We build a highlight-taking DApp and you can too - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-product-manger-studio/how-we-build-a-highlight-taking-dapp-and-you-can-too-59b371907d78 <comment><USER2> Nice app for me. I can save quote i like. Thanks team</comment>


Show HN: Analysis of Presidential Candidate Speeches Using the Google NLP API - <AUTHOR> https://andrewjtimmons.github.io/national_convention_sentiment/ <comment><USER2> Looks like the lights are on and nobody home with the API all the negative sentiment indications are now howlingly wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree it was not accurate in all cases. The api is in beta but it was fun to use.

<comment><USER2> I am trying to make a living at intelligent systems and I have a lot of fear that APIs like this, particularly when they come from the "best and brightest" companies like Google, Microsoft and IBM, create skepticism for artificial intelligence and language technology, and thus create a "market for lemons" situation that directly endangers my ability to make a living.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This verifies my plan to write-in Bernie Sanders. Good idea.</comment>


ReactJS for Stupid People (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.andrewray.me/reactjs-for-stupid-people/

<comment><USER2> Flux slowed me down at the start, but React was rather easy. Easier than Ember for example. The API surface is tiny, everything is done with components and the composition of them.

Flux on the other hand was hard to grasp, since all of the different implementations and the naming problems. Actions in MVC are just methods of the controller classes, but in Flux they are objects, which kinda threw me off track right in the beginning.

Also, I came from ExtJS and Ember and was accustomed to two-way data binding and the whole Flux thing felt backwards, because interacting with the Models in Ember-Data didn't take any effort. After they were bound I just needed to type my data and they get updated automatically. I just had to look about gathering them at the end and send their updates to the server.

<comment><USER3> FWIW, Redux is an amazing 'evolution'/implementation of Flux [https://github.com/rackt/redux](https://github.com/rackt/redux)

I was always confused with 'Flux' and was never able to understand it. Redux is very nice.

<comment><USER2> I started with Redux.

But I didn't choose it. Another dev at the current project did.

It took me a few weeks to fully understand what Redux is about. I didn't know about "one store for all", the difference between actions and action creators and how immutability was mandatory.

I just jumped in and started my first component with a (rather bad) tutorial I found with google and copied a Redux store and actions from a co-worker.

The Redux docs weren't good till 1.0

After I asked Dan something I realized I got it all wrong. But now I think it's a really nice way to do front-ends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        $.post('/login', credentials, function(user) {
            $('header.name').text(user.name);
        });

> I can tell you from experience that this code will ruin your life

The alternative isn't React. It's

        $.post('/login', credentials, function( user ) {
            setUserName(user.name);
        });

        // Somewhere else...
        function setUserName(name) {
            $('header.name').text(name);
        }

React doesn't tell you 'who changed the header' either. Other than having a central point through which changes are routed: like a function.

React gives you incremental HTML rendering via a virtual DOM. Which saves you having to do that manually (though in many cases you don't need to do it at all). A lot of this article reads like framework-fetishism.

On Flux, I like his comments there. I'm thinking of reinventing the command pattern in Javascript and calling it SuperFlux...

<comment><USER5> That solution just punts the ball down the field a bit. You still have to figure out who called setUserName to mutate the DOM.

<comment><USER4> Right, and you have to figure out who changed the model in React too. You don't get magic traceability. If you want to know what caused a change, neither helps. If you want to know what changed the DOM, both allow you to do that. Only React makes it implicit (it may choose not to make any change, for example), this approach is explicit.

This approach punts the ball into part of the field you can see, understand and control. React punts the ball into someone else's stadium.

Framework-fetishism is being enamoured by things a framework does that you could do yourself in a couple of lines of code. Unfortunately Javascript programmers seem to be very vulnerable to it. There are good reasons to use React, but they aren't what the article wants to praise.

<comment><USER6> You get plenty of magic traceability :) Check out redux. You get it in vanilla Flux if you use immutable data. I would also suggest using React for a toy project to learn more about it. The "pure"ity of the render function means you can trace the state of the DOM directly to a Javascript object (declarative), which was the point of the article's example. Your "down the road" code is imperative, as in someone changes the DOM independent of the state of your data.

<comment><USER4> I've used React in anger, thanks.

So how do I tell from React where my model was changed, in what bit of my code, that I couldn't tell just as easily in my own function?

React is only declarative in as much as it provides an imperative function to convert between data structures. You can do this yourself, and should.

<comment><USER5> You're not converting between data structures in your example, you're mutating a stateful system. Moreover, I'd rather leverage a library so that I don't have to manually do everything myself.

<comment><USER4> I couldn't work out what point you're making in this response, sorry.

I was referring to the claim that _React_ is declarative. Not my code.

Things aren't declarative magically. A declarative system is one where you declare a data structure, and you feed it to a separate bit of imperative code that operates on that declaration. In react's code, the 'declaration' is a set of HTML templates and the 'operation' is to create a corresponding DOM.

> you're mutating a stateful system

Both approaches do. React mutates state too.

> Moreover, I'd rather leverage a library

Good for you.

For some things React is a big time saving. But for many things it is a waste of bandwidth, a waste of development time and a waste of programmer education. Just like any library that isn't required. Using libraries is not free.

If you want the kinds of benefits the post highlights, you can get them much cheaper with a few lines of code. If you want to import a full library to save a few lines of code, that's your prerogative, of course.

React shines when you need a templating system and you can benefit from the performance of a virtual DOM. If you want a basic virtual DOM, then you can do it very easily yourself (a few lines of code in the simplest case), but as things get more complex, it becomes a better tradeoff in favour of React. If you want a comprehensive system, React becomes a very useful tool, one I rely on myself. But it is important to understand what you need and why. If you don't need a virtual DOM, then using React seems pretty foolish, to me.

Javascript is full of frameworks, and full of programmers who use them without knowing what they're for.

<comment><USER5> React encourages declarative usage. You declare some data and how it will be rendered in JSX templates, and React does its thing. As a consumer of a library I shouldn't have to care about what goes on under the hood, as long as I know the API and its proper usage.

> Both approaches do. React mutates state too.

Right, but I don't have to concern myself with the stateful system (the DOM). I can delegate that responsibility to React.

As to your other points, I agree that people should put more thought into their selection of tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > React is ONLY THE VIEW LAYER.

> React gives you a template language and some function hooks to essentially > render HTML.

This is actually wrong, despite the official page saying the same. It's the biggest misconception in the React community. render() function outputs a data structure which describes HTML and ALSO user event handlers on that HTML. Any UI program does both: handle input user events and generate graphics output. A View is only the latter part, hence React cannot be only the View.

Refer to original MVC paper [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1979/mvc-2/1979-12-MVC.pdf](http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1979/mvc-2/1979-12-MVC.pdf)

> A view is a (visual) representation of its model.

> … a view should never know about user input, such as mouse operations and > keystrokes.

<comment><USER8> Isn't it referring to the V in MVC? If that's the origin of "React is ONLY the view layer", then I think it fits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Note about the wide variety of flux implementations that scares people:

1: it's not that big a deal if you choose the "wrong" one. Flux implementations are small and based on many similar concepts. Even if you choose one that ends up being unmaintained, your flux choice will still stay a solid choice. We are using 3 different flux implementations in our apps, and have no plans to migrate any of them.

2: It's starting to look like redux has "won". Flummox, which was previously a leading contender for the title, now recommends redux. Redux has a very simple core, is an excellent merger of the best concepts of flux, elm and others, has great documentation, and an extensive ecosystem of plugins.

<comment><USER10> We are also switching to Redux after trying Alt: Redux solves a couple of fundamental problems with the original Flux architecture (in fact, Redux isn't actually Flux).

I just wished Redux was a bit more opinionated. But it not being so will certainly please many other people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of people coding for the exact same output, and the time difference between them. If React is supposed to make coding faster, then why is the code a black box? Why do I have to debug the React source code to find out what's going on. Too much div soup, too much abstraction. I genuinely would love to see a code-off between developers where they make a simple TODO app, with one in vanilla JS and the other in React. Presuming the React developer has mastered React and won't run into some form of roadblock (which is rare).

<comment><USER12> You cannot really compare a React project with a non-React project if it is done by different people.

We use React since four months, and we develop faster compared to before, when we used only jQuery.

<comment><USER4> Was that because you now structure you code in a better way, or was it because of React's functionality? And what aspect of the functionality was the most productive? The templating system? Did you used to hand-code your HTML in jQuery, or did you use templates in the HTML document?

(Genuine questions, not making a point).

<comment><USER12> A bit of both. With React we now have a much nicer code structure, because it forces us to think in components. We have a JS file and an SCSS file for each component. Before we rendered the view on the server side with Python/Jinja2.

I think there are many reasons for the productivity boost. Thinking in components, more readable code, great debugging possibilities, understandable data flow, to name a few.

And, last but not least, it is lots of fun :-).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Client-only rendering is why Soundcloud feels so slow and why Stack Overflow (purely server side rendering) feels so fast.

Soundcloud might be "slower" than StackOverflow because it continuously streams music while you're navigating the page. A car is also slower than a drag racer, because it fits multiple people, luggage, and conforms to several safety standards. But maybe we should all be driving drag racers instead.

<comment><USER14> Isn't this the benefit of an isomorphic architecture? Get the initial speed of server-side rendering but then let the feature-filled ajaxy goodness take over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why didn't he say that ReactJs is in the early stages and is "only" for the enthusiasts, thus, not for stupid!

<comment><USER16> Maybe you're thinking of React Native?

<comment><USER15> The article was in 2014

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> ReactJS for stupid people: "oh great another JavaScript framework, so tired of all the hype, can't wait for the next one to come out 17 seconds from now", etc etc

<comment><USER18> why the hate?

<comment><USER19> He's not hating React; he's hating javascript.

<comment><USER20> he's hating the community, not the language</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What companies are currently using VR/AR for commercial purposes? - <AUTHOR> and what are these commercial purposes? <comment><USER2> As a guy who has used the Samsung Gear VR on many occasions, and also the Google cardboard from the early days, I have always believed VR is for commercial use while AR is what will be used by everybody else. Seating at home and looking around gets tiring pretty quickly, but that wont be the case in a commercial setup. My startup is focusing on this but I want to use several gear VR devices all in sync, which can make it possible, lets say, to showcase a real estate property in a real estate exhibition, or showcase tourism features like the great wilder beast migration (am a Kenyan) to a group of tourists on behalf of a touring firm. That can extend to even shooting weddings in 360 degrees, etc. I also have focus in using 360 degrees pictures and videos that can be somehow interactive (Not planning on starting a war on how 360 isn't VR) Anyway, now I just have to overcome trying to fund it and the depression of not being able to yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do you mean aside from games? I run a company focused on VR games, but I'm not sure if you're excluding that use case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya, I meant more of non-gaming commercial purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Search for "car virtual reality" It's used in auto design and eventually sales.

</comment><comment><USER5> Architects

</comment><comment><USER6> My startup is working on VR app for overcoming fears & phobias. Imagine you can practice giving speech in front of audience. Or learning to relax in a social event.

There are already bunch of such startups but we are integrating a few more sensors and meditation techniques in our app.</comment>


Why You Can't Concentrate at Work - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-you-cant-concentrate-at-work-1494342840?mod=e2tw <comment><USER2> "an unforeseen consequence of open-plan workspaces"

hahahahah, unforeseen only if one didn't look.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can agree with this article for the most part. In my old office, I removed almost everything from my desk but my computer. It did help having entire room to myself, though.</comment>


Leibniz – A Digital Scientific Notation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/khinsen/leibniz <comment><USER2> "Scientific models are much simpler than most software"

I've been noodling with some similar ideas around collaborative editing of interconnected declarative models, and I don't think the above is necessarily true. A diagram of the Linux Kernel might be even more complex than a diagram of some wild systems biology[0], but surely there is ever more complexity to discover. The tools for massively distributed digital collaboration seem much more polished in software than scientific fields today. I hope the author's work is a step in the right direction!

For similar Scheme-y computer algebra stuff, see Sussman and Wisdom's work in "Structure and Interpretation of Classic Mechanics" and follow-ons.

[0]: [https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/35/98/92/3598...](https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/35/98/92/3598920b755d4ab46e4ee5c06fec1295.jpg)

<comment><USER3> You can have a scientific model of photosynthesis and explain the concept and how it works to students based on that model. They wouldn't be able to somehow implement that process afterwards nor would anyone expect them to.

Software isn't like that. Software has to describe a process unambiguously and exhaustively. There is no option to say "and now you do X" while leaving X undefined.

Software can't be simpler than the process it describes, it can only provide a simpler interface.

<comment><USER4> You can also easily explain to students how a piece of complex software works, at the same level of detail. The point is biology is vastly more complex than any software humans have ever written. Evolution selects for spaghetti code.

<comment><USER5> Evolution seems to select for highly redundant and holographic code, where holographic means non-sparsely encoded in this context. Height, for example, is encoded in a wide variety of genes which can be turned on and off by even more genes.

<comment><USER6> Why would you use the term "holographic" instead of "non-sparsely encoded," "robust," "redundant," or any of the other better-understood and seemingly more descriptive terms one could use?

<comment><USER5> Because holographic encoding is a particular type of non-sparse encoding and redundancy. "Holographic" really is the most descriptive way I can think to describe it without using many more words.

Redundancy can be achieved through multiple independent systems, e.g. repeating the encoded text in multiple locations; such an approach is not holographic, though. Parity is a more holographic encoding scheme in that redundancy comes from the interaction of multiple pieces of encoded text.

The term is even more applicable when talking about convolutional neural networks in which every neural node significantly contributes to every encoding. Here the similarity to optical holograms becomes quite apparent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Its only slightly related- but is there a sort of zoom in Version of a Formula Display language out there? Lets say i have a Wikipedia article which contains the formula: F = G _((m1_ m2)/r^2) Now normal this dense knowledge notation requires lots of already existing knowledge to decipher. But if you had some java script system to "zoom" in, you could replace parts of it - first with words (linking to the corresponding article)- then with the Explanation itself.

<comment><USER8> This would be lovely, as would be comprehensive documentation of software, but it has the same problem: someone has to write the words, and the documentation; and, even if he or she is motivated to document, there's no reason to believe that the person with the domain expertise to write such documentation has any particularly good writing ability, so now you're coördinating the efforts of two people just to write one equation. Since the rewards are not the sort of thing that will be immediately apparent to a domain expert (who is after all surrounded by people who already understand, or can relatively easily come to understand, the material in question), this effort is unlikely to be expended—at least not on a large scale.

(If the documentation is written by a separate person, not coördinating with the original coder / equat-or, then one must doubt its accuracy; and, if it is auto-generated—well, have you ever seen really good auto-generated documentation?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _The main difference between Leibniz and computer algebra systems is that > Leibniz is a scientific notation whereas computer algebra systems are tools > for doing computations. A notation needs to be clear, a tool needs to be > flexible and efficient.

Different priorities lead to different design decisions. In a computer algebra system, you never see a definition of a term algebra or a list of rewrite rules. They are hidden from the user, and in the case of commercial software even heavily encoded to make them inaccessible. A computer algebra system is the equivalent of a single giant unpublished Leibniz context. In contrast, Leibniz encourages small, readable, and remixable contexts that can be examined and understood by scientists with reasonable effort. However, Leibniz lacks the huge database of simplification rules that make up the bulk of a computer algebra system._

</comment><comment><USER10> If this is notation then what does an implementation of notation really mean? What do you get when you run Leibniz code?

<comment><USER11> You don't "run" Leibniz code. Leibniz is not a programming language. A Leibniz context is more like a database of equations than like a program.

You can use the database of equations (and rules) to "reduce" a term, which is also what computer algebra systems do. The difference is that in Leibniz, the database of equations of rules is always known and can be inspected, whereas in a computer algebra system it is carefully hidden from the user. Since it's this database where scientific knowledge is stored, this difference is quite important.

<comment><USER10> What exactly is the difference between "running code" and "reducing a term"? Seems pretty much the same to me..

<comment><USER11> You can indeed consider a context plus a term to be reduced as a program, which is executed by term reduction. But the unit of code in Leibniz is the context, not the context + term-to-be-reduced. If you want to compare to programming languages, a context is more like a library.

The difference is in the focus rather than in the principles. Leibniz is a Turing-complete language, so you can use it for programming. But that's not what Leibniz is designed for. Term reduction is more a way of exploring the definitions in a context than a way to run code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My recent presentation on Leibniz may answer some questions that have remained open in this discussion: [http://www.slideshare.net/khinsen/leibniz-a-digital- scientif...](http://www.slideshare.net/khinsen/leibniz-a-digital-scientific- notation)

</comment><comment><USER12> the documentation here is quite sparse, so correct me if i'm wrong. This seems like a dressed up theorem proving system like PROLOG dressed up as something new.

<comment><USER13> No, not really. The wikipedia page of Maude has a good explanation of what it is like: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maude_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maude_system). You can also see the Maude book if you're interested [1].

[1]: [http://maude.cs.illinois.edu/w/images/0/0d/Maude- book.pdf](http://maude.cs.illinois.edu/w/images/0/0d/Maude-book.pdf)

<comment><USER14> I'm a bit out of my league here, but how does Maude compare to say Idris?

I remember dabbling with Pure, which used term rewriting, and lent itself to expressing mathematical equations in a familiar format, but it was not a prover.

I downloaded the PDF for Maude, and I will certainly take a look in the meantime. My interests are solely for learning, and I thought using something like Idris to work my way through Sussman's Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics, might drive it home for me in ways that my physics classes didn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I tried reading your 27 page long essay but got bored a couple pages in and then skimmed the rest. After that I looked at the examples in the repository.

My only question is: why? Seriously, what problem are you trying to solve here?

Your 27 page long essay was useless in conveying that to me because it was written overly explicit and seems to have too much background but not really any content.

Looking at the examples I just don't see a point. I'm a scientist. I work with PDEs. You even mentioned one of the software I work with in your paper.

Nothing you have written explains to me why I should decide to write e.g.:

nabla v = 0

In whatever notation it is you are trying to sell me.

So please explain.

<comment><USER11> In Leibniz, you wouldn't write only "nabla v = 0", but also what v is (by associating it with a sort), what properties v has (e.g. being positive), and how you actually obtained "nabla v = 0" from some first principles, using a sequence of transformations.

The point of Leibniz is to communicate information to other scientists, but in a notation that can be analyzed and verified by computer programs. An immediate advantage is coherence checking by the Leibniz system - you cannot use undefined quantities in an equation, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Modelica?

[https://youtu.be/-mvEUuc-sWE](https://youtu.be/-mvEUuc-sWE)

<comment><USER11> Leibniz and Modelica indeed share the objective of writing digital scientific models rather than software. But the kind of information that can be expressed is quite different. Perhaps the most important difference (for me at least) is that Leibniz permits analyzing and reasoning about models, not just simulating them. I don't think Modelica can do this, but I can't claim to know it well enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Where can we see examples of the notation?

<comment><USER18> The examples/ directory: [https://github.com/khinsen/leibniz/tree/master/examples](https://github.com/khinsen/leibniz/tree/master/examples)

<comment><USER19> upside-down "A" ... hmm

<comment><USER20> No, "A" is upside-down, before the transformation it was the symbol for the head of a cow, called aleph (whence alpha).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Robot Pharmacists Are Picking Your Medications—Literally - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/09/robot-pharmacists-are-picking-your-medications-literally/

<comment><USER2> I don't want to offend pharmacists, because it's possible I entirely don't understand their job. But every time I pick up a prescription I'm stunned at how long it takes them to count out 30 pills, even when it seems there's no one else there. Find the big bottle on the shelf. Count out 30, put in smaller bottle, glue on label. Time: 1 hour.

<comment><USER3> Speaking as an ex-(21 years and counting) pharmacist, the job of the _pharmacist_ is not to count pills; it's to make sure that your doctor doesn't poison you by accident.

The pill-counting is mostly done by dispensers. The knowledge about medication side-effects, prescribing guidelines, drug interactions, and the messy rest of it? Not so much.

(Note that I missed out "dealing with insurance companies" because the NHS -- I'm British -- doesn't involve that step.)

((NB: I am an ex-pharmacist because being good at that job requires a peculiar combination of obsessive-compulsive detail work and total lack of imagination about what happens if you get it wrong. And I lack it.))

<comment><USER4> > Speaking as an ex-(21 years and counting) pharmacist, the job of the > pharmacist is not to count pills; it's to make sure that your doctor doesn't > poison you by accident.

Umm, do you really check drug-interactions by hand/memory?

Even when the check includes asking the patient "are you taking {list}", shouldn't that list be generated by machine?

<comment><USER3> I have no idea what current practice is, but back then we used reference books. Knowing _how_ to interpret the reference books -- that's what you do the degree and postgraduate training for. (And the commonest stuff you learned to spot straight off the bat.)

One problem is that you need to be able to talk to/see the patient yourself. There's stuff that won't be in their medical records -- if they eat lots of spinach or drink grapefruit juice, for example. (Both of which have nasty side-effects when combined with various medications.) Or ask them how/when they take their meds. (A surprising number of patients misunderstand their prescriptions ...)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Has China been protecting its citizens and companies all along? - <AUTHOR> http://interpretthis.org/2013/06/12/chinese-net-censorship-and-prism

<comment><USER2> There is a definite benefit (or some would argue side effect) to protectionism. Compared to other countries, with respect to technology, they have successfully built their own indigenous search engines, social networks, e-commerce, manufacturing etc. While most of the rest of the world is dependent on the US.

Bunnie Huang had a very good post on this [http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3040](http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3040)

Protectionism is a side effect of Nationalism. And as Nicholas Negroponte put it - "Nationalism is the biggest disease on the planet, Nations have the wrong granularity. They're too small to be global and too big to be local, and all they can think about is competing."

</comment><comment><USER3> As the largest single-party socialist state, which choice do you really have? To protect your citizens and markets is one of the primary missions in a socialist state to avoid economical exploitation from imperial forces.

Compare the RF (fromer USSR) and the PRC.</comment>


Lucky, an experimental new web framework by thoughtbot - <AUTHOR> https://robots.thoughtbot.com/lucky-an-experimental-new-web-framework-by-thoughtbot <comment><USER2> Crystal looks like a cool language, but I think it only runs on the server. So after saying Elm is front-end-only, the "holy grail" is back-end-only? It's not obvious which is preferable.</comment>


Oracle Gets Java Running on iOS Devices - <AUTHOR> http://java.dzone.com/articles/oracle-gets-java-running-ios

<comment><USER2> [http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer- tools/adf/overvi...](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer- tools/adf/overview/adf-mobile-096323.html)

Looks like a PhoneGap equivalent based off Java instead of JS rather than 'Xamarin for Java'.

Is there any reason that LLVM can't AOT compile java to machine code? That'd maybe be another way of doing this if people wanted to take the native UI route.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can see the application spectrum going even wider on iOS. Let's see if Java can make its way into iOS after being remove from Mac.</comment>


Concorde has risen again - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-39845625 <comment><USER2> A new definition of a 'fluff piece'.</comment>


Ironies of Automation - <AUTHOR> https://blog.acolyer.org/2020/01/08/ironies-of-automation/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a summary/review of the original paper, which can be found here [https://www.ise.ncsu.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/Bainbrid...](https://www.ise.ncsu.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica.pdf)</comment>


Who is the best acquirer for square? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/10/sequoia-leads-27-5-million-round-in-mobile-payments-startup-square/

<comment><USER2> While Square certainly innovated in the payment space with their Square reader, they stumbled early due to some credit-risk issues. Also, they're also about to face an onslaught of phones with built-in payment capabilities. Perhaps they can leverage some of the legwork they've done addressing these risk issues to insert themselves into the payment process for some devices, or innovate with other devices where people want to collect payment but don't want them tied to a cell phone, but if I were them I'd be concerned about being cut out of the payment process by integrated solutions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Please post with a title which reflects the article. And for your question, it depends what they want. If it's just cash, anyone with the money and will to buy it. If they want to see it further and take care of it like a new born child, it depends on the contract and many other things. I don't see it feasible to guess a company.</comment>


Super fast FTP upload (if you have thousands of files) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.self.li/post/43185216979/super-fast-ftp-upload-ssh-many-files

<comment><USER2> The "mv * .." command is suspect, I think it would miss moving for example ".htaccess" which is kind of important in wordpress.</comment>


On Winning the Dot-Com Lottery - <AUTHOR> http://www.iconocla.st/index.cgi/2009/Nov/05#on-winning-the-dot-com-lottery

<comment><USER2> I agree with #2 and #5, but I've seen plenty of examples that violate all the others. The first millionaire I came two degrees of separation from (friend of a friend) got rich in the first dot-com bubble by essentially selling a list of links to Yahoo. He had compiled a small website of about 5 static HTML pages, that was just a list of links to "resources in [niche]". It got popular and got a lot of traffic, so Yahoo bought it for multiple millions of dollars. He was not a genius, not hugely passionate about it, and not particularly well networked; I mean, it was just a list of links on a website that he occasionally updated.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm always surprised when I hear people comment about facebook needing to a find a way to be profitable. It is like they are on cruise control and haven't bothered to check their assumptions.

It even applies to twitter. Twitter is likely making less than facebook, but is still likely profitable from search deals. Jokes about revenue don't really cut it.

<comment><USER4> Neither Facebook nor Twitter make the kind of money that's eventually expected of them. No one really knows if they ever will. No one doubts they can make the kind of money MySpace does, but can they ever make the kind of money Google does?

<comment><USER3> Talk about a moving goal post. You don't need to make nearly as much as that to IPO.

<comment><USER5> Also, _Google_ didn't make the kind of money that Google does when it IPO'd. Companies' revenue numbers don't stay static forever. (Or if they do, the company is likely dying.)

<comment><USER2> Not the current $6b+ yearly profits, sure, but they were still hugely profitable. Google IPOd towards the end of 2004, a year in which they made $400m profit on $3.2b in revenue: <http://investor.google.com/fin_data2004.html>

(But I agree that you don't need $400m profit to IPO.)

<comment><USER6> As a former investment banker who has worked on numerous IPOs and follow-on offerings, there is only one thing you need to have a successful IPO:

Institutional buyers who want to buy the stock at a price acceptable to the company.

Back in 1999, they'd buy anything with .com in the name; nowadays, they want to see a pretty clear path to sustainable profitability. That doesn't mean you actually have to _be_ wildly profitable; just that you're of a sufficient size and have implemented a clear business model. Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and countless others could IPO tomorrow if they wanted. Twitter's issue isn't profitability; it's size. $25 million in revenue just isn't big enough to get out just yet.

If you're looking for precedents, the best one (due to its recency and characteristics) is OpenTable's recent follow-on offering. The prospectus is worth a read: [http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125914/00010474690...](http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125914/000104746909008486/a2194679z424b4.htm) Here's their IPO prospectus from earlier in 2009: [http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125914/00010474690...](http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125914/000104746909005875/a2193211z424b1.htm)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Gmail now allows custom background image themes - <AUTHOR> http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/custom-background-image-themes.html

<comment><USER2> I wish they would default having chat on the upper right-hand side. So many people don't know this can be done in labs, and then they can't see when their contacts are online without having to scroll down.</comment>


What I Learned - <AUTHOR> http://railsrx.com/2011/09/06/what-i-learned/

<comment><USER2>
      ...the secret weakness of Agile was that one
      sociopath could ruin an entire project.

One sociopath can ruin any project, no matter what the methodology. The most important decisions are hiring decisions.</comment>


Tumblr 'Truly Disappointed' That Twitter Revoked Its Friend-Finding Privileges - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/22/twitter-tumblr/

<comment><USER2> As i mentionned in an other post about it, Twitter seems not respecting API neutrality (same paradigm as Internet neutrality), the fact that all API 3rd- party users may have the same rights, access and limits to your API, if they satisfy same primary conditions (free or paying users) Instagram, Linkedin, Tumblr...who's next? They have gone crazy since they want to have their "consistent user experience"...

</comment><comment><USER3> Do they fear that people can take their social graph to Tumblr? I never thought Tumblr was anyway similar to Twitter. Tumblr is altogether different beast when compared to any other social platforms.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The ol' one-two punch.</comment>


Ask HN: What are good resources for modern web development? - <AUTHOR>

The last time I took a plunge into web development, I was a teenager, it was the early 2000s, and it was still considered cool to design your website in Dreamweaver with Flash and Shockwave plugins. I have a feeling that this is no longer the case. What are good resources for someone who hasn't written any HTML in 10 years to go to get caught up to speed with the current trends in front-end web development (HTML5, CSS, etc)? The less time it takes to build a decent, modern-looking website, the better. Are most modern sites built by template? I am totally clueless on the matter. <comment><USER2> Treehouse is really, really good for beginners. I used it for a couple months and thought it was invaluable.

<comment><AUTHOR> From perusing the main page, this looks exactly like what I want. Thanks for the awesome suggestion.</comment></comment>


Europe Said It Was Pandemic-Ready. Pride Was Its Downfall - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/world/europe/coronavirus-mistakes-france-uk-italy.html <comment><USER2> I don't think that Europe was pandemic-ready, or that it thought it was. Rather, like everyone else apparently, it thought that it would not happen.

An example of that: France bought a huge stockpile of face masks in 2009-2010 because of the swine flu pandemic. Since then they expired and were not replace, hence no masks available in 2020.

They thought it was not needed and governments/politicians have problems thinking long term and justifying expenses that may not be needed or needed once every 50 years to their constituents.

This might change for as long as this pandemic remains in living memory, then I'm sure we'll go back to complacency.

<comment><USER3> Risk homeostasis is real, yes; but the answer is a mixture of your view and the article's view. Those in charge declared themselves prepared, and weren't consciously lying. But in their heart-of-hearts they didn't think it would happen (on their watch) so they never examined realistically what prepared would actually mean. Delusion is our daily bread. Fantasy is just the butter.

<comment><USER2> Did any European country declared themselves prepared in any way other than to placate public opinion?

I am sure that they knew full well that they weren't prepared (Reports from previous years that said exactly were leaked or mentioned in the media), and the initial and continued reaction to Covid-19 in my view showed very plainly that they were not prepared.

When the shit actually hit the fan, as it did at the beginning of the year they went into panic/damage control mode. At that point PR is to keep everyone calm and to save the government if possible. Showing up on TV and saying " _yep this is going to be shit and we 're not prepared. Good bless you all_." is not something any government is going to do.

I think the delusion really is to think that it wouldn't happen, either on their watch or at all. The example in France shows that very well: They knew that masks would be needed in case of pandemic, but they clearly saw no urgency in maintaining a state of readiness.

We're in fact very lucky that Covid-19 is actually not that bad. Thinking about it, this is what's terrifying.

<comment><USER3> COVID-19 is that bad - the virus itself is very much in the sweet spot, that is not so vicious it's easily detected and squelched, but not so harmless we can let it run through the population. It's probably close to the worst case, in fact, given our current technology and public health knowledge. Viruses optimized for spread are not optimized for dealing death, and vice versa. I'd say all were sleep-walking - doing preventative medicine theatre. If you'd quizzed them (and they were quizzed) they wouldn't have said (and didn't say) "It won't happen" they would say "we're prepared." But in their heart of hearts - that is unconsciously - (see my first comment) they obviously didn't think it would happen to them, now. We hate to think unpleasant thoughts, and really hate to be the first one in our crowd to do so.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Media Companies Are Getting Sick of Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/media-companies-are-getting-sick-of-facebook <comment><USER3> _"Media companies are like serfs working Facebook's land."_

Content companies, really. Anybody can make content now. Look who's mentioned in the article as an example of a "news source" \- the CEO of "Thrillist", "NowThis News", and "Dodo". It's owning the pipes, and being able to restrict them, that makes money.

This is a big change. The Internet was supposed to be about disintermediation. Anybody can view CNN, Fox News, Russia Today, or the South China Morning Post at any time. Yet about half of Americans get their news on Facebook. Facebook isn't even a very good news aggregator.

Remember, sharing is spamming. When you "share" a story, you're just helping a spammer spam.

<comment><USER4> > _When you "share" a story, you're just helping a spammer spam._

The spammers are getting really savvy about it too. I recently read an article in my feed that was interesting and funny, so I shared it. The next day my wife asked me why I shared that garbage site, and when I looked at it on her phone the formatting was completely different. It was now a 10 page article with a mess of ads and a paragraph or two of text on each page.

They created some decent content with a catchy headline. Then they seeded it out on social media and waited until it had "gone viral" before they crammed it full of shitty ads.

<comment><USER5> So you're saying we need immutable facebook links?

<comment><USER6> You mean, immutable pages -- it seems the link was the same (unless the spammer did a 301), it's just that it was loaded with ads after it became popular. FWIW, this is a reason Facebook uses to advocate for its Instant Articles platform (and Google advocates for its AMP).

<comment><USER7> What are these "ads" things you speak of? I seem to remember the term from back before I installed uBlock Origin but it's been so long...

<comment><USER8> You've apparently been downvoted, but you raise a good point - although not the immediately obvious one:

I've been seeing ads that get through uBlock Origin in the last few days. Just a couple, I haven't bothered investigating it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A good companion article to read is "Your Media Business Will Not Be Saved" [1], written about a year ago by the guy who founded The Verge before he launched The Outline.

The basic argument is that these media companies are chasing readership scale (via Facebook exposure, etc) as a way to solve the problem that no one actually values what they produce very much. And that they keep chasing the next "tech thing" as a solution to get more readership scale instead of just producing good content for an audience that actually cares about them.

It's a very cathartic read if you are jaded about the current online media world.

[1] [https://medium.com/@joshuatopolsky/your-media-business- will-...](https://medium.com/@joshuatopolsky/your-media-business-will-not-be- saved-1b0716b5010c)

<comment><USER10> What is fascinating is to see FB successfully employ the same general strategy to publishers as they did advertisers.

With advertisers, they got everyone excited about the ability to reach their audience through a new channel. It had some similarities to email in that FB encouraged you to get Likes on your page, and then everything you posted would in theory reach your audience. Then they gradually tightened the screws in the name of declining user experience with too much garbage in the feed, which became algorithmic instead of sorted by recency.

This in turn let them flip the switch and move to basically zero reach unless you pay. And not just pay a flat rate based on however thousands of users you have (like email providers), but a dynamic pricing auction that maximizes revenue for FB. So advertisers invested all this time and major dollars on building their FB base, without actually owning the contact info or the ability to reach those people without paying FB. Frog successfully boiled.

Now with publishers they got them all excited about the reach they get for their content, and then slowly choke them via Instant Articles. Since publishers are so reliant on the revenue from FB, they have ZERO leverage in these negotiations, much like when Google says "sure, you don't have to have your content indexed." FB can now decide how benevolent it is feeling towards publishers, and there's nothing they can do about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think a bigger problem is that readers are getting sick of media companies. It's not Facebook's fault.

Most of what happens on Social Media nowadays is driven by media companies' efforts to generate revenue no matter what. Since humans respond to provocative content, that's what becomes prevalent on the Web.

Even if Facebook were to go away today, these media companies will make the same mistake and try to take advantage of their users the same way because that's how they can survive in this age.

I have zero sympathy for media companies getting sick of facebook.

<comment><USER12> At some level, readers have stopped paying media companies, and so media companies do whatever it takes to make ad money come in.

I feel like people used to have newspapers and magazines (like Nat Geo) delivered to their door all the time. And they'd have a cable subscription to subsidize CNN.

Maybe someone should create a news network that is distributed by Spotify.

<comment><USER13> > I feel like people used to [...]

People used to have far fewer choices. When I was a kid, we received a daily newspaper and National Geographic and I would read them both. I would also read every word on every panel of the cereal box. I was bored most of the time, especially over the summer. Now I have the reverse problem - too many things to do and not enough time to spend.

> Maybe someone should create a news network that is distributed by Spotify.

News outlets put stories on Snapchat. I think that's pretty close to what you are suggesting.

<comment><USER14> Downside is that writers like getting paid even the paltry sums they already are being offered. I feel media made a big mistake in the 90s by making online content free

<comment><USER13> I don't think there's really any other way things could have unfolded. Legacy publishers had to compete with new publishers and many of the old companies were in pretty terrible shape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As someone who hears the gripes from content creators about how facebook restricts their reach depending on the source of that content and based on that to whom it's shown; it appears that facebook doesn't mind sacrificing efficiency of the web to increase their position of power.

Content creators have to work twice as hard, publish twice as much and take up twice as much storage space because of facebook's walled garden.

Taken to the extreme this is an ugly future of wasted time and resources to bend to facebook's constant tweaks which are not in favor of the content creators, but the advertisers.

I wonder if, at some point, social sanctions will be pressed on one another to consider the use of facebook toxic to oneself and others, no different than smoking?

<comment><USER16> > Taken to the extreme this is an ugly future of wasted time and resources to > bend to facebook's constant tweaks which are not in favor of the content > creators, but ~~the advertisers~~ facebook.

Small correction: Content creators _are_ the advertisers. If you want the audience you've built to see the content you've made, you pretty much have to buy ads in the form of "boosts" and other ad units. At this point, everything is looping around to benefit Facebook. I see more sponsored posts for content than for products these days, honestly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> >Ben Lerer, CEO of online video machine Group Nine Media (Thrillist, NowThis News, the Dodo), says that while he's not satisfied by his deals with Facebook, he's optimistic they'll improve. Either way, he says, "whining and complaining that Facebook isn't making you money is probably not going to be the most successful approach to building a partnership with Facebook where they make you lots of money."

Says the CEO of companies which were completely built on the viral factor and will not be able to serve without social media. no surprises there.

Also, every media company now crazily rely on Google/FB for users, as i see it, there's no escape, sadly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Unfortunately Facebook's content can only be free, because its a reflection of its audience. And its audience values worthless content.

That leaves publishers with nothing but their worthless content when they've outsourced all distribution to Facebook

(Worthless meaning low intrinsic value, high attention getting value)

</comment><comment><USER19> I keep wondering what made the news outlets surrender to FB so quickly in the first place. Did they really think it was to their advantage?

</comment><comment><USER20> Facebook should look to independent content producers working off of Patreon -- their by-line is exactly what media companies are looking for:

> Best way for artists and creators to get sustainable income and connect with > fans

Either buy Patreon outright or offer a competing platform. At this point the PHBs at Facebook have to decide whether they prefer their business connections to media conglomerates or sidestep them completely by establishing their own content producing platform.

</comment><comment><USER21> Curated content direct from the content producers is the way to go. I think it a poor practice to use Facebook for anything but quickly catching up on what family and friends are doing.

I am a happy consumer of other social media because I try to follow relatively just a few people who have interesting things to say and provide interesting links. It is the people, and relatively few of them, that provide some value from Google+ and Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER22> > "If journalism isn't surviving in this environment, that's bad for society, > but it's also bad for Facebook"

Similar to the statements of a zoo keeper, maybe the word to consider is 'thriving', not just 'surviving'.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm getting sick of the huge volume of garbage in the whole Internet. Idiots on Facebook (which I cannot unfriend for reasons) keep flooding my timeline with right-wing "alternative news" XXXXX (but thankfully, Facebook got rid of Farmville spam!), Youtube has been overtaken by Let's Play XXXXX, clickbait and the videos of "omg i was shopping here are my clothes" Instagram fame XXXXX.

And many newspapers these days, even formerly respected Spiegel and Sueddeutsche Zeitung, seem to think it's worth their time to publish clickbait stuff... argh. Is there any idiocy-free space left on the net?

<comment><USER24> You can use the unfollow button, its quite effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Facebook announced it would allow publishers to put more ads in Instant Articles"

Yeah, that should make it more popular.

</comment><comment><USER26> I thought this was going to say "people on facebook are getting sick of media companies" but I keep forgetting people are the product and not the customer.

Wait no I didn't forget. That's why I left.

</comment><comment><USER27> But what's the alternative to Facebook for media companies?

There's Google and that's about it.

So even though this article might have a lot of merit to what it states, there really isn't any good alternatives to using Facebook (besides maybe Google).

<comment><USER28> > But what's the alternative to Facebook for media companies?

Here's what's going to happen, it's very predictable: inflection.

At peak fear, when nearly everyone is screaming at the top of their lungs about Facebook crushing earth (with inbound anti-trust attention), an inflection will be getting birthed that will be busy undermining the reason for that laughable mass dread.

The inflection - which has never not occurred, especially in technology - <USER2> be the birth of a thousand new distribution points, which will increasingly rip attention away from Facebook. These new distribution points will be narrow, hyper focused, they'll serve their audience radically better than Facebook within any given category.

I'll emphasize it one more time for anyone too emotional on this topic to think straight: there isn't a single example in recent tech history, in which an inflection didn't break down a formerly dominant position. Not one example in the last 60 years. We're nearing peak Facebook, the screaming is beginning as one would expect; government attention is next up, talk of regulation or breaking it up will become extremely common ('what to do about Facebook' is coming to the cover of magazines); meanwhile, right this moment, those thousand new points of distribution are being born, while few are paying attention. As Facebook reaches peak time-on-site saturation, it'll begin to bleed dominance, very very slowly at first, then it'll cascade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Facebook = AOL With AI. We should call Facebook AIOL in honor of this.

Delete Facebook, instantly have less problems. Especially with annoying advertisers. Simple!

</comment><comment><USER30> Garbage has been monetized. Garbage has been weaponized.

</comment><comment><USER31> Incidentally fb video seems to load very slowly when tested with identical videos loaded on the same connection in youtube.

</comment><comment><USER32> There's not much difference between random copywriters on Facebook and "reputable" newsletters, latter only having more valuable brand name and more aggressive paywalls and anti-adblockers. Quality of content is the same, never ending special olympics in filling void with most intricate, convoluted words.

</comment><comment><USER33> Media companies don't have much choice.

</comment><comment><USER34> "viewership is its own reward"

Bahaha. Seriously, that's like the corporate version of "we'll pay you in exposure". I can't eat exposure, and media companies won't take "viewership" as a substitute for revenue.

</comment><comment><USER35> LOL, I am surprised CNN was able to get ANY money out of FB.

</comment><comment><USER36> Facebook isn't a dictatorship. They're not forcing media companies to stay on FB.

If you're sick of FB, then don't produce videos for them. Don't use Instant Articles.

Going even further, delete your FB company page, stop posting FB updates, and stop buying FB ads.

Last I checked, media companies aren't paying FB in order to post content there (yes I know there are ads but media companies aren't complaining about ads).

<comment><USER37> Wasn't there a huge problem with Facebook Video stealing content from others with impunity?

<comment><USER38> Was more _users_ doing that _via_ FB Video, but yes.</comment></comment></comment>


10 Rejection Letters To Famous People Proving that You Should Never Give Up - <AUTHOR> http://distractify.com/people/famous-people-rejection-letters/

<comment><USER2> Generally interesting, but I take issue with the sentence:

> I could show you more, but the list would never end because no one has ever > won without first experiencing many failures and rejections

Though most people will have to fail many times before they make it anywhere, there will be some people who have always had great success on their first attempt. It would be interesting to hear some of those stories.</comment>


If It's a Good Idea… Don't Do It - <AUTHOR> http://www.illuminatedmind.net/2009/03/04/if-its-a-good-idea-dont-do-it/

<comment><USER2> The author does make a good point about re-evaluating your goals. I can't count the number of years I've wasted chasing after things that, in the end, I didn't really want when I got them.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hope it's good advice, because it makes sense to me, and I will probably take it to heart.

I see that some people here don't think there's much value in this article. I've grown to believe that different personal/productivity advice like this appeal to and are effective for different people, based on their personalities. For instance I read Getting Things Done, and I just can't keep that up. David Allen must be a machine, I guess. Not me.

</comment><comment><USER4> A better summary is this article sentence:

 _Whether or not your passion was genuine or fleeting enchantment… When what you initially loved becomes just a "good idea," it's time to reevaluate._

The above advice is of the kind I don't like listening to. Just my feeling is enough to make me read it two times, to be sure I get the message.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very boring, who cares. Shut up and code.</comment>


Twitter: It's time to open source your Android app - <AUTHOR> http://chuinard.com/twitter-its-time-to-open-source-your-android

<comment><USER2> I see no reason why Twitter should open source their app. They have absolutely no obligation to, and IMO, should not be pressured to do so just because some blogger feels that _" there is an increasing divide between the UI patterns in their Android app versus the UI patterns that most developers work with"_.

The author says: _"And lastly, Twitter should release this app because they said they would."_.

Well, here is the statement from Twitter:

 _"We had a great time working with the Android team and are thrilled that Google will be open sourcing the code used in this app in the near future."_

Saying Google will open source the code _used_ in this app is completely different from saying "we ourselves will open source this app". It almost certainly means that Google will open source some small component that is used in the app. IMO, it is a bit of a leap to interpret that statement as saying "Twitter _will_ open source the app".

IMO, in the absence of a more complete statement from Twitter regarding open sourcing their app, it is dishonest of the blogger to say Twitter _"has no interest in making good on their word"_ when it seems like the blogger is putting words in Twitter's mouth. If a more explicit statement exists from Twitter, then the blogger should have cited that, instead of the slightly-but- not-really-ambiguous statement from Twitter that he used.

<comment><AUTHOR> From what I've read, they have said it a few times.

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4014426/twitter- android-a...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4014426/twitter-android-app- source-code)

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3413980/android- twitter-a...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3413980/android-twitter-app- source-code)

Twitter has a solid collection of open source stuff on GitHub, i.e. the Twitter Bootstrap. Sure, maybe they don't have to release the ENTIRE app, but it would be ideal if they could contribute some of their work (such as the UI patterns) back to the community.

<comment><USER2> I've searched for more info on this, and each time it comes back to that one quote I posted. That quote, IMO, absolutely is not saying Twitter will open source their app. It sounds to me like they were saying Google would open source some code used in the app.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really do not see that quote the same way the OP does.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I changed the words from 'said they would' to 'said it would be', would that be satisfactory?

<comment><USER2> No, I don't think so. If Twitter's statement changed from this:

 _"We had a great time working with the Android team and are thrilled that Google will be open sourcing the code used in this app in the near future."_

To this:

 _"We had a great time working with the Android team and are thrilled that we will be open sourcing this app in the near future."_

Then I would have been convinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> So the argument is basically, "I want my app to look like yours; so open source it for me to steal the layout." Is this really how people write software these days?

<comment><USER4> It's better for the overall ecosystem. Higher quality apps means more time spent on your phone. If we can't duplicate the features of the app that aren't domain-specific, it results in an overall worse feel for the end user.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "You'll notice that Twitter is no longer using the standard Android ListActivity. There is a slight border around this list right now, which is VERY new to Android apps."

A ListView with some layout_margin ? Am I missing something special ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I always felt the ListView needed to expand the screen. I could be wrong though, this might just be a layout_marginLeft or layout_paddingLeft attribute. Either way, it is a very new pattern for Android apps. You'll also notice the rounded corners, which I don't think come naturally with a ListView margin.

<comment><USER5> I've made this app : [https://market.android.com/details?id=com.cardiweb.carrefour...](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.cardiweb.carrefour.spectacles) See the third screenshot : [https://lh6.ggpht.com/FOyDJtPGapRpBk0zSpFcXVUu45zHEY5OTaHfto...](https://lh6.ggpht.com/FOyDJtPGapRpBk0zSpFcXVUu45zHEY5OTaHftoTphUYl0IT0GziQ6avugg4dRzApPQ)

The list at the bottom is just a RelativeLayout, with some rounded corners. Wrap this in a ScrollView, and voila.

See [http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/drawable...](http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/drawable- resource.html#Shape)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I understand that Twitter said they were going to open source their application a very long time ago, but I've found that if I am interested on how they do anything the folks on the official Android irc channel are very helpful. Their initial version of the application used the dashboard interface that google revealed as the future of Android UI but there was absolutely no example code on how to do it until the recent Google I/O application that was open sourced. The people on the IRC channel helped me replicate that very quickly.

If you were angry enough to write a blog post, you could've also looked into decompiling the code and seeing how they do it yourself. If you use dex2jar:

<http://code.google.com/p/dex2jar/>

you can see that the view you're discussing is a custom ListView they made called RefreshableListView which actually does extend ListView so it is technically a ListView.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hasn't Twitter straight out requested that people not develop more clients? Example article: [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_tells_developer...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_tells_developers_to_stop_building_twitter.php)

Open sourcing it would just help people to publish slightly different versions with little effort - which is what they say they don't want...

</comment><comment><USER8> I haven't checked this out, all I'm saying is it looks a LOT like <http://mobile.twitter.com>. Same border, same pull down to refresh. Mobile web FTW.

</comment><comment><USER9> Most of Facebook's Android app is just a web view as is their iPad app and probably their iPhone app too. I wouldn't be surprised if the Twitter Android app is also a web view.

</comment><comment><USER10> The Facebook app for Android does a decent job with pull to refresh.

</comment><comment><USER11> Warning: the "pull to update" feature is patented by Apple.

<comment><USER12> This is simply not true.

Pull to Refresh was invented by Loren Brichter, author of the Tweetie app for iPhone, and he filed a patent for it (<http://gorumors.com/twitter-patent- drag-to-refresh/2754292>). As the article states, the patent application was submitted the day before Tweetie was acquired by Twitter, so we don't know for sure if Loren or Twitter own it, but it sure isn't Apple.</comment></comment>


Tech layoffs hit 3-year high of 51,529 in first half of 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57473046-92/tech-layoffs-hit-3-year-high-of-51529-in-first-half-of-2012/

<comment><USER2> A very misleading, alarmist article. The number of layoffs year over year may be up, but that says nothing about overall employment. Also a few big rounds of layoffs from some giant firms that have been on a downward trajectory for some time is skewing the numbers.</comment>


Should scientists study race and IQ? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html <comment><USER2> The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human "races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race boundaries _do_ correlate well with is sharp _social_ differences, and therefore with things like wealth and education and social status. So, if IQ tests measure some combination of (1) innate cognitive differences, (2) acquired cognitive differences (quite possibly strongly affected by those socially-governed factors), and (3) purely social things like familiarity with ideas assumed in the test, then looking for connections with "race" is going to exaggerate #3 and #2 in comparison to #1.

On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in terms of #1.

So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate more heat than light.

And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand) and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of bias.)

<comment><USER3> _The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically_

You can find an interesting piece disagreeing with that view here:

<http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007>

<comment><USER4> One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.

<comment><USER5> Some people might, especially if the person looks black, but I'm sure a lot of people would also label that person white, or mixed. There might even be people ( _gasp_ ) who don't go around labeling people.

* It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.*

There are plenty of less-mixed people than the example you give. I don't think a studies invovling ethnicity necessarily have to involve every single person in the US, so people without a clear ethnicity don't need to cloud things (though studying someone of mixed ethnicity might be illuminating in some contexts).

<comment><USER4> My point is people don't consider 25% black an edge case. Having two parents that where 40% black does not make you 100% black but Americans label people that way.

Take Halley Berry the "first black woman to be nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award." (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry>) I would be shocked if she was more than 40% "black" at the genetic level.

It would be an interesting study, but I suspect 60+% of "African Americans" to be at least 25% white in the USA. I suspect if you compared the relative percentage vs (whatever) you would see little change, because social issues tend to swamp most other issues and they tend to identify with black. My first boss was darker than the average African American, but he graduated from Yale and acted more stereotypically "white" than I do.

Other classic examples would be trying to separate Arabs from Jews, Indian from white, Japanese from Chinese, etc. People like to identify with specific groups, but when you look at genetic studies anywhere up to 30% of children in married couples have a different father than they think they do. Culturally Incest is considered evil in part because genetic diversity is positively correlated with survival, but this also extends across cultural and ethic bounds.

PS: Not to mention war / rape and other issues. I heard that the "Black Irish" originated from the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588. Plenty of people swam to shore and never made it back to Spain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes. One way to learn is to compare things to each other and find out why they are different. The answers are usually illuminating.

<comment><USER7> I agree. Reality isn't what _you_ want things to be. Reality isn't what _I_ want things to be. Reality is what _is_.

<comment><USER8> Someone wise once said:

"Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."

<comment><USER9> I have to disagree with you both (although both statements are well put) ... Reality is what is, based on our current understanding. Many realities have changed over time, as our society progresses and evolves into a higher understanding.

<comment><USER5> I think you're mixing up reality with our perception thereof. Reality is not dependent on what we think, except the part of reality concerned with our brain states.

That said, of course reality changes, if it didn't we kind of wouldn't have time. (I'm sure Stephen Hawking could put it more eloquently than that.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hear, hear. A courageous article. How often journals such as Science or popular outlets as Scientific American permit themselves creeping or outright ad-hominemisms.

Recapture politics to fortify the scientific method: publish all data and source code, publish negative results, aid higher rates of experiment replication and competitive epidemiological studies.

</comment><comment><USER11> There has to be willingness to get things wrong if there's going to be any progress. If the fear of getting wrong answers at first prevents research, then we'll never get the right answers.

</comment><comment><USER12> Scientists have studied race and IQ. The foremost scientist who has looked at the issue is James R. Flynn, who discovered an important phenomenon, increases in IQ scores over time, that had not been noticed by psychologists in data sets that Flynn reexamined. As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." His book, by the way,

[http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N- Mackintosh/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N- Mackintosh/dp/019852367X/)

is the best first book to read about IQ testing. The best second book to read about IQ testing is Flynn's latest book,

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn- Effect/...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn- Effect/dp/0521880076/)

and the best third book on IQ testing to read, after the other two books have given you a conceptual foundation, is Keith Stanovich's latest.

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss- Psycholog...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss- Psychology/dp/030012385X/)

A more complete annotated bibliography

<http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html>

lists other books, not all from the same point of view.

</comment><comment><USER13> Research showing that group X is generally best at doing task Y will not be as helpful to society as a DNA test for identifying individual talent for task Y regardless of group.

Of course, knowing which genes will help with task Y may tell you which group is best at task Y. But the reverse is not true and will likely cause discrimination and suboptimal outcomes.

<comment><USER14> Even then, the DNA test is never going to be as effective as, well, a normal test. If you're looking for people who can run fast, line them up and run a race. No need to take DNA samples...

<comment><USER13> Speaking of running fast...

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314209.stm>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A recent scientific study concludes that 100% of all research is misreported or distorted when it reaches the general public.

</comment><comment><USER16> This seems like a pretty solid argument for a gender gap in math.

<http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm>

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28>

</comment><comment><USER18> As long as you normalize for socioeconomic variables.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you say no, that means you value political correctness more highly than science. I find that a hard position to swallow.</comment>


What's Missing from Mark Zuckerberg's Memo on Peter Thiel - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/mark-zuckerbergs-memo-on-peter-thiel-freedom-gawker/504752/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> _" Facebook itself commands a staggering portion of all digital ad revenue online—about 65 percent."_

It's ironic that they would print an absurdly false statement like the above, in the same breath that they are extolling how important free press is. I'm still trying to figure out if that hurts or helps their argument.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would hazard a guess that they're fine with Thiel's stance on freedom of the press; as long as he's a board member, he's a weapon pointed at other publishers. If he ever leaves Facebook, then they have a problem.

</comment><comment><USER4> TL;DR:

Atlantic takes opportunity of Zuckerberg's leaked memo about Theil's Trump dustup to rehash unrelated Theil and Facebook issues.</comment>


Who are you coding for? - <AUTHOR> http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2010/09/24/who-are-you-writing-code-for/

<comment><USER2> When midnight strolls by and I'm in the zone hacking, then I'm programming for me. When I wake up early and tired mon-fri to go program all day, then I'm programming for my family. I love what I do so I'm not complaining and I'm very thankful I am able to use programming to provide for my family, I just wish I could figure out a way to do that without sucking up all my programming energy and leaving me useless for the late night hack sessions I love so much.

<comment><USER3> Consulting?

<comment><USER2> Yeah I've been thinking about moving in that direction. I'm currently halfway through an 18 month contract, so its going to be some time before I'll be able to change some things up.

I'm not entirely sure how to break into the consulting market, I've been doing misc contract jobs for several years now. Any recommendations on how to migrate to consulting?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Coding for the customer is fine, but they don't know the difference between crap and art; as long as it runs.

I code for me, later, when I'm trying to figure out what the heck I did.

<comment><USER5> The difference between crap and art.

A crap finish product runs like crap because it IS crap. A good finish product fools the user into thinking that the finish product is simple but on examination reveals the purposeful intent of the builder.

<comment><USER4> Hey! I've written to a deadline before; sometimes it works too. At least at first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found the writer's comparison of programming to art a bit offbase. I think I'd compares better with writing. You know ... things like copy writing, elaborate works of fictio, essays?

While the particular thing you're working on (thesis, class essay, fiction, biography) might restrict your ability to be more expressive with your writing. There are some people that can just 'write'.

Doesn't matter what they're writing about, you can read their stuff and enjoy it, largely because they keep things simple, don't use big words unnecessarily or deploy obscure grammatical devices, and focus on getting their point across to you.

There are also some world reknowned writers who nobody can follow because they use complicated grammar and words (Wole Soyinka for example) ...

What I am (clumsily) trying to say is, by making that comparison (of programmers to writers) it becomes clearer that separating good programmers from bad ones might not be as hard as he makes it out to be.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have the philosophy that "I am what I create". To me programming is art and the possibility for me to express myself. I also like reading other peoples code, not only to learn more - following other peoples line of thinking is awesome and a great inspiration.

Seeing the end result done by some really wierd, and perhaps even buggy, code is much more inspiring than seeing endless green unit test of perfect, sterile and vast plains of code written by the book.

I also like hunting bugs and performance and refactoring non-cemented funny code more than just flipping a unit test from red to green.

But the killer is seeing code implementing solutions to mathematical, biological and physical problems and how lines of code can tie them together into a beautiful whole.

God, I love to program..

</comment><comment><USER8> I like what the author has to say about commenting, as a counter-point to those that think comments are a sign of bad code:

 _... I think by focusing on this communication, the code becomes inhertitly (sic) better, because you think more deeply about the abstractions and layering you are doing ..._

Explaining a problem (or solution) definitely helps me understand it better (or even realise that I don't fully understand it). Interestingly, you might find that the act of commenting refines your code to the point where some or all of the commentary becomes unnecessary - it's served its purpose. So sometimes the feedback loop might have a few iterations to get to the most clear and concise form of code + commentary.

</comment><comment><USER9> Nice post, but your forgot the most important option of all: my customer.

My customers do great things. They often need my software, built and functioning properly for years to do these things. I love building stuff, but they are the real heroes. Just some of the things that they do:

      - get the right drugs get to the right people
      - get the ambulance to the right address
      - get the right materials purchased and delivered
      - get the right product built, on time and budget
      - get the right product shipped accurately and on time
      - make sure the parts going into that airplane are certified
      - make sure your insurance claim gets processed properly
      - make sure they make enough $, so they can keep doing it

I can go on and on, but you kinda get the idea. I love to learn, to optimize and refactor, and to build beautiful things. But what I do pales in comparison to what they need to do. I never forget that.

<comment><USER3> I don't think this is quite what the author was getting at. It's kind of a separate issue. Obviously all code is written for some end-user in the end, but this piece was about how the code is written, not what it does. When he says "who are you writing code for?", he means, who is going to _read_ it?

Customers don't read your code.

<comment><USER10> _Customers don't read your code._

No. But the people hired by your customers do.

And your customers are _keenly aware_ of that, because when you're gone from the scene they are either going to have to:

A) hire someone who can read your code, or

B) hire someone to rewrite it all from scratch.

They probably don't really know how to solve problem A, and they almost certainly can't afford to solve problem B even if they knew how, which they probably don't.

This is a vitally important consideration. It doesn't matter how elegant your code is if your customer can't figure out how to hire anyone to read it. If you solve your customer's entire problem in _one super-elegant line_ of lets- call-it-Haskell, but your successor doesn't know Haskell and cannot maintain that line, he will recommend replacing your solution with a Blub app. Then your customer will tell all his friends that (a) "Haskell sucks because it is nonstandard" and (b) "Blub is the greatest language in the world because there are lots of certified Blub programmers around".

This is why it takes so much time and energy to get new platforms off the ground.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Love it. This is the same thing I was thinking, but I had only gotten around to thinking that the major reason for bad programming was deadlines. I think programmers should focus on the long term, good serves you decades, bad code is one time use. Ignore the extra 20% time it takes to get right.

</comment><comment><USER12> Today, I am coding for opportunity. A siren's call in my analytics report. Market Driven Development.

</comment><comment><USER13> Myself, and very rarely for customers, usually long time friends that need helping out in stuff that I'm comfortable with (backend).

I love optimizing code and fixing things, front end stuff brings out the worst bouts of procrastination imaginable.

</comment><comment><USER14> I find myself coding for deadlines or myself all too often, which is why I would like to start open sourcing some of my projects - even if no-one uses them, it will keep me honest.

</comment><comment><USER15> I code for myself: the only customer and beta tester that will endure me.</comment>


Self-working "magic" trick, related to machine language decoding [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRI4XtnJxXo&feature=autofb

<comment><AUTHOR> If people ask, I'll explain why this is related to assembly language decoding, but I'll leave it as a mystery for now.

Guesses welcome!</comment>


Friendster relocates to Australia - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/friendster-relocates-to-australia/2009/02/03/1233423187474.html <comment><USER2> This is a line I'm hearing more and more lately:

 _Kimber said he would "love to conquer Australia one day" but for now the focus was on Asia due to its significant growth prospects.

"The US is largely saturated, Europe is becoming saturated," he said.

"The next billion users on the internet are going to come from Asia, they're not going to come from Europe or America."_

Our business has had an office in China for about a year, and Bangkok and Manila for several years. Anyone else on HN expanding into SEA or China?

<comment><USER3> Everyone knows you take Australia first, for the 2-army bonus. It's pretty hard to get Asia, so you might make your way towards Africa or North America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Friendster has the biggest office in Manila, Philippines. If the execs are smart, they'll relocate to the same spot. Having all of your devs in Manila and execs somewhere else doesn't work well in practice.

<comment><USER5> They should move everything here in Cebu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article didn't say anything about 'relocation'.

It only said that they Friendster's office is located in Sydney.</comment>


Google argues the Huawei ban would hurt its Android monopoly - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/report-google-argues-the-huawei-ban-would-hurt-its-android-monopoly/ <comment><USER2> If Huawei, and then more generally Chinese manufacturers, move away from Android then by the numbers Android will become SamsungOS, and then die when Samsung starts replacing Android for the Chinese market.</comment>


Ask HN:any Chrome+Delicious users? I hacked the Delicious XT so you can browse  - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gjeaeddhdjejgdemcpdphakdohfbcnhe?hl=en

<comment><USER2> Excellent, this was much needed. I'll be sure to provide feedback as I play with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks. I originally built it so I could ditch Firefox for my personal browsing. Looking forward to any feedback you might have.</comment></comment>


Show HN: CityLeash – Search pet-friendly rentals with nearby dog parks and more - <AUTHOR> http://www.cityleash.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Finding a place to live with two dogs and no car can be a pain. Somewhere with a nearby vet, pet store, and dog parks can be tough to find especially if you've got to reference 10 different websites. After moving to Oakland I had enough and decided to team up with my buddy Chris and build CityLeash. We've got a lot great features in the works but we're always eager to hear feedback so please feel free to reach out: email@example.com</comment>


Show HN: Conduit Intro Assist – AI that writes email intros for you - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/conduit-analytics/intro-assist-f3510b95a194 <comment><USER2> This is so useful. Happy user of the broader Conduit product as well - it's amazing to see what this team is building.</comment>


RegExpress – A Diagrammatic JavaScript Regular Expression Creator - <AUTHOR> http://www.regexpress.io <comment><USER2> Cool project! I haven't seen the idea of drag and drop for building regex's before. I could definitely see this being a helpful tool for people learning regex. Some feedback:

1\. The railroad is the intended drag target but is really small, especially compared to the other icons (giant trash can!). This makes it difficult to drag onto, and it's not obvious that that's where you should drag the blocks.

2\. Black on brown (ie: railroad and trash can icons) is really hard to see.

3\. Highlighting of the matched word (where the "Write text here!" is) seems to be pretty sporadic. It looks like highlighting only changes when the regex changes. I expected to be able to change this field and have the highlight update as I type.

4\. Doesn't seem like you can edit the middle of a string in the matching word field (Try editing "Write text here!" to "Write _helpful_ text here!") The cursor keeps jumping to the end of the string.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bomb! Thanks for the feedback, etrinh. We'll work on incorporating that. You definitely hit some of our UI problems right on the button.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Awesome! Definitely going to be using this the next time I need to create a Reg Exp.

</comment><comment><USER4> Where were was this when I needed it? Definitely bookmarking this one. Good work.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is rad! Really well done.</comment>


The illusion of control, and how to give it up - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/87/risk/what-i-learned-from-losing-200-million-rp <comment><USER2> "What I learned from losing $200 million"

"The option they bought from me"

The option was sold and backed by the bank at which the author worked, and he didn't personally lose $200 million. Seems like he's still very much deep in the illusion of control.

<comment><USER3> He designed the structure, participated in negotiating the deal, advocated for it with both internal and external parties, was entrusted to care for the deal, and is ultimately the primary responsible party for the deal in question and for the company's gains or losses associated with the deal. The language is not exactly a stretch.

<comment><USER2> > ultimately the primary responsible party for the deal in question

Unless he personally lost $200 million, or he somehow needs to pay it back to the bank, then no, he is not ultimately responsible for the deal at all.

What you are saying is that it might have felt that way to him because of his involvement and that it's understandable to feel that way. And that's ok. But it is also very tone deaf to use that language in an article about supposedly dispelling the illusion of control.

<comment><USER4> I believe you may be conflating liability with responsibility.

<comment><USER2> No. I'm saying that unless the guy owned the $200 million, and could've done whatever he wanted with the money, then he's not the one that lost it.

In any case, here's the definition of liability: "the state of being responsible for something, especially by law". So liability is responsibility.

<comment><USER4> I'm responsible for expensive systems at work, and many of them have a value in excess of my entire net worth. At no point am I liable beyond possibly losing my job if I screw up and damage those systems.

They are different words for a reason.

<comment><USER2> Again, you are deviating the issue by bringing up the responsibility/liability issue. I'm not arguing that.

If anything, you are essentially making my point. The guy in the story was not liable for the $200 million (beyond his job), hence he didn't personally lose the money, even though he says "I lost $200 million".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If his "bet" hadn't converted to shorting with a government backer he'd have learned a different lesson.

What does "control" mean in this context anyway when you have no skin in the game?

<comment><USER6> He thought he had skin in the game, his bonus, and maybe his job, but both of those items were also out of his control, he just didn't understand that. So much for that PhD.

<comment><USER7> In many situations an accompanying PhD in psychology or neuroscience would be useful.

EDIT - I'm throttled (I imagine due to comments like the following), so cannot reply below:

> Nobody needs a phd to understand that circumstances and chance have a much > bigger influence...

Some depth in psychology and neurology can also help one realize that you do not actually know the thoughts and abilities of other people - rather, this is how the mind evolved to perceive and model the external world (persons, etc), and how the subconscious communicates _predictions_ based on that model to the conscious mind.

So, I maintain my assertion that an understanding of how the mind (that which _most substantially_ differentiates us from all other living things) works has great utility.

<comment><USER8> it's a cultural malaise, not a scientific one. Nobody needs a phd to understand that circumstances and chance have a much bigger influence, and that the complexity of playing with hundreds of millions in global markets goes far beyond the capacity of any individual. Picking up Goethe's Sorcerer's Apprentice should be good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get the finance mindset, you don't have access to any of the information or actions that make the squiggly line of price go up or down. Deriving models from natural phenomenon and applying them in a completely unrelated field looks to be a gamble no matter how you cut it.

We are all going into the unknown all the time, predicting the future is not a solvable problem, but you can train yourself to aim better from past attempts.

<comment><USER10> Living is much closer to playing cards than to playing chess.

<comment><USER9> Can you articulate that?

<comment><USER10> In chess, one has perfect information and the game is deterministic. In cards, one is at the mercy of the deck and the distribution, so one plays according to the odds.

<comment><USER9> Chess is an old game. Starcraft is the updated version of chess, with build orders and hidden information. Starcraft retains the value of doing the right thing even when blind, and building up logical series of actions from past experience.

I don't know if you get to choose between chess and cards. In Starcraft (and chess to a lesser degree) you still have risks in the unknown that can be mapped as a probability function. For a given build order you may know that the best unit is X, but there's still a chance your opponent produces a unit that is counter-valent to the optimal.

In finance or cards you still have information about concrete events like ipo launch dates and cards have chips that are always shown and a number of cards remaining, that do not require probabilities to know or exploit.

Which one takes more prominence depends on the task at hand. And if one is prominent, the other strategy is nestled inside and shrouds from above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Illusion of the _degree_ of control. Giving up agency and going towards external locus-of-control like people who say everything is "God's will" rather than proactively mitigating risks is another form of learned helplessness.

You can't stop the sun from rising but you can stop the raccoons from using your trash cans as a salad bar.

But let's face it Wall St. makes money betting with low latency (or advanced notice) market data and news, insider info, and through complex chicanery to hide strats about said betting. It's moving value around into different peoples' pockets while maintaining a pretense of functioning as a funding and value conversion platform.

</comment><comment><USER12> > it occurred to me that Mexico might be willing to restructure its > deal—selling us back the option it owned, and buying a new one—in a way that > would lock in billions of profits for the country, while giving me a much > needed windfall too

I don't get it, how would this be profitable for the bank?

</comment><comment><USER13> Deming demonstrated similar with his bead experiment.

[https://youtu.be/ckBfbvOXDvU](https://youtu.be/ckBfbvOXDvU)</comment>