Ask HN: Learning advanced math - <AUTHOR> I have an undergraduate background in applied math and have taken basic linear algebra, differential equations, mathematical statistics and multivariate calculus. I'm rusty though, and I've been considering applying for PhD programs in statistics. I'd like to put myself on a healthy math regiment and I was wondering if people had suggestions on books or other materials to work on advanced (linear) algebra and analysis? I'm more than willing to spend an hour per page and do all the exercises, but I would like good exposition. My end goal is to have a reasonable understanding of things to make limit theorems in probability (during the first year of my PhD), etc, easier. <comment><USER2> For real analysis, I suggest Bartle's "Introduction...". I had a horrible teacher (well, I loved him, but he never prepped for class), and was able to learn everything by working through the proofs in the text. Bartle has a multi-dimensional version too.

For linear algebra, I was suggest Strang's "Linear Algebra with applications", 3rd edition. Then "Linear Algebra Done Right".

While you are at it, get Hungerfords "Abstract Algebra: An Introduction"; you will need an easy reference to fields and groups and polynomials.

All these books require an hour per page, but they lay it all out for you if you work for it. These are definitely undergrad books, but that is their beauty.

Bartle also has "Elements of integration and lebesgue measure" -- I bet it is great, but I haven't used it.

And if you find a good probability book, please post the title ;)

<comment><USER3> Upvoted for suggesting _Linear Algebra Done Right_.

To get a sense of the approach, read his earlier article _Down with Determinants_ at <http://www.axler.net/DwD.html>. That article was the first time I felt I really understood a lot of the material I had already theoretically learned and done well at.

On the real analysis side, I learned from Royden and liked it. But my mind definitely heads the analysis way, and what I find easy someone else might not.

<comment><USER4> I definitely enjoyed Royden a lot -- I got through my real analysis qual back in grad school using Royden to teach myself essentially all of the material. Readable and excellent. And as to minds heading the analysis way: I'm about as algebraicly-minded as they come and I thought it was highly readable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Advanced Linear Algebra, Roman; Linear Algebra, Hoffman & Kunze; Matrix Analysis, Horn & Johnson; Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Rudin; Real Analysis, Royden.

Miscellaneous comments:

\- Reading pure abstract algebra (e.g. Dummit & Foote) isn't a good use of time if you intend to go into statistics, since it only shows up in a few very special subareas. If you decide to go into one of these areas, you can learn this later.

\- More advanced books on linear algebra usually emphasize the abstract study of vector spaces and linear transformations. This is fine, but you also need to learn about matrix algebra (some of which is in that Horn & Johnson book) and basic matrix calculus, since in statistics, you'll frequently be manipulating matrix equations. The vector space stuff generally does not help with this, and this material isn't in standard linear algebra books. (Similarly, you should learn the basics of numerical linear algebra and optimization -- convex optimization in particular shows up a lot in statistics.)

\- People have different opinions on books like Rudin, but you need to learn to read material like this if you're going into an area like probability. It's also more or less a de facto standard, so it is worth reading partly for that reason as well. So read Rudin/Royden (or equivalent, there are a small handful of others), but supplement them with other books if you need (e.g. 'The Way of Analysis' is the complete opposite of Rudin in writing style). It helps to read a few different books on the same topic simultaneously, anyway.

\- Two books on measure-theoretic probability theory that are more readable than many of the usual suspects are "Probability with Martingales" by Williams and "A User's Guide to Measure-Theoretic Probability" by Pollard. There is also a nice book called "Probability through Problems" that develops the theory through a series of exercises.

</comment><comment><USER6> The roadmap would be to first learn analysis (advanced calculus), then measure theory, then get a measure theory probability book.

I'll assume you are teaching this to yourself.

For analysis, I wouldn't get Rudin's book (concepts are poorly motivated). There are plenty of good Dover books. But I haven't read them because, well, I learned from Rudin.

For measure theory, I'd read Kolmogorov and Fomin's book. Rudin also has a measure theory book, which is much better than his analysis book, but it's hefty. Good problems though.

For a book on Probability, we read A Probability Path at my university. I wasn't fond of it. Someone referred me to Probability with Martingales, and though I didn't read it, it looked very good.

</comment><comment><USER7> One of my favorite not-much-talked about analysis books is "A Radical Approach to Real Analysis" by Bressoud. Must read if you enjoy reading about the history of mathematics and famous mathematicians. A lot of people here recommend Rudin or Royden, but I have seen many people become turned off to the whole field of analysis because of how terse and user-unfriendly those are. In that sense, ARTRA is the polar opposite. The follow-up, A Radical Approach to Lebesgue's Theory of Integration, is also superb.

</comment><comment><USER8> Baby Rudin is a great choice, especially for self study, since there are a number of study guides for it that go through solutions, additional explanation of material, etc. I'd recommend against the chapters on differential forms, though, just because the treatment is outdated. Marsden and Hoffman's approach is to focus on explanations for why theorems are true before giving proofs, which some people find useful.

Axler is a good choice for linear algebra. Dummit and Foote is the standard choice for algebra generally. I'm of the opinion that we should teach algebra before linear algebra in general, but this seems like a minority view.

<comment><USER9> I second Baby Rudin.

The problem sets are nearly legendary and the writing is terse. I might have to read through it again myself sometime.

"Algebra" by Artin is also a great choice if you want to learn about modern algebra. There's some good stuff in there for looking at linear transformations in, say, 2-space, as groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For linear algebra, Sheldon Axler's _Linear Algebra Done Right_. For analysis, Stephen Abbott's _Understanding Analysis_.

These two books will give you a very solid grounding in the undergraduate linear algebra and analysis. Personally, I also worship the style of Baby Rudin (it's the nickname of his _The Principles of Mathematical Analysis_), but it can be too dry to many people.

</comment><comment><USER11> Trefethen and Bau is a good numerical linear algebra text, a fair bit of statistics can be understood in the linear algebra setting and this book helps teach how to think about linear algebra in a very useful way. I don't have a great reference, but stochastic PDEs is definitely a hot topic and promises to remain as such for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER12> I would recommend video lectures from the Khan Academy (<http://www.khanacademy.org/>). They are organized in nice little chucks of topics and have a large range of topics in math.

<comment><USER13> The Khan academy ends where OP says he left off. (i.e., advanced linear algebra).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Michaek Spivak's "Calculus" is pretty great for learning real analysis. The other canonical text is "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin, which I've never used, but is purported to be of the same quality.

<comment><USER15> Actually,

I wouldn't recommend either of those two book for self-teaching.

For whatever reason, I taught myself advance mathematics in High Schools. Spivak and Rubin were pretty inaccessible. Sure, they are rigorous and high level but that meant they didn't lend themselves to an easy read. "Real Analysis" by Royden was relatively quick to go through - and I had only the start of calculus. Royden gives a fairly simplistic and accessible development of higher mathematics starting with set theory.

I'd imagine that would be the most helpful.

(In my High School years, I went from algebra sophomore year to reading Royden and doing a community college calculus class junior year to passing a differential geometry course and the undergraduate honors seminar at UCLA).

<comment><USER16> op, i don't know your mind but i agree, Rudin/Spivak may prove challenging, especially without the help of a professor/TA to answer your questions in real life... i would not go and buy them blindly. the best course of action you could take would be to go visit a college bookstore and sit down with one of the analysis texts, and then read through it for a few hours. if you feel comfortable with it and don't experience any contempt for the author for introducing terms without explaining them, etc., then go ahead and get it. i would recommend finding something that holds your hand through the new fancy notation of proofs (for all, exists, epsilon, blah blah blah)...something that combines a basic intro to topology/set theory in its introduction

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Walter Rudin's book is a masterpiece. I read this book 35 years ago for my comps, and remember it as one of the best. Bear in mind there's no easy way to learn mathematics - it's going to be hard no matter what approach you take because that's the nature of the subject. My advice to undergrads is to skip computing completely because it's much easier to learn when you need it (unlike mathematics). You'll build your first computer program long before you prove your first theorem.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've had "The Princeton Companion to Mathematics" sitting in my Amazon wish list for quite a while now, more or less for this purpose - I think on a HN recommendation.

Any thoughts on this book?

<comment><USER19> This is a great book to sit down and read a few articles from (at least if you're into reading encyclopedias ;)), but you aren't going to learn much "actual math" from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I highly recommend this book for Real Analysis [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Analysis-Maxwell- Rosenlic...](http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Analysis-Maxwell- Rosenlicht/dp/0486650383/ref=pd_sim_b_5)

We used it at the University of Texas at Austin for the first semester in Real Analysis. I found it very clear and easy to follow.

<comment><USER21> Why are these books from Dover Publications so cheap?

<comment><USER22> Because the copyright has expired, or the copyright owner has put the work in the public domain due to bankruptcy, or similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Rosenlicht. Linear Algbera done Right. Then Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces. Halmos' Measure Theory. Awesome.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Naive Set Theory" by Halmos is a true gem, and readable, too.

</comment><comment><USER25> You will find course material from MIT OCW mathematics to be very useful:

<http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/>

</comment><comment><USER26> iTunes U has some amazing lectures. Gilbert Strang (MIT) has some video lectures (MIT OCW) on linear algebra. They are a bit dull, but they are pretty decent.

I also recommend academicearth.org.

If you are near a university, take a class "mathematical physics". These kind of classes usually cover a lot of undergraduate material in a semester and are offered by many physics department. They usually use "Mathematical Methods" by Boas as a text.

</comment><comment><USER27> Polya and Szego's "Problems and Theorems in Analysis I & II" are classics. If you can work through any part, you will have learned a lot.

</comment><comment><USER28> How can nobody here mention Courant and John's _Introduction to Calculus and Analysis_? I think I'm going to cry.

</comment><comment><USER29> Can anyone suggest a good probability or statistics book?

<comment><USER7> If you already know analysis (well), the best probability book is "Probability & Measure" by Billingsley. A gentler introduction is the SUMS book "Measure, Probability, and Integral."

If you don't care about measure theory and just want to learn how to calculate the probability that a coin comes up heads in the first five attempts, the book by Larsen and Marx is pretty good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Your

"I'm more than willing to spend an hour per page and do all the exercises, but I would like good exposition."

is essentially necessary and sufficient.

If an exercise takes more than two hours, then swallow your pride and skip the exercise (it may be _misplaced_ , have an error, or just be way too difficult for effective education).

For linear algebra:

(1) Work through a few introductory texts.

(2) Work carefully through the long time, unchallenged, world-class classic,

Halmos, _Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces_.

and there note near the back his cute ergodic convergence theorem.

The glory here is the polar decomposition.

(3) Get some contact with some applications, including in elementary multi- variate statistics, numerical techniques, optimization, etc.

(4) Pick from

Horn and Johnson, _Matrix Analysis._

and

Horn and Johnson, _Topics in Matrix Analysis._

My first course was an "advanced course" from one of Horn, Johnson, and I knocked the socks off all the other students. How'd I do that? Brilliant? Worked hard? Learned a lot? Nope. Instead the key was just my independent work with (1) -- (3).

So if you do (1) -- (4), then you will be fine.

For analysis, (Baby Rudin)

Walter Rudin, _Principles of Mathematical Analysis._

Note in the back that a function is Riemann integrable if and only if it is continuous everywhere except on a set of Lebesgue measure 0.

Also know cold that a uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous.

Royden, _Real Analysis._

and the first, real, half of (Papa Rudin)

Rudin, _Real and Complex Analysis._

Of course, emphasize the Radon-Nikodym theorem; I like the easy steps in Royden and Loeve (below), but see also the von Neumann proof in Papa Rudin.

For probability based on measure theory and the limit theorems,

Breiman, _Probability._

Note his result on regular conditional probabilities.

Neveu, _Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability._

If you can work all the Neveu exercises, then someone should buy you a _La Tache_ 1961.

Loeve, _Probability Theory._

Note the classic Sierpinski counterexample exercise on regular conditional probabilities (also in Halmos, _Measure Theory_ ),

Cover the Lindeberg-Feller version of the central limit theorem as well as simpler versions. Do the weak law of large numbers as an easy exercise. Cover the martingale convergence theorem (I like Breiman here) and use it to give the nicest proof of the strong law of large numbers. Cover the ergodic theorem (Garcia's proof) and its (astounding) application to Poincare recurrence. Cover the law of the iterated logarithm and its (astounding) application to the growth of Brownian motion.

Of course apply the Radon-Nikodym theorem and conditioning to sufficient statistics and note that order statistics are always sufficient. Show that sample mean and variance are sufficient for i.i.d. Gaussian samples and extend to the exponential family.

Give yourself an exercise: In Papa Rudin, just after the Radon-Nikodym theorem, note the Hahn decomposition and use it to give a quite general proof of the Neyman-Pearson lemma.

To appreciate the law of large numbers in statistics, read the classic Halmos paper on minimum variance, unbiased estimation.

For tools for research in statistics, might want to get going in stochastic processes. So, for elementary books, look for authors Karlin, Taylor, and Cinlar and touch on some applications, e.g., Wiener filtering and power spectral estimation. Note the axiomatic derivation of the Poisson process and the main convergence theorem in finite Markov chains (also a linear algebra result). Then for more, note again the relevant sections of Breiman and Loeve and then:

Karatzas and Shreve, _Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus._</comment>


Do you think Snap will build it own data centres? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> If they do they'll save a lot. But they aren't going to.

You can check the IPO filing where they state that they'll be using web services by the leading companies and have also estimated the value.

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid point</comment></comment>


Why Envy Might Be Good for Us - <AUTHOR> https://www.sapiens.org/culture/hunter-gatherer-inequality-namibia/ <comment><USER2> > Everyone jealously scrutinised everybody else all the time – something easy > to do when all social life was conducted in a public space. They took > careful note of what others ate, what others owned, what others received or > gave as gifts, and whether or not they were sufficiently generous in return.

This was typical small village behavior in Nordics less than 100 years ago. When your survival depends on the village coming to your help when you are in trouble, you pay for it by giving up some freedoms. Social control is used to keep everyone in line.

Economic historians have noticed how egalitarian small village farming limited the innovation in agriculture. You could not adopt new crop or radical new technology easily unless everybody was on board even if everyone was farming their own piece of land (you need to come together for investments, risk sharing and emergency work). In contrast, independent big landowner changing something was just one man doing the decision.

What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances. For long term survival purposes conservative, cohesive and close willage/tribe and demand sharing/palace economy is probably the best.

<comment><USER3> I found your comment quite enlightning, and I thought it ended well with an open-ended "What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances."

But you then pick out a specific socioeconomic system as "probably the best" without specifying those circumstances - unless you mean "long term survival" to be those circumstances? If so, survival of what? Village/tribe systems? The problem seems circular, put this way. I'd even suggest that circularity is the root of the uncertainty in your "probably."

I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight; my reaction is just what springs to mind, and you're touching on a topic I find important.

<comment><USER2> I did specify it "long term survival purposes".

Maybe I should have been more specific. In a environment where survival is uncertain survival values and system that maximizes survival is the best. Innovation and individuality succeed in a systems where basics are covered and system can be trusted to work.

Example of wrong system: preppers with single family bunkers loaded with weapons and food. If the society collapses the best way to guarantee your survival is to join into tight group with shared values who take care of their own (like Amish). in Mad Max situations conservative evangelical communities with medieval values would wipe the floor with roaming biker gangs.

<comment><USER3> I believe I follow: your advice is to the individual looking to maximise their own survival chance. I read your original comment in a more abstract way, I suppose - 'long term survival,' to me, evoked way to preserve what we value as humanity, elusive as that might be, for ITS survival - if that makes sense.

I must say I'm very fond of this hypothetical amish vs. biker gangs throwdown.

<comment><USER4> sounds like you got your first sci-fi short story right there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration, > the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered."

This seems to have the same purpose as the Law of Jante[1] we have in the Nordic countries.

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

<comment><USER6> As somebody who lives in the nordic countries but is a foreigner I think that the law is not really a specific thing to Nordic countries but just an amusing social commentary of certain types of society. It's the same nearly everywhere that 'boasting' is a bad thing and the most respectable person is the one who silently gets stuff done.

<comment><USER7> The "Law of Jante" is formulated in a novel by the Danish-Norwegian author Axel Sandemose. He explicitly states that the law is used by the proletariat to keep _each other_ down, and that it is a universal phenomenon - just as strong in Brooklyn as in Jante, the (semi-fictional) Danish town of the book. A critical part of the book is his description of the "Law of Jante" among a dysfunctional multinational crew of sailors on a ship. (He ends up murdering one of the crew-members, and blames the "Law of Jante" for the murder!)

It is rather interesting that it is more often interpreted as a national characteristic - something uniquely Scandinavian - than a characteristic of the lower classes, which was the intention of the author.

<comment><USER6> Cultures tend towards believing that something they have is unique about them. I do not know why this is but I suppose believing in something such as a national identity presupposes that there is something distinct about that identity.

As somebody from the UK it's strange that I find a certain source of solace from this kind of culture even though practically it doesn't seem to make sense to dislike those who are succesful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes, I believe all of our emotions probably serve some evolutionary purpose.

Does that mean they're useful in modern society? Not necessarily.

Being anxious might have helped my ancestors prepare for unexpected famines. Being aggressive might have helped them lock down the resources they needed to survive.

Do those emotions help me as an adult software engineer in Houston? Heck no. Anxiety and aggression just get in the way of a well-lived life.

<comment><USER9> That's a very misguided view of things. Aggression will help you fight for higher wages for yourself more often than if you weren't as aggressive. Anxiety will drive you towards actions that will decrease your anxiety, and those actions will generally be useful for you and sometimes the people employing you.

I think you're not really in touch and being honest with yourself if you don't think both aggression and anxiety play a crucial role in your life. Or maybe you just have different definitions of those words than I do.

<comment><USER10> No, it won't. Anxiety lasts long after the actions have been made and the initial threat eliminated because a lot of people with anxiety disorders will tend to ruminate on their actions and possibly even catastrophize about them, creating to a whole different kind of anxiety that are at times unactionable. This is how people end up with PTSD.

I've been trying very hard to break out of this cycle and can tell you first hand it's not in anyway beneficial or pleasant and is actually very very destructive.

<comment><USER11> Ultimately, your genes don't care about your happiness or anxiety. They are driven for you to be reproductively successful.

<comment><USER12> What does that even mean?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Also known as the Crab Effect, where the other crabs in a bucket will pull an escaping crab down if he tries to escape - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality)

There is a lot of this in the West too, although to a lesser degree and in a less open way. Its one of those ancient behaviors and systems of values that we keep applying today that don't make much sense anymore.

We don't live in small villages anymore, doing hunter-gathering or communal agriculture.

In today's society, everyone should feel free to try new things, learn and achieve their full potential, without having to deal with this constant social pressure that leads us to be as average as possible, in order to avoid standing out from the group and get punished for that.

It's not clear if this pull to be as average as possible is something embedded in our genes or if its purely cultural.

<comment><USER14> Likening it to crab buckets misses a key point: That "status" has value, and is transferable. Pulling a "human crab" isn't a purely destructive act, as it prevents a peer from gaining status and power that could be dangerous to the one pulling down.

Even among crabs (where the wikipedia page doesn't provide source to back up its claims as to the crab's intent), pulling another crab down creates a stepping stone opportunity for another crab to climb out. In the absence of clear trusting coordination (like you see in army ants, ignoring the fact that many ants sacrifice their lives toward a goal), crab-bucket fighting maximizes individual survival chance.

<comment><USER15> >gaining status and power that could be dangerous to the one pulling down

Or it could be beneficial. It goes both ways. Putting a talented person in the position to succeed can create enormous value for a lot of people, not just themself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was taught that it is okay to be envious, what isnt okay was to wish that someone will lose the things we envied about.

When I see someone bought a new car, I will pray "I hope his car is useful and he can benefit from it, I hope that someday I will have a car like his or even better".

While it might be hard in practice, so far it helped me stay positive to everyone.

<comment><USER17> In the german language there are the two words _Neid_ and _Missgunst_.

Both could be translated as enviousness but have a slightly different meanings. While _Missgunst_ is definitely negative and maybe even destructive, _Neid_ does not need to be negative and can have the meaning like in the example you gave.

<comment><USER18> This distinction also exists in Russian, though not in single words: _белая зависть_ translated literally as "white envy" and _черная зависть_ i.e. "black envy".

<comment><USER19> Colour-coding of emotions in different languages is fascinating!

In Swedish, envy is green (grön av avund), but jealousy is black (svartsjuk).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My experience is that envy when you have nothing can be really demoralizing. But envy when you're comfortable but others a thriving can be motivating.

<comment><USER21> Nobody ever truly has nothing. You still have something most people that have ever existed in the world don't, life. You can respond, learn, and grow. No matter how far you've gone down a path, you can always turn back.

We can only ever trick ourselves into believing we truly have nothing.

<comment><USER22> Whether you can learn and grow depends on various factors, actually. Some people can't learn and grow due to internal and external issues, living relatively crappy live until death. And by 'some' I mean many. You may have a potential but may not see a way to discharge it.

>trick ourselves

In a way a broken engine tricks itself into not working. "You're 300HP, just start, dude!"

<comment><USER21> People aren't engines. They don't just break.

<comment><USER12> It's true that people aren't engines, but it's also true that people break, and often in ways that are much more difficult to diagnose and fix (or even notice).

I think depression, suicide, and much of the time addiction are clear signs that humans can break and not have the strength to 'turn back', at least not with a ton of help.

<comment><USER21> Help can be asked for. From people or from God. It's when we choose not to ask, choose not to avail ourselves of the many many resources that society has to offer, that people fall into deep holes.

They may feel very very far from making the choice to ask for help, but a choice it remains and it never goes away. Asking for help from God in these situations and opening your heart to the possibility of salvation can be extremely powerful. I've met people with severe, debilitating depression that immediately lifted upon setting foot in a church, never to return. It's a lot more common than you'd think. The religious angle should not be overlooked.

Nobody is so broken that they can't be fixed.

<comment><USER22> (Personally, I wouldn't even consider life if religion was the only way in it. But I don't want to go deeper on this and will treat it as a regular option here.)

Fact is that 'choice' is obviously a part of problem itself, not something you 'just' do or do not. Look, you can likewise say that you know people who chose to go to long vacation, get/drop a family, buy something, get happy with it – and they never looked back. Religion is not special in this regard, because you _have_ to choose it before it helps. But some people can't choose, because they are broken, like an engine.

<comment><USER21> Having to choose something before it helps you is the whole point of having a choice. Your choices may not always get you to where you want to go, you always have them, and they're always meaningful. To say otherwise is to dehumanise.

<comment><USER12> I think you're making it too black and white. It's absolutely possible for people to be robbed of choice, sometimes to extreme degrees, both practically and _especially_ psychologically.

If what you're saying is as black and white as you put it, it means cult members, those severely abused in relationships, the psychological tortured, severely addicted, and so on ultimately only have themselves to blame. I'd say that is more dehumanizing than the alternative.

Of course those are extreme examples, and of course in all of those cases _some_ have been able to make choices. But I find it callous and presumptuous to argue that those who _didn 't_ choose to be helped somehow just... chose not to choose? didn't try hard enough?

In reality choice is a murky concept. Philosophical debates about free will aside, practically speaking the most generous and human assumption is that depending on all sorts of factors, we have various degrees of choice. And sometimes the best help we can give people is to, with as much respect and wisdom as possible, choose for them.

Going even further, I find the whole idea of independent choice rather murky. I think we have consciousness, and experience a degree of choice, and avoiding learned helplessness is important. But so much of what I consider 'me', is so obviously strongly affected by those around me who shape and shaped me, that I cannot help but conclude that I'm not even remotely a product of my own choices in more ways than I'd like to admit. And that's not even getting into the whole issue of the subconscious playing a significant role in much of what I do!

<comment><USER21> Anybody can be robbed of _a_ choice. Nobody can be robbed of _all_ choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The author's final conclusions take, as a matter of fact, that inequality is what drove revolutions of the past. It seems that the more precise cause of these revolutions throughout time has not been the lack of equality, but the lack of fairness. And these are two very different things. If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair. If we take these 1000 people and instead give identical rewards in accordance with who a grand arbiter thinks would be somehow 'better', it would be radically unfair. Even if the final result in the distribution of rewards is the same, the general view and tolerance of such distribution would be very different.

The example most commonly cited as a revolution of inequality is the French Revolution, yet the people did not protest because the ruling class enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. It happened because the masses were required to pay ever larger taxes to subsidize a government that was increasingly in debt with very little to show for it, all because of the actions of those that lived in luxury. And this happened at the same time that famine was sweeping the nation magnifying the absurdity of it all. Put another way, those in power were destroying their nation and demanding the poor pay for their failures. That's not about inequality, it's about unfairness.

And I think this generalizes to the entire article. People do not generally seem to care about equality -- they care about fairness. The Waltons and Elon Musk are both billionaires, but they are perceived in vastly different ways. Imagine if we lived exactly as we do today, yet the vast majority of wealthy obtained their wealth and behaved in a fashion similar to the Waltons. The stability of this nation would be quite different.

<comment><USER24> > If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some > task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair.

How can you possibly claim it's fair if those 1000 all started with different opportunities, different abilities, and different privileges?

<comment><USER23> Imagine you and I decided to have a race in a couple of years with some reasonably incentivizing prize. Who would win? Would it come down to genetics, background, our physiological development in youth? Probably not. It's mostly just going to be decided by who puts more effort into training and preparing for it. It's only when we speak of the best of the best that things like genetics and developmental history start playing significant roles. For us mere mortals in most things, the winner is just the person who puts more into it.

And this is the standard for life. In most things just putting in the blood, sweat, and tears is enough to end up well above average - and that's well more than what's needed to succeed. And this gets even nicer in real life since it's not just a race. There are a practically unlimited number of fields enabling people to try whatever they want and aim to put their unique characteristics to optimal usage letting them be the one with the 'homefield advantage.'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration, > the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered. Regardless of the > size or condition of the carcass, those due a share of the meat would > complain that the kill was trifling, that it was barely worth the effort of > carrying it back to camp, or that there wouldn't be enough meat to go around

Seems to me, a lot of people in modern society still excercise this ritual.

<comment><USER26> Yes they do.

Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone of your reply rather than the words. Similarly, if the insulters of the successful hunter are truly envious then there will be a different tone to their insults. Then a problem is exposed. Note that this ritual isn't encouraging envy (which is a harmful emotion). Rather it is helping to expose any envy that may have arisen, in a safe manner.

The flipside is that some people _try_ to arouse envy in others. In modern times by conspicuous consumption, bling, expensive shoes, super-yachts, bragging on social media, etc. Such people deserve to be mocked until they've updated their idea of success.

Yet we are morally obliged to differentiate between them and those who've made original contributions: artists, inventors, innovators, problem-solvers and so on. Our survival in the long term actually _depends_ on the latter group. After all we shouldn't be aiming to thrive for an 'extraordinarily long period of time', but indefinitely, just as the Ju/'hoansi would no doubt have preferred to.

<comment><USER14> > Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in > person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone > of your reply rather than the words.

Are you sure that's not just checking to see if honest innocent victims might have been conned by a criminal?

<comment><USER26> Good point. Tone + words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Namibian hunter-gatherers deride those who stand out."

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to produce abnormal outsized returns: they likely come from standing out. Being somewhat contrarian against the tribe helps with finding new pastures - infact it might be the only way.

If the goal is to maximize egalitarianism, which is a worth-while goal, then having mimetic/conforming attitudes would be a virtue. Envy is a by-product of our mimetic desires.

</comment><comment><USER28> Feeling envious might be good as long as it enforces you to take a positive change in your life.

Feeling envious for someone who has purchased a new house, a new car or established a new business would make you strive to have one for yourself would be regarded as a positive influence of envy.

<comment><USER29> That sounds more like aspiration than envy to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Envy might be a virtue?

Virtues of a software developer:

1\. Lazyness. Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency. Why was the dishwasher invented?

2\. Impatience. Impatience is the first step towards performance optimization.

3\. Being Anti Social. This allows hyper focus.

4\. Pride. The desire to strive ever harder for better code, simplicity, maintainability, more features, etc.

</comment><comment><USER31> Those interested in this topic should read Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour by Helmut Shoeck

</comment><comment><USER32> Suppose you are playing go and losing. You can see in the future and know you will lose. Now imagine go is life. Pray for reincarnation, to play again.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've figured there's exactly one place where envy makes sense: _If_ someone else has more than you _because_ some authority is distributing things, and is supposed to do it one way but is doing it another way, then it makes sense to be mad... _at that authority_. It still doesn't make sense to be mad at the recipient of the extra stuff, unless they are in some way aiding and abetting the authority in its unfair behavior.

<comment><USER34> I think you should be mad at the whole disgraceful debacle. The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a collaborative effort to harm you. They're both willing and delighted participants in your demise and the incentive structure created by these actions undertaken by both parties ensure that you continue to suffer in their collective hands.

I honestly don't know where you're going with this and I'm not even trying to malign you.

<comment><USER33> > The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a > collaborative effort ... They're both willing and delighted participants in > your demise

This is an assumption, and I think it is manifestly not always true. Have you _ever_ benefited from some piece of regulatory unfairness, which was set up without your knowledge or consent (possibly before you were even born)? For example, if you use services that are partly or fully paid for by taxes, are you aware of exactly where all the tax money comes from, and who is taxed more than you think is fair and who is taxed less? (I'll take it as a given that no one thinks the tax code is totally fair, though people disagree on what _would_ be fair.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Similarly, having grown up in a Socialist Republic with a Communist party, envy was a big motivator for crime against your neighbor.

While some would never have a thought of harming another over perceived better off neighbor, most would take action as some form of irrational justice. And if they were found out or caught, the 'actual' justice would never be forgiven, despite all this being their own doing.

Many leave this type of village environment for different cultures and more maturity.

<comment><USER34> Envy is deplorable and there are few to zero things that would justify it. It quite frankly is very strange to see it being somewhat justified or even outright glorified by some here.

I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies (but not necessarily ultra-hierarchies as I like to call them) are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity.

<comment><USER36> The normalisation of envy as a means of social control is a key element in the socialist playbook. Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution?

So, just be aware that what we're seeing in this article is a pro- socialist/-communist stance, broadly dressed up in anthropological mythos in order to make a political point, which seems to be "envy is a moderator of inequality", whereas there is a big point missed: not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone.

<comment><USER37> So it's a propaganda piece?

I read it as an evolutionary biology/psychology explaination for much of human political sentiment. It's well established that hunter gatherer tribes (the predominant mode during most of human evolution) are very egalitarian.

<comment><USER34> > So it's a propaganda piece?

Science and studies can be utilized to skew towards a specific and deliberate narrative.

Somewhat tangentially, this is why science and conservatism have always had a tumultuous relationship. Most scientists are curious by their very nature whereas conservatism requires that status quo be observed and if questions must be asked then it has to be, as Burke alluded to, in small digestible portions. Revolutions are typically uncalled for and most of the time things tend to degenerate into worse conditions than what was being fought against initially. Case in point, a country that is on my continent - Libya. Things are worse now than under the revolutionarily deposed Muammar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The title is easily misunderstood - the article describes a type of envy in Namibian hunter-gatherers which resulted in a behaviour that is not usually seen as ok in most Western societies. They would insult and demean whatever windfall or wealth the person got, and also demand some of it.

This meant that those who were successful hunter gatherers didn't start believing they were superior or more deserving than their fellow tribesmen:

> just as the humility shown by good hunters and others with something to brag > about was ascribed to "embarrassment."

The article goes on to say how this behaviour has discouraged members of this group taking on higher management and political roles, which mean this community are under-represented on a national level, and also still very poor.

I found it a thought-provoking article. I seem to remember a time when the rich I met were somewhat embarrassed about their money, whereas I feel like at the moment people seem to be showing off their wealth a lot more. But maybe that is more to do with my social circles, or the facebook effect, or a different time in my life.

Personally, I find envy to be a very toxic emotion, which sways me and others to make life-choices that don't necessarily increase our happiness. I find I'm starting to avoid people who seem to care too much about their own and other's financial (and other) types of achievement.

Maybe I should take a leaf from the Ju/Hoansi and start insulting people's bragging rights. 'My! That is a shit bathroom you've got! And to think you spent that much...'</comment>


The Free Marketing Gravy Train Is Over on Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/34025/the-free-marketing-gravy-train-is-over-on-facebook/ <comment><USER2> This was ultimately a massive bait and switch and I can't believe more people don't find it disgusting. Facebook gave off the impression you would be able to reach people who became your fan on their network.. until they didn't need any more free marketing. Now that everyone is on Facebook, they've decided to focus on the user experience more and leave all the brands who promoted them out in the cold.

It would be one thing if they were charging all along, or made that intention clear. Instead they took all the free marketing and slowly scaled down how many of your fans saw your posts (frog in boiling water?). It's to the point now where I have pages that reach .1% of my fans. Facebook now wants thousands of dollars for just ONE post to reach a significant portion (not even all) of my fan base.

Ultimately, I don't think Facebook had a choice. The user experience, with the amount of pages some people like, would be horrendous. But to spend any time or money to try to build a fan page on Facebook now would be a joke. Anyone currently spending their advertising dollars to buy likes on Facebook is terribly misinformed on the impact it will have (none).

Additionally, it seems many of the major brands I've seen advertising via print, TV, etc. have been only promoting their Twitter accounts now. I have to assume this is a reaction to Facebook burning them and now they are trying to make Twitter a larger threat to Facebook.

<comment><USER3> > Ultimately, I don't think Facebook had a choice. The user experience, with > the amount of pages some people like, would be horrendous.

If someone doesn't like the content from a Page they follow, they should unfollow it: I specifically follow the things I do because I _want_ to see their content... it does not improve the user experience to limit that content; if anything, it destroys the user experience, as the reason I go to Facebook is to see the content from the people and brands I like: showing me less of the stuff I like leaves me disappointed and unsatisfied.

<comment><USER4> > If someone doesn't like the content from a Page they follow, they should > unfollow it

I've been doing some of this lately, but initially I did _not_ follow most of my current likes because I wanted to see their content. Most of them are not things I ever explicitly "liked"! Facebook used to have areas of your profile where you listed your favorite movies, favorite bands, etc. At some point these got converted into follows of pages, without me opting in. When I said that I liked the band Coil, whose principals are now dead, I did _not_ thereby imply that I intended to follow some profiteering asshole who controls their Facebook "Page". And yet that's what happened. I do unfollow these when they show up in my feed with objectionable content. But I think it's a mistake to assume that people want to see the content from the Pages they "follow" (admittedly, a mistake of Facebook's own making).

<comment><USER3> This is entirely fair; in fact, the same thing happened to me. However, this problem doesn't seem solved by filtering the content: it seems like it should be solved by not tricking people into automatically following pages just because they liked the brand as an entity as opposed to the content on Facebook coming from that brand. Facebook has a weird and unfortunate mix of "like" and "follow" behaviors, especially with regards to the "favorite X" part of the profile. One thing I will say, though: they at least did separate like vs. follow at some point, which at least makes this issue solvable by the user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All this means is that you'll see more dumb ads for Coke and Sony and no posts from your friend's small fitness blog or charity.

Which means Facebook will become increasingly cold and impersonal, like any other corporate entity.

<comment><USER6> Yep, pretty much :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I've been talking to the wrong people, but all I hear about marketing through Facebook pages is that it delivers little to no results, and most companies that have a Facebook page aren't actively maintaining it anymore.

And growth in advertising doesn't tell me anything. Most of the advertising market consists of a bubble in which all parties tell each other it's worth the money with very little evidence to show for it. But maybe that's just because I live in a bubble where advertising is mostly invisible.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ambiguous headline: 'over' meaning 'finished'? Or 'over' meaning 'located'?

Veritasium has an interesting related video explaining some of the Facebook shennanigans where they withhold your posts from a large amount of your subscribers if you're popular, unless you pay them money: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g)

<comment><AUTHOR> finished.

<comment><USER8> My point probably wasn't very clear - in a summary of article headlines, this one would be a little ambiguous. It may be intentional, but it doesn't feel like it.

<comment><AUTHOR> They better meant "finished"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Overall, FB is taking a very hostile position and it is only thinly veiled.

> _"Like many mediums, if businesses want to make sure that people see their > content, the best strategy is, and always has been, paid advertising," a > spokeswoman said in an emailed statement._

That "Like many mediums" bit is a slap in the face. It's implying that those who would complain are unrealistic freeloaders or otherwise somehow at fault for their own declining engagement. This, even when it is really due to FB actively working to cause the decline.

Also, it completely pretends that FB has always been "like many mediums" and did not encourage like-activity, as well as re-inforce the benefits of said activity with previously higher levels of engagement.

The net message, essentially, is "why would you expect a free ride from FB, when you don't expect it anywhere else?"

Very snarky, condescending, and hostile.

</comment><comment><USER10> So what? Who are the users who want to be spammed forever following 'Like'-ing a business or brand?

People use Facebook to communicate with people that they know: liking a business or brand is a communication with friends, not with that business. You like something to put it on your profile, and put an entry on your newsfeed saying you like that thing. It's not to sign up to a newsletter.

Now Facebook has to make money so I am sure they will continue to change things to help advertisers reach people (for $$$). But there's no incentive to let companies engage in spammy practices - or at least, the grey area of unsolicited communication following an existing relationship - for free. In my view businesses who thought that somehow the rules had changed and that social networks meant free advertising forever, never had it right in the first place.

<comment><USER11> It is convenient for Facebook that it is in the best interests of the users. Facebook in part become as big as it is today via the free advertising it receives on the vast majority of business advertising which includes a Facebook page link or even just an icon. Businesses have been incentivized to build this audience.

But arguably now Facebook is so intrenched that it can remove some of this incentive and even profit of giving some of it back for a price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This to me sounds really self-defeating.

If none of your non-paid posts are going to your social network of "likers", then you can't tell how useful having high likes on Facebook is. Then, what incentive is there for people to encourage people to "like" them of Facebook, to build the social network to eventually buy Facebook ads?

They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg by dialing down non-paid posts. Maybe large companies might continue to pay for ads, but new companies, or SMBs will completely lose incentive to build a Facebook following, since the ROI on building a Facebook following will be expensive and the result completely unpredictable.

</comment><comment><USER13> People are quick to paint this as Facebook twisting the screw, but do we know definitively, not speculatively, that this is an intentional and planned effect, like there's some variable somewhere that determines what percentage of a page's fans will see a post before it stops being shown?

Why can't it just be due to the growth of Facebook? There's more content competing for eyeballs, the way consumers engage with Facebook has probably changed over time, people may be following more pages than they used to, and so on.

<comment><USER14> A musician friend on FB friend notes that posts containing the words "song" or "music" or that link to Soundcloud appear to get badly downvoted by the algorithm in casual tests he's done. So anecdote, but not completely untested anecdote.

Possible workaround: put your s*ngs on Youtube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> in case you haven't watched these videos from Veritasium yet:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g)

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

both videos show why facebook's model is inherently self-destructive and incoherent and will inevitably implode

</comment><comment><USER16> It kills me... Time.com of all places says my Facebook posts will reach "less users". I suspected I might reach "fewer users".

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a page with 1K+ likes and I too have seen that posts don't reach as many people as it used to be. But what I have noticed is that there are some regulars who always like almost every post on the page. So may be the more you like the content of a page, the more of that page you see is what Facebook is dong and it kind of makes sense.

I am subscribed to many pages and I don't "like" or comment on every post that a page makes. Over a time I have seen that Facebook shows me more from pages where I like or comment to posts most often and the rest start to vanish from my timeline but if I go back to a page and interact with with a few posts, suddenly I start seeing content from that page on my newsfeed.

So what Facebook is doing makes sense. Yes as a page owner I would like to reach maximum audience, but engagement is also key. This will ensure as a page owner I create more engaging and interesting content so more people engage with my page organically.

</comment><comment><USER14> And you thought that people who had specifically asked to read you should be able to read you! Foolish human.

A musician friend on FB friend notes that posts containing the words "song" or "music" or that link to Soundcloud appear to get badly downvoted by the algorithm in casual tests he's done. Possible workaround: put your s*ngs on Youtube.

</comment><comment><USER18> How about Facebook add a "Follow" feature to get 100% of the posts? They don't even need to show the number of followers a page has received. At least then users have the option to see everything a page has to offer. "Likes" no longer have any meaning, so we need something that actually means something.

<comment><USER17> They used to have that option where you can see all posts from a page but now that option has disappeared.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> FB has pimping down so cold I gotta tip my hat to Zuck! Gotta love how they "gameify" customer communication. The message to every business was... everything has changed... now all that matters is FB likes. Don't ask why just chase that... Ok cool, got a bunch of likes now? Ok now we're gonna restrict your posts and make you pay every time you want to reach them. God forbid you just ask for customers phone number or Email? Instead we run your list for you... and we repeatedly resell portions of your customer access back to you via some mysterious and ever changing algorithm. Now that my friends is pimpin!

</comment><comment><USER20> I have paid around 1000 USD for my fans using Facebook Ads, and now I can't reach them, I can't browse them (no search box in the fan list), I can't write to them...

Facebook is a scam! Greedy, calculated scam.

</comment><comment><USER21> This sounds reasonable and similar to the LinkedIn monetization strategy. The core competency of Facebook is communication, not ads, so making money on communication is ideal.

<comment><USER5> Ideal? Not at all.

All it's doing is driving down the signal-to-noise ratio on Facebook, because the only things that can afford to throw bad money after bad money to reach users are massive corporations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> TIL that businesses should own their own name on the internet, and point their customers at that instead of into some walled garden.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is what I am seeing with my FB page. Over a year ago with with fewer likes I was able to reach more people. With almost 18,000 likes, I can barely reach a thousand people now. The funny part is if a post is doing well, FB will suggest you to advertise the post since its getting "higher than usual engagement".

<comment><USER24> You seem to hate the decisions they've made, and are quoting that to show how bad it is.

To me, though, that sounds like a dream marketing platform; one where you only have to pay for ads that do well, because you can push them for free to a small sample of your audience to test them.

Another possibility: if FB ever gets any good at figuring out from the content of a post who will like it, then a benevolent FB could show each post of yours to the 10% of your audience who actually wants to see it, but not spam them with the other 90%, which would make them stop following your page.

<comment><USER11> I think it is more akin to building a 18k email marketing list and then having to pay a fee for each subsequent email you sent to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > But if the brands, organizations and celebrities that use Pages want to > continue to reach Facebook's 1.23 billion monthly users in the future, > they're going to have to pay up.

The free lunch is over. Next, paid developer apis...

<comment><USER26> Suddenly buying up any potential competitor at any price doesn't seem too crazy. Give them no options, then they have to pay!

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What will come next? A google Adsense like system where content posters bid on views and only the top payers per viewers are seen?

<comment><USER28> I thought that was partly how it works, similar to twitter ads. You bid on views/clicks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It won't be long before Twitter also starts doing this.

</comment><comment><USER29> This almost seems like desperation. Time is ticking, earnings need to be delivered, one quick heist after another, with user base dropping, people adverse to being a marketing dataset.</comment>


Wikipedia Has Raised in a Week What Took a Month in 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_has_raised_in_a_week_what_took_a_month_i.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> Duplicate. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1922364> already has a couple of comments.</comment>


An interview with Seymour Hersh - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/05/seymour_hersh_interview_on_his_bin_laden_story_the_new_yorker_journalism.single.html

<comment><USER2> Wow. That was interesting :-)

I had no idea that Hersh was so crusty. I have enjoyed his writing for years.

And of course US publications have an Americana bias. I heard the authors of Dollarification talk a few years ago and they said that just a few corporations owned the media outlets that most people in the U.S. get their news from. Of course news will have a pro power slant.</comment>


Rethinking the PhD application in Computer Science - <AUTHOR> http://jeffhuang.com/rethinking_the_phd_application.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Fascinating -- the author uses YC admission as a proxy to evaluate potential as a grad student!</comment>


How Tech Companies Lose Women During the Hiring Process - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/silicon-valley-women-hiring-diversity.html <comment><USER2> > I'm often asked which companies are getting diversity and inclusion right in > Silicon Valley and across the country. Most aren't. But some are seeing > small successes. Last year, we worked with a company that set a goal that > women would make up 50 percent of the engineers on one of its teams. They > did it by holding a webinar led by female employees, with 100 female > candidates who asked questions about how the organization was changing to > become more inclusive to women.

How on earth can it be the right diversity way when it requires 50% female staff? By definition the industry will be "wrong" as educated female candidates are simply much rarer.

A more helpful and balanced perspective: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15009759](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15009759)</comment>


Show HN: Dutch app helps you find a Döner place for your after party cravings - <AUTHOR> https://nudoner.nl/?ref=fndz <comment><USER2> You lucky Europeans and your Döner Kebabs. Any special preparation the Dutch get on their döners?

</comment><comment><USER3> Dutchie here. Am downloading, will share with friends.

<comment><USER3> Correction: no Android version. Not downloading, will perhaps share.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would be awesome to have real time status on queues sizes. Sucks to end up at a crowded Doner place when I'm starving :)

<comment><USER5> Haha, maybe we can have a Periscope like feature to livestream the queues!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what data source it uses. Google? OpenStreetMap? Does it take opening hours into account?

<comment><USER5> We use Google Places, locations are stored in Firebase. Users can also submit places to our database and we check them to make sure they're valid.

To answer your question about the opening hours, yes it takes them into account as well!

We plan on updating the app soon /frequently with new features like feedback, geofenced reminders and favourites.

<comment><USER6> Awesome!

<comment><USER5> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why no web application?

<comment><USER5> Its for those late nights, when you really need your fix after a long bar crawl. Take out the phone, open the app, hit the button and get your Döner.

Of course, we will at some point make a web app. We focussed on apps first as we have more experience in native app development.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Build. Launch. Dominate – Collection of awesome online marketing tools - <AUTHOR> http://www.buildlaunchdominate.com <comment><AUTHOR> Like most developers and marketers out there, I had tons of online tools but didn't have an easy way to organize them. Thus enter BLD.

Prior to launching BLD, when I'd come across a tool I'd bookmark it in Chrome. Problem was I had so many tools bookmarked that I couldn't really remember which tool did what.

I ended up building BLD to solve that issue so I could easily categorize and screenshot each tool so when I needed it I could find it fast.

After running this locally on my computer I thought I'd share it with others.

Thus BLD was soft-launched late last night at the tail-end of a long coding session.

Let me know what you think.

</comment><comment><USER2> A really good resource is Launchaco ([http://launchaco.com/](http://launchaco.com/)) [shameless plug]. It helps you choose a name, check social presence of name and then helps you make a unique, responsive and elegant landing page instantly!

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome. If you head over to the website there is an ADD A RESOURCE link. Just fill out that form and I can get it added to the website.

<comment><USER2> Already did :) Thanks for the speedy reply!

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it added ... [http://www.buildlaunchdominate.com/resource/launchaco/](http://www.buildlaunchdominate.com/resource/launchaco/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Baby Steps into Genetic Programming (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://aerique.blogspot.com/2011/01/baby-steps-into-genetic-programming.html <comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116156)</comment>


Why is it hard to startup a company outside of Silicon Valley? - <AUTHOR>

This may sound like a dumb question to some, but I need to be edified.  I'm in DC, and it seems more and more that you're probably working in something government or defense related.  In other cities, like Dallas, it used to be telecom related (The Telecom Corrdior).  How do these clusters start, thrive, and/or die?  How does it continue to thrive in Silicon Valley after some 20 to 30 years of startup success stories? <comment><USER2> The biggest reason -- the elephant in the room reason -- is the money. Angel capital won't touch you if you live farther than a two hour drive. VC's are similar. And so it's just a self-referential loop that spirals upwards.

The only problem is that 90% of Silicon Valley startups are that kind of meringue and marshmallow that VC love. The record companies love Britney Spears and VC's love Twitter. It's all a big get-rich-quick scheme and a waste of time. Sadly, as a native of Silicon Valley, it means that true innovation, when it is happening, is occurring everywhere.

<comment><USER3> From where I am (Europe), it looks like SV is mostly turning into an advertising industry. They're just making the web the new TV and it's really depressing.

<comment><USER4> Why is it depressing? It would be nice if SV was a give-guys-millions-to-make- cool-free-stuff industry, but that's not much of an industry. Revenue has to come from somewhere. Apparently, people are more willing to see ads than pay to use the product. If that's what's depressing, then your problem is not with SV but with what people want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been out here (the Valley) for the summer. The crazy thing about the place is, every time I ride the BART or sit down at a coffee shop there's someone sitting next to me that's either works at Yahoo/ebay/google/etc or is also doing a startup.

Its really easy to start conversations with these people upon noticing a Django error page on their laptop or an ebay employee badge. The conversations are great.

Also there are lots of meetups, lectures and parties for startups. The place just breathes technology (can be frustrating as well if you additionally like other things such as frisbee or women).

<comment><USER6> > The crazy thing about the place is, every time I ride the BART or sit down > at a coffee shop there's someone sitting next to me that's either works at > Yahoo/ebay/google/etc or is also doing a startup.

A friend just moved from LA to SF and said the exact same thing. That's one of the most exciting parts of moving to the area for me (which I will be doing). The least exciting part is how crappy a lot of the city of SF is.

The Valley is where you go to be a successful technology entrepreneur. It's that global perception that gives it the hard-to-identify edge over everywhere else. Hollywood has the same advantage.

As a competitor I'd fear a startup in The Valley a lot more than an otherwise equal one that's located anywhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It may very well be easier for startups in Silicon Valley, but so what? Focus your attention on the specific problems you have, not on comparing your situation to other people's situations.

Having a hard time finding a co-founder? More difficulty getting funding? Look at the resources available to you in your community and take advantage of those. Don't have any resources? Create some yourself. Many times, problems can be solves with the right network. Read /Never Eat Alone/ and start building yours.

And ultimately, if you think a move out to SV will solve your problems, move out to SV. But realize that the grass is never greener--just different shades of brown that, from a distance, look greener. Out in SV, you're likely to have a different set of problems: greater competition for talent (both partners and employees), higher cost of living, greater competition for angel and VCs.

It all comes down to the realization that there are trade-offs to every situation. Challenges to every startup, no matter where you are. Focus on the challenges you're facing and find creative ways to solve them. That's when you'll be successful. Not when you're lamenting about how easy other people have it compared to you.

</comment><comment><USER8> I work for a small company in Cambridge, Massachusetts (we have about 60 employees and were founded in 1999; I'm not sure if we count as a startup any more), so it's certainly possible.

My impression is that high-tech startups in the Boston area tend to sell products or services to larger companies, so that each customer brings in five or six figures worth of revenue. All the Valley startups I hear about, by comparison, aim for the mass market.

I know that PG doesn't like the idea of starting a consulting firm and using the consulting revenues to bootstrap product development, but I worked for one company and interviewed at two that did exactly that. (The one I worked for, Kenan Systems, never took a dime of outside investment, until the founder sold the company to Lucent for $10 billion. Things went downhill from there. But I digress.) Maybe the knowledge and contacts such entrepreneurs gained from consulting helped them make their first five-figure sales?...

</comment><comment><USER9> I think one of the largest reasons why Silicon Valley has so many startups and other places have so few is Paul Graham's reason #15 for not starting a startup: "Parents want you to be a doctor".

Not literally, of course; but rather in the general sense of social pressure against creating a startup. In the Valley, you can say that you're thinking of creating your own business, and people will tell you that they think that's cool, will talk about startups they have been involved in, and generally support the idea. In most of the rest of the world, people will look at you as if you've announced that you're planning on getting a sex change: A small amount of admiration for making such a hard decision, mixed with a large amount of skepticism about your sanity. After all, everybody knows that 50%/80%/90%/99% of small businesses fail within X years, right?

I've been very lucky that, in spite of being surrounded by generally skeptical people, I've encountered a lot of support; as my girlfriend put it, "most small businesses fail, but if anyone can succeed, it will be you". If it weren't for how much my friends apparently believe in me personally, I'm sure I'd have been convinced to not even attempt this based on those same statistics about failure rates.

<comment><USER10> <i>as my girlfriend put it, "most small businesses fail, but if anyone can succeed, it will be you"</i>

That's funny, that's almost exactly what my girlfriend said too... Must be a girlfriend thing :)

The reactions I've received have either been support mixed with a bit of admiration and envy, or "ah yes I've been through that 10 years ago, if you ever want to do it now's the time" followed by some advice. Only one person reacted with "why would you ever want to do that".

<comment><USER11> My wife says the same thing. It must be a loss aversion response to their choice of mate.

Reactions I receive (since I'm currently churning through the decision) tend to be offers for funding support, some of it not insignificant. To me, that is a much higher confidence indicator, although I have will some skin in the game, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Like most things in real life, the answer boils down to a set of intertwined non-linear feedback loops that you can probably identify and analyze (even quantitatively) using systems analysis (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analysis>) or a similar technique. I suspect pg in his essay has nailed down some of (and probably the major) loops involved, i.e. the ones around rich people and nerds.

The basic loops he identifies seem to be nerds attract other nerds, rich people attract other rich people, and nerds attract rich people as long as they are starting startups that need investment and get rich people richer (please correct me if I am wrong). These are all positive feedback loops, so they keep growing until they hit some negative ones. Some negative ones: saturation of nerds or rich people (not yet), saturation of space (getting there), high living costs (definitely close), nerds not starting startups because they work for Google (hard to tell but I doubt it), nerds not needing investment (increasingly so for Web apps), and other viable places to move (true in some areas like Biotech).

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the kind of tangible analysis that I was looking for. I must giveaway that I'm my last degree was in systems engineering, so I completely understand this. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Paul Graham has a good essay on this topic if you're interested: <http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html>

</comment><comment><USER14> The number one reason is the lack/timidity of angel investors. But there are a lot of others. In startup hubs like SV (and to a lesser extent Boston), everyone gets startups. Not just investors, but employees, landlords, suppliers, girlfriends' parents. In a startup hub you're going with the grain to start a startup, and elsewhere you're going against it.

</comment><comment><USER15> The first mistake startups make is they need VC or angel funding to get moving. The mindset in SV is bad enough, it does not need to bleed to the rest of the country.

<comment><USER14> Name some successful tech startups that have taken zero outside investment.

<comment><USER16> Club Penguin. It was a Web 2.0/virtual community play. Acquired by Disney for $350+ mil. I don't know if Plentyoffish qualifies as a Web 2.0 startup, but it is making a lot of cash. I could name a few more. Cheers.

PS. I agree with the original poster "The first mistake startups make is they need VC or angel funding to get moving," if by "get moving" s/he means get started. You might need it when you want to expand, grow, get serious, etc. but you don't necessarily need it at the beginning.

<comment><USER14> Sure, there are a handful. But the fact that those few are famous on account of having taken no investment is evidence of just how rare it is.

Among successful startups, the ratio of those that took outside money to those that didn't is 100 to 1, maybe 1000 to 1. Where the threshold for success is going public, it's effectively infinite.

<comment><USER17> Someone at BarCampBlock yesterday suggested that in the past >15 years, vc- backed startups of all types accounted for 23% of successful exits, while focusing on tech-specific startups raises that number to 46%. It sounds possible, but a source wasn't provided - it'd be interesting to determine how successful these 'successful exits' were, and if the size ($) of the exit is correlated to the presence of VC. I imagine it would be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> We're running a startup from Chicago and Birmingham, AL. We're not finding it particularly difficult. We're not interested in outside money right now, but if we were it wouldn't be particularly hard to find. We were approached before we had seriously considered outside funding.

I think the main difference is the types of companies that get funded in The Valley. Twitter, for example, wouldn't get funding in Chicago and certainly not Birmingham. Facebook and Google wouldn't have gotten funding either.

But there is money for the right product outside of The Valley.

</comment><comment><USER19> I used to live up in the Valley for many years until I moved down to Los Angeles about 5 years ago. Doing a startup in Los Angeles has been difficult, mostly in trying to find and network with other like minded individuals but with a little effort we're finding its not all that hard. We use meetup.com and upcoming.org a lot to find or setup local tech meet ups.

It seems to be really starting to make a difference though, there's more of a sense of a growing tech community in LA now (a welcome relief from the entertainment buzz). Hopefully it'll keep growing.

So while I agree its definately harder than it is in the Silicon Valley, its not impossible. There are other people out there doing startups, you just have to proactively try and find them and bring them together if someone else isn't doing so already in your area.

<comment><USER20> Also being in LA, I'd say the major difference is really the access to funding and to deal-making in general.

I haven't been looking for funding so much, but I've heard frustrated stories from those who have. There just isn't the kind of widespread network that includes angels and VCs like there is up north.

It is nice to see more non-entertainment-related tech startups in LA, but honestly there's a long way to go.

Also, maybe it's just me, but there's still a geographic issue. It seems like startup activity was split between Santa Monica, Irvine, Pasadena, Encino and Hollywood for the longest time.

I think we can say the Santa Monica and west-of-WeHo area has won, at least since Yahoo moved their Overture group to the Santa Monica campus. About time, but this is just the ground floor. Funding sources are still spread all around too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good ideas and products are born everywhere in the world. At some point in the life of a product however you do need money to grow, compete, etc. At this time if your idea is significant enough you might need investment and Si Valley is a good place to be. Lately though VCs have been setting up shop in India and China. So really if there is a critical mass of talent, ideas and a market to boot, Silicon Valley will come to you.

</comment><comment><USER21> one of the conveniences of starting up in SV is that the resources are all close by, which makes going to a lecture, attending a meetup, meeting with investors etc., etc, less of a big deal. If you travel in for these events on occasion you have much higher expectations of what you get from them and you don't get the benefit of at least being that person that saw whom ever you want to talk with a event x, y, and z.

</comment><comment><USER12> In certain startup areas like Web apps it is changing, albeit slowly. A Web app company can be created by a few people (even one) successfully on very little (if no significant amount) of money. And it is becoming easier to find local co-founders because there are so many programmers who know or can learn the technologies at play and don't want to move to California.

</comment><comment><USER22> While we're talking about location, avoid San Diego if you don't want to live in a sprawling automobile-metropolis where the only decent jobs involve making toys for the Pentagon. The restaurants, almost all fast food or chain, with their generic soaked-cardboard food, are copied and pasted around endlessly. Jesus christ.

</comment><comment><USER23> DC? Try doing a startup in Europe. Now there's a challenge...

<comment><USER24> Try doing a startup in Eastern Europe. That is really painful, believe me :)

<comment><USER25> I've read that Estonia is quite startup-friendly these days. Is your experience different?

<comment><USER26> Given that Steve Jurvetson is Estonian, I wouldn't be surprised. There must be something in the water in that country - it seems 'produce' an inordinately large number of brilliant people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Flickr, Zoho, Flirtomatic. It is not hard to start a startup outside the valley, it is simply "harder". It won't be easy no matter where you are.</comment>


Taking History Personally - <AUTHOR> https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/modernity-conspiracy-theory-jill-lepore/ <comment><USER2> The problem with this whole line of thought is that, in reality, conspiracies abound. History is _full_ of conspiracies.

The idea that all things are all just emergent phenomena created by laws and economics, that no groups of humans are trying to manipulate things, everybody is incompetent, and nobody is responsible for anything is absurd. It conflicts with reality.

In reality, everyone is engaged in conspiracies. Everyone is trying to manipulate things in some way, and some groups of people have far more influence than others. That's what it means to have power and influence.

It is true that people that are really into conspiracy theories often believe things on far too little evidence. However, that doesn't mean that conspiracies don't exist, or that they are not important.

<comment><USER3> Exactly this.

Example: Operation Iraqi Freedom was predicated on a government conspiracy that Saddam Hussein had nukes.

<comment><USER4> And the problem with the

> rise of the conspiracy theory

narrative is that history is full of really bad conspiracy theories. Stuff like George W. Bush personally riding in on a pegasus and finding the nukes but just as he was going to take them a thousand demons appeared and spirited the nukes away, conclusively proving Hussein's covenant with the devil.

<comment><USER5> >> George W. Bush personally riding in on a pegasus

Wtf? People who believe this stuff should have no say on elections

<comment><USER4> I wanted to juxtapose the modern context with what people were fell for in the past.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mojolicious::Lite (light web framework built on top of Mojolicious) - <AUTHOR> http://labs.kraih.com/blog/2009/07/mojoliciouslite.html <comment><AUTHOR> There is longer post on Mojolicious::Lite here:

<http://labs.kraih.com/blog/2009/07/perl-is-awesome.html>

</comment><comment><USER2> More like, "light" object system, web server, URL dispatcher, and IOC framework. Why use libraries when you can do it all yourself?</comment>


Ask HN: PhpMyAdmin alternatives? - <AUTHOR> I've been looking at some alternatives but they are often really old or not nice enough. I've been phpMyAdmin for quite a few years now but with all the new technologies, html5 and the improvements there are on webapps I'm starting to feel it falls short. Can't do things like edit a column name from the table structure view and quite a few other things that make it not productive enough.<p>Any ideas? <comment><USER2> This isnt web based but i use mysql workbench. Great tool. Has lots of little time saving features like table templates (can quickly right click and add a new table based upon a template u have created. Real time saver) and many many other goodies.

[https://www.mysql.com/products/workbench/](https://www.mysql.com/products/workbench/)

<comment><USER3> I'll second MySQL Workbench. For me the other big win over PhpMyAdmin is the security. With PhpMyAdmin, you have to install it on the server you're managing. Which exposes your app to all the security bugs that PhpMyAdmin could possibly introduce. What I love about MySQL Workbench is that it takes a completely different approach; you actually ssh into your server to manage it. It's just a GUI on top of the mysql command line. I'm not saying that PhpMyAdmin is inherently insecure, just that if a bug does exist, you've just exposed your production server to said bug.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sequel if you're a fan of desktop apps.

If you need something just like phpmyAdmin with better UI : SQLBuddy [http://sqlbuddy.com/](http://sqlbuddy.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm a fan of Sequal Pro if a desktop application would work for you. [http://www.sequelpro.com/](http://www.sequelpro.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> You could just use MySQL from the command line. But if you're looking to a GUI I can't help you.

</comment><comment><USER7> i've started using JKiss's DBeaver (java/Eclipse based) database management tool. If you're on a Desktop it's pretty nice.

</comment><comment><USER8> HeidiSQL</comment>


Ask HN: How do IPOs and ICOs help a business raise capital? - <AUTHOR> Ask HN: How do IPOs and ICOs help a business raise capital?
IPO: "Initial Public Offering"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering
ICO: "Initial Coin Offering"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_coin_offering <comment><AUTHOR> """

IPO: "Initial Public Offering"

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

ICO: "Initial Coin Offering"

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

"""</comment>


Deep learning helps debug biology - <AUTHOR> http://20n.com/blog.html#most-recent <comment><USER2> Unbiased analysis of cells thanks to deep learning; really fascinating work!</comment>


37signals Losing Lustre? Why I Miss The Adoring Fans (simpler is better?!) - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/home/tabid/3339/bid/2161/37signals-Losing-Lustre-Why-I-Miss-The-Adoring-Fans.aspx

<comment><USER2> YC tried highrise. It is not good. I actually went to the trouble of telling Fried what seemed broken about it, and got back a reply saying everybody else loved it, so I must be wrong.

<comment><USER3> What didn't you like about it? I checked out highrise and figured that I wasn't their target market... I just couldn't figure out what to do with it.

<comment><USER2> I can't remember very precisely. One problem was that we couldn't create a contact without a first name. Another was that it took so many keystrokes to add a new contact. I think another was that you could only see a few per page.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> my current company still finds basecamp a valuable tool, but that's because we're not large enough to have someone doing fulltime project management. Of course, we don't need anything beyond a glorified to-do list -- which is good, because that's pretty much basecamp's core competency.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm still using Basecamp for some stuff, it's pretty good for distributed teams. I tried Backpack, though, and it has seemed to actually make my life more difficult.

</comment><comment><USER6> You can't be the flavour-of-the-month every month. The article seems a bit like hastily written link spam.

<comment><USER3> What is it with the link spam accusations every time somebody shares an opinion?

Isn't "link spam" what the blogosphere is all about? The guy's sharing an opinion, and being familiar with this blog, and educated one at that.

Enough with this ridiculous accusation already.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough. Perhaps my first sentence would have been better on its own.

I don't think it is unreasonable to note a disconnect between the article's title and the content. I guess I was hoping for something more substantial. Maybe, an educated opinion on highrise vs. earlier products.

Saying something is getting less buzz/blog-hype over time could be said about almost anything.

<comment><USER3> Good point, but it's still an interesting observation. 37signals was everywhere in 2006, and now, not so much.

I'm not sure how that translates to anything meaningful, or whether it's just that their message has been received by the audience already.

Personally, I think they have reached a work threshold for their team. They haven't expanded all that much from the original core group, (not that they want to) but they've increased the products they service. There are only so many hours in a day.

I'm actually interested in seeing what happens to them in terms of their "keep it small" mantra and the obvious desire - and need, considering their marketing prowess - to introduce new products.

<comment><USER6> Now _that_ has the making of an interesting blog post!

Seriously though, you are touching some key points here.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your passwords? - <AUTHOR> I want to switch to some password manager, or maybe self-host one. What do you use? Maybe you have some suggestion on moving it one step further? <comment><USER2> Keepass, with the database file stored in Google Drive. Drive is reliable enough to always keep the file updated correctly, as long as you only update it when you have an internet connection. I almost only ever enter passwords when on the internet, so that's not an issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://bitwarden.com](https://bitwarden.com)

<comment><USER4> +1 for bitwarden, it's open source and you can host your own PW store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use Password Gorilla: [https://github.com/zdia/gorilla/wiki](https://github.com/zdia/gorilla/wiki)

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you use it on mobile devices?

<comment><USER5> The compatible PasswdSafe app:

[https://sourceforge.net/p/passwdsafe/wiki/Home/](https://sourceforge.net/p/passwdsafe/wiki/Home/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> java-man I use Passwørd Safe

[https://github.com/andy-goryachev/PasswordSafe](https://github.com/andy- goryachev/PasswordSafe)</comment>


Incentivized Mesh Networking Platform - <AUTHOR> https://hack.ether.camp/idea/incentivized-mesh-networking-platform <comment><AUTHOR> >> erase technical barriers by creating a virtual, map based infrastructure for easy deployment and management of mesh-networks (smart contract based) - enabling anyone to act as an ISP.</comment>


Amazon CloudFront vs. Rackspace Cloud Files CDN Performance | Chris Meller - <AUTHOR> http://chrismeller.com/2009/10/amazon-cloudfront-vs-rackspace-cloudfiles-cdn-performance/ <comment><USER2> Rackspace Cloud Files CDN is powered by Limelight, which is a big player in the CDN market. Limelight has a much bigger footprint, so it is likelier that there will be an edge server closer to the end user (or Pingdom's servers).

<comment><USER3> Does pingdom ping from multiple locations?</comment></comment>


What a tangled web we weave from - <AUTHOR> http://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2009/09/oh-atangled-web-we-weave-from.html <comment><AUTHOR> Technologies like GWT and pyjamas aren't the solution because, right now, they are leaky abstractions ([http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html))</comment>


Ask HN: Does a Linux distro that "just works" even exist? - <AUTHOR> I've been distro hopping for weeks, both on my desktop and laptop, in hope to find some magic distro that would just work out of the box like mainstream OSes like Windows and macOS do.
Maybe not the best strategy but honestly I don't really wish to spend hours to get the audio working just so I can move on and go fix the next issue.
I really want to use Linux for work so bad but all the issues I've encountered are setting me off:
1) Audio not working or distorted playback or recording 2) Not smooth animations and everything feeling jittery and laggy in general 3) Low battery life 4) Running jobs preventing the system shutdown for whathever reason on a fresh install
Also I've had problems with files management (eg: I once needed to copy a 1GB file to my USB drive, KDE showed an instant 100% progress but hanged there for minutes before I got frustrated and gave up) and window managment (eg: some programs are not maximed when I click on their icon in kde).
I've done everything in dual boot alongside Windows and, to be honest, booting back to Windows after trying a new distro made the difference really clear, Windows works much better out of the box. This is unfortunate because Windows will never provide the same development workspace that Linux can. But right now, it seems like the best solution is running an Ubuntu server VM.
Has anyone else experienced the same problems? <comment><USER2> I am not sure to answer your question but I was a long time Ubuntu user (2007) even if I am not an expert.

In recent years I feel it looks like many things were broken in Ubuntu, including the video.

Now I use the Trisquel Linux mini, also a Debian derivative, and so far it is much better than modern versions of Ubuntu.

[https://trisquel.info/](https://trisquel.info/)

</comment><comment><USER3> No, never had mentioned problems. I'm using Debian GNU/Linux exclusively since 10 years on various computers, and most of the time it just worked seamlessly. But usually I run older hardware. If I buy something new, I first assure myself about the Linux capability of the box.

<comment><USER4> Same here - linux user for like 20 years, last 5-7 have been debian. I user it at home and work (3 HDMI monitors) no issues. I have a few things that don't work in the enterprise environment (Skype mostly works, cant transfer files or make calls directly - using Pidgin and SIPE; Evolution with Exchange connector is just OK, sometimes the Address book barfs; no Visio level drawing tool where I can share drawings with co-workers - have to use Windows laptop). But, everything else just works - running Gnome 3.22.3 - I am a NetSec engineer and I develop apps for my team using Python (PyCharm with Snap) - so, not totally FREE, but totally works and made my workflow faster and better. Tilda and Terminator as emulators, ZSH (best shell ever) - all in all, never going back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Answer: Yes. Download a Ubuntu CD from 10 years ago.</comment>


Show HN: Fast Self-Resizing Bloom Filter Alternative - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/AMDComputeLibraries/morton_filter <comment><AUTHOR> Fast Bloom Filter Alternative that Supports Deletions and Self-Resizing. It is fast when the filter is bigger than last level cache and uses less memory than a Bloom filter for target false positive rates under about 1% to 3%. It is based on the cuckoo filter, but lookups, insertions, and deletions are, respectively, up to 2.5x, 15x, and 1.3x faster.

The posted code is the implementation for our paper from the 2018 VLDB Conference.</comment>


Would you pass the test to get a job with Thomas A. Edison? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nps.gov/edis/learn/education/the-edison-test.htm

<comment><USER2> I tell you what: I did a lot better on this test than I have done during certain programming technical interviews in the past. Interesting and diverse set of questions Edison asked potential employees, at the same time kind of cool the questions were more general knowledge than they were specific to electronics or science.</comment>


How to 'save' newspapers? Charge $345 for web access - <AUTHOR> http://news.newspaperproject.org/2009/06/charging-lot-for-news-online-newport.html

<comment><USER3> After reading the article, I really can't come up with a plausible explanation for this scheme beyond incompetence and mismanagement.

I'd pondered the idea that some newspapers will keep a print sideline to hit the markets that aren't thoroughly online, but now I suspect that very few newspapers will survive as organizations in the first place. They - <USER2> local ones - are doing _everything_ they can to avoid adapting. They're going to crash and burn, not transform.

So it goes.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how many people actually reads the paper online.</comment>


Trump removes privacy rights from non-U.S. citizens - <AUTHOR> https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united <comment><USER2> Trump removes privacy rights of criminals during the commission of a felony crime.

FTFY

<comment><USER3> Disturbingly, it includes people who haven't been proven guilty of a crime. I'm all for deporting convicted criminals, but this executive order says that you can be deported if you're accused of a crime. That's messed up. With the reality that there's a non trivial amount of law enforcement officers that charge people for things they are not guilty of, there's going to be innocent, law abiding immigrants that are kicked out.

<comment><USER2> I'm here on a J1 working visa. I agreed to equally draconian restrictions as part of that process. I've had my fingerprints taken, been photographed, my eyeballs scanned, a criminal and financial background check executed and an in-person interview at the US embassy in London at 8am, all at my expense.

If something happens at the airport and I am delayed leaving before my visa expires, I will never be allowed in the country again.

But if I flee to a Sanctuary City I am free to stay here forever.

That's messed up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Super worried about section 10, b:

""" (b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens. """

When the WH press secretary openly lies about something trivially proveable as "yup, not as many people were on the mall his year than in 2009 or on the women's March", how can anyone really trust stuff coming from the Trump administration?</comment>