Cheatsheet for the modern JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mbeaudru/modern-js-cheatsheet <comment><USER2> This is probably a fine resource. Can't really judge it - I avoid JavaScript to the extend humanly possible.

But please - could someone end the devaluation of the word _cheatsheet_. A cheatsheet should be just that - a sheet of paper or its digital equivalent, with a few short, clear notes of essentials. Not a rambling document. Not something with a table of contents.

<comment><USER3> Thank you. For comparison, these are real cheatsheets:

* [https://zeroturnaround.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/regex-...](https://zeroturnaround.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/regex-cheat-sheet-rebellabs-768x543.png)

* [https://rumorscity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/10-Best-VI...](https://rumorscity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/10-Best-VIM-Cheat-Sheet-02.jpg)

* [https://wch.github.io/latexsheet/latexsheet-1.png](https://wch.github.io/latexsheet/latexsheet-1.png)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the cheatsheet examples. They bring back fond memories of the laminated cheatsheets I used to buy at the bookstore. But it's been a long time since I used one of those; now I just want everything in digital form to keep my backpack light.

It was interesting that these are all bitmap image files at a rather low resolution. The text is so blurry on all of them! It made me wonder: do people actually use these kinds of image cheatsheets? They wouldn't print well, and zooming in on screen just gives blurry text. My old laminated sheets had crisp high-quality printed text.

It would be different if they were in a vector format, of course. But since I'm not printing them anyway, the traditional cheatsheet is no longer a useful format for me. I much prefer a short document like the OP's "cheatsheet" with legible text that I can scroll through on any device without having to zoom in and pan around.

I suppose one could object to the "sheet" part, since you can't print a document like this on a single sheet of letter or A4 paper. But that doesn't bother me at all: I started my programming career on Teletype machines that used roll paper, and we routinely printed out cheatsheets of varying length. There was no set height to a sheet: it ended wherever you tore it off the roll.

What would be a better name for a document like this that serves the purpose of a traditional cheatsheet but is in a format more suited for digital reading? Maybe "A short guide to ..."?

(Updated with more stories)

<comment><USER5> Why are you being downvoted for this?

AFAICT these are low-res previews of high-quality PDF cheat sheets you can buy.

<comment><USER4> I think people downvoted version 1 of my comment, which was less interesting and more cranky. But the downvotes were helpful; they gave me an excuse to make it more friendly and add a relevant story. :-)

I should have guessed that these were just low-res previews: I read too much into the comment that they were _real_ cheatsheets.

Even with high-quality vector text, though, I wouldn't find them useful because of the layout. It's great if you print them, but if you like to have everything onscreen, a scrolling document is easier to read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very helpful and great explanations. To me Airbnb's JS styleguide was also very helpful, which showcases best practices and lots of examples. [https://github.com/airbnb/javascript](https://github.com/airbnb/javascript)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've also found the BabelJS "Learn ES2015" page valuable as a cheat sheet and usually have it open while working with ES2015+: [https://babeljs.io/learn- es2015/](https://babeljs.io/learn-es2015/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I usually just do just enough javascript, but didn't know the difference between let and var, not it makes sense. the explanation of reduce made sense too.

<comment><USER9> `let` is block scoped, while `var` is function scoped.

Essentially:

        function do_something() {
          if (true) {
            var x = 42;
            let y = 42;
          }
          console.log(x); // 42
          console.log(y); // Reference error: y is not defined
        }

It's extremely useful in for loops:

        for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
          setTimeout(function () { console.log(i); }); // => 5, 5, 5, 5, 5
        }

        for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
          setTimeout(function () { console.log(i); }); // => 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
        }

<comment><USER8> that makes a lot of sense, I used to just make a brand new unique variable for loops

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Handy resource -- but like somebody else commented, probably better called a summary of modern JavaScript than a cheatsheet.

</comment><comment><USER11> Rules for _this_ in JS from top to bottom in priority:

1\. The function was called with 'new'

2\. The function was called with 'call' or 'apply' specifying an explicit _this_

3\. The function was called via a containing/owning object (context)

4\. DEFAUL: global object (expect strict mode--undefined)

<comment><USER12> You missed out Function.prototype.bind

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> tnx

</comment><comment><USER14> Nicely done.</comment>


Show HN: Heroku-style deployments for private clouds - <AUTHOR> http://scrz.io/

<comment><AUTHOR> I very much like Heroku, but due to technical restrictions (no WebSockets) we have to use our own dedicated servers. And I wanted to have deployment as easy as Heroku where you just push to a repo and done. Scrz is not quite there yet, though. It's more like: upload a slug to scrz and done. How you create the slug is up to you.

It's Heroku-style in the sense that the developers don't need to know on which servers the apps will be deployed to, and don't need to have ssh access to those servers. There is also no need to have server addresses stored in the project source code like it's usually done with capistrano.

We have our CI server configured so it automatically uploads the slug to scrz. So for us it's really like Heroku, developers push to a git repo and the app is automatically deployed.

</comment><comment><USER2> Is this an open source project?</comment>


Are you interested in AI and Genomics? - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-interested-artificial-intelligence-genomics-johnny-israeli <comment><AUTHOR> AI for genomics is coming. But between academic publications and popular news on the topic it either takes too much time to digest, it's overhyped, the conclusions are misleading, insight is lacking, or a combination thereof. I am considering writing short LinkedIn-style articles to narrate key developments that are faithful to reality and mindful of your time. Are you interested in reading one article a month on the topic? Check out the url to learn more and I would appreciate if you could spread the word - we need more people working on this stuff!!

<comment><USER2> certainly interested; will be spreading the word.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some more context - I am a biophysics PhD candidate and SIGF Bio-X fellow at Stanford. I have been working on deep learning for genomics with my advisor Anshul Kundaje since conception 2.5 years ago. A year later most of the lab was using deep learning for their research. Last fall we had the first Deep Learning for Genomics class at Stanford and 70-80 students took it. Next month, my advisor and my colleague Avanti Shrikumar will give talks at Nvidia's GTC conference on this topic (8000 people attending!), I will debut a 2-hour interactive presentation/workshop with Nvidia's Deep Learning Institute.

It's coming and we need to expand the field - my goal is to tell it like it is without wasting your time.</comment>


Startup entrepreneurs are 'arrogant and psychopathic' — Tech News and Analysis - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2011/12/09/startups-entrepreneurs-are-arrogant-and-psychopathic/ <comment><USER2> I think you would find subclinical psychopathy and related disorders among any sampling of the people humanity elevates to high leadership positions in any field: political, religious, economic, even academic.</comment>


Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight Blog Is to Join ESPN Staff - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/business/media/nate-silver-blogger-for-new-york-times-is-to-join-espn-staff.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Possible reasons for this move:

1) People only care about election handicapping every 4 (or 2) years in the US.

2) Nate Silver especially made political predictions look really easy (in comparison to the partisan clowns who populate cable news). The outcome you're trying to predict is how people will vote, and you're free to go and ask them how they will vote.

Compare to sports where (1) you have sporting events all the time and (2) you are trying to predict something that is much more uncertain. For someone who is in to sports, I could easily see that being much more interesting.

The counter to this is that politics is (arguably) more important, and is associated with more fame.

<comment><USER3> 3) Nate Silver really, really likes sports.

He got his start doing sabermetrics (statistics for baseball) and, after reading his book and his column, it honestly seems like he's a lot more passionate about sports than politics.

(I don't think this conflicts with your point about sports' immediacy and uncertainty.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did the NYTimes just break a story about one of their own employees leaving? The tone of the article is really interesting.

<comment><USER5> I've always thought this was an interesting dynamic too. The Boston Globe recently had a front page article about who is buying the Boston Globe: [http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/06/27/least-five- gr...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/06/27/least-five-groups- submit-bids-buy-the-boston-globe/SRZ5zPhO6cPwg4LlL9pGzK/story.html)

<comment><USER6> Each news organization is different. Bloomberg News editorial policy is to not cover anything involving the company -- even if a story appears in every other source, positive or negative, it's still off limits.

<comment><USER7> no wonder why mr.bloomberg never appears in their own billionaire list. makes the rankings inaccurate though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is fascinating. To out-hipster myself, I've been a BP subscriber since way back when Nate was famous for the PECOTA model - really bringing a comp engine to baseball to predict results / outcomes, etc etc. ESPN just seems strange for him, unless they threw a crazy amount of money - he loses out in brand prestige of going from NYT to them, so I have to assume the financials were a major factor.

<comment><USER9> I am also a longtime fan of his from his BP days. Here's to hoping ESPN makes great use of his skills. Buried as a contributor to a late night program seems, on the surface, like a situation ripe for underutilization of his talents.

<comment><USER8> What's funny is that back in the old BP days, you could still argue most of the interesting work in baseball / statistics was being done in the public domain working of standardized data sets - whether it was DIPS via Voros McCracken, or Tom Tango's work, or that of MGL / some of the early BP guys in the past few years. Now, since we're pretty good at capturing offensive value, the really interesting stuff is being done a) on the predictive side and b) on the defensive side. The latter in particular makes use of propeitary data sets like some of the Baseball Info Solutions stuff or Pitch FX's advanced DB's - making it harder for a young analyst who wants to break into baseball to pull a Voros. Moreover, ESPN can certainly afford those resources, but I doubt that the goal is going to be to do groundbreaking stuff anymore - I think it would be a role similar to Hollinger. But given the ESPN "analysts" (and I use the term loosely) consist of idiots like John Kruk, Silver's influence seems as if it will be limited.

McColin, are you an old Baseball Primer / BTF guy as well?

<comment><USER10> what are the best publicly available sources of baseball data?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I adore Nate Silvers work and the presentation for the NYTimes during the Presidential Elections was outstanding.

I do hope they bring him back for future major Elections. His commentary is a delightful respite from the ultra-polarized world of Reddit and Fox News.

<comment><USER12> > I do hope they bring him back for future major Elections. His commentary is > a delightful respite from the ultra-polarized world of Reddit and Fox News.

Funny you say that, as Reddit had majorly sided with Nate Silver way before election day. Almost every post of his was frontpaged when political campaigns were in full swing. It's also important to note that Fox News is not in the same category that Reddit is in. Fox News reports new findings, Reddit is a social bookmarking website.

<comment><USER13> > Funny you say that, as Reddit had majorly sided with Nate Silver way before > election day.

Be that as it may, Nate Silver is actually thoughtful, articulate, and well- reasoned - three words which do not describe /r/politics, etc.

It's not just a matter of which opinions one holds; it's a matter of how intelligently one expresses them and defends them with data and evidence.

(The irony with Reddit's love of FiveThirtyEight - and with the right-wing criticism of FiveThirtyEight being 'partisan' during the 2012 election cycle - is that Nate Silver is not himself an entirely left-wing person as much as people often thing. You'd have to dig pretty deep back into the archives of pre-NYT FiveThirtyEight to notice this, but he holds rather somewhat moderate or right-wing views on a number of issues).

<comment><USER14> I agree Silver is relatively moderate, but FiveThirtyEight did more or less grow out of DailyKos [1], so it's not a huge stretch to suggest he personally has a clear preference for one or the other side of the American political spectrum. It's not like he also had a blog on the right-wing equivalents of DailyKos, like FreeRepublic or RedState.

[1] For a year or so before he launched fivethirtyeight.com as an independent site, he posted data-driven election analysis, among other things, at [http://www.dailykos.com/blog/poblano](http://www.dailykos.com/blog/poblano)

<comment><USER15> It could also be because the Daily Kos' founder also cofounded SB Nation, one of the larger networks of sports blogs that are well regarded in the baseball analytics community, so it's likely that Silver had some connection/comfort with DailyKos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I'm sad that Nate Silver is leaving the Times (I work there), I'm also really excited to see what he's going to be able to do with all the sports data that ESPN has. I'm expecting incredible things to come.

<comment><USER17> To preface, this might sound snarky or sarcastic, but ignore that, this is not intended to be a rhetorical question:

What about the interpretation of sports data would qualify as "incredible things"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think that the folks questioning the reasoning/wisdom of Nate's move to ESPN are missing something ...

Think of this not as a deal with ESPN but a deal with Disney, the parent company.

It's not just Nate able to do more sports. Disney enables 538 to get its content onto multiple "channels" \- sports (ESPN), news (ABC), A&E - on cable, radio, books with much greater international exposure.

<comment><USER19> Exactly. Major elections arre infrequent. Nate got his start with sports. Let him do sports the majority of the time, but when elections come around, give him an outlet to do politics as well. Disney is a pefect fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Makes sense. As a political number cruncher, people are really only interested in your opinions once every four years. As a sports analyst, people care about what you write every day.

</comment><comment><USER21> ESPN has come a long way since 2012 Super Bowl production where they had Herm Edwards explaining the Patriots offense to 2 toddlers who couldn't stand in the same place for a second. It was probably the worst segment in ESPN history.

I really like this move though because lately a lot of ESPN women seemed to have moved to CBS or NBC ie Rachel Nichols, Erin Andrews, Michelle Beadle and I am sure more. Not that Nate Silver or Keith Olberman are women, but it definitely is aimed at the right audience and I look forward to this test run at 11 of what seems to be solid broadcasting.

On another note I think a Daily Show style program that brings in clips of announcers and ESPN and makes fun of them would be a great program. Just putting it out there.

<comment><USER3> During the NBA season, ESPN's commentary and analysis paled in comparison to TNT. I think this is partially by design -- the best analysts don't make for the biggest audiences -- but I think ESPN is understanding that the landscape is more competitive than they thought.

I'm looking forward to Silver working with Simmons. His column would fit it quite nicely at Grantland.

<comment> shawn-furyan I think Bill Simmons is entertaining, but I'm not sure that he's great to pair with a real statistician. He makes a million assertions a minute. I guess Simmons has done a decent job of interviewing statistical experts at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, but I think he's better by himself or with a group of guys that don't need verification to let his assertions stand in the conversation.

I do think that the Henry Abbott + John Hollinger[1] dynamic was good since Abbott is more of a curious amateur type and willing to withhold judgement until the facts come in. But if Silver is a baseball guy (some of the stuff that Silver's done on basketball isn't very good, I don't think he's really immersed in the sport), then I wouldn't necessarily expect the paths of those two guys to cross much.

[1] Though I have reservations about some of Hollinger's work, especially PER, which is just a linear weights metric with weights apparently chosen to coincide with conventional wisdom on the value of players. There are superior player evaluation metrics, but PER is very marketable to normal fans. Hollinger does seem to know his stuff though, and he's done a great job in Memphis thus far. It's just unfortunate that he got famous for a ho-hum metric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If Nate or anyone could program a statistically accurate sports predictor model there would be huge potential in this as far as sports betting goes.

The guys that make millions in large part use their own software.

I used a simple piece of hardware last year for college football season that was suprisingly accurate. I weighted my own opinion most heavily but would use the software to confirm my picks. If both ways checked out, I would place a bet.

Never had a losing week last year and would usually pocket a couple thousand in profit a week. Of course there was alot of lucky but a large part of my success was due to the statistical software I was using.

<comment><USER23> > If Nate or anyone could program a statistically accurate sports predictor > model there would be huge potential in this as far as sports betting goes.

Absolutely.

> The guys that make millions in large part use their own software.

I was fascinated reading about Bob Haralabos' incredible tracking of basketball games: [http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/4974/following- up...](http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/4974/following-up-with- haralabos-voulgaris)

> I used a simple piece of hardware last year for college football season that > was suprisingly accurate. I weighted my own opinion most heavily but would > use the software to confirm my picks. If both ways checked out, I would > place a bet.

Care to elaborate (without giving away your secret sauce?) I love reading about this stuff.

I try to approach soccer betting in a similar fashion (it's trickier than US sports in some ways, as soccer doesn't lend itself to stats as easily as say baseball and American football). See a comment of mine on reddit here, with tons of resources:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/SoccerBetting/comments/15dcao/what_v...](http://www.reddit.com/r/SoccerBetting/comments/15dcao/what_variables_do_you_consider_for_football/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting move. ESPN actually has a seemingly forward attitude to this sort of "technical" info in sports. They have a regular segment called "Sports Science" where they bring in athletes and hook them up to monitors and measure their output. Unfortunately, this just skims the surface in terms of the actual science since there are no write-ups or documentation on how the data was collected. Hopefully we can get some real stats in written form from Silver like we saw when he was at the NYT.

<comment><USER8> They really don't actually. The best stuff is from independent analysts, or guys like Fangraphs or Tom Tango or MGL. ESPN throws some lipservice to this crowd because some hard-core fans like myself are sabr-types, but the brunt of their coverage is aimed at the "DEREK JETER KNOWS HOW TO WIN BECAUSE HE's A VETERAN" Crowd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I find it a bit surprising that he chose the role of working in media over working for a sports organization. The Memphis Grizzlies recently hired John Hollinger, who was ESPN's resident statistician the past few years, as their VP of basketball operations. Nate Silver likely could have a found an even better job. Perhaps not with the ability to dedicate large swaths of time to analyzing politics, though.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think it's a waste of Nate Silver's intelligence to work on something like _sports_ , when there are many other bigger problems to potentially be solved with the help of statistics and prediction.

Why might ESPN be a good option for him? Can someone help me see the other side of this? It's totally his decision to make, and I'm sure he's looked at his options rationally, and life circumstances and past experience and etc. certainly play a big role, but I'm curious.

<comment><USER27> Nate Silver isn't some weird Neo like figure who strides alone dispensing Truth via a college-level understanding of statistics -- his brand of analysis is not unique or even particularly remarkable save that it is rare in the mainstream media.

Too, it's a bit rich to be badmouthing sports on _Hacker News_ , home of perhaps the most solipsistic conversations on the internet. Sports is a very important part of many people's lives; surely that alone lends it sufficient heft to be a defensible use of Silver's talent?

As for why, Silver got started in sabermetrics, and going back to working on sports stats is almost certainly because he likes it. And I imagine ESPN backed up the proverbial dump truck, too.

<comment><USER26> > _his brand of analysis is not unique or even particularly remarkable save > that it is rare in the mainstream media._

Ah, so he's good, but it _seems_ like he's doing something totally unique because of the bias that he gets mainstream media attention and most other statisticians don't?

> _Sports is a very important part of many people 's lives; surely that alone > lends it sufficient heft to be a defensible use of Silver's talent?_

Sure does.

<comment><USER28> Silver is very good at generating statistical analyses, as well as determining which set of stats matter and ignoring the ones that don't, imo.

It's the second skill that sets him apart from a run-of-the mill statistician.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Silver seems to fit in with the Grantland side of ESPN, but also seems too big for Grantland. It will be interesting to see how he fits in on that network, given his more complicated analysis. He never seemed nearly as compelling on TV as he was in writing and as a fan of his work, I hope his TV presense improves as a result of this new deal. I think he's certainly earned more than a blog at the NYT.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm less annoyed that Silver is going to work on trivial stuff and more annoyed that he's doing it for ESPN, who is doing everything possible to make sports coverage as dumb as possible.

I mean what the hell is Silver going to do there? Tell us the % of time Skip Bayless trolls about LeBron or the probability of Tebow related coverage in the upcoming SportsCenter?

</comment><comment><USER31> They used to say "Go West, young man", but today i think the wise ones are saying "Go Stats, young man/woman".

</comment><comment><USER32> If you were a sports geek and a numbers geek, wouldn't your dream job be more like ESPN rather than the NYT?

</comment><comment><USER33> I guess we'll see some major moneyball stuff from him?</comment>


Tips for THE WIFE: Investing in Art - <AUTHOR> http://www.taryncoxthewife.com/?p=14156

<comment><USER2> What kind of article is this? Pretty much everything that's wrong with the art scene in a trite little article.

<comment><USER3> For a second I thought satire. Nope.</comment></comment>


'We only hire the best' - I don't believe you - <AUTHOR> http://fragile.org.uk/2011/05/we-only-hire-the-best-i-dont-believe-you/ <comment><USER2> This "we only hire the best in [city name]" truly frustrates me and frankly it is such a big turn off for me. I've interviewed with a few of these, and when it comes to salary negotiation they always give the reason: "we really want you, but the number you give us would create disparity/inequity between the current employees."

Alright, let's look at the word "best." Is there anything better than best? Maybe bestest or most best? Come on, you CANNOT have a team of people where everyone is "the best." If you decided to make an offer to me, that means I am the best then? Everyone's best is different, therefore salary needs to be different for each "best." If I am the best, then what's the problem with me getting what I asked? If you want to give off the hype that you're a "big boy" company then back it up with real big boy money! But oh no, if you work for us, then that means you can use our "awesome" brand to sell yourself later. Like Google or Facebook.

This is exactly like the usual situations: "I have a great idea, could you make this web app for me for free or for 2 small bags of peanuts? It will be the BEST addition to your portfolio." Remember those people?

I know, it is negative. But I get so enraged sometimes thinking about this kind of cliche and messaging some new "startups" are using. If you want to hire the best, then pay top money. You're not Google--get over it!

<comment><USER3> There's definitely a hierarchy of bestness: <http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/monologues/14topgun.html>

Hopefully that will calm the well-founded rage.

<comment><USER2> "I don't imagine you have any questions, so I won't even ask. Good luck, gentlemen. I'll see you in the air. Class dismissed. "

Awesome!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm trying to think of what the phrase means to me:

"We only hire people with demonstrable (1) CS knowledge equivalent to a BS CS from a top5 school (2) a track record of productivity exceeding their peers in a challenging environment (name-brand internet co, vc-backed startup, etc)"

There are places that set the bar that high for some of their engineering groups (rarely all groups). I wonder what percentile this corresponds to.

Clarification edit: "CS knowledge equivalent" doesn't require actual degree.

<comment><USER5> "A BS CS from a top5 school" is not to be taken as a sign that the candidate can code his or her way out of a paper bag or solve trivial problems he or she has not encountered before.

<comment><USER6> I hear that. I've been doing a lot of interviewing lately and the typical caliber of your CS graduate is, um, abysmal, regardless of school.

One particularly alarming trend I've noticed: if you have a masters or PhD in CS as a straight-shot (i.e., no years working in between), odds are you have _no_ idea how to code, and no amount of extremely advanced theoretical CS knowledge is going to save you when you can't put together a for loop in less than 5 minutes. The worst part is that some of them seem to have been under the expectation that their advanced degree would allow them to skip ahead on the track, and the best we're willing to give them is a junior position not much better than what we'd give to a fresh undergrad with no experience.

Being insanely smart is not at all correlated with being insanely capable, it would seem.

<comment><USER7> _Being insanely smart is not at all correlated with being insanely capable, it would seem._

Sometimes, both seem to be correlated with being insane, strangely enough.

But seriously, all that's needed is about 50 tidbits of knowledge that could be given in one longish presentation, PLUS the ability to synthesize information and act on 2nd and 3rd order implications of the knowledge.

I once met a coder who had a PhD in Mathematics, and fancied herself a good Object Oriented coder. However, the module that she wrote had nothing but long class-side methods, entirely consisting of loops with multi-variable iterating indexes, recursively calling cut-and-paste slightly modified versions of themselves. (No, I am not making this up!) And, get this -- the multi-variable iteration, could be replaced with a short, simple loop putting judiciously written Objects into a Dictionary and taking them out again. (This was objectively demonstrated twice!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't count how many companies I've seen post jobs in the past month that use this bromide. It's getting a bit timeworn now. Do these companies really feel that using this phrase improves the quality of their hires?

<comment><USER9> I've been getting hit up by companies lately, and it's been a little bit of a put-off for me when they say things like that. Not because I think it's something bad for a company to want, but because I suffer from Impostor Syndrome sometimes, especially during interviews with recently-funded startups (despite the fact that people I have worked with tell me I am a very good coder).

It probably has something to do with the fact that on paper I know I look like a terrible candidate (not only am I not a Stanford graduate, I'm a high school dropout).

The problem is there isn't really a good way to quickly pre-screen candidates other than by looking at their credentials. Experience counts, but education seems to be more heavily-weighted in startups. You can pretty reliably tell if a candidate is good or not by going through their Github account, but it might be asking a lot to expect hiring managers to go through all of them.

<comment><USER10> "You can pretty reliably tell if a candidate is good or not by going through their Github account, but it might be asking a lot to expect hiring managers to go through all of them."

Well, a hiring manager's job is to find strong (best?) candidates to fulfill the company's needs. I suspect for development positions reviewing public code (github, sf, etc) when possible is going to yield better results than looking at what, if any, university someone went to.

"Well, not everyone has the ability to contribute to public projects!". Boo hoo - not everyone can afford to go to fancy universities either. Why is that a better criteria than reviewing the work of people who've made their work available for review? Because filtering based on university and stated experience is easier on the hiring manager? You're optimizing for the wrong results then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _A graders hire A graders, B graders hire C graders._

Apparently nobody hires B graders, so this can't be a problem.

<comment><USER12> The argument behind this statement is that "A players" are secure in their ability and want equal peers they can learn from, so they hire people as good as they are, while "B players" are fundamentally insecure and will hire "C players" who aren't really a challenge to them.

There are a million problems with this logic, but first among them is that A and B players know what they are and that their level of security (or insecurity) is equal to their actual ability. It's not really true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you have to say that you're hiring the best, you're not. Programmers may be less social than most, but word still gets around. If you're truly the best, you won't need to advertise that fact, programmers in the area will already know and will be beating a path to your door.

</comment><comment><USER14> Anyone using worn-out catch phrases in interviews is not "the best". Which means, they didn't hire "the best" recruiters to do their supposed hiring of "the best" for all other types of employees. Which means, they're liars.

</comment><comment><USER15> Agreed. The "best" is relative... likely based on perceived capability and anticipated compatibility within the existing culture of an organization.

I'm curious to know what assumptions are made that define "best". To me, I look for team dynamic as an indicator.</comment>


GM warns of potential battery degradation of up to 40% for Chevy Bolt EV - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2016/12/07/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-battery-degradation-up-to-40-warranty/ <comment><USER2> Tesla's battery warranty activates at 70% up to 8 years/infinite miles. Needless to say, the expectation is that the overwhelming majority of cars won't see that much battery loss, and in fact the observed average is 10% loss at 150,000 miles. (This number, and this theory, are both from the article; I'm adding in the 70% number based on what Tesla has been telling consumers who ask about the warranty.)

GM is probably playing out the same strategy: 40% is a loss rate that almost no Bolt owners will see.

</comment><comment><USER3> An important qualifier is not consistent with the tone of the title:

       ... within 8 years or 100,000 miles

20-40% as opposed to an expected 10-20%.

<But that's not what GM says you should expect. It's what is _covered by the warranty_. For comparison, Tesla warns that it does _not_ cover battery degradation from "battery usage" under its warranty...>

So, the content seems to counter to the clickbaity, negative-toned title.</comment>


Sewage could reveal true scale of coronavirus outbreak - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-sewage-could-reveal-true-scale-of-coronavirus-outbreak/ <comment><USER2> Before anyone goes collecting sewage samples, consider deriving your scaling factors from discrepencies in ICD-10 diagnostic encoding practices.

\- Stacked bar chart: [https://twitter.com/OccupyWallSt/status/1246478379064295425/...](https://twitter.com/OccupyWallSt/status/1246478379064295425/photo/1)

\- Govt data: [https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for- Coron...](https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus- Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb)

ICD-10 is really the heart of the matter. Earlier recommendations have asked doctors to encode corona death information using Pneumonia (J12.89) or Bronchitis (J20.8, J40) if positive test results are available, suffixed by B97.29 if authorized by the CDC to do so. We now appear to finally have the pneumonia encoded info thanks to NCHS. Hopefully govt will open source the bronchitis encoded reports too.

See also:

\- [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/ICD-10-CM-Official- Coding-...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/ICD-10-CM-Official-Coding- Gudance-Interim-Advice-coronavirus-feb-20-2020.pdf)

\- [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/ICD-10-CM- April-1-2020-add...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/ICD-10-CM- April-1-2020-addenda.pdf)

\- [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/COVID-19-guidelines- final....](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/COVID-19-guidelines-final.pdf)

<comment><USER3> What is the implication here? Is it that the number of pneumonia deaths is the real indication of covids prevalance?

<comment><USER2> We don't know yet. These numbers are still preliminary, but it helps us to understand better the impact of the workarounds that doctors have needed to use, to tell the CDC it's COVID, when the software does not yet have a button for COVID.

The good news from the recent report ([https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional- Death-Counts-for-Coron...](https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts- for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb)) is that __overall __mortality in America these past few months, has actually been lower than previous years. The bad news is that we should prepare for the possibilty that mortality for the new coronavirus specifically could turn out to be much worse than many non- official sources online have speculated, and that what 's happening in NYC is happening in a lot more places too. Correcting for software workarounds and verifying good accurate data takes time.

<comment><USER4> I expect 400k COVID-19 deaths in the US. Anything less than that is a major win. Anything less than the 2.2M is progress.

<comment><USER5> This is likely a gross overestimation. We're at 70k _worldwide_ deaths; turns out it's just not as bad as we were initially told.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Actual paper:

Presence of SARS-Coronavirus-2 in sewage / Medema, et al.

[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.29.20045880v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.29.20045880v1.full.pdf)

Check out Table 4.

<comment><USER7> Seeing papers like that, I really appreciate what tex did for scientific publishing. (Yes, I understand formatting was not their top concern right now)

<comment><USER8> Maybe, equally we have every idiot going to the useless John Hopkins site because it looks pretty.

I guess it's an arms game in part.

<comment><USER9> Thank you! At least someone understand my frustration. When I try to compare countries, it somehow manages to insert New York along with a few other US states as countries. He/She/They might be a good React/GraphQL ninja(s), but definitely skipped out on the ETL course.

<comment><USER10> Is this any more useful as a comparison? [http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/](http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting. That's also been done for recreational drugs. And artificial vanilla flavoring.

I wonder whether sampling from sewage pumping units could be done. That might produce higher resolution data. But getting representative samples would be harder. You'd probably need to take large samples, mix, and subsample.

<comment><USER12> Here's a recent wastewater analysis study showing the prevalence of several illegal drugs in Europe.

[http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/waste-water- analysis...](http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/waste-water-analysis_en)

<comment><USER13> > This report is focused on illicit stimulants. No results for cannabis are > reported because cannabis use is estimated by measuring its main metabolite > (THC-COOH), which is the only suitable biomarker found so far, but is > excreted in a low percentage. More research is needed to understand the > excretion percentage of THC-COOH or find alternative biomarkers (Causanilles > et al., 2017a).

this is the second sewage testing paper I've read today. Why are these so incredibly interesting and fun to read when compared to the other testing documents I've read haha.

<comment><USER14> It's a kind of hack on modern sanitation systems. It makes you realize that everyone is (literally!) leaking all sorts of information about what's in their bodies. You just need to know where to pick up that treasure trove of information. It tickles the hacker fantasies!

<comment><USER15> Here's a horrifying thought:

"Smart" toilet/sink/pipe + sewage testing = data

<comment><USER16> Reminds me of an old "Bastard Operator From Hell" story. [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/09/bofh_protecting_bod...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/09/bofh_protecting_bodily_waste/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ah yes, the quantified toilets joke from SIGCHI 2014 has come to unironic fruition:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/what- a-toilet-hoax-can-tell-us-about-the-future-of-surveillance/361408/)

It was meant as a prank, not an instruction manual.

</comment><comment><USER18> What a wonderful symmetry to the cholera outbreak in 1854 in London, where John Snow traced the sources to drinking water wells: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outb...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak)

<comment><USER19> Interesting that while Snow blamed germs, 'authorities' later blamed 'miasma' instead and ignored Snow. Once again, we learn from history that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been wondering about this. It would be especially interesting if, after we come out of lockdown, we could sample sewage at many points as the sewer comes together. You might be able for example to identify an infected block and then go around to give individual swabs to each resident if the block came up positive.

</comment><comment><USER18> This should also allow to monitor for mutations of the Covid 19, whereas it would be impractical to do at an individual level. It would give an early warning signal.

</comment><comment><USER21> There's a YC company [0] already doing this.

[0] [https://www.biobot.io/covid19](https://www.biobot.io/covid19)

<comment><USER22> STFC19aaS (Sewage Testing for COVID-19 as a Service)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Serious question: are there 'pandemics' we don't hear about because the virus doesn't hurt us? Are those outbreaks also studied?

<comment><USER24> If you mean animal flus that didn't cross over to humans then certainly. Some of them are in wild animals where we might not casually notice a drop unrelated to our activity, or in farm animals where the heavy use of antibiotics reduces the spread within some farms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm sure there are great reasons, but why is it that we can't detect the virus in wastewater at a personal level? Could this be a less invasive way to test for covid19?

<comment><USER26> There's an Adult Swim short about that: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ) :)

<comment><USER27> They just never took the Smartpipe bit to its conclusion. No punchline happened. Broomshakalaka, however, is masterclass.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Public statement from the Dutch CDC (RIVM) on this method:

[https://www.rivm.nl/node/153991](https://www.rivm.nl/node/153991)

</comment><comment><USER29> Maybe. Similar to drug testing an entire city using sewage.

</comment><comment><USER30> That is interesting. Do we now what the rate at which the virus dies in water?

<comment><USER31> You don't need live viruses, just their RNA.

<comment><USER32> ... so do we know how fast the RNA degrades in sewer conditions?

<comment><USER33> Slowly enough to not matter. Unless something is degrading it, RNA can last years.

<comment><USER13> I'm pretty sure ribonucleases are found everywhere (even in sewage) so if enough are present it would break down all RNA fast. RNases come from skin and dust, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Incidentally, we can also test sewage for drugs and then swat places where people consume drugs. How very helpful. It's just because we need to fight the virus!

</comment><comment><USER35> Except in areas without sewer</comment>


Ask HN: How Much Equity to Offer First Employee? - <AUTHOR>

Hello  everyone,
My first potential employee is a good friend of mine. I've been bootstrapping from his basement for a while now and he has been very helpful to me in general administrative terms. He is also a very good sales man (in his day job) so I've decided to bring him on board formally.
He raised a question recently about knowing how much equity is coming to him. Apparently his wife has been stressing and complaining about the amount of time he spends helping me out. :)
His role is principally going to be sales related. Cold calling, meeting clients, and hopefully closing sales of our software.
On my part, as the Founder, I wrote the software, invested  over $10000 of my cash, and raised over $40000 in debt from family to build the business and run the SaaS platform.
If you put yourself in my shoes. What would you think is an appropriate amount of equity is appropriate to offer him? Naturally, it will vest over 3-5 years.
Assuming the "employee pool" is 20%, and you still plan to hire more people and the business builds momentum, what would you offer? Or perhaps would you just offer him a commission on sales? or both? <comment><USER2> I'd offer only commission on sales (perhaps add in profit sharing if he'll do other work in addition to sales -- you don't want to penalize him for those parts of his job which do not involve selling), that way his performance will be rewarded directly. It's your company and the equity is yours. 100% It doesn't belong to someone you pay to work for you.

He might have been "very helpful", but he's not risking everything to build a business. He may have put in a few extra hours on the side here and there (and pay him for those if you'd like), but it really doesn't compare to the time and money you yourself have invested in the enterprise.

It's your company. You built it.

This fellow's blog (and particularly this post) may be helpful for your situation:

<http://nukemanbill.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks tom_rath.

That story is particularly apt in my case. The "sudden thrust" for equity seems to have come after we got a cold-call from two very large companies within the space of three days. But not to be a cynic, I plan to give him the benefit of doubt.

Perhaps I should give him two choices - work part-time (i.e. keep his day job) and get a commission on sales, or go full-time with no commission and get equity.

<comment><USER3> agree with tom_rath (upmodded). you shouldn't give out equity if you don't know the value of what the other party is bringing to the table. And if sales do not cover their own cost you are losing money having him work for you.

Also, never forget that issuing equity takes time and money for handling the lawyer, accountant, etc. It also significantly reduces your flexibility down the road if you need to reincorporate, transfer assets, etc. And it is easy for things to get messy if there are problems. You want to keep your organization as flexible as possible.

If I were in your shoes I'd offer an excellent commission on sales and give your friend an option to purchase equity in the company up to a set amount at some reasonable valuation. Treat your friend's required investment the same way you would treat an investor at this stage. If he helps the company grow your agreement becomes a very good deal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice. It is very much appreciated.

I like the idea of giving him an option. It aligns our interests and should look more tidy to other investors down the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hi ,

First find out your company's worth not just by the investment, 1\. go by your time & Effort & convert that into your investment amount, 2\. if you market it successfully assume it is successful. Identify the worth in terms of money

As you have mentioned that 20% for employees , that's good at least you have decided already.

In your situation , for the employee irrespective of part time or full time , determine the effort & work accomplished equivalent in the market. Based on that provide the equity for the resource. Usually Sales commissions are ranging from 2% to 15% as commission from the revenue generated out of that deal. Fix a base salary which is something like 50k if it is full time. And add the additional commissions of what ever the percentage you decide.

If you can't provide the base salary then think about provide equivalent equity in percentage terms with the condition of being with the company for at least 2-4 years.

Be aware that when you want to grow big , you need to go for real investors. You need to provide them big junk of equity. This is what I do. But feel free to contact me if you have some more guidance.

Thanks, Srini Centhala, firstname.lastname@example.com

My Blog <http://Srinicenthala.blogspot.com> Linked In : <http://www.linkedin.com/in/srinicenthala> My Company : www.absolut-e.com

</comment><comment><USER5> I asked that question at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=565045> which will probably be helpful. Also see the Equity Equation discussion at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35015>

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers. Much appreciated.</comment></comment>


Adult Neurogenesis – A Pointed Review - <AUTHOR> http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/04/04/adult-neurogenesis-a-pointed-review/ <comment><USER2> Last week a paper came out saying no adult neurogenesis. But I see today this paper came out:

[http://www.cell.com/cell-stem- cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)30...](http://www.cell.com/cell-stem- cell/fulltext/S1934-5909\(18\)30121-8)

It usually flips every month.

<comment><USER3> This is a critical comment that should be upvoted widely. The reason that this is such a difficult challenge is that the rate of adult hippocampal neurogenesis, even in rodents where everyone believes it happens, is on the order of between 1 neuron per minute and 1 neuron per hour. In a brain of 100 billion neurons, that's hard to detect.

<comment><USER4> The original SlateStarCodex post addresses this. He argues that a microscopic amount of neurogenesis that is too small to be responsible for the effects everyone cares about (depression, brain plasticity, etc.) should be rounded to zero.

<comment><USER5> It is entirely possible that the base-rate of neurogenesis in adult humans is very low, but in response to new stimuli (a new exercise regimen, for example) responds by generating neurons..Perhaps I am missing the information in one of the supplemental pages, but I do not see info on history of exercise or anti- depressant use in the Nature paper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Clearly humans care a lot about neurogenesis not just because understanding whether it happens in humans would be a stepping stone to building a robust model of how cognition happens, but also because intuitively it has to do with whether we can enhance our own mental abilities in our lifetime-- one of the most fervent desires of many, I'm sure.

We've already had to write off things like growth mindset as a way to increase our fluid intelligence, it seems. It is dismaying that, based on this study, we'll have to write off things like exercise as well which we now realize only work in rats. What's left that could plausibly help? Perhaps just: building better work and study habits and simply spending more time on mental tasks. At least we're pretty sure those aren't illusory.

<comment><USER7> I recommend practicing memory palace techniques if you really want a brain work out. Storing sets of information, retrieving them, and replacing them is intensely exhausting. You know you're getting a brain work out. I try and memorize one deck of cards every day at a minimum. After a bit of practice, you'll have laser focus. Not so sure about whether this promotes neurogenesis though. Does anybody have any resources on this?

<comment><USER8> I don't, but please tell us more about the spillover effects based on your subjective experience. This sounds like something I would try but I'd like to hear more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fun article. Best line: "if we want to believe something, it will accrete a protective layer of positive studies whether it's true or not."

</comment><comment><USER10> I've wondered for a long time if stem cell therapy could, for example, cure my amblyopia — though it hardly seems worth the cancer risk. This very surprising news is a data point in favor of that kind of thing.

It's also a kind of data point that we really need to improve science a lot in order to be able to advance as a civilization.

(Amblyopia is due to anomalous neural development caused by, more or less, early childhood early sensory deprivation from one eye. The result is a lifelong lack of visual competence in that eye — it may focus perfectly, as mine does, but recognition is poor, apparently because perception of Gabors at certain spatial frequencies is very poor. I say "more or less" because the eye is still providing sensory input, but because it's pointing in the wrong direction, that input isn't useful.)

<comment><USER11> This is more speculative than anything: have you tried eye-patching the good eye to force your brain into being trained to use the bad one? Specifically for a long period of time (months).

<comment><USER10> Yes, I did that 12 hours a day for five years in my early childhood, starting at 2 years old. Before that, I couldn't see out of my left eye at all.

<comment><USER11> I wonder if you would have better results if you did it 100% of the time. I wonder if training was hindered simply because other neural pathways would still "win" after the 12 hours each day. But all of this speculation is centered around neural growth and formation - I have no idea what could have happened because of lack of use during development (ie. atrophy, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While this comes to the right conclusion I think it mistraces a lot of the issues. For example: a fair amount of the depression and neurogenesis studies (and indeed neurogenesis manipulation studies) suffered from the same issue: it's really hard to make a population of cells die without generally poisioning the remaining cells. Most of the initial studies relied on things like radiation, ie radiate a rat and it starts acting depressed. There is now increasing evidence that radiation kills off a bunch of synapses and causes some wicked disregualtion across the system so that turned out to be wrong. Conversely BDNF enhances neurogenesis but it also enhances synaptic learning so even positive manipulations had this issue but in reverse. Newer timed genetic manipulation studies were more precise but the depression-neurogenesis link has been slowly losing steam in light of these studies.

But the BIG issue boils down to this: there was never strong evidence for the importance of neurogenesis. The dentate gyrus is a tiny region of the brain with neurons that act in unusual ways. In humans it's an even tinier region. While it is probably required, at least as a pass through, to learn new memories, it's surprising how much weight people were placing on neurogenesis in this tiny tiny structure. Given, networks can make small zones have big effects, but the weight of evidence should have always been on people pushing the area to prove the dentate was this massively important structure. This has not been conclusively done (studies have linked it to some specific subtypes of learning but those have limited it as much as they have found an important role for it). This is a structural issue in science broadly, there is an incentive to push forward with the next big finding but no incentive to go back and confirm the gulf of assumptions that a literature is resting on.

The good news is, human brains could always change, synaptic plasticity is present throughout life and has been shown by many good studies to occur throughout adulthood. We don't need new cells in a tiny part of the brain to learn new things, networks rewire and while that rewiring isn't something as dramatic as new cells, small effects can lead to big outcomes in dynamic systems. People obviously make new habits, learn new skills, and make new memories throughout life. The onus should have always been on science to show why it occurs, not to lend credibility that it occurs.

</comment><comment><USER13> A recent study[0] seems to provide meaningful evidence that while adult neurogenesis occurs in rats, rabbits and some other species, as mentioned in the research referred to by the OP, it does not actually occur in humans. I'm not claiming to know the truth on this, but I thought this research should be part of the discussion.

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/do- adult...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/do-adult-brains- make-new-neurons-a-contentious-new-study-says-no/555026/)

<comment><USER13> Oh wow, thank you so much for filling me in. I didn't read the whole thing because it was quoting a lot of animal studies, which I knew were questionable in light of the adult human research, and I was aware of no reason to expect the turnaround in part 2! :) You were very kind about it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time!</comment></comment>


Scientists create metamaterial that can absorb light completely and turn it into heat - <AUTHOR> http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0805&RELTYPE=MS&PRODCODE=000000&PRODLETT=NF&CommonCount=0 <comment><USER2> This is cool. Anything that will help us convert light (particularly from the sun) into a more directly usable form of energy should be a good thing.

<comment><USER3> Funny, and there I was thinking most people were trying to figure out ways to convert (waste) heat into something useful.

Heat's not that incredibly useful. Particularly when you consider that, according to black body radiation laws, a body will emit exactly as much as it absorbs.

So, this might be useful to get an object to reach room temperature really quickly.

<comment><USER4> Minor nitpick: it's not true that "a body will emit exactly as much as it absorbs" in general. That's only true once it reaches some equilibrium temperature, which may not be room temperature. If you stick a room- temperature metal sheet outside on a sunny day, it will heat up until it reaches a steady state where the rate of heat absorption is equal to the rate of heat dissipation -- this can be significantly higher than room temperature, which is why pieces of metal outside on a hot day are really really hot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let me start by getting the "none more black" joke out of the way.

Anyway, this is kinda neat (though I'm skeptical that it's really 100% absorption) but not really all that useful for anything, as far as I can tell. There aren't many applications where the difference between absorbing 99.9% of the light and 99.99999999999999999% of the light is a particularly big deal, as far as I know.

<comment><USER5> It only absorbs over a narrow, tunable, frequency range. That won't make it black. Personally I was disappointed when I saw they could take a picture of it.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I had assumed that was an electron micrograph. But you're right, now I come to read the article again it only works over a narrow frequency range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh, oh, I know this one! I learned this as a kid with a magnifying glass. "Ants"

</comment><comment><USER7> Now if only we could completely turn heat into light. Wouldn't that make for a interesting heatsink on a computer?

I forsee: Oh man, my computer is too bright

</comment><comment><USER8> One step closer to creating a Dyson Sphere (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere>)!!</comment>


Anyone want to create a startup? - <AUTHOR>

Hello folks..
Like the title says, I'm in the search of a partner who want to build a product with me.
I'm really interested on cloud stuff, HTML5 games, Ruby, Node.js, and NOSQL datastores.
So if you are looking for someone to help you with your project or want to hear my projects drop me a comment or a pm. <comment> saiko-chriskun <http://builditwith.me>

also if you wanna shoot me your project ideas I wouldn't mind listenin' ;)

</comment><comment><USER2> I am 'Kapil Agarwal'.Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com. We both can exchange ideas. I've few unexplored ideas.

<comment><USER3> Contact me @ firstname.lastname@example.com, you won't regret. I'm into the same stuff, let's talk? :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://techcofounder.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice! thanks dangrossman.</comment></comment>


JS/CSS iPhone Spinning Wheel Selector Widget - <AUTHOR> http://iphoneized.com/?p=326 <comment><USER2> I was asking for something like this in #startups a week or two ago. I found this as a possible solution, but unfortunately, it only works on mobile safari. Would be great if there was a cross-platform version available.

I posted a question about this on StackOverflow a while back if anyone is interested. I'm going to end up coding my own solution, but I likely wont start for a few weeks. I have a lot on the table right now.

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/652857/iphone-like- slot-m...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/652857/iphone-like-slot-machine- picker-select-box-for-the-web)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is nice looking. On the computer, this would be a shitty UI, but on a phone it seems quite usable.

One quibble:

 _You cannot have more than one picker at a time, so the SpinningWheel object is unique and it is created as soon as you include the JS file._

This bothers me. You are missing the point of object-oriented programming if you can only have exactly one of something.</comment>


Machine Learning Christmas Calendar - <AUTHOR> https://ml.christmas/ <comment> na-zdrowie I think that "Christmas Calendar" is a bit of a misnomer. To be precise, this is a variation on the tradition of the "Advent Calendar". Advent is the time of preparation for Christmas. Clearly the authors of the Calendar understand this, based on the graphic under day "1" :)

Edit: on second thought, i guess you've meant "Machine Learning Christmas" Calendar. That's fine. It just bothers me a bit that in the US people forget about Advent.

<comment><USER2> In Norwegian we use the terms "Christmas calendar" and "Advent calendar" (translated directly) interchangeably. This i probably why some of the calendars (under the [https://bekk.christmas](https://bekk.christmas) umbrella) are using the term incorrectly

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looking forward to more posts. Hoping for a post about GANs!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll forward your request to the authors!</comment></comment>


The Inspection Paradox is Everywhere: a surprising statistical illusion - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/the-inspection-paradox-is-everywhere-2ef1c2e9d709?source=friends_link&sk=a38a2925e44f481d27e5b2452128716a <comment><USER2> Missing the weirdest one, which I sadly can't find on the net right now because I lost the name:

What's the average population size of alien planets when you are one in 7 billion having this question.

I don't quite get it together but it had 2 interesting problems:

\- It allows for a prediction with a simple size of just 1 which differed from said sample

\- it's debatable if we should calculate with 7 billion humans or one globalized "intelligent" race

If anyone could point me to a source to this I'd be happy :)

also related: the german tank problem [https://www.eadan.net/blog/german-tank- problem/](https://www.eadan.net/blog/german-tank-problem/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is somewhat eye opening to me, in the same way that Miller and Sunurjo's work was.

> _In other words, selecting which part of the data to analyze based on > information regarding where streaks are located within the data, restricts > your choice, and changes the odds._ [0]

I'm not particularly great at statistics, so I fall trap to a lot of these kinds of misconceptions. I appreciate articles like this getting shared, it's incredibly interesting.

[0]: [https://jasoncollins.blog/2018/06/28/explaining-the-hoACt- ha...](https://jasoncollins.blog/2018/06/28/explaining-the-hoACt-hand-fallacy- fallacy/)

<comment><USER4> Working link [https://jasoncollins.blog/2018/06/28/explaining-the-hot- hand...](https://jasoncollins.blog/2018/06/28/explaining-the-hot-hand-fallacy- fallacy/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting article, especially when you think about public polling (political or otherwise). Polling data is going to be heavily biased with people who are willing and have the time to be polled, which may be vastly different than the audience you are trying to model. Seems like the author is talking specifically about something a little more quantitative, but to the general point about these kinds of samples being biased in ways that aren't obvious at first, it has something in common.</comment>


Ask YC: What's the YC protocol for submitting to multiple VC? - <AUTHOR>

How is this handled when one is looking for seed funding.  Does one submitt to one funder at a time and wait or what? <comment><USER2> no! multithread. you always want to create competition for your deal. it is very likely some sources of funding will say no, and the way to get good terms from the others is to have multiple offers. YC is slightly different, in that the terms are set, but still.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't speak to YC specifically, but one normally would want to contact many investors in parallel. The chance of receiving funding from any one investor is incredibly low. If you contact them serially, you'll spend a hopelessly long amount of time raising money. Likewise, if multiple investors are interested in your company, they may jointly invest, which is somewhat common. Plus, you can use the competition to establish the fair market price of your stock.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't understand what you mean by YC protocol. Are you asking what we advise startups we've funded to do when approaching investors for further funding?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes.

<comment><USER4> Approach many in parallel.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Dear universe - <AUTHOR> https://martijnbrekelmans.com/dear-universe.php <comment><USER2> I like those kind of questions, some books made me find a personal way to mean at it: I would like to post just what was inherent. I'm agree that so often there is a lot of talk and a whole connected World, but not so many real comunication, between persons. The books I've read explain (you can take it as a "sci-fi") how the soul, to discover itself, needed to create a "mirror", so as like dualism is everywere, and it's were we loose ourself so often, but it was the only way, as "to be or not to be". Anything "is" so made just for/from the soul, to take the opportunity to make the "experience", and to become from consciousness, awareness. And we are the humans, a container made for it, that's not so little to spend thinking on left or right, and any duality. The books explains also how persons perceive the colors different, or as like also women and men perceive things on a different mood. [https://alienabductionsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/the-...](https://alienabductionsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/the- matrix-point-of-light-tr-a-z.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> I ask questions like this. Usually people just get annoyed or tell me I'm crazy.

I like what you said about emotions. There's this idea that we should "control our emotions". Sorry, but it isn't that simple. Why would we have emotions evolutionarily if they aren't beneficial?</comment>


Ask HN: GoF Design Patterns and Dynamic Languages - <AUTHOR>

Hello - Excuse me if this question is elementary, but it is something that I would like to get a better understanding about in order to be able to code more properly/etc.
If I understand correctly, the GoF Design Patterns were originally created to address some limitations with the object oriented approach used by Java at the time (Please correct me if I am mistaken).
Is it true that dynamic languages address this limitation to some extent and thereby reduce or eliminate the need for the use of some of these patterns?
Specifically, my questions are: * In a language like Ruby for example, do you find yourself using GoF patterns or does the fact that the language has functional aspects/duck-typing/etc. reduce/eliminate the need to use these patterns? * If the above is true, are there new patterns that you find yourself using? * If one is starting with dynamic languages today, is learning/mastering these GoF patterns still a requirement?
My intention of course is not at all to create an argument about this topic, but rather to learn how to best approach learning programming now in 2012, specifically with dynamic languages in mind (Such as Ruby and CoffeeScript, for example).
Furthermore, I am not a CS student and have been teaching myself programming over the years (Started out with scripting for system admin purposes but gradually became interested in programming/development itself).  Being self-taught has its virtues and limitations.  One such limitation perhaps is the fact that I may have missed out on some of the important teachings such as these GoF patterns in a classroom setting/etc.
Thank you for your time. <comment><USER2> This is a good question, but the specific answer to it is unfortunately very short: if you're writing Ruby, using GoF patterns is non-idiomatic.

In parts this is because, as Norvig points out†, many GoF patterns are obviated by basic features of the language, like first-class class variables.

In parts this is because those features and others change the way you design programs in Ruby. It's less common to build complex pipelines of carefully layered objects in Ruby than it is to implement (for instance) DSL's.

And finally, in parts its because the "GoF patterns" are themselves a misconception about pattern-oriented programming. Often when we talk about "idioms" in a particular language, we're often just talking about patterns- by- another- name. When the Github guys write Unicorn to do concurrency and process management "the Unix way", they're dealing in patterns that Schmidt and the OOPSLA/distributed systems people hammered out 10-15 years ago. There's a lot of work that's fallen out of fashion that we're inevitably going to rediscover.

† <http://norvig.com/design-patterns/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll take a shot at answering, but you should know that people disagree about this.

The GoF patterns predate Java. They came out of a "software patterns" movement, inspired by Christopher Alexander's beautiful _A Pattern Language_ about how to make great buildings, to capture various problems that come up frequently in software design and formulate standard solutions to them. The hope was that this would lead to a body of engineering knowledge that people could learn software design from, instead of everyone having to figure this stuff out on their own or (at best) from oral tradition. Also, the idea was to provide a standard vocabulary for common constructs, so for example instead of me saying "wrap" and you saying "delegate to" we would both say "decorate".

But it didn't work. Software patterns turned out to be at just the wrong level of abstraction: too generic to be applied directly to real problems and too specific to be good as principles. They confuse inexperienced programmers who are told that good code makes use of patterns and so try to find ways to organize their programs around them. That is disastrous: you get a bunch of abstractions in your code that are not there because of the problem you're trying to solve, but because of preconceived ideas about what good code looks like. What's particularly bad is that the patterns are seductive: they seem to make sense when you read them, but as soon as you get to your concrete problem, it's hard to see how to apply them. If you're inexperienced, you blame yourself and think you're doing it wrong, when what you ought to do is reject the abstraction as not fitting.

People who like software patterns will say that of course you're supposed to apply the patterns appropriately, not mechanically. But this leaves you trapped in a circle. If learning the patterns themselves doesn't teach you how to make good code with them, what's the point of learning them, and how _do_ you get good at software design?

People who dislike software patterns add that in many cases, the patterns amount to mere code repetition, caused by the fact that a given programming language isn't powerful enough to get rid of the repetition, and that the solution is not (in PG's memorable phrase) to be a human compiler but rather to just use a more powerful language.

In my opinion, you'd be much better off just writing real programs to solve interesting problems. No one has a good general theory of programming. What you want is practice. Learning patterns will fill your head with a lot of abstract gobbledygook without telling you which bits are useful in specific cases. Don't start with a solution or a set of solutions in mind; always start from and return to the problem itself. It will tell you what to do, or at least what to try. Your job is to try those things and see which ones fit - they are the ones that solve part of the problem without adding extrinsic complexity.

Learn your language well. Learn more than one language. Read other people's code, especially by anyone you think is particularly good. Finally, when you write a program, think hard about whether you could do it more simply: that, over time, is the royal road to good software design.

And if you want to get stronger in CS, avoid software patterns and software process and most of what's called software engineering, and just learn more about the classics, like algorithms, data structures, operating systems, compilers.

<comment><USER2> This is all true, but if you haven't read Schmidt's patterns of distributed/concurrent systems, and you keep an open mind, you might find the approach has more value; "Abstract Factory" did more harm than good, but "Half Sync/Half Async" is pretty good stuff.

<comment><USER3> That may well be true. My concerns are primarily pedagogical.

I took a quick look at the work you mentioned and most of it seems to be considerably higher-level than the GoF patterns. Somewhat counterintuitively, that makes it less abstract. (Example chosen at random: <http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/lf.pdf>) That's a good thing. It means there's more meat on the bones. The kind of patterns I'm critiquing are the one-level-up-from-language-constructs kind, which (I guess we agree) are different.

There seem to be some good papers in that collection. I might even forgive them the UML!</comment></comment></comment>


Thinking beyond a solely anthropocentric view of the earth - <AUTHOR> http://barefootmuse.wordpress.com/

<comment><USER2> The first diagram in the "Ego/Nature" diagram is in fact the correct one.

Humans are the pinnacle of the food chain. Our evolution has made us into the ultimate predator.

Hunting is a great thing. It preserves the environment, lets our prey animals lead a natural life until harvest (as opposed to farm animals which lead cruel, unnatural and confined lives until harvest). Hunting has led to vast stretches of Africa being preserved and protected instead of exploited and destroyed as habitat. Embrace it. :-)</comment>


The great coffee breakthrough - <AUTHOR> http://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2013/06/06/the-great-coffee-breakthrough/ <comment><USER2> Seems the sight is already suffering from a KoD, internet archive here: [http://web.archive.org/web/20170507192155/http://www.insight...](http://web.archive.org/web/20170507192155/http://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2013/06/06/the- great-coffee-breakthrough/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This idea is being used in the UK in quality improvement projects. One such is from the Q community who call theirs "Randomised Coffee Trials".

[http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/randomised- cof...](http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/randomised-coffee- trials)

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://www2.mrc- lmb.cam.ac.uk/archive/articles/The_great_cof...](http://www2.mrc- lmb.cam.ac.uk/archive/articles/The_great_coffee_breakthrough%20.pdf)</comment>


The MIT style in Artificial Intelligence 1958 – 1985 - <AUTHOR> http://vanemden.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/the-mit-style-in-artificial-intelligence-1958-%E2%80%93-1985/

<comment><USER2> I recently read both volumes of "Artificial Intelligence -- An MIT Perspective", which is a great view of the high-water mark of the MIT AI Lab. This two-volume set, put together between 78-81 is a review and collection of papers showing off the current state of the art in the AI Lab's work in five areas:

* Computer Learning

* Natural Language Processing

* Computer Vision

* Manipulation Technology

* Programming Languages (including short versions of GLS's thesis on CPS compilation for Scheme and Carl Hewitt's ACTORs paper, and a review-and-outlook paper on the development of the MIT Lisp Machine, among others)

Along with introductory comments by Patrick Henry Winston and Richard Brown, the set includes papers by Marvin Minsky, Gerald Sussman, BKP Horn, Jon Doyle, Richard Stallman, GLS, Hewitt, and more.

Taken in total, the collection shows how the world of AI looked from MIT goint into the eighties, before the boom and the bust which followed.

Now, you can get each volume for $1.00 on AbeBooks. Sic transit gloria mundi...</comment>


Free book on probability and statistics with R - <AUTHOR> http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2010/07/a-free-book-on-probability-and-statistics-with-r.html <comment><USER2> Lavine's "Introduction to Statistical Thought" provided me with a great introduction to using R. The free text is available on his website: <http://www.math.umass.edu/~lavine/Book/book.html></comment>


My curated content shortlist for leaders - rea-and https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6680348783143919616-2qGj <comment><AUTHOR> You should probably add this to your list,

"Building Secure and Reliable Systems - Best Practices for Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Systems" by Heather Adkins, Betsy Beyer, Paul Blankinship, Piotr Lewandowski, Ana Oprea, and Adam Stubblefield. One of must read books for young SRE's</comment>


A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html <comment><USER2> There's no such thing as intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly that the public gives to an author in exchange for an author enriching the public with his works. If the public is never to enjoy the full enrichment that comes from the work (such as being able to use it for the basis of other stories, the way we do with Shakespeare), then the intent of copyright is being perverted.

</comment><comment><USER3> "No one except perhaps Hamilton or Franklin might have imagined that services and intellectual property would become primary fields of endeavor and the chief engines of the economy."

What bullshit. Ideas already were the "chief engines" in their time, a somewhat famous period called the "Industrial Revolution". The crown forbade the transfer of manufacturing knowledge, textile mill plans, etc, on pain of death. The Colonies were forced to sell raw materials cheap and buy manufactured goods dear.

The author also conflates the problem of publishing cartels with copyright, jangling an image of the poor starving writer brutalized by the pinko copyleft junta. He gives it away: the author gets 10% of sales while the publisher gets 50%. Who, then, is to benefit most from unlimited copyright? Why should we worry about the yachts of the writer's grandchildren when the writer is being robbed blind in his own lifetime?

<comment><USER4> I was thinking along the same lines. The whole argument reads like one of those anti-piracy commercials we see before movie previews... think of the poor starving artist! (Don't think about the reason he is starving, which is that the publishers/labels/studios reap most of the profits for themselves.)

He also seems to think that copyright only applies to the world of books. This is probably natural because the guy is an author, but copyright has been expanded to include so much that infinite copyright terms would grant dynastic control of almost all media and culture.

I would like to point out however that the point is moot. Every time Disney comes close to letting Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain, they successfully lobby congress for an extension to copyright terms. So, as far as we can tell, the terms are already infinite, because I don't see Congress saying no anytime soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> \- Once a copyright expires, the physical medium encoding the work (book, CD, etc...) becomes a commodity, which anyone can replicate. Under good competition, the profit from selling those should be very small. Even moreso in the digital age.

\- The article complains a lot that everything is inherited, except IP protection. One can look at it in the opposite direction: these days, many rich people are coming out against inherited wealth. Taxing it to a larger extent than normal would make sense, from a mechanism design point of view. My guess is that this cannot be done effectively; people would just start giving away their property to their children before dying, escaping the "death tax". Copyrights are easier to take away, because they have a natural owner.

<comment><USER6> Good points both. Arguments like the article's sound plausible because copyright law is currently weirdly implemented. What is so special about the creator's death? Assign copyright for a fixed duration from publication, just like patents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Copyrights and patents don't exist to protect their inventor. They provide an incentive for people to create IP, which is beneficial to society. Extending IP rights tends to increase the incentive. On the other hand, works in the public domain are sources of wealth in their own right (esp. patents). Thus, there is a critical amount of protection X, where society is best served. X varies with the field, technological status, and other things.

The inventor's well-being is only a side-effect of this optimization problem. The same argument applies against claims that taxes "steal" from people. It's all just a big incentive structure. Nothing personal.

<comment><USER7> _Extending IP rights tends to increase the incentive._

Maybe, although I'd argue that shortening "IP" rights creatives more incentive. If your cash cow only lives for so long, you might be more motivated to make more cows.

Also, incentive for the author only exists when the copyright/patent is held by the author, and while he's alive. Our copyright laws allow copyrights to be "purchased" and bequeathed (no such allowance in the consitution), and held long after the author's death. Charles Schultz is never going to create a new Snoopy. Why is his copyright still valid?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but Charles Schultz could sell his copyright for more money because the new holder knew that it would still be valid for a long time.

Though, there might be a case to be made that we'd all be better off if copyrights could not be sold, only licensed for short periods.

I think the point here is that it's a complex problem, and the article does nothing to represent that.

<comment><USER7> You're right: complex problem. My real point is that the authors of the Constitution thought they'd settled it. The 1st ammendment says that freedom of expression cannot be denied. Copyright law says "ok, temporarily, this expressed idea is off the table, so that the author will make more."

Schultz could sell his copyright for more money, sure. But how does that benefit anyone else? He was already given the right to publicize Snoopy -- a right that not all societies enjoy. In exchange, he would have to realize that his monopoly was short-lived.

The way Jefferson saw it, once an idea is expressed, it's not just yours anymore -- it's in my head, too. Obviously you don't own what's in my head. So with copyright laws, we're saying that the 1st ammendment does not apply, temporarily: you may know the song, but you can't sing it, even though we've now taken away your freedom of expression. That can only be short-lived, or we may as well withdraw the 1st ammendment. And it's not as if Schultz created Snoopy in a vacuum; he was influenced by other comic strip artists, and he certainly did not invent the form. Did he owe them money? Did he owe society money for allowing him to blast his drawings out to us without explicit permission?

(I've always wanted to say something to Lars from Metallica. During the Napster thing, he said, "They didn't even _ask_ us. They just took our songs." To which I'd say, "yeah, Lars, but you never even asked _me_ before you made your crap songs impossible for me to avoid. If I leave my house, there's your shitty music. And you never even asked." There are two sides to this coin, and it's remarkably convenient for copyright "owners" to forget that.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> OK, let's get rid of copyright and instead require individuals wanting some protection for their works to publish under Creative Commons Licenses.

Copyright can't be forever because it's too restrictive. Information wants to be free.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't see why copyright should extend past the life of the creator.

<comment><USER10> Well, if you have a big company where the main asset is some copyrighted material and the creator suddenly dies, that company might suddenly lose a lot of revenue possibly affecting the life of a large number of people. (Of course, you might say, that's business and it just means that another large number of people now have a new business opportunity.)

I think the current life+70 years is wrong, but I think the expiry should be predictable some time in advance. Like X years from the time of creation.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is quite a provacative article. I don't think I agree with its conclusions, but still an insightful read.

<comment><USER11> You've got to be kidding. "No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property"? The writer has put hardly any thought into it at all. There's no insight here; just shallow, selfish thinking.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought it would make for good discussion. Seems I was right :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's amazing how poorly people can use reason. The author is a good example. He feels that if he can make an analogy -- however strained it might be -- that he has won his point.

Obviously he's wrong. An idea is not physical property. He gives a passing nod to the founding fathers but fails to mention any part of the debate that led to the copyright/patent clause. Jefferson, for one, says that it is ridiculous to treat an idea as if it existed in the physical world. That's why they settled for "limited monopoly" -- because they recognized that you can only live in a fantasy world for so long.

I guess if I had to answer this guy directly -- the question posed in his headline -- I might say:

Great ideas do _not_ live forever. They need to evolve and have the benefit of other minds to hack at them, to improve them. Ask Walt Disney. He took the ideas in the stories of the Brothers Grimm -- horrifying stories, if you've ever read them -- and made them new, as well as palatable. Every idea has its time, and its author does deserve a short monopoly as a congratulations. Then it's others' turn. And in my book, that limited time is very, very short: perhaps five years, perhaps even less.

Ideas benefit from hacking. If we want to stifle creativity and innovation, we should freeze them in time with laws. If our aim is the opposite, then we should consider giving them lives of their own. You're right: ideas _live_. But things can only live if you are willing to give them freedom.</comment>


Simplest live chat widget on the planet - <AUTHOR> https://keyreply.com/chat/ <comment><AUTHOR> A chat support widget built around URL Schemes. Good for small business and personal website owners.

[https://www.producthunt.com/tech/chat-by- keyreply](https://www.producthunt.com/tech/chat-by-keyreply)</comment>


Simulating visual artifacts with Fourier optics - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sigfpe.com/2011/06/simulating-visual-artifacts-with.html

<comment><USER2> I'm sure this is very good but I'd much rather have a formula for the main artifacts - the actual radial spikes, instead of the minor horizontal pattern.</comment>


Student Sentenced to 3 Years in Jail for 3D Printing Gun - <AUTHOR> https://all3dp.com/4/student-sentenced-to-3-years-in-jail-for-3d-printing-gun <comment><USER2> Cool, it's amazing that consumer 3D printing has come so far! I remember when you'd be a fool to hang your coat on anything 3D printed.

I was wondering the other day if anyone was 3D printing guitar bracing; I think it could lend to really interesting tone.

Re the topic: any fool with some machine tools can make a functioning handgun; this is only news because it's 3D printer related. If anything, it is easier to make an open bolt submachine gun than an ordinary handgun.

</comment><comment><USER3> > But, his internet search history showed he was looking for steel tubing

Hello Google</comment>


The Awesomeness of a Hackathon - <AUTHOR> http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/03/the-awesomeness-of-a-hackathon.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FeldThoughts+%28Feld+Thoughts%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> I totally agree. Having been part of 4 in Chicago in the last 6 months, I am amazed at the stuff that comes out of these things. Currently I'm trying to sell the idea of having a hackathon at the company I work for. Anything not client related is usually an uphill battle here, but hackathon as drivers of new features, products and innovation is becoming increasing hard to ignore.</comment>