Silicon Valley thinks it invented roommates. They call it 'co-living' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/16/silicon-valley-thinks-it-invented-roommates-they-call-it-co-living <comment><USER2> > By "convenient" they mean anonymous people on minimum wage clean up after > you.

Hey, let's not stigmatize the upper middle class actually hiring people to do worthwhile work. That's how jobs, small businesses, and economic growth happen.

> As was quickly pointed out by numerous people this is basically a "bus". > Just, you know, without the poor people.

Likewise, this is a good idea. People sharing rides in smaller buses that can service different routes is good. _Public_ bus systems should really be exploring a smaller vehicle model more. It gets everyone where they need to go with fewer cars (and therefore pollution and traffic).

<comment><USER3> > Public bus systems should really be exploring a smaller vehicle model more

I asked someone from my local bus service once. Their answer was that it's not economically viable for the public bus service, as the only major saving was fuel cost and the extra services don't provide enough revenue to offset the employee cost (otherwise they could service it with the large normal busses).

So basically this becomes viable with increased ticket prices or self-driving busses. The technology isn't quite there yet for the latter, and governments don't like price differentiation in bus lines.

* Maintenance cost per line might go slightly down, but apparantly overal it's more expensive because they need to maintain technicians and parts for more models.

<comment><USER4> Two comments:

1\. Something between taxis and buses could theoretically be viable.

2\. Many cities already have rush hour fees on public transportation (or equivalently discounts for off-peak passes) so some price differentiation in bus lines seems possible.

<comment><USER5> > _2\. Many cities already have rush hour fees on public transportation (or > equivalently discounts for off-peak passes) so some price differentiation in > bus lines seems possible._

I have never seen that anywhere in Europe or Canada, does that mean there are two different tickets with different prices, and you have to have both if don't know exactly when you're going to take your bus?

Also, I wonder how it works with a monthly or yearly pass.

<comment><USER6> I've seen it in a few places, and it's common on the London Underground where you have a peak/off-peak fare - you're charged for pay as you go and it's your responsibility to know which fare you're going to be charged for the journey.

It's also common on the trains, where most have a peak price (usually only in the morning).

For season tickets (monthly, yearly), all fares are usually included (i.e. your pass allows you to travel any time, very rare to find an "off peak only" seasonal pass, although some people, like OAPs have them).

<comment><USER7> imo: this makes no sence, soudn't their be rushour discounts, so cities have more space without all the cars arround?

<comment><USER5> It makes sense in large European cities because people won't take their car (if they even have one) because transit is more expensive during rush hour, instead they will try to adjust the time they use transit.

And yeah, to answer GP I had forgotten that London has such a system that makes it quite easy to implement different fares for off-peak travel, I'm more used to places with fixed fares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Earlier this year, for instance, the ridesharing start-up Lyft launched > Shuttle, which allows you to "Ride for a low fixed fare along convenient > routes, with no surprise stops". [...] As was quickly pointed out by > numerous people this is basically a "bus". Just, you know, without the poor > people.

Implicit Nirvana fallacy. Yes, ridesharing is worse for society then using (and voting to improve) traditional public transportation. But it's still much better than the popular default of each person owning and solo driving a car, which sits idle most of the time taking up valuable urban space.

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

<comment><USER9> The author isn't arguing that any of the services or products are a bad idea.

She's arguing against the over-the-top marketing for something entirely ordinary. "We will revolutionise transport with this new invention" instead of "we started a bus route".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the author is being deliberately uncharitable. I think what these co- living spaces are proposing is more similar to an officers' mess, if people here have experienced that, than roommates, in that it's sort of like a private permanent hotel with private rooms, dining areas, kitchens, libraries, and staff waiting on you. As a young person it's a really fantastic way to live, very efficient, and it fosters community.

<comment><USER11> Student dorms. While we're at it, let's rethink the whole social mess we're in with nuclear families. Vastly inefficient, totally anti-social. We need more communities.

<comment><USER2> Do you mean single family homes?

Nuclear families seem to be empirically less poverty-prone than other family arrangements. And there seem to be higher order effects to the success of entire communities when there are relatively fewer nuclear families in the neighborhood.

<comment><USER12> > And there seem to be higher order effects to the success of entire > communities when there are relatively fewer nuclear families in the > neighborhood.

Do you mean as opposed to singles or to extended families? In either case, I'd be interested in a source.

<comment><USER2> Well, there are an infinite number of lifestyles to be lived. I doubt there are good numbers on dormitory-style lifestyles, for instance. But current numbers show that married households fare well.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Poverty_and_family_status)

[https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/fact-sheets/marital- sta...](https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/fact-sheets/marital-status- poverty.html)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/)

<comment><USER11> Married households fare well because the tax system and plenty of other institutions favor married households. It doesn't have to the the case.

Marriage is mostly a "capital" redistribution system and with strong public services (ie shared services) there is much less need to focus on the nuclear family as a protection (sharing of ressources) network.

Ex. When a few years back pension laws changed in Japan and housewives got the right to get a pension separately from their husband, the rate of divorce boomed.

There is nothing in the nuclear family that makes in a natural fit to what humans are as social animals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently read an article in the Chinese press about the new innovations of the shared eceonomy being made. One innovation was a bunch of "shared" washing machines that could be used by anyone as long as they paid a small fee. In other countries, this would have been called a laundromat, but apparently they never existed in china.

<comment><USER14> Alternatively some startups call themselves "O2O sharing books"

It's called a library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Capitalism: when capitalist class reinvents communism for middle class without explicit rebel/gulag risks.

</comment><comment><USER16> Co-living.. cause no one can afford to live on their own.

</comment><comment><USER17> i think one problem with buses are the routes are absolutely terrible. in my morning commute i see a bus stop 3 times within 6 blocks, i kid you not. if you have to go from the end of 1 bus route to another it would easily take you over an hour. honestly remove some bus stops and make people walk anb extra block. i feel the same way about our metro system too.

<comment><USER18> This is the trade-off between accessibility and mobility. Stops in the US (assuming this is where you are) _are_ typically spaced closer together than stops overseas in comparably dense environments.

In general I'd tend to agree that public transit in the US would benefit from sparser stop placement. I'd also offset the loss of accessibility with more investment in paratransit service / reimbursement for accessible taxis. On that basis, I'd get rid of wheelchair lifts on busses, due to the inefficiencies of loading and unloading. But again, that loss of accessibility would need to be totally offset by paratransit / taxi provision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Silicon Valley thinks it invented ..."

Honestly, this got me thinking. There are so many things that in fact, SI just _re-invent_ , but .. don't sort of get .. the re-invention.

Is this not just 'the thing' about SI? That all human activities can be computerised. So, its not about 'inventing', but rather 'optimising through computerisation'?

</comment><comment><USER20> I call it "Rent Hacking".

</comment><comment><USER21> The other word might be "commune".

</comment><comment><USER22> Most people don't have 20-40 roommates. Fake news.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is honestly a terrible opinion piece. Luckily guardian with their ideals of bureaucratic welfare state politics is a thing of yesterday.</comment>


The cult of science - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/6bi4ho/i_think_im_done_with_bill_nye_his_new_show_sucks/dhn89le/ <comment><USER2> It seems like so much of these discussions come from attempts to position 'belief in science' as faith exercise. These attempts appear to be taught in various communities as defence against the rational, and as a tool when evangelising.

If someone questions your beliefs, saying you have no reason to believe them, a common thing to fall back to is that you believe them on faith. There are lots of ways to argue against that from a rational point of view, such as by showing they could just as easily believe on faith an opposing view, but the believer doesn't even need to entertain those arguments if they simply say 'but your beliefs are based on faith as well'.

Similarly, if you can convince someone that they believe 'science' on faith, it becomes easier to stretch that to have them believe other things on faith.

It's not always obvious when someone is believing some thing about the world, claiming they believe it because 'science', if they believe it on faith or not. This is why I think the 'faith based science' arguments have been so successful.

For me the counterargument to 'belief in science is on faith, too' is fairly simple, and comes in two parts.

\- No idea of 'science' is held sacred, and will be replaced as soon as we have reason to replace it. Science changes its ideas to fit the world. Faith ignores the world when those ideas are contradicted.

\- No authority of 'science' is held sacred, assumed to be infallible or incomprehensible. Whenever science makes a claim it is possible to verify that claim and the assumptions the claim builds upon. Any faith based claim eventually reduces to 'because this thing/person claimed it' \- often a specific person or book.

<comment><USER3> I think the "cult of science" argument still holds up even if you take it out of the context of someone countering in a faith-related argument. I've seen plenty of the rituals and iconography mentioned in the article play out in pop culture ( with reddit being especially bad for "fuck yeah science" type nonsense). Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson being the atheist televangelists strikes a chord.

It's not that faith in science is wrong (it's the best tool we have available right now), but that the way many people treat science is exactly the same way they would have treated religion if they were fervently religious. They didn't pick up the skepticism and rationalism that's meant to come with a scientific mindset, it's just "science TV man says X so X is true". We even get cargo cult science on HN (not a big surprise given this place is just a more formal reddit) where people demand a citation to a journal to back up arguments, but if one is provided the argument is dead in the water because the requester has no idea how to read the jargon of the field 9/10 times.

<comment><USER4> nye and tyson are not considered "scientific atheist televangelists" by anyone who even casually researches their qualifications and temperaments. both are products of pop culture and are treated as such. both face heavy mockery in less PC social networks frequented by folk that have relatively scientific mindsets(for eg /sci/).Both make heavily egregious comments that are forgiven by their fans coz everyone makes a mistake sometimes.

as for the second part of your argument, yes HN does get some ignorant arguments but that is the price of becoming more popular - you attract people from all segments of the technically inclined population.

this is yet another "the popular thing of the day is actually bad coz human beings are stupid and do not seek out opposing viewpoints" argument thread

<comment><USER5> It seems like you read more cynicism and hostility in the previous comment than was actually there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This whole debate (and the TV shows) seem peculiarly American.

> Yes, the conflation between atheism and science is very frustrating, and > harmful to science's image.

In particular, this attitude seems to be prevalantly American. Being an atheist carries less of a stigma outside the US, and the correlation between scientific understanding and a tendency to irreligious beliefs is taken for granted.</comment>


The Havana Embassy Mystery: Conversion Disorder - <AUTHOR> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/the-real-story-behind-the-havana-embassy-mystery <comment><USER2> This article reads as irresponsible gaslighting, and the magazine should have known better than to publish it in this snarky voice. The referenced reports that raise the possibility of psychosis are maintaining a scientific voice: that one must keep an open mind to alternative explanations for an observation so long as they remain viable and not falsified. The writer was wrong to read psychological illness as the _most_ viable explanation -- and surely wrong to assert to readers that this is the case.

<comment><USER3> Given the currently known evidence, conversion disorder is the most viable explanation. While new evidence could change that, there's nothing wrong with reporting on what currently seems to be correct. The referenced reports do the same thing, state what they find most likely and say that further evidence could change this. They aren't just printing their guess.

<comment><USER2> The only team who has published results based on direct examination of patients did not draw that conclusion. You can read the JAMA paper yourself. The rest of the peanut gallery is simply speculating off that single report.

<comment><USER3> That report's stated objective does not include diagnosis, just to describe the neurological manifestations of the people involved. Other teams used that report as evidence to make reports, they don't need more direct examination of the patients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The New Yorker story is still the most thorough and best reported story I have read on this subject:

>> Smith rejected this explanation [of mass hysteria]. "To artificially display all of these symptoms, you'd have to actually go and research, practice, be the most consummate actor ever, and convince one expert after another," he said. But he acknowledged that more data were needed to convince skeptics that the syndrome was real. He said his team was awaiting "potential tangible evidence" from a new neuroimaging study involving the victims. In addition, experts from the National Institutes of Health were examining the JAMA results. "Let the scientific process play out," Smith said.

It is also suspicious to me that the Cuban government has refused to provide surveillance footage from the alleged scenes of the attacks:

>> Investigators, arriving months after the incidents, had to contend with the fact that such attacks would leave no physical evidence at the scene: no shell casings, no burn marks, no chemical residue. There might have been video evidence, however. Agents visiting the two hotels saw surveillance cameras in the lobbies and hallways, which might help determine if anyone was outside the rooms during the incidents. The F.B.I. asked for access to footage from the hotels, and from cameras near the Americans' residences. According to U.S. officials, the Cubans have yet to provide it.

It's kind of pathetic and lazy for an article like this to assume that this is some elaborate Trump-fueled plot against Cuba.

<comment><USER4> (link here: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/19/the-mystery- of...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/19/the-mystery-of-the- havana-syndrome))

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems microwave frequencies can travel through the dermal layer of the head and into the cochlear of the inner ear, where transduction can then occur. It's similar to how hearing implants work.

Reference: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495664](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495664)

\---

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US4877027A/](https://patents.google.com/patent/US4877027A/)

Abstract: "Sound is induced in the head of a person by radiating the head with microwaves (...) The bursts are frequency modulated by the audio input _to create the sensation of hearing in the person whose head is irradiated._ "

\---

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470214B1](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470214B1)

Abstract: "(...) intelligible subjective sound is produced when the encoded signal is demodulated using the RF Hearing Effect (...)"

\---

Voices or harsh music carried by microwave signals can be transmitted into your head, bypassing your ears going directly into the center of the brain so that they can be much louder than ordinary sound can be and last until they turn it off. There is no time limit. You won't sleep until they let you sleep. If this ultra insistent voice demands you do something, you will do it.

</comment><comment><USER6> So all the brain imaging scans that showed concussions were nothing?

<comment><USER3> Those don't exist. The workers displayed concussion like symptoms, but most of the MRIs reported conventional findings in the normal ranges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The subject is interesting but man this article is so long! It could have been a tenth of its current size and still give us more than enough information.</comment>


FreeBSD turns 21 - <AUTHOR> https://www.freebsd.org/news/newsflash.html#event20141102:01 <comment><AUTHOR> For all those not familiar with it, FreeBSD[1] is a great Linux alternative, being rock solid, free and open operating system delivering some of the coolest new technologies out there, including out of the box support for ZFS filesystem, awesome debugging tool DTrace, hot new security layer in form of Capsicum, fresh and legacy free hypervisor Bhyve, one of the best documentation amongst any open source projects and much, much more!

And now it can get legally drunk in every country on the Earth, where drinking is legal ;)

Be nice and send it a birthday gift![2]

[1] [https://www.FreeBSD.org/](https://www.FreeBSD.org/)

[2] [https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/](https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/)

<comment><USER2> That's the thing -- it's a testbed for a lot of experimental, some would even say unnecessary, technologies.

Just like Linux taught me to appreciate FreeBSD, FreeBSD taught me to appreciate OpenBSD. OpenBSD -- the world's simplest and most secure Unix-like OS. Creator of the world's most used SSH implementation OpenSSH, the world's most elegant firewall PF, the world's most elegant mail server OpenSMTPD, and the OpenSSL rewrite LibreSSL. OpenBSD -- the cleanest kernel, the cleanest userland and the cleanest configuration syntax.

Ref. [http://marc.info/?l=openbsd- misc&m=139321387226212](http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=139321387226212)

[http://itwire.com/business-it-news/open- source/62641-crypto-...](http://itwire.com/business-it-news/open- source/62641-crypto-freebsd-playing-catch-up-says-de-raadt)

<comment> vezzy-fnord _it 's a testbed for a lot of experimental, some would even say unnecessary, technologies._

Nope, that's DragonFly BSD. FreeBSD is far more conservative in comparison, occasionally integrating some more daring idea. In contrast, NetBSD used to silently innovate all the time (and I think still do, what with rump kernels) and even OpenBSD, despite being rather vanilla on the outside, is internally innovative in the area of security.

<comment><USER3> I think it varies. FreeBSD does have a lot of stuff, like netmap, capsicum, that is quite experimental in some sense, although capsicum is a great design. NetBSD has rump kernel, but thats not much code, it is just(!) portability done right, some build fixes and a little code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Forever grateful to FreeBSD as it was my first non-windows/mac distro that had installed on one of my own machines. I snagged a copy of FreeBSD 4 that was bundled in a book that they sold at BestBuy. I spent all of Christmas installing it on a old Packard Bell Pentium 1, several times if I recall correctly (disk partitioning was rough for a newbie). That one day set my path for the next ~15 years

</comment><comment><USER5> I was at Andrew Tanenbaum's goodbye Lecture where we once again were reminded of the stupid move by AT&T of suing BSD, which stalled the project for 3 years allowing Linux to flourish. Oh how different the landscape could have been.

<comment><USER6> The lawsuit cut both ways. Back at the time when I was starting my ISP we used BSDi _because_ they were being used by AT&T. However Linus, even back then, started to gain an edge over the BSD(s) despite having a less mature filesystem and TCP stack for these reason:

1) Almost since day one Linux was a better desktop OS (even back in 1992). 2) This might seem counter intuitive but Linus focused on source compatibility. It was much easier to take any source package and type 'make install' and off you went whereas in the BSDs, there was a 10% more chance of thing not working right. 3) Devices: Linux expanded device compatibility much faster than the BSDs.

<comment><USER7> Yep. Even today the Torvalds mantra is "do not break user space". If a patch of yours do, you will be at the receiving end of one of his infamous rants. At least if you happen to be high up in the patch chain and should know better.

just wish certain other Linux related projects would take that mantra to heart.

Btw, it is a similar mantra that has carried Microsoft all these years. Recently discovered that some software a relative of mine has been enjoying dated back to Windows 95. And it only broke now because the new computer was running 64-bit Windows 8.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> FreeBSD won me over about 12 years ago when I was looking for a stable OS for a small dynamic DNS home server. OpenBSD kernel panicked on my AMD K6-2 machine, and I'd just been screwed by a Mandrake Linux upgrade that left my system unusable, so I installed FreeBSD 4.7 and slogged through a month of "help, this isn't Linux".

It's impressive how both the feature set and community have grown since then and hard to imagine the OS now giant-locked or without ULE, ZFS, DTrace, PF, and a host of other things both homegrown and imported. I'm particularly excited to see BHyVe mature so there is a native VM option besides VirtualBox when I need more than a Jail.

FreeBSD still struggles in some scenarios, especially desktop use and availability of BSD VPS hosting that would let people cheaply experiment with the OS like they can with Linux on Linode or DigitalOcean. I have a FreeBSD desktop and a VPS running in prgmr.com's Xen environment, but both took quite a bit of effort to set up:

[https://cooltrainer.org/a-freebsd-desktop- howto/](https://cooltrainer.org/a-freebsd-desktop-howto/)

[http://wiki.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/FreeBSD_as_a_DomU](http://wiki.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/FreeBSD_as_a_DomU)

Happy birthday, FreeBSD!

<comment><USER9> Most people don't seem to be aware that there is a well supported FreeBSD image supported for EC2 these days:

[https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00KSS55FY?sr=0-5&qid=...](https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00KSS55FY?sr=0-5&qid=1402079030897)

GCE can also run FreeBSD fine if you don't mind messing with KVM images yourself (a quick search should show some threads on how to get started). Many other providers would probably maintain support for this as well if more people spoke about their interests. It's not hard to support on KVM based systems so it's a matter of winning new customers not technical limitations.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that it's also easy (and cheap!) to rent hardware at places like Softlayer and Rackspace. Both of these provide support for FreeBSD on the metal. You could then run Jails (very mature and easy to use) or Bhyve (less mature but the guest support is growing at a reasonable pace) on top of this if you need to partition resources.

EDIT:

I should also note that I saw this company recently. It's a nice and cheap way to get a FreeBSD setup: [https://www.vultr.com](https://www.vultr.com)

<comment><USER8> I'm familiar with the AWS images but at the time I was looking for hosting Amazon charged more for running HVM than for PV images. I can't find anything about that now on their instance types page, so maybe it's no longer an issue.

<comment><USER10> _Amazon charged more for running HVM than for PV images_

The issue was that older instance types (now known as "Previous Generation instances") didn't support HVM for "unix" images, so FreeBSD had to pretend to be Windows -- which meant that you had to pay for a Windows license you weren't using.

All of the instance types introduced since 2010 have supported HVM "unix" instances, and as of a few months ago all of the older instance types have been officially deprecated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> PS4 runs on FreeBSD:

[http://www.scei.co.jp/ps4-license/](http://www.scei.co.jp/ps4-license/) (and many other oss)

[http://www.scei.co.jp/ps4-license/freebsd_kernel.html](http://www.scei.co.jp/ps4-license/freebsd_kernel.html)

[http://www.scei.co.jp/ps4-license/freebsd_fsck.html](http://www.scei.co.jp/ps4-license/freebsd_fsck.html)

<comment><USER12> And so far as I am aware, Sony didn't gave any code back.

<comment><USER13> Why should they? If the FreeBSD project wanted code to be given back, they would have used the GPL. It's Sony's right as a corporate person to take BSD- licensed code and profit from it without any sort of "giving back."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let's not forget BSDs long-lasting influence. OS X uses a lot of code from Free/Net/OpenBSD. Many commercial operating systems initially based their TCP/IP stack on BSD.

Cheers FreeBSD! I happy remember buying the 2.1.5 CD set from Walnut Creek and tinkering for weeks.

<comment><USER3> Android has a fair amount of BSD code, as it has no GPL code in userspace, eg NetBSD is upstream for much of bionic libc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wow! I just realized FreeBSD is about as old as I am! FreeBSD is a great system, and going from Windows to Ubuntu to FreeBSD was a fun transition, one I recommend for anybody willing to learn more about computers.

Recently a new book came out too for FreeBSD, I'll see if I can post it here without some sort of referral link: [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321968972/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl...](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321968972/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8)

I managed to get one of my professors to purchase the book as well, and it was a nice piece of material for Intro to Operating Systems.

<comment><USER16> I saw a promotion for _Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System, 2nd. ed_ this morning, in case anyone is considering purchasing the book. If you buy it direct from the publisher[1], there is a coupon code [2] for 35% off -- bringing the price down to a very reasonable $36.

[1] [http://www.informit.com/store/design-and-implementation- of-t...](http://www.informit.com/store/design-and-implementation-of-the- freebsd-operating-9780321968975)

[2] [https://twitter.com/MeetBSDCA/status/528659641106837504](https://twitter.com/MeetBSDCA/status/528659641106837504)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Used freebsd, netbsd and openbsd in the past. FreeBSD for desktop, netbsd for embedded and openbsd for firewall.

I'm happy to see more headlines on BSDs these days, and I can't stop thinking it has something to do with systemd.

<comment><USER18> I'm on Ubuntu 14.04 and had to stop to check if systemd is installed, it is. Ubuntu operates the same for me today as 12 did. I don't have any issues with it. I wrote a Java system service the other day and installed it with the usual update-rc.d command like I've done in 12 and it runs fine so for me systemd has nothing to do with my choice to stay with Linux, Ubuntu specifically. It certainly wouldn't drive me away, I wasn't aware it was even there. Like Ubuntu, and Linux overall...it just works (apparently).

<comment><USER19> If you run Ubuntu 14.04 you don't run systemd. You have a process called systemd-shim that is some kind of compatability glue for software that requires systemd.

[http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/systemd- shim](http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/systemd-shim)

If you want to try a real systemd system use a recent Fedora or Arch release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I keep hoping Travis-CI will add support for FreeBSD, but it seems there's some blocking issue due their use of OpenVZ as a containerization layer: [https://github.com/travis-ci/travis- ci/issues/1818](https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-ci/issues/1818)

Does anyone know if there's been more progress on this? It'd really be a boon to FreeBSD (and BSDs in general) if travis-ci supported it, since it'd make it easier for devs to write portable code (between Mac/Linux/BSD) from the get- go.

</comment><comment><USER20> Linux has had vastly more resources poured into it just for the kernel than all of FreeBSD (and the other BSDs as well).

Yet FreeBSD is still a nice operating system and kernel.

Legitimate question: where have all those resource gone into Linux? What have we gotten out of it that's not in BSD?

<comment><USER21> Hardware support in the form of many, many drivers.

<comment><USER22> Absolutely. I'm still looking for a BCM43142 driver :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Happy birthday, FreeBSD! You were one of the many operating systems I experimented with back in my teenage years, along with countless Linux distributions. The popularity has waned [1] but good to know it is still active :)

[1] [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F02ydx&cmpt=q](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F02ydx&cmpt=q)

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure that's a good indicator. Linux shows a similar decline (try it yourself). I'd wager it's more a result of the rise of the general population coming online, including smartphones. Us geeks searches became miniscule in comparison. That's my theory, at least, and I'm sticking to it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> FreeBSD is the OS I switched to after one Linux distro after another refused to run properly on my hardware. I don't boot it often, but if I want to do some good old fashioned Unix hacking, it's my first choice from here on out.

</comment><comment><USER18> For those commentators deriding Linux attempting to make FreeBSD sound better; you're doing your chosen OS a disservice. Instead, you should highlight why you like your OS and not try to denigrate Linux.

<comment><USER26> > you should highlight why you like your OS

I'd be happy to! ZFS, DTrace, pf, Bhyve, Capsicum, Jails, GEOM/geli, the userland is part of the base system, and the core team is elected.

For the buzzwords: I like that my out-of-box install has AES-256 whole-disk encryption, software mirroring (that doesn't require identical disks) and snapshots; I really love pf for managing traffic and port remapping on my server; Jails are great added security for services exposed to the internet.

Through and through, I just like the design more in nearly all cases. rc.d works great for my needs, I like devd, I agree with FreeBSD's philosophy difference on the behavior of /dev/random, I like the more laid back licensing, etc.

And to flip things around ... I think Linux does a massively better job at out-of-the-box simplicity in setting up and running a desktop environment. The BSDs are server-oriented and that really shows.

<comment> X-Istence I don't think that is so bad, use each one for their respective strengths.

Linux for the desktop, FreeBSD on the server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A decade ago, running FreeBSD on my main PC for a few years taught me half of what I now know about UNIX.

Over time, I grew tired of having my machine in a near-constant state of compiling code (updates are built from source rather than through APT or RPM repos). So I drifted away and ended up with Ubuntu, where I wouldn't have to tinker with the OS so much. However, I miss the amazing documentation that came with FreeBSD, and the things that it encouraged me to learn along the way.

<comment><USER28> I finally started experimenting with the pkgng stuff and it seems pretty good. I too have been annoyed by the constant compilation, so I've been pleased that I'm getting along with the occasional "pkg upgrade", which will update all my packages, even the ones built from the ports tree. If you have custom compile options in some of your packages, you can simply lock them and pkg will leave them alone; you can then use portmaster or whatever you prefer to re-compile them yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> One thing to note about FreeBSD is the new pkg-ng package management system is a big step forward in terms of usability vs the old pkg_ commands. It does not lose to Debian's apt in any way when it comes to binary packages, and FreeBSD's ports system are still second to none when it comes to source based packages. I had been avoiding making the switch, having been used to using portupgrade since 2001, but as soon as portupgrade began supporting pkg-ng I started using it, and have found it a pleasure to use. I now do a pkg upgrade first, to pull all available binary packages from the official repositories, before doing my own upgrades from ports using portupgrade.

</comment><comment><USER30> something like ten years ago I did my very small part as a member of the FreeeBSD Italian Documentation Project, and translated parts of the handbook and other docs (the VM design thing[1] was super interesting!).

The FreeBSD Handbook[0] was the single best thing about the OS, IMO: a cohesive, up to date reference to about everything in the system.

Cheers, live long and prosper!

[0] [https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/](https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/) [1] [https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/vm- design/article.ht...](https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/vm- design/article.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> I <3 FreeBSD! I run it on my HP Micro Server. Picked it for ZFS support and solid networking.

</comment><comment><USER32> I like how they consider birth as "construction ready".

Oh and a side note. Being based off the original BSD its roots go back to 1977 and even earlier.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_his...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history- simple.svg)

</comment><comment><USER33> For someone looking to run a social network, and valuing rock solid reliability and efficiency, what would be the tradeoffs between, say:

CentOS Linux

Debian Linux

FreeBSD

<comment><USER29> FreeBSD is or at least was capable of higher concurrent connections per server, which is presumably why Whatsapp uses it. FreeBSD also has a reputation for performing more consistently and being more responsive under duress. These might be important attributes for a social network.

When comparing between CentOS and Debian, I'd say Debian's apt system is superior to the RedHat family's rpm system, both in terms of usability and when building your own packages. If you plan to run commercial software however, most are made for use on RedHat although that's starting to change with Ubuntu also being a target nowadays. So in general, I'd say go CentOS for commercial software, or Debian for open source software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can someone who has used them both tell me what are the advantages of FreeBSD over something like OS X (desktop use)? I was turned off from linux after trying out several distress that kept melting down due to one issue or another. OS X has none of those issues and I get all the benefits of a unix system. How will FreeBSD be different if I try it out?

Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER35> Happy Birthday, FreeBSD!

</comment><comment><USER36> Damn I was running FreeBSD when Bill Clinton was getting over getting impeached. I feel /OLD/

</comment><comment><USER37> FreeBSD has reached the legal drinking age! Cheers!

I just hope that they don't change their license model into just "free as in beer" :)

And I hope they one day implement all kernel functions that Linux supports, so that switching from Linux to FreeBSD becomes less painful.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's already Linux compability layer in FreeBSD's kernel for years now, allowing you using linux binaries on FreeBSD. Anything in particular you'd be missing when migrating to FreeBSD?

<comment><USER38> For whatever it's worth, we in the illumos community have been working on a complete Linux compatibility layer -- including 64-bit.[1][2] Our Linux emulation is relatively closely intertwined with some illumos abstractions like zones, but it would be great if the FreeBSD folks could make use of it -- we have a long history of technology exchange with FreeBSD, and we think it's made both systems better. Happy birthday, FreeBSD -- from your illumos cousins!

[1] [http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos- lx](http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx)

[2] [https://twitter.com/sjorge/status/527937813568708608](https://twitter.com/sjorge/status/527937813568708608)

<comment><USER3> Cool looks like its going really well.

What is the license on this code?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> How coincidental ... working on a FreeNAS home server this morning!

<comment><USER40> How coincidental, there is a developer/vendor summit that starts tomorrow. (MeetBSD yesterday and today.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> One of the biggest disadvantages Linux has over Windows is the lack of driver support from hardware manufactures. Is the situation with FreeBSD comparable, or better, or worse?

<comment><USER18> I have zero issues with Linux drivers? If anything I've had a better experience with Linux drivers than Windows. I could go through a laundry list of devices I buy, plug in and they just work on Linux (Ubuntu). My experience wasn't that way back when I ran Windows more. I'd buy a new printer and couldn't use it until I'd ran the installation software. On Linux just plug and play. Same with my headsets, Bluetooth, phones, etc. etc.

<comment><USER42> _On Linux just plug and play._

Really? Most common peripherals, like mice, keyboards, usb drives, etc, just plug and play (as they do in Windows). But I tried installing a (4 year old?) multi-function printer under Ubuntu 14.04 a few weeks ago and was never able to get the scanner to work, despite Brother providing Linux drivers. Some co- workers and I haven't had great experiences with webcams under Linux. Touchpad support is there, but whether gestures and multi-touch work is another matter. Overall, Linux drivers are a far cry from plug and play in my experience, and I really don't care if I have to run an installer once as long as it ends up working.

<comment><USER43> They also _break_. I have a USB sound dongle that works fine with the Debian lenny and wheezy kernels, but not squeeze (that's versions 5 and 7, but not 6, and I tried another chipset's as well). My Wacom tablet stopped working with wheezy.

I've read that driver breakage is for many the #1 problem with Linux, even for enterprise/server setups. I'm starting to view RHEL in a new light after running Debian for a long time.

<comment><USER44> I can provide plenty of anecdote for broken Windows drivers.

One example where moving from Windows Vista to Windows 7 will update Intel on board graphics card drivers, thus killing Minecraft. Fix is to upgrade graphics card; or to run old versions of Minecraft; or to install Linux and run latest version of Minecraft.

[https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-14051](https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-14051)

<comment><USER43> The problem I personally have had here is that Debian support cycles are _way_ too short, 1 year past the bi-annual release of the new version. Even the squeeze LTS 1 year additional support experiment is too short. Hence my new appreciation of RHEL.

With Windows there's a very good chance you can continue using an old version for a _long_ time. I'm still supporting my mother using XP through two sets of hardware (although that'll end soon). (In)Famously, many people skipped Vista and are now skipping Widows 8, and I gather not suffering all that much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I am from Debian, looking to test Unix. The demands/needs

1\. Should be Free as Linux 2\. For use in Desktop 3\. Needs UI 4\. Mainly for Development

Which BSD is best fit for me?

<comment><USER46> PC-BSD is probably your best bet. Its a distro of FreeBSD with tools to make it easier to use as a desktop. If you don't mind wading through config files then any of the big 4 (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD) should be good for you. I recommend FreeBSD or maybe OpenBSD. NetBSD will run everywhere but isn't the best for standard hardware. DragonFly is too experimental. FreeBSD is the easiest to setup and has the most hardware/package support. OpenBSD is nearly as good on this front but you may have more difficulty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Has Netcraft confirmed it?

\--

I first installed FreeBSD in 1997. You had to send away for the CDs. There was something so very cool about tinkering with the OS and then typing "make world" at a shell prompt and watching as the OS rebuilt itself. FreeBSD used Beastie[1] as their mascot, cuter than a penguin :)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon)

</comment><comment><USER12> Happy birthday. Where would FreeBSD be, if Linux didn't shown up in the scene...

</comment><comment><USER48> Honest question -- is FreeBSD as easy to administer as Debian? I love apt-get.

<comment><USER49> FreeBSD has made great strides in the last couple of years with binary package management tools. While there are a few things still to be done, in general if you're familiar with Debian you'll be right at home.

Have a look at [https://wiki.freebsd.org/PackageManagerRosettaStone](https://wiki.freebsd.org/PackageManagerRosettaStone)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Yes, Jordan Hubbard stood up to announce same yesterday at MeetBSD.

</comment><comment><USER50> The worst thing about FreeBSD is the license.

<comment><USER51> What don't you like about the BSD license?

GPL proponents generally argue that since code must be contributed back if a program is distributed, it will cause the original source base to grow. On the other hand, from what I gather Apple has used a lot of code from FreeBSD and contributed a significant amount back to the project, which wouldn't have been possible without a BSD-style license. Native ZFS support wouldn't have been possible either, although Sun may have deliberately used a non-GPL compatible license in that case. In any event, it's possible for a BSD-licensed code base to grow as well.

The other pro-GPL argument is that it provides more freedom than a BSD license, but I wonder if part of that is just a desire to prevent commercial use of something others created and gave away for free. I'm not sure why that bothers some GPL proponents. What's your take on that?

Personally I'm more inclined to contribute to a BSD-licensed project because I can use parts of the code commercially. I don't see as many opportunities to work on GPL-licensed code outside of a very niche job working for someone else or doing it merely as a hobby.</comment></comment>


Database War Stories #3: Flickr - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/04/database_war_stories_3_flickr.html <comment><USER2> Is anyone else shocked that Flickr has less than a terabyte of images?

<comment><USER3> One terabyte of text that makes up the database... they've got a whole lot more than a TB of images. the photos themselves are on static.flickr.com.

<comment><USER2> Ah, OK. Thanks. That's a slightly more specific meaning of "database" than what I've gotten used to lately.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Money or Career Growth? - <AUTHOR>

I know, my problem is like complaining to clean my yacht, but it is still a problem I could use advice on.
I'm currently in a temporary position where I make lots of money, so much I could easily save (as in my net pay minus my basic bills) 70,000 per year.  But the role is miserable, lots of politics, not learning anything, not a critical role.  The role is to last another year.
But I was just offered another role for which I would be the head honcho and have the chance to show my skills and it could lead to bigger and better things for my career.  The pay is still good, but less (not in the position to save as much per year), but the role will be more stress, more responsibility, and more work.
I feel like I am trading shit work, not much responsibility, and 70,000 (maybe more like 50k since I could save 20k in the new roll) for better work, more responsibility (more stress), and less pay.
What would you do?  I am always personally torn between focusing on career or financial freedom. <comment><USER2> > What would you do?...career or financial freedom.

Go back to the hiring executive that made you an offer.

Explain to them you're almost all-in and you recognize it's a great opportunity. Additionally, you believe that you can be accretive to their team. Your only issue, the minor gap in compensation. Let them know you would be inclined to move laterally. Ask if they have any flexibility to help with the difference (differed compensation, bonus program, stock options, perqs, etc...)

Be prepared to show the last 2 years of payment records. The transparency gives you leverage. This is an instance of no ask, no get.

<comment><USER3> This. If they want you to be their head honcho they should have substantial room to move on salary or options if they're convinced you're the best option and you have good reason to consider their existing offer low enough to be a deal breaker

Doesn't mean they'll match your previous role, but they should make your decision a lot easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was in a strategical position with my last company and was an asset for a few reasons. When I gave my resignation my CEO said what do you want, name a number. I told him it's not about money, I need to move on to grow my knowledge and experience. I could have said 100k and would be happily making my 6 figure salary while in reality at the time I was worth half at best. (Friends at the company tell me the guy hired after me is making 110k, ouch).

BUT, since moving companies I've gotten my hands dirty, I've had opportunities to use tons of new technologies and I'm in sort of a lead developer role now. Im not making 100k but I'm damn sure much closer to being worth it then when it was just "offered" to me by my last CEO trying to prevent me from leaving.

My knowledge is now tenfold what it was before. I learn more and more every day and work on solving exciting problems. I know that whenever I switch companies next, or am up for a review I will be making a major salary jump because I have leverage now.

Strategic career moves that increase your value/skill/knowledge will always lead to more money in the end. Justifiable money.

</comment><comment><USER5> Unless you're very close to full retirement (age), the career growth is likely to be the far better choice both commercially and emotionally.

No point earning an extra $50,000 per year if you burnout in 2 years and have to live off savings for a couple of years while you pull yourself back together.

More importantly, I live by the phrase "Income follows Assets". Think about property, think about product development, and think about your own personal skills and energy as your assets. Career growth is an investment in your personal asset base - much like buying a house to rent out or coding a new product, there will be an investment (in this case, both time and lost revenue) and it sounds like there will be a return on investment (income following your new assets) in time.

</comment><comment><USER6> 50.000 is a lot of money (maybe not so much if you're in SF or NY), is the new position a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity?

Do you think you will really have oppportunities being the "head honcho"? Can you turn the 50.000 into an opportunity for yourself? (your own startup?)

It's always easy to go down salary-wise, not so much to go back up.

</comment><comment><USER7> I am in a very similar predicament. I can rake in cash doing things I dislike or look elsewhere for employment.

The conclusion I've come to is I either need to be saving the money towards some specific purpose (startup, long term travel, etc) or I need to look for a more satisfying job.

The question I ask myself is can I do this for X more years so that I can properly retire (where X < 10)? And the reality is I can't bare the thought of doing it for that long so clearly what I'm doing is unsustainable. With that in mind, you might as well make a change now because why prolong the inevitable?

This is something I've been wrestling with extensively for the last year or so. If you'd like to have someone to talk to about it please don't hesitate to reach out to me (email in profile).

</comment><comment><USER8> What would you do with more money? Do you know you would be significantly happier with that money, or know exactly what you would spend it on, or would it probably sit in an investment account?

What would you suggest if your friend came to you in the exact situation?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the exploratory questions, they help.

I would probably save it and try to "retire" that much earlier. "Retire" meaning being able to choose when and how much to work.

I would not be happy with more money, but perhaps happier with the freedom it would "buy" me. Spend time with my family, pursue other interesting careers, etc.

Its a light at the end of the tunnel thing. I absolutely hate my current role, but can/should I hang on (not go insane, drag myself out of bed every morning and be away 10 hrs a day from my family) for 1 more year to pocket the money and then get out of dodge.

Not sure what I would tell a friend. I guess I would tell them if you are not happy, make a change. But mine is more of decision between change now to a known role without extra money or change later to an unknown role (the other role will be gone, but I will still have a role somewhere in the company) with the extra money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> looks like you have already made your decision and is seeking for validation, but hear me out:

consider:

\- burnout is real. check if your concern is an ongoing issue or a reflection of current events.

\- grass is always greener on the other side. in 6 months you might be back where you started.

\- you might close a door for something you are not entirely sure you will be good at.

\- decide and don't look back.

You will still be saving a considerable amount of money, so I would consider taking the risk (and less money) in exchange for less grey hair ;)</comment>


It's Time to Legalize Building - <AUTHOR> https://exponentsmag.org/2020/05/04/its-time-to-legalize-building/ <comment><USER2> > But much worse than that: the Right, which Andreessen points out "is > generally pro-production," has been captured by anti-immigrant isolationists > who think that 5G technology caused the coronavirus and that Bill Gates is > behind it. (link to tweet)

Last I checked, Alex Jones has not captured the right.</comment>


Palo Alto Housing vs. Everywhere Else - <AUTHOR> http://greyenlightenment.com/real-estate-palo-alto-vs-everywhere-else/ <comment><USER2> "Anyone with a good idea and some coding can become a millionaire overnight and a billionaire within a couple years."</comment>


What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like - <AUTHOR> http://www.oddly-even.com/2013/07/31/the-largest-photo-ever-taken-of-tokyo-is-zoomable-and-it-is-glorious/ <comment><USER2> I know this is evil and you should not do it, but just for the doability, here's a JavaScript that removes the censorings (like [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-154....](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-154.2,18.4,1)):

javascript:$("*").filter(function(){if(this.currentStyle)return this.currentStyle["backgroundImage"]==="url([http://360gigapixels.com/black.png)";else](http://360gigapixels.com/black.png\)";else) if(window.getComputedStyle)return document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(this,null).getPropertyValue("background- image")==="url([http://360gigapixels.com/black.png)"}](http://360gigapixels.com/black.png\)"})).remove()

<comment><USER2> Oh and btw, they even show us where the censored parts are: [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/tokyo.xm...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/tokyo.xml) (four nodes of type hotspot)

<comment><USER3> It seems odd they'd take this approach as opposed to manual processing of the output tiles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Honestly I thought I was going to see some visualisation of a 1px high image vs. various other long things. E.g. " At a pixel density of 330ppi this image would be longer than 1000 Starship Enterprises* ". Alas, no.

> What a 600,000 megapixels wide picture looks like (oddly-even.com) 23 points > by lukedeering 1 hour ago | flag | 12 comments

Megapixel: I do not think it means what you think it means.

> A megapixel (MP or Mpx) is one million pixels [1]

600,000 * 1,000,000 = 600,000,000,000

> The largest photo ever taken of Tokyo is ... 600,000 pixels wide [2]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel#Megapixel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel#Megapixel)

[2] [http://www.oddly-even.com/2013/07/31/the-largest-photo- ever-...](http://www.oddly-even.com/2013/07/31/the-largest-photo-ever-taken- of-tokyo-is-zoomable-and-it-is-glorious/)

*I wouldn't mind knowing how many Starship Enterprises a 600,000 megapixel wide picture would be if viewed at a pixel density of 330ppi.

<comment><USER5> We have 600 * 10^9 pixels, at 330ppi resolution this would correspond to 1.828 * 10^9 inches, or 4.618 * 10^7m, i.e., about 46200km.

Now, there are different Starship Enterprises of somewhat varying lengths, but let's take NCC 1701-D, because that's the first one I found data on. Wikipedia puts its length at 642.5m [1]. Thus, it ould be about 71880 Starship enterprises for the given length (not accounting for any other dimensions of course).

More interesting, it's a bit more than the circumference of Earth (~40000km).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-D%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-D%29)

<comment><USER6> I'm really interested as to why you two consider a _fictional space ship_ a good "underbelly feeling" measure of size. I like Star Trek, but I have absolutely no feeling for the size of the Enterprise. I'd believe it if you said it was 3km long, but also if you said that it was 400m long.

Not meant as a harsh criticism though, I like the math and the geekiness :)

<comment><USER7> Different spatial intelligence?

Personally, I'd say I have a better feeling for "starship enterprises" or "battroids" [0] in terms of length or height than the ubiquitous "football fields" or "empire state buildings".

Both those fictional measures are things I've visualized being inside of or next to countless times. I can't say the same about the other two.

0: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-1_Valkyrie#Battroid_mode](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-1_Valkyrie#Battroid_mode)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A similar thing done with London. [http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html](http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html)

Also funny:[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=60.1,...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=60.1,24.8,1)

Playing a table-top game:[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=66.3,...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=66.3,31.3,1)

Baseball:[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=89.1,...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=89.1,21.2,1)

<comment><USER9> Heh, I was going to post the Thomas the tank engine shot.

[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=60.3,...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=60.3,27.5,1)

There is another train on the track.

[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-127....](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-127.6,14.9,1)

Here is a Ferrari (California I think) for anyone interested. The amount of details you can pick up is pretty amazing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hum, a lonely head :) [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-0.5,...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-0.5,27.1,1)

</comment><comment><USER11> DON'T you! Forget about me!

[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-.4,2...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-.4,24,1)

DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T!

</comment><comment><USER12> Hi, I'm the photographer who made this image.

Thank you for all the attention :-) Let me try to answer some of your questions, in no particular order:

1) Here is the original page: [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/) also here is a youtube screen capture showing a few highlights, if you are feeling lazy ;) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NboCijiLwmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NboCijiLwmI)

2) it is not 600,000 megapixels. It is 600,000 pixels wide. If you are calculating it as a full sphere, then it's 180 gigapixels. But there is a black space on the bottom so we are calling it 150 gigapixels.

3) Yes we have censored a few things in the image which might be embarrassing to those people involved. Most of those things would not be embarrassing in other cultures (I think) such as a woman hanging laundry, but Japan is "different". Per the request of journalists at Asahi Shimbun who published a story about it there, we covered up a few bits in the photo. Oh, and the guy sleeping on the ground? Well that's embarrassing anywhere. Poor fellow probably did not expect to be famous on the internet as he lay down on the bench to sleep, fell off the bench, and kept on sleeping. (Side note: apparently in Tokyo it is fully acceptable to sleep it off on the street or in a park - it is a _safe_ place! Well, if you're male...)

4) Yes you can use your geek powers to uncover the censored bits and there are already screenshots out there. Oh well. I did not actually see the whole image before publishing it. It is just so big :)

5) Yes, I used a Canon 7D (best pixel density) and a 400mm L f/5.6 lens, because that lens is great, sharp, and fit in my carryon - can't check camera gear on the plane now, can we.

6) I used a Clauss Rodeon gigapixel robot to control the camera. It is still a lot of work to set the speed and so on, don't think that this is a "set it and forget it" kind of thing. The robot is moving continuously, and the camera is focusing and shooting while moving. This is technologically amazing stuff, but it takes a lot of tweaking to get it to work. In this case I was not completely familiar with the equipment, and I made some mistakes. One section of the image was stitched together from two entire sets of images shot on two different days, in order to get a good alignment.

7) panning mode: we use the "original QTVR style" of navigation, which also used in first-person games. This lets you hold the mouse button down and "glide around". I find this vastly preferable to the click-drag-click-drag- click-drag google style. On touch screens, the movement follows your finger which is more intuitive generally. I've seen a five year old navigate these panoramas on an ipad with no problem. On the PC with a mouse there is not really "one right way".

8) Yes, I also made the "London 320 gigapixel" image, which is larger in terms of pixels, but this one is FAR more interesting in my opinion, and overall much better quality. If you're interested in seeing some of my other large images, check these: Tokyo Roppongi Hills Mori Tower (shot the same week as this one here) [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-gigapixel-roppongi-hills- mori...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-gigapixel-roppongi-hills-mori-tower/) [http://360cities.net/library](http://360cities.net/library) Strahov Library interior, 40 gigapixels. [http://360gigapixels.com/petrin-prague- photo](http://360gigapixels.com/petrin-prague-photo) Prague from petrin tower, 34 gigapixels [http://360cities.net/london](http://360cities.net/london) London 80 gigapixels

If anyone has any other questions, I'm here, and happy to answer them. I'll try to check back often for the next hours. Cheers!

<comment><USER13> Hi! Thanks a lot for makeing the Image, truly a great piece!

I have a question, actually concerning the mori tower building: Where did you take it from? From the very top where you can go outside? Problem would be, that you couldn't go to the very edge of the building, or were you somehow able to?

And, do you maybe have a "behind the scenes" video of some sort, or just a few shots showing how you are working :D?

Thanks

<comment><USER12> On the mori tower, I shot it from 4 points around the tower. Another commenter sent a link to a panorama where I'm shooting one of the sections. I shot the same on the other sie, and the other two sections were shot from the ends of the building.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Have a look at these two: fish-eye and reverse fish-eye views:

[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=108.9...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=108.9,90.0,94) [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=108.9...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=108.9,-90.0,101)

</comment><comment><USER15> I love the fact that he has taken the photos with the 400mm/5.6, which is a very affordable, lightweight, quite old lens that is supersharp.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is this a mini cemetery? Squished between tall buildings?

[http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-296....](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-296.5,19.1,1)

<comment><USER17> Indeed, they're quite common in Japanese cities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> First of all, this effort and its result are fanastic!

Question: how close are sensor densities getting to present capabilities of glass in smartphones?

For example, if a 10 gigapixel (100000x100000) sensor existed that would fit behind an iDevice's lens, how much digital zoom cropping would we really be able to enjoy before we hit details that are bigger than pixels but smaller than the tiny lens can pass clearly?

<comment><USER12> Hi OldSchool,

Thank you very much.

In terms of pixel density: You may have noticed that the "megapixel wars" have pretty much stopped. And even the sensor that I've been using for nearly all of my "world record sized" is the 18-megapixel APS-c (1.6X "crop") Canon sensor (550D, 7D). The 7D is nearly 4 years old! Only in recent months has Canon released a camera with smaller pixels (the 20 megapixel 70D). Why?

One major reason is that lenses can't resolve much more than this. Your 10 year old lens that was built for film might not yield any detail at 100% zoom.

Another reason is that they are hitting limits with the wavelength of light. Correcting "chromatic aberration" on the sensor at this resolution is becoming a major issue. Each RGB sensor on the camera responds to a range of wavelengths, each one of which gets distorted differently. These all get mixed together and it's definitely not possible to disentangle them. So, to some degree, CA is impossible to fix completely.

These are large sensors and large, expensive lenses we are talking about here. With smaller phone sensors and their tiny lenses, the problem is worse. Looking at all phone photos, there isn't really anything interesting at 100% zoom, I think you won't lose any detail at all if you make the photo 70% of its original size.

To answer your question - it will take a great number of breakthroughs before there is anything like a 10 gigapixel sensor, with a lens that can resolve details for such a sensor.

<comment><USER19> That is one of the cool things about 'film' I should add... large format film has a crazy large megapixel equivalent.

This guy's blog post has some interesting information about it: [http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/digital- reso...](http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/digital-resolution- is-higher-than-film.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> These controls are obnoxious.

<comment><USER21> It's the exact opposite on a touch device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a very sad-looking man: [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower- panorama-photo/?v=-82.7...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-82.7,23.8,1)

Or maybe he's just sneezing?

<comment><USER8> Also sad: [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=233.3...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=233.3,34.6,1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is completely crazy; all these giga-pixel panoramas stun me with the level of details.

Does anyone know any details about taking shots with such cameras? How much time do they actually need to capture photos with such quality?

<comment><USER24> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5258896](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5258896) is a comment from the creator of the BT London panorama.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the link

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A censored hotel bathroom: [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-154....](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-154.2,18.4,1)

<comment><USER21> Censored with a <div> overlay ;)

<comment><USER26> Good catch right there. Removed the overlay and saw a man washing his hands in a sink, and a woman sleeping.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Sometimes in art galleries you see these very large photographs. I'm always annoyed that these don't have all the details. If you look from far enough they look nice, but once you go closer you see just the rasterization pattern.

I would like to see posters made out of these gigapixel images and printed with such high quality that you could actually take a closer look and it would reveal something new.

<comment><USER28> > ... printed with such high quality that you could actually take a closer > look and it would reveal something new.

Last time I was at the NC Museum of Art, they had on display a wall-sized aerial composite photo of the grounds. Next to it was a box full of magnifying glasses and a plaque inviting you to do exactly that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This guy seems to be taking a pic of his friend in fromt of the gigapixel rig: [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=151.1...](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=151.1,19.0,1)

Really awesome panorama, makes you feel like some kind of government agent...

</comment><comment><USER30> I expected to see more people in the picture. I hardly can find one. Maybe they were edited out.

<comment><USER12> Nope, didn't edit anyone out.

There are actually lots of peoople in this one compared to other ones I've done....

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Years ago I built a site with iipimage, [http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/demo/](http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/demo/). I'm wondering if there are other tools around somebody here uses?

</comment><comment><USER32> quite a few windows have a red triangle in them, f.e. [http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-154....](http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama- photo/?v=-154.2,18.4,1)

what do they mean?

<comment><USER33> Emergency entrances for fire / rescue. You are not allowed to put anything in front of those windows, so that firefighers know they can break those windows to easily gain access to a building. They can then be used to help people escape, or get more firefighers into the building.

<comment><USER32> i see, makes sense. thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm amazed at how clean everything seems to be. Even the rooftops and gutters.

</comment><comment><USER2> I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA had this in live and for every major city.

</comment><comment><USER35> Pretty cool. Now imagine the tools the NSA has, live satellite feeds and hi- res cameras all over the US and the world with a bunch of Diet Coke drinking zombies clicking, zooming and panning all day long.

<comment><USER36> Working with satellite data I can tell you that the maximum resolution data you are likely to get from a satellite is 0.25m resolution (i.e. a pixel is the size of a car wheel).

And that's talking about likely military satellites - the public are lucky to get hold of 0.5m resolution.

Also, clouds get in the way. A lot.

For super high resolution imaginary like you are talking about, you need something like the ARGOS system [1].

This image was made by a slowly automatically rotating camera, but the ARGOS system seems to use a whole bunch of high resolution cameras, like a insects eye.

The interesting thing about the ARGOS demo on NPR was the automatic object tracking. The system can track cars, and people, as they move around. You could go back through the data to follow a guy back to his house after he is identified as planting a bomb. Or more HN, posting something from an internet cafe.

I really think that, as technology makes pervasive surveillance possible, we need laws to explicitly limit what the state or companies can do, at least domestically.

It supprises me that people are so much more upset about the NSA gathering data, given that they willingly gave it to ad networks that want to use it to make bad decisions. The highest cost google ads are for loans, insurance, and other services where the provider makes more money if the user makes an inappropriate choice. Imagine if google put a googleX ARGOS on it's Loon baloons, and found some way to monetize it. We really need laws in place to stop anyone doing that.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA) <\- skip to about 1:30

<comment><USER37> I assume that the government has better than normal classified satelite tech, so how do you know what kinds of resolutions are possible?

<comment><USER38> Atmospheric effects. Atmospheric refraction adds significant noise, fully obscuring features smaller than about 0.25 m.

Yes, ground telescopes have ways of cancelling out atmospheric effects, but the required calibration and long exposure is impossible with the orbit of spy satellites.

<comment><USER39> I don't think it takes long exposure. Ground-based telescopes can make the simplifying assumption that they are looking at static point sources. That makes it easier to correct for camera movement and for optical defects from the lense and the atmosphere.

On the other hand, looking down is a bit easier than looking up because the atmosphere will converge rays looking down, but diverge them looking up. See [http://what-if.xkcd.com/32/](http://what-if.xkcd.com/32/).

That site also claims that others say Hubble is about as good as the best spy satellites, resolution-wise.

<comment><USER38> Adaptive optics is far too complex to summarize in a HN comment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics)

Hubble _is_ of the best spy satellites. It was built by the same team that builds spy satellites, using all the same parts and equipment, tested in the same facilities, etc. It just has a slightly different secondary mirror setup and a very different set of instruments and control mechanisms, since it's meant to point at galaxies and do astronomy, not at the Earth doing surveillance.

Seriously, one of the hardest parts of the Hubble program was figuring out how to do it in the view of the public without revealing the underlying surveillance programme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is simply awesome.

</comment><comment><USER41> So enormous zoom technology, which is shown in all the movies, actually exist. We just have to wait a little for 100GB+ machines to become mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER42> There must be someone spooky in that massive city who's looking directly at the camera.

</comment><comment><USER43> Wow, everyone is wearing a white shirt and black pants. The iconoclasts wear white pants.

</comment><comment><USER44> Roof top smoking - [http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/02/why-slow-and-steady-is- bett...](http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/02/why-slow-and-steady-is-better-for-a- startup-than-growing-fast/)

<comment><USER45> I don't think that's the link you wanted to share ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> There is varying resolution depending on depth in each point.

</comment><comment><USER47> Now this would make for a very long find waldo game.

<comment><USER12> We did a number of licensing deals with pictures like this, involving a "where's waldo"-type treasure hunt :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Strange, it crashes my FF every time.

<comment><USER49> Which Firefox version are you using? The website loads fine for me (on OS X) in Firefox 24.0a2 (Aurora), but hangs Firefox 25.0a1 (Nightly). I filed a bug here: [https://bugzil.la/901306](https://bugzil.la/901306)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Absolutely mind boggling!

</comment><comment><USER51> Looks like a photosphere.

</comment><comment><USER52> Almost like the Lumia 1020 :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> crazy</comment>


Show HN: The Warby Parker of Men's Jeans - <AUTHOR> http://www.mottandbow.com <comment><USER2> Wearing a pair right now - well made jeans at a good price and excellent CS with returns. Definitely solves a problem for me - now they just need subscription billing :)

<comment><USER3> Thats great to hear! Will look into having a subscription offer in the near future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am also wearing Mott & Bows right now - grey Horatios. I love the fit and my wife does too.

Alejandro - I was wondering if you could share what you think about the future of jeans in 5 years. You obviously have deep knowledge with Mott & Bow, so where do you think jeans and denim is going? Will everyone be wearing different colors of denim in 5 years? Will fit be more customizable and tailored? Will Levis always be the dominant brand?

<comment><USER3> Eric, im glad you and your wife love the fit! We pride ourselves in having developed great fits.

Those are great questions. The traditional denim colors will always move the majority of the volume, but I do think taste is evolving, and with that you see new colors being added each season. Take a look at our latest addition, the Waverly's ([http://www.mottandbow.com/straight- waverly-2-month.html](http://www.mottandbow.com/straight- waverly-2-month.html)). These are a deep blue indigo color, a bit non traditional but always clean.

I think Levis has done a great job (they have reached ubiquity in denim). The cool part of our proposition is that we are offering designer denim (usually offered at +$200 because of the superior material and handcraft that goes into it) at half the price by going direct to consumer instead of the traditional model (where prices reach 8x what they cost to make).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Any chance you guys will do 30 length? 32 is pretty long for me. I'm 5"8 and normally wear a 32x30.

Would be cool to do something like Jack Threads does. Put the model specs with the jeans. (Height / Weight)

Also, maybe some pics with models with different body types as well. Helps someone figure out how the jeans will look like on their body type.

<comment><USER3> Good point. Will add model specs in the next postings.

We just started out a few months ago so we purposefully limited the SKU count, but will be adding 30 inseam for some of the styles that come out next year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems pretty similar to Buck Mason: [https://www.buckmason.com/](https://www.buckmason.com/)

They also do the whole home-try on thing for men's clothing.

<comment><USER3> Hi Anjin, a few differences from BM:

1- We are bringing the denim from one of the top denim mills in the world. 2- Our home try-on is for sizing on the same item (you get two different sizes of the same style), not trying to cross sell items.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would love answering any questions you guys might have. Feedback is welcome and appreciated! Started this a few months back as I could not find a premium pair of jeans for $100.

<comment><USER7> Do you have any plans to offer a wider range of sizes? I'd love to buy some, but I can guarantee you that the smallest size you have, 28x30, is going to be too large for me; I'm currently wearing a pair of 27x27 Levis because Levis is the only company I've been able to find that makes jeans which fit me.

<comment><USER3> What fit do you usually wear in Levis? When we started out a few months ago we offered size 27 on skinny fit but there was no demand for that size, so we decided to start the next styles in size 28.

The only style we currently have a size 27 is this one [http://www.mottandbow.com/skinny/skinny-bleecker-resin- rinse...](http://www.mottandbow.com/skinny/skinny-bleecker-resin-rinse.html)

I would love to offer more sizes but we have to find the demand for those. Any clue how we can reach that smaller waist size demographic?

<comment><USER7> I'm currently wearing Levis 514, which according to their website is a straight fit. In the past, I've also worn 527, which I guess is a boot cut? I don't wear skinny jeans because I can't get over the "skinny jeans = emo hipster" association that was made when my brain was still forming connections like that back in the 90s.

It's kind of a tough problem; I can tell you that my demand for jeans is pretty low, in large part because buying jeans is such a miserable experience. In the best case scenario, I get to go to an outlet mall and search through racks and racks of jeans; in the likely event that I can't find my size, I have to be a 26 year old man asking a salesperson where they have "Boys size 14" jeans. This has never failed to be humiliating, and I hate having to do it. As a result, I buy jeans four or five pairs at a time and wear them until they all fall apart; this means I never have to shop for jeans more than every four or five years, and it minimizes the amount of time I'm forced to engage in what has never failed to be a totally shitty experience [1].

As a result, I'll occasionally come across services like yours that advertise a revolution in jeans buying, and I'll think "oh hey, that sounds great! I hate buying jeans, maybe these guys have made it better" and invariable I discover that oh wait, they actually don't solve my problem. And then I figure, "Well, I've got another three years of jeans-time left before I need to worry about it, so whatever" and I forget about the service, because I don't have space in my brain to keep a record of all the companies that might, at some point in the vague, undetermined future, sell something that interests me.

It's something of an assumption, but I'm guessing that most of the 'Petite Adult Male' demographic is probably roughly like me; they've discovered that it's really un-fun to have to ask where the kid's clothes are when they shop, and so they minimize the number of times they have to shop. That minimizes the window of time for which they actually demand jeans, and that means it's very challenging for you to offer jeans for sale during the time in which they're attempting to buy them; you basically get one chance and if you don't have what they're looking for, they're lost as a customer forever.

I don't really have a solution for you; 27 inch waists are basically a weird edge case that I happen to fall into, and it appears to be entirely possible to flourish as a jeans company without selling them, so it's not like this is dooming your company to failure. You likely know more about the selling and marketing of clothes than I do, so maybe if I can give you some additional context into why that demographic is challenging to reach, you'll have some ideas?

[1]: One time, I tried to order 27x27 jeans online from the Levi's store. This was a horrible mistake that led to me having to send back no less than three different pairs of jeans that were random sizes with no relation to what I ordered, and each time it meant almost an hour on the telephone trying to make somebody understand that what I had ordered was 27x27 jeans and yet what I had received was 32x35 or 29x30 or 30x30, regardless of what their records indicated or what guarantees the previous phone call had left me with. It took literally a month and at the end of it I ended up having to buy the damn jeans in a store anyways.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the detailed response! Will work on getting more traction so we can expand the size offering!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In e-commerce, customer service is critical. these guys do a fantastic job. Ecomm is a tough business and you need differentiators. So far so great for M&B

<comment><USER3> thanks so much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Love the risk-free home try on program. Out of curiosity, does the program extend to trying a different waist size in a different style?

<comment><USER3> Thanks Jerry! The home try-on is currently for help with sizing (as a lot of guys are between waist sizes depending on the brand). It seems like a good idea to offer it so guys can checkout different styles. Will look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have a pair of Mosco slim denim. Without a doubt the best pair of denim I own. They're incredibly comfortable.

<comment><USER3> Thats great to hear Nate! We will keep on working hard to expand the line!</comment></comment>


TikTok is fast becoming the most popular app in the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.theindustryobserver.com.au/tik-tok-most-popular-app/ <comment><AUTHOR> sample:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77_l0zFdYUE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77_l0zFdYUE)</comment>


Hacking book for free download only 3mb - <AUTHOR> http://payhip.com/b/qnKz

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://payhip.com/b/qnKz](http://payhip.com/b/qnKz)</comment>


Julia v1.3 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/v1.3.0/NEWS.md <comment><USER2> By far the most interesting part of this release is the new multi-threading features, I recommend reading [https://julialang.org/blog/2019/07/multithreading](https://julialang.org/blog/2019/07/multithreading) for an overview, and watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c) for a talk about some unique stuff that's being worked on with Julia's multi- threading (though the depth-first scheduling is not in 1.3 afaik).

</comment><comment><USER3> I find Julia to be a beautiful little language. Applause to the team for this 1.3 release!

In one of my CS classes we wrote a LISP using Julia. Our professor wrote the parser for us, so we just had to focus on the actual interpreter bit. The pattern matching/multi-dispatch mechanisms were really nice. We didn't get to play _too_ much with the parallelism mechanisms, but I liked what I did see.

I feel like Julia is a much richer language than, say, Python, and it would be a nice drop-in replacement for numerical computing tasks: it's faster, in some ways more ergonomic, and afaik can call out to Python libraries if needed. Has anyone here switched from Python to Julia for scientific/ML/AI purposes?

<comment><USER4> I played around with Julia a bit last year. One thing that stuck with me was the non-negligible start-up speed. If you want tight feedback loops you have to figure out a way to reuse a Julia instance (like Jupyter).

On that train of thought, how interoperable is preexisting numpy/pandas code with Julia?

<comment><USER5> You can ;-) The secret sauce in Julia is to use Revise.jl package. Is makes your life so much better. It observes source code changes while you are at the REPL. No need to restart everything.

<comment><USER6> How reliable is Revise.jl compared to ipython autoreload? My experience with ipython autoreload is... very poor, even though some people swear by it, so I have trust issues with this type of thing.

<comment><USER7> I use it extensively. In my experience it is very reliable. Onle once or twice in two years of using it has something strange happened with JIT compilation of functions. All I had to do to fix was restart the Julia REPL and load things in again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I keep my eye on Julia, but still did not have a chance to dig into it. I would be interested to learn more about its place and capabilities:

\- I want to build an new (yet another) distributed data processing framework, say, Hadoop or Spark Next, generic or for a particular industry, and I do not want to use Java or C++.

Can Julia be a feasible choice for a distributed computation like Spark, for distributed file system like HDFS, for resource allocator like Yarn? Can it be a good choice for a database engine, or its place is in layers above the engine - say a layer to support aggregation and computations?

Or it's not a right choice comparing with Rust, C++, or Java for core systems, and it's better to stick with it just for computations on the top of those core systems?

<comment><USER5> I don't know the domain you describe, but you have e.g. JuliaDB which has quite good performance from what I read.

[https://juliadb.org](https://juliadb.org)

JuliaDB is about storing and retrieving Julia data end to end, although it works with e.g. CSV files etc as far as I know.

The benefit of using Julia over something like Java or C++ is that user defined function can easily be added and they are JIT compiled for maximum performance.

The main consideration with respect to using Julia is about whether your domain has problems with JIT compilation or not. Anything that is started and shut down frequently and only runs for a short time will not work well with a JIT based system like Julia.

Also places where you need fine control over latency such as computer games or real time systems may not be suitable for Julia. Then I suspect Rust or Swift would be better.

Other than that Julia is good for almost anything. I has great support for parallelism, concurrency and crunch numbers really fast.

While C++ and Rust may beat Julia in performance I think you should be able to outperform Java, because Julia is designed much more with performance in mind than Java. E.g. you have better control over memory layout, cache misses etc in Julia than in Java.

<comment><USER9> It was really a bad decision to design Java without value types, given the already existing plethora of GC enabled systems languages since the mid-70's.

However that will be eventually fixed, and then we won't be able to bash Java any longer for lack of value types.

In what GC languages are concerned, it would be more interesting to compare Julia's generated code against .NET Core languages, D (specially ldc), Nim.

<comment><USER10> Java has been around for multiple decades but the types are just around the corner? That reminds me of static compilation, which was also coming soon for 20 years.

<comment><USER9> AOT compilation has been an option to Java shops willing to buy third party commercial JVMs since around 2000.

You can play around with value types experimental releases already.

[https://jdk.java.net/valhalla/](https://jdk.java.net/valhalla/)

Adopting value types, while keeping 20+ year old jars working without any kind of changes is an engineering feat.

I bet that Java will get value types before Go gets its generics, if ever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm rooting for Julia. Currently we are using python and rust, but rust is not an easy language to do exploratory analysis in, so it's relegated to handling only the stable parts of our analytics libraries.

It looks like Julia integrates quite seamlessly with python, so I'm hoping that we can start using it to easily speed up exploratory research code without having to spend a lot of time.

</comment><comment><USER12> Julia feels like a scripting language but every function is effectively a template. I prototype lots of high perf stuff in it because it gives you control of memory layout and what gets evaluated at compile time, so it'll get you within spitting distance of an optimised c++ implementation but with 10x better iteration speed. Thoroughly recommend it to any Comp Sci / ML researchers.

Only thing I'd wish for is better control of memory layout for mutable structs, but I know that's unlikely since that's one thing that the Julia folks want to keep abstracted from the user.

</comment><comment><USER13> >> Zero-dimensional arrays are now consistently preserved in the return values of mathematical functions that operate on the array(s) as a whole (and are not explicitly broadcasted across their elements). Previously, the functions +, -, *, /, conj, real and imag returned the unwrapped element when operating over zero-dimensional arrays.

That's great news, it drives me crazy when languages or libraries get that wrong.

</comment><comment><USER14> I was still hoping that someday support for standalone binary executables would be added. Maybe next century.

<comment><USER15> Does this not do what you want? [https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl/blob/master/...](https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl/blob/master/README.md)

<comment><USER16> Note that PackageCompiler.jl's author no longer wants to work on it and there are still many rough edges. However, there are several exciting successor projects making quick progress right now!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does the Rust Rayon library have the issue the speaker was describing, where parallel inner loops mostly get executed serially once an outer loop is parallelized? (I assume it does, from its Cilk heritage?) Are there workarounds for when that is a problem?

Edit: Dumb mistake on my part. I was looking at the video linked in the top comment ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c)) and then I came back to this thread and thought it was the topic.

<comment><USER18> What speaker you are talking about? The linked post is to Julia 1.3 release notes that doesn't mention Rayon at all?

<comment><USER17> Oops, dumb mistake on my part. I was referring to the video linked in the top comment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does Julia plan to have a WASM backend ?

<comment><USER20> Yes, you can try it out:

[https://keno.github.io/julia- wasm/website/repl.htm](https://keno.github.io/julia-wasm/website/repl.htm)

Here's the repo:

[https://github.com/Keno/julia-wasm](https://github.com/Keno/julia-wasm)

It's still a work in progress to get the full package manager on there, but there's funding from Mozilla to get it done. I'm excited to see how that turns out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> ???

Upcoming release: v1.3.0-rc5 (Nov 17, 2019)

We're currently testing release candidates for Julia v1.3.0

[https://julialang.org/downloads/](https://julialang.org/downloads/)

<comment><USER22> Hacker News is just super on the ball, it out-paced actually updating the website.

Still when I built julia this morning, from the 1.3 banch, I can confirm the -RC5 label was gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In other words, mostly catching up features present in mainstream languages.

<comment><USER24> The only other dynamic language with this kind of multithreading capability is, wait for it... Raku (aka Perl 6). And my impression is that Raku doesn't get very high performance with its multithreading, which is mostly designed to improve I/O throughput (and because it's a cool feature and Raku has never met a feature it doesn't like).

Even among static languages, it's a relatively rare capability: Go has excellent support (of course), C extensions like Cilk and TBB support it, Rust has something similar with tokio, and I've heard people claim that Haskell can do something similar with appropriate extensions.

<comment><USER25> > And my impression is that Raku doesn't get very high performance with its > multithreading

Could you elaborate on how you got that impression? Do you have any benchmarks that the Raku core developers could look at?

<comment><USER24> I recall seeing various benchmarks of Raku that were on the slow side—slower than Perl 5 / Python speed, which are already what I'd describe as "slow languages". I can't currently find what specifically I read, but [https://www.reddit.com/r/perl6/comments/btvkoz/is_perl6_stil...](https://www.reddit.com/r/perl6/comments/btvkoz/is_perl6_still_slow/) seems to have some discussion (and I think you're on that thread, so I'm sure you're aware). This doesn't specifically address threading performance, but if the runtime is 100-500x slower than C, it's not like threading can make up that kind of performance deficit.

<comment><USER25> The Raku runtime is still improving, and several object creation benchmarks now outrun Perl. A low bar, some might argue. But still.

Threading _can_ make a difference on non-IO bound tasks if you're interested in wallclock rather than CPU: for instance, `say (1..Inf).grep( { .is-prime } )[9999]` (showing the 10000th prime number) runs 22 seconds on my machine, but the threaded version of that: `say (1..Inf).hyper.grep( *.is-prime )[9999]` runs in 8 seconds. That's just by adding the `.hyper` method to the chain!

<comment><USER24> Here's a comparable thing in Julia:

        julia> using Primes, Lazy

        julia> @time drop(9999, filter(isprime, Lazy.range(1)))[1]
          0.119811 seconds (1.25 M allocations: 23.502 MiB)
        104729

The Lazy package doesn't support using threads yet since 1.3 was just released, so doing the threaded comparison isn't simple at the moment. However, this illustrates what I was getting at: the sequential Julia code is 185x faster than the the sequential Raku code and 67x faster than the threaded Raku code. It's great that Raku threading gets some scaling here (not sure how many cores you have, so it's unclear if 2.75x scaling is good or not, but it's not nothing). But it's considerably easier to scale if there's already a lot of performance on the table. The faster each operation is, the harder it is to make a threading implementation that has low enough overhead to make threads worthwhile. From the performance perspective, any effort spent on threading in Raku would be better spent on sequential speed until that has been maxed out.

I should also note that this is not how one would actually find the 10000th prime efficiently. For that you'd use the `nextprime` function also provided by the Primes package, like so:

        julia> @time nextprime(1, 10000)
          0.010456 seconds (17.00 k allocations: 265.562 KiB)
        104729

That's another 10x faster than the lazy sequence approach. Which mostly tells me that the lazy code is impressively efficient—I would have expected a dedicated function to have more of an edge. Lest anyone cry foul about using C or whatever, this function is implemented fairly straightforwardly in Julia:

[https://github.com/JuliaMath/Primes.jl/blob/ce0c1e388e1fd375...](https://github.com/JuliaMath/Primes.jl/blob/ce0c1e388e1fd375ee3385596ae00a531cc916e7/src/Primes.jl#L589-L632).

<comment><USER25> Thank you for these goals :-)

Just for the record: yes, there are faster ways of finding the 10000th prime, but I use this example often as an example of a CPU-intensive task that can be spread over multiple threads easily.

Also, please note that all features of the example are built-in into Raku: no external module loading needed.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>