,000 miles for signing up!" type offers you see with credit cards are denominated in redeemable miles, for example. If you know your way around the loyalty programs, you can generate hundreds of thousands of redeemable miles per year without too much effort. Achieving 100k elite-qualifying miles in a year, however, is a significant feat and typically qualifies you to the highest public status tier (the big three US airlines each have at least one unpublished tier above that, offered by invitation only to customers perceived as extremely high-value).

</comment><comment><USER22> United's Mileage Plus program is pretty iffy for getting tickets for domestic or international, but one great thing about it is the ability to use miles for goods, gift cards, etc. I've cashed in expiring or insufficient miles more times than I can count for all kinds of useful kitchen items, power tools, and once a pretty nice watch (Citizen Eco-drive). I've found other U.S. airlines are better on reward travel but not as good on other uses ... unless you really like magazine subscriptions.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm currently on a two week vacation through Tokyo, Kyoto, Bangkok, and Krabi entirely funded by credit card points, frequent flier miles, and hotel points. I flew Japan Airlines first class to Tokyo, flying their business class back from Bangkok, and staying in some of the best hotels all for almost free (small amount of award tax out of pocket). The points and miles game is still very much alive.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to have a lot of air miles with United but they always found a way to increase the threshold just as I was about to get there. It felt like I was constantly swiping at air (no pun). Eventually I used to use my skymiles to buy The Economist but then they stopped letting me buy mag subs and expired all my miles. I don't miss them.

</comment><comment><USER24> I got for american now. They overbook so much i set my business trips in the morning and happily take a bump for the voucher

<comment><USER12> Delta cut wayyy back on doing it because United pissed in the pool and idiotic casuals took to the streets and blindly blasted the practice of overbooking.

Is AA still overbooking with regularity?

<comment><USER25> All airlines do, because they have decades of passenger data to work with and can estimate how many people won't show up, how many people will take compensation, etc. They have policies in place for every contingency.

Passengers don't like the idea of overbooking. But most passengers don't really understand how the sausage is made. And they don't care when the system works for them most of the time, just that it's not perfect, so booooo.

<comment><USER26> > the system works for them most of the time

That's assuming people prefer having a chance of getting bumped off a flight they booked to paying a few bucks extra and having the same chance of just not getting that ticket in the first place. For me that system never "works for me". Maybe it works for some people, but for others, there's a good reason to hate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Basic economy is a sign that end airlines are raising process in a drastic way, and not increasing the value with it.</comment>


GoFundMe CEO: 'Gigantic Gaps' in Health System Showing Up in Crowdfunding - <AUTHOR> https://khn.org/news/gofundme-ceo-gigantic-gaps-in-health-system-showing-up-in-crowdfunding/ <comment><USER2> I like to write short stories in my free time.

One that I've been working on over the last year is one where the concept of "crowdfunded healthcare" evolves into a dystopian game show where people go on TV and share their sob story on why they need money. Then the viewers at home get to choose who gets the show's prize money each season through a bracket style voting system that crowns a champion at the end.

I had to stop working on it as it got really, really dark the more I wrote.

On that note, I find it supremely fucked up that people have to turn to crowdfunding to get their unexpected healthcare costs covered by benevolent internet citizens.

<comment><USER3> > On that note, I find it supremely fucked up that people have to turn to > crowdfunding to get their unexpected healthcare costs covered by benevolent > internet citizens.

So who should pay for it? All taxpayers instead? All countries that have tried that are now in the red. The only good solution, I think, it to work to make healthcare a lot cheaper in the long run.

<comment><USER4> The US is the only major developed country that doesn't have universal healthcare and they are still deep "in the red".

<comment><USER3> At least the US is developing new drugs. About 99% of other countries produce none.

<comment><USER5> \- 30% of drugs in the US are funded by taxpayer money [1]

\- true, the US is producing about ~50% new drugs (sometimes more, sometimes less). Europe and Japan account for the most of the rest of the drugs [2]. The reason is simple: these are wealthy countries.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19264699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19264699)

[2] [http://www.hbmpartners.com/media/docs/industry- reports/Analy...](http://www.hbmpartners.com/media/docs/industry- reports/Analysis-of-FDA-Approvals-2018-and-Previous-Years.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Or the Tennessee couple who want to get pregnant, but whose insurance doesn't cover the $20,000 worth of "medications, surgeries, scans, lab monitoring, and appointments [that] will need to be paid for upfront and out-of-pocket" for in vitro fertilization.

Would an ideal healthcare system cover in vitro for anyone, full stop? Took a buzz through the NHS requirements[0] and there are definitely restrictions. And in vitro is certainly not an uncontroversial procedure.

I just thought that was a strange example to use. There are always going to be gaps in what a health system will cover, right?

There's always gonna be a market for crowdfunding health stuff, and that's not inherently a bad thing. (Which is my only point, not trying to comment on the broader issue.)

[0]: [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/availability/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/availability/)

<comment><USER7> From my perspective, it shouldn't. Yes, its cold and heartless to say so, but wanting children isn't a health issue.

<comment><USER8> Could you not argue that it is a mental health issue?

<comment><USER9> I feel like people go more crazy as a result of having kids than as a result of not having them.

<comment><USER10> Speaking as someone with infertility working on kid #2 via IVF right now, nothing positive comes out of wanting kids but not being able to have them. (Also with the big disclaimer that adopting children costs just as much if not more, in some way or another...)

There's parent nights out and dates with my partner to rant about toddlers being shits that are nice to have, but my fertility clinic has an MFT on staff and my old fertility clinic had referrals out for therapy and support groups facilitated by therapists. After almost 18 months the first time, too, I worked out a lot of depression and anger through 1:1 therapy weekly for months. I'm heavily relying on those old coping mechanisms, this time around.

Just. does. not. compare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We need to get rid of health insurance companies. They are the reason all of our costs are massively inflated.

The same thing is happening in education: universities know that a large percentage of students are getting financial aid, so the true costs are buried in a layer of bureaucracy.

Fees and administrative fees continue to go up and the universities will always get their money.

The students are then on the hook to pay the loan back. If the Universities actually had to worry about students defaulting, they would be forced to reduce costs or they would go under.

<comment><USER12> Care to explain your logic? Cat repair isn't so expensive even though everyone with a car has car insurance.

<comment><USER13> Competitive pressure. If your can't be fixed or you don't want to fix it you have alternative forms of transportation or you can purchase another one (either at full price or used). Also, many of us only carry liability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Most people involved in health care, like insurance companies, health care providers, drug companies, doctors and gofundme want more money to be spent on healthcare. That's because it goes eventually into their pockets. The U.S spends double, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare (16%) as any other country which is good evidence that the solution to healthcare problems being to spend more money is very popular.

The solution has hit negative marginal returns though and the only way out is a more fundamental change to health care, possibly in the form of price controls on drugs or the 150% of Medicare reimbursment maximum price on all procedures. This sort of predictability of costs will obsolete a whole layer of insurance price game players at the hospital and insurance companies that add to health care costs.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm on insurance, and to be very real I have gotten bills in the past from providers that I never ended up paying. The reality is that this is more common than not...providers only collect some small % of the part of the bill the patient (and not insurance company) is responsible for. They usually end up selling this debt for pennies on the dollar to collections agencies.

Do I feel guilty? Not really. But the lesson is that the number you see on some bill from a hospital or provider is _not_ non-negotiable, and in general unlike the IRS they don't exactly have any power to garner your wages to collect.

If you find yourself in a position where you're getting some ridiculous bill, you should definitely hire a trusted lawyer to negotiate down a bill on your behalf.

<comment><USER16> That's become my strategy as well.

1\. Ignore all bills except the most persistent ones. Look at which ones are still being sent 3 months later.

2\. Triage and sort the bills. Prioritize the ones that are related to the primary care facility where you were treated. Call them and negotiate to pay less.

3\. Wait until 6 months and see if any bills are still coming. If they are, look at them again in order of priority, seeing if any of them are still reasonable and you have actually received the service/care.

After 12 months, if you haven't been receiving any care, toss any bills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In America health care is supposed to be as expensive as possible. People demand the system spare no expense on their care.

I have some notes to write about "the predicaments of old people". Both my grandfathers lived an extra few years thanks to the pacemakers Medicare paid for. But they just suffered for those final years.

A lot of old people's problems are related to excess alcohol consumption. IMHO, there would be much more funds available to spend on the gaps experienced by younger people, if doctors assumed their elderly patients are drinking heavily and treated them for that instead of blowing the programs' budgets on treating the down-stream effects of heavy alcohol consumption [edit2].

I have some friends who lived in Canada for a while. They said the Canadian system doesn't go all-out to keep people alive who are going to die anyways...

A few years ago I stopped by to see one of the passengers whom I'd given a free ride to a few years before. She told me she was pregnant. "But I thought you were becoming a man?" She wasn't a he yet, and she'd gotten with a cis- male... They'd called it off before too long, but that's how she'd gotten knocked up. She also said it had a heart defect (she was maybe 4 months along?). This was caused by the hormones she'd been taking to transition.

I was pretty sure the baby wouldn't survive long, but didn't say anything... I followed them on teh Facebook. ... Scheduled c-section, a half dozen heart surgeries, after maybe four or six months the infant died anyways.

I think other countries' health systems are more careful about how they allocate their health resources [0].

[0] How Cubans Live as Long as Americans at a Tenth of the Cost - [https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/cuba- heal...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/cuba- health/508859/)

[edit1: minor edits] [edit2: changed this from quip about keeping people alive for an extra month or two]

<comment><USER18> When you say "People demand the system spare no expense on their care." is that really __all __americans?

So there's no market for cheaper but somewhat less effective health care?

Given that medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA[1], it seems really odd that all those people who's lives are getting seriously messed up by this wouldn't want some form of cheaper health care, even if it wasn't the no.1 most effective option.

[https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy- statistics-415...](https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy- statistics-4154729)

<comment><USER17> > When you say "People demand the system spare no expense on their care." is > that really all americans?

There are nuances. The insurance model trains people to not care about the cost of the services they receive.

> So there's no market for cheaper but somewhat less effective health care?

I think healthcare that focuses on actual problems instead of downstream problems is more effective in addition to being cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Every gas station and convenience store I go into has a glass jar with somebody's family picture and a handwritten note pleading for money to help them afford a life saving operation. Most times it's that f*cker, cancer.

<comment><USER20> I spent a few years in Belize and sadly this is the de facto public health insurance program there. Everyone who gets cancer or has a major accident has local fundraisers to get help from the community.

<comment><USER21> This is essentially what single-payer is, except people are free to determine who the actually want to cover. A bunch of normal folks setting aside money.

Unless people just expect 'the rich' to pay for everything.

<comment><USER22> You have an astonishing lack of understanding of what single-payer is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think this is a reflection of what people _want_ to donate/contribute to as much as anything.

I'd be keen to know what percent of listings are health related vs what percent of total money raised is health related.

<comment><USER24> > I think this is a reflection of what people want to donate/contribute to as > much as anything.

Just spitballing, but I'd think it's more of a reflection of how broken the US health care system is.

A more interesting datapoint would be the health vs non-health money raised broken down by country.

<comment><USER23> > A more interesting datapoint would be the health vs non-health money raised > broken down by country.

This!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> GoFundMe is comical, every day there is a new idiot asking for money for not buying (or invalidating) their travel insurance . Little Fred is sitting in hospital now with bills over $xx,xxx due to a motorbike accident whilst backpacking in XYZ, please give generously so Little Fred can keep his iPhoneX and his large family don't have to put their hands in their pocket.

e.g. [https://www.gofundme.com/injured-by-scooter- accident](https://www.gofundme.com/injured-by-scooter-accident)

<comment><USER26> This is what bothers me... I once donated to a GoFundMe run by someone I know (not really friends) - their house got heavy water damage in Houston a couple of years ago.

Only a couple weeks later to see pictures of them buying a new car from a dealership to their son.

I do not know... Perhaps it is because me, who unlikely to ever buy a new car (despite having several Xs of income than that family) or perhaps the fact they were not committed 100% to solve their immediate problem themselves first and instead looked for someone to donate some extras - it pissed me off. Unlikely to ever donate to anyone ever again, unless I know for sure people are in genuine trouble.

<comment><USER25> Happens all over the world. I walked into a expat bar a while ago and there was a cash collection for Joe (not his real name incase I get accused of doxxing again lol), he just been diagnosis with some form of cancer (high chance curable) and needed to do chemo. I was like WTF? This guy has top of the range health insurance, a full time job and supportive employer, and sat on a healthy stack of savings and investments. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, it wasn't going to charity or for some gift, just pure cash. Joe is fine now, doesn't drink as much, the money went into his bank - Joe isn't a charitable person - he is actually a consistent cunt (but when someone gets the Big C that all changes and no one has anything but the best to say about them)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Obviously not to the same extent, but you see go fund me campaigns for places with single payer systems.

[https://www.gofundme.com/canadahealthfail](https://www.gofundme.com/canadahealthfail)

</comment><comment><USER28> How much longer until GoFundMe becomes America's leading healthcare provider?

<comment><USER29> If Watsi open sourced their platform (Rails on Heroku if memory serves me), I'd bolt it together with medical tourism (travel arrangement through bulk purchasing and scheduling with foreign providers) to get these Americans treated in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and India for a fraction of the price. It'd be a shim to save lives and reduce suffering until the US implements universal healthcare.

Healthcare is my hill to die on due to life experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's obvious the CEO cares greatly about this issue. But not quite enough to reduce the percentage that GoFundMe rakes in with every donation.

<comment><USER31> Gofundme doesn't take any fee on certain countries (including US) [https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en- us/articles/203604424-Fee...](https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en- us/articles/203604424-Fees-on-GoFundMe)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is wonderful, it really warms my heart to see people contribute voluntarily.

That being said, it appears a large portion are people that were uninsured and then came upon a major medical emergency. Why do people take their health for granted? Even those that are insured, look at the obesity and smoking rates, two significant factors in unexpected early death.

<comment><USER19> A couple years ago my friend and his wife had a head-on collision at highway speed when some drunk asshole crossed the center line.

The helicopter ride to the hospital was $80,000 _per person_.

They have awesome insurance (plus supplemental) that doesn't cover a dime of that.

Countless surgeries later and that $160K is a tiny fraction of the total.</comment></comment>


New Snowden leaks reveal secret deals between Japan and NSA - a-smith https://www.rt.com/news/386016-snowden-intercept-nsa-japan/ <comment><AUTHOR> Pretty sure most people here would want to read the intercept article, rather than RT telling you what is in that article...

[https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/japans-secret-deals- with...](https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/japans-secret-deals-with-the-nsa- that-expand-global-surveillance/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Why did this need to be leaked? Seems kind of ho-hum to me, but I'm no sort of expert in international relations.</comment>


We are looking for new 100 blog authors  - <AUTHOR> http://www.mysensetechnology.com/2012/12/we-are-looking-for-new-100-blog-authors.html <comment><USER2> Not a comment on the blog service, but there's a great graphic on the linked site, of a USB memory stick inside a traditional oceangoing message bottle. Pretty cute idea.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks, I thought it was very representative and fits the image :-) reach 100 authors and a dream! help!</comment>


Why is printing to stdout so slow? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3857052/why-is-printing-to-stdout-so-slow-can-it-be-sped-up

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of the guy with a nvidia card who needed to redirect his compiler output away from the terminal because printing the output slowed down the compiler so much.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a general problem with terminal I/O, not just a Python thing. I've noticed many times that C programs that write thousands of lines of debug output to the terminal run a whole lot faster when you redirect the output to a file.</comment>


S.E.C. Charges Venture Capitalist With Fraud - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/technology/start-ups/05fraud.html <comment><USER2> 'That included fabricating names that included the words Sand Hill, which is the name of a Menlo Park road that is home to the most prominent venture capital firms.

"That's how he got people to trust him," Mr. Dicke said.'

awesome.</comment>


The broken-down grace of Bill Murray - <AUTHOR> http://thedissolve.com/features/career-view/419-the-broken-down-grace-of-bill-murray/

<comment><USER2> I wonder if the author of the article has realised the irony of his piece.

A recount of the career of an actor who has become known for not revealing anything of himself manages to reveal nothing of the actor behind the roles. But as far as hero worshipping goes, this was still an entertaining, if melancholic read.

Incidentally, not unlike some of Murray's characters.

<comment><USER3> Very recursive!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Meatballs (1979) [1] was always a favorite of mine, although this will date me slightly (!). As a geek and an introvert facing many of the same social challenges as the main character Rudy (Chris Makepeace) it was incredibly reassuring to see someone as edgy and cool (at the time) as Bill Murray in a sort of gentle, yet fun loving and supportive, mentoring role. I didn't have much of that encouragement in my early life, which was filled with basically the opposite ... adults (esp in my school) chumming up to the cool kids and publicly humiliating the tentative ones. Bill's character in the movie, and how he played it on screen, still today serve as a role model for how I try to deal with other people. For me personally, connecting with and supporting the more fragile people around me still is way more appealing, fulfilling, and meaningful for me than just constantly trying to prop up my own status by latching on to the cool, popular crowd.

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079540/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079540/)

<comment><USER5> Randomly, my wife and I watched it for the first time a couple of hours ago. Really enjoyable film - 35 years ago but he really owns the role.

Also watched Rushmore for the first time last week - brilliant film. I don't know how I'd never heard of it before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What an interesting career he's had.

I don't know how many fans of college football there are on Hackernews, but Bill's appearance on College Gameday on ESPN was a highlight of this past season, easily the best guest host of the year. He's still hilarious

<comment><USER7> link please?

<comment><USER6> www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2z5vd6tFa0

The best part is at the end.

<comment><USER7> Awesome man, thanks. Glad to see a fellow football fan, rare around these parts.

<comment><USER6> r/cfb is my go-to football resource. Best I've found on the internet so far

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think Bill Murray deserved an oscar for "Big Ern" in Kingpin. Maybe it was the timing of when I saw it, but some of the improv pieces he did with Harrelson cut deeper and redefined where comedy could go. The Wes Anderson stuff that followed helps to sell Kingpin as a coming attraction for Murray's best years (so far) Ymmv

<comment><USER9> I was thinking the same thing to myself the other day as I was watching Kingpin probably for the 100th time. I looked up the Best Supporting Actor nominees for 1996, and the only two that I thought could have even a slim chance of competing with Bill Murray were William H. Macy in Fargo and Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry McGuire.

To me, Big Ern is one of the greatest characters ever, and quite possibly Bill's best performance (Steve Zissou is right up there and The Life Aquatic is one of my favorite movies). It's straight up wrong that this performance is so underrated and overlooked. The fact that he got shined by the Academy shows the hypocrisy of Hollywood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This was a joy to read, really good writeup!

</comment><comment><USER11> "We have been kicking ass for 200 years. We are 10 and 1." [1]

[1] [http://movieclips.com/Qy2V-stripes-movie-were- mutants/](http://movieclips.com/Qy2V-stripes-movie-were-mutants/)

If you watch only one Bill Murray movie, it should be Stripes.

</comment><comment><USER12> Oh man, What About Bob? One of my favourite films ever.

<comment><USER13> This movie inspired a Tamil movie named Thenali. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thenali](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thenali)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Murray, Matt Damon and Hugh Bonneville appeared on the Graham Norton Show on the BBC last week. Matt Damon commented towards the end that it was "The best chat show I've ever been on". It was an almost surreal show. Watch it if you can.

<comment><USER15> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTd4hw7mZEI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTd4hw7mZEI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> on Charlie Rose (1 hr interview)

[http://www.hulu.com/watch/595859](http://www.hulu.com/watch/595859)

<comment><USER16> Or from the Charlie Rose site: [http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60340546](http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60340546)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> not a good title in my opinion. Graceful career... And they somehow break it down into chunks in the article. So that means "broken-down grace?

<comment><USER18> You're misinterpreting it, I think. Bill Murray has always struck me as slightly damaged – in a good way, more authentic seeming. This sense of frayed vulnerability has grown more beautiful and poignant as he has aged, especially evident in films like "Lost in Translation".

I think that is what the title refers to. There are different ways to be graceful. Bill Murray doesn't have the affable, everyman grace of Tom Hanks or the smooth, charismatic grace of George Clooney. Murray's grace feels a bit worn out by life, a bit rough around the edges.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I'm okay with the title, under this interpretation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> that's why i love HN, because it's not only about "hacker" news. very good article, inspired me to watch his movies again.

<comment><USER20> Incidentally, the reason I started coming here was because it was "hacker" news. It seemed a more focused place to get news related to programming and the ecosystem.

Bill Murray is awesome, but I guess I must be missing something in my attempts to understand why this is on the front page.

Ah well. Interesting piece all the same.</comment></comment>


A study of musical scales (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://ianring.com/musictheory/scales/ <comment><USER2> The problem with this is is that it accepts the twelve-tone equal temperament system as a sort of absolute frame of reference, rather than the compromise/approximation that it is.

Musical scales are not just check-box menu choices out of twelve-tone equal temperament.

<comment><USER3> When I first learned about music theory, it surprised me how common this is. I liked the idea of scales that made certain intervals sound nice in terms of simple fractions, and wrote a computer program to search for them. I found an interesting scale and posted it to the music stackexchange: [https://imgur.com/a/iBwxC4T](https://imgur.com/a/iBwxC4T)

It caused a long discussion between the people there, and I learned a lot, but my post was eventually deleted. Somebody posted a follow-up question trying to figure out what the terms were really supposed to mean, but it doesn't seem to me they ever managed to agree: [https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/66620](https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/66620)

<comment><USER4> I think a tuning is a set of intervals which an instrument is configured to play. A tuning is also a temperament if it is a compromise of another tuning in order to make the configuration technically feasible (or for other convenience reasons). A scale is then some combination of notes within a tuning or temperament? I don't know, it seemed like they were more concerned with nitpicking words than answering your actual question, which was interesting and not hard to understand.

<comment><USER5> That seems like a reasonable definition. In my view, temperaments only apply to keyboard and electronic instruments. String instruments are tuned so the open strings are in perfect intervals, then we just cope with it. Wind instruments are all over the place, depending on how you blow and how loud. I saw a viola da gamba with double frets, and the gambist told me it was so he could manage different temperaments. An orchestra is untempered, for all practical purposes.

I think that a scale and its temperaments are in addition to being an artistic choice, also a _technology_. Prior to electronic music and professional technicians, a tuning system had to be something that a musician could carry out themselves, possibly quite frequently. The 12 tone system is the simplest consonant system, possibly making it the easiest and quickest to tune.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> WOW. As a former Music Theory 2 and Music Theory 3 student in college this is awesome. I am also very disappointed in myself for not trying to do something like this and failing earlier in my life.

There is really a lot more that could be gained from this work. I am sensing someone's PhD project.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice work! If I could make one suggestion it would be to use hex instead of decimal. It would make the numbers easier to remember (shorter) and I think it would be easier to recognize patterns (Ie. whole scale is 0x333 and major scale 0xAB3).

</comment><comment><USER8> For something that puts this to action--Wolfram made a random music generator in 2005 with a ton of scales.

[http://tones.wolfram.com](http://tones.wolfram.com)

<comment><USER9> I bet this would be #1 comment if something in the process used neural networks and if it wasn't from Wolfram.

Anyway, pretty cool generator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nearly jumped out of my seat when I saw this! Look at how similar our approaches are: [http://welliam.github.io/molts/](http://welliam.github.io/molts/) (apologies for how poorly written it is, it's been a few years!)

Not that it's a super novel concept, but we both used this for the modes of limited transposition. For me it was an efficient way of generating MOLTs for any equal temperament scale.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's been awhile since I've had the chance to dig into more advanced music theory but this is such an interesting framing of all of the possibilities present in both named and unnamed scales and the relationship of notes. The idea to lay it out mathematically like this and how you frame your overall thinking about scales is great. Bach would appreciate this work.

Also reminds me a bit of how folks like Jacob Collier think about harmonies and new ways to arrive at different notes. The more you can internalize these kinds of mathematics, the more you can improvise in new and different ways.

Well done! Really enjoyed this.

</comment><comment><USER12> Absolutely amazing. I'm a coder and a musician and I've been complaining to myself about a certain tendency to repetition in my compositions lately, this is amazing stuff to break patterns.

</comment><comment><USER13> For some reason, probably coincidence mangled with early-stage dementia, I found this article remarkably similar to [https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the- desperate-q...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-desperate- quest-for-genomic-compression-algorithms)

</comment><comment><USER14> pretty good, this has motivated me to do an online post about my own take at similar issues. However I do not assume 12-tet, just the ocatave, so it's slightly different.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is fascinating! Unfortunately I don't understand even half of it, I've been wanting to learn music theory for some time

I should go back and learn to play a musical instrument

<comment><USER16> There's not much "music theory" here aside from the knowledge that there are 12 notes which repeat in octaves. He mentions a few modes (phrygian, etc) but that's not particularly esoteric. The rest is relating those ideas to simple mathematical constructs and seeing what comes out.

<comment><USER17> To understand propriety/coherence (about 2/3 of the way down the page) you'll also need to have an understanding of enharmonics, and perhaps some context on why it's important to be able to know whether an interval is e.g. an augmented 3rd or a perfect fourth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Very, very impressive. I don't have time to read everything right now, but just skimming everything this is an incredible resource, even for a non- programmer

</comment><comment><USER19> Really good content.

<comment><USER20> And form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Thank you very much, this is some fantastic content!

</comment><comment><USER22> Thanks, I hugely enjoyed this.

</comment><comment><USER23> Thank you</comment>