Stopping All Stations – The Pyongyang Metro - <AUTHOR> http://www.earthnutshell.com/stopping-all-stations-the-pyongyang-metro/ <comment><USER2> Surreal and intriguing. There is a palpable sense of fear and unease on people's faces, not a smile to be seen. A gloomy insight into a whole other world. And questions assumptions about human behavior.

Its frightening to think how easy it is to suppress a whole population for years and decades on end. The romantic image of courage, revolution and human freedom comes to naught here. Status quo, acceptance and survival seems to be the more natural human state.

There is the natural reluctance to put one's head above. And for good reason, anyone foolish or brave enough to put their head above in this all knowing state will be put down swiftly, and perhaps brutally to be made an example of. How does change happen here?

Organizing anything in this state of pervasive surveillance is nearly impossible and should be a wake up call for those sleepwalking into one.

The only way we know from history is implosion of the prevailing power center or outside support motivated more by massive self interests than human freedom or kindness, compromising the road ahead.

Surveillance, secret courts and dubious processes are meekly accepted but change can become very difficult once these infrastructures are put in place, operational and at the complete discretion of whoever happens to be in power. A warning for all of us.

<comment><USER3> It could be cultural as well. I remember showing pictures of my childhood in Soviet Union to people in America and they'd comment how gloomy and sad everyone looked -- even at birthday parties. The thing is we weren't gloomy and sad (well not all the time even though we were poor). We just didn't smile in pictures. So not saying people are not scared and oppressed there. We know they are. But some of the reactions could be cultural as well not all due oppression.

<comment><USER4> Maybe there's an old shared South and North Korean cultural thing going on? I am American born Korean and I always forget not to smile. Every Korean wedding photo I'm in I'm smiling while everyone else looks somber even if I know they're super happy. My own wedding photos have my relatives struggling to smile. Lovely mix of photos. :p

<comment><USER5> South Koreans do the mass crying thing as well (e.g. Park Chung Hee's death)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm always fascinated to read about North Korea. I feel so incredibly bad for the people who live there, who either know how bad things are (and can't do anything about it) or don't know (and thus don't care). In some ways, the latter group is probably better off.

(A great book: Nothing to Envy, by Barbara Demick, about life in North Korea and what it's like to escape to the West.)

It's amazing to see what North Korea will do to keep its own citizens in the dark, and to try to make things look amazing to foreigners -- only to fail spectacularly.

The attempts to erase traces of the metro cars' German origins reminds me of the department stores I've read about in Pyongyang, in which people enter and exit without buying anything, only to return minutes later, in order to give foreigners the illusion of a great commercial success.

All countries engage in propaganda and patriotism to some degree, but North Korea really takes the cake here. I hope that its citizens will one day be able to gain more freedom and financial security, but that somehow seems unlikely in the near future.

<comment><USER7> > in which people enter and exit without buying anything, only to return > minutes later, in order to give foreigners the illusion of a great > commercial success

I don't get it. Foreigners see success in people who don't buy anything?

<comment><USER6> No, the story that I read indicated that the North Koreans brought Western visitors to a department store, to demonstrate how great North Korea's economy was.

This Western visitor noticed that after people exited the store, they immediately entered again, to give an illusion of a busy store -- when in fact, nothing was actually being purchased.

(I can't remember if the shoppers were using money or taking things out of the store, but I have to assume that they were. I wish that I could find this story, which was quite fascinating.)

My point is that the North Korean government was so inept at propaganda that their attempts to demonstrate economic stability and power were laughably transparent.

<comment><USER7> I understand, that makes sense. What a clearly stupid decision on the government's part. It would have been much better if the stores were simply empty. Thanks for clarifying.

<comment><USER8> In a similar vein, there's pictures online of a "computer lab" in North Korea shown to visitors. There's people typing away at computers, which is seemingly normal, until you realize none of the computer have electricity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In metro, no one (if not many) is carrying cell phones! That is (just one of) something our eyes are not used to. (In Singapore, nearly every one in metro is hooked to their phones)

This is too much: "North Korea doesn't use the traditional Gregorian calendar, they use the 'Juche' calendar, beginning on the date of Kim Il-Sung's birth, Juche 1. "

<comment><USER10> I found the calendar thing funny too. Then I remembered we're all counting from the birth of Jesus.

<comment><USER11> > we're all counting from the birth of Jesus

At some point people realized they got the year wrong for Jesus's supposed birth. But the reaction was, "eh, fuck it", so our calendar isn't really based even on that anymore.

<comment><USER12> I mean, we still call it "the year of our Lord."

FWIW Japan uses, in parallel, the Western system, but also a system where the years are counted from the beginning of the reign of the current emperor.

<comment> nommm-nommm >I mean, we still call it "the year of our Lord."

BC/AD is deprecated for non-religious uses.

The international standard is CE/BCE for common era/before common era.

<comment><USER13> I've always found this odd. Declaring the last 2000 years the "Christian Era" seems much more offensive than a couple of letter standing for some fairly arbitrary latin. Added to which, even in countries which could be described as being in a Christian era, it just didn't get going for a couple of hundred years after 0AD

<comment><USER14> BCE/CE stands for Before Common Era/Common Era.

<comment><USER15> What makes it so Common? What great event occurred on the year 1 CE that we decided we should start marking our years from that point? Ovid writing "Metamorphoses"?

<comment><USER11> > What great event occurred on the year 1 CE that we decided we should start > marking our years from that point?

Absolutely nothing. You need to have a starting point, and for historical reasons we ended up with that one. It isn't a meaningful date for anybody, but it turns out having a common reference point is more important than having a significant reference point, so nobody cares.

<comment><USER15> > It isn't a meaningful date for anybody

It's actually a very meaningful date to a lot of people on this planet, although I'm not one of them.

We used to refer to years past that date using a short phrase in a dead language. However, this short phrase in a dead language referred to a religious figure, which is Not OK. So we decided we'd rename it "Common Era" but keep the numbers the same because that would be a big hassle. As a result, our calendar still counts how many years have passed since the alleged birth of Christ, but because people might be offended by the words "Anno Domini" we've called it something different.

If I were in the position to pick a new calendar start date, I'd probably just go with the Unix Epoch... AE, Anno Epocha? We'd now be in the year 46AE :)

<comment><USER16> mcphage may have meant that it isn't a meaningful date for anybody, because we now know that 1 AD is probably at least several years off from the birth of Jesus Christ.

<comment><USER12> I always hear people make this claim, but on what evidence do we "know" that? There is no contemporaneous source talking about him while he's alive; the earliest we've got is Mark which was probably written around 60 or 70.

<comment><USER16> Conversely, I always hear the claim that Jesus was born on 1 AD, but on what evidence do we know that? Some random monks in the dark ages tried to guess so they could make a calendar, and that's the guess they came up with.

While the modern estimate certainly has uncertainty too (how could we ever _know_ such a thing with complete certainty?), there's no way it's _less_ accurate than the original estimate made by some random monk in the middle ages, working with much less data. It does not make sense to privilege that random monk's guesses over today's guesses.

According to Wikipedia, there's two different methods -- written Roman records of Herod as mcphage mentions, or using written Roman records of Pilate's crucifixion and subtracting the claimed age of Jesus at that time. Both methods give years that are in the same ballpark, roughly 4 to 6 BC, which should give confidence that they are close. No method gives an answer of around 1 AD. (Actually, it's pretty impressive that some monks working hundreds of years later in the dark ages are no more than a few years off from today's best estimates)

<comment><USER12> The Wikipedia page on this topic also mentions trying to work backward from the reference to Jesus being "about 30 years old" during his ministry, which could point to about 1. So really I don't think anyone knows for sure.

<comment><USER16> Yes, so the point is at best, there's no reason to privilege any particular one of these guesses, whether 4 or 5 or 1 or whatever. We just don't know, ergo the AD/BC date system does _not_ center about a date that has much meaning for anyone, which was the O/P's point

<comment><USER12> Well... except it was explicitly chosen because it was a guess at the birth of Jesus. That has meaning even if the guess may be off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As awful as North Korea is, I am _really_ impressed at the cleanliness of the subway station in the photos.

Not a scrap of litter, no graffiti, no sketchy people and probably doesn't even smell like piss. Floors are obviously meticulously scrubbed.

Kudos to North Korea! (OK, I know its an oppressive hellhole, but goddamn the subways are clean).

Meanwhile, in NYC, we have viral video of a rat dragging Pizza down stairs in a subway.

<comment><USER18> This was also true in the not quite as oppressive (but still oppressive by Western standards) Eastern European dictatorships pre-1989. It's from a combination of reasons -- fear that graffiti/litter would get you in trouble and the fact that in order to approach full employment, many more people were involved in cleaning than under capitalism.

<comment><USER12> Higher employment achieved by keeping public services at a higher standard doesn't sound like such a horrible idea to borrow from those regimes.

<comment><USER19> It's not affordable unless you're an oppressive totalitarian regime.

<comment><USER12> [Citation needed]

<comment><USER19> We're already running huge deficits... No citation is needed to understand that hiring a massive number of people to pick up litter is unaffordable.

<comment><USER14> > We're already running huge deficits...

In large part due to massive governmental inefficiencies, massive defence spending, and because the richest individuals and corporations hardly pay any tax on their (real) earnings...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's difficult to imagine what your worldview would be like growing up around such a high level of propaganda from a young age. Every piece of visual media you have ever encountered trying to subvert your view of the world. (I guess not too dissimilar to our own lives, on a smaller scale of course).

<comment><USER21> It's true of every society to some extent. The West's less overt tactics are arguably more effective than Soviet-style propaganda because they're less obvious.

<comment><USER22> > The West's less overt tactics are arguably more effective than Soviet-style > propaganda because they're less obvious.

America has pretty overt propaganda, e.g. the Pentagon paying the NFL millions to 'salute the troops'.

As a non-American, seeing young children reciting the pledge of allegiance in unison is downright creepy. I'm guessing Americans do not have alternative experiences and hence consider it to be normal. I'm guessing the same applies to Koreans growing up in Korea: it's normal. I'm not suggesting the levels of propaganda are in the same ball-park.

<comment> nommm-nommm As an American I find schoolchildren reciting the pledge of allegiance in the morning very disturbing. Especially ones who are much to young to actually understand what they are saying.

And it always happened in every primary school I went to.

<comment><USER23> To add to the creepiness, when a child sits for the pledge (legal, AFAIK) and is punished. Add the comments from supposedly rational adults on the local news article about it... and you see some people really take forced patriotism seriously.

<comment> nommm-nommm Nobody can be forced to stand for the pledge or recite it. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette[1]) however uninformed school board may illegally punish students anyway or become vindictive in other ways. By not standing for the pledge a kid risks being seen as a troublemaker or "difficult" which can cloud a teacher's judgements in other matters. Making it part of the school day makes no sense for just that reason. Certain religious groups (ex Jehovah's Witnesses) are against pledging allegiance to a flag and it's unfair to put a student in that situation for something so silly as the pledge of allegiance. But as you said some people feel very strongly about this sort of fake and forced ritual.

I have a big problem with teaching it to very young kids who don't really don't have the capacity yet to really understand what it means or what they are pledging to. Most kids kinda slur their way through it because it contains vocabulary that the typical 5 year old wouldn't have. [2]

[1] "The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

[2] I used to say "I pledge OF allegiance to the flag....under god, invisible..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If the train carriages look familiar to anyone who's seen the German Democratic Republic's carriages, that's because they're the very same ones. The DPRK took some of the GDR's old U-Bahn trains.

<comment><USER24> Actually, North Korea bought subway train carriages that were in use in western berlin as well. I recognize those in the pictures - during my time in university, I used them all the time - in west berlin.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, there's both former West and East Berlin trains:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyongyang_Metro#Rolling_stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyongyang_Metro#Rolling_stock)

Which makes sense given they would both run on the same kind of track.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _Considering the misspelling, I thought I could find the source of the photo on the internet. I came up with no results._

Google gets us closer, though despite the watermark, I'm not sure the People's Daily have a photojournalist in the US: [http://images.blogchina.com/artpic_upload/n/m/g/nmghongjing/...](http://images.blogchina.com/artpic_upload/n/m/g/nmghongjing/3131416969935.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER26> There's also this article of the same series on playing golf on North Korea's single golf course which I found even more interesting:

[http://www.earthnutshell.com/out-of-bounds-in-north-korea- py...](http://www.earthnutshell.com/out-of-bounds-in-north-korea-pyongyang- golf-course/)

</comment><comment><USER27> The mosaics give it an oddly (ancient) Roman feel, which led me to wonder what a metro system built by the Romans would look like . . .

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder if we "took out" the leadership, how long we would leave things as they are to allow people to adjust. How much of shock would it be to tell people they can go and visit any country, call anyone, learn about other cultures without fear of arrest

<comment><USER29> When the Berlin wall fell - the economic collapse of Eastern Europe was total for a decade. Leave vacuum at the top - and ordinary North Koreans will be even worse. Look at the paradise that is Iraq.

The only semi-successful country that avoided total pain was East Germany - and it was because of the unification.

<comment><USER30>
        > Look at the paradise that is Iraq.

Iraq was held together by a strongman of one of two secterian factions on the country, who when the country collapsed went right back to killing each other.

I don't think any such analogous situation exists in North Korea, it would be much more like East Germany, the economy would be horrible for decades, but I doubt it would come to perpetual civil war like Iraq.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Pyongyang's metro would make a great setting for that hypothetical "Koreans invade Moscow" movie that no one seems to be filming.

<comment><USER25> Kim Jong-il might have: [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31628415](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31628415)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What if every time a tourist group visits N.K thousands of people are alerted and they play their assigned roles (like Truman show). And when the tourists left, they go back to their reality.

/removes tin foil hat

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady Weird. I submitted the same post yesterday (links are identical). How was it able to get submitted again?

NB: I'm glad it did because mine didn't get any upvotes and I was sure people here would enjoy it.

<comment><USER33> HN changed their algorithms in recent months to allow resubmissions if original one didn't get traction

<comment> k-mcgrady That's great, glad they made that change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This looks like a place of lies, indoctrination and personality cult. Had it been kept shut to outside visitors, I wouldn't have missed much. North Korea seems to be a living nightmare.

<comment><USER35> I could mention a few (few?) wars caused by western countries' lies and indoctrination.

Personality cult, definitely, although that's the part of the propaganda style.

<comment><USER36> Please don't use whataboutism, it lowers the standard of conversation, and it assumes all commenters are American.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > due to a major accident that occurred attempting to extend the Metro under > the Taedong River in 1971 killing at least one hundred workers

This sounds like a horrifying way to go.

</comment><comment><USER38> That's so similar to Moscow, it's uncanny.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is absolutely incredible. From my reading in other travel diaries to North Korea, I sense that all of this is staged.

</comment><comment><USER40> It's kind of refreshing to see all these metro stations free of (commercial) advertisements, actually.

</comment><comment><USER41> As always very interesting to learn more about a place so bizarre and closed.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm struck by how hopeless the average person appears to be in these pictures. You can see only sadness and despair in their eyes, it is truly quite tragic.

<comment><USER43> I was on the train in NYC yesterday and there was only sadness and despair in the eyes of the passengers. Some looked hostile and others completely apathetic. I am sure I could have died there and no one would have even looked in my direction. Dirt covered every area of the car; neglect and laziness or just budget cuts. The smell ran sour, never sweet, due to the miles of stagnant water, mold, dead things, garbage, and human stench. The train made several stops on it's transit between two stations, a stretch that could take anywhere between 10 and 20 minutes depending on the day. People pushed their way through to get onto the cars, no artwork was present save for the advertisements and the countless notices asking for you to be polite to your fellow riders. Over the PA system, a soulless voice once again reminded that one should avoid displaying their electronics, this to lower the risk of being robbed. Once out of the subway, I was greeted by a dead rat in a rat trap as a reminder of what we all are. I did this all in reverse on the way home.

<comment><USER44> Indeed, the subway is a soulless place -- often romanticized by media and visitors to NYC. It still gets the job done though.

<comment><USER43> I am a native New Yorker and have taken the subway since the late eighties for middle school, high school, college, work, fun, etc. It has tremendous value, for sure, but it's no source of happiness or joy to go down into that hole.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: If not mongo then what? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
What other open source product can offer following?
- document oriented - makes easier to abstract it as a relation when needed(yes, I know no joins... buy a helmet)
- dynamic fields - a more agile pace of development (good bye database migrations, patches)
- indexed arrays - "tags" and "attributes" functionality
- geospacing
- store binary files (GridFS) - replicate, backup easier
binary files
- aggregation framework - analytics
- simple and eazy replication - easier to scale ???
- ttl - handy for caching
Just saying... <comment><USER2> My understanding is that the scale goes from Postgres (edgy but worth it) to MariaDB (I didn't pay attention while you listed your requirements, here's something that'll suit you), to MSSQL (let me stop you, I heard you need support). Everything else is built on top of the database. This scale doesn't fit all the technologies, so it doesn't need to fit every use.

</comment><comment><USER3> ElasticSearch does all the above, has excellent support and a lot of momentum. I find it a joy to work with. Only issue may be that commits take a few moments. Solr is its sibling and has soft commits.

</comment><comment><USER4> So just a point I made awhile ago. Not saying which is best: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794327](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794327)</comment>


Snapchat Files All-Caps DMCA Takedown After the Source Code It Leaked Hit GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/08/snapchat-files-all-caps-dmca-takedown-after-the-source-code-it-leaked-hit-github <comment><USER2> It's too late for DMCA now, its gone now.</comment>


Read your Standard Libraries - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codingforinterviews.com/reading-code-standard-libraries/ <comment><USER2> This is great advice, since in general you would like to assume that the standard library is implemented well, i.e. by people who know the target language.

Unfortunately, for C this is pretty hard to do, at least for the GNU libc. I'm not trying to critique the implementation, but every time I dive in (generally to help someone on Stack Overflow) I'm confused and get to spend a lot of time searching the code.

It's obviously optimized for a great deal of other parameters before ease of reading, which I totally understand yet still am a bit sorry to see.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, a lot of good programmers have alternatives to libc, either for reasons of history or taste.

I was just reading DJB's daemontools (less than 6K LOC, very tidy!), and he doesn't use libc. Actually his code has been collected in libdjb, which seems quite nice:

[http://www.fefe.de/djb/](http://www.fefe.de/djb/)

And also the Plan 9 / Go guys don't use ANSI libc as far as I remember.

Those are two examples of people who don't even use the ANSI libc interface. But there are plenty of people who don't use GNU libc, and use uclibc or various other source-compatible alternatives. I think Debian switched to eglibc awhile ago.

<comment><USER4> Just FYI, I believe that by default, binaries compiled with the standard Go toolchain _do_ link against your system's libc (which is probably GNU libc on Linux). However, I believe that can be disabled by compiling the Go toolchain with `CGO_ENABLED=0` set. But you might lose some functionality.[1]

[1] - [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang- nuts/H-NTwhQVp-...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang- nuts/H-NTwhQVp-8/i5vhUB5dZ5QJ)

<comment><USER3> So I'm actually talking about what the Go compilers _themselves_ use for libc, not Go programs. From what I can tell it is:

[http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/include/libc.h](http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/include/libc.h)

Which is definitely not ANSI libc. Go programmers won't care about this, because it's an implementation detail, but we're talking about reading source code.

<comment><USER4> Ah! Mea culpa. I completely misunderstood your initial comment then. You're absolutely right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excellent advice. Reading other people's (good) code is one of the best ways to learn how real world problem solvers solve real world problems.

The Java standard library is interesting and easy to jump into if you work with it every day. Guava is another good library to study.

I personally spend a lot of time looking at Riak, Cassandra, Hadoop, and Postgres since developing databases is my day job. I also follow mailing lists for both developers and users to understand the real world outcomes of their design choices and use that to inform how I think rather then going into every problem a blank slate.

</comment><comment><USER6> I mostly live in C++ land and the story is different there. The standard library implementations are a place of magick, mystery, and obscure defect reports. They provide plenty of insight what can go wrong if you are writing a generic library and how difficult correctly programming with templates actually is, but all the technicalities of the language make it hard to see the algorithms. They are definitely worth reading, but only if you have mastered a large amount of C++.

Not to mention the horrible naming conventions (leading double underscores everywhere).

I often think about a C++ standard library written for educational purposes with proper naming, focus on readability instead of optimization, and maybe multiple possible implementations of certain specs.

<comment><USER7> No one would use it. It's a design flaw of C++ that performant, generic libraries require arcane magic and hideously obfuscated code.

<comment><USER6> Please read carefully: "for educational purposes". I'm fully aware that such a library wouldn't be fit for production but it maybe would be useful for people learning generic C++ programming. Currently you have to look at Boost or any of the standard libraries and all you see are #ifdef and all the arcana and have a hard time seeing all the useful techniques.

<comment><USER7> What I meant was: no one would use it, so it'll never be created.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I always make sure that I attach the source code of the 3rdParty libraries used in my project to my IDE. The best time to read library source code is while using them in your code, where we know the context. This also help in writing better code. I feel that we should make reading source code of APIs we use, integral part of the development process rather than reading the standard library source code for the sake of reading it.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is generally great advice, but the Ruby standard library isn't exactly the best to read if you want to learn. Don't get me wrong, it works, but the code is generally very, very old. Nobody knew how to write good Ruby code back then.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, will certainly trust your assessment there. :)

In your opinion, what are some good starting points for interested Ruby readers ?

<comment><USER10> If you're speaking of code reading, I find looking at the source code of Rubinius very interesting.

Ruby has so much utility wrapped up in places like Enumerator, that you don't see a lot of examples of low-level data structure implementation in the wild. You could look at MRI Ruby, you'd be looking at a lot of C, which tells you a lot about how Ruby works, but doesn't show you much actual Ruby. That's where Rubinius is really great. You get to see how a smart team would implement Ruby... in Ruby.

[https://github.com/rubinius/rubinius](https://github.com/rubinius/rubinius)

<comment><USER11> I have to second this, if you use Ruby at all, Rubinius is quite fascinating to read, even if you still use MRI on a day to day basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm kind of surprised this isn't "a thing". I mean, I'm surprised its 'a thing'. Because, isn't this standard practice - I mean, isn't just a part of the coder Creed that you read the code, anywhere and everywhere you can?

</comment><comment><USER13> This is where Java ecosystem shines the most:

1\. Easy access to standard libraries

2\. Most (not all, re: java.util.Date) of the standard libraries are well thought-out and the documentation is top-notch

3\. Tools like Maven + Eclipse/IntelliJ can provide insight to Java libraries source code easily (Maven has built-in capabilities to download the javadoc _and_ the source code from the designated Maven repository if the author publish them correctly).

Access libraries (3rd party or well-known ones) are a shortcut away.

PS: NuGet had this capability recently, which is great, but I rarely use it so I don't know how easy and to what extend NuGet can replicate what Maven has.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is extremely useful, not only for inspiration and learning, but also so you actually know what is happening under the hood. This is great for troubleshooting and for reasoning about your own code. This is one big pro for open source in development!

I learned a lot by reading the source code for Python dicts (which also comes with a lengthy motivation for why it was implemented that way) and any Haskell library (Hackage links from the manual page directly to the source code for the respective function, which makes it very easy to see what is happening).

<comment><USER15> Is the Python dict source code available in the link provided in the article?

<comment><AUTHOR> Raw source: [http://svn.python.org/view/%2acheckout%2a/python/tags/r266/O...](http://svn.python.org/view/%2acheckout%2a/python/tags/r266/Objects/dictobject.c?revision=84293&content- type=text/plain)

Walkthrough of the implementation: [http://www.laurentluce.com/posts/python- dictionary-implement...](http://www.laurentluce.com/posts/python-dictionary- implementation/)

<comment><USER16> And a PyCon video: [http://pyvideo.org/video/276/the-mighty- dictionary-55](http://pyvideo.org/video/276/the-mighty-dictionary-55) .

<comment><USER15> Thanks both of you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In case my Wordpress-on-DreamHost-unlimited-plan blog goes down, here is a gist copy: [https://gist.github.com/bcjordan/8242593](https://gist.github.com/bcjordan/8242593)

<comment><USER10> Looks like you had the good sense to install WP Super Cache. I don't know how much traffic you're seeing, but my blog has held up under some HN traffic using the same setup (Dreamhost+WP+WP Super Cache).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hah! The WP Super Cache "Activate" button was actually giving me 503 responses the first few tries. Now it's nice and speedy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think this is great advice and something I've been meaning to do for Ruby.

However, what in the case of JavaScript/Node.JS developers? What could/should they read to help them understand their language/frameworks better?

I've been reading through the Express source code lately to understand the module better. I'm wondering what other source code I could read to get a better grasp on Node/JS.

Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER18> I always liked Common Lisp for this, since you could so easily inspect data structures like hashes at run time.

I think CMUCL had a really interesting and unique hash implementation that relied on two identically sized arrays, one for the keys and data, and another for a "next" index that showed you where to go for a key collision.

</comment><comment><USER19> Completely agree. Java collections and threads package well written code. Infact I ask interview questions based on API implementation

</comment><comment><USER20> I dig into Rails by accident. Most of the time I don't have internet and don't remember exactly how a certain API is used. So I jump into the code with `source_location` or `bundle open ...` and get what I want. I usually see something new. That's how I discovered Dir[]

</comment><comment><USER21> PHP's Zend and /ext/standard are unfortunately unreadable and undocumented.

<comment><USER22> You read them if you want to regress, as a programmer.</comment></comment>


Kicking the Tires on OpenEBS for Cluster Storage - <AUTHOR> https://vadosware.io/post/kicking-the-tires-on-openebs-for-cluster-storage/ <comment><USER3> Hm, my experience with OpenEBS has been... well, not that good. I set up a small cluster and tried a catastrophe scenario by just removing a node. Then i would either get processes hanging in D state, or blazingly fast i/o, which, upon bringing up the node back would result in data loss. Keeping in mind that it was just a simple bash script counting from 1 to infinity to / from a file and OpenEBS couldn't cope with that, i opted for rook and haven't looked back since. It actually runs under /var/lib/rook by default and losing a node or two has no impact, provided your replica count is sufficient. Rook really manages the underlying ceph cluster good most of the time (until you start shuffling osds around), and ceph itself is a wonderful piece of software - <USER2> really shows that it came from CERN. But to each his own, i guess.

<comment><USER4> Ceph came from Sage Weil[1], not from CERN.

The CERN guys run some medium-sized Ceph clusters and have been doing it for a while, but that's about it.

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

<comment><USER5> Isn't CERN using it to store 150PB? Is that considered medium size these days?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Storage is such a nightmare for the overworked IT crowd. I sweat bullets anytime I reconfigure storage on the (bare metal, multitenant) cluster I manage.</comment>


LP Cover Art - <AUTHOR> https://lpcover.wordpress.com/ <comment><USER2> Ew, the entry for The Dark Side of the Moon [0] is totally ruined by that "original master recording" label.

[0]: [https://lpcover.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/the-dark-side-of- th...](https://lpcover.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/the-dark-side-of-the-moon/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a bit confused by the concept. The covers on the front page don't seem to be notable in any way. And there isn't anything to explain why they are notable.

<comment><USER4> Seems more of a covers images repository than anything else. Worth to mention that covers scan quality is very good, far higher than average discogs cover scan quality.

<comment><USER3> Yes perhaps.

From what I understand the recent vinyl resurgence is a very physical thing, possibly not a rejection of digital, but certainly trying to make up for digital's short comings. So I can't quite make sense of it in the regard. Another way of looking at it is as 'Art', but these don't seem to be artistic pieces.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Its a niche about sound track albums, I'd just prefer something to pull me in, explain why I should appreciate it, not in a confrontational sense, just that I like to hear people communicating their passion for something, even if I don't see I personally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > addicted to vinyl …

Actually, it's way too easy to get awful snap crackle and pop from vinyl, and digital media at least spare us that.

But the large format album art ... especially when labels went to the trouble of making it double, opening like a large book, even for a single LP ...

<comment><USER6> A lot of people say that digital is the way to listen to the music, because it doesn't have the cracks and pops of the vinyl but in my honest opinion those are the things that makes listening to vinyls interesting.

Now a lot of people probably disagree with me, but having small cracks, pops and hissing sound (as long as they don't hinder the listening experience) give the record an unique feeling. The record having these cracks and pops usually means it's been used and liked.

But if you want the "perfect" experience, go for digital.

<comment><USER7> It's even nicer if you DJ and mix with two Technics turntables. The feel of vinyl is a big part of the fun.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask: Anybody wants .net freelancer/partner or a creative enthusiast? - <AUTHOR>

On HN I rairly see people looking for C#/.net dev/freelancer and I feel sad as my expertise is in MS stack. This is not to say that I have not touched other languages; I've worked on php, python (a bit), Java and I'm very good with javascript. But since I have been working in companies with MS stack as primary development platform, I have become quite efficient in it – so I want to use those skills. FYI, I have developed apps ranging from Window services, forms and ASP.NET MVc3; I'm excellent with Sql Server – normalize design/stored procedures. The most important thing is that I don't afrade to take challenging stuff – be it a mishmash of different stacks or learning something completely new. So anybody wants to have a chat for something exciting to work on? Anybody? shoot me petershah89 (gmail) <comment><USER2> Where are you located? We can use a partner for our .net project.

P.S. Put your email in your profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> it's petershah89 [at] gmail. I'm based in India.

<comment><USER2> Will drop you an email shortly.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Search HN Jobs bookmarklet - <AUTHOR> When you run it on a "who's hiring?" post, it creates a little search box in the bottom right of the screen. You can type any regex into the box (it's searched globally with the ignorecase option) and hit enter. It will then filter the elements on the page and tell you how many it matched. There's also a reset to get you back to where you were.  Let me know what you think!
You can make a bookmarklet by pasting the code from this link into the address section: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dackerman/158e141dd2cc7cf643951b848c402ca0/raw/e4fa1c435c4dc4ab65e107faf59e469fe5e96d48/hn-job-search-bookmark.js
The unminified code is in a gist here: https://gist.github.com/dackerman/158e141dd2cc7cf643951b848c402ca0 <comment><AUTHOR> I know there's a million ways to search HN jobs, but I built this because I didn't want to keep the console window open and type "query('x')" to filter. There are probably bugs - but from my tests it works as I would expect.</comment>


Show HN: HackNews – Not an Ugly Hacker News Reader - <AUTHOR> https://hacknews.launchaco.com/ <comment><USER2> I tried to install this by searching for "HackNews" in the Play Store, however it doesn't appear in the search results. Any idea why?

As a side note: WOW, I didn't realise there were that many Hacker News clients on the Play Store. Is this the TodoMVC of app programming?

The app itself is pretty neat, but I was a little put off by the advertising. With so many free alternatives in this space I'm not sure you'll be able to sell many pro upgrades.

Personally, I mostly use Hacker News in the browser these days because it is a responsive website since a while.

<comment><AUTHOR> The search results take some time, since it's just launched.

It also hurts me badly to see advertising ruin my design, but I got to make some money to show my parents that this thing makes money

Thanks for trying this out :D

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.aswinmohan....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.aswinmohan.hacknews)

Here's the PlayStore Link

</comment><comment><USER3> I was seriously tempted to switch to launchaco for landing pages, but $50/year (while on BETA), this is what worries me. I don't want to make 3-4 landing pages for the products I work on, then a year later on they are going to increase the price 2-4 times more.

<comment><USER4> Can't you download and host them yourself anymore when you pay the $50/year fee?

<comment><USER5> You can indeed download the websites and host them yourself :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love your hustle. Your hustle is good. Also, your copy is inspiring. But sorry I got no money, heh.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me too :D

<comment><USER7> [https://github.com/hidroh/materialistic](https://github.com/hidroh/materialistic) is quite good</comment></comment></comment>


Scalr - automatic scaling for ec2 - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/scalr/

<comment><USER2> If anyone's interested, wiki.scalr.net/Getting_Started is a good place to start. Or PM me!</comment>


Ask HN: Two examples for which you use spreadsheet in your team recently - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> My girlfriend uses a spreadsheet for her engineering work. She constantly complains about Excel running out of memory and crashing, and her work won't authorize the 64 bit version.

Basically she's importing time series data from sensors around the production plant, and then doing fairly complex engineering calculations. All of the formulas are pretty much textbook or derivation/substitutions thereof (e.g. different units, etc), but it's really crazy seeing them written as single line Excel expressions. She spends hours debugging single expression errors in the formulas written by herself and other engineers.

Since you asked for 2 examples, I used a spreadsheet for hosting cost estimation.

<comment><USER3> Have you suggested R?

<comment><USER2> I thought R was for statistics and not for mass balance equations. Graphing does seem plausible, that's sometimes what she does at the end.

EDIT: Even if she got it installed she'd have to the whole team to install it as well because they share data by emailing the spreadsheets.

<comment><USER3> R is for stats and data analysis in general. Should be able to do the same numeric computation that Excel can do.

If there is not a hard requirement for the data to be on-site, have you seen Google BigQuery and Fusion Tables?

[https://cloud.google.com/products/bigquery/](https://cloud.google.com/products/bigquery/)

[https://sites.google.com/site/fusiontablestalks/stories](https://sites.google.com/site/fusiontablestalks/stories)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1) Creating an Estimate for fitting solar panels. 2) Storing orders for farm produce. 3) Stats/engineering calculations

Notes: These 3 are the main 3 that I have seen. i.e.

1) creating estimates. 2) mini database 3) Science/Stats/engineering calculations

I am working on this: www.cellmaster.com.au - so I ask people what they use spreadsheets for all the time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Keeping track of time worked. It does the time arithmetics from the time I come and go.</comment>


Ask HN: Am I the only one who has trouble pressing the tiny upvote buttons? - <AUTHOR> Just wondering if the interface upvote buttons have ever been discussed. They were created at a time before smartphones and my hunch is that upvote participation would increase with a small UX tweak. <comment><USER2> No, but I kind of like that the voting feature is a bit less prominent than the articles and discussions themselves. Making it the focus leads to internet point whores, and drags down the bar of quality discussion so people can land their reddit-esque 'zingers', popular opinions, and dogpile insults.</comment>


Equifax has a widely deployed root CA – was it breached too? - <AUTHOR> Equifax has a root CA widely deployed which dates back to 1998. Given that they can't seem to secure their data, should we worry about them being a certificate authority like this? <comment><USER2> Yes, not because they were hacked, but because their reactions after the hack have shown their technology department to be wholly incompetent.</comment>


Obama wants all the info in your smart phone without a Warrant - <AUTHOR> http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/without-warrant-lazare.html

<comment><USER2> There is apparently not space in this article for the important qualifier: during a search incident to arrest.

The administration isn't arguing they should be able to search cell phones whenever. The case is about a legitimate search incident to an arrest. The key sentence from the article: "Last month the Obama administration stepped in and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule that the cellphone search is, in fact, lawful, because, 'a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying' and thus fair game for searches."

Police are allowed to search you when they arrest you. That includes looking through say a backpack you might be carrying. The Obama administration is simply arguing that the contents of a cell phone should not be treated differently than the contents of a backpack. This is a sensible, intuitive argument to make.

The key consideration for such searches is securing weapons and preventing the suspect from destroying evidence. The weapon concern obviously doesn't exist with cell phones, but the destruction of evidence concern certainly does.

Obama's argument is that creating the additional wrinkle of disallowing searches of particular kinds of things will create additional litigation over searches incident to arrest. Which is a legitimate concern: the courts are filled with all sorts of nonsense by criminal defendants trying to get off on the technicalities of searches.

<comment><USER3> >> The key consideration for such searches is securing weapons and preventing the suspect from destroying evidence. The weapon concern obviously doesn't exist with cell phones, but the destruction of evidence concern certainly does.

I don't buy that. There is nothing stopping an officer from physically obtaining the phone to preserve its' state pending later search under warrant. The immediate search of a pack/container/whatever for physical threat, I understand. The contents of a phone don't fit this same criteria.

<comment><USER4> I think you might be confusing two different search authorizations; people make this mistake all the time.

The first common authorization for a search comes from _Terry_ , and allows the police to conduct a cursory search of the outer layers of your clothing (not including pockets) to attempt to detect weapons. The grounding for _Terry_ searches is _exclusively_ officer safety. _Terry_ searches are the basis of "stop and frisk".

The second common authorization is "incident to arrest". The police can conduct a thorough search of your person, effects, and immediate vicinity if they actually place you under arrest. The grounding for this search is both officer safety _and_ collection of evidence. In fact, I think even Rayiner is a little wrong here; the incident to arrest authorization doesn't merely concern destruction of evidence, but is specifically concerned with collecting all the evidence that could be the fruit of an arrest, whether or not it's at risk of destruction. The meaning of search incident to arrest goes all the way back through Common Law.

The Obama DoJ is clearly referring to search incident to arrest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The link to the original WaPo report has been obscured in the OP, but it's worth reading to get a full understanding of this case

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/08/19...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow- warrantless-cellphone-searches/)

> _In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling > crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that > it was receiving calls from "My House." They opened the phone to determine > the number for "My House." That led them to the man's home, where the police > found drugs, cash and guns._

It's not quite the easy jump to declare that this case would open the gates to warrantless domestic phone surveillance. The defendant was arrested first. The WP post doesn't say if the police needed a warrant to get into the house or if the call represented "probable cause"

Also worth noting: the phone in this case was a dumb phone

<comment><USER6> The government's argument in this case seems fairly reasonable. Conducting an in-person search of a cellphone after the suspect has been arrested seems similar to going through a bag they're carrying.

The WaPo article argues that the storage capacity of modern cellphones should make them legally different (even though the phone in this case was a dumb phone), but I'm not sure how such a legal standard would work. I suppose one approach would be for police to be able to search things physically on the phone (like contact lists) but not things that the phone simply gives them access to (like email, social networks, bank info, etc). The problem with a smartphone is not so much that it contains a ton of info, but that it serves as an access point to a lot of personal info that would otherwise require a warrant to obtain.

Maybe the legal analogy would be that police can't search your house without a warrant after they arrest you even if you have your house keys on you at the time. They can search your belongings but can't use those belongings (like keys) to conduct further warrantless searches.

<comment><USER7> _The problem with a smartphone is not so much that it contains a ton of info, but that it serves as an access point to a lot of personal info_

The current situation may very well change. It is entirely possible that much of that information stored "in the cloud" will migrate to being stored directly on people's phones.

Facebook owes the majority of its popularity to being a place that easily hosts and shares photos. The continuing increases in wireless bandwidth and physical storage available on phones coupled with the growing understanding of the security risks of giving personal data to 3rd parties means that paradigm could shift quite easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If this passes, it will be a ruling as bad, if not worse than Citizens United.

</comment><comment><USER9> So, I might be in the minority, but I think this is a fair discussion to have. At it's most basic level, it's a question of whether the contents of items found can be apart of the search. After all, if the police have the right to search you, then they are allowed to open the wallet you are carrying and search it (and obviously this isn't 1:1 the same as a mobile phone, but I'm just trying to have an honest conversation about this, so if you want to anally start picking apart individual phrases or words, go somewhere else please. Edit: Clearly, reading comprehension isn't the same or as valued. I'm not suggesting a wallet and a phone are the exact same thing. Nor am I suggesting they are comparable. If your comment starts off by saying this, you've failed. I should just have made a comment about how this is awful and "OMG Snowden!" rather than have a discussion).

I'm not up on the law with regard to weapons, but assuming there is a difference in charges regarding a gun and a loaded gun, the same argument could be made: you didn't have the right to search the contents of a gun? And yeah, that's stretching the comparison. =)

So how fine grained do you make the warrants? This is already established within the warrant system. As I understand it, you can't search a small locked safe if your warrant limits you to searching the property for a car. But in the case where a person is arrested for selling crack/cocaine, and during the arrest the person is searched, and the phone is found, how far is too far. After all, if a bag of white power had been found, would a separate warrant be needed to search the bag?

Anyways, it seems like this is something that should be addressed. While I'm in support of the 4th Amendment, it discusses unreasonable searches. And it seems reasonable to assume that if you get arrested for dealing drugs, it would be a reasonable thing to search the mobile phone you had for records.

Obviously, not a lawyer here. Completely arm chairing this. Corrections welcome.

<comment><USER10> I agree this is a conversation that should be had.

Yet I vehemently disagree with your comparison of a cell phone to a wallet. The amount of information carried on a phone dwarfs the information carried in your wallet. The information in your wallet can't give a detail view of where you go, what you say, to whom, and when.

I believe warrants should be very fine grained and not used a troweler net to be cast about hoping to catch someone for any "minor" infraction they can find. The preponderance of regulations, rules, and laws means everyone one in this country is a criminal several times a day and is simply waiting to be caught.

<comment><USER9> > Yet I vehemently disagree with your comparison of a cell phone to a wallet.

Well yeah, that's why I said it wasn't a one to one comparison, literally right after. So, not sure what you are disagreeing with. Seriously, either you didn't read the rest of my comment, or you chose to ignore it.

> The amount of information carried on a phone dwarfs the information carried > in your wallet. The information in your wallet can't give a detail view of > where you go, what you say, to whom, and when

Yes, hence my reason for suggesting that they clearly aren't the same thing.

That being said, this case is also not about a smart phone.

> I believe warrants should be very fine grained

They generally are. They are usually very specific about what they are looking for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _It 's worth thinking through the implications of adding bio-metric security features to smartphones_</comment>


Predicting the Future, by Alan Kay - <AUTHOR> http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/futures.htm

<comment><USER2> Alan Kay is the greatest genius alive. Period.

<comment><USER3> only cuz Feynman passed away. But yes, Kay is pretty neat. It wasn't until I watched one of his talks that I figured out that his vision of OOP wasn't what I learned in C++ or Java.

<comment><AUTHOR> "OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other systems in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them." -Alan Kay

[http://userpage.fu- berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht34Ht/doc_kay...](http://userpage.fu- berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht34Ht/doc_kay_oop_en)</comment></comment></comment>


A Geek Needs Help - <AUTHOR>

I am not a programmer I am just a tech savvy guy with some really good ideas and the ability to speak to people. What do I do? <comment><USER2> Well, to start, you should eat about 2000 calories a day. Also, exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen via your respiratory system is also highly recommended. Beyond that, you're on your own.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well depending upon your idea, you should build your team or if you have a finance outsource your work.</comment>


AlphaGo's ultimate challenge: a five-game match against Lee Sedol - <AUTHOR> http://googleasiapacific.blogspot.com/2016/03/alphagos-ultimate-challenge.html <comment><USER2> Wow, Lee Sedol just resigned. First game goes to AlphaGo. I wasn't sure who would win the 5 matches, but I never expected AlphaGo to win the first game!

<comment><USER3> Lee was _rattled._ This match might end up 5-0.

<comment><USER4> Too early to tell, IMO. The next game will be the bigger game since Lee Sedol has a far better idea what he's up against. If the next game goes like this one did, I would be more inclined to agree with you for the remaining 3.

<comment><USER5> He has the human advantages of adaptability and intuition, the better to try a new strategy next game.

<comment><USER6> Adaptability is not all that human (plenty of machines learn from their mistakes and adapt to new settings). Intuition is so poorly defined that depending on what you mean machines easily have it (heuristics, Bayesian inference, etc) or it is just sufficiently vague of a notion that it does not matter.

<comment><USER7> > plenty of machines learn from their mistakes and adapt to new settings

Curious what you see as examples of this.

> Intuition is so poorly defined that depending on what you mean machines > easily have it (heuristics, Bayesian inference, etc)

As a working scientist and a bayesian practitioner, I'm sceptical algorithms have intuition. From my perspective, almost all models that one codifies are extremely brittle and will produce catastrophic failures (or just nonsense) unless the user possesses enough expert knowledge or intuition to a-priori know not to use the model in this regime.

However, I agree with the spirit of the text... go is a well-defined game and adaptability and intuition will be highly limited. For instance, the human can't just turn the board over, or unplug the game!

<comment><USER5> I guess I was referring to strategy specifically. The tactics are probably well in hand for both human and AI.

For the AI, the result of the first match will result in one more game entered in the its database. If it's like chess history, it's probably slanted a little towards that player's history in particular.

But the human player is well aware of the machine studying his strategic history and weighting it. If he's well studied like the chess guys are (is that how go players study?) he could employ a strategy he thinks would be surprising to the AI, or even plan to switch strategies in the middle. If one knows they are playing a pattern matcher, you can try to lead it to a local minimum and then leave it there.

Just speculating :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A bit late, but this is the AGA feed.

[https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=YZPKR7HzM_s](https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=YZPKR7HzM_s)

No one can believe it. Myungwan Kim 9p says it's likely Lee Sedol feels like he could have won. He also says Alpha Go is likely stronger than he is.

</comment><comment><USER8> I know it's not the focus of this game, but it would add to the presentation if a robot handled the stones for alphago.

<comment><USER9> and used computer vision algorithm to register the opponent's moves...

<comment><USER10> I saw this in an episode of the TV show, but I forgot name of the show.

PS.

"Person of interest": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkvukotSSms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkvukotSSms)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish they would highlight the most recent placements, so it's easier to watch intermittently.

<comment><USER12> We are relaying the match with discussion and analysis on OGS! The most recent move will be highlighted on the board.

[https://online-go.com/demo/114161](https://online-go.com/demo/114161)

<comment><USER13> Thanks for this! Loved the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Amazing.. I think AlphaGo is going to win.

<comment><USER15> Lee just resigned. O.o

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Myungwan Kim 9p will be doing live commentary at the Korean Cultural Center in Los Angeles for game 3.

The second game should be a doozy since Lee Sedol will definitely know what to expect and come in full force!

<comment><USER4> If you're based in LA, here's the event link.

[https://www.kccla.org/english/calendar_view.asp?cid=4020&imo...](https://www.kccla.org/english/calendar_view.asp?cid=4020&imonth=3&iyear=2016)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My money is on the human. This time.

<comment><USER3> Hopefully there's still time to edit your comment before the robots notice...

<comment><USER16> [https://twitter.com/mustafasuleymn/status/707469083458068480](https://twitter.com/mustafasuleymn/status/707469083458068480)

(cough) Ok best 2 out of three before it counts. (cough)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Live on YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFr3K2DORc8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFr3K2DORc8)

</comment><comment><USER18> Halfway through the game and it's difficult to say who's winning. AlphaGo has definitely improved during the winter.

</comment><comment><USER19> AlphaGo wins :)

</comment><comment><USER20> AlphaGo won!

</comment><comment><USER21> Lee seems to be ahead so far in game 1

</comment><comment><USER22> I am so stoked for this match, Lee Sedol is a child prodigy and a legend....I literally felt as excited as I was going in McGregor vs Diaz before the fight.

I used to play Go when I was a kid on televised matches in Korea during the 90s and have woken up early on saturdays watching every game live on tv. Then I'd go to these Go school after class and there'd be like 30 students studying and fighting.

Go is a hugely appealing game to intuitive people rather than logical people who prefer Chess. Go is an infinitely more complex and at these Pro levels a demigod like Lee Sedol have the same fanatic followings.

<comment><USER22> so I watched this last night and it was an earth shattering moment...like no fucking way sedol gonna get bamboozled by a computer right?

AlphaGo winning was the cherry on top but what was really even more intense was the actual battle in itself. It was like Lee Sedol was playing himself but a version of him that would get better and better each time Sedol attacked. AlphaGo surprisingly chose the right strategy which was to be aggressive right back.

Overall, I could identify with the commentator's excitement and sort of apprehension that the first battle against the Machines have begun and lost the first round.

Lee Sedol must have been taken back at how good AlphaGo is I think he seriously underestimated it because he had a lot of hubris and over confidence going in like 'yeah imma smack the shit out of alphago' and then it after the match is like 'damn gg'.

The biggest ground breaking realization is that deep learning has become so good that it is possible to outperform a human even in previously thought impossible problems....who would've thought a bunch of logic gates fast forward 40 years we have machines that beat us in our own games? 80 years from now what will things look like?

It's a real reckoning and I really feel the drive to learn deep learning just don't know where to start</comment></comment>


Roadmap for CoreOS Integration with Red Hat OpenShift - <AUTHOR> https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-unveils-roadmap-coreos-integration-red-hat-openshift <comment><USER2> I'm a PM and engineer at CoreOS/Red Hat -- feel free to ask any questions and I'll do my best to answer.

In the next few months, you should see an OpenShift that is built upon the same upgrade system as Tectonic which allows for more incremental buy-in to OpenShift PaaS functionality and a Linux distribution that leverages Ignition and immutability to provide the minimal environment needed to run Kubernetes/containers.

My understanding is that Container Linux as is will be supported for years, but we will also be creating a new distro, RH CoreOS, that replaces the Gentoo build system with Fedora tooling. This shouldn't change much for users as they don't interact with the build system; they just consume the results of said system. I'd liken this scenario to the relationship between CentOS and RHEL, which are both maintained by Red Hat. Some details have yet to shake out; for example, I personally don't know if the resulting distro will leverage rpm- ostree, but we already have internal proof-of-concepts running OpenShift with Tectonic components on top of Container Linux.

Please voice your opinions here and now! Nothing is set in stone and we're listening for the community to weigh in on these decisions as well.

<comment><USER3> One of the main reasons we use CoreOS is that it ships stable and _state of the art_ features from the _latest_ Linux kernels, so features and infrastructure like eBPF are available and can be used without problems. RHEL kernels (e.g. speaking of RHEL7) on the other hand are ancient and heavily outdated, and only backport some of the newer features from upstream kernels, so user space making use of it cannot be run anymore preventing latest innovation (or killing Linux kernel innovation through supporting bypasses like DPDK).

Oracle's RHEL clone on the other hand ship their UEK kernel which is a recent, commercially supported kernel based on (almost) latest upstream. There, the situation is at least better than with native RHEL, but I truly hope Red Hat has an answer to that with brand new Linux kernel's on RH CoreOS side. Please don't let innovation coming from the kernel die by dictating ancient RHEL kernels to majority of users. CoreOS enables innovation, please make sure it continues to do so.

By the way, there was a good summary on this point with regards to RHEL kernel considered harmful here: [https://medium.com/@sargun/red-hat-enterprise-linux- consider...](https://medium.com/@sargun/red-hat-enterprise-linux-considered- harmful-c95af86062f4)

<comment><USER4> RHEL is an LTS distro. Red Hat also develops Fedora as a bleeding edge distro, and there is plenty of innovation going on there.

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

<comment><USER5> I switched from Ubuntu to Fedora on my development machines and it has been amazing.

Stability is superb and a lot of the niggles I had with Ubuntu just went away.

Fedora Cinnamon is damn close to perfect as a development desktop for my needs. I literally can't think of anything I'd improve outside of its multi- monitor support (it's fine with fixed monitors but plugging my 4K on displayport on the ThinkPad requires some finessing but so did windows).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "CoreOS technology to combine with Red Hat OpenShift to drive hybrid cloud- native services, will power fully-automated Linux container platform stack, from the operating system to application services, across the hybrid cloud"

This is so overloaded with buzz words it took a few attempts to make any sense of it.

<comment><USER7> Sounds cooler than "We will also create the AWS VMs for you, just give us the credentials", though.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The bits about the OpenShift integration are interesting I guess, but buried about halfway down is the news that they intend CoreOS' Container Linux to supplant their existing Fedora/RHEL Atomic Host, and Brandon Philips from CoreOS says that they're be continuing to base it around Ignition[0]

I'm genuinely surprised at this. RH has put a ton of work into rpm-ostree for a long time. I guess there's a chance they'll meld it somehow with Ignition and Container Linux's Chrome OS bits when they turn it into Red Hat Container Linux or whatever it'll be called, but it's surprising to see Red Hat supporting a Linux distro not based of of RPMs and installed with kickstart/anaconda.

[0] [https://twitter.com/BrandonPhilips/status/993880972583092225](https://twitter.com/BrandonPhilips/status/993880972583092225)

<comment><USER8> It's not clear to me if e.g. the Container Linux system will be still built using Gentoo's emerge or the RH tools. You seem to discount the latter, but I guess it depends on what they really mean with "based on Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux sources". Are they going to rebuild e.g. the kernel using emerge, but from RH's source tarballs and collection of patch sets?

<comment><USER9> Initially its going to be based on RHEL so we can quickly ramp up. Over time it's very likely we get more aggressive with RH CoreOS and newer kernels, but those are all details being worked on. It's very important for us to be able to benefit from existing engineering investments in the community and within RHEL, but there's a lot of excitement about taking what CoreOS proved could be compelling and reinforcing that with the Red Hat engineering teams. Stay tuned for more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The PR is written a bit ambiguously, is the Gentoo based container Linux going to be maintained or will it move to EL/Fedora?

<comment><USER9> Maintained. A new offering based on RHEL will be initially targeted for the supported scenarios under openshift while we work with the communities on how they want to evolve.

<comment><USER11> So will there be a path to upgrade CoreOS to RedHat Container Linux?

<comment><USER12> If you're using Tectonic in particular, we're certainly aiming to have a nice path. Although there are a lot of details in the term "upgrade" \- it may require reprovisioning, but a lot of the idea of carrying forward Ignition is that any early OS customization you've made still applies.

If you're running a Kubernetes cluster, while Red Hat CoreOS will support automatic inplace updates just like existing CL, I'd say it's best practice to do periodic reprovisioning to flush out extra node state. For example in RHEL 7.5 we switched from devicemapper to overlayfs, but existing instances don't get automatically transitioned. If you're using k8s reprovisioning works well as all the containers just move off and then back on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What are your plans for rkt? It's great alternative in a docker-dominated ecosystem and much more solid architecture but haven't seen much progress lately. Doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love

<comment><USER2> Red Hat is backing CRI-O for an alternative OCI runtime.

While we did pave the way for creating alternatives for Docker in Kubernetes, CoreOS never quite got rkt to 100% stability in Kubernetes. Personally, I love a lot of things about rkt, but the project's ultimate goal was to have standards, regardless of whether or not it was AppC.

If you're still interested in rkt (it's great tech that we still use to this day to run kubelet for all Tectonic clusters), I recommended chatting to the awesome folks at Kinvolk[0]. They maintain rkt alongside CoreOS and support customers using it in production.

[0]: [https://kinvolk.io](https://kinvolk.io)

<comment><USER14> May I ask why you're pushing cri-o instead of the more mature containerd? All the technical explanations I got were hand-wavy and unconvincing.

The only explanation I see is that containerd is backed by Docker, a competitor of Red Hat, and that business rivalry overrode engineering common sense. Now we have to suffer yet another "war of the container runtimes", as if the original dockerd vs rkt wasn't painful enough.

Can you share your perspective on this?

<comment><USER9> cri-o has exactly three foundational principles:

* be exactly what Kubernetes needs and no more

* work with OCI-standard runtimes (runc, gvisor, runv, kata, clearcontainers, etc) in order to accomplish the above

* integrate well with Linux (use systemd for process management, bias towards tools that already exist in Linux or improve existing tools) to accomplish the above

I don't think there's a war. Use what you like. OpenShift specifically supports exact versions of cri-o and Docker 1.13 in order to provide the best Kubernetes experience and ensure clusters always work. There are pros and cons to all container runtimes, but it wasn't a business decision, it was a technical decision for us.

cri-o is supported for production workloads under OpenShift 3.9 and RHEL 7.5 and we use it on our largest Online clusters. We see better memory use and predictable latency for containers than Docker and containerd for Kubernetes in general.

We don't want anyone to feel like they can't use other runtimes, but being Kubernetes-first has always been a goal we didn't want to compromise on.

<comment><USER14> Your answer is 99% techno-marketing bullshit, but you still delivered the kernel of a credible explanation: _systemd_.

It makes perfect sense now. cri-o, being "daemonless", reinforces the central role of systemd in orchestrating system resources, whereas containerd, being a daemon, weakens it. I can see how Red Hat architects would not love the idea, given the importance of systemd in the RHEL/Openshift stack.

Thanks for enlightening me, if only accidentally.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's no call to be so rude. The RH/CoreOS people here are acting in good faith, I think they're being exceptionally helpful, and they don't even need to be answering questions at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For anyone reading this thread who is at Red Hat Summit, we will have a Container Linux/Atomic BOF at 1pm today (May 10), in the BOF area on the 2nd floor.</comment>


Can Museums Heal History's Wounds? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/can-museums-heal-historys-wounds.html <comment><USER2> [https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.nytimes.com/2019...](https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/can- museums-heal-historys-wounds.html)

For some reason this bypasses the paywall</comment>


Why You Shouldn't Fear 'Slaughterbots' - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/why-you-shouldnt-fear-slaughterbots <comment><USER2> > _First, there is no evidence that governments are planning to mass produce > small drones to kill civilians in large numbers._

Right, they will only kill terrorists.</comment>


Democrats Unveil New Bill to Fully Restore Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3mk5w/democrats-unveil-new-bill-to-fully-restore-net-neutrality <comment><USER2> Instead we should revisit the Communications Act of 1934 and rethink the classification structure in the digital age. 1996 didn't do enough, in my opinion.

<comment><USER3> Disappointing -- the text of the legislation is just "hey, take it back! Also, no double-backsies".

Having a comprehensive revisiting that directly addresses the needs and requirements for large-scale packet-switched networks rather than bolting it on to legislation aimed at switched networks would make it a lot clearer. The original rule that the FCC removed had a ton of exceptions, "ignore this because it doesn't apply" and had to shoehorn a lot of other definitions.

It would be good for Congress to explicitly lay out what the FCC's responsibilities in this area are (or to allow the FTC to enforce instead, since that was largely okay except for the regulatory scope problems).

<comment><USER4> While I'm opposed to "Net Neutrality" (partially due its shifting definitions), I'd much rather this be debated in Congress properly than the FCC.

And as both of you stated, its shouldn't just be "Do this from the 1934 Act!" but a complete review and a proper implementation.

This biggest problem I saw with the 2015 FCC order is it just said "while we could have this power over the internet, we promise we will never use it!" for a couple different things. If we are going to do something about "Net Neutrality", I'd much rather Congress just remove that power completely and permanently than letting it up to an administration who decides they no longer want to keep that promise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given that a large majority of the public supports this, why is it the responsibility of Democrats to advance this bill?

<comment><USER6> This and Global Warming alone are enough to keep me voting Democrat for years and years to come.

<comment><USER7> Meanwhile abortion and second amendment enforcement are enough to keep me voting Republican for years and years to come (and the occasional Libertarian).

<comment><USER6> The interesting thing is, fewer abortions happen under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. Something about pushing sex education and birth control that reduces abortions.

I don't exactly understand why you would vote Republican if you did not like abortions.

<comment><USER8> Typically, they want them to be illegal because they consider them morally close or identical to murder. One might not vote for the legalize-murder party just because the stats say fewer murder happen when they're in power, preferring to vote for make-murder-illegal party that'll try to outlaw it entirely.

That my fellow Dems so often paint this position as plainly stupid or obviously wrong is a frequent source of frustration for me, and why I usually just avoid engaging in discussion of the topic (whoops). Not accusing you of having done that, mind you, I just see it a lot.

<comment><USER6> Fair point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think treating the internet connection as a casual "product" is irresponsible and outright wrong. It provides access to education, news, communication, and entertainment. I mean when Russia blocked LinkedIn the response was that authoritarian government is limiting its citizens freedom but when American businesses are throttling firefighters connection it's a healthy competition... "Verizon admitted that the throttling of first responders was in violation of Verizon's own policies, but in a statement to Motherboard denied that the fracas had anything to do with net neutrality. " Yes it does.

<comment><USER10> No, it doesn't. Net neutrality is the idea that all content should be treated identically. The idea that you should have unlimited data, or that data should be billed monthly, or any of these other things that are nice are not the same.

An easy way to picture it is common carrier. The postal service does not ask what you are sending. It asks you how big it is. It charges you based on when it needs to arrive. There is no mention of the _contents_ \- a dimensional pound of feathers and a dimensional pound of lead cost the same to ship Express Post. Net Neutrality is the expansion of the same idea to the internet - that Spotify, Netflix, my cat blog, and Hacker News cost the same, and are charged the same, per "standard reliability" kilobyte.

<comment><USER11> Another good analogy, I think, is to electricity. Should your electric usage be differentiated between your alarm clock and your toaster?

[https://github.com/ryanpcmcquen/ryanpcmcquen.github.io/blob/...](https://github.com/ryanpcmcquen/ryanpcmcquen.github.io/blob/master/assets/a_net_neutrality_analogy.png)

<comment><USER12> Both of these analogies are against net neutrality though. The postal service has special requirements and costs for shipping packages that could impact it's services or employees such as Ord-D and Hazmat. Electrical services differentiate between loads that have an impact on the service in the form of power factor correction fees. You just don't see these as a typical homeowner because nothing you run has enough impact to warrant it.

There are two major parts/ideologies in Net Neutrality centered around the idea that traffic should be treated equal no matter what it is, and that traffic should be treated equal no matter where it is from or two. Both of these stances lead to interesting and nuanced technical discussion or at least used to before they became a broader public platform.

<comment><USER13> But a package is still a package, and electricity is still electricity. Neither the post nor the power company care what you're using your electricity for or what you're sending in your packages as long as you pay an appropriate cost for your usage.

A byte from Netflix takes exactly the same number of packets on the wire as a byte from Hulu or a byte from fcc.gov. Charging more for transferring one of these over the others is pure rent seeking.

<comment><USER14> > A byte from Netflix takes exactly the same number of packets on the wire as > a byte from Hulu or a byte from fcc.gov.

This may be true, but its irrelevant unless the COGs for an ISP is measured in packets. It's almost certainly not.

<comment><USER13> It pretty much is. That's what customers pay for: how many bytes they can get per unit time. How much the ISP needs to spend on infrastructure is exactly proportional to the total bandwidth customers in an area are using at peak. More usage means they need to install more switches. What label is on the return address of the traffic makes no difference to the expense on the ISP.

<comment><USER14> It absolutely makes a difference. My neighbor on the same ISP as me pulling down a file from my FTP server does not have the same cost to my ISP as both of us streaming Netflix.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, and they charge you for your bandwidth to the internet, not your bandwidth to your neighbor. What travels along that bandwidth that you've already paid for is irrelevant. It costs the ISP the same amount whether they are sending you Netflix, or Youtube, or Hulu, or their own digital TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it. It's necessary to get Republicans' positions on issues on the record so that voters can see just how reprehensible they are.

<comment><USER16> I don't really see this affecting much in the way of reputation. NN stopped being about the actual policy once it went mainstream and is now entirely tribal signaling. Nobody outside of a tiny tiny group of policymakers and a few ISP level network engineers can claim to _really_ actually understand RIFA.

Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything.

Please, we can do better than this. Read the actual text and disagree with it on its merit, not because the people involved are evil.

[https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf)

<comment><USER17> >Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything.

Strongly disagree; people can also disagree with the desirability of the effect, not just whether the bill will have the effect that the stakeholders and FCC administration desire. Note that I have not stated any opinion on NN in this comment, just the meta-discussion on what is an acceptable point of disagreement

<comment><USER18> I strongly agree that there's nothing essentially sacred about the concept of net neutrality. If it can be proven that certain aspects of net neutrality coded into law are a net benefit for society, I'm for it, but I don't think this has necessarily happened yet, and the justification for it gets lots in tribal signaling.

For example, as much as I've read, I'm not sure exactly what part of net neutrality has overwhelming public support. Among people willing to comment on the matter, they seem to stand with the organizations that support it, but the public also doesn't seem to want their network to be neutral.

Outside the specific laws implemented, the general principle of net neutrality is that all data should be treated equally in transit, but all data is not equally prioritized by people. T-Mobile's plan to throttle online video in exchange for unlimited streaming was so popular that everyone else copied it. People are excited for unlimited Netflix, and don't mind 480p on a tiny screen. If most people were given a choice, they would want their most used services to have a fast lane with unlimited data caps and wouldn't mind if the website they check once every few months was a little slower or their video was compressed to fit their device.

Of course, people don't want the nightmare situation presented where they need to pay their ISP a subscription fee for access to each siloed section of the Internet, but so far nobody has proposed that outside of plans like Facebook had in India where base access was free. I would even guess that if people were offered a free unlimited data plan with access to services owned only by Facebook, Google, and Netflix and the option to buy unilmited web access, it would be extremely popular.

So I think we have to acknowledge that many of the things that net neutrality is meant to prevent are actually very popular with many people, while also examining the negative consequences.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Notion Ink Adam CES2011 Probably best hacker tablet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashgear.com/notion-ink-adam-hands-on-at-ces-2011-05123431/

<comment><USER2> This is the tablet I was hoping the iPad would be. I'm extremely excited about it and can't wait to get my hands on one.</comment>


Trump rolls back US water pollution controls - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604 <comment><USER2> "Under the new regulations, landowners and property developers will be able to pour pesticides, fertilizers and other pollutants directly into millions of miles of the nation's waterways for the first time in decades."

Are we great again, yet?

<comment><USER3> Seriously America, how is this guy's approval rating greater than 0.

<comment><USER4> "This guy" is just acting out the ideology the mainstream right carefully cultivated in the electorate for decades (the mainstream right mainly did it, arguably, to get maneuvering room for more modest substantive policy, but once it's cultivated you can't contain it that way if someone is offering them the whole deal they've been conditioned to see as ideal.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good news for farmers that don't want to have to worry if the tiny creek on their property drains into a river system. Not so good news for fisherman who lose catches to algae blooms from farm runoff.

<comment><USER6> And not good news for anyone who depends on clean groundwater.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why are we wanting, or even allowing, the Executive to unilaterally set pollution standards?

The right way to do this in the American system is for Congress to enshrine the regulations as laws. Then the President does what Congress says.

If we're trying to end-run around Congress's prerogative and responsibility to write the laws, then we shouldn't be surprised when regulations are changed by the caprice of the Executive, as they did with both Obama and now Trump.

<comment><USER8> From what I understand, it's possible he did violate the law when they systematically denied and ignored all the science related to it. There are already multiple lawsuits alleging this. My understanding is that the EPA's mandate requires scientific input in the rational decision making.

I think it's _ok_ for congress to grant some power to set rules, so long as there is appropriate checks and balances. However, we have seen in the past few days that the GOP does not want to enforce the checks and balances anymore.

<comment><USER7> _we have seen in the past few days that the GOP does not want to enforce the checks and balances anymore._

There's more than enough blame to completely cover both sides of the aisle, on any number of issues.

<comment><USER9> Holding Democrats accountable doesn't mean pretending both sides are equally bad.

<comment><USER7> They're both so bad that I don't see any point in drawing a distinction. For practical purposes, yes, they're equally bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From a NY Times story a few weeks ago on this [1]:

> A top panel of government-appointed scientists, many of them hand-selected > by the Trump administration, said on Tuesday that three of President Trump's > most far-reaching and scrutinized proposals to weaken major environmental > regulations are at odds with established science.

> Draft letters posted online Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency's > Scientific Advisory Board, which is responsible for evaluating the > scientific integrity of the agency's regulations, took aim at the Trump > administration's rewrite of an Obama-era regulation of waterways, an Obama- > era effort to curb planet-warming vehicle tailpipe emissions and a plan to > limit scientific data that can be used to draft health regulations.

> In each case, the 41 scientists on a board — many of whom were appointed by > Trump administration officials to replace scientists named by the Obama > administration — found the regulatory changes flew in the face of science.

> A forthcoming rule on water pollution "neglects established science" by > "failing to acknowledge watershed systems," the scientists said. They found > "no scientific justification" for excluding certain bodies of water from > protection under the new regulations.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/climate/epa-science- panel...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/climate/epa-science-panel- trump.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> This got flagged. Im a bit confused as to why it did

<comment><USER12> In my time on HN I've seen everything political get flagged almost immediately which takes politics out of the discussion here.

I don't think it's banned in the rules, but it may as well be because nothing ever really sees the light of day too long without an immediate flag.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you learn C++ today? - <AUTHOR> There are countless tutorials online and many books as well but it's overwhelming to know which standard to pick. I'm not looking for an authoritative source but rather a good introduction for someone with prior low-level development experience. <comment><USER2> Start here:

[https://isocpp.org/get-started](https://isocpp.org/get-started)

[https://isocpp.org/tour](https://isocpp.org/tour)

[https://isocpp.org/faq](https://isocpp.org/faq)

[https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines)

[https://en.cppreference.com/w/](https://en.cppreference.com/w/)

If you are looking for books then start with (in the given order)

\- A Tour of C++

\- C++ Primer

\- Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++

\- The C++ Programming Language

\- The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference

</comment><comment><USER3> Do a bit of Rust and then C++ will make sense after you learn about ownership and lifetimes.

<comment><USER4> But if you learned Rust, why then learn C++?

<comment><USER3> For work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would start with C++11. You get the best of the old capability, along with the niceties of a modern language, and it's supported by most compilers you will encounter. I wouldn't go newer than that just because of compiler support depending on your industry sector.

</comment><comment><USER4> Out of curiosity, how did you choose C++ to learn?

Why not Go, D, or Rust?

<comment> non-entity No OP, but I'd imagine employability reasons. I enjoyed D but it's been around too long with too little adoption. Rust is probably cool, but hasn't seen a ton of adoption yet and Go only seems to occupy a subset of where those other languages see use.</comment></comment>