Micro-Apartments, Tiny Homes Prefabricated in Brooklyn - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/realestate/micro-apartments-tiny-homes-prefabricated-in-brooklyn.html

<comment><USER2> There was another Hacker News thread last month about a 32-floor prefab apartment skyscraper in Brooklyn[1]. Many commenters said the promise was hyped and that construction was slow. It was disappointing because this seems like a good solution for places like the Bay Area where armies of single professionals would happily live in small, private units with common space amenities instead of sharing a $4-5k/mo two-bedroom with a roommate.

Does anyone know whether these apartments would be legal in California? I did a cursory search and it looks like all apartments need one 120sqft room and at least 70sqft for any other living rooms (not storage?). Oakland has some additional requirements about partitions separating kitchens, but it's unspecific about how an "efficiency apartment" designation modifies that. Not sure about SF regulations, assuming they're even more onerous.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8873906](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8873906)

<comment><USER3> I don't know the regulations of California but where I live the city has prohibited the construction of smaller units (1 bedroom, less than 700 square feet) thru zoning regulation and the existing stock of smaller units has been converted to bigger units.

I think if you look for a general reason why we don't have cheaper housing thru smaller units more suitable for people living alone, you will find that it is the explicit policy of the bigger cities.

<comment><USER4> The amount of idiocy surrounding _one_ project to build new studios and one bedrooms with very little parking one block away from a train stop in Chicago was maddening. The market wants these units but developers literally cannot build them.

[http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20141031/CRED03/14...](http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20141031/CRED03/141039958/logan- square-residents-no-to-big-apartment-plan)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> $2000 to $3000 a month is supposed to be... affordable? Jesus, New York is even more expensive than I thought.

<comment><USER6> Or I could live 20 minutes away from SF and pay $700 a month for a small townhome with workshop space. Pass.

<comment><USER7> That is an awesome deal!! $700 for the entire townhouse or just a single room?

<comment><USER6> The whole place. It works out. It's an exception to an assisted living community, so it means I have to stick to 3d printing and laser cutting if I use the shop tools after 6PM or so, and occasionally I have to help an old person carry stuff, but it's nice. I don't even lock my front door.

<comment><USER8> I'd have to say you lucked into a pretty special deal and not representative of much within 20 minutes of SF (and is that 20 minutes at midnight or during rush hour?). :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is really fantastic! It's doing something really amazing and important in the realm of architecture and construction that's much needed.

It's weather-agnostic - (certain construction work you just can't do in winter). Bottlenecks are easily controlled: No questions about worrying about different trades (say, the structural steel work, etc) being slow and pushing all other aspects of the entire project behind. It's more predictable, since you have very clear quantifiable markers of progress (what % of units are completely finished?) It cuts down on the costly / cumbersome process of using a hoist during construction, which is expensive and timely since you have to hire specialized labor and get a permit to close off the street.

To use a programming analogy, it's effectively a kind of __parallelization or non-blocking i /o __, since you can track progress in a reliable, controlled setting, stagger your work, and have many different trades working at once, on different aspects. (Electrician behind schedule on half of the units? You can still have the plumbing crew work on the finished half while bringing more electricians on board.)

Present-day construction is highly linear, mostly single-threaded and filled with bottlenecks everywhere, since it's both a logistical and financial disincentive to hire a trade to come in to do work if there's not enough work for them to do. The contractor pads the schedule to make sure that previous work will be ready for future work. As a result, construction times are longer, less predictable, etc.

Granted, this isn't totally new, but it's really important that prefabrication is getting more visibility and is understood to be the architectural game- changer that it will be in the future.

</comment><comment><USER10> If the details shown on this page [1] are right, these things are built in a silly way: the batt insulation between the steel studs is almost useless, and could even lead to condensation problems [2].

[1] [http://cargocollective.com/pickupsticks/filter/Prefab/Modula...](http://cargocollective.com/pickupsticks/filter/Prefab/Modular- Prefabrication-Part-I-Fundamentals) [2] [http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-005-a-...](http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-005-a-bridge- too-far?topic=doctypes/insights)

<comment><USER9> Are you talking about the section detail in which the perimeter beam creates a thermal break? I suppose that the modules are insulated on 5 sides (minus the floor) - if the floor had rigid insulation, then you'd effectively have each unit be an enclosed box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "There are some 3,000 apartments under 400 square feet in Manhattan alone."

There's absolutely no way that is correct, it has to be off by at least 10x.

<comment><USER12> 40 square foot apartments!? Surely you jest.

<comment><USER13> He meant number of apartments

<comment><USER14> Surely you jest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would be interested in hearing comments by anyone who lives in such a space. There was a discussion about doing something similar in Sunnyvale and the lack of actual experience really made it hard to debate.

<comment><USER16> I lived in an apartment in Manhattan that was somewhere around 180-200sqft (it was originally larger, but the owner of the apartment decided to make a very large closet between the kitchen and 'living room', for whatever reason). It was surprisingly pleasant, when I was single. I had a queen-sized bed, a desk, and lots of shelves.

Once my then-girlfriend moved in with me, things got a bit more stressful. Not because we needed more space to live in -- we were surprisingly comfortable -- but because we weren't using the city as our living room anymore. When you're going out nearly every night, you don't tend to care about the size of your living quarters, but when you're spending your whole day there, it gets a bit tight.

I can't imagine going back to that now, but it was the perfect place from which to experience New York.

<comment><USER17> _I had a queen-sized bed, a desk, and lots of shelves._

I live in NYC with my fiancée, and I've seen friends' apartments in the size range you describe. Most of them now have Murphy Beds, which have gotten surprisingly good ([http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/01/13/small_space_de...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/01/13/small_space_design_transformable_space_saving_furniture_from_clei.html)). Most of them seem happy in those spaces, as long as they're not trying to cohabitate.

I'll note too that I'm a bit skeptical of the $3000 / month charge for micro apartments; even in Williamsburg, new, conventional one-bedroom apartments were $3200 – $3,500 / month last summer. I can imagine people paying $2000 for micro apartments in desirable, commutable neighborhoods, but $3000 seems less likely right now. Then again, NYC real estate is rife with people saying "That's crazy!", only to find that a couple years later it's normal or even cheap.

<comment><USER16> > I'll note too that I'm a bit skeptical of the $3000 / month charge for micro > apartments; even in Williamsburg, new, conventional one-bedroom apartments > were $3200 – $3,5000 / month last summer.

Yeah, that seems unlikely to fly. I was paying $1700/mo for my place, on the ground floor in Alphabet City (11th between B and C, specifically); not the most desirable place in Manhattan, but definitely not a cheap area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Semi related was this article about using tiny prefab homes to solve homelessness.

[https://collectively.org/en/article/size-does-matter-how- the...](https://collectively.org/en/article/size-does-matter-how-the-tiny- house-movement-is-solving-the-homeless-crisis)

</comment><comment><USER19> I live 2 blocks from here and pay $2,200 for a larger studio. Not sure how this is a good deal at $2-3k.

</comment><comment><USER7> After reading the HN comments, I just realize that the 'apartment' has really different scales for married (or family) and unmarried people. Unmarried people are likely sharing units and hence pay much less than married or families.

</comment><comment><USER20> Reminds me of: [http://www.fastcodesign.com/3042869/tiny-homes-big- problems-...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/3042869/tiny-homes-big-problems- portlandias-perfect-send-up-of-microliving)

</comment><comment><USER18> How do these compare in size to a shipping container? In the rendering this is what the last image reminded me of.

That seems so crazy expensive for such a small space not adjacent to a metro station.

<comment><USER21> From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Types](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Types), we can see that the standard "20-foot" container which I assume is what you're thinking of is (internally, since we're comparing with other housing) 18.7 by 7.7 foot, so the total area is just 144 square feet.

Note: computing the above was horrible, how are you supposed to enter 18′ 8 13⁄16″ * 7′ 8 19⁄32″ (the dimensions as given in Wikipedia's table) into a calculator?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What a rip-off. I don't know why anybody would pay for those apartments when you can get a better deal in Manhattan.

</comment><comment><USER23> That's doing less with more. New types of housing should be designed to improve quality of life/ecological footprint. Spending that much to live inside a matchbox can't be ok.</comment>


Deep Learning Algorithms: The Complete Guide - <AUTHOR> https://theaisummer.com/Deep-Learning-Algorithms/ <comment><USER2> Mainly I take issue with the title "...: The Complete Guide". More accurately, its a very abbreviated overview. The table of contents has a fairly reasonable list of topics, but for a complete guide I'd want each section there to be at least an entire chapter of material. Instead they are 4-6 sentences per section.

Personally, I think that any comprehensive guide/textbook for machine learning, especially deep learning, should contain a chapter on the mathematics of control systems theory. The feedback/back-propagation is very similar to what EE's and ChemE's do with PID loops or Op-Amp tuning, and I feel that so much is lost academically when that topic is glossed over.

<comment><USER3> >The feedback/back-propagation is very similar

i really wish people wouldn't say these things just to sound smart. it confuses people that don't know better. feedback loops have nothing to do with backprop, which is just a way to factorize the jacobian into matrix vector products instead of matrix matrix products. do you have some proof (and it would require a proof) that PID controllers actually compute the gradient of a function with respect to n-inputs? because that's what backprop does.

<comment><USER2> Thank you, non-sarcastically. Would edit if I could.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> i've said it before and i'll say it again: this is content marketing (for some kind of bs courses or something). why are you people upvoting this

</comment><comment><USER4> No deep reinforcement learning?</comment>


Resume optimizer to get more interviews - <AUTHOR> https://tenxresume.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> just built this. hope it helps in this crazy times. MVP. will continue building.</comment>


A High Schooler's Re-Design of the Education System - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@zachcmiel/a-high-schoolers-view-on-the-education-system-9fc85517c8fe#.4p2a9hmde <comment><USER2> I really don't want to sound like a hater here, but my only takeaway from this article was that the author is a high school junior, with some iOS app chops and he wants me to subscribe to his music discovery newsletter. It's not a piece that's information dense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! My projects weren't supposed to be the focus of the post. It was supposed to show that I'm coming from a business/entrepreneurship standpoint. The plan which I think is most of the post was supposed to be the focus. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The U.S. has two types of schools:

\- excellent, well-funded schools in areas not experiencing socioeconomic stress

\- underperforming, underfunded schools serving troubled areas

These ideas would be nice additions/improvements to take the good schools to the next level. Unfortunately, systemic issues are challenging and would be exacerbated for the troubled schools.

Also note that it is really hard to teach things like critical thinking. Also note that while creativity is super important, forcing everyone to take art classes hurts more than it helps - math, science, and engineering are all deeply creative in their own way, but the whole 'forced to do it for school' thing really kills all that. Rarely have I seen an art class that is more fundamentally creative than a traditional lecture.

I would love to see more emphasis on real-world projects and exploring things that are interesting to the student, ideally tying the personal interest topics in with the mandatory topics.

My high school really focused on a 'depth over breadth' concept where students would do in-depth research on a topic (using modern tools), then compile and present the research in some creative way. That is a really powerful way to learn, promotes research and critical thinking, and helps form a base of long- lived knowledge. One example: while learning about 'the gilded age', we went to an art museum with artwork from the area, read one of a selection of novels, wrote a research paper about art styles at the time, then painted a scene from the book we chose in an art style we learned about. That knowledge stuck a lot more than any of the test-memorization things I learned later; another take on quality over quantity, with the twist that too much quantity leads to absolutely nothing in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER4> > I'm a junior in high school and I love entrepreneurship and business. I've > made 14+ apps on the iOS App Store and have explored design and marketing > through an e-commerce t-shirt shop and music discovery newsletter.

Sounds particularly gifted, both internally and externally, to have this under their belt by that age.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know if gifted is the right word. I just found out about iOS app development when I was young and ran with it

<comment><USER5> I think it's fair to use the word gifted although it's loaded and we should have better words. That said, his point is that while you are having good ideas, it's important to account for most students in your ideal system not having your aptitude--one big challenge in education is "how do you address the bell curve of aptitude" without going as slow as the slowest, or leaving anyone behind, or segregating classes. Education gets pretty nitty gritty when you dig into real world changes!

Good article, education is ripe for disruption especially in 3rd worlds.</comment></comment></comment>


FCC asks Apple to activate the iPhone's hidden FM radio to aid public safety - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16379316/fcc-iphone-fm-radio-activation-request-ajit-pai <comment><USER2> (2017)</comment>


Show HN: Paste a text with your (not big) life problems and use EMDR - <AUTHOR> http://competicionmental.appspot.com/router?page=emdrText2&en=1 <comment><AUTHOR> I think the idea is to paste a text problem (not big life problems) (with loop mode) and use 1 to 2 minutes and then see the issue more smaller or tractable.</comment>


An MIT Computer Predicted the End of Civilisation Almost 50 Years Ago - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/how-mit-computer-predicted-end-civilisation-almost-50-years-ago-world1-world3-club-rome-limits-growth <comment> aaron-santos I found the in-browser version of the World 3 model fun to play with [http://bit-player.org/extras/limits/ltg.html](http://bit- player.org/extras/limits/ltg.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> Yeah. We're fucked</comment>


Tell HN: I spend so much time solving problems I feel like giving up - <AUTHOR> I spend so much time trying to understand the development ecosystem and fighting my way through the build tools and development frameworks that I can barely get to write a single line of code. Every problem I solve leads to the next roadblock  and on and on and on. It's depressing me and I'm feeling like maybe I don't have what it takes to be a programmer. <comment><USER4> I'm guessing a bit, but it sounds like you're suffering from trying to find the 'right' way to do something.

I've been in situations where I've spent weeks or even months re-writing things because I read one more article about how some given approach is better than the one I was considering. Ultimately it doesn't matter enough to make a difference in the real world - your application will not be appreciably better because you used gulp instead of grunt or React + Redux instead of Backbone.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between those things, or that some aren't better than others (I like React and would recommend it) but the choice of tooling is not your main problem[1]. This is going to sound very dull, but your best bet is to make some simple choices, stick with them for a while, and see how far you get. Try to avoid questioning things for a while, even if that feels really unnatural.

I think there's a kind of tooling FOMO that afflicts developers, where we get worried that if only we were using a particular tool or technique then our jobs would be, say, an order of magnitude easier, more successful etc. This is hardly ever true, and if it _is_ true then you will be unlikely to be able to identify the choice you need to make until you've spent a good while building version 1 of your application anyway.

[1] [https://xkcd.com/309/](https://xkcd.com/309/)

<comment><USER5> I find that no matter how many charts I see detailing why one thing is better than another, the decider is whether it has good tutorials written for it. If it doesn't have a good tutorial then the rest of the documentation isn't going to be much better and any actual problems you encounter won't have a stack overflow solving them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I call this 'feeding the machine'. There's the thing you want to do, the interesting, valuable, real-world problem you're trying to solve. But you're using a library, that has a dependency, that doesn't build on your machine, because of your version of the compiler, and the new version isn't in your package repository, so you have to download and build it, but your version of readline is wrong and so on and so on. You're feeding the machine constantly, when you feel that it's supposed to be working for you.

It sucks, but it doesn't end. Every once in a while you're be in a nice place where you're using familiar tools and libraries and doing familiar work, but every new project and technology brings potential new demands to feed the machine.

You can have a long, happy and prosperous career working with a single stack that someone has made work on your OS of choice, but if you don't enjoy feeding the machine, there is a ceiling on your flexibility and problem solving ability.

<comment><USER7> > You can have a long, happy and prosperous career working with a single stack > that someone has made work on your OS of choice, but if you don't enjoy > feeding the machine, there is a ceiling on your flexibility and problem > solving ability.

That's what gets to me the most. I'm fairly confident in my problem solving abilities and coding skills. But I frequently lose all motivation to do good work when 80% of what I do is "feed the machine". There are times when doing it makes sense for the problem at hand, and then I feel motivated, but most of the time feeding the machine is about dealing with shitty code, bad documentation and unnecessary overengineering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have plenty of relevant platitudes :)

Go simple. Pick a language. Start writing code. Stay focused. Only solve the problems that you need to solve, not any problems that you might maybe, perhaps, come across. Don't go shopping for a toolkit until you have tried building something yourself. Especially if you are young - remember that writing code to solve problems that someone else has already solved is not a lost cause; you are learning!

YAGNI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it)

Remember, perfect is the enemy of good.

Today I think it's way too easy to get lost in the flood of of platforms/toolkits/frameworks. When I got started 20 years ago it was a lot simpler - crappier but simpler. :) You might or might not have what it takes to be a good developer - but I seriously see the risk of potentially good developers getting stuck before they learn how to navigate these new-fangled floods of ... stuff. It's like a tax on brain cycles to keep up with it all. If you have no discipline you will end up spending all of your cycles shopping toolkits rather than solving problems and learning how to actually program.

</comment><comment><USER9> Stop-and-start development is completely normal when you introduce a lot of project tooling and it's new and shiny.

For this reason, projects run by a solo developer tend to use less tooling and process than team efforts; the friction introduced by each new step in the workflow is a major penalty. The solo developer can just opt to ignore all the cruft and use a cheap, lazy option, because there is no communication issue.

This also presents a bit of a dilemma if your goal is to learn a workflow in order to get hired on a team using that workflow, because you will feel like you are making nothing interesting or noteworthy. Your best option is to temporarily change your mindset from "engineer building software" to "writer building documentation".

The person documenting has to play detective and ask questions constantly. It takes them four times as long to do anything because they have to write down the steps and make it digestible. But each time they make progress and write down those steps, they set down a little roadway for people to drive over in the future. They also gain more credibility as an expert in the process.

<comment><USER10> > temporarily change your mindset from "engineer building software" to "writer > building documentation"

Excellent suggestion. But also here, focus on a tool and/or workflow is warranted. Meandering the field is very productive; it has its time and place. But it is not a panacea for a deep dive. Sustained focus remains necessary.

Writing documentation can be a rewarding, productive, and, yes, even noble method for taking a deep dive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I know exactly where you coming from, ESPECIALLY if you are in the javascript ecosystem. There are a lot of gaps in the whole flow, from what you have mentioned, build tools, frameworks, standards, architecture (flux? mvc?)

Personally, I would suggest, to go at it one at a time. The reason being, these "things" (build tools, frameworks, etc) are there to solve specific problems. If you don't have that problem, then you don't need to understand it, yet.

Pick a project and start building, you might find that you need one specific tool, which then you would use that specific tool or you might find yourself having trouble with a certain design then you use a framework that fits your model. This resonates well with @johansch comment. Over time, you will notice a pattern in your knowledge where jumping from one framework to the other is not that difficult because you are jumping from a higher board knowing the frameworks you already used, this applies generally.

Be depressed but don't give up, the joy comes when suddenly it all just clicks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I am in the JavaScript ecosystem. I feel like I'm trying to escape from an Amazonian jungle of errors and things that don't work, trying to find a path that appears and disappears and sometimes is trodden by others and sometimes grown over, always with thorns and strangle vines, dead ends, thousand foot waterfall roadblocks. My food is running out and my feet hurt and by day the sun burns and at night there are the eyes of the beasts watching and waiting for me to fall.

<comment><USER12> Writing JavaScript and feeling you're surrounded by errors is pretty normal. It's a hastily-designed language. There's no getting away from the fact that everything is going to feel a little bit fragile. Just accept it and don't expect perfection.

<comment><USER13> Hastily designed for version 0.0.1, this is simply not the case if you are using modern EMCAScript

<comment><USER12> Is equality still broken? Are maps still broken? Is it still a sporadically whitespace-sensitive language?

<comment><USER14> not AFAIK, but I am not an expert.

<comment><USER12> Leading questions, I'm afraid. Yes, equality is still broken, maps are broken (and in new & interesting ways in EMCAScript 6), and the language is occasionally whitespace-sensitive.

JavaScript was hastily designed, has never recovered, and shows no sign of ever fixing the fundamental problems. :-(

<comment><USER13> Case sensitivity i'm assuming you mean the automatic semi-colon insertion due to a line break after a return statement? I have a hard time seeing this as being a reason to dislike an entire language.

Most languages have features to avoid, JavaScript is no different. Many JavaScript developers use linters to avoid the poor `==` feature. I'm unfamiliar with the argument of the `Map` datastructure implementation being broken. Do you have a reference to that claim?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You've already proven to yourself that the tooling that you are trying to use is costing you time, not saving you time like you want.

Just don't use them for this project. Just build the project using what you know now.

You can pick up that new tooling again at a later stage when you aren't so pressured to deliver something.

99% of being a successful programmer is coming back tomorrow, and getting a tiny bit more done, and learning a tiny bit more.

</comment><comment><USER16> \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

Relevant Quotes (Sometimes these help me push through)

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

> I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~~ Thomas A. > Edison

> A failure is not always a mistake, it may simply be the best one can do > under the circumstances. The real mistake is to stop trying. ~~ B. F. > Skinner

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

Actual Advice

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

Based on your question and comments, I'd actually suggest you reach out to your friends in the community who know more about the tools that you think you need. They might be able and willing to get you up and running with those tools, so that you can move forward.

For example, I'm fairly junior, but comfortable with testing _once there 's a framework in place_. I've been through this enough that I've reached the point where I can get a basic Jasmine or Mocha framework up and running on my own, but recently ran into a problem where I needed more than a basic set-up. I mentioned it to a coworker and he said I needed Webpack. When I expressed concern about spending time learning and setting up Webpack, instead of working on my application code, he volunteered to get Webpack in place. As I learn more about Webpack, the process of setting it up for my next app should be less intimidating.

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

Other Thoughts

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

I love this meme - [http://i.imgur.com/5mAUQj2.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/5mAUQj2.jpg) \- If you're a programmer, you've certainly experienced both states. While I think I run about a 1:1000 ratio, when I've spent a significant amount of time on the right, I try to remember the sensation of being on the left and I know that each mistake is one less mistake I can make and therefore moving me toward the left.

And one last, very relevant quote...

> Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. ~~ > Benjamin Franklin

[edited for formatting]

</comment><comment> alex- It might comfort you to hear: That almost everyone hits a steep learning curve when moving to new technologies. That teams expect new members to take time getting to know how everything works (they have been there). and that in time you may actually find yourself craving that feeling of having so much to learn.

Ultimately the times you are learning/improving the most are when you are facing many new challenges.

If you are anything like me, you may find trying to find ways to enjoy this time more helpful than trying to bypass or speedup this phase.

</comment><comment><USER17> My first large app I built the hard way. I started by copying code from samples and modified them to my needs. I stuffed a bunch of api's together, dojo, jquery, etc. I spent an inordinate amount of time testing the app and modifying it to work on all browsers. Half of the time I didn't know what the heck I was doing. I just obsessively kept hacking away until the app got built.

Well, it got built and it's been successful for its built purpose. The code isn't exactly pretty but it's fast and not buggy at all.

I spent the last year learning object oriented programming, software architecture, ui toolkits. I'm just starting with react, typescript, node, aws for my new app.

Because I built my first app 'the hard way' I now appreciate the value of these toolkits and frameworks and think they're worth taking the time to learn, but only if they simplify my process and not complicate it.

Keep working you'll get there and it's worth it!

</comment><comment><USER14> Pick a language. Write some code. I recommend one that requires minimal building. Maybe python. If you need a build tool, use make. Use a text editor, like nano, gedit, or notepad++. Not a complex one like vim or emacs. Keep it simple. Now - And this is the important part - WRITE SOME CODE. It doesn't have to be complicated, It could just implement cat or something. But the important thing is to write it. Don't bother trying to find the "right way." If you need libraries, go for the path of least resistance.

EDIT: This is important, so I want to say it as clearly as possible. FUCK. ES. 2015. ES5 is actually pretty good. Learn prototypical inheritance, or just don't use OO. People have built real apps in ES5, you'll live. It might be hard at times, and you might have trouble learning, but the important thing is that you'll be writing code, not fixing your toolkit.

</comment><comment><USER18> Since I see that you're a Javascript developer, I'm going to suggest you switch to something like Meteor.

It's COHESIVE. You have an idea and want to work on it? It'll just work, no bullshit gluing together bits and pieces from other libraries. It's comes with realtime, javascript everywhere, documentation is on point.

I can guarantee it's going to restore your faith because you will spend most of your time writing your features and ideas, instead of glue work. Nobody likes glue work.

\---

Where do I start? Right here: [https://www.udemy.com/learn-meteorjs-by- building-10-real-wor...](https://www.udemy.com/learn-meteorjs-by- building-10-real-world-projects/) \- you build ten real world apps, not some shitty task list garbage. I promise you won't regret it, it's -fun-. Like that first time you used Rails way back when? That kind of fun!

</comment><comment><USER19> I've read you saying you want to tryout modern JavaScript applications. Look for a boilerplate repo with the tools you like and fork it. It's tedious to set up the tooling part and if you want to focus on proper coding, that's the easiest way to get started.

<comment><USER20> \+ 1, specifically either fork a github base project e.g.[1], use yeoman[2] and there are also some gems in maven archetypes[3].

[1] [https://github.com/tylermcginnis/re- base](https://github.com/tylermcginnis/re-base)

[2] [http://yeoman.io/generators/](http://yeoman.io/generators/)

[3] [https://maven-repository.com/archetypes](https://maven- repository.com/archetypes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was tasked with building a WPF project with no prior experience. I jumped on pluralsight for a lecture on wpf and mvvm, then started building the app. I realized I could use a framework for mvvm but I've learned a lot by doing everything from scratch. At one point I realized I needed some plugins for help (INotifyPropertyChanged, I'm looking at you) and started using them, which has made my life considerably easier. Build the project, use what tools are necessary. Don't let tools dictate your project. I've been down that hole a lot with JS. Gulp, Webpack, Grunt, Node, Express, Babel, ClojureScript, TypeScript, and it goes on and on and on.

</comment><comment><USER22> Having worked with webpack and babel at large-social-network for the past year, they're great tools and make a whole range of things possible. But as soon as anything breaks or behaves unexpectedly you are in for a hell of a time even just figuring out at what layer or step of the pipeline the breakage occurred.

So it's not just you. I would never set any of this up from scratch for a personal project. And I don't expect you'd need to, ever - <USER2> companies will have an existing pipeline (with its own problems you'd never learn externally), and new ones can just use one of the various boilerplate project templates.

</comment><comment><USER23> Stop rushing yourself. It takes time to build up skills. Keep learning. I've been at this for 20 years, and even I have gaps and frustrating days. You'll get better. Just keep improving every day.

</comment><comment><USER24> > You can't connect the dots looking forward you can only connect them looking > backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > future.

Don't give up and keep learning!

</comment><comment><USER25> The JS/React ecosystem is moving rapidly right now. I got caught in the middle of a storm when I updated my toolchain from Backbone/Sprockets to React/Redux/Webpack. There was Flux, then a bunch of Flux implementations, then Redux took the crown - a library which didn't exist a few months back. But as Redux has taken the crown, Relay has emerged along with it's own alternatives such as Falcor. Then there is Angular 2 on the horizon. Back in the day it was Knockout vs. Backbone which made things a lot simpler.

There is a proliferation of [boilerplate projects]([https://github.com/xgrommx/awesome- redux#boilerplate](https://github.com/xgrommx/awesome-redux#boilerplate)) out there at the moment but they are quite heavy and all do things a little differently.

I think what is lacking and will emerge eventually is some glue to fill the gaps that everyone is identifying. I think it will be a few small core libraries with some conventions about project structure, toolchain, and modularity.

</comment><comment><USER26> Are you just learning?

Use less-shiny stuff. Ditch the frameworks etc. Do the simplest thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying to build a real application and building real applications seems to need to sew together a whole bunch of real bits n pieces.

<comment><USER27> I build real applications out of real bits and pieces in a modern javascript stack. I do it for a living, have done for a while, and manage a team of people in a company that does it.

Don't get hung up on tooling. Things like babel, webpack, ORMs, graphQL, gulp, react, redux, etc etc etc. They're all useful things that have a place in the world. If you try to grok all of them all at once you'll send yourself insane. You don't _need_ any of them. Not a single one.

Just write some code to solve the problem in front of you. Then write some more to solve the next one. Then come back and refactor. Then write some more code and solve some more problems. Keep going like that. You'll end up with a useful thing at the end of it.

The thing you end up with may not be as modular/scalable/etc as something a seasoned professional could build with All The Tools. That's fine. It'll work.

Importantly, though, some slightly muddy, homebaked code will meet your needs a hell of a lot better than a collection of half-understood learning about the most fashionable frameworks of 2015 and no actual code.

<comment><AUTHOR> The paradox is that IMO the simplest way forward is to use the most modern tools. The modern tools and languages are generally there to make things easier. The trouble is that you need to learn those tools and languages before you can get to do it the easy way.

For example, I really can't afford to program with any JavaScript language except ES2015 - I just don't have time to try to understand all the weird idiosyncrasies and underpowered crap that is older versions of JavaScript - <USER3> need to work with "JavaScript that makes sense" i.e. ES2015. But to do that I need to be able to wrap my head around - and fight all the myriad problems with - getting my ES2015 to compile using the webpack babel toolchain.

It's a strange thing about programming that to understand the easiest way to do it you need to have a higher order understanding of the entire programming system that you are working with.

<comment><USER28> _The paradox is that IMO the simplest way forward is..._

I feel like this statement is the crux of the issue. Have you considered that your opinion is simply wrong?

<comment><USER8> OP: It hurts so much when I run into walls.

Everyone else: Stop running into walls then.

OP: But they are so shiny. I think running into them is the best way forward for me. Please keep me a trick that allows me to run into them without pain.

Everyone else: Eh..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm guessing you're feeling depressed because you don't have a strong idea of why you're doing all this.

I'd say that what needs to change is your mentality.

There's a lot of things you can do to change how you're thinking. It all comes down to understanding the essence of why you're feeling this particular way.

What are you trying to achieve?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying to get an application built using a modern JavaScript approach.

<comment><USER30> I know where your coming from, a few months back I had a run in with getting a yeoman generator working on my system. I had all sorts of problems with that.

You probably already aware but just in case your not one possible option for you is to try a vm like virtual box using one of bitmani's pre configured systems

It's not a silver bullet but it may help

PS

If you do give virtual box a go don't use shared folders, at least not until you have got your build tools installed and running.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What's currently in your JavaScript stack? I'm probably going to suggest getting rid of most of it if possible so that you can focus on your code. Here's a dirty secret: you probably don't need a JS build system or anything from ES2015+ if you don't feel like learning it yet[0]. If you're using React, you probably don't need to integrate any of the latest tech like Redux and tcomb-form and all those other super cool innovations. You can even get away with using Node modules in the old-fashioned "link to a script file" way[1]. Sure, someone can claim that each of those tools serves a purpose and can prevent a whole class of headaches that might happen. What they won't say is that trying to wrangle them all together right away is causing you a bigger headache than any of the others!

I'm working on an application that has about 15K lines of hand-prepared React/Flux JavaScript (well, TypeScript) and it is planned to scale up by maybe an order of magnitude eventually. It's built with ES5 and plain old revealing modules. I'm managing dependencies by hand. I'm not using Node or CommonJS modules at all. Heck, I'm not even using JSX yet because my version of Visual Studio doesn't have TSX (TypeScript+JSX) built in. Does this mean some headaches and extra labor? Sure! Do I feel like an imposter when reading about all this awesome fancy new stuff? Sometimes!

But the headaches are surprisingly minor and barely figure in most of the time. If/when these headaches get bigger (I suspect this will start in earnest when more front-end developers join the project), then I'll take another look at integrating a module loader, or a form generator, or an automagic React router, or a super-cool atomic state system like Redux. In case you're wondering the application works amazingly well and most of the time implementing even far-out crazy features has been easy and fun.

Finally, don't get too worried about making the "wrong" choices, and don't bail out for something newer when you hit your first roadblock. Most of the options you have available these days work great! The things we expect them to do are totally incredible, that's the only reason people are still proposing alternatives all the time.

[0]If you don't need to support older browsers, ES2015 is pretty easy to include. Otherwise if you need to use examples based on an ES2015+ version, just paste the code into the Babel REPL: [https://babeljs.io/repl/](https://babeljs.io/repl/)

[1]You can get any bundled npm module here: [https://wzrd.in/](https://wzrd.in/)

</comment><comment><USER32> All that "modern" tooling is simply there to solve problems people have encountered. Give yourself a chance to experience the problems first, before you go adopting everyone else's solution to those problems. Just write some plain old code that works.

</comment><comment><USER33> You are going to get better as you learn more. You will still need to figure out how to set up things but you will have more tools in your tool kit to help you. Keep an open mind and remember you are learning as you struggle through things.

</comment><comment><USER34> AKA yak shaving - [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/03/dont_shave_t...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/03/dont_shave_that.html)

</comment><comment><USER35> I get the impression you are learning, if you're not, I suggest you think again, because actually you are. :D

Programming is much about learning and it never gets easy when you need to pick something new. I suggest you find a mentor if you don't like experimenting alone, somebody who can give you some guidance.

After you learn something, it gets easier, and very rewarding.

On the subject of "not having what it takes", I disagree. Find a friend who draws, sings, plays an instrument or whatever, and ask them to tell you how much effort they had to put to learn their craft.

"Computers" are probably a lot easier, at least in comparison, since you have to use them anyways.

</comment><comment><USER36> There was a link to a programming advent calendar on HN a while ago: [http://adventofcode.com](http://adventofcode.com)

Solve some of those puzzles once in a while, no tooling necessary. Or if they are too easy, go to project Euler.

I also feel the same frustration of JS tooling. It's just not a lot of fun to go through so many steps before you can actually start coding. I hope it gets better once the basic setup works.

</comment><comment><USER37> No one gets the perfect start, and there are gonna be painful change as you progress and realize past mistakes. That's part of the learning process. Regardless of the changes you're still improving and gaining experience, and that's never a bad thing. Try to look more on the positive side of things. Take small steps and satisfaction once u get it, then move forward.

</comment><comment><USER38> Use pencils and paper. Learn one tool and learn it well.

</comment><comment><USER39> Just use Rails with Heroku for deployments. You can deploy a small instance for free on Heroku.

It'll save you the headache if configuring and setting up everything, and with a feature complete framework like Rails, you'll hit the ground running and be cranking out features in no time.

</comment><comment><USER17> One more thing, when I first read about something like Grunt or Backbone, I didn't really get it. After several months of reading blog posts, articles, books and hacker news I started to get it.</comment>


The Punctuation Guide - <AUTHOR> http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/index.html <comment><USER2> [http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/quotation- marks.html#adja...](http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/quotation- marks.html#adjacentpunctuation)

> Commas and periods that are part of the overall sentence go inside the > quotation marks, even though they aren't part of the original quotation.

I firmly refuse to go along with this nonsense.

[http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/em- dash.html](http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/em-dash.html)

> The em dash is typically used without spaces on either side, and that is the > style used in this guide. Most newspapers, however, set the em dash off with > a single space on each side.

Isn't this is US versus Britain, not "newspapers" versus "typical use"? And AFAIK it's not a "single space": it's ideally a half-space (in US style). The problem with no space is that your eyes can't easily disambiguate it from a hyphenated single word.

<comment><USER3> British is an _en_ dash separated by spaces, American is an em dash with no spaces.

<comment><USER4> And make sure to use a non-breaking space before your en-dash, so it doesn't get orphaned at the beginning of a line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is quite specific to US English, for example "Top Ten Tips" number 2 about quotation marks. As Robert Bringhurst says in _The Elements of Typographic Style_ :

Most North American editors like their commas and periods inside the raised commas, "like this;" but their colons and semicolons outside. Many British editors prefer to put all punctuation outside, with the milk and the cat.

<comment><USER6> [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing- style.html](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html)

> _Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to > the dismay of American editors. Thus, if "Jim is going" is a phrase, and so > are "Bill runs" and "Spock groks", then hackers generally prefer to write: > "Jim is going", "Bill runs", and "Spock groks". This is incorrect according > to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the > final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive to > hackers to mutilate literal strings with characters that don 't belong in > them. Given the sorts of examples that can come up in discussions of > programming, American-style quoting can even be grossly misleading. When > communicating command lines or small pieces of code, extra characters can be > a real pain in the neck._

<comment><USER7> Arguments for British style quotes:

\- doesn't mutate the quoted string

\- fewer weird edge cases

\- encodes more information in same amount of characters (if quote might have ended on punctuation)

\- needs fewer rules

Arguments for American style quotes

\- It looks more balanced if punctuation marks that use less ink than a quotation mark come before it

I think there is no surprise that hackers prefer the straight-forward way that might look marginally worse

<comment> Harvey-Specter In the British style what is the rule if the quotation ends in punctuation? Do they include additional punctuation outside the quotation, since presumably the punctuation inside the quotation doesn't count as ending the sentence?

I'm thinking of a sentence like:

> Bill said "I prefer American style."

Would the British write it as follows?

> Bill said "I prefer American style.".

<comment><USER8> No, we'd write it the first way, even if the quotation ended with punctuation not appropriate to the sentence as a whole: e.g.

> Bill asked "Do you prefer American style?"

even though the sentence, taken as a whole, is a statement rather than a question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there _are_ rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them. For example:

> When used in this way, the bracketed information should be an addition, not > a substitution. For example, if the original quotation is "She never called > back," do not change it to "[Lucy] never called back." Instead write: "She > [Lucy] never called back." (Note: Many newspapers ignore this rule. In > professional and academic writing, it is better to follow it.)

Says who?

About the only real "rule" I can think of in English is that you use "an" iff the following word starts with a vowel sound. But even some people (idiots) break that rule for the weirdly specific case of 'historic'.

<comment><USER10> I agree: there are no rules in a language.

The baseline is to try to produce something that can be understood by your public, so try to stick to whatever convention they are used to, or come up with new ways that they can make a sense of.

But I won't even call that a "rule".

<comment> mh-cx > I agree: there are no rules in a language.

Really? Isn't that a bit broad? It may be half true for some languages but definitely not for all.

For example in Germany we have the "Der Duden" which is not only a dictionary that defines the correct spelling of words but also contains a huge set of grammatical rules. It's still the de-facto standard for correct language in German.

And even in english you'd probably agree that there are some rules, e.g. when it comes to the correct spelling of words.

<comment><USER11> The Duden doesn't define correct spelling, it merely documents it. It's decidedly not a prescriptive work. What you're likely thinking of is the German orthography rules defined by the _Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung_ and in turn strongly influenced by actual practice rather than just dogma -- the most recent revisions are very forgiving with regard to acceptable variations.

Linguists on the other hand have given up on prescriptivism decades ago. Scientific linguistics are entirely descriptivist, studying how language is used rather than prescribing how it ought to be used.

<comment><USER12> One particularly nasty hold-out of minority prescriptivists among those lexicographers was the renouncement of capital sharp s. It took about a good century to force them to not deny reality anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Commas and periods that are part of the overall sentence go inside the > quotation marks, even though they aren't part of the original quotation.

Please never do this.

Commas and full stops have meaning. You're modifying the original quote without telling the reader that you have done so. How this became the accepted practice in so many style guides and grammar checkers I will never understand. I shall defer to Geoffrey Pullum's _Punctuation and human freedom_ [0], whose title is entirely appropriate, for justification. Steven Pinker's _The Sense of Style_ [1] can provide the unconvinced further justification.

[0] [http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/punctfree.pdf](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/punctfree.pdf) [1] [https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Style-Thinking-Persons- Writing/...](https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Style-Thinking-Persons- Writing/dp/0143127799)

</comment><comment><USER14> If you're looking for a free resource, I found the Style Manual by the U.S. Government Printing Office a helpful reference on how to write and typeset things in English.

[https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO- STYLEMANUAL-2008/content-d...](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO- STYLEMANUAL-2008/content-detail.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Talking about punctuation abuse, people that litter their emails or texts with ellipses is something I can't figure out:

"Hey! I haven't heard from you in a while... I'm still in Boston... Can't complain cause it's been good... I saw the circus before it closed..."

What do they think they're saying with all those crazy unneeded ellipses?

<comment><USER16> Lots of people do this to connect loosely related sentences because to them the "..." reads like a little pause. I guess it feels more comfortable, less formal, and let's them get the words out without worrying about structure too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What about period placement and display-style math (as opposed to inline math). Take the following example.

From FOO we can conclude that:

        CAT = FOOBAR

Does one place a period inside that display math? It has nothing to do with the equation, but it seems like the only reasonable place for it.

<comment> benji-york In that case, I elide the terminal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I enjoyed the rules about the em dash — It reminded me of the English class that I was taught that you could use it in place of pretty much every bit of punctuation and the subsequent essays I wrote having optimized the rules of English punctuation somewhat ;-)

</comment><comment><USER19> Let Elaine do the explanation on exclamation mark : [https://youtu.be/unz1CGoFVMU](https://youtu.be/unz1CGoFVMU)

</comment><comment> happy-go-lucky As an aspiring technical writer, these were my go-to references.

[https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/](https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/)

[https://brians.wsu.edu/common-errors/](https://brians.wsu.edu/common-errors/)

[http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html](http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> > _Requests that are phrased as questions should end with a period._

> _Would you please send this report to the person indicated on the cover._

Wait, really? IANA native speaker, but I don't think I've ever seen such requests without question mark.

<comment><USER21> Call me illiterate but that would be seen as either a mistake or as intentional rudeness.

We structure instructions as requests for the sake of politeness, and using a period here would come across as a very subtle mockery of this. In context it would imply some level of disdain for the recipient's right to turn down the request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Fun! I'd like to see this for other natural languages, and for programming languages.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does case count as punctuation? 'I helped my uncle Jack off a horse.'

</comment><comment><USER24> Do you object greatly to the absence of the interrobang‽

I know I do.

</comment><comment><USER25> Much of the advice here is good, but some is a bit weird.

> _I will give the document to my brother, Tom. (The writer has only one > brother. The brother 's name is nonessential and therefore set off with a > comma.)_

> _I will give the document to my brother Tom. (The writer has more than one > brother. In this case, the specific brother—Tom—is essential information and > should not be set off with a comma.)_

I know this used to be considered an important distinction, but I think few writers would worry about it today. Does the reader care if Tom is the writer's only brother? Either way the writer is talking only about Tom, not any possible other brothers. I think many writers today would leave out the comma in either case.

Take an example where it's clear there is only one:

 _I am going to visit my mother Helen._

 _I am going to visit my mother, Helen._

I don't think leaving out the comma implies that I have more than one mother, and I doubt if anyone cares much about the comma here either.

The trend today is to simply leave out commas where the meaning is clear.

This example of the Oxford comma is really confusing:

> _I am taking art history, Russian literature, microeconomics, and > macroeconomics next semester._

It's a valid point that omitting the Oxford comma could make it sound like "microeconomics and macroeconomics" is a single course, but using the comma makes it sound like the first three courses are being taken _this_ semester and macroeconomics next semester. It should be rewritten:

> _Next semester I am taking art history, Russian literature, microeconomics, > and macroeconomics._

There is a similar situation where the Oxford comma is needed in the programming joke:

 _There are two hard problems in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors._

It ruins the joke (to my eyes) if you leave it out:

 _There are two hard problems in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation and off-by-one errors._

And enough with the commas already in a sentence like this:

> _Your work has been, frankly, awful._

Ugh. Does anyone actually write that instead of:

 _Your work has been frankly awful._

(Of course I would _never_ say that to someone but would find a more constructive way to put it.)

My advice: Write simply and clearly. Know these purported rules but take them with a healthy grain of salt. Omit unnecessary punctuation where the meaning is clear to the reader. And if you need extra punctuation to avoid confusion, consider rewriting the sentence for clarity.

<comment><USER17> Regarding the final example, I disagree.

"Your work has been frankly awful" has frankly as an adverb. That is, it was awful in a frank way.

"Your work has been, frankly, awful" makes it clear that frankly is a parenthetical remark that isn't part of the sentence.

With commas 'frankly' modifies how the writer intends the sentence to be received. Without, it modifies how awful the writer things your work has been. I suppose in some situations, the absurdity of 'being awful in a frank way' is sufficient to resolve the ambiguity.

<comment><USER25> That's an excellent point. Perhaps this is another case where it would be better to rewrite the sentence:

"Frankly, your work has been awful."</comment></comment></comment>


NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report - <AUTHOR> https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/communications/national-broadband-network-nbn/nbn-wholesale-market-indicators-report/initial-report <comment><USER2> I am not sure why this is being up voted.</comment>


So you've Upgrade to Snow Leopard? Post Dev Feedback Here - <AUTHOR>

Those developing on the mac generally have lots of added libraries and tools... like Fink or MacPorts, different Python or Ruby versions, etc..
In my case, I don't use the base install of Apache and run my own, with mod_wsgi. I also run my own build of MySQL. Because of things like this, I tend to shy away from all of the automated crap (such as the migration tools, and upgrading a point release rather than a fresh install) and I don't think i'm alone. I upgraded my older Macbook Pro to Leopard by formatting and installing fresh, then manually moving data.
Because Snow Leopard is a smaller release and more of a glorified patch or service-pack if you will, I am wondering if I really need to do this. I'd love to get feedback from all the Mac hackers out there who have upgrade to Snow Leopard. What kind of problems have you noticed, if any? <comment><USER2> I just told my wife, "The next time I want to be an early adopter, just hit me until I fall to the ground and stay there."

I have a bilateral hand disability, and the program I DEPEND on, MacSpeech Dictate, doesn't work under Snow Leopard. I had refused to pay an extra $55 for features that should have been there in the first place, but now I have to. Furthermore, the UPDATE ISN'T DOWNLOADABLE (they mail it to you, for $10 to $90 extra, based on how fast you want it). And the final insult is that it's not clear the new version will even work until they (not an especially responsive company, of course) release a Snow Leopard update that may be delayed by "several minor functional and cosmetic issues" they want to add!

I'm hosed for at least a week, maybe longer. I'm 55 years old, the very definition of a gentle, responsible person, and this is the first time I've flamed IN MY LIFE. But I've got to say this:

I HATE MACSPEECH, THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, THEIR INSANELY BRAIN-DEAD DESIGN AND USABILITY DECISIONS, AND THEIR TOTAL DISREGARD OF INFORMED (former 10-year technical Apple employee) FEEDBACK BY SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY USES AND DEPENDS ON THEIR PRODUCT EVERY DAY.

Even though it hurts my hands to type this, it was WORTH IT.

I could go on...but that's it, basically. And not a single exclamation mark or #$@%&* expletive, either.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've noticed no real compatibility problems so far, and I just upgraded my Leopard machine. (Still took an hour, and I didn't even opt to install Xcode 3.2 yet.)

A somewhat odd and annoying change is that /usr/bin no longer contains a number of common tools that are technically developer tools. For instance, there is no /usr/bin/make or /usr/bin/xcodebuild; one must instead look in /Developer/usr/bin.

Both Python 2.5.4 and 2.6.1 are in /usr/bin, and it's handy to have both.

<comment><USER4> /usr/bin/make _et. al._ will probably reappear once you install XCode 3.2.

<comment><USER3> Ah, that's good to know. Though I (still) have Xcode 3.1 installed, I was surprised it would just delete the /usr/bin stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has anyone tested SIMBL plugins such as Visor ( <http://github.com/darwin/visor/tree/master> ) with it? I ended up twiddling my thumbs for a while when some security updates broke it previously (10.5.3, I think?) and would like to check the same doesn't happen.

</comment><comment><USER6> MyTV/x does not work with Snow Leopard because Eskape Labs is not issuing any update after 10.4 VMware version 1 is not compatible with Snow Leopard. I lost data. I reinstalled Tiger and I lost everything on iTunes. For me, Snow Leopard is a sad experience.

</comment><comment><USER7> Biggest thing that annoys me is that, yet again, like when Leopard first went out, there's no way to modify the colors in the OS X terminal.

Seriously, why on earth does Apple have such a problem with this small feature? It boggles the mind.

<comment><USER3> Which colors do you mean? The Preferences window is used to modify background and text, etc.

Although I admit, the requirement to create preference sets (or modify the default) in order to change a single window, is irritating. That's why I use MacTelnet instead. :)

<comment><USER7> Font colors, syntax highlighting.

<comment><USER3> The syntax highlighting feature might be relying on the 16/256 basic colors (a.k.a. ANSI colors).

I have not tried this, but I dug up a hack that someone has done to add an ANSI colors editor to Terminal:

[http://ciaranwal.sh/2007/11/01/customising-colours-in- leopar...](http://ciaranwal.sh/2007/11/01/customising-colours-in-leopard- terminal)

MacTelnet has an ANSI colors editor built-in.

<comment><USER8> _I dug up a hack that someone has done to add an ANSI colors editor to Terminal_

Right. That doesn't work in Snow Leopard. That's what OP meant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Eclipse and Wireshark (X11) both seem to be working fine for me.

Xcode+iPhone SDK works still, unsurprisingly...

Xcode uses a new font called Menlo by default now. It's anti-aliased and looks nice.

</comment><comment><USER10> Carbon Emacs works fine. Ruby works fine, although some gems that have native extensions needed reinstalling.

X11 seems to be totally broken though. The Gimp and Crossover both don't work at all.

</comment><comment><USER8> Upgrading broke my apache/mod_wsgi setup (says Premature end of script headers: django.wsgi), still debugging, although I'm not the best at fixing these things :-/

</comment><comment><USER11> Safari Flash-Plugin using 15%+ CPU continuous, unexpectedly crashed during session.

Firefox behaving well</comment>


Intel Programmable Systems Group takes step towards FPGA based system in package - <AUTHOR> http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-technology/intels-programmable-systems-group-takes-its-first-step-towards-an-fpga-based-system-in-package-portfolio/142701/ <comment><USER2> I'm a newbie so pls excuse my ignorance .. Cypress has these had these things for a bit .. they call them PSOC. Basically, an ARM core plus some programmable logic. Is the difference here that the processor and PLD are both beefier? I'm generally confused about the difference between PLD vs FPGA vs CPLD. It seems there is no precise definition and it changes based on who is talking.

<comment><USER3> I would consider Cypress's PSoC as an ARM kit with a small logic block embedded. Except what is already present in the chip (DAC,CAN ..), it is impossible to implement any complex solution on the limited logic cells present in PSoCs.Basically glue layer between ARM and other components in design.

Closest thing might be Xilinx Zynq or Stratix 10. Both are comparable PSoC, comes with ARM core but with high density FPGA instead of small CPLD.

The MX series from article adds DRAM in larger size and with larger bandwidth than what is available currently.

My understanding of PLD/CPLD vs FPGA is that the CPLD is based of EEPROM for logic cells which are programmed before deployment (With exceptions), and they are operational as soon they are powered up. They are generally small in terms of number of logic cells they offer.

FPGA in other hands are based on RAM. They are programmed / booted at the power on (Internal/External Flash). They become operational once the program/design is transferred from flash to RAM based logic cells. They offer large number of logic cells thus allows the implementation of complex designs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmm this made me wonder: what would happen if you made a system that supported multiple architectures (ARC, PPC, x86, FPGA, ...) at the same time ?

<comment><USER5> A general purpose CPU paired with an FPGA to offload specialized workloads onto seems like a really sweet deal - that is until you realize that configuring the FPGA with a new bitstream is pretty slow (so live reconfigurations would be irregular) and the toolchains for building code which controls interoperation between the CPU and whatever you've placed into the programmable fabric is poor (so designing good custom hardware accelerators is a time consuming dev task).

I spent a semester working with a Xilinx SoC, and the experience was enlightening. My computer engineering friends were very comfortable with gate description diagrams and debugging with input/output wires and waiting literal hours between test cycles. I was the only software engineer in the room, and all I could do was ask myself how anyone could be OK with this awful tooling situation. It really befuddled me - I was especially frustrated while using high-level synthesis tools which take C++ and convert it into a functioning hardware description (Alleviating the need to rewrite business logic in VHDL or Verilog). It would take well-formed C++ code with a simple API and give a pretty good hardware description (sometimes with better perf than a handwritten equivalent, with a little optimizing), but fail to generate a corresponding API for it on the associated CPU for anything beyond simple register access (despite starting with what was likely the desired software API)! IMO, FPGA tooling could use a lot of TLC, but maybe I just had a bad experience.

<comment><USER6> When you think of c++ you think sequentially, but hardware doesn't work that way. I think verilog or vhdl make more sense instead of trying to get c++ to work for hardware or having to come up with more c++ code to account for the way hardware works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This can be a real breakthrough in computing technology. Just in time, as the improvement of desktop and server CPUs has stalled almost completely.

<comment><USER8> FPGA and CPU together is nothing new. AMD started offering Fiji + HBM in 2015 and recently nVidia joined with their Pascal + HBM2. Intel is lagging in general due to lack of competition.

<comment><USER7> HBM != FPGA

<comment><USER8> I never said that. Thanks for -1.

<comment><USER7> That's not mine. You wrote about Fiji and Pascal, but AFAIK they have nothing to do with FPGA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Site seems down. I tried to find an alternative source but didn't come up with much.

<comment><USER10> * Jordan Inkeles, Altera's director of product marketing for high end FPGAs

Speaking in 2012, Danny Biran – then Altera's senior VP for corporate strategy – said he saw a time when the company would be offering 'standard products' – devices featuring an FPGA, with different dice integrated in the package. "It's also possible these devices may integrate customer specific circuits if the business case is good enough," he noted.

There was a lot going on behind the scenes then; already, Altera was talking with Intel about using its foundry service to build 'Generation 10' devices, eventually being acquired by Intel in 2015.

Now the first fruit of that work has appeared in the form of Stratix 10 MX. Designed to meet the needs of those developing high end communications systems, the device integrates stacked memory dice alongside an FPGA die, providing users with a memory bandwidth of up to 1Tbyte/s.

"A few years ago," said Jordan Inkeles, director of product marketing for high end FPGAs, "we partnered with Intel for lithography and were very excited. We also looked at Intel's packaging technology and asked 'can we use that?'. The answer was 'yes'. The combination has allowed us to do things we thought were not possible."

The concept is based on what Altera – now Intel's Programmable Systems Group (PSG) – calls 'tiles'. Essentially, these are the dice which sit alongside the FPGA. Tiles are connected to the FPGA using Intel's EMIB – embedded multi- interconnect bridge – technology. "It's not a traditional silicon interposer," Inkeles explained. "It's a little bridge chip which is used where you need to connect two pieces of silicon."

* Statix 10 MX is said to combine the programmability and flexibility of STratix 10 FPGAs with integrated 3D stacked high bandwidth memory devices

Stratix 10 MX devices are designed to help engineers solve demanding memory bandwidth challenges which can't be addressed using conventional memory solutions. The parts integrate four stacks of HBM2 DRAM, each with up to four memory dice. PSG says the parts are suitable for use where bandwidth is paramount. Apart from providing 10 times more memory bandwidth than conventional solutions, Stratix 10 MX devices are said to be smaller and to use less power.

"This idea of integrated chips opens up things," Inkeles said. "FPGAs are trying to be everything to everyone. They have to support wireless, wired, networking, radar and high performance computing, amongst others. We saw divergence in what was possible."

PSG started thinking about transceivers. "If we had transceivers in separate tiles, we could come out with devices for different markets," Inkeles continued. "It also makes sense for analogue, which doesn't move at the same pace as digital, and for design reuse. So we could use a tile that meets today's needs – say a 28G transceiver – then come out in the future with a 56G PAM4 tile and a 28G NRZ tile. In the same process node time frame, we can deliver two very different types of product."

This is the concept underpinning the MX. "Parallel memory is becoming a huge challenge," Inkeles observed. "You can continue to use parallel interfaces, but with the memory right next to the FPGA to maintain signal integrity and reduce power. But, while Hybrid Memory Cube (HMC) is a good solution, it has to be serial," he continued, "as you can't get signal integrity on a 72bit wide datapath. Or you can put memory in the package.

"By providing up to four stacks of four DRAM dice, we're providing a memory bandwidth never seen before. Each stack can run to 256Gbyte/s, so four stacks give 1Tbyte/s. That's unprecedented and can't be achieved with HMC.

"Power consumption is reduced because the memory is right next to the FPGA and drive strength is much smaller – only pJ/bit – because you're not driving signals to a memory that could be 6in away."

There is a downside, however; it's an expensive solution. "You're paying for bandwidth," Inkeles admitted. "But customers complain about the effort it takes to do board layout and to get the DDR chips right. We've solved that without using any I/O or transceivers. And if 16Gbyte of DRAM in package isn't enough, you still have transceivers and I/O available for use with external components."

Inkeles pointed to three broad application areas for the MX device. "There's high performance computing (HPC), cloud computing and data centres, but they all look for different things.

"HPC says 'give me everything, while cloud says it's worried about the cost per bit. Data centres can build algorithms in logic, which is quicker than a GPU, but need the memory bandwidth to 'feed the beast'."

Apart from imaging applications, such as medical and radar, Inkeles says there are applications in wireline communications. "Gone are the days of just routing traffic," he said. "Everyone is now looking to differentiate their products, for example, by providing statistics on the data being handled. So they need to hold a piece of traffic for a moment to analyse what it is, then send it onwards. This couldn't be done before because there wasn't the bandwidth."

MX is the first implementation of PSG's strategy and the interesting thing is 'what comes next?'. It's quite possible that optical functionality might appear at some point in Intel PSG's Stratix 10 parts.

Five years ago, Altera announced plans to integrate optical interfaces into its FPGAs as a way to cope with increasing communications bandwidth. Despite demonstrating the technology later in 2011, the idea remained on the shelf. Inkeles said: "We have continued to evolve the technology, but haven't gone public with the developments."

Inkeles noted: "Although PAM4 offers a way to stay in the electrical domain, we will, at some point, run out of capability and we've been preparing for that transition. Now we have transceivers on tiles, we can take out one tile and replace it with an optical interface.

"We've been working behind the scenes," Inkeles continued, "but the right time to put a product into the market will depend on the economics."

Altera's acquisition by Intel also gives it access to silicon photonics technology. "We have exciting capabilities," Inkeles added.

* Heterogenous 3D system in package integration could enable a new class of FPGA based devices

Another potential step is integrating such components as analogue, ASICs and CPUs alongside an FPGA. Intel PSG says EMIB offers a simpler manufacturing flow by eliminating the use of through silicon vias and specialised interposers. The result, it claims, will be integrated systems in package that offer higher performance, less complexity and better signal and power integrity.

Inkeles sees this as potentially a new market. "ASICs have become smaller and faster, but not cheaper. Unless you're going to sell millions, you will have a tough time," he said. "ASSPs are going away, unless you can find more customers or more volume."

Is it possible that Biran's vision of 'standard products' might be close to reality and could that even include custom versions of a Stratix 10? "Will we do custom?," Inkeles wondered. "It's within our ability. It's not something we're promoting, but we are engaging with customers.

"We have a range of options. Now we're part of Intel, the 'sky's the limit'. As Altera, we developed HardCopy and had an ASIC team, but it wasn't our core competence. But Intel Foundry can do ASIC," he concluded.</comment></comment>


Beg the question - <AUTHOR> http://begthequestion.info/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure this phrase is actually worth using in any guise, especially given that the people using the "correct" meaning are often not using the even more pedantic correct meaning. Many logic books today use "beg the question" as synonymous with "circular reasoning" (some equate them explicitly), but there traditionally were subtle differences. Aristotle and medieval logicians considered circular reasoning to be a formal fallacy, presenting what appears to be a syllogism but is actually not a valid one. But they considered begging the question to be more of an informal fallacy, where an arguer has relied on assumptions that would be unreasonably large to grant, or are too similar to the conclusions, for the argument as a whole to be considered a legitimate or interesting demonstration of the point.

In medieval debating, it was sort of an out-of-bounds request more than a fallacy. The difference between on the one hand, putting forth a chain of reasoning that is explicitly circular (and thus fallacious), and on the other hand, asking your opponent to concede a point that, perhaps non-obviously, turns out to be equivalent to what you were arguing for, or at least, more subjectively, concedes too much of the way to your goal. That's not _fallacious_ , because if they concede the point directly, or concede something that amounts to 80% of your point, your conclusion might correctly follow from it, and you have a proper syllogism, where you start with assumptions that all sides agreed on, and through valid reasoning arrive at your result. But it's in some sense cheating at debate, because you've tricked them into conceding the point, rather than having demonstrated the point.

(One reason it's subjective and informal is that you're effectively saying that demonstrating B from A is unreasonable, because A already contains too much of B, such that anyone who granted assumption A would in effect have already granted conclusion B, making the argument pointless. But in a strict sense, that's always true with any argument: anyone who grants any set of assumptions is always implicitly granting all conclusions that follow from those assumptions. So what counts as an unreasonable assumption that gives away too much of the conclusion is an outside-of-logic issue.)

For any of these meanings, I personally avoid the phrase. If you want the formal circular-reasoning fallacy, you can just say "circular reasoning", and if you want "raises the question", you can say that, or something similar. If you want the meaning I've described above, it's a bit trickier, but you probably will have to explain it anyway using more words, since it's the least common of the three meanings today (but maybe "circular reasoning" will work for that meaning too, in an informal sense of not being strictly circular, but maybe morally equivalent to a circular argument).

<comment><USER3> It's still used this way by contemporary philosophers, though oddly I've mostly seen it used in an adjectival form--"this argument is question- begging".

It's good practice in philosophy, because philosophers are trying to start from one (preferably obvious and uncontroversial) set of assumptions and derive their way to a (preferably astonishing and counterintuitive) conclusion. Starting from a cleverly worded re-statement of something your conclusion trivially follows from and ending up at your conclusion isn't very useful to philosophers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just because an obscure idiomatic usage exists doesn't make it incorrect to use the words literally.

If cats and dogs were falling out of the sky, I could correctly say that it's raining cats and dogs.

Some situations beg for a certain question to be asked.

<comment><USER5> This is a little pedantic, but "begs the question" doesn't really mean "raises the question" even literally. It sounds weird to say that someone "begs a rebuke" when they really deserve a rebuke. Even more literally, you don't say that someone on the street "begs a dollar" -- they beg _for_ a dollar. Just as you said, some situations _beg for_ those questions to be asked (or perhaps they _beg that_ they be asked); they don't simply _beg_ them.

<comment><USER6> Not quite true. "I beg your pardon" and "I begged her forgiveness" are standard English.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of the meanings of the word "beg" has disappeared over time, and the meaning of "question" has evolved as well; as a result, the meaning of the phrase "beg the question" is evolving to more closely fit the currently understood definitions of those two words. It's amusing that none of the prescriptivists criticizing people for misusing this phrase seem to argue that we should be actively start using the second meaning of beg again, nor do they ever use it themselves.

For a much more comprehensive and interesting analysis of this topic, I'd recommend languagelog's article: (<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290>). I agree with his conclusion; it's futile to force people to understand the traditional meaning of this phrase, and it would be preferable for the phrase itself to evolve to use words that are currently in use and unambiguous ("assuming the conclusion" and "raising the question," for example)

</comment><comment><USER8> A noble effort, but "begging the question" is destined to go the way of split infinitives....

<comment><USER9> I agree with what you meant to say, but in truth, split infinitives are historically good and proper English. It was a prescriptive desire to make English more like Latin that led to the taboo against split infinitives (and ending sentences with prepositions), which is about as counter-idiomatic as formating Lisp parens according to K&R.

<comment><USER8> [1] <http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/14636>

Then I suppose the complaint against split infinitives is really just an attempt to prescribe against awkward phrasing. Those crazy Victorians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Now this is change I can believe in.

And once we've sorted the 'Begs the Question' usage, let's tackle the media with an 'Enormity does not mean Enormous' campaign (Enormity = Great Evil, not Large) and then train sports journalists to pronounce conjure the way it's meant to be pronounced (kun not kon).

It's a losing battle in a language as beautifully fluid as English, but if I stand for nothing I will fall 4 N-E-Ting.

</comment><comment><USER11> Unfortunately, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, the English language is the rule of the masses.

That is why you are crushed.

If thou hast concern; shall be perplexed withe the change of lang-uage, read thise and acknolege.

(olde English for illustrative purposes only, god knows if it is accurate. )

</comment><comment><USER12> It does not beg but it does demand the question, Why should I care that much?

I've essentially given up on "problematic" and "actionable"...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This error has always bothered me and I don't really know why. I was reminded of the site when I noticed it on Nathan Marz's latest blog post (discussed at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1650051>).

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm very disinterested in this topic.

</comment><comment><USER13> one of my pet peeves . . .

       http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1603891
       http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1603799

</comment><comment><USER14> _This is why we fight._

I love it.</comment>


Don't like speed cameras? Use them to punk your enemies[2008] - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/dont-like-speed-cameras-use-them-to-punk-your-enemies/

<comment><USER2> I imagine that in most of the USA's states, this is a crime, worse than the speeding ticket. But the question remains: does it work?

I ask because this sounds like just another "moral panic", and maybe even a fake one, like the "jenkem" thing a few years ago. You know, as a teenager, try to convince someone of some absurd act that "all the cool kids are doing". Like huffing the stench of fermented fecal matter. Yeah, right.</comment>


To MBA, Or Not To MBA - <AUTHOR> http://tgolson.com/blog/to-mba-or-not-to-mba/

<comment><AUTHOR> I should add a little info here:

First HN post, long time lurker. It's been a sleepless night spent surfing on great sites like humbleMBA.com, trying to get things straight.

I just wanted to get some thoughts out, and I certainly wouldn't mind hearing some opinions as well.

</comment><comment><USER2> What do you hope to get out of an MBA? Why do you think an MBA will help you succeed in a startup? How many successful companies do you know that were started by MBAs in the last decade? What is the opportunity cost of doing all this?</comment>


China blocks rare earth exports to Japan - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

<comment><AUTHOR> All this over the detention of a Chinese fishing vessel in disputed waters. Anyone who thinks the current situation re. Chinese mining monopoly and I would also include their manufacturing monopoly is a tenable/acceptable situation for the US or the rest of world is out of their minds. I often talk about this and other related issues here and often get some sort of "pro capitalist" retort along the lines of: That is how capitalism works, duh. They make stuff cheaper than we can so we buy it from them. Yay capitalism! And to that I say: Hey gang, I'm pro capitalist as well. Yet I would submit that, in fact, China is capitalist in the same way that Obamacare makes the US socialist[1].

Washington loves to regulate and it seems we are in a new golden age of regulation. Where are the laws that mater? The laws that say we need to have domestic, or at the very least allied, resources of production for critical industrial materials? This is a big country. We have lots of resources[2]. Someone is actually gonna tell me that with all our technology we can not dig holes in the ground cheaper than the Chinese? I realize they have unlimited near zero cost labor. But we supposedly have technology. Don't we? So it is ok we ultimately consume these rare earth ingredients brought to us on the backs of Chinese slave labor? There is so much wrong here it makes me ill.

What happens when the US gets into a real argument with China re. DPRK, Taiwan, Iran or any of a number of Chinese interests in Africa? All the toys that we love so much and much of the materiel we need to prosecute our interests overseas come from China. What kind of Super Power are we then? The paper tiger kind.

[1] It does not.

[2] Same goes for oil and gas. Make more here, buy less there. And If we don't have enough oil, make whatever you can run on gas. Oh, that costs money? So? We are spending a ton of it on "recovery" anyway, so lets do it right.

</comment><comment><USER2> _Despite the name, rare earths are actually fairly common; they are expensive and seldom mined elsewhere because the processing equipment to separate them from the ore is expensive and because rare earths almost always occur naturally in deposits mixed with radioactive thorium and uranium. Processing runs the risk of radiation leaks [...]_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymium> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium>

</comment><comment><USER3> Japan also said they found replacements but costs way more to reproduce... Here comes the trade war

<comment><AUTHOR> They have also been stockpiling. Which is a good buffer, but ultimately only that. This should be a wakeup call that you can not have sole source production of critical material under the control of what is nominally your enemy. Also, national security issues (which I view this as) should not be subject to cost constraints on the same scale as standard capitalist concerns.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is going on with SSL certs? - <AUTHOR> I'm suddenly getting SSL errors from unrelated services we use. For example status.algolia.com, Pingdom and others. <comment><USER2> See this thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23362759](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23362759)

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the AddTrust root certificates has just expired. This is the certificate: [https://crt.sh/?id=1](https://crt.sh/?id=1)

This certificate was originally deployed some 20 years ago and expired today. There will be servers out there configured with certificate chains that terminate with this particular root. I've also seen some expired intermediates as well. In theory, this shouldn't be a problem. Clients with modern PKI stacks should be able to deal with the expiration by using path building to find trust paths that are still valid, but there appears to be a long tail of clients that don't handle this situation well.

If you've received a notification from a monitoring platform and the leaf certificate is still valid, the notification is likely to be a false positive. I got one of those.

You should probably be able to neutralise the false positives by reconfiguring your servers with a different chain, one that terminates with a still-valid root. Don't include the expired root in the chain. You should do this for maximum compatibility with old clients also.

</comment><comment><USER4> Came here to say it is happening by on our end too. Received a lot of expired ssl cert notifications, but cannot reproduce it. Currently trying to understand why this is happening. At first sight seems a glitch.

<comment><USER5> You are either sending and explicitly trusting a full chain up to AddTrust, or something of the sort. Or you might still have expired AddTrust in your ca- certificates bundle.

I haven't seen this issue reproducible in any modern browser, but it's been annoying with explicitly-defined trust stores in some old apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> we are also facing sudden ssl issues</comment>


Virgin customers told: we're moving you to TalkTalk and you'll lose your email - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/11377380/Virgin-broadband-customers-told-were-moving-you-to-TalkTalk-and-youll-lose-your-email.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is why for decades I've owned and maintained a domain name of my own, with the associated freedom of having an email address under my own control.

Do you?

<comment><USER2> No, but I feel as though I've put too much faith in Google and I probably should.

My @ntlworld email account, that I've not used for 12 years or more, will probably disappear as a result of these changes.</comment></comment>


Saving Hacking from the Zaibatsus: A Memoir - <AUTHOR> https://livestream.com/internetsociety3/hope2020/videos/209222826 <comment><AUTHOR> This is a talk from HOPE 2020 about the fediverse (i.e. Mastodon and other apps that use the ActivityPub protocol) and its relevance in modern social media.</comment>


Obama: NSA Must Reveal Bugs Like Heartbleed, Unless They Help the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/04/obama-zero-day/ <comment><USER2> Allowing vast portions of the internet to be vulnerable to an exploit that leaks passwords and private keys seems like it is not in the interest of the security of the nation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great, more of the same. They're really doing a great job of re-establishing trust in the government after this major failure.</comment>