Oil Shell 0.5 – A Release with Many Contributors - <AUTHOR> http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/07/23.html <comment><USER2> I'd rather suggest to write POSIX-compatible scripts instead of emulating the bash.

<comment><AUTHOR> See the FAQ: [http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html#limit-to- posix](http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html#limit-to-posix)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What notes app do you use? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for a new notes app to use and wondering what you guys use. I really like using plaintext and markdown, but I would also really like to be able to annotate/draw with a stylus. <comment><USER2> I found jupyter notebooks to be a good note taking medium (its markdown!). I usually rsync my notebooks to a remote server that I can access anywhere. One thing I find frustrating is that the json is difficult to manipulate if you don't want to spin up the jupyter notebook server.

</comment><comment><USER3> For plaintext/markdown: [https://standardnotes.org/](https://standardnotes.org/) (self hosted on Heroku) [https://simplenote.com/](https://simplenote.com/)

For annotations/drawing/writing: OneNote Evernote Bear

</comment><comment><USER4> Apple Notes - fine with plaintext, would handle a stylus, 0 markdown support.

</comment><comment><USER5> at work, I use media wiki provided by the company. for personal note, I keep them in github gist.

</comment><comment><USER6> inb4 org-mode

<comment><AUTHOR> My guess there is no option for something like this but vim-based?

<comment><USER7> I've been using vimwiki for a few years now, and I'm very satisfied.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> google keep</comment>


Ask HN: How would you get traffic for a new startup? - <AUTHOR>

What methods do you use to get new users for your startups? Facebook, twitter, SEO, Paid Ads, ...? <comment><USER2> It's impossible to talk about getting traffic without specifying what _type_ of product you have. Is it a paid downloadable app, SAAS webapp, social network, etc?

Most forms of paid advertising aren't cost effective unless you have a very direct way to convert traffic quickly into money and have pretty high margins.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm asking in general what methods are available. What methods do you use for your startup, not mine. I personally use facebook, twitter and close friends and family to promote traffic to.

<comment><USER2> "What methods do you use to get traffic for your startup" would have been a better title.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just posted on Quora about a similar topic.

Here's what we did to launch Meeps:

<http://blog.meeps.com/post/4588034501/bb>

Got quite a lot of buzz and traction because it was something unique that tied into our core concept.

<comment><USER4> That's a very interesting idea. I think a lot of startups would consider personal engagement at this level to be out of the question, but I'm going to seriously consider this approach (or a distant variation) for our beta launch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if I would recommend this but here is an article on generating traffic...

[http://news.nucleusdevelopment.com/2011/01/08/the-fool- proof...](http://news.nucleusdevelopment.com/2011/01/08/the-fool-proof-social- website-model/)

</comment><comment><USER6> What is the startup?

<comment><AUTHOR> there isn't one. It's just a general question. The specific question lies on what you personally use for your own startups. Just seeing what the most popular choices are.</comment></comment>


Code Bubbles - <AUTHOR> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3854

<comment><USER2> This is a repost from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1181742></comment>


Ask HN: Do posts by authors with more karma rank higher? - nick-garfield As the title states.. Is the HN ranking algorithm based purely on a post/comment's upvotes and engagement, or is the author's karma points an input into the algorithm as well? <comment><AUTHOR> No.

</comment><comment><USER2> There's no documented karma input to ranking and I doubt any exists. Stories I submit are picked up as randomly as anyone else's.

The same isn't true of stories I write; I have a pretty good track record of getting blog posts on the front page. But HN doesn't know when something I've submitted is something I've written; what gets stories from high-karma users ranked is mostly just name recognition.

I doubt people are looking at the submitter name when choosing to upvote stories; I do think some subset of them look at the domain name of the story site though.

<comment><USER3> I have _never_ checked out how much karma anyone has in here, but after reading you I went on to have a look. First time I look at this, and it turns out you have "331331". That was a strange enough number that for a split second made me think I was looking at some random description field and you had put some magic number you like ( _a la_ 1337 or the likes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news- undocumented](https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented)

This might help answer some of your burning questions.

<comment><USER5> Even this doesn't stress how heavily HN is moderated. You can see it occasionally when there is some news cycle and you look an HN and everything is "Rust is cool. How we raised a round for a product we don't have (yet). Tips for thinking effectively while in the open office." This basically tells you that dang decided enough is enough and cleaned up the front page.

<comment><USER6> > when there is some news cycle and [the front page does not reflect it]

Political news is discouraged by the site guidelines and quickly flagged by users without mods' intervention (source: I'm one of these users). If I want the latest Trump nonsense, I can go to MSNBC or Fox News or Colbert or whatever. I'd rather have more stuff on the front page which we can have a (mostly) constructive conversation about.

<comment><USER7> Some of us actually want to discuss politics with sane, smart people so I rarely flag thise stories (but I understand why you do.)

<comment><USER8> I think this is a dicey area for discussion. Political discussions have always, and particularly so today, essentially consisted of ripping off bits of dogma and throwing at each other. While my family and I are generally on the same page, I avoid political discussions with them as well.

I am often inclined to flag political threads here if they get egregiously bad. It very often gets to be the opposite of interesting.

<comment><USER7> > Political discussions have always, and particularly so today, essentially > consisted of ripping off bits of dogma and throwing at each other.

Despite that I have actually learned stuff here from people that I originally disagreed deeply with.

(Oh, and I am also fairly sure certain people have/could learned/learn something from me, but thats up to them to seize the opportunity. d:-)

> I am often inclined to flag political threads here if they get egregiously > bad.

I wish they were better but often I wish people could stick to flagging bad behavior instead of the entire thread.

That said, I am not here to challenge moderator decisions. Even with showdead on this place is fantastic compared to certain places I find it easy to compare with.

<comment><USER6> > Despite that I have actually learned stuff here from people that I > originally disagreed deeply with.

Agreed. The incidence rate of people who can intelligently argue a controversial position is much higher here than in the average population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have moderately high karma, and I haven't noticed any evidence that my posts are treated favorably as a result. I'm less sure on comments. At times I have suspected that comments from high karma users may get bubbled up, but I certainly couldn't swear to it.

<comment><USER10> I'm also quite certain that, with more karma, comments stay at the top longer. Cannot say much about submissions.

<comment><USER11> I have seen anecdotal evidence of this too. I have noticed some of my comments have not been upvoted and yet have stuck higher in the rankings than comments that I know have received upvotes because I upvoted them myself. Although dang has stated that account karma doesn't impact the ranking algorithm so who knows. Either way, it seems obvious there is something more complex than a simple formula based on upvotes and post age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fwiw, I saw this post on the front page, with no comments and you don't particularly have THAT much karma. Whatever that means.

<comment> nick-garfield Haha good point

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> FWIW, I just commented on the Ask HN about career advice and my comment landed about 2/3rds down the page. Seems like a data point for the "ranking of comments does not look at karma" point of view.

<comment><USER14> With 90556 in karma you're pretty close to 100k! I guess you get to find out whether HN sends you a Silver Upvote Button in the mail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't know if it is purely based on upvotes but what I can say for my account is that on average I used to get significantly less then one karma point per upvote. When I watched the upvote counter on the individual item[1] and compared it with my karma increase a view years ago it was pretty consistent at 0.5.

Back then I shrugged this of as effect of the voting ring detector but it left me wondering: can the false positive rate be so high and so consistent ... IDK. Needless to say that I never participated in a voting ring and I'm not that well connected that many upvotes should be from the same people.

An alternative explanation that crossed my mind was if it could depend on the story/comment ratio because back at the time I submitted much more stories than I wrote comments. I did this with good intentions, I often like to read what other think even if I don't get involved in the discussion, but I could understand if a platform incentivized a healthy ratio of submissions and discussion.

[1] I can't remember if this was true for stories or comment but I think I could only see it for one type of submission.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not all upvotes count towards karma. This is related to HN's anti-abuse systems. It would be nice if it could just be simple, but one-to-one mappings turn out to be the most gameable things, so we've had to do fancy footwork over the years.

<comment><USER15> Makes sense. Just to avoid the wrong impression, when I said I never participated in a voting ring, what I really meant was that I never tried to game the system im any way. Easy for me to say, I know, unfortunately impossible to proof. Anyways, I was just curious about my story/comment ratio theory, but I guess I will never know...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Related question: do up/downvotes from users with more karma count more than those from users with little karma?

<comment><USER17> No. You can create a new account, upvote someone and check how their karma changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The latter would create a bubble of some people's submissions flooding the site over time and not allowing others' submissions to come to the front page.

The ranking _is affected_ to a good extent by when a post is submitted because of the times (and time zones) when more HN voters are online and active.

<comment> nick-garfield Yeah this is really interesting. The "velocity" of upvotes/comments seems to be more important than the actual raw count.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have had a few of my post make the front page and I don't have a lot of karma and don't personally know anyone else who has a user account here.

I've also posted a link that got buried without anyone looking at it, then came back later in the day to see someone else posted the same thing from a different source and it made the front page.

If there are others gaming their posts here to get karma points they can have them. As far as I know there's no place to cash them in so it doesn't cost me anything.

It's nice to see others find what I've submitted interesting and "karma" gives us a measure of that, but the reason I check into HN is to find things that interest me.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm new here, but my limited experience so far has been good. I've only submitted a handful of things, of which I initially thought "this deserves much more up votes," but in retrospect I came about and acknowledged my bias because I'm the author or it fits my worldview. I don't think all my posts merit their current karma, but most do.

Also, somehow I find myself being disincentivized to post unhelpful comments. As a matter of fact, every time I share an article I found on Hacker News I recommend people reading the comments. This site definitely has the highest helpful to unhelpful comment ratio.

</comment><comment><USER21> I suspect even if it's not done deliberately it happens as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The people that have high amounts of karma tend to post better articles so people are more likely to look at them or follow the person.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've sometimes submitted some of my own content here, usually without much happening. Then have someone else (not always with more karma) submit it again 1 to 24 hours later and it got to the front page. I've also had content do fairly well on e.g. Reddit or Lobsters be pretty much ignored here as well.

I call it the HN roulette. I think HN is just too large and a lot of good content (or at least, I'd like to think my own content is good, heh) gets missed. Quality of the content is definitely a factor, as are things like an enticing headline, but you also just need to be lucky.

</comment><comment><USER8> Things that I have seen that influence whether a story will end up being ranked: 1) Timing. Early in the morning Eastern US time 2) The uniqueness of the posting. When everyone is posting COVID or protest stories, a story about an interesting astronomical event (e.g. PHA) is slightly more likely to get a kick. 3) I suspect that there may be a tendency to browse /newest by some folks and if they see submissions by posters they know, there may be a slight liklihood of upvotes.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not 100% sure, but: \- Karma is indeed a good indicator. \- Having a 'non'-anonymous HN profile also seems to make your posts more credible.

Otherwise, good luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> Karma is a meaningless number. It depends more on luck than good management. I've put well-written posts out there with no karma given. I've also written throw-away lines that gain oodles of karma. Go figure.

20 million karma points and five bucks will buy you a coffee.

</comment><comment><USER25> I always thought it would be neat to apply something like pagerank to reddit (or HN, or whatever) comments. Surprised nobody has done this.

(Maybe it would turn into an echo chamber pretty fast, but I'm not 100% certain, which is like I'd like to see someone try it.)

</comment><comment><USER26> Technically, I suspect there's a _very_ strong correlation. You get a lot of karma for popular posts.

But never seen any evidence that the system gives you preferential treatment if you have good karma.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've got a fairly decent karma score and everything I post sinks like a stone. :)

</comment><comment><USER28> No, but the only way to get a post to the front page of HN these days is to discreetly ask a bunch of your friends to upvote it. And people with high karma are probably people who tend to have other friends who are also HN readers and who they can ask for upvotes.

As much as this probably isn't the fair system we all want, it's what the system's optimization encourages today.

Try posting something SUPER interesting, staying quiet and not telling anyone. It's almost guaranteed not to make it to the front page.

Although I don't encourage this, with the current algorithm, you could probably even _prevent_ others' from getting their work on the front page by posting it ahead of time. When they try to post it they'll get a duplicate link but it's already stale and past its upvote-to-front-page life, which is probably about 30-60 minutes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you say these things? I'd be fascinated to know.

Almost everything here is wrong. HN's anti-abuse software isn't perfect, but if you ask friends to upvote your article, there's a high chance it won't help and you'll get your (and their) accounts penalized in the process. We actually go through the penalized posts looking for things to rescue because people tank their own good work in this way so reliably.

The dupe detector does not work the way you described.

If you post something super interesting that doesn't get attention, you (or anyone) can always email us at email@example.com and we might put it in the second-chance pool ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380)), in which case it will get a random placement on HN's front page.

<comment><USER28> Thanks! This is helpful to know.

I've seen lots of friends (including dozens of YC founders) ask for upvotes, usually via FB in ways that wouldn't necessarily constitute a ring (e.g. asking strangers in founder-friendly facebook groups), and they're usually of things worthy of publicity, and they do make it to the front page pretty quickly after the upvote requests.

I've also seen a lot of instances where posting once didn't do anything, and then posting a second time with an equivalent but different URL + asking a few friends to help upvote made it to the front page pretty quickly.

For example, I posted [https://github.com/dheera/rosshow](https://github.com/dheera/rosshow) on 2019-Mar-27 -- no dice.

Then posted it again with a "www.", i.e. [https://www.github.com/dheera/rosshow](https://www.github.com/dheera/rosshow) \-- then asked a couple friends to upvote -- and then BAM front page ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19519165](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19519165)).

So the only thing I did differently between trial A and B was asked people to upvote, and trial B succeeded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Assuming I'm reading the data correctly, your friends' votes were rejected by HN's software on that second submission. Randomness is the biggest factor on /newest, which is why we allow a small number of reposts to begin with: to give good submissions multiple cracks at the bat.

<comment><USER28> Thanks, helpful to know! I would have thought reposts would be penalized. Is there anyway to potentially mitigate the randomness factor though? For example by measuring things like impression time, bounce rate, and so on.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Canada's new 25 cent coin features a dinosaur, glows in the dark and more - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57412545-1/canadas-newest-coin-glows-in-the-dark/

<comment><USER2> This coin is cool, but it isn't intended for circulation so one wonders how durable the design is.

I actually think the 'poppy quarters'[1] are a bit cooler, because they've been in use since 2004. At the time they were the first coloured coin in circulation. They were unusual enough that American military contractors visiting canada even raised an alert that they might be espionage devices.[2]

[1] [http://www.canada.com/poppy+coin+introduced+Canada/3806046/s...](http://www.canada.com/poppy+coin+introduced+Canada/3806046/story.html)

[2] [http://www.thestar.com/news/article/211189--u-s-feared- poppy...](http://www.thestar.com/news/article/211189--u-s-feared-poppy- quarter)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not exactly, the Canadian mint rolls out all kinds of customized quarters in fact if you are Canadian look in your pocket and and I bet you'll have a differing quarter.

</comment><comment><USER4> They could charge a lot more if they did the same effect to Her Majesty on the reverse side. You know, just lighting up the bones.

</comment><comment> excuse-me First you laughed at their pitiful loonie

Then it reached parity

Now even the quarters are worth $29.95

<comment><USER5> You gota give it to them, their polymer money is beautiful too:

<http://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/>

<comment><USER6> Several years back I was backpacking around Asia and that's where I saw this "plastic" money. I thought they were fantastic, the paper stuff around was falling apart yet here was something that I could keep in my board shorts, going swimming with, not worry about someone stealing it from my wallet that I had to leave at the beach, and I could then use it straight away without to individually dry them out again! Or putting it through the washing machine :)

I didn't realise Canada had them too! Kinda surprised more countries are not using them, the security features (like the see through window) must be a lot harder to replicate, as well as looking pretty cool!

<comment><USER7> They're just being rolled out in Canada. So far, just the 100 and the 50 have been released into general circulation. I'll be glad when the 20, 10 and 5 are released; with the popularity of debit, I don't tend to have reason to carry large bills.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Linux games are also now being pirated - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
I've just seen that games for Linux are now being piated also, for example, look at this:
http://thepiratebay.se/search/linux/0/99/400
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/10681932/Complete_Humble_Bundle_for_Linux_%28__more%29_part_2
How is this going to affect the Linux gaming momentum, or the Steam for Linux efforts?
As I understand, Linux is trying to be a serious competitor to gaming on Windows.
How are we going to encourage more developers to make Linux games since Linux gaming is in its infancy and users are already pirating the games? <comment><USER2> Seeing pirated material for a platform or another means the popularity grows or at the very least, demand grows. In any case, piracy is not a negative thing and is often used to test a product before forking out money for it. Often I have had to download a pirated copy of a game because the legally bought client doesn't work due to DRM. Will developers shy away from Linux because piracy happens there? Why don't they shy away from windows, osx, xbox, ps4? Just as much piracy there, infact much more still.</comment>


The Purpose of Spectacular Wealth, According to a Spectacularly Wealthy Guy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-makes-a-case-for-inequality.html?_r=1

<comment><USER2> I'm amazed this didn't do well on HN. Maybe the title just sucks. It's _really_ relevant to Y Combinator in particular.</comment>


The New Retirement Plan: Save Almost Everything, Spend Virtually Nothing - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-retirement-plan-save-almost-everything-spend-virtually-nothing-1541217688 <comment><USER2> > One complaint from readers was that the 33-year-old author and her husband > still earn sizable incomes. Nate Thames works for a nonprofit and was paid > about $270,000 in 2016, according to his employer's most recent tax forms. > Ms. Thames makes an undisclosed amount from her blog and a recently > published book. "Now I understand why even with cutting everything to the > bone, that we haven't been able to save like they do," a reader posted in an > online review of the book. Ms. Thames says she is "transparent about the > fact that my husband still works a conventional job from home and that I > enjoy working for myself through Frugalwoods.com."

> Mr. Sabatier, 33, says his Millennial Money website made $401,000 last year. > Blogger Joe Udo, 44, recently disclosed he has made almost $350,000 since > starting "Retire by 40" in 2010.

> Tanja Hester, author of a blog called Our Next Life, called for FIRE > bloggers to be more transparent about their financial lives in a post this > year. She said she makes less than $1,000 a year on the blog, but declines > to disclose her income from a book advance, saying "there's no need to share > your actual numbers if you are honest with readers about your general > financial situation."

Like much of the self-help ecosystem, seems the key to living that superior lifestyle is having other people pay for it.

<comment><USER3> There is a lot of, for lack of a better word, fraud in the financial stories posted on the internet, and if you call it out on the financial forums, you get accused of just being jealous. Like people who got wealthy from getting a job through family connections, borrowing tens of thousands of dollars from family members to start a business, large inheritance, parents pay for college, stuff like that, then pretend they lifted themselves up by their bootstraps and anyone can do the same.

There was an article a bit ago like "how I paid off $150,000 in student loans in a year" where the woman said that her aunt or something gave her a high paying job, her grandma gave her a condo, and she lived rent free with her parents while renting out the condo, then used the money she wasn't spending on rent to buy a second condo. Anyone can do it!

I really don't understand why that is the way it is, but whatever.

<comment><USER4> Stating the obvious - the average person must produce about as much as they consume over their lifetime or 'the system' will by definition collapse.

I'm on board with what you say, but frugality is a pretty basic virtue and there are a lot of people who set themselves up for failure - there are people earning more than ~$80,000 who have good excuses for struggling financially, but they are rare. The fact that some people luck out in life and don't acknowledge it doesn't detract from the basic good sense of consistently investing in the future, and being realistic about whether your purchases are buying you more happiness than they lose you time through working.

The core of the FIRE philosophy is to try and do all the production in one big up-front batch, and then benefit from any opportunities that come along. It is obviously easier for the upper middle class and harder for the lower working class. There isn't anything wrong with that though, as long as everyone acknowledges that saving isn't equally easy for everyone and it depends on their ability to contribute to the economy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I prefer the term "financial independence" to "retirement" because retirement implies some sort of withdrawal from work.

<comment><USER6> Plenty just stick with the Financial Independence without getting into Retiring Early. But the latter does imply that you withdraw yourself from work, at least from being a sole contributor to a business you don't own.

<comment><USER5> Retirement implies a sort of finality that I think can only be present in older (or young but disabled) individuals that can no longer meaningfully work.

I don't think a 30 year old can 'retire'. From a specific field (e.g. professional football)? Sure.

In general? Money isn't the thing that makes successful people work.

It's really hard to spend 50 years on pure leisure. I can't think of any examples.

<comment><USER7> > Retirement implies a sort of finality

Coming out of retirement is a not-extremely-rare thing; I don't think retirement implies finality, though it might arguably imply the absence of an expected financial need to return.

<comment><USER5> I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is that these terms are simplified and only seem to mean anything in the context of someone who does some variant of a full-time job or series of full-time contracts for decades.

It assumes the front-loading of work punctuated with either long periods, or a complete (final) period, of mostly nothing.

Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired?

If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement?

<comment><USER7> > Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never > take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, > unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired?

No, they are probably just a capitalist, but part of the social support structure of capitalism is the fetishization of work and the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work.

> If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you > continually coming into and going out of retirement?

I would say no, if your expectation when you leave is that you will need to comenback to maintain your lifestyle.

If you occasionally take a job for self-fulfillment, maybe.

<comment><USER5> > the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a > spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through > their work.

I like to talk about them all the time. ;) Though I think we're seeing eye to eye here.

Different groups see "work" in such different ways that I think the terminology of stuff like 'retirement' doesn't transfer well.

Some people cannot see a life without work. Others do it for toys. Others do it as a status game.

Others don't really do it at all. I guess you could call that the 'leisure class'.

A theoretical human who has no need for food - are they fasting?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here are the useful ideas:

\- spend (much) less than you earn (by working)

\- figure out your risk tolerance and long-term goals, develop an Investment Policy Statement (including desired asset allocation and re-balancing strategy, if any)

\- stick to this plan until you're super comfortable with your plan, your back up plan, and your SHTF emergency plan

\- enjoy your freedom to control your time before you turn 67

It's probably not useful to:

\- take painful steps to reduce your spending

\- risk your health

\- do anything you don't want to continue doing after you stop working (except work!)

\- assume or rely on BLOG / BOOK / WRITING income like those that stopped the "usual" sources of income, but gained celebrity by writing about (the otherwise useful) ideas

</comment><comment> et-al Obligatory non-paywall mirror: [https://outline.com/HyGdqf](https://outline.com/HyGdqf)

<comment><USER9> Thank you. Mods should alter the link of this post and make it point to the url you posted.

Mods, are you there ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The paradox of thrift

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

<comment><USER11> If your putting it in the stock market or loans, doesn't it increase the supply of such things, thus making the return less and making people have to work harder as a result if 'everyone' did this?

As far as I can see, it only applies if the cash is inert in a bank account not being loaned out.

<comment><USER12> It depends on the demand for investment. If there are loads of potentially successful companies starved for resources, more spending on stocks and loans could increase total returns linearly, or perhaps even more.

If there's a glut of money for investment, then that's a different story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't this really bad for a capitalistic system? You need people to spend money and buy things that aren't just rent and basic food.

<comment><USER14> Not sure for why you're getting downvoted, but I think your point (which I would agree with) is that if large majorities were to act in this way, that system would be sustainable for nobody. The reason why FIRE works in this way is that people are piggybacking on a consumption culture to reap the benefits of compounding interest on stocks, without personally contributing to it. You're not going to see avg 8% gains in index funds in a world where wealth is hoarded, and FIRE isn't going to work without that high compounding rate.

This is one of the things that bugs me about the FIRE "movement". it's a great hack for the people doing it, but it can't become a mainstream system without breaking.

<comment><USER15> It's been addressed on MMM:

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/09/what-if- everyone-b...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/09/what-if-everyone- became-frugal/)

The key quote: "If an entire society gradually decides that it wants to consume less, then it needs to produce less as well.

If there is less stuff that needs to be produced, then people don't have to work as many hours to create it. That's perfect, because many people will be dropping out of the workforce much earlier as they finish earning the money they need to get going on their early retirement. The shortage of available work will be balanced by the reduced number of people willing to do that work."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Saving for retirement is a wise move whoever you are. I live in Finland where we have mandatory retirement saving system, but more and more people have started to find out that it's not really that good for everyone. Just now there was a story in a major newspaper that an university researcher didn't have that much retirement savings because research grants don't add to your retirement savings (tho this has changed recently) so she will be seeing near minimum retirement which isn't that much in a very expensive country. I'm in my mid 30s and I save for retirement and most of my friends do also, it's just that it ain't easy because after taxes and mandatory retirement payments and social security payments, money left usually goes to daily living, so you have to downscale and minimize expenses now that you have enough when you have to retire. The system is not optimal, and we do have mandatory minimum retirement after all if you can't afford to save, but you don't want to be that person who finds out couple of years before retirement that you are going to live near poverty line when retiring, it's harsh.

so saving for retirement is a good move who ever you are and where ever you live.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think that talking about financial independence requires a sort of implicit elitism which is difficult to avoid.

Basically, it's obviously the case that _everyone_ can't do this in an instantaneous fashion.

Consider - if everyone works for 10 years in total, then in the stable state (no pop growth) at any point in time roughly 15% of people are serving the other 85%.

The claim, is more like "if you try, you can do it". As in, a randomly selected individual is likely to be able to push themselves into a higher income group and cut their budget, if they focus on it.

I think this sort of problem plays out all over. An individual can be paid well if they study computer science and get a job at a decent company.

The nation can't. It's a logical impossibility.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think given longer lifetimes, increased costs and flat wages, "save almost everything, spend virtually nothing" is going to need to be the rule for life in general not just for early retirement.

<comment><USER18> Increasing costs and flat wages mean _somebody_ gets to be less frugal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Even if they don't retire early, good on these folks.

They will at least be able to take time off when they want, or self-fund an opportunity to be their own boss (which, at 48, I am convinced should be everyone's goal).

Another alternative is what I call the "slow burn"...work at brutal competitive jobs to build up a nest egg, then just "peace-out" and go work something mindless to keep a little income or maybe secure health insurance, while using your nest egg for life's big expenses

<comment><USER20> beware that burning out in a high-stress job will affect not just your own health, but your childrens too via epigenetic inheritance

<comment><USER21> citation please.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > Ms. Thames says she is "transparent about the fact that my husband still > works a conventional job from home and that I enjoy working for myself > through Frugalwoods.com."

> Ms. Pattee, who married in 2015, says she and her husband, Andrew Hanna, 33, > live off the rental income and save his salary in medical administration.

This doesn't sound like retirement. It sounds like being a housewife.

</comment><comment><USER23> I tried that when I was younger - but then I found out how much money it costs to attract and keep a girlfriend. Now I know how much money it costs to raise kids.

<comment><USER24> I truly don't know why this part isn't discussed more. Attracting and keeping a mate has to be 95% of the rat race existence in itself.

<comment><USER3> Only if you want to attract certain types of mates. If you want to attract a mate that has the same values as you, it makes saving for retirement much, much, much easier, not more difficult. When I got married I more than doubled my savings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> a lawyer making 150k could stick to the "old" retirement plan just fine. can your average millennial stuff 2 million away in 5 years just by saving??

<comment><USER26> Maybe not 2 million, but early retirement can be based on savings rate, not any specific number of millions.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly- sim...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math- behind-early-retirement/)

<comment><USER27> This reply is somewhat disingenuous. Read the question instead as "can your average millennial stuff away 64% of their income?"

To achieve the "shockingly simple" 11 year FIRE goal in that blog post, someone working 40 hour weeks at $15 an hour would need to indefinitely keep their annual expenses below an inflation-adjusted $12K to build the required savings prior to their early retirement and to live off those savings afterwards.

In reality, the math is only shockingly simple if you can control all the inputs.

<comment><USER26> The math is simple, but saving is hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Those of you who are a developer take note of the article.

Many of us in the IT space underestimate the harm & impact of working in our industry. You are the exception to not burn out, you are the norm to not be able to sustain the demand and you should plan for an early retirement.

<comment><USER18> To invest in something is to provide it with capital. If you're drawing the equivalent of a wage as investment income, corporate America finds your capital at least as valuable as your labor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm hitting a paywall. Does anyone know a workaround for the wsj?

<comment><USER30> There is a "web" link on this article. If you click it, you'll find a search engine link to the article which will give you access

<comment><USER31> This doesn't work anymore.</comment></comment></comment>


RIM's BlackBerry 10: Will business buy in? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/rims-blackberry-10-will-business-buy-in/article7889790/

<comment><USER2> Businesses are done buying in, haven't you heard of BYOD? Why the hell would I buy you a blackberry when you've already bought yourself a note 2, gs3 or iphone?</comment>


Why You Shouldn't Ask Us to Sign Your NDA - <AUTHOR> http://spin.atomicobject.com/2014/09/08/nda-stifle-creativity/#.VA2z0dDm4CI.hackernews <comment><USER2> Partly, NDAs are one of the weird things where high-status/power/etc organizations dictate "Hey, low-status/power/etc person. We have an arbitrary hoop here. You must jump through it." They're usually contracts of adhesion ("Negotiate the terms of the NDA? They were established by legal 5 years ago and everyone uses the same ones. Get with the program.") and usually filed- and-forgotten.

This is why VCs treat entrepreneurs' NDAs like a mark of immaturity and why Fortune 500 companies treat their own as usual indicia of serious business being conducted.

Personal stance: Asking me to sign anything catapults me out of "friendly chat" mode and into "enterprise sales" mode. I've only had one startup really fail to understand the distinction. ("Hey Patrick, can you do us a favor and fly out here to talk about X? We'll reimburse you for the ticket." "Sure!" _fast forward to two hours before the flight_ "Oh, BTW, here's an NDA, which I haven't read, but if I had, I'd know that you're already in breach of it because our lawyers didn't think we'd ever talk to anyone outside the US." "I have no desire to sign an NDA with you, most particularly not this NDA, which clearly has not been drafted in anticipation of our circumstances." "We need it to let you into the building." "WTF no you do not. If this is worth doing, it is worth getting Legal to fix this. If you will not waste Legal's time with it, I will simply decline to sign." "I didn't expect you to be difficult on this." "PLEASE CLARIFY WITH YOUR CEO WHICH OF US IS DOING THE OTHER A FAVOR." "Umm maybe we can skip the NDA." "GOOD DECISION.")

There exist some entrepreneurs who, having worked at BigCo, believe that constructing straw replicas of BigCo's NDAs will result in having BigCo levels of success. This is not a success-enhancing belief.

<comment><USER3> _" Hey, low-status/power/etc person. We have an arbitrary hoop here. You must jump through it." They're usually contracts of adhesion ("Negotiate the terms of the NDA? They were established by legal 5 years ago and everyone uses the same ones. Get with the program.") and usually filed-and-forgotten._

And to add to the fun and joviality all around, quite often the people who ask you to sign agreements like these (or their spiritual counterparts: overly aggressive indemnity clauses) don't actually know (haven't bothered to read the nuts and bolts of) what they're asking you to sign. Which has a lot to do with how they suddenly get so anxious when you ask questions about (let along make specific objections to) particular bullet points that you're being asked to sign on the dotted line for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're a professional contractor signing NDAs is a non-event, it's as normal as someone tipping the waiter after a dinner or opening the door before you attempt to walk through.

In a world full of rip-off artists keeping your mouth shut, promising under penalty that you won't be poaching your employers employees and promising to keep your data carefully and to get rid of it after the job is done is simply good practice.

There are plenty of parties for which signing an NDA makes no sense but if you're a hired gun that will build something or do some work for a fee then signing and NDA is par for the course. Just like any other document you sign you _do_ want to read all of it just to make sure there isn't anything funny in there about you having to eat 10 Kg of brown M&Ms or something like that.

On another note, I would work with contractors on occasion on projects for myself and I would not ask for any NDA preferring instead to rely on my judgement of who to do business with and who not, after all an NDA will need to be enforced if there is ever a problem and that's harder than it looks.

But someone who starts _before first contact_ about how they're not going to sign my NDA (without even finding out if I would require that) is definitely not going to be hired.

<comment><USER5> Back when I worked for a digital agency we used to get a lot of clients trying to get us to sign _non-mutual_ NDAs, which was a big red flag.

Here's how it would go: you'd go in to pitch for a new app or campaign. To pitch, you'd be expected to sign a NDA. So far, so good. However, all too frequently these would be one-way NDAs, meaning there was nothing stopping the potential client from taking our pitch and farming it out to a cheaper agency.

We never actually had a client refuse to change to a mutual NDA once we pointed this out. If you're signing a NDA and it's _not_ mutual you should ask why. How come the other party's secrets are worth protecting but not your own?

<comment><USER4> That's a super good point, a good NDA is symmetrical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Most consulting firms do in fact sign NDAs. It's uncommon for VCs to do so, but it's not at all unprofessional to ask a contractor to do it, and certainly doesn't make you look inexperienced.

Perhaps some firms prefer not to sign NDAs before they have a master agreement in place and some commitment to work. Fair enough. We'll sign an NDA immediately, though.

<comment><USER7> I think in the context, a person with an idea and no code, it does come of a bit silly to want to sign an NDA. I'm not sure why a consulting company works with such people. I'm guessing they cater to people with ideas who have too much money?

<comment><USER8> Its simple. Consulting companies have to talk to people to get jobs. Those people commonly ask them to sign an NDA. You do it or you don't get the first conversation.

Was a consultant, signed way too many silly NDAs.

<comment><USER6> There's an easy solution to this problem: just have your own confidentiality agreement (which you can have vetted, once, by your lawyer), and offer it. We'll sign other firm's paper, but we won't do it without legal review, and we'll avoid legal review if it looks like no work is going to come from the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only people who have asked me to sign NDA's have been for project which amounted to very little.

I work as a contractor so my experience may be different than a full time employee, but for me somebody asking me to sign away my rights for the chance to hear their idea does not attract me. It's a huge red flag to me that they are more interested in locking down their idea than realizing it.

My parents taught me a long time ago that creative people give ideas away, and non-creative people cling to the best idea they have run across. If somebody steals from a creative person it's no loss, they have a dozen more ideas and know how to come up with new ones. If a non-creative person has their idea stolen it's a MASSIVE loss because they don't know how or when another idea will come across their path.

In life, I have been the creative type and not afraid to let my ideas go, but somebody locking down even discussing their idea send me warning signs they 'arent' a creative type and will guard this one idea they have to the death. That's not conducive to me taking it and turning it into something beautiful. Would you expect a seamstress to make a beautiful gown out of fabric you keep under strict lock and key in a box? They can't work with it!

<comment><USER4> I've been asked to sign NDAs for projects that ended up becoming very valuable companies. The idea alone would have been somewhat valuable to the right company at the time.

For instance, in 1985 I built a system that eventually became a very large company that specializes in digitizing/printing photographs on credit cards. At the time it was technologically _barely_ possible so a lot of work needed to be done but the total secrecy of the project was a huge factor in the eventual success of the company. When they rolled out there was simply no competition.

It all depends. If you need the work, sign the NDA, if you don't need the work be prepared to lose the customer.

<comment><USER10> The relationship between "signed an NDA" and "total secrecy achieved" is... not a given.

The people to whom this article is addressed, business novices, might be better off achieving secrecy without using NDAs at all. They probably can't afford to actually enforce an NDA if something goes south.

Tech entrepreneurs in particular are, I think, much better served by focusing on creativity and speed of iteration as a barrier to competition, plus a fair bit of discernment in what they tell to whom. A copied-from-some-body-else NDA strikes me as about as valuable to a modestly funded entrepreneur as a crepe paper seat belt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Makes perfect sense to me.

Most NDAs I've seen are idiotic. A good NDA is symmetrical, limited in time, limited in scope, and covering the minimum necessary. But the ones I see are often one-sided, indefinite, and enormously extensive. No matter what the NDA says, the truth is that if you send me something in email, I am never going to go and remove that information from my backups. But please, keep asking for return of all information, just like this is still 1953.

I have also never actually heard of an NDA being enforced, ever. I've seen them honored and I've seen them violated, but I've never seen anybody go to the trouble of bringing suit over one.

On many occasions, though, I've seen early relationships get bumpy because some novice wants everybody to sign a bad NDA. Then some poor service provider either has to a) suck it up and sign a document they have no intention of honoring in full, or b) try to help the business noobs understand why a bunch of their NDA terms are wrong, dangerous, or pointless. It's a no-win situation for the service provider, and I've definitely become "too busy" rather than deal with another novice and their bad NDA.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like signing NDAs prematurely is the problem not NDAs all-together.

</comment><comment><USER12> What about "We might be working on a similar project" as a reason? Over the years many have walked into my office asking for us to sign an NDA before uttering a word. The chances are small but let's say their awesome idea _sort of_ relates to a side project that I'm working on. 99% of the time you're going to be fine, but that could be said about not using an NDA at all.

<comment><USER13> Literally every NDA I've ever seen had a provision for pre-existing work. It'd be sort of nonsensical not to.

<comment><USER12> You just need to prove your work was pre-existing, and also prove that what you learned in your meeting wasn't used in the further development. Basically it can get very sticky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminded me of [http://blog.jpl-consulting.com/2012/04/why-i-wont-sign- your-...](http://blog.jpl-consulting.com/2012/04/why-i-wont-sign-your-nda/) with previous discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3844893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3844893)

</comment><comment><USER15> I think that the context matters. In the case of an external consultant being asked to sign an NDA (whether prematurely or otherwise), Eric S Raymond presents some compelling arguments on why and how NOT to sign them. [http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2394](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2394)

</comment><comment><USER16> People often treat NDAs as if they are a trivial way to protect ideas. Unfortunately, there is nothing trivial about anything law-related.

NDAs are legal agreements (always a serious thing), and you could end up agreeing to something unreasonable without realizing it.

This is just a warning to ensure that everyone handles NDAs carefully.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm surprised no one here is talking about flow down terms. We have never made any partner or contractor or employee sign NDAs for disclosing 100% internal material, but it only takes one partnership with a fortune 500 (and we have a bunch) before you are knee deep in NDAs with clauses such as "any contractor or employee must be bound by terms at least as restrictive as those herein."

Now if anyone on the team wants the register map for the next-gen SoC we are using in our product (so that they can, you know, write some damn code) we have to start pulling NDAs out...

</comment><comment><USER13> As a contractor, I'm pretty sure every NDA I've signed is meaningless. They just never amount to anything, and the standard one that everyone seems to use is pretty watered down. Just never been an issue. If you're thinking this way, you're focusing on the wrong things - from either side of the transaction.

Now if I were a professional investor? Wouldn't touch one. Far too many butthurt entrepreneurs out there who will think you stole their idea.

</comment><comment><USER18> We don't want to sign your NDA until it's time for you to sign our NDA.

This "ideas are cheap" concept is getting really old. You need a good idea AND execution. But execution alone is just as worthless as a bad idea. Execution amplifies the value of an idea, and amplifiers are just as common as ideas.

What if my "secret sauce" is a whole new concept and being first in a new area would be a significant advantage? Hint: I have just such an idea.

<comment><USER19> An NDA is not going to protect you anyway. If you truly have some secret sauce, be a little careful in what you say to outsiders. They typically don't need to know the details anyway. That's part of your execution.

<comment><USER18> >> An NDA is not going to protect you anyway.

Why not? Companies make people and partner companies sign them all the time. Why would they not be effective for people?

What if it's a new idea? If the idea is obvious only in hindsight and it doesn't take much secret sauce, then what do you do? You can't communicate at all, so build it yourself I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The title should be "3 Reasons You Shouldn't Ask Us to Sign Your NDA for your premature thoughts". NDA has its place in many other fields.

</comment><comment><USER21> Attempting to protect an idea at a given stage with an NDA makes little logical sense, which then _might_ be a sign the person asking for an NDA might not know what they are doing, business-wise. That doesn't mean the idea isn't a good one, or that they won't succeed at bringing it to fruition.

</comment><comment><USER19> Article misses the main reason for entrepreneurs to not request an NDA: it creates a massive risk for the other party while granting very little upside. That's why it's rightly understood to be a rookie, uninformed move.

</comment><comment><USER22> I feel like they're unenforceable, so why bother? Ideas are cheap; executing on great ideas is difficult. Trying to litigate while executing on a great idea while running a under-capitalized start-up is next to impossible.

</comment><comment><USER23> Odd little metaphor: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285240)

</comment><comment><USER24> This post is the fourth reason why I wouldn't ask Atomic Object to sign my NDA.

</comment><comment><USER25> Just file detailed provisional patents.

</comment><comment><USER26> TLDR: Unless you are committed to work with another party, do not present them with useless documents to sign.

I doubt this is a real issue. Usually NDA comes attached with your starting paperwork to get the train moving.

<comment><USER27> It's a real issue, I've been asked to sign NDAs before interviewing for jobs.</comment></comment>


News from Otherwhere - <AUTHOR> https://www.historytoday.com/reviews/news-otherwhere <comment><USER2> Without relating much to the article's particular examples, I'll say this about anthropology and sociology: among people who have studied several domains (e.g. the idea of a "major" and a "minor" in most Anglo-cultural countries, or simply people who tried at several things), of which one was anthropo-/socio-logy, a striking majority report that these were the studies that helped them the most, generally, in life, whatever their trade.

(you can safely remove cases of doctors or lawyers or engineers who cannot do without the major, obviously; consider general studies for most jobs out there that fill 80% of businesses)

My anecdotal opinion is that anthropology in particular triggers a formidable widening of your conception of "human", "society", "rules", all these abstract yet incredibly tangible concepts / objects.

It's hard to explain concisely, but the promise is that you get closer to having some sort of "third eye"[1] at a collective level, i.e. regarding your own family, crew, city, country, planet. A typical case of "can't _un_ -see" which screams all the relativity of human cultures and behaviors — i.e. outside of biology (and even there), "normal" means very little in natural terms, normalcy is pretty much acquired / trained / cultural.

I'd recommend anthropology (and some sociology to link it with current / modern societies) to anyone wanting to "expand their mind" _a lot_ about what it means to be human, how our rules and ways of life are both relative and potentially _very_ variable, and generally to be able to navigate all the political mumbo-jumbo of human groups and circles (family, office, public, etc).

____

[1]: in a down-to-earth psychological meaning, the "third eye" is one's ability to look at oneself from a third-person perspective, i.e. to remove the camera from subjectivity ("1st person view"), to observe oneself from the outside. I think Freud called it the "it".

It's a trained habit that we think biomechanically enabled by the prefrontal cortex, and likely instrumental in making us "sapiens sapiens", i.e. able to reflect upon ourselves, self-awareness. I am implying that anthropology is one way to acquire this skill from a collective standpoint, i.e. "see how _we_ (the _we_ 's you belong to: your family, or office, city, country...) are different from _others_ , see how we are and how we _could_ be, have been, or would become."

You'd think like me that you know it all because you've seen the world (all hemispheres, all continents), you're opened to or knowledgeable about other cultures blablaba, and you take 1 class in anthropology with a great teacher and your mind is blown — how limited, little, narrow your ideas were, how much bigger that thing actually is.

<comment><USER3> I agree completely with you that some anthropological knowledge can be useful in any number of fields, but then as a cultural anthropologist I'm more than a little biased. That being said, I'd argue that sociology isn't a necessary accompaniment to anthropology to understand/analyze contemporary Western cultures. I earned my doctorate studying World of Warcraft guilds (believe it or not), so I can vouch for the discipline's ability to address "modern" concerns.

<comment><USER2> > sociology

Fair enough. I guess I should've stopped at saying that a little bit of exposure to both is good, can't hurt. My personal story was to come in for socio (part of political studies) but I left with anthropo as the real eye- opener.

> I earned my doctorate studying World of Warcraft guilds (believe it or not)

I've spent more time than I care to admit playing WoW and other 'persistent' online games in my 20s, but even _more_ time managing organizations therein... _(I 'm sure you'll agree that "officers", the staff, spend about twice as much time managing than playing ;-) )_ So, I guess I can believe it, like, first hand! And kudos, by the way, you have my genuine admiration. Had I continued in social sciences, I would have definitely focused on virtual environments. We need so much more awareness in that regard if we're to massively become real "digital" civilizations.

____

That being said, there's serendipity for me in the turn you took our discussion :)

I'm currently toying (seriously) with the idea of launching a _" real world"_ guild: a 'new'/hybrid type of org that fits somewhere between:

\- real medieval guilds (culture centered on a trade, a line of work, set of skills, craftsmanship, etc; and its general interfacing with the rest of the world)

\- online modern guilds (organized group, purpose-driven, 'free' and voluntary, etc). Also sort of digging abstract 'dreams' of internet pioneers (the world village, communities..) and taking what fits reality (e.g. looking at the good and bad of open-source).

My project is aimed at developers, software makers; but a deeper goal is to nail (well, explore, experiment, describe) structures, processes, show an idea that others may emulate, in the same or other fields.

Bluntly, I'd love to hear your quick opinion and ask you a few questions maybe. You seem so uniquely qualified!

I haven't drafted much yet (still research/concept), and I'm curious about your very general take on the idea, this elevator pitch; but if you're interested I can give you more details.

I hope this is not intruding on my part, I'd totally understand if you replied with silence for a polite "no".

Best, regardless ;-)</comment></comment></comment>


Good Home Treatment of Influenza [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://drgcwoodson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Good-Home-Treatment-of-Influenza.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> In addition to the points in this article, there is advice to not give children aspirin:

[https://www.healthline.com/health/headache-reyes- syndrome](https://www.healthline.com/health/headache-reyes-syndrome)

Kevin Rose Podcast with Dr. Andrew Weil had some suggestions I had not heard before:

[https://podcastnotes.org/kevin-rose- show/covid-19-coronaviru...](https://podcastnotes.org/kevin-rose- show/covid-19-coronavirus-andrew-weil/)</comment>


P-bits: Bridging the gap between standard bits and q-bits - <AUTHOR> https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5055860 <comment><USER2> If P=BPP as we suspect, what advantage does this give us?

<comment><USER3> One can expect "constant factor" speedups, such as we see from GPUs. And some clever people may find algorithms which result in polynomial speedups. In (complexity) theory, the impact is negligible. In practice, dropping an O(n^3) algorithm to O(n^2) can have a huge impact.</comment></comment>


A take on some of the criticisms being levelled at the new MacBook Pro models - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/31/macbook-pro-diary-opinion-criticisms/ <comment><USER2> I think the simplest explanation here is that where previously the MacBookPro was a device for professionals with Mass Market appeal, it is now a device for mass market that hasn't quite lost the professional price. When your company has catered so heavily to one demographic over the years it's more than a bit disingenuous to use the same product name to sale vastly under suited machines to those individuals. The new MacbookPros are clearly not going to work in a lot of pro use style environments. It's fair to argue that most people don't plug anything in but power, and that 16gb of memory is already overkill but I'd argue that's what the Air and non pro lineup are for. The pro moniker has meant something for the past 15+ years, and these machines do not honor that. If Apple isn't in the business of making machines for developer and serious creatives that's fine but they need to do a better job communicating that.

Also as a side note the new iPhone not coming with a cable is just bad. Directly connecting the phone to the computer remains the easiest way to transfer content and the only real way to reset the device in certain situations. Just complete failure to not have that included.

<comment><USER3> People keep saying this "for professionals" thing, but what about the previous generation of Pros was so different compared to this new one? The 13" still only had integrated graphics and a dual core cpu. The 15" still only had the option for a kind of bad discrete graphics cards, and the more-or-less top of the line intel laptop chip. Other than 32gb ram, I'm not sure what they could have done here to satisfy "professionals" on the specs.

To me the reason these are Pro devices is they use top of the line materials and manufacturing techniques to make a powerful and portable device that basically lasts forever in computer years. Nothing so far has led me to believe the new MBPs will fail at this. And very little suggests PCs are competitive on this dimension yet.

<comment><USER4> Better GPU? I wonder how the 13" will fare when hooked up to the LG 5K screen coming out in December.

<comment><USER5> I wondered about this as well, since I have an (I think) early 2015 13" and notice some slowness when using the display scaling feature or connecting it to an external 4k monitor.

Ars mentions this:

> It's also much more feasible to use the scaling modes with current GPUs than > it was with 2012's GPUs, which were prone to dropping frames even at lower > resolutions. I noticed no slowdown or jerkiness whatsoever in 1440×900 or > 1680×1050 mode on the new Pro—you don't need to worry about performance, so > just pick the mode that treats your eyeballs the best.

Doesn't address 5K, but at least seems promising in terms of the ability of the new Iris chips to drive the display at higher resolutions. Hopefully 5k won't be an issue, and Apple is specifically advertising it as supported.

My gut, however, says that if you want to run 5k without any noticeable slowness, you'll need the 15.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a new Macbook Pro on order, I'm excited to try out TouchBar, I hope it hangs around and isn't just a gimmick that falls by the way side.

The price is high and I'm surprised they pushed it that far (being in the UK it's even worse since at the same time they corrected for the USD > GBP exchange rate changes) but I'm also not hugely price sensitive. I just like a robust, light, laptop that works.

I use Windows, macOS, and Linux daily and while I'm comfortable with all of them I'd never choose anything else for a laptop (equally I never use macOS in a desktop setup).

macOS feels, to me, like an operating system designed for laptops. The power management is excellent, the hibernation is robust, the screen (on the Macbook Pro line at least) is high quality and crucially the OS is well optimised for a high DPI display.

I get the feeling there is some sort of internet/blog drama war going on here, it just doesn't seem to warrant the response it's getting.

<comment><USER7> Legitimate question: How much time right now do you spend staring down at your keyboard as opposed to up at the screen? How do you think looking down at the TouchBar will impact your productivity?

<comment><USER6> Perfectly fair question! I touch type, so basically never. But I'm open to seeing what possibilities it brings. :-)

I mostly use Sublime Text, Slack, Google Docs, and the terminal. That pretty much covers everything I need to achieve. I appreciate I'm a special snowflake and other people have other requirements.

Disclaimer: I only ever use the function keys for display brightness, volume, etc. They are just not part of my routine keyboard usage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The analysis here pretty much echoes my own thoughts.

Computers are becoming closer to appliances as time moves forward and "we" are not the target market. A lot of the chatter here has been about how Apple has "forgotten about us", developers/power users. The same outcry happened when Apple moved away from catering to video professionals. It doesn't seem like that really hurt their sales.

I know more people who own Apple products that are not power users. They buy their Apple products to read email, take care of their photo, music, and movie needs, and maybe do some homework. Being light, sleek, and fast enough is more important than having every port under the sun with the absolute newest CPU with the absolute maximum memory. I feel pretty confident that Apple is chasing their main user base.

<comment><USER9> I can pretty much guarantee that that segment you mentioned, doesn't need a $3000 computer to read email and do homework... And as much as they appreciate light, sleek, and fast enough, they'll appreciate keeping money in their bank accounts a bit more..

<comment><USER10> True. But that segment does care about aesthetics and build quality; which is arguably what they understand most about their Apple machine. They also tend to care about their social projection. As long as Apple remains king in those areas, they can continue to charge the prices they do. Anecdotally, every Apple user I talk to says agrees their machine is expensive but also says it's worth the price.

<comment><USER2> That's the entire point of product lines. One should buy the air or regular macbook if they don't need the beefier hardware of the pro.

<comment><USER11> Except those machines are (arguably) full of compromises in today's market. I don't feel the same personally, but I get the general impression that if they kept each product line healthy and active, then the differences between each line wouldn't be so stark at any given point in time.

For example the MacBook Air would be fantastic with a Retina display, but it's a tough sell without one in 2016.

<comment><USER12> But Apple could have upgraded the Airs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The highest price of the 15" MacBook Pro 2013 was 2300 € with a 512 GB SSD, 2,3 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB Memory and a Nvidia Whatever Card. Basically I even added a 100 Euro/140USD extra Storage with 256 GB to fit my needs ([https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WGARJGU/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WGARJGU/)).

Now the cheapest model with 512 GB SSD would cost 2500 € without a Extra Slot, which would make it 200 € pricier without taking inflation into account but which would only be 20€ - 40€ in Germany and I forgot that it won't have a dedicated graphics card which the 2013er had for a smaller price. (And not taking into Account that SSD prices are dropping) Actually even their additional option do suggest that "Developers" are not their target. You can preinstall Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro, you couldn't pre install that on the 2013er and now you can even upgrade your dedicated graphics card memory, so that makes it even a bigger target for Designers, Movie specialists etc.

Just not useful for developers, since they will probably need more dongles than just one, I can count myself at least buying 6-7 of them.

<comment><USER14> You are forgetting that people like to buy Apple product for status symbol. Like $10,000 gold Apple Watch. It works same as $400 watch but along with that it also work as a good reminder of your wealth. Apple products are not for poor folks and it has been made clear several time.

<comment><USER13> price is not a problem, but getting worse and having a higher price is bad. Also I actually used the function key, the SD slot and need at least one USB slot. and there aren't many USB-C docks available so keeping my old Thunderbolt dock would be great, but that is possible by buying another Dongle for 50 Euro [http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMEL2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-us...](http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMEL2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-usb- c-to-thunderbolt-2-adapter)

So my overall sum would be at least 3000 € to have at least 756 GB storage 16 GB memory enough Dongle's and a dedicated graphics card. For the 2013er version we actually had a bill of 2600 Euro, but we also bought a dock, additional storage and a additional charger. If Apple would actually provide enough value to satisfy the price increase, i would say that it's fine, but they didn't they even made it pricier and removed stuff that I actually need to pay more for Accessoires. I'm actually really really happy with my late 2013 15" but I probably need to wait till for the new one till USB-c is more common to satisfy the additional price and I basically never need the touch bar, I don't see any value in it. I mean contextual bases switching is nonsense. I want to stop the music without having iTunes open.

<comment><USER15> Actually price is starting to be a problem, for businesses in some EU countries.

We have a tax law, that exactly specifies what you can expense as a tax- admitted OPEX during a year, and what you must depreciate over several years as CAPEX. For laptops, the amount is below 1700 EUR (without VAT, so that makes it 2040 EUR with 20% VAT) and the duration of depreciation is 4 years.

No way most businesses are going do depreciate laptops for 4 years, unless there's a very pressing business need. The recent 200 EUR price hike severely limits the useful configurations available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > You do have to buy a new cable, yes, but you don't need any clunky adapters > [to plugin in an iPhone 7 to a new MBP]

I think the semantic distinction he's trying to make is that a new cable is a replacement for the old cable, and that you don't need to carry around a new thing in addition to your charge cable.

But for most people, we'll now need to carry around two types of iPhone cables: one for use with our shiny new MBPs, and one for use everywhere else. My wall chargers? USB-A. Every charger in a hotel room, coffee shop, or airport? USB-A.

So while it might be possible to buy a new cable, it would actually be easier (and five bucks cheaper!) to buy an adapter because it's smaller than a cable, and multi-purpose.

<comment><USER17> Not to mention the millions of existing devices that use USB-A style cables.

I very much doubt that over the next couple years you'll see a mass migration to USB-C cabling. Every device you buy for this thing (printer, hard drive, usb stick, card reader....), you'll now have to buy an adapter.

Maybe in 3 years it won't be a problem, but I doubt it.

I think part of the issue is we're being told this is one connector "To Rule them All" to this machine. There are only 2 types of ports and one is a headphone jack. I think most of us would love that in an ideal world, but this world isn't.

<comment> matt-attack It's taken 15 years to get to the point where USB is simply everywhere (cars, airports, chargers for random $20 quad-copters from Fry's, keyboard/mouse connections on servers, etc). And it's kinda nice right now. I'm better _much_ more than three years to get to this point again with USB-C. I'm claiming it cannot be worth it. I'm aware of the advantages of USB-C, but we're so extremely invested in the USB-A ecosystem...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of those new Macbook Pros, combined with that 5k LG display, would be my dream setup. Plug in a single cable, and you're connected to power, keyboard, display, network & mouse.

I don't use VMs, so 16GB are enough for my development needs (thanks to compressed Memory I seem to rarely fill up my RAM anymore). CPU performance has never been an issue for me.

Since I carry my Macbook Pro with me every day, and I often use it on public transport, I appreciate low weight & long battery life.

One thing I'd really like would be a built-in 3G/LTE modem because connecting to public Wifi or personal hotspot seems like an unnecesary hassle -- I'd like to have my Mac be always online without any manual intervention.

Yes, I'd probably need to get a new cable for my keyboard, but at least USB-C is a standard that everyone agrees is the future!

<comment><USER19> > Plug in a single cable, and you're connected to power, keyboard, display, > network & mouse.

I suppose this might be a "feature" of the 12″ MacBook. Since there's only one port, it forces you to use a single-cable setup, and creates a market for accessories that fit this use case, which will also work with the MacBook Pro.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Regarding the ports, I think it's worth pointing out that the specific set Apple is offering is the most powerful possible. Inconvenient at present, perhaps, but consider that a USB Type-A port can't do USB 3.1 10Gbps, can't do Thunderbolt, and can't charge the machine.

USB-C, on the other hand, can do all of these. By having four of them, the laptop is maximally versatile (USB, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, power input, configure as you like) and offers maximum peak I/O bandwidth.

Keeping one of the older ports would be more immediately convenient (no need for an adapter), but would mean a less powerful machine overall if that means sacrificing a USB-C port.

The lack of an SD card slot is sad, though. Losing MagSafe is maybe a shame, too, but you do gain a standardised port (so one companies other than Apple can make chargers for), a power cable detachable from the brick, and the ability to connect it to either side of the machine.

I guess the best way to describe the port configuration is "far-sighted". It's extremely future-proof and capable, and will be great once USB-C is everywhere, but it's painful right now.

<comment><USER20> MacSafe is probably also not as effective as it was advertised. I had a situations where the cord dragged the MacBook in the opposite direction of the MagSafe port and it almost fell of the table, and conversely I cannot remember having a situation where the plug saved my MacBook in 5 years. One needs to be very careful either way.

Fortunately, I am not a photographer. I can imagine that they will miss the SD slot.

<comment><USER19> Modern MacBooks, with their aluminum unibody design, are pretty sturdy things in any case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I agree with most of this, but the dongle thing is pretty silly and he does a bad job of covering it. As a developer I need:

* a thunderbolt 2 dongle for my external monitor

* a lightning dongle for my phone (not for backups, for dev work)

* a usb dongle for my mouse (the trackpad is great for casual use, but a real mouse is still far more productive -- and I hate bluetooth mice with a passion due to recharging hassles and the fact that after so many years they still haven't completely solved the interference issue)

* a second usb dongle for my video conferencing USB headphones

Keep in mind I bought one of these things the second the site opened up, but I _still_ had a moment of "oh shit, yeah, I need to buy a lot of dongles!"

If I could have I would also have bought something that lets me use the 4 power bricks I already have with the new box. Not looking forward to having to buy a few extra of those.

<comment><USER22> How many of these could be resolved with a really decent USB-C hub? Is there none that currently exists?

<comment><USER23> [https://www.amazon.com/Satechi-Aluminum-Multi-Port- Adapter-E...](https://www.amazon.com/Satechi-Aluminum-Multi-Port-Adapter- Ethernet/dp/B01FWT7MEK/ref=cm_wl_huc_item)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> People seem to forget there are a lot of smart people working at Apple on the business side who know what they are doing.

 _Apple has calculated how many customers will be upset, lost, indifferent and gained due to various product decisions._

Apple is not perfect or flop-proof, but they must make product decisions. These decisions, whether short term or long term, consider customers, competition and technology trends. Every decision has benefits and costs.

I agree Apple may have lost its way a bit and taken too far the old Steve Jobs' approach of "don't ask the customer what they want, they don't know, a company has to show them what they will want".

If you have decided not to upgrade to the new MBP because of the price or lack of ports. If you are going to buy a non-Apple laptop next time you do need to upgrade. Apple already knows this, you/we are statistics, and while they want customers to stay, they know a certain % of customers will not.

The removal of the headphone jack on the iphone went through the same calculations.

Still worth voicing our opinions, Apple listens as does the competition. Someone will offer what enough people want.

</comment><comment><USER25> I just plugged my iPhone SE into my 2014 MBP to charge it while I'm also charging my MBP. Yeah, I do this frequently.

Offering USB-C and USB-A would have been a safe move. I think Schiller said *we don't design for price, we design for the experience". This is a bad experience.

Removing the chime seems like a pointless slap. Again, experience.

I do like having the T1 Security Enclave. We'll see about the function keys but that'll probably turn out pretty good.

16GB DRAM cap is really low, especially when prices got kicked up. Battery charge isn't great since they went with thin. Again, bad experience.

Lastly, I really don't want a thinner MBP. That is the Air which seems to have died. I want a powerful MBP because the P in MBP stands for Pro.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think part of the problem is they capped the RAM at 16gb and many buyers of these devices expect to use them for 4-5 years. It's questionable whether 16gb will be suitable in 2021. Also - raising the price and taking away ports creates this vacuum just asking for opinions -- and since they're not shippping for a couple more weeks - there's no way to physically see how big an impact these changes will have - so it's fair to be skeptical of something that seems disruptive in a bad way.

</comment><comment><USER5> The pricing keeps getting brought up. I understand the prices have gone up especially for some non-US buyers, but for those in the US, where are you seeing the hit? I might be insulated from this because I usually opt for the high-end 15", and from what I can remember the price on that hasn't changed. Is it the 13" models where the price has gone up?

</comment><comment><USER27> The 16GB limit is the real issue for me personally. There are plenty of Windows/Unix laptops that can do 32GB or more so all the excuses I've been hearing are ludicrous.

<comment><USER14> [http://superuser.com/questions/40113/does-installing- larger-...](http://superuser.com/questions/40113/does-installing-larger-ram- means-consuming-more-energy)

Increased power consumption with higher RAM may be true.

<comment><USER28> A bit more sure. Although generally power scales mostly with the number of chips (or number of dimms). The graph mentions SDR, DDR, and DDR2 for a factor of 6 decrease in watts per GB.

Presumably DDR3 and more important DDR3L have continues to improve the watts/GB.

Generally the CPU/GPU and LCD are the leading consumers of power on laptops. LCDs get somewhat warm, but have a large surface to dissipate heat from. CPUs on the other hand often need active cooling, where dimms (generally) do not.

Seems unlikely compared to a 28 Watt CPU and a 500 nit 13.3" display that the 16 -> 32GB upgrade would be particularly noticeable. Especially when apple claims that the low end and high end models have the same battery life, despite the low end model having a 10% larger battery and lower power CPU, GPU, less ports, and no touch panel.</comment></comment></comment>


Michel Foucault: Power and Struggle - <AUTHOR> https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/michel-foucault-footnotes-to-plato/ <comment><USER2> The only Foucault I can claim to have read is 'Discipline and Punish'. In particular, the idea that stuck with me most was his description of the Panopticon, the building model developed by Jeremy Bentham - primarily for use as a prison.

For those that aren't familiar with the Panopticon, the simple explanation is that it's a circular building with a 'watchtower' in the middle. The watchman is at the top of the watchtower and the windows of the watchtower are slatted such that those being watched cannot tell if the person inside is looking at them. This means that they essentially must assume that they could be monitored and watched at any given time and have no way to determine if they are not currently being watched.

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

Short bit from the Wikipedia page for the Panopticon related to Foucault:

> Foucault first came across the panopticon architecture when he studied the > origins of clinical medicine and hospital architecture in the second half of > the 18th century. He argued that discipline had replaced the pre-modern > society of kings, and that the panopticon should not be understood as a > building, but as a mechanism of power and a diagram of political technology.

This idea to me extended to the modern age of digital technology and the fact that (especially after the documents that Snowden revealed) practically whenever you are using modern technology, you could be watched and you wouldn't know it. This according to Foucault is an astounding amount of power that is being used as a lever against you - it in essence ensures that people will always behave as if they are being watched, even if they actively are not. And I believe studies have shown that people will act differently if they think they are being watched. I find the idea so fascinating that I strike up conversations in real life with people about the Panopticon every chance I have.

Perhaps fortunately, this model has only ever been used in one real prison in Cuba - slight aside, Fidel Castro and his brother Raul were actually imprisoned here for a period of time.

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

<comment><USER3> One of the simplest forms of this is why do we stop at stoplights when no one is around (in the US anyway)? The idea of the Panopticon also goes into laws. Just because a law exists doesn't mean people follow it, there has to be a mode where we are no longer controlled from top-down, but we modify our behavior because of the power put on us by this fear of being watched or other people judging our behavior so we change it.

<comment><USER4> True story: the only ticket I've ever gotten was running a red light. Happened around 1am, on my way home from work. This was in a rural area, nobody on the road for miles, and this idiotic light would stay red for minutes. A cop was sitting in a speed trap just past the light.

Revenue generation: it's the law.

<comment><USER5> Well, that was very unsporting of the cop. Sometimes I'll treat red lights like stop signs, very late at night, as a minor demonstration of sobriety-- like, if you want to pull me over, have at it, but you're gonna be bored and disappointed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Power / Knowledge, Discipline and Punish, and History of Sexuality were huge influences in my thinking about the world and how to think about life itself as a system with power being the interconnect. I highly recommend it to understand how culture/subcultures behave and it ends up becoming in a sense graph theory.

<comment><USER6> What makes you sure that is the right way to think about the world?

<comment><USER3> It is a model, it is a model that has been useful for me. I don't discount that there are flaws with Post-Structuralism but most ways of making sense of the world have flaws.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough if it is useful for you. I am curious what makes it useful, as it seems to be a very negative and destructive way of thinking. At least I have never met an adherent to that philosophy with a positive outlook on things.

<comment><USER7> What makes you think a "positive outlook on things" is the right way to think about the world in general, and those issues in particular?

<comment><USER6> "Positive Outlook" maybe sounds a bit naive. I mean that people have the means to do things and change things. Not everything is just a power play. Of course some situations in the world can be very bad, but even then I don't see how musing about power structures would help.

I guess it is (for me) about practical approaches and solutions vs theoretical musings.

Also in general people are not all that bad. Even most bad people are just misguided, not inherently bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's an interesting debate between Foucault and Chomsky: [1]

Unfortunately, they're mostly speaking past each other, but it's still worth watching.

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8)

<comment><USER9> It seems to be a problem with any televised debate - the people debating have no intention of finding the truth or changing their mind, instead it's all about convincing the viewer by appearing to be "winning" the argument.

<comment><USER8> It's a common failing of philosophy. Many philosophers constantly reframe everything they hear and see as exemplifying and justifying their own view, and seem to be unable to engage anyone else on their own terms or even charitably see the point others who don't agree with them are trying to make.

This goes double for when the conversation is across the Analytic/Continental divide, as is the case with the Chomsky/Foucault debate (though Chosmky isn't exactly an Analytic philosopher, he's a lot closer to the Analytics than he is to the Continentals).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How machiavelic it is to think everything is revolving around power. I haven't read Foucault but I tend to think I'm more enclined towards other values, like morale for example.

<comment><USER3> Power by itself isn't positive or negative. It is how power is used that has that. Morality, etc. are basically ways of actuating power.

<comment><USER11> To add to your comment, it is also how power is _obtained_ that is important.

In other words, you can't kill your way to power and then give away money to rescue your soul.

<comment><USER7> The universe however doesn't care about souls (rescued or not).

In other words, you can very much kill your way to power and then be fine (as to "how you sleep") with it.

Even more, unless you overdo it like Hitler or Stalin, you can have other people (heck, history itself) be fine with it, and celebrate you as a great leader, a beautiful soul, etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Last week I got my comment downvoted and flagged for suggesting someone needed to read Foucalt.

I still think a lot of you need to read Foucalt.</comment>


Stanford just made tuition free for families earning less than $125,000 per year - <AUTHOR> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/stanford-just-made-tuition-free-for-families-earning-less-than-dollar125000-per-year/ar-AAakt3k <comment><USER2> Extensive discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283249)</comment>


Show HN: Accelerate Excel – 100x faster spreadsheets - <AUTHOR> http://engine.datanitro.com/#

<comment><USER2> The problem with spreadsheets is generally maintainability and testing not performance. At least if it is slow people might rewrite it on a better platform.

I am sure there is a market though.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're hoping that better performance will let users build well-designed spreadsheets - they'll be able to show more steps and use less archaic formulas without having to worry about slowdowns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How are you accelerating Excel so much, in a way that Microsoft wouldn't have thought about? No trashing, I'm just curious, and the website doesn't tell much apart from "demolishing the bottlenecks".

<comment><AUTHOR> We wrote a static optimizer for spreadsheets - this looks at the entire sheet and reduces computational complexity where it can.

Excel's built-in functions are optimized to run fast individually, not to work in concert. (Also, some of them are just slow for no good reason.)

<comment><USER3> That's an interesting approach, thank you!</comment></comment></comment>


Taking a Principled Position on Software Freedom - <AUTHOR> http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20090714-00

<comment><USER2> I find this an interesting take on the subject. I'd use the same line of thought to argue for the opposite position: it's a good thing if a statement could be proven to be wrong! Arguments that rely on a set of empirical claims of superiority are good arguments, because they can be tested. Statements that are not refutable -- such as statements about the superiority of a subjective moral -- are bad arguments.

For the record: Here's one Open Source advocate who applauds LinuxCare for saving themselves by abandoning Open Source. I guess, the current users of LinuxCare's products probably agree. Yes, I advocate for "proprietary development methodologies in areas where evidence seems to show that they are more effective".

An idea is not inevitably good just because it's guided by principle.

In fact, I believe most ideas that are guided by principles -- especially those that claim moral superiority of a certain principle -- seem to turned always into human tragedies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Summary: there are two camps of open source advocacy: those who state their position on matters of principle, and those who make their case based on promoting measurable quantities such as higher quality or more flexible software etc. Author believes the former is better because " _Principles are based on a type of Utopianism; they are a statement of how we think things should be"_ whereas the latter argument is open to obvious, demonstrable cases where it is false.

While I have every sympathy for his intellectual position, as somebody who has had to make a business case for using open source software, I have found the vocal "efficiency" camp and its publicity invaluable when dealing with an audience that is sceptical towards matters of principles.... on principle. Yes, the superiority argument isn't always technically correct, but is certainly more appealing to certain classes of people.

<comment><USER4> I've always found there to be two primary camps as well, with the following division.

The first group is the Stallman-esque group. They believe that people should use software _because it is free_ (free as in libre, of course, not gratis). Being good is secondary; the fact that something is free should be sufficient for people to prefer it over other solutions. This has potential negative consequences for developers; a developer who believes in this may be less motivated to make his program better than proprietary equivalents because he does not believe that it _needs_ to be so for him to promote his program as an alternative. The Stallman-esque group also tends to believe that marketing is more important than engineering; open source is about advocacy more than it is about coding.

The second group is the Linus-esque group. These people believe that the primary goal of open source is to produce, via a community process, _really good software_ ; freedom is secondary. That software will become popular not because of marketing and advocacy, but merely because it is so good that its engineering merit will stand on its own. Users should use what software is best for them--it's the developers' job to ensure that "best" means "free". These people are often seen as "impure" by the Stallman-esque group because when asked for the best way to set up a system, they will often include non- free software in the mix--they would design the system for maximum effectiveness, not maximum freeness, since their goal is to produce the best system possible, not the most free.

From what I've been able to tell, the divide between these two groups seems practically unbridgeable; the philosophy differs so much that the two sides often completely fail to understand each other, much like the divide between GPL and BSD advocates.

<comment><USER3> That is what he describes, his point being that rationalisation aside, let's face it we do this because it is _fun_.

" _the divide between these two groups seems practically unbridgeable_ "

I don't know enough to comment about whether that is accurate; but I would say that this is one divide that doesn't necessarily need bridging. We're not talking about VHS versus Betamax here; as long as both sides keep doing what they are doing for whatever reasons, everybody wins.

<comment><USER4> But often the sides come into conflict. For example, most recently, the Stallman-esque group started a massive marketing campaign for Theora--it's free, so we should use it. This caused the Linus-esque group incredible aggravation, because they cannot understand why someone would want to promote something that is technically inferior in many ways. Equally, the Stallman- esque group cannot understand why the Linus-esque group would even consider using multimedia formats covered by patents--why would anyone do that?--it's against the open source philosophy--and away the argument goes again.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mad cow disease confirmed in California - <AUTHOR> http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/04/24/mad-cow-disease-confirmed-in-california/

<comment><USER2> Hopefully this doesn't cause a public scare and there aren't any fatalities.</comment>


Ask HN: What Are the KPIs or Metrics for Success in 'Developer Relations'? - <AUTHOR> What are some of the important metrics to measure success in a "Developer Relations" or Developer Advocate role? <comment><USER2> Like panda888888 said, DevRel in an ideal world is less about metrics and more about listening and building relationships with your community, but as we all know, metrics are still necessary to prove business value and to keep the team alive within a company.

I wrote a whole book about how to determine and show the business value of DevRel at your particular company ([http://persea- consulting.com/book](http://persea-consulting.com/book)) but there are two main points I'll highlight here:

1) When reporting success to stakeholders at your company, focus less on the work output (how many conferences did you speak at, blogposts did you write, etc.) and more on the goals that those tasks pushed forward. What's the purpose of the blogposts? Are you trying to improve your audience's onboarding experience by writing tutorials or sample applications to help them understand various uses of your product? Are you speaking at conferences for brand awareness purposes or to popularize the key principles that your product is built upon? Focus on those topics instead of "I did `x`." For instance, focus on how many fewer support tickets were decreased as a result of your tutorial or improved documentation.

2) Make sure that your goals are aligned with the company goals. Your team mission should point back to the overarching company goals in a way that it's clear the work that you're doing will further the goals of the company. (Note: If you don't have a team mission, you should! I wrote an article about that here: [https://cmxhub.com/follow-the-north-star-creating-a- communit...](https://cmxhub.com/follow-the-north-star-creating-a-community- team-mission-statement/)) Your value comes from building relationships with a technical audience over a longer period of time, which means you'll need to show how the work that you're doing is beneficial to the company in the present day as well as in the future, but through your mission and goals being aligned with the rest of the company, the stakeholders should be able to see that while perhaps non-traditional, the work that you're doing is beneficial.

</comment><comment><USER3> \- Social media posts/followers \- How many events you presented at

</comment><comment><USER4> If your company does developer relations right, it's less about metrics and more about listening.</comment>