How I scratched my entrepreneurial itch while teaching English in China - <AUTHOR> http://ninjodo.com/china-entrepreneurship-business-lessons/ <comment><USER2> I've lived in China, even did a bit of English teaching on the side from time to time. My experience was that the bar for English teachers was very low, people with no skills other than speaking english as a first language could move there and have a comfortable life.

The chinese government perceives this import of low skilled workers as a problem. Working illegally (on a non valid visa) in china is quite common as an expat, but it was pretty much the only industry I saw that deportation was strongly enfoced.

Reading between the lines, this doesn't strike me as a story of pushing yourself to achieve your goals, but instead one about a person who lacked focus, moved to china and settled into the easy ex-pat lifestyle of teaching english. I would be hesitent to take any advice he gives.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for adding your 2 cents here. I appreciate it. For me, it was more of a story of searching for his passion and path in life. But, you read it like that and it's probably our fault to not communicate it right. Once again thanks for adding value.

<comment><USER3> I lived in China for a few years as well, and most expats you run into are usually teachers. This doesn't mean they are all low skill or lost perse. Many are young and come there after college for a gap year or two, to travel and experience something different. However, many are enticed by the ease of life: 16 hour work week for Uni foreign teachers, relatively decent salary, ability to travel, and other assorted reasons. I've seen many people get into side businesses while over there, but it was usually running a school (most likely with a foggy legal arrangement and no ability to procure residence permits - eliminating the true draw of a school for many parents over there). It's been a while since I was over there, so things might have changed, but I think, for the most part, the poster above is correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few thoughts after reading the article:

(1) The writing style isn't impressive given the author claiming to be a native English speaker and a teacher. A bit wordy and incoherent.

Example: I was in China from February 2007 until June 2010 I lived in 3 cities while I was there, 2 years in Harbin (where they have the Ice Festival, and a wicked beer garden in Summer), 1 year in Shenyang (awesome city where I started my first business) and 1 year in Changchun (where I started my second business, and met my amazing wife).

(2) Pretty obvious advertising on Ninjodo, and I feel this is the main theme of the article instead of 'sharing of lessons learned'

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm off to do the same thing from Japan of all places (girlfriend is teaching English out there) and without a job. I realised recently that dipping your toe in with part time work does not give you enough time to ever launch something worthwhile (or that I would consider good enough), let alone do the hard bit of selling it to customers.

<comment><AUTHOR> You should get into some of Tai Lopez's programs :P just kidding. Actually, I discovered a cool guy on Snapchat that might be helpful. Can I contact you on your email in the profile? And check out this youtube channel. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN7dywl5wDxTu1RM3eJ_h9Q](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN7dywl5wDxTu1RM3eJ_h9Q) This is a cool designer guy, he's pretty much unknown - but we can learn so much from him. I love those kinds of rising talents resources. Thanks for your comment, hope this helps.

<comment><USER5> Of course! Feel free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh what's the deal with college aged kids going to Asian countries to "Teach" English with zero qualifications?

<comment><USER7> You can work 20 or less hours a week and earn a reasonable salary and have a pretty fun life - booze, travel, girls, culture. Or you can work 40-50 hours a week and earn a cracking salary, maybe save a whole bunch, maybe get exposed to entrepreneurial opportunities that you wouldn't back home.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the love guys. If you have any questions about China, entrepreneurship, saas or crm. You can ask it here and we'll answer asap. Thanks again!

</comment><comment><USER8> Great article – Really curious how much this is due to China rather than Asia as a whole

</comment><comment><USER9> unrelated: it says your real name is simon. why is your username here mustafa?

<comment><AUTHOR> Simon is the CEO of Ninjodo and the author of the article. I work there. I'm active on HN and love everything that gets on the homepage here because it's intriguing. I submit various articles I think HN community will like. I wrote we will answer every question here because I'm in constant contact with the author :D Thanks for the interest man

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> After three spelling and grammar errors I stopped reading.

</comment><comment><USER11> TLDR advertisement for agency hiring English teachers to come

the guy claim he has one of the most recognized brands yet nobody in China ever heard about him

most probably just abusing HN for SEO optimization

<comment><AUTHOR> Nah, man. It's nothing like an advertising for an agency. It's a personal story of a man who developed a language agency 6 years ago in China and lessons he learned from it! And I don't know why would that be known in Cuba.

<comment><USER11> because you can try to swipe China on Gboard

there is pretty much zero information about developing anything, just personal advertisement and only reason went people are upvoting it is because it had magical word China in title, as someone who lived there better half of decade I consider this article waste if time even for people who never been there

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah man. It says clearly in the introduction that it's a story. "A little side-note. Did you read Napoleon Hill's book "Think and grow rich"? In that book, the author mentions a secret that he writes subtly. This story will be just like that. Read carefully and draw your lessons from it." \- I don't want to take anything away from you and your experience. I'm not here to create enemies. Thank you for pitching in and sorry if I offended you in any shape or form. :)

<comment><USER12> I understand that you're personally invested, but you're comparing this poorly written drivel to Napoleon Hill?

You're officially hurting your brand and it's time to disengage.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Programming Books That Meant The Most To Me - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3375-the-five-programming-books-that-meant-most-to-me <comment><USER2> Interesting how software is becoming a diversified culture.

Probably all these books mean less than nothing for people that work in algorithm theory, low-level systems programming or AI. For designers of big systems nursing databases in commercial applications, however, Martin Fowler is the great guru and Object Oriented Design and Programming are the gospel.

Also, it is interesting how most Comp. Sci. departments ignore this whole culture.

<comment><USER3> Most academic departments don't dedicate classes to practical skills, but they do acknowledge them in curriculum planning. A history major won't see "How to structure a research paper" on the syllabus of any class they take, but that doesn't mean the professors don't intend to teach them. How to organize research notes, how to read a book, how to structure a paper or a program, and so on are supposed to be learned alongside the academic subjects that are listed on course syllabuses.

There's a limit to what can be learned in college, though. You can't teach CS undergrads patterns of enterprise architecture in a meaningful way any more than you can teach history undergrads the craft of writing a book when they're still only writing papers. Teaching them to absorb rules of craftsmanship without any personal experience to judge them by will only encourage them to become astronauts and "best practices" prigs. (Not to mention that the professors themselves might be relatively inexperienced and mediocre at those things.)

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately though, the desire to make curricula that are practical is increasingly infiltrating CS departments, only the academics have no idea what is practical, and end up teaching the language du jour that recruiters happened to be looking for 5 years ago which is out of date by the time students graduate.

The best thing that can be taught to undergraduates is the first principles of the field so that they at least have a solid foundation to build on.

I lament the loss of courses built on Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - one need only read this post by Joel Spolsky to see similar sentiments expressed:

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchool...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These are all good books. One I would add myself that has had the most impact on me is "The Passionate Programmer: Creating a Remarkable Career in Software Development". It used to be called something like how to keep your job from being outsourced but I think it does a good job of showing one how to be more than just a 9-5 programmer and really dive into the profession and distinguish yourself.

In fact I really love the whole pragmatic series because they focus on the craftsmanship and techniques surrounding it more than the specifics of a technology. Kind of like most of the books you have listed there.

<comment><USER6> I would give you a +10 if I could.

That was _the book_ that put me on a path 3 years ago from C# enterprise code monkey to being where I am today, as an independent Rails consultant. I never even heard of Rails before reading this book, let alone had any idea of the current tech landscape outside of the enterprise bubble.

When I quit my job 6 mos ago I reread it in an evening - startled to find that I actually adhered to a majority of the advice in the book, which at first read was mostly alien to me. I credit that phenomenon to Chad Fowler's subversively succinct writing style, it has that get under your skin, call-to- action quality to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wouldn't even recommend the first couple from my list, today -- e.g. there are surely better intros to algorithms now. But here's an approximate top 5 for changing my programming when I read them.

Brodie, Thinking Forth

Sedgewick, Algorithms

Abelson & Sussman, SICP

Liskov & Guttag, Abstraction and Specification in Program Development

Norvig, PAIP

It's hard to stick to 5!

</comment><comment><USER8> I guess I grew up in a different time:

* The C Programming Language by Dennis Kernighan and Brian Ritchie

* Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets by Peter Van Linden

* TCP/IP Illustrated Volume I: The Protocols by W. Richard Stevens

* The UNIX System by S.R.Bourne

* The Algorithm Design Manual by Steve S. Skiena

<comment><USER9> Nah, just different domains that's all.

I work for a company where our "suite" consists of 3 large components: a back- end system, a web-app, and software installed to the devices.

The back-end systems guy read mostly Java, JavaEE, EJB3.x (the better one of course), JMX, PostgreSQL (admin, performance, the usual drill) and everything that DHH mentioned.

The web-app guys read mostly front-end stuff (JS, Backbone, Underscore, MVVM/MVC/MVP technique, CSS spriting, YUI compressors).

The software/firmware/hardware guys are reading what you listed above (including Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environments, UNIX Network Programming vol 1-2, Windows Internals, etc).

Still relevant :)

<comment><USER10> I do think there is a "generational" (used loosely, as the generations here are much shorter than what we usually think of in terms of generations) component to it as well, just in the sense that what you consider the "software/firmware/hardware" guys were much closer to being the entire set of developers up until the early to mid 1990s than they are now. The concerns of today's embedded developer were the concerns of virtually everyone back then.

As a 39 year old, my list is virtually identical to jijji's and most people I know who program and who are about the same age or older would almost certainly cite a huge overlap if not the exact same list.

<comment><USER11> I agree.

When I read this list, my first thought was "I know exactly when you started programming, and the types of apps you were writing".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice to see Domain-Driven Design mentioned. As DHH said it's a bit of a slog - but worthwhile.

For those who want a good overview and don't fancy the slog I'd recommend taking a look at <http://www.infoq.com/minibooks/domain-driven-design-quickly> \- a 100 page summary of the book from InfoQ.

The original is definitely worth a read - the summary might let you see why it's worth the effort ;-)

<comment><USER13> I second this. I made my company buy about 4 copies of this book and some others to pass around to the team I am on about a year ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Code Complete" by Steve McConnell. A practical tome on how to actually build large software systems.

<comment><USER15> As a junior in an ECE/CS program I cannot recommend this book enough. It will teach you things most classes can't/won't.

<comment><USER14> I've noticed this book is very popular among engineers ( _real_ engineers, with 4-yr degrees in engineering from accredited schools), but not so much with compsci people.

<comment><USER15> The professor for my software engineering class mentioned it briefly at the beginning of the semester, but it was never brought up again. If you don't do a lot of learning on your own, you're probably not going to encounter it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love the fantastic book Domain Driven Design written by Eric Evans too. Glad to see it is on DHH's top 5 as well. The concepts of that book (Entity, Value Object, Repository, Aggregate, Aggregate Root) have helped me a lot developing well written software.

I still don't get it why I've seen so few Node.js applications using Application Service layers, Domain Models and Repositories, and instead clog their MVC containers with calls to whatever datastore directly, with no Domain Model at all.

</comment><comment><USER17> Can anyone comment on "Practical Object-Oriented Design in Ruby" vs. "Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns"?

<comment><USER18> Disclaimer: I was a reviewer of POODR, and my name is in the 'thanks' section.

SBPP is a classic for years, and POODR is new, so it's hard to make a comparison. SBPP takes a little bit more effort to apply to Ruby, as Ruby's features are a bit different than Smalltalk's. POODR is excellent, but the one thing that I don't like about it is that it uses the physical metaphor for objects: bikes and wheels and mountain bikes. Getting out of the mindset that objects were only for physical analogues was one of the hardest things for me to level up with in OO design, so that part was slightly disappointing. But everything else about POODR is great, and I'd recommend it to anyone who programs in dynamically typed languages.

Really, you should own and read them both.

<comment><USER19> I like the bike/wheel/rental place examples; it helped me conceptualize what she was talking about.

That said, I would love to read a sequel that deals with more abstract objects that sync or authenticate or what have you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was somewhat surprised to see "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture".

I thought DHH hated people talking about "enterprise" and "patterns"

<comment><USER21> The "enterprise" bit is a misnomer for this book. Doesn't have anything to do with enterprise.

I love talking about patterns when the discussion is centered around actual code. Which is exactly why PoEAA is so good.

<comment><USER22> I'm not telling you anything you don't already know David, but Fowler and many of his peers and contemporaries grew up developing object-oriented systems that ran in large enterprises. You could read the title as "patterns we are using to build enterprise systems". That is primarily the market Thoughtworks continues to serve. Good code and design is much more broadly applicable, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns is one of my favorite books, my copy is incredibly beaten up. I just really like the way Kent writes.

I picked up my copy because I love Smalltalk, but I use a lot of those same patterns in Delphi, C#, and Python.

</comment><comment><USER24> Working my way through Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs at the moment, and surprised it wasn't on this list.

Also, interesting to note that only 3 out of the 5 books listed are on the 'best programming books' stackoverflow thread - [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1711/what-is-the- single-m...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1711/what-is-the-single-most- influential-book-every-programmer-should-read)

</comment><comment><USER25> It interesting to see a completely different background to mine. If I have one criticism of this list it's that it is very mono-cultural -- all OOP, nothing FP here, for example.

My background is K&R, Code Complete, SICP and related books in the Scheme canon (HtDP, PLAI), and lots and lots of papers and blog posts. Having absorbed the fundamentals I find online material both more accessible and up to date.

</comment><comment><USER26> WARNING: I've not bought this so I don't know if its exactly the same as the paperback.

Theres a cheaper kindle version of "Are your lights on?" ... <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004WOXYV2#tags>

</comment><comment><USER27> My number one book on a list like this would be Accelerated C++ by Andrew Koenig and Barbara Moo. The book is targeted at beginners, but is challenging and very intelligent. Koenig is concerned with teaching good practices and overall design. It was one of the first programming books I ever read and I struggled through it at first. By doing every exercise and persisting, I think it played a significant role in the kind of programmer I am today. To me the book is in a similar space as SICP. Sadly it's now out of date, but at least was written using the STL.

<comment><USER28> If you're into C++, definitely check out the books by Scott Meyers (Effective C++, More Effective C++, Effective STL). They're not "how to get started" books, they are "how to fix the stuff you are doing wrong" books. He is very insightful and writes very clearly. He also has a sense of humor, so look for little jokes in the index.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Pragmatic Programmer"

</comment><comment><USER30> How does the Smalltalk book compare to "Object-Oriented Software Construction" by Meyer? The latter is my goto OO book (in combination with "Object Oriented Design Heuristics" by Riel)

<comment><USER31> It is better. C++ is not what the creator of OO had in mind. (Smalltalk is).

<comment><USER30> "Object-Oriented Software Construction" uses Eiffel which is an excellent OO language especially for explaining certain OO related concepts. Preconditions, postconditions, invariants (design by contract) etc.

That's why I'd be quite interested in a comparison because Smalltalk is another excellent OO language (arguably the best for explaining concepts etc. but I'd say Eiffel is close enough)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Are your lights on" is a fantastic book, my high school comp sci teacher lent me a copy and i've read it many times since then, always getting a little something new from it.

</comment><comment><USER9> It is interesting to note that DHH reads books that most Java developers read as well :) (and soon the C# people, since y'all are typically a few step behind the Java crowd).

<comment><USER33> This comment reads especially funny when you realise that most of the new language features in last Java are somewhat reminiscent of the C# features that were around for, well, quite some time.

<comment><USER9> Language features are not the topic that these books focused on. Techniques, libraries, and tools are what the communities of Java and C# focused on.

Despite all the awesome C# language features, people are talking about DI, IoC, build tools, dependency management tools, continuous integration, DDD, ATDD, unit testing, refactoring, ORM, MVC, MVP, AOP, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In addition to all the other patterns books mentioned, Head First Design Patterns is a great intro the subject. I think you will get more out of GoF if read this first.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've been considering reading Fowler's Refactoring book, but I haven't written Java in 10 years. Is the book accessible to someone with minimal Java knowledge?

<comment><USER35> Certainly! I've never written a line of Java but I had no trouble following the examples in the book. The naming of variables, methods, etc. makes for easy reading without any Java knowledge. You just need to be able to identify a class and the public/private members and variables. That isn't a problem in Java.

Overall, I found that the book taught me a lot about looking for deficiencies in my own designs or what to look out for when weaving new functionality into an existing software project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> 8 Books---All by D. Knuth, The 4 on algorithms and the 4 on Typesetting. Not to forget the article on DDJ long ago that started it all for me.

</comment><comment><USER37> Our team found Rails Antipatterns to be a useful survey of common real-world issues and how to address them.

</comment><comment><USER38> "On Lisp"

"Programming Erlang"

PAIP

<comment><USER39> First, the Paul Graham's article "beating the averages" and them On Lisp!

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I would also add Refactoring to Patterns by Joshua Kerievsky.

</comment><comment><USER41> I am currently reading Practical Object-Oriented Design in Ruby: An Agile Primer by Sandi Metz ([http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Object-Oriented-Design- Ruby-...](http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Object-Oriented-Design-Ruby-Addison- Wesley/dp/0321721330/?_encoding=UTF8&keywords=Ruby%20Object%20Oriented%20programming&tag=produc05-20&linkCode=ur2&qid=1356544606&camp=1789&sr=8-1&creative=9325))

I am finding this book to be very helpful in understanding proper Object Oriented Design. It explains concepts that I have struggled with previously regarding Object Oriented Design and Programming.

So far, the main point I have taken from this book is: _Pay more attention to the messages being sent between objects rather than focusing solely on classes_.

As someone who is learning Ruby, it is taking me some time to understand these concepts. However, this book is providing me with some valuable insights into Object Oriented Design and Programming.

</comment><comment><USER42> For me it's not necessarily books: it can be essays, blog entries, thesis, articles, etc.

But basically the "writings" that means the most to me are the ones making 75% of those that matter the most to you irrelevant ; )

"Pattern means 'I have run out of language'"</comment>


A Small London Company That Makes Beautiful Globes - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-small-london-company-that-makes-the-worlds-most-beautiful-globes <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this. Quote from OA...

 _" Bellerby says it takes around six months to complete just one of the globes, which range from £999 ($1440) for the smallest to £59,000 ($85,000) for the Churchill."_

William Morris[1] was a socialist and paid decent wages and provided good jobs. He did it by making furniture and wallpapers that only the seriously rich could afford. I suspect we will see more of this craft production of nice things at costs a large multiple of the cheapest mass-produced items.

(OA lead me to a teaching idea...[2], and it turns out that gore projection is full of compromises and trade-offs [3])

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

[2] [http://www.gma.org/surfing/imaging/globe.html](http://www.gma.org/surfing/imaging/globe.html)

[3] [https://www.mapthematics.com/Downloads/Gores.pdf](https://www.mapthematics.com/Downloads/Gores.pdf)

<comment> semi-extrinsic Taking a stroll through London's Chelsea Design Quarter, you'll find there is indeed a substantial market for craft production of nice things that cost a serious amount more than the Ikea version.

Have a look at Catchpole and Rye, for instance. They make absolutely beautiful bathroom fittings, handmade in Kent:

[http://www.catchpoleandrye.com/products/taps/bathroom- taps/](http://www.catchpoleandrye.com/products/taps/bathroom-taps/)

<comment><USER2> Glasgow 1980s in the tenements around Templeton's factory. They had Belfast sinks with taps like the more retro ones on that page. Just made in brass locally. Strange how stuff changes - the objects that surround us.

<comment><USER3> All the stuff people ripped out for being old fashioned. Probably with the exception of stuff from the 70s, I think every look inevitably makes a comeback, because it looks old fashioned!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting 6 minute short about the company: [https://vimeo.com/63511505](https://vimeo.com/63511505)

<comment><USER5> Lovely.

It's a great example of obliquity in action. He's not interested in doing it for the sake of making money ... he's making globes because he has always wanted to make globes perfectly. The money is coming in because of his _method_ of making the globes. Rare quality and workmanship are conspicuous aspects of his products. The price and demand are byproducts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note that they are, however, wrong about the fact that globes give no distortion; viewing any three dimensional object results in it being projected onto the back of your eyeball which results in distortion. In cartography, we call this the General perspective projection. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Perspective_projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Perspective_projection)

<comment><USER7> Since we experience this distortion for anything we look at, aren't our brains equipped to handle it? Can we really call it a distortion if that is true?

<comment><USER8> Also consider that the brain already corrects for the upside down image on the retina, and the stereoscopic input due to having two eyes. The brain's plasticity is slightly underrated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm happy that these are out there. I make a point to find the highest quality versions of the products I buy, the product research is somewhat of a hobby. I researched globes a couple years ago and was disappointed that globes appeared to be one of the only products I couldn't find a high quality version of. Even the best I found in construction quality were mediocre and had inaccurate maps.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised there are no globe makers that make oblate spheroid-shaped globes. While the sphere shape isn't inherently "wrong," a oblate spheroid is more accurate because the earth is compressed.

Would just be a cool niche to have scientifically more accurate globes.

Stack Exchange about the earth's compression:

[http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/108/why- is-e...](http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/108/why-is-earth-not- a-sphere)

Scientific American article about the earth's true shape:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not- round...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/)

<comment><USER11> Roughly figuring, that would be about a 1mm deviation for a 30cm globe.

I don't think anyone would notice, especially on a "bumpy" globe. It might be less than manufacturing tolerances.

<comment><USER12> Whilst perfectionists might appreciate the idea, the difference between a normal round sphere and Earth's spheroid shape wouldn't be noticeable in a desktop-sized globe, to the bare eye. And you could maybe detect mountain ranges by running your fingers on them, but not really by seeing them?

It would be for those of us who like to apply a fairly big caliper to our globes...

<comment><USER13> > And you could maybe detect mountain ranges by running your fingers on them, > but not really by seeing them?

On a 30cm globe, the Everest would peak ~200µm above the globe's average surface (though it would possibly/probably be too small to even represent), the tibetan plateau would be ~100µm above the average surface. It seems detectable[0] but would require a pretty ridiculously smooth globe, I don't think a plastic-and-paper globe would work.

[0] [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916110853.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916110853.htm)

> The smallest pattern that could be distinguished from the non-patterned > surface had grooves with a wavelength of 760 nanometres and an amplitude of > only 13 nanometres.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Churchill globe is enormous

[https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/interactive/_html/_it...](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/interactive/_html/_items/wc0001_4.jpg)

I wonder why it weighs 700 pounds if it's hollow

<comment><USER15> If its wood, to eliminate sag as its rotated it would have to be quite thick and interestingly engineered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Opening sentence of the article: "Looking at a globe close-up is a wonderful thing."

And then, not even a single close-up photo of a globe.

<comment><USER17> A quick google image search turns up a few:

[http://www.bellerbyandco.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2015/05...](http://www.bellerbyandco.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_20150519_134915.jpg)

[http://www.bellerbyandco.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2015/05...](http://www.bellerbyandco.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_20150518_043250.jpg)

Not the clearest, but better than nothing!

Looks like their blog might be the place to check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's another beautiful globe, with more traditional cartography, but made in glass. The company that sells it specializes in nice craft items (this link in German only): [http://www.manufactum.de/globen-ganze-welt- kugel-c-1751/](http://www.manufactum.de/globen-ganze-welt-kugel-c-1751/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Whilst not the same thing, these reminded me of the color 3d printers by MCor[0]. I wonder whether you could do a colored globe with actual mountain ranges on something like that.

[0][http://mcortechnologies.com/3d-printers/matrix-300-plus/](http://mcortechnologies.com/3d-printers/matrix-300-plus/)

Edit: Found some pictures of a topographic print [[http://mcortechnologies.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/10603...](http://mcortechnologies.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/10603646_867608479916851_2889663454906018404_n-2.jpg)] No globes though.

<comment><USER20> Even at the size of the Churchill globe mentioned in the article, Mt Everest would still be less than a millimetre above sea level. So I don't think the mountain ranges would be very noticeable.

<comment><USER19> Hmm, I guess there's a point there, since it only has 0.1 mm accuracy. I think it'd still look cool with satellite imagery though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > They also take commissions. Bellerby says that they have completed a Pangea > globe ("the ultimate historical globe") but they don't advertise projects > like that.

I wish these things were more the rule. There's a lot of planets around past and future.

Along with ditching the euro centric north is always up top. You learn a lot by looking at a globe sidways since you loss the pre conditioned bias you'll have from standard flat maps.

<comment><USER13> > Along with ditching the euro centric north is always up top. You learn a lot > by looking at a globe sidways since you loss the pre conditioned bias you'll > have from standard flat maps.

In the second-to-last picture, a relatively large globe seems mounted in a double gimbal, so it doesn't really have an up/down.

</comment></comment><comment> ezequiel-garzon I admire the venture, but it leaves me wondering: don't those manual touches lead to inevitably less precise globes? I get the feeling that the result may be more beautiful and such, but necessarily less accurate.

<comment><USER22> I imagine you exhausted, lost deep in the Kalahari.

With a roar of frustrating you hurl your desk globe into a ravine. Should've brought a map.

<comment> ezequiel-garzon Well, the founder brings up the issue of accuracy: he developed his own cartography, as he found the available sources full of errors. That makes me think that he's interested in delivering not just an artistic object, but a faithful representation. Maybe they use an automated process for borders, landmarks, etc. Go figure...

PS: I wouldn't hurl any of those babies =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> $1500 for a desk globe? not too shabby.

I wonder how much it will cost to make a 3d printed one.

And while searching i found this: [https://scandy.co/welcome](https://scandy.co/welcome). They are too small...

<comment><USER24> You are probably searching for this: www.littleplanetfactory.com

<comment><USER25> Thanks for that. Very cool: [https://www.littleplanetfactory.com/products/wmap-cosmic- bac...](https://www.littleplanetfactory.com/products/wmap-cosmic-background- radiation-globe)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I used to love globes as a kid. This os pretty amazing

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm from Uruguay, the president they talk about there left office around a year ago, bit late for the facts!

</comment><comment><USER28> Extremely Beautiful. Very Cool. Very Expensive. Where is the value ?

<comment><USER29> Here: "Extremely Beautiful. Very Cool."

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> i always thought it would be nice to have digital globe with a touch screen - maybe once bendable OLEDs are cheap enough</comment>


LifeLock Security Bug Puts Millions of Customer Emails at Risk - <AUTHOR> https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/lifelock-security-bug-puts-millions-of-customer-emails-at-risk <comment><USER2> "Symantec, LifeLock's parent company, says it fixed the issue and found no indication customer email addresses have been harvested."</comment>


Mac-CLI – OS X command line tools for developers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/guarinogabriel/Mac-CLI <comment><USER2> > mac presentation: Prepare MAC for presentation: minimize all apps, close > browsers, send files from desktop and downloads to trash and set not disturb > mode

This sounds like a terrible idea, just because of the chances of accidental trash emptying. Why not just a folder in a Documents or something?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think there is more danger to the existence of this command than to the existence of `rm -rf /` which I guess is more likely to be entered accidentally (though still very unlikely).

People who can use the command line are usually more aware of what they are doing than the typical end user.</comment></comment>


Cross-Compiling Android Applications to the iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG-NIt2O5J8

<comment><USER2> This video is out of date and should not be referenced.

Mainly, the cross compile approach he is mentioning is now not permitted under the "Flash Fix" in the developer agreement that Apple came up with, which requires apps to be written using only native tools.

What's funny, at least I think, is that Apple used to support Cocoa Java which looked very much like the java implementation being shown in the example.</comment>


FreeBSD is looking for some fresh hackers - <AUTHOR> http://miwi.bsdcrew.de/2011/03/freebsd-needs-fresh-blood/

<comment><USER2> A piece of advice for my former self: contributing to open-source software is way easier than one would think.

For long, I was afraid to contribute to any project because I wouldn't understand the whole structure, and I didn't know where to ask.

Then I started using Qt and submitted my first bug report. The bug was fixed in like, 10 hours.

Wow.

Then I submitted another one, but this time I looked at the source to understand what was wrong and suggested a way to fix it.

Then I actually sent a patch.

Then I signed up to the mailing-list, and started talking to people on IRC.

But my real epiphany was with KDE. When I saw my first commit into KDE's trunk, even though it was a tiny one line bugfix, it felt so great. I started wondering : why didn't I do this before?

So, if you've never contributed to OSS, go ahead. Pick a project of interest. Get yourself on the mailing list and on the IRC channel. Ask questions. Find stuff that needs to get fixed. Help others. And get those bugs fixed.

<comment><USER3> _Then I actually sent a patch._

One thing to note when contributing code, is the project maintainers probably won't commit it right in. Often they'll suggest small (or not so small) improvements (be it stylistic, to make the patch follow the coding style, or suggestions how to better organise the new code).

The important part is: they don't think your patch is bad; they would love it to hit the trunk/master; they are happy at having new people taking time and effort to contribute. Their initial "rejection" isn't, and don't get scared away by it.

<comment><USER4> This happened to me, to a T, when I submitted a patch to cloudfiles-python. The patch was beneficial to my employer (we really wanted to use server-side copying on RackSpace Cloudfiles), but I couldn't imagine that it wouldn't be useful to other people using the Python bindings in question.

I actually ended up not implementing one suggestion (it involved project- contextual knowledge that I didn't have time to look into; I figured the maintainer could make the change if he wanted it), but the patch was pulled in anyway (after many months... apparently the service was not available to all Cloudfiles customers at the time).

So this is more anecdotal evidence. Make contributions! I also made a fix to another project which involved 2 line changes. The fix does not have to be big to be significant in some way. New social coding websites make it easy. In particular, GitHub has very easy-to-use forking and pull-request functionality which I highly recommend using if a project you like is hosted there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a side note, we have the summer of code coming up...organization/project application deadline is the 11th.

</comment><comment><USER6> I may just consider this. FreeBSD is my favorite server operating system.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sounds like FreeBSD has burned so many bridges that they're having to post want ads like this.

<comment><USER8> Nope, they haven't burned bridges, they're just not as advertising themselves like for instance, some distro's of linux are doing that.

FreeBSD is mostly consisting of people who value technical merit over anything else.</comment></comment>


Google Wins Huge UDRP For Hundreds of Domain Names - <AUTHOR> http://www.elliotsblog.com/google-wins-huge-udrp-7630

<comment><USER2> > One interesting facet in this is that Google will own hundreds of domain > names it arguably didn't want to own but didn't want someone else to own > either. It will be interesting to see if they let these names drop or choose > to renew them for thousands of dollars a year.

Oh c'mon. They likely own tens of thousands of these sorts of domains, and the "thousands of dollars a year" won't even be noticed in their legal budget.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know what the etiquette is for re-posting a blog comment, but this raises a good question:

      So can Royal Bank of Scotland now launch a UDRP against
      Google for owning googleroyalbankofscotland.com?

Anyone knows the answer to this?

<comment><USER4> Not unless Google use it for some kind of unfair practice. Given that most visitors to that page are people who were trying to search on Google, I'm not sure what would count as unfair.

<comment><USER5> They won't be in trouble unless they redirect it to Google Wallet or something.</comment></comment></comment>


Stack Exchange release open source Redis client - <AUTHOR> http://marcgravell.blogspot.com/2011/04/async-redis-await-booksleeve.html

<comment><USER2> Nice, I have been trying to sell Redis as a replacement for a very specific usage of ms SQL server. A tacit endorsement by StackOverflow has gone a long way towards legitimizing it for some of our management.</comment>


"On Accident" or "By Accident"? - <AUTHOR> https://literalminded.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/on-or-by-accident/ <comment><USER3> On accident is one of those American sayings that sounds weird to my English ears. Like poop. where did the second p come from???

That said, I think our dialects are merging, (well more likely British English is becoming Americanised, but you guys make all the tv, so that's to be expected), for example, when I was younger no one said "ass", it was always "arse", but nowadays it's nearly always "ass"; except for the older generations.

But, we have the same problem within the UK, in the north, we have three meals, breakfast, dinner and tea. In the south they have breakfast, lunch and dinner. It can be very confusing, especially in films when someone invites someone round for tea, but there's no food and it's 1pm!

<comment><USER4> Funny, before I read the article I thought that "on accident" must be some British English bastardization since it sounds so weird to my American ears. But I was born in the late 70's and haven't lived in the US since 2000, so maybe that explains it.

<comment><USER5> I personally say "by accident" and was born in 86 (during the period the author says speakers are split) and "on accident" has always sounded odd to me, and almost wrong, although when I was in school I do recall people saying both with a pretty even split (as much as I can remember, anyway).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting, and very much an American thing - never heard anyone say 'on accident' here in the UK.

<comment><USER7> No, but we have a similar one - lend and borrow have become interchangeable. "Can you borrow me an X" or "I lended (not even word AFAIK) it from him" is one I hear often from younger folks.

<comment><USER8> When they grow up, if enough of them still say "lended", it will be put into the dictionary.

<comment><USER9> That one I understand. It was an exception anyway; lended is more straightforward. Like 'builded' vs 'built'. The sign on our old 1800-era edifice says "Builded 1838" so I guess they used to use that (or at least write it that way)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The computer programmer in me says both are valid:

"on accident" is a pre-prepared behavior that will be employed when an accident occurs in the future.

"by accident" is metadata accompanying an event, reporting the author or agent that created the event.

<comment><USER11> It sounds like old-style BASIC exception handling.

        ON ACCIDENT GOTO EMERGENCYROOM

<comment><USER12> Or modern JavaScript event handling. Button.onAccident(function() { ... });

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whoa, what? You learn something new everyday on here. I have never heard anyone in the US say "on accident."

Does "on accident" even make sense? The preposition "on" in this case implies intent, so who is causing accidents on purpose? And if you are, then it's not really an accident, it's sabotage.

<comment><USER14> I grew up saying it in Oklahoma. My wife (from Virginia) would always say, "It's BY accident, ON purpose." So just to mess with her I started saying, "ON accident, BY purpose", which sounds just as strange to my ears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just goes to show the arbitrariness of prepositions associated with verbs. It's one of the hardest things to learn as a foreign language.

I do recall amusement when learning German, attempting to say I travelled 'on' the bus, only for it to literally mean on the roof of the bus.

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps it's just newspeak, catering for the difference between accidents and deliberate "accidents".

Perhaps it evolved from "accidentally on purpose", which was a pretty 90's expression.

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's another one: In New Zealand they say "they are different to us" instead of the American "they are different from us". Always trips me up. Arbitrary I suppose; any preposition will do because the comparison is in thought-space not physical space.

<comment><USER16> "different to" is the normal form in British English too, although you hear both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not a native English speaker, but I don't think I have ever seen "on accident" used on the Internet. Do people really say "I did this on accident"? It just sounds wrong.

<comment><USER18> In a naive google search it gets masked by discussions like this one - <USER2> some extra filtering can find examples: [https://www.google.com/search?q="it+was+on+accident"+-"by+ac...](https://www.google.com/search?q="it+was+on+accident"+-"by+accident")

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was going to comment "accidentally" but first google result says: Accidently vs. Accidentally? Dang you english.

</comment><comment><USER20> A thought I had while reading: Neal (the author) reports that Barrat found "on purpose" to be used "to the near exclusion of _by accident_ " by "speakers __born __after 1995 ". However, Neal then goes on to ask:

> why did the new form suddenly edge out the old in the mid-1990s?

Based on the fact that the years listed in the first section were the _birth_ -years of the speakers, I would guess that the main cultural transition actually took place around 2000-2005, when speakers born after 1995 would be developing their dialects.

I suppose it could be argued that the shift must have happened earlier based on the mixed usage among speakers born as early as 1970, but at any rate, the complete takeover seems to have happened around the millennium change.

</comment><comment><USER21> An interesting companion would be J.L.Austin's "A Plea for Excuses", where he contrasts "by mistake" and "by accident".

(Google books link, but the PDF is available widely)

[https://books.google.no/books?id=CPKHKvge3Z4C&lpg=PA379&ots=...](https://books.google.no/books?id=CPKHKvge3Z4C&lpg=PA379&ots=JN3oy4jU14&dq=JL%20Austin%20a%20plea%20for%20excuses&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=JL%20Austin%20a%20plea%20for%20excuses&f=false)

</comment><comment><USER22> Language evolves. Sounds like "on accident" is winning, and it'll probably take over completely in another decade or two.

But it'll always sound wrong to me.

<comment><USER23> I've never heard it in Canada. So it seems to be US only...

Actually most of the comments about it say that their children picked it up in elementary school. Given the wide and sudden spread I suspect that this can be traced back to some children's TV show or classroom video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had an interesting similar experience, related to pronunciation of the phrase "en route". I pronounce it the way you'd say it in French ("on route" without the "n" sound). He misheard me as saying "on route" and tried to correct me to something that sounded more like "in route" pronouncing the "en" the way you would in English.

</comment><comment><USER25> I was born in the first half of the 80s and the only person I've ever known to use "on accident" is my sister born towards the end of the eighties. It sounds stupid and myself and my family have always corrected her. I wasn't aware this was some sort of societal movement.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've always said "accidentally", rather than "by accident". To my ear, "by accident" sounds almost as archaic as "by your leave". Maybe "on accident" comes from "on [making an] accident".

<comment><USER27> I almost never hear anyone say'on accident' but If I had to guess, it comes from taking sort of a parallel antonym to 'on purpose'. Did you do it 'on purpose'? No, I did it 'on accident'. It sounds weird to my ears but there is some kind of sense to it.

<comment><USER26> Maybe. But if I follow that path, I get "accidentally" vs "purposefully". The first is about how it went down, but the second is about how it was carried out. The opposite of "purposefully" is "carelessly" or "recklessly", no?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "On" suggests that there is intention involved. "By" suggests passivity.

<comment><USER20> Wouldn't the fact of intention contradict the notion of an accident?

<comment><USER29> Perhaps that's the subtle humour behind this linguistic change?

"I broke your mug on accident", at the fifth word, the listener/reader thinks the other person is about to say "on purpose", but suddenly they say "on accident". Hence it's funny, reduces the tension about them breaking your mug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> [http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/onaccident.html](http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/onaccident.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> I never hear "on accident" here in Australia.

<comment><USER32> Likewise.

And I remember the first time I heard an American say "I'm really pissed!" and my mate said, "what have you been drinking?"

I won't even mentions the confusion when an American lady mentioned that she had a sore fanny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Could exposure to the internet and social networking have any bearing on this?

</comment><comment><USER34> I was born in January 1995, and "on accident" sounds bizarre to me.

</comment><comment><USER35> "traffic collision"

<comment><USER36> "new baby"</comment></comment>


Getting a PhD in Norway is nearly free--even if you're not a citizen - <AUTHOR> http://www.studyinnorway.no/Tuition-Scholarships/Tuition-fees <comment><USER2> I didn't know that people were paying to do a PhD anywhere on earth. In France I'm fairly sure it is even forbidden to do a PhD without getting paid (if you don't you have to justify that you have incomes by other means or something to be able to register as a PhD student).

<comment><USER3> There is a cultural difference in whether PhD studies are seen as an add-on education after normal university studies, or if it is an employment as a teacher+researcher.

In Sweden it's the latter, so students are employed as PhD students and get a salary (though usually not very competitive compared to what you would make if working elsewhere).

The fact that the PhD students spend a lot of time teaching and not only educating themselves and working towards their thesis is what makes take around 5 years, rather than, say 3 years.

<comment><USER4> I'm a PhD student in Sweden. I'm expected to work 20% of my time for the University (teaching duties, conference organisation, mentoring new phd students). I'm getting payed a little bit lower than what the industry would pay. It's possible that salaries in the industry would also raise quicker. My PhD is supposed to take 4 years of research, but add in the 20% and you have 5 years.

I have very high job security and a salary that's a bit lower than a coder/consultant starting salary. Also, my work is much more interesting (to me) than what it would have been out there. It's a great deal for me, but YMMV.

<comment><USER2> > I'm getting payed a little bit lower than what the industry would pay.

You mean for a "normal" (if I may) industry job or for doing a PhD within the industry?

Because before starting my PhD, the salaries that I've been proposed by recruiters from various companies were more like the double (and sometimes more, like with Google or high frequency trading firms) of what I'm making as a PhD student (but for a way less fun job, as you say).

<comment><USER5> In Germany I get paid around 3.500 Euro brutto per Month for pursuing my PhD at my university. Same conditions as the parent post: expected duration 5 years, 20% work time dedicated to university,...

That's around ~44.000 Euros per year (including perks).

I interviewed in 4 companies before deciding to go for the PhD (all engineering jobs). The salaries varied from 45.000 to 55.000 Euros brutto per year, with one offer at 60.000 Euros.

Friends working in industry make around 50.000 Euros which matches with my experience. Making a bit less for working in _your_ PhD is a really good deal here. If you find the right PhD for you it can be very gratifying (plus you are working for yourself). OTOH my friends in industry work way less hours than I do, so if I had a family I would probably had never gone the PhD way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have never heard of a PhD student who isn't getting paid to do research. Even at the Master's level, most students were getting paid, with the exception of the coursework people. Are there people who are actually paying for their PhDs? If so that is definitely not the norm.

<comment><USER7> > Are there people who are actually paying for their PhDs?

Yes, there are. I know Cornell(USA) has had such positions. But yes, it is definitely not a norm.

<comment><USER6> Wow that's the worst. I would NEVER pay for a PhD out of my own pocket. I mean, yes the PhD isn't "free" in the sense of I don't pay tuition. I do but it's included in my funding.

I asked a former university staffer about it once and they told me the money doesn't exist. The university "charges" me x dollars per term, but in my funding there is conveniently an extra x dollars per term in addition to my y salary from the university. So I then tell the university in my funding forms that they owe me x+y dollars and they are like "oh, well we have to deduct x dollars for your tuition". So the net effect is the money doesn't actually exist.

What subjects were these PhDs in by the way?

<comment><USER7> > What subjects were these PhDs in by the way?

I am talking specifically about Computer Science. This is not even a modern instance. The first case I've heard about is in 1999.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Living expenses in Norway are astronomical if you're not locally employed.

[http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/city_result.jsp?country...](http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/city_result.jsp?country=Norway&city=Oslo&displayCurrency=USD)

<comment><USER9> You can live on PhD stipend fairly comfortably though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm doing a PhD in the UK, and there certainly are people who are doing a PhD without funding (and paying quite high tuition, outside the EU is nearly £20k/yr), although they are a minority. I would guess 10%, less in STEM subjects. I started my program with only about half my funding in place while making plans to have secondary income to help fund my studies. Fortunately I was able to find the funding for the remaining part of my program, but it seems that most who try to find funding once starting their studies aren't successful in finding it (at least in the UK).

Acceptance to the program is quite a bit easier than getting funding. I wouldn't recommend studying without funding - in addition to the expense I have seen these students are often treated as second class.

In Canada, most people were funded in research assistantships coming from their PI, or had independent scholarships. This covered tuition and about $10,000 salary for research-based Masters or $15,000 for PhD, and could be supplemented by about $5000/year by teaching. This is marginally enough to live on without loans if you were thrifty and don't have dependents. I didn't know of anyone who wasn't paid (in Engineering - I think there were in Arts).

Its worth noting especially for STEM people that the biggest cost is probably opportunity cost compared to the salary (or start up) you could be doing instead of a PhD.

TL;DR - not paying tuition for a PhD isn't newsworthy.

</comment><comment><USER11> The title is a bit misleading. While it is true that Norwegian PhD students don't have to pay tuition, they're also salaried employees of the university. My PhD position pays at the lower end of what an engineer can expect to be paid in the public sector (and certainly lower than private sector), but it's still more than enough to live comfortably off: my salary is about 400k NOK (~66k USD, according to Google).

</comment><comment><USER12> Not free, but the people of Norway feel like education is important enough that they choose to pay for it through taxes rather than make the individual pay.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't "free" in a context like this mean "free at the point of delivery" \- not "doesn't cost anything".

[NB "free at the point of delivery" is how the UK NHS (all 4 of them) have always described their services]

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder why the poster put "PhD" in the title, where as the articles says "at all levels including undergraduate, Masters, PhD"

</comment><comment><USER15> PhDs in the US are paid to teach and often receive grants to do research.

<comment><USER16> If you are getting a PhD in the US, and you aren't getting paid for it, then you shouldn't be in that program.

Technically my program charges tuition, but everyone gets a paycheck every month, and the department pays itself your tuition fees. I just owe the school $20 a semester for "student fees".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> university is free in most european countries

<comment><USER18> University (degree level) cost != PhD cost

In the UK, in the sciences, a PhD place comes with funding from a research council. An institute gets funding for places, which they award.

For arts subjects (I believe), an application by the student for a particular project is made to a funding body. It is possible, however, to fund yourself if you cannot get funding. I know a very dedicated person who did this, funding with part time work. He's now a lecturer in a good university in the UK.

<comment><USER19> My understanding is that you're never guaranteed RC funding and, also, the cost of doing so is that you have to do the research particular to that grant; so you've either got to hope for something related to your field, or go for something close enough to keep you interested. I've heard (sorry: no citations) that here in the UK, around 60% of PhDs are actually self-funded -- to pay the tuition fees, mostly -- and while I don't know the breakdown, that also includes research in the sciences. The upside of self-funding is that you're free to research what you want, within reason (i.e., it's actually worthwhile, the university agrees and you can find a supervisor, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So, the point of the linked article isn't that you are expected to get your PhD without being paid for your research work. Most if not all PhDs in Norway are paid or sponsored.

The point is that you can, having finished high school, go to Norway and get the whole 8-9 years of bachelor->masters->phd education completely free of tuition fees (disregarding the nominal ~100/year enrolment fee).

</comment><comment><USER21> It used to be the same way in Sweden, all educations were free even for all foreigners. The hope was that once the foreigners took their exam they would stay in the country.

However, it didn't pan out too well – now foreigners from non-EU countries have to pay around (varies somewhat at the different universities) 9000USD per semester.

</comment><comment><USER22> In Belgium you get paid to do a PhD. For engineers it is competitive to market rates, for all other majors it's even much higher than what they receive in the private sector (but harder to get into/less possibilities.

This also applies for non-citizens.

</comment><comment><USER23> Undergrad for free == interesting and not all that common (though does happen elsewhere in EU, e.g. Austria)

PhD for free != interesting, I'm paid a tax-free stipend (UK) which also covers tuition fees (same for MSc). There are "self-funded" positions advertised but it's generally junior faculty trying their luck for overseas students. I've never heard of anyone actually paying out of their own pocket for PhD study in the EU.

<comment><USER24> > I've never heard of anyone actually paying out of their own pocket for PhD > study in the EU.

That probably also indicates that phd is only for those who managed to find funding. Is it hard to secure funding for studies in the UK for the UK or EU nationals?

<comment><USER23> I agree. Honestly I'd say no (off-hand), obviously high-tier institutions are competitive but PhDs are cheap labour for senior academics and cheap to fund from a research council perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You get paid in Norway to do a PhD. I got paid more then than having a job in the industry in my native country.</comment>


Ask HN: Long time iOS developers, are you using storyboards? - <AUTHOR>

I've been at this for a couple years, and I'm finding that storyboards appear to be more restrictive than useful when creating dynamic and animated UI elements, considering you need to manage not only the views, but the associated constraints as well.
From the last blog post I read a year ago, Google's iOS developers are designing UIs in code. Given how Google's Inbox app looks, I totally believe it.
Is UI-in-code considered the standard for everyone else designing complex UIs? <comment><USER2> I've been an iOS developer for around 5 years and I do not use storyboards, Interface Builder, or autolayout for any complex interfaces.

In the past, I've used these tools for laying out simple/medium complexity applications on a very high level (like this scroll view goes here, then fill it in using code), but in most cases it's just faster to create and layout the view using code in the first place.

The CGRect geometry methods are very powerful and building views through code is not nearly as daunting as many people make it out to be. I've found that lazily creating the elements in their getters also helps keep my view controllers sane versus creating all of the elements in viewDidLoad.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would really prefer using storyboards that debugging through each line of codes. Not to mention the hierarchy of views that makes it hard to read sometimes. Autolayout is fantastic but i'm not sure about the limitation when it comes to complex UI(it's kind of vague for the term complex actually). Apple introduces a new feature on autolayout this year where you can install/ uninstall constraints depending on size classses. This is really helpful if you care about the app orientation.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been an iOS developer for about 5 years, and I do all my UI in code (one exception: the watch app we have is using storyboards). Storyboards are fine but I find them slow once they get to a certain size, which for any non trivial app, I always hit

I try to keep view controllers clean by having view subclasses which manage layout, and I use auto layout as much as possible

Saying that though, its not the standard, and Apple push storyboards more and more every year, so I would guess I'm in the minority

<comment><AUTHOR> _and I use auto layout as much as possible_

Did you mean as "little" as possible?

<comment><USER4> no

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wouldn't use Storyboards for anything that isn't a largely cookie cutter app with 5-10 ViewController's. They just get increasingly less maintainable as your application becomes more complex.

Generally, I default to individual NIB's and create code-based views as needed. Building and wiring views with Interface Builder is fast, easy and documenting. When you want to implement a certain view in code instead, there's no friction -- you just do it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I generally use storyboard for few initial view controllers. After that, I either use separate nibs or code it. Storyboard can become messy and hard to navigate around if you put lot of views in it. Even though, you can zoom in and out, still it's messy. Also, it really depends on what you are trying to do. There will be scenarios where using nib or storyboard won't just cut it.

</comment><comment><USER7> every year or two I'll give nibs/storyboards another go for a toy project. Usually a few days later I'm deleting them and re-doing the layout in code. Plain old frames or something like AutoLayoutShorthand is easier and more flexible.</comment>


2020 Honda E Has 148 HP and More Than 221 LB-FT - <AUTHOR> https://www.motor1.com/news/357616/2020-honda-e-power-specs/ <comment><USER3> It's great to see it looking so close to the concept car that was seen not that long ago - it's a great mixture of retro and future Honda, and it's also great to see Honda going for a full electric drivetrain as well as such a great design.

Fully Charged got 19 minutes in one, and the video [1] is worth a watch - <USER2> can see how quickly it accelerates when he floors it, and he was really impressed with the car, the turning circle and the camera mirrors.

I think the bottom line is that most electric cars will be a blast to drive - I'd love to have one as a rally car on single venue airfield-type events in the UK, if I was still competing; it'd be incredible in the forests too, but not sure range would make it possible for anything substantial, alas. [Totally ignoring any other practicalities that are impinging on my daydream about electric rally cars]

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEKq8jmckz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEKq8jmckz0)

<comment><USER4> Im sad at how much the design and look of the car that they're actually bringing to market deviates from the model at the car show.

I _really_ liked how the concept looked, enough to have started investigating the potential of importing one from Europe when they came out. With how the actual car turned out looking, I've since cooled on that.

Pic of the original concept: [https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/OpIioNgjBiNWWvlU9WYIn68Krcs...](https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/OpIioNgjBiNWWvlU9WYIn68Krcs=/2017/09/12/4db310b2-ea0a-4a15-a877-b197cf68d609/hondaatfrankfurt2017-9.jpg)

<comment><USER5> Not road legal in US with camera wing mirrors either as far as I understand. I believe the camera mirrors are standard on all models so can't be avoided. Current US Department of Transport rules still require new cars to have two traditional physical wing mirrors.

I've often heard that outside of the 25 year rule (if older than 25 years it's much simpler), importing cars not sold in the US to the US is basically so hard as to be largely impossible for the most part. Most car enthusiasts patiently wait for their favoured foreign car to hit 25 years old so they can finally get it into the US, even for extremely valuable exotics. There's lots of websites out there that catalog when foreign models will hit 25 and be eligible for US import.

<comment><USER6> I hope this rule will be demolished in Europe as well. The driving side in the UK makes the cars dangerous at takeovers on the continent and vice versa. With video mirrors and a cam forward I could see ahead better regardless which side I sit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is presumably a VW e-Golf competitor and it seems to be European only model (to meet the ever increasing restriction on emission standards there). The Standard 35kwh battery option is not impressive at all as Fiat's compiance EV 500e already achieving and or exceeding those ranges (yes I drove one myself.)

The Korean auto makers have already made a strong push to longer range EVs like Hyundai Kona EV, Kia Niro EV, all are in the range of 240miles. The EV market outlook post 2020 is going to be massive, all thanks to Tesla's demonstration of how you can make an EV the best possible vehicle with technology and dedication.

<comment><USER8> The battery isn't supposed to be impressive. It is not for travelling salesmen or Americans. Honda have done their research and they know how far most people drive most of the time.

It is also worth remembering that many in their target audience are in two car households. So there is still the big car to visit the grandparents with.

This is not an e-Golf competitor. The e-Golf is a compliance car that is hard to actually buy. Dealers don't stock them.

This car is designed from the ground up as an EV, it is not an ICE car where the gearbox has been replaced with batteries - that is what the e-Golf is.

The EV options are not actually that huge post 2020. Most people are not in the Tesla price bracket. If you watch any car show there will be plenty of models that are new and do not have an EV option. There are grand promises from all of the different makes but when it comes down to it, in the UK (target market for the Honda) there is just Tesla that can deliver a nice new car to your specifications in four weeks. Other than that you can get a Nissan Leaf with the smaller battery pack in four weeks. For anything else you are looking at 3 to 6 months. The Korean wonders are even further out, eighteen months for them. That means 2020.

<comment><USER7> > The battery isn't supposed to be impressive.

Range anxiety, cost and charging network are top 3 EV adoption hurdles. The first is addressed by a larger battery pack which in turn help address the cost via economy of scale. Giving the rate of lithium battery cost reduction, the same price point of 35kwh pack you can buy 60kwh in 2 years. In other words, for $35000 you can buy this E with 120 mile range or another EV with 60Kwh with 240 mile range, which majority of the buyers will choose?

Also EV efficiency matters - Tesla is the current king of efficiency. My Fiat 500e can have the same 120 mile range with a smaller 28kwh battery, which means Honda E is less efficiency or have a poor battery management system (BMS). This brings up the next point.

> This car is designed from the ground up as an EV, it is not an ICE car where > the gearbox has been replaced with batteries - that is what the e-Golf is.

That's simply not true. If this car weren't designed as a compliance car why doesn't Honda bring it to the North America market or sell globally? Having 50%-50% weight distribution and strong torque are native characteristics of an EV, having less to do with redesign EV platform.

Honda/Toyota are known to be the two major Japanese auto makers that are EV holdouts. They poured billions of dollars to bet on fuel cell and hydrogen cars and invested heavily on hybrid technologies. Honda have never been fully onboard with 100% Battery Electric vehicles (yet) and NEVER develop a EV native car platform like VW Group's MEB[1] or BMW's i-Series[2]. Their last attempt was a compliance car Honda Fit EV in order for them to give emission credit in California.

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

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

<comment><USER9> > If this car weren't designed as a compliance car why doesn't Honda bring it > to the North America market or sell globally?

Because the North American market has a strong preference for big cars, whereas Europe had more interest in small ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Too bad we're not getting it in North America. I would buy this in a heart beat, though I'd prefer a slightly larger battery pack. In the winter here my Volt gets down to 50-60km range and I can't make it to work without using the ICE; round trip on days when I can't charge at work would be dicey with this Honda.

<comment><USER11> The 124 mile range is a deal breaker for NA, when so many others coming out in this class in 2020 are 200+. Europe it will do fine.

<comment><USER5> The 40kw 2019 Nissan Leaf is broadly in this ballpark, sells well enough at a lower price point than the typical 200 mile+ EVs. This Honda is roughly price competitive with the Leaf too, but given lack of US announcement hard to directly compare. Worth remembering many quoted European launch prices will be inclusive of sales tax in the 15-20 percent region.

For sure it's not enough for absolutely everyone, but 95 percent of US commuters travel less than 40 miles to work. Its workable for a great many.

With rear wheel drive, I suspect this thing will be a riot to drive compared to the Leaf though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't entirely understand the market for the "city car." Living in the city, the only times I need my car are when I leave it. Maybe half of those trips wouldn't work with this car's range.

<comment><USER13> Agree with this. Whenever I go to a city, I tend to leave my car in burbs and public transport in (Cal train when going to SF and Go Train when going to Toronto). Bring a car into the city is a hassle with parking and associated costs. Everyone I know whose recently moved to the city, have usually ditched they cars.

<comment><USER14> I think it depends on the city. I've lived in the Bay Area, New England, and Dallas. For NYC and SF that's definitely but for Dallas it is not. NYC and SF almost go out of their way to make cars difficult. But Dallas was developed with cars in mind and is rather weak in public transit. I can see a car like this working OK in Dallas, depending on the availability of chargers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I see Honda too has fallen prey to the EV alien styling curse. It really seems that conventional car makers are more susceptible, or is this some sort of intentional thing to limit demand to keep production capacity from being swamped?

<comment><USER16> Most of the time I agree that EVs looks stupid (and Honda designs of last 10+ years are not great), BUT to me this loks really cool.

<comment><USER17> I came in here to say this car looks great! It's design is very clean which is not something I could say about Honda's current over styled design language.

<comment><USER15> For some reason the original concept car actually looks pretty good to me, but the finalized version seems much more amorphous blob.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> And the available-right-now Nissan Leaf has 147 HP and 236 lb-ft of torque AND gets 150 miles on a full charge. Price guesstimates put these cars in a similar range.

I'm glad more of these cars are getting made, but this Honda is all about style. There's nothing new "under the hood".

<comment><USER19> Style? Lol did you look at the picture, looks like a turtle.

<comment><USER5> It also evokes the classic lines of many hugely popular 70s/80s hatchbacks. Huge numbers of people have much affection for the hatchbacks of this era, especially the so called "hot hatches" that many European brands are famous for - cars like the 205 GTI etc.

I think Honda nailed the styling on this. Worth also pointing out that those camera wing mirrors, while legal in most European markets, still aren't road legal in the US, I imagine the Department of Transport will have to relax the rule that all cars sold in the US have two physical wing mirrors pretty soon.

I personally find this attempt at modern reinterpretation of an old design far more successful than any of the Mini models BMW has done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hope the price is in line with that short range, 124 miles and that is probably the more generous testing methods.

Is there a market for low hundred mile (two hundred KM or less) vehicles? Perhaps if the price is seriously low as well. Wasn't long ago this range would have been amazing but Telsa basically forced the industry as a whole towards providing true usable range. I am of the opinion that three hundred miles plus is where premium brands must land and mid two hundred is fine for standard cars, for now. The sub 200 club is just not trying or needs to be priced so well to create a market; commuter style.

<comment><USER3> I think it depends where you are - if you're in a city, you probably do very low mileage. Yes, of course, there are plenty of people who do 100+ mile commutes or are traveling salespeople, but most of the people I know could have a car with a sub-100 mile range and that would never (or perhaps once a year on an airport run) be a problem.

I think we all need to think differently about transportation, and that it's just 'tough' if you have to take a 1-hour break in a long (200 mile+) journey. We've been spoiled by our ability to pollute our way around, and we need to recalibrate that in the same way it's not socially acceptable to litter, drink drive or the many other common behaviours that we now no longer do.

<comment><USER21> It's even better you can get 200mi of range in 35 minutes now with a model 3. Soon 300 miles in 15 minutes will be possible...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does using cameras rather than sideview mirrors have any benefits? Surely they add more modes of failure compared to mirrors.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, but then you look at a modern car, and there are plenty of electronics that are critical to its functioning, especially safety. We reply on those every-time we drive. The car industry is probably 1000x more risk-averse than your typical SV startup.

<comment><USER24> To be fair I don't think the typical SV startup is risk averse at all. So any display of risk aversion would be infinitely more risk averse.

I'll return to my pedantic cave now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This thing would totally work for me, and I get both the Honda "small is better" ethos & the design aesthetic.

I live in the Suburbs, my driving is usually ~10 miles a day on work days. There are no busses that are helpful for commuting. I often have to pick up a kid or do an errand that makes bicycle commuting tough.

There's charging at work. But even so I could go a week or more without a charge. My use case is light enough I could probably get by on just doing slow 120V charging without upgrading the wiring in the garage most of the time.

Long trips that exceed the range of this or the leaf are probably < 10 days a year for me. There's got to be lots of other drivers who are in the same boat but don't really get it/understand.

</comment><comment><USER26> Hngggg...as someone that is not so big on modern cars (my background in cars defines that loosely as "post-1995") I've gotta say that is ADORABLE. It reminds me more than a little of the original Mini 1275GT! I can't remember the last time I saw a new car whose styling I liked.

From my perspective, 221 lb/ft of torque is only slightly, as in single digits, less than the legendary Toyota Celica GT-Four (ST-205) from the 90s, and in such a cute car! If it's as small and light as it looks, that could be an awful lot of fun. :)

</comment><comment><USER27> For some reason the centre console has an HDMI port [1][2]. Does anyone know what this is used for?

The lack of any USB-C ports is also a strange omission for a brand new car, especially when many of Honda's rivals include at least one USB-C port on their new cars.

[1] [https://i.imgur.com/TlvQQ5h.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TlvQQ5h.jpg)

[2] [https://youtu.be/pEKq8jmckz0?t=313](https://youtu.be/pEKq8jmckz0?t=313)

<comment><USER28> Why would you need a USB-C port when most USB-C cables have a USB-A connection at one end? The HDMI port seems odd though.

<comment><USER29> Thats a chicken and egg problem. I would like to see more USB C ports on purchases that are supposed to last a long time

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "powered by a rear-mounted electric motor delivering approximately 150 PS (110 kW)"

If like me you wondered what a PS was

"Pferdestärke - German for horsepower, equal to metric horsepower and sometimes referred to as 'continental horsepower'"

[http://www.statman.info/conversions/power.html](http://www.statman.info/conversions/power.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think it looks very good... looks like an early 70's euro hatchback mostly.

<comment><USER31> In Arthur Hailey's novel _Wheels_ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheels_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheels_\(novel\)) , about the auto industry, an executive at a fictional US car company suggests building a very homely city car. When others criticize its looks, he says that if it's inexpensive and practical, people won't care.

<comment><USER30> probably true enough... there's also probably at least half the people out there that might like it. I drive a car I bet about half the people out there hate anyway. To each their on on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why can't Honda just normalize the EV drive train by releasing their top selling Accord and Civic as an EV option? Why does it have to be repackaged into some ugly little toad of a car?

<comment><USER33> The platform on which the current generation of cars are built often does not lend itself nicely to electrification. You have transmission tunnels, engine bays with large firewalls, exhaust tunnels, suspension and braking systems designed for chassis with certain weight distributions. Ultimately, you end up designing a new platform with electrification from the get go.

<comment><USER32> That's fair. But shouldn't they at least get their top design teams on the case? The styling on this car looks like the design team just phoned it in.

<comment><USER34> No accounting for taste, but I look at the current Accords and Civics and think those designs are gaudy and try-hard. Tons of creases and moldings and little blings everywhere.

This design looks really nice to me. Not too weird, looks a bit like the original CVCC, and it's clean.

<comment><USER32> I completely agree with you, I'm not a fan of them either. Those cars are designed to blend into the crowd, that's why they sell so many of them. But crowd-pleasing designs like that are quite difficult to develop. So why make a polarizing car your EV flagship? Is it so they can later say "oh well it didn't sell very well, EV must not be worth it"?

<comment><USER34> Good point. I confused my idea of good with what's actually popular.

There's got to be some reason they do it. Back when hybrid cars were new, Toyota's design for the Prius was polarizing. But it worked for them, and they established that model as "the" design for hybrid cars for some time.

So differentiation seems to serve a purpose, but I can't say exactly what that is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I love that the featured car has the same lime-green body and black hood as Mr. Bean's Mini Cooper.

</comment><comment><USER36> They seem to have learned a lot from the feedback on Nissan's Leaf. Exciting times.

</comment><comment><USER37> > It will have enough juice for more than 124 miles

Pretty low, even for city standards.

</comment><comment><USER38> Your all-electric has to be your best looking car model

200 km is not enough

</comment><comment><USER39> Doesn't higher torque directly lower fuel efficiency? It seems they could get better range if they weren't trying to make the car a "blast to drive around town". Having a car be a "blast" may be fun for the driver but certainly not anyone else outside the vehicle.

<comment><USER40> Not really. Efficiency doesn't change much based on torque. See here for Leaf: [https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/4844105739_3795e703f2_b...](https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/4844105739_3795e703f2_b.jpg)

There is very little downside to putting a bigger motor than needed in an EV, other than a bit of extra weight to move around. As long as you don't use that power, (fast acceleration), you won't pay for it.

That said, 221 lb-ft of torque isn't very much. They don't say at what rpm that is. Most EVs are electronically torque limited at low rpm. Assuming the peak torque is around 2000 rpm, that's only 84 hp.

(My biggest pet peeve is torque without rpm -- it's meaningless!)

<comment><USER39> This rant about horsepower here has always stuck with me (and this is an 11 year old article):

[http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080909](http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080909)

(Unfortunately you need to search for the section "Hold Your Horsepower")

I assume the same would apply to electric vehicles. It seems insane to continue the power arms race with cars given the detrimental impact is has.</comment></comment></comment>


My boss decided to add a "person to blame" field to every bug report. - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/154733/my-boss-decided-to-add-a-person-to-blame-field-to-every-bug-report-how-can-i/ <comment><USER2> Excerpt:

 _Tell them this is only an amateurish name for the Root Cause field used by professionals (when issue tracker does not have dedicated field, one can use comments for that).

Search the web for something like software bug root cause analysis, there are plenty of resources to justify this reasoning 1, 2, 3, 4, ....

...a root cause for a defect is not always a single developer (which is the main point of this field)...

That's exactly why "root cause" is professional while "person to blame" is amateurish. Personal accountability is great, but there are cases when it simply lays "outside" of the dev team._

And links to something previously here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4179298](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4179298)</comment>


GNU Make Standard Library: a collection of native GNU Make functions - <AUTHOR> http://gmsl.sourceforge.net?

<comment><USER2> Nice to see this on HN. I'm the author of GMSL and have maintained it for years. Happy to take bug reports and feature requests.</comment>


Show HN: Online journal webapp with highlight text ability - <AUTHOR> http://reflectupon.net

<comment><USER2> Would be good to have a demo area -- "Get started" leads right to "log in".

Also, journals are inherently private things, yet there are no assurances of the lengths you go to to protect the information that I might write in there...

Why would someone use this instead of something like evernote, or just the notes app on their phone?

I don't think the value-add of this app is quite clear...</comment>


How the F-35 triggered TOPGUNs Biggest Syllabus Revamp in 4 decades - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34685/how-the-f-35-triggered-topguns-biggest-syllabus-revamp-in-nearly-four-decades <comment><USER2> This article takes an awful lot of words to say not much, and it is entirely speculative on any of the details of the alleged syllabus revamp, as "The U.S. Navy has stayed tight-lipped about the specifics of its new Lightning II syllabus".

Every comment about the content of the syllabus is speculative: >"Other changes the F-35C is likely to bring to the existing TOPGUN course include.." >"It's very possible that TOPGUN has introduced tactics that.." >"The long- range BVR engagements are likely to be where the biggest changes have come.." >"The length of the course suggests that the F-35C syllabus likely follows that of the Super Hornet in terms of core elements.."

All it is really saying is:

TOPGUN has graduated its first two F-35C pilots. Under current structures, these pilots will return to their units, and likely share some of what they've learned. Their training was likely based on the existing Super Hornet training but redeveloped to suit the F-35C, which serves a different combat role.

The rest reads like some bastard child of an undergraduate essay and attempts at SEO.

I resent that so much of the web has become this amplification of an ounce of signal into a ton of noise.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, this article is a nothing burger.

The US air doctrine (excluding Marines) is air dominance at any cost, hence the F-22 and F-35 prices. We'll see how well that works with such small inventories. (Less than 200 F-22's were made.)

For those not familiar with current stealth, it absorbs radar, so are invisible to normal radar detection.

<comment><USER4> A couple of minor quibbles: The Marine Corps has an absolutely massive investment in the F-35 program, implying a willingness to risk a core mission set (FW CAS) in favor of the things the F-35 is good at.

Also, there's a lot more to stealth than radar absorption--arguably, the cornerstone of the technology is aircraft shaping to reflect radar returns in a direction away from the transmitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article is everything that's wrong with internet media distribution. I'm traveling and my data overseas is very restricted in bandwidth. It takes a long time for the text to even load. And the text is among the first things to be loaded. And things are displayed as they are loaded because of course they designed it that way. And so I have to sit there reading a few lines at a time before another image or formatting element is loaded, shifting the entire column of text randomly in one direction or another. The fucking text randomly moves as I am trying to read it. It's like it was designed to torture people. And the cherry on top is that it's not even fucking necessary, as HN demonstrates, because a lean webpage could load everything in a fraction of a second. But no, everyone things it's a good idea to pass around a fucking megabyte of JavaScript just to read filler articles. Good job. Good.

And thanks to the writhing inbred freak that is modern JavaScript, I get to enjoy another form of tech enlightenment which is that every time I scroll slightly upwards the fucking dynamic title bar pops down and blocks the text that I was reading. And then I scroll down and it goes away, ruining the alignment of the text with the top of the screen which I maintain to aid my reading. And like a tenacious torturer the fucking title bar pops up and down and up and down. I am living forever in the insane JavaScript bouncy house praying to god that I can find some way to kill myself to make the pain stop.</comment>


Anthony Levandowski is back with a new self-driving startup, called Kache.ai - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/anthony-levandowski-is-back-with-a-new-self-driving-startup-called-kache-ai/ <comment><USER2> I wish him luck and better judgement this time 'round. I'm sure he's a talented guy and will add value to whoever has hired him. It'd be a shame if his talent went to waste.

</comment><comment><USER3> I almost read it as 'self-serving' startup

<comment><USER4> Aren't they all?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"We need to think through the strategy, to take all the shortcuts we can find," he said in one text message. And in another, "I just see this as a race and we need to win, second place is first looser [sic]."_

I wish him the best, and hope he takes safety a bit more seriously this time around.

[0] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17144090/uber-car- acciden...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17144090/uber-car-accident- arizona-safety-anthony-levandowski-waymo)

</comment><comment><USER6> Is it "Kache" because Levandowski still has a cache of trade secrets from Waymo to use here illegally?

Or Kache like "I need some cash" because Waymo sued him out of the Uber job and now he's broke?

Ohh Kache like the Chinese word for truck. Got it.

<comment><USER7> Please don't. Even if you have a point, the snark does more damage.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


Should I rewrite the whole PHP codebase to Python? - <AUTHOR>

The codebase is about 100K lines, and it is a private internal website for a publisher company. It is getting harder and harder to maintain the codebase and add new features into the existing system, simply because I have some bad designs and also some bad implementation in PHP. In another way, I think Python is easier to write code and easier to maintain than PHP.
And to refactor the existing code might not be an option, because I want to redesign the whole system from scratch. If I had an opportunity to rework on the codebase, should I rewrite it again in PHP or rewrite it in Python?
Thanks a lot! <comment><USER2> Never EVER "redesign the whole system from scratch". There are years (usually) of history documented in code in a legacy system.

I've heard this over and over and have experience with projects where this was attempted. It's never gone well.

"...the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make: They decided to rewrite the code from scratch." -Joel Spolsky

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

Also read: <http://timross.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/if-you-must-rewrite/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Will your customer or boss give you the time and money to rewrite the code base? More than likely they will not, especially if they believe they have something that already works. I would suggest coming up with a plan to refactor the code and learn how to black box the things that are less important or too complicated to refactor easily. It is easy to fall into a trap thinking a new design will be better, but it will take much longer to implement and if the customer/boss is asking for new features along the way it is almost impossible.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yes! I'm saying this because 'some men want to watch the world burn'. And if you do I could only imagine your world crashing and burning. Rewrites are painful.

Rewriting anything from scratch is generally frowned upon, but you also have to consider this is not your company so I doubt you'd even get the go-ahead to make the transition.</comment>


First Look: Apple's Massive iDataCenter - <AUTHOR> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/02/22/first-look-apples-massive-idatacenter/

<comment><USER2> "with most speculation focusing on a shift of iTunes user libraries from user desktops to online storage"

Yeah right, they can't even make MobileMe work despite people inexplicably throwing gobs of money at them to do just that. How many years have they had to fix that garbage? Although I guess they don't need to when the expectations are so low: the last satisfied customer I talked to said "It works perfectly, other than occasionally deleting all my contacts."

(I say this as someone who's given .Mac and MobileMe one shot each and almost shot myself in the face as a result)

<comment><USER3> That is unless they start acquiring companies with the talent they want to build a cloud experience that really works. They have acquired multiple companies to build out a suite of products in the past, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisition...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple#Acquisitions). That being said this might be how they start utilizing their recent purchase of lala.com and they might be looking forward to complete the iLife suite on the web.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google makes a vertically-integrated smartphone, Apple builds a massive datacenter.

I think the upshot here is simple: It's on.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't really call it "vertically integrated". HTC made it. Sure google told them what to make, and I guess you could say apple tells foxconn what to make, but I feel like google just said, "Make us a sweet, thin, keyboardless, phone, with these properties."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll be curious if they end up using their shiny Xserve servers (starting at $3K retail) or they end up using cheaper ones.

<comment><USER4> I'm kind of guessing Apple can get them at cost.

<comment><USER7> While that's true, it might be interesting to see if they end up making any changes to thier Xserve product line based things they learn while using them in a massive data center.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How much square footage does one really need to support iTunes in the cloud?

I suppose their market share puts some pretty heavy demands on scalability, but a 500k sf datacenter is a _lot_ of datacenter, and storage is fairly dense these days.

Add to that the fact that music files deduplicate _very_ well across millions of people and I'm left wondering if they're doing photos and video too, or something else altogether, or if my back of the envelope estimates of the square footage requirements for such a service are just way off.</comment>