Ask YC: How to Build the Perfect Voting Machine? - <AUTHOR>

Some hacker mental masturbation on this great day:
How do you build a voting machine that is unhackable and reliable? Just software? Software and hardware? OS? Do you put the hardware in a sealed box?
Where are the weak points in a system like this and how do you ensure they aren't exploited? Do you have to leave a paper trail or is there a better solution? <comment><USER3> I propose:

1) Paper, optical scan ballots (bubble filling)

2) A machine in the booth to do the reading and counting with a step that shows the voter how it read their ballot and a big "confirm" button they press to count the vote and drop the ballot into the secured bin.

3) Pick X percent of the machines and manually verify their results. Any machine that votes significantly outside the bell curve should also be manually verified.

This gives "instant" counting to support the unwritten requirement that our elections return results on the night of voting so we can treat them like big sporting events, but also leaves the canonical vote outside of the machines where it can be used to verify the machine vote.

<comment><USER4> The optical scanner is the biggest cost. Here in New Hampshire we fill out our form in a booth then put it in the one scanner ourselves (one for the town - population of 1600). Then it drops into a a secure big. Fast, easy, reliable, and a paper trial. I don't

FYI: Of the 1600 residents, 720 had voted by 10am.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is no unhackable system. So the idea should be to make the system as simple as possible, and make it obvious if things are tampered with.

Using a computer system is not very compatible with the basic principles of voting:

* Each person gets one vote, and only one vote * It must be impossible to figure out what some specific person voted for

Computers are good for the first part, given infrastructure to support it (provide each person with a way to identify themselves to the computer - <USER2> card and biometrics maybe). They suck at the second part, though.

In Sweden we have a simple system: paper slips with party names printed (or written) on them. You select someone to vote for, put your paper slip in an envelope and drop that in a box after someone checks your identity and ticks you off in a list of voters.

After everyone has voted, the box is emptied, the envelopes are opened (checking that each one contains a single vote) and the slips are counted manually. Results are reported to the voting comission (or whatever they're called) who sum the votes and then it's all done. We have the results a few hours after voting is finished.

In the US the same system should work well, I don't really understand what the whole voting machine thing is good for. It's not like there's an election every two weeks, computerized voting machines will probably be used maybe two times in their lifetime. A waste of resources!

<comment><USER6> In France, it works the same way as in Sweden evidently.

I believe one of the aspects that makes it different in the US is that on election day, there isn't only one thing to vote for. There's the President, a Senator, a Congressman, a Judge, local public transports directors, etc. and a bunch of propositions. And that's different from one county to the next, from one state to the other.

I suppose that's part of what made it interesting to look into computerized voting machines.

<comment><USER5> We have three elections at the same time (national, regional, communal), and the solution is simple: make the slips for each election have different colors. The national election slips are white, communal slips are blue etc.

To make sure nobody takes puts e.g. national slips in all three envelopes there's a small cutout at the edge of the envelope that shows the color of the slip inside without revealing the vote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> About a year ago we had Josh Benaloh of Microsoft Research as a guest lecturer in a UW course on computing security. He talked about the cryptographic side of voting systems, some of the papers on his page are a good place to begin: <http://research.microsoft.com/users/benaloh/>

Edit: there are systems that can provably work, tally votes in encrypted form, and provide a reasonable audit trail all while maintaining privacy. Unfortunately the contracts for voting machines don't seem to be awarded based on technical merit -- which, ironically, is entirely a function of who we voted for in the past.

</comment><comment><USER8> Anything can be broken into. The problem with computers is that if you break into one, you have a much better chance at another one.

There is no perfect 'voting machine'. Quite often bins of votes mailed in are found after the election.

We should stick with the old school machines. (except in florida) At least there is a paper trail and it would have to involve more 'old fashioned' corruption, which is something we are at least a little more capable of protecting against. Every election we have had this same old problem, not touch screen calibration issues (seriously!?!).

We might need more if the country is actually going to start voting again! (super good problem to have!)

But if we must go hi-tech, let's just send everyone a magic ATM card and use those machines. At least it's moderately old technology and infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER9> A piece of paper with boxes printed beside the names of those running for office -- we'll call this paper a 'ballot'.

The voter receives a ballot from those managing their place of voting (after showing identification or a registration card of some sort), has their name physically crossed off a printed list and then, after moving behind a screen or other mechanism to allow for privacy, places an 'x' in the box beside the name of the individual they are voting for. The voter then folds the ballot and places it anonymously into a box used to collect the votes for their district. A 'ballot box', if you will.

Once the polls close, volunteers for the place of voting manually count the paper ballots for the individuals running for office and report the count to a central election office. This manual count rarely takes more than an hour or so to complete.

Simple enough? Votes remain anonymous, the paper ballots create a permanent audit trail and, as long as the ballot boxes are supervised by reliable third- parties minimally affiliated with those running for office, the voter will be assured their vote is counted towards their intended result.

This is how most of the developed world handles elections. It saves us a ton of trouble in close races.

 _"Premature optimization is the root of all evil -- Donald Knuth"_

There are some things which should not be optimized. An extremely important, easily manipulated event prone to corruption which occurs once every few years (and only takes two hours to complete manually) might be considered one of them.

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill Purple finger (indelible dye that cannot be removed without removing skin cells). Internet-based video at all polling booths showing number of people entering the door; can be matched with number of votes coming from that location.

<comment><USER10> Video at the polling booths might be illegal with our current laws.

<comment><USER6> It would invade people's privacy. You don't want people to know if you have voted or not and when.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's my suggestions:

1\. Everyone votes online. (Computers could be set up in voting centers for folks without computer.) Codes are sent via snail mail. That one-time code allows a person to log in and vote. (An issue would be protecting the voter from anyone knowing his choices.)

2\. Because everyone votes online, the focus will be the fleet of back-end servers processing the requests. The hardware and software will be open sourced. On hand at the data center will be neutral parties monitoring the software and equipment and could include representatives from both parties and some independent verification teams.

3\. As data enters the system, it will be available for everyone to observe. APIs will be available for programmers to create real-time information on the election. It might be used to detect fraud.

</comment><comment><USER11> Completely open hardware and completely open software, and an immutable audit trail of operation would go a long way to solving the problem.

<comment><USER12> The position in .wa.us that has authority over this role is "Secretary of State". I assume that it's the same in other states. Here in WA, one SoS's core platform is basically this. <http://www.jasonosgood.com/platform.html> .

I'm not attempting to influence your vote nor encouraging discussion on this specific candidate's merits -- just wanted to throw out there that in many cases today is also your day to vote your position on issues of this type as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> <http://scantegrity.org/>

Scantegrity is an open source election verification technology for optical scan voting systems. It uses privacy preserving confirmation numbers to allow each voter to verify her vote is counted. The confirmation numbers also allow anyone to verify that all the votes were counted correcly.

<comment><USER14> But it would allow you to prove whom you voted for?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't believe any voting system will ever be unhackable or completely reliable.

I have been paying attention to the 'off the hook' radio show (download the mp3's from 2600.com) where voting machines are something frequently discussed along with their various failings. In one of the very recent shows (last week or the week before, I'm not sure) they had a discussion where everyone present was asked which system they thought was best - the general consensus was that eyeball scanning (or whatever the proper name for it is) was the best technical means of authenticating a voter and their vote. Sticking to paper ballots on the basis that technology can't be trusted was also popular.

</comment><comment><USER16> If it has to be a touchscreen, then start with <http://pvote.org/>. It's orders of magnitude simpler than the commercial voting machines.

</comment><comment><USER17> Delegate! I don't have to know anything myself. To take care of the physical security and hardware requirements, I'd hire the makers of slot machines. For usability and reliability, I'd team them up with coders and UI people to write the software, and open source it for public review.

</comment><comment><USER18> Estonia is doing well with e-voting <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4343374.stm>

</comment><comment><USER19> It would help to vote on fewer things. Here in SF, my ballot included:

      President/VP: vote for 1 of 6 listed choices
      US Rep: 1 of 4
      State Senator: 1 of 2
      State Assembly: 1 of 2
      County Superior Court Judge: 1 of 2
      City Board of Education: 4 of 15
      Local Community College Board: 4 of 9
      BART (commuter trains) Director: 1 of 2
      12 yes/no State Propositions
      22 yes/no City Propositions
      City Supervisor (Councilman): preference rank 3 of 3

That's insane; there's no chance of the average busy person making reasonable informed choices on all of these, and we should be able to delegate most of this to elected representatives.

(If my math is correct, and not even counting the option to abstain/undervote, that's asking me to express almost 63 bits of preferences -- and more bits are allocated to the less-important issues.)

I would propose a 'complexity budget' on any election's ballot, limiting it to one page or no more than some small number N of decisions.

What to do with all the overflow items? Kick them to an 'electoral jury'. a few hundred people randomly selected from all voters, who would know weeks in advance of their status, and get to meet and discuss all issues in detail. (Perhaps, as another way to improve the attentiveness/quality of this pool, compensate service or let those selected without the time/interest to participate nominate their own proxy on the jury.)

Then, instead of a system that almost seems designed to confuse and discourage attentive voters, you'd have broad voting on the few major issues, and statistically representative but highly focused voting on the minutiae.

</comment><comment><USER20> nothing is unhackable, even paper ballots are flesh-hacked by the people who count them.

i think by far the best thing you can do is pay smart people lots of money as a bounty on finding exploits. or publicly recognize their achievement (because sometimes it's not about the money)

you will eventually have a product that is hard enough to hack that it's not worth the effort (but never completely unhackable)</comment>


GM Volt Gains a Cylinder, Loses a Turbo-charger - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/gm-volt-gasoline-engine-chevy-electric-plug-in.php

<comment><USER2> Good thing GM bought Saab so they can at least copy some original designs. Compare with:

[http://www.automoblog.net/2007/05/02/saab-aero-x-concept- pho...](http://www.automoblog.net/2007/05/02/saab-aero-x-concept-photo- gallery/)

</comment><comment><USER3> So much for the "electric car", it's just a hybrid. A pretty ugly one at that.

Why is it that Tesla can put out a fully electric car, but GM can't?

<comment><USER4> Well, it is a different hybrid and more like a locomotive in that the engine does not power the wheels, but instead only serves as a generator. The other hybrids on the market (toyota et al) are parallel hybrids which only use the electric motor after sufficient charge has been generated from the engine/regenerative braking.

With regard to Tesla making a car and GM can't: The tesla is much higher in price (base price is $109,000), limited in room (2 person) and storage (<http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/faqs.php>), and completely experimental. I wish them luck in their venture, though it will be some time for the technology to come down in price.</comment></comment>


FW: Dear procrastinator - <AUTHOR> http://olh.me/2011/08/aversion-of-change.html

<comment><USER2> Meh, not much meat on this piggyback post.</comment>


The Haskell Cheatsheet - <AUTHOR> http://cheatsheet.codeslower.com/ <comment><USER2> Great timing, I've been looking at Haskell again lately. This is the third time around, maybe it will stick with me this time :)

</comment><comment><USER3> At 13 pages I think this document made the leap from cheatsheet to small tutorial.

<comment><USER4> It really is more if a general reference document or a summary.

Most of the Haskell books I've come across are presented in the tutorial style where they slowly present new concepts. This makes it hard to find simple definitions for things, as they're scattered throughout the book. This "cheatsheet" should be handy.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this is a great companion to Real World Haskell (which is firmly in the "tutorial, not reference" category).</comment></comment></comment>


A Limited Love of Liberty - barry-cotter http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052903980550357.html#printMode

<comment> barry-cotter Summary: ACLU has turned into a partisan left wing organisation.

This is not exactly surprising, and fits Robert Conquest's Three Laws of Politics perfectly.

1.Everyone is conservative about what he knows best. 2.Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing. 3.The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.</comment>


Whatever Happened to the Detroit Public Schools? - <AUTHOR> https://makeloveland.com/reports/schools <comment><USER2> One thing I know for certain, that is the most messed up scroll behavior I've ever seen.</comment>


MobileFusion: Research project that turns mobile phone into a 3D scanner [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M_-lSYqACo

<comment><USER2> I did a masters thesis in this field - they have done VERY well to use just the RGB camera to achieve these results.

Great results, but I would love to see what they do with non-opaque objects and shiny surfaces, especially the later. Specular reflections were the last great barrier to machine vision a few years ago when I was working in this area and I've not seen any new research showing progress in this area.</comment>


How to be a freelance web developer, part 2 - <AUTHOR> http://ryanwaggoner.com/2010/10/how-to-be-a-freelance-web-developer-part-2/ <comment><USER2> _Finally, keep this in mind: freelancing might seem overwhelming, but your competition is terrible. Seriously, absolutely terrible._

This doesn't just apply to developing, or other stuff you're particularly good at, either. In general, people suck at stuff.

My experience tends to be that if, as a hacker, you think you've got an okay grasp of a subject, you're probably in the 90th percentile somewhere. If you think you're pretty good at it, probably 99th.

The "keep raising your rates" advice is good for life in general. Never, _never_ sell yourself short on _anything_.

<comment><USER3> A sidenote to 'keep raising your rates'. At some point, for some sort of work, you really _will_ be pricing yourself out of that market. I've had people express that concern to me "I'll never get the job if I quote that much!", etc.

My response years ago was to adjust the price down some (and I did it myself) and sometimes you'd get the job.

My advice now, typically, is ... don't go for that type of work. Don't bid on that project. If what you're bidding on is commoditized to the point where anyone can do it for 5x less than you want to charge, find another type of skill to enhance and sell that.

This approach isn't for everyone, obviously, but I'm finding it works. This might just be a variation of "go where the competition isn't"?

<comment><USER4> Also, rates depend on the work required by the client. If you are purely doing some frontend/interface work, it is reasonable to adjust that rate differently from backend work.

Another note is that rates should fluctuate depending on timelines from the client, their budget and requirements. A healthy balance of determining all those factors and your ability to estimate your abilities to complete work can result in a wider range of price ranges - either fixed/hourly/weekly/monthly, etc.

Most of this can only be figured out through lots of experience.

<comment><USER5> I did this at first, but then realised that my brain and abilities didn't change when I did PM related work or back-end related work.

So now I have only one rate for myself. One consequence is that billing is easier and less error-prone :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Oh, I almost forgot: never work for equity. 99% of those projects will never go anywhere. I tell my clients that they're welcome to throw in some free equity on top of my normal rates, but I get paid in cash for the work that I do. I have plenty of entrepreneurial projects of my own, so why would I work my ass off for 3% (or even 30%, though they never offer this much) of someone's Facebook clone?"

The most valuable paragraph in the whole article, IMO.

<comment><USER7> That very much depends. If the equity is a part of the payment and you're a co-founder it is not rare to make out very well in the longer term. If a company is already established then equity (usually in the form of options) can be a substantial component of your compensation.

<comment><USER8> Has this ever worked for you in the longer term? I mean from experience have you ever been paid out for taking an equity trade as a consultant?

I'd really like to hear from someone who's made this work to their benefit

<comment><USER6> My money is on "no."

<comment><USER7> Well, you'd be wrong then.

Funny how you should know more about me than I do.

The company meanwhile has grown in to something _very_ respectable, and even though I haven't been a shareholder for years (bought out many years ago) I never regretted my decision one bit. It was an established business in a different trade when I got there, they decided to pursue this crazy idea (putting photographs on membership cards and print them with laser printers).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> People seemed to find part 1 of this topic helpful, so I decided to elaborate on a few points. You can find the original post and discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1763634>

If you found either of these posts useful, please email me at email@example.com. I have a couple questions about a related new venture and I'd love some feedback.

</comment><comment><USER9> I never imagined how easy it would be to get started. After pitching a failed startup in New York City, I received a random email asking if I knew any software developers. I mentioned I was looking for freelance work, and that was my first gig. I'm currently working four and the offers keep coming. All you really need to do is go to startup events and tell them you're a developer. 95% won't want to pay you, but there's always a few that will.

I keep track of hours using freshbooks, ask for 50% of estimated hourly fees up front, and use paypal for payments. It's pretty easy, and I never even built a website, lol.

</comment><comment><USER10> _freelancing might seem overwhelming, but your competition is terrible. Seriously, absolutely terrible. I think almost all of my clients have gone through several programmers before me and their expectations are generally pretty low._

This is sadly the case, I am worked on a project that was done by a developer and abandoned half way through. The code was atrocious and you could tell that this developer was in over their head.

The worst part about it is that this developer speaks at industry conferences and blogs about the subject matter at hand. All of the developers on the team for this company had very low opinions of the freelancer and the project was put in significant jeopardy by this developers lack of real world qualifications on the subject matter. When the freelancer was questioned about their high ego-to-talent ratio they blamed it on the in-house development team and abandoned the contract.

The worst part about it, is this person is friends with some of the best and brightest in a particular segment of the tech industry. I though to myself if this is the state of freelancing then no wonder I am beating away jobs. It goes to show some people talk a good game, but when the rubber hits the road they can't produce. The author hit this one spot on. If you are a consistent performer, you should consider freelancing.

<comment><USER11> I've only done freelancing on and off yet I've been approached a number of times exactly like this. Client hired someone that would work for cheap and now the project is only half done, poking around for a few minutes reveals a handful of bugs, there was no thought to the design of the code and the code is extremely difficult to understand.

<comment><USER10> The sad part about this one, is that it was for a huge tech firm, who hired this person based on reputation and the circle of friends that this person associates with, they paid top dollar for this person. The individuals pedigree looks outstanding and they are a great speaker and advocate for the industry. They just could not apply their trade to real world problems, and in turn blamed the client due to their inflated arrogance due to being so respected in the speaking and blogging industry, when in fact this client has their act together, it is one of the better development houses I have seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another comment about looking for work: never act like you NEED work/some specific contract.

Once you start feeling desperate, you'll make irrational decisions such as quoting lower rates, accepting more difficult clients, and the worrying will drive you crazy.

<comment><USER13> The truth, though, is that sometimes you might _have_ to lower your rate to take work if you're going through a particularly dry spell and have bills to pay.

Don't feel bad about it.

In that instance, try and get a retainer, so that you're getting paid every 2 or 4 weeks for a set number of hours no matter what.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ryan - thank you. This is very well written and provides a good picture of what it takes to freelance.

It seems to me that you really want to have to work for yourself to do this. A decent programming job with benefits for someone of your experience is easily $120 - $150k. Assuming you can bill $100/hr and work 2000 hrs/yr, it beats that, but not by much, and frankly seems like a lot more work. So the motivation to freelance isn't a monetary one. Would you agree?

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely agree. Benefit to me is freedom. Freedom to work where I want, when I want, on what I want, with the tools I want. I can't imagine going back to a job, but who knows. I'm always open to offers :)

<comment><USER15> I haven't sat through a team meeting or buzzword filled death by powerpoint for 5 years. I haven't had to attend corporate vibe sessions or listened to compliance officers drone on about anything. I also, 5 years ago, looked at a map and said 'where do I really want to live', then moved there. My whole life philosophy was to create the lifestyle I wanted, and then work out how to pay for it. It's a powerful motivator. Because most people first find a job, which then locates them on the map, and they then try and fill in the rest of their lifestyle based around those two parameters.

The thing that keeps me going is the thought : well, I can _always_ go and grovel for a permanent job somewhere. But I think I'm pretty much unemployable now, in the traditional 9-5 sense. I get 2-3 requests for work per day at the moment, but pass on most because, like the blog post says, people aren't serious or are expecting low prices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is there a way to form a certain kind of company and pay yourself a small salary like 60K/year and only pay payroll taxes on that part? Have you looked into anything like that?

<comment><USER17> Second this question. I'm also interested in all the business infrastructure issues of freelancing - software stack for time tracking, invoicing, receiving payments, calculating and paying taxes, LLC or not?, Nevada or Delaware?, how to pay yourself, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Typo; Sales cycle, second paragraph: _[...] you'll find that only have one project [...]_

Thank you for the two posts. The key thing for me, personally was (first post): "If you don't have any sample work at all because you haven't built anything, you're not ready to freelance."

Also, is there any reason "running a development agency" is not your goal? Do you simply rather doing the work yourself, than managing people?

</comment><comment><USER19> _What skills to offer (and where to grow)_

I suck at UI design (for example making a good looking OK button in photoshop), but I'm a pretty good programmer. How would you approach that? Do you think subcontracting a UI designer would work? Or usually it's the other way around (UI designer subcontract the programmer to build the web site logic).

<comment><USER5> When faced with the same situation (3 years ago), I decided to train myself to at least be able to create decent looking UI.

It's not that hard, if you read a few books and practice a bit, to be able to cover 80% of design needs (and you can stay in the code these days, ie: work in CSS3 and take screenshots for instance - staying away from Photoshop).

You can also subcontract to a UI designer for the inspirational bits and do the rest of the work yourself.

<comment><USER20> Any specific book recommendations?

<comment><USER21> I just started reading "Web Design for Developers" published by PragProg ( <http://pragprog.com/titles/bhgwad/web-design-for-developers> ) and would recommend it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Re: good vs. bad clients -- I commented on part 1, basically saying that being friendly helps me find work, but it also means my clients are friendly/casual which can lead to time wastage. It's like the opposite of the super-type-a micromanager client.

When I feel a client is wasting my time, I try to gently remind them that, for a freelancer, time is money. Also, as Ryan suggested, having two clients/projects going on at once is the best scenario.

</comment><comment><USER23> Non american developer, working in full time job here. Can you explain a little how/why income tax is higher for freelancers?

<comment><USER24> I'm not an American, but in most countries, employers pay tax for employees that employees don't see on their paychecks. In effect, it's income tax whose value is hidden for political purposes: employees only see the headline salary and the headline income tax, but in reality, the cost to the employer is usually more than the headline rate, even without the value of benefits etc.

<comment><USER19> On the other hand, in Canada you can put part of your mortgage paiement as deductible if you work from home (same thing with you computer, phone, etc). So that does lower your taxes compared with someone who work in a company. Is it the same in the US?

<comment><USER25> In the US, things that you buy and use for your job are tax-deductible (no doubt the IRS has a very detailed definition of "use for your job"). If your employer buys them for you, then the employer gets to deduct them as a business expense.

Mortgage _interest_ (up to a certain ceiling) is always deductible in the US, whether or not you are working from home. If a certain part of your home is set aside for business use, you can also deduct a proportional slice of your real estate taxes, depreciation, and various other things, but not, it appears, the principal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm curious which sections of craigslist you look through. Web / Info design? Software / qa / db? Internet engineers?

</comment><comment><USER16> Do you typically get 1099's from your clients or do they just pay you like they would any other company?

If you don't get paid with a 1099 does that affect your taxes in any way? Are you still responsible for payroll taxes if you don't get a 1099?

<comment><AUTHOR> Your choices are usually 1099 or W2 for longer-term contract gigs. If on W-2, they pay you just like an employee, taking out taxes and all that. They also have to pay half the FICA taxes in the US, so the rate is a little lower than it would be on 1099.

<comment><USER27> There's a bit of caution to be given here. My tax person said that switching between W2 and 1099 work throws up a red flag with regard to the IRS willingness to consider you as truly independent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> re: health insurance and pre-existing conditions: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre- existing_condition#Pending_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre- existing_condition#Pending_federal_pre- existing_condition_exclusion_regulation)

</comment><comment><USER29> What's the difference between freelancing and "consulting"?</comment>


How computers can pray for the benefit of all living beings using GPU and React? - <AUTHOR> http://pixelscommander.com/interactive-revolution/can-computer-pray-for-the-benefit-of-all-living-beings-praying-with-javascript-and-webgl/ <comment><USER2> I believe the dalai lama has decreed that prayers on a spinning hard disk platter do count... So you could get a much more efficient prayer wheel for pretty cheap by spinning 8TB of prayers at 7200rpm ;)

I don't remember exactly where I read this and it was probably someone reinterpreting the quote from the article, but such is religion.

e: your end product looks absolutely stunning btw

</comment><comment><USER3> Without trying to start a debate on religions' wastefulness as a whole (time, money, efforts), meta-studies on prayers haven't find more than no discernible effect.

If the goal is to use your GPU for all living beings' benefit, something like folding@home has a better chance of mattering.

</comment><comment><USER4> Beautifully done! Interesting article.

> only 600-800 tourists visit the region annually, which is less than those > who reach the peak of Everest in a year!

Do not give anybody ideas...

</comment><comment><USER5> Sorry - you lost me at the title....</comment>


Ask HN: Top hackerNews threads of all time acording to you? - <AUTHOR> irrespective of the field/topic. <comment><USER2> From 30 days ago "Ask HN: What's your favorite HN post?" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12496558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12496558)

<comment><USER3> That _was_ a good thread, good call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can dig through some gems @ [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)</comment>


Disrupted sleep linked to leaky gut, possible liver damage - <AUTHOR> http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2013/5/night-shift-belly

<comment><USER2> I'm not an alcoholic, but I can relate to this. I have sleeping problems, and if I happen to have been awake for more 20 hours, I tend to feel very queasy. This is especially true if I cannot sleep during the night and I'm awake till the following night. This would correlate with an out of sync-rhythm. A few months ago I managed to stay awake for over 90 hours (nearly four days), and I felt like Bruce Lee had drop kicked me. On the other hand at that stage of insomnia you start to see weird things in your peripheral vision (like bright blue furry animals very similar to StarTrek's 'tribbles', or even the occasional headless zombie). After having had a good gander at this article, I can add another item to the list of problems associated with poor sleeping habits. Cheers to mtdewcmu. Get some good quality sleep you hackers.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with inferiority complex? - <AUTHOR>

Specifically to do with skills in programming/designing. I haven't had chance to work much with frontend development and when I see people create beautiful apps/sites, I feel pretty inferior! <comment><USER2> Assuming that it's not just the usual case that you are just starting off, and they have been doing it for years, maybe even decades, assuming that it's a fair apples to apples comparison, and that they actually are superior, do yourself a favour and don't listen to the other advice about it being a "syndrome" (impostor syndrome or otherwise) or some "principle" : own that feeling. Try saying, "Damn, these people are good. And I'm nowhere close to them, not even in the same league".

Trust me : acknowledging reality is so, so therapeutic and relaxing that it is a strength by itself. Your anxious mind, previously beset with envy, will suddenly calm down and _be able_ to move on. You will be able to take a deep breath. And then the magic happens : there is an immediate and concentrated focus on the current moment, the reality of being who you are, wherever you are, accepted by every cell of your body. You are _so aware_ of the present moment. In this calm state of assessment, you are already beyond your past feelings of weakness and...and what happens depends, but for me, most of the time, I end up being able to figure out where I can excel and be happy. I am able to ask the Real Questions.

While this may sound like a motivational seminar or even a religious one, the reason why it is so generic is that I cannot know what happens after you accept that they are better. I cannot know what exact magic happens. But avoiding the feelings, suppression, is where the problems lie. With psychological suppression, the anxiety never ends. With psychological integration, calmness and health prevail.

Us engineers are really bad at this stuff (low EQ), hence so many answers fit the template of avoidance and suppression or worse, false motivation : "you can do it! keep trying!". How do these people know you can? Maybe you suck. You need not conclude that, but you should consider that. May reality be with you!

<comment><USER3> That's advice that is useful in some circumstances and very dangerous in others.

People DO underestimate their own abilities, and it can be very damaging to their careers and lives.

For example, I have a friend who genuinely has world-class skills in a couple of areas, but spends most of his self-talk time telling himself that he's not as good as anyone else at those things. That's done significant harm to his health, livelihood and happiness.

Telling him, as you seem to be, to just accept all those false beliefs about his inadequacy isn't going to help even a little bit.

Having said that: you do make a very valuable point. If the other people really _are_ better than you, then it's far more valuable to acknowledge that. But it's very important to be sure you're right in your estimation of your own skill before coming to that conclusion.

Whilst it make be the case for you personally that you never underrate your own skills, that's far from universal.

<comment><USER2> I have to agree with you. I remember being depressed when I was younger and it really did cloud my judgement; I could not assess situations objectively and was beating myself up unnecessarily.

OP, please tread with caution regarding my advice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks both to you and thenomad for your replies.

vijucat, your answer reminds me of Eckhart Tolle[1]. I have a tendency towards depression. And among other things I have listened to Eckhart in past to deal with it. And he helped me greatly. I feel like you are right. Intuitively I feel I need to simply acknowledge that these folks are better than me at this thing and I should admire their skill without envy. I feel like it will be a great weight off of me when I am able to do that. And I understand what you mean by you don't know what would follow after that. I have found that in situations where I have stopped fighting 'what is', things have turned out such that the cause of my struggle was removed. 'What is' became 'what I wanted'. Maybe this is what will happen again. I do feel I have the ability to master this frontend development but comparison with others has become a debilitating factor. In any case, I have decided to make my goal #1 to become able to acknowledge others' achievements and skill without pangs of envy.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Eckhart- Tolle/e/B001H6GZ5K](http://www.amazon.com/Eckhart-Tolle/e/B001H6GZ5K)

EDIT: added link to Eckhart Tolle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your strengths and weaknesses have curves, troughs, peaks and spaghetti complexity. Personally I completely accept that I'm pretty mediocre as a "developer", but honestly I don't really care because I don't personally consider myself a developer, I just look at myself as someone who simply likes to explore, learn and play with web based technologies. This way I don't get sucked into the pigeon hole psychology of the professional world. If someone else wants to look at me in that light that's fine , but I keep an invisible boundary between myself and that kind of thing. I also like to occasionally and inadvertently ask inane questions at stackoverflow which get down voted at machine gun intervals. It's good for the 'soul'.

I have a mentor that has been programming since the 70's , I once lived in a place where an extremely smart Belgian software engineer was staying who helped me while programming, and I currently met a really smart engineer near where I live who has been gradually throwing me suggestions coupled with some pseudo mentorship. All of these people are very smart,very empathetic and willing to share. Being around people like that in my view is absolutely needed for your sanity.

You've probably seen this video. It's the one where Google attempts to explain what a web browser is to random people on the street. Watch it if you haven't. It will lend perspective.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ)

Ok that's all.

</comment><comment><USER5> "programming/designing" \- double talented people are extremely rare, so it's probably a team - one less reason to feel inferior. Also web front-end programming sucks in comparison with server side, HTML will never be any close to perfection due to compatibility - no code satisfaction, client-side frameworks change every week, JavaScript is shit etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> The 'no code satisfaction' aspect of web frontend development has been an issue for me whenever I have tried my hand at it. The chaotic, un-organized nature of the code drives me a little crazy.

But at the same time it increases my admiration for the people who can handle such chaos and be cool about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not being happy with what you have accomplished so far is a sign of greatness. Once you feel you have achieved enough, you become complacent. Do not feel inferior. As long as you feel there is room for improvement, you will keep improving. Only when you start thinking you know it all it's time to get worried.

</comment><comment><USER7> Work with people who know more than you, be humble, and ask questions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do try to do that. I have wondered if it some type of psychological problem I have that I want to be good at everything and thus am always feeling inferior. My brain is filled with all these ideas that I want to execute but I want them all to be executed in a polished manner and I want to do it all! Not gonna happen. I need to learn to delegate to experts and not feel inferior.

<comment><USER8> The reason we have teams and build organizations is because no one is great at everything. The skill comes in knowing how to accentuate your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses. The best mitigation is to attract people who are far more talented than you in those areas. Then as you start to lead the skill comes in knowing how to accentuate your team's strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. This will often come through outsourcing, strategic partners or acquisition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For me, I turn it into motivation. I check out the code that dazzled me with it's brilliance, I go through every line, stop to understand everything, then I ask questions. After that I normally create a home brew project that incorporates the lessons learns and drives them home, and, sometimes, improving on them.

Obviously not quite from a design perspective, but it may still be useful.

</comment><comment><USER10> You shouldn't have to.. Just be sure that not everyone knows everything.. If they are good at frontend development and create eye catching site, let them be., What I could do is they can't (probably they can if with learning and practice, but not as much as I devote myself into)..

Simply : Doctors won't write program, Programmers won't perform a cesarean..

</comment><comment><USER11> It sounds to me, based also on your replies so far, that you just have a case of impostor syndrome (and possibly some Dunning-Kruger thrown in there). Just power through it - we all get it too. Just keep making things that you're proud of, or that others find useful, and you be fine. We can't all be experts in everything, and even the experts are noobs at somethings.

</comment><comment><USER12> Once you've worked with enough programmers, you'll realise that many programmers don't actually know how to... well, program.

The great websites / open-source projects you see regularly are really just the tall poppies.

</comment><comment><USER13> If by design, you mean what it looks like: You + themeforest == nice looking front-end for your site.

But, worry more about Design meaning "how it works", trade-offs, and what job the end user is trying to get done.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right design is not just frontend. And the design of a good codebase is a whole another neuroses for me :) Here, I did mean 'how things look'.

(The longer I have been programming, the more difficult it has for me to work with the enterprise software I work with. I dislike the architecture, the hodge-podge way of doing things. I used to be able to 'enjoy' the complications. Now I abhor it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sounds like [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle)

</comment><comment><USER15> Those people did a lot of work to gain that level of skill. You could probably be as good if you really worked at it too.

</comment><comment><USER16> it's impossible to know everything and do everything. stop comparing yourself to other people and start focusing on what YOU need to accomplish and what YOU can control, which is yourself. If you see something amazing, look at it and learn from it.

be inspired instead of intimidated.</comment>


Sony Ericsson abandons Symbian for Android and WP7 - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/mobile-devices/2010/09/25/sony-ericsson-abandons-symbian-for-android-and-wp7-40090267/

<comment><USER2> Symbian is dead [0]. It has been for a while. And Nokia will be too unless it adopts a new strategy very quickly. The figures from the article make this crystal clear: "Symbian's global market share has gone from 51 percent in the second quarter of 2009 to 41 percent in the same period of 2010". It's equally clear that it is Android that has hastened its demise.

It am still astonished when I remember Nokia buying (the rest of) Symbian in June 2008. This seemed a bizarre waste of money. And so it proved. (The purchase of Trolltech was earlier, but surprising nonetheless.) Perhaps if they had done so years earlier, and open sourced it, then things might have been different.

My opinion on the failure of Symbian was the failure to enagage developers. That, and the most tortuous development environment and deployemnt process that I have ever witnessed. Perhaps this could have been fixed, given time, starting earlier, but corporate institutions historically don't behave in ways to allow this. Regardless, it was much to late by the spending sprees of 2008.

Nokia should shunt Symbina into the siding now and adopt Android immediately. It should get back to making great phones.

[0] It has its place in some phones, arguably, but how long would you choose to continue to develop and support it when there is no long term need.

<comment><USER3> More nonsense from the people that can't bother with studying the subject even a bit before speaking. You seem to be unaware of the developments with Nokia and Symbian for the past one or two years.

They are making an impressive effort to engage developers and they have made the development much more simpler and straightforward. People that have been developing for Android/iPhone have told me that the Qt SDK is competitive with those other tools when it comes to ease of development and speed of development. See: [http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/whats-it-like-to-develop- apps-f...](http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/whats-it-like-to-develop-apps-for- nokia-phones/)

As for Nokia switching to Android, see this: [http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/24/editorial-nokia-isnt- buil...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/24/editorial-nokia-isnt-building-an- android-or-windows-phone-7-de/)

<comment><USER4> Impressive efforts can still come to nothing, and so far the numbers aren't favorable. I got and started developing for the N900 when it came out, because I absolutely support the effort of truly being open source that Nokia is betting on.

It's just not working out so far. There are no users, the platform is immature, the N900 is not a good phone for users or developers, and most importantly: the Ovi Store is terrible. I released one piece of open source software and gave up on the platform after that experience.

Absolutely, anything can happen and Nokia do still have massive market share. I just don't see how they can catch up to Android and iOS at this point, massive effort or not.

<comment><USER3> From what I've seen with the N8 prototypes, it looks, feels better than Symbian 5th and it's faster too. Some people have been using the N8 more than myself and told me that they are happy with them. Still, anything can happen :)

N900 was a cool project, but they didn't take it all the way to a commercial product IMO. It registered poorer sales than Symbian and it's always a bit behind when it comes to services & software support. A hacker-friendly and truly open source project, but I don't think that they wanted to invest too much in it, they were probably testing the waters for MeeGo.

I'm curious, why do you say that the Ovi store is terrible?

<comment><USER4> For one, the interface is a web site that isn't well-adapted to a mobile screen, so getting to the store is cumbersome in itself.

Secondly, downloading an app after buying it is very slow and frustrating. It involves adding a special APT repository with a unique key, and APT on the device is unusably slow.

Third, actually publishing on the store is, as far as I can tell, practically impossible unless you have a company and the name of that company is Rovio.

Third, they have no decent categories, no search functionality worth mentioning, very little information about each app... the list goes on.

As a final nail in the coffin, the prices are much higher than in the Android or iOS stores.

This is all from when I tried the store, needless to say I haven't felt any desire to relive the experience again so things may have changed. I really doubt they've fixed it though.

I don't know if you've used the store on a symbian device, the experience may be better there, but my experience was indeed terrible on the N900.

I really don't see Nokia turning around and putting out a fantastic mobile OS with a well-integrated experience that grabs customers, just like I have a hard time seeing Microsoft managing it. Although, Microsoft do have Xbox Live they could leverage.

<comment><USER3> That does sound bad. On Symbian the store is a separate app that takes care of everything for you. The install is done in the background and you can launch the app directly from the store app.

Each app has up to three screenshots and description text, but this depends on the publisheer.

Depending on when you wanted to publish, it might be better now because they allow individual developers and you get free signing (for Symbian).

P.S: As a developer I'm happy that the prices are higher. :) 0.99 is ridiculously cheap for software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sony Ericsson isn't _that_ heavily into Symbian anyway. Most of their phones use a Java platform run on top of an OS - Symbian being one of the OSs, but they also use proprietary OSs for the cheaper phones. It was Java that was their focus.

They are just riding the Android and Win7 wave, while the competition isn't too high, and in the long term, I predict they will focus on their own platforms again. There's no other reason why Samasung would be developing Bada for example.

<comment><USER6> They always seemed pretty halfhearted about symbian I never saw promotion in the same way as their windows phones for instance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is still Sony-Ericsson relevant on the smartphone market?

Android phones made by SE are still based on the 1.5, 1.6 version and even the top of the noch, the Xperia X10, will not receive 2.1 till end of october...

It's sad but SE will not be missed by Symbian.

<comment><USER3> I used to have one of their older Symbian phones and my impression was that there was a lot of potential there but ultimately they couldn't pull it off.

This certainly isn't good news for Symbian, but I will hardly miss Sony Ericsson: regardless of the OS, they somehow manage to screw up a perfectly good smartphone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> It's a damning indictment of Symbian's failure that the HN crowd can't summon the energy to debate it.

RIP Symbian. You served a purpose, but now it's time to die.

<comment><USER8> Ok, for the sake of argument: there are a ton of people in the world who cannot afford a high end iPhone or even Android system. Are they not a viable market? I'm not sure whether Symbian is the best OS there, either, to be honest, but I do think that market bears consideration.

<comment><USER9> Don't you think that really cheap Android phones will be a possibility in one to two years? That seems plausible to me.

<comment><USER8> 1 or 2 years? No. Lots of cheap (and some that aren't even all that cheap) Nokia phones here in Italy still are still sold with S40, which is the step below Symbian. And that's still in "the west". I don't know what phones are like in places like India, but I assume that the low end is fairly low end...

<comment><USER9> I have no trouble at all imagining that 100€ (unsubsidized) Android phones will be available soon. You can buy a 210€ (unsubsidized) phone from HTC right now on Amazon. That's not far off.

That's not a sudden death – I'm pretty sure that you will be able to buy Symbian phones in two years – but I think that there will be far less dumbphones in the future.

<comment><USER8> Could be. Another thing to consider though, is what Google's going to target with Android. Will they try and keep chasing high-end features, or will they try and go for a more complete range? In other words, I can easily see getting the 200 euro phone for 100 in a few years, but I can also see Android's requirements growing to mean that it needs tomorrow's 200 euro phone to run...

Or not! Interesting stuff in any case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's all about developers baby [http://metrics.admob.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/04/appceler...](http://metrics.admob.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/04/appcelerator.jpg).

All the developers are over at iOS and Android. There are still some developers left over in the RIM and Windows Phone camp.

I am an iOS dev, Android dev and Windows Phone dev spending my time in that order. And most of that is on the one with the best market.

All the coup de tats in technology, an initial phase is stealing/attracting developers. Then comes the apps that people want. Then come thy platform and market. Rinse repeat. It is no longer just a phone strategy.

Symbian, Thy Game is Over. Nokia can maybe re-emerge as they still sell well, but seriously setback now.

</comment><comment><USER11> They're not doing well, but they have 41% of the market share? Apple and Google dream of having that kind of market share.

<comment><USER12> If only market shares were fixed numbers. Myspace was doing very well before facebook came along. How could a current (and falling, in nokia's case) market share garantee anything about the future?

<comment><USER11> There is absolutely no comparison between Nokia and Myspace. Nokia is coming out with new things like S^3 and running app contests to encourage development. Myspace failed because they did nothing when an unquestionably superior product came out.

<comment><USER12> I'll believe that when I see S^3 gaining any traction. Specially with everyone else that uses Symbian jumping on Android's bandwagon...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So what will be their OS of choice for sub $150 phones with a keypad and without a large touchscreen? Or will that category of phone simply disappear?

<comment><USER14> Definitely.

I would bet a lot that the cheap (between $50-$150) phones few years from now will be basic medium-size touchscreen phones running something like Android and equipped with a bit older hardware, maybe a generation or two behind.

The cheapest Android phone I can find in my country is Samsung Galaxy 5, for 224€. And that's only two years down the Android lane. Two more years, and we're close.

<comment><USER15> Cheap Android phones are already here:

<http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/huawei-ideos-hands-on/>

"this thing is going to be launching for somewhere between $100 and $200 unsubsidized in Europe, Asia, and both North and Latin America. It's got 3G, WiFi, mobile hotspot capability for up to eight devices, and was apparently developed in direct partnership with Google, a sign that Mountain View is serious about taking Android 2.2 across the entire price spectrum."

<comment><USER3> I don't understand how it can be between 100 and 200. Why the large interval?

<comment><USER16> Because of the large geographic spread of "Europe, Asia, and both North and Latin America". These regions all price phones differently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Symbian is dead and so is Nokia..</comment>


Mark Twain: Corn-pone Opinions - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

<comment><USER2> I got hooked on Mark Twain in the third grade, and had worked my way through just about everything he wrote by the 8th grade. I suspect it was the prevailing influence on my early life, and the reason I was an atheist, libertarian, and vegetarian by the time I finished school (Twain was not a vegetarian, but independent thought was the over-arching lesson I took away, not any specific activity or belief).

Anyway, almost every profound and contrary thing anyone says today has been said before, and better, by Mark Twain. (I know the same could be said of others...but as an American, it is my God-given right to ignore everything that happened before 1776 as irrelevant and distasteful.)

Though I'm surprised pg is a fan, given Twain's colorful, though playful, comments about Jane Austen (pg is apparently a bit worshipful of Austen). My girlfriend, also a big Austen fan, scowls whenever I mention Twain in conversation, but maybe that's just because she's already heard all of my blowhard opinions on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER3> it is depressing how slowly we are learning the full implications of natural selection. political parties gain power not by being right, but by being more effective at spreading themselves. It is the same for feudalism as it is for democracy. "bringing democracy" to "less fortunate nations" is no different than the warring of the feudal lords for more land. All social systems must expand or be squeezed out of existence by those movements that do expand. We don't have our current system because it was more justified and more right than others. it was simply good at spreading itself. Capitalism started in the late 1600's and only faced serious opposition during the 20th century, but even that opposition was a trifle. Communism was never a threat because communism isn't competitive.

Now this isn't to say that capitalism and democracy suck and we should abolish them. Humans need competition to bring out the best in them. Capitalism is responsible for the increases in the standard of living over subsistence agriculture that much of the world still lives in. But they both have flaws that are potentially crippling if left undressed. Corn-pone opinions is a perfect example. Capitalism does concentrate power in the hands of the few and left unregulated has the potential for monopolies. These powerful few can then dictate the values that are advantageous to them to society. some would argue this has already happened.

bleh, enough ranting.

<comment><USER4> > Capitalism does concentrate power in the hands of the few and left > unregulated has the potential for monopolies.

Except that monopolies tend to be created and maintained by regulation.

In what universe does govt constrain the politically powerful more than it constrains others?

<comment><USER3> this is very true. government creates the legal environment within which corporations operate. most monopolies have required government participation to work well. Mussolini famously said fascism should be called corporatism because it was the ultimate union between industry and state.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favorite Mark Twain line (commenting on a Henry James novel): "Once I put it down I couldn't pick it up."</comment>


Fdlp.gov hacked - <AUTHOR> http://fdlp.gov/

<comment><USER2> Gotta say I really like that cat animation, but another note are these hackers from the 90s? I've never seen a language attribute on a script tag before, they also have 2 sets of html tags and 2 sets of body tags.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does the music sound Russian or is it just me?

<comment><USER4> Joke? It's Gunther ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_(singer)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_\(singer\)))

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone know what this site was?

<comment><USER5> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Depository_Library_Prog...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Depository_Library_Program)

<comment><USER6> Someone hacks such a website? Why for?</comment></comment></comment>


Queue Webhook Events with IronMQ Webhook Support - <AUTHOR> http://blog.iron.io/2013/01/queue-webhook-events-with-ironmq.html

<comment><USER2> I would love to understand how any message queue can offer "one-time" delivery. At best it seems like a misleadingly under-qualified description, e.g. "one-time-if-the-consumer-successfully-acks-the-message".

Ultimately dequeueing a message, doing work, and acking the message, involve multiple systems in a logical distributed transaction.

Regardless of any guarantees the queue makes, you will need to deal with the fact that the consumer can potentially perform an operation based on the message, and then the ack can fail due to any kind of communication failure between queue and consumer. Or the worker can die (permanently) immediately after performing the work but before performing the ack. Etc. The message will be redelivered and the operation will occur again. As a result, you likely need to ensure that the operation in question is idempotent.

Given that you need to ensure this idempotency regardless of the queue's delivery semantics, I don't see what benefit it is for the queue to make any claims about one-time delivery.

What am I missing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some queues offer "at-least-once" delivery (such as SQS) meaning even if you do ack/delete the message, you can still get it again. IronMQ will not deliver a message again if it's been acked/deleted.

And yes, work should be idempotent, as is the case with any queue you use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is huge. I've been waiting for you guys to release this; thank you for listening!</comment>


IBM Simon - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

<comment><USER2> You may also like the history of Xerox's concept of the parctab during this era: [http://caseorganic.com/wiki/The_Xerox_PARCTAB](http://caseorganic.com/wiki/The_Xerox_PARCTAB) , [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4_CcNLd2iE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4_CcNLd2iE)

</comment><comment><USER3> Had one. Brilliant software. Horrible battery life. Analog cellular meant glacially slow internet access. I loved it and hated it people looked at me like I was from mars (might not have been the phone). It was the Google Glass of its time in some ways. Went right from the Simon to the Palm Treo.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting, I hadn't heard about that. I was expecting to see a corporate version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%28game%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%28game%29)

</comment><comment><USER5> Turns out Simon lost due to poor memory. ;)</comment>


"Higher-Order Perl" available for free download - <AUTHOR> http://perlbuzz.com/2008/12/higher-order-perl-available-for-free-download.html

<comment><USER2> I'm very fond of this book. I think anyone that works in dynamic languages (particularly Perl, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.) should give it a read. If you don't have a lot of functional programming experience, it does a fantastic job introducing a lot of great concepts.

I checked it out from the library first (after a long wait), and then after returning it, I went out and bought a copy. I don't buy many books these days, since I have a fantastic public library a few blocks away, but this was one that I simply didn't want to be without.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, I do 99% of my work in Python and I only use perl -e '....', but I enjoyed Higher Order Perl more than most other Python books. Python books seem so boringly practical - Higher Oder Perl was fun!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> other than programming perl, this is the only must-read perl book. its a classic.

<comment><USER5> I would also add "Perl Best Practices" by Damian Conway to that must-read Perl list.</comment></comment>


How Long Does It Take to Learn a Language? - <AUTHOR> https://knowledgeartist.org/articles/1021e2dc-845a-494f-b598-def49c37234e/how-long-does-it-take-to-learn-a-language <comment><AUTHOR> Quite a few of my friends started learning a language since the beginning of the lockdown.

Here I share experiencing learning 9 languages using different methods over the years.

Hope it would be helpful for anyone out there considering picking up a new language.</comment>


Why startups succeed where big corporations fail - <AUTHOR> http://compoundedthought.blogspot.com/2007/02/people-factor-why-startups-succeed.html <comment><USER2> Any sufficiently large corporation cannot continuously hire smart people since there is a tendency to push for the average. Google has avoided this by applying something known as the "Lake Wobegon strategy" (http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/03/hiring-lake-wobegon- strategy.html). It states that a company should only hire candidates who are above the mean of the current flock of employees.

Though, as I stated earlier, even Google cannot continue to endlessly hire smart individuals. A sample of the average IQ of University students would most likely be the same as the rest of the population. There are always a few exceptional individuals in any group, but the group itself is most often average.</comment>


The Ethereum Price Drop: A Fundamental Analysis - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sfox.com/the-ethereum-price-drop-a-fundamental-analysis-a0b34b62ba <comment><USER3> I don't think the author understands what "fundamental analysis" is.

If you really wanted to do a fundamental analysis you could, for example, calculate the size of the services built on top of the Etherium blockchain, calculate the amount of gas required to execute those instructions, look at the total supply of Ether and thereby calculate some kind of intrinsic value.

I have not done this, but I'm pretty sure the results would not make crypto- bulls very happy.

Sadly, this article is the same kind of speculative storytelling that infects most of what is written about the blockchain. I like the idea of applying DCF, but using previous S&P returns as a proxy for ETH usage growth is nonsensical.

The math in this article suffers from GIGO.

Edit:

I found a much better attempt at analyzing fundamentals. I would quibble with the author's choice of fundamental -- I think more fundamental metrics are available, but his choices make sense and its an interesting read.

[https://medium.com/@cburniske/bitcoin-ethereum-prices-are- do...](https://medium.com/@cburniske/bitcoin-ethereum-prices-are-down-more- than-the-fundamentals-88fd18a86d14)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a fairly superficial article recapping what I would call "the naive narrative" about the crypto price drops. I.e. it's the information you would get if you asked a random person at a conference why they think the price is dropping: "ICOs are selling and retail investors are running away". Except ICOs haven't sold much [1] and retail investors amount to peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Who bought at $20K and is selling now? Likely almost nobody.

Any real analysis needs to talk about trading volumes, issuance rates and profitability of miners, and market depths. Those are the macro variables that are surely at play for a crash of this magnitude. But most of this information is hard to obtain from reliable sources (i.e. trading volumes on Coinmarketcap are usually assumed to be 97% wash trading bullshit, mining operations are fairly secretive, and large exchanges likely operate some sort of cartel).

So a more accurate answer to "why is crypto dropping" is "someone that has a lot is selling". More specific answers are, to the best of my knowledge, not out there yet.

If you have a better theory I'm intrigued to hear it.

[1] [https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1039224845807116288?s=1...](https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1039224845807116288?s=19)

<comment><USER5> There is great irony that a technology predicated on all transactions being public, has by far the most inscrutable, opaque, secretive market.

I know it's because almost all trading takes place off-chain on secretive unregulated or lightly-regulated exchanges, but I still find it a significant demonstration of the limited scope of the technologies basic tenets (see also my comment about how it's not "trustless" in a meaningful way).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That article has a lot of words in it. I feel like I could write an analysis of the fundamentals in one sentence. Let's try:

Ethereum doesn't have any fundamentals, as it's not a claim on productive assets, so its entire value to date has been as a medium for gambling.

<comment><USER7> Your comment is a nice summary of the vitriol surrounding crypto. I have never seen such an anger surrounding a technology since maybe printers or possibly whatever device Planned Parenthood uses to perform abortions.

While gambling is an extremely obvious one (secure and trust-less escrow certainly appeals to the black-market), you _must_ be being disingenuous to posit "Ethereum doesn't have any fundamentals".

The US Dollar is also no longer a "claim on a productive asset" \- in your mind, do only stocks count as a claim on a productive asset? Because stocks (as well as mortgages and physical assets) can, have, and will continue to be represented by Ethereum contracts...

<comment><USER8> When you dress something up like a stock (ownership of a piece of a company) but there is nothing behind it, it really starts to look like a scam. That is where the hate comes from. There are no fundamentals to analyze.

For Ethereum, what do you propose? It is a way to buy incredibly inefficient computation. What are the killer smart contracts? How does the price reflect the price of computation? Has someone made a more efficient EVM? A less efficient one?

The US dollar is the currency that you need to use in order to participate in the largest world economy. No one claims it has a market cap. No one claims it is going to the moon. No one tries to analyze it's fundamentals. No one is pretending it's a stock.

<comment><USER7> No one tries to analyze the fundamentals of the US Dollar? I would argue the single most powerful agency of the Federal Government of the United States spends the majority of its time doing _exactly_ that...

<comment><USER9> Of all the things that TACIXAT said, that was the only sentence you found that you could argue with. That leaves the rest of his statements unchallenged.

<comment><USER7> That's not his assertions work, nor refutations. Other posters replied to his other sentences... I'm not entering into an argument with someone who has very obviously made up their mind - rather trying to point out a basic logical flaw in their argument that, I would hope, causes readers to think critically about the other assertions. The worlds most relied upon currency is fiat - <USER2> is not. Thus, the fundamentals argument ought to be closely examined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> HN community definitely is an echo chamber when it comes to cryptocurrencies and its a shame. My question to my fellow HNers is do we see no merit in a censorship resistant framework which builds a trustless execution environment. I dont think any legitimate crypto dev pushes a narrative to move all cloud services to ETH

As internet served as a conduit to open and accessible knowledge to the world, crypto has the potential to open value exchange globally without the need for trusted entities.

Granted there are fast and established solutions available today for money transfer, however, they all rely on a trusted entity that under the right political pressure will compromise a user and thus is not censorship resistant.

<comment><USER11> > do we see no merit in a censorship resistant framework

This is a loaded question... Cryptocurrencies are not "censorship resistant". If they were, maybe your complaint about HN's "echo chamber" would be warranted.

Here are some censorship examples:

1\. BTC: OFAC has listed Bitcoin addresses that you cannot legally send money to. If you do, expect fines/jail/interrogation/etc.

2\. ETH: If you exploit a vulnerability in a contract, your transaction will be invalidated.

3\. BTC: If the devs decide to abandon the longest chain like they did in 2013, any transaction on the forgotten chain will be effectively erased from history.

There are more, but admittedly they require a bit of thinking to realize that they are in fact censorship. Everything is obfuscated when it comes to blockchain, which is why it's managed to fool so many smart people into taking its claims as granted.

<comment><USER12> At least crypto is way more censorship resistant than oldschool money. That's why it is called "censorship resistant" not "censorship proof". Claim stands.

Make a Jewish joke and Paypal will not be your friend. Piss of governments and Visa and Mastercard will make it impossible to donate to your cause.

<comment><USER13> Ah bitcoin, standing up and providing a platform for all the racists, antisemites and bigots of the world. Don't forget all the drug kingpins, terrorists, child pornographer peddlers, and crypto-ransomware makers too!

<comment><USER14> Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I believe all the bitcoin and eth are down because the commoners/speculators stepped out. It's only used currently for black market stuff. And that is also moving to other coins with better cloakabilities. Bitcoin and ether will slowly come to an end. Maybe it will one day be seen as ancient crypto relics and therefore still have some value. But not anytime soon

<comment><USER16> I've always been concerned the majority of trading was done by large players manipulating the markets through churning and pump and dump.

With truly anonymous participants, what's stopping someone from trading with himself over and over again, creating the illusion of trading volume and price appreciation?

<comment><USER4> In trustworthy exchanges, trading fees.

On Binance or the like, nothing, or market risk (i.e. other market actors profiting from your wash trading), depending on the level of cartelization you assume in the crypto whale demographic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great article. It's so difficult to find writing on the space that isn't cryptomaximalist, completely dismissive, or technical analysis mumbo jumbo.

Ethereum is intriguing to me. Since it's not designed to be a deflationary ponzi scheme, it's not clear to me what its value will be over time. It appears to have more ways to win than Bitcoin, but also more ways to lose. I think the answer is: don't buy it to speculate; treat it as a means to an end when the need actually arises. That's almost rational.

</comment><comment><USER18> They didn't explain how the run up in all crypto currencies was driven by bitfinex's unprecedented counterfeiting operation.

</comment><comment><USER19> Analysis: It's tech beanie babies.

<comment><USER20> Incorrect. CryptoKitties, not beanie babies.

<comment><USER21> Digital pokemon cards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think that in a general macro downturn, cryptocurrencies fall further than other asset classes:

In a macro downturn, cash becomes more valuable, and, ceteris paribus, this decreases the cash price of all assets, including crypto.

The popular expectation of above-market returns in crypto is sufficient to create price volatility. A segment of crypto holders will sell when they believe above-market returns won't happen in the short to medium term.

Obviously, downward spirals of selling occur in all/many asset classes. I think the expectation of above-market returns in crypto makes these spirals stronger.

<comment><USER23> > a macro downturn

> segment of crypto holders

> spirals of selling

Time of transition

The more timid element

Will run for cover</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Ruby News Sites? - <AUTHOR>

Which Ruby news sites do you use?  For example, http://planetrubyonrails.com and http://rubyflow.com. <comment><USER2> these are pretty good at-a-glance type page views

<http://ruby.alltop.com/>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/ruby>

<http://searchyc.com/ruby?sort=by_date>

</comment><comment><USER3> www.rubyinside.com tends to be pretty good, also trending repos on github and following hackernews are usually good indicators of what's up and up in Ruby.</comment>


Will 5G fry your brain in its skull like a mushy grey burrito? A 5G explainer - <AUTHOR> https://analogmantra.com/will-5g-fry-your-brain-in-its-skull-like-a-mushy-grey-burrito-8fa2f0382668 <comment><USER2> thank you ill be pointing a few people i know in the direction of this article

<comment><AUTHOR> No worries! Feel free - there's a surprising amount of misunderstanding around 5G at the moment!</comment></comment>


Investing in Games: Broad or Deep? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/07/investing-in-games-broad-or-deep/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> Very great article. Another thing I would love to see established is that there is no such thing as a _game industry_. Using the same analogy, it would be like saying: _the startup industry._ It's nonsense obviously.

<comment><USER3> That's a weird claim. Are you suggesting to bundle it into the "tech industry", unless you deny that exists either? Or into the "software industry"? Maybe the "entertainment industry"? Perhaps "art industry"?

Your hypothetical "startup industry" doesn't make sense because they're not tied together with respect to products. But there is a "tech industry" or "software industry" or "web tech industry" where the constituent players actually are related by product/service sector.

I don't see why you find _that_ the most important thing that needs to be established. Why does it matter and how is it negatively affecting those (or any) businesses to refer to the games industry as such?

I think game development, publishing, services, esports, conventions and such are enough of a mature ecosystem to be considered it's own "industry."

<comment><USER4> The "tech industry" is a subset of everyone building technology. Just as most software is developed outside of the "software industry" Sure, some Airlines may write more lines of code than Apple in a given year, but there not software companies.

As to games it's not broken down in the same way. For example some commercially generated games may be advertising for other products or even training tools so lumping those in with Call of Duty is pointless. Thus, rather than focusing on how their produced people break things out based on how their used and who pays for them.

<comment><USER5> Even among what you might call "consumer-targeted games", investing seems quite different among different budgets and audiences as well. For example IndieFund has been quite successful as an investor by picking a specific niche that the people running it understand well enough to pick promising games, and provide relevant advice to the companies they fund. But this list of games is hardly a random subset of games in general: [http://indie- fund.com/games/](http://indie-fund.com/games/)

Other investors I've run into also seem quite specialized. A bunch focus on mobile games. One that I've had second-hand contact with invests only in simulation games sold in boxed copies in Germany (this is a surprisingly large market). And then the console market is a whole other kettle of fish, because the console makers themselves have a pitch and funding process, which changes the dynamics a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Such a great article. The subject of connecting with an audience is really key. Connecting and building a relationship with one's audience is a lot of hard work, and once you've released something - maintaining that momentum can be a serious challenge. This has been my own experience.

In terms of marketing, it's my understanding that two metrics really matter on the success-side: engagement and the gold-standard - participation. Motivating players to buy the game is one thing, however - I think platforms that have inbuilt participation by design - really create a lot of free and ongoing marketing value (e.g. Minecraft, iOS, Little Big Planet etc.) Content creators have to promote the platform in lock-step with their own content. In my opinion, inbuilt participation mechanisms make things so much easier in terms of marketing. You can switch from "I've created something cool" to "look at the cool stuff others have made." Shared aspiration is very powerful.

Interestingly, this concept is something that anyone in the dot com, web 2.0, or whatever we're calling the tech scene these days knows. It's almost like the game industry is an island separated from mainstream startup tech (or perhaps I don't read enough).

What do you guys/gals think?

</comment><comment><USER7> Even most large game companies are supported by one or two franchises. It's always been that way. Activision was supported by Tony Hawk, then Call of Duty, then they bought Blizzard and did Skylanders. Without Blizzard (which is very autonomous) Activision is the Call of Duty / Skylanders company. They understand the principle very well.

</comment><comment><USER8> The whole article is based on an inefficient offer. The second offer is wrong by definition. The article should have been about one game VS several games + infrastructure if needed not one game VS infrastructure + several games. Games are not regular startups - they don't solve your everyday problems. Games are rather about experience. A small game that requires "not that big" investments might be much better experience-wise than a game which has "very much" money pumped in it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yet few successful game companies started off trying to build a single big hit. Most game companies that today are viewed as successful got lucky with the first one which turned into a big hit, then simply redo the same game ala King or Rovio. You never hear about the ones who built a single game that flopped and then gave in. I'm not sure you can tell the difference up front.

</comment><comment><USER10> relevant: YTD Revenue for A Dark Room iOS, a game that made the #1 spot in the App Store [http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/2ok3r7/ytd_revenue_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/2ok3r7/ytd_revenue_for_a_dark_room_ios_a_game_that_made/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Would you invest in a high-quality MOBA on tablets (e.g. Vainglory by Super Evil Megacorp)?

<comment><USER12> No. Long time (6+ years)DoTA player, I can't see this type of game working without a mouse and a keyboard. I've tried FPS's and MMO's on tablets and they are always dissatisfying, I doubt this would be any better.

<comment><USER11> It plays quite well actually, that's the thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Neither. It's a hits business.</comment>


Advanced rain generator to keep you plugged in (and stress-free) - <AUTHOR> http://pluvior.club <comment><AUTHOR> Nicely recorded ambient rains for pluviophiles</comment>


Smart People Can Rationalize Anything - <AUTHOR> http://habitatchronicles.com/2006/12/smart-people-can-rationalize-anything/

<comment><USER2> I had a school assignment about writing a letter as if I were part of the Trojan War. I figured I'd learn Dactylic Hexameter and write it all in Dactylic Hexameter. Bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a project management problem, not a problem with too smart developers.

The problematic activities described here, overgeneralization and solving imaginary problems (aka Coding for A Rainy Day), are simply typical newbie mistakes.

Otherwise highly competent developers almost always fall into this trap early in their careers, so the important thing is to have someone experienced in charge of the project who can veto their weirder ideas until they mature.

I think every software company should hand out a copy of "The Pragmatic Programmer" to all new hires. It gives much good advice on how to not overcomplicate things.

<comment><USER4> Three of the Stages Of Programmer:

\- Designing too much flexibility at the start of a project and regretting it when it takes ten weeks to build a prototype.

\- Designing too little flexibility at the start of the project and ending up living with unmaintainable cruft.

\- Realizing that all projects are hell and planning on a rethink/rewrite/refactor when the real requirements become clear because no one can predict the future, so why not hold some contingency for the inevitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most valuable point in here, vital for startups: You can't sell someone the solution before they've bought the problem

<comment><USER6> I think there's another implicit point as well, echoed by a lot of more recent startups, which is to fail early and often. If you're going to make the engineering decision to go down a path which will take a year+ to validate (i.e. developing a "PhD thesis" of a filesystem), then you'd better have a very compelling reason to do so over the current solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Garrison Keillor: An intellect is like 4-wheel drive. It just gets you stuck in deeper snow.

<comment><USER8> It's a good quote, but the simple solution is to do your driving in 2, and only switch to 4 when you do get stuck. Most times, that'll get you out.

In the real world, I suppose, that means not doing anything clever, except to backpedal and fix a problem.

<comment><USER9> Conserve your best thinking for emergency use only? (Something about that seems wrong, even though the systematic logic of leaving a tolerance for error is sound.)

<comment><USER8> No, no. Conserve _cleverness_ for emergencies. Logical consistency is the best policy: most of the time, you should trudge along, applying existing solutions (2 wheel drive). The only time you should be clever and try to do something innovative is when your traditional models fail you. (4 wheel drive).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anybody can rationalize anything to his own satisfaction, regardless of IQ. The problem with being smart is that there are fewer people who can see through your rationalizations. The skills of dissasembling your own cognitive biases and testing your ideas against reality grow in value as your IQ increases.

<comment><USER11> "Anybody can rationalize anything to his own satisfaction"

... but smart people tend to require a bigger rationalization to be satisfied. And they also tend to be more capable of creating a rationalization of that magnitude.

The question is whether they've developed the habit of "reality testing" and discarding flawed rationalizations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> A rationalization means to come up with reasons to support a belief, idea or action that one knows (or could know) is not actually rational. It is a form of dishonesty mimicking rationality. The issue with smart people is not that they rationalize (i.e. are dishonest) but they are able to come up with sincere reasons, often very convincing reasons, for their beliefs. This makes it very difficult to get them to question their premises.</comment>


Ben Adida on Dropbox security: "grab the pitchforks… again" - <AUTHOR> http://benlog.com/articles/2011/04/19/grab-the-pitchforks-again/

<comment><USER2> I guess most people, like me, aren't so worried that they can access my files but more worried about the fact they said in great big letters that they can't. Why should we trust anything they write there then? Are they stored encrypted or not? Are they reaaally transmitted over SSL or not? (ok, I know, I know...)

Just don't go putting bullshit in your product specs and no one will have any issues, m'kay!

<comment><USER3> > Why should we trust anything they write there then?

Because we are Dropbox users and fans. We were rabidly praising it yesterday, so today we can't really critisize it, even while it spews lies at us. The cognitive dissonance would be too unbearable to handle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you don't want someone else reading your files, don't send them your files. I'm not really understanding all the uproar over Dropbox. I guess it's a side effect of becoming the established leader. They host my photos, some code I don't particularly care about and some other random junk like my resume. I guess if they want to read up on my employment history they are welcome too, but I'm surprised at how many people here seem to be uploading sensitive data to a third party and then getting grumpy about the idea (not even the accusation) of that third party being able to access it.

<comment><USER5> The thing about Dropbox is that they were making the same claims (from the perspective of a non-technical person) that other you-manage-your-own- encryption-key cloud storage sites were making. You put someone non-technical in-front of the marketing materials of say, Jungledisk, and Dropbox and people might even come away thinking that Dropbox must be even more secure since they're the market leader. And that's part of the problem in this case -- leadership implies trust.

Dropbox used to have a FAQ somewhere that made of point of informing users that they cannot set their own encryption key (but Dropbox hoped to implement that functionality soon). Anyone with technical chops can read that and know that the encryption key(s) are centrally managed on the Dropbox internal network and anyone gaining access to that internal network can gain access to all of the documents. But your average non-techie accountant, CEO, or sale guy...?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> >I wish, instead of picking on whichever startup suddenly succeeds, we picked on the industry as a whole.

The industry is made of individuals, and complaining about the practices of an industry has to be done in broader strokes than the complaints against dropbox were. Dropbox gave the complaining parties specific holes to point to when someone tried to dismiss the significance of the claims.

Even if there were specifics shared across all cloud providers, it is unfortunately the case that such a broad attack would not draw the attention of the offender or offended as well. Thats not the best route to take when you're trying to raise awareness of the issues.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Ben offers a level-headed overview of the recent concerns over Dropbox security and privacy.</comment>


The problem with Lorem Ipsum and what to do instead - <AUTHOR> http://arnorhs.com/2011/10/20/my-problem-with-lorem-ipsum-and-what-to-do-instead/

<comment><USER2> There is nothing wrong with lorem ipsum.

In fact the solution you suggest is exactly the reason why lorem ipsum is and should be used. You should never have to concern yourself with writing filler copy as a designer. It's distracting and leads to unnecessary discussions about the filler copy's content and not about the design.

Do you think lorem ipsum is used only as an aid to laziness?</comment>


Mathematicians Measure Infinities, and Find They're Equal - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-measure-infinities-and-find-theyre-equal/ <comment><USER2> Earlier discussion (3 days ago, 151 comments):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15235854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15235854)</comment>


Disrupting Politics Part I - For the People, By the People - <AUTHOR> http://blog.brandoncarl.com/2012/12/disrupting-politics-part-i-for-people.html

<comment><USER2> _In this framework, a representative exists as an "aggregator of wills"._

No. A representative in a representative democracy is not a simple aggregation of the wills of the people they represent. A representative is chosen to _bring their own judgment_ to the questions the collective group faces, while balancing that judgment with the desires of the group.

This is important because (as any software product manager will tell you) people don't always know what they want. They may _think_ they do, but maybe they're confused, or they only know part of the story. Sometimes two things they think they want conflict with each other. The job of the representative is to sort through all those impulses and then make an informed decision about what policies will get the group closest to the group's overall priorities.

You would be surprised if you go out and talk to voters on a given election day how many of them will say to you "I disagree with Candidate X's position on <issue I care about>, but I'm voting for him anyway because I think he's a good person." What they're saying is that they trust the candidate's judgment, and that's more important to them than how the candidate stands on a checklist of issues.

This may seem naïve, but it's actually what makes representative democracy different from direct democracy; you're not voting on an issue, you're placing your trust in someone you believe in to speak for you on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually agree with you. The immediately preceding paragraph in my post said...

"Is it best to elect officials who we believe to be more knowledgeable that ourselves, and to defer to their judgment on issues that are outside of our understanding? Or is it better for an official to serve as a direct representative of the people?"

If the answer is the latter...in this framework, a representative exists as an "aggregator of wills".

I'm basically laying out the two options you highlight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Legislators are (in theory, at least) specialists whose full-time job is to study and debate the issues and decide what laws ought to be made. Most people only care about a few core issues; they don't have time to deeply research every issue, or study detailed proposals.

<comment><AUTHOR> In theory, I think you're perfectly correct. In practice, things don't work out so nicely. That's why, under this kind of representation, politicians would serve as filters and educators.

As well, I'm not dogmatically proposing this. Rather, saying that we don't "experiment" enough with what works and what doesn't. I'd simply like to see a candidate challenge the status quo, and evaluate whether it worked, or did not.</comment></comment>


10 Facts about iOS8 for Mobile App Devs - <AUTHOR> http://testdroid.com/testdroid/7931/10-facts-about-ios8-how-will-it-be-different-for-app-devs

<comment><USER2> Here an interesting article about how to deal with iOS Betas: [http://www.chupamobile.com/blog/2014/09/08/dealing-with- ios-...](http://www.chupamobile.com/blog/2014/09/08/dealing-with-ios-8-betas- what-you-must-know/)</comment>


Gearman, an open source framework for distributed processing - <AUTHOR> http://gearman.org/

<comment><USER4> We tried to use this in our last project and ended up writing the mother ship and workers from scratch because there didn't seem to be a community behind gearman. As soon as the nda runs out, I'm going to open source it as a competing framework.

<comment><USER5> I think a part of the problem there may be that a substantial percentage of the original user community are perl hackers, and tend to discuss their Gearman usage in the context of whatever else they're using - I see Gearman discussions reasonably often on the Catalyst IRC channel, for example.

Another reason is quite possibly that for the vast majority of tasks, Gearman "just works" - if the obvious way to use a piece of software works first time, talking to other users isn't particularly necessary (there's not really a GNU cat community either, for example :)

I'm not entirely sure what you'd do to fix that though (or even if there's anything except perception to be fixed)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My problem with Gearman is that the queues are completely opaque. There's no way to inspect them, except in so far as if you use a database backend you can see the opaque jobs and get a count.

<comment><USER7> I don't think you can see individual job data, but you (and/or your monitoring daemon) can telnet to the port and issue admin commands. e.g. 'status' will list all job types, with #queued, #running and #workers.

<http://gearman.org/?id=protocol> (search for 'Administrative Protocol' - <USER2> hit)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's funny to see how bradfitz's projects other than memcached have fared over time. Didn't realize this one was still used by anyone.

<comment><USER9> Can never count Gearman out, and it is winning new user such as Instagram. Great for simple work queue. I recently switch from Celery to Gearman to reduce headache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used gearman to replace cron. It's much more efficient, particular for tasks like queueing email to be sent out.

</comment><comment><USER11> How does this compare to resque? (Ah... answered my own question - <USER3> seems to be ruby only).

<comment><USER6> In short, Gearman is multi-language, multiple different backends, possible to do RPC-style synchronous processing. Resque and friends[1] are single- language, exclusively async, but also extremely transparent because they're just JSON blobs in redis. Resque has a _huge_ following as well.

[1]: [https://github.com/defunkt/resque/wiki/alternate- implementat...](https://github.com/defunkt/resque/wiki/alternate- implementations)

<comment><USER12> Doesn't Gearman do async as well?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Tried it about a year ago. Couldn't get it installed on Ubuntu.</comment>