PC Ads of the past - <AUTHOR> http://dizorb.com/2010/09/17/pc-ads-of-the-past/

<comment><USER2> Apple's site did not look like that back then, I just checked waybackmachine. Is this a fabricated ad?

<comment><USER3> The Apple Lisa was released in 1983, way before WorldWideWeb. This was probably just a retro-mock comparing their devices of yesteryear to today (notice the iPhone).

To answer your question, this is a fabricated ad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Checkout this Amiga, promoting the quality of graphics it can produce."

Actually, those were, and are, good graphics.

<comment><USER5> I thought exactly the same. I don't like the way this article is written: it seems to mock the technology and it seems like it's written by somebody handling these units on a daily basis (and i guess most people do in our time) without knowing what they mean? Any technical person would reminisce in great love for the toys we had back than, this is written in a complete ignorant tone.... maybe i am just oversensitive on this one. Who knows....

</comment></comment><comment> simba-hiiipower pretty awesome. it's really interesting looking at old advertising like this; puts things into perspective and shows just how far technology has progressed.

from these, i find it especially amazing what was considered 'portable' back in the day, whoa!

imagine what computing would look like if in 25+ years people looking back to something like the iphone woud be thinking the same.

<comment><USER6> ... Or not progressed. What can you do now that you couldn't do in 1990? All the extra power, and more, has been soaked up in deeper and deeper layers of abstraction. A desktop from then, like GEM or Workbench or Arthur is recognisably modern. Windows or OSX or KDE are just tweaks.

If computing in 25 years is more of the same, we'll have failed.

<comment><USER7> I take your point, but as an Arthur/RISC-OS user for many years now using Ubuntu linux on a recycled x86 PC I get

\- audio/video encoding, editing and playback and format conversion.

\- a _lot_ more pixels (1920x1080x24bit vs 640x512x8bit - a 19 times ratio, plus accelerated desktop).

\- I could browse the web on the A3000 (12 MHz/2Mb) but it was slooooow, just keeping up with the 14k4 modems.

And, yes, I do mostly the same things, LibreOffice and LaTeX instead of !Impress and !Sigma. Vi or Gedit instead of !Zap.

I can see me using a low power Arm based desktop when the SoCs become powerful enough to run GIMP and Audacity.

<comment><USER8> I remember that decoding GIFs was pretty advanced for the Atari ST I had as a teen. Compiling C code on a floppy was pretty slow as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting adverts for computer enthusiasts, with explicit technical details.

Computers were also a symbol of 'modern' and 'scientific objectivity' before the Web and advertising. Have a look at...

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8403291/avdert19911130.jpg>

This is part of an advert dating from 1991 November 30th in the Independent magazine. I kept a few pages of Marketa Luskacova's Brick Lane photos from that issue as they have not been published in book form, but the text of the advert has been lost to time. This image can be read in so many ways, the power relations that come from access to the data!

The advert was for some kind of health care or nursing service. The terminal looks to be some kind of mini-computer?

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a pile of PC Magazines from the late 80s and early 90s. I'll have to dig up them up and post some of those ads online, as well. They're similar to these, but for different companies and products.</comment>


VCV Rack – Open-source virtual modular synthesizer - <AUTHOR> https://vcvrack.com/ <comment><USER3> This is gorgeous. I love how simple and clean the UI is; so many music and audio tools are just skeuomorphic hell (and don't support scaling so are even worse on HiDPI displays). This looks great without trying to look like a real device. It very effectively simulates a modular synth experience, without the limitations. It even simulates the quirky waveforms found on analog synths in a pretty convincing way. This is just impressive as hell on many fronts.

I don't see how to use it as a VST, though I see VST mentioned in the docs as a thing that will be implemented as a plugin, so I guess it's on the radar. It looks like it'd be possible to hook it up to an existing sequencer/DAW as a MIDI device, though I don't currently have any MIDI software or hardware on my Linux system, so can't test that theory.

All around, though, I can't believe I'd never heard of this. It's a great piece of work and sounds great ("great" in the sense of, "it's fun to tweak the knobs and the sounds that result are roughly what I would expect based on my experience with real analog synths and modular synths) in the few minutes of tinkering I've done. I love it.

<comment><USER4> Your comment on skeuomorphism no sense. All of the modules shown there are replicas of real hardware ??

<comment><USER3> They are clean and simple; the problem I have is with UI like this: [http://cdn.mos.musicradar.com/images/Product%20News/Tech/May...](http://cdn.mos.musicradar.com/images/Product%20News/Tech/May16/best- vst-synth-plugins-1200-80.jpg)

Specifically the ones with fake metallic coloring, tiny hard-to-read numeric displays, etc. So, while VCV Rack does use rotary knobs (which is a little questionable), it's not an offensive attempt to look like real hardware.

I guess complaining about skeuomorphism while praising a UI that uses simulated cables _is_ sort of weird, but I can't think of how else one might represent those connections in a clear manner. So, I guess I should just say it isn't skeuomorphic in ways that I find offensive, while many VSTs are. I find a lot of VSTs and audio software, in general, _horrible_ to look at and to use because so much of it goes to such great lengths to pretend to be hardware, and it all looks different from every other piece of software, so every new tool has a huge new learning curve just to wrap your head around what the new weird colorful shapes mean. VCV Rack is consistent across all modules; all of its user interface elements are used the same way and there's only a few of them. I knew what I was looking at within seconds of starting it (though admittedly that required me to have used real-world modular synths in the past).

<comment><USER5> It's funny because a lot of those synths are considered best in class..

Massive was the first widely popular wavetable synth and was considered quite usable.. until Serum came out. I personally think despite the knobs, it's one of easiest to use and understand synths out there. It shows you visually how the filters, wave tables, and various parameters are being modulated in real time, and you can easily add new modulations and customize the LFOs to whatever shape you want.

Sylenth was and still is a go to subtractive synth, and Spire is considered a spiritual successor to it..

Diva itself is a virtual analog synth intended to accurately replicate the sound of actual hardware synths, so it of all the synths pictured there should look like them.

I suppose that maybe I'm just used to the way softsynths look and feel, but I see nothing inherently wrong with using knobs and a metallic look. The main problem I have is when synths give you no indication as to how things are being modulated in real time, which is why Serum is my favorite synth - <USER2> does a fantastic job of that, knobs or not

<comment><USER3> Yes, they're all popular and well-regarded. And, even though I've used real synths for decades, I don't generally find the UI on these synths to be a nice experience. Some are better than others, but they're nearly all much harder to read than a UI that adheres to OS UI guidelines would be. Most are not scalable, and so are literally unusable for me (my eyesight isn't what it used to be, even with corrective lenses, and it's never been great), unless I change the resolution of my display. Even at 1080p many are too small on my 15" laptop, and I usually run at and prefer to run at 4k.

The type used is often abysmal. Pretending to be a squinty little LCD panel, for example, when we have infinite pixels is just plain stupid. The only reason old synths had those little panels was because big panels were expensive and graphical displays (CRTs) were too big to put into a keyboard form factor. It makes no sense to use the beautiful displays we have today and use them to reproduce all the compromises of a former era, but it is almost universal. Nearly all of the most popular VSTs impose these kinds of ugly restrictions on their UI.

In short: A lot of VSTs are barely legible, ugly, utterly inaccessible, and just all around stubbornly wrong on usability for the sake of looking "cool".

There's nostalgia for a simpler time, which I understand, and then there's the sadistic UI abuses found in many VST plugins (and audio software in general), which I abhor.

Obviously, I have strong opinions on the matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> VCV Rack is the most exciting thing to happen in the open-source audio world in years. The community support has been incredible: just do a search on Github for VCV Rack and you'll find a wide variety of modules that have sprung up in just the past few months since VCV Rack's public debut.

If you're new to VCV Rack, I would definitely start with the included modules, but when you're ready to branch out, take a look through the directory at [http://www.switchedonrack.com](http://www.switchedonrack.com).

<comment><USER7> I managed to crash it on macOS by having a second audio interface. After that, there was no output signal anymore (even after I deleted the second). I was about to give up, but impressed that the project I made was saved pretty much till the state before I added the second interface.

Do you know if its possible to get instruments like TB-303 and TB-808? Does anyone know a multi-platform MIDI keyboard to accompany this synth?

<comment><AUTHOR> Multiple audio interface support is experimental. This is a feature even AAA DAWs do not have, and if so, they are "amalgamated interfaces" rather than separate simultaneous connections.

If you get into a crash-on-boot loop, remove the "autosave.vcv" file (or edit out the Audio Interface modules from the JSON with a text editor) and relaunch Rack.

For TR-style drum machines, third-party company Hora has released a set of modules at [https://www.facebook.com/Hora- Music-1826383014249093/](https://www.facebook.com/Hora- Music-1826383014249093/) and [https://gumroad.com/horamusic](https://gumroad.com/horamusic).

<comment><USER8> ASIO4ALL has had multiple audio interface support for a long time.

<comment><AUTHOR> That would fall under the aformentioned "amalgamated" interfaces. In Rack you can (theoretically) plug or unplug new interfaces with a different sample rates and block sizes without rebuilding your virtual interface, since they are treated as individual streams (one per Audio Interface module) instead of being multiplexed and synchronized. But I haven't reviewed the source for thread-correctness and tested carefully enough to deem multiple interfaces stable, so in _practice_ , you might get jitter, crackling, crashes, etc. if you use this feature. Some interfaces work flawlessly though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a nice surprise for Thursday evening! Just spent 15 minutes playing around with this and making some sounds; very good indeed - when the VCV bridge to VST hosts appears then it will be really useful (although I think there are some downsides to such an approach as I believe this will mean that patches will need to be saved in VCV as well as the host song setup, which is a bit of a pain?) - if I was still teaching Music Tech this would be straight in as a teaching tool as it's so flexible and you can make as simple or complex a synth as you want, pretty much.

Registered and downloaded other plugins simply and seamlessly; I have a new Macbook arriving tomorrow, so I'll get it on there and have a play with it over the weekend with any luck.

</comment><comment><USER10> It is a lot of fun.

0.4 was flawless and worked well. I do not know about the current 0.5 version since it refuses to work on my system.

I applaud the eurorack/synth community for creating such an awesome tool.

If anyone is asking, VST support is coming in the future!

<comment><USER11> A little easier on the pocketbook vs. Eurocrack :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I could not find how this can be used within a DAW (LV2, VST or AU).

Seems like a great project and very finely polished! However it's too cumbersome to have to route the audio to be recorded.

For another open source modular synthetizer, there's ams: [https://objectivewave.wordpress.com/ams- lv2/](https://objectivewave.wordpress.com/ams-lv2/), [https://github.com/blablack/ams-lv2](https://github.com/blablack/ams-lv2)

You can also extend it outside of regular emulated voltage controllers: [http://drobilla.net/software/ingen](http://drobilla.net/software/ingen)

<comment><AUTHOR> See [https://vcvrack.com/manual/Core.html](https://vcvrack.com/manual/Core.html) for VCV Bridge information.

<comment><USER12> You mean future VCV Bridge information?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, and here are the relevant Github issues to follow. [https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/31](https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/31) [https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/44](https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/44)

<comment><USER12> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's exciting to see things like this come to Linux, Ubuntu studio out performs windows 10 by a wide margin so it's great to be able to play with this outside the os duopoly where usually only Mac and windows are supported.

</comment><comment><USER14> Thank you for this! I'm trying to get deeper into open source audio software and programming, looking forward to spending some time with this on the weekend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's a tutorial and template project for creating your own plugins. [https://github.com/VCVRack/Tutorial](https://github.com/VCVRack/Tutorial) The other resource is the collection of header files in Rack/include/.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is really fun to play around with. I've got a pretty large eurorack, and while I can't see myself going 100% digital again anytime soon (I've done the MAX/MSP and Csound thing in prior year) it's a really cool playground. I bet some people could do some really great things in this eventually with VST support

</comment><comment><USER16> This is pretty awesome. I had recently bought the moog model 15 app, and had a desire for something like vcv but I didn't know it was out there.

I'd been playing with the idea of making physical control plates that would interface the a sonicpi via osc.

I hadn't decided on how routing would work. I mean patch cords are nice and satisfying to plug in, but they get in the way too.

</comment><comment><USER17> This was super fun to play with, but I just wish at least the Fundamental modules were documented :(

I know jack about synths, so I kind of have to gleam what each module does by what it looks like, it'd be nice if there were a description of some sorts.

Also, how the hell do I connect a single output to a scope AND my audio device?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, documentation is needed, so I'm collaborating with a few people to get everything documented.

You can hold Ctrl while clicking-and-dragging on an output to create a stackable cable on top of it, or drag from an input to the output, whichever you prefer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The volume! If I had had my headphones in when I tried it, I'd be deaf for sure. I now have my system volume on the lowest notch and the mixer channel on the lowest notch. It's still pretty darn loud. Am I doing something wrong?

<comment><AUTHOR> Turn it down with a mixer module then?

<comment><USER18> I did, it's almost at 0 before i get a tolerable level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Just awesome to see this in open source. Can't wait to learn from the source.

</comment><comment><USER20> For someone curious about synthesis, but intimidated by modulars:

Is this the right place to start for a beginner? Or is modular more for advanced folks? How do you learn about the world of synthesis to start?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, IMO. Modular is advanced, but it's the purest, most fundamental way of synthesizing sound. Many people complain that they never see modular artists make normal subtractive patches (the typical VCO > VCF > VCA, modulated with ADSR envelope generators), but the truth is that you can make subtractive patches _all day_ with modulars if you want, but they only comprise about 0.0001% of the sonic design space, so poeple usually explore other patches instead. So yes, you can use the modular format to learn synthesis and build easy or hard patches all alike. VCV Rack simulates at a voltage level, so you can "debug" patches with the Fundamental Scope if you're confused about exactly what a signal (CV or audio) is really doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Utterly amazing, but why did you not develop this as a VST? It's of little use to musicians otherwise. If you are planning on a VST in the near future, count me as extremely excited!

<comment><AUTHOR> As an answer to "why", if you are curious:

Technical limitations of being a VST/AU plugin: Sparse support of window resizing, lack of multiple simultaneous DAW integration, ability to only exist on multiple channels, ability to output/input its own audio/MIDI, limited number of automation parameters, ability to remain playing without hiccups after a DAW has been closed, future ability to exist on a completely different computer. Compare Rack to something like Reason instead of a single synthesizer, which has no plugin version.

Philosophy of a standalone application: VCV Rack attempts to emulate not only the technicalities of modular synthesizers but the entire mindset and workflow. Most modular artists consider their instrument to be a composition tool rather than an element of a song, which more aligns with the title of a DAW. Eventually the need to use Rack in a DAW will nearly disappear, as more modules are added to compose and record a song from scratch to finish. However, many DAWs have ways of communicating with other DAWs, and Rack is no exception after the release of "VCV Bridge", scheduled to be included in Rack v1.0. More information:

[https://vcvrack.com/manual/Core.html](https://vcvrack.com/manual/Core.html) [https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/31](https://github.com/VCVRack/Rack/issues/31)

<comment><USER22> Kudos for going the route of a VST bridge on this. I can see this becoming a necessity as this project grows. This is the route the Hauptwerk took for their pipe-organ software. They used to have a VST-version of their platform, but it was just too unwieldy, particularly if the DAW ever crashed, taking Hauptwerk down with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> how is it different/better from [http://zynthian.org/](http://zynthian.org/) ?

</comment><comment><USER24> hey, this is really cool and stuff, but it eats my ram for breakfast and it's kind of glitchy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never seen it take more than 100MB of RAM. What is your OS and amount of RAM reported by your OS?

<comment><USER24> sorry, i meant cpu, not ram. my specs are OSX 10.11.6, 3 GHz Intel Core i7 , 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3. i'm using an external audio interface Scarlett 2i2 as well.

with only a couple of modules in my rack going, the rack process is hogging 50% of my cpu. about the audio glitches - they seem happen whenever i use my os regularly outside of rack (switching between apps, scrolling and clicking).

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, yes. It uses nanovg and libsamplerate, which are very CPU heavy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What motivates your participation on HN? - <AUTHOR>

Due to some recent discussion regarding the quality of socialization in Internet communities, I'm curious how HN feels? Why do you participate and how do you feel about that participation? Are the motivators that cause you to engage mostly positive or negative? How about the net-result of that socialization? <comment><USER3> The quality of the socialization has a lot to do with the rules, so my comments are mostly about those.

I can participate anonymously save for my IP address without using any special software.

I'm lonely, sad, lost, burnt-out, angry, and confused. Every time someone upvotes one of my posts I feel a bit better. I want to get up to 500 karma so I can downvote people too. Then again, the existence of internet karma and the karma leaderboard makes me want to throw a bucket of water in the world's face.

It's nice that insightful and polite comments are rewarded. I think I still like Slashdot's tag-based moderation system better, I'd like more details than up/down.

There isn't much of a coherent community here compared to most forums (eww, fora?) I've used in the past. Once in a while I recognize a name or two. Then again, the lack of community probably eliminates most of the drama that gets so tedious on internet forums. It feels more like strangers responding to strangers, so in that sense is pretty democratic.

I wish stories could be tagged by topic and then filtered.

I would like to see the total number of upvotes and downvotes on comments and stories, because +50 -51 is a very different story from -1. I would like some mechanism to downvote stories that isn't too punishing.

I feel like I'm sinking into a pit of nothingness every time I see a hellbanned user post a perfectly valid comment, and then I check their comment history and see that they have been doing this for a very long time without any awareness. Maybe users can earn the right to become unhellbanned via upvotes. I would like to be able to not have user's posts greyed out - <USER2> greying out just feels mean to me.

I wish there was more interesting technical stuff posted. I wish people would share their startup ideas. I wish it was a bit more fun.

I think computers undermine the quality of local relationships. My girlfriend hates all of you equally.

At the end of the day, I wish I felt like doing something more than reading Hacker News and I loathe myself for even posting here. On the other hand, it's nice to have something to read besides Boing Boing and to practice writing and to get thoughtful responses sometimes. The comments read like they're generally written by young men trying to impress other young men, but maybe that's just how I use them personally. This time I'm just seeking validation I guess.

</comment><comment><USER4> I used to come around because the commentary was top-notch. There was a reasonably high likelihood that a true subject expert would chime in for nearly every topic on the front page.

Now I come for the links and mostly avoid the commentary, as it's largely opinion based and/or a series of pedantic grammar corrections.

</comment><comment><USER5> Correcting someone is a powerful motivator. It's the root of all arguments.

Some of my participating is of the "correcting" kind, but I also genuinely try to wait for opportunities to contribute helpful and interesting things from what I have learned in my life thus far.

</comment><comment><USER6> I read HN because it motivates me to be a more well-rounded and self motivated person. I like reading about all these successful people. I also read it because I'm not a CS person (I have an ECE background), and I like applying CS-domain ideas to ECE applications, like VHDL and embedded design.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't actually know why I returned recently. I have been asking myself that here lately. I don't have a clear answer, at least not yet. I think probably the answer is rooted in "I have stopped bleeding to death, so my brain is probably functioning again. Thus, like it or not, I need an outlet."

Historically: I originally joined to ask a specific question. I stuck around to get some of my intellectual needs met. I ended up feeling super burned by some things. I go on haitus periodically, usually not something I plan. I just get busy with other things I guess. I had some conscious reasons for my most recent hiatus but, looking back on it, it roughly coincides with a timeframe where I was bleeding profusely and my brain was just not working. I have health issues. Sometimes hn is just too much. (shrug)</comment>


Ask HN: What role do you identify as in your occupation? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I'm curious as to how people see their role in their occupation, and the story behind your view.
It would also be interesting to hear if other people disagree with the fit between a given role and a given story! <comment><USER2> Depends on the context. If random people ask, I usually say "I'm a consultant" and then if they ask "what kind of consultant" I explain that I specialize in big-data / data-warehousing / data-mining and the like. Sometimes I'll volunteer that I'm working on a software startup.

But in a different context, like at a startup related event, I'll identify as "Founder" and/or "CEO".

If the person asking is really obviously not technical, I may give a generic "I'm an IT guy" or something.

Personally, I see myself as a guy who likes exploring new technology and ways to apply technology to solve problems. If I had to give myself a title, I'd say "problem solver" or "troubleshooter". _shrug_

</comment><comment><USER3> My contract says my title is software engineer, but titles don't mean much in a small company. Which I kind of like.

That said, I didn't study Software Engineering at university. And so, in almost 10 years in various roles writing software, this is the first one in which I've allowed this title to apply (previously I've had: Systems Analyst, Software Developer, Bioinformatics Technologist, Instrumentation Engineer, etc).

I also didn't study systems engineering (which is a real discipline responsible for remarkable achievements such as taming the complexity of massive systems such as modern airliners), but not _that_ Systems Engineering, I mean the wishy-washy, everyone's-an-engineer sense of Systems Engineer as typically used in software land - that's what I think a more accurate title for my role would be.

I work on the hardware for our widget, as well as the user-facing software. I set up our automated build system that builds everything including our ARM Linux OS image, including kernel and bootloader. I established the production and Q/A checklists. I actually do some of the assemblies. I determine what components we use, and I work with real engineers to validate and test and update customer spec sheets accordingly. I answer questions like, "what kind of power system would let us get XX hrs runtime at YY% duty cycle".

I have a complete picture in my head of the product, its capabilities and limitations. When it goes wrong, at any level, I'm the one that has to fix it. I've never worked with a Systems Engineer at a big tech company but it seems as if this is the sort of scope they work with. Except they probably don't have to write the userland code as well :)

<comment><USER4> I really wish that there was an acceptable title similar to "Engineer" that wasn't engineer. Early in my career, I was saddled with the "Software Engineer" title at a large telecommunications company. I suffered a lot from real engineers complaining that I wasn't a real engineer because I didn't study engineering. Eventually, I decided that they were right, but that "Software Engineering" wasn't a real engineering discipline anyway (at least not yet). How many "software engineers" know the mean time between failures of their systems? When they integrate a library, can they enumerate the risks involved? Even on a team that prides itself on very low defect density, I don't think we can really call this discipline "engineering" in the way that other other disciplines are "engineering".

Of course, when I speak to young software engineers now (real engineers who studied software engineering), they often violently disagree with me. This often strikes me as being a bit ironic. What's even more ironic is that after 30 years in the software industry I know considerably more about "software engineering" than anyone I have met coming out of an engineering program (which is not surprising, and I mean no disrespect to the people who have such a degree -- in 30 years, I'm sure they will know considerably more than I do now).

I tend to view people's confidence that they can predict the properties of software in the same way you could predict the properties of different metals as being hubris. One programmer has a late night out and drinks too much. The next day, still woozy from the night before he writes some code. It looks all right a first glance, but he accidentally overwrites some memory that makes a task in another part of the machine completely fall over. There is 4 million lines of code and this software error sleeps until memory usage is _just right_. Hopefully it is not medical software...

Having said that, my colleagues who are actual engineers reassure me that real engineering is also fraught with such random behaviour, so I'm being too picky. It's always something I think about while riding elevators.

<comment><USER5> Call yourself a Software Developer, regardless of your title. All my development roles on my resume say exactly that, regardless of what my employers called it. When "civilians" ask what you do, say you write software.

It's your resume, put what you want on it.

I agree, this isn't engineering. Where's my supervising Principal Engineer, and where's my path to that?

But if someone wants to call themselves a Software Engineer, or a Custodial Engineer, of a Software Custodian, I don't really care.

<comment><USER6> > I agree, this isn't engineering. Where's my supervising Principal Engineer, > and where's my path to that?

1\. Not all engineers in traditional engineering disciplines, like EE, work as/under licensed engineers, with supervising Principle Engineers (depends on the jurisdiction, job, and individual). If they've been trained and are working as electrical engineers, should they call themselves something other than electrical engineers at that point?

2\. NCEES, who state engineering boards depend upon to license engineers, considers software engineers to be an engineering discipline, as do a number of US states. There are already a number of software engineers who have passed the software engineering PE and FE exams and who are now licensed engineers. There are even more on the way. NCEES started offering software engineers PE exams back in 2012, now over half of US states offer the exam [1].

1\. [http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-introduces-pe- exam-f...](http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-introduces-pe-exam-for- software-engineering/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my current gig I was originally hired to help the developers improve their ability to write software using agile (specifically XP) techniques. Rather cautiously I put "Agile Coach" on my business card. I'm not one of those coaches who focusses on management interaction. I sit down with programmers and pair program with them. I help break down stories with program managers. I introduce techniques to people and sit with them while they are learning to use them. My main goal is not to introduce a system, but rather to work with people and wait for opportunities to show why one way of doing things will be more successful than another way. It's a bit like a sports coach who will watch you do something, then introduce corrections, but always showing you how that correction made things better.

For family reasons, I had had to move back to Japan from the UK and ended up working on contract for the same company. In the end, coaching from 9000 km away is pretty difficult. The communication bandwidth just isn't there. So now I primarily write code. My boss encourages me to continue "coaching" individual people, but I have to limit myself to one person at a time.

I don't view myself as a coach any more. In truth, I have very little influence over what generally happens across the team any more. I go months where I don't even speak to some people on the team. I suppose I am mentoring individual people and cranking out code, which is a contractor's job.

My role now is "contract programmer" I guess. I still pair program about 50% of the time (and with a 8/9 hour time difference, that's fairly tough on the sleep schedule... but it gives me plenty of time to ride my bike during the day ;-) )

</comment><comment><USER7> Web Developer. I develop things for the web.

I primarily use Python but I also use JS and SQL. If I need to write some Ruby, I'll learn to write some Ruby. If I need to use some Go I learn to use some Go. so the title:

      Python, JavaScript, SQL Web Developer but also whatever other language I need to learn

doesn't seem as elegant as Web Developer.

<comment><USER8> Same boat. Except if the audience seems like someone who might then refer to me as a Web Designer (and there are a lot of these people), I will probably then call myself a "computer programmer."

<comment><USER7> I prefer Techno Mage in that instance

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Relocatable engineering department component.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'll just throw Patio11's famous rant here: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a- pro...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I see myself as a UX Generalist.

I've been doing freelance development as a solo developer for a number of years now, and this entails doing everything from interviewing users, gathering requirements, building the actual product, and then iterating based on user feedback. My reasoning for seeing my role as a "UX generalist", as opposed to a "JavaScript generalist" or "full-stack engineer" is that it feels like in this role, development comes second to actually providing the customer with the best experience.

I'd love to hear what words other people would use for the same role!

</comment><comment><USER10> I was actually hired as a simple KPO data associate in a reputed e commerce company y. Now with python it became data analyst. The closest thing i wanna become I data scientist as growing potential for my knowledge and lifestyle.</comment>


Library of Congress: Books That Shaped America - <AUTHOR> https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/books-that-shaped-america/overview.html <comment><USER2> Christopher Colles, _A Survey of the Roads of the United States of America_ (1789) looks like it may have been the "NCSA What's New" page of its day.</comment>


Mathworks founder on Compressed Sensing  - <AUTHOR> http://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/articles/clevescorner-compressed-sensing.html?s_v1=24222166_1-DT2OJA

<comment><USER2> It's about "compressed sensing" not "computer science"...

<comment><USER3> It'd be nice if the title changed to that. I thought it was about Computer Science, too. In this crowd, CS is rather deceptive..

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're interested in Compressive Sensing, the go to blog is:

<http://nuit-blanche.blogspot.com/>

It has tons more information on this rapidly developing field.</comment>


RVM Rapid voice messaging App for windows store - <AUTHOR> http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/app/rvm-rapid-voice-messaging/3c59d1f5-5f7e-45ad-a903-5eeeef838d99

<comment><AUTHOR> Instant delivery you must try</comment>


White House pulls plug on Patent Office nominee after tech sector backlash - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2014/07/09/white-house-pulls-plug-on-controversial-patent-office-nominee-after-tech-sector-backlash/

<comment><USER2> The power of democracy, with the amplification of social media, is a thing of beauty. However, the skeptic in me thinks a few big dollar folks from the valley made a few calls.</comment>


Clueless in Costco - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/clueless-in-costco/

<comment><USER2> What is this article about? Eventually, in the 10th paragraph, Costco is mentioned but I can't figure out why. Here are the final three paragraphs:

"Speaking of my newspaper — please, it's the holidays, a time for indulgence in all things — they recently discovered a newsworthy item from the Mountain West: Jews in Montana. Imagine!

One more bit of news on this front: the nation's first elected Jewish governor was a Western man. And a Democrat. In Idaho. Moses Alexander governed the land of famous potatoes from 1915 to 1919.

As a longtime Western representative of The New York Times, which is well read in these provinces, I feel the rub of faux-rube pandering both ways. Here, people are amazed I can find Twitty, Texas, on a map, and — more surprising, can vouch for the peach cobbler. There, the wonder is that I know which side of the plate to keep the salad fork. Sort of."

Why are people upvoting this article? Truly - and I am not being sarcastic here - I don't get it. I read it but still don't understand it.

<comment><AUTHOR> What the article is about is how little people in the eastern United States know about the western United States. Costco is used as an example because it is a large business corporation, in the news fairly often, that was founded in the west.</comment></comment>


Are humans getting cleverer? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31556802 <comment><USER2> > Focusing on one part of the IQ test, the Raven's Progressive Matrices, they > found that on average intelligence has risen the equivalent of 20 IQ points > since 1950. IQ tests are designed to ensure that the average result is > always 100, so this is a significant jump.

The problem is, that's about the _only_ part that has risen. The limited number of subtests showing the gains has long been one of the big question marks about how the Flynn effect could possibly be about the underlying intelligence rather than an artifact ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)).

> This is a puzzle not just for the US, but for all countries demonstrating > the Flynn Effect. "Does it make sense," Flynn wrote in one paper, "to assume > that at one time almost 40% of Dutch men lacked the capacity to understand > soccer, their most favoured national sport?"

This sort of point comes up often, but it's not a good point to make. The people discussing IQ tests typically have lived in a tight bubble their entire lives and have not meaningfully interacted with the general population. They typically have even less interaction with the populations of poor countries who might be comparable to long ago. For example, just today I was reading a Wired article which remarks offhand that "In some areas of the country, up to 40 percent of children under 5 are affected. The effects are mental as well as physical. A 2008 study by the National Intelligence Council found that a quarter of North Korean military conscripts are disqualified for cognitive disabilities". Flynn asks whether it's possible for a quarter of Dutch men at some point to not be able to follow soccer well; I ask whether it's possible for a quarter of North Korean men to be rejected by the notoriously voracious NK military because they are too stupid or mentally broken. The latter seems to be true, however...

<comment><USER3> My personal opinion is that Flynn effect is a combination of factors that aid developing of brain:

1\. Better nutrition and medical care. 2\. Teaching abstract concepts such as predicate logic early on. 3\. Increasing complexity of the world in terms of information streams. 4\. Urbanization of population. 4\. Mandatory schooling and various programs aimed at increasing graduation rate, which is proxy for total amount of time an average child is schooled [0].

I was writing out long and detailed argument based on clustering of scholars and their presence in ancient civilizations, but after realizing amount of details such argument would need to stand I gave up. My argument was along the lines of: presence of clusters of extraordinary scholars in ancient civilizations show that prospering economy[1], knowledge communication, and education play crucial role in preparing those scholars.

[0] Now thinking about it - I think there should be strong correlation between average time children are schooled and standardized test scores. Probably also has additional wide variety of rippling effects including better economic growth.

[1] An economy that is capable of bearing load of academia.

<comment><USER4> Re clustering of scholars, prosperity is probably important, but Bloom's two sigma problem[0] probably contributes also. Would Aristotle have been anywhere near as profound without Socrates and Plato as predecessors?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_Sigma_Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_Sigma_Problem)

<comment><USER3> That was part of my point, would kids today perform better without benefit of all the scholar achievements before them? I was arguing that academic development of a society is part of the reason for Flynn effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would be surprised if humans are getting smarter. Show me the selective pressure on intelligence in the modern world, because I don't see it. You don't have to be smart to be evolutionarily fit. Not even close. I'd be very surprised if humans were changing much as far as cognitive capability is concerned, animals that become domesticated almost universally have smaller brains than their wild counterparts.

<comment><USER6> There doesn't need to be DNA change to make people smarter. Just having a few generations in a row with adequate diet, not breathing smoke from a wood fire every day, less damage from childhood disease, etc. could make a huge difference.

<comment><USER7> On the contrary, the evolutionary argument here is that a few generations under these conditions would allow more biologically "stupider" humans to survive (since intelligence isn't being selected for) and pass on their genes, creating future generations of dumber humans.

Jared Diamond makes a similar argument in Guns, Germs, and Steel for why the people of New Guinea are smarter than their western counterparts.

<comment><USER8> Human evolution is almost meaningless on those time scales.

<comment><USER5> There has been shrinkage in the average brain size over the last five thousand years. Intelligence is a very complicated thing and brain size might not be the only factor—that shrinkage might not even be relevant. But that does not mean that evolutionary change cannot take place on thousand year timelines.

<comment><USER8> Current theory is skull size was adapting based on temperature not intelligence. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#mediaviewer/File:Bra...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#mediaviewer/File:Brain_Size_Map.png) Also, there are likely more people alive now with larger brain volumes vs five thousand years ago and the same apples to just about any trait you can name due to the rapid population boom.

The important thing to note is the human population covers the globe. There are plenty of sifts in populations like Lactose tolerance becoming widespread over the last 7,500 years, but even that is a long way from becoming effectively universal.

<comment><USER5> I think that was my point. You said that ten thousand years of civilization was too short for meaningful evolution. At least that was my understanding.

<comment><USER8> 10,000 years is long enough for significant beneficial traits to spread widely. It's not enough time to Change neutral traits that used to be beneficial.

That's generally a vary slow change consider most animals don't need dietary vitamin C even if there diets provide plenty of the stuff.

However, you used the term "a few generations" as in below 1,000 years and that's rediculusly fast for a species that takes as long as we do to reproduce and have so few children.

<comment><USER5> I didn't use the term "a few generations", that was another commenter. :)

That said, you mentioned a beneficial trait becoming neutral, and that's making the assumption that greater intelligence is neutral. It could be that larger social organizations reward slightly less intelligent critters. That would do the trick rather quickly. I'm not making that claim, but am saying that discussions around evolution and traits that we have bias toward seeing as "good" are fraught.

There's also the further issue of intelligence being a very nebulous term that encompasses tons of cognitive traits, which makes any discussion of intelligence in evolutionary terms even more difficult.

It's also possible that _some_ of what we call intelligence is epigenetic.

<comment><USER8> I don't think we have good data on people's intelligence 10,000 years ago. But, civilization as we think of it only impacted a fairly small chunk of humanity for a relatively small time period. So, at best 'larger social organizations' was rather localized.

Just 500 years ago lots of people in North America where living nomadic hunter gather lifestyles. Even just 100 years ago you could find tribes in many parts of the world still living hunter gather lifestyles little changed over the last 15,000+ years and probably similar to how people lived 100,000+ thousand years ago.

As to epigenetic factors, the classic hunter gather lifestyle could be very healthy as long as population numbers stayed low. Farming actually lowered many heath indicators even as it allowed for massive increases in population sizes.

PS: Anyway, evolution is only 'fast' when there are significant benefits or harms. If a single mutation or environment change increases survival chances by say +/\- 1% it takes exponentially longer to spread than a +/\- 10% change.

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree with any of those points. My original post just stated that I couldn't imagine any fitness pressure that would be making humans smarter and, if anything, we were probably going in the other direction. My secondary point was that change can happen on short timelines.

I do want to mention that larger social organizations were quite widespread in the Americas, despite the existence of hunter-gatherer tribes. The new world certainly wasn't an uncivilized wasteland when Europeans arrived.

Epigenetic factors can be triggered buy group size (domestication) as well. So those hunter-gatherer tribes might share the same genetic traits but express them differently based on their environment.

<comment><USER8> _any fitness pressure that would be making humans smarter_

I don't recall the study, it was either men in the US or Britton. But, income was positively correlated with number of children. Income and intelligence are also linked so that's evidence that right now intelligence is positively correlated with number of children. This may be strongly linked with prison time but again that links with intelligence.

The important thing to note is men often have children with more than one person and can have children vary late in life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember reading about the Flynn effect awhile back. Can't find the exact article, but this one [1] will do. This quote really does it for me:

"The second factor is what Alexander Luria discovered when he tested rural Russian peasants in the 1930s. He discovered that pre-scientific people can't take the hypothetical seriously. That is, if you pose to them questions like, "There is snow at the North Pole; where there is snow, bears are white; what color are bears at the North Pole?" they would say, "Well, I've only seen brown bears. And only if a person came from the North Pole with testimony would I believe that the bears there are white."

It seems like the brain doesn't think abstractly when it doesn't need to, and for many thousands of years it didn't. The nice thing about culture and education is that it seems like more than just knowledge is passed down. Whole modes and ways of thinking, perspectives on the world that are useful and revealing now exist in the greater collective consciousness. We can't really measure this, but I think it makes a huge difference that there is this idea that everything in the world is not simply magical or arbitrary and that given the right tools we can figure it out. The idea that there ARE knowable underlying principles that govern the universe (even randomness!) completely changes the way that we think about the world.

1\. [http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx](http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER10> Daniel Dennett explains the Flynn effect with a trickle down effect of engineering knowledge to the general public (as an example he mentions percentage calculation). It provides people with more useful thinking tools than what is traditionally passed on, which makes people more efficient thinkers and thus they achieve higher scores in IQ tests.

<comment><USER11> Can you point to a work (video or article) where he describes this? Also, is this the person you are referring to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett) (Google is correcting "Dannet" to "Dennett").

Thank you.

<comment><USER10> Your spelling is correct. There you go: [http://devoutnone.com/tools-for- thinking/](http://devoutnone.com/tools-for-thinking/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As to the last point in the article about why we don't have so many more geniuses, I'd like to add the possibility that it's similar to longevity: although we are seeing the average lifespan increase dramatically, the upper end is not really moving. It seems that more people are just living their full lifespan.

Perhaps it's the same with intelligence, where more of us are forced to develop to our potential now but we haven't necessarily raised the bar for our species. I think if you look at other statistics such as college attendance rates they would support this scenario.

</comment><comment><USER13> All this means is that the spread of intelligence is more homogenized towards the center (100 being average). What I'd be more curious about is the spread of those people in the top 5-10%, or even some more raw comparison data, not necessarily averages or spread.

Given some truly clueless people I've interacted with in my lifetime, it seems to me that there are plenty of people who may have more generalized knowledge or even be able to reason about some things better but still can't think of a way out of a paper bag let alone a box.

Just because you can use an iPhone, or a remote control for a TV with some understanding of how it works isn't the same as being able to build one. The average man in the 60's in the U.S. had a better understanding of relatively simple things like changing a light switch, or replacing a toilet than the average man today. Understanding more of the machines we use every day is being lost in recent generations imho.

TFA mentions reasoning over memorizing names and numbers, but doesn't mention much in support of that.. I'd say general health of the overall population beyond historic poverty and starvation has had more effect than actual increases in human reasoning.

</comment><comment><USER14> Yes humans are getting more clever, and I find it quite easy to see why. As times are changing, certain personality traits become more preferable, advantageous and then attractive.

More than ever is it attractive to be intelligent. We celebrate Intelligence like never before. Intelligence is more likely to lead to work/money/power, and people are more likely to seek mates that are intelligent.

Any trait that is preferable at the time, is more likely to lead to offsprings. Ask your local sperm bank.

I'm not saying I think it's the only, or necessarily the most important trait (Hitler was likely quite intelligent), but it is increasingly important, and therefore increasingly likely to affect the human evolution.

Human evolution is constantly changing us, and I'd say it makes little to no sense, to argue that our intelligence specifically, is not changing with it (for better or worse). But with our short lifespan, it might not change fast enough for some to recognize it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Folks tested in the 40's and 50's averaged IQ 70. Were they dumber then? Or just not as test-savvy, having less exposure to education, logic etc? What we call IQ today can be boosted by exposure to more cognitive tools (memorization, speed reading, puzzles and games)

<comment><USER16> Are you talking their averages then scaled with current averages? I thought IQ was averaged around 100. I'm on mobile with a spotty connection right now, so I can't look much up at the moment. I am doing well to reply on my fourth attempt.

<comment><USER15> SOme previous HN post about old intelligence test results, filed away for 60 years. Rescored, those people who took those tests long ago, had an average IQ of 70.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "cleverer" or "more clever"

I think I prefer more clever.

<comment><USER18> 'Cleverer' is correct[0], but definitely an ugly word.

'More intelligent' would probably have been a better choice.

[0] [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cleverer?s=t](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cleverer?s=t)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Socializing in close quarters (civilization) provides pressure to compete in more technical ways than brute force. Rule-lawyering, arguing, backstabbing etc. You might call that 'cleverer'.

</comment><comment><USER19> So the opposite of the premise of Idiocracy is true?

<comment><USER20> Guess so. That's the premise of "Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter" by Steven Johnson ([http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad-Good-You- Actually/dp/15...](http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad-Good-You- Actually/dp/1594481946)). Though Idiocracy is a great underappreciated film.

<comment><USER19> It does make sense the humans would get better at pattern matching. Interacting with UIs constantly and exposure to video games with loads of information must be good for the brain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Fewer women are also dying in childbirth as nations get more developed. Slightly relevant.

</comment><comment><USER22> No, my observation is that the youth is getting dumber and dumber with every year.

</comment><comment><USER23> Perhaps a result of epigenetics?

</comment><comment><USER24> I assume this is one of those statistics that is the opposite of what is commonly thought? Crime rate is another (most think it is going up, while it's been going down for decades).</comment>


How To Keep Your Domain Name Searches Safe From Poachers - <AUTHOR> http://www.domainsherpa.com/prevent-domain-name-front-running/ <comment><USER3> If you're concerned about frontrunning, use <http://instantdomainsearch.com>. It was written by YC alum Beau Hartshorne, and I can personally vouch for his trustworthiness. We use it every batch to find new names for startups.

<comment><USER4> Typing in a domain name and clicking "search" on instantdomainsearch.com immediately takes you to the GoDaddy website which shows the domain name you typed in and quotes a price for it.

GoDaddy is allegedly one of the biggest domain frontrunners, so I don't see much value in instantdomainsearch.com. imo the domainsherpa.com suggestions on domain search are far superior.

<comment><USER5> "Typing in a domain name and clicking "search" on instantdomainsearch.com immediately takes you to the GoDaddy"

That is not exactly correct. Doing a search returns data from instantdomainsearch.com itself. Only once it is returned do you have the option to go to a registrar like godaddy, among others (or just take that name to a registrar of your liking), to actually register the domain.

I have used instantdomainsearch.com many, many times myself to great success.

<comment><USER4> >> _That is not exactly correct_

Why is it not correct ?

When I click the search button, it takes me to the GoDaddy site. Did you really try clicking the Search button on instantdomainsearch.com ?

<comment><USER6> You are in fact correct. Typing a name and then clicking on the Search button will take you to GoDaddy.

But you do NOT need to click on the Search button at all to use the site. I used in the past and I did not even notice there was Search button.

<comment><USER7> Exactly right, hence the _instant_ part. I never noticed it either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article says to not check if the domain you are interesting in resolves, because ISPs sell the data on resolution failures. I have two questions about that.

1\. That seems to assume that one is using their ISPs DNS service. What if I'm querying the top level .com servers directly? Is that safe?

2\. Even if you are using your ISPs DNS servers, if they are getting that data from their logs and selling it I'd expect there would be a fair delay before the data got to some third party that would act on it. That should make it safe if your intent is to buy the domain soon, shouldn't it?

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean by "querying the top level .com servers directly"? How are you doing that?

Yes, any ISP would likely have a substantial delay in collecting, filtering and selling this type of data, which is why I think DNFR is most likely happening at registrars. I'm just presenting the facts that there are "middlemen" in the process that people should know about. Thanks for helping me clarify.

<comment><USER9> > What do you mean by "querying the top level .com servers directly"? How are > you doing that?

First, ask the root servers for the authoritative servers for the TLD you are interested in:

        $ dig @f.root-servers.net www.google.com

        [...]
        ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

        ;; QUESTION SECTION:
        ;www.google.com.                        IN      A

        ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
        com.                    172800  IN      NS      a.gtld-servers.net.
        com.                    172800  IN      NS      b.gtld-servers.net.
        [...]
        com.                    172800  IN      NS      m.gtld-servers.net.

        ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
        a.gtld-servers.net.     172800  IN      A       126.96.36.199
        b.gtld-servers.net.     172800  IN      A       126.96.36.199
        [...]
        m.gtld-servers.net.     172800  IN      A       184.108.40.206
        a.gtld-servers.net.     172800  IN      AAAA    2001:503:a83e::2:30

        [...]

The root servers don't know about google.com, but suggest you ask [a-m].gtld- servers.net, which are authoritative for .com. (Other TLDs have other authoritative servers.) So let's ask l.gtld-servers.net:

        $ dig @l.gtld-servers.net www.google.com

        [...]
        ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

        ;; QUESTION SECTION:
        ;www.google.com.                        IN      A

        ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
        google.com.             172800  IN      NS      ns2.google.com.
        google.com.             172800  IN      NS      ns1.google.com.
        google.com.             172800  IN      NS      ns3.google.com.
        google.com.             172800  IN      NS      ns4.google.com.

        ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
        ns2.google.com.         172800  IN      A       184.108.40.206
        [...]
        ns4.google.com.         172800  IN      A       184.108.40.206

        [...]

The above is an example of a registered domain ("I don't know about www.google.com, ask ns[1-4].google.com"); if the domain is not registered, it looks like this:

        $ dig @l.gtld-servers.net no-such-domain.com

        [...]
        ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

        ;; QUESTION SECTION:
        ;no-such-domain.com.            IN      A

        ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
        com.                    900     IN      SOA     a.gtld-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 1301905185 1800 900 604800 86400

        [...]

Of course, [a-m].gtld-servers.net are run by Verisign, who _could_ use this information for front-running. I'd be very surprised if they did, though. (DNSSEC may make it possible to query for the existence of a name without revealing it to the answering server, but I'm not sure - I'd have to read up on the protocol.)

<comment><AUTHOR> @JoachimSchipper: That is a good question. I'll need to do some research on that.

<comment><USER9> Are you referring to my DNSSEC remark? You'll want to look at their NXDOMAIN alternative, which says "there are no domains with hashes between 0xCAFEBABE and 0xDEADBEEF", where the 0x... stuff are hashes.

Note that running through a dictionary and looking for hashes "near" the domain you're interested in works if the DNS server is nice enough to hand out responses of the above form; unfortunately, this can also be used to find which host names are valid for a domain (host names aren't exactly crypto- strength passwords). At least djb advocates giving out answers of the form "there are no domains with hashes between 0xCAFEBABE and 0xCAFEBAC0" (that is, exactly bracketing the query), in which case you'd need to do something more clever.

Unfortunately, I'm not intimately familiar with DNSSEC. I'd be happy to learn the answer, though; if you find it, could you post it as a response, or, if takes a while, e-mail me? (E-mail in profile.)

[EDIT: improved wording, make it clear that actually sending the whole dictionary to the DNS server is not necessary.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hey, this is a valuable "domain name customer protection measure". Says so right here in the class action lawsuit notification I got from network solutions:

 __ _Dear Network Solutions Customer,

Earlier this year, we notified you of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought against Network Solutions® in connection with our domain name customer protection measure that was discontinued last year.

Today, we are pleased to announce that the court has officially approved the settlement and as result, you are being issued a $6.00 credit applicable to any Network Solutions product or service purchased on the Network Solutions website, valid for one year from the date of the issuance of the credit. Your credit is equal to $6 per qualifying domain name registered through Network Solutions. For example, if you registered two qualifying domains you can expect to receive a credit of $12.00.

A qualifying domain name is one that was (i) searched for through Network Solutions on or between December 14, 2007 and March 15, 2008, (ii) reserved by Network Solutions under our customer protection measure, (iii) registered by you through Network Solutions within the same internet session used for the domain availability search, and (iv) not previously refunded.

You can use your credit to register domain names, get reliable Web hosting, create a website, secure your existing site & more.

To take advantage of your credit, follow these simple steps:

Visit www.networksolutions.com and select the product(s) you wish to purchase. In the shopping cart, click 'Redeem Offer Code'. Enter coupon code XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYX then click 'Continue'. Your discount will be reflected in the shopping cart. Please note that this settlement does not in any way impact the domain names that you registered, or the terms of domain names you have registered. No action is necessary on your part.

Sincerely,

Network Solutions® Customer Support_ __

/sarcasm

</comment><comment><USER11> I have two rules when searching for domains.

First, I never search for a complete name. I use www.namedroppers.com that allows partial name searches. E.g. if I'm looking for 'coolwidgets', I'd search for "olwidge".

And second, if I see a potentially interesting domain, I grab it right away, without any worries about the cost -- I'll just drop it a year later if I don't need it.

</comment><comment><USER12> I once completed the sale of zioo.com on GoDaddy. I'd managed to hand-register the name for the regular registration price. The money came off my credit card and everything. About an hour later, I got an email saying "sorry, we didn't really get the name, here's your money back"

I was positively gutted.

(For those who don't know the domain space 4 letter pronouncable dot-coms are often valued in the five digit range ($xx,xxx) - that one probably just a few thousand but still a good ROI vs. $10 to register. I'd have been happy to build something fun on it.)

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that Godaddy does steal names from searches. I spend a lot of time working in the domain space and I hear about it from the pros from time to time.

<comment><USER13> Obviously not in the same price range, but I had a similar experience with my regular registrar that caused me to grab and then lose diagnose.com.au. Happened on a weekend too when they had limited/no tech support running. Very frustrating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this actually a significant problem anymore? No doubt front running was a pretty significant practice historically, but I haven't run into the practice in quite some time. At the peak of tasting practices more than 9 in 10 domains were given back during the cooling off period. That number has dropped dramatically since the rules were changed.

While I'm sure a bit of front running must still go on, it's hard for me to believe it happens to the average joe much if ever. In that light the rules that page lay out sound pretty over the top, and I'm generally a pretty paranoid person. I'd only worry about front running today if I was a known high value target, one who buys or holds a lot of domains. If that was me, I'd just take some mild precautions. Don't use my registrar to search for domains, clear tracking cookies before searching. The implications that you can't trust your ISP DNS system, search engines and certain whois services sounds like '06-'08 logic to me.

<comment><USER15> The registrars that got caught stopped, it's not really that big a problem anymore.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not a big problem anymore, but as I point out in the article a) it can happen a small percentage of the time and b) many registrars ARE in conflict of interest with their customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know about you, but the prevalence of this has made "picking a domain" something I only do when I'm buying the domain these days. As in, from search to buy, it's a few seconds.

</comment><comment><USER17> What prevents the WHOIS database operator from doing the same query logging?

<comment><USER18> The WHOIS database operator is the registry, not a registrar. (I believe they're actually required to be separate entities.) So, unless there's a shady back-room deal going on between the registry and one of their registrars, the registry has no incentive to log their queries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I went to find a domain name for personal use a few years ago, using yahoo business DNS (they were running a special on 5 year pricing). When I decided on one I liked, I noticed the .com of it was already poached (site was the usual garbage filler). So I bought the .org.

By the time I closed an paid for the DNS the .net and all other variations had been bought and were directing to those generic filler pages. I can only hope that which ever group poached those wasted some amount of time, effort, or money. I don't run a business from it, and never intend to, but I can see how this kind of shady behavior would warent paranoia from those looking to run a business around a given DNS (/corresponding business name).

</comment><comment><USER20> You cannot even trust registrars (netsol and godaddy are prime examples).

Spend a few hours and write your own code to do direct registry searches through the whois telnet query.

I wrote one myself, it's not that hard and you'll learn a bit.

<comment><USER21> Doesn't the whois queries databases like GoDaddy?

<comment><USER20> Only if you continue to resolve registered domains to the local registrar.

You don't have to resolve them that far to see if they are not-registered (or when they expire) just hit the main registry for the TLD you are interested in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article stops short of actually explaining how to interpret the text output. I just did a lookup on a domain I'm interested in, and I _think_ it's expired -- it's registered with Tucows and it shows two expiry dates (XX- Mar-2011 and XX-mar-2012). This is kinda fishy since I checked the day before it was set to expire (~2 weeks ago) and the output never said anything about 2012. My gut tells me Tucows has renewed it for their client (or slyly making it _seem_ like it's renewed). So... can I grab it yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> mcurving got most of this correct. Most large registrars will auto renew the domain on behalf of their customers as a "service." this gives you time to notice no email coming in and your domain/website not working. Most will allow you to renew for the regular renewal fee while others will up charge for the renewal. Then, if it doesn't get renewed, the registrar will auction the domain name if of high worth (links coming in, traffic, etc.). It then goes to the highest bidder. If no one bids, it gets deleted. Note: some registrars do not auction (very few).

I plan to update the article on DomainSherpa (<http://doms.to/vra>) soon with this information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It might be fun to F with godaddy.com and start pumping them randomly with domains. Mixing random words in the dictionary and trying combinations in sequence like a typical user would would be effective.

Set this up to happen on a daily basis through proxy servers for different ips, and you might create an interesting way to bleed them a little bit.

Record the domains entered, and see how many times you get them to nick you. It would make for a fun blog post.

Keep in mind, they have to pay ever time they register a domain.

</comment><comment><USER24> This recently happened me and I posted a thread about it here on HN. Godaddy responded to an angry tweet of mine, saying that they don't pursue this practice and asked if the domain was listed with their "privacy service". When they didn't respond to my reply to that, I emailed them. Customer relations replied that the domain is protected by their "privacy service" and they can't reveal who bought it, speculating it was an "individual".

</comment><comment><USER25> I've been poached rather differently - I formed a limited liability company, and found that as soon as my formation was made official, someone had registered "$mycompanyname.com". Foolish on my part I suppose.

I do find it rather odd that the owner isn't responding to contact via the whois record - seems an odd sort of extortion where they don't want to take your money.

<comment><USER12> On this one, if the date you registerred the LLC is before the registration record was created (do a whois on the domain) you might be able to file a UDRP complaint (Uniform DOmain Name Resolution Policy) claiming that the current owner registerred the name in bad faith, with the expectation that they were going to extort you for the ownership of the .com.

This sort of stuff happens all the time. As far as I know, it's not usually passed with respect to LLC but rather Trademark.

Regardless, if you really want that name you could have a fighting chance at it.

Look up UDRP to learn more. Better yet UDRP lawyer. There's one who advertises a lot on some of the forums I read. Let me know if you're interested and I can put a bit more legwork into tracking down a name for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great point, and likely you'll win a UDRP because the registrant will ignore the request (if they're guilty). However, filing a UDRP costs about $1,300.

Entrepreneurs should always register the domain name BEFORE you register for your company.

<comment><USER13> Not as trivial in the .com.au space if you're doing everything by the book becuase you must register the domain to a particular ABN or ACN (business or company number). Can register it to one entity and try to later transfer it, but not sure how annoying that is. Even one form is enough of a roadblock for me sometimes so I just register all mine to a single ACN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've never experienced name poaching firsthand. Has anyone else?

<comment><USER13> Happened to me in the .com.au space. Searched a variety of options and made a shortlist. Sat on it overnight and then returned the next day once I'd decided which ones to grab - they (8-10 unrelated domains) were taken.

<comment><USER27> really? Wow. Did you attempt to contest the names at all? (Considering they likely weren't valid?)

// The .com.au space is _much_ harder to register a domain for than .com

<comment><USER13> It's not that much harder - pretty trivial to register under the "close and substantial connection rule" and then have a valid play at it under the service of "domain monetisation."

Years ago it was much more difficult, but since then it's been pretty straightforward. None of these names were trademarks or anything like that so there wasn't anything I could contest.

<comment><USER27> Thanks. Who do you normally do your registration with? I don't normally touch .au's but have done one or two and it's been a little painful

<comment><USER13> I use TPP, mostly because they've been pretty easy when it comes to keeping multiple domains under control - easy to delegate to default nameservers, pay by default credit card on file, etc. 95% of the domains I look after (60-70ish personal ones and then others for friends and a bunch more for clients) are .com.au though and I keep the majority of my .coms with TPP also even though they're more expensive - just saves having different logins for every domain with Joker, Gandi, etc.

<comment><USER27> $99 for 2 years of .com.au registration? ziphosting.com.au are pricing it for $21

<comment><USER13> The rate for resellers is $24 or so for two years.

<comment><USER27> makes sense. Thanks.

<comment><USER13> I guess it makes it a bit easier to charge clients a fraction more (say $50/2yrs) via the same registrar and they don't necessarily feel like you're screwing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know if <http://domize.com> is a front runner? They claim on their website they are not, but would like to hear users experience if this is not the case.

</comment><comment><USER29> I always use <http://dynadot.com>, I've never had a single problem with them registering what I'm searching for, and their interface is awesomely simple.

</comment><comment><USER30> Javascript which adds a few dozen bogus flack queries to the one in which you are interested and only presents you with the results for that one?

</comment><comment><USER15> Frontrunning really isn't a big problem anymore. They were caught, got in trouble, it's basically over. Notice the sources from 2007.

<comment><AUTHOR> @ohashi: It's not a big problem anymore as you npointed out. However, the way domain name tasting was reduced (i.e. The financial penalty that was put in place) does not eliminate the practice entirely. It is not illegal as stated by ICANN. That was the point of my article, and how people should protect themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I had godaddy steal my domain back in January. It was kinda depressing.

</comment><comment><USER31> use <http://domai.nr>

</comment><comment><USER32> A friend of mine who has 800+ domains was searching for a name for his company on godaddy and found one he liked. He spoke to his business partner that evening and they agreed on the name.

The next day he went to register it and found that it was taken... by godaddy.

Godaddy then set it as a "premium domain" and changed the price to $500.

He was pissed.

He accepted the version of the domain with a '-' between the two words instead. He recently emailed godaddy and let them know that he has 800+ domains with them, explained what happened and said "I would like the domain that you took, unethically, for the regular domain registration price that all available domains go for or I will take my ~$9,000 in annual renewal fees to another registrar.

He has not heard back from godaddy. But he switched his searches aways from them.

I on the otherhand, typically only search for a domain if I am willing to spend the 10 right then to grab it.

<comment><USER33> Alright, I'm doing an experiment - I've run the following shell commands:

function randomWord() { head -n $(numrandom /1..$(wc -l /usr/share/dict/words)/) /usr/share/dict/words | tail -n1; } echo $(randomWord)$(randomWord).com

This has given me an obscure two-word domain name, which I searched in GoDaddy - all subdomains GoDaddy sells weren't registered.

I've repeated this to give a total of twelve domains. The final two of these domains are saucepansgrooming.com and rivaledpopping.com. The other ten domains are written on a folded over piece of paper, and aside from me, the only place they have been disclosed is in a GoDaddy search (which was sent unencrypted over the Internet - so technically someone could have sniffed it). I haven't even attempted a domain name resolution on any of the 12 names.

I plan to come back in a few hours and repeat the search to see whether the names are still available.

<comment><USER33> I've checked back via the GoDaddy interface, and all twelve domain names are still available (on all the TLDs that GoDaddy sells) at the original price.

This doesn't necessarily mean that GoDaddy doesn't ever take domains - <USER2> they only do it from high value customers who they think they can extract more money from, rather than people who aren't logged in; maybe I searched for too many domains with too few common substrings so their algorithm classified me as not wanting to seriously buy; maybe I didn't wait long enough because they manually decide which ones to buy; maybe the names I tried are too long to be considered valuable.

<comment><USER24> It took me a couple of weeks before mine disappeared, and during that time I had run searches to double check the availability. The domain name was totally random so it feels extremely far-fetched that someone happened to register it just before I was about to purchase it.

<comment><USER34> I wonder if checking multiple times in two weeks flagged your name as "popular but unregistered", prompting its' registration? I doubt any registrar would grab every single name, but ones that suddenly got search hits probably get snapped up.

Like the article suggests, I always search at the terminal. If the name is available it gets registered then. I look at it as 8 bucks buying me a one year option on the name.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, you may have a point there. I for sure won't repeat that mistake again. Having my .com domains snapped away from under my nose is definitely the most annoying part of branding.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


TensorFlow Examples for Beginners with Latest APIs - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aymericdamien/TensorFlow-Examples/tree/master/ <comment><USER2> Thanks this is cool. I just quickly glanced but you are using Python 2.7 ... maybe make a note of that in the readme ?

<comment><USER3> The examples I've tried so far appear to be portable, and run fine with Python 3.6.1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would pay good money for a service where I upload a folder of images, gets an interface where I can classify each image one by one and then let ML classify the rest. Does this exist?

<comment><USER5> Do you mean like this? [https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive- service...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive- services/custom-vision-service/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool to see. I find the Estimator framework makes it much easier to write tests for training pipelines because of the way it modularizes your pipeline at a good granularity for testing.

Having tests for training pipelines is nice because you can catch a fair amount of bugs with speedy unit tests instead of having to launch them and wait for everything to spin up.

</comment><comment><USER7> Another very helpful tutorial on new Experiment, Estimator an Dataset APIs: [https://medium.com/onfido-tech/higher-level-apis-in- tensorfl...](https://medium.com/onfido-tech/higher-level-apis-in- tensorflow-67bfb602e6c0)

</comment><comment><USER8> Absolutely amazing, very neatly laid out.

Thank you so much for your efforts.</comment>


Google, Citing Cyber Attack, Threatens to Exit China  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13beijing.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is an interview with Google's David Drummond, chief legal officer at Google [http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/12/business/124746651...](http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/12/business/1247466517265/google- may-close-operations-in-china.html)</comment>


Apollo React – `UseMutation` in ApolloClient Setup? - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.com/q/60028883/2761970 <comment><USER2> [https://apollokit.org](https://apollokit.org) has this implemented somewhere, forget where... Probably an interesting code base for you anyhow</comment>


Lewis-Mogridge Position - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%E2%80%93Mogridge_Position <comment><USER2> I think this is approximately the same as saying that transportation is the limiting factor in city growth?

<comment><USER3> Yeah. The length of commute that people are willing to tolerate is approximately constant, so as transport provision increases the number of people who work in a given city increases, capped by that same commute time. Given the value of agglomeration effects (there was a recent piece here on how authors are more productive if they work around others), isn't that what we want?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Intuitively there feels like there should be an upper bound on this axiom. For example, imagine a highway 1 mile wide with 50 lanes going each way. That's 220 lanes in each direction. Assume dense traffic with each car taking up 25 of lengthwise- space. A 1 mile stretch of this megahighway would have ~60,000 cars on it. At this density, the 101 between SF and San Jose would be able to accommodate ~2.8 million cars. A quick search reveals that there are only ~2.5 million cars registered in the counties this highway would run through.

So while I don't doubt that this relationship ('traffic increases to fill the available road space') is true for some conditions, it's not a universal law. The real question is finding out where it starts to break down. Maybe there is some merit to building a super wide highway ;)

<comment><USER5> > A quick search reveals that there are only ~2.5 million cars registered in > the counties this highway would run through.

Actual number of cars should be lower after the highway is built because construction would require removing houses to make room for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's disturbingly little empirical data there for what should be a very empirical question.

</comment><comment><USER7> >traffic expands to meet the available road space

I'm sure this is in many cases true, but there is a danger in mistaking the metrics for the goals here. If people drive less, it makes the numbers look better, but people staying at home saying "it's impossible to get anywhere this time of day" is hardly the mark of an effective transportation system.

<comment><USER8> Sure but that means your argument for building a new highway needs to be "it will get more people where they are going" and not "it will reduce congestion", and you definitely can't pull any "if people are able to get where they are going faster it will reduce emissions" nonsense, which does get brought up.

And if the problem you are solving is "get more people where they are going" all of a sudden highways no longer look like a cost-effective solution at all, and public transportation looks _a lot_ better. A lot of highway expansion gets justified by the claim that it will reduce congestion, despite a huge amount of empirical evidence and theoretical justifications (e.g. TFA) that it does not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If interested, there was a similar conversation recently about the Downs- Thomson paradox, noting the relationship between road network improvements and traffic congestion. It's here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20133027](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20133027).

</comment><comment><USER10> Didn't Seattle (or some other major PNW city/area) actually remove or close roads in their area, and saw that congestion decreased overall? I seem to recall reading about that several years ago...

EDIT: fixed PSNW -> PNW

</comment><comment><USER11> This probably depends on:

\- fuel being cheap,

\- time spent driving having a low value,

\- zoning that discourages high-density development, and

\- overhead costs of buying and selling homes high enough to discourage moving nearer to work.

</comment><comment><USER12> Sometimes it really shows that many early Wikipedia articles were someone's labor-of-love about a relatively obscure topic, and even today there's uneven levels of notability across the encyclopedia.

Instead of these hyphenated iron laws of transportation demand that no one has ever heard of that all say the same thing, the article of "induced demand" ought to suffice, and these formulations, if they exist original sources at all, ought to become references in that article's footnotes.

<comment><USER13> Almost all "deletion for non-notability because I've not heard of it" reasons should be invalid. Wikipedia deletes far too many people's work in the service of a small number of core maintainers.</comment></comment>


OpenSourceWeekly.org #4 – open-source and Linux gaming - <AUTHOR> https://opensourceweekly.org/issues/4 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Reddit,

You are certainly asking yourself what to do with this sudden amount of free time now we are all in quarantine and no longer have to commute every day.

The answer is obvious: VIDEO GAMES!!

This is why I dedicated this week's issue of OpenSourceWeekly.org to open source & linux gaming.

To receive the next issues, you can subscribe by RSS, Mastodon or Email here: [https://opensourceweekly.org](https://opensourceweekly.org)

Feedback is welcome :)

Sylvain</comment>


Ask HN: Size of the SSD based cloud market? - <AUTHOR>

One can now buy SSD based cloud instances. Vendors include (in no particular order): 1> https://www.digitalocean.com 2> www.rackspace.com/cloud/block-storage 3> solidfire.com 4> AWS .... ... ...
AWS alone accounted for ~ $4.5 billion in revenues in 2013 [Source: http://ubm.io/1epSqbW ].
Assuming AWS owns 20% of cloud IAAS market, total  [estimated] size in 2013 is $23 billion.
How much of this is SSD based? <comment><USER2> HN lurker/flash geek here.

I don't want to derail your question, but I just wanted to point out that SolidFire doesn't actually sell cloud instances - we sell service provider/enterprise storage appliances.

Essentially it's a storage system (like EMC, NetApp, etc.) designed to, among other things, allow service providers (Rackspace, DigitalOcean) to easily provision (via REST API) virtualized storage devices for their cloud tenants. These service providers then typically resell this as a capability in their own public API or management console.

(Full disclosure that you may have picked up from my earlier phrasing, I am a SolidFire employee.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the clarification. What is your estimate of the flash based IaaS market?</comment></comment>


The Arc Challenge in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://blog.directededge.com/2009/12/19/the-arc-challenge-in-ruby/ <comment><USER2> So, just how much code can I hide in a 3rd-party library or framework before the LOC count begins?

That Ruby example clearly will not work without a bunch code (i.e., the whole of Sinatra) that's not shown, and is not part of Ruby's std-lib.

See:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1005162>

but also

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1005155>

<comment><USER3> In the first place the rule that all the libs should be standard libs is non sensical from the point of view of comparing languages power, so I think we can safely suppress it and still consider the attempts valid.

Proof: if you want to measure the power of a language with this test, enforcing that everything should be in the standard lib, and a language fails at it, adding some code to the standard lib will change the power of the language, but this is not possible because the syntax, semantic and behavior of a language (i.e the language itself) is not changed by additions to the standard library.

<comment><USER4> But if you look at it another way, a significant portion of what's used in the arc examples would not reach the bar of what's included in the standard libs of some other languages. The fact is that what is in the standard lib of a language is a totally arbitrary decision, and measuring any language's power in a way that's dependent on whether or not a necessary library is in the standard lib is silly.

The real test should be, "How short can you make this code using libraries available for the language which would be generally useful working on some other task as well."

<comment><USER5> The challenge should be LOC total, including the LOC of the libraries used. That is the only possible way to compare apples to apples. Otherwise, what is to stop you from wrapping the entire solution into a "library" and just making a simple call-out to said library.

What is the total LOC of the implementation, period. Remove all ambiguity.

<comment><USER6> With respect to ambiguity: Wouldn't the LOC count have to also include the code of the interpreter or how would you compare an interpreted language where some method is "built-in" with another language where the method has to be implemented in a library?

Anyway, LOC count is a fetish that wreakes havoc in language communities like ruby. I'd be more interested in readability and clarity. Show the code to somebody who knows the language only superficially and take the time the person needs to figure out what the code does.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>