Ask HN: What's a good book to learn electronics? - <AUTHOR> I want to start doing things like building a rep-rap, making an RFID cloner, maybe even some robotics.  What's a good book to teach me the basics of electronics, e.g., why do circuits need resistors, when do I use a capacitor, etc? <comment><USER3> I don't know whats happened recently but I grew up with Forest M Mim's books. They were written on engineers/graph paper and handwritten but overall very informative. I bought them at RadioShack back in the day, but you can probably find them online for very cheap.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims>

<comment><USER3> Also, I was big into Parallax, Inc's BASIC Stamps, and a magazine called "Nuts and Volts".. not sure if it's still around. There was also a great, great electronics store near me called Electronics Parts Outlet (Houston) that had ridiculous electronics stuff. I suggest searching to see if there are any niche electronics stores in your area. I ended up learning from the wise old EEs that worked there and they let me thinker with peltiers, oscilliscopes and the like. I ended up doing a _ton_ of soldering kits. I think companies were by the name of Ramsey electronics and Velleman to name a few.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For me, electronics only started to make sense after this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-Paul- Horowitz/dp/05213...](http://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-Paul- Horowitz/dp/0521370957)

</comment><comment><USER5> Art of Electronics is a very good book, but if you want to learn from a fun / programming point of view I highly recommend "Making Things Talk", by Tom Igoe.

<http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510510/>

<comment><USER6> I'll 2nd on Art of electronics.. But knowing the basics before touching it would be better

<comment><USER7> It might be worthwhile to note that third edition of the book is in the works (supposedly). Given that the current (2nd) edition was published almost 20 years ago, I'm waiting to get the 3rd one. This page claims it's scheduled to be published in February 2009: <http://isbn.nu/0521809266>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would recommend considering being more ambitious and learning how to design and prototype digital circuits on an FPGA development board. Pong Chu's book "FPGA Prototyping by VHDL Examples--Xilinx Spartan-3 Version" is really excellent, with lots of well-explained projects.

You can get really nice Xilinx starter kits compatible with this book for cheap. To be absolutely compatible, you can get the old Spartan-3 starter board from digilentinc.com for $99, but be aware that you need a PC with a parallel port. If you prefer like me to connect your FPGA board to your computer using USB, I recommend either the Nexys-2 board for $99 or the Spartan-3E starter board for $149, available at digilentinc.com, or the more up-to-date Spartan-3A starter board for $189, which you can buy at nuhorizons.com or avnet.com. These boards are mostly compatible with the book, and you can get lots of peripheral modules like seven-segment LED's for them from Digilent.

The software necessary to program these starter boards is available for free from Xilinx. The only slight problem is that you need to use Windows or Linux --no Mac OS X.

<comment><USER9> Anyone wanting to know about electronics shouldn't start with FPGAs. I do FPGA design for a living. I wouldn't really consider it "electronics." It is closer to embedded programming than circuit design. To an outsider, they are almost exactly the same. Many companies lump FPGA design with firmware.

With FPGA design, you start with a board with an FPGA on it and then write some code in Verilog (Verilog is much easier to learn than VHDL). Once the design is complete, you hit the synthesize and place and route buttons and download the reulting file into the FPGA.

With embedded programming, you start with a board with a microcontroller on it and then write some code in assembly (you could also use C or something else). Once the design is complete, you hit the compile button and download the resulting file into the microcontroller.

<comment><USER8> Yes, FPGA design is more like programming than it is like analog electronic circuit design. No need for soldering, or for thinking about analog equations. I think a lot of the audience of Hacker News would find it an interesting way to learn more about hardware, even though it doesn't answer the original poster's question about electronics a la resistors and capacitors.

If one prefers Verilog, Pong Chu also has an edition of his book using that language. VHDL is more verbose than Verilog, and more strict about typing, which many consider to be a good thing for hardware designs. But at the level of Chu's books, they're almost equivalent--he uses a bunch of re-usable code templates which are easily translated between Verilog and VHDL. It's not worth agonizing about the difference; I chose VHDL mostly because more reference designs for the Xilinx starter kits are written in VHDL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Electronics is pretty broad. There are books for each area, depending on what you want to do:

\- Building kits? \- Building circuits someone else designed? \- Designing printed circuit boards? \- Designing digital circuits? \- Designing analog circuits? \- Designing power electronics? \- Designing RF and microwave electronics? \- System design and assembly?

It's a great hobby. You can spend decades learning all this, and more. I have.. And don't get just one book. Get a few different ones. Google for stuff. Search Isohunt for ebooks. Get application notes from component manufacturers. There are tons of free useful info in those.

</comment><comment><USER11> Don't bother. If you use the arduino board, you can approach electronics the same way as one would programming - by trial and error.

Learn the basics - resistors, clock signals, how chips work, and the rest you can pick up by experimentation.

<comment><USER12> While I do agree that electronics is learned by experimentation, IMHO the Arduino board is a bad starting point.

I think that the best way to learn electronics is to start with the very basics (resistors, capacitors, coils, voltage dividers, simple RC and RL circuits, etc), then learn something about op-amps, then move on to nonlinear devices such as diodes and transistors. No math is needed, and simple circuits are easy to build. Building an analog amplifier is not hard, and it's quite rewarding to design and build something that actually works. If one is really devoted to the art of electronics, building a tube amplifier is even more rewarding ;-)

After the basics of analog electronics, one can move to digital circuits, learn about interfacing, what the difference between RTL and TTL is, etc, etc. Playing with logic gates on a breadboard is fun and instructive. The basics of DAC's and ADC's are fundamental too.

Finally, one is ready to move to microprocessors and stuff like the Arduino. Knowing the basics, one can actually build cool stuff with microprocessors, simple actuators and sensors. One knows how to build and connect sensors to microcontrollers, one knows what's happening in the ADC, one understands what makes it all work.

I believe that starting with the Arduino board right away is like choosing Visual Basic as a first programming language: it hides the interesting details, and it prevents one from seeing the big picture. Just a personal opinion, of course.

<comment><USER13> Totally disagree but respect your position. Trying to learn the analog side of electronics can take a very long time and requires vast amounts of information.

If you go the digital route, most (software) hackers can be creating fairly elaborate systems in an afternoon. They do the bulk of the work in the software, rather than futzing with resistors and capacitors.

Imagine the difference between creating a LED array to mimic the KITT car's LED light scanner in analog and in digital. Analog would be a nightmare, digital would be a great afternoon of fun on very limited hardware.

Yes, eventually the person will run into the limitations of not understanding the analog well enough, but since they weren't bogged down in details, they may be excited enough to keep with the hobby.

<comment><USER14> I think everything you have said is true, but it does not address the original question:

"What's a good book to teach me the basics of electronics, e.g., why do circuits need resistors, when do I use a capacitor, etc?"

I.e. he _wants_ to learn how _analog_ electronics work, amongst other things.

I own The Art of Electronics, but find it a bit theoretical. If you just starting out you might even wants something aimed at high-school kids (no offense intended)

If you like to learn by being taught (vs. self-taught) then sign up for class at a local school, or if you don't have the time/money then try sneaking into some lectures at your local university (I don't know how illegal / difficult that is in the US, so beware). If you do want to be self-taught then see if you can borrow the lecture notes from someone who has taken electronic engineering. Or try this [http://www.varsitynotes.com/electrical_engineering/electroni...](http://www.varsitynotes.com/electrical_engineering/electronics.html)

I would highly recommend buying a kit (lots have been mentioned) and if necessary supplementing it with components from your local electronic components store. And take things apart,

I'd also recommend building something that has an interest to you outside of electronics, e.g. if you're into cars then build a radio controlled car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've wondered about this myself and have found that the most common responses usually reference, "The Art of Electonics". Great book, sure, and very heavy on theory.

There are a few books out now that touch on the Arduino platform - <USER2> Make/O'Reilly site has a few. Additionally, there are a couple of folks using a Sanguino/Arduino for building a rep rap, so it might be a good start.

I've found "Electronics - Self Teaching Guide" by Harry Kybett to be a decent introduction to electronics in general. I also picked up "Embedded C Programming and the Atmel AVR" which is regularly recommended for the AVR platform.

</comment><comment><USER16> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=317376>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=111798>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=149317>

<http://searchyc.com/ask+electronic>

</comment><comment><USER13> Analog electronics and digital electronics are different beasts. Most of what you'll do when hacking together projects will be digital.

If you are a programmer, and especially if you are a low-level programmer, you won't have a problem getting your feet wet on the digital side.

Snag one of the kits folks are mentioning in this thread and get busy.

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/electricCircuits/>

in combination with

<http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/socratic/>

</comment><comment><USER18> Doing > Reading if you are that way inclined. I learned by buying an arduino starter pack + a couple of shields from ladyada, putting them together.

</comment><comment><USER19> When you're ready for a bit of theory, the Art of Electronics is good stuff, with broad coverage.

</comment><comment><USER20> The Boys' First Book of Radio and Electronics. Author: Morgan, Alfred Powell, Publisher: New York, Scribner Date: [1954] The Boys' Second Book of Radio and Electronics. Author: Morgan, Alfred Powell, Publisher: New York, Scribner Date: [1957] The Boy's Third Book of Radio and Electronics. Author: Morgan, Alfred Powell, Publisher: New York, Scribner Date: [1962] The Boys' Fourth Book of Radio and Electronics; an introduction to solid state physics, semiconductors, and transistors, Author: Morgan, Alfred Powell. Publisher: New York, Scribner Date: [1969]

For me, nothing else comes close :-)

</comment><comment><USER21> For the hardcore Feynman fans, there's the Feynman Lectures on Computation: <http://books.theinfo.org/go/0738202967>

</comment><comment><USER22> the art of electronics is cool, but the ARRL handbook is even better.

</comment><comment><USER23> i usually suggest folks get a kit - arduino, or an open source hardware kit from <http://www.adafruit.com> \-- they're all fully documented and you'll learn by doing and move along harder projects as you become more proficient.

(phil from MAKE magazine, also a good resource)

<comment><USER24> would you happen to know if the arduino starter kit make sells now comes with the new arduino duemilanove? in fact, I can't find that on the make:arduino store at all, only the older diecimila...

<comment><USER23> yup it does now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One other piece of advice: Get access to an oscilloscope - they can be expensive, so you may want to enroll in a course at a community college.</comment>


Get Started with GoJS - <AUTHOR> http://www.gojs.net/latest/learn/index.html

<comment><USER2> Is there/what is the best FOSS alternative to this? Something built on D3, perhaps?</comment>


Session ID query parameters: A quick list - <AUTHOR> http://www.conversationmarketing.com/2011/01/session-id-parameters-list.htm

<comment><USER2> The author misses the most important point: session query params make session hijacking stupefyingly easy (especially by accident when people copy-paste URLs into emails etc.)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_hijacking></comment>


Zencoder (YC W10) Wants To Be The AWS Of Video Encoding - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/05/yc-funded-zencoder-wants-to-be-the-amazon-web-services-of-video-encoding/

<comment><USER2> While I love cloud services like these, I always wonder about it for the high- end accounts. With pricing at $3.60/hour of encoded video, it seems building your own render server seems to pay out fairly soon.

For <http://OneFrameOfFame.com> I was looking for a video encoding service that would take a bunch of images & sound file as input, and would encode it to a video file. Since none of the cloud video encoding parties I looked at (Encoding.com, Heywatch, ankoder) offered this, I ended up renting a linode VPS and encoding myself with ffmpeg. Which turned out to be not that hard. If you need the management tools, there are packages like <http://pandastream.org/>

<comment><USER3> Our pricing decreases as volume increases, so at a higher level, an hour of video is currently $1.68, not $3.60. At scale, we have other options we can offer (like dedicated servers at a fixed monthly price). We feel pretty strongly that even someone doing 10M videos/month is better off using a service like ours rather than investing in a custom solution. But we're biased, of course. :)

<comment><USER4> I'm hooked. Where's the Python api?

<comment><USER3> The API is just http + json, so it works with any language. But we also hope to have an open source Python integration library very soon. (Anyone want to help us with that?) :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This interests me for ThinkCode.TV. We tried half a dozen companies and were overall disappointed with their results. (Ogg Theora in particular was challenging for most.)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is great. I've had clients years ago want to offer video sharing on their site and I basically have to tell them it's a major project so they might as well have their users upload it to YouTube instead. This is exactly the kind of service that makes video UGC possible, even easy.

</comment><comment><USER7> I long for the day when a really fast internet connection + Zencoder can replace my Handbrake setup.

Probably not Zencoder's premier market though...

</comment><comment><USER8> What are the output codecs and container formats? Is it just me or is this information conspicuously missing?

<comment><USER3> Hi ripb. Yep, our sales site needs a page that covers this. If you sign up and play around with the API, you'll see this info. At the moment, we do:

Input: just about everything

Output: H.264 video, AAC audio, and MP3 audio, in a MP4 or Flash 9+ container format. Ogg/vorbis/theora are coming soon, as are a few others that we can't talk about yet. We've decided to take the "narrow" approach for now - 99% of the demand that we see is for these five codecs (H.264, AAC, MP3, Theora, Vorbis). If there's anything in particular that you're looking for, let us know.

<comment><USER2> Do you do the slicing, multiple bitrates & playlists that are needed to play streaming video to i(Phone|Pad) devices?

<comment><USER3> Soon! It's in the works. In the meantime, we can of course do non-streaming video for iPad/iPhone/etc. (Email us if you're interested in early access to iPhone streaming.)

<comment><USER2> The problem with the non-streaming is that Apple doesn't approve apps anymore that do non-streaming over 3G (for over 5 min/10 MB video's). Will email you if I need it tho!

Oh, and then a harder one: Could you take a bunch of images & soundtrack file, and render it to a movie?

<comment><USER3> _Oh, and then a harder one: Could you take a bunch of images & soundtrack file, and render it to a movie?_

Not at the moment. It's something we're considering at some point, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How are they provisioning and managing infrastructure resources? Are they using AWS/EC2 on their back end?

<comment><USER3> Yep, we're AWS at the moment. We're ultimately cloud agnostic, though, and can support other cloud environments (Rackspace Cloud, etc.) as well as our own servers. EC2 is pretty compelling for transcoding, though, because (1) so many people use S3 for video storage and delivery, and (2) Amazon's fastest servers (XL High CPU) are pretty fast - faster than most cloud servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recall Zencoder had promo material out at Railsconf last year. I'm curious what's changed or why they've become a YC company.

<comment><USER11> At that time we had just released Flix Cloud. We have spent the last year supporting that product and learning from our customers. This release of Zencoder is the result.

As for the last question: when you're offered a spot in YC, you don't turn it down!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I personally use HeyWatch, for less volume the price is way cheaper. It's 0.05e/video, you double the price if you need HD.

</comment><comment><USER13> So is zencoder _only_ for h264 encoding? Site didn't make the output formats very clear.</comment>


Ask HN: Can I show the Apple logo on my website? - <AUTHOR> we are working on a deal related website.
I was wondering if we are allowed to show the Apple logo listed, say for example as category indicator for Apple products.
Just to be clear: it would be very clear to the visitors that this is not an Apple website and there would be many more other company logos displayed, with the usual disclaimers etc.
Still, I am not quite sure if it's 100% okay.
Many other deal sites show product photos and the respective company  logos, yet I wonder if it's legit to actually do so? <comment><USER2> From the [Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights]([http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual- property/guidelinesf...](http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual- property/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html)),

>2\. Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols: You may not use the Apple Logo or any other Apple-owned graphic symbol, logo, or icon on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, promotional/advertising materials, or for any other purpose except pursuant to an express written trademark license from Apple, such as a reseller agreement.

So, _no_ , you're not allowed, according to them. Meanwhile, if you are an official Apple Reseller, then you _can_ use the logo but only in special ways.

I'd recommend you contact Apple and ask them, because lawsuits can be very expensive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, thanks for your time. I read this too, but still it seems like very few sites are actually following this, strictly, wouldn't you say so? So it seems to be a bit of a grey area. That technically is not allowed, although used in a fair way seems to be tolerated?</comment></comment>


New, Ultra-precise measurement could help redfine the Kilogram - <AUTHOR> http://www.livescience.com/51550-new-measure-avogadros-number.html <comment><USER2> -403 error. Homepage gives back an Apache test page.</comment>


Ask HN: Which Company to Work For? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN,
about me: I'm 24 years old and recently switched companies.
Company A: I do now work for a medical mid-sized company, with a old IT and old structures in a boring job but I do get paid good. 3343 monthly for 37,5 hours a week, with 31 days paid vacation. Working here does not benefit my knowledge that much. (I have the option, to learn while I work, as I have some spare-time between tasks.)
Company B: I got an offer from another start-up like company, with a very interesting job, doing what I like. They pay: 3000 monthly for 40 hours a week, with 30 days paid vacation. Working here, would benefit my knowledge for my future plan greatly. I would not have that much spare-time between tasks.
Future plan:
I am in the progress to start my own SaaS, this is why the question is tough to me.
I am able to write code and host servers, I do not need to learn much, to start the SaaS but still, I do not know, if I should take the offer or not. I really tend to do so, because I think it is better for my future.
<comment>-
Can you give me advice in my choosing? </comment><comment><USER2> > Company B: I got an offer from another start-up like company, with a very > interesting job, doing what I like. They pay: 3000 monthly for 40 hours a > week, with 30 days paid vacation. Working here, would benefit my knowledge > for my future plan greatly. I would not have that much spare-time between > tasks.

I would note that 40 hour weeks, in my experience, are very rare in technical roles if you're at a "start-up like company". Be prepared for 60ish hour weeks (and celebrate if that doesn't happen).

</comment><comment><USER3> To be annoying, Company C.

I'd definitely recommend working for a startup at that age and (almost) no matter the startup it will really level up both your software dev and business knowledge but I think the salary is a sticking point on option B as it stands. (though I'm not sure what your pay is like relative to the market in your location but generally I've found startups able to make better offers than large companies)

You're early enough in your career that it's probably not worth moving backwards in salary at this stage. Find a startup who offer an increase or at least a match while coasting in your current role.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is not annoying, I am thankful for your recommendation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Company B. Work should be a place where you nurture your mind and be alongside link-minded individuals. The 12.5% payment decrease is not that significant. Without the bureaucracy and the old structure, you can't hide anymore. You will notice there are fewer free-riders, your visibility is increased, and the work pace is faster too.

Source: I been in the same position as you were (I'm 27), and I do not regret any single time my choices. Even today, I decline any positions at companies such as company A.

</comment><comment><USER5> I read a great quite here at HN a few days ago:

I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations — one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it — you will regret both. (Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or: A Fragment of Life)

Your question is about personal choice - do not rely on strangers in the internet.

Personally, I would go with B, even in 34, fun and growing are my top priorities, and money difference is too small to care about (for me).

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't ask strangers to decide for me but asking on HN can be quite useful. People will usually point things out that you haven't considered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It depends what stage you are on your future plan. If you mostly need time, Company A. If you need more mentoring and knowledge, Company B.

40 hours/week sounds unlikely, a and it can actually get pretty hectic if those hours don't include commuting.

There's also a lot of work in a startup that's just putting out fires or dealing with badly designed code, so you might possibly not learn as much as you expect.

</comment><comment><USER6> Are you sure you'll have mental energy to work on your SaaS project after work while working at this startup? If not, I'd stick to company A.

Personally, I'd prefer company B but it might be a roadblock for your SaaS plan.

</comment><comment><USER8> Which company/role would best help stretch you professionally?

Assuming Company B is the better fit, ASK them to match your current compensation package. That will keep you at parity.

<comment><AUTHOR> B would stretch me professionally.

Unfortunately, they will not match the current compensation. We talked about it, everyone get's paid equal at that company. The 3000 monthly is fixed. :/</comment></comment>


I got a Ph.D. at age 66 (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2018/07/its-never-too-late-stretch-your-wings-why-i-got-phd-age-66 <comment><USER2> If doing a PhD will bring no career benefits, it gets harder to submit to all of the limitations on one's life that come with going back to a degree program.

I took a break after I got my MA in a humanities field. I eventually planned to return for a PhD, but then two things happened in the intervening years: 1) I was already able to write up journal articles and successfully get them published, because in double-blind peer review all that mattered was the strength of my research and my familiarity with the literature, and no one knew or cared that I had only an MA; and 2) I got used to traveling a lot and having a very flexible schedule, because as my day job I established a remote freelancing career.

Now people are interested in my research and inviting me to come back and do a PhD, but I'm not sure I can ever go back to having to wake up early in the morning, sit in a boring seminar, be pressured to take on teaching duties, and not be able to escape to a warm country in the cold winter. (That's me, others may want e.g. more time to spend with their families.) I talk to my colleagues and get the impression that I have _more_ time for research than they do, because anyone in a formal position is saddled with bullshit administration duties.

I realize that I am lucky to be interested in a humanities field. I know that in hard sciences, you cannot meaningfully contribute to the field without access to a lab and other such infrastructure, and therefore you have to go back to a university position.

<comment><USER3> > but I'm not sure I can ever go back to having to wake up early in the > morning, sit in a boring seminar, be pressured to take on teaching duties, > and not be able to escape to a warm country in the cold winter

This really isn't what a PhD is like. A PhD is a _research_ degree - you do research in your own time. You don't have to be in seminars if you don't want to and you don't have to teach (unless you need the money.) Think of a PhD more like a sabbatical to focus on your own research. There's a goal you need to achieve but freedom in how you get there.

<comment><USER2> No, this differs from field to field and from country to country. There are only a tiny handful of departments dedicated to my subfield worldwide, and I know that they all require, at the very least, attendance at a weekly seminar so that you can share with your fellow students what you have been up to. In some places, the department can demand that one teach in order to hold a PhD position, or that one take part in the editing of publications produced by the department (which can be so much work that it distracts from one's own research).

<comment><USER3> Ah ok that does sound a bit rough.

<comment><USER4> Ha, in a "First World Problems" sense, maybe!

Not trying to say Mediterraneo10 should get a PhD, but PhD life probably sounds very nice to many people in the world without the kind of freedom and financial stability Mediterraneo10 describes. Credit to him/her in achieving such enviable life circumstances!

<comment><USER5> Or credit anybody pursuing a PhD for being smart?

Very condescending comment tbh.

There isn't much "fun" about PhD. People who "do it on the side" without "university housing, pay and support" are borderline masochists.

Doing so on your own motivation without family/peer-pressure has my respect. In a First World country generally you don't have any benefit from a PhD... Much different in "not first world".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My grandmother spent the last several years of her life living off a fixed income happily occupied with continuing education classes at the local state university. It seemed like a pretty appealing lifestyle to me. It occurred to me that you might even mainstream the idea. Instead of building retirement communities around golf courses, build them around universities. If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen small advertisements for such things in the back pages of the New Yorker.

Given the costs of modern universities, and the current identity crisis they're facing, this might be a new business model for them, especially if wealthy foreign students are to no longer be admitted to the country.

At the same time, I'm reminded of an exchange from an episode of This American Life about how in some parts of the country state disability payments have become a de facto retirement and welfare system:

 _Ethel Thomas: You asked me a while back what would be the perfect job. I thought about it, and I said that the perfect job, it would be like I would sit at a desk like the Social Security people, and just weed out all the ones that come in and file for disability.

Chana Joffe-Walt: At first, I thought Ethel's dream job was to be the lady at Social Security, because she thought she'd be good at weeding out the cheaters. But no. After a confusing back and forth, it turned out Ethel wanted this woman's job because she gets to sit. That's it. And when I asked her, OK, but why that lady? Why not any other job where you get to sit? Ethel said she could not think of a single other job where you get to sit all day. She said she'd never seen one.

I brushed this off in the moment. I was getting in my car. It was getting late. And also, it just did not seem possible to me that there would be a place in America today where someone could go her whole working life without any exposure to jobs where you get to sit, until she applied for disability and saw a woman who gets to sit all day._

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/490/transcript](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/490/transcript)

<comment><USER7> That makes a lot of sense actually, because the reason we really need (as in need, not just want) retirement and welfare payments, are because some people are either not able to work or no longer able to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I spent my 20s trying to get rich enough to become a professional student. My 30s too. Its looking like this is also how I'll spend my 50s, which are approaching like a steam train. Bring on the MIT Golden Years Home for the Intellectually Dissatisfied.

<comment><USER9> Why do it through university when you have the internet and can more effectively learn things by yourself?

<comment><USER10> That's tech biaised perspective. For a lot of topics there isn't much resources available online, or not of good quality enough to get started and for this university classes are really helpful. Moreover, university and using the internet are not mutually exclusive: a lot of universities offers remote degrees. Depending on the languages you speak it can be very cheap (French univ are around 400€/year + one travel for final exam).

<comment><USER9> While I'm fairly interested in tech things, I don't really have a tech background. Could you give me an example of topics with few resources online? The majority of subjects I can think of have good resources online, the only issue is navigating them as a beginner (which can be helped by finding some sort of mentor).

There are sites like MIT courseware that are completely free and allow online learning. Though of course, there are signaling benefits to online degrees.

<comment><USER10> > Could you give me an example of topics with few resources online?

Czech and Sumerian. Too much ressources is also a problem, as you said, because navigating into them is difficult for a beginner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My wife, with two BS degrees and a MS from Stanford, is currently enrolled as undergrad with an Archaeology major.

Why? Insurance. She pays 1/5 what the open market would cost, even factoring in the tuition and fees. Because she at 60 is grouped with young healthy people.

The college is not upset about this. In fact they have a whole program and an advisor to assist older folks in negotiating the paperwork.

<comment><USER12> What university is this where tuition plus school-based insurance is < 20% of open market insurance?

<comment><USER11> She only takes 1 class to qualify. Its the state school. Her insurance was otherwise ~ $2000/month.

Her tuition is only that, and is good for half a year. The student insurance cost is small and annual.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When I went to submit a physical copy of my PhD thesis to the relevant office, the person in front of me was an old lady, at least in her 70s or even her 80s.

We had an interesting conversation. She had completed a PhD in Greek literature, I think. Self-funded. Taken the standard time. She was sorry about all the domestic responsibilities she had put on her husband. She had, with her, a younger friend (a lady probably late 50s, early 60s) to help her with computers :D

Made me feel very differently about all the hard work I had done. Very inspiring and uplifting. She said, she did it because she was bored and wanted to go beyond her two Masters degrees.

<comment><USER14> This suggests all kinds of interesting questions about the point of university.

For undergrads it's clearly a combination of finishing school, networking hothouse, and social club, with some education thrown in.

For postgrads, it's a long-shot chance at tenure (extremely unlikely unless you're the product of an Ivy, but it's nice to dream) and perhaps some improved job prospects. (Also unlikely, but not as much.)

For universities, it's a cash grab. First they get the fees, then they get the bequests. Also, some education is thrown in.

Considering the age/wealth profile is now heavily skewed to the over-50s, it would make sense for universities to cater more for mature students. Remaking university culture as life-long access rather than here-come-the-teens would break a lot of cultural expectations - but might also be the only way to keep the university model alive over the medium term.

<comment><USER15> > For undergrads it's clearly a combination of finishing school, networking > hothouse, and social club, with some education thrown in.

Never was it for me, and I'm certainly not alone.

<comment><USER16> Yeah for me it was just the easiest way to get a job. Didn't really ever go to lectures, was in the students' union maybe twice, got a flatshare in final year with people I had met doing my year's industrial placement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As an undergrad I had a friend in the math department who came back to school to get a PhD after some years of making enough $$ to retire on in software. He did not aspire to an academic career. He just liked math and enjoyed spending time on it. He helped us rando undergrads with our problem sets. He is one of the happiest individuals I have ever met. A PhD makes sense at any age for happiness reasons if you don't have financial obligations hanging over you.

<comment><USER18> or family obligations

<comment><USER19> would it be better to do a PhD as soon as possible to prevent family weighing you down, or to become financially independent first?

<comment><USER20> As soon as possible.

<comment><USER19> well...why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A lot of people have a romantic perspective on grad school, similarly to how the flower children of the 60s viewed travel to India. You turn on, tune in, drop out, and go to academia to become enlightened.

It's not all it's cracked up to be. People are people wherever you go, and you'll see the same shit in academia that you encounter outside, except you're paid much less (if you get paid at all).

There is one big plus, and that is that you're not the only one who bought into academia's narrative of enlightenment, so you're likely to get more respect from your peers and family if you go to academia than if you do meaningless stuff like sell ads for Google.

<comment><USER22> I'm a bit more sceptical/cynical even, about the people PhD programmes typically attract.

Very low-EQ, highly competitive, highly self-regarding. In my experience PhD departments are worse that top-tier software engineering groups, as PhDs tend to be depressed and underappreciated in addition.

I think the whole model is one big mental health meat grinder, and the meat going in is quite bitter in the first place.

<comment><USER23> God forbid anyone pursues higher education because they want to become a better researcher.

I would suggest you spend some time thinking about your EQ rather than spending time on the internet posting nonsense generalizations about entire classes of people.

<comment><USER22> I can only speak from my experience; and it seems perfectly reasonable for me to do so.

I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in a mild sense) in the first place. It's what produces such contention in similar software engineering groups.

There is no conflict between this motivation and my description of the psychology of people that tend to persue PhDs.

<comment><USER23> I am completely baffled by this response. At a minimum, that is not what narcissistic means in any sense of the word. I cannot understand how trying to improve yourself, whether as a research, programmer, or just general human being, makes one "narcissistic." I would love to understand this if you care to explain.

Imagine having to work with someone that judges based on your education rather than you as an individual! Probably something only a PhD would do, right? :)

<comment><USER22> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism)

> The meaning of narcissism has changed over time. Today narcissism "refers to > an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum, from > healthy to pathological ... including such concepts as self-esteem, self- > system, and self-representation, and true or false self".[2]

PhDs typically have, as an aspect of their core identity, their role as a scientist/philosopher/(..researcher) (cf. doctors _being_ doctors, etc.).

Concern with excellence in this dimension then can often lead to narcissistic injury (aka., a threat to self-esteem, ego, etc.). ie., to fail to be excellent is a threat to one's identity. It makes the whole affair rather fraught.

Contrast with one's life passion being, say, a parent -- or a volunteer. A passionate volunteer is typically a less bitter pursuit, insofar as ones "psychological economy" depends only in sacrifice which is under one's control.

The bitterness of the PhD world, which I observe, frequently comes with this cycle: I am a philosopher; I am an excellent philosopher; but some other PhD is better than me; so I am not the best philosopher; so I am a terrible philosopher; but I must be the best philosopher etc.

And so on in ruminative cycles.

....

The building up of one's own intellect, one's own skill, one's own ... is a narcissistic (self-oriented) project. The pursuit engages in a significant amount of material and emotional sacrifice for the sake of internal intellectual gratification.

It is useful for society that such people exist: those who act to further their own ability to such (prima facie) pathological and self-destructive ends. Those caught up in it, however, are often rather bitter about it.

<comment><USER24> Most people understand "narcissism" to be pathological behavior. If you use it to not mean pathological behavior, most people are likely to not understand you.

<comment><USER25> I'd be careful with "most people" claims. A narcissist is in the dictionary as "a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves." That includes above average, not limited to a pathology (which people who are not doctors are unable to diagnose). I'm certain I've heard and/or said something along the lines of 'oh he's a bit narcissistic' multiple times in my life. Having completed an advanced degree, I've met quite a few researchers I think are reasonably described as being a little narcissistic about their work.

<comment><USER24> If you object to the word "pathological," then substitute "behavior with some negative impact on others."

<comment><USER25> I object to projecting your own personal non-dictionary definitions on others. Are you thinking of clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder? That is not the same thing as Narcissism.

<comment><USER24> My personal usage and understanding is quite close to the dictionary definition ([https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcissism](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcissism)): _inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity_. Those are not positive traits, which goes back to my original point: if you use the term not intending to imply something negative about the person, you're likely to confuse others. That confusion is why this subthread exists.

<comment><USER25> @mjburgess _was_ using it to refer to negative attributes, and so was I. You stretched the idea into something it's not by saying it has to be "pathological", and that it has to negatively impact others, and you claimed that unless people adhered to those criteria, the term wouldn't be understood. Neither of those claims of yours is supported by the definition you just provided, nor have you demonstrated that "most people" agree. Narcissism can be a negative attribute about someone without being pathological and without affecting other people in a material way. Being narcissistic is judged as a negative attribute to have by the dictionary.com definition with the purely subjective words "inordinate" and "excessive", but it doesn't otherwise agree with what you said above.

<comment><USER24> I am unaware of any colloquial use of "narcissism" that would include going to grad school to learn more about a subject. Poster steev was also confused by this usage. You are correct, I have provided no evidence our confusion will be universal, but: don't be surprised if it is.

<comment><USER25> I don't speak for mjburgess, is that really an entirely fair or good faith summary of what @mjburgess said? Is it the strongest plausible interpretation of the comments above? If it was said that learning alone is narcissistic, then I agree with you, that'd be confusing. I don't quite see that anywhere above, but maybe that's what was meant.

Don't you think that researchers sand-bagging paper reviews with requests for citations of their own work is a tad narcissistic? That behavior is rampant in academics, among many other behaviors seeking public name recognition. I don't fully agree with the views above, and they seem to have a pessimistic flavor, but I don't see the word narcissism being misused according to the dictionary definition you provided.

Anyway, I don't really care what the definition of the word is, it just seemed like you had an extreme version in the opposite direction that is at least as prone to confusion. It doesn't exactly help prove the point if your version has the same defect, or if weasel words are used to back-up the claim, right?

<comment><USER24> I think it is, yes.

> I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in > a mild sense) in the first place.

This claim is independent of the negative behaviors; it's intended as independent support by claiming that the desire to be a better researcher is inherently narcissistic, without regard to the negative behaviors. As to my personal definition being extreme: well, yeah. I've never heard someone use it to mean anything remotely positive. The justification for using it that context was, to me, non-sensical. But I am a descriptivist; words mean how people use them. So I won't call it _wrong_. Just: don't be surprised if people are confused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think the key to a good exerience obtaining a Ph.D. is the choice of a good advisor. My advisor explained that the process of getting the degree was to teach us to find important problems and learn what we needed to solve them. Typically, that involved collaboration. He also stressed that it was a doctorate in Philosophy even though our department was in the Physical Sciences and Engineering School. That advice served me well as a scientist in a corporate materials analysis group.

Now that I am retired, I still find challenging projects to work on, mainly helping to improve open source electron microanalysis software.

<comment><USER27> Are there also open source electron microscope designs?

<comment><USER26> Not to my knowlege.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 'Sitting at my desk, staring at environmental impact reports and grant applications on my computer screen, I began to think, "They cannot pay me enough to do this job."'

Honestly, this sounds like most PhD programs I'm familiar with.

<comment><USER29> I think the most important takeaway from this article is not that getting a PhD will make you happy... but rather when you start having that feeling it's time to make a change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Very inspiring to highlight education and learning is lifelong. Ph.D. even though symbolism (not really needed if only aim is knowledge assimilation and creation through learning), will serve as a big boost in confidence for middle age workers, who think there aren't enough opportunities for them.

Also Ph.D. gives chances to work with younger people keeping middle and older generations more active and alive.

I hope to continue learning in my middle and old age like the post, not sure of Ph.D. though. But may consider if it opens a way for me to work alongside young researchers can learn new things from them and feel alive.

<comment><USER31> I think we should be careful not to conflate the pursuit of knowledge with acquiring a PhD. The latter is a very constrained and narrow way to do it, and can easily disappoint.

As I get older, the (non-financial) value of the PhD keeps diminishing in my eyes, whereas the pursuit of knowledge hasn't. As I have less time on Earth, I want to optimize my time, and much of PhD work is orthogonal to my goals of gaining knowledge. A PhD will force you to spend years on an extremely narrow topic (of course, acquiring _some_ breadth along the way). When you're older, that time is precious. It better be a problem you really are passionate about.

Consider:

1\. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own.

2\. You will have to fulfill several steps tied to the culture of academia, and none of these is needed to acquire knowledge. But tradition is tradition, and you have to do it.

3\. There can be a lot of politics involved - also orthogonal to acquiring knowledge, but you will have to put up with them, play them, and suffer because of them.

4\. Professors will often work you harder than you'll want at an older age. Their rationale is often a variant of "Well, if you want a career in research/academia, this is the workload you will have to deal with". But a 60+ year old usually has very different goals. Of course, I have seen plenty of professors who are sympathetic to such people.

Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it _unless you already have a research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic advisor who cares more about you than their own careers._

Disclaimer: My view on this topic is a bit biased. I spent most of a decade in grad school (at a younger age) but eventually quit the PhD program. I was at the point where I felt I had attained most of the benefits of a PhD except that final paper (acquired a lot of knowledge, published in journal, lots of personal development/introspection, gained much from being around the intellectual environment, etc). I quit because my work was not good enough to get my dream research jobs (in academia or industry), and spending the 2 or so more years fulfilling my advisor's requirements knowing it would not lead me to my dream jobs was just pointless. Sure - I could get a postdoc and do enough good work there to land my dream job, but I decided it wasn't worth the gamble.

I often fantasize about becoming financially independent and going back to university and hopefully do some research (in a different discipline this time). I do miss the intellectual discussions, etc. But while the studying and research problem aspect appeal to me, I really don't have the patience to put up with all the negatives I listed above. And I didn't even get into how in some disciplines (or sub-disciplines), journal publications are a racket (with both the publisher and academia being guilty parties). If I ever did anything interesting and novel enough, I'd likely write it up in a blog post or at most post to arxiv. I really don't want to participate in the current journal publishing culture.

But of course, kudos to the person in this submission!

<comment><USER32> In my view, a broader statement -- not necessarily a counterpoint -- is that the grad school experience is _highly variable._ For instance my own experience was quite positive.

>>> 1\. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own.

You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, and there is often room for compromise. This is a conversation that happens before joining their group. There are some benefits to starting with at least a suggested project. In my case, such a project idea came with a fully equipped lab including a quarter million 1986 dollars worth of gear. But my unique interests and abilities definitely steered my project in a direction that my advisor had not originally imagined when I started out.

In the humanities, where the cost of research is close to zero, you might have more latitude, again depending on how you choose your advisor. I have a friend who literally created her own project and pitched it to a couple of departments who agreed to let her pursue a dual discipline PhD in education and psychology. She was 60.

>>> Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it unless you already have a research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic advisor who cares more about you than their own careers.

True at any age. I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes. They have their own grips about the system, but every system has a system.

I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project was really ready to go out the door. Granted that's something I would also have learned the hard way, had I started a start-up, but that was just not on my radar as a physics student in the 1980s for whatever reason.

<comment><USER31> > For instance my own experience was quite positive.

As was mine, despite not completing it. However, I don't think I'd want to deal with the negatives at an older age.[1] To put it another way, if you're older and want admission to grad school so you can learn a lot, and are not too particular about actually completing the PhD, then you probably will enjoy the experience and can ignore my previous comment.

Also, if you have the resources, a second BS or MS can be fun. I knew at least two students who were in their 60's pursuing a second BS (one of them was pursuing both a BS in math and physics, with little background in them). They both enjoyed the experience and were quite content. However, a PhD is quite different from that.

> You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, > and there is often room for compromise.

If you've had prior research experience, this advice may work. If you haven't, then you will likely be wrong about whether a particular professor's research program appeals to you - and you may not realize this until you've been in the program for a few years.

> I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for > professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable > career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I > live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are > professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes.

Having spent time at both a mediocre and a top school, what you describe was more in line with what I saw at the mediocre school, and not at all like the top school. Most of the professors in the engineering departments were _always_ trying to climb the rung, and competing with everyone to do it. Things got very petty. My advisor, who was already a Fellow of 3 large professional bodies (IEEE, physics (AIP? I forget), etc), was still quite competitive, extremely protective of his research, upset if a paper got rejected and would try hard to find out who the referees were, etc.

I remember wondering why he was so invested in all of this. He was fairly old, had achieved a lot, and what more could he achieve?[2]

He was not an outlier there. Even the more laid back professors would eventually exhibit some of this behavior because not doing so would demean them in the eyes of their peers (and yes, one of the benefits of academia and tenure is supposed to be that you're relatively immune from this, and yet...).

Now at the mediocre university, it was more like you described. In fact, not many professors even had PhD students. There it was more about the research and not the career.

And yet, in my last few visits to the department (again, engineering), the professors told me that even there the culture was shifting to being more career focused. The pressure to get funding was much more, etc. The common sentiment from people who had joined the department in the 80's through the 90's was "The level of work I had to do to get tenure (number of papers, funding, etc) will not get anyone tenure now in this department."

I see you were in physics, and the experience there can be different. In some universities it is less funding driven than in engineering, and there probably are fewer rungs to climb (or perhaps they don't value those rungs as much). In the top university I went to, the physics department was actually in the college of engineering, so the pressure for funding, publishing, etc was similar to engineering.

> I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. > One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project > was really ready to go out the door.

For me, a lot of the problem was that I sincerely doubt anyone will ever find a way to test my results. Unfortunately, a lot of theoretical/computational engineering/physics is that way. Did I really want to become an expert in something that no one will ever prove/disprove? It wasn't just my research, but much of my discipline, and a lot of why papers would get accepted/rejected had to do with groupthink.[3] It really felt like I was doing literature where subjective opinion matters so much. I remember asking some of my peers if they even believed their research, and for many it was a strange question: They were in the business of publishing papers and getting research/academic jobs, not seeking the truth. If it's publishable, it's good!

Ultimately, I picked the wrong area to do research in. Also, one of my undergrad professors told me it was a hot, young discipline. He was right in some ways but was mostly wrong. It was very mature by the time I entered grad school, and that usually means a lot more time (years) studying to get to the state of art before you can make a meaningful contribution. As a general rule, I tell people going for PhDs to find a discipline that is not mature - it'll be easier to make meaningful contributions that way.

[1] Arguably, I probably did not want to put up with it at my younger age, and it probably contributed to my decision to quit, but it would have been one of the minor factors in that decision.

[2] And several years later, I know - there were lots more rungs on that ladder. There always are, until you become a president of a university or the head of the NSF or something.

[3] Yes - they did care about your formalism, techniques, novelty of ideas, etc. But there were far too many subjective ways to reject a paper as not being interesting enough to be published in this journal, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I seem to remember California allows those over 60 to take classes for credit without paying tuition. I believe for both the CSU and UC system. A met a few who did it when I did my education in both systems. I hope its still around.

<comment><USER34> when I was a college student I have to admit I resented continuing education programs. Here were thousands of people like me were racking up of thousands of dollars in debt literally mortgaging our future to pay for these classes and there were senior paying little to nothing to take classes. I still am not sure how we can justify a system where we convince impressionable minors that they need to in-debt themselves for decades and then allow seniors to take the classes free? this just seems inequitable to me.

<comment><USER35> It make sense. You could go online and take many of those courses or better courses for free. But you signup go in person and pay thousands per year to get a degree. That degree is a key that opens up employment opportunities and wealth. Most people your age go to school for future employment opportunities and pay the cost as an investment. The cost reflects the demand.

Seniors have no employment goals. There is no need to limit supply because it doesn't affect the marketplace. These seniors buy books and pay for other costs and schools can get additional government money. It helps society because you have more educated people with additional knowledge who may share back with the community at little cost.

<comment><USER36> This opinion sounds evil to me (not a reflection on you personally).

> It helps society because you have more educated people with additional > knowledge who may share back with the community at little cost.

Same could be said of younger people - but they can actually do the good over many more decades than the senior people! So the social good is much more compounded!

> Seniors have no employment goals. There is no need to limit supply because > it doesn't affect the marketplace.

This has many assumptions baked in that are hard to justify, such as:

\- Younger people will 'flood' free PhD programs and successfully complete them, the price is the only thing keeping the flood under control. This sounds wrong because a PhD will still take time, effort & interest to complete.

\- The job marketplace for PhDs is a fixed pie and a zero sum game. This sounds wrong because I buy into the belief system that more progress for all leads to more jobs (and prosperity) for all.

\- It is morally justifiable to keep poor or disadvantaged - yet interested - people, out of the hallowed academic gates, by simply pricing the programs high. This is egregious for self explanatory reasons.

You are probably "telling it like it is", but I really hope that awful status quo is overhauled for the better, and for more access to all - old _and_ young.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Pierre Bézier (1910–1999) is a famous example of a late Ph.D. He was awarded his doctorate in 1974.

<comment><USER38> Seems he really went against the curve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Joe Armstrong received his Ph.D. at age 52.[0]

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Armstrong_(programmer)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Armstrong_\(programmer\))

</comment><comment><USER40> And here I thought I was doing well going to college in my 40s. I'm finding it hard to get recognized at all ghosted interviews or no response at all. It seems being new to IT (career-wise) is not for anyone over age 25.

<comment><USER41> Perhaps that could be a regional thing? The things I hear about the Bay Area for instance make it sound like another planet. A friend of mine (27) just got IT certifications (never went to college) and he has a cool new job in IT support, working on becoming a sysadmin. But either way, keep trying!

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I enjoyed my PhD.

The challenge of coming up with ideas, writing proposals for compute resources or funding, and trying to deliver on the research was fun. Most of my PhD was industry funded so there was potential for product integration.

The added bonus is that you're around really smart and motivated people in a variety of disciplines. I was exposed to the hard problems in Finance, Accounting, and Economics hung out with opera singers, stage directors and novelists.

The years I didn't have funding were pretty miserable. 40-60 hours in the lab plus 20 hours teaching per week for $23K kind of wears you down.

</comment><comment><USER43> I see little difference between using scarce university resources to produce human capital that will not be used and art.

I'm sure the author enjoyed it, but it, but it doesn't seem that she will use her new educational skills at all. To the extent that her professors could have done something else, she sucked up a lot of resources that could have been used lot productively.

This will become a bigger issue going forward....

<comment><USER44> Agreed. There are a fixed number of PhD spots. What sense is there to give that spot to a 66 year old senior rather than someone younger who will actually do something productive with the expertise and credentials?

I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?

<comment><USER45> \- There are a fixed number of funded PhD spots but there's really no limit to the number of PhD spots in a faculty. I don't know if this was the case but if you can fund your own PhD, very few universities will refuse your admission. Anyway, PhDs are extremely cheap labor - most of the research money is spent on materials/hardware and travel expenses for PIs.

\- The vast majority of PhDs don't do anything productive with their research topic or work in their research field later on. Doing a PhD is about advancing human knowledge and a lot of personal growth - it has very little to do with productivity. The current trend is that you get burned out and sick of your research area and decide to do something totally different. There are very few areas where you do a PhD for credentials or to advance in your career.

<comment><USER2> The amount of possible PhD positions in a department is limited by the number of faculty, because each student needs a supervisor. A supervisor can only supervise so many students at once before he or she feels overworked, and each PhD student to supervise may distract from that scholar's own research.

<comment><USER45> Sure it's a finite number but it's not uncommon for a faculty member to have 5+ PhD students. It all depends on the number of post-docs or senior PhDs they have in the group. The major limiting factor is really money - if a faculty member gets a $5M grant, they will hire as many PhDs as they want or even get some faculty hire for the project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I was accepted into a PhD program in Chemistry in the early 80's but decided to work as a programmer instead (and still do); I then thought about getting a PhD in Computer Science in the early 00's but a professor talked me out of it since it appeared that most of the jobs were in academia (right before Google started hiring them in droves).

Oh well, two chances and no dice.

</comment><comment><USER47> This should be more commonplace. I have just applied for a PhD program in 37, and got some strange looks and questions. Hope I'll pass. :)

<comment><USER48> Don't let anyone get to you! I recently finished my PhD at the same age. The late Clayton Christensen[1] was one of the most accomplished business professors and I believe he started his PhD at age 37.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Added this to my forum where I collect educational sources and similar inspirational late bloomer examples: [https://philomath.boards.net/thread/22/persistence-great- sub...](https://philomath.boards.net/thread/22/persistence-great-substitute- talent-martin)

</comment><comment><USER50> I earned a PhD in the humanities before going into tech. I loved it, and it was a tough slog to make the pivot. I know there is a lot of advice encouraging folks to "optimize their human capital" but I spent my 20s full time making my mind a great place to live in, and OP is an inspiration for doing the same at any age.

</comment><comment><USER51> After my uncle retired, he enrolled in a graduate program in vulcanology. Why? Because he was always interested in volcanos!

My grandfather was a vulcanologist, too. He worked on proving the continental drift theory.

<comment><USER52> Continental drift would have been accepted sooner if the oceanic magnetic maps had been declassified earlier.

(a case of parallel construction affecting science: the data were only declassified after they covered enough of the sea basins that it was no longer obvious what the common boomer cruise routes were)

<comment><USER51> He did it by setting up measuring stations in Iceland. WW2 intervened and he was not able to go back to get the results.

<comment><USER52> I hear the sports bettors are jonesing so hard they're even betting on what will be a dictionary's "word of the year". If they're that patient, maybe we should offer some continental plate racing?

(my local mountains are actually rebounding up faster from the last glaciation than they are being eroded down by weathering — kind of the orogeny version of Wirth's Law)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Amazing! It's never too late.

</comment><comment><USER54> THANK YOU for sharing this. All we got these days are pandemics, deaths, protests, anger. Even HN, that I like so much with all those brilliant people sharing their great projects, is now politics and anger. I mean read about your successful victory is inspiring. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER55> You are an Inspiration to me! Thanks for sharing your story.

</comment><comment><USER56> It is good for him to find the journey he liked.

</comment><comment><USER57> Ugh, first world problems. I'm currently considering a Ph.D at age 26, but this kind of story fills me with a strange loathing and determination not to fall into this trap when I get older. If, at 50, I still need to go to an "academic counsellor" who asks me "what I enjoyed as a child", then I'll consider myself a failure. I don't think self-enjoyment is a legitimate purpose in life. Thus if, at age 50, I'm still wondering "what I enjoy", I'll consider myself a zombie. By that age I want to be dedicated to something _outside of myself_ , some revolutionary new thought, or the advancement of some great cause, even religion or God, or even just the well-being of my kids and grandkids. Even a short hedonistic life of partying I consider to be a a greater success than this kind of zombie-like continuation of academia with no external goal.

<comment><USER58> weird. isn't self discovery a worthwhile goal?</comment></comment>


Facebook Takes $200 Million From Russian Investors At $10 Billion Valuation - <AUTHOR> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090526/da-facebook-takes-200-million-from-russian-investors-at-10-billion-valuation/

<comment><USER2> Since Microsoft was probably willing to pay a premium to keep other advertising platforms out, the drop from $15 billion doesn't seem that bad for them. Earlier investors probably bought in at a value below $10 billion.

</comment><comment><USER3> There was a minor mention about micropayments by the Russian investor and the way Zuckerberg changed subjects seems to give credence to such plans. If they have some kind of payment system in the works - it could be possibly interesting in so far as providing an alternative to paypal. More likely it would also strengthen the FB platform.

<comment><USER2> I think they can make a ton of money there. First, allow devs to sell apps just like on Xbox Live and phone app stores. Secondly, require as policy that any program bound by the SDK license will only use Facebook's payment system to charge users for anything. Open this payment system up to people who need to collect small payments unrelated to Facebook; many of their customers will already have a Facebook account--it's like Facebook Connect but more useful.

<comment><USER4> Except that the primary users of FB are twenty somethings who generally aren't that willing to spend money on stuff online.

Besides the biggest customer of any micro-payment system is going to be the newspapers (that may or may not work for them, but they will try it), but how many old people are on facebook?

<comment><USER5> Facebook has over 200 million users. It's more than just "twenty somethings".

<comment><USER6> I was friended recently by someone I met on a trip to China. He is pushing 75 years old. Definitely not just twenty-somethings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anyone seen _Training Day_?

<comment><USER8> Zuckerberg better not kill one of his Russian investor's guys in Vegas or he's going to get ventilated.

<comment><USER9> One of the major shareholders in the Russian company is known as "the hard man of Russia" , and has an interesting past:

[http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/convicted_bla...](http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/convicted_black.html)

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-indirectly- obtains...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-indirectly-obtains-a- colorful-backer)

<comment><USER7> From the marketwatch link: _"Facebook has long been seeking out a means to allow employees to cash in their shares, in hopes of rewarding and retaining them."_

If facebook is going to make over $400M this year, why don't they simply buy back their employees' shares?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Something to consider, for those saying $10b is too much to pay: maybe these investors know something material that you don't? After all, those about to sign a humongous check probably get better access to the financials of a privately run company than, say, the media.

<comment><USER11> In other news: home appraisers are much better at judging the value of your home than common sense is.

This is why your 2 bedroom shack on the wrong side of town can be worth $500,000

/bitter Phoenician

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Putting this together with the recent banning of Facebook in Iran gives me a reason why someone might be willing to pay $200 Million for access to the ear and the analytics of what is quickly becoming the prime forum for political activism in many demographics. Indeed it doesn't have to be be particularly sinister since much of the world does not share the fastidious illusion of the necessity of separating Politics and Business.

</comment><comment><USER13> What a waste of money! I wish DST better invest in Russian high-tech and internet startups, there are some very decent. I think for $200M they could buy completely all of them as founders in Russia are very cheap ($1M considered to be very good investment).

</comment><comment><USER14> The title of this pages says: "Confirmed: Twitter Gets Backing From Russian Investors."

Edit: no longer.

</comment><comment><USER15> Serious comment:

I'd say $10b is redonkulous because that is a buy-out price, and I highly doubt anyone will buy them at that.

Their plan seems to go public and let everyone buy into them, instead. But I really don't think Facebook going public could in any way be good for the users, with fiduciary responsibility and all.

While Facebook may or may not be "on the outs," the fact is that if people begin to really suspect Facebook is doing something heinous with their data, they _will_ leave.

And that is pretty much the inevitable result, because what kind of company (which pretends to be so large) will be able to convince all its shareholders that doing heinous things with the data - to make money _now_ for _this quarter_ \- is a terrible idea?

Right now, a user on Facebook represents no value to them, unless they buy digital goods.

</comment><comment><USER16> $10B Overvaluation.

There fixed.

<comment><USER17> If their revenue projections are accurate, then $10bb is not that crazy. They also have 200 million users and each user has some value - though I have no idea what it is.

And I know people will say "but they're not accurate with their projections." If you were projecting revenue or growth for your start up you'd be saying the same things Facebook says to their investors, showing the numbers that make your case. You cannot blame them for the valuation when investors seem to agree. No one is forcing them to invest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> In Soviet Russia... oh, cripes, it's not even fun any more. I'm going home.

</comment><comment><USER18> "We've worked hard to bring more than 200 million people – 70 percent outside of the U.S. – onto Facebook to share with friends, family and co-workers."

70% outside the U.S? Yikes. So that means 70% of it's users cannot be monetized. Good show Zuckerberg...what do you have up your sleeves...

<comment><USER19> > 70% outside the U.S? Yikes. So that means 70% of it's users cannot be > monetized.

How did you come to this conclusion.

<comment><USER18> It's been primarily speculative, but many people have suggested that Facebook's Ad platform works because American companies can easily target Americans because they know something about the market they're trying to hit.

I'm probably wrong in my assumptions, but I would think it would be pretty difficult for some targeted ads to work in foreign countries. I don't have a bias or anything, I'm just summarizing the feeling I've gotten from reading numerous reports online.

Here's a thread about how Facebook's costs are growing: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=445630>

<comment><USER19> > I'm probably wrong in my assumptions, but I would think it would be pretty > difficult for some targeted ads to work in foreign countries.

How so? Why wouldn't say Spanish advertisers want to show ads to Spanish Facebook users any less than American advertisers would want to show their ads to Americans?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google attempting to patent a compression technique in the public domain - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180611/23125540015/hey-google-stop-trying-to-patent-compression-technique-inventor-released-to-public-domain.shtml <comment><USER3> Discussed on HN about a month ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277830](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277830) (212 comments)

</comment><comment><USER4> They're using it to build codecs they want to remain open source and public, that means, because the patent system is fucking broken, they need to defensively patent literally everything they can possibly get surrounding the technology before a troll slips one through and starts harassing their codec users.

Because it'll happen, and the FUD will cause their partners to abandon plans to roll out the new codecs "until this legal cloud gets resolved".

It's not a matter of Google being evil, it's a matter of Google having lawyers who want to protect the intent of what they're doing.

<comment><USER5> This is disinformation BS trying to spin the story around.

Yeah, google and everyone else should try to patent everything. But if the patent office says "this guy invented this first" then it is an a*hole/evil move to try to fight the little guy for the patent "because they are building codecs"

They should just concede, pay a symbolic fee, and that will even help the little guy fight patent trolls because google paying a fee for royalties is stronger than many legal teams a troll can afford.

instead, see this google quote from [https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...](https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public- domain/) "Google denies that it's trying to patent Duda's work. A Google spokesperson told Ars that Duda came up with a theoretical concept that isn't directly patentable, while Google's lawyers are seeking to patent a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's engineers." (how can someone even say that with a straight face?!)

meaning: they are outright stealing it on what they hope is a technicality. How would they like if IBM patented their video codecs, but in a video application, because the codec was only theoretical concept? They claim the patent system is broken but here Google is clearly being the evil actor and contributing to the problem more than anyone else.

In the end the true message is: "we [google] want everyone to believe they can use our free codecs without fear of all the patents we have on them, but if anyone makes the exact same offer, we will not trust them and try to steal the patents for ourselves"

<comment><USER6> Google no doubt considers it worthwhile to try exhausting every possible avenue to seize control of the patent before giving up. This is win/win if them if their stated intent of protecting their free codecs is to be believed. Either they end up with the patent or they nail down a rock solid precedent that everything in their codec is in the public domain. Either way they achieve their goal of not having to worry about having outside patents filed on the contents of their codecs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The past several years should be remembered as the time when Google has not only stopped "not being evil" but actually turned towards becoming your regular evil corp.

Let's do a short recapt:

1) started making Android more proprietary

2) stopped caring about end-to-end encryption

3) started wishing to become a military contractor

4) started abusing its monopoly power in certain markets (already convicted for one, another coming very soon)

5) stopped caring about free speech of its global users and banned anti- censorship tools

6) started wanting to go back to China (and compromise with whatever the new more dictatorial government is asking of them)

7) started hoarding bogus patents, just like Microsoft and IBM, and will likely soon start using them against competitors, too

8) started pretending to care about user privacy by quietly de-anonymizing users and tying their searches to their real names and IP addresses

9) stopped fighting for net neutrality, because now _that 's_ what suits it

10) started lobbying against privacy laws

These are just off the top of my head right now. I probably forgot a few. Google is no longer the bright-eyed company it used to be. Now it's all about exploiting users and entering whatever business it needs to enter or take whatever action it needs to take to increase that quarterly revenue.

<comment><USER8> How likely do people think it is that we'll see another divestiture a la Bell Telephone with Alphabet and Amazon?

I'm not going to make the case for divestiture, I don't really know what should be done. It seems to me that the places you'd divide these businesses are far fuzzier, and the argument that their free or cheap products are hurting consumers is more difficult to make, but that there is no real chance of a new competitor challenging them in the market and that liberties protected by our governments offline are increasingly offered at their pleasure online.

<comment><USER9> Short answer: Too long.

Phones were not high tech. Most elected offials (and those they appoint) can barely use a fax machine, let alone disect and legislate today's status quo.

Furthermore, if you see these companies as a proxy surveillance state - <USER2> anyone reasonable should - then the odds for divestiture approach zero.

<comment><USER10> I have to disagree with the "phone are not high-tech" part having worked in switching systems. Phones themselves are pretty crude implements but the backend has been very technologically advanced for the last century. Bell Labs earned their reputation properly.

<comment><USER8> Without applying a moral judgment ("is/n't high-tech") I think we can all agree that phone systems were less abstract than the systems Alphabet and Amazon are operating. The Bell system had clear, regional lines it could be broken up along, and that was a convenient handle for legislators to grab onto. It's not clear to me how you could go about breaking up Alphabet, and it must be very confusing for someone with more of a background in civics than software.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for clearing that up. I should have said "relatively low tech." Also, as you noted, Ma Bell was The Phone Company. I'm not so sure Google is that silo'ed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> All these recent news regarding patents are starting to worry me. Companies can patent every little idea even if they don't plan on putting resources to such ideas and prevent small companies from ever taking off ?

<comment><USER12> Technically no, as ideas aren't patentable. But yes companies can pantent processes that they don't plan to actually produce. Nothing new, been going on since pantents we created

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For some accountability, both patents list "inventor" Alexander Jay Converse</comment>


The Original Lambda Papers (Guy Steele and Gerald Sussman) - <AUTHOR> http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html

<comment><USER2> The conondrum is: do we consider this trolling for karma or shouldn't we care how often this link comes up, because the papers are _supposed to be_ invaluable. But honestly, how many people actually bother to read them, instead of just giving them lipservice?

Which raises the question: submitter smanek, have _you_ actually read these papers?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not all of them. I've read Ultimate Imperative, Ultimate GOTO, and Ultimate Opcode (along with Sussman's SICP, which covers some similar ground).

To the best of my recollection, I haven't seen these on HN before. Have they been posted before?

Oh, and for the record, I'm hardly in need of any karma.

<comment><USER2> I admit I'm not sure I've seen these on HN before, but I've definitely seen them in my Google Reader at least four times before in the past six months.

I'm interested to learn SICP covers some of the same stuff BTW: I have started working through that book and your remark encourages me to read the papers afterwards, as I might actually find myself able to understand them (faster than now) then :).

As for the karma: I checked the amount you had before posting and was primarily leaning towards my "or ..." :).</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where can I get a phone number like *12345? - <AUTHOR>

Where can I get a phone number like *12345? I want to start a service where users can send data by text and I need a memorable phone number for it. Bonus points for any implementation details about receiving that data.<p>I figure it's by email. I could implement my idea without it by  using google voice or an email address, but I really want a fancy number. <comment><USER2> Depends what country you're in. The Wikipedia article on short codes has some general information and specific links in the External Links section: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_code>

</comment><comment><USER3> Twilio seems to be in early stages of providing short codes <http://www.twilio.com/sms/short-codes>

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm... seems so last century. Wouldn't you do better building a smartphone App?</comment>


EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take on Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-urges-supreme-court-take-unconstitutional-nsa-surveillance-reverse-dangerous <comment><USER2> Winning is also about picking the right case. I'm thinking they picked a good case, given the poor kid was clearly a victim of entrapment.

</comment><comment><USER3> How well do you think that will go with Trump loading the Court towards conservatism and national-security-ism?

<comment><USER4> If Trump continues to nominate Justices in the Scalia mold, it'll be fine. Scalia, despite his social conservative leanings, had a good record on the First Amendmenf, Fourth Amendment, and habeas corpus. For example, he and Justice Stevens dissented in _Hamdi v. Rumsfeld_ , a case in which the liberal justices endorsed a wish-washy view of when US citizens could be detained without due process. (In Scalia's view, only when habeas corpus is suspended, as set forth in the Constitution). He also wrote the majority opinion in _Kyllo_ , where the Supreme Court held that police use of infrared imaging to see through walls was a search requiring a warrant. He joined with Roberts in _Riley_ , which held that police can't search cell phones incident to arrest.

The vast majority of Trump's Supreme Court short list this last round consisted of principled originalists, not social conservatives/authoritarians.

<comment><USER5> It seems that Gorsuch is indeed aligned with Scalia as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.

Gorsuch has argued that the state must have a valid warrant to perform a search, that the warrant must have been properly executed and obtained, and that police may not use a drug dog to justify a search in the absence of a warrant [0].

[0] [http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/gorsuch-fourth- amendment/](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/gorsuch-fourth-amendment/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If only the EFF had bothered to take up such Principled Stances against the prior Administration, which put all this infrastructure in place.

<comment><USER7> What makes you think they didn't? They were critical of the Obama administration too. Example: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama- expands-surveill...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands- surveillance-powers-his-way-out)

<comment><USER8> They sued repeatedly during his administration too:

2016 - [https://www.scmagazine.com/eff-files-amicus-brief-to- persuad...](https://www.scmagazine.com/eff-files-amicus-brief-to-persuade- appeals-court-to-hear-wikimedia-v-nsa/article/528815/)

2014 - [https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-nsa-director- nat...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-nsa-director-national- intelligence-zero-day-disclosure-process)

2013 - [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/firstunitar...](https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/firstunitarianvnsa- final.pdf)

2012 - [https://www.wired.com/2012/08/eff-spy- documents/](https://www.wired.com/2012/08/eff-spy-documents/)

2011 - [https://www.wired.com/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance- case/](https://www.wired.com/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance-case/)

<comment><USER6> 1) filing an amicus brief is not "suing"

2) A FOIA case isn't exactly criticizing the administration on _policy_.

3) 4) and 5) the NSA suit originated against the _GW Bush_ Administration. Quoting _their own press release_ : "Specifically the EFF wants the government to make public a secret court ruling that found that the feds had broken a 2008 wiretapping law that was intended to legalize President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program."

To be intellectually honest about the _public stances_ they take on issues they claim to support and rights they claim to defend, compare their press releases[1] from during the Obama Administration versus during the Trump administration (or GWB administration) with respect to _identical, specific acts_ by the Obama administration.

Note specifically their silence on Internet Privacy (lost under Obama, then reimplemented in a weaker way and delayed) and on Net Neutrality (also lost under Obama and limited to a half-assed after-the-fact regulation change).

[1] [https://www.eff.org/updates?type=press_release](https://www.eff.org/updates?type=press_release)

<comment><USER8> This is so laughably disingenuous. They were intensely critical of Obama. I'd go on to provide more evidence, but a glance at your history shows that you've been through this several times before, so just use one of the old links:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13982006](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13982006)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


MIT OpenCourseWare programming lecture videos (in Python) - <AUTHOR> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-00-introduction-to-computer-science-and-programming-fall-2008/video-lectures/

<comment><USER2> I checked this out over a year ago and I couldn't go through with MIT OpenCourseWare classes because of lack of subtitles for many of their videos... But now I'm pleasantly surprised to see they added subtitle supports for Python classes! Kudos to MIT for recognizing that there are many disabled/foreign students keen to learn from their OCW materials.

<comment><USER3> I've watched a few of these, that professor is awesome. He teaches in a very positive way that's clearly understandable. He's the best one I've found on itunes U

<comment><USER4> checkout harvard's <http://cs50.tv> (beginning compsci mostly c, not c++) the professor is one of the best i've seen in terms of how enthusiastic he is about the material itself and about teaching it especially to students without much prior experience. You can tell he really loves this stuff and his attitude is infectious.

<comment><USER5> Definitely! It somehow manages to brush upon C, HTML, PHP, SQL and some Javascript...so you can actually start doing stuff.

A good starting point for CS, imo (and certainly better than the intro to CS course at my college).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having some free time on my hands lately, I've been cruising iTunesU for stuff like this, it's been pretty great. I can sit in my living room doing work on my laptop with courses from Stanford, MIT or ${reputible_university} playing on my TV. It's amazing how accessible knowledge is these days...

</comment><comment><USER7> I tried these, but ended up with Google Code Classes: [http://code.google.com/edu/languages/google-python- class/ind...](http://code.google.com/edu/languages/google-python- class/index.html)

worked better for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> it's not "Python video lectures", it's "Introduction to Computer science" in which the teacher uses Python, and you can't barely see the code in the videos, so the real potential of these classes is theory (i know, i've seen them)

<comment><AUTHOR> Touche; title updated.

<comment><USER8> ... not that i don't love both Python and the vids :) but it was the truth

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is even an OpenStudy page for the course where you can get help: [http://openstudy.com/study- groups/MIT+6.0+Intro+Computer+Sci...](http://openstudy.com/study- groups/MIT+6.0+Intro+Computer+Science+\(OCW\))

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for the link. I'm a self-taught coder of about 13 years now (C, Java, Ruby) and I always feel like there's a few basics I'm missing so I'll probably tackle this after Lisp. Besides, Python has always seemed like a very nice syntax (love when indenting means something but the colon bugs me).

<comment><AUTHOR> No problem :)

IMHO, Zed Shaw's "Learn Python The Hard Way" (free book) is also really good at teaching both Python and programming:

<http://learnpythonthehardway.org/index>

<comment><USER11> This looks like a great book, I perused it briefly a while back, but I think that if you've been coding for 13 years you're well beyond the level of its target audience.

<comment><USER12> That's true. Zed's book is for total beginners; people who are just learning how to use a text editor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is another good resource for similar content. <http://academicearth.org/>

<comment> mkr-hn The videos on that site stutter a lot for me. Probably the fact that I'm on an ancient laptop.

:(

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have nothing but praise for the MIT/SIT for putting their courses online. For an introduction to python and cs, however, I like "Practical Programming: An Introduction to Computer Science Using Python" <http://pragprog.com/titles/gwpy/practical-programming>

</comment><comment><USER15> Excellent course--as a self-taught coder I used these classes to learn the basics. Great review of common data structures, big-O notation & algorithms, and even some basic coding syntax. HN has a number of lurkers who want to learn to code at any given time--all of them should take this class.

</comment><comment><USER16> MIT OCW is currently one of my home pages, but it's the series on Algorithms. The other home page is HN of course. Good material no doubt.

</comment><comment><USER17> My only problem with MIT CourseWare is that the video (audio sometimes) is poor quality, I wish they uploaded 720p learning beauty.

</comment><comment><USER18> Thank you bitsai! Great source. Google's Python Class is also good.

<comment><USER19> Their two day class, right? I'm a fan of that also; it quickly gets you to a level where you can do basic things and lookup slightly more complex things. [http://code.google.com/edu/languages/google-python- class/ind...](http://code.google.com/edu/languages/google-python- class/index.html)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Mailchimp or Sendgrid? - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
A little background, I am building a tiny start up mostly to get me started and get the feel of how things work.
The start-up involves sending a relatively small number of emails to verified emails, so no spam, no unsolicited emails. I hate spam and this service actually helping to avoid getting spam!
I am looking to getting sponsorship and for people who have worked with these companies or any other company that is in the business of email, who is more likely to sponsor me?
Thanks, <comment><USER2> They are two totally different services. Mailchimp lets you compose campaign emails. Whereas Sendgrid send transactional emails. Mandrill is Mailchimp's service for transactional emails.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the clarification.

I am aware of the difference of MailChimp the service, and Sendgrid, but MailChimp the Company owns Mandrill which is the equivalent of Sendgrid.

My question was which company is most likely to sponsor a tiny startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Developer Evangelist for SendGrid here. Shoot me an email - eddiezane[at]sendgrid[dot]com. Would love to hear what you're working on.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've used both MailChimp and SendGrid for different companies/projects for years.

If you're going purely through the API, there isn't a huge amount of difference. The core is sending email via HTTP requests, so there can't be that much difference.

I'd go with MailChimp (i.e. Mandrill) just because, as the other poster said, they sponsor lots of great, free, podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER5> You should fall under the free plan for mandrill, 12k emails per month I believe.

It's fast and free to sign up and test it out.

I use it on all my projects and haven't had any issues.

I've heard good things about both mandrill and sendgrid.

Good luck with your launch.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use sendgrid to send reliable transactional emails from self-hosted scripts.

I also use sendgrid to route all emails for my clients domains at my hosting server.

There are number of competing services but I am happy so far (and been for 2+ years)

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't know much about either company but I have heard MailChimp sponsoring some podcasts. So that is something to consider.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just ask both, why try to guess who will sponsor?</comment>


Show HN: Visualise Your Website (D3.js) - <AUTHOR> https://www.weboptimizers.com.au/website-node-visualizer/ <comment><USER2> Perhaps better to have a live visualiser or atleast an example of a live visualisation for your own site.

Looks great and I can break it down into subnodes. Here is a list of things I would like to see further

\- Ability to see media files

\- A count on all asset types to understand the size

\- The rendering is user side so it really freezes at over 20,000 links.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I am looking into adding a count of all asset types.

If you have a site over 20K links, your browser will take a while to parse it. With a few tests conducted, it seems that it is entirely dependent upon your browser and computing power to parse the csv.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How can you list all external links from the homepage link ?

Seems to me that the purpose of the tool would be to rearchitect your site to ensure that enough pagerank passes to internal pages. Pretty cool use of d3

<comment><AUTHOR> You can click the individual nodes to see all associated links with that link.</comment></comment>