Joel Spolsky: A Visit to Microsoft and Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/joel-spolsky-a-visit-to-microsoft-and-google.html <comment> brown9-2 I think there are some interesting comparisons between Microsoft and Google that Joel left unsaid: First, perhaps only a company with 90,000 employees (i.e., bloated) has enough spare resources to built a custom wifi authentication system with temporary passwords, color brochures, etc.

Second: Google's meeting with Joel was put on YouTube, and Microsoft's was...off-the-record? I think this one speaks for itself.

And seriously how can anyone get any real work done with all those meetings all day long?

<comment><USER2> Google is not immune to those all-day, every day, meetings. Many managers and directors and veeps are very much booked all day every day. It just happens on the business campus which is a few blocks away from where I guess Joel visited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Printer friendly version: [http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/joel-spolsky- a-visit-to...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090601/joel-spolsky-a-visit-to- microsoft-and-google_Printer_Friendly.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> "At Google, some developers suggested that we create an enterprise edition of Stack Overflow that large organizations could use internally to share and organize important information."

I'm somewhat surprised that Google doesn't offer something like this already. They have more resources than Stack Overflow and organizing information is supposed to be their forte.

<comment><USER5> This won't be a wide spread thing. In most corporations, people won't want to piss off the boss-man by voting his answer down. Reputation is ego and ego in the work place gets ugly.

<comment><USER4> Such a system doesn't necessarily have to involve voting.

<comment><USER6> Yes it does. The whole point is to separate the good answers from the bad answers.

<comment><USER7> No it does not. Editors can pick the best answers, replacing the voting mechanism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Companies don't want their employees to connect to the guest WiFi. Google might have configured the WiFi connection manager on their employee workstations to not allow connections to the guest network, and maybe MS though THAT would be a "waste of time," hence the different tact.

Microsoft also probably doesn't want employees to connect their personal devices the the guest WiFi -- very normal behavior.

<comment><USER9> More importantly, the Federal CALEA wiretapping law basically _requires_ any ISP (including corporations, colleges, and other organizations that provide 'net access to their community) to record the identity of anyone given access to their network so that law enforcement agencies can gain access to usage logs.

The fact that Microsoft chose to conform with the letter of this law is to be expected; rather, the fact that Google's lawyers somehow decided they didn't have to do the same is surprising, at least to me.

<comment><USER10> Google public access has a captive portal requiring you login using your google account.

<comment><USER11> Google public access is NOT the on-campus Google Wifi.

On campus theres some Wifi network that is open and unrestricted. The public access one has a public portal (and vastly lower coverage in Mountain View last time I checked.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've never had a private office with a door. Does it make a difference? I can get into the zone easily enough in the space I share, so I am curious as to what others have found?

<comment><USER13> I prefer to sit with my users. As you can imagine, this concept is met with a bit of resistance in corporate America.

I want to dwell with them and be a part of their lives. I want to hear them bitch about their apps, their customers and vendors, their bosses, and each other. I want to know what they go through all day every day.

When I sit and suffer with them, the resulting software is _always_ better. All the meetings, prototypes, demos, specs, etc., etc., etc. have never been able to deliver the same knowledge needed to develop their apps.

OTOH, I _don't_ want to sit with other programmers, unless we're working on the same thing at the same time. I don't care about your problems, I have my own.

<comment><USER12> Interesting point of view. I've had the... luxury... of sitting with end users and I certainly agree with your statement that it produces better software. However, I couldn't see sitting with them all day long, unless the projects themselves were fairly small. I fear that I'd never get anything done, because once the users figure out that you can magically make the software do whatever it needs to, they'll be asking for the moon. Pushing back would only get you so far, I think.

I sit in an office with a pretty fantastic programmer and I've certainly benefited from his knowledge, though I can certainly relate to "I don't care about your problems, I have my own."!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I found it interesting that, unlike Microsoft (and Joel's own company), Google does not give their developers their own private offices.

Are developers at Google as productive as they can be even sharing an office with 3 other people? Does it not matter if you are a certain caliber of programmer that shares an office with others of the same or similar caliber and level?

Perhaps those who work at Google have greater self-discipline and awareness to know when collaborating starts to cross the line into interrupting someone so the need for private offices is not as necessary as with other companies.

<comment><USER14> The "need" for private offices for developers is based on an evaluation: the cost of interruptions vs the benefit of improved communication among the staff. I doubt there's a "slam-dunk" case to be made for either side.

<comment><USER15> In PeopleWare authors pose that productivity is the best when people working on the same project sit together, is average when people sit alone and is the worst when people with unrelated tasks sit together.

Ergo, if you are willing to move your "location" as often as you change tasks it's best to sit together.

<comment><USER16> And Google makes this pretty easy because your home directory and all of your work lives in the cloud.

<comment><USER17> Can we please say "on their intranet" instead of the misleading "cloud" buzzword? (FWIW Googlers call it the "intranet" too.)

<comment><USER16> I was a Google intern...

<comment><USER18> Oh, well, then buzzword away, o holy Gintern?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I liked the section where he considered stepping back and expanding to different subjects. Reputation and voting systems have added so much to our culture--it seems like a principal advantage of the Web. Google, Twitter, StackOverflow all reward it.

I don't think this has ever happened with Email or Usenet... but wow, imagine that. If Gmail could see which mailing list posts had been starred by other readers, it would save a ton of time.

</comment><comment><USER20> Anyone have an idea of where he's getting the figure for the number of employees at Google? He says 10,000, but Wikipedia[1] has it at 20k.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&oldid=2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&oldid=295375723)

<comment><USER21> I think he either didn't bother to err.. google the number of employees, or just "rounded" to the number of employees that Google had back in the day. Or both.

Very unscrupulous on his side, I must add.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> i cant believe inc is running such a blatant ad for stack overflow. I haven't done an in-depth analysis, but i'd wager that 40% of the content of that post was promoting his product. Joel is amazing at leveraging the PR/Marketing value of his writing. Go Joe!

(speaking of Go Joe, that new GI Joe movie looks amazing. I can't believe it is 2 months away)

<comment><USER23> It seemed like joel was pimping his website. That's true. I mean, it actually seemed obvious to the point of being tacky.

<comment><USER24> Getting asked to MS and Google to pimp your website is a valid excuse to crow about it, IMO.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: SuRealEstate – Game where you become a real estate investor - <AUTHOR> https://mitenmit.github.io/surealestate/ <comment><USER2> There's no option to outright buy a property. I might not want a loan because I can purchase the property for list. While tax benefits factor into loan interest and what not, purchasing outright allows for a much better roi.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's right, you can repay the full loan immediately after you buy the property, that way you won't pay interest.

<comment><USER3> This doesn't seem to be working for me. The slider is not draggable. Hitting repay does nothing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The indication of playtime is really nice - will play it tonight when I get the time.</comment>


Illegal Prime Numbers - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

<comment><USER2> [ Ignoring the morality of making ideas illegal... ]

This demonstrates the difference between data (i.e. the number itself) and information (the interpretation of data and use cases derived from that interpretation).

What is "illegal" here is certain kinds of encryption and security software. A prime number is not the same thing as encryption and security software. But you can specify processes which allow encryption and security software to be uniquely identified by a prime number. The interpretation _combined_ with the data is what's important, not the data in isolation.

<comment><USER3> All true, but there are cases where the jump from the primality to the lawbreaking is really really short.

For example, if the authorities compromise a CA/ISP/website's private key, they'll be prohibited from "tipping off" others that the corresponding public key is insecure. But (in the case of RSA), that knowledge is equivalent to "the authorities know that the factors of X are Y and Z" or even "X = Y times Z".

Yep, announcing a number's factors can be illegal.

That seems like a more interesting, non-convoluted kind of "illegal prime".

<comment><USER4> Putting the number 07574635453 on a website can be illegal. Putting the number 35.672 on a website can be illegal. Terrible isn't it! I could be sent to jail for sending someone "1101001100111110110111001111101111110100111011101100111111010011011111101011110100111011001101100111100111011111110101"!

No, since the first could be in the context of me releasing personal information, and the second could be the quarterly earnings before they're released publicly. Or someones wages, or someones password, or the location of a witness in hiding, or the binary representation of a libellous claim, or harassment (but I only sent 0s and 1s in a message on facebook your honour!), or a million other things that we all agree are illegal.

It's an incredibly boring, and over-repeated statement that you can represent information as numbers and therefore you can have ILLEGAL NUMBERS! What will the poor maths teachers do?

> Yep, announcing a number's factors can be illegal.

If you do so with the intent of breaking encryption I'm sure there are situations where it would be illegal.

Intent, as is so often ignored when legal matters come up, is incredibly important.

<comment><USER5> And if the intent is to watch legally purchased DVDs on a legally purchased computer with a legally purchased DVD drive running my choice of operating system, and I'm a 14 year old Norwegian kid, clearly prosecution is warranted.

<comment><USER4> Are you accusing me of suggesting that is the case?

<comment><USER5> Not really. I understood you to be speaking in a more idealized mode, and was criticising those who failed to live up to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Obligatory link: What Colour are your bits? [http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23)

The fact that this Wikipedia article exists at all embarrasses me.

<comment><USER7> Off-topic: Wow, that author's friend really dramatically and thoroughly misunderstood 4'33".

<comment><USER8> "Now, the preceding paragraph is basically nonsense to computer scientists or anyone with a mathematical background. (My friend is one; he'd done this as a sort of elaborate joke.)"

Misunderstood in the way Douglas Adams "misunderstands" physics; i.e., the best way possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's also illegal to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Presumably, that can also be encoded as a number.

While it's an interesting perspective, it does not strike me as particularly _useful_ in the debate about intellectual property, free speech, etc...

<comment><USER10> It's not illegal to do that, and in the context in which it _was_ illegal, that decision was overturned: [http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its- time...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop- using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/)

<comment><USER4> As an alternative then, harassment over the internet and libellous statements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's the big deal about this, are prime numbers so special that they should be granted some kind of diplomatic immunity?

IOW what's the difference about this and ranting about illegal even numbers.

<comment><USER12> I would also like to know this. Why is it important that the number representing some code must be prime? Why not any number?

<comment><USER13> The idea was to have a legitimate reason to publish the code.

He found a representation of the code that was also the tenth largest prime found using ECPP meaning he could publish the finding and claim he wasn't publishing the code. However, anyone who wanted the code could easily find it by looking up the prime

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Digg This: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c1

<comment><USER15> According to Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy)) the last 1 has to be a 0.

<comment><USER14> Good catch. I couldn't find the original post on Digg, so I used Google to find other people discussing it. It looks like the publisher I copied was too scared to publish the key verbatim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why did it have to be Prime? Wh not just from the set of natural numbers alone?

Edit: ahh he wanted an excuse to publish it which you wouldnt get with a non prime

<comment><USER17> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> These stupid scenarios are direct consequences of software patents.

I remember an article that used Haskell to show how absurd software patents are by showing how any piece of software is actually just a mathematical formula that turns some input (however big) into some output.

</comment><comment><USER19> Earlier this year, Numberphile (which is a fantastic youtube channel) created a very accessible video about this topic. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo19Y4tw0l8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo19Y4tw0l8)

</comment><comment><USER20> If you have a strong RSA modulus, e.g. 2048 bits, then the primes we are talking about are about 1024 bits.

There is no way you are going to hit such a prime number at random. Not even if you set a million fast computers going in a million universes on every planet in those universes. Certainly not before heat death of this universe.

The only way you are going to have an interest in this prime is as a factor of someone's RSA key (for which you will need not-yet-invented algorithms of great sophistication and probably an enormous amount of computer time to find in the first place).

On principle, the idea of illegal numbers is stupid. Actually, on second thoughts, it is stupid either way. It is basically serving only as a legal backstop for a situation that by definition shouldn't need one.

</comment><comment><USER21> The question is: The program that recovers from the illegal prime number the original source code, is that program legal and freely distributable?

<comment><USER22> It's no different than the innumerable YouTube videos showing how to lock pick. They're not picking the locks of any specific location, just showing the methodology.

But high-powered lawyers can be persuasive to your detriment if you do distribute it so you may have to get crafty with the method. I.E. Print it up on paper and distribute calling it Free Speech ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hey, I can append a bit to a string of bits...

Behold! Illegal odd numbers!

</comment><comment><USER24> Simply outrageous. What is next? Intellectual property on arithmetic?

<comment><USER25> Yup, I wish I could find my essay, but I wrote an essay in the 90's on this. That one day, numbers and arithmetic will be outlawed, because any data (program, image, movies, etc) can be presented by a number, and those numbers can be represented by a bunch of mathematical operations. So if we can copyright programs, then those numbers and any possible arithmetic operation to generate them will also by be copyright able and anyone possessing them without permission is breaking the law. This also applys to all possible forms of IP.

<comment><USER26> Eben Moglen talked about the different legal regimes that were applied to different classes of information (which programmers might view as different numbers) in "Anarchism Triumphant", at [http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.pdf](http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.pdf)

I think it's an interesting read in conjunction with "What Colour Are Your Bits" (suggested above).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Prime numbers can provide the ultimate form of compression. If only there was a way to find a corresponding prime number per code base.

<comment><USER28> There's no compression. It's expansion, since null bytes were added to increase the digit length of the resulting prime, making it long enough to publish. For an arbitrary binary, the original (most likely non-prime) zipped representation is more useful since it's smaller.

<comment><USER29> I think he is saying that for example the Linux kernel version 3.11 would be the Nth prime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have question: If DVD encryption was broken several years ago, why is it still used?

<comment><USER31> Because then you'd have new dvd's that don't work on most dvd players... consumers would get mad... and DVD is kindda getting obsolete now that there's bluray.

<comment><USER32> I think he meant dropping the encryption all together. Would players not be able to play non-encrypted discs?

<comment><USER33> DVD encryption combined with anticircumvention laws mean DVD players that can skip no-skip content or play out-of-region DVDs aren't sold to mainstream consumers.

Without anticircumvention laws, there would be no incentive to use encryption. Such laws have nothing to do with piracy; they're about maximizing revenue from paying customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Someone explain for us normals.

<comment><USER35> \</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

TL;DR:

The genius of this story is that Phil Carmody found a way to just ADD BITS to the end of a zipped, illegal program to make it a large publishable prime number. Even more brilliant is that if you convert the prime number back to binary (trivial) and unzip it, you get the illegal program. That is amazing.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

      For the curious:

      Let "k" be your illegal program zipped in binary, interpreted as a number.

      Carmody created a buffer of zeroed-out bytes to the right of "k" to allow for a
      free space to search for prime numbers without tampering with the illegal bits
      on the left that he still wanted intact.  The unzip program will ignore
      everything after it anyway (either because of null terminating zeros or because
      the file size listed in the header would ignore it).

            (illegal bytes)                   (zero buffer)
                    |                               |
                    v                               v
      |</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---||</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--|
      kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk0000000000000000000000000000000000

      He created this "zero buffer" of size "n" bytes by multiplying k by 256^n.  You
      already know that multiplying a base-10 number by 10^n adds "n" zeros to the
      right.  Multiplying a base-2 (binary) number by 2^n similarly adds "n" zeros to
      the right.  This is what "bit-shifting" is.   So, multiplying a binary number
      by 2^(8n) will add increments of 8 zeros (a zero byte) to the right of the
      number.  And if you know your rules, 2^(8n) = (2^8)^n = 256^n.

      Then, he modified the bits in this zero buffer to make the whole thing a
      prime number.

            (illegal bytes)           (left-over zero buffer)   (prime-making bytes)
                    |                            |                |
                    v                            v                v
      |</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---||</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---||---|
      kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk00000000000000000000000000000bbbbb

      He didn't do this directly of course.  We know from a popular theorem that
      there are an infinite number of values of "n" that make (k * n + b) a prime
      number, as long as "k" and "b" don't share any factors.  He presumed with
      high probability that (k * 256^n + b) would hit on that infinite space of
      primes, and he was right.  He found values of "n" and "b" to match his
      illegal "k" value to create a prime.

      To relate the equation to the visualization above:  "k" is the illegal bytes
      in the beginning.  "n" is the size of the zero buffer.  "b" is the prime-making
      bytes.

<comment><USER36> I'm sorry, but how exactly is this "amazing"? That you can find some bits to append to a number such that it becomes prime is rather obvious, given that there are an infinite number of primes and (probabilistic) primality tests are readily available. As other have pointed out, this is no more interesting than the fact that adding a "1" bit yields an odd number.

And what's the point? Yes, illegal information can be encoded as bits, those bits interpreted as numbers, and then you can apply transformations to those numbers. So what?

<comment><USER37> The point is that certain large prime numbers (of certain forms) are curated and published in a catalogue because they are notable (in and of themselves). The process you dismiss as trivial allowed Carmody to encode the illegal program as such a prime, and hence have it independently published in said catalogue, where it belongs _entirely independently of whether it happens to turn into the illegal program when run through gunzip_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is why libertarians are against intellectual "property".</comment>


The Problem With Code Folding - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001147.html

<comment><USER2> The title of this post got my hopes WAY up: Code folding? Applying catamorphisms to code? Way cool topic!!!

But no, it was about how one specific language and one specific editor have some hints that play well together to hide and show blocks of code. Which is interesting even if you don't use that editor and that language, because it looks like another form of abstracting away some details.

So for the people who use these Miscrosoft-specific tools, how is the argument against code folding different from the argument against extracting code into its own method? It seems to me that if I take a bunch of code and put it in its own method or class, I can move it out of sight, hiding its ugliness and exposition from view.

Is code folding substantially different?

<comment><USER3> '...it looks like another form of abstracting away some details...'

I think this is the main reason why I don't like it - it's an extra and inferior way of organising code. Automatically generated boilerplate code in ASP.NET is now hidden using partial classes, for example, which I think is an improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Now I like regions.

They force programmers (by that I mean other people of course - my code is perfect ;) to at least apply some order to the code. If I want to review (say) the update method for a form I do not want to have to search through a mishmash of private declarations, methods servicing form control events, locally declared classes etc. etc.

OK - Mr Atwood might have a point for really simple classes but when the code runs to a screen or two a little order helps a lot.

<comment><USER4> ordering code is not the same as hiding code. Perfectly fine to throw in some comments to provide hints to readers as to what this section does, but providing hints to the editor and having the editor automatically HIDE the code seems wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Generally I either agree with or at least don't disagree with Atwood, but I completely disagree with his point on #region. It's a useful tool to manage long files, you can still search within it, it implies some kind of grouping of methods, etc. Even though the regions are collapsed by default, there's a little '+' next to is that took me about 3 seconds to figure out _the very first time I used Visual Studio_.

Also, the complaints about code helping only one editor are disingenuous considering how little .Net coding is done outside of Visual Studio.

</comment><comment><USER6> Jeff's posts a year ago were so much more interesting than the past year's have been. _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER7> For something similar in Emacs:

      (defun toggle-fold ()
        "Toggle current buffer's folding." (interactive)
        (if selective-display
          (set-selective-display nil)
          (set-selective-display language-fold-column)))

where language-fold-column is the column that function bodies (or methods within a class, etc.) are indented to by default. I set the language-fold- column variable in my language-mode hook.

I find this helpful when skimming a module -- it limits it to function descriptions (docstring-like comments preceding the methods, if any) and the function type (in the OCaml sense); the function bodies are replaced with "...". With well-named functions ( _long sigh_ ), this is often sufficient. Granted, it's based solely on indentation, but it works pretty well for several languages.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have only successfully used code folding when I write HTML. It's nice to finish a section of the page and close it and forget about it. I never use it for CSS though. I can never remember where that margin or padding is being added from :)

I wish TextMate had proper folding logic for Python.

<comment><USER9> Notepad++ does code folding for Python rather well, but it's Windows only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you don't like #regions, you don't have to collapse them.

I like them personally because they _aren't_ comments - they're comments that imply structure. It sets the high-level structure of the file apart.</comment>


Too Clever by Half (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.epsilontheory.com/too-clever-by-half/ <comment><USER2> This was posted here 9 months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079369](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079369)

<comment><USER3> Yes, I to remembered this. The article has eschewed the blockchain references this time.

Also, this time in my opinion, the comments seem more intelligent and engaging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Highly interesting writing. I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with points - but mostly agreeing.

At the same time, some of it "plucked at my liberal nose", which bothered me, but further reading seemed to indicate that the author wasn't doing it to be "on a side" \- in fact, I could see him "plucking the conservative nose" as well!

...and indeed, I believe that is intentional; his point being (I think) to get the reader to break out of the us-vs-them dynamic, try to see all points of view, especially those you don't agree with, and think more for yourself instead of succumbing to the systems in place that attempt to tell you what to think and how - and are oh-so-seductive as they do so.

I like to think, as we probably all do, that "I am better than that - I think for myself!", etc.

But do I?

This kind of writing makes me pause and question that; I find it a good...if a bit unsettling...thing.

<comment><USER5> The "nose plucking" is a recurring thing with Epsilon Theory, and yes – directed pretty evenhandedly at ridiculousness on both sides of the political spectrum.

You're dead on about breaking out of the "us vs them" dynamic.

Here's their series on that:

The widening gyre of political/ideological polarization: [https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart- pt-1/](https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/)

The opposite effect in markets/asset classes: [https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart- part-2/](https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-part-2/)

Market participation in light of these phenomena: [https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart- part-3-marke...](https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart- part-3-markets/)

Personal conduct and process in these contexts: [https://www.epsilontheory.com/clear-eyes-full-hearts-cant- lo...](https://www.epsilontheory.com/clear-eyes-full-hearts-cant-lose/)

1 and 4 are especially relevant to your post. The first explains why your nose felt plucked, the last suggests what we all might do about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _The coyotes know_ exactly* where the invisible fence begins and ends, without the benefit of ever wearing a shock collar. How do I know? Because they intentionally leave their scat on their side of the invisible fence, creating a demilitarized zone as precise and as well-observed as anything on the Korean peninsula.*

Hmm.. couldn't this be just a result of the dogs not having marked the territory where the invisible fence is? As in, it's just territory essentially open for the taking?

<comment> compiler-guy That's exactly the point.

<comment><USER6> What I'm saying is - it doesn't seem to be cleverness in action - just plain ol' animal instinct.

<comment><USER7> It's kind of like the domesticated dogs are dumbly telling them where the fence is.

<comment><USER8> Most domesticated dogs really are pretty stupid. Many of the smarter breeds, like the German or Belgian Shepherd dogs have fairly recent wolf admixture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Alright so I was following with the author for the longform introduction about coyotes and raccoons (although essentially all his criticisms of raccoons apply equally to cats, which he seems to like).

But then he lost me when he started making it a piece about finance gone awry. I don't really follow the point, can anyone walk me through his example more concisely? He's throwing in a lot here in struck out letters, which is part of the joke, but I think I'm missing the big picture.

<comment><USER10> It's a markets/economics analysis blog that takes some pride in staking independent positions. (Charitably put.)

The segue to blockchain/MBS wasn't a non-sequitur, it was the eventual aim of the piece -- that smart people will invent, nasty people will ruin, smart people will be ruined and the state will intervene and grow in remit.

As for the strikethrough, it was to compare the causes of the GFC with the (at the time of writing more current) blockchain fad.

<comment><USER9> Wow thank you, I think you nailed it. I see all of this now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> (2018). Seen this before. It's good, though.

<comment><USER5> Epsilon Theory is one of those pieces of writing that remains rewarding across multiple readings. I find myself revisiting their entire catalog often. I'm shocked that every post they have doesn't do well here, the way say Patio11 or SlateStarCodex would.

<comment><USER10> It's a little more self-indulgent. Lots more pop-culture references, less data, less introspection and "what if I'm wrong" counterfactual exploration. I also think it makes less of an effort to make itself clear, because Epsilon Theory sees itself as talking to a particular free-thinking crowd, not trying to educate anyone who will listen.

<comment><USER5> Great point. I think you're right. ET leans into a "dialect" that sometimes assumes you're ramped up on the existing writing, in a way that I can't imagine SSC doing.

I don't fault them for this – it adds something, and I've gotten a _huge_ amount of value from doing the same in my own journaling, but I get how it can be a turnoff. I really like Venkatesh Rao, but outside of more conventionally phrased works like The Gervais Principle, I sometimes struggle to get through Ribbonfarm because of his obscure style and linguistic choices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting writing style.

I really like the quote; "It's always the meta-game that gets you." (which is the whole point of the essay really).

Basically, if you think that you've found a way to win the mini-game that you're playing - you're being a coyote - so watch out! Because when that mini- game ends, the bigger, meta game is going to blow up and end your fun.

It's basically the concept of "finite" vs "infinite" games: Don't play an infinite game like a finite game. You'll think that you're clever and winning while you're playing - but the game will always get you in the end.

<comment><USER13> Somehow this reminds me of quarterly results and technical debt vs long term success.

<comment><USER14> "Somehow"

:)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> g-erson I've seen this pop up a couple of times now as well - are there any other similarly thought provoking articles anyone recommends?

<comment><USER15> Epsilon Theory has more, could read other stuff on the site.

Also recommend Ribbonfarm

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A similar but, imho better piece can be found on [https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths](https://meaningness.com/geeks- mops-sociopaths). Still, the interesting bits for me in this one were the following:

"Financial innovation is always and in all ways one of two things — a new way of securitizing something or a new way of leveraging something.

"Securitization is a ten-dollar word that means associating something in the real world (a cash flow from a debt, an ownership interest in a company, a deed on a property, a distributed ledger mathematical calculation, etc.) with a piece of paper that can be bought and sold separately from that real world thing. Leverage is a ten-dollar word that means borrowed money.

"That's it. There's nothing new under the sun. Finding new ways to trade things (securitization) or new ways to borrow money on things (leverage) is what financial innovation is all about, and there are vast riches awaiting the clever coyotes who can come up with a useful scheme on either. The biggest market disasters happen when both leverage and securitization get mixed up with the same clever scheme."

For learning the above this was worth the read.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not much of a meta-"game", when humans are OP.

Scat marks the fence. They needn't remember.

</comment><comment><USER8> Corollary: contemporary humans are a domesticated species, so we are also mentally inferior to our ancestors. This is more plausible than it first sounds, because our superior techniques and technology more than make up for intrinsic shortcomings.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is the kind of article that makes people who think they are geniuses (but have produced nothing useful) feel justified in hurting others to get what they want.

<comment><USER19> I didn't read this article as encouraging either coyote or racoon behaviour, but rather to be an arborist [0]. What makes you think this?

[0]: [https://www.epsilontheory.com/the- arborist/](https://www.epsilontheory.com/the-arborist/)

<comment><USER18> The people I'm thinking of would read "Too Clever by Half" and think, "Obviously what I'm doing is a hole that needs to be filled [I won't admit it, but it's really because it would enrich me or make me more powerful], and so the rules and regulations shouldn't apply to me, it's just for those asshole raccoons."

A reasonable reading would interpret the article as praise for what the "geniuses" are doing, and lament that if only the idiots weren't so greedy, the geniuses could reap a justified reward for their fiendish cleverness.</comment></comment></comment>


Why empathy is a bad thing - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/474588/why-empathy-is-a-bad-thing/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I don't understand his argument that empathy causes us to bomb people. I thought that was competition for resources, ideological differences and shady clandestine foreign policy. I consider myself empathetic and I can't see how any of these current conflicts were started by thoughts of empathy. There certainly doesn't seem to be much empathy around for refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria, here in Europe. There seems to be a lot of fear.

<comment><USER3> I understood it how empathy doesn't "causes" us to bomb people, but how it is used to manipulate the masses into believing it's a good thing. The masses wouldn't allow it if they didn't believe it was a good thing, is what I think his argument is.

This is not a very strong argument anyway, because people can be manipulated in plenty other ways regardless. Empathy here is not the cause, but merely one of many tools to manipulate the masses.</comment></comment>


Watch: Richard Feynman on why he can't tell you how magnets work - dnt404-1 http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-richard-feynman-on-why-he-can-t-tell-you-how-magnets-work <comment><AUTHOR> I've always been puzzled by the fact that so many people see Feynman coming across as a jerk or something like that in this clip. I think it's because ordinary everyday English language doesn't have a good way to tell someone that their _question_ is wrong—that it's assuming something it shouldn't, and the assumption is what should be questioned instead. It's curious that even when asking for new knowledge, people can be affronted by the implication that they don't know what they're talking about. Physics is hardly the only field where you learn that the everyday understanding is an oversimplification, and a beginner being misled by those oversimplifications has no reason to be embarrassed.

<comment><USER2> To me Feynman was acting like a jerk at that moment. He was aware of who was interviewing him and should have acted accordingly. He knew what the purpose of the interview was, and who the audience would be. He could have simply stated that the question can be answered with varying degrees of sophistication, but an ultimate "why" is not to be found.

The journalist was in no way pretending to have any physics knowledge nor was he insinuating anything. He asked a totally reasonable question and wanted Feynman to talk about magnets, not rant about how there's no ultimate answer to a "why" question.

Feynman was being arrogant and patronizing when he shouldn't have been. Just search for "why" on this[1] page and see if he himselfs asks "why" questions.

[1]:[http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html)

EDIT: Alright, this turned into a tiring argument about who's right or wrong, when in this context it's a non-issue. People react differently to his sermon, end of the question. Is Feynman right about "why" questions? I think so. Was it necessary to make the point as he did when he did? I don't think so.

And please stop making assumptions about me. I'm all for discussion, but you need not assume anything, just as I reciprocate. You have no idea who I am, and nor I you, but we can still talk!

<comment><USER3> I always had the same impression of that response. The basic philosophical point he's making instead of explaining magnetism to a lay-audience is known as the Munchhausen trilemma[1], essentially answering a completely different and unrelated question he'd prefer to pontificate on instead. He could certainly have given the interviewer an answer to the question that was actually asked, and have still used it to make the point about the infinite regress of "why."

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma)

<comment><USER4> Please understand that I mean no offence.

> He could certainly have given the interviewer an answer to the question that > was actually asked, and have still used it to make the point about the > infinite regress of "why."

Did you watch the clip in its entirety? If you did, you'd know that there's a few minute Socratic lead-up on the nature of the difficulty of answering "why" questions, followed by an audience-appropriate answer to the interviewer's question about magnetism. The answer includes what could be read as an apology for being unable to completely answer the interviewer's question.

If you _haven 't_ watched the clip in its entirety, you really owe it to yourself to go watch it. It won't take long, the whole thing is less than ten minutes. :)

<comment><USER3> Meh, I'm not sure it's worth continuing the debate over, honestly. But yes, I've watched the clip before, and have now watched it again. While he does give an answer at around 5:30, it's a pretty small part of the response. Imo, there are _many_ possible ways to explain why a magnetic force is felt to a lay-audience, even touching on more advanced aspects like magnetism as a relativistic by-product of moving charges or dipole moments created by orbiting electrons. It's not like he didn't also write entire books for lay- audiences, the same as so many other physicists from Einstein to Tegmark have. I'd really rather not get into a huge conflict about the tactfulness of his answer, though. Cool, he decided to explain the infinite regress. Oh, some people found his tone or approach patronizing, and thought he could have taken the time to go into more detail about magnets instead. Difference of opinion.

Also, at the risk of being controversial: the clip is less valuable if you already know more about magnetism than he explains in the video, and if you're already familiar with the regressive argument. I like Feynman, have read several of his books and am planning on reading the Gleick biography when I can get around to it, but a lot of the love for this seems to come as much from that it's him saying it as much as what is actually said. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just biased because I see these clips getting reposted somewhere or another every so often, and it loses its magic eventually.

In Feynman's defense, the BBC audience the show was created for was probably less sophisticated than the 2015 HN audience, and since it has become such a popular clip, he clearly did something right. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Imo, there are many possible ways to explain why a magnetic force is felt > to a lay-audience, even touching on more advanced aspects like magnetism as > a relativistic by-product of moving charges or dipole moments created by > orbiting electrons._

That wouldn't have been a correct answer. In permanent magnets, most of the dipole moment comes from electron spin, not angular momentum. Angular momentum alone can't produce a permanent magnet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That was great. Feynman not explaining a thing is so much better than most explanations in general.

<comment><USER6> Does he usually seem drunk when he's explaining things?

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't characterize the way he was acting as seeming drunk. Rather, he seemed animated, probably because this is stuff he so deeply cares about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great Feynman clip. It's very difficult to not feel his underlying passion and curiosity. As an add, I enjoy this animated short of Feynman elaborating on the intersection of art and science:

Richard Feynman - _Ode To A Flower_ \- [https://vimeo.com/55874553](https://vimeo.com/55874553)

</comment><comment><USER9> Louis CK on the same topic:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA)

<comment><USER10> Completely OT but was that the reason they divorced? Video was from 2007 and Wiki says they broke up in 2008

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A fantastic mind with such an ability to relate the otherwise un-relatable. "Six Easy Pieces" is an accessible read if you find this interesting.

</comment><comment><USER12> The importance of his answer and the care with which he framed it comes at the very end of the clip. Without specifying a context he cannot answer the question. Leading up to that one is made to understand that without limiting the question to a particular context, an infinite regress is unavoidable. Brilliant, well articulated point that most people don't think about.

</comment><comment><USER13> 2015: Is there a better answer to this question ? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> The Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem [1] pretty much says there won't ever be. You will always have to explain some QM first, and that precludes a short answer.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theorem)</comment></comment>


'Crash Override': Malware That Took Down a Power Grid - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/crash-override-malware/ <comment><USER2> Comprehensive white paper gives you more information and context [1]. Looking at it it has 4 payloads and targets systems made by Siemens [2].

[1] [https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/Wi...](https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/Win32_Industroyer.pdf)

[2] [http://w3.siemens.com/smartgrid/global/en/products- systems-s...](http://w3.siemens.com/smartgrid/global/en/products-systems- solutions/protection/pages/overview.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER3> Control systems are so ridiculously insecure given what they do. I was lucky enough to attend a DHS control systems security summit at INL way back in 2006 (or 2007 I can't remember). They had a huge lab full of various PLCs, etc, and a bunch of surprisingly smart folks working on pen-testing them. But still, it's a decade later and we don't seem to have made much progress.

<comment><USER4> > But still, it's a decade later and we don't seem to have made much progress.

Despite all the "IIoT" buzzwords their marketing may spout, industrial vendors operate a decade behind the software curve at best. Arcane proprietary stacks running atop XP, CE, ActiveX, and various flavors of DOS are still getting deployed in new industrial installations...often supported by vendors staffed by a hundred salescritters to every engineer, if they're lucky enough to have any staff remaining that wrote or understand the original product in the first place.

It's filled with dozens of mini-Oracles, each with licensing more insane than the next because your typical integrator will either run for the hills at the first sign of anything that isn't ladder logic or spew forth spaghetti garbage that makes INTERCAL look like the most pretentiously elegant Lisp. When you're the lone programmer on the team that even knows _what Git is_ , you start to realize why nobody ever got fired for just buying Rockwell.

<comment><USER5> Ahh, the painful memories of writing the SCADA control software. In VBScript. The old system was running on VMS. The new system could be accessed via ActiveX control in an IE page.

At least the plant network was sufficiently airgapped.

<comment><USER6> > At least the plant network was sufficiently airgapped.

The Iranians thought that as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This, from a former coworker, might give you a good sense of the state of things:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPWKJR6IVfA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPWKJR6IVfA)

</comment><comment><USER8> Do these infrastructures really need the level of hardware they seem to use?

Rather than use a unsecured raspberry pi3 with it's wifi left on, why not have a closed system specifically built instead. Something not casually running embedded Windows XP, rather maybe a barebones OS written in assembly with minimal networking functionality on minimal hardware.

<comment><USER9> Building on commodity hardware is cheap, easy, quick to develop and often more stable and secure. Going fully custom results in more custom components which are often less tested and less audited than their commodity counterparts. Yes, it sounds like they'll be "simple" but it rarely is so - especially when your boss or sales team asks why you don't have IP-based monitoring.

The best bet in my opinion is to use commodity stuff but reduce the attack surface as much as possible by simply disabling, firewalling and physically restricting everything possible. In many cases like this, you could probably get away with absolutely minimalist control systems run on microcontrollers and similar with monitoring only over an isolated unidirectional interface (think fiber optic connection with no physical receiver on the other side).

<comment><USER7> The whole area is heavily, heavily reactionary and slow moving. They're on embedded XP because that's the closest they can get given the software platforms they're dependent on.

You're right that locked down embedded industrial (Linux) PCs are the best option, but your control platform has to run on them...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Weird name collision with the Crash Override Network and Zoe Quinn's book.

I'm curious about the provenance of the name, as the article seems to suggest the security researchers provided the name.

[Edit]: I show my cultural ignorance -- it appears both are likely a reference to Hackers, based on the responses below.

<comment><USER11> I immediately thought of Dade "Zero Cool" Murphy and Acid Burn. And Angelina Jolie...

<comment><USER12> Depends on how many systems it crashed, I would say</comment></comment></comment>


Vocoding with a piano - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2009/10/05/vocoding-with-a-piano/

<comment><USER2> Awesome. We need a video game with the MASTER COMPUTER's voice done with that.</comment>


Tomorrow's Cities: Singapore's plans for a smart nation - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39641262 <comment><USER2> One big improvement they have had is just getting air-con in the bus terminuses and hubs. Even in January any time outside means dripping sweat. They used to be open-air.

Rather then the government lead (and miss) why not have the government act more as an even-distributor of things which are already gaining traction.

Years ago during Japan's go-go years, they have renderings and future plans for completely redesigned megacities made up of multiple semi-self-contained smaller hyper integrated neighborhoods --sometimes a neighborhood would be gigantic pyramidal buildings of capable of being self-sustaining in terms of labor, housing, recreation, food production, etc. but then the economy tanked and pop growth flatlined and we have relative slow decline and forgotten are those grand dreams of the future.

<comment><USER3> > a neighborhood would be gigantic pyramidal buildings of capable of being > self-sustaining in terms of labor, housing, recreation, food production, > etc. but then the economy tanked and pop growth flatlined and we have > relative slow decline and forgotten are those grand dreams of the future.

Those were a fantasy, though, surely. I doubt we could make such structures (I think sometimes called arcologies?) work with todays technology, even if we had the resources and no regulatory hurdles. Maybe in a hundred years...

<comment><USER4> You sort of have a small version in the Orchard Road stretch. You could conceivably live above ION Orchard, go to work in your Takashimaya office, eat at an ultra cheap Lucky Plaza eatery or blow $300 at Les Amis at Shaw Centre, shop and exercise in any of the buildings in between, and never be exposed to the outside whilst living quite a comfortable life. Same at Vivocity, Raffles Place, Suntec/Promenade/Esplanade...

<comment><USER5> If you're living above ION then I doubt you need to scrimp by eating at Lucky Plaza...

When I stay in jakarta it's a similar feeling. A common pattern is an "anchor" mall with apartments and office buildings adjacent and in theory you could just stay inside the complex the whole time. GI/PI and Senayan Square come to mind. You could just build a dome over SS (and being jakarta, i wish they would..)

<comment><USER4> You would be amazed at the number of billionaires ambulating Singapore malls in Uniqlo T-shirts (bought on sale, naturally)... and how non-transparent and varied rent can be even in the same building: a flatshare I stayed in used to pay $4.5k/month whilst the American expat next door paid $9.5k/month for the exact same apartment!

That being said Lucky Plaza food is pretty bad, I only included it because of the underground walkway that theoretically "joins" it to the Orchard complex. Since it is technically my neighbourhood, I usually prefer going to ION's B4 food court or Wisma. But Lucky Plaza does have Iris, AFAIK the only true bespoke tailor in a building riddled with the "overnight Batam job for $200" types, so an ION resident could be coming over to check on his Loro Piana cashmere dinner jacket's progress.

I think Suntec is the one that shocked me the most when I first arrived, I got lost around the (now defunct) bowling place enough times to systematically use Google Maps until I learnt the corridors, because they don't meet at right angles. It's kind of amazing to have to think in 3D when you are used to navigating 2D streets...

<comment><USER5> > You would be amazed at the number of billionaires ambulating Singapore malls

Oooohh no I wouldn't...

> Uniqlo T-shirts

You think money grows on trees? Fake calvin klein from a bali outlet store. The PP watch is real though (and is one of 10).

Doesn't surprised me about the rent. And the apartment next door is probably empty and has been for years...

Agreed on ION B4, especially since its on the way to Jasons and MUJI, the main reasons I'd be in ION, and it has a Boost!

Cheers for the tip on Iris. I actually do need some tailoring (not Loro Piana) and the excess of choice had been intimidating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "Singapore's way of doing things is that the government leads, then others > follow," he told me. "This might be a problem - it is too centralised and so > it may take too long for plans to trickle down.

Thus far, this economic model has well helped Singapore keep up with the times—though often not the first mover, Singapore is a consistent adopter of technologies just as they go mainstream. (c.f. NFC in public transport, sustainable architecture, smartphones, optical fibre)

But given the region's diverse business climates, I wonder if the more usual decentralized approach makes sense for most verticals for the region. Without significant expertise and infrastructure in localizing across the region, the SAM for any new product or service seems to be sufficiently small that technological improvements in most markets do not scale great enough to offset R&D costs and other fixed-cost risks for the potential margins to be enticing to investors.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is anyone here working out in Sg? How is the tech scene there? Are salaries still low wrt the rest of the world for engineers?

</comment><comment><USER8> If your job requires you to be there, in face-to-face spitting style, then your job is not about being creative, and then you won't make it anyway, because you will be replaced by either a cheaper migrant worker or else your job will be automated into oblivion. If your job does not require you to be there, in that case, why would you actually care that "smart nation" can only be bullshit? You can perfectly well NOT care from Bangkok or Auckland. You do NOT need to be there in order NOT to care. You can do that from anywhere.</comment>


Deploy a private Github repository with whiskey_disk - <AUTHOR> http://object.io/site/2011/whiskey_disk-private-github/

<comment><USER2> Sorry if I've not understood correctly, but what is the benefit of this over, say, Capistrano? I'm a little confused.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question! The main benefit is you deploy directly from your git-server to your production server, instead of uploading from your own computer. This means a lot faster deploys, especially when your deployments are large or your internet connection is really poor (being able to make deployments quickly while on a 3G connection is awesome). whiskey_disk uses _one_ ssh connection to your server for all work (so less time for spawning ssh connections), and the heavy traffic is not to/from your local machine.

Other benefits of the tool include putting all config files into version control, and a lot less less magic in your deployments.

<comment><USER3> I've gotten into the habit of just having git installed on my web server, and pulling directly from there. Is there some reason why whiskey_disk is better?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds like a simple solution which gets the job done. Using whiskey_disk would reduce your typing by a bit (repeatability is nice for things done all the time), but if you don't have any post-commit tasks you have to run on each deploy, stick with what you have.

Where you'd really see benefit would be when you have multiple config files (with database credentials and addresses, for instance) that vary per server and environment involved. In addition, if you need to run post-deploy actions such as building assets, or run database migrations, a tool would help you.

However, until you feel the pain of your current setup, no need to change what works :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been looking at similar solutions. I've tried using fluxflex.com, but it only seems to work for public projects. The main purpose of my site is not to have full-scale operations: just a place online to test it.

Anyone know of similar solutions?

<comment><USER5> I'm not a fan of fluxflex and I've discontinued using them. Too much middle- man for my liking. Last Friday I worked through [http://cuppster.com/2011/05/12/diy-node-js-server-on- amazon-...](http://cuppster.com/2011/05/12/diy-node-js-server-on-amazon-ec2) , better than [http://blog.carbonfive.com/2011/09/01/deploying-node-js- on-a...](http://blog.carbonfive.com/2011/09/01/deploying-node-js-on-amazon- ec2/), in the afternoon and save for a couple of idiot glitches on my part, it works fine. EC2 is a real bitch, for me at least, so I'll stick with Linode for now. With a little elbow grease you'll be able to get it to work with Github as well, but I'm looking forward to using whiskey_disk today.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! I will check these out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since this came up, my take on deploying from Github looks like this: <https://github.com/samsonjs/ThePusher> ... deploy by pushing.

</comment><comment><USER7> +1 for the name. LOL!</comment>


MIT Lecture Notes on Cryptography  - <AUTHOR> http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/mihir/papers/gb.pdf

<comment><USER2> For those interested... You can still get in on Coursera's Intro to Cryptography course from Stanford. It's been great so far, on week 3 of 6, but you can catch up!

<https://www.coursera.org/course/crypto>

<comment><USER3> Udacity also has a great course on Crypto: [http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs387/CourseRev/apr20...](http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs387/CourseRev/apr2012)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"This is a set of lecture notes on cryptography compiled for 6.87s, a one week long course on cryptography taught at MIT by Shafi Goldwasser and Mihir Bellare in the summers of 1996–2002, 2004, 2005 and 2008.

Cryptography is of course a vast subject. The thread followed by these notes is to develop and explain the notion of provable security and its usage for the design of secure protocols. Much of the material in Chapters 2, 3 and 7 is a result of scribe notes, originally taken by MIT graduate students who attended Professor Goldwasser's Cryptography and Cryptanalysis course over the years, and later edited by Frank D'Ippolito who was a teaching assistant for the course in 1991."_

Link for current course: [http://web.mit.edu/professional/short- programs/courses/crypt...](http://web.mit.edu/professional/short- programs/courses/cryptography_computer_security.html)</comment>


"Be yourself" is terrible advice - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/7142/be-yourself-is-terrible-advice?zd=2&zi=bs5kvbni <comment><USER2> Terrible if it doesn't work</comment>


Get Your Startup Covered by Any Blog - <AUTHOR> http://www.virool.com/blog/6-tips-to-get-your-startup-covered-on-any-blog/

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but this is really basic stuff, and I doubt it will help any startup founder who has done even ten minutes of research on the topic of PR. Founders without famous backers or extensive networks should look at more advanced marketing and communication techniques, and try to create or participate in a movement that resonates with the press, through a marketing story and through a compelling answer to the question "Why is this done". In getting press and customer interest, I strongly feel that answering why should come before answering how or what. This is why great pitches != great products. Also, it's a very hard process, and lots of PR agencies are surprisingly bad at this. This is one of the reasons why a business co-founder is so important for a startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> @VSerge, this wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of advanced strategies. I just threw some quick thoughts, posted on company's blog and posted it on HackerNews with hopes of starting a discussion about ways people got PR. I guess it wasn't apparent in the post, but I would love to hear more tips from the community about things that worked/ didn't work for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> With all due respect, those are good points, but it looks like you got your PR coverage mainly because you're a YC-backed company. Am I wrong?

P.S. - the links to the press coverages are all broken.

<comment><AUTHOR> @sixQuarks there was a mention in TechCrunch that happened as a result of YC experience. The rest of the press: PandoDaily, VentureBeat, ReelMarketer, etc., happened because of a mix of things: pure hustle (applying the rules I outlined), and positioning our company as a thought leader in the space.

Thank you for pointing out the links.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> #0 Build something worthy of coverage.

<comment><USER5> I agree in theory, but worth is subjective.

<comment><USER6> Actually, it's not that subjective. Fundamentally you need to understand the blogger's job, which is not what you think it is. Their job, like it or not, is to contribute to page views. This could come due to sensationalist headlines, exclusives, "breaking" news, consistently high quality reporting, in depth analysis, etc. In some places, it's many of the above (eg TechCrunch), in others, it could be a very specific niche.

Now that you understand the blogger's job, you should be able to understand if your pitch is "worthy" to _THEM_. If it's not, DON'T pitch it, period.

The above might sound simplistic, but after running a marketing firm for four years, I can't tell you how often this advice is unknown, overlooked, or worse, ignored. Your news is "worthy" if it helps a blogger do _their_ job, if not, it's just plain not worthy.

No matter how much you are proud of your accomplishment, if it's not interesting to the readership of an outlet, it's not interesting to the blogger, and that's that.

<comment><USER5> Well now you're talking about the worth of the story, which is different from the worth of what was built, is it not?

An amazing pitch is not an amazing product, and vice versa. Yes a great story is going to get eaten up by bloggers. But that doesn't apply to rule #0 above.

<comment><USER6> well, the topic is about getting your startup covered, not whether or not your startup is building something worthy.

i guess it comes down to this: quality of worth as it pertains to impact in the real world does not directly correlate with quality of worth as it pertains to the value it has as a news story.

i maintain, however, that if your goal is coverage, then by definition "worth" is only relevant to the ability for it to be covered at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd love more coverage of my startup, Improvely, but I don't think I'm going to be throwing any parties on the other side of the country to attract the tech press. Personal e-mails to bloggers that covered similar companies didn't go anywhere either, so my 'launch' consisted of posting to my personal networks on FB/LinkedIn/Twitter/Yammer.

I would think snooping around their profiles for phone numbers and cold calling would be seen as creepy. Is that really something people do to bloggers/journalists they don't already know?

<comment><USER8> As a former journalist, there is one simple way to press: get introductions.

If you don't know people who know journalists, meet them.

A strong network is essential to the success of any startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing to always remember: reporters are people too, so treat them as such. Too many entrepreneurs hurt themselves by treating reporters simply as a means to an end.

<comment><USER10> As someone who has found himself working on the seedy underbelly of PR (mostly joking), this is something so many pitches fail to achieve.

TechCruch's Jordan Cook wrote a great article about dealing with email as a reporter -- <http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/05/i-hate-email/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good post. Item number 6. Build Relationships. Tim Ferriss wrote a blog post about how to build relationships with important people. It might complement it. Just check it out: [http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/12/10/how- to-get-g...](http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/12/10/how-to-get- george-bush-or-the-ceo-of-google-on-the-phone/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Many thanks for writing this. I enjoyed reading it. Maybe that are basics, for social media guys. But for tech Start-Up guys this blog post is very use full.

</comment><comment><USER13> Solid tips.

Tip #7 - Be persistent. You might fail a lot doing this, but keep trying. You'll find your magic formula one day.

<comment><USER14> Yes! Persistence is key. These days, everyone is too busy. If you really feel that talking about your startup would be an excellent fit for the blog, keep pestering them...in a good way.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Graduate in Dec. and find a job, or go to Hong Kong for an exchange? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys!
I was wondering if I could get a bit of advice. I actually wasn't sure if this would be the best subreddit, if there is one I will gladly ask my question there.
I applied for an exchange to the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in January, but I could actually finish all my schooling and find a job asap. I want to go to Hong Kong to do some traveling, and take a few interesting CS courses like web search and data mining. I won't actually need those courses - I will have enough credits to graduate, but I figure doing this exchange could be a great experience. Plus I would like to learn some Cantonese as well (background is half Iranian and half Italian/full Canadian). They also have a great CS/Engineering program. I figure it would look great on the resume as well.
The problem is, if I was to do my last semester in Hong Kong, usually in your last semester is when you are looking for jobs... And of course, there is the opportunity cost. How much could I be making instead of travelling? But at the same time, when will I ever get a chance to live in a different city again? Maybe for work, but doing it for school would be a bit more carefree. Also, I have not ruled out the possibility of doing my own startup, it is a dream of mine, but I may need another year or two of experience before I do that, I haven't figured that out yet. When my friend and I are ready, that is the plan.
ALSO, one last thing - I have already done an exchange to the Czech Republic, but it was more for fun, I did not do Comp Sci over there, just some arts courses.
I appreciate any advice you can give me :)
tl;dr - Get a job and make money, or delay graduating and do one more semester of school in Hong Kong? <comment><USER2> Hong Kong is awesome. One of the world's best cities. Go to Hong Kong.

</comment><comment><USER3> Go to HK. The amount of money you could probably make in the semester you'll be there is far outweighed by the experiences you will gain. And yes, it will look great on your resume.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm with the other commenters.

Take advantage of the travel. You have forever to work. But life will get in the way of future opportunities to get out and see the world.

</comment><comment><USER5> Go to HK. Travel whenever you have the opportunity and that is NOW. Graduate. Get a job with Cathay Pacific and fly free for the rest of your life. Good Luck!

</comment><comment><USER6> Do what will make you most happy. Doing an exchange in Australia was a highpoint in my life. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

</comment><comment><USER7> go to Hong Kong. You have the rest of your life to get a job. If you don't do this now, you most likely won't have another chance.

</comment><comment><USER8> Always choose travel.</comment>


Musician? I'm looking for beta testers - <AUTHOR> https://producthunt.com/upcoming/songbox <comment><USER2> I'm intrigued...

<comment><AUTHOR> happy to hear that</comment></comment>


We Will Not Be Registering EasyDNS.SUCKS (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://easydns.com/blog/2015/04/10/why-we-will-not-be-registering-easydns-sucks/ <comment><USER2> As the blog suggested may happen, dotsucks.sucks is, in fact, owned by the Vox Populi registry, and allows people to complain about the .sucks registry.

easydns.sucks appears to still not go anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why did they even open the gate and allow all these new stupid tld's? Who asked for it? It brought nothing good.</comment>


Mono 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/mono-20.html <comment><USER2> I see Mono as huge disappointment, with C++ losing ground, C# could have been the language of choice in many ways if and only if Mono would have delivered. More to it with the Mobile Linux rising I a .NET based framework (Like Android only C# based) could have been ideal.</comment>


Keurig competitors crack company's DRM code - <AUTHOR> https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/keurig-competitors-crack-companys-drm-code-082814.html <comment><USER2> The fact that a coffee maker has DRM at all is depressing.

<comment><USER3> Hah, just wait until you experience the INTERNET OF THINGS.

<comment><USER4> There will come a day when the proverbial walled garden becomes a literal walled garden, and we'll all get to say "we told you so!"

It won't be particularly satisfying, but in that dystopian near-future, it will be one of life's few remaining pleasures.

<comment><USER5> > _" It won't be particularly satisfying, but in that dystopian near-future, > it will be one of life's few remaining pleasures."_

[expression of cynicism detected]

[content override triggered]

[querying for user's linguistic analysis based on previous communication]

[synthesizing praise for walled garden using user's linguistic profile]

[deliver praise to recipient instead of ungood sentiment]

Seriously though, we're already filtering Facebook posts based on "relevance". We're a really, really thin line away from silencing posts based on the sentiments expressed within.

<comment><USER4> Filtering based on sentiment? Oh, they're way ahead of you there: [http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/technology/social/facebook-e...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/technology/social/facebook- experiment/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps Keurig should print their logo onto the cups with said special ink, and the machine should identify the logo with an image matching algorithm. If I understand trademark law correctly, competitors wouldn't be able to reproduce the Keurig logo without the strong possibility of facing repercussions for trademark infringement. I mean in reality it wouldn't work well at all and just make consumers pissed, but I wonder what the legal situation would be if they could pull it off.

<comment><USER7> Even if they print an entire logo in the ink, someone could sell some kind of reusable sticker with that special-ink-logo and just stick it onto the non- Keurig cups during use. When finished with 1 cup, remove sticker and stick it on to a different cup.

I don't see why they even bother trying to lock down their machines TBH as it can't be done well without significantly increasing the cost of the machine or cups (or inconveniencing existing customers).

I have a Keurig (non-DRM) and buy mostly Keurig branded cups anyway but if I had to buy one of these "2.0" machines with DRM, I'd just not buy a Keurig machine.

<comment><USER8> Or put the sticker over the sensor. Or hotwire the sensor (caution: voids your warranty).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A cursory Google search shows that not only are companies making Keurig- compatible cups, but also Keurig-compatible coffee machines, so people who want them could get those instead. Funny that the end consequence of this may be that a whole ecosystem around this format ends up continuing to dominate despite the fact that all of the players are selling knock-offs and the originator of the idea has moved on... it's IBM PC-compatible all over again.

<comment><USER10> I wrote the software for the Mother Parkers RealCup brewer and am quite familiar with at least their knockoff. The real purpose of the brewer was really as a way to push their brand of K-cups (it's the razor blade thing). Everything is about pushing those cups because the margins on those cups are amazing. Keurig is desperate to try to maintain their licensing deals. The (patented) Vue cups aren't doing great, so this was their next attempt. Keurig's attempts aren't really focused on serving the customer, but rather on trying to extract continued revenues from them. BTW...$3.7B market in K-Cups. Crazy huh?

<comment><USER11> Rent seeking. This is one of the things that in my businesses I try to avoid because it is basically should be a last ditch, hail-mary pass. Which is what this DRM probably is for Keurig.

Ideally, you should always focus on being better than your competitors, which is difficult--but not impossible--in commodity products. Good examples are Dropbox or Starbucks. Cloud storage space or coffee are obviously not new or hard to deliver products, but it's how you deliver them that makes all the difference. I think this is a loosing battle for Keurig, and they should focus on providing some additional value (or perceived value, which can be just as good) to their customers. Maybe that's genuinely better tasting coffee, or maybe it's a slight (but acceptable) premium over generics (people like and trust brands).

<comment><USER10> Exactly. Customer satisfaction is the last thing on Keurig's mind right now. I think we all know how this will play out if they don't wise up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> They should require you to create an account online which you must login too and enter a code found on the K-cup in order to get your coffee.

That will show those pesky people wanting to use your rather expensive machine with slightly less expensive however still a ripe off single serving coffee pods.

<comment><USER4> They'll be willing to go through all that trouble for the convenience of only having to push a button to get their coffee!

<comment><USER13> Worked so well for Sim City!

<comment><USER4> Some potential parallels there.

Blatant lies: "Our coffee machines just can't support other companies' k-cups."

Empty promises: "Buy our new coffee machine and it'll enable us to make a lot of new and exciting flavors!" First new flavors out of the gate are durian and Mountain Dew.

I'm looking forward to the inevitable half-hearted apology, which will of course have still more empty promises. Not long after that they'll announce the v3 model, which will have an incompatible DRM to v2, forcing their customers to either upgrade or use off-brand companies' k-cups.

<comment><USER14>
      First new flavors out of the gate are durian and Mountain Dew.

Can't be much worse than hazelnut, or vanilla.

<comment><USER15> Have you ever had a durian? We actually bought one once, at Christmas.

It was... memorable.

<comment><USER14> Actually yes, I did and think it's a wonderful fruit.

The trick, however, is not to buy one and take it home (or to your hotel room), but to buy a ripe durian at a street vendor and let him open it. Eat straight away and keep a lot of napkins available.

While the taste is really amazing (in my opinion) there's no doubt that the stink is amazing too. And nearly impossible to air out of a closed room.

Most hotels in Singapore flat out forbid durian in your room.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When your proprietary coffee delivery system costs $50/pound and people still buy it, is DRM a surprise?

<comment><USER17> Are there any non-proprietary pod based coffee machines?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Article states it's not true "digital" rights management. Seems more like an analog rights management (shine an infrared light on ink and register reflection). So presumably no one can be technically liable under the DMCA. However, if Keurig were to switch to a more "digital" form of rights management (perhaps actual RFID), could these third party coffee pod creators be found guilty of circumventing content protection technologies (DMCA violation)?

<comment><USER19> Since there's no copyrightable artistic work involved here, I don't think the DMCA applies.

<comment><USER20> Like someone above said, the pattern could be in a shape of their logo, so anyone replicating it would be effectively putting another company logo on their product,which is definitely not legal.

<comment><USER21> There are ways to lose your trademarks if you use them or simply allow them to be used in the wrong contexts. I think their competitors would argue that this is one of those ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was going to ask why they didn't just patent the thing. This is the physical world after all. Turns out they did, but the most important one expired in 2012. [http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate- intelligence/2012/11/28/the-k...](http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate- intelligence/2012/11/28/the-k-cup-patent-is-dead-long-live-the-k-cup/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Next time Keurig should hire a cryptographer. GPG signed QR-codes or something similar (vulnerable to replay attack, but harder to circumvent).

<comment><USER4> I don't understand how literally printing the password on the cup would be more effective, unless the coffee maker is internet-connected and each code is revoked after usage.

It harkens back to having to call Microsoft because you've replaced your motherboard except now it's Keurig and even less pleasant because you can't have your coffee while you're on hold.

<comment><USER24> They could do a Louis Vuitton and make their trademark an integral part of the password design. Or pick a nice QR code and trademark that.

<comment><USER25> morcheeba: looks like your account's been shadowbanned for some reason.

<comment><USER4> Possibly for good reason: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8170246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8170246)

Best leave it to the mods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The author's confidence in common sense is touching:

> It's still too early to tell, but the fact that Keurig's "DRM" can be > cracked with such ease doesn't seem to bode well for the company.

> So that's one reason Keurig might be in trouble: because it bet everything > on imposing a technological barrier which turned out to be ridiculously easy > to get around.

Err, so easily crackable DRM will not survive legal challenges? (I seem to remember a story, which my Google-fu is insufficient to recover, of someone embarrassing Jack Palance during an interview by showing him the complete DeCSS source ….)

</comment><comment><USER27> Couldn't someone just cut the top off or take the foil off a legit k cup and place it on top of a non legit one then run the machine? This would cost the non legit companies less... Not having to retool production. Just tell the consumer what to do or include a special cover.

</comment><comment><USER28> I do not understand why is anyone buying machines with pods. Expensive machine, expensive coffee, and creating garbage for each cup.

Is it so hard to put teaspoon of coffee in cup and pour hot water?

<comment><USER29> Its simple, its clean, and convenient. There are many makers of k-cups to choose from so finding an acceptable cup of coffee made this way isn't too hard. I went through a few variety packs, read reviews on Amazon and the like, to narrow my choices. I then used Amazon's subscribe and save feature, visits to slick deals, and even my costco membership, to buy k-cups are good prices.

During summer my coffee drinking goes down and the ability to just make one cup is great. Cooler months and its time for the Bonavita, sometimes its good when friends want some but even then I have dropped back to the k-cup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Good, but doesn't make Keurig a good coffee worth drinking ;)

</comment><comment><USER31> I have no idea why anyone would put up with drm and pay such a ridiculous price for such terrible "coffee."

</comment><comment><USER32> Is it really that hard to get a coffee presser and some ground coffee?

<comment><USER33> Why does it bother you that others wish to make some task more convenient? And BTW, there are bio-degradable (compostable) cups that one can buy, if that was part of your concern. The office manager at my company says they are actually cheaper, too.

<comment><USER32> It doesn't bother me that people want to make certain things convenient what bothers me is the commoditization of every last thing in our consumer driven culture. Is your life really going to be so much better if you can make your coffee in 1 minute instead of 2 minutes? I really don't see any other convenience with ready-made coffee other than the time component. If that convenience comes at the cost of locked down devices for making coffee then it is really short-sighted of people to buy into that "convenience".

<comment><USER34> In a workplace environment with a shared kitchen it absolutely is worth it to an average manager to avoid the spills and mess of grounds and keep everything in the pods. This is where I saw most Keurigs first, and then it seemed to "hijack" its way into the household because people got addicted to the convenience that they enjoyed at the office.

<comment><USER35> Where I work there is a machine that dispenses coffee (Americano: basically an espresso plus piping hot water to fill the cup up). Such machines are more expensive than the typical office Keurig, but for an office of any size not prohibitively so. For office coffee it's actually quite good, and far and away better than any swill out of a Keurig I've ever had the misfortune of drinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Jailbreaking your iPhone is so 2010, now the cool kids are jailbreaking their Keurigs.

</comment><comment><USER37> Their SSL is bad. It gets an F from SSL Labs due to an exploitable version of OpenSSL -- [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=consumeraffai...](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=consumeraffairs.com) \-- and Firefox refuses to connect to it at all due to weak ciphers:

An error occurred during a connection to www.consumeraffairs.com. SSL peer selected a cipher suite disallowed for the selected protocol version. (Error code: ssl_error_cipher_disallowed_for_version)

<comment><USER38> > and Firefox refuses to connect to it at all due to weak ciphers:

It's not a weak cipher. I get the same error, but the cipher the server selects is TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_128_SHA (0xc011). If I've got my SSL best- practices straight, that's not a bad choice.

The server, however, also selected SSL 3.0. My understanding is that you can't use that cipher with SSL 3.0 because it didn't exist. Firefox thus aborts the connection; note the error: "…cipher_disallowed_for_version" (of SSL).

I've seen this before on a server I had, and it had the same behavior. I'm nearly certain this is a bug on the server side, perhaps in OpenSSL. The server I had made some pretty nonsensical decisions in the server hello, such as the above with Firefox, and with Chrome, selecting TLS 1.0 _even though that was disabled_. I asked about it on SO[1], but never got a reply. (For me, it's no longer an issue; we enabled TLS on that server for hopefully obvious reasons.) Firefox and Chrome's client hellos are pretty similar, but not the same, and I never figured out the difference that caused the server to choose SSL or TLS over the other.

[1]: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25146651/why-is-nginx- sel...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25146651/why-is-nginx-selecting- the-ssl-versions-ciphers-it-is-selecting)</comment></comment>


Show HN: See what words are trending on HN - <AUTHOR> http://hackernewstrends.herokuapp.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a little something I did for fun. The trending hash tags on twitter are an interesting metric for what people are talking about, so I thought it would be cool to make something like that for Hacker News. But we don't have hash tags, so the app just uses words.

Note that you can click on a word to get some of the posts it's mentioned in.

Edit: Also, a heads up -- it's running on a Heroku free dyno, and it's already feeling a little slow.

<comment><USER2> Good stuff! This would be awesome as a word cloud.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good idea. I could do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I posted this on Twitter this morning, but watch [http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&cmp...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&cmpt=q) and the chart in this post carefully if you bought Bitcoin speculatively (ie, not because you actually care about Bitcoin or want to be long on it). When the Google chart drops and this goes off the top 5 on HN but the price hasn't plummeted, you're at a mid-term peak and you should sell.

The price of Bitcoin is being driven by media and hype right now - deserved or undeserved, in the near term there WILL be a dip in that and the price will drop for no "good" reason. Keep an eye on that if you're looking for a peak at which to sell, or (maybe more importantly) a bottom at which to buy.

</comment><comment><USER4> Couple of suggestions:

Exclude commonly trending words such as Google. It isn't trending if it's already huge.

I've got '[' and ']' for the last week, exclude these too.

EDIT: As a matter of fact something seems to be wrong if Google is classified as trending. There haven't been a big surge in posts about Google in the recent past. Either something is wrong, I am wrong or the algorithm is still training (e.g.: learning what is the normal rate of appearance of certain words)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've added [ and ] to the filter list, though I'll have to remove some stuff from the db to get rid of the past results.

When I was developing it I saw Google trending all the time. I think Google just comes up in conversation on HN very frequently.

I suppose I could remove Google it if it doesn't have meaning. But maybe it does. This is interesting: if Google stops trending, perhaps that's a canary signal that it's not relevant anymore.

<comment><USER5> I think what the parent means is that the derivative of the appearances is a lot more interesting than the number of appearances (and possibly as a percentage of the total number of appearances). Google moving from 100 to 105 isn't very interesting, but a new language going from 0 to 10 mentions might be very significant. (edit: and Google owning x% and staying there isn't very interesting either)

In other words, frequency of occurrence is interesting, but statistically unlikely occurrences (more or less frequent than expected) is even more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fun to browse, and I could certainly see this enabling me to notice some interesting things I had missed on HN.

Two minor things I noticed:

Currently, 7 is listed as tending now with seven mentions. Not that numbers trending could never be interesting e.g. if 600 were trending due to the discussion about the lowering of the prime gap [0], but 7 seems to be trending just because of submission titles.

Both [ and ] are tending in the past week. This seems to be due to submission titles tagged with e.g. [video], [pdf], [<year>].

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6784383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6784383)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've added [ and ] to the filter list, so they won't be included in the future.

It's true that there is a bit of noise. I think it's pretty good overall though. There is a filter list of 866 words that greatly improved the results after I implemented it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow! Top5 has "bitcoin","income","bitcoins", and "bank".

Is HN all about the money?

EDIT: also, very neat work! However, you should consider excluding "]" and "[" from the list.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Haha, it seems so, at least this week.

I just added [ and ] to the filter list.

<comment><USER8> Filter out words that are less than 3 characters maybe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Right now "ockhams" is trending with 17 mentions and "razor" is trending with 15 mentions.

Does that mean that someone just said "ockhams" twice?

<comment><USER10> You just did. And it shows in the stats I happen to see right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hnwatcher.com provides graph that shows numbers of time a specific word was mentioned on HN over time.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nice work. Before clicking, I knew bitcoin would hold the top spot. Kind of hope this craze dies down a bit so more non-bitcoin stories can appear.

</comment><comment><USER13> Are you using Lucene or Elastic search for indexing words?

I would be great to read about your project more.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, it's nothing fancy. It's just your standard Rails app. It saves a record for each word found along with time data, then runs queries grouping by word count and filtering between now and whatever time you choose. I'm sure that's a naive implementation and the app could certainly be optimized.

I could open source it if you really want to take a look.</comment></comment>


R7RS-large kickoff, list membership, and voter registration process - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scheme-reports-wg2/N2g2zn0lb_U <comment><USER2> In case you are a casual observer or are new to Scheme and are wondering why this might be particularly important to the language, wikipedia explains:

"The R6RS standard has caused controversy because it is seen to have departed from the minimalist philosophy [of scheme]. In August 2009, the Scheme Steering Committee ... announced its intention to recommend splitting Scheme into two languages: a large modern programming language for programmers, and a subset of the large version retaining the minimalism praised by educators and casual implementors;"[1]

Perhaps the history of Scheme standardization itself has something to teach us about the challenges and rewards of openly balancing a wide range of interests and agendas over the long term?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_(programming_language)#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_\(programming_language\)#R7RS)

<comment><USER3> To some extent I think the R7RS-large effort is a bit misguided. I believe successful "large languages" (as in, comes with a big "standard library") need a large team of professional programmers to implement it all (professional, in this sense as directed by some organization so that they work on what the organization prioritizes rather than on whatever they fancy), and preferably a single implementation so that all the implementation effort can be concentrated on that one implementation. Successful examples of this approach: Java, .NET.

Scheme is not anything like the above: Plenty of implementations, mostly by pretty small teams.

With ubiquitous internet access, and the rise of open source, I think the better approach for R7RS-large would be to instead standardize a package manager, and then let a thousand flowers bloom. This approach has proved successful, e.g. npm (for node.js), Cargo (Rust), elpa (emacs-lisp), quicklisp (Common LISP).

Then again, I'm not a Scheme "insider", so what do I know. YMMV.

<comment><USER4> I maintain a number of Chicken packages and am a contributor to Geiser.

With standardized libraries in R7RS-small the opportunity has existed for sometime for a community-created package manager to come into existence. There are several in existence, mostly targeting particular schemes, but Snow2 is the closest to what you desire.

Why it hasn't caught on is unquestionably, IMHO, because of the limitations upon the R7RS-small language. Library writers often cannot write for standard R7RS and must ship implementation-specific code. For instance, the R7RS opted not to define a standard FFI of any sort.

Even if your library is internally R7RS compliant it is often the case that it may rely on packages which are not, so deploying to the likes of Snow2 is a matter of porting code you didn't write to every scheme that Snow2 supports.

The best reason I have been given for the decision not to define an FFI is because it would force writers of toy schemes to conform their data structures to the standard. And so in an effort to remain a toy language it has restricted itself to being only a toy language.

Use Chicken, Chez, Gambit, Chibi or Racket. Forget about RnRS.

<comment><USER5> IMHO, Scheme has two, somewhat conflicting, goals. There's the desire to make it a practical language, with rich libraries (the central package repository is ok, but it'll require quite an infrastructure to implement portable package manager client.)

On the other hand, Scheme has been a toolkit to test out ideas of programming languages since its origin. We still keep call/cc not because we use it for daily application development, but rather because it is invaluable to implement new idea of control abstraction portably. With this goal, we don't want to restrict implementation too much (hence the loose definition of "error"), nor want to raise the hurdle of standard conformance by requiring too many libs.

R7RS small/large split reflects this view, and I think it's a good thing. I also think SRFI process is working. If there ever is a common package manager thing, R7RS-large is a step to it. I've been using Scheme at work for last 20 years; let's see what we have in the next 20 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe it is me, but as the discussions here[0] about the relevance of Lisp etc which I blame largely on PR/Marketing unfold, I cringe when any announcements are on Google groups. It feels like projects who do their communications (even between devs) in Google Groups are not too much into current affairs and therefor ignored by people who do not know about the project beforehand.

Again, maybe that's way off, but I find the interface horrible and dated and only ancient projects seem to use it...

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11698414](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11698414)

<comment><USER7> The big problem with Google groups is that it requires proprietary JavaScript in order to read the archive. I wish the Scheme standards community would care more about free software, but in my experience they just don't understand.

<comment><USER8> Who said Scheme is all about free software? Or I missed the /s mark?

<comment><USER9> In practice, proprietary Schemes have not survived unless they have become free software.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Live now: Panel with James Bamford and NSA Whistleblowers - <AUTHOR> http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1409343/events/2202468

<comment><AUTHOR> Streamed from the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference.</comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone heard from I/O Ventures? - <AUTHOR>

The program starts next Tuesday (mar 15) and we still haven't heard back! <comment><USER3> Round two closed on the 7th, they would have emailed you if you made it to round 2.

Paul Bragiel's twitter:

"we just have sooo many applications to go through. hang tight!" - <USER2>

Hope that helps :)</comment>