Vertical Swing Labels - <AUTHOR> https://news.kynosarges.org/2019/09/17/vertical-swing-labels/ <comment><AUTHOR> And a quick follow-up post on Swing hyperlink labels (i.e. customized buttons). I'm using both in my own projects, pretty simple classes but they work as intended. [https://news.kynosarges.org/2019/09/17/swing-hyperlink- label...](https://news.kynosarges.org/2019/09/17/swing-hyperlink-labels/)</comment>


How Venezuela Imploded - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/21/498867764/episode-731-how-venezuela-imploded <comment><USER3> China is, roughly speaking, on the other end of the spectrum from Venezuela: import mainly low value stuff like raw materials, manufacture and export almost everything else, create as large a trade surplus as possible, educate your work force, force people off rural land and into the cities to work, emphasize capital formation. Seems to have been quite successful.

Saudia Arabia seems closer to Venezuela than it is to China, and yet, it has at least saved a huge pile of cash, much of which is invested in valuable companies like Twitter.

My guess is that the US is closer to Venezuela than it is to China.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is it just me or is this show just a really bad explanation ? I'm not even talking about the subject per se. They constantly jump from one thing to anoter, interrupt, ... and the explanations of the concepts I know are just pretty bad. They make enormous leaps without so much as an attempt to justify them ...

Not worth listening to. They're repeating some of the soundbytes in newspapers, and that's all.

<comment><AUTHOR> if you have some good links, i'd love to hear :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although the bad policies have contributed to the current state - it is really about the ideology and corruption of the rulers - billions of $$$ have been stolen. Anything from the "imperio" (USA) is evil- including paying for the bills towards maintaining the oil industry - the only source of income - <USER2> to that falling oil prices - leaves most of the money available for stealing - and the little left is used towards demagogic promises to keep buying votes. But the people have wised up and are no longer buying it - which has made the government violate clauses of the constitution to stay in power and continue to empty the coffers while they last...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A real tragedy.

A socialist utopia that was so hell-bent on opposing any economic policy tainted by USA or UN hands, it basically did the opposite, every step of the way.

This is a great counter-example showing how modern economic theory is probably a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER6> Serious Question: What happened to all the Gold that Chavez repatriated?</comment>


Zendesk raises their prices 60%-300%, users predictably revolt - <AUTHOR> https://support.zendesk.com/entries/174769-introducing-new-features-new-starter-plan-and-new-pricing <comment><USER2> Alternatives: <http://www.activecampaign.com/help-desk-software/>

<http://www.kayako.com/>

<http://webhelpdesk.com/>

<http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/default.jsp>

<http://tenderapp.com/>

<http://www.cerberusweb.com/>

<http://www.thevisionworld.com/>

<http://www.autotask.com/software/service_desk.htm>

<comment><USER3> Anyone tried out <http://www.assistly.com> yet?

<comment><USER4> Yup, but it is still very much in its in infancy as far as features are concerned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen ZenDesk pricing has always confused me. They always pitched themselves as 'for the small smart guys' with all the 37s type philosophies that were popular at the time.

And I looked at the product and thought "Wow, this product is actually quite nice!".

But we had 5 staff and only one full time support person, but everyone needed an account. The starting price was a bit rich for how small we were and I met the head evangelist and told him I thought the pricing was a bit off.

I said it was too much for the small guys, and not high enough for the big businesses who pay ridiculous amounts of money for software services (Joel Spolsky has a post on this somewhere...).

His response was "Oh, you guys can have it for free for 6 months!", and I said "But then we'll be locked in, and have to pay heaps in 6 months time."

We ended up using eSupport (which is a complete piece of shit) and now we have a different set up of support users, we could justify the cost of ZenDesk given the current size and set up of the company but now we're locked in to eSupport!

If they just had lower prices for the little guys they'd have got us. They're bloody mad, I tell you.

<comment><USER5> "We ended up using eSupport ( _which is a complete piece of shit_ )"

Whenever I read something like this I can't help but think "Here's a potential customer to whomever can get this right and at the right price". It seems like there's still a huge opening in this market for someone to come in and take all of ZenDesk _and_ eSupport's customers.

<comment><USER6> Do you really think so?

It always struck me that there was 1001 support desk providers out there... is there really that much space?

(cos if so it's going on my list of maybe projects :))

<comment><USER7> There's always space for someone who does it better and/or cheaper than the competition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Regardless of who's side you fall on, I think this is a pretty good example of why allowing public comments is a bit of a dangerous move.

(Clearly the more dangerous move here was the price hike, but I do not know the internals of the company that led to the decision, or the interest that it was in, so I will not comment on that so much.)

It is tough to imagine them recoverving from the sort of mob-rule that has formed in that comment thread, even if they restore current pricing plans. So much doubt was created amongst the users, which of course spread to twitter, here, and others, and you can see the discussion clearly degrade from concern to rage.

Public interaction with users can be helpful to show a personal side of the company and try to show a strong effort for support/interaction, but do not forget that this risk exists. As with anything, use with caution.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure you're right.

The backlash would be expressed elsewhere, here at least it's in a place they cannot afford to ignore.

Their actions going forward, e.g. if they purge the posting with the links to competitors, will tell us a lot about them and how they're going to deal with this.

Also note this could be part of an internal faction fight, one faction who's against this move may have wanted this so that they can show this immediate and detailed feedback from current customers to those in the company who put this in place.

In general, I find most "supress information and communications" strategies to not work well, and this is ever more true the more we build our communications infrastructures.

"The truth is out there" and pretending otherwise is likely to be futile.

<comment><USER10> We allow public comments on our SaaS blog, but we don't use things like UserVoice for these reasons…

If the issue is a minor annoyance, people will be minorly annoyed. They will probably write support; we'll handle it; they'll get personal service; everybody's happy.

Until they see that other people have it too, and have the option to "vote it up," etc. That way, a minor annoyance a person would live with -- and be happy that you fixed -- becomes a major gripe.

Basically, your customer's interaction should be with you, not other customers, unless other customers are part of the "features" of your product. Because other customers will misrepresent, inflame, etc., meanwhile the initial irritated customer will have his/her first interaction with a tool, not a human being.

The moment they interact with a respectful person AT the company, they will calm down. Not so with a comment form.

Basically, it's an argument that goes both ways :)

<comment><USER9> Indeed, it most certainly goes both ways.

But at a certain point in its growth if a company doesn't maintain their own forums alternative ones that they don't have _any_ control over or maybe even knowledge of will spring up. And that will happen instantly in the case of an atrocity like this one.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." If you pull a move that turns a lot of the former in to the latter, well, that bit of advice is probably all the stronger.

Of course, you need to actually respond to them if it's to be of any good and that doesn't seem to be happening as of yet.

<comment><USER10> I totally see your point.

The other school of thought says, though, that if there's not a single point for them all to coalesce around, the uproar won't happen.

If you're determined to screw your customers, of course, nothing will stop them ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do my eyes deceive me or are companies with 20 employees _at their help desk_ complaining that a thousand bucks is a lot of money?

I think we are seeing a later day MMORPG forum. At some point, it is easier to argue for a patch for your class than get 1 pct more stats, so you stop playing the game and start playing the boards. ZenDesk is the vendor most likely to drop prices by 1k for a single fauxraged posting, so start your keyboards.

<comment><USER12> If there is one thing that I have learnt from "Predictably Irrational" book, it is that humans make their money-related decisions by having a reference point. Zendesk could have always been priced at thousand bucks and no one would have complained. But once you set the price, you provide your customers with a reference point which they are going to use. You can't run away from that.

For example, even though Microsoft Office probably provides a lot more value than what it costs, it they doubled their prices overnight, would you not expect any outrage?

<comment><USER13> Its funny as we move to SAAS models this seems to be a bigger issue. With Desktop apps you could just stick people on a version and let them keep their existing pricing plan with some sort of dedicated EOL. Anyone wanting a newer/better/prettier version would need to pay for the upgrade.

This breaks down severely on these web models, where you're more inclined to start out with a lower price and feature set while you gain customers, but want to increase the price as you add features (and value)

Its sticky and makes setting your first price point a more critical game.

I wonder if people have thought about "versioning" their SAAS apps. (do they? I don't have a ton of familiarity here). Personally I think Zendesk has to reward their early customers by keeping them at their current rate.

<comment><USER14> You could try introducing a tiered pricing model. Allowing users on a lower tier to trial features on a higher tier (or introducing the higher-tier features at a limited mode) might help convert users up.

<comment><USER15> This is what we're looking at with our new startup. We have a core featureset that will probably carry a subscription but other than scaling with more 'users' (in our case, employees), I'm not sure of other ways to increase the price without screwing people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If there's one thing I've learned from Apple, it's that innovation within a price point makes happy, comfortable customers.

It's a scary precedent to set by saying that every new feature Zendesk adds, they're going to charge you for. Innovation should be the baseline.

</comment><comment><USER17> This seems to be a good example for the idea of setting your prices at the right level from very early on. Much better to err on the expensive side then drop them later than significant rises like these. Or initially offer a special deal so people know it will eventually cost more.

Similar thing happens when going from freemium/ indirect revenue to charging. There was a big backlash when invision board did that, even though they could say there product was as good as the paid competition (Vbulletin). They had built a lot of their success on the back of a free product.

<comment> X-Istence Well, the backslash against Invision Board was mainly because the main guy that was working on it had promised that the product would stay free forever, and suddenly he started charging for it.

I have two licenses from 2005 and 2006 respectively and each one of them was fairly cheap compared to the $149.99 that it costs now, also I've got a perpetual license meaning I get free support, and free downloads of the latests versions for life, whereas the new ones are for 6 months of support, and for 6 months of new downloads, after that you are stuck on whatever version you happen to have purchased.

$149.99 is pretty expensive for a piece of software, considering I can get an entire OS upgrade for $129 from Apple, which does MUCH more than a forum. I'll just keep my luck and my grandfathered accounts alive, knowing I am going to get the value I want out of those accounts.

<comment><USER12> The issue isn't about an OS being much more than a forum (whatever that means), the issue is actually size of potential market. There are millions of users who would use an OS, but do you think the size of market is same for forums as well? Software doesn't cost high because it costs high to make it, actually it costs higher because the company making it has to survive and make profit (given the total size of market). (Or, of course, it can start making OSes).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't understand why they're charging more per user as you scale. I don't know that I've ever seen a service like this.

More typical would be $12 per mo per agent from 1-3. $10 from 4-20, etc.

What's crazy is their service is considerably more expensive than hosted Exchange servers (which give you volume discounts, not increases) though Exchange probably costs a lot more to run. We use Zendesk and like it, but if we ever get to 20 or more support guys the business case for building our own ticketing system will be a slam dunk.

<comment><USER11> _I don't understand why they're charging more per user as you scale._

Price discrimination between business types. An enterprise is not a collection of 1,200 one-man companies.

<comment><USER18> I don't know that there's much of a difference between a company with 3 support guys and one with 4. But regardless, like I mentioned, hosted exchange will service a fortune 500 company at a lower price per inbox than they will service my little group of 11.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We used Zendesk over a year ago with about 4-5 agent accounts. We cancelled it because no one wanted to log into it and we were having a lot of support issues. Fast forward some time and we start up an account again because our support definitely grew beyond a shared support Gmail interface.

We're still using it now but we're also using Assistly.com in tandem. Assistly is in beta but there are great guys behind it and they listen very closely to product feedback. I absolutely expect a full transition from Zendesk in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is it just me, or do they have a terrible home page (as far as telling you what their products do)? I had never heard of them before this post, and from the name my first thought was that it was some kind of computer desktop sharing service. I think I figured out from the HN posts that it is helpdesk software. I think that's a pretty major failure on their part.

</comment><comment><USER21> You can also think one step ahead. When you build your business around a SaaS offer, it is exactly like the old Microsoft way, you depend on the offer and you can be locked in.

Surprisingly people get all excited by the new services with great API, nice teams behind them, bootstrapped, etc. but forget that when you do that you explicitly tell: "Yes provider XYZ, I accept to depend on you and to let you partially control my business.".

This is why for my small bootstrapped project management/code hosting offer I propose a full daily backup and the software as GPL at the same time.

That way my customers get the comfort of SaaS and the freedom of the GPL as they can migrate away without pain. I secured a couple of companies with 10+ active coders this way. They know they can download the software (which has an active community) and install it on their system if they want, when they want, for free. Finally a bit like what Wordpress is doing.

</comment><comment><USER22> To be fair, they are allowing customers to grandfather their pricing for a year: [https://support.zendesk.com/entries/173169-new- grandfatherin...](https://support.zendesk.com/entries/173169-new- grandfathering-terms)

However:

> "As a result, the new pricing reflects the added business value of each > individual plan."

I read that entire post and I was unable to find the added business value, these features all seem like they should be part of the product not really premium stuff.

<comment><USER23> That grandfathering requires paying the year upfront, though.

<comment><USER24> They said later in the comments that it is possible to pay quarterly and still receive the grandfathering...

<comment><USER23> They said "you can change your billing cycle to a quarterly cycle in order to extend grandfathering beyond July 1st billing cycle" - so one additional quarter, if you prepay for that quarter, followed by the increased prices.

The only way you get current prices for another year is by prepaying by July 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't see why changing prices is a big deal. Apparently there's some pent-up frustration, but there is a real cost to keeping services online. If the price of electronic books doesn't increase over the next two years, I'll be astonished.

And in fact, there's real danger to a business in terms of how they price their product. We were early adopters of RightNow, and we still pay an absurdly low price for their product (which we host) compared to other people, all because it's grandfathered in. Now this hurts them less because we host it, but you can imagine if they had to grandfather us in at the prices they were charging when they were new, it could really hurt them.

<comment><USER9> I don't get the impression that they prepared their customer base for this. E.g. you know why you're paying "an absurdly low price" for RightNow and you should't be surprised if things change in an adverse way. E.g. I don't know anything about your and their situation, but say they grow so big they have to move to AWS and now providing service to you costs them cash money. You wouldn't be surprised if at the very least they passed that new cost of "goods" through to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It seems like the are requiring the grandfathered customers to pre-pay a full year because maintaining two monthly pricing structures is more trouble to manage.

But I'm curious what kind of blowback a company like this might face if existing customers were grandfathered into the old pricing plan for life. Would new customers resent existing customers? Without knowing Zendesk's financial situation, it's hard to know whether they're doing this out of necessity ... but it seems like the goodwill to the customers that made them what they are would be worth the trouble of managing two different pricing tiers.

<comment><USER27> It seems like they could just create a new product/sku/whatever for each of the new pricing points and then stop selling the old products. You can't buy into the old subscription but it's no biggy to continue to bill it.

The way they're doing it looks like a money grab (pay more now or pay up front for a year and then more later!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Unfortunately this kind of moves from different companies affect the entire SaaS space.

There has always been a degree of uncertainty when committing your business to one service like this... what if they increase the prices? what if they will close? what if they turn bad and close my data behind a payed wall? will they be able to keep the service up most of the time (just think of the time when Gmail went down..)? And so on...

This is only going to make this worries a bigger issue when choosing to commit to one of these services.

</comment><comment><USER29> Most customers won't leave - despite their whining. Customers stay based on value for them, the do not go based on the percentage of the increase.

</comment><comment><USER30> Useful link for HelpSpot (or other self hosted help desk software) vs Zendesk <http://www.helpspot.com/helpspot-vs-zendesk/>

</comment><comment><USER31> Why don't they change the price for new users, and leave the price for existing customers? Seems like the default way to increase your prices with minimal friction.

</comment><comment><USER32> I had been evaluating using ZenDesk for our new help desk. Does anyone use any other help desk products that are inexpensive (3 agents) and easy to use?

</comment><comment><USER33> Sounds like the dot com business model all over again.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think anyone who uses ZenDesk will know that they don't love their users, or treat their tool like a serious business. (More like a cashcow.) Their software is horrible.

There are 6 different ways to view the single table of incoming messages, and it's nondeterministic which one you will come to at any given time. And the first time you accidentally send an internal message to a customer, instead of your team - since the form is the same - you will realize that they must know about that problem, for months even, and have never fixed it.

We were paying $100/mo for ZenDesk around a year ago, and the price was fine. Theoretically good value for the money. But every one of my team hated it so much, they would never actually log in.

<comment><USER34> I need to setup a helpdesk system next week. Any recommendations?

Our key requirement is to be able to reassign incoming tickets and have simple notification to the person it was reassigned.

<comment><USER35> I don't recall if RT from Best Practical has the particular feature, but otherwise it's a well-rounded and battle proven solution. It's ugly as hell though.

<comment><USER36> I love RT. Real solid product with great hackers behind it. And you did not mention that it is open source and takes hardly 1-2 hours if you know your way through CPAN and Apache.

The latest 3.8 is not that bad with new theme.

I can even do a free install/setup for any non-profit.

<http://bestpractical.com/rt/>

And don't forget the <http://hiveminder.com/> from same company.

EDIT: Added links.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anybody here successfully raised prices without a major blowback? I'd love to hear how you did it (as opposed to these clowns).

<comment><USER37> Easy: Grandfather every existing customer, permanently.

<comment><USER10> That's not really an answer.

If you're raising prices because of a profit issue, then you are prepared to lose some customers (the least profitable ones) so you can better serve the ones that give you a profit.

Which is why I asked for strategies that worked, not "Don't."

<comment><USER23> How is that not an answer? Do you think ZenDesk has anywhere near saturated their market? Why should a company that's aiming to grow take the marketing hit that comes from pissing off their current customers? Why turn potential evangelists into angry detractors?

<comment><USER10> Why would you assume that market saturation is the goal instead of the highest possible profit margin?

Not everyone thinks saturation is economically viable, or even desirable. And honestly, in a market like SaaS web apps, it would be very hard to achieve, even at rock bottom prices. A help desk tool, no matter how crappy, is not a true commodity. One will serve a given customer better than another.

Also: I wasn't asking about ZenDesk, I was asking for other examples.

In my consulting business, I raised my rates from $75 to $300 in a couple of years. I wasn't going for saturation, and I didn't grandfather at all. But that is a 1:1 relationship with clients, and I radically changed my business over that time. I also raised the price of my ebook package from $24 to $39 but that was not the same customers, being that it was a one-time sale.

I am a big believer in raising prices. I like more money from fewer customers, which means I can simultaneously work less, and have higher quality interactions with my customers. It's a win/win/win.

My SaaS is one of the most expensive in our category, and for good reason. We're growing at a nice pace, too. I want to think about how we might raise prices, if we decide to, and for future products that I am planning.

And that is why I wanted real examples. Which other people were able to provide me.

Thanks, other commentors.

<comment><USER23> I didn't say saturation should be a goal, I said that they didn't have anything like it and therefore had room to grow. When each additional paying customer over a certain number is almost pure profit, the number of customers you have is a pretty important factor in determining how to reach the highest possible profit margin, but you know that.

Nobody in this thread ever said "don't raise prices", so I don't really understand why you're preaching the price-raising religion so hard. Fine, yes, raise prices, but grandfathering existing users might be an easy way to do so without causing a backlash that might hurt your ability to acquire new customers at the raised prices. It's certainly not such a stupid idea as to be "not really an answer", like you claim.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fukushima's ground zero: No place for man or robot - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-decommissioning-idUSKCN0WB2X5 <comment><USER2> Recent Greenpeace article re Fukushima: The environmental impacts are already becoming apparent, with studies showing:

\- High radiation concentrations in new leaves, and at least in the case of cedar, in pollen;

\- apparent increases in growth mutations of fir trees with rising radiation levels;

\- heritable mutations in pale blue grass butterfly populations and DNA- damaged worms in highly contaminated areas, as well as apparent reduced fertility in barn swallows;

\- decreases in the abundance of 57 bird species with higher radiation levels over a four year study; and

\- high levels of caesium contamination in commercially important freshwater fish; and radiological contamination of one of the most important ecosystems – coastal estuaries.

[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/20...](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Fukushima- nuclear-disaster-will-impact-forests-rivers-and-estuaries-for-hundreds-of- years-warns-Greenpeace-report-/)

<comment><USER3> Coming out of an ecology program? And observing the Chernobyl data?

None of that is remotely as damaging to the natural environment as continued human habitation of the area that has been evacuated. Cry not for the fishes and birds, for they are better off with slight genetic damage than they are with us.

The threshold at which people become uncomfortable about radiation is several orders of magnitude lower than the threshold at which it causes population decline in wild populations, and people cause declines and extirpations in wild populations all the time.

<comment><USER4> So a rational ecology program should advocate irradiating wide swathes of land?

Of course the people displaced from the area didn't disappear, they're affecting wildlife somewhere else. Seems like mostly zero sum in that specific regard.

<comment><USER5> There's a major question in ecology of how we feel about our "anthropocentric" civilization. For many environmentally conscious thinkers it seems like a world without humans would be preferable.

<comment><USER3> A world without humans would be _necessary_ to fulfill their goals of the environment being unmolested by humans. We cannot live in perfect harmony. That's not a thing.

At best, we can establish areas that look roughly like they used to look before humans, but this is no less deliberate design than the styrofoam rocks at the zoo, it's just on a different scale. Many such areas are, in fact, better seen as zoos, because of their small size or limited variety. Most of the productive arable land is predictably already being used for something by somebody.

Personally, I'm a humanist. The worst things environmental devastation can do to us are disrupt some of our services, like agricultural collapses; After that environmentalism is mostly a romantic or novelty-based aesthetic, albeit an attractive one. Pit it against human lives and human profit, and groups of humans will nearly always make the same decision.

EDIT: Worth tacking on, for some perspective: [https://xkcd.com/1338/](https://xkcd.com/1338/)

<comment><USER6> As much as i abhor commenting online do bear with me. You say that "We cannot live in perfect harmony". That's not a thing", however what is this in comparison to. Surely this would be comparative to the rest of the eco-system. Animals make changes, they create habitats and dam rivers, however as it is more rudimentary (sticks and holes in earth) we dont consider it a change to the enviroment.

Creating our homes in a more ecological and recycleable way would be in perfect harmony. The arguement is whether we should go further and drastically change the enviroment, do we have the right as the dominant species on the planet to abuse its resources for ourselves (as seen in the attached xkcd whose figures roughly show the populations of mammals who we have artifically inflated to such proportions for our dietray wants).

So if we changed our architechture and agriculture then yes we could live in perfect sync and harmony, it's just that we wont.

<comment><USER7> There is no such thing as "harmony" in nature. Species come and go, some destroy their own habit, others drive their competitors to extinction. We do need to be careful about how we use natural resources and that we don't change our environment in a way that is detrimental to us. But understand that change is the status quo for nature, that's especially easy to miss when it happens on timescales longer than a human life, but happen it does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand how "each robot has to be custom built for each building" and "takes two years to build".

I mean, they don't need Atlas here. They just need a ruggedized remote control car with a camera and a ton of lead plate on it.

<comment><USER9> Friend of BillinghamJ here.

We do build mock facilities and we have recently started working on the Fukushima Daiichi inspections, and there is only so much I can actually say but I'll share what I can. I'll explain what caused the failure in this part and then I'll move onto the fun stuff in the next post (robots!).

In the past, the mock facilities we have made in the past were a quarter of a full scale reactor, rather than a quarter scale reactor, if that makes any sense at all.

Anyway back to Japan. I'm assuming people have a basic understanding of how fission reactors work (Boiling Water Reactors if you are interested in doing further reading).

To break the situation down, the cooling failed (believe it or not, diesel generators don't work too well on water!) on reactors 1, 2 and 3, causing a complete meltdown of the fuel rods. When cooling failed, all of the cooling water was turned into steam, which in turn reacted with the released radioactive isotopes creating hydrogen. I'm assuming people know mixing hydrogen with oxygen is basically a recipe for an explosion, and that is important for what happened next. They tried to vent the gases out to the atmosphere to prevent the pressure vessel from exploding, but the hydrogen went the wrong way and caused reactors 1 through to 3 to explode in various places. I can't remember correctly (I think its reactor 3?) but the explosion happened within the pressure vessel which is why there was a large contamination breach. Because of this complete loss of control of the reactors, and the meltdown currently happening, they flooded the whole system with sea water and pumped as much out into storage as they can, but they lose a lot of it out to the sea, hence the Americans whining about the radiation in the Pacific. Now, the reactors are stable (ish) and they are continuing to pump water in to stop them going critical again.

I'll move onto the robots when I get home in part two, but right now I need to go have an argument with a lawn mower as my hair is getting unruly. The video linked below explains more about the actual failure of the reactor:- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMaEjEWL6PU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMaEjEWL6PU)

Brb.

<comment><USER9> PART 2

So, ROVs.

We probably aren't going to use a ROV for our solution as it doesn't suit and they're a pain in the arse quite frankly.

To start, I'll address the issue with the 'wires' failing. An American company built a ROV that was heavily shielded and was driven via an umbilical. Wireless is hard to use and autonomy is too hard to use as the reactor conditions are unknown. The ROV was a good design and could survive the radiation for a reasonable amount of time, however for whatever reason they used PVC wire sheathes that break down under heavy radiation, and as a result the wires touched and shorted the electronics out, rendering the ROV useless and 'dead'.

In terms of why it takes so long and why we can't use an off the shelf version, basically radiation is a bitch. At the base of the reactor vessel, just above the corium, the radiation output is estimated to be around 3000 microsieverts per hour, that translates roughly to a human life expectancy of around 6 seconds, give or take. This amount of radiation causes electronics to fail (transistors commonly), and materials to break down. The breaking down of materials caused the American ROV to die, and another example would be that it can causes greases to harden, which stops motors working.

Reactors aren't big spacious areas either, so it's not like we can just deploy a lead (lead weighs a metric shit'tonne) shielded tank to have a look, it's just too big and cumbersome. We decided against using a ROV as it had to be 30kg or less, which is absolutely nothing once you bring in drilling packages and the likes.

Also quite often you will be deploying through a hole between the size of your fist up to just smaller than the diameter of your head, so that restricts you hugely as well.

You also have material compatability. If you get something stuck you have to be sure that it won't react and cause the reactor to become critical again, which could happen in one of the reactors (can't go into more detail sorry).

One last major consideration as too why it takes so long to build and test a ROV to suit. The reactors are under immense thermal stress, and metal likes to bend and warp when it's heating/cooling. You have to build your solution around the worst case scenario. An example would be we went into a boiler tube trying to plug a 1 inch hole from 18m above it using a manipulator arm. That's already hard on its own, but then we discovered the originally 7mm gap we were aiming for was actually now as small as 3.5mm. Trying to develop ROVs and remote solutions is really not easy, the best way I can put it is that this line of work is an art, not a science. That's why it will probably take the best part of a century I reckon to fix this problem.

<comment><USER10>
       That's why it will probably take the best part of a century I reckon to fix
       this problem.

Just wow.

But a question -- you say you won't use a ROV. But you say wireless is hard and autonomy is too hard. So that leaves what?

And thanks for taking the time to share.

<comment><USER9> The alternative and what is most commonly used for control, in the nuclear industry, is a very long 'umbilical' (wire with loads of cores). A lot of nuclear providers are against people using wireless as if you lose connectivity and it gets stuck you are in trouble.

Also we are going to use a manipulator arm more than likely. Manipulator arms are cheaper and more widely used in our industry.

<comment><USER11> So its like a very long colonoscope that has camera on its end and can be manipulated to turn around a corner? [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=colonoscope&iax=1&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=colonoscope&iax=1&ia=images)

<comment><USER9> More like this minus the electronics:- [http://www.lasersnake.co.uk/images/galleries/2b8q6hcombined-...](http://www.lasersnake.co.uk/images/galleries/2b8q6hcombined-3.jpg?width=800&height=600&shrink=true)

Your idea would be perfect if we were just doing an inspection, however we have other work we will need to do down there which will require various packages so it has to be somewhat bulkier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The treated water should probably be pumped onto tanker ships and taken to the middle of the ocean for release. It would be so massively diluted as to be harmless, and remove any chance for local contamination. It would be far safer than leaving it in tanks on-site, which are subject to leaks, intentional damage, etc.

<comment><USER13> Yeah but who's gonna crew a tanker of highly irradiated water?

<comment><USER14> The lowest bidder!

In all seriousness, radiation shielding (necessary thickness of metal, etc) is quite well understood. It's probably not even an especially hazardous cargo compared to what most tankers haul.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm curious if there is any research on purification of irradiated water. A quick search took me here [1]. Couldn't find much else on this.

[1] [http://acselb-529643017.us- west-2.elb.amazonaws.com/chem/243...](http://acselb-529643017.us- west-2.elb.amazonaws.com/chem/243nm/program/view.php?obj_id=121787&terms=)

</comment><comment><USER16> I used to live here! Not in Fukushima exactly but in Aizu, and I've traveled to Fukushima City. The closest I've been to the reactor is probably 40 miles away from the train in Koriyama.

</comment><comment><USER17> Am I correct in assuming that the cost of "fire fighting" the situation far outweighs the value of the energy generated from the plant?

<comment><USER18> Unclear. In terms of deaths the number caused by Fukushima is comparable to an equivalent coal plant[1] and we still use coal plants for some reason so the consensus seems to be that the electricity is worth the cost. I'd guess that the Fukushima cleanup and containment costs are going to be small compared to the human costs. As to the cost of the evacuation, that might very well be enough to zero out the economic value.

[1][http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima- vs...](http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs-coal.html)

<comment><USER17> I meant the effort required to clean up the situation and turn off the plant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Indeed!

</comment><comment><USER20> It's interesting that, in Japan's political environment, the local fishing industry has enough clout to veto TEPCO's proposal to allow radioactive water to leak into the ocean near the site.

It's also interesting that the fishing industry, which is usually (correctly) assigned blame for depleting fish stocks is, in this case, protecting fish habitat.

<comment><USER21> They deplete fishing stocks by fishing. They don't want people worried that their fish are contaminated, and they don't want their stock depleted by a different cause than fishing.

<comment><USER20> Yeah. Makes sense.

I guess nuclear contamination is in a different category than say, pollution from coal burning power plants, which add a lot of mercury to the environment which then ends up in high level ocean predators like tuna. The fishing industry doesn't seem to have the ability to stop that kind of pollution.

Maybe it's because many sea food consumers people casually ignore mercury levels in fish they eat. Or maybe it's because the Japanese seafood supply chain is well enough managed and regulated that people really know where a piece of fish in a market actually came from. Perhaps people carry geiger counters into the supermarkets there. I don't know.

<comment><USER22> The documentary "The Cove" has a side story about mercury in Japanese seafood from some places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The robot problem is simply a lack of imagination. Just set up a long drill, like an oil rig, aimed sideways into the reactor. Drill six inch hole with cutting torch drill head, then insert equally long periscope. No rad hard electronics needed.

<comment><USER24> Cutting a big new hole in the structure holding the nasty stuff inside doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

<comment><USER23> Give me a break, the structures are already full of holes. That's why the ice dam is needed.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you improve online movie purchases? - <AUTHOR>

In the physical world, you just choose a film, hand over your money, and take home the DVD. You can then watch it as many times as you like, on as many devices as you like, with no subscription fee to pay and minimal DRM (yes, there is CSS, but it is really only a token effort).
Why is there no digital alternative? I want to go to a website, choose a film, pay my money, and download a video file that I can then watch as many times as I like, on as many devices as I like, with no subscription fee to pay and minimal DRM.
Does such a service exist?
What are the barriers to setting up such a service? <comment><USER2> As far as downloading movies, we're at the same place today as we were with music in the middle of the last decade. You can buy a movie from Amazon Instant Video or similar stores and download a file, copy it to any device you want as many times as you want. It's just wrapped in a PlaysForSure DRM wrapper which limits what devices can actually open it. Exactly the same DRM music had before the switch to watermarked MP3s.

There's not a lot of pressure to change that because of streaming. Most people are content with streaming the movies they buy instead of downloading. There are nearly no restrictions on streaming. When you buy something from Amazon for example, you can stream it to any number of devices any number of times. You can even stream it to two devices at the same time. The video looks good, you can start watching it immediately, and you don't have to use up 25% of the free space on your tablet to save one movie.

People whose primary concern is acquiring a file rather than watching a movie are a niche market. Music in 2005 was a lot different than movies in 2013. A lot more people cared about collecting files, hoarding discographies, and transferring files to portable devices that had no internet connection. It's not the same situation, so that pressure to abandon DRM isn't there now.

</comment><comment><USER3> The barriers are the major movie studios/distributors. They have not yet learned the lesson that the music industry did with the advent of iTunes MP3 and amazon MP3 sales, namely that providing fair-priced, DRM free music deters pirates.

<comment><USER4> Providing DRM free music has nothing to do with providing DRM free movies.

<comment><USER3> Where's the difference? I see none, except that the cost of content creation are vastly different between music and movies. But a ordinary user does not care about this.

All a user sees is "Hey, they charge $10 for a movie and I can't watch it on my iPad because I need to copy and convert it" and "Hey, this site offers the movie for free and I can dump the file on my NAS and watch the movie on my iPad, my TV and my computer without FBI warnings, unskippable ads etc"

I would pay the same amount I'd pay for a DVD, if I were allowed to do whatever the f*ck I want with the content, no matter if the publisher goes bankrupt, has server issues (online "activation" for movies IS possible with BluRay). After all, I could have the exact same movie if I'd just download a BD50 untouched rip instead of buying the BD, reading it and stripping out the DRM/copy protection with AnyDVD HD.</comment></comment></comment>


A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System (2001) - <AUTHOR> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/archive/social-anarchism.htm

<comment><USER2> Having read _Disciplined Minds_ a while ago, I thought the link at the bottom of page, which leads to the story of Schmidt's legal case against his employer, was more interesting than the review itself:

[http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/)

See also Schmidt's own site, [http://disciplinedminds.com](http://disciplinedminds.com).

<comment><USER3> The chronology is fascinating and horrifying.

"Physics Today Editor Stephen G. Benka breaks up two conversations between Schmidt and coworker Toni Feder after working hours. Benka bans private conversations in the workplace, saying that all conversations between staff members must be open to monitoring by management. When Schmidt asks Benka why, Benka refers to the organizing activity that took place the previous year and says he doesn't want that to happen again."

Geez, when you're at the point of banning private conversations among your employees, you should really be thinking there's something seriously wrong with what you're doing.

<comment><USER4> [http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/responses/...](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/schmidt/responses/victory- letter.html)

"While employed at Physics Today, Jeff led a contentious effort to force the magazine to change its long-standing pattern of hiring and training only whites as editors, and to live up to its claim of being an affirmative-action employer. These actions were part of the expression for which Jeff was fired"

Maintaining a physics magazine as a whites-only environment is the kind of thing that requires that level of employee repression. It's all about ethics in physics journalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The book itself is excellent, one of my favorite books. It reads like Foucault if Foucault were a physicist.

<comment><USER6> Having read _Disciplined Minds_ , I'll take that as a strong recommendation to read Foucault!

<comment><USER7> You might start with _Discipline and Punish_ , a history of the western (in particular, the French) penal system, drawing many parallels to educational, military, and medical institutions as they are all facets of an overarching technology of power that has emerged over the past couple of centuries.

Be warned: it will illuminate White Collar Hell like nothing else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is another good data-point for my lay-thesis that the dominant tension of our time is between _principle_ and _loyalty_. Snowden is the ultimate embodiment of this tension. Most other recent news can be seen through this lens as well, particularly the problems with the US criminal justice system, or the controversy over the release of the recent torture report.

The "loyalists" are ascendant (they usually are), and have terrible, strong defenses; the "principled" are a fairly rag-tag bunch, have inherently smaller organizations, although they do manage to organize themselves to some extent (the EFF and the ACLU being good examples). Indeed, the biggest weapon the principled have is to force the loyalists to actually (ab)use their overwhelming power to the extent that they offend the public (who are only loyalists within their own narrow context) and so swell the ranks of the principled against them.

This paper is about the travails of being principled in a loyalist organization. It is an incredibly uncomfortable position to be in, and comes at great cost. To those looking to minimize their personal stress, adopting the loyalist viewpoint and the requisite willful ignorance of the moral hazards and externalities it entails is the better, more rational option. Most people in that position are principled at great personal cost.

This way of seeing allows us to make better sense an array of current events. And indeed, we can come to realize that _everyone_ has both loyal and principled aspects. To that end everyone should know _precisely_ how far their loyalty goes. What actions could your organization take that so violated your principles that you would take action against it? For example, if you are in the Army or the CIA, would you torture someone if ordered? If you're a police officer, would you stay silent if you saw your department bury acts of police violence that you knew to be illegal? If you're a financial analyst or regulator, would you change your analysis to suit your management? If you're in the NSA, would you give evidence against Americans suspected of drug trafficking to the DEA, knowing they will use "parallel construction" to hide the source?

To hardcore loyalists, the answers to these questions are unequivocal "yes". The reason is a mixture of indoctrination, rationalization, selfishness and simple cowardice. But it's not "us" vs "them": almost everyone is a hard-core loyalist within their particular organization, although this is particularly true where there are no competing employers. It is almost impossible for most people to risk their decades-long career over a matter of principle, no matter how bad it gets. It's not right, but it's human.

What can save the day is that loyalty is _limited to personal context_ ; this is good because it allows loyalists in one org to be principled about _other_ organizations' behaviors. In other words, there are CIA employees who are disgusted by wall street's systematic, unchecked fraud, just as there are wall street employees who descry CIA torture and cover-up, and that's good.

Culturally need to revere the people throughout history who've taken the hard path, the one's who've said "no" to unprincipled action, which always comes at great personal cost. If there was ever a "noble warrior" culture, let it honor the ones who served Principle not because it was easy, but because it was right.

Sorry for the long post.

<comment><USER9> >>>>> What can save the day is that loyalty is limited to personal context; this is good because it allows loyalists in one org to be principled about other organizations' behaviors. In other words, there are CIA employees who are disgusted by wall street's systematic, unchecked fraud, just as there are wall street employees who descry CIA torture and cover-up, and that's good.

Perhaps, given that loyalty and principle seem to be situational, it would make more sense to describe them as behaviors rather than as traits.

<comment><USER8> But it isn't situational. The key quality in that example "cross judgement" is not the injustice-of-the-moment, but rather that the injustice was done by _a different organization_. That is to say, mainstream workers are not prepared to level accusations at their own employers over matters of principle, but _are_ quite willing to do so at _someone else 's_ employer.

<comment><USER9> Ah, I get it now. Mark Twain summed it up in "Corn Pone 'Pinions."

On the other hand, cross judgement is a practical way to deal with the issue, since the same accusations probably apply to both organizations if they are both immersed in the same corporate culture (e.g., businesses of similar size etc). If you watch my house and I watch yours, then both houses get watched.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ah, this. To be fair, I don't think the system is "soul battering" for most people. A large number of people-- more than one would like-- are perfectly happy to trade their autonomy and freedom for a bit of (temporary) security in social status and income. That might be one of the more surprising (and disturbing) realizations about white-collar hell: most people don't perceive it as a hell. They're fine, they're happy, and while they're being drained of the traits that made them interesting people when they were younger, it happens so slowly (boiled frog) that they neither notice nor care.

What I think is a key insight in his work is on the politics of "not getting political". Please correct me if I'm butchering the concept, but part of the process of turning salaried professionals into obedient drones is to convince them that it's undignified to "get political" at the workplace. The problem is that the people in charge can easily define their position as the default, apolitical one and any opposition as "getting involved in politics".

To me, whenever a hiring manager says that there's "no politics" at his company, that's a strong sign of a toxic environment. I'd rather work for someone who's politically aware and can help me navigate what politics exists (there's always a political environment) than one who is delusional enough to think that an organization of 10 or 50 or 200 or 20,000 people can have "no politics". Too often, "there's no politics here" means "I'm in the in-crowd and get my way, so 'political' decisions-- meaning ones that I don't like-- are rarely made".

This is how I feel about Silicon Valley "meritocracy". The only people who believe in it are those who've been in the in-crowd for 20+ years and lost touch with reality. They think that they live in a politics-free zone because they're oblivious to their own privilege.

<comment><USER11> Your last line reminds me a lot of when PG said that most founders are really nice people who are rarely "mean".

Why in the fuck would a founder even consider being mean to one of the most powerful people in the industry? It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with.

<comment><USER10> I'm working on a blog post about this. The people who tend to succeed in the corporate world are (a) not needlessly mean, (b) rarely mean to those in power, but (c) generally avoidant of close personal relationships.

A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs (or promoted into management) is whether there's a suspicion that you'll invite too many (presumably not deserving) friends. People who are "sticky" don't get promoted. People who might tip off their reports about an impending layoff aren't made managers.

You have to be cold, for organizational ascent, but not a dick.

In environments of heterogeneity, warmth is actually an advantage because people who are personable and giving tend to have a wider array of connections, and that means more information, better ideas, and an easier time staying up to date. The old Silicon Valley actually was that way, but for the past 20 years, it's been functioning as one (however postmodern) corporate organization.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save Silicon Valley is to pass a law that makes investors liable for certain kinds of founder misconduct, including sexual harassment. For example, a frat boy like Spiegel would actually probably not get promoted in a larger corporation, if his true colors came out, because he's an HR liability. But investors can fund people like him and wash their hands of the cultural issues created by funding frat boys. That's a real problem, and it ought to be fixed. Since founders _are_ middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley, it's only reasonable to acknowledge them as such, and pass liabilities up the chain into the executive ranks (investors).

<comment><USER3> "founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley."

I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it's definitely a useful perspective to keep in mind. A lot of things look very different if you switch over to that way of thinking once in a while.

Both pieces of it, the founders are middle managers, and the Valley as meta- company.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Learn Security Engineering - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/veeral-patel/learn-security-engineering <comment><USER2> Hey - author of the repo here.

I'm very interested in learning how to secure anything. What we're securing may be computer-related, but it might be a painting in an art museum or a medieval castle or a ATM machine...is there a set of steps I can follow to secure it?

That's why I created this repo. I've included links to many different books and papers in this repo, as well as notes on any books and papers I've read.

This will hopefully be a lifelong curiosity for me, so if you have any other resources I should look at, please submit a pull request and I'll merge it in. The repo is very much a work in progress; I by no means have read everything that I've linked to. Let's make this a collaborative effort!</comment>


Ask HN: How to learn command line? - <AUTHOR> I've done a decent amount of front-end coding (html,css,jquery) and some backend (php). But I never took the time to learn how to use the command line.<p>Should I? Where do I even begin? <comment><USER2> Should you is nearly a philosophical question, so for the moment I'll just assume you kind of want to. I strongly recommend _The Linux Phrasebook_ if you regularly use Linux. If you use OSX, you might take a look at Peepcode's screencasts on the command line[2]. (Much of _The Linux Phrasebook_ actually applies to OSX as well, but there will be occasional issues because Linux uses GNU versions of things that Mac uses BSD versions of. This can cause lots of small differences, though the underlying basics are pretty similar.)

[1] [http://opensource.weblogsinc.com/2006/06/20/my-new-book- linu...](http://opensource.weblogsinc.com/2006/06/20/my-new-book-linux- phrasebook-is-out/)

[2] <http://peepcode.com/products/meet-the-command-line>

<comment><USER3> If using Windows, then Powershell.

<comment><USER4> Nah, install cygwin and use bash so your skills are transferable. Linux skills last for years; Windows skills tend to last till the next version. And I say this coming from a Windows background.

<comment><USER5> That's untrue. I haven't used Windows as my primary workstation in over two years (and it was an XP system then) and I can hop onto a Win7 box and interact using most of the same commands I internalized administrating Windows 3.11 boxes on LanMan networks in the mid-90s.

The real problem is that Windows skills generally are only transferrable to other versions of Windows whereas Unix command line tools - be they GNU or BSD - are. And even that's not entirely true. If there's a Windows command-line tool that you learn about and like I guarantee you it's based on a Unix command-line tool that has a man entry.

<comment><USER4> I'm not talking about just the operating system, I'm talking about the platform and the necessary services you'd need on a server. Configuring a windows server, setting up IIS, mail server, etc, are different from version to version. Linux is much more consistent, editing a few text files in /etc. Sure, you can jump into cmd and execute many of the commands that always worked on windows, but that's a very small set of commands compared to Linux.

I made the switch to Linux a few years ago for servers, only months ago for my primary workstation, and I'd never go back to Windows; though Windows with cygwin is close enough to Linux to make a very nice workstation.

<comment><USER3> > _"I'd never go back to Windows"_

That's not much of a reason to use Cygwin in lieu of Powershell.

<comment><USER4> Sure it is, it's how you make the transition to Linux easier.

<comment><USER5> With that I certainly do agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I personally believe that there is great value in learning how to use and be proficient with the command line. It is a different way of working from the GUI based systems that many computer users learn and primarily use. And it can be a very powerful and very quick way of working, as well.

I would say install a simple, stripped down Linux distro on a computer and try to use it for everything. Necessity is the best motivator to learning in my experience. You can start off with Gnome, but if you want to force yourself to learn the command line better, install something more lightweight (like enlightenment, or openbox) and then figure out how to configure it and try and do work from there.

If you don't have a box you can put Linux on and can use, find a super cheap Linux VPS (search around on lowendbox.com) and then follow a tutorial on setting up a simple server. Then you can do an email server, try using it as a torrentbox, etc. This may even be a better option, because it will be a place you can put up your other work. It's only a couple bucks a month, and once you've got things figured out, try doing more with it. Switch from Apache to nginx, for example.

The key is simply spending time on the command line, then you will be able to get comfortable with it. Also, there are many, many great tricks that you can learn if you know someone who is good at using Unix command lines and shells simply by watching over their shoulder. Some of the most valuable tidbits I have learned have been when someone saw me do something the hard way, then taught me a better way to do it (it took me a long time before I learned about tab completion, for example).

</comment><comment><USER7> Necessity is the best teacher. Get a VPS from someone like Linode, invent a project and run it all yourself. You'll learn a ton just getting Apache set up and running.

<comment><USER8> Good advice.

I really only started working with the command line after I started working on a Django project about 3 or 4 years ago, and I was constantly frustrated by the inefficiencies of the GUI tools. I needed to script commands and repeat them over and over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the comments here miss the bigger picture, which is that the command- line is the most direct and eloquent way to directly interface with a computer for many advanced tasks. The gist is that you tell the computer exactly what you want to do, in no uncertain terms, with supporting information, all in one fell swoop. After that, everything else is just syntax.

</comment><comment><USER10> You shouldn't. The command-line is the less powerful tool you can use to interact with the system.

Learn a powerful scripting language, instead (Python, Lua, ecc.).

Oh, and since for basic tasks you will be using the command-line anyway, if you are using *nix, please use one designed to be used by humans, that is, Fish: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell></comment>


PHP/Python/Ruby - Immoral? - <AUTHOR> http://nerds-central.blogspot.com/2012/04/coal-stop-burning-it-just-to-make.html

<comment><USER2> I hate environmentalists. Don't get me wrong, I love the environment, I even call myself a geolibertarian at Mises conferences, but the problem I have with environmentalists is that they think "the world doesn't boil down to dollars and cents" (This was actually said to me).

Let's be very, very generous here and assume that it would take twice as long to code something in C that it would in Python. Let's assume that the code isn't a static library, but something like a web app or equivalent. Doubling the number of developers to get the 10x speed up / 90% reduction in server use _is not worth it from an environmental perspective_. Those developers use resources to live. They burn fuel to heat their dinner. They drive their car to work.

These types of arguments are trying to make an emotional plea to a perceived market failure. The solution is to fix the market, not waste time implementing stuff in C. Tax pollution at the rate at which it would take to clean it up and the market will automatically allocate resources efficiently.

<comment><USER3> You shoot down our own argument. The video suggest C# and Java as alternatives to interpreted languages. By picking C you are deliberately trying to make your argument sound stronger than it is. The video also mentions the economic cost.

From an economics point of view you are just wrong. Because of the vast numbers of computers used in 'scale out' architectures the impact of code efficiency is enormously bigger than the cost of developers. If a developer's code runs on 10 or 100 machines then you are correct. But modern software runs on hundreds or even hundreds of thousand machines.

<comment><USER2> The video wouldn't run in my OS (which isn't standard, granted, but still).

Most software that ships to hundreds of thousands of computers is software that must run on _other_ people's machines. If it must, then it is automatically in the markets best interest to optimize to require less overhead since it will give them access to a larger portion of the market. If it is for their own internal servers, then again it is in the market's best interest to roll it in C or similar since they are able to make the distinction as to where it is worth it to convert it to a lower level language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "PHP/Python/Ruby - Immoral?"

Ooh, ooh, Betteridge's Law of Headlines - <http://enwp.org/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines> \- has the answer: no.

</comment><comment><USER5> For scientific computing and data crunching, trying to get the MOST OUT OF THE HARDWARE, I would agree you are wasting resources using a interpreted language, and it is inefficient.

But when your goal is first to market, and trying to get the MOST OUT OF THE PROGRAMMERS - it is a waste of human resources, and programmer enjoyment using a compiled language with an unfriendly syntax.

Of course, you could find experienced programmers who are super fast productive, and super happy to work in the compiled languages - but don't underestimate that most people enjoy interpreted's ease of getting started, and syntax simplicity - and usually they cost less to hire as there is a larger pool of people.

<comment><USER3> But is that not the point of the post - that all the 'easy and cheep' comes at a huge cost to be planet and eventually to the company. Are C# and Java really that much harder to learn and use?

<comment><USER6> It's trivial to write monstrously inefficient C/C++ - arguably it's even easier than writing slow Python code, because high level concepts like events and callbacks are harder to express programatically and code that should be event-driven becomes:

      while (1)
      {
        // check for input
      }

And no offense to the TFA, but all the academic code I've seen is buggy, slow, and inefficient - hardly using "every ounce of efficiency". For example, the most popular data processing tools I've seen in engineering are matlab and excel (!). Not exactly coding to bare metal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Most real scientific computing (quantum mechanics - in which I did my doctorate, meteorology, astrophysics etc.) is done in C or more normally FORTRAN. The code will use highly optimised routines like BLAS. It is normal to perform careful inner loop optimizations for each target platform.

Don't talk about things you don't understand.

<comment><USER6> > Don't talk about things you don't understand.

Fair enough, but you do realize that not everyone will optimize inner loops after switching to C/Java? Certainly not to the extent of scientific computing or even the language shootout snippets.

Also to address the power usage of one server. The 6.6 tonnes number seems to come from having the server drawing 1kw of power continuously for an entire year. The biggest server I could find on Dell's site (E910) comes with a 1.1KW power supply. This DOES NOT mean that it draws 1.1KW continuously. Indeed, outside of peak usage hours it probably draws much less. This is amortized over many users as well. Even slow, interpreted languages can serve hundreds of users on such a server.

Compare this to driving 10 miles/day in a medium-sized car. This produces 2 tonnes of CO2 annually, and unless you're diligent at carpooling, probably serves one person. Even a small car will still use half of that. If some new software helps even a small number of people telecommute instead of driving, the result is overall positive. For this to work, such software has to be cheap (certainly cheaper than driving) and for that to happen programmer time must be conserved.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good arguments. I based 1kw on the 800 watt rating of the machine mentioned plus a/c etc. It is all ball park and I am a bit shocked you are the only person to call me out. But it does not matter because if you 1 tonne per year - it is still plenty. The car thing is a good point to make but I think you are stretching it with the telecommuting. This is especially so as the key to telecommuting if fast software (ever tried implementing video streaming in an interpreted language?) The amortized over many people point correct but not valid to the argument as it is a multiplicative not additive effect it has as no impact on the over all calculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to disagree here. Although I know that the speaker is just trying to have fun with the idea the metaphor is flawed. whereas a Mercedes engine gets more and more powerful and not any more efficient computer processors are getting more efficient by the day. also the "10 to 100 times slower" comment seems like an exaggeration to me. In the end the language you use should be decided by what will give your customers the best software possible and nothing else. Because its not immoral to waste the computers time but it is immoral to waste the users time.

<comment><USER3> There are plenty of bench marks showing 10 to 100 times is in the ball part. Computers use masses of power because there are so many of them. As they get more efficient, their numbers increase. The benefit of using faster languages is constant irrespective of the efficiency of the machine on which it is running. How can wasting energy be OK? Even if you don't think it has climate change effects, it has economic and energy security effects - non of them good.

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't say its OK to waste energy but you have to put things in perspective. Your first concern should be to save the users time. The less time they have to use the program to achieve their goal means less instructions. Videos like these aren't looking at the bigger picture.

<comment><USER3> If code runs faster then the user time is wasted less as well. That seems in alignment with the ideas behind the video.

<comment><USER7> I don't want to hear the "faster programs save the user time too" argument its total BS. the vast majority of CPU time is spent waiting for the user. So while you're on a holy quest maximizing 100,000 instructions down to 1,000, every second that the user wastes dealing with your neglected UI 1,000,000,000 cycles are wasted (and that's on a machine with a single 1ghz processor).

<comment><AUTHOR> The post is talking about servers. Most scripting is for code running on servers. Servers do not wait for the user. Your comment has zero merit.

<comment><USER7> no.. your comment and your whole shortsighted video have no merit. Servers spend time waiting for users as well. Whether its waiting for the next HTTP request or the next batch processing job servers wait for people too.

<comment><AUTHOR> OK, I'll explain this as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. When one commissions a server or server farm it is done against a service non functional requirement. For example 1 second page serve time at peak load. This means that a lot of the time the servers might be waiting but not a peak load. Never the less, modern servers will clock down if waiting. Now, what sets the peak load is the efficiency of the software and the number of people using the server and/or the run length of the batch jobs. The more efficient the software the less servers are required to meet the peak load and so the less power is used all the time. Further, the more efficient the software the less often servers will have to clock up during off peak times. Do you finally get it? If not - I suspect you have zero idea about large scale computing and are here only to defend your lack of ability to program anything other than scripts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> ...and then they embed Flash in the page. I wonder how much energy gets wasted by my CPU fan being driven to 100% on Flash sites :)

<comment><USER3> Yes - HTML5 would be much much better - it will come soon I expect.

<comment><USER7> Although I will concede that flash is an abomination that needs to be removed from all my computers. haha

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - I said that some time ago.. [http://nerds- central.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/why-flash-is-per...](http://nerds- central.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/why-flash-is-perniciously-evil-and.html) and [http://nerds-central.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/steve-jobs- agree...](http://nerds-central.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/steve-jobs-agrees-with- me-yes-flash.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Opposing nuclear power is immoral. Writing code is ruby is good sense.

CO2 is only a problem if we let it be.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure of the connection here. BTW - check out the nerds-central post on why Thorium matters if you are pro-nuclear - it might have some good amo for you to use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "All things techi and nerdy!" - I cannot wait to have the power to downvote.</comment>


20 Useful Docs and Guides for Front-End Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitepoint.com/20-docs-guides-front-end-developers/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=Anuj+Adhiya&utm_campaign=Anuj+Adhiya

<comment><AUTHOR> Are there any you would add/remove from this list?</comment>


The Power of Prolog: An Introduction to Modern Prolog - <AUTHOR> https://www.metalevel.at/prolog <comment><USER2> Also go up one level and enjoy even more readings.</comment>


Ask HN: Working from home & depression - <AUTHOR> I have been working from home for 2.5 months with no option to go into an office for social interaction. I noticed in the first month I was starting to get cagey so I joined a gym to go to evening classed and moved my evening piano lessons to lunch time to get outside for a break once a week. I also try walking to the local gas station for any trivial treat or newspaper...But I feel that over the last few weeks my moods have been really affected by working and living in the same 1200 sqft. How else can I change my schedule to avoid the loneliness of working from home and the familarity of living in your work area at night/weekends. <comment><USER2> I've also recently started working from (a temporary) home. A couple of remarks:

\- develop a good routine that keeps you moving. For me, it means:

      - working from home from 9 to 12.

      - eat lunch at home

      - go to coffee shop to have coffee/work from there until 6

      - stop working at 6 and do something else: sports, meet with friends etc.

\- big space/natural light is very important. Right now I'm in a tiny hotel room with no windows and I simply cannot work from there. So I'm all day in a coffee shop (in a new town, so no getting bored feeling yet).

\- Talk to other people about what you're doing (significant other, friends, etc) Try to explain progress you've made today. It can get pretty frustrating if you're spinning your wheels all day without nobody to talk about it.

\- If your work (and your finances) allows it, go somewhere else where you can stay for a week (friend or family place). I'm currently traveling in South- East Asia and it helps not to be locked in the same room all the time.

\- Get out and join classes. You're already doing it with gym classes, but maybe you could try something else if you don't like it.

<comment><USER3> I agree with all the above. I eventually figured out why people work at Starbucks. Be nomadic. I've been exploring the idea of "hacking field trips": taking a train somewhere (which itself I've heard works) and staying with a friend to spend the downtime with.

On a related note, when I was a teenager, I was diagnosed with ADD (no H) but was not told. Instead of medication, my parents took me to a behaviorist who insisted I always "get ready" for tasks that required focus. Even if it was the weekend and I was at home, I should take a shower, get dressed, and "splash on some cologne" before I even attempted to do my homework. He was real big on natural light too. In my case alertness and depression never seem to coincide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Library, Starbucks, Co-Working facilities, if they have them in your area. Working from home is not for everyone - if it isn't working for you, change jobs. I would suggest that 2.5 months is enough time to determine if this type of arrangement works for you or not - but maybe it will take a little longer.

<comment><USER5> Agree. I work from home and prefer it but I can definitely see how it might not be suitable for everyone. My friend worked from home for a year and he remarks that he could only do max 6 hours of work per day. It's surprising to find out just how much those office distractions eat out of a day and when you work from home, you no longer have them.

You may want to see about trying to shorten your work day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love working at home. I can concentrate so much better than in the office, where I get distracted all the time. Office is great for meetings and discussions, but when those are over and I really need to get things done, I work better at home.

Then again, I've always been pretty comfortable with internet-based communication, so I don't tend to get lonely at all.

Also, working at home doesn't mean sitting in the same place all the time for me. I sometimes go to the park, or other places, for some change of scenery.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've had a similar problem after working for 10 months for a company in Scotland (from Vancouver). Unfortunately, I didn't have any co- working/café/library options because for security reasons I had to be connecting from my static (home) IP address. It didn't help that because of my coverage time, I needed to be at home on weekends and during the evenings - all the times that my friends were available. Basically 10 months without a social life.

On top of that, I never had the feeling that I could 'go home' and relax. I was always at home, so I could always work, so no matter what I was doing (reading, web browsing, watching TV) I always felt like I should be working instead. This ended up carrying over to other activities, even when I was out in the mornings before my shift, and I ended up feeling constantly guilty for not being as productive as I could have been, which led to me feeling more and more depressed and being even less productive. It became a reckless downward spiral that I just couldn't deal with.

In the end, I took a pay cut ($20k loss in take-home) to start at a local company so that I could shake the depression I was dealing with and stop being so squirrely. Some people can do working from home, and some jobs are worth doing from home, but personally I couldn't deal with it.

<comment><USER8> I went through a similar thing as a one man startup (also in Vancouver). Like you, I've come to realize I simply can't do it.

The funny thing is that people often think you're living the dream by working from home. After all, you can work in your underwear if you want to! Indeed, I thought I had it pretty good and couldn't understand why I was so unhappy all the time.

It's my opinion that people who can work from home for long periods of time and maintain a healthy mental and physical state are the exception and not the rule.

<comment><USER7> Definitely true. I found that after a few weeks, I was waking up, stumbling out of bed, sitting in my chair, and taking a look at what was going on. After a few months, I realized that I felt awful every day, because I'd gone from bed to work without any break in between, and it was getting close to 4 PM before I was showering and having breakfast.

Enforcing an actual schedule on yourself makes a significant difference, and it's the only reason I managed to keep myself sane as long as I did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I started working from home 4 months ago and have noticed the same thing to some degree. For the first time in my life I have though it would be nice to not live alone so its not so isolating.

I love being able to focus at home in a way that I never could in previous work environments so I don't want to give it up. My suggestion is to move into a larger place if you can afford it. I'd go crazy being stuck in the same 1200ft all the time. Right before I started telecommuting I moved from a 2 bedroom apartment to a 4 bedroom house (and then some.) This gives me a dedicated work area that I can get away from in the off time. The other thing I do is get out of the house for lunch almost every day, usually with friends.

I think its normal to feel this way, but you're obviously aware of it and you can find a way to cope.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've had the same issue - couldn't get work done and couldn't relax. My solution was to cancel my home internet plan and go to the library. No more working at home for me. :)

Plus, it saves me ~$50/month, which helps when you're bootstrapping a business.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've worked at home for getting close to 1.5 years now. I sometimes want to kick people who say they are jealous. In the end I would have a tough time going back to an office setting unless forced to. It takes discipline to not grab one of the guitars behind me, or run to the living room and play some PS3 since no one is watching.

Two things that have helped me are my windows and dogs. I work in the front corner of my house, I've positioned my desk so that I look out the front windows. I live on a somewhat busy street so it helps to see things moving outside. Then my dogs, they are pretty routine with their breaks. I'll take them out in the backyard and throw the tennis ball with them, this keeps me from thinking about work for a little bit. I also make sure to grab lunch with my coworkers once a week, plus my wife can tell when I've been 'locked up' too long so she will take me out.

As danudey said you always have this feeling like you should be working all the time. I work a LOT more now that I work at home. It's very tough to sometimes just go to the computer and check out the news on the weekend without wanting to tinker on work. The guilty feeling comes and goes when you have really productive days.

It probably helps a lot that I am married to force me to stick to a schedule and it will keep work as work and home as home. I also have a kid on the way, but it will present the challenge of now working at home with a wife and kid. Depending on how well it works or not I might move to a co-working facility in town.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is exactly the reason I started playing Rejection Therapy. It challenged me to get out of the house and have a meaningful (exciting even) interaction with another human being.

Just take a card (or make up your own challenge) and that will be your mission for the day. Trust me, it's fun and it's a way to meet new people.

Oh yeah, and consider taking an anti- depressant, even if it's for the short term.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you know others who work from home, invite them over to work at your place.

</comment><comment><USER14> Here are my thoughts from experience:

1\. keep a schedule-be showered, have breakfast and be ready to work at 9. 2\. I have friend I call at lunchtime so that I'm not eating "alone" 3\. When it seems like nothing is getting done, I go and have a change of place...I go to Starbucks, the library or somewhere else to complete the work. 4\. Find a group of other friends that also work from home and have phone/skype/im coffee breaks with one or two of them. 5\. Let yourself be lazy sometimes-no one is productive every day. Hope that helps!

</comment><comment><USER15> I find the quality of light to be a big factor for me. Sitting in front of a big window, or heading to a coffee shop and sitting right next to one of their big picture windows helps a lot.

Even if most of your friends are working, you can set up short lunch dates to catch up and get some people time.

</comment><comment><USER16> Where are you located? I've wrestled with this in the past as well. Finding a co-working spot can be a huge help. I was lucky enough to get Pivotal Labs to host me as I work on my startup and it's made a huge difference.

</comment><comment><USER17> I work from home and I admit it's not easy sometimes.

But..

1\. I have a dog which forces me to go out.

2\. I also live in an urban setting which means I am forced to interact with people when I go out.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is totally normal and understandable. Even the days I work from home, I usually feel like going to the office by noon.

As other people have suggested, try going to a place where you can still work. Maybe ask people at your office to set up a webcam/mic for you(maybe a netbook in the office kitchen?, might get interesting for both them and you!), or during meetings.

If not then think about getting a job where you can go work in an office. Depression can be serious business, do not neglect it, it's not worth it.

<comment><USER8> I just want to reiterate what was said above: _"Depression can be serious business, do not neglect it, it's not worth it."_

Some people simply cannot work/live alone for long periods. I tried it for years myself, but was completely miserable and have since changed my life.

Having said that, little things that may (or may not) help you are: having a workspace with tons of natural light, morning exercise and having a strict and balanced schedule of work/play/sleep. Good luck.</comment></comment>


BrowserStack is Shutting Down - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/jy6NXaLb

<comment><USER2> Is this for real? Any evidence of them being hacked? I think it's a bit weird for a company to just say "we lied. Sorry," and leave it at that.

I too received this email and am scratching my head. Their website is currently "under construction."</comment>


General Motors takes 11% stake and $2B in equity in electric truck maker Nikola - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/general-motors-takes-11percent-stake-and-2-billion-in-equity-in-electric-truck-maker-nikola-.html <comment><USER2> Ah yes, the trend of outdated car manufacturers seeking miracles via acquisition continues.</comment>