Love being Deaf - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chadwtaylor.com/post/24206199845/love-being-deaf <comment><USER2> I'm from Purdue and took a few courses from its top rated Audiology and Speech Science Department, so I got a lot of exposure to ASL and the Deaf culture. One thing that I couldn't understand is the following sentiment, which is quite common:

"I never viewed deafness as not understanding anyone - "deafness" is a clinical concept, a -'ness'; it implies absence, a lack of something, therefore I am inferior. Its logic is so devastating, it is almost too easy to fall for it, as many people have. If the world is examined closely enough, we will find it is not true. There are a thousand and one possibilities and ways of being. I am culturally Deaf, wherein I gain my identity and a unique window to the world"

I don't want to be offensive, but deafness _is_ a lack of one of the senses. I appreciate and applaud the vibrant culture the Deaf community created around ASL (and the corresponding deaf languages in other countries) and understand part of this is a coping mechanism. Yet, I have met and read many Deaf culture enthusiasts that argue (almost) that being Deaf is somewhat superior to our "normal" hearing culture, so much so that some Deaf parents wish their children are born deaf too.

Would you consider blindness to be similar? I haven't heard of a Blind culture, but maybe it exists.

<comment><USER3> One could argue that it's a matter of perspective. Granted there are many challenges in life and this is true for everybody, including myself.

Why "fix" things if I consider myself on a successful path? If you don't see that I am, at least respect that I am comfortable with me being me and satisfied.

<comment><USER2> I totally respect you (and other members of the Deaf community) and what you have achieved. I know this is a sensitive topic and wouldn't dare to discuss it anywhere other than HN. I have two question/comments and would definitely would like to hear your feedback on them:

1\. You (and some others) seem to equate any attempt to "fix" the situation as an affirmation that your condition is an inferiority and therefore reject such attempts (e.g. I know many people in the Deaf community reject cochlear implants due to this reason and out of fear that they would be rejected by the community). Yet, they don't have to be so opposed to the other. A famous example is Oscar Pistorius (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius>) who have qualified for the Olympics in 400m. He is using artificial legs but I don't he views himself as an invalid.

2\. Coming back to the desire of some Deaf parents to have a non-hearing child: If you think that Deafness is somewhat a cultural artifact then there's nothing wrong with this (I want my son to be fluent in my native language in addition to English), yet ethically this idea seems wrong (e.g. I could only find an old example online: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medic...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch)), here's a discussion on the subject ([http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_wanting_a_deaf_baby_if_you_are_...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_wanting_a_deaf_baby_if_you_are_a_deaf_couple_ethical_or_unethical_and_for_what_reasons)).

<comment><USER3> I'm the wrong person to be discussing this. Not every Deaf people think the same things as implied above.

My principles in life is pretty simple. Respect one another and I will love my child regardless s/he is deaf or hearing.

The same question, as you're indicating above about deaf vs hearing babies, is akin to someone asking me what I hope for: Boy or Girl? I say I would love a daughter but no matter which gender that pops out, I will have my undying love ready if not already.

Live and let live is what I try to do for myself and others, including yourself.

Perhaps someone can answer and engage themselves into the questions you've asked. My life principles are too simple to engage myself into this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Imagine a near future where it is common for people to get various implants (retinal implants, neural implants, etc.) for cheap prices and virtually 0 health risk. Would you get one that doesn't affect your sense of hearing? What about getting one that affects your sense of hearing?

These questions aren't me trying to prove you wrong or ridicule your point— I just have trouble understanding your line of reasoning and I'm trying to understand it better :)

<comment><USER3> Can you tell me what is wrong with me?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Chad - thank u for writing this up - ITS GRAND!

Congrats on the newest member of your family.

MLK talked of the need to have the "spiritual audacity to assert our somebodyness" and that is what u have done beautifully here - thank u

best wishes with love, life, work, and doing good

peace

patti</comment>


How We've Reached More People by Guest Blogging - <AUTHOR> http://www.groovehq.com/blog/guest-blogging

<comment><USER2> The problem is that if you're somewhat high profile, and guest post on other higher profile sites you should be okay. Move down the "food chain", and Google doesn't look so kindly at your guest blogging strategy.

*[http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/guest-blogging/](http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/guest-blogging/)

<comment><USER3> There are other benefits than SEO when thinking about guest blogging. Personally I see guest blogging as awareness building first, with any bump in SEO a nice bonus.</comment></comment>


No, that dot in the domain name of the URL is not a mistake (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://jdebp.info./FGA/web-fully-qualified-domain-name.html <comment><USER2> He makes a 'technically correct' case for fully qualified domain names, but I'm not sure this a real problem. Under what circumstances are things really improved by using them? If your DNS server is untrustworthy, this doesn't help. If your DNS server _is_ trustworthy, do fully qualified domain names help you?

There's almost nothing on the web about 'Common Internet Scheme'. [0]

Also, it's a little ironic that we're reading a page on spoofing, from a site which doesn't support HTTPS.

[0] [https://www.google.com/search?q="Common+Internet+Scheme"](https://www.google.com/search?q="Common+Internet+Scheme")

<comment><USER3> > _Under what circumstances are things really improved by using them?_

Not necessarily "improved", but it could add to predictability. A lot of places probably use(d) "dev" as an internal sub-domain, and then ICANN went and approved Google's .dev TLD:

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

* [https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/dev.html](https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/dev.html)

Also, Google's .prod:

* [http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/prod.html](http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/prod.html)

* [https://icannwiki.org/.prod](https://icannwiki.org/.prod)

<comment><USER4> A similar thing happened where I work. Say our domain name was `example.com`, we had a fleet of hosts at `foo.build.example.com`, `bar.build.example.com`. The internal network handed out `example.com` as the DNS search string but web browsers always try the FQDN first. On the day the `.build` gTLD went live, people who use short names in their URLs (just about everyone) could no longer access these hosts and I was the one who got to figure out why.

<comment><USER5> When creating test domains these RFCs should be followed: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761)

Which updated: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606)

Basically, there are only a few reserved TLDs, .example.[com.|org.|net.], .test., .invalid., and .localhost. (rfc2606).

RFC6761 clarifies how each should be used.

<comment><USER6> His issue wasn't the domain they used becoming a TLD, his issue was a subdomain they used became a TLD and the DNS resolvers of his clients were not configured to append the parent domain first, probably the search list wasn't populated.

<comment><USER5> Oh. I misunderstood that. Thanks for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Joke's on you. Once spent a whole morning failing to obtain a signed SSL certificate from one of the certificate authorities. The field description in a web form was clearly stating to enter _the_ FQDN, yet the form was not passing through with a very general error description (it appeared later that the URL with a dot at the end was not validating, someone copy-pasted a regex of an URL?). On help request, the IT operations guys looked with disdain at the webdev unable to produce "a stupid certificate". The disadvantages of reading the instructions and field hints ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

</comment><comment><USER8> And this is why projects like caddyserver, traefik, and similar tools are simply broken by default, e.g.:

[https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632](https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632)

nginx, btw, does automatically support FQDNs for all your virtual hosts, as does apache.

<comment><USER9> I get the following error when I add a dot at the end of the address for a virtual host in Apache:

 _Misdirected Request

The client needs a new connection for this request as the requested host name does not match the Server Name Indication (SNI) in use for this connection.

Apache/2.4.25 (Debian) Server at example.com Port 443_

<comment><USER8> You don't add dots in the config file.

If you configure the virtual host to be e.g. "example.com", Apache will listen at "example.com" and "example.com."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Glad to see that [http://pn/](http://pn/) and [http://pn./](http://pn./) are both apparently working.

I'm pretty sure that at one point I had to supply the trailing dot to make the browser (or resolver) believe it was a real hostname.

<comment><USER11> When I click on the first link in iOS Safari I get sent to a search results page served by my (read: my parents') ISP. That's pretty disturbing.

The second link appears to work. It's a page that says "It works!" but it's not HTTPS so of course I have no way of knowing whether that's the ISP playing tricks as well. ;)

<comment><USER12> Why is that disturbing? For me, the name doesn't resolve ([http://pn/](http://pn/)).

Assuming you are using your parents' ISP's default DNS servers, isn't it a safe, though less-than-desirable, result for the ISP to forward you to a search page when resolution fails?

<comment><USER13> No, the DNS should return NXDOMAIN and that's it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "You've come to this page because you've asked a question similar to the following:

I omitted the trailing dot in the domain name in the [http://example.com./](http://example.com./) URL because it was a typographical error."

That is not a question, though.

</comment><comment><USER15> I find it wonderful that a link to a page talking about stripping a trailing period from a domain has been linked to with descriptive text from which the trailing period has been stripped from the domain

<comment><USER16> It was present when it was posted; I suppose moderators removed it for consistency with HN style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One issue I noticed is how browsers and sites handle the dot inconsistently; Edge browser used to "fix" the url, for example.

Google used to do a weird combination of rewriting and/or using the dot, depending on what part of the site you were on. What ended up happening roughly is that you could log into the FQDN, google would do logins for both dot/nodot, if you logged out of one, the other would still work (probably also a combination of Chrome keeping 2 sets of cookies)

I probably can't, but if I find my original notes I'll add a reply...I recall both Edge and Google fixing the problem, but there are other sites & browsers i'm sure that are still affected

</comment><comment><USER18> Well congratulations, you're blocked by my adblocker because of that dot (uBlock Origin with EasyList Liste FR)

<comment><USER19> Why would that list be blocking fully qualified domain names? Seems more like a bug than a feature, but if there is a good reason for it I'd be interested to learn

<comment><USER20> I would imagine the reason is that some ad provider used a fqdn to get around some badly written rule, and then someone added an even worse rule to block all fqdn to negate that trick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> An interesting effect is [http://jdebp.info/](http://jdebp.info/) displays "not secure" in the browser and [http://jdebp.info./](http://jdebp.info./) does not.

<comment><USER22> Firefox tells you that both connections are not secure... are you using Chrome?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sadly many libraries get RFC and standards implementations wrong. I've run into similar edge cases before, and it's always frustrating to see it either not implemented at all (best case), or overlooked due to simplified implementation (e.g. regex instead of parsing), or that there's a bug report that's closed as wontfix because it would be too complicated to fix.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have been surprised that some _domain registrars_ reject FQDNs when they ask for your DNS servers. Sad.

</comment><comment><USER25> I feel dumber for having read this article. Tbf it's from the early 2000s but it reads like a nasally academic trying to lecture people who work for a living about theory with little to no practical benefit.

<comment><USER26> The level of passive-aggression in the side-swipe at djb is quite impressive though.</comment></comment>


Hacking The Status Game - <AUTHOR> http://blog.amirkhella.com/2011/04/18/the-status-game/ <comment><USER2> There is much wisdom in improv. I would encourage anyone and everyone to take at least a "Intro to Improv" or "Improv 101" course. It can definitely change your outlook.

And as far as "hacking the status game" goes, this is part of what the Pickup Artists have been teaching for a while... how a given woman reacts to you is largely about how _you_ present _yourself_. Act like she's the superior in the relationship, "the prize" as it were, and she'll lower her view of you. Treat her as a peer, or someone of lower status, and you actually become more attractive. Well, that's the theory anyway, and it definitely seems to be borne out at times.

Of course this concept is more general than just interacting with the opposite sex. But you have to be careful... too much of this with your boss, and you may get written up for insubordination or something. :-)

<comment><USER3> Or you could be seen as just a straight shooter with upper management written all over him ...

[http://www.hulu.com/watch/12638/office-space-peters- intervie...](http://www.hulu.com/watch/12638/office-space-peters-interview)

<comment><USER4> I hope for a day, when posting links to geographically-limited sites like hulu on international forms, will be considered similar to posting links behind a pay-wall. - Bad form.

<comment><USER3> sorry, couldn't find any other watchable links, looked like Fox had DMCAed the others .

Hulu used to be cool, but the networks crippled it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're interested, try reading Keith Johnstone's Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre, which has gems like this in it:

"Once you understand that every sound and posture implies a status, then you perceive the world quite differently, and the change is probably permanent. In my view, really accomplished actors, directors, and playwrights are people with an intuitive understanding of the status transactions that govern human relationships. This ability to perceive the underlying motives of casual behaviour can also be taught" (72).

Or this: "A further early discovery [in theatre status games] was that there was no way to be neutral [...] The messages are modified by the receivers" (37).

Consequently, we all have to play status "games" (an imperfect term that nonetheless gets used frequently) whether we wish to or not. Attempting not to play such games might confer the highest status of all, implying that one doesn't need to rely on status modifications to achieve social standing: one is beyond the petty concerns and judgments of others. Chances are that almost one actually is beyond such judgment, but we would like to pretend that we are.

<comment><USER6> i'd like to second this reading recommendation and add that in the first few paragraphs of this book i found one of the more inspired and simple brain hacks i've ever tried (paraphrasing here ... the book's on a 6-degrees loan somewhere):

"to free your mind of its cluttered and stunted awareness, walk around the room calling out at the objects you see, but use different names for everything. look at the chair and say 'banana', then the door and say, out loud, 'desk', and so on. go on walking and calling things by their wrong name out loud. it takes a few minutes, maybe 10, but soon you might notice something happening. maybe a kind of brightness falls over the objects in the room around you. suddenly things appear more vivid, fresh and new, for no particular reason. it's like an adrenaline shot for your creative mind. getting into this state takes deliberate effort at first, but gets easier with practice."

if you're familiar with it, there's a scene from the remake of 'the manchurian candidate' that uses a similar lighting effect to signal an altered state of mind for key characters. but it's nothing like that. those are the movies. -- just to set the right expectation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Fascinating. And furthermore, smart people may be at a major disadvantage with this game; as Bertrand Russell said, "The trouble with this world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Put another way, overconfidence and bravado come readily to those with the least real skill and insight; people who know enough to realize they don't know may often stay quiet and deferential.

But at the other extreme, people who have reached mastery in something often exhibit a subtle authority which shows up in body language alone.

<comment><USER8> No, smart people are at a major advantage, the cocksure can easily get themselves into difficult situations with this, if you're smart and cocksure then you can lull the idiots into poor positions, and you can defend your own poor positions with some clever use of rhetoric.

I was once in a meeting where the CEO was deciding that we should standardize the developer's OS. This was because I had installed Windows on a Java developer's workstation and the CEO was kind of pissed at me about it and thought the developer should have Linux on his system. (The dev was porting C# to Java)

So I suggested at one point, by asking the sys admin what would make his life easiest, whether the best way to standardize was to run whatever we ran in production so that it would minimize bugs due to OS differences. The CEO and sys admin who was his trusted lieutenant immediately seized upon this and were barking out orders that we should run whatever was in production. I happend to know that we ran Solaris in prod for these products, now all the Linux developers were pissed they'd have to run Solaris, immediately revolted in the meeting and the result was no developer OS standardization.

The key with cocksure idiots is to tell them something that sounds good that they will seize upon which will be laughed at by everyone who is in the know. Then they go away and stop fucking with you. Most people are just looking for someone to tell them what to do, be that person and you can run the show.

<comment><USER9> Cool story, bro. Are you playing the role of the smart person or the cocksure idiot in this particular situation?

<comment><USER8> I think I'm playing the smart person :) Who really knows, smart and idiotic are all perceptions in the minds of others.

Semmelweis who was influential in the idea that germs spread disease was jailed for insanity because of it. Was he smart or an idiot?

I went into the meeting wanting to kill OS standardization and it worked. I got my way but whether standardization is better / worse, who knows?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing that's always important to emphasize to people who first discover status games is that it's not always about high status. High status is high reward but also high risk. Properly playing the status game means being able to move fluidly from high to low status as the situation and context demands.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. Acting higher-status when you're really not is a sure way to make people take a _very_ strong dislike to you.

A student comes into a professor's office to ask for help. What's going to happen to the student if he starts acting like he's got higher status than the professor? Nothing good.

Likewise, if I start lording myself over my friends (who are supposed to be my equals) then they're gonna stop being my friends pretty soon.

The number of social situations in which artificially attempting to raise your status is a _good_ idea is pretty limited. The only really useful part of all this is in making sure you don't give off an artificially low status.

<comment><USER11> Useful social situations for artificially raising yous status:

1\. Attracting a good looking girl.

2\. Communicating to your boss that you will not be pushed around without resorting to words. I used this a lot (maybe a bit too much). But I never had to do shit work that I didnt want to do.

3\. Communicating to others who are not in your reporting hierarchy, but still senior to you, that you "get it". IF this is coupled with actual execution capability then you'll gain a lot of credibility pretty fast.

And yes I do agree that if you want to learn something from someone then you do have to assume a slightly lower status.

But the most interesting insight is that status is something that you give to someone else and not something a person can create on their own. Ie, someone elses status requires your active participation.

<comment><USER11> Just wanted to add that if you pull this on a manager who has a slight inferiority complex then he will think your brilliant, regardless of the quality of the work that you produce. This is in turn is something you have to stop from affecting your psyche.

Very strange. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Almost every person correctly guessed the number on his or her forehead, or was off only by 1! Could this mean that it wasn't a game we were playing for the first time? Could it be that we're playing that game over and over every day?_

Really? Maybe it's just that, once everyone knows the rules of the game, they are reasonably successful in communicating a tiny piece of information (a single number) to each other.

 _This demonstrated that by simply deciding to change my own status and acting accordingly, the other person almost immediately granted me that status and at times, changed their own._

That's because he thought he was _supposed_ to, not because it was necessarily something he would normally have done.

<comment><USER13> > That's because he thought he was supposed to, not because it was necessarily > something he would normally have done.

He mentions successfully testing it outside of the game halfway through the article:

"For the following weeks, I started experimenting with this game in real life: I'd go into conversations picking a random number for myself and others, assume my posture and tone to match, and enjoy seeing strangers changing their behavior quite randomly. Sometimes I'd make it more fun by swapping statuses with the other person halfway through the conversation and enjoy seeing many people transform in front of my own eyes."

<comment><USER14> Still, his conclusion is presented as a result of the improvisation game, not after he tried to verify it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The timing of this post is a coincidence because I just did the "status game" this past weekend at my improv class. It's a fun insightful game and Amir is spot on about the fact that we are always playing this game. In fact, we were in a class with 12 people, and after walking and interacting around the room (while only knowing the numbers of everyone but yourself on the forehead), the instructor asked us to arrange ourselves in ascending order in a line. It was amazing how almost everyone knew where exactly they were with respect to everyone else (especially when a #5 and a #6 interact, its hard to figure out if you are the superior or not, but the subtleties do tell quite a bit). Both times we did the exercise, only one person was out of place, and that too, they were right next to each other.

Like mindcrime says, there is quite a bit of wisdom in improv. I enrolled in classes because I wanted something very different to break up my usual routine that mostly involves writing code. What was really enlightening to me was that most of improv was not about being funny, but really about the fundamentals of how to communiciate and convey something to a fellow improviser as well as the audience, in the least amount of time (short scenes).

<comment><USER16> How could exactly one person be out of order? If one person is out of order he occupies other persons place - so that other person has to be out of order as well. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER17> 1, 2, 3, 5, 4

Arguably only the 5 (or the 4) is out of order. Simply remove it and order is maintained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The scene in _Office Space_ where Peter is talking to the two Bobs, while presented as comedy, is a perfect example of how this actually works. As soon as he acts like he isn't subordinate to them, they begin to feel that he's "management material".

<comment><USER19> In that scene, he isn't acting. He has simply lost fear and is therefore presenting his case openly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is such a key insight. Coming from a lower-middle class background and working my way up in large corporations, the power of "status" slowly dawned on me. Some kid from a well-off background comes in and acts like he owns the place, and it works with 7 out of 10 people! Meanwhile a guy from a lower socioeconomic class comes in, works his arse off and hesitates asking for a raise because he's afraid of overstepping -- this guy gets looked down on or taken advantage of by 7 out of 10 people.

Would be nice to have learned about this earlier.

<comment><USER21> Indeed. You want to find the "middle path", however. If you overplay your attempts at high status, you have the opposite effect: people see you as having "a problem with authority" or a proletarian "chip" on your shoulder.

[http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yes-rich- kids...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yes-rich-kids-already- won-the-career-game-heres-why/)

Using the cards metaphor, you never want to be one point away from the other person. Step 1: figure out where the other person sees himself. Step 2: figure out what he wants-- a protege (1-2 points lower), a friend and equal (same status), or a mentor (1-2 points higher). Almost no one wants a supplicant (3+ lower) or arrogant boss (3+ higher). And more importantly, almost no one wants to be a supplicant or an arrogant boss.

<comment><USER20> Wise words. Good essay, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you get really good at this sort of thing you can take people's wallets just by asking <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR4y5iX4uRY>

<comment><USER23> I've watched tons fo Derrin Brown videos. His experiments are pretty interesting. Subliminal advertising and the chess grandmaster ones were the most interesting.

See what happens when you leave a wallet on the ground: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxYCh_p2Mjs>

<comment><USER24> Just don't forget that he's a showman, and explication is part of his act.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Was it just me or did anyone else think of "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell? The author of this article implicitly assumes that all the participants of the game come from similar cultural backgrounds.

Read: [http://bokardo.com/archives/what-malcolm-gladwells-book- outl...](http://bokardo.com/archives/what-malcolm-gladwells-book-outliers-can- teach-us-about-interface-design/)

Some cultures, e.g. Colombian or South Korean, are more geared towards respecting authority than other cultures, e.g. New Yorkers. A collision of two such disparate cultures can result in disasters such as Flight 052:

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Avianca_Fligh...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52)

More details about the Power Distance Index (PDI): [http://www.maximizingutility.com/2009/06/culture-clash- power...](http://www.maximizingutility.com/2009/06/culture-clash-power- distance-index.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> Well said. Skills and attitudes from improv are incredibly useful in all kinds of situations ...

A variant I'd suggest when playing the game in real life: as well as imagining an ace on your own forehead, imagine that the other person also has an ace.

<comment><USER27> _Next time you're in a conversation with a friend or stranger, try imagining that you're carrying the ace card, act with a matching confidence, imagine everyone else holding the same card, and treat them with the respect that other aces deserve._

That seems to be the same thing he's suggesting.

<comment><USER26> right you are. how embarrassing. can i downvote my own post?

<comment><USER28> A case of cryptomnesia perhaps? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Once you get an eye for it, it's very easy to see other people playing this game.

<comment><USER30> Specifically, what types of things do you look out for?

<comment><USER31> If interaction were a function, feed it subtle edge cases ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Strikingly similar to "karma". People don't care about some number, but their status.

When pg experimented with visually distinguishing people with high avg karma (an orange dot IIRC), many people noticed the changing status dynamics (a lower "cringed" before a higher), and it discouraged discussion between equals.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder if this guy is hacking the status game with this 'my latest project Keynotopia was built in 3 hours with a budget of $47' claim.

It's like he's saying, 'yeah, that's right, I'm a fucking rock star programmer. The type that makes things happen. The type that's 100x more productive than the average coder. The type you need to hire.'

Cause otherwise, why would he bother saying that, as customers usually want to believe a lot of work has gone into something before they buy it.

</comment><comment><USER23> A few summers ago when I was in Sunnyvale I took a course at the SF Comedy College (<http://www.sfcomedycollege.com/>). The course opened my mind up to being completely in the moment and creative without overthinking things (applicable to almost everything you do in life). They go through common improv exercises like Yes-ands and scenario role plays. Highly recommend improv classes.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've always liked the phrase, "99% of success is just showing up", although to be honest 0% of success happens when you don't. Self-confidence is a hard thing to gain but really worthwhile trying all you can.

<comment><USER35> The original is 80% and is attributed to Woody Allen.

The other 20%, of course, is schmoozing when you get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Isn't this analogous to a "guess a number" game? You have a stack of cards that range from 2 to Ace. If I were to play this game I would not start talking to a guy who has a King on his forehead. I would go to a 5-7 and then determine where I ranked, if I felt I were below 5-7, then I know I am in 2-4 or if I were above them, 8-K. It would seem it would only take only a few more iterations to figure out which status I have.

<comment><USER21> Remember that the 5-7 don't know that they're 5-7 when the game starts. They have no idea. It takes a while before they figure out where they stand. When the game starts, people are all over the map in how they represent themselves.

The 2-4 and the Q-A figure it out quickly. Then the Q-A start talking down to the 9-J but no one else does, so they figure out where they stand. Because of miscommunication and confusion, it takes a few minutes (maybe 10) of interaction before people figure it out.

Just to fuck around and have fun, I'd talk down to the Q-A and suck up to the 2-4. It'd be interesting to see how this game changes when there's an intentional "spoiler" in the mix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> There is an excellent discussion of status games in the book "Impro." Highly recommend it if you're interested in hacking the non-tech side of things.

[http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith- John...](http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith- Johnstone/dp/0878301178)

</comment><comment><USER38> I guess this could be good advice for manipulating status for short time periods (dating, job interviews, business meetings, etc.), but fortunately once it goes beyond that (relationships, careers, business deals, etc.) the status of everyone involved will settle down to the natural order of things.

<comment><USER21> What is social status based on? To a large extent, nothing. A lot of people are "famous for being famous", and every high school or college has that notorious "creepy guy" who did nothing wrong other than piss someone off his freshman year and get "a reputation". Status is self-perpetuating and often derived from _itself_ rather than any "underlying" trait. If you're a 2, you probably have to practice being a 5 before you can be a King, but you can "fake it till you make it".

The trick is to: (a) accurately assess the other person's "card", in terms of self-image, and (b) figure out what the person wants and expects from you. If he or she wants a mentor (+1) be that. If he or she wants an equal and friend (same) be that. If he or she wants a protege (-1) be that. Three points (using the 2-A card metaphor) in either direction will ruin the relationship. One exception: never go lower than a 6 or so. Also, in a group, err on the high side. If the group expects you to be the "alpha", be 1 point higher than the next highest person. If it expects and wants, someone else to be an "alpha", be 1 point lower than that person.

The "one-point" rule is important because people generally think in relative terms. If someone is extremely powerful and arrogant and acts the part (King) and you become an Ace you are "crossing" him (literally, in the number-line status metaphor). That's usually bad. On the other hand, there's no harm in being a Queen rather than an 8 or a 2. You get more respect that way. Likewise, if someone is (in terms of self-image) a 7 and you come in as a King, you're just going to be overbearing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> if you go into a conversation mentally giving people status', and then swap in the middle unbeknownst to the other people in the conversation, wouldnt that just really confuse them and make them think, "wait, am I the alpha male or is he.....i coulda sworn he was but then, it just kinda changed..."

<comment><USER9> It'd probably make people think "This guy is acting really strange, though I can't put my finger on what he's doing. I don't like this guy. I'm going to get out of this awkward social situation now."

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Also, think like a winner.

(Yay, games with life.)

Be careful with this when there are _actual_ status labels in play. Like rank or position. Act like you're an Ace around a boss or slight superior who's not an idiot and you may find yourself wearing that person's patience down _very_ fast.

</comment><comment><USER41> Interesting. I imagine that observers notice "tells" of some kind when a person is acting above their own internal status estimate, and downgrade their own status estimate of that person accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER42> Great post until the end, when it was mentioned that everyone should be treated as an ace. I don't agree, because quite simply, not everyone is an ace.

</comment><comment><USER43> dont play this with your friends.

<comment><USER44> You already play this with your friends on a daily basis. Haven't you ever teased a friend, or pretended something they did was silly? You're lowering their status and raising yours, if only temporarily and in the spirit of fun.

Keith Johnstone even argues that this sort of status game is the sign of a close friendship, implying that the two of you are comfortable enough with the status dynamics of your relationship to play around with them.

<comment><USER40> Doesn't a real friendship imply equal status? That equal status is always there, the teasing is thanks to it being equal, not fluctuating. At most you could say you are pretending to be lower or higher than each other, but acknowledging that is in fact pretending.

<comment><USER45> If you are male then yes. Pretty much all male bonding is about temporarily raising or lowering yours or your friends status, then laughing at the absurdity at what you've just done. Male groups typically have a leader (or "alpha") and the rest are equals.

If you are female then there is a harder edge to this game. It's played far more subtly, but the changes in status are real and permanent and no-one's laughing afterwards. Female groups have very strict pecking orders.

<comment><USER46> I am a female and I am only friends with equals, both men and women.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Thinking in React - <AUTHOR> https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/thinking-in-react.html <comment><USER2> FWIW, this has been in the React documents from near the beginning:

[https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/a0ecf472421937545ff...](https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/a0ecf472421937545ff5843b5fee6ba5e6991685#diff-388df072689cb3c458ca3ef0d0cac717)

I've frequently referred to it when I need to refresh my memory on how to start in React from scratch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, surprised that is just getting posted for the first time here.

<comment><USER3> No, this is the second time this page was posted, according to [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Thinking+in+React](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Thinking+in+React). The page was first posted 2 years and 1 month ago in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7672379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7672379), though that submission had only 6 points and no comments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a very useful walkthrough.

Some links for those who are also interested in "Thinking in React" in a more conceptual way (#4 is a presentation from the same person who wrote the walkthrough):

1) React — Basic Theoretical Concepts: "A description of the conceptual model of React without implementation burden." [https://github.com/reactjs/react- basic](https://github.com/reactjs/react-basic)

2) Pure UI: "A lot has been written about the merits of React as a framework. Today I'm compelled to write about the benefits of a programming model it enables and its implications to the design and creation workflow." [http://rauchg.com/2015/pure-ui/](http://rauchg.com/2015/pure-ui/)

3) Removing User Interface Complexity, or Why React is Awesome: "I'm mostly concerned with the core problems of data binding and componentizing UIs. After much research and usage of the technologies mentioned above, I found React to provide the best solution." [http://jlongster.com/Removing-User-Interface- Complexity,-or-...](http://jlongster.com/Removing-User-Interface- Complexity,-or-Why-React-is-Awesome)

4) Pete Hunt: React: Rethinking best practices (youtube): "building views with JavaScript, 're-rendering' your entire application when your data changes, and a lightweight implementation of the DOM and events." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY)

5) Nothing new in React and Flux except one thing: "What is it that makes React so innovative and compelling?… The Virtual DOM allows us to convert a mutable retained mode graphics API to an immutable functional immediate mode API." [http://staltz.com/nothing-new-in-react-and-flux-except- one-t...](http://staltz.com/nothing-new-in-react-and-flux-except-one- thing.html)

(I collected them to go along with something I wrote in the same vein: [https://medium.com/@firasd/interface-from-data-using- react-t...](https://medium.com/@firasd/interface-from-data-using-react-to- sync-updates-and-offline-activity-across-devices-f672b213701c))

<comment><USER5> #4 is really my favorite. I know a lot of people who were hardcore opposed to React until they watched that presentation.

> React — Basic Theoretical Concepts

"Basic"

Let's just say, save this one for last.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. When looking for videos I saw he updated his presentation and gave it again, but there's raw appeal in that first 'Rethinking best practices' talk. Just something coming in out of left field. (Another early presentation: "Tom Occhino and Jordan Walke: JS Apps at Facebook" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW0rj4sNH2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW0rj4sNH2w))

Re: basic concepts, I admit my eyes glaze over by the time I read the heading "Memoization". Opens with this great sentence though—I like to say 'view as a function of state', but he breaks it down even simpler—"The core premise for React is that UIs are simply a projection of data into a different form of data."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm just amazed at how something that would appear to be so simple could be so complicated.

<comment><USER7> What do you mean?

<comment><USER6> I have little trouble building decent, dynamic web sites in python. When went through the article I was mostly befuddled.

<comment><USER7> Sorry about that. Anything in particular we could improve?

<comment><USER8> Add a glossary/dictionary for all the new React terms, at the end of the article ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For folks just a little further into React, there's a great project called Storybook[1] which lets you put your JSON and React components, individually, into a really nice UI to try them out. Earlier HN discussion[2].

[1] [https://github.com/kadirahq/react- storybook](https://github.com/kadirahq/react-storybook)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11411020](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11411020)

</comment><comment><USER10> I know it's just a demo and I'm sure it scales very well, but I can't help but think that's a lot of code for a such simple UI. The intercoolerjs equivalent is pretty simple:

[http://intercoolerjs.org/examples/activesearch.html](http://intercoolerjs.org/examples/activesearch.html)

Don't misunderstand me, there are a lot of places where react is appropriate and intercooler isn't, but for something like this...

<comment><USER11> This is one thing I find a little bit frustrating with the tutorials of various JS tools. They fail to accurately describe a problem that they solve.

Usually you just get a quick paragraph going on about what you can do with the tool, then a quick example of something you could have easily done without the tool, then straight into the full API documentation.

And after I've read all that I'm still saying "Ok, that's kind of cool. But why would I add another dependency to my project when I can code your example up in clean, vanilla JS (or more often in these days, plain old React)".

I'd love to start seeing tutorial documentation address this more. Having a basic example is great, but it shouldn't be the only example. You should follow it up with a more complex example that really captures the reason you built the tool in the first place.

<comment><USER12> > This is one thing I find a little bit frustrating with the tutorials of > various JS tools. They fail to accurately describe a problem that they > solve.

Yes, this is valid for anything. It's harder to understand the solution if we haven't met the problem. For example, I realized the need of React after my template-based app was becoming a huge mess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is React worth it? How complex does your site need to be before it becomes worthwhile?

<comment><USER14> React is pretty easy to start with, for me the question is when does redux and the madness in redux starter kit become worth it.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I can see the value in redux for a big app with lots of complex state to manage (eg Facebook), but it seems like major overkill in a lot of smaller apps where people seem to be reaching for it by default for some reason. Plain React components and a few helper modules can get you a surprisingly long way --there's really no need for more framework until deeply nested components make simple argument passing unweildy.

<comment><USER4> I saw this from Redux's creator that aligns with my take: "When people say setState() is an anti-pattern, they mean 500-line components with a complex setState() soup scattered across event handlers. When you spend your days looking for bugs in those handlers and moving them up and down component hierarchy, consider extracting it." [https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/725090047557558272](https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/725090047557558272)

I had that whole 'moving values and events up and down the component hierarchy, driving me nuts' thing going on when I tried to make an editor page for a two-level list. I added Redux and now I just directly read/update the list in the store from every component in the editor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> [https://github.com/kay-is/react-from-zero](https://github.com/kay-is/react- from-zero)

for people who want to look into react itself without webpack, es2015 etc.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm a dab jQuery hand and I absolutely love the idea of React - reminds me of the best parts of XSLT. I'm struggling a bit with the pre-required tooling - not that it's there, but I'm just out of date with what a Babel is, what ESX is, how do I get Javascript 1.7 rendering in the browser, etc etc etc.

Is there a simple guide to _that_?

<comment><USER4> You would need some familiarity with npm first but after that the current practice is to use webpack with 'loaders' to transform JSX, ES6 etc.

This is intermediate: webpack-howto [https://github.com/petehunt/webpack- howto](https://github.com/petehunt/webpack-howto)

<comment><USER18> A simple starter for webpack: [https://github.com/HenrikJoreteg/hjs- webpack](https://github.com/HenrikJoreteg/hjs-webpack)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not an experienced frontend developer per se, each time trying to study React it seems daunting, will things like vue.js a better method for 90% of the problems?

Angularjs is also complicated, if not more than React, especially it's now more like C# (typescript etc) which I don't like.

Maybe I'm just too dumb, or things move so fast and getting so complicated and I just can not catch up.

I will try to use jQuery and possibly vue.js for now, for the sake of KISS.

</comment><comment><USER20> The Yelp clone was scary, yes, but this is pleasant. I'll try this when I get back home today.

</comment><comment><USER21> It this very old or this is a re-write? I remember reading that a year or two ago.

<comment><USER22> Source[1] hasn't been updated in over a month, so it's just a repost.

[1] [https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/docs/docs/thin...](https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/docs/docs/thinking- in-react.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The problem I've had developing with React (I've just done a little, I'm still a beginner), is it sometimes seems like a minor change to the UI can require a major change to the source, cascading through multiple components.

I think maybe this is reflected in this guide, such as the advice in the "Identify where your state should live" section (which they say is "often the most challenging part for newcomers to understand", which matches my experience), which suggests you should be looking at every single component involved and how they all relate to determine where the state should live.

This is very different from my previous (mostly OO, lately ruby) experience, where you really want to look at a component (in the broad sense, not neccesarily a view-layer, I just mean any object or 'piece') in strict isolation, identify what it's inputs and outputs need to be, and from that alone, in isolation, you know what it's API should be. And from this technique, you hope to wind up with components that that do not assume or depend on too much about their context of use and can be re-used and re-mixed in different ways without a rewrite.

I've found I've had to change my whole approach designing React -- when using my previous time-tested techniques, I would wind up putting props/state in the wrong place. I found that indeed I had to consider the entire graph when determining props/state. But that this has led me to situations where what my intuition would say would be relatively small changes to the UI create a cascading waterfall of changes I have to make to lots of and lots of components in the existing graph, as where state (including props) is kept needs to change, requiring cascading changes to many components in the previous graph.

Examples of such UI changes would be taking a UI widget/component that previously was only one one page and realizing it had to be re-used on another(s); moving a UI widget from one part of the page to another; taking a UI widget that previously just displayed something and realizing it needs to have an 'edit' capability too; taking something that showed up just once on the page and changing it to be say at both top and bottom of page. All things that my usual techniques and approaches from OO experience would have been able to accomodate no problem if I had designed the components well from the start, but that in React I'm finding result in needing to change where state is kept (or what things are state and what things are props), requiring cascading changes to many components.

Which is frustrating. I hoped I'd get better at avoiding this as I got better with React, and I'm sure that's true, but if even the advice from those most experienced says you can only determine state/props architecture by looking at the entire object graph possibly involved in that state....

I dunno. Comments from people more experienced with react very welcome.

<comment><USER24> >it sometimes seems like a minor change to the UI can require a major change to the source, cascading through multiple components.

>in React I'm finding result in needing to change where state is kept (or what things are state and what things are props), requiring cascading changes to many components.

It sounds like you don't have a good understanding of state vs props. You should use state as little as possible and try to do as much as possible through props, passing them down from the parent components as necessary.

When I create a react app I use the flux architecture, define a state on the top parent component and then add most of the other components as children to this parent component, passing down state as props, and adding listeners to update the components when the state of the parent changes.

As far as moving elements around I mostly do that through CSS and wasn't aware react had much to do with positioning elements

>taking a UI widget/component that previously was only one one page and realizing it had to be re-used on another(s)

Import it into the component that renders the other page and use different props. If you define a lot of stuff in the state of the component then the component isn't as portable.

>moving a UI widget from one part of the page to another;

This just sounds like CSS and possibly markup to me.

>taking a UI widget that previously just displayed something and realizing it needs to have an 'edit' capability too

Not sure what you mean by this.

Sounds like you could use more practice.

[https://github.com/uberVU/react-guide/blob/master/props- vs-s...](https://github.com/uberVU/react-guide/blob/master/props-vs-state.md)

<comment><USER23> > It sounds like you don't have a good understanding of state vs props.

I think I've got a decent understanding, but I'm sure it could be better, and am heartened to think as it gets better these problems will go away.

> You should use state as little as possible and try to do as much as possible > through props, passing them down from the parent components as necessary.

But yes, I've arrived at as little state and as many props as possible. The challenge for me here is that this ends up resulting in components that look to me (based on previous OO experience) like they have TERRIBLE API's, requiring way too many props. My instinct from OO is that a _smaller_ exposed API makes things more portable, but you suggest that "If you define a lot of stuff in the state of the component then the component isn't as portable." Nonetheless, I have moved toward more-props less-state, but....

ALSO this has meant for me that when I need to move or re-use a component from one part of the hieararchy to another, I often end up needing to completely rework the props of a BUNCH of other components, so the right prop can be passed down to my now-moved component -- that's what I mean by 'requiring cascading changes'.

<comment><USER25> > ALSO this has meant for me that when I need to move or re-use a component > from one part of the hieararchy to another, I often end up needing to > completely rework the props of a BUNCH of other components, so the right > prop can be passed down to my now-moved component -- that's what I mean by > 'requiring cascading changes'.

This sounds like the problem that is solved by redux et al. Instead of passing props into a component just so that it can pass those props down to its children, the child components can just connect to redux and get the data. That way you are accessing the data at the point in the component hierarchy where it makes sense for the component to know about that data, instead of in whatever component happens to be the common ancestor of all of the places that need the data.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the feedback!

I had somehow gotten the idea that the common advice was to not use redux/flux until you really need it, and even then only use connect to it in 'top level' components, and pass things down from 'top level' component to children view props. Rather than have every component get things from the reactor itself, even deeply nested children.

Have I gotten the wrong idea? Is the advice I thought was common not actually common?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I review the 14-foot laptop from The Shack (nee RadioShack), or try to. - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/08/07/radioshacks-14-foot-laptop-the-technologizer-review/

<comment><USER2> From the article: _I'm not great at math, but RadioShack.com has a 14-inch Toshiba laptop that weighs 5.8 pounds. A 14-foot laptop would be twelve times the size of a 14-foot one, so it would presumably weigh about twelve times as much. That means that the giant laptop weighed slightly under seventy pounds._

I'm hoping this is a joke, but I'm really not sure...

<comment><USER3> Saw that one too. Did a Charlie Brown sigh. I've filed educating people in basic geometry right along with correcting people who misuse "begs the question". Its in the folder marked _"training cats and other lost causes"_.

Also, please, _please_ , don't name it "THE SHACK". I feel dumb enough going in there as it is now. "Hey, where are you headed...?" _cringe_

<comment><USER4> It was obviously a joke. There is no way anyone could look at that massive laptop and say, "wow, that weighs less than I do."</comment></comment></comment>


Bullet Journal – The analog system for the digital age - <AUTHOR> http://bulletjournal.com/ <comment><USER2> I tried and tbh i found it to be quite a high-maintenance system.

My solution was to download and print agenda templates from [http://philofaxy.blogspot.it/p/diary- inserts.html](http://philofaxy.blogspot.it/p/diary-inserts.html)

The nice thing is that multiple templates are available for free and it costs as little as printing 50 or 100 pages (1page/week or 2pages/week), front/back and black/white.

Beside that, I'm only using a normal binder.

Despite this, next year I'm going back to a Moleskine weekly agenda. 15-17€/year is just a worth price for a good agenda.</comment>


Serious Adverse Event Time - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/09/09/serious-adverse-event-time <comment><USER2> Derek Lowe is almost the author of the "Things I Won't Work With" series of articles on this very blog, which recount in humorous fashion various compounds with poisonous, explosive, or downright foul properties that he refuses to work with.

</comment><comment><USER3> > since vaccines are designed to be given exclusively to people who are not > sick ... the safety standards have to be very high.

I'm not sure I follow this logic. Sure, the safety standards for all medicine have to be acceptably high. But just like one might say "this person has a risky heart condition that may kill them anyway, so it's worth using the risky drug on them", doesn't the same logic apply in a pandemic? You can factor in the risk of catching a disease and then dying from it, just the same way you can factor in the risk of dying from a disease someone already has.

If we're talking about a 1 in 30,000 serious adverse reaction to a vaccine for a disease that kills about 1 in 200 (and may give serious permanent effects like heart or lung damage to a majority of people it doesn't kill), wouldn't that be worth the risk? If we do nothing, as far as I have heard, we basically expect that up to 60% of people might get the disease (and in many places, perhaps 10-25% of people have already gotten it), or else we have to keep up various levels of restrictions on activity indefinitely. Just seems a little weird that this article doesn't acknowledge the urgency and uniqueness of the present situation.

I'm not trying to argue for using a potentially unsafe vaccine, and I'm not an expert on the matter. But this shallow level of discussion of the issue just leaves me with more questions than answers.

<comment><USER4> 1 in 200 is not universal. The risk is much lower for young healthy people. That is the group that will (probably wisely) be reluctant to get vaccinated unless they are required to.</comment></comment>


Things Engineers Do to Move to the US - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@muneeb/living-on-one-mcfish-a-day-for-the-american-dream-592ed97c1bab

<comment><USER2> Is there a very substantial difference between the things engineers do to move to the US and things non-engineers do to move to the US?

Here's the sentence that gets at the heart of this disagreement:

"..Even when the Valley is facing a supply problem and is desperate for hiring engineers."

Unfortunately, many people have associated being pro-immigration with agreeing that there is a severe shortage of software engineers. I see these things as separate, and I think it's a mistake to try to connect them.

In San Francisco, the median salary for a software developer is a little bit above a dental hygienist and substantially below a registered nurse[1]. I'm not saying programming is necessarily a bad job, or that programmers would jump at the chance to switch places with dental hygienists. But if you consider pay, career stability, the possibility of age-related employment problems as you reach middle age, the difficulty of scaling back or leaving the workforce while you have kids… the decision to avoid software engineering can be entirely rational. The attractiveness of the career is at odds with claims of a severe shortage when you consider other opportunities available to educated, skilled workers. Why favor one segment of the economy, why not require that software employers compete for free workers like everyone else?

In short, why should someone who has agreed to study what Facebook wants him to study, live where Facebook wants him to live, and work on what Facebook wants him to work on, have priority over someone who is "undeclared", who wants to come to the US and choose a career in response to market signals like any other free person?

[1] check US news best jobs for regional salary data, based on BLS

</comment><comment><USER3> I reject the premise that the country should be open to anyone who wants to come in and give it a shot.

At some point a country has to stand up for its citizens, people who take on massive debt to go to school here, who grew up here and whose family paid lots of taxes, should have priority for jobs.

Besides, if it's about research, research institutions can sponsor H1B really easily and are cap exempt.

</comment><comment><USER4> > That's true now, and we don't realize how lucky we are that it is.

I don't think it is true. I see no reason why one should come to the US and not to UK for example.

<comment><USER5> How about the fact that a software developer in Silicon Valley earns much more, up to twice as much as one in London? Before taxes that is.

<comment><USER4> I would be more interested in after taxes earnings and things like holidays, healthcare and so on. Also you are most likely not able to get your family to the US to visit you. This is a huge downer I can imagine for a lot of people.

<comment><USER5> As a general indication, the average software developer in the UK earns about 45k$, while the average in the US is more like 60k$ (source: payscale). The averages for London and Silicon Valley will both be higher than that of course.

Healthcare insurance is more expensive in the US, but this is compensated by much lower taxes.

You're definitely right about holidays and vacation days, you'll have more of these in the UK. At the same time, even when you value a vacation day at 300$ (much more than either average UK or US dev earns in a day) and suppose our average UK dev has 20 more vacation days a year (he probably doesn't), that's still only 6k out of a 15k difference.

I agree that being near your family and friends can be worth a lot more than 15k$.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Maajid Nawaz (ex-extremist) on the jihadist attack in Nice, France - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/please-stop-staying-the-nice-attacks-arent-about-islam/ <comment><USER2> Ex-extremist ... give the man a medal...

</comment><comment><USER3> as per media the killer was a loner drunkard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice terror attack: Isil claims responsibility for Bastille day attack that killed 84 people, as French minister says Bouhlel was 'radicalised very quickly' [1]

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/nice-terror- attac...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/nice-terror-attack-truck- driver-who-killed-84-named-as-loner-fre/)

<comment><USER3> ISIL is a wannabe now. They need credit of everything to keep them in lime light. I even saw a video in which locals say that it has nothing to do with faith.

BTW, on same page it's written:

>Nice terror attack: Truck driver who killed 84 named as >'loner' French- Tunisian criminal who 'became depressed' when >wife left him as police question estranged spouse

Search _wife_ in it. Also check the URL.

<comment><AUTHOR> ISIL is generally known to accept responsibility only if they see the person has declared their pledge.

You may also wish to see this video [1].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YCWf0tHy7M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YCWf0tHy7M)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TSA To Ban Printer Cartridges Next Week : SD 1554-10-05 - <AUTHOR> http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/05/tsa-intends-to-ban-printer-cartridges-next-week/

<comment><USER2> If one was a clever terrorist, you might eventually come to the conclusion that you could do more economic and psychological harm by examining the things people want and need to be able to fly with and then running terror plots that use those items. Things like shoes, underwear, liquids, and electronics come to mind.

But of course, we'd never be so stupid as to play into the terrorists hands this way. I'm sure they don't laugh at us running around like idiots throwing away toiletries, getting strip-searched, and shuffling through security barefoot while someone ogles our naked bodies in another room. We sure showed _them_!

<comment><USER3> _I'm sure they don't laugh at us running around like idiots throwing away toiletries, getting strip-searched, and shuffling through security barefoot while someone ogles our naked bodies in another room._

I don't entirely understand the individual psychology behind terrorism, but I'm absolutely certain that it isn't so they can laugh at us when we're in the security queue.

<comment><USER4> You've missed his point slightly. It is not that they are _literally_ laughing..

But the point was - terrorists aim to provoke fear and discord; blowing up a passenger aircraft is pretty terrifying, but causing anger, fear frustration and discord on an international scale can be just as good. And all they have to do is get a bomb (even a useless, utterly ineffective one) onto a plane every few months.

Bureaucracy does the rest :)

<comment><USER5> In some places an evil bureaucracy won't be above using its intelligence services for a couple of "false flag" ops. They'll have them plant a bomb or two every 5-6 months. You know, just so to keep a healthy dose of fear running through everyone's veins.

<comment><USER6> These terrorist are trying since forever to destroy the Democracy! And our brave officers are holding them back proudly.

We have located their base of operations and its Eastasia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was impressed by the concealment method used in the bomb, since the explosive has a similar consistancy to ink/toner - but this is just ridiculous.

Responding to each terrorist threat, post-threat, by banning any method they used in their attack is a bad way to secure the western world.

The terrorists will just adapt and find other methods, as they have proven time and time again. In the interim, millions of travelers take their shoes off at airports, can no longer carry liquids on planes and have perfumes and aftershaves confiscated.

With all the different ways our lives have been adjusted because of each attack attempt I have to ask myself if we are not letting them win.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is emphasized in the article, but it bears repeating:

"Organized terrorists are long term planners and they do not play the same cards more than once."

</comment><comment><USER9> This could have been an article in The Onion. If we keep up this strategy, it will be impossible to travel with anything.

<comment><USER10> I can see it now:

TSA To Ban Airplanes Next Week : SD OMG-WTF-BBQ

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I believe a summary is best stated as "See, we're doing something!" Doing something, and doing the right thing, are very different things, but one is simple, and the other requires thought and risk management.

You can imagine which is rewarded and which is punished. Not just by politicians and bureaucrats, but by the public as well. The general public is also responsible for this absurdity by not being willing to accept some risk as being unavoidable.

<comment><USER12> You just described the reason my father-in-law (and now I) believe that the best outcome is no movement. Thus we both vote (in the US) to try and create a stalemate in house vs Senate - both parties are so screwed up they damage everything they touch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Next up suitcases, clothes and hair. Forcibly shaven-bald travelers trudging naked through security carrying their belongings in see through polythene bags will be a common sight.

Invest in barbershop stocks.

</comment><comment><USER14> The airline situation seems more and more analogous to the email spam problem. Right now the government is still in the blacklist phase. Hopefully soon they'll come up with something more like a bayesean approach -- training people to recognize terrorists and bombs on a case by case basis instead of blocking broad categories.

</comment><comment><USER15> _...however prohibiting printer cartridges poses a few challenges … mainly that generally printer cartridges do not have their ink or toner volume readily listed on the cartridge its self._

Not a problem. I'm sure people can buy/make stickers that say "15 ounces" and stick them on the cartridges.

</comment><comment><USER16> If it makes printer cartridge vendors display the tiny quantity of ink / toner that you're buying for $100, then maybe not such a bad thing after all ...

</comment><comment><USER17> why are they overfitting the data?

wouldn't it be better to have expected volumes and masses for various items, and where items defer from these expectations, they get inspected fully?

many customs sheets include a declaration of the package contents.

<comment><USER18> Volume isn't really the issue, but mass might be. In the case of the toner cartridge (which appears to have been a sub-assembly of an actual printer) a truly devious individual might have removed the correct amount of toner, and then offset it with an equal amount of explosive material. The mass doesn't change (mostly due to the fact that the toner cartridge had excess space in it to begin with).

What does change is the chemical signature of the contents. That would require inspection of each item as it is presented for shipment. Hence the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I for one am waiting for the breast implant bomber.

</comment><comment><USER20> was it scott adams who said this last time - "we're one more step closer to flying nude"</comment>


Make a connected barometer shield for the Arduino uno – using an ESP8266 - <AUTHOR> http://digitaljunky.io/make-a-connected-barometer-shield-for-arduino-uno/

<comment><USER2> I have this board from Ethermania at home [https://github.com/ethermania/WeatherShield1](https://github.com/ethermania/WeatherShield1) and it works just great. Really inexpensive and the software is easy to modify.</comment>


Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/11/12openjdk.html

<comment><USER4> Almost as important is the announcement that the current Apple JDK, 1.6, will still ship in Lion. Given the release cycle of Java 7, that's a big relief to Java users and given the HN crowd, budding Android developers. Moreover, it seems to quash the (ridiculous) rumours that OS X Lion will end up being some locked down antithesis of previous versions of OS X.

<comment><USER5>
      > that's a big relief to Java users and given the
        HN crowd, budding Android developers

And don't forget the Clojure, Scala, JRuby, Groovy, Jython, Mirah et al users ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is off-topic, but I'm amazed by the descriptions at the end of TFA (I know, I know, it's a press release, but still...)

 _Oracle is the world's most complete, open and integrated business software and hardware systems company. (...)_

Let's grant integrated and complete, but definitely not "open". Though this is dwarfed by Apple's incredible self-praise:

 _Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork, and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple is reinventing the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced its magical iPad which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices._

Woah there cowboy! A bit of humility maybe?

<comment><USER7> I'm no fanboy, believe me. But most of that is pretty accurate.

<comment><USER8> The iPad is magical?

<comment><USER9> Indeed. And seemingly animate as well, since it "is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices." Would've thought that was the folks making and using them, but hey, I'm not the one wearing the turtlenecks.

(And yes, I own an iPad. But probably not the one that is going around defining things. Other than words. With a dictionary app.)

<comment><USER10> It's an absolutely acceptable use of the verb "define." There's nothing about it that requires an animate subject.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This bit is hilarious:

 _The best way for our users to always have the most up to date and secure version of Java will be to get it directly from Oracle._

Contrast that with a recent quote from Bill Evans:

 _We're happy to continue to support Flash on the Mac, and the best way for users to always have the most up to date and secure version is to download it directly from Adobe._

It's like they're just toying with the tech press.

<comment><USER12> I don't see any contrast. How is the fact that Apple takes a consistent stance toward third-party platforms "toying with the tech press"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So... Is this good or bad?

I know Oracle is giving its back (not to say finger) to the Apache Foundation, but OpenJDK is a GPL-licensed version of the Java stack. Why is it bad (as in why so many complain) that Apple, Oracle and IBM cluster around OpenJDK? Why is the GPL not good enough?

<comment><USER14> It's not "clean", only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver, if you modify the JRE and don't get it re-certified then you lose the patent protection. And to get it certified you have to agree to a restrictive licence from Oracle. Sun promised Apache to make the TCK available under an open licence but this never happened.

IBM was previously putting pressure on Sun/Oracle to make the TCK available under the open licence to Apache that they had promised, since IBM have switched to OpenJDK, it removes that pressure and makes Java much more closed.

<comment><USER13> > only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent > waiver,

No. That's not true. As long as your code is derived from OpenJDK (and unavoidably licensed under GPL), you are protected from patent lawsuits from Oracle (for technology contributed to OpenJDK). What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java. You can say "pretty much compatible with that famous VM invented by Sun(TM)" and you are clear.

> And to get it certified you have to agree to a restrictive licence from > Oracle

Again, the GPL states you can use OpenJDK for whatever you want. If you decide to run a nuclear reactor with it, you are free to do so (as only the Oracle JDK is licensed under such restrictive terms)

> Sun promised Apache to make the TCK available under an open licence but this > never happened.

I understand this is the core of the problem. What is not clear is how this adversely affects users.

> since IBM have switched to OpenJDK, it removes that pressure and makes Java > much more closed.

We still have OpenJDK licensed under GPL. How's that closed?

<comment><USER15> >"What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java."

There's more to it than that. If I call it Dalvik, like Google did, why would I get a lawsuit?

Edit: I have to say I don't think I even understand what open source means anymore. If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make freely available), it's not really open right?

<comment><USER13> > If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make > modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make freely > available), it's not really open right?

I believe your restriction on making derived works conflicts with just about every free and open-source license out there. What Sun did and Oracle does prohibit you from doing is calling something that doesn't pass the non-freely- available TCK by the name Java or implying it's Java-compatible.

As for Dalvik, it's not derived from a project Oracle contributed the said patents. In this way, Dalvik is not protected agains Oracle's lawyers.

<comment><USER15> I think reversing a linked-list using recursion is a walk in the park compared to trying to understand patent/trademark law for software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Blog post from Oracle's Henrik Ståhl, responsible for product strategy in the Java Platform Group, with a little more detail and comments.

[http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/2010/11/oracle_and_apple_anno...](http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/2010/11/oracle_and_apple_announce_openjdk_project_for_osx.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm itching to take a look at Apple's "foundation for a new graphical client"

<comment><USER18> I wonder why they don't just release their existing AWT/Swing adaptations?

Either they are afraid of people using the Mac OS style on Windows, or that by open sourcing the style, they loose their copyright to it, or the code is such as mess that they'd rather not release it into the open.

<comment><USER19> How many years-old projects with deep hooks into a proprietary OS, written with no intention of ever being open sourced, would or could be opened on any reasonable timeframe? Any precedents spring to mind?

<comment><USER20> WebObjects...? And still not open. But perhaps not the precedent you were looking for...

<comment><USER12> I don't think WebObjects has a lot of internal system hooks, does it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This thread breaks the really admirable hacker news quality of not giving in to snark.

</comment><comment><USER22> This oughta help stop the FUD.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does this mean there's some chance you'll be able to use Java for Mac App Store apps?

<comment><USER24> No they state right in the Mac App Store guidelines that you cannot.

<comment><USER25> Apple has certainly back-pedaled on App Store guidelines before. Lately they seem to start with the most restrictive set of guidelines to set a precedent and then ease things as they see fit. It's always easier to start strict and then relax over time, than it is to go the other way. Especially when the topic is programming languages/frameworks where over time a large code base can be built up.

Perhaps now that Java will not be considered deprecated from the platform, it will be allowed for us in App Store applications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The way people describe themselves in press releases is ridiculous:

"Oracle is the world's most complete, open and integrated business software and hardware systems company. For more information about Oracle, please visit our Web site at www.oracle.com.

Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork, and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple is reinventing the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced its magical iPad which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices."

</comment><comment><USER27> "…the foundation for a new graphical client"

Cocoa??

<comment><USER28> "we will be adding pieces and parts of our Java SE 6 implementation to the public project, and will cut over from using an X11-based AWT to a Cocoa NSEvent-based one with a new OpenGL-backed graphics layer."

[http://lists.apple.com/archives/Java- dev/2010/Nov/msg00104.h...](http://lists.apple.com/archives/Java- dev/2010/Nov/msg00104.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is really Oracle's news rather than Apple's.

<comment><USER30> It's actually a more important announcement for Apple though in light of their stopping development of their own JVM.

This allows them to still be behind it without having to actually do the work.

<comment><USER31> If you're following the apple-java mailing list, you'll see this isn't the (supposedly) the plan. They're contributing eAWT and eIO to openJDK, plus assisting in writing a new OpenGL based Swing backend and Swing lightweight placeholders for AWT components.

To quote Mike Swingler (Apple java engineering): "Cheers all, we look forward to working with you in public!"

Sounds like the plan is to continue Apple's work as part of a respected open source project. Compared to developing in secret like they have been, what's not to like about that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Though I'm glad for this desicion, I can't help but wonder: what's in it for oracle? The puny 5% of desktops running mac os?

<comment><USER33> Money. They're in for the money.

a) Even if it is only 5%, it is almost pure profit for Oracle. Many big companies would like to expand 5% for almost free.

b) The decision maker might run mac. No mac support, no sales. (One of my customers is like that). This is similar to the "American's with Disabilities Act" which requires accesibility even though less than 5% of the users are disabled.

c) 5% is the average. Many companies aren't average, e.g. universities and research based companies.

<comment><USER4> Your point (c) is the most important, in my opinion. I work in computing theory research at a major UK university, and well over 50% of the desktops I see used are Macs, and about 80% of the laptops. Many of our undergraduates also use Macs. A working Java implementation is quite important for this area - both for Apple, to ensure we keep buying them and Oracle, to stop people just saying "Well, we don't use _that_ much Java anymore, let's just drop it".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm glad that they're not throwing everything away. I wonder if this will provide any benefit to the Linux OpenJDK.

<comment><USER35> If based on Cocoa, with more closed-source hooks, then probably not.

<comment><USER31> It's to be based on OpenGL. So hopefully!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Awesome, now I can get the new Air without fearing it wont run Scala.

</comment><comment><USER37> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - <USER3>

<comment><USER38> "A penny saved is a penny earned." - <USER3>

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I trust Google with my email more than facebook.</comment>


Ask HN: DevOps engineer taking programming sabbatical - <AUTHOR> I've 10 years of experience with infrastructure, lately focusing on cloud and Kubernetes.
I'm doing well with all the configuration management knowledge but my programming skills aren't fluent enough for a SRE role, a-la Google. I discovered that in recent interview.
I can reduce my work week from 5 to 3 days, leaving me with 2 days plus weekends to focus exclusively on programming tasks. For one year.
What should I focus on, considering my target is 100% Backend Projects? <comment><USER2> I'd say Java, C or C++ depending on your niche..

[https://www.roberthalf.com/blog/salaries-and-skills/what- is-...](https://www.roberthalf.com/blog/salaries-and-skills/what-is-the-best- programming-language-for-your-backend-developer-career)</comment>


"Arvind Kejriwal, Yaar Ab Bas Bhi Karo"| Confessions of an AAP Supporter - <AUTHOR> http://goldenchidiya.com/2014/05/arvind-kejriwal-yaar-ab-bas-bhi-karo-confessions-aap-supporter/ <comment><USER2> I don't think anyone is interested in "AAP" or Indian Politics here. Post it here: [http://hackerstreet.in/](http://hackerstreet.in/)</comment>