OctoLinker: a browser extension for GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://octolinker.now.sh <comment><USER2> The GitHub page ([https://github.com/OctoLinker/OctoLinker](https://github.com/OctoLinker/OctoLinker)) says there's a Firefox extension but this website doesn't mention it at all, strangely (I just see an install link for Chrome). Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> There's a text link all the way to the bottom to the 'Mozilla Addon Store' but I agree that it's confusing that the big install button only mentions Chrome (despite browsing with Firefox).

edit: At the bottom of [https://octolinker.now.sh/](https://octolinker.now.sh/) that is. On Github there's a similar text link + clickable Firefox icon in the 'Install' section.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My assumption is this'll be available on Github natively as a next step after their new jump to definition[0]. Seems super useful until then though!

[0]: [https://help.github.com/en/articles/navigating-code-on- githu...](https://help.github.com/en/articles/navigating-code-on-github)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been using "module linker" which also has a firefox version, and I believe supports more languages. [https://github.com/fiatjaf/module- linker](https://github.com/fiatjaf/module-linker)

</comment><comment><USER6> I was browsing a Ruby file today and clicked a variable name and github showed me where that variable was used elsewhere in the project. It was pretty cool.

I have to assume that's coming to other languages soon, in github itself. Looking forward to Python getting it

<comment><USER7> That's "jump to definition" announced just the other day and rolling out to some public repos for now.

[https://github.blog/changelog/2019-06-11-jump-to- definition-...](https://github.blog/changelog/2019-06-11-jump-to-definition- in-public-repositories)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Such a great idea. Glad to hear GitHub itself is working on this problem, but OctoLinker fills a gap for sure. Just need Scala support now for it to be really useful...

<comment><USER9> Please raise a feature request along with some examples or even better with some fixture. It's really easy to add those fixtures files see [https://github.com/OctoLinker/OctoLinker/tree/master/e2e](https://github.com/OctoLinker/OctoLinker/tree/master/e2e)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Neat. I wonder how far we will take browsing source code on the web?

I mostly read source code on github now, because it's much more convenient than cloning a repo locally. But I'm definitely missing out on certain features (eg what octolinker is implementing or diffing two files), which are trivial in vscode or vim

<comment><USER11> Fascinating, I have mostly the opposite experience: I get annoyed quickly when browsing code on GitHub because I can't properly search through code (which I do a lot when reading a new codebase) and then clone..

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very nice. This would be a nice improvement to GitHub itself, I think they should consider it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I believe Github is working on similar features at the moment. They have been open-sourcing a lot of parser technology recently.

</comment><comment><USER14> 2 awesome tools in one day! Thank you for sharing. 10/10 will use.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's really sad that we can't use all these amazing extensions with Safari. I wish Apple reconsider their decision.

</comment><comment><USER16> How does the landing page work (specifically the clickable demo)? iframes? (I am on mobile, can't inspect element)

<comment><USER9> The source code of the demo is available here [https://octolinker.com/OctoLinker/live- demo/blob/master/inde...](https://octolinker.com/OctoLinker/live- demo/blob/master/index.js)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> C++ and PHP please. :)</comment>


Deploy like a Pro -- Chef Virtual Office Hours (live now) - <AUTHOR> http://www.enginehere.com/stream/367/chef-office-hours-1113/ <comment><USER2> This is cool. I'm going to tune in.</comment>


Why YourMechanic (YC W12) Chose to Grow Slowly - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/yourmechanic-24-million/ <comment><USER2> I think this is a great example of finding an unglamorous problem and then relentlessly executing on it. It's been a pleasure to watch.

\- There is clearly an opportunity here and it's more work than simply writing a webapp, putting stripe on it and pumping VC money into Facebook ads. These guys have been doing the dull background work and that's a long-term slog, but an even longer-term win.

\- Unlike a lot of startups, there's no clear acquirer on the horizon. I'd bet on a profitable business quietly growing into an IPO and then staying independent. I see some Buffett factor here!

</comment><comment><USER3> YourMechanic is interesting in that, unlike many other "on-demand" startups, the economics make a lot of sense. They are able to pay their mechanics more than a standard shop (eg. dealer) can pay, and at the same time generally offer same or lower rates for the consumer.

This is probably a combination of two factors: (1) unlike driving, repairing cars requires quite a bit of skill, so the mechanics have some protection against wage cuts (compare to Uber), and (2) a standard mechanic shop has overhead that YourMechanic does not.

<comment><USER4> Hey Marcell! You nailed it. 80% of the money that consumers pay in the shop goes to the shop, not the mechanics (because of the infrastructure cost). This allows us to pay more and charge less, still have healthy margins.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Chose to grow slowly" is a great headline but that's not what happened.

Their business is fundamentally reliant on an accurate and high quality parts sourcing operation, which took years to build:

"To ensure it can provide any and all parts a customer's repair could require, YourMechanic has had to build out a large catalog of parts from scratch, which took awhile. At the same time, just like any other services startup, it also had to perfect its operations before setting up shop in new markets."

<comment><USER6> Right. More like "chose to not to force faster growth than made sense for the business model".

Still, rare and commendable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I used YourMechanic for the first time in Denver Co just a few weeks ago: blown away by how easy it was. It absolutely felt like this was not a rushed endeavor and that paid off big time. I will be using them for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER4> awesome. thanks for using the service!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is it just me, or are news sites seemingly allergic to actually linking out to the companies profiles in stories such as this? I mean, yeah, I can GoogleDuckBing YourMechanic, but is a little external HREF action too hot to handle? "nofollow" is a thing, they don't have to give it up by linking out.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how well this works with complex problems. Since many new cars run on computers, how to mobile technicians have the equipment needed to diagnose and fix those kinds of issues I wonder?

This would be great for things like getting your brakes replaced.

Also, I wonder how they handle waste disposal of fluids?

<comment><USER10> The diagnostic equipment needed to diagnose issues with the car's computer is really small. [http://www.amazon.com/Foxwell-Diagnostic-Analysis-Scanner- Re...](http://www.amazon.com/Foxwell-Diagnostic-Analysis-Scanner- Reprogramm/dp/B0172DDBWQ)

Disposal is handled by taking the waste fluids to your favorite parts store.

<comment><USER9> Like I said, that will help with the easy to diagnose stuff. What about the complex problems, that don't show up on a scanner.

For example, the equipment used to calibrate your air conditioning system. Its more complicated then fill to the manufacturer spec. Newer machines will run the air with a temperature probe, and modify the amount of freon to get an optimal amount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Congrats to the team. Can't wait till they expand someday (hopefully) to my city.

</comment><comment><USER12> Sometimes simplifying and standardizing the service before growing pays off.</comment>


Emerson Collective Acquires Majority Stake in The Atlantic - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/emerson-collective-atlantic-coalition/535215/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> A better title would be "Laurene Powell Jobs group acquires majority stake in The Atlantic" — not sure how many people would know who the Emerson Collective is.</comment>


Install Disqus on Your Blog - Please - <AUTHOR> http://www.alearningaday.com/2011/09/install-disqus-on-your-blog-please.html

<comment><USER2> Pretty vapid. Basically, a call to allow comments on your site. Um, OK.

However, no good reasons are given to use Disqus over CoComment or Intense Debate or Facebook or whatever.

And zero discussion about how there's more to developing a community than simply having a commenting tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the note and feedback, James.

One - I must admit my own ignorance on the many options. I thought of it as a direct Disqus vs Facebook choice.

Two - I agree there's a lot more to developing a community. Here however, the focus was just on the commenting bit. It wasn't meant to be comprehensive.

And three - I had a posts a few days ago on the approach of copying the best out there and then developing your own style. Here, the best examples taken were Fred Wilson and Mark Suster. My opinion, of course.

:)

<comment><USER2> Absent the context it really came off as "People I like use it, you should too."

This raises the question of how to engage a reader who has never seen your site and has followed a link to specific post, with no idea if it is part of some larger narrative.

It could get tedious to have to preface every post with, "As you may recall, I previously [link], [link] ..."

I wonder if there's some way to automate that?

If you've been thinking through the ins and outs of getting a community for your site it might be interesting to read a more comprehensive post, something that pulls together the various things you've looked at and done.

I had been looking at different commenting tools for a site of mine, ruby- doc.org. Finally decided on Disqus, partly because I'd some experience with it but more because I knew that a few worthwhile Ruby sites were using it, so I likely posters would also likely have a Disqus account.

If you know that readers of your site are already likely to have an account or something (OpenID perhaps) that works with this or that discussion tool that could be an important factor.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi James,

Yeah. I was thinking about context. I guess there is a balance somewhere - assuming that there are the regular readers who have a bit of it, and the new ones who don't quite have it. Still something I'm struggling. Hopeful I'll get better at it (every day etc.. :))

I agree with you on Disqus. Seeing it used a lot by many good bloggers so I went with it as well.

Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself and your point of view. Much appreciated! :)

Best wishes, Rohan</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Help wanted — jobless need not apply - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110217/ts_yblog_thelookout/help-wanted-jobless-need-not-apply <comment><USER2> Fred: "If they were fired or laid off, they would be a problem. Don't interview the unemployed."

Wilma: "If they are currently working, they are disloyal. The unemployed may have been laid off for no fault of their own. Don't interview the employed."

Bjarne: "...Maybe instead of guessing, we should just interview the ones that seem qualified, and if they're unemployed we can ask what happened at their last job, and if they're employed we can ask why they're looking for a new job?"

<comment><USER3> If we take the "increasingly desperate" seriously, there's a simple explanation: lots of utterly unqualified jobless people applying. Sure, there are probably people who are both unemployed and good, but throwing all resumes from unemployed people in the trash may save a _lot_ of time.

I'm not saying this is morally right, or even smart; but it explains the observed behavior at least as well as "they would be a problem" (which, as you point out, isn't that strong an argument.)

<comment><USER4> Isn't something akin to Fizzbuzz the obvious solution to this problem? An unemployed person whether skilled or unskilled is still unemployed and doesn't really have grounds for saying a test is beneath them.

If we can filter out a large percentage of the unskilled with a litmus test like Fizzbuzz that should be a big win. Bigger, in fact, because we've stipulated that the unskilled are far more common than the skilled in today's labor market. I would think that this would be a much better solution than throwing out all resumes from the unemployed.

<comment><USER5> A barebones, 30-minute (5 minutes if you're good) FizzBuzz-esque puzzle given to candidates up front has _drastically_ reduced the number phone interviews that leave me paralytically depressed at the state of CS education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This story, which has come around for the second time in less than six months, is pretty blatantly an example of what PG was talking about here:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html>

Some recruiting firm is paying whoever Zachary Graham works for to write this story. Dead giveaway:

"...said Matt Derp of recruiting_company.com, which brings recruiters together to collaborate in finding jobs for candidates..."

<comment><USER7> I'm confused. Is Matt's company going to benefit because unemployed people will want to use his site or because recruiters will want to use his site?

<comment><USER6> Matt's company is going to benefit because news.yahoo.com mentioned his company's name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My best friend applied to Twitter last year and was told that they were only seeking people who were already employed.

The argument that everyone who deserves a job already has it is discriminatory and silly. Those of you who agree with this practice will feel very differently when the startup you're working at runs out of money and suddenly you want to go work for someone else.

</comment><comment><USER9> Employers with absurdly rigid hiring criteria (like ruling out candidates who've been jobless for more than 6 months) are most likely NOT worth working for. One has to wonder what other ridiculous rules are in store for the hires that decide to come on board.

</comment><comment><USER10> As harsh as this sounds, it's perfectly rational behaviour on the part of companies.

Job applications are a perfect example of an adverse selection problem. Bad candidates are more likely to laid off, so they enter the job market more often. Bad candidates stay on the market longer than good ones, because they have trouble getting hired. Because they're on the market longer, bad candidates apply for more jobs than good ones.

These ugly truths guarantee that 99% of your applications are from bad candidates: people you would never, ever employ, under any circumstance. The sooner you can sort out the remaining 1%, the better. It's expensive to evaluate candidates, and each stage of evaluation is more expensive than the last. (keyword scan, human reading a resume, HR screen, phone screen, interview...)

If you use crude, ugly heuristics that flag false positives on half of your target population, but you save labor by not evaluating 85% or 90% of the applicants, you come out _way ahead_. Rational companies are bound to throw out a few babies with millions of gallons of bathwater. Cruel, but unavoidable.

<comment><USER11> Given a stack of CVs (resumes), split them into half and throw them away.

You wouldn't want to hire anyone who's unlucky.....

<comment><USER12> That has no information content. Eliminating the unemployed does, assuming you believe that P(fired | low quality) > P(fired).

P(low quality | fired) = P(fired | low quality) P(low quality) / P(fired) > P(low quality)

(Since P(fired | low quality)/P(fired) > 1.)

<comment><USER13> It does, however, have a moderate amount of humor content. This is not unexpected, given that it is a joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I presume that those without jobs are significantly more likely to accept a job offer than those who are comparing it against their current job given that all other factors are the same. Given this, I wonder whether HR department's disinterest in the unemployed is rational. Let's formulate the problem:

Presume the following:

1\. The cost of assessing the qualifications of both the employed and the unemployed is identical and that the company can do this with perfect precision. Calls this cost I.

2\. The position is unique in the organization, so only one job offer may be extended at any given time.

3\. There is a known, positive cost C for each day the position goes un- filled.

4\. An unemployed person takes N days to evaluate a job offer letter and an employed person takes M. I would presume that M > N given that the opportunity loss of an employed person is greater.

5\. The probability that a candidate accepts an offer is X if unemployed and Y if employed. Obviously, I would presume that X > Y

6\. The probability that a candidate is found to be qualified after the interview process is A for the unemployed and B for the employed. For the sake of argument, presume A < B.

7\. It is known with certainty and at the start whether any given candidate is currently employed.

So, for some set of costs I and C and probabilities (N,M), (X,Y), and (A,B) I think one could compute whether it is more rational to prefer the employed or the unemployed. Of course, I am ignoring all goodwill-esque costs (bad reputation as an employer, etc.). After writing this I realize that (1) I don't even know the proper nomenclature for expressing this and (2) I can't do the math anymore to solve this (there's a dynamic programming aspect, right?).

</comment><comment><USER15> For the next recession, if this isn't changed, I'm going to develop a business model of small businesses who hire for a fee, keeping resumes current.

<comment><USER16> You should do it now:

1- If it has potential, it should work to some extent in any market.

2- The post recession period will have some long unemployed individuals that might consider drastic action.

3- A recession could happen any time (historically 8-10 years). You want to have something established by the time it hits.

<comment><USER15> That's true, but it would be a short term operation at best. Why set up a system for two years maximum?

And while a recession could happen at any time, there is often an employment lag. There would be time to set it up. There are more fundamental problems to this off-the-cuff idea. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Using this idiotic logic, then we should only marry people who are already married since unmarried people probably don't have prospects and on and on and on.

<comment><USER18> You definitely get more attention from girls if you're seen with another attractive girl.

<comment><USER19> It's interesting to see the flipside of this (he said, veering wildly offtopic). On OKCupid and other dating sites there is a particularly style of picture many girls use, cropped but obviously they're with a male, like his arm is around her or something. Projecting female values, they think they're saying "look, I've had a boyfriend, that proves I'm not crazy". Unfortunately the message received by a male is "she's not over her ex".

<comment><USER17> I agree. When I see those types of pictures - I'm thinking it's going to be complicated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There were several rounds of layover at a startup where I worked and so I expressed my concern to HR that I wouldn't be able to find a job if I were laid off. Her response, which I never believed, is that employers don't look so unfavorably towards laid off workers and that finding a new job would not be so hard.

Well, this article states just what I feared. Fortunately, I have never been laid off or fired but I have never felt that it would be easy to find a job if it ever happened. Being laid off would make me feel as if I wasn't capable even if it wasn't the case. It would sure be a blow to my self-confidence.

Best of blessings to those who are unemployed and still looking.

</comment><comment><USER21> With the economy in the tank, disqualifying the unemployed simply makes it easier to reduce the stack of resumes which must be passed to the hiring manager. It is hardly news - read _Bait and Switch_ by Barbara Ehrenreich which covered this issue while the boom was still happening in 2006.

<http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/baitandswitch.htm>

.

</comment><comment><USER22> One of the things I've wondered about what the long term impact of this policy is. If company A only accepts employed people, then when someone leaves company B for company A, a spot opens up at company B and maybe unemployed people can get hired there instead. So the same number of jobs would be open to the unemployed, it just extends the pipeline.

<comment><USER23> If the practice is widespread, it's more likely it just increases the time taken to fill open positions as companies spend some time looking to fill the spot of whoever left. It doesn't _necessarily_ have to end with hiring someone who is unemployed, it may just have the effect of decreasing the mean number of employed as the "hole" propagates from place to place.

<comment><USER22> I think we are in agreement. I like the idea of a "hole". Basically, if a new job is created at some company, then in the long run eventually someone unemployed has to get hired, it just might not be at the company where the new job was created.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> FTA: "People who are currently employed … are the kind of people you want as opposed to people who get cut," one recruiter told the Atlanta Journal Constitution in October.

This is what _recruiters_... people who are supposed to be _experts_ at hiring, are saying?

Wow.

</comment><comment><USER25> To me, this is all pretty irrelevant. The only way to reduce unemploymnent is to grow the number of jobs. Not all jobs can be open to already-employed applicants, otherwise they all couldn't be filled.

For eveyone not accepting an unemployed person, there must be someone who will, if the unemployment rate is to go down.

The simple solution if you can't get a job at your company of choice is to find someone else to employ you, and then apply at company of choice. Yes, it's more difficult, but it works better than complaining about it and expecting them to change.

</comment><comment><USER26> Were I to find myself unemployed for longer than a couple of months, my resume would acquire a new item--consulting contract at a defense contractor that I cannot name due to an NDA.

</comment><comment><USER27> If the company does hire an already-employed person, isn't that person's previous employer likely to look for a replacement? If the total number of jobs increases by one, the total number of unemployed people should decrease by one. This seems like a way for one company's HR department to offload some of their work to another company's HR department. Of course, the added cost of training a new worker might mean that the previous employer does not replace the employee.

</comment><comment><USER28> The whole industry of recruiters and head hunting is pretty shady to begin with. I'm surprised the head hunter didn't just blatantly lie about her past to get her the job.

<comment><USER10> Typically, your former employers' HR departments are happy to confirm hiring/departure dates and "eligibility for re-hire."

As a result, those are two things you can't expect to successfully lie about.

<comment><USER29> Unless you have a friend with a cellphone...

<comment><USER30> ...who doesn't mind commiting wire fraud.

<comment><USER29> Is it really fraud though?

I mean, fraud seems to me to occur only when you sell something to somebody, but then I am not a lawyer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've always to used "freelancing" as a way to sidestep times of unemployment. The fact that it's half-true is merely a bonus.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why aren't people lying about this on their resumes then? I wonder this every time a story like this one makes the rounds.

<comment><USER33> Software Engineer - Vandelay Industries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It all depends on how you define "jobless"...

I am currently unemployed, yet I still work. I am volunteering at the United Way and other similar organisations for positions they need filled. Now, I am a computer literacy teacher, 5th grade mathematics program helper, and also providing computer work for a non-profit.

I also am constantly filling out applications for positions which I am way overqualified (fast food and retail). I am receiving unemployment, and who knows when I'll actually obtain a job. But I know this: my current volunteer work is being listed as current jobs. Is this dishonest? Perhaps... But it is work regardless.

<comment><USER35> call it what is, "Current Work", and no it's not dishonest. You're smart to keep working, even if not gainfully employed.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Making the most of a cofounder-seeking trip to the BA - <AUTHOR>

Got my MVP made, and my business is ready to go.  So far it's just me.
And I need to snag a co-founder.  Someone who doesn't have to be technical, but who knows people, and can get people to open their checkbooks on occasion.  A business guy (or girl).
Everyone I talk to tells me there's 10 of these people for every technical person, and 10 technical people for every technical person who doesn't need proof-of-concept funding or a brilliant business idea.
Nonetheless, I've given up on finding a business cofounder in my community.  My network's tapped out.  So I need to grow my network out of state. Might as well do it where everybody else does it for dotcom startups.  I'll be happy to pull up stakes and live "La Dura Vita" in the BA; just want to be in a position to gain traction before I do.
So a trip is in order, but I want my time in the bay area to be well spent.  Meeting new people whenever possible is great; having little to do but see the sights and code, I can do here at home.
I'm planning on finding startup events on MeetUp, hanging around Palo Alto, and hopefully attending at least one in-person founder dating event.  Can anyone recommend the best monthly occasions to be sure to hit for an out-of-town founder? <comment><USER2> How long do you plan on being in the Bay Area for? If it is a short time period maybe your time would be better spent meeting directly with business- oriented folks.</comment>


Ask HN: Good Apps for Macbook Pro - <AUTHOR>

Purchased a new Macbook Pro from Walmart. Need to know some good apps to download on the App Store. Any links will help!!!!!!!!!!! <comment><USER2> This was posted less than 2 months ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4123995></comment>


Apple updates its 12-inch MacBook with faster chip, but no extra USB - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-updates-its-12-inch-macbook-faster-chip-rose-gold-but-no-extra-usb/ <comment><USER3> My wife and I both have to travel. This is my favorite travel computer. At home, or when working all day on location, I prefer my MBP retina 15. At the airport, in a plane, or next to bed I like the 12 inch MB.

There is a lot of speculation over the single port. There are a couple of USB C dongles. One is USB-C to regular USB. The other is USB-C to USB, USB-C, and HDMI. The later allows charging the MB while using USB and connecting a monitor. I keep a little zip up with my Apple USB-C charger and the larger dongle. I leave the charger and dongle at home if getting coffee with my MB. On the road I carry the little zip up bag with charger and dongle. Even carrying both is lighter than any other laptop charger I have. (The USB-C charger is only a bit bigger than an iPad charger.)

</comment><comment><USER4> I see this laptop as a "more productive iPad". I have a main MacBook Pro 15" that is permanently attached to two monitors, and a bunch of other devices. Having a secondary laptop that I can use on the go or in bed, without detaching the existing one, would be nice. So far I've been using my iPad for that purpose, but the 12" MacBook would provide me with a significantly nicer experience. At least for any task that isn't content consumption. For my use case, the single USB port is not an issue (as much as I otherwise dislike laptops with only a couple of USB ports).

<comment><USER5> I stopped using my iPad completely when I got the new Macbook. it's just as light, the screen is better, it's more comfortable to hold, and the keyboard is fantastic.

</comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash They don't learn anymore, do they?

The single port was a horrible failure. I'm sure their shareholders enjoyed the thought of every single MacBook owner buying one of those multi-adapter cables, but that was a mistake my family only needs to make once.

This makes me sad. I love Apple. I love their products. I loved working there, a lot. But stories like these make me think they are calcifying into what Microsoft was in the 00s.

Once things like Magic Leap are mainstream, there is zero guarantee Apple will remain relevant at all.

EDIT: Since everyone is ripping on me for not considering every single possible use case, here's my response:

The problem is not that Apple made a lighter laptop with limited uses, it is that this laptop is crowding out better options for people - <USER2> employees who are assigned computers - who clearly need more. I see people all the time being assigned new MacBooks and who need the extra adapters, and those same people come back and complain that the adapters break! I don't get why companies buy them buy the bulk, unless apple is pushing some amazing deals.

<comment><USER6> Your comments are usually good, but this one reads like something from the fanboys on MacRumors. It might not be right for you, but I haven't seen any evidence of the single port being a failure in the market.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash I and everyone I know who has used single-port MacBooks have expressed frustration with the need to swap cables or use the adapter, which among my family members has broken twice, and not for lack of proper use or storage.

I never really understood why it is better for the consumer to be either inconvenienced or out an extra $70 for an unattractive dongle. It's like if a wedding dowry was a facelift and a boob job, except the groom has to pay for it.

<comment><USER7> Well you don't just need the dongle with its generous one USB port, you also need a USB hub to connect to the dongle.

<comment><USER5> I have the dongle with USB, HDMI and USB-C. I have not hit a scenario where I was searching for another port, and I've had the machine since launch.

Honestly, it's a great laptop and is far more functional than those (who have not used one) are lead to believe. My only gripe is video playback can be laggy with hi-def videos. It sounds like they're trying to fix that problem with the new model.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you guys think about my final year project? - <AUTHOR>

I have been developing a system for about four months, where the main idea is to replace conventional attendance system. It is a Client–server system.
Manager will use website to access all the employee's data. and The employee's will use smartphone to access their own data. and as add on for that, the system will have private social network, where check-in, check-out status will automatically posted to private social network and also basic status sharing.
If requested by the manager/admin, the system will also monitor employee's location after they checked in. it also will remind employee and manager if employee's located outside office location.
Manager benefit
-The system generates monthly reports on attendance progress of a employee for particular month.
-To provide institution and organization an employees location tracking.
-To replace punch card, ID badges, and fingerprints scans attendance system.
Employee benefit -Access to their own performance data.
-Share status to private social network. (Like facebook but limited only for organisation).
How do manager use this system ?
It is a simple five step process
1. Sign up your organisation on the website.
2. Request authentication code in one click.
3. Share authentication code with your employees.
4. Ask your employee to download client side application and register with authentication code.
5. Start monitoring your employee's performance.
What do you guys think ?, is there any prospect for this ? Any suggestions ?
Thank you for reading. <comment><USER2> I think this is a great idea. I would recommend going out to a few universities or larger employers, nearly every law firm or Fortune 500 office in any city, and getting their feedback. You will want to talk to facilities managers, though most outsource this function. You could also contact facility management companies like IBM. They have a large group that does work in this area, worth investigating. You could also contact any of your local government officials to get them to put you in touch with the right people. Getting the feedback of potential customers is going to give you the best information to scope the project. Another suggestion is to peel back all the unnecessary layers and features. Just think of the core value proposition after you chat with potential users and make sure you are really working toward MVP. You should be constantly putting features on the backlog until you get to a beta product. Good luck!</comment>


Ask HN: Crystal and Kemal or Elixir and Phoenix? - <AUTHOR> Where would you spend your freetime: Crystal + Kemal or Elixir + Phoenix? <comment><USER2> Any of the two are great. But Elixir and Phoenix has a lot of traction right now. All my Ruby friends and learning Phoenix in a crazy way.

</comment><comment><USER3> Rubyist here, obviously Crystal ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> Elixir would have my vote and you get to play BEAM and the actor pattern which is fun :-)

</comment><comment><USER5> Crystal is so great to use.</comment>


Age differences in learning from an insufficient representation of uncertainty - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11609 <comment><USER2> As people get older, their minds tend to filter out most things around them as a consequence of familiarity. Hence, they become oblivious to details of their environment. They lose their sense of wonder and their minds become less active and eventually stale.

When I was young, I often wondered why adults seemed so "stupid" when it came to learning things, and I do think this is a big part of it. As we get older, it's necessary to make a conscious effort to pay attention to details of our environment, and to be acutely aware of the great uncertainty found all around us, even in everyday life. This is the difference between a person who becomes a "stupid" adult, and one whose mind is still sharp as a razor at age 70.

<comment><USER3> Anecdotally, I've noticed a very big difference in elderly people who have lived in several places, especially abroad, versus those who have mostly spent their life in one home. They are usually much more lucid and easier to communicate with. Less prone to social miscues, that sort of thing.

There seems to just be more awareness since you are forcing yourself to learn to deal with new environments.

I wonder if there's been any kind of study on frequency of moving or travel on the brain.

<comment><USER4> Relevant: Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status

[http://www.neurology.org/content/early/2013/11/06/01.wnl.000...](http://www.neurology.org/content/early/2013/11/06/01.wnl.0000436620.33155.a4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> TLDR; If you think you know everything already (or you don't need to learn something) then you learn less well.

Older people are more often fulfilling the above premises, and thereby the above conclusion.

This means: Worse learning performance is not a consequence of age per se.

<comment><USER6> lol, is this why impostor syndrome exists?

1\. I think I know nothing.

2\. I try to learn hard to get better.

3\. goto 1.

<comment><USER7> :-) I think it's the first time I see an answer with a "goto" that didn't get downvoted!!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is really thought provoking.

One thing I wonder, though, is how they can ever adjust for the strong possibility older adults just can't care about a make-believe test the way younger people might.

My observation, as I age, is I have a harder and harder time getting interested in hypothetical scenarios, or taking on someone else's agenda as being super important.

So I really wonder if older adults just test worse than younger people, simply because they care less about the test.

If that's true, it wouldn't hold in the real world. Except that older people can seem less smart, when in reality they think whatever you're trying to get them to learn is not important in the grand scheme of things.

<comment><USER9> Your comment is kind of buried but I feel like this is what has happened to me as I've aged. Where once I was consumed by the depth of a problem I now find that I am more consumed with the breadth of it. In that sense I tend to consider the practical outcomes more than I used to.

But I am also sure that maintaining novelty in my life, whether through education or travel, is key to maintaining healthy schemas in my mind to help understand the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> nobody seems interested in looking at the thing from the other perspective - why was it an evolutionary advantage for older people to develop this uncertainty-blindness? i would guess that perhaps with age the importance of making a decision rises, even if not the best decision. perhaps it's an evolutionary adaptation to reduce analysis-paralysis in developed adults and improve their self-sufficiency? in any case, it's interesting how we all jumped to "fixing" it. a cute reflection of the culture here.

<comment><USER11> There doesn't need to be an evolutionary advantage for everything (e.g. vestigal features) - this "uncertainty-blindness" could have just not been exposed to evolutionary pressure.

<comment> nommm-nommm Very few 70+ year olds are reproducing so evolutionary advantage doesn't make sense in that age group as they have already reproduced (or not) by then.

<comment><USER12> Historically the aged sat around the fire and taught the young. Which encouraged their genes' propagation. Since Humans became social, its not been all about reproduction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Causation is a strong claim here.) Correlation is known for ages.

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence". (Who said Java?)

The same notion is related to the concert of "the beginner's mind" popularized by D. T. Suzuki and S. Jobs. Packers call it "thinking out of the box". J. Krishnamurti call it 'freedom from the "known"' (people call all kinds of nonsense "knowledge").

Children learn so quickly and efficiently because they are not habitually pattern matching against personal experiences, cultural conditioning and popular memes - the way most adults do, but are still building the map of the world out of so called primordial awareness, or the Buddha Nature.

But "the map is not the territory".

And finally - "Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it."

</comment><comment><USER14> There is a learning to learn course on Coursera [https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to- learn](https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn)

I strongly recommend it for engineers over 40.

<comment><USER15> I strongly recommend it for everyone. Especially for those workaholics and one-(brain)-hemishpere individuals who think that knowing only one narrow area is OK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> On a related note, does anyone else remember a study (I think linked here) that measured certainty / uncertainty in individuals?

The idea was that it asked open ended questions, ranging from questions such as "What is the GDP of USA" to "How many days in a lunar cycle" or "How many symphonies did Beethoven compose" and would not only present a handful of options for the answer but also ask you to self-rate how accurately you think you knew the answer.

The idea was not to measure the actual responses, but to look at how well people know whether they know things.

I found it very interesting and it reminded of this: I wonder how measures on that scale relate to learning agility.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm certain that there's a learnable technique to cultivate uncertainty.

<comment><USER18> The wisest man knows that he knows nothing.

<comment><USER17> Is it even possible to know if there are more known unknowns than unknown unknowns?

<comment><USER19> How could I know?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Always keep a Beginner's Mind.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think that many times we don't give enough credit to how amazingly lazy our brains are. Whatever they can generalize, they generalize. They don't track images, they track edges and movement (I oversimplify, of course). They can hear garbled speech in a crowded room and somehow figure out what the words are -- even if those aren't the actual words.

To some degree this is good. We don't want to go around testing every chair we come across to make sure it's good to sit in. But it has its downsides as well.

<comment><USER22> Maybe I don't need to test everything to see if it is a chair, but I definitely test every chair before I sit in it. I learned that I should do that after breaking a few chairs, and a bench.

I'm not even particularly heavy. I'm 180#, which is pretty much spot-on for my height.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This headline (on yc) is missing a key verb from the actual paper's headline, making it confusing. The actual title is:

"Age differences in learning _emerge_ from an insufficient representation of uncertainty in older adults"

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Unfortunately YC limit of 80 characters prevented me from including the full title. I hope the change is not too confusing and captures the intent of the original title.

<comment><USER24> Actually, it was confusing and I was searching for this comment alone. I wouldn't have clicked on it if it wasn't for the points it already has.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So does one have to remain open to learning about everything, including subjects they don't find interesting or can you simply continue to wonder and learn about things that actually interest you. Do you have to force yourself to learn things as we were "forced" during our early education? For example a developer is annoyed/bored with re-learning frameworks /languages/concepts and takes up a hobby they find interesting where they are still hungry for knowledge. Say homebrewing :)

</comment><comment><USER26> So, basically my constant saying to myself "I don't understand this" and digging in deeper until I do plus feeling like there's so much more to learn is... a good thing.

<comment><USER27> Seems so. Been doing something similar my whole life myself.

The biggest thing you can do for yourself, as best i can tell, is to admit you don't know, and then go digging for info rather than just accept that you don't know (or worse go on to pretend you do).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> another TL;DR : Making mistakes is a great way of learning. To learn from mistakes, the first step is to identify that you have made an error. The second step is to correct it. When we grow older, we become worse at the first step i.e. identifying the error. Without identification, there can be no correction and no learning.

</comment><comment><USER29> So does evoking uncertainty allow for an overall learning advantage when it comes to age in more complex scenarios?

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think the study supports many of the conclusions being drawn in the comments here.

What the study measured was that older people tended to be worse than younger people at adjusting their predictions after making small errors (theoretically because of lower uncertainty levels), but better than young people at adjusting predictions after making large errors (theoretically because of higher surprise sensitivity).

What the study did was fit each person with one of the curves in figure 2, the curves being functions of how much a person was willing adjust their new prediction ("learning rate" value on Y axis) in response to seeing different amounts of error on their previous prediction ("relative error" value on X axis).

\- In the "normative" case (best case), a person has a perfect S curve, where they don't adjust their predictions too much after small errors, but greatly increase willingness to swing their predictions after errors reach a threshold.

\- In the "surprise insensitive" case, where a person is unable to be surprised by large swings in data and update their predictions accordingly, the steep rise in their S curve is flattened out. These people are bad at learning after large errors.

\- In the "low hazard rate" case, where a person is able to be surprised by large swings in data, but their threshold for surprise is too high, their S curve is shifted to the right. These people are bad at predicting after moderate errors, but fine at predicting after small and large errors.

\- In the "low uncertainty case", where a person is too sure of themselves at low error levels, the S curve is depressed at the left end. These people are bad at learning after small errors, but good at predicting after medium and high errors.

\- In the "reduced PE" case, where a person isn't good at understanding magnitudes of prediction errors at all, their S curve is vertically compressed, and their predictions are worse across the board, at low, medium, and high error levels.

Figure 6 shows outcome of the experiment, with age being correlated with higher "uncertainty underestimation" ("Unc") and higher "surprise sensitivity" ("SS") in the fitted curves.

This happens because older people are worse at learning from small changes in data, but can compensate somewhat be being more willing to change their predictions after large swings in data.

"Insufficient uncertainty" might be a reasonable explanation for this, but it's easy to imagine other possible explanations as well. Maybe "insufficient attention" or "insufficient caring" could be factors, with older people maybe being more willing to stick to rough predictions without sweating the details. It would have been interesting if the study tried to measure self-confidence / certainty levels more directly, instead of just relying on fitting to a theoretical model.

<comment><USER31> Maybe older people are better at rationalizing low errors.

e.g. if there is a small error, older people can convince themselves that they were right and the world is wrong. (My reasoning was correct, but the answer was wrong by chance. Therefore I won't change my reasoning).

However, younger people are less able to rationalize these small errors, forcing them to accept the conclusion that _they_ are wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I knew that

</comment><comment><USER33> Synopsis: A certain age group is better at video games.

<comment><USER34> Nice snark, but one can extract more interesting insights.

"learning deficits observed in healthy older adults are driven by a diminished capacity to represent and use uncertainty to guide learning"

From a Bayesian, or normal machine learning, perspective: older people have collected more evidence about the world, and thus would normally reduce their learning rate, or belief update amount, for best performance. In this example, though, video games represent a different environment, and the older adults have little evidence about them. However, they fail to have a higher learning rate. Looks to me like an evolutionary adaptation that does not work anymore; the environment did not change that quickly before.

To paraphrase: older people learn more slowly, and this parallels the lesser weight of new evidence when you have more accumulated evidence in Bayesian beliefs; or the reduction of learning rate in machine learning systems.

<comment><USER35> I'm wondering to which extent this effect can be attributed to illusion of competence, i.e. with age some meta learning program in our brains that is concerned with managing novel data simply becomes lazy because (1) adults really are able to handle most of the situations they are confronted with and (2) they are also expected to be able to deal with any situation. That might simply lead to a detoriation of the sort of novelty detection. Adults tend to automatically explain away things they don't understand (possibly to save face) while the young examine them. With increasing age these kinds of automatisms might simply override or detoriate learning strategies that are required to learn quickly.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Just Write, a "weekend" project in time for NaNoWriMo - <AUTHOR> http://just-write.appspot.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually started working on it for last year's NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month; <http://nanowrimo.org>) but life happened and it got shelved so I pulled it out again today and got it into somewhat usable shape.

Sorry about the FB login, I know I will get shit for that but I need it because I eventually want to add social features :)</comment>


Learning 80's style programming today - <AUTHOR> http://www.atalasoft.com/cs/blogs/loufranco/archive/2010/06/21/learning-80-s-style-programming-today.aspx

<comment><USER2> I am really unsympathetic to the idea that programming has gotten harder to get into. It has, but only because of the sheer explosion of alternatives drowning out programming, which is not the point people try to make. In absolutely terms it is still easy, and actually easier than ever. It was never _easy_ , it was just one of a much smaller set of choices.

Further edit: It occurs to me I have a relevant anecdote. I was never able to get into assembler on the Commodore 64, having gotten as far as I really could with Basic. I actually had an assembler, but no documentation. I had no ability to get documentation, no idea where to find it, nobody to even ask, hardly any clue that I _should_ be asking. I managed to wedge my computer a few times just typing some vaguely assemblish stuff into it, but no more. Today, www.google.com -> "Commodore 64 assembly" (no quotes) yields <http://www.c64.ch/programming/> as the first hit.

Yeah, it's gotten a lot easier.

<comment><USER3> Not only that, but getting help is crazy easy nowadays. In the 80's you either had to know someone experienced in real life, buy books, or just pootle around figuring it out for yourself.

<comment><USER4> I still have not physically met any person my own age that can program more than a little Java and I'm about to enter college. And I've never known an adult IRL that has been able to teach me any CS or programming.

Very much almost exclusively my knowledge of programming comes from reading books and 'pootling' around (and I started in 2000).

I think it's more a matter of where you live than what age you live in.

<comment><USER5> I think you're just taking a lot for granted. You're posting about how you don't know anyone who can program or teach you about CS _on a site full of computer scientists_. Nowadays you can post any question imaginable on Stack Overflow and get answers quickly, often from the world's top experts. You discount all this because you haven't met these people physically, but really, who cares? That is so much more than you have 20, 30 years ago.

"Where you live" is precisely the thing that matters least now. As long as you have access to the Internet, you're only seconds away from anybody in the world.

<comment><USER4> It's not a problem now. I have an exponentially better idea of where to look when I want answers to a question that I did when I was 12 or 13.

The single largest hurdle for learning on your own is knowing the right questions to ask and how and where to ask them. Sites like HN and SO are great but it's a matter of finding them (and neither SO nor HN have existed for very long).

(and btw I didn't downmod you)

<comment><USER3> _The single largest hurdle for learning on your own is knowing the right questions to ask and how and where to ask them._

That's an interesting point, though pre 2001-ish I'd suggest this was _easier._ Usenet was the obvious destination. Groups like comp.lang.c, comp.lang.basic.misc and rec.game.design were popular and easy to find. Nowadays, there are 1001 different sites (many with poor traffic) for every topic imaginable.

Sadly, Usenet seemed to fall on its ass and be usurped by the Web somewhere between 2000 and 2003. A shame, that.

<comment><USER4> If I had known what the usenet was at the time I would have really found useful. I was super ignorant of those types of things until I was about 14 or 15.

I'll consolidate our discussion into this one thread, in saying that I did use the internet to learn but I used it rather poorly. My Google-fu was rather terrible when I was younger. Tackling a large subject like programming was not easy for me when I basically had no footholds or easy ways to enter that body of knowledge.

I cannot imagine how hard it must have been to learn how to program _without_ the internet though I think that as we build more powerful consumer-grade computing systems, the hurdles involved in getting into programming get higher and become more numerous.

<comment><USER6> > I cannot imagine how hard it must have been to learn how to program without > the internet[.]

Personally, the hard part was getting good documentation, though my parents' 286 came with a manual on GW-BASIC, which was included. I also managed to procure some BASIC documentation at a garage sale.

Basically impossible to learn _computer science_ , though, except by trial and error. I just did things ad hoc. Experience teaches you how not to do things, but slowly.

<comment><USER3> _Basically impossible to learn computer science, though, except by trial and error._

This is a good point. I'd been coding for over ten years before I was even introduced to the (actually rather important) concept of algorithmic complexity! If I'd taken CS in university, that wouldn't have been the case. Now, though, it's possible for even novices to be introduced to these topics online (depending on who they're talking to).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think flash gets enough credit in this regard. Despite its many flaws, the sheer volume of people exposed to programming concepts from tinkering with flash is enormous.

I think one of the biggest reasons for this is the ease of IO, and the type of communities that have formed around its use, like Newgrounds.

<comment><USER8> And if you use haXe instead of Adobe's tools, it's not hard to put together a reasonably sane Flash development environment.

I agree, Flash is a decent choice for the same reasons BASIC was awesome in the 80s - kids love to make noises and draw/animate graphics. Javascript is catching up on the graphics front, but sound is sadly still just not there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The context was completely different. Controlling what appeared on your TV was quite a novelty! And there weren't other interesting things to do on a computer, except for games.

<comment><AUTHOR> On page 5 of the programming guide, it has a list of things you can download from CompuServe.

Partial list:

* Games

* Store-front advertising display (flashing and animated)

* Home Babysitter -- teaches kids the alphabet

* business spreadsheet

* sports data (subscription service on compuserve)

* stock quotes (subscription service on compuserve)

Granted, I mostly just played games and hacked programs, but I had a word processor and got a copy of GEOS (GUI windowing environment)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system)>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "It would be trivial for Microsoft to provide a version of BASIC that kids could use, whenever they wanted, to type in all those textbook examples."

They do, it's called Small Basic.

Although this was written in 2006, before Small Basic existed.

</comment><comment><USER3> After the first paragraph I thought this article was going to say how learning "80's style programming" isn't a good thing in the 2010s, rather than support that Python fits pretty well into it ;-) There's something to be said for 80's style educational style, but I'm not sure we should hang on to the same style of programming.

<comment><AUTHOR> I keep seeing articles that worry about not being able to do this, and I just wanted to show that you pretty much could if you wanted to (no need to buy a C64 as the Salon article author did).

I think if someone asked me how to get started hacking around, I'd suggest HTML/Javascript or Processing. They both have the advantage of being very easy to deploy the output if you want (for sharing). They also have progressive enhancement (meaning you can start knowing only a few simple things and learn more as you need it)

<comment><USER11> I agree that Javascript is the true heir to BASIC. It's available on pretty much every computer out-of-the-box, much in the same way that BASIC was in the 80s. It's also a lot easier to deploy and share, as you said.</comment></comment></comment>


SoftBank Finds Limits to Its Love for WeWork as Investors Push Back - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/softbank-finds-limits-to-its-love-for-wework-as-investors-push-back-11545225988 <comment><USER2> [https://outline.com/3rRR6K](https://outline.com/3rRR6K)

</comment><comment><USER3> I was in a WeWork once for an event in Berlin, around 2015 I think. It was the weirdest experience I ever had. Objectively everything looked cool, elegant and comfortable. But it felt super fake, cold and inhuman at the same time.

Also I assume because it's a premium location that they rented or bought for that WeWork office, that their prices will also be premium. And honestly, if I can pay premium, wouldn't I just get my own office?

It all didn't really click together, so I never entered a WeWork office again. Instead it let me to wonder if the start-up world has reached it's peak.

Edit: To not just say negative things. The CEO of WeWork is a super smart business man. Another commentor posted an interview ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb_ogQJWeI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb_ogQJWeI)) and I have to say I would also want to give this guy money. He's totally able to sell his vision as something that already exists and just needs your support to get it finished up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Probably should replace the word Arab with Middle Eastern in the OP's title.

<comment><USER5> Why? Arabs are from Arabia (it's named after them), and the backers are from Arabia (aka. the Arab peninsula).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Title seems misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say or imply that Wework is being acquired, just another funding round.

<comment><USER7> The title on WSJ reads "SoftBank's Biggest Backers Balk at Planned $16 Billion Acquisition of WeWork". I think the original is better than OP's.

<comment><USER6> I was looking at the Outline article that someone posted earlier that didn't mention any acquisition, oops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Last year I saw many large group tours of Japanese businessmen from various companies (around 2 dozen people each time) in Seattle WeWork offices. Then the Tokyo WeWork locations opened earlier this year. I visited one during a recent trip and it was as full as the flagship one in Seattle.

</comment><comment><USER9> I worry about weworks ability to survive a downturn. Especially in an environment where there is not easy money. I remember high vacancy rates and the failure of Olympia and York and similar issues. Wework seems at the vulnerable end of real estate.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is it just me or it feels like valuations on these deals is just to make LPs paper profits?

Where the reality is that if SoftBank does not provide funding, WeWork is not making it to the choppa?

</comment><comment><USER11> For a pinch of irony the founder is Israeli: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Neumann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Neumann) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb_ogQJWeI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb_ogQJWeI)

tl;dw - "As of 2 years ago 98% only young entrepreneurs, as of today 30% of all of our members are enterprise, corporate America.

23% of all Fortune 500 companies are already in WeWork.

..If they want a satellite office they'll just put it in a WeWork, if they are looking for an HQ or they want to redo their HQ they'll ask us to do it.

And today we don't even take the space - we will redesign the space, build it, deploy our technology which is called WeOS and took a long time to create and put our community managers in there.

I would love to do it for city hall, in fact if any mayors are listening: we.co/mayors"

<comment><USER12> Money does not care much about your place of birth or ethnic affiliations... Especially the Saudis who have no qualms about Israel. Commercial real estate, however, is hardly the future. In my city for instance 30% of commercial real estate is sitting vacant.

Their concerns would probably be focused on this:

> In its first ever release of financial results, the privately held firm said > total revenue rose to $421.6 million from $198.3 million in the year-ago > quarter as memberships jumped to 268,000 at the end of June from 128,000 a > year earlier.

> Net losses jumped to $723 million over the first half of 2018 from $154 > million a year earlier.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wework-results/wework- rev...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wework-results/wework-revenue-and- losses-surge-in-first-release-of-results-idUSKBN1KU2KI)</comment></comment>


Learning to Repair My Busted TV Taught Me How to Love the Internet Again - <AUTHOR> https://onezero.medium.com/learning-to-repair-my-busted-tv-taught-me-how-to-love-the-internet-again-d514a167df3d?source=rss----444d13b52878---4&gi=d0bb495f6019 <comment><USER2> I am amazed at what you can learn and fix from Youtube videos these days. I can remember when you had to guess/reverse engineer everything.</comment>


The (Real) Bank of America – $3 trillion portfolio of loans on its books - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/federal-loans-bank-of-america-113920.html#.VKxsDmTF89Y

<comment><AUTHOR> _" The riskiest programs often reek of politics, producing fiascos like the Bush-era super-ferries, which benefited a firm led by Republican ex-Navy Secretary John Lehman, or the similarly disastrous Clinton-era MarAd loan to modernize a shipyard near Boston, a pet project of the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. Credit programs, especially the more obscure ones, tend to have well-positioned benefactors. South Dakota Republican John Thune, a former railroad lobbyist who is about to chair the Senate Commerce Committee, once pushed through a major expansion of a railroad loan program on behalf of his former employer, while Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow has protected those dicey loan guarantees for biorefineries as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

But if too much risk can be a problem, not enough risk can also be a problem, as federal credit ends up subsidizing safe transactions, crowding out private lenders and helping people who don't need help. The Ex-Im Bank has defended itself by highlighting its 0.2 percent default rate, which only raises the question of why a government entity is needed to make such low-risk loans to corporate behemoths like Boeing and General Electric. The same question could apply to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation's reliably profitable financing for U.S. firms building fancy hotels and power plants abroad. If the deals are low-risk layups, why is Uncle Sam involved?_</comment>


Three years in Europe with Trolltech - <AUTHOR> http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2008/08/three-years-in-europe-with-trolltech.html

<comment><USER2> "It is sociably acceptable for every day adults to ride bikes, even a women in a skirt which was something you would never see in the states."

This guy has obviously never been to Portland, Denver, or a host of other cities where bikes are absolutely normal modes of transportation.

Hell just as I wrote this two women (in skirts) biked past my window (Downtown Denver).

<comment><USER3> True, but the normalization of cycling in a few select US cities is much more recent than the normalization of cycling across the northern European lowlands countries.

<comment><USER4> "Few select"

Are there any major cities (say, the size of Oslo) where cycling isn't or wasn't always common?

<comment><USER3> My understanding is that cycling became common when cities responded to the 1970s oil crises by dramatically increasing gas taxes (to reduce driving) and invested heavily in continuous cycling infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just to flaunt my vanity, I thought I'd say that my family (father-side) comes from Trysil, the small town mentioned, where the KDE guys spend a week hacking each summer. It's a really beautiful place - desolate, with miles and miles of pine trees in every direction. I think the place has about 10.000 inhabitants in summer - although in winter it enjoys its status as the largest ski resort in Scandinavia. (My trip to eastern China this summer was paid with some of the cash my family earns from renting out real-estate to ski tourists).

I've never heard the story behind the KDE developer camp up there, but from years of personal experience it is a great place to go disconnect from everyday distractions. You can actually be alone up there, while still enjoying a top-notch standard of living.</comment>


No sound after latest iOS 7.1 update? Try this. - <AUTHOR>

Check the lock screen switch above the volume toggle. The latest update seems to use this switch for application sound muting. <comment><USER2> Are you sure someone didn't just change your switch settings. This can be set for either mute or rotation lock.</comment>


Dining out is a reason Americans are broke and overweight - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-americans-are-broke-and-fat-2017-12-05-10881649 <comment><USER2> I am going to take the controversial stance and say BS to this one.

With Americans marrying later and often times dual income even then this has left most individuals doing 1.5 jobs (house work and their actual job)

Additionally the time required to access to the basics has also gone up. Super markets are more crowded. Traffic is much worse.

This has left Americans with a drastic reduction in time and created large amounts of time pressure stress.

The major advantage of eating out is a massive reduction in stress related to food prep, particularly around time savings and mental energy expenditure.

Now eating out is not on average healthy, but not all meals that are prepared at home are either. When faced with equivalently unhealthy meals, dining out has the advantage of automatic portion control.

The REAL reason American's are broke is cost of living. Rent and housing costs have skyrocketed and wages have stagnated.

Coupled with a reduction in time and increased time-stress taking care of every day chores, health goes out the window.

In short, there is a direct correlation between health and wealth. Specifically, if one partner earns enough to support a relatively unstressed house mom/dad, the family unit is healthy.

Otherwise if an individual earns a large sum of money with sufficient few hours, they have compound time benefits in other aspects of their lives allow for health considerations.

<comment><USER3> "When faced with equivalently unhealthy meals, dining out has the advantage of automatic portion control."

Portions in restaurants are way too big. After a while this totally skews your perception of appropriate amounts of food.

<comment><USER4> That depends on your activity level. When I was working out 5x a week, I'd want two of the most calorie-packed things on the menu.

<comment><USER3> Sure. I'd venture a guess that maybe 1% of restaurant users have the problem of needing as many calories as possible. Everybody else needs much less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why assume this trend is new? Had the author not researched history? Dining out has been a feature of society since Rome (79AD)

[https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/10/05/take-out- restauran...](https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/10/05/take-out-restaurants- existed-in-ancient-rome-and-were-called-thermopolia/)

It's very possible to go out and not spend a lot. Does this cost include alcohol? 60$ with drinks/person sounds right to me (for a week). Dropping alcohol: 20$ is doable (granted I don't go out 3 times a week).

However: why state the weekly budget over average meal cost?

</comment><comment><USER6> This article is sensationalism. The science does not support the claims. Flagged.

</comment><comment><USER7> >six in 10 Americans ate dinner out at least once in last week

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that most of the 40% who didn't eat out are lower income, and income has some correlation with obesity. Eating cheap, processed food is going to make you gain more weight than occasionally eating out. Sure, there are lots of wealthy people who eat out frequently and don't exercise, but there are a lot more poor people who can't afford to buy healthy food and don't have time to exercise.

<comment><USER8> Back when I was very poor, I ate fast food frequently -- definitely unhealthy. It had more to do with time and energy than cost. It is a common pattern among the poor people I knew.

Healthy food is unbelievably dirt cheap in the US and available almost everywhere _but it takes a lot of time and effort to prepare it_. When you are working 60+ hours per week, that isn't always an attractive option. Poor people can afford healthy food.

Tangentially, the common definition of "food desert" improperly and tacitly conflates expensive food with healthy food. You can eat a very healthy and more importantly very cheap diet while living in a nominal food desert. Poor people can't afford boutique organic heirloom tomatoes so they don't sell them where poor people live. Frozen and canned vegetables are perfectly nutritious and cheaper substitute -- and I can vouch that poor people eat these in abundance -- but for the purposes of labeling an area a "food desert" they don't count.

<comment><USER9> Frozen or canned is not always as good for you as fresh, depends on the produce. So access to fresh is still good.

There's also a bathtub curve I think. Bulk carrots, onion, potatoes, and celery are cheap. But as you move up the scale it starts to be not-cheap, with spices, shallots, olive oil, garlic, leafy greens, organic anything (which _has_ been shown to be healthier long term). I cook from scratch and shop savvy but, perhaps partly due to cuisine and partly caloric needs, struggle to keep it in the $300/mo range I hear some couples and small families manage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty sure American's weight didn't go down during the 2008 Financial Crisis when restaurant usage went way down. I admittedly have no data.

</comment><comment><USER11> No, the reason is that incomes have not increased meaningfully in decades, while literally every major cost (housing, food, power) has.

This is not hard arithmetic.

<comment><USER12> It's not hard arithmetic but they also have no real causation that I could think of.

I can go to McDonald's and buy some combo for $5-8 and get a single meal, or I could go get some chicken thighs, some black beans and some rice and boom, you've got like 5 much healthier meals for $15. People all over the world do this, but in the US we always parrot that eating healthy is "too expensive".

I don't know if people are too strapped for time because of being overworked, having other priorities with the free time they do have to want to cook, or what the root problem is but I can't wrap my head about it being a financial issue.

<comment><USER11> If you're poor you don't have time to cook, especially if you've got kids.

If you are working two jobs to make ends meet, the extra hours required to buy food, and cook said food, may literally be more time than you have available.

Couple that with the simple fact that fresh food expires quickly, and you have a recipe (ha)for fast food being the best available option. You say you could buy some chicken thighs, but you can guarantee you have a fridge available.

The reality is that in spite of being unhealthy fast food has a lot of calories _which you need_ , and is functionally cheap.

I think also this kind of article ignores that the bottom of the poverty spectrum in America aren't eating fast food, they literally can't afford it - they live on canned food and rice. The elderly living on canned cat food is not uncommon, and is a response to that being the among cheapest sources of fat and protein you can get; it's not by choice.

The jokes about people in the Appalachia's eating raccoon are based on fact - I have a friend who grew up there, and his parents still hunt and can literally anything they can. So they do have canned raccoon for the winter.

 _My_ parents and I lived in a literal shed until I was 3 or 4. My dad actually shot rabbits from the bedroom window.

I don't think people on HN actually understand what real poverty is like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bs. Asians eat out all the time. It is the type of cuisine and establishment one decides to eat at that makes a difference.

</comment><comment><USER14> Marketeatch is shorting restaurant chains?

</comment><comment><USER15> Sure. Let's blame economic disparity on trivial individual choices while the public coffers are being plundered to the advantage of the already wealthy.

Injustice is stressful. When I'm under stress, I know I am liable to make decisions that I wouldn't otherwise make. I'm liable to use material means to assuage the feelings of despair. After all, isn't this the messaging reinforced in advertising and media? Am I able to ignore advertising when it intrudes upon me at every turn? In the subway, on billboards, in my apps, in news papers, in news headlines, on TV, in movies, in books, in stores, between songs, in songs, from our friends, from our families, starting from birth.

There's really no escaping from environmental stressors anymore. Not short of leaving society entirely. But billions of people lack the financial independence to do so. And I'm not talking about wealth. I'm talking about a lack of debt and enough money to abscond after taking care of ones obligations.

<comment><USER16> How does this have any relevance to the article?

<comment><USER15> The article seeks to connect being "broke" with having bad judgement.

<comment><USER16> It some cases, that is true; in others, it is not.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Digesting Google's New PPA Advertising Product - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/21/digesting-googles-new-ppa-advertising-product/ <comment><USER3> Yeah, this is nice. The existing aff marketing networks are filled with all sorts of shysters. Shaving sales and unjustified termination of accounts before payment is sent is very very very common. This will put alot more honesty in the affiliate marketing area, which is a cesspool now.

<comment><AUTHOR> PPA is certainly a great relief for advertisers. An interesting question, though, is whether such an offering is actually beneficial to the publishers? Domain-parking sites, in particular, might fail to generate profits through PPA and therefore stick with CPC instead. This advertising model might fail to scale if it is not mutually beneficial for both, advertisers and the publishers.

<comment><USER4> I think you'll see minimal impact on the landscape for publishers-- if they used CPA/aff before, they'll continue to use CPA-- Google is just another CPA source to them. Same with CPC.

The only shift I can imagine happening is that some CPC publishers will shift to CPA, as the overhead associated with evaluating the various affiliate brokers and opening accounts, etc, just got eliminated, as the publishers already have an existing relationship with Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If some advertisers shift from PPC to PPA, it sounds to me like there will be a drop in PPC prices. Which in turn may lead to revenue problems at many advertising supported sites. Also, not every site is suitable for PPA - <USER2> they won't convert well (domain parking being an extreme example). It will be interesting to see if there is any impact on Google's short term revenue.

</comment><comment><USER4> Money quote:

"Affiliate marketing networks like Commission Junction and LinkShare are screwed. These networks also operate on a cost-per-action basis, mostly with online retailers. Even though some of them have scale, they will not have the ability to compete with Google on sheer size of network."

<comment><AUTHOR> AdBrite coexists with Adwords despite having a similar CPC model. CJ and LinkShare can either choose to have a head-on fight with Google, and lose. Or they can innovate to provide the same product (PPA) with a better service.

<comment><USER4> It's true that the market has room for more than one player. It's just that if one of the players is Google, and since Google is offering significant integration advantages with Adwords (see comment #4 on the techcrunch article), then CJ and Linkshare are going to lose serious market share. The "800-lb gorilla" title is going to shift overnight. They are in a pickle, to be sure.</comment></comment></comment>


Brain Hackers Beware: Scientist Says tDCS Has No Effect - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/brain-hackers-beware-scientist-says-tdcs-has-no-effect <comment><USER2> I had to get into the medical publications on this subject because a friend approached me one year ago with the idea of commercializing tDCS devices. I warned him that it looked like a fraud.

The thing is, scientists are using transcranial MAGNETIC stimulation (TMS) more and more these days as interesting results are appearing. However, TMS is hard to do correctly. In the meantime, tDCS got branded as "almost the same thing" (I suspect that "tDCS" is a new term purposefuly chosen to sound similar to TMS) and quoted publications about TMS to claim a proven effect.

tDCS is pretty easy: put two electrodes on the cranium and impose a small current between them. Mass-manufacturing them is easy and cheap. The only problem is that they have nothing to do with the tech proven to work.

</comment><comment><USER3> An important caveat from the inclusion criteria (touched on in the body of the IEEE piece, to their credit):

> We chose to exclude measures that have only been replicated by a single > research group to ensure all data included in and conclusions generated by > this review accurately reflect the effects of tDCS itself, rather than any > unique device, protocol, or condition utilized in a single lab.

If you looked at the (paywalled) appendix Table S3, you will see that (by eye) 100-something measures have been excluded.

The researchers had justifiable reasons for doing so and it is a decision I (as a non-expert, granted) agree with, but it means the headline is incorrect; the analysis found no effect for a certain set of measures (albeit quite a few -- more than I want to type or count) in four domains.

Also, like all good articles it includes a few paragraphs on limitations; I found the following one particularly interesting (and probably relevant to "brain hackers", of which I am not one):

> This paper only explores cognitive measures undertaken during or following > one session of tDCS. As noted in the results section, there are many studies > which have utilized a multiple-day stimulation paradigm. It is wholly > possible that several sessions of tDCS are required in order for a reliable > effect to be seen. In this instance, it has been argued tDCS impacts > cognition via repeated exposure and, possibly, overnight consolidation.

<comment><USER4> And the rest of the measures are unproven because they haven't been replicated (by different teams, presumably).

Therefore, on the balance, no measures have been shown to be effective (either because they're not effective, or because they haven't been replicated).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Something really fascinates me about medicine... it's so incredibly difficult to actually tell if anything works!

I mean look at the debates over antidepressant drugs. There are some large studies that claim most are no better than placebo, and others that claim otherwise.

I feel like there has to be room for improvement here. Maybe we need to start learning to go beyond large studies at a distance and start really measuring things in real time, e.g. with something like an evolved connected descendant of the FitBit.

<comment><USER6> It's because most scientists and the organizations funding them are not interested in advancing our knowledge of nature so much as looking like they're advancing our knowledge of nature. If we want to be less wrong, we need more replication. Scientists don't want to do replication because it advances our knowledge of nature without looking like it is. So instead they keep trying to find fainter and more obscure effects, so faint that they exceed their own abilities to recognize statistical significance. It fools reviewers, journal editors and employers though, so they keep it up.

<comment><USER7> To argue, scientists/corporations are interested in the illusion of advancement is a fair point, albeit a pessimistic one.

"Scientists don't want to do replication because it advances our knowledge of nature without looking like it is"

To argue they therefore purposely want to prevent actual progress (on a whole) seems disingenuous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As one who lives amongst Australians let me assure you that nothing, not even vigorous beatings on the cranium with a heavy stick, will have any measurable effect on the brain activity of the average Australian.

</comment><comment><USER9> The problem with this meta study is the tDCS methods are not controlled. It's possibly true, but this seems to be pretty much up in the air!

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. There are too many various electrodes, machines and protocols for the same applications. It would be interesting to see a study that incorporates readings of neurotransmitters, MRI & EEG prior to and post tDCS application over a longer period.

I also think the chief science officer of Thync was avoiding making any medical claims as tDCS is yet to be FDA approved.

<comment><USER10> It will be particularly interesting to see if Thync tries to get studies from third parties. It looks like tDCS hasn't been solidly proven or disproven, so it will be exciting if this gets more researchers to look into the effectiveness of tDCS.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: moviepresto.com - a legal movies.io - <AUTHOR> http://www.moviepresto.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I should point out: The movies.io site itself may be legal, but the torrent links it contains are not (at least in the US).

Unfortunately, "Show HN: moviepresto.com, like movies.io, but with links to legal download sources" doesn't make for a very good headline.

</comment><comment><USER2> 1\. Click 'top rated'

2\. Click first movie

3\. "iTunes link not found. Netflix Instant not found."

yeah... I think that's where we have the problem :(

p.s. also: nobody outside the US will be able to use this. As opposed to the competitor :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking it out!

To be fair, Infernal Affairs is available on Amazon and as a disc Netflix will mail you. The optimist in me says this is where a site like this can do some good. Assuming viewers aren't wed to a particular platform, being able to see where a movie is available instead of searching iTunes, Amazon, etc. individually could make things easier.

As for competing with movies.io, my reaction to their site was "that's really cool - it's a shame there isn't anything like that for those of us who don't torrent", so I did my best to build one. I know right now it only works in the US, but hopefully working elsewhere is something I can add down the road. I don't really know enough yet about how to do that.

<comment><USER3> This is a really good idea, nice work! Making this work internationally will be very important if you want to be a legal competitor to movies.io. At the moment, none of the links work for me on any of the movies I tried. I saw links to iTunes/Amazon, but they are not available in my country (Netherlands).

Setting up country-specific links shouldn't be too difficult. I'd be happy to discuss implementation details with you, here or by email. Essentially you need:

\- A way of identifying the country a user is in (GeoIP)

\- A way of looking up country-specific links for each movie

Have you thought of doing something similar to <http://takemymoneyhbo.com/>? "This movie is not available legally in your country. How much would you pay to legally watch this movie right now?"

The resulting tweets could help growth, and you could become a standard-bearer for the people who want legal access to movies (which they are only denied due to moribund business models).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The "popular" page doesn't seem to work very well for you, since those movies tend to not be available.

Otherwise, nicely done.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

The "popular" page pulls from TMDb's popular list. I suppose I could use something like iTunes's top rentals instead, but then I'd be trying to match up titles which can be less than 100% reliable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A little bug: when I search for a movie and hit "View More", it just repeats the results of the search.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops.

Thanks for catching that. I built that button for the popular and top-rated pages, which come with lots of pages. It should be hidden for searches that return less than 20 results.

I'll get on this right away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good artists copy, but great artists steal.</comment>


Deon – An Ethics Checklist for Data Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://deon.drivendata.org/ <comment><USER2> I really like this. Developers create a lot of value, but they must be cognizant of the implications of their work. I don't think its good enough to delegate responsibility to the employer/superior (see Nürenberg trials). At the same time I also am unsure that moral preaching will do the job of convincing the community to have and enforce a higher ethical standard.

But making it _easier_ to have and implement this standard by using tools such as this may have a, in my opinion, bigger effect than moral preaching.

Make the right decision be the easy decision and soon you'll find everyone doing the right thing.</comment>