Java Code Generation - <AUTHOR> http://www.resqsoft.com/java-code-generation.html

<comment><USER2> It's a bit "promotion-y" as a link, but it does bring up an interesting thought: how many of you develop hooks into your code generation? Do you generate it all and let God sort it out, as it were?</comment>


Ask HN: What is your 2020 vision? - <AUTHOR> HN,
Since so many of you on this site work on some of the most interesting innovations in ssoftware and technology, I was curious to know what you all have to look forward to in the coming year and decade?
I  curious what your thoughts are regarding  things you are working on as well as developments in technology as a whole.
I personally can't wait until I get my own librem5 or pinephone and start customizing it. I think we will a "crypto wars II" as well (like the 90s) , I am so curious how technology will adopt to that. I believe Galileo will come into full effect in 2020 as well, I look forward to see how different or better it would be compared to the older GPS. <comment><USER2> My 2020 vision has nothing to do with technology, but more on a personal goal: to become a better version of my current self.

I have lots of things I want to improve and those things will eventually influence the way I think about problem solving and becoming a better engineer / developer.

I know when I do those changes, the rest will follow.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am looking forward to developing great courses for kids. It is a learning experience, but with the technology and platforms, the potential for online learning keeps getting better and better. Happy New Year</comment>


Welcome to the Lost Decade (for Entrepreneurs, IPOs, and VCs) - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2010/07/15/welcome-to-the-lost-decade-for-entrepreneurs-ipos-and-vcs/

<comment><USER2> That's scary because Web 2.0 companies aren't the be-all end-all of the world. We're in a decidedly fantastic spot, don't get me wrong. However, people are going to need batteries that last longer, they'll want windows in their houses that change shade, or soil that repairs and replenishes itself (South America looking at you.) This type of thing takes the hard money web companies don't need. It's the real source of growth.

<comment><USER3> Tom Seibel once said during an interview at Stanford that Big Innovation in software is over. 90s won't come back and another startup of Microsoft/Google is unlikely.

When asked what are the areas of future growth/innovation he said: energy, water management and green technologies.

My take on this is that software has changed so much, that it became kind of enabling/supporting service that nobody can do anything without, i.e. even in green tech field (assuming it indeed is going to be huge) there's plenty of code to be written (and sold)

<comment> http-kid What's water management?

<comment><USER4> In general it seems to refer to the fact that drinking and irrigation water is becoming more scarce in parts of the world and we need both technological and social systems for managing this resource. Aside from pure diminishing of water stock a practical example could be one country building a dam upriver from some other country.

<comment><USER5> We need the gadget from Waterworld that turns urine into clean water, but somehow doesn't turn sea water into the same...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Given that the whole capital structure is in a state of flux right now with the reality of deflation (the exit of money from the system) while massive inflation is going on at the same time (the creation of new money not the increase in prices) why should we expect much of anything good to come out of the next ten years?

I think that a lot of people will take their ideas and implement them on a smaller scale and grow organically instead of getting big fast. This site is filled with people doing or planning on doing just that right now. I'm not optimistic about the next ten years but I think that we'll end up leaving this decade with some rather nice companies that will really contribute something substantial to the ten years that follow this decade. I'm assuming the next ten years will be like 70s with stagflation defining our experience and mainstream economists having nothing useful to say about why it is happening.

<comment><USER7> I think you're a bit confused about inflation vs. deflation. There's either one or the other, not both at the same time.

<comment><USER6> The overall trend is deflation. There is a massive amount of inflation occurring though. It's just happening at a slower rate than the rate of deflation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> what about companies that never IPO but grow and become successful private entities (and hence, are never acquired)? that seems like a good place to end up

<comment><USER9> That's a great argument. But I think his point was that from the VCs point of view that doesn't look like the kind of fast ROI they're always after.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am not trying to be smart, but the irony did strike me.

From Blank's "Lessons Learned", no.1: "Advice that's more than 5 years old is obsolete."

The blurb under his "Posts from an Entrepreneurial Career: "Steve Blank's 30 years of Silicon Valley startup advice."

So, does that mean that 83% of his book is obsolete?

<comment><USER11> at least half is. that's why the blog updates it with new thinking.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for clarifying. Thanks also for your blog, from which I have learned much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hmmm, the seismic shift from MoreLikelyToIPO to MoreLikelyToGetAcquired happened around the same time as Enron and its ensuing government yoke, Sarbanes-Oxley. Coincidence? I doubt it.

When compliance raises expenses 1%, no big deal. But if that number approaches 50% for small, nimble, well-leveraged tech start-ups, then public markets become closed to them.

SOX is an awfully big variable to not be considered.

<comment><USER13> I think a simpler explanation is that IPOs simply weren't a good idea for most technology firms, which is part of what led to the dot-com crash.

<comment><USER14> Exactly - if you need proof that equity of tech companies is a different investment than equity of staid, ordinary companies, look at the capital structure of successful tech companies.

Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple...No Debt.

The existence of large cash cushions on these balance sheets is insurance against a rainy day, and changes the risk profile. If these companies had been levered during the 03-07 expansion, they would have exploded in value.

They didn't, because it makes no sense to lever a tech company to the hilt, even if you believe it makes sense to lever a manufacturing company to high heaven. Cashflows are too variable and too prone to disruption.

It takes a special kind of tech co to go public, and many (i'm lookin' at you pets.com) weren't that kind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's not just IPOs that have had a lost decade. All major US stock indices have not increased in value (inflation adjusted) since 2000. As an equities investor in the last decade, chance are you haven't made any money at all.

In 2000 some warned about a Japan-style slump, people said it coudn't happen. They still say that today, not realising, that, for 10 years, it's already true. Sure, there was a runup from about 03-07, but unless you got out at the top, you're back to where you started. And it's not just stock indices, it's also real estate and the number of jobs.

</comment><comment><USER16> It would be interesting to see how may of the M&A's were planning an IPO prior to being acquired.

A recent study shows that a better price can be extracted from the acquiring company if the sellers adopt this dual-track strategy. See <http://news.byu.edu/archive10-jun-dualtracksellouts.aspx>

</comment><comment><USER17> US is in for another lost decade ahead for innovation, as:

\- US venture capital industry is expected to shrink considerably ([http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/13/report-u-s-venture- capital-...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/13/report-u-s-venture-capital- industry-expected-to-shrink-while-emerging-markets-grow/))

\- Immigration brain drain takes place. Only 18,000 applications had been filed for regular H-1Bs so far this year. ([http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/14/news/economy/immigration_bra...](http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/14/news/economy/immigration_brain_drain.fortune/index.htm))

\- US manufacturing jobs keep slipping away, and the trend will likely continue - Nation's 100 biggest markets have lost ~40% jobs compared to a decade ago ([http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/the_score/2010/0...](http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/the_score/2010/07/manufacturing_jobs_keep_slipping_away.html))

We need to act now to reverse these long term trends, otherwise innovation will dissipate rather quickly, as the world braces austerity and the second US recession

<comment><USER18> Manufacturing jobs are disappearing but real manufacturing output has actually been steadily increasing over the last 50 years.

<comment><USER19> Very true, but still not a great place to be. Whether the boogeymen are robots or chinese workers, not having a market for manufacturing labor is a bad position for an economy.

<comment><USER20> Serious question: why?

I understand an economy that does not produce any of its own goods is in a jam -- it's an external critical dependency that can be wielded like a club against you. But if you have adequate internal production, what does it matter if it's done by humans, robots, or hyperintelligent cyborg orangutans? It may take a generation or so, but the people who would have been manufacturing labor will be absorbed into other markets -- or should be, as I understand it.

<comment><USER19> Should be? Why?

If "absorbed into other markets" means "wal-mart greeter", then that's bad. I'm all about efficiency and won't advocate make-work jobs, but if you don't have a base of demand in the form of a healthy middle class, it's hard to find people to buy the goods that you do manufacture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It could be called the end of PC era and personal computing in general. Look at this shift from general purpose desktop devices to specialized (TVs, consoles) and mobile ones.

Also the web is not something special nowadays. It is rather overloaded and boring. To many blogs, social networks which no one read anymore.

The web will remain, of course, the primary commercial media, that is why google buys that travel search service. Web is a perfect media for such services.

But it is not for a small, let alone individual players. So, we could speak rather about the end of PC-era, rather than lost decade of IT-investing.

It is a time to invest into a global services.</comment>


Earliest Candidates of Auroral Observations in Assyrian Astrological Reports - <AUTHOR> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab42e4 <comment><USER2> This requires a login. Is the paper located elsewhere?</comment>


A website to read and share contents related to startup ecosystem - <AUTHOR> What about a website where people can submit and read contents related to startup ecosystem. I just came up with an idea, a website where anybody can share contents related to startup and entrepreneurial circle. And people can mark those content as HELPFUL. You know as a person if you are attached with the world of startup, business and entrepreneurship you like to read content that are related to your domain. Also many people read various blogs, websites or watch various videos which may not be possible for other person as an individual to go through. It is very much possible that we generally miss out some grate piece of content everyday. Therefore what about an idea of centralised website where other users can submit links of the articles or videos they found interesting and worth sharing. Maybe a blog or video shared by some other person could help you in some way. It's all about knowledge sharing. Here we help other users by sharing valuable piece of information, that they could not find themselves ever. What you guys think about this concept, please share our reviews with me. Thank you, <comment><USER2> You may be missing what the other commenters are pointing out, so I'll try to be a little more explicit. The website you're pitching is very similar to Hacker News.

 _> a website where anybody can share contents related to startup and entrepreneurial circle_

Hacker News is often used to share content related to startups, and anyone can share content.

 _> And people can mark those content as HELPFUL_

This is loosely matched by the up/down votes available here.

 _> Therefore what about an idea of centralised website where other users can submit links of the articles or videos they found interesting and worth sharing_

People submit such links on Hacker News.

I may be missing something, though. What would differentiate your site from HN?

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe I don't understand, but I feel like you just pitched Hacker News on Hacker News.

If this is a joke, I don't get it. If this isn't a joke, I honestly don't know what to say.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just looking for some feedbacks?

<comment><USER3> I don't know how to put this, but the website you are using right now does exactly what you propose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you being ironic, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not sure what you said, but I am just looking for some advice</comment></comment>


Darkweb child porn site busted by feds by following Bitcoin trail - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-16/giant-child-porn-site-is-busted-as-u-s-follows-bitcoin-trail <comment><USER2> Bitcoin is totally traceable. It is global and record forever. At some point the coin will become money. That is like the vpn or even onion, it could be track at exit or honeypot exit.</comment>


Interview with Paul Graham - <AUTHOR> https://thepolitic.org/an-interview-with-paul-graham-founder-of-y-combinator/ <comment><USER2> "The exit "tax" seems the most alarming to me. Though it's called a tax, it's really just confiscation. And if you look at the other countries in history that have confiscated the property of people who tried to leave, it's not company you'd want to be in"

\- Denmark currently has what is in effect an exit tax on rich people. It's a complicated tax and changed all the time in order to dodge EU requirements on the freedom of movement between EU countries.

PG probably wouldn't want to be in Denmark since after all he exchanged chilly and grey England with warm and sunny California, but Denmark is hardly among the worst places in the world in which to live or do business.

<comment><USER3> > _Though it's called a tax, it's really just confiscation._

After all, they _earned_ their money through hard work alone, with no help from the infrastructure, education system and social policies of the country. And now that they have an ungodly pile of it, they should be able to take it to whichever _new_ country will require them to give back the least, and stop contributing to the country that made them rich.

<comment><USER4> Yes, they earned their money legally. And yes, they already paid tax on said money in the country they earned them.

Those are the only two facts that should matter. The rest is just snark.

<comment><USER5> > And yes, they already paid tax on said money in the country they earned > them.

I think the point that exit-tax proponents are attempting to make is that the current social understanding of wealth is that wealth-holders tend to show that they are capable of efficiently allocating resources, so they should be able to continue to do so while they're still in the country, thus we tax them lower than we would if we could more efficiently use those resources. So think of it like a partial taxation or a conditional subsidy alongside a future promise of additional, likely greater, taxation from their future business dealings, job creations, &c.

Since they're leaving, the country is losing out any investment it assumed at an earlier date when deciding to tax less, so the country would effectively just be reclaiming a conditional subsidy.

<comment><USER4> Funny enough, people leaving a country do not necessarily want to cut out all investments in said country. Just reside (and pay income taxes) elsewhere. Original country could still reap benefits of the existing investments there.

This is one of the reasons exit tax has failed miserably around the world: it prevented good business people doing business in punitive countries in the first place.

<comment><USER6> > This is one of the reasons exit tax has failed miserably around the world: > it prevented good business people doing business in punitive countries in > the first place.

You have to define the "good" in "good business people". If you are a global scale entrepreneur planning to start a business and looking for country with an educated workforce that has good infrastructure but you need to be able to take your gathered wealth when the business is mature (read you have an obscene amount of wealth) in order to find cheaper less educated workforce to keep up operations in order to generate more wealth for yourself. Then you are a "good" businessman only in the sense that you are good at maximizing your own pile of gold. Morally you are bankrupt. So what does a "punitive" country loose by not letting you reap the benefits of a "high taxes system" for your own personal gains?

<comment><USER4> So by your logic an employee who only maximizes his "pile of gold" (salary) and is morally bankrupt and should be punitively taxed?!

What should he do, not sleep at night thinking about "the good of the company" to be a "good employee"?!

<comment><USER6> "punitively taxed" is your words not mine. And yes a employee who reap benefits from taxes but acts in a way to evade taxes is acting in a morally bad way. However, an employee has very limited ways of evading taxes and pressuring countries to change their taxation system to fit his/her idea of what is "good" whereas people at the top of the pyramid are very "good" at doing this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > a new Lisp dialect written in itself called Bel (2019).

Is this accurate? I thought it was a spec for a new Lisp?

<comment><USER8> He wrote an implementation too, but he hasn't released it yet because he says it's too alpha for now.

BTW, I'm like the world's biggest fan of PG's Lisp work, but given that the bel spec doesn't have an efficient association data type in 2020, I find it completely impossible to take it seriously. (This is speaking as someone who wrote a production app in arc that is still in use)

<comment><USER7> Got it, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To some extent, the pie fallacy exists. But if your major life work is Viaweb (which was really worthless and sold during the bubble to Yahoo contacts), perhaps you should not talk about pies.

There are a huge number of Open Source contributors here who have produced way more wealth than Graham.

<comment><USER4> Paul Graham's major life work (so far) looks to be YC, not Viaweb.

<comment><USER10> The pivotal work (with _rtm_ and _trevorj_!) was Viaweb. Without that he would not have been able to start YC.

Also I presume he had substantial help in starting YC.

Many successful people like Bechtolsheim and Khosla go into the VC business. Still these two would probably list Sun as their major work.

The OSS contributor comment still applies: In the technology business one would need to go into the league of companies like Intel to even start comparing the wealth generated by companies vs. the wealth generated by OSS.

<comment><USER11> I mean, he had to learn to read too. If not for that, he'd never have founded viaweb!

True, but not very interesting.

I happen to think both were fairly innovative. Both viaweb and YC were at the forefront of a newish idea that seems pretty obvious in retrospect: Server based applications, and startup incubators. Both existed before to some extent, but pg recognized their value pretty quickly, and did them both well enough to make an impact. (I'd learn toward more credit incubators and less for server-based apps, but whatever.)

<comment><USER12> I think you are rewriting history. Viaweb was selling shovels (enable small businesses to generate websites) Ycombinator is selling shovels (enable people to launch startups, initially for an outrageously low investment).

Selling shovels was one of the fundamental concepts during the first bubble, nothing new.

Webshops were nothing new either.

His innovation was turning startups into movement, largely using this website and blog about it so tirelessly (always using the term "startup") that he is credited with the concept.

<comment><USER11> Viaweb was founded in 1995 and sold in 1998. It WAS part of the first bubble. And no, people were not routinely writing web server based "applications" in 1995. They were, at best, making some early websites. Also nobody was thinking of pages as screens in an app powered by server based software. OpenMarket, I suppose. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Market)

But they were only founded in 1994.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does PG earnestly believe that the critique of income inequality and capitalistic exploitation in general is really "everyone should get a fair piece of pie!"?

I have a hard time believing a Harvard PhD and rapid support of capitalism has never encountered a critique of the topic outside of a third grader's worldview.

<comment><USER14> The one poit I dont quite get is the connection between economic inequality and "noone should support founders". The one has nothing to do with the other, you can support founders and support initiatives to decrease economic inequality at the same time.

Generally, i don't like the view that there is nothing between radical capitalism on the one side and stalinist communism on the other. And that everything that is not 100% "true capitalism" is automatically socialism hich is, by the above logic, stalinism style communism. Every European country prooves otherwise.

<comment><USER15> The article draws heavily from his essays and both the questions and answers assume a good familiarity with them.

In at least one of his essays he argues that founding a company creates wealth and wealth creation does two things.

1) Makes society as a whole better off. i.e. "A rising tide lifts all boats", so the poorest in society benefit as well as the richest. The mean value of all individual's wealth increases.

2) Increases inequality because the distance between richest and poorest increases. The variance in individual's wealth across the population increases.

Of course, these are just arguments he puts forth. Others may disagree with them. ...but I think it's worth trying to understand the distinction he makes between "inequality", "wealth creation" and "improving society as a whole".

<comment><USER14> Actually I came accross PG's essays before I discovered YC. Historically I think he's right. Even the poorest ones in today's western world are still better of in most aspects than most of the richest ones back in, say, the 16th and 17th and even 18th century. Easily.

He even once wrote, no idea in which essays, that he would prefer to be poor in an advanced society to be rich in an non-advanced one (something along these lines). Now, as we know that automation and software are enabling companies, and their investors / founders (with VCs investors more than founders IMHO), to create a lot of whealth that is not very well distributed across society. Which we see every day. So, working from his earlier statement on which society he would rather life in had he the choice, I assume PG has some level of understanding about the social realities. He is now also in a position to actually do something about it, him being arguably very rich and influential in his own way.

And what is he doing? Arguing against taxes for the rich to make life easier for the poor, against reducing the economic and social distribution and faisness in society. Because, according to him as far as I understood his later essays, as long as everybody can be enabled to found a company that problem will go away. Which it will not, not everyone can start one, regardless of access to capital. And even then most of the return will end up in the hands of the rich investor class with founders being more often than not cogs in the system.

Call the opposite approch socialism if you want, but if we as a socuiety don't think about these issues, hard, we will end up in deep trouble. Not just in the US where these problems are way more extreme than in Europe. I'm just way beyond believing that rich people will voluntarily do something about the poor if it would cost them a single dime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Re: _Interestingly, though, this policy shows how quickly socialism turns into authoritarianism._

That's a slippery-slope fallacy. Anything can "slip" further. If you claim X is more slippery than Y, you need to provide solid evidence.

I'd rather hear his opinion on start-ups and technology rather than politics.

</comment><comment><USER17> Since I follow paulg on twitter I don't have to read the article to know where this is going. On twitter paulg is a "capitalist idealogue" (a term someone else used to describe him which I thought fit very well). and that comes with all sorts of controversial points of view.

The most entertaining/snarky way I can describe it is he is a try hard auditioning for the role of Peter Thiel's best friend.

It's a little disappointing considering the regard I held for him for so long. I try to separate the essays from the twitter account.

</comment><comment><USER18> Quite a diverse range of topics for pg from politics to epidemiology. Interesting to see that juxtaposition between his ultra-capitalist viewpoints with his isolationist stance on coronavirus. The latter comes across to me as a little out of touch with both the disease and his risk factors compared to the general population. To me the wealthy retired have a responsibility to be educated yet critical on current events such as coronavirus.

</comment><comment><USER19> > But on the other hand, I'm one of the few people who can say heterodox > things without worrying about getting fired. So if I don't say these things, > who will?

Has Paul Graham ever made use of this freedom?

<comment><USER20> I haven't read every essay he's written, but to me it seems like his "heterodoxy" is relatively weak. He won't be fired for his opinions but he's not going to risk his reputation by doing something _actually_ controversial, like denouncing capitalism or calling out the racism and misogyny in his own industry.

<comment><USER19> This is was my impression as well, hence asking. I dimly recall him getting zinged by some fringe enforcer group once or twice, but not because what he was saying was genuinely heterodox, simply to tighten the overtone window a bit on that side.

I agree with him that financial independence and a bully pulpit give one freedom and, as a public spirited person at least, responsibility to make use of that freedom to voice otherwise supressed opinions that merit some airing (whether correct or not). If he's actually doing it, it would certainly enhance my opinion of him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting to see PG worrying about coronavirus. Otherwise somewhat of a bizarre series of interview questions, including asking him to opine on seemingly random quotes. Perhaps there is some non-obvious context.

<comment><USER22> Perhaps to push the post YC depression post off the top spot?

[https://www.bmaho.com/articles/post-yc- depression](https://www.bmaho.com/articles/post-yc-depression)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It seems like Paul Graham is being asked a bunch of questions not at all related to his field of expertise.

I point out once again that the only reason he's on the front page here is his association with YC. He often has nothing revelatory to say and yet he's on here due to the cult of personality.

Every time I mention this it stirs up controversy which in itself kind of proves my point. People want to hear what this dude says because they fantasize about the pure-luck impossibility selling a company to Yahoo! years ago and getting to spend the rest of your life as a semi-retired wealthy man with ample time to write essays.

<comment><USER24> I find Paul Graham to stand out even among the smartest people whose work I follow. He's prone to regular and incredible insights. Like a great stand up comedian, he frequently notices things most of us manage to miss. He has his blind spots and faults, of course, like every human ever.

And there is truth to the charge that his current popularity is inflated due to him being an investor. Many investors receive an undeserved amount of attention and adulation. After all, their entire job is to hand out millions of dollars. That tends to incline people towards paying attention.

But I, along with many thousands of others, have been reading Paul Graham's essays since long before YC. That's how he launched YC (and Reddit, and Hacker News). This is proof that he was genuinely compelling long before he was an investor.

His Lisp books were also great. So he was a successful book author, successful founder, successful essayist, then a successful investor. Not an example of someone failing upwards, as is disappointingly-common in The Valley.

<comment><USER25> I've read most of his stuff and find him to be no more compelling than just about anyone. He just packages it all up and puts it out there. But his foot- in-mouth ratio is also really high and he often tweets or writes about the most banal things as though he were discovering new physics.

<comment><USER26> I actually don't fault him (despite my other comments) for writing about 'the most banal things' I put that on the person who is reading that thinks it's more than it is. And seem to celebrate it.

Likewise I remember when someone wrote (don't remember who) how they thought it was great that the janitor put a supply of plastic trash can liners at the bottom of the trash can so they'd be there in supply when needed (and when the trash was emptied by taking the existing filled bag). This is something I had done myself forever. Just seemed obvious. So it's more "what's the big deal why are you making like the janitor has figured out some really ingenious trick'"?

Also the other thing that I would guess bothers people is when they say the same things it would get no notice at all (from friends or in an online comment). So it's more like 'why is this guy getting attention and I am not for these simple thoughts'? (This might have been parodied on SNL as 'deep thoughts by Jack Handy' iirc.

<comment><USER27> Just to briefly note, the trashcan liner storage thing is actually a bad idea if done like that. The reason why? Sometimes because of defects or rips caused by sharper pieces of trash, followed by kitchen/bathroom liquids accumulating in the same bag as its used, said bag leaks. Having stored the reserve bags inside the same can beneath it, you're now left with a leaky, full garbage bag that soaked not only the easy to clean can but also all the other folded bags, which is a more tedious sort of mess. Better to keep them nearby in a guaranteed dry place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Soon I'm going to have to say enough is enough, and push the coronavirus > into a corner of my mind so I can have room to think about other things > again.

I'm in the same boat. I'm not particularly worried about the coronavirus, but I spent too many hours discussing and looking for information.

</comment><comment><USER29> Quite like the phrase on inequality "Perhaps the reason the pie fallacy is so prevalent is that it's in our DNA."

<comment><USER30> Its a fallacy to call it a fallacy though. Sure, many forms of wealth is not zero sum, but some are. For example political influence correlate with wealth and _is_ basically zero-sum. So larger economic inequality concentrate power among fewer people. This is pretty significant whether you consider it a good or a bad thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It felt less like a real interview and more like a pre-arranged/pre-planned "message".

> Why do so many even well-educated people think in zero-sum terms if all they > need to do is separate the idea of money from material wealth?

Because many well-educated honest people know that wealth = power and power is a zero sum game. It's the well-educated dishonest people who keep insisting everyone focus on the superficial non-zero sum nature of wealth and ignore the zero-sum consequences of wealth in relation to power.

If that interview room was the world and PG and the interviewer were the only people in the world and they produced 1 handgun and 1 nerf gun, they increased wealth. But that increased wealth is meaningless isn't it? What's important is who gets the handgun and who gets the nerf gun because it affects the power relation in the room and power is zero sum. If PG gained power, then the interviewer necessarily loses power. And vice versa.

Historically, it's always those with wealth/power who insists everyone look at the non-zero sum nature of wealth. A king or a slave owner says to a serf or a slave that increased wealth is good for everyone. Of course the king and slave owner would take greater portion of the wealth which increases their relative power over the serf or the slave. It's the same dynamic in north korea or with a pimp and a prostitute. Even if the greater wealth in north korea slightly benefits the poor, it still leaves them worse off vis-a-vis "dear leader" who takes a greater share of the wealth. Nevermind that if the percentages were reversed ( people get the lions share and "dear leader" gets a smaller slice ), the wealth would still have increased. But PG would probably say that's unfair or confiscation.

> Though it's called a tax, it's really just confiscation.

All taxes are confiscations then.

> Interestingly, though, this policy shows how quickly socialism turns into > authoritarianism.

And there you have it. The agenda. Also, it's not like capitalism hasn't confiscated either? Entire continents of land was confiscated by capitalism. Entire races of people's labor was confiscated by capitalism. Wars have been started, governments overthrown and resources stolen in the name of capitalism.

> But on the other hand, I'm one of the few people who can say heterodox > things without worrying about getting fired.

Or banned.

> So if I don't say these things, who will?

Nothing in the interview was "heterodox". What heterodox statements has PG made?

> The top idea in my mind right now, to be honest, is Covid-19.

Was wondering why there has been a sudden surge of covid-19 posts lately.

Frankly, this is why podcast interviews are so popular and tv/mag/etc interviews are not. There is no genuine free-flow exchange of ideas or honesty. It's just pre-arranged robotic soul-less talking points. It's the interview equivalent of the potemkin village. It has the fake facade of an interview, but there is no real interview.

<comment><USER14> Oh, capitalism turned to authoritarianism often enough. And confiscates enougj as well, e.g. land for air raft production of coal mining in Germany. Not sure why the US is so scared about social agendas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think the point here is as soon as any "guru" is brought out of his / her superior and acknowledged niche expertise, the universal, human frailty prevails and coronavirus is the plague of today. Keep well, folks (and every man for himself).

<comment><USER33> Didn't Charlie Munger say something apt like:

"I'm smart in spots, and I stay around those spots."</comment></comment>


Smartwatch hack could send fake pill reminders to patients - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53333633 <comment><USER2> Just use Gadgetbridge wherever possible. One could use broadcasts for further automation...

[https://gadgetbridge.org/](https://gadgetbridge.org/)</comment>


Dark patterns in GDPR consent boxes - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02479 <comment><USER2> I just click agree and then flush the cookies regularly which usually is much easier than find the way to deny. The EU should better force them to respect the do-not-track header - this would be a way handier. I hope the law gets an upgrade soon requiring everybody to offer an easy "deny all tracking and proceed" button. The only case when I actually don't mind to be tracked (by the first party only, anyway) is when I register and sign-in.

<comment><USER3> This interface should be all handled by the browser. It was a mistake not to do this. It makes no sense that blocking cookies should be done via inconststent and dubious interfaces implemented by the websites themselves. Much better that the law would specify minimum standards for browser interfaces to make those choices (which btw would be trivially implemented, vs forcing the sites to spend time and money to implement a shitty js pop-up). Plus you are assured that cookies are really blocked.

As for server-side fingerprinting, the browser, upon the user's choice, would send the allow/deny information to the website, which is forced by law to honor it (as it is today).

<comment><USER4> How can a browser differentiate between a first-party cookie needed for login and a first-party cookie for tracking?

It's legal to use cookies for behaviour such as login which is necessary but you need consent for tracking.

If a browser blocked all cookies until the user turned them on you'd have the choice of "no login" or "login works, but so does all the tracking".

Not saying the current state of affairs is good, it's awful.

<comment><USER5> If we're going down the route of regulation, and browser control, would it be a step too far to require standardised metadata in a cookie?

That way, each cookie could describe itself as login, tracking, optional functionality etc.

You can then penalise on cookies that purposefully violate this, and allow the user to centrally opt in or out of each type.

<comment><USER4> Aha, place trust in the site to label their cookies correctly?

I see you've covered that with penalising sites who mislabel. Who maintains this list? If it's the browser vendor remember which company owns the largest share in this market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The whole "Privacy Controls" box is a dark pattern, and appears designed to confuse the non technical.

What these boxes should say is "Please can we track you and sell your data to third party advertising services?"

Because that's what's really happening here, they're begging for your permission, but dressing it up like it's some sort of technical decision about cookies and trusted partners.

</comment><comment><USER7> Would be nice if there was some uniformity to these and you could set granularized default preferences at your browser just the once, and have them applied universally in all cases where site options match the norm, and just requires interaction for the few instances were there are some granular permissions that need to be set outside of the default set. Bonus points for adding those new rules to your default set for future use.

<comment><USER8> Frankly at this point all I want is a way to signal "Yes I have looked at the cookie settings in my browser and I know what I'm doing".

<comment><USER9> There is at least one way that I know of to realize your dream. First, disable "do-not-track" header in your browser. Secondly, lobby for organizations to honor the "do-not-track" header. The whole world will thank you.

<comment><USER8> How does disabling the do-not-track header help me? I can't indicate that I take responsibility for handling the cookies by not sending a header, that would be passive 'consent' which doesn't qualify.

Also it's not that I'm consenting to being tracked I just don't care whether they set cookies as I will delete them automatically anyway. That's _very_ different from telling them to go ahead and figure out my identity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> TBH I'd be likely to accept this. I have no issues sharing reasonable statistics about me. What I'm personally against is:

1\. Sharing them with Google, trough GA

2\. Sharing PII. I have zero faith in big commercial sites. They'll likely try their hardest to fingerprint me, and track my every move across the web.

You have to draw a line somewhere. And since most HW info can be used for fingerprinting, I don't feel like sharing it with unknown websites.

I've looked for it, but couldn't find a screenshot of the old internet explorer prompt, that, by default, used to ask you every time a website wanted to drop some cookie on your computer. Why did we move away from it? Are we going back there? What is different now?

<comment><USER11> > 1\. Sharing them with Google, trough GA

I have a blog post I'm thinking about writing about this due to launching my last app.

It's basically impossible to make everyone happy so much so that it's a bit of an absurdism.

There are people that don't want to be tracked, then there are people that don't want to be tracked by a specific company because they are doing a boycott.

<comment><USER10> Oh, right, hence the customization options. Defaulting to no tracking is likely a sane choice.

Let me insist that I am okay with statistics, but against tracking. GA is tracking. I do opt-in into statistics in software like Mozilla Firefox, etc. I just don't want to be _tracked_. I'm fine with giving away some information about myself so that websites know my 1680x1050 resolution is still being used, or that someone still uses Firefox, or on which page I landed, if I visited a few more pages. But nobody needs to know exactly what websites I visited today, where I ate, when I woke up, etc. It's my business and only mine. Would you be interested in such data about me? If not, why would you help Google achieve that very goal?

Other trackers (twitter, facebook, most other social networks, analytics companies and advertiser networks) are just the same to me. But maybe some people boycott Google specifically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tracking should be set and respected at the browser level. Consent forms on every single website we visit is absurd.

<comment><USER13> Just build websites that comply to GDPR per default and leave that crap away. Many people don't even seem to know this is possible. They believe Cookie consent is something everybody has to do on their website and if they don't do it they are in danger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I hate when you browse through 10-15 websites and for all of them you quickly click the "Accept" button in the bottom banner to get rid of the irritating cookie banners.

And then suddenly, on the 16th website they put a fucking "Buy our thing" button in a bottom bar that you quickly click on without even thinking twice.

<comment><USER15> There needs to be a way to punish deliberate subversion of expectation. The whole "haha gotcha" mentality is harmful to society in general. The problem is much wider than just dark UI patterns on the web.

<comment><USER16> It's an impossibility given how our society is structured. A hundred years ago, if Tim's General Store did something shady, there was both social (hey Tim, wtf we're buddies this town only has 50 people) and economic (I'm never going back there and I'm 10% of Tim's regular customers). In this circumstance, our system works very well. But because of increased communication and transportation, pretty much everywhere you can consume from is a multi-national corporation. If Walmart overcharges you for a shovel, you can get your money back, but otherwise don't have any meaningful say about your experience, and probably don't have a meaningful alternative. Same with the internet, there are millions of people hitting up Google the same way you are, even if you blacklist "spamshitblog.net"; most people won't. People like RMS realized this a long time ago, but they basically got shouted down, and I definitely don't think we're gonna stop the train of unchecked free markets anytime soon.

TLDR: The market always wins, just download an adblocker.

<comment><USER15> I agree completely. It's just a shame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think at this point a total ban on tracking users for marketing purposes might be the only way forward. We tried half measures and this is what we got.

</comment><comment><USER18> Really dislike these things. Hoping that we eventually get a good browser extension that handles them automatically.

</comment><comment><USER19> I wrote a comment[0] in a different thread about just this and how I am excited that, at least on iOS, Apple are helping fix these consent prompts.

0: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757498)

</comment><comment><USER20> What's the use case here that isn't solved by configuring your browser to prohibit third-party cookies? Obviously browser fingerprinting and all of that can be used to try to extract the information, so browser should be strengthening their anti-fingerprinting measures.

But it strikes me that this is almost entirely a client-side problem. If a server wants to give me a cookie or put something in local storage, or serve me URLs with a tracking parameter in the url, so be it -- there's no privacy violation unless they can ask another website if they know who I am, and blocking third party cookies stops that.

<comment><USER21> You are tracked by more means that just cookies.

Fingerprinting is not solved by clearing your cookies. The GDPR is not about cookies but about data retention and processing using cookies or not.

Accepting to be tracked allows the website to store legally your personal data and probably use fingerprinting to follow you around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Do I consent if the slider is to the left or the right? After done sliding every option to the left, I still have to press "I agree", but I do not know what I agreed to.

<comment><USER23> There's one mainstream site I've been to recently, where you have to select "reject" in the sliders, then navigate away. If you click "I agree" button at the bottom you're agreeing to navigate away from the page and silently revert all your choices!

Even the BBC do shenanigans wrt cookies, they don't have a reject button. You have to navigate to a settings page, the page shows all non-essential settings as off, then you navigate back. So, you'd think that non-essential cookies are off by default, but if course they're not; AFAICT if you don't visit the page on which you do nothing then it turns the cookies on ... so you don't need to turn then off, but if you don't not-turn-them-off then they're silently enabled.

Properly compliant sites have "no/reject" buttons and still show all content after you press it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Should have just been a browser option from the start. Although on the plus side these popups do expose just how slimy the journalism industry is.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's rare to find one that isn't dark pattern like.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's gotten so bad I have I almost feel like we need something like pihole for these boxes.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is a mess, I absolutely loath consent boxes both as a user and developer. The ultimate failure of a design is when you need to put up a sign, and this is insipid idea is basically a billion stupid signs. They totally break the UX of any site you place them on. You pour time into a design and try to make something beautiful and then you're force to put this ugly stupid block over it by a bunch bureaucrats. Likely 99% of users don't even understand what it is supposed to do, and it is probably a flip of a coin whether or not it is even implemented "correctly". I really really hate these things, and the fact that a handful of nerds continue to discuss innocuous web metrics tracking like it is some kind of conspiracy are the cause of all of this and the reason my sites will forever bear this shameful blight.

<comment><USER28> Or you could not track people and not ask for consent. Like Mozilla, or Wikipedia.

<comment><USER27> I've seen dozens of companies that do not even do tracking insist on having a banner out of some cargo cult legal fears.

<comment><USER29> A classic case of FUD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's important to note that most of these consent boxes are not GDPR compliant.

<comment><USER31> Yes, the most "funny" ones are the ones which pretend you can decline/configure the tracking but only sets you on a long chain of "configure here" links until you end up in a dead end. Or they let you configure non- essential tracking but the essential tracking you can not switch off contains all the worst tracking sites and is definitely not essential for the technical operation of the site... Also this site tend to have over 100 different trackers which is totally insane.

<comment><USER32> ... and once you are through with it they need a few minutes to "save" the choices.

<comment><USER33> And at the end "saving" fails " _for technical reasons. Try again later._ "

<comment><USER34> I see that we are talking about Oath... what they are doing is so blatantly illegal.

<comment><USER35> Any site giving me the Oath popup i just instaclose. Even if it's linked from a site i regularly check, like HN.

<comment><USER36> And flag the HN article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I feel like we won't be able to call these "dark patterns" for much longer.

Maybe "manipulation patterns" would be a better informative term.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have a Firefox plugin[0] that I click on whenever a GDPR -- or, well, any obtrusive modal or overlay -- gets too much in the way of things. It's hit and miss, but when it does work it makes life so much easier.

[0] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/behind-the- ov...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/behind-the-overlay- revival/)

</comment><comment><USER39> I have a related question: how on earth is Der Spiegel's consent box GDPR- compliant? Try accessing the website here:

[https://www.spiegel.de](https://www.spiegel.de)

It gives you two options: 1) consent to tracking and data collection, with a vague promise that you can withraw your consent later; 2) become a paying subscriber.

GDPR says that "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract". Shouldn't that mean that forcing consent in order to allow someone to read an article is not consent freely given?

[https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/](https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent- requirements/)

<comment><USER40> I hope they already see their page hit number decline. There is no way to get over this box with DNT in the header either. If it would be only for me, Der SPIEGEL can die already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> To me the box itself is the dark pattern. That what GDPR actually changed about the world was making modals showing up in front of content completely ubiquitous is hysterical in a very dark comedy sort of way. The WWW part of the internet is nearing uselessness to me lately. :(

<comment><USER42> Technically if they do that, they are illegal.

<comment><USER41> Ok so they are just eating screen real estate instead of literally being _on top_ of the content? This doesn't improve things any in my mind.

<comment><USER42> Nope that is illegal too.

Basically anything that makes you want to just rage close it is illegal.

The trick noone seems to understand is that this is not about getting your consent.

It is about making things that cannot get your consent in "good" ways illegal. Anything that needs to be big and visible means that they are doing things that are too much for informed consent to be given.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Announcing my free book on Vim - <AUTHOR> http://www.swaroopch.com/blog/a-free-book-on-vim/ <comment><USER2> I use emacs, and won't be switching to Vim anytime soon, but I'd like to say thanks for writing what seems like a really good book and releasing it for free.

The world needs more of this.

</comment><comment><USER3> How convenient, considering I am returning to Vim after a very long absence!

Step 1: Start reading online.

Step 2: Buy it because releasing books for free is friendly.

</comment><comment><USER4> Seems great.

Are there any similarly gentle intros to emacs?

<comment><USER5>
        M-x help-with-tutorial

<comment><USER6> Which is Emacs keyboard shorthand for, "press Alt-x, let go of Alt, then type help-with-tutorial and press Enter".

If that doesn't work (depending on what Emacs thinks your Alt key is), you can also type Control-H, let go of Control, and then type t.

<comment><USER7> ..............

........................

I thought David was kidding. Jesus.

<comment><USER6> Not at all. That's the Emacs crash course: How do you move by charcters/words/lines/sentences/paragraphs/function definitions/..., how do you open/save files, what does 'C-x M-c butterfly' mean, how do you browse the main help system, etc. It probably takes about half an hour to go through.

Emacs is largely self-documenting, but since it was written decades (and several OSs) ago, it's IMHO worth reading through the basics. For one thing, it tends to use different terminology than most people are familiar with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Vim seems to add a lot of things you would rather expect from emacs (great extensibility) and emacs of course has always been able to emulate vi keybindings.

What are the major differences in functionality between the two?

<comment><USER6> Longer comment about same: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=230990>

Emacs is a Lisp virtual machine, and tends to act more like an integrated environment, while vi(m) is a text editor with less intrinsic extensibility.

Also, Emacs's default keybindings (both in the main system and virtually every mode people write for it, out of tradition) tend to use quite a bit of modifier keys (e.g. you are frequently typing with control held down), which can be hard on your hands. Vi clearly wins in this regard.

<comment><USER9> The key thing being Vim's "modes". Vim users spend most of their time in normal mode navigating and doing some editing. Insert mode is for actually typing characters into the document.

<comment><USER6> Right. Emacs modes are more context-oriented ("I'm editing XML, so give me navigation commands that natively understand that syntax") while vi modes are operation-oriented (either inserting/appending or navigating/editing). In the vi sense, Emacs is always in both modes, so you need to press modifier keys to categorize actions (and if you're unlucky, you may find yourself gradually growing crab claws for pinkies).

There's an editor synthesis waiting to happen, but decades of old elisp means there's a lot of inertia for new editors to overcome.

<comment><USER9> The difference I was trying to point out is that Emacs is always in "insert mode" in the vi sense. In vi normal mode, many commands don't require modifier keys.

Vim has syntax-aware navigation, too. And what Emacs calls "modes", Vim calls syntax/filetype plugins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just started reading it.

So far great reading.

Thank you very much

<comment><AUTHOR> Swaroop's byte of python book is well liked by beginners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Clearly better than Emacs! (j/k)</comment>


Teradata's lawsuit against SAP - <AUTHOR> http://www.hyperindexed.com/blog/2018/8/14/teradatas-lawsuit-against-sap-2x2de <comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

Teradata alleges that SAP used the partnership to learn about Teradata's core data warehouse offering, so it could then engineer its own competing solution. Moreover, Teradata claims that SAP is increasingly focused on making its own competing data warehouse the only viable choice for interacting with its other, more established products.

Edit: Link to the actual lawsuit - [https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/06/20/teradata_2018_06_19_compla...](https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/06/20/teradata_2018_06_19_complaint.pdf)</comment>


Inside a Google Summit on Diversity and Inclusion - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2018/12/11/inside-a-google-summit-on-diversity-and-inclusion/ <comment><USER2> _Of course_ it has to come from Quillette. Can someone explain to me the point of a website whose entire purpose is to stir things up with "controversial" or "concerned" messages about gender and race issues? Like, do they publish anything else?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the point of Quillette is to balance between radical left wing media and radical right wing media. It's a refreshing drop of libertarianism in the world of media that is extremely biased either to the left or to the right.

Certainly for the people on the left it's not leftist enough and for people on the right it's Trump-hating traitors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I agree on some points here around "diversity of thought". I like the example of how a panel made up of all the same minority, is in fact, 100% NOT diverse.

But let's not confuse that issue that being an obvious minority puts that person at a disadvantage in the hiring process. I don't know how to improve the process while still being fair to others who may not be an obvious minority.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think Google tried blind hiring and it turned out that blind hiring is racist because it doesn't give sufficient weight to diversity. So I personally also don't know how to improve this further.</comment></comment>


App lets you encrypt/decrypt without choosing a password - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/HR/Crypter <comment><USER2> That's quite neat</comment>


Business card transcription .. via WhatsApp? - <AUTHOR> http://www.tippsy.biz/en

<comment><USER2> What are the advantages over scanner apps like CamCard / WorldCard / Card Reader ... ?</comment>


Fast Data Transfer - <AUTHOR> http://monalisa.cern.ch/FDT/

<comment><USER2> Most of the stated advantages are advantages over brain-dead protocols (such as FTP) or brain-dead implementations (not using the advanced IO possibilities of modern OS kernels).

So, what's the advantage over e.g. simply using Rsync?</comment>


'Living drug' offers hope to terminal blood cancer patients - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48706822 <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20240106](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20240106)</comment>


The Latest Project to Preserve Pompeii Reveals New Treasures - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-latest-project-to-preserve-pompeii-reveals-new-treasures-11597837940 <comment><USER2> The European Union has its problems but it's good to see it contributing to world heritage preservation by funding 105M to help preserve Pompeii. I sent a day wandering around Pompeii in 2010, it's well worth a visit and is easily doable as a day trip from Rome if your ever there.

<comment><USER3> Don't miss the National Archaeological Museum in Naples; most of the best frescoes and statues found in Pompeii and Herculaneum are there, and it also presents many other spectacular artifacts.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://archive.vn/DZHnv](https://archive.vn/DZHnv)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is all I'm holding my breath for: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri)

<comment><USER5> I suppose you've read that delightful summer read, Stephen Greenblatt, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, (W.W. Norton, 2011).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My favourite pompeiian hypothesis:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_Baths_(Pompeii)#Eroti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_Baths_\(Pompeii\)#Erotic_art_in_the_Suburban_Baths)

> "These boxes are thought to have functioned as lockers in which bathers put > their clothes. It is speculated that the paintings possibly served as way > for the bathers to remember the location of their box (in lieu of > numbering)"

Now, just where _did_ I leave my tunic and sandals? Ah, yes, here we are, just to the right of the _chaliphage_.

</comment><comment><USER7> Can't read it but there are many like it online.[1]

I love the two political candidacy inscriptions they found.

1\. [https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/new-finds-from- po...](https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/new-finds-from-pompeii/amp/)</comment>


Offline-first is people-first - <AUTHOR> http://nolanlawson.com/2014/10/03/offline-first-is-people-first/

<comment><USER2> Timeless indeed, the speed of light won't be changing soon. See also the "cloudlets" research at CMU, [http://elijah.cs.cmu.edu/DOCS/satya-ieeepvc- cloudlets-2009.p...](http://elijah.cs.cmu.edu/DOCS/satya-ieeepvc- cloudlets-2009.pdf)</comment>


Are hackerspaces growing because companies don't tap their engineers' creativity? - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/05/22/people-doing-strange-things-with-soldering-irons-a-visit-to-hackerspace/

<comment><USER2> The total number of people involved in hacker spaces, world wide, rounds to zero.

It's an interesting little meme, but when there are more people following the most obscure rock band you've never heard of, you can't really call it a big deal, or wonder what it all means about the state of the world.

</comment><comment><USER3> Haven't RTFA yet, but want to answer the question posed in the headline: yes. Passionate creatives are often very protective of their idea and unless an exceptional corporate culture exists (Google 20% projects back in Goog's glory days, etc...) most of them that I've met would be loath to turn over something they love to _the commitee._

<comment><USER4> I completely agree. I love my current start up and I would never turn it open to committee unless I was able to control where it goes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just take it as an indication that people in the IT/computer fields just don't have any exposure to this kind of work, and they are curious about it.

How many kids graduating with a CS or IT degree today have ever wired up a circuit? Or played with a microprocessor and hooked something up to it? I bet that number is smaller than you think.

<comment><USER6> That's true. When I was in college as a CS undergrad, the only hardware-themed course we were required to take was an Intro to Computer Engineering class that was mostly done on paper (think logic gate circuit diagrams and truth tables).

There was an end-of-term lab requirement where you inserted wires into a board full of tiny holes (I forget its actual name) to demonstrate certain basic circuits, but that was it. I remember that there was no professor or TA for the lab so you were completely on your own.

<comment><USER7> "board full of tiny holes" ---> breadboard? (I'm too lazy to include the link to wikipedia.)

<comment><USER6> Yes! I knew there was something food-related in the name but could think of it. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's just human nature to want to be free and independent. Let's not forget how low the barriers to starting a software company are these days. These low barriers are just a factor enabling people to quite working for big companies.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, of course! And that's the way we like it.

Remember, not everyone works for a startup. Some people have lives, and hobbies, apart from their day jobs.

<comment><USER10> And some people work for a startup and are starting their own hacker spaces. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hackerspaces now are what computer clubs were in the 1970's.

</comment><comment><USER12> I work with a couple of guys who've been doing a lot of work to organise UK (specifically London) hack spaces.

<http://hackspace.org.uk>

I think the reason for the popularity is a mix of work discontent and people wanting to do radically different things than their day job may offer them.

<comment><USER13> I think that's a great way to support on-the-edge innovators (or potential innovators).

Not everybody can launch their startup in a garage (or, esp. in UK) has a garage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of the driving forces behind hackers is that they (we) want to solve problems. Larger companies don't let us solve problems because of politics and bureaucracy. They don't have enough "interesting" problems, so we invent our own.

We also have a much higher risk tolerance than most corporations, perhaps for good reason! Look how many startups "fail." Part of the difference is how hackers vs. corporations define fail. If the problem is solved, the hacker believes it is a success. If the solution makes money, the business believes it is a success...</comment>


Show HN: Tiny (222 Bytes) Dark Mode bookmarklet to enable darkmode anywhere - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/x08d/222 <comment><USER2> This is really neat! It would be great as a Greasemonkey script or a browser extension.

Nitpick, it's actually 221 bytes. And if you

      e.getAttribute('style')

on something that doesn't have style, it returns `null`. So maybe

      (e.getAttribute('style') || '')

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks, I had this condition in the script at one point, but then I started minifying it and although this makes the style attribute look a bit ugly the functionality stays the same, so it had to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks, that's really neat.

Would it be possible to make it a switch so that clicking the bookmarklet toggles darkmode?

<comment><USER3> Oh, it has already been added as an issue: [https://github.com/x08d/222/issues/2](https://github.com/x08d/222/issues/2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What are you going to do if you ever need to make any sort of change to the project? Rename the project?

<comment><USER5> 222 is also the hex color, so the name would make sense still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome, thank you!</comment>


GraphQL Mesh - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Urigo/graphql-mesh <comment><USER2> In the Clojure world, Pathom scratches the same itch and seamlessly connects different domains that can then be queried together.

It uses EQL behind the scenes and also converts to GraphQL

<comment><AUTHOR> That's very interesting and something I've been looking for the past months, so thank you for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is an open question to the comment community, is anyone here making tradeoffs between GraphQL and using HTTP2 for these existing APIs? I'd be really interested to know which way people landed and why.

<comment><USER4> Well a regular http API is going to be better for caching. Right now I'm only aware of one product that supports caching in graphql but there are hundreds of thousands of CDN nodes around the world that will cache the result of 'GET /product/5'

HTTP2 is great if you have independent requests and want to avoid head of line blocking. I'm not aware of any sort of streaming/partial result capabilities for graphql.

Graphql is great if you want to give a trusted client a richer API and/or if your infrastructure has good ways of handling abusive API users.

<comment><USER5> [https://www.apollographql.com/docs/link/links/http/#options](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/link/links/http/#options)

useGETForQueries

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Posted previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22665276](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22665276)

</comment><comment><USER7> About time, very cool

</comment><comment><USER8> Awesome</comment>


L.A. podcasting festival is this weekend. This year, there's a live stream - <AUTHOR> http://lapodfest.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> The events start tonight. It's at the Sofitel Hotel, near the Beverly Center mall.

If you stream it, you'll have access to shows for up to 3 weeks after.</comment>


Lieberman tells Web users to 'relax' about 'kill switch' - <AUTHOR> http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0620/lieberman-relax-kill-switch/

<comment><USER2> That's a great idea! They should do the same thing to all of our utilities like water, sewer, electricity, etc.

For what it's worth: A friend used to host his website. The night before an election, they had two expensive dedicated servers running full tilt (static website). That was expensive so Lieberman switched to shared hosting with someone else for the next election. When his website shut down (with some sort of "over quota" text), he blamed his opponent for "hacking" it.

I suppose it's hard to tell the difference between a DDOS attack and lots of website visitors, but a skilled technician is expensive and smarter than a hosting control panel.

<comment><USER3> "We've been hacked" just sounds so much better than "we were too cheap to pay for all our loyal supporters."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As the person on Hacker News least likely to be generous to Joe Lieberman's perspective on anything, and most particularly inclined to think poorly of anything he has to say about the balance of civil rights and national security, and, unfortunately, one of the small-ish number of active HN people who deal with the problems "shutting off parts of the Internet" would attempt to solve, let me just say one thing.

I think he's right.

IAmA person who thinks he might manage to defend this crazy-sounding Lieberman argument. Ask me anything. I may not be able to answer everything, though.

<comment><USER5> Explain to me why this would be a good idea.

Where I stand, giving to one person the power to completely disable the primary and most efficient way of communication is frightening and awful.

The reasoning behind it? We can stop communications from attacking countries in times of war.

The reality is that there are many other modes of communication for the kind of 1 to 1 communication an attacker would need, but there are far fewer ways for the type of 1 to 1000's communication activists and thinkers need.

<comment><USER4> I don't think the reasoning behind this has much to do with "communications", but has rather a lot more to do with the industrial and financial infrastructural systems that have ended up connected in one way or another to the Internet.

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't it make more sense to disconnect them from the internet than to try and shutdown communication to/from some sections of the world? The ability to momentarily create a strong perimeter defense doesn't make much sense to me- it would only work against an attacker that didn't plan for it.

As soon as the world knows you have a kill switch, any organized attack will have domestic components, and which means that you still have the possibility of the president screwing up the normal economy, but no additional defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Even if the Americans do decide that the president has the authority to "kill the internet", they get to use this power exactly once.

Then the rest of the world routes around it and doesn't let the US become a single point of failure again.

The reasonable side of the argument is that what they really want to be able to do is air-gap the US should it find itself under attack by the rest of the internet. Unfortunately, right now, so much of the internet routes through the US that doing this is almost the same thing as shutting down the internet.

<comment><USER4> You are assuming that the idea is actually to "kill the Internet", and not that it is just horribly, horribly miscommunicated using that concept. What if instead of this they were saying something like "we may at some point need to kill all traffic from all ISPs going to any IP address with the ASN 31336 and a TCP destination port of 80 or 5151"?

<comment><USER8> This is absurd. If there's a valid reason justifying the kill switch, it should be clearly communicated by Lieberman. It is not the job of anyone here to ferret out Liberman's justifications; it is Lieberman's job to explain himself. He has a website. He makes frequent media appearances and he often communicates with journalists. If given all that, he remains completely incapable of communicating his ideas clearly, then he clearly is far too incompetent to be a US Senator.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Is there any reason to believe that Lieberman has been prevented from clearly explaining his ideas on his own website?

<comment><USER4> I'm not even a little bit interested in debating the merits of Joe Lieberman with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm loathe to find myself on the same side as Lieberman, but giving The President the power to "kill switch" the internet seems like it's not THAT big of a deal considering he has a secret service guy following him around with a briefcase that he can use launch nukes.

<comment><USER10> As Commander in Chief of the US military (as determined by the Constitution), it makes sense for him to have that power. However, shutting down parts of the Internet is unconstitutional because as far as I'm aware, it doesn't grant that power to the President (and by "that power", I don't mean specifically shutting down the Internet. I mean the idea behind it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Right... so this will liberate the Americans?

All this is, is another way of controlling speech. The internet is the last truly open medium. To allow the government to shut it off because of War or other reasons would be ridiculous. This 'switch' violates freedom of speech by isolating Americans from parts or all of the now 'World' wide web.

</comment><comment><USER12> This would require all internet traffic (seemingly) to be routed through a bunch of points controlled directly by the executive branch. My big brother alarms are a-buzzing.

<comment><USER4> No, but it might require all default-free ISPs to honor some kind of court order requiring them to install certain ACLs.

<comment><USER13> It does not matter where the decision to shut off traffic is made.

Be it court order to load an ACL or a central routing point, the outcome is the same. Take a look at FISA warrant approval rates if you think judicial oversight means anything in the face of national security.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure what your point is. Are FISA warrants granted far too freely? I'm sure they are. And yet FISA safeguards were problematic enough for the Bush administration that Cheney and his legal team had to go through contortions to create an end-run around them. Read "Angler", the (excellent) book on Cheney's role in the previous administration, for more on that.

But be that as it may: whether the system is abused in the future or not, it seems to me hard to refute the idea that unfettered connectivity to a network that has been (perhaps negligently) connected to critical infrastructure around the country is something that the executive branch _will_ have to address.

<comment><USER13> I was responding directly to your attempts to diffuse big brother concerns by implying judicial review would occur.

The requirement of judicial oversight does not preclude big brother attempts at censorship. Particularly when the courts feel they are deciding issues of national security. Your citation of the Bush administration does nothing but affirm this point.

Taking your argument about critical infrastructure at face value (which is still a big leap, as you've yet to define any concrete scenarios other than a power outage), there are better ways of achieving the same end goal without denying american citizens their natural and constitutionally affirmed rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I may have missed this, but what kind of event is this supposed to protect against? Does anyone know the scenarios that Lieberman is worried about?</comment>


Potential Zika Virus Risk Estimated for 50 U.S. Cities - <AUTHOR> http://www.infodocket.com/2016/03/17/new-nsf-funded-researchdata-potential-zika-virus-risk-estimated-for-50-u-s-cities/ <comment><USER2> The economic and social implications of this finding are profoundly disturbing. Why aren't more people upvoting?

 _The Aedes aegypti mosquito, which is spreading the virus in much of Latin America and the Caribbean, will likely become increasingly abundant across much of the southern and eastern United States as the weather warms, according to a new study led by mosquito and disease experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado._</comment>


Ask HN: Why are posts related to Obama being deleted from front page? - <AUTHOR>

Just saw a bunch of posts related to election results appear and then suddenly disappear from the front page. Any idea why ? <comment><USER2> I don't think it's because of reposts. It's because HN is for _tech_ news, not general news. The one Obama post that is up on the front page talks about Obama's technology agenda, in which case it is actually relevant.

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably because it's considered "off-topic", and we don't need a bunch of reposts: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it still a repost if it is from a different website ? I remember when steve jobs died the front page was all covered with "reposts"</comment></comment>


Pain Of Torture Can Make Innocent Seem Guilty - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026152818.htm

<comment><USER2> This result is absolutely predictable by anyone who understands _cognitive dissonance_.

[http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dis...](http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm) has a decent explanation of cognitive dissonance. The same phenomena is what causes many programmers to protect their self-image of being good programmers by being unable to find the bugs in their own code, acknowledge that the bugs are their fault, and then to be upset afterwards.

For a classic reference on that phenomena and what to do about it I recommend _The Psychology of Computer Programming_ by Gerald M. Weinberg. (Yes, it is several decades old. But human nature hasn't changed and its advice is still good.) I also wrote up an explanation of the phenomena at <http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=270083> some time ago.

</comment><comment><USER3> A couple of centuries late but it never hurts to reinforce common knowledge with a new study.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Gray explains the different results as arising from different levels of > complicity.

Or as Upton Sinclair famously put it, it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sounds pretty similar to the Milgram Experiment (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment>).

<comment><USER6> Related, although Milgram was showing that people can explain away their own complicity by being within a chain of authority, while this experiment teases apart the perceptions of the complicit (or non-complicit) agent.</comment></comment>


U.S. spends twice as much on law and order as it does on cash welfare - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/us-spends-twice-much-law-order-it-does-social-welfare-data-show/ <comment><USER2> There is so much money washing around the US criminal justice system it is starting to show signs of corruption:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylv...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylvania- judge-gets-life-sentence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/#47c516594aef)</comment>


Will the SEC Bust Facebook for Drugs? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-28/will-the-sec-bust-facebook-for-drugs <comment><USER2> Automated Podcast for Money Stuff - [https://anchor.fm/talking-money- stuff/episodes/Will-the-SEC-...](https://anchor.fm/talking-money- stuff/episodes/Will-the-SEC-Bust-Facebook-for-Drugs-eemj7u)</comment>


13 year old invents doorbell that tricks burglars into thinking you're home - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1394448/Doorbell-tricks-burglars-thinking-youre-home-invented-schoolboy-Laurence-Rook-13.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

<comment><USER2> Seems obvious in hindsight. Like lots of good innovations.</comment>


Ask HN: Good Java books for aspiring Clojurians? - <AUTHOR>

I feel I would be much more effective in Clojure (and consequently, the Java ecosystem) if I spent some time with Java, or were at least more familiar with it.  With the wealth of Java books, it is a bit intimidating to choose one...<p>So HN: What would be a good Java book for a Clojurian with a solid OO background, but no Java experience? <comment><USER2> There are probably more than my recommendation of the Goetz book. Most of the topics that will be relevant from a Clojure perspective boil down to (in no particular order):

\- Classpath

\- Classpath

\- Swing API calls

\- Classpath

\- Maven

\- Exceptions

\- Interfaces

\- Primitives

\- Arrays

\- Collections framework

\- and Classpath

Did I miss anything?

<comment><AUTHOR> These are the main issues that have caused me pain in my usage of Clojure, so you're fairly on the mark. Some of the issues lend themselves to google more than others, but it would be nice to have some sort of tome (in preferably less than 800 pages, but perhaps that is asking for too much).

<comment><USER2> There must be one out there in the sea of Java books, but if there is I have yet to encounter it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Effective Java (2nd Edition) by Joshua Bloch: [http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Java-2nd-Joshua- Bloch/dp/032...](http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Java-2nd-Joshua- Bloch/dp/0321356683/)

It's not for beginner Java programmers, but if you have experience in other similar programming languages you may get away with it.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure I would agree. "Effective Java" is a _great_ Java book and absolutely recommended reading to know more Java. However, many of the tips provided are meant to address Java-specific foibles -- most, if not all, are addressed by using Clojure in the first place.

<comment><USER3> You are probably right. I guess the OP is trying to learn more about the Java ecosystem, rather than simply the language per se. In that sense, your comment about Maven and Classpath is most likely spot on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> #1. "Java Concurrency in Practice" [http://www.amazon.com/Java-Concurrency- Practice-Brian-Goetz/...](http://www.amazon.com/Java-Concurrency-Practice- Brian-Goetz/dp/0321349601)

#2. ... hmm, that might be it.

</comment><comment><USER4> In addition, can anybody suggest something more along the lines of Jeffrey Richter's CLR via C# for the JVM/Java? CLR via C# covers a wide range of topics about how garbage collection, threading, appdomains, etc. work under the CLR using examples from C#, which I think would be more useful for learning what you need to know about Java and the JVM than your typical Java programming book.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be willing to bet that this book [http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Java- TM-Virtual-Machine/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Java-TM-Virtual- Machine/dp/0201309726) covers that, but I've not personally read it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Java Puzzlers. It's a fun book that teaches you to really understand the language by making you deal with its corner cases. Highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER6> As a long time Java programmer I recommend these two:

[http://www.amazon.com/ERLANG-Programming-Francesco- Cesarini/...](http://www.amazon.com/ERLANG-Programming-Francesco- Cesarini/dp/0596518188/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Erlang-Software- Concurrent...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Erlang-Software-Concurrent- World/dp/193435600X/)

Okay, just kidding. =)

On a serious note, Effective Java is one of the best out there.

<comment><USER7> Both of these are great :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I picked these because the big box book resellers stock them (I think you're looking for background on things like primitives/autoboxing, java.util.concurrent, the JVM's startup options, profiling/debug tools, and maybe tips that make rhickey's clojure source easier to read):

[http://www.amazon.com/Core-Java-TM-I- Fundamentals-8th/dp/013...](http://www.amazon.com/Core-Java-TM-I- Fundamentals-8th/dp/0132354764/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Java-Good-Parts-Jim- Waldo/dp/059680373...](http://www.amazon.com/Java-Good-Parts-Jim- Waldo/dp/0596803737/)

</comment><comment><USER9> The Java Tutorials are great for people new to the Java Platform: [http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/tutorial...](http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/tutorial/index.html)

Of course, the focus is the Java language... but there are lots of practical examples.</comment>