UBC researchers may have found a way to make donated blood universal - <AUTHOR> https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/ubc-researchers-have-found-a-way-to-make-all-donated-blood-universal <comment><USER2> This will be helpful if it comes to practical use, particularly for traumas.

But we will still need to test for compatibility.

There are something like 28 different blood groups: Duffy, Kidd, Kell, etc.

People who have antibodies to those other blood groups can have a reaction even if given O negative blood.

(Source: I am board certified in Transfusion Medicine)

<comment><USER3> Do all those blood groups matter? How many different batches of blood do they need to keep around to handle a majority of the population?

<comment><USER4> > How many different batches of blood do they need to keep around to handle a > majority of the population

I'm the medical director for the blood bank of the only trauma center in an extremely remote location and a catchment of about 100,000 people. We operate our own donor center and do our own crossmatch (tube testing FTW!). We have 45 units of RBCs, 65 units of FFP, and 1 platelet unit for this evening. We also have 3 freezers full of frozen products and closely monitor our usage.

Obstetrics is probably the biggest user, but trauma may be the biggest in any given month. Our high water mark in recent history is 58 units of various products used for one patient a few months ago. We were nervous but got her through it without breaking quarantine to release product (although the quarantine units* were next on the agenda). We pushed 20 units a few days ago for a post-partum hemorrhage.

Quarantine in this case refers to units that have been produced but the infectious disease screening isn't complete yet, so we should not release them for use.

Please donate blood.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This could be a revolutionary innovation, just from the perspective of blood logistics. In a perfect world, we'd all stock up on just O-negative blood and use it everywhere but blood supplies are a scarce resource and we have to use what we have so getting all responders to only carry O-negative just won't scale. Imagine removing the tough question about what blood to use: do we use the precious O-negative or do we carry a bit of everything and first test the patient for what can work? By having a relatively plentiful universal supply, we could reduce the amount of carried blood, decrease spoilage and decrease the time it takes to get the patient the blood she/he needs. All these benefits would be massively beneficial in improving patient outcomes, decrease cost and streamline logistics, especially in the field where space is at a premium.

It's obviously early stage, but I'd absolutely love to see the Canadian Blood Service invest in lots of follow up studies to see how we can scale this technology.

Also, it's always great to see my alma mater on HN :)

<comment><USER6> > do we use the precious O-negative or do we carry a bit of everything and > first test the patient for what can work?

Type O- is rare because being rhesus-negative is rare, but type O+ is quite common.

<comment><USER7> In some places, like where I live, rhesus-negative is _very_ rare, 0.2% of the population for O- and B-, 0.1% for A-. It is usually tourists who need the blood and the blood banks just don't have it. So we often see calls go out for blood donors when a tourist has a serious injury. If this method to convert blood works it would be very beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Key statements:

> Withers and his team previously developed enzymes that were capable of > stipping away antigens, but this new kind is much more powerful and > efficient.

> An enzyme-driven process was first discovered in 1982 and research has > carried on ever since.

> "The (1982) enzyme was incredibly inefficient," he said. This newly- > discovered enzyme is "thousands" times better.

> "The other big key: our enzyme works on whole blood," he said. Previous > research only worked on blood that had been broken down into component > parts. With this new process, blood taken straight from donors could be > quickly converted into type-O negative, without much delay.

> "If it all works it will have a big practical advantage."

Wow, I didn't even know this was even mostly possible since the 80s. As exciting as this is, I suppose it's worth waiting and seeing if this is the one that makes it to production.

</comment><comment><USER9> Headline of article is much less certain:

Researchers at the University of B.C. think they may have found a way to transform a very common type of human blood — type-A — in the universally usable type-O negative.

<comment><USER10> Ok, we can squeeze a "may" into the title above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> W/o video ads: [https://science.ubc.ca/news/gut-enzymes-could-hold-key- produ...](https://science.ubc.ca/news/gut-enzymes-could-hold-key-producing- universal-blood)

</comment><comment><USER12> Change headline to type O- they have not managed to make it Rh-negative.

<comment><USER13> Article says they can convert A-Positive to O-Negative, which means they have removed the Rh.

<comment><USER14> No other sources I can find on this mention the rhesus factor; I suspect that's a mistake in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hm... if true, this is both great and scary. The reasons it could be good are covered in the article. I wonder if anyone else can see how dangerous this could also be. Medical research is beautiful but can often be very dark. I would hope there are regulations on usage. Always a shame to see promising research be sold to big Pharma or any other business that doesn't put patient care first.

<comment><USER16> Why do you say it's scary / dangerous?

<comment><USER17> I don't know the op's reason. I immediately thought of blood farmers [https://www.wired.com/2011/06/red-market- excerpt/](https://www.wired.com/2011/06/red-market-excerpt/)

But, uh, I'd hope this tech would help prevent that sort of thing.

<comment><USER15> I don't actually think tech is what we need to worry about. My concerns are with access and affordability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While I understand why cells have ids on them to be able to detect self from non-self, why is this also happening for blood cells, which are basically just bags with no genetic information inside? What's the evolution reason to guard against a foreign human blood cell?

<comment><USER19> Am I wrong in thinking that blood compatibility is basically a big allergy problem?

<comment><USER20> More generally, an immunological problem.

But... a huge proportion of all human health problems can be considered immunological problems: overactive immunity (transplant rejections, inflammation disorders like Crohn's) or impaired immunity (inability to recognize cancers, acquired deficiencies from infection i.e. AIDS, etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anybody have a link to a paper?

<comment><USER22> I think it's not published yet, at least it doesn't appear in this list of publications: [http://www.chem.ubc.ca/stephen- withers#pane-221](http://www.chem.ubc.ca/stephen-withers#pane-221)

There's an older paper from 2015 though: " Toward Efficient Enzymes For The Generation Of Universal Blood Through Structure-Guided Directed Evolution" [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja5116088](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja5116088)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is just a great example of the amazing innovations that come out of socialized medicine. Throw this in the face of anyone who tries to defend private health care on the basis of innovation

<comment><USER7> I laughed.</comment></comment>


Chronology of the AA debacle - <AUTHOR> http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/9/when-algorithms-attack-how-googlebot-and-tribune-and-some-idiot-killed-united-air-lines-stock

<comment><USER2> Nice article. I'm still surprised that institutional investors were fooled, even despite the Bberg story- that's the kind of thing a portfolio manager might react to quickly, but also get some color from a broker or specialist who handles UAL's stock.</comment>


RIM buys QNX (link to actual announcement, not what Techcruch made up) - <AUTHOR> http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=3766

<comment><AUTHOR> TechCrunch get it wrong again. After spectacularly misquoting Kevin Rose with 'one of us has to go' a week ago, can we please stop submitting whatever Arrington has made up today to HN?

Because Blackberry owning QNX for the sheer purposes or getting into automotive is insane.

<comment><USER2> The thing is, none of them at TechCrunch are even slightly technical themselves. They don't actually know what any of these companies do, names mean or products are. You could tell them RIM had bought Clarky Cat from the Boz-boz to compete with Apple's "Yellow Bentine" project and they'd print it.

<comment><USER3> Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I have been saying this for a long time, a tech publisher that has very rudimentary understanding of technology is sad at best. But people who actually understands technology, going gaga over everything TC publishing is very troubling to me.

The only thing TC has going that has anything to do with technology is that they also invest on tech startups. As for actual publication, its tabloid material at best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I remember running a QNX OS demo in the late 90's or early 00's that ran live off a floppy disk.. (with full GUI and everything) this was a big deal at the time. I was amazed.

<comment><USER5> I tried that, too - QNX RTOS 4 or something like that. As an OS with a shell and a full GUI, it was quite impressive for the tiny binary!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> OSNews floated the idea based on

"adding valuable intellectual property to RIM's portfolio"

That this is also about arming themselves with some nice patents that the 30 year old QNX is sure to have now that Nokia and Apple are coming to blows.</comment>


Everyone Can Code: Apple's Attempt to Make Coding Commonplace - <AUTHOR> http://jordansmith.io/everyone-can-code/ <comment><USER2> I agree. Everyone can code. Everyone can do plumbing (but I want a master plumber for my high-rise). Everyone can do welding (but I want a master welder for my super-tanker). Everyone can do surgery (but I want a doctor to actually do it).

There is a meme being spread that anyone can code, with the implication that since coding is easy then being a programmer is easy. I agree that anyone can code. But being a programmer is hard. It isn't 'coding' that makes it hard. It is living in a constant state of frustration.

For example, I have C code that has compiled cleanly since the 1980s. It won't compile on Ubuntu 17.04. Why? Who knows. But I have to figure it out. The problem isn't in the "code". Someone changed something somewhere for what they thought was a good reason (I assume) and now my 1.2 million lines of code fails to compile. What changed? The compiler (yep), the libraries (yep), the operating system (yep), and which change is the fatal flaw? Is it a simple one-line fix or do I have to re-architect the code to get around it?

Coding is easy. Finding MY mistake is easy. However, programming is hard. You have to learn to live with moments of success within years of frustration. It is a lot like being a parent I guess. Anyone can do it but few are exceptional at it.</comment>


Oracle joins race for TikTok, reportedly in talks to acquire U.S. operations - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekwire.com/2020/oracle-joins-race-tiktok-reportedly-talks-acquire-u-s-operations/ <comment><USER2> What does a legal firm want with a social media company?</comment>


Designing with Modules: Real World OCaml - <AUTHOR> https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/files-modules-and-programs.html#idm181618529456 <comment><USER2> Table of Contents for _Real World OCaml_ online book: [https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/index.html](https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/index.html)</comment>


Ask HN: What's your perspective on BitCoin? - <AUTHOR>

Bitcoin is an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin is also the name of the open source software which enables the use of this currency.<p>bitcoin.org | mtgox.com <comment><USER2> I wrote this some time ago:

"It is obvious that electronic money will replace paper bills in the future. Not because they are better or worse than paper but simply because the methods of payment simply killed the need for paper bills. Instead of storing tons of paper and gold in their safes, banks will store the electronic money in their databases. The public will never touch that electronic money, they will be just a number in a bank statement. You won't have to install any bitcoin client. The only thing you will ever need is a authentication tool. It could be a card, it could be your cell phone, it will certainly be some sort of portable token."

Yet, I'm still not sure how eletronic money can really be democratic, not everyone has access to basic infrastructure.

[http://eduardo.intermeta.com.br/posts/2013/1/18/bitcoins- and...](http://eduardo.intermeta.com.br/posts/2013/1/18/bitcoins-and-the- future-of-electronic-money)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a natural aversion to it because it seems lawless and ungovernable. For many this is a good thing (buying drugs, freedom from tax, etc etc) but I'm very much so a "by the books" kind of guy so none of that has any value to me. I guess I COULD convert my money to a currency with no stability or permanence, but there's really no benefit.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why would I want to spend something that is bound to increase in value? We spend cash because we're inflating it every year and it's a bad decision to hoard it. With no inflation (at least eventually) it makes no sense. I think Bitcoin will have some utility as an investment or to convert currencies but beyond that nothing.

<comment><USER5> Correction. We spend cash because we need or want things. If the utility I get from the thing I'm want to buy give me greater satisfaction today than the value I gain in the future from inflation, then I will still spend the money. It's all about marginal utility.

If bitcoins are deflating rapidly, those bitcoins have greater marginal utility if you hold on to them. However if they are deflating very slowly (not inertially) then people will spend them to get something that provides greater marginal utility now.

Humans are capable of putting a price on time (determine the marginal utility of time). Inflation is not the only economic circumstance that works for trade to occur. Economics is very relative and reflexive. The only entity that truly loses in a deflationary environment is the government, because they can't steal from its constituents by printing money and devaluing the money its constituents are holding.

More important than deflation or inflation is relative temporal constituency in the value of money. So long as money stays are relatively the same value for long stretches of time, i.e. it isn't volatile, then humans are _afforded_ circumstances in which they can make _rational_ judgements of value and utility.

<comment><USER6> To this I add: If all of your assets and income were denominated in bitcoins, you'd still spend some of them. You probably need food, shelter, clothing, and transportation right now, or at least pretty soon, and so you would give up some of your bitcoins to get those things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Check out this question on Quora. Excellent answers: [https://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency- Bitcoin-...](https://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a- good-idea)

</comment><comment><USER7> It's got a specific application where BTC is appropriate. I don't think the main attraction of BTC is as an investment or alternative to real currency.

</comment><comment><USER8> I too am curious - are there speculators, cuz the price keeps a rising!</comment>


My dad will now read your kids a bedtime story. Thank you internet - <AUTHOR> http://astorybeforebed.com/recordings/37bc57558693532e <comment><USER2> Sorry for the inconvenience... Adobe Flash Player is required to view and record the books on this site. Click the button below to download the latest version for free.</comment>


International Talk Like a Pirate Day - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day

<comment><USER2> Appropriate somehow that September 19 is also being proposed as Huntrodd's day - one where we celebrate coincidences:

[http://plus.maths.org/content/celebrate-chance- coincidence-a...](http://plus.maths.org/content/celebrate-chance-coincidence- and-unlikelihood-friday-huntrodds-day)

</comment><comment><USER3> Pirates often were portrayed for their love of gold. These financial interests and their colloquial tendencies lead many to believe that the favored programming language of the pirate is R. However C, the harsh mistress, was indeed their favorite.</comment>


Facebook Portal – Privacy review - <AUTHOR> https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/products/facebook-portal/ <comment><USER2> This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the _portal_ has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy!

This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but this is misleading.

<comment><USER3> Yeah I've seen this twice now for the portal (some CNET article saying people shouldn't buy it, but not actually reviewing the hardware).

It's annoying because the portal hardware is actually really great. I got the big one for my mom and I have the TV one and they work extremely well. I was looking for something that did what the portal does on the consumer market about a year before it came out and nothing existed.

This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics and most of it isn't particularly in depth or accurate.

<comment><USER4> > _This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics_

Some of it is politics, but some of it is Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly lying through his teeth about failing to protect users' privacy. At a certain point, it stops sounding accidental. At worst, it was malicious enough that they were fined $5B for it (and should have been fined more).

If you're going to make the claim that Facebook is not as malicious as everyone says, you're making the more extreme and difficult to believe claim, and you should cite some sources. As it is, it just sounds like you're not interested in reading about their abuses even superficially.

<comment><USER3> I have to prove a negative?

Whenever there is a big FB story I try and figure out what actually happened. This is often difficult because 95% of the media reporting on it is either entirely wrong, intentionally misleading, or both.

For the recent Cambridge Analytica thing my take away was that a shady third party (CA) violated FB's TOS by exploiting a vulnerability in their API that FB had sinced locked down. Cambridge Analytica used that to pull more data from the social graph than they should have been allowed to (after a subset of users participated in scammy quizzes) in order to do stupid things with that data.

When I've read the rare detailed reporting from FB's response [0] about how they're reacting to issues I've been impressed.

Zuckerberg's comments to the public are also pretty detailed and nuanced - atypically rare for a public facing CEO under massive persistent scrutiny.

This is consistent with what I've heard from my friends that work there.

[0]: [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum- inside-...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside- facebook-war-on-hate-speech)

<comment><USER5> The locking down of the API is done to prevent competition, while being publicly framed as a privacy enhancing scheme.

> The Switcharoo Plan turned out to be an idea whereby Facebook executives > would deprecate various APIs that its developer partners depended on for > fear that those developers would one day compete with Facebook directly, > while publicly announcing that the changes were intended to promote privacy.

[https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/11/8/20953623/facebo...](https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/11/8/20953623/facebook- leaked-court-documents-nbc-paranoia-switcharoo)

Nothing Facebook says publicly should be trusted.

<comment><USER3> It can be both - the Reuters link in that verge article is a little better: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook- antitrust/facebo...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook- antitrust/facebook-executives-planned-switcharoo-on-data-policy-change-court- filings-idUSKBN1XG1QP)

FB can be concerned about apps like Pikini that damage their brand and concerned about other companies trying to leverage their data in order to build a competitor.

This is a little hard to reason about fairly given the context that the document leak was targeted to make FB look bad by lawyers that had an agenda around a current anti-trust lawsuit from a client that used FB user data to make a bikini photo finding app (not the most ethical bunch).

That said, I'd argue there's no reason FB should have to allow API access to a company that directly conflicts with FB's interests, particularly when they're trying to take FB's data to build a replacement (and it looks like it would trigger some sort of contract discussion initially anyway). A lot of companies remove third party API access for a number of reasons and this ability is typically explicitly specified in the terms of the API access agreement.

Framing it around a privacy narrative to avoid media backlash around API deprecation is trying to get a handle on PR - I prefer when companies are just direct, but given the risk around bad media coverage I can see why they did it.

This entire issue is somewhat distinct from what I was talking about in the Cambridge Analytica case which I think was a bug in the social graph (they were not supposed to be able to crawl as much of it as they could) and this bug was fixed prior (I think years prior?) to the whistleblower from CA releasing details. My understanding was that accessing the data, while technically possible due to the bug, was still in violation of TOS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Even the Muppets can't make Facebook Portal seem less creepy (linked article > at FastCompany) [1]

The Muppets pushing _anything_ is and already was obscene (Kermit sipping Lipton meme, anyone?). Their first feature film, which is roughly as old as I am, revolved around Kermit following his dream and specifically _not_ selling out his own species by _making an advertisement_.

[1] [https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets- cant-m...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets-cant-make- facebook-portal-seem-less-creepy)

<comment><USER7> Disney is definitely milking that acquisition for all its worth. Which is understandable if you read the history of Disney. Licensing for Mikey Mouse was a cash cow for them from the start. And if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I generally enjoy Disney content. However, every time I turn around now I'm seeing the Muppets shilling for some product or other. The Muppets are Disney's to do with as they please. I just wish they'd be more discerning and tasteful about who and what they license to. Pitching for anything coming out of Facebook sours the Muppets brand in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home. It has "hell no" written all over it. It's almost arrogant or bizarre that they would try to launch such a product given how people feel about Facebook and privacy.

I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market????

It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assistant space in my opinion.

<comment><USER9> I'm considering purchasing one. In general, I value convenience and personalization over privacy. I completely don't relate to the idea of relevant ads being a bad thing.

Anyways, as someone who spends a lot of time panning a laptop or iPad to track a toddler who is FaceTiming grandma, this device solves an important problem for us.

<comment><USER10> I think this is the truth of the world we live in. People want this stuff so bad that they are willing to give away _a lot_ in exchange.

The other component is apathy, many people are just resigned to the fact that they will be surveilled one way or another.

I can foresee huge implications for all of this, it doesn't take much to get from here to using these devices to aid law enforcement. I know the argument is 'if you have nothing to hide... it keeps the kids safe...' but it all smells of a conformist dystopia.

Edit: I have a bunch of Google Homes, I count myself in the apathetic group, sadly.

<comment><USER3> I think there are also acceptable trade-offs.

The video is encrypted and content from the call cannot be used. If this was not the case I wouldn't buy it.

The other things they say they'll use from it are in line with what I already expect from having a FB account in the first place.

The portal even has a built in camera cover/off switch in hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You know your brand is toxic when a generic/faceless version of your product would have been received better. Someone else here mentioned that it should have been "Instagram Portal", which I totally agree with, or maybe even better: "WhatsApp Portal". It seems like Facebook is trying to resuscitate its reputation by releasing this obviously invasive device and swearing on a stack of bibles that they won't touch the data. That's not how it works though. Once people realize you're an untrustworthy megacorp who's mining and selling data, there's nothing you can do to disprove it except get out of the data game altogether; the cat is already out of the bag.

<comment><USER12> I don't think a generic version would have ever caught my attention at all. I'd think Instagram's jumped the shark if they branded it with that. Like, that would just sound like a photo frame that only shows IG posts or something; I'd roll my eyes and move on. I don't know anything about WhatsApp other than people were hacked or something.

For non-tech folks, I think the Facebook brand great. They chat with friends and family with Facebook messenger. This must be where they can make video calls to those same people. You get it just by seeing the name and the product together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The concept is great, a human-usable video conferencing system that doesn't suck massive balls.

As for the privacy, that's more nuanced. In terms of thirdparty access/security, its almost certainly more secure than the traditional suppliers(I'm looking at your authentication cisco...)

The nitty gritty is data collection by the company it's self. Thats harder. If your VC system uses android under the hood, then you have no privacy at all. Your data is funnelled to google at a minimum, some app vendors, and the company that made it.

Apple, its held in many secret silos in apple land, and not even apple knows which team has what data.

Facebook, now, they need a hardware platform, and this is the first step to getting there. If they were clever, they'd be prostrating themselves demonstrating that they are reformed, that they are full of trust and junk.

But as they are still clinging to the "its not our job to police the myriad of crap people advertise on our site", I don't think they understand. This kind of pressure should force a change, as facebook are publicly traded.

The problem is that tech journalism isn't really journalism. Its unquestionably adding breathless hot takes to PR, or if you've been burnt, unfailingly shitting on every product made by said company.

</comment><comment><USER14> Saw an advertisement for this in a theater some months back. The wife and I turned to each other and said "Hell no." She isn't even that security aware, it's just... why. What is this for? What problem does this solve? Our iPhones do this already without constant surveillance and probably have superior hardware.

This feels much to me like Stadia did to Google: It's a company inserting itself into a position it didn't need to be. It's a solution in search of a problem. In the 90's this would've been pretty amazing, but in an era of Smartphones that more or less all support this already with multiple apps, who is this for? Why would you have it? Not even going into the privacy aspects, it's basically a voice-controlled video phone.

<comment><USER15> This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. This is something I would get for my grandmother, or my wife's grandmother, instead of an iPhone for video conferencing. If it was not offered by Facebook.

I would trust Mozilla (perhaps partnered with the EFF) or Apple to offer such a product if they would charge for quality hardware, reliable infra, and long term support. Sell your trust as the feature.

<comment><USER14> > This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate.

So why does it increasingly feel like privacy and security are reserved for those who can afford it and/or know how to do it themselves? Why is every poor person who doesn't have the time to learn technology basically hung out to dry in terms of data protection?

<comment><USER15> Because regulation is lagging. Call your congressperson (US-centric advice).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude We all know what product-market fit is.

Portal is an example of bad company-product fit.

<comment><USER16> A very interesting point. Nobody has any complaints about the Portal itself, just the fact that it's from Facebook. If a different company had come out with it... let's face it, that company would be swallowed by Google/Amazon/Facebook/MS sooner or later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Honestly the UX of the privacy not included blog is pretty terrible. It is seems as if the blog is simultaneously sarcastic, shaming, and endorsing all at once. I would strongly suggest removing all of the unnecessary visual formatting, adding iconography to indicate Mozilla's stance on a topic, removing the personal tone from the articles, and overall restructuring the information to communicate the important information more swiftly and clearly.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't get what this is supposed to convey. The post has nothing of substance, takes a shot at Facebook but seems to immediately absolve it, more so with a really shallow security and privacy requirements list. This speaks more about Mozilla than Facebook. They can do a lot better in what ever it is they are trying to do. At the very least explain what the post is intended to do first.

<comment><USER19> You mean like in [https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/w...](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/why), which you get to from "about the guide"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This... _thing_ in your house is only one Privacy Terms & Conditions update away from tailoring ads to scare you into voting for whichever political candidate promises to not pursue Facebook with an AntiTrust lawsuit. If that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wish Mozilla would stop criticizing everything that moves in the name of virtue and instead focus on making great products.

<comment><USER22> They are just following along with their mission statement.

[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/) Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.

<comment><USER23> How does privacy fit into their mission of keeping the Internet open and accessible? It is an orthogonal issue.

<comment><USER24> Because some users value privacy, and if you can't access the web without interacting with Google or Facebook, then you have a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Even George Orwell couldn't imagine people would pay the Big Brother to watch them.

</comment><comment><USER26> This could use a copyedit:

> The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart > when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on > you.

</comment><comment><USER27> Despite the good review, there is no way in hell I would trust Facebook enough to use this in my home.

</comment><comment><USER28> All nerds, find now positive about Facebook's privacy violation and give me minus</comment>


ProseMirror: collaborative editing with a rigid semantic document model - <AUTHOR> http://prosemirror.net/?

<comment><USER2> To make it perfectly clear, ProseMirror is seeking funding to go open source with 7 days left. [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/prosemirror/x/1663745#/st...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/prosemirror/x/1663745#/story)

Already put in what I can.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, I'm the author of the project. I'll be checking for comments here for the next hour or so. Ask me anything. [Well, time to sleep. I'll check back tomorrow.]

If you check out one demo, look at this one: [http://prosemirror.net/demo_dino.html](http://prosemirror.net/demo_dino.html)

<comment><USER4> This is very cool. I'm curious if you have thoughts on this post about Medium's implementation and where you agree or diverged. [https://medium.com/medium-eng/why-contenteditable-is- terribl...](https://medium.com/medium-eng/why-contenteditable-is- terrible-122d8a40e480)

<comment><USER3> I agree with most of their analysis - I linked that URL from the indygogo blurb, in fact. They are doing something similar but less general.

<comment><USER4> Woops, missed that. This is really excellent, and I just added to your funding campaign. I hope you succeed, I think this is an important piece of software to have exist and I will likely use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You might consider building on top of something like ShareJS[1]'s JSON OT types rather than reinventing your collaboration substrate :)

[1]: [https://github.com/share/sharejs](https://github.com/share/sharejs)

<comment><USER3> I am aware of those, but consciously chose not to use them. A hierarchical document model, as opposed to their linear one, has a lot of advantages, and OT is a pain to extend. See also [http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/blog/collaborative- editing.html](http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/blog/collaborative-editing.html)

<comment><USER5> The JSON data type in ShareJS is not linear, though that said implementing rich text on top of it is still an open problem.

Full disclosure: I wrote the JSON data type in ShareJS :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I put in my €5 - Marijn Haverbeke does some awesome open-source work (e.g. Eloquent JavaScript) - so I think we should definitely help chip in, if we're able to.

</comment><comment><USER7> ProseMirror looks like it will address a number of my issues with web based content editing.

I really hope that people step forward and fund it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Put my 5 euros.</comment>


Hyperloop Construction Starts Next Year with the First Full-Scale Track - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/construction-hyperloop-track-starts/ <comment><USER2> Wonder if they'll get their $100m funding. Seems an interesting project.</comment>


Have Tech Perks Gone Too Far? - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlassian.com/blog/teamwork/employee-retention-is-about-more-than-perks/amp <comment><USER2> The author's characterization of open offices as a perk is all you need to know about their competence and credibility.

</comment><comment><USER3> Employee perks can never go too far. Anything that helps an employee feel more comfortable in their working environment is a plus and will contribute to creativity & productivity.</comment>


Lazy ants make themselves useful in unexpected ways - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lazy-ants-unexpected-ways.html <comment><USER2> Fascinating! Ant colony load balancing ^_^

tldr: "... the colony responds to the loss of highly active workers by replacing them with inactive ones"

<comment><USER3> And all this is happening with a spec of dust sized brain for processing. Meanwhile we need acres of datacenters, satellites in space and lasers on top of car to stay on a road. We have obviously missed something.

<comment><USER4> If you're now thinking "Why don't we just use insects to control our robots?", you're not alone: [http://www.conceptlab.com/roachbot/](http://www.conceptlab.com/roachbot/)

<comment><USER5> That is very interesting. Worthy of it's own spot at the top of HN.

Thanks for posting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this new information?

John Ralston-Saul wrote in The Doubter's Companion in 1994:

"Ants do nothing 71.5 per cent of the time. They are trying to think of what can usefully be done next. And this in spite of their reputation—shared with beavers and BEES — as hard-working role models for the human race.

"Most humans in positions of responsibility work more than 28.5 per cent of the time. It could be argued that, being brighter than ants, we need less time to think. This is a technically correct and reassuring argument. Yet a comparison of the incidence of error among ants versus that among human beings would not come out in our favour. We could counter that, by risking error, human society — or at least human knowledge — has progressed, while that of the ants remains stable. But if we are so bright, then why are we so eager to spend as long as possible on the non-intellectual tasks which hard work represents, while desperately economizing on the time spent thinking? An outside observer, an ant for example, might wonder whether we are afraid of our ability to think and more precisely of the self-doubt which it involves."

Unfortunately no citations relevant to this bit are forthcoming.

Searching backwards - for ants and 71% - finds a reference in sciencemag[1] from 2015. This in turn leads to a paper[2] citing this same number. Mind, both are some two decades after Saul's work was published.

[1] [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/most-worker-ants- are-...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/most-worker-ants-are-slackers)

[2] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00265-015-1958-...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00265-015-1958-1)

<comment><USER7> I don't think the author was claiming to be the first to recognize this situation, but as you've noted there is very little published work on it. A lot of science is like this, in that there is an effect or behavior that several people have noted over the years, but no one has sat down and tried to analyze it.

In the case of Ralston-Saul, they speculated that the ants were 'thinking about what to do next'. It is an interesting hypothesis, but untested. In the paper the authors removed 20% of the idle ants and observed they were not replaced. There was also no mention of the activities of the hive slowing down. I think it would be a fair argument that if the ants were 'thinking' then removing ants would slow down their execution. But given that it doesn't, then the hypothesis that they are is probably incorrect.

So we have an observation and a hypothesis in 1994 but no science. Going back and testing those observations helps us learn what is really going on and "know" with more certainly what isn't.

So perhaps it would be better to call it new research on previously speculated about behaviors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe part of it is energy efficiency. For humans, being idle doesn't save all that many calories compared to how much we burn anyway to keep our body temperature constant. That's probably different for ants, and thus, when individual ants are not running around without purpose, the whole colony can get by with less food.

</comment><comment><USER9> Considering the colony as a superorganism, this could be primarily to serve the purpose of redundancy/slack, so that losses or shocks can be continually replaced/responded to, in order to maintain a systemic homeostasis. Though 40% of individuals inactive does seem a large proportion, but perhaps they use little energy.

<comment><USER10> I think that is a big part of it. There appears to be no consideration that those "hard working" ants are not pure good for the colony. They're burning significant energy. And if that energy is being burned in counter-productive or non-productive ways, they are a net harm to the colony, not a benefit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this can apply widely across the animal kingdom. Only a certain amount of workers can be effective once a level of productivity is achieved. Operating at full capacity might not be possible or evolutionary effective in this environment. Different colonies with more environmental pressures probably have higher engagement/productivity.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is there a recommended book on ant behavior? Have always been casually interested, ever since reading about the bit of it mentioned in _Surely You 're Joking, Mr. Feynman_.

<comment><USER13> Ants at Work by Deborah Gordon is a really great book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So they're not lazy, they're just unemployed.

<comment><USER15> _coughs_ "between jobs"

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So... ant teenagers?

</comment><comment><USER17> ah anthropomorphizing animals, never disappoints</comment>


Gardens as crypto-water-computers - <AUTHOR> http://pruned.blogspot.com/2012/01/gardens-as-crypto-water-computers.html

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of the hydraulic model of the economy, the MONIAC "computer".

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4438081>

I assume this was the inspiration for "The Glooper" in Terry Pratchet's book "Making Money"

<comment><AUTHOR> The color diagram in the article is of the MONIAC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why are all the quotes the same one?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good catch. They are not really the same, just different authors describing the same thing.

<comment><USER4> Actually it's the author using some poetic license in trying to make a connection between the different examples he gives. Rube Goldberg lived and died long after the texts he references were written.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is interesting in the field of Computer Science? - <AUTHOR> Other fields are thinking about theories/experiments relating to the universe like black holes and subatomic particles. I've been looking at this stuff recently and found myself very interested. Then I thought about computer science. What is interesting in the field of CS? <comment><USER2> blockchain technology - Ethereum</comment>


Show HN: The XKCD Knapsack Solver - <AUTHOR> http://xkcd287.herokuapp.com

<comment><USER3> How are you supposed to use the site? Nothing is draggable in Google Chrome (dev latest)

<comment><AUTHOR> Works for me in Chrome.

<comment><USER3> I just didn't get that one is supposed to drop a file from the computer - <USER2> might clarify the wording a bit.</comment></comment></comment>


How to fail on Product Hunt (despite doing everything right) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/f0lio-cryptocurrency-portfolio/how-to-fail-on-product-hunt-despite-doing-everything-right-941e25e32d60 <comment><USER2> This is literally a guide on how to manipulate upvotes, and you're surprised that it didn't work.

That's just more evidence on the current state and influence of Product Hunt.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you elaborate on the word "manipulate"? In my opinion all we did is let our beta users know that we are on PH that day. The whole article is about how PH block products from going infront of new audiences

<comment><USER2> > In my opinion all we did is let our beta users know that we are on PH that > day.

...with the explicit goal of getting people to upvote your submission.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well of course that is the goal. Without upvotes your product is never seen by your potential users. If you solely rely on luck of people finding you buried in the Newest section than 99% of the time you won't reach the front page. I dare to say very few product ever made it to the top without the support of their initial beta / power users.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


RSS on the desktop 15 years later – the launch of Electric River for the Mac - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/2017/03/30/rssOnTheDesktop15YearsLater.html <comment><USER2> It is rubbish. An electron based RSS agglomerator that is clunky, and has little functionality. A web browser is a better RSS reader, no need to run any unsigned "app."</comment>


The city of Munich switches to Open Source Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2079800/switch-to-open-source-successfully-completed-city-of-munich-says.html

<comment><USER2> Great to see this project being completed after almost ten years. Several similar projects in Germany have failed (e.g. the parliament's attempt to converting to Linux) or Wienux in Vienna ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wienux](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wienux)). IMO, a major reason for the success of LiMux was the gradual change with extensive training and that the included developing custom templates and generators for Open Office etc.

For a timeline on the project: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux)

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome news, I always wonder how the users react to these kind of switches. They switched everyone to open office, firefox and thunderbird while on Windows and then gradually switched to LiMux. It seems like they tried to make the DE very similar to windows NT to ease the transition[0].

[0] [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LiMux.jpg](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LiMux.jpg)

<comment><USER4> That screenshot is from 2004 as you can see in the bottom right corner. KDE3.5 isn't maintained anymore so I guess the infos in the wiki are partially out of date.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> WIll be interesting to see how this fares long-term. The article doesn't mention why a custom distro was needed rather than one of the standards, and the running cost of now patching their own OS every time a linux bug or vulnerability is found.

<comment><USER6> It's no custom distro. It's Ubuntu 10.10 LTS. Only thing which they added was WollMux: [http://www.wollmux.net/wiki/Hauptseite](http://www.wollmux.net/wiki/Hauptseite)

Also they switched from OpenOffice to LibreOffice

<comment><USER7> Since when was 10.10 an LTS release? 10.04 was an LTS release and 12.04 was an LTS release. All in between were intermediate releases.

10.10 is an 18 month support release, which long passed.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Version...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Version_timeline)

10.04 and 12.04 are the only ones with current support.

<comment><USER6> sorry, meant 10.04

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> some more detailed info, and lot of comments [http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-munich-rejected- stev...](http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-munich-rejected-steve- ballmer-and-kicked-microsoft-out-of-the-city/)

<comment><USER9> A lot of comments but they done seem to be of high quality.</comment></comment>


Downforeveryoneorjustme.com is down - <AUTHOR>

That's called irony. <comment><USER2> [http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.downforeve...](http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://www.isup.me/downforeveryoneorjustme.com>

</comment><comment><USER4> My guess is that godaddy customers crashed the site.</comment>


Introducing Felicity - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eng.xogrp.com/post/153784367849/introducing-felicity <comment><USER2> Awesome! This is going to be super helpful for my company!</comment>


Wanted: A Light Field CEO - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lytro.com/news/wanted-a-light-field-ceo/

<comment><USER2> I first want to congratulate and praise these advances in optics. I think it's great that they have received so much funding to further their pursuits.

I don't think that the current application of their technology makes sense. The form factor is awkward and they are selling to prosumer / professional photogs. The technology makes sense for consumers - because consumers aren't making art - they are making memories. And memories can absorb the dynamism their technology provides (changes focus and even perspective (minorly)). So this tech on an smartphone would be amazing. (because other consumer level cameras are being fazed out obviously).

For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition. I dont think most professionals want the general public messing with their art form. Some abstract artists that will be very interested in the interact-ability - but not most. As a photographer myself - I want complete control over my medium and that includes focus and perspective obviously -- but the tech would be useful for post-processing. If they want to sell this to the current market they are selling to (seemingly professionals/prosumers but with a consumer form-factor) -- then they almost need to say this isnt even photography - but a completely new thing.

I can tell the founder really cares about the technology - and doesn't just want this to be like a Cisco and sell tech to larger companies. I can totally appreciate that - I wouldnt want to run that sort of company either. I just don't know that it will work how he wants to make it work.

Maybe that's why this change is happening.

<comment><USER3> > For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for > fixing perspective or composition.

I disagree. In a few years light field photography will be mandatory for professionals.

This technology lets you combine low light, long depth of field, and fast shutter speed in a single photograph. It lets you selectively blur distractions without tedious manual editing. Multiple cameras can be combined to extract 3D geometry and textures in a single snapshot, a tremendous time saver for CGI projects. Movies can move focus pulling to post.

The form factor is so they can make money, keeping them from having to trade company ownership for money. Other form factors are inevitable, just give it time.

<comment><USER4> For these cameras to be taken seriously, I think megapixel count needs to be a factor higher.

Currently, in video, we're chasing higher and higher output resolutions, and a 10x drop in pixel count isn't feasible. Once the sensors reach 10x the pixel count we need for output, then we can take the resolution hit for the focal effects.

1080p-capable light field capture seems possible now, but 4k light field capture might need a 300 MP sensor.

<comment><USER5> Be careful not to think of megapixel count as the end-all of photo quality. While it is very important, the quality of the image sensor makes the biggest difference. You can buy some 16MP point and shoot, but the image quality isn't going to match a quality DLSR at 10MP (like the Nikon D80). Think of megapixel count as just the upper limit of image quality.

<comment><USER6> I think the post you're replying to is referring to applying this technology to video. For feature films, 4K resolution would be highly desirable, and that's going to need some very large sensors.

<comment><USER3> Or several smaller sensors and fancier software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1) This is purely my opinion - There is a fundamental problem with these Lytros. Photography is an art, and art is not easy, which is exactly why art has some value, and not everyone can come up with art. It gives one a sense of joy, pride and achievement, when someone comes up with their own art, because they have taken the pains to capture the right subject, at the right moment with the right focus. What Lytro does is removes this sense of achievement, pride by making it easier for anyone and everyone to capture photos with the right subject, with the right focus - Even if they had captured it originally wrong. It makes the pro's look like idiots.

2) Design - The traditional DSLR's give you a sense of satisfaction, completion and pride when you hold them, because when someone else sees you holding them, they know you are putting in some effort to capture good photos.

The Lytro on the other hand looks like a traditional Kaleidoscope and when someone looks at you holding them - 1) They think its some toy, if they've never heard or seen a Lytro before or 2) They know its a device that lets anyone capture beautiful photos, so its no big deal.

There is very little pride of ownership in owning a Lytro, with contrast to a DSLR.

The Lytro needs some design elements from the traditional DSLR, to make it more appealing to the Masses. Had the Lytro been pitched in the form-factor of a DSLR, but with all the features that Lytro has now, it would have caught up like forest fire.

Lens compatibility. When people buy DSLR's, MOST of them buy the body because they know its from a company that manufactures great lenses (Eg: Canon). With Lytro, I'm not even sure if there are plans to manufacture external Lenses. Even if Lytro does manufacture them, it won't matter because companies like Canon/Nikon have a great array of Lenses, proven with the test of time. Lytro should in the least add support to fix lenses from 3rd party companies.

Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER4> This is one of the more ignorant comments I've seen in a while.

1) Your first point is exactly why Lytro is exciting—it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos.

Everything you said about Lytro could be said about auto light metering, auto focus, digital cameras, lcd viewfinders, Photoshop, etc... you have a bizarre, unproductive pretentiousness. Have you had the joy of carefully metering and focusing a film camera for the pride of seeing a print days later? Does that mean we shouldn't use digital cameras?

2) Why the hell would you create an easy-to-use camera for amateurs and give it interchangeable lens? The target audience of a Lytro isn't going to shop for a 28mm f/1.4 prime. More importantly, the focal length and aperture are fixed to a specific configuration for the microlens array, and that's a constraint of these plenoptic cameras that isn't going to change for a while.

I think you've posted the perfect cover letter for why you should never be CEO of Lytro.

<comment><USER8> "it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos."

These cameras do not help beginners, or anyone else take good photos. In much the same way that instagram doesn't. Sure, it might be a fad, like HDR is, but nothing short of learning about composition and lighting will make anyone take good photos.

I don't see anything disruptive about lytro photography. Being able to pick the focal point arbitrarily after the photo has been taken is a cool gimmick, but what's the point? How many times have you really wanted to do that with a photo? Beginners seldom take photos that are out of focus because autofocus systems have improved so much. Most blurry photos are due to low light and camera shake, poor handling of the camera. Lytro does not solve that problem.

I hope it succeeds and becomes a viable alternative, just as foveon sensors were/are, and I hope the company do well, this is an exciting time for photography.

<comment><USER3> "Most blurry photos are due to low light and camera shake, ..."

The Lytro camera has a fixed wide-open aperture, so exposure times are kept short.

" Being able to pick the focal point arbitrarily after the photo has been taken is a cool gimmick, but what's the point?"

You can also change the depth of field after the fact. E.g., to blur out the strip club in the background of an otherwise nice shot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's great to see a high quality piece of hardware brought all the way to market by a startup. Within the realm of hackernews/ycomb there is a huge focus on software because of the relative cost of bringing it to market, it's understandable. But I would love to see some more stories on HN about some of the behemoth industrial plays that happen outside of the software world, this is a nice example of sorts although it is still a very software heavy company.

</comment><comment><USER10> I would strongly suggest looking outside the photography industry for your CEO -- this is a transformative consumer device, not yet another camera.

(Apple would be a great place to look)

</comment><comment><USER11> I assumed the Lytro device was a proof of concept for the technology so they could embed the technology in cell phones. I cannot fathom a billion dollar use case outside of cell phones.

<comment><USER12> How about microscopes with post-exposure refocusing (at framerates!). That could be a HUGE biological research tool.

How about security cameras that can be focused onto various parts of the scene and stored for posterity?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Charles Chi is a great guy. He recently became the chancellor at my alma mater(Carleton U), is very approachable and gives tremendous advice.</comment>


Python Software Foundation will require code of conduct at all sponsored events - <AUTHOR> http://adainitiative.org/2012/12/python-software-foundation-publicly-announces-requirement-for-code-of-conduct-at-all-sponsored-events/

<comment><USER2> Fwiw, I'm not the chairman of the PSF, just one of a handful of directors. Van Lindberg is chairman. I am however chair for PyCon and I am responsible for pushing this through.

<comment><USER3> I teach high school math and science, and I throw in as much programming- related content as I can, such as teaching intro to python units whenever I get the chance. None of my students fit the model of a traditional young programmer. No one in my small town is a professional programmer, so none of my students ever see or hear of anyone doing high-level technical work. But many of them love programming once they get a feel for it.

The culture of pycon is entirely welcoming to my students. I won't be able to take students this year, because the travel costs from southeast Alaska are pretty steep. But I have shared with my students the specific ways that the python community supports different groups of non-traditional programmers: pycon policies, pyladies, the Boston Python Workshop initiatives, etc.

Knowing there are specific efforts to support non-traditional programmers makes my students much more open to considering a career in a technical field. The work that Jesse and others are doing is having a significant impact on a large number of people. It's an iceberg, as well; whatever visible impact you see, there are 10 times as many people benefiting from this work.

<comment><USER4> Please join [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/operation...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/operation- computer-science-teacher-connect) if you'd like to chat more with Python developers and teachers doing the same types of things. I'm working with K12 teachers to find ways to connect with Python developers for curriculum development, networking and just getting more computer science taught in schools. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The veteran cynic in me asks who benefits from this action. After all, the behavior that the code of conduct seeks to get on top of is unacceptable in any environment anyway. Yon don't change bad organizational culture with paperwork, you do it with enforcement of standards.

<comment><USER6> The first step is to establish a shared understanding of what is acceptable (i.e. code of conduct). Without that code of conduct, there's nothing to enforce.

Actually, I'm not even sure that "enforcement" is all that relevant. It's more about articulating the norms of behavior so that people can learn from them and grow.

<comment><USER5> _Articulating the norms of behavior?_ The norms in this code are the basic skills of interacting in society, anyone past the age of 17 should have internalized them. More: one expects anyone past that age of live by them, and consequently one can (and should!) deal with any violator in the appropiate manner.

<comment><USER7> Yes I agree, but it's not like this has come apropos of nothing.

Unfortunately a small minority apparently don't know how to behave appropriately around others, and need this shit to be spelled out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This feels like a "Caution this beverage is hot" label on a coffee cup.

Shouldn't it be obvious to not act like a jerk at a Python event?

<comment><USER2> Quoting myself <http://jessenoller.com/blog/2012/12/7/the-code-of-conduct> (recursion depth exceeded):

 _BUT EVERYONE IS NICE, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN COOL I know. Honestly, I do. Except for minor incident that I recall, PyCon US has largely been free of issues such as this. Every meetup, conference, etc I have been to has been filled with nice, kind people and largely jerk-free. This is a testament to the community as a whole.

So, you ask: if we're all chill cool people, and nothing bad has happened, why have one?

Because it won't always be that way.

If we continue to expand and grow (and we will), and if we continue to grow even more diverse - in sex, race, creed and geography - the chances of "an incident" will grow. In fact, I know incidents have happened and been dealt with.

So no, the unspoken rule of "don't be a jerk" doesn't scale very well. And that's what we're talking about - a scalability problem. The social norms and rules of a group of five people, or one hundred people may float. What about 200? 500? 800? How about 2300 people (the attendance of PyCon 2012)? No. "Don't be a Jerk" may be our unspoken, unwritten community motto; but its not enough for those on the outside looking in.

Those outside of these circles want clear lines on behavioral expectations. They want to know that not only are there unwritten rules about not being a jerk - they want to know what will happen if a Jerk Occurs. This sets their expectations, and it gives them comfort. It makes them feel more welcome, more safe. Especially when they're part of a group who has been put under constant objectification and harassment for decades in our industry._

<comment><USER8> I completely understand the spot you are in and can see how you are rationalizing it. The policy approach just doesn't fit for me (nor does it need to). I only commented because I do care about the Python community and hope to attend this event.

When I read the article I can't help substituting "label on cup" and reading incident as a coffee burn.]

Seeing "we now have an anti-harassment policy!" followed up by "and women are specifically encouraged to attend and apply." makes me cringe.

It doesn't feel like the way to encourage my wife (engineer) or any of the numerous women I have developed software with that the conference is an awesome event.

<comment><USER2> The numbers disagree with you assertion(s) - we have increased sponsorship due to the actions taken, we have increased the number of female presenters/speakers, and we have an astounding number of thank you's from women within the community with regards to the actions taken and statements made.

I am not "in a spot" or "rationalizing it" - I have concrete proof that changes like this in combination with a massive amount of outreach has had an extremely positive effect for the community and conference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Living in a free, democratic and gender-equal country, I have a hard time understanding how programming languages (their organizations, such as PSF) should play an active role in political issues. If sexual harassment are not covered by local laws, maybe residents in this country should invest some time pushing that through.

<comment><USER2> I explained _why_ the foundation should take an active role here: <http://jessenoller.com/blog/2012/12/7/the-code-of-conduct> \- read the whole thing, especially the points about sponsorship and branding.

<comment><USER9> I did read the whole thing before writing my original reply. I see why you need to do it for PyCon, but I can't see why you need to demand it for the things you sponsor in PSF.

<comment><USER2> We need it for conferences we _sponsor_ just as other sponsors require it from PyCon. Requiring it from conferences taking our money, our logo and our name (nee: endorsement) means that protections are in place for our _investment_ and community

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another strike against free speech for the PC police.

<comment><USER11> I was surprised that the code of conduct was all about what you shouldn't do, instead of what was expected of the attendees.

Telling adults, "Be careful in the words that you choose." does give the code the Code a patina of Political Correctness. I was half expecting the next paragraph to warn me to look both ways before crossing the street.

The Code has a very broad definition of harassment that makes no distinction between a one time comment and a pattern of repetitive behaviour intended to intimidate or cause harm.

I see that "following" is one of the actions that defines harassment. How does that differ from stalking? I assume they are not referring to Twitter.

From what I understand, the code was approved by the Board of Directors of the PSF, and not the PSF as a whole. Please, correct me if I am wrong. This is ironic since one of the Board members was walking around the conference last year with a damaged stuffed python toy asking, "Would you like to see my one eyed snake?"

This was said to one of my female colleagues. I asked her if she would like me to say something and she replied, "No, it is just creepy, but I'm an adult."

The Board's aspiration to create a welcoming environment is laudable and this spirit is very much a part of the Python community. I don't think that the Code, as worded, helps accomplish this. It is overly broad and loosely defined. The result is that it sounds like an attempt to infantilize the attendees and proscribe behaviour that may be part of vigorous exchanges of points of view.

I am sure that this is not what the Board intended, but you would wish for a more articulate expression from a group of engineers who would not tolerate this sense of generality in their code.

<comment><USER12> As the female colleague, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in, here.

I don't need anyone to speak up for me about anything. I'm outspoken enough that if I was actually offended by something I would say something myself. The ridiculous one-eyed snake joke was not ill-intended, nor did I feel harassed, and I'm going to remove myself as an example, here.

Let's not derail the conversation that needs to be had about CoCs. It's a little ridiculous to discount the attempts that are being made to make the community better because one of the directors that helped write it told an off-color joke at a conference that one time.</comment></comment></comment>


Recursive search in Google Maps - <AUTHOR> http://elshawwa.blogspot.com/2009/04/recursive-search-in-google-maps-why-is.html Google Maps is not just for looking up directions and "coffee". It gets more interesting when you can use it for some sort of business intelligence experiments with Google's location data. Let me know what you think. <comment><USER2> This feature exists for a long time now.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, I bloggged about it last year, but thought of sharing on this community since I only joined recently. Even last year it seemed like it existed for a while. Did you find other interesting use cases of exploring their location data? I'd like to see some way of doing some sort of location analytics based on all the places they already have on there.</comment></comment>


Traffic jams are not caused by flaws in road design but by flaws in human nature. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/books/review/Roach-t.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> "Adding lanes or roads is a short-lived fix. Widen one highway, and drivers from another will defect."

Thereby making both highways have less traffic. The fact that people come when capacity is improved shows that you're lessening the load on other roads!

"Traffic jams are not, by and large, caused by flaws in road design but by flaws in human nature."

Not accounting for human nature is a flaw in road design. Maybe it's just too expensive to account for it, but traffic design is an exercise in understanding driving habits.

Most of the facts in this article are right on and I bet the book is worthwhile, but the writer of the article didn't seem to really think through what he's saying. It's sad when good concepts get ruined by weenie-thinking.

<comment><USER3> I've always wanted highway response crews to come equipped with unfoldable response screens. Something like a nice 20' screen which would block off the view of the accident from the opposing lane. I've always thought a considerable about of time, money, and perhaps life could be saved by such a policy.

It was nice to finally see an article that explained why I don't see such a thing.

<comment><USER4> I thought about this, and I don't think it would work. From the response crew's perspective, they want a massive traffic jam, because the cars are moving slower and paying more attention. So the response crews who would have to put up the screen would have an incentive to oppose it.

<comment><USER5> I sorta agree, and I sorta disagree...

Here in Seattle I've been held up for over an hour on the 520 bridge because of an accident THE OTHER DIRECTION. Having screens would prevent rubber necking on the other side of the highway (with a large cement barrier in between).

Also, I think you can do a lot to the screen itself to increase driver safety. Make it 15' high and entirely yellow/black diagonal stripes and it'll catch driver's attention and get them to slow down. TV and radio educational ads can help too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interestingly the core problem of highway congestion is that drivers decelerate faster than they accelerate.

An example: Person A slows down a little on the highway for some reason - maybe she sees something on the side of the road, maybe her cellphone goes off, it doesn't really matter. Person B behind her slows down a little as well to keep her clearance, person C does the same and so on. Now person A speeds back up to her original speed (when she is done talking on her phone, watching stuff on the side of the road, or whatever) but she doesn't accelerate quite as fast as she decelerated - this is perfectly normal behaviour - notice it next time you take a trip in your car. Person B does the same thing when she sees person A accelerate and so on. Before long you have a whole row of cars that need to brake because the cars in front of them have decelerated quickly and accelerated slowly. This is what causes most traffic jams on highways.

This is also why a traffic jam moves backwards on the road as time passes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could it be any other way? Could you design a road to induce acceleration and slow deceleration without affecting safety?

<comment><USER6> A simple and effective way of dissolving a traffic jam is to keep going at the same speed - let me explain:

You see congestion up ahead, and you slow down to, say, 40mph. This creates some room in front of you in anticipation of the inevitable braking. You then drive through the traffic jam at a constant speed with no acceleration or deceleration, and the people behind you will have no choice but to follow (or change lanes which is the weak point of the solution) What you will see at the other end (if you could go back and look) is that you have dissolved the jam because you have prevented people from decellerating quickly and accelerating slowly.

Several people have tried this successfully and it works.

<comment><USER7> It's really fun when 3 or 4 people all know and do the same thing. It solve the 'weak point' and once or twice I've been part of a 'team' that cleared a jam that way. It's a weird sort of rush.

<comment><USER8> This reminds me of an old episode of Scientific American Frontiers.

<http://www.pbs.org/saf/transcripts/transcript904.htm#5>

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the link. I believe it was this episode that influenced a lot of how I drive (merging, staying slow but consistent in stop-and-go traffic, &c). It should be required watching for new drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Traffic jams may have complicated causes for any fixed number of cars on the road, but it's worth noting that they don't often have traffic jams in rural Kansas. The fundamental problem of traffic is that there are too many cars on the road, and that's because road usage is priced too low. The predictable result is queueing, i.e., traffic. Most of the fancy investigations into the psychology of drivers, etc., are simply higher-order corrections to this basic 0th-order result.

<comment><USER10> Public transportation is the answer to traffic jams. If the government stopped renting out street-side parking for artificially low prices then the cost of parking would become a bigger incentive to use public transportation.

<comment><USER9> Agreed. Pricing parking correctly would be one big step. A potentially even bigger step would be to repeal the medallion laws that currently give taxis weird cartel status in most cities. This would allow anyone to offer transport for money, i.e., you could form jitneys (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitney>). I secretly want to find a large city with bad public transport (Los Angeles? San Jose?) and start a jitney company ---which, on its way to making billions, would solve the problem of urban mass transit. (Talk about "Be good" and "Make something people want"...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> He's touched on some reasons, but definitely not all of them.

A big part of traffic is that communication doesn't happen - because it can't. I can't tell the driver behind me "I'm going to be slowing down in 10 seconds, get ready." Likewise, it isn't easy to convey to someone merging onto a freeway that I'm going to let them in ahead of me so we both end up slowing down so that we're both still in contention with each other until someone takes the initiative.

Now, if only we had some way that cars could communicate with each other and the road so that they could regulate speed and allow operations such as merging as efficiently as possible. . .

</comment><comment><USER12> People tend to act more selfishly in cars than they do outside of them, much like many people do with the relative anonymity of the internet. I suspect it is because drivers are in semi-protected pockets of their own space, and they're essentially sitting still - there is not much they can do to discharge physical frustration caused by traffic besides yelling, giving people the finger, or driving more aggressively.

</comment><comment><USER13> Isn't the real problem that a lot of people drive to, and then back from, work at the same time?

<comment><USER14> The real problem is that a lot of people drive on the same roads at the same time. What they're doing on the roads is irrelevant (although work is probably the biggest cause of the demand for road usage. I assume you're attempting to make a case for staggering work hours so "rush hour" is spread over a longer time).

Roads are an interesting economic model. There are basically 3 primary factors: current demand, current supply, and _price_. Price is especially interesting because price isn't necessarily dollars (or your currency of choice).

Price = Demand/Supply

So if demand goes up (rush hour, popular events, etc.) or supply goes down (construction, accidents blocking lanes) then the price goes up. Part of the price is paid in taxes that goes to build and maintain the road, the other component of price is time. How much time will you spend driving. If it's rush hour and there was a collision blocking the left lane and you're on your way to a baseball game then the demand is pretty high, and the supply is pretty low, so the price will go up. If this isn't a toll road, then the additional price you're paying is 100% time. Of course the beauty is that you could in theory take a toll road and pay in currency instead of time, although there aren't always toll roads as options.

<sarcasm> I suppose the best solution is A: don't go anywhere, or B: get a transporter like in Star Trek.</sarcasm>

<comment><USER15> Actually, I wonder if anyone out there has tried making toll-roads where you pay more the more _time_ you spend on the toll-road, as opposed to the more distance you travel. That would certainly provide a nice economic signal to avoid congestion.

Of course, you'd also need to install a large number of speed cameras, to stop the obvious method of gaming the system...

<comment><USER16> I think that would lead to dangerous situations. You would see people constantly changing lanes to try to maximize their speed. Accidents would happen more frequently.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do you have what it takes to be a startup CTO? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.phuaxueyong.com/post/2020-08-23-what-does-cto-do/ <comment><AUTHOR> What are your thoughts about CTOs and their JDs. What advices do you have as well? Do share with me! :D

<comment><USER2> Thank you for posting the article, I enjoyed it.

You may want to define "JD" in the article - I assumed it stands for "junior developers"?

<comment><USER3> I read that as job descriptions.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, it is actually job description. Thank you for the clarification!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does Microsoft calculate commercial intent? - <AUTHOR> http://adlab.microsoft.com/Online-Commercial-Intention/Default.aspx

<comment><USER2> Did you read the study linked from that page?

[http://adlab.microsoft.com/Online-Commercial- Intention/Algor...](http://adlab.microsoft.com/Online-Commercial- Intention/AlgorithmicCommericalIntentDetection-Analysis.doc)

<comment><USER2> -excerpt from the study

Human evaluators labeled non-monetized query terms from the first week of Dec '06. The queries represented the top 70% of queries (by frequency… 1000 sampled per 10% frequency bin). Some of the bot-like queries and most non- English language queries were removed to arrive at 6,258 queries. These were labeled as commercial, non-commercial, unsure, or foreign language queries. Of the 6,258 queries, 5,017 were labeled as 'commercial' or 'non-commercial' by the majority of the evaluators. This analysis looks at these 5K queries.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Would love to know what goes behind the scenes in calculating online commercial intent...</comment>


Nav Coin Attains Dedicated Tor Nodes - <AUTHOR> http://cryptocereal.com/nav-coin-attains-dedicated-tor-nodes/ <comment><USER2> limiting your entry nodes to a few selected all controlled by the same instance. Now that is a very smart idea!</comment>