Advanced PHP Tips Revisited - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/03/24/10-useful-php-tips-revisited/

<comment><USER2> I wonder if the original intent of posting was to be helpful or for mockery. My second language to learn was PHP, perl being the first, and I have since moved on. I probably asked,( myself/google not others,) similar questions the article covers. But the fact that articles like this continue to be titled "Advanced..." is a hint to where the language and community are as a whole. I think the bigger issue is a commingling of subjects. If your intent is to learn PHP, learn programming with PHP as a language. If your intent is to learn web development, learn web development in terms of available technologies, industry standards, and best practices. A lot of the articles content is laughable not because it is common sense PHP, but common sense programming/web development. PHP != Web... or is that PHP !== Web?

</comment><comment><USER3> Short summary:

1\. Validate/clean input. Preferably store data in 3 arrays to ensure separation of input, cleaned data and cleaned data to be used with sql. Or cleaned data to be used with prepared sql-statements. Uhm yes.

2\. The PHP type-system is retarded and can return integers treated as boolean false. Compare against !== FALSE when 0 is a valid return value from whatever function you just called, instead of simply checking the return value.

3a. The PHP runtime is retarded and wont choke if you refer to unexisting or unitialized variables. Initialize variables.

3b. Shortcuts which saves you a few keystrokes can result in poor maintainability. Use braces.

3c. Write readable (not "smart") code.

4a. Shortcuts which saves you a few keystrokes can result in poor maintainability. Use braces.

4b. Be consistent.

5\. Use simple replace-functions when you don't need full regexp.

6\. The ternary-operator is advanced & confusing. We recommend against using it.

7\. Caching might improve performance.

8\. Frameworks exists. You may or may not use them.

9\. Writing buggy code that causes errors is silly and costs resources. Try not writing buggy code that needs to eat errors runtime.

10\. Strlen is slow. Use isset on strings as arrays to check for specific lengths. Nevermind compromising rule 3c and in doing so also compromising rule 4b.

Call me picky, but I wont go as far as calling this advanced.

<comment><USER4> Ternary is advanced and confusing? It's neither of those things.

<comment><USER5> It is when you use nested ternary operators and are too lazy to write parentheses. I've seen code like

      a ? b ? c ? d : e : f ? g : h : i

Or something like that. That's not funny.</comment></comment></comment>


Purism at LibrePlanet 2019 – Showcasing the Librem 5 Phone - <AUTHOR> https://puri.sm/posts/purism-at-libreplanet-2019-showcasing-the-librem-5-phone/ <comment><USER2> I'm sad that delivery pushed back from Q2 to Q3, but happy that it can make phone calls.

I wonder if it will run Signal. Maybe the desktop version?

<comment><USER3> It will not run Signal, unfortunately. There doesn't seem to be the resources or will to do a port yet.

[https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-support-in- librem...](https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-support-in- librem-5/6529)</comment></comment>


The SSD Improv - <AUTHOR> http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667

<comment><USER2> Full print-view article: <http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3667>

</comment><comment><USER3> Another well written and researched piece of tech journalism from Anand Lal Shimpi. Good to know the strengths and weaknesses of the Indilinx products. Considering how hard it is to get your hands on an 80G X25-M, I might have to start looking at OCZ or SuperTalent products.

</comment><comment><USER4> The 40GB Kingston drive looks promising. I'm hoping that the larger capacity Intel drives will drop in price as well.

<comment><USER5> Indeed. I think I'll pick one up when it gains TRIM so I can add support that feature in the SSD-as-HDD-cache driver I'm working on. Most of the other smaller SSDs have terrible controllers. Too bad Intel aren't releasing a TRIM- capable firmware for the previous generation of SSDs. (I have the 80GB version of it)

<comment><USER6> Pardon my ignorance, but can't you just increase the size of the pagefile to consume the ssd and then increase the disk cache? this way the OS can handle memory management as it pleases..

<comment><USER7> Most OSes don't swap their disk cache, since they assume that reading a page from swap is no faster than reading it from the filesystem.

<comment><USER5> Correct. Moreover, disk caches in memory don't persist across reboots, which means the first access since OS startup is ALWAYS slow. You also can't return from an fsync() if writes have only been written to non-persistent cache. A persistent cache therefore can help even if you have oodles of RAM. Moreso if you don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hope we're going to see TRIM support on the X25-M G1's. Mine's already showing signs of degraded performance :/

<comment><USER5> The poor man's TRIM is to copy the entire disk's data elsewhere, do an _ATA Secure Erase_ operation on the SSD, then repartition, format, and copy everything back. No chance of doing it online though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone know if Snow Leopard will ever support TRIM? It saddens me that I have to boot into Windows 7 to manually run TRIM on my drive every so often.

<comment><USER10> How in the world does Windows know what blocks were used by files that you then deleted in OS X?

<comment><USER9> You're right. It appears I'm mistaken. I assumed it was more of an issue of cleanup, but it's pretty obvious that running the TRIM utility in Win7 is useless for my Mac partition.

Nonetheless, the question in my post was more of the point. I wish Snow Leopard had TRIM support.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, if cleaning up were as simple as that, you wouldn't even need OS support, the drive could just trim itself as it went. But it's been 20 years since anybody designed disk geometry into a filesystem, and while TRIM may not be as complicated as all that, it still requires more bookkeeping than the OS usually does.

Optimally using TRIM, such that the OS will defragment the 512K blocks online instead of reusing them, is even more work, and I'm not sure that's what Windows is doing. They're just issuing TRIM opportunistically, AFAIK.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Magic Leap confirms $502M Series D round - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/17/magic-leap-confirms-502-million-series-d-round/ <comment><USER2> > It's still not totally clear what Magic Leap is doing, but it sure has > raised a ton of money (more than $1.9 billion) in order to do whatever it is > that it's doing. To date, we've been able to gather that the company may be > launching a device called "Magic Leap One." And last month, Bloomberg > suggested Magic Leap may be gearing up to ship that device to a "small group > of users" in the next six months or so.

That might be the most I've heard about what they're doing and when it might be available. I've read some "leaks" in the past, but nothing that has stuck with me. Anyone got any info?

<comment><USER3> I thought they make something like the hololens.

The USP seems to be direct retina projection instead of a regular display.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well... at this point if Magic Leap doesn't release a portable device that can EXACTLY reproduce that elephant sitting in your hand as in their first concept video, I'm going to be pretty miffed at the press release noise they've polluted the internet with for the last 5 years.

<comment><USER5> I don't know how they expect humans to use this device. Elephants are very heavy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think getting $2 billion without having a product to sell is a pretty good magic trick.

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats on the $1.9B preseed raise! Looking forward to the MVP.

</comment><comment><USER8> I like this quote:

> It's still not totally clear what Magic Leap is doing, but it sure has > raised a ton of money (more than $1.9 billion) in order to do whatever it is > that it's doing.

</comment><comment><USER9> That is actually a smaller amount than their series C. They have raise more than a $1b, which is scary for a company without a product for sale.

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't imagine the pressure of having raised 2bn!!! and needing to create a decent ROI for investors.

</comment><comment><USER11> This comes down to VC firms saving face.

Early investors look less foolish with each additional round.

If you were one of the VC firms in Round A ($50M), Round B ($542M), or Round C ($793M) would you come out and say, "Yeah, we were hoodwinked." and invite professional blowback?

Or would you help Magic Leap with their next round of investment, until so many big names were on board that nobody could blame you for jumping in?</comment>


NewsBlur (YC S12) Takes Feed Reading Back To Its Basics - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/yc-backed-newsblur-takes-feed-reading-back-to-its-basics

<comment><AUTHOR> Thrilled to be launching NewsBlur's social features. NewsBlur has become something much bigger than what I ever thought possible when I wrote the first line of code in June 2009 in the New York City underground.

We're now two people and YC-backed. We have so many new big features coming down the pipeline. An iPad app, an updated iPhone app, an Android app, all first-class experiences.

This is the launch of Blurblogs. This is my blurblog: <http://samuel.newsblur.com>.

<comment><USER2> Will you keep making the source code available in a free software license in the upcoming iterations? Is the YC investment likely to cause any change in this regard?

I'm happy that you're able to work much more freely on NewsBlur, but as an early premium user, the investment did get me mildly worried about the future of my beloved app that a handful of dedicated people used, and was very well cared for by one guy I trusted my data and workflow with.

My uneducated and selfish hunch for NB's ideal future is one where you keep charging a much larger amount of users (and possibly charge more), avoid any further investment of the VC kind, and continue keeping the latest production source available under a free license.

<comment><AUTHOR> The intention is to keep NewsBlur open-source. We'll see how that goes. The other intention is to never have to raise more money, but we'll see how that goes. I have big plans for what I want to build, but to do it, I need seed funding. After that, my hope is to never raise again and have premiums pay for the service. Today, that is not possible. But we're at a tipping point that I think we can juice.

<comment><USER2> > _The intention is to keep NewsBlur open-source. We'll see how that goes._

Do you mean with the investors? Do you perceive or foresee pressure from YC against keeping it open source, or do you believe there will be a shift of incentives (such as the practicality of hosting and sharing no longer being your focus of value for paid service) or technicalities that might prevent you from keeping the code open in the future NewsBlur?

As the continuous availability of the source code is critical in my choosing to use and pay for NewsBlur (and I assume this is the case for a few other users on HN), I'd appreciate any details you can share in this regard.

> _I have big plans for what I want to build, but to do it, I need seed > funding. After that, my hope is to never raise again and have premiums pay > for the service._

Happy to know that's your intention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was working on a (now-shuttered) startup in this space. Almost universally people's favorite feature was seeing the live website. I had also built in a reading queue into the application, the idea being that you could do inbox- zero with your feeds if you could process them extremely fast.

I talked to a bunch of largely non-technical RSS power users and discovered that the people who really use RSS readers are subscribed to 1500+ feeds and barely scratch the surface of reading everything in them.

It was really disheartening to discover my fundamental premise was wrong, and at the same time my now-cofounder contacted me with a great idea with a clearly underserved market so I abandoned the solo effort for that.

I think there's a ton of room for innovation in the media reader space, so I wish NewsBlur luck!

<comment><USER4> > _I talked to a bunch of largely non-technical RSS power users and discovered > that the people who really use RSS readers are subscribed to 1500+ feeds and > barely scratch the surface of reading everything in them._

That is an interesting finding, in its own right. When Google neutered Google Reader's sharing features, "sharebros" started an "I am the 1000+" campaign (as a play on the "I am the 99%"). To me, that suggests having 1000+ unread feed items is common enough to be a viral joke.

There may be a business opportunity for helping people find the wheat from the chaff in their 1000+ feeds.

<comment><USER3> As the other reply says, that is what news blur is trying to do and i think it is the right way to go.

I had, but never got to try, an idea to only show users a small percent of the articles. Then, since metainbox was designed for quick triaging, you could show people more articles based on what other people read or queued. It would allow the "curation" to be done by more people

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been watching NewsBlur for a while now, even exchanging a few emails with Sam. He's a first class guy and I'm excited to see what he can do with NewsBlur. Congrats on the launch!

</comment><comment><USER6> This is barely related to the actual article, and only occurred to me because I was excited by the name "NewsBlur", but then discovered that it isn't necessarily news-related.

Are there any startups doing interesting stuff with news, journalism or any of the like? I've seen a lot of services that will aggregate the links your Twitter friends are posting and so on, but I'm more interested in the actual reporting itself.

<comment><USER7> There are some interesting things happening on the reporting side: data analysis, drone usage, citizen-sourced journalism, and more.

However, I believe the most interesting things right now are happening on the news monetization side. News outlets are desperate to find a solution to continue the work they do.

While lots of folks are creating aggregators (this one looks great), it's not hard to make a news aggregator that looks and feels nicer than a newspaper (step 1: No ads. Look how much nicer it looks already!). The far harder part seems to be figuring out how to pay for great content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Check out my version of a Blurblog, I styled it a little differently: <http://roy.newsblur.com>

On the roadmap, theming and letting people really make their Blurblog their own.

Full disclosure, I am 2 of 2 at NewsBlur!

<comment><AUTHOR> I just announced the addition of Roy as a co-founder on the NewsBlur Blog: [http://blog.newsblur.com/post/27033939756/introducing- blurbl...](http://blog.newsblur.com/post/27033939756/introducing-blurblogs- roy-and-y-combinator). Roy is working on the iOS apps and has been instrumental in shaping NewsBlur's future. He also can put up with me for 14 hours a day, which is no small feat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So as a heavy Google Reader user (processing about 300 articles a day), can someone sum up the advantages to switching to NewsBlur? It's not entirely clear from this article or the NewsBlur site. Or perhaps its target audience is not me?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'd say you are definitely the target audience. NewsBlur does three things better than Google Reader:

\- News reading: With first-class iOS, Android, and web apps, NewsBlur is an easy and organized way to read the news wherever you are. There is also an Original view that shows you the original website. You have to see it to believe it.

\- Training: By using NewsBlur's training filters, you can hide stories you don't want to see while highlighting the stories you want to focus on.

\- Social: Sharing and talking about the news is not only fun, but allows you to break out of your filter bubble and embrace the serendipity of your friend's tastes.

Also, NewsBlur's being actively developed, so that's a huge plus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Congrats - does the funding affect plans to continue open-source development?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not as far as I can help it. NewsBlur makes money through hosting. And our competitive edge is the network. Giving back to the open-source community is in my blood, especially after my work on DocumentCloud.

<comment><USER10> awesome. thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> First off congrats to the Newsblur guys. I am a big fan. One thing that I would really like to see is some sort of sharing feature akin to Google Reader's old "shared items".

<comment><AUTHOR> You bet, that's what we just launched. Here's my blurblog: <http://samuel.newsblur.com>. You can share directly from a blurblog or in the Feed view on NewsBlur. We're working to make that more visible in some new designs we have coming soon.

<comment><USER12> One thing I _loved_ about Google Reader's sharing ability was the powerful bookmarklet. You could select a part of the text in the page, call the bookmarklet, and have that part only shared in an article. I used and abused this feature to share things from feed I wasn't subscribed too. It's also very powerful for webpage that didn't have RSS. And you could _edit_ before sharing (even the HTML!)! How awesome is that ?

All this was lost in the Google+ transition (which pushed me to NewsBlur). The one thing that wasn't lost was the "comment on top" which allowed your followers to see what you thought about the story _before_ reading it. You could also comment after if you didn't want to spoil it (just like in G+/blurblogs). I had only a few followers, but this was the best feed reading experience of my life. (Ok, I also _love_ NewsBlur frame tech that merges content and context).

Wouldn't it be nice if the comment were on top of the blurblog share ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Comments on top are something I'm thinking about. Tell you what, in order to continue this discussion, would you mind moving it to a new thread on NewsBlur's community forums: <http://getsatisfaction.com/newsblur>. Just give it a good title and file it under Idea. That way everybody else can participate.

Also, that bookmarklet is a huge feature I'm working on for the next couple weeks. Thanks for the good ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Google Reader is missing a serious mobile component, and I'm excited by what I see with NewsBlur. Congrats on the launch!

<comment><USER14> Late to the party but please submit the android app to the amazon appstore, the kindle fire might be a good platform for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are you going to fix the feed archival problem at some point? (we've spoken about it before :-) )

<comment><AUTHOR> You mean keeping stories indefinitely? Absolutely, it's just a technical limitation right now. At some point we'll move to a real archive.

<comment><USER15> yay, thats something that makes me nervous about newsblur, :) (even though i've signed up & paid etc, its a psychological barrier to daily use)

<comment><USER15> ooo, and the mathjax now renders correctly! :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


To Stay Married, Embrace Change - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/style/modern-love-to-stay-married-embrace-change.html <comment><USER2> Best advice I ever heard on getting ahead in life: Choose your parents wisely. My advice on marriage is similar: Be stupidly lucky in choosing a life partner. It worked for me! Last summer we celebrated our 35th anniversary. Looking forward to the next 35. (You laugh! My uncle and aunt celebrated their 70th.)

Less flippantly: My parents divorced when I was 5 and my brother was 3. This was the defining trauma for much of my young life. I vowed never to do that, never to inflict that on children I might eventually have. When I married, it was simply, absolutely for good. I would die rather than violate that oath.

My family urged me to do the standard thing they all did, of setting up a pre- nuptial agreement and having the prospective spouse sign it. I never considered that for a minute. I was not going to place that sort of fault line in our understanding of our marriage at the beginning. We are active Catholics (she from birth, me as an adult convert).

We laugh a lot, and enjoy each others' jokes, off-hand witticisms, and spontaneous turns of phrase. I think it is fair to say that we each find the other to be extremely interesting intellectually. We tell each other we love each other frequently. We leave the kids behind and go on a cruise together once per year.

My wife rather unsentimentally states that love is not a feeling, it is a decision. I think it is worth it to consciously reflect on what will communicate love to your partner in ways that they understand and find meaningful. Then, do it. The doing can be more important than whatever transitory feelings might or might lie behind it.

Relatively early in our marriage, I made a career choice that was an unambiguous case of putting my career ahead of my marriage and family. The consequences of that choice resonated for years in our marriage. That was the biggest mistake I ever made, and I am grateful that our family managed to survive it. I will never do something that selfish, thoughtless, and stupid again. Things can get difficult, ugly, and painful for a time.

Expanding on the point above about dying rather than walking away: That probably relates metaphorically to the NYTimes article shared by the OP. In my experience, as you and your partner grow and change over a lifetime, you have to let go of, and in effect die to the relationship you had. Over and over. There is a cycle of death, relinquishment, and renewal that is inevitable in a lifelong relationship.

Would you really want to spend time as a 60-year-old with a person whose best years were their high school years, and who doggedly clings to that identity for the rest of their adult life? Of course not.

You become co-authors of an amazing, surprising, unfolding story. Your and your partner's identity co-evolve. To support and encourage another person's growth inevitably involves letting go of who they used to be.

(BTW, please do not take anything I said above as condoning abusiveness in a relationship. There are of course horrible and untenable relationships that simply must be ended.)

<comment><USER3> Agreed. To speak to your cycle of death, relinquishment, and renewal pattern. I have seen this too and often explain it as: "Good things eventually leave and you have to work to make new good things, but they will always be different than what was."

I have noticed this pattern in my marriage, friend groups and vocation. That there are parts of the past that I cannot recreate or experience again but rather than try to recreate them I should move forward and learn to enjoy and improve what I currently have.

<comment><USER4> Going through a downward phase of this cycle myself for the last year, and have to point out that it can be very tough. In previous downward cycles (we've been together 25 years, so this is far from the first time) I've found that I almost have to forget the past to embrace the present. Having a good memory is not always a blessing

<comment><USER3> Yeah, it's really hard to let go and not idealize the past.

I hope you and your SO can find some common ground in the present to built off of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I learned from two failed marriages is that above all else, you have to pick spouses with whom you can even have the luxury of doing these things. That requires finding someone of vaguely comparable social background and education level.

For a lot of people, this sort of assortative mating happens naturally because they draw on relatively healthy dating pools within their community—college classmates, colleagues, church, etc. Others, however, fall through the cracks. I feel that I did because I dropped out of university at age 20 and left the world of W-2 employment at age 22. What peer group? Solipsistic professional existence in a largely solipsistic and male-dominated profession. That's a very isolating existence and full of wrong turns unless you make strong, proactive efforts to stay in healthy social circles, which the average mid-20s person isn't going to be scrupulously careful about doing. It's very easy to start pulling dating partners from /dev/urandom, particularly amidst the loneliness and angst that eventually catches up to you.

This way lies madness, especially if you try to parlay that into marriage.

The American national mythology teaches us to look at people in highly individualised, democratic don't-judge-me ways, and leaves us blind to the fact that not all people are destined to fruitfully communicate or relate. In more traditional cultures, where social class boundaries are more explicit, this messaging is explicitly woven into people's upbringing. For better or worse, and despite the undeniable drawbacks of "traditional" social strictures, there's a certain timeless wisdom in that. Americans, however, commonly believe that any two people can build a bridge of understanding. In reality, that requires a vaguely comparable level of cultural development and intellectual sophistication. Otherwise, you're going to have to defend every one of the values you hold dear, and you're going to feel like you're having to explain them in crayon for three hours every time you do. And you're still going to fail because you're just not going to see eye-to-eye.

So, from where I sit, this "embrace change" idea is rather high on the — if you will — marital Maslow's Hierarchy. As a first step, make sure you've got basic interpersonal communication and some rudimentary compatibility sorted. For people who have been fortunate or made relatively conventional choices, this may seem an odd preoccupation, but if you've been in a union where that's lacking, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER6> >That requires finding someone of vaguely comparable social background and education level.

Westerners are always shocked that even educated people get arranged marriages in India. This is precisely why it works, all the groundwork is done for you. You are raised with similar memes, your arranged partner has been programmed into similar groves as you. Top that with a conformist culture where people try to fit than stand out, chances of finding something truly surprising about your partner are super rare. No amount of dating, living together can match this.

I used to find arranged marriages disgusting and backwards but now I have come full circle having looked at many of my close friends with successful marriages ( there is also aspect of higher social stigma of divorce, but thats another topic).

<comment><USER7> While it might seem true, arranged marriages seem to me kind of like adopting children.

There's a million variables to consider when having your own children, when you're adopting children you're adding many more. Sure, it could all work out wonderfully, but you're just increasing the random factor. See the recent movie "Lion" for examples of randomness, both good and bad.

What's wrong with having the same culture you mention, except for the fact that people can marry freely? You'd have the same benefits but hopefully with lower risk. If you want to work in the same cultural limits, just ask for advice (from your family, friends, etc.) before marrying and try to follow that advice.

<comment><USER5> A lot of more traditional places work that way, e.g. Southern and Eastern Europe.

Of course, the general problem is that you're asking 20s-something people in the throes of hot, passionate romantic love and attraction (in cultures which also celebrate romantic love!) to voluntarily submit to a plethora of mood- killing "cultural limits". Boo!

But it's probably still better than the American approach of, "look ma, no hands!" :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm having trouble expressing this sentiment, but I feel the NYT has taken on a patriarchal tone these days. I browse their mobile site every morning, and I see very little news, with a lot of "do this" info-pop stuff, i.e., "To be happy and live long, exercise," "to be a good person, do X." Usually they cite a study somewhere with little scrutiny, and then write condescendingly. It's kind of disturbing on some level, and the amount they do it is inappropriate for the NYT imo. But I guess this is what readers want these days. With people moving on from religion they are looking for someone else to preach a code to them.

Maybe it's just the headlines that bother me. "to stay married, embrace change." This is someone's advice, not a law of physics. A headline with more integrity would be "Embracing change may help a marriage endure."

<comment><USER9> >patriarchal

what does this have to do with patriarchy?

<comment><USER10> Pretty sure the commentor is just switching words.

There is some word that kind of means to give unwanted advice, or to always be assuming you know and can teach people stuff. It's not pedagogical, not patriarchial, but something close. Im not even sure it starts with a "P". Not kibbitzer.

<comment><USER10> I think "paternalistic" was the word that fit here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Marriage at year 1 is nothing like marriage at year 5 is nothing like marriage at year 15 is nothing like year 20, ad infinitum.

If you don't embrace the person your spouse is at this very moment, nothing will help you stay together. After having kids, our lives are very different, and we have become different people. I need to love my wife for who she is now, not yearn for who she was 8 years ago, and vice versa.

</comment><comment><USER12> The author is recommending, in a round about way, a way of dealing with a sex- asymmetric phenomena that was perfectly expressed in this image, from another NY Times article on marriage[1]:

[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/29...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/29botton/29botton- master768.jpg)

It is amusing that, in both articles, the illustration tells more truth about the situation than all the words following it.

[1] - [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/why-you- wi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/why-you-will-marry- the-wrong-person.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER13> Why are we to believe this is sex-assymetric? I'd be amazed if there weren't as many married men who were resentful because their wives have changed, whether that means becoming less thin, focused on career, children, less interested in sex, etc.

<comment><USER12> Women file for divorce twice as often as men:

[http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/documents/pr...](http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/documents/press/pdfs/AM_2015_Rosenfeld_News_Release_FINAL.pdf)

It is not popular to discuss sex differences in marriage behaviors (as my burnt karma indicates) but they exist.

<comment><USER13> Literally right from the paper:

 _Women are more likely than men to initiate divorces, but women and men are just as likely to end non-marital relationships, according to a new study that will be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA)._

And later:

 _Social scientists have previously argued that women initiate most divorces because they are more sensitive to relationship difficulties. Rosenfeld argues that were this true, women would initiate the breakup of both marriages and non-marital relationships at equal rate_

The paper goes on to theorize that the assymetry may be because the institution of marriage (and the social expectations surrounding it) has not caught up with expectations of gender equality, leading women to feel oppressed.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with what this article is about, and certainly does not support the claimed sex-assymetry of marital dissatisfaction due to spousal changes that you claim (without evidence) exists.

<comment><USER14> You can have different interpretation of the data.

COST of a normal break up vs cost of a divorce.

There is a huge difference of financial outcomes of a break up between a 7 month relationship and a 7 year marriage.

For the 7 months relationship the couple moves on, and no financial re- arrangements happens. For the marriage, there is a much higher chance that the woman: 1) takes custody of the children (if the couple has them) 2) is recipient of child support 3) is recipient of alimony payments

You can say that a "divorce" is much more costly to men and hence they are more likeley to stick it out a relationship or try to make it work, but there is less cost to women (financially at least), hence they are more likely to initiate it.

Given the current marriage laws are a remnant of the 50s and 60s lifestyle (of women staying home, and needing financial protection in case of divorce), you can argue that the current law framework in the US encourages the initiation of the divorce from women, and discourages that from men.

Since no divorce costs are involved in a normal 7 months long relationship, you see men initiating breakups just as much as women.

TLDR: Current divorce laws favors women by a long shot, hence they are more likely to initiate it.

<comment><USER13> _You can have different interpretation of the data.

COST of a normal break up vs cost of a divorce._

As I said in my other post, I could considered that. But the study diminishes the likelihood of that interpretation.

Married men initiate divorce less _and_ report higher relationship satisfaction than women, while unmarried men and women report the same levels of relationship satisfaction.

If men initiated divorce less simply because of the cost of divorce, that data does not make sense. You'd expect the same or lower satisfaction than women, but that's not borne out in the data.

<comment><USER15> > You'd expect the same or lower satisfaction than women, but that's not borne > out in the data.

Why would you expect that? Having options often decreases satisfaction.

If you have a good job that has a few frustrating downsides which situation would make you more satisfied?

A) You know all the alternative jobs are a lot worse. Better to try and improve the few frustrating bits.

B) You are constantly informed about other great job alternatives. And you know you get to keep a lot of the benefits of the first job if you do change.

Most often people in situation A will be more satisfied.

<comment><USER13> Err, yours is an argument for men and women both having lower relationship satisfaction in marriage as compared to unmarried couples.

But you argument doesn't explain why married men and women have _different_ levels, and definitely doesn't explain why men report _higher_ levels than women.

<comment><USER15> Sorry I have re-worded my comment a bit. Does it make sense now?

<comment><USER13> So your argument is that because women can get out of a marriage easier due to lower cost, they will report lower satisfaction due to a grass-is-greener effect.

Interesting! Sounds like a theory worth exploring, definitely.

<comment><USER15> Exactly! It happens all the time in the workplace.

I can't see any good reason why it wouldn't apply to relationships as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One should not set a tactic as a goal. Marriage is buy a way to amplify enjoyment in life. Some marriages are wonderful, some are deadly. To be clear in ones objectives is to hit the mark much easier. Many the married person would be better off finding a new person to enjoy marriage with, than fight desperately to not be in something new.

Thus it's not the staying in a situation that's important, that's but a means to an end.

That being said, flexibility is nice, and if you have more paths to happiness and less paths to sorrow, you are likely to be happier. Don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff the saying goes.

</comment><comment><USER17> Easy to say, hard to do. We don't like change. Change means possible danger, it means relinquishing opportunities, it means no safety net.

Part of the happiness that comes from a new relationship comes from not just discovering new things about each other (or NRE, or the Coolidge effect) but from the (misplaced) belief that things will go on this way forever. Embracing change means sacrificing that pleasure, which you might be able to do if you possess foresight/discipline, but it is hard and not obvious, especially when you have an of love that's foolish, us-against-the-world that reinforces that mentality.

<comment><USER18> NRE - New Relationship Energy (?) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_relationship_energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_relationship_energy)

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

<comment><USER17> Yup!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I read about a British maths expert that wrote some formula that would accurately predict if couples would stay together. His key variable was working out if people have a willingness to compromise.

<comment><USER5> I've been through two failed marriages and my conclusion has been that this fixation with "compromise" is woefully misguided and constitutes an antipattern, although, for all I know, that's why I've been through two failed marriages. :-)

Still, on a theoretical level, the religion that's been made of compromise in therapeutic settings is a pet peeve of mine.

The first problem is that compromise is viewed by most laypeople as "splitting the difference" or "meeting in the middle". That may work for a lot of property and financial disputes, and maybe even business disputes in general, but it doesn't always work in life and relationships, though I don't deny that many things can indeed be compromised. But sometimes an equitable settlement is one where I get 90% and you get 10%, commensurate with the hand the parties are playing and the amount of leverage they have. Although most businesspeople experienced in negotiation know this instinctively, they don't seem to teach it in how-to-be-a-better-spouse school.

Besides that:

1) Compromise encourages parties to take extreme and unreasonable positions with the expectation of being "bargained down" to more or less what they really want. This contributes to "position inflation".

2) It may be that, as a practical matter, compromise is the worst possible option, far worse than either of the starting positions. This happens a lot in relationships.

Most damningly, in my view:

3) The pressure to move toward the middle creates an artificially level playing field where it may not exist. It does not weigh whether one side's position is a lot more reasonable, fair and thoughtful than the other. Aside from the unfair aspect of this ipso facto, it also encourages position inflation.

Some disputes lend themselves to splitting down the middle. Others have nonlinear/discontinuous qualities where "some" is not better than "none". TL;DR sometimes one party's position sucks a lot more than the other's, and the aim to compromise only furthers the negative consequences of this iniquity.

<comment><USER20> I almost never compromise with my wife, and we're very happy. That seems shocking, I know, but here's why:

Compromise is born from an adversarial starting position. But my wife isn't my adversary. I love her, and I would die for (and nearly have), and so I (try to) give of myself freely and completely. If both people _really_ care about each other more than themselves, happiness follows easily and naturally. The real questions are (1) what do I need to do to learn to love my spouse more than I love myself? and (2) where do I find a person who will reciprocate that kind of love? Experientially, I've found the answer to both questions is to have a deep commitment to God, who teaches and models this behavior to us.

<comment><USER21> I am an atheist and want to commit myself to my spouse (which believes in God, goes to church, etc.), but it currently looks like she doesn't really want to reciprocate. So I don't believe you that commitment to God is an answer.

<comment><USER22> I'm raised Christian from both parents, and my wife who wasn't has gone more of a Dawkins atheist route.

I would best describe us as soft agnostic and hard agnostic.

I think the key is accepting that none of us know what the fuck is going on in an unobservable space.

We'll raise our child(ren) by letting them develop their own world model, rigid where provable, soft where not. Always retesting.

I want to believe David Lynch made Blue Velvet on purpose as opposed to the ramblings of a mad man, even though no one can prove that to me. That is a soft belief, just like faith in "something" (should be).

We are happily accepting of each other. If we instead would've had fundamentally different views on what facts and beliefs are, that would have been a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end. If we all lived to be a thousand years, but our psychology and perception of time remained otherwise unchanged, I doubt many would make it the whole way from 30 to 999 with the same partner. I daresay that it would be rather unusual for anyone to do.

That said, for those who wish to see their marriages last, compromise and change tolerance seem quite necessary.

<comment><USER24> You haven't felt the pain of a relationship ending? You don't see the value committed and deep long term relationship? The kind only possible if both parties commit to sticking with each other through thick and thin?

<comment><USER25> No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. People change, and relationships come and go. Embracing change (as this article recommends) means not holding onto relationships after they've gone stale.

<comment><USER26> > No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all.

It's actually more than that.

Failed marriages are more likely to lead to negative outcomes in life, with single-parent households more likely to be in poverty, children more likely to abused by non-biological step-parents or partners, and children of failed marriages also more likely to get involved in criminal behaviour (both as a juvenile and an adult).

Which is not to say that _all_ failed marriages lead to those problems, or that stable marriages don't, just that there is a greater likelihood of it happening, and when applied to society as a whole the effect is noticeable, and therefore there is a benefit to society in promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships.

<comment><USER27> I suspect the negative outcomes aren't because "failed marriages are bad", it's because we have stigmatized them to the point that support networks for divorced people in these situations are very poor and lead to negative outcomes.

There's plenty of evidence to show that children raised by married parents who stay together "just for the kids" have a bunch of their own problems because of that. Maybe those problems are less bad, but I'd still suggest that's the case merely because that's the more "socially accepted" thing to do.

I think promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships is fine, but stigmatizing those who "fail" at that for whatever reason is the root cause of the negative consequences you describe.

<comment><USER26> For sure the same problems exist in more traditional marriages too (and I made sure to explicitly mention this in my post), it's just that the likelihood of those things increases for marriages that end in divorce.

Individually, there are plenty of separated families that are successful and happy, and plenty of long-term marriages that are miserable and awful for the people involved. When applied to society as a whole though, on average, long- term, stable marriages have better life outcomes for the people involved than ones that ended in divorce.

I don't think it's necessarily a result of stigmatization either, rather it's that life is just objectively more difficult for a larger percentage of divorced families, and in order to be able to make a living, compromises have to be made.

For example, take a married housewife, who suddenly finds herself divorced, and is now a single mum needing to work to survive because maybe alimony and child-support aren't enough (or the dad is a deadbeat and doesn't pay as much as he should).

Years out of the workforce (and maybe also sacrificing education and/or career development for her children) limit the jobs available and alimony/child support might not be enough to make up the difference.

So maybe she has to work multiple jobs, or is working at odd hours and so the children become latchkey kids, with little/no adult supervision and guidance when they come home.

It not stigmatization that causes the problem, it's just an objectively more difficult situation than if the marriage had been stable and healthy, and although latchkey kids is not a phenomenon limited to single-parent families, it is more likely to occur in single-parent families because circumstances are more likely to require it.

Likewise for things like sexual abuse. The chance of it happening increases significantly with non-biological parents or partners. Again that's not anything to do with stigmatization, rather that if a divorce occurs, then when the parents get involved with new partners it increases that risk. It happens too with biological parents, but just at a lesser rate.

<comment><USER27> Looking at your example, I see that more a problem of our general social organization than as a problem with divorce. In some cultures, extended families are close-knit. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and parents all help with taking care of and raising children. The Western concept of the nuclear family vs. extended family just doesn't really exist, or is at least minimized. Divorce there doesn't really affect the divorcee's livelihood, or that of any children.

I'm not saying that's an ideal structure, just that it's a possible structure. The idea that Western nuclear family structure is the be-all end-all is a little silly, though. It's very fragile in exactly the ways you describe.

The point I'm trying to make is that divorce is hard on people in large part because we as a society have decided that divorce should be hard on people. It doesn't have to be; we've just set up our family and community structures and support systems in such a way that divorced people (especially divorced people with children) will often have a harder life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Embrace change" may be a great idea, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the issue. I think the key to staying married is having two people who are committed to staying married. From that, other things follow: embracing change, learning to be a better spouse, etc.

I've only been married for 12 years, but I can absolutely say that my wife and I have always been very happy and willing to be accommodating, precisely because we're committed to lifelong marriage for religious reasons. I've met a lot of people who think that sounds like a prison sentence, but for me it's been bliss.

<comment><USER13> Well, the other key is so obvious: be _nice_ to each other.

The couples I see that fall apart complain about each other behind each other's backs to their friends. They're snarky, disrespectful, when they fight they fight dirty. When they get resentful they retaliate instead of talking.

Just. Be decent. _Like_ each other.

It's not _that_ hard if you can work on not being selfish, self-centered, or self-righteous.

<comment><USER28> Actually, it can be VERY hard.

<comment><USER29> If it's hard to like someone, you probably shouldn't get married to them. Spending years of your life with someone who grates on you is worse than being single.

<comment><USER30> Sometimes you don't truly know someone until you marry them.

Or rather hardtimes(financial, illness, children, etc) can change the person you once 'liked' into someone you may not.

<comment><USER13> I dunno... there's still a line one crosses when you stop treating you spouse as a person and start treating them as an adversary.

The things I've heard people say about, or worse, to their spouses sometimes stretches my definition of basic human decency.

Regardless of how someone changes, every person deserves basic respect. Even little things like complaining about bad habits behind a person's back fosters resentment borne of disrespect, resentment that can grow and fester. Resisting that urge and instead treating ones partner with dignity is a critical skill many couples lack.

<comment><USER27> I don't think anyone's arguing against what you're saying. It's just that you may like someone, and then at some point down the road, you or they change in a way that causes you to stop liking them. It's unfortunate, certainly, but it happens. Sometimes it's reversible, sometimes not.

The stigma against divorce (made worse when driven by religious edict) is often why things turn into the bad state of affairs you describe: spouses treating each other as adversaries, speaking about them negatively behind each other's backs, etc. If you get to the point where you don't like your spouse anymore, just get a divorce. No, that's not a decision that should be made lightly, but unless you have a really good reason to stay in a relationship that makes both parties unhappy, it's crazy to stay together.

<comment><USER15> > The stigma against divorce (made worse when driven by religious edict) is > often why things turn into the bad state of affairs you describe: spouses > treating each other as adversaries, speaking about them negatively behind > each other's backs, etc.

I doubt the stigma of divorce has any such impact. Plenty of second marriages contain hatred, anger, resentment, etc

<comment><USER27> I doubt it's the only impact, but dismissing it as not having any impact seems incorrect.

<comment><USER15> What's the rationale that is has an impact?

Was there significantly more abuse etc when divorce was more heavily stigmatised?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if by the time we find "The Ultimate Secret to Staying Married" we'll have already learned that marriage doesn't have to be the final goal of a relationship after all.

</comment><comment><USER32> "Each goes from rock climber to couch potato, from rebel to middle manager, and from sex crazed to sleep obsessed."

Please married folk please tell me this ain't the case...

<comment><USER25> Yes, it's really the case. Not for everyone; see the guy who replied bragging about all the physical stuff he's learned to do. However, the odds of _both_ partners in a marriage not turning into fat couch potatoes is very small. (This happened to me: I was married, I'm like that other 40yo guy and do lots of physical stuff, my ex got fat, we got divorced.)

Be very, very, very careful who you marry, and if you're not planning on having kids, think very hard about whether you need to even bother getting married at all. It's usually not a good deal, and instead will cost you more with the IRS if you're both working and have similar incomes. IMO, the entire institution is obsolete and should be abolished.

<comment><USER27> I'm disappointed you're getting downvoted, because you make some very good points (though I'd understand that some people might think you were doing so in an inflammatory way; I choose to read it more charitably).

People change, certainly. Some change is palatable, some is not. If you're an active person and plan to be that way until the day you die, and enjoyed being active with your partner... if your partner stops being active, that can be a genuine problem if that aspect is important to you and the relationship. It may not even really be the physical acts around "being active", it could be the fundamental traits and attributes of the person that make them want to or not want to be that way, and I could see those differences ending up being irreconcilable.

<comment><USER25> It wasn't just the activeness that drove us apart; she turned into a raging right-winger.

The way I see it, people are going to change no matter what, so this idea that people need to "stick together" until they die is not only obsolete, but just plain wrong. Regular friends usually aren't life-long either, as interests change, people move, etc., so why do we expect romantic relationships to be permanent? It's crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If this is true, then software engineers would stay married longer. And there are supporting stats.

[http://www.electronicproducts.com/Education/Career/Do_engine...](http://www.electronicproducts.com/Education/Career/Do_engineers_make_excellent_spouses_Divorce_rates_by_engineering_specialty.aspx?id=3162)

It's interesting to note that the previous study didn't look at ability to cope with change.

<comment><USER34> > If this is true, then software engineers would stay married longer

Why? Are software engineers more adaptable?

<comment><USER35> Perhaps dealing with changing requirements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> To stay ANYTHING, embrace change.</comment>


Small EdTech startup looking for Lead Engineer  - <AUTHOR>

Well. We've actually managed to get quite far without a Lead Engineer, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought it would be wise to proceed without one.
Dash is building a mobile application for teachers to keep up with students and their families. On a bootstrapped budget and with very little background in tech, we've managed to build a Heroku+Ruby+PostgreSQL system, with an iOS interface that is about 90% finished. You can see it here:
http://aliyabhatia.posterous.com/private/tunrgdjyaI#!/slideshow
All of which is great except it's really better to have a resident expert on board. We'd love that to be you. Send us a portfolio or a resume or a cover letter or some combination. We expect your time commitment to Dash would be 15-20 hours per week.
Qualified candidates will go through between one and three interviews to assess domain expertise and team fit. If you are successful in a one month trial period, we will extend an equity package as an offer.
Thanks, Aliya Bhatia Founder, Dash Technologies Inc. email@example.com www.techbydash.com <comment><USER2> May I recommend APPYnote (www.appynote.com) as a potential APP platform? I am seeing a lot of EdTech startups in similar positions, ie over their head in technology. APPYnote is an APP platform that can abstract away most of the complexity of building APPs, which allows you to focus on your core mission....Education. I can be your lead Engineer for free if you want to build APPs on the APPYnote platform. Feel free to send me an email for further detail or a skype demo.

Regards

Edmond</comment>


Show HN: iOS Provisioning profile hell begone - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/profile-manager/id750864132?mt=12 I'm sure I'm not the only iOS developer who has torn out my hair dealing with provisioning profiles.
Manually managing them in the iPhoneOS 2.x, 3.x days  or Xcode's "automatic" management have always been painful, especially when doing contract development for multiple clients.
I made this app + quicklook plugin for my own use, but realised it may be of use to the wider community. It allows you to introspect .mobileprovision files to investigate which app they are for, which UDIDs are provisioned and so on.
Does anyone like it / have advice on how I can improve it? This is my first foray into "product" development. (I hope this post abides by the rules of Show HN etiquette, please delete if it does not)
Some redemption codes:
W6WHWAYXEMF6 LL4W9HFMNFNE WJE99T73XTXF TN93RTWLYPJR 4AFRNYFMEP9H <comment><AUTHOR> I tried to post this as the text, but it seems not to work?

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

I'm sure I'm not the only iOS developer who has torn out my hair dealing with provisioning profiles.

Manually managing them in the iPhoneOS 2.x, 3.x days or Xcode's "automatic" management have always been painful, especially when doing contract development for multiple clients.

I made this app + quicklook plugin for my own use, but realised it may be of use to the wider community. It allows you to introspect .mobileprovision files to investigate which app they are for, which UDIDs are provisioned and so on.

Does anyone like it / have advice on how I can improve it? This is my first foray into "product" development. (I hope this post abides by the rules of Show HN etiquette, please delete if it does not)

Some redemption codes:

W6WHWAYXEMF6

LL4W9HFMNFNE

WJE99T73XTXF

TN93RTWLYPJR

4AFRNYFMEP9H

<comment><USER2> What's the app name?

<comment><USER3> It's Profile Manager [https://itunes.apple.com/app/profile- manager/id750864132](https://itunes.apple.com/app/profile-manager/id750864132)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have often thought about writing an app such as this for my own use. Especially now, given Xcode 5, which stupidly FORCES you to have all those unnecessary "team provisioning" profiles, which can't be disabled.

Alas, this is not quite there. I should be able to sort by pressing the column titles, and I should be able to delete profiles from the list. If you're going to charge actual money for this, it's the very least you can do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it seems Xcode has regressed with respect to provisioning profiles from version 4 to 5.

Great point re: sorting and deleting. I've added support for both to a new build that is now in Apple's hands. Hopefully users will get it in a few days' time.

Is there anything else I could add? It's difficult to extract critical feedback from those closest to me. :)

<comment><USER4> playing around with it a little more:

* it doesn't remember its size and position onscreen. it should.

* what the heck did you use to build this, given that it doesn't have any of the standard menu items? at the very least, you want to have "Hide AppName," "Hide Others," and so on.

* make the text in the lower pane selectable. and to make it really useful, you'll need an edit menu, with cut, copy, and paste.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I found most interesting is the price choice. Don't recall ever seeing a "$.49" price before on the app store :)

<comment><USER6> It's 4.49$

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's up with the blacked out shadow in the screenshots? I guess the MAS doesn't support alpha in screenshots. Clean that up, it really does not inspire confidence.

Ironically, having 'iOS' in the title, blacked out shadows on the screenshots, and merely glancing over them made me think this was an iPad app.

<comment><USER3> We had a good laugh when it went live like that, rest assured we've got some some updated screens that won't end up looking like extremely poorly drawn iPads.

They're waiting patiently for the glance of apple: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7199038/UpdateImages.png](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7199038/UpdateImages.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Aside from not being able to sort profiles alphabetically, or by expiration date, or at all, or delete profiles what's this do that the iPhone Configuration Utility doesn't?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question. As I said elsewhere in the thread, the ability to sort and/or delete have been added to 1.1 and is waiting for Apple's review.

In terms of what it does that the iPCU doesn't, it displays team identifiers, entitlements and provisioned devices that iPCU doesn't recognise. It also supports Mac (desktop) provisioning profiles. 1.2 will also list certificates bundled with the profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Am I the only one who doesn't have the slightest problem with provisioning profiles anymore since the Xcode Organizer syncs the profiles with your Apple IDs?</comment>


Early-stage demand for mkt/sales/biz dev consulting? - <AUTHOR>

Wondering if there is demand by early-stage startups for marketing/sales/business development services via consultancy?
From my own experience on a truly cross-functional team, the coordination amongst eng, marketing, biz dev, etc. is what helps our business thrive.
Seems to me many start-ups build a product then go "find someone to sell it." Would it be a better fit have non-tech biz strategy folks consult from earlier-on to help steer product development to market more effectively?
Share thoughts :) <comment><USER2> Yes and no. Unless consultant's work based on measurable performance, it might be a little bit of a responsibility problem.

On the other hand, having somebody paying attention to marketing/sales/bizdev from the very first days is crucial.</comment>