Hiring staff in India may not be worth it - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2007/07/03/hiring-staff-in-india-no-longer-worth-it/ <comment><USER2> The comments on Munjal's post are far more insightful and revealing than the post itself - this is not uncommon with blog posts. Please read those as well.

Here's the one left by Srini Ramakrishnan "Companies looking for top talent can't also afford to enjoy the advantages of cost arbitrage. If you are truly looking for top talent, you hire the best you can find, where ever they are. They will always have the option to relocate to the US or similar wage band country, and hence they aren't going to come cheap.

What works for code factories doesn't necessarily apply for boutique product companies."

I think that sums it up pretty well

</comment><comment><USER3> bogus story.

In Bangalore, IT salaries range from $200 per month to $2K per month. So how can they be 75% of Valley salaries?

The real truth is - the good engineers prefer to work for the branded companies. InfoSys, Wipro, Google, Microsoft.

Everyone else may join a startup for a short while, with the hope of leveraging a good job at the branded companies.

<comment><USER4> You might want to check Manjuls blog about this story. <http://munjal.typepad.com/recognizing_deven/2007/04/episode_26_indi.html>

He is not making it up. He is talking about the best engineers that he could recruit for his startup in India.

<comment><USER5> Probably he is looking for cheap labour. IIT/REC people always prefer startup so i cannot believe his statement about them. In fact he is not able to sell his dreams to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It might be getting expensive, but they have a lot of really talented programmers there - and we don't have enough here and the government won't let more of them come here.

So basically, their salaries will continue to rise until they are in parity with similarly skilled Americans.</comment>


Why Does Microsoft Still Offer a 32-bit OS? - <AUTHOR> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/64-bit-os-vs-32-bit-os/ <comment><USER2> For one, it makes legacy x86 support in the upcoming ARM64 Windows SKU that much simpler and lighter weight, since there's less stuff to support (and a smaller address space to virtualize). Since every bit of software, in practice, already has to be 32 and 64-bit, MS can focus on 32-bit x86 emu alone for compat, and let vendors ship ARM64 binaries if required.</comment>


George Washington: A Descendant of Odin? - <AUTHOR> http://publicdomainreview.org/2017/02/08/george-washington-a-descendant-of-odin/ <comment><USER3> TIL that George Washington had the phrase "the ends justify the means" painted on his carriage. That's an honest if unsettling bumper sticker for a President.

<comment><USER4> Letting South Carolina join the Constituion under the condition of enshrining slavery into it would be an example of the ends justify the means.

The conjoined colonies wouldn't have had any strategic advantage in their plans against Britain, without the South Carolina colony.

There were probably plenty of other less timeless decisions he had to make.

<comment><USER5> I don't think the ends of splitting from Britain in any way justified the decision of allowing slavery to occur.

<comment><USER6> It wasn't an a or b proposition, and the notion that it was is revisionist bunk.

Slavery was more important to the southern economy, but slavery existed in New York as fully legal until phaseout began in 1799. It wasn't eliminated until the 1820s.

Monied interests in most states/colonies would have have permitted the loss of their property without compensation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great. I cannot wait for nick cage in the thor-national treasure crossover.

I lived in new england for a while and this mythmaking culture around the founding fathers gets old very quickly. The US just isnt old enough to have mythical kings and gods. That went away when the US broke from the uk. These new myths are rather weak alongside those of europe or asia.

<comment><USER8> "Of all the great national heroes and statesmen of history, Lincoln is the only real giant. Alexander, Frederick the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Gladstone and even Washington stand in greatness of character, in depth of feeling and in a certain moral power far behind Lincoln. Lincoln was a man of whom a nation has a right to be proud; he was a Christ in miniature, a saint of humanity, whose name will live thousands of years in the legends of future generations. We are still too near to his greatness, and so can hardly appreciate his divine power; but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.loa.org/images...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.loa.org/images/pdf/Tolstoy_on_Lincoln.pdf)

<comment><USER9> Yyyyeah... that's sweeping an awful lot of dirt under the rug.

No president [of the US] has ever been a saint, and no wartime president has even been righteous. The civil beatification is almost certainly some combination of propaganda and the pride we feel when our team's captain scores the winning point in the big game. Whenever one is assassinated for political reasons, the record is whitewashed, so as to paint the murderous opposition in a worse light.

Lincoln may have been personally against slavery, but he was not an abolitionist--strictly enforcing the fugitive slave act before the war. He was also segregationist--endorsing the deportation of all black people from the US. He may have freed [some of] the slaves, but many of those freed slaves had already been de-emancipated months earlier by Lincoln, when he reversed Gen. Hunter's emancipation order. Emancipation was, to him, strictly a military maneuver, to disadvantage the enemy. Slavery was not truly abolished until the 13th Amendment was ratified, a move first advanced by Rep. Ashley of Ohio. He may have been a skilled debater and orator, but he also raided and silenced newspapers. He may be a symbol of freedom now, but he also suspended habeas corpus, arrested the entire Maryland legislature, and forcibly deported a particularly annoying member of the legislature, the leader of the Copperheads, to the CSA.

But he also has an impressive-looking temple on the DC mall, so all that is forgiven and forgotten.

<comment><USER8> The article I linked was written by a Russian who never set foot in America.

<comment><USER9> That also could have been written by any 8th-grade child in America, though they would probably demonstrate less mastery of English in their essays.

Nobody--I repeat: nobody--ever taught us kids anything negative about Lincoln.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a lot you didn't know about Washington:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA)

</comment><comment><USER11> Odin? That rings a bell. Aha -- here it is, an essay defending the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles as a genealogical record compatible with the Genesis table of nations. It rang a bell because Odin is one of the persons in the tree.

[http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch6.html](http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch6.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of the one the myth that French are descendants of the Trojans [1][2][3]. That one has more credibility since in both instances French and Trojans got defeated and beat a retreat :)

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

[2] [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gende_de_l%27origine_tr...](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gende_de_l%27origine_troyenne_des_Francs) (more details but in French)

[3] [http://atlantide.univ- nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/macmaster.pdf](http://atlantide.univ- nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/macmaster.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> I was hoping some DNA analysis would show up in the article to show a provable family tree.

<comment><USER14> Provable is rather the key bit - like Washington, I too am apparently a descendent of Odin, through several branches of my once-aristocratic family.

I put no stead whatsoever in it, as it both assumes no bastardy or affairs, and that legendary genealogies are factual.

That said, it _is_ fun to watch "Vikings" and go "he's my 37th great grandfather".

In fact, going by my DNA I have a sizeable chunk of west African in me - <USER2> appears nowhere in the family tree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is similar to the Almighty Johnsons storyline.</comment>


A cheat-sheet for picking the right chart / data vis - <AUTHOR> https://i.imgur.com/Jx6AFaf.png <comment><AUTHOR> the PDF from which the img was made: [https://community.qlik.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1215...](https://community.qlik.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1215790-266408/Choosing- A-GoodChart-Dissected-FINAL%20\(1\).pdf)</comment>


The Future of Journalism - Twitter Times - <AUTHOR> http://twittertim.es/

<comment><AUTHOR> Check out Tim O'Reilly's (<http://twittertim.es/timOReilly>) content is very close to HN's, or at least to my reader's where 80% of links comes from HN.</comment>


Swift Resistance Explored - <AUTHOR> http://owensd.io/2015/01/31/swift-resistance-explored.html

<comment><USER2> I am also still exploring Swift, so forgive me if I got this wrong, but isn't the problem here the following:

Your RenderGradient() takes a RenderBuffer struct. Structs are passed by value. So two things happen in your RenderBuffer function:

1) You get a copy of the RenderBuffer, which means it and its contents (a lot of Pixel instances - Arrays are passed by value too!) will be copied every iteration

2) The work you do on the pixels in the RenderBuffer _copy_ has no effect: you change the values of a copy and then ignore the copy. You don't return the modified RenderBuffer it from RenderGradient() or do anything with the result within RenderGradient().

So I think the reason you see such a big difference in this test between optimization and no-optimization is that in the first case, with optimization, the compiler knows that the work you do in RenderBuffer is a waste of time and simply does not do it.

While in the debug build the compiler does not apply optimization so your useless code is still executed.

You can confirm this by looking at the generated code. Or maybe simpler, render the RenderBuffer in an actual buffer or image for a visual inspection.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the var should have been inout. It had an affect on the release build performance (twice as fast), but not the debug build. I've updated the blog post.

The performance problem is regarding all retain/releases though; not the copy of the data. That's why the debug builds are not affected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can understand the frustration. However I think it's a little premature to cast aspersions on the whole language because it isn't good at this particular test right now.

We still have ObjC. The two languages work together. (we also have C and asm). Pick the right tool for the job, and have reasonable expectations about the maturity and progress of Swift.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if creating a wrapper struct (let's call it Buffer) which combines an UnsafeMutablePointer and an UnsafeMutableBufferPointer would improve the language ergonomics while keeping the performance of the 'Swift*' version.

Buffer would have a constructor taking the number of items to store, and would upon creation create a buffer using UnsafeMutablePointer.alloc(). It would then use the UnsafeMutablePointer to build an UnsafeMutableBufferPointer. The latter type allows subscript indexing (e.g. myBuffer[10]) and iteration using for-in, which we could support by implementing a pass-through subscript() and generate() function.

Then, when using the struct, we'd pass it using inout parameters to ensure that it doesn't get copied.

This wouldn't fix the problem of Arrays being ludicrously unperformant, but it would at least make using the C-style buffer less painful.

</comment><comment><USER6> The Swift safe version has the benefit of not corrupting memory if you run off the end of the array. In release builds that might account for the small perf difference.

It is not accurate to claim this is comparing the Objective-C version to Swift. It's comparing the C version.

</comment><comment><USER2> One thing that i want to add is that this whole exercise is actually a straw man. You yourself start your post with

"Problem Statement : Design an algorithm that fills in a buffer of pixel data"

If that is the problem, then do that. Do not fill an array with Pixel _object_ references. It is not the same problem.

I am not denying that Swift has performance issues. I do think your test and proof is artificial: nobody would use the 'Swift Safe' method to manipulate pixel data. This is exactly why the unsafe features exists.

I think what you need to discover is how to use structs, classes and raw buffers. None of those is a golden hammer. If you have performance problems with one of those then that does not mean that it is flawed. It is likely simply a bad choice for the problem at hand.

<comment><USER3> First off, a struct is not an object. Structs in Swift, like many languages, are value types. They have the same packing structure in Swift as in C, especially in the example that I gave.

You can read more about them here: [https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/ClassesAndStructures.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014097-CH13-ID82)

I can write the same problem with components of the array as bytes if you prefer, but then performance will be even worse. The root cause of the performance issues is the array access and set. The more the do, the worse the performance.

So what you are saying, is that no person would ever create an array of data and expect to do anything with that data? And they would never do that in a processing loop? Ok...

If you actually read the blog post, you can see that I already gave an example using raw buffers (the UnsafeMutablePointer<Pixel>). Which means that every index into the pointer moves 4 bytes. Again, using UnsafeMutablePointer<Byte> is not doing anything other than creating a harder API surface to work with.

Also, the UnsafePointer types exist because without them, there would be no way to interact with C code. And if I need to use the UnsafePointer types everywhere I have arrays so that I can have reasonable performance in debug and release builds, then there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

<comment><USER2> > So what you are saying, is that no person would ever create an array of data > and expect to do anything with that data? And they would never do that in a > processing loop? Ok...

No. I'm saying the memory layout of Array<Pixel> is undefined. You cannot assume that it is a contiguous chunk of memory for example.

Therefore it is the wrong solution for a render buffer.

After reading [https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=6](https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=6) I am not entirely sure about this. Can you find a more clear definition?</comment></comment></comment>


A Speculative Post on the Idea of Algorithmic Authority - <AUTHOR> http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/11/a-speculative-post-on-the-idea-of-algorithmic-authority/

<comment><USER2> I liked this post, it was reasoned, like most shirky writings. He definitely defined a great platform for debate, and exploration.</comment>


Percentage of employees working more than 50 hours per week, 2014 OECD area - <AUTHOR> https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2016/08/15/employees-working-more-than-50-hours-per-week-2014-opec-area/ <comment><USER2> Interesting to see New Zealand so high up on that list.

There was a lot of discussion a few years ago about their relatively poor productivity. I suspect the key to lowering those hours worked, is exactly that specific issue:

[http://www.productivity.govt.nz/working-paper/an- internation...](http://www.productivity.govt.nz/working-paper/an- international-perspective-on-the-new-zealand-productivity-paradox)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is it not coincidentally? I agree that it appears correlates, but why?

<comment><USER4> Presumably, people know that they will be making less after taxes per marginal hour worked, and hence choose to spend their time with family, on hobbies, etc. instead of at work. (Though I think this is reading too far into the data given.)

<comment><USER5> I don't know that I can buy that. At least in the US, many people who work that many hours are salaried, so the extra hours don't mean _any_ extra wages, and they still work those hours. The pressures of the job force them into it, not the economics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's surprising to see Iceland, New Zealand and Australia that high on the list. They don't have a reputation for being workaholic nations.

<comment><USER7> I'd be interested to see a break down based on industry and location, salaried vs hourly.

I could understand if self-employed people were included, as temporary staffing shortages are often covered by business owners.

I also wonder what the hours for office workers are like. I'm sure that most public sector employees work fairly regular hours.

Perhaps some people are temporary or "zero-hour" contractors with more than one gig?

<comment><USER8> Here in Australia, I suspect mining and construction will be the biggest contributors.

Every office job I have worked has been 38 hours with no overtime save for a handful of exceptions in 8 years of tech work.

Mining on the other hand can have consecutive 12 hour shifts be the norm, and I am sure that it gets worse than that.

We have some fairly strict award rates/employment regulations that govern things like that, but mining seems to be perhaps one of a few exceptions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How was the data collected?</comment>


The Internet is a series of forms and reports - <AUTHOR>

I can't believe how long it's taken me to realise that, in essence, every app on the internet starts with a form, and ends with a report.
Examples: Facebook
1.
* Update your status (Form)
* View other people's statuses (Report)
2.
* Upload a photo (Form)
* View photos (Report)
Google Maps:
* Search for a location (Form)
* View map (Report)
This makes me feel rather disillusioned. <comment><USER2> And your point is? (Not trying to be mean at all) I agree, but I'm not sure what's wrong with it. Life is a series of input/output interactions, why shouldn't the internet mirror that?

<comment><AUTHOR> My point is that by this point I'd expected more from the human race than a series of input and output interactions :(</comment></comment>


Warner music claimed my video defending their copyright in a lawsuit they lost - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6X2MEl7R8 <comment><USER2> What's all this about "Intellectual Property" promoting creation and helping creators prosper? Watch this and be disabused of that notion.</comment>


A good programmer can be as 10X times more productive than a mediocre one - <AUTHOR> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/179616/a-good-programmer-can-be-as-10x-times-more-productive-than-a-mediocre-one <comment><USER2> But when the company runs into financial trouble, it will fire the 10X programmer first. They will want to keep the head count up and can have more of the 1xers for the same amount of dollars. Wall Street likes this.</comment>


Cakes, Custard and Category Theory: Easy Recipes for Understanding Complex Maths - <AUTHOR> https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/content/book-review-cakes-custard-and-category-theory-by-eugenia-cheng <comment><USER4> In the US, the book's title has been changed to _How to Bake Pi: An Edible Exploration of the Mathematics of Mathematics_

Perhaps the publisher thought that "category theory" might not work well for American audiences?

[http://smile.amazon.com/How-Bake-Pi-Exploration- Mathematics/...](http://smile.amazon.com/How-Bake-Pi-Exploration- Mathematics/dp/0465051715/)

<comment><USER5> Thank you so much for pointing that out. I was having trouble finding the category theory book but finding the Pi one by the same author everywhere!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting - thanks for posting. Will grab a copy of that.

I seem to collect mathematics books. However this is still my favourite book on mathematics and only because it was written by a surgeon rather than a mathematician: [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/383087.Mathematics](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/383087.Mathematics)

Warning: Took me a couple of years to get through.

Oh and 1946 copy of Calculus for the Practical Man by J E Thompson.

<comment><USER7> If not in any particular rush, you can get a UK copy of 'How to Bake Pi' at [http://www.bookdepository.com/](http://www.bookdepository.com/) (best price, free shipping, and they take paypal). Plus it turns out that Eugenia Cheng just released another book in UK on June 4 called 'Cakes, Custard and Category Theory: Easy Recipes for Understanding Complex Maths' which seemed interesting so that was ordered as well. Shipping time to US is listed as 5 days.

Plus if you need a .pdf of Feynman's favorite math book (Calculus for the Practical Man - Thompson (1946)) currently there are copies at KAT and PB.

<comment><USER8> How to bake pi and cakes, custard, and category theory are the same book.

<comment><USER7> You're right. The new one looks like a US pb release of the original yet at UK book sites these are presented as separate entities in their summaries. Found that out by skimming Cheng's Twitter page. Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This sounds like a lovely book. Can't say I'm a huge fan of the "maths for girls" angle, but anything that makes mathematics more accessible is great.

</comment><comment><USER10> > Despite the fact that the number of students taking A-level maths has risen > in recent years and that girls outperform boys at GCSE, the number of girls > taking A-level mathematics is proportionally much lower.

Grab the nearest popcorn and watch the gender wars unfold.

<comment><USER7> Not if this is considered a particularly difficult UK Maths GCSE exam question, which over 90 percent couldn't answer:

Hannah has 6 orange sweets and some yellow sweets. Overall, she has n sweets. The probability of her taking 2 orange sweets is 1/3\. Prove that: n^2-n-90=0.

If a HS student I would imagine you would

First: think of coins p(H1) = .5; p(H2) =.5; p(H1+H2) = .5 * .5 = .25

Second: OK, here (6/n) * (5/(n-1)) = 1/3

Third solve: 30/(n * (n-1)) = 1/3

                         90 = n^2 - <USER2>
                          0 = n^2 - n - <USER3>

n=10 or -9; if -9 then Hannah only has one sweet and lifted 9 from somebody else just to demo her point.

(from London Telegraph today)

<comment><USER11> my instinct for approaching the problem:

        C(6,2) / C(n,2) = 1/3

(where C(n,k) is n choose k)

        15 / [n(n-1)/2] = 1/3
        30 / n(n-1) = 1/3
        n(n-1) = 90

I probably wouldn't have done that in high school, though.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Confused Software Engineer - <AUTHOR> I am in need for help but not sure whom to ask. To be honest, my other developer friends are also on the same boat. So, I hope somebody out here can help me.
I am 30yr old software developer with 9+ yrs of experience in Java/J2EE. I have worked throughout the stack. I have managed mid sized teams and I have also worked as an individual contributor. I have reasonable exposure to Python and R. I have done some good work in building APIs, learning frameworks like Spring, Hibernate, Jersey, AMQP implementations (the usual mix), and work on personal projects where I got to learn a bit of NLP/ Machine Learning. I am confident about evaluating a framework, learning it and putting it to use in the project. Although, I never got a chance to master any of the frameworks I'd learnt. Largely, my fault. Whenever I start looking out for a job I brush up my core Algorithm/Data Structure skills and it helps me get through the interviews. Since I've worked throughout the stack I get questions ranging from OOPS to Continuous Deployment. I answer things which I'd done/read in the past. But I feel miserable for not keeping up.
I find it difficult to solve HackerRank problems on a daily basis because my work demands me to learn/focus on something that's totally unrelated to these problems. For example, one day it'd be a new BPMN tool, or a new NoSQL DB, or even a new Javascript library.
I try to keep up but it just becomes too much at times. I feel tired and overwhelmed. I also want to have a life outside of work. I want to be able to read books, watch movies without the fear of it jeopardizing my career.
Questions:-
- Has anyone feel/felt the same way? How did you overcome this dilemma of "want to do everything but end up doing nothing" ?
- How do you manage your time?
- Can a person be successful in his/her career and at the same time have fun outside of work ?
Thanks in advance
~k <comment><USER2> What do you mean by "successful career"? What does that look like? Merely employed? Maximizing salary? Moving into management? Starting your own company?

At this point, with the skills you have, you should be very easily employable in this market. You could get a job at a big company, and sit quietly for 40 hours a week. You'll learn what you need to learn (which at big companies, is mostly internal), and have plenty of time to read, watch movies, have a family, or whatever else matters to you.

What the hell are you working yourself to death for, anyway? What are you afraid of?

</comment><comment><USER3> Totally understand and feel the same way. Unfortunately too many companies hire on knowing the latest buzz words than the ability to learn fast. So I try to always learn some new things but not to go crazy. I think you can be successful but you just have to be patient and find the people who respect you.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have about 10 years of experience. Full stack, dev ops, whatever has been needed really. Have always gotten excellent performance reviews.

I quit my job a couple of months ago. Thought it would be easy to get another one. I've been rejected at least 20 times so far, and it's very...tough emotionally.

I guess this is unrelated to your question. I guess my advice is that you can't do everything at once. Decide on the top two things you want to work on, and do those. Forget about everything else until you've finished one.</comment>


Is Anyone Listening on Twitter? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.zuupy.com/is-anyone-listening-on-twitter

<comment><USER2> 1) yes there are people listening on twitter. 2) they organize themselves into communities. 3) If you are interested in a community it is possible to participate in the community and get responses from interesting people.

If you are trying to tweet people who don't reply, Twitter seems like talking into a black hole.

If you do not belong to a community, you don't find tweets from actual people (who reply to tweets).

If you are not interested in any community, you won't find a peer group to communicate with.

What i'd be interested in building (or seeing someone build) is a service that indicates the % likelihood that a particular person will respond to @messages to them.</comment>


Livin' la Vida Emacs - <AUTHOR> http://sachachua.com/wp/2009/12/07/behind-the-scenes-livin-la-vida-emacs/ <comment><USER2> Conference organizers must learn to record from the computer more than from the camera. I understand there are some difficulties with different frame formats, but, as a last resort, one could at least record a screencast (QT animation is a lovely format for that) that could be later synced and combined with the audio track.

And it would also free the camera to record the presenter more closely.

<comment><USER3> It looks like she took the video herself. You can see her set up the camera from her seat before she approaches the stage. The sound is awful, and not having a screencast really reduces the value of this presentation.

<comment><USER2> I am taking a mental note the next time I do a presentation, to record a screencast at the same time.

I will do some tests with QT animation format and see how much I can do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I gave up after the first 30 seconds of the main talk. Does the audio get any better later on?

<comment><USER5> I watched maybe eight minutes of it. It's pretty much the same as the beginning -- her voice is in a register that, when encoded, is very frustrating to listen to. Also, she spends much of it apologizing for Emacs's extra features, like Snake, and Psychotherapist. She barely got into the actual examples when I turned it off. It was hard to watch, because for this presentation, I want to see what's on the screen, not the presenter.</comment></comment>


Why You Can't Make Money Blogging - <AUTHOR> http://www.copyblogger.com/no-money-blogging/

<comment><USER2> I'm sick of articles claiming you can't make money blogging.

1\. You can (I have).

2\. It's not easy. I took the cheaters route by working for already well established blogs, but plenty of bloggers who have started in the past few years are doing well (people like Allen Stern or Louis Gray, who were late to the game, come to mind) -- they just work their asses off to get there.

3\. It's true that most bloggers won't make money off a personal blog directly (i.e., via advertising). But many will make money _indirectly_ via consulting gigs, other work offers, speaking engagements, book deals. Blogging is one of the absolute best ways to raise your profile in your field and create demand for yourself.

3a. Even Dan Lyons made very good money from Fake Steve -- not from ads, but how about that book deal? All those speaking engagements? Even his switch from Forbes to Newsweek was likely influenced by his blog's success. He conveniently leaves all that out of his article, though.

<comment><USER3> To be fair, the article is agreeing with you. It's interesting that advertising is no longer considered viable for blogs... I thought a fair number of blogs ended up making significant sums that way (e.g. steve pavlina). Isn't that the case any more?

<comment><USER2> I think it is ... it's just harder the more saturated your niche gets. If you have a unique voice/point of view and are willing to put in the work (long hours, lots of hustling), you can still make a living blogging. (Bearing in mind that "make a living" means different things to different people and is variable based on cost of living where you live.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article has nothing to do with the title, and their point is that an internet business needs a business model. I would like the 5 minutes I took to read it back. Thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> The article has everything to do with the title. The point with the business model is also a response to a discussion going on in the blogosphere lately. In that frame of reference the title is calling out pointless negativity of aome other blogger. Without that frame of reference the whole article is the answer to the title: you cannot expect making money without a business model and so on.

<comment><USER4> I simply disagree; in my mind a blog has a business model like any other content provider.

A blog has difficulty making money not because businesses won't pay for advertisement, but because it is hard to attract enough eyeballs to get a good payday.

-Jer

<comment><AUTHOR> The article doesn't state that a blog would have difficulty making money because businesses wouldn't pay for money. However, the article explains why Fake Stev Jobs didn't earn much dough despite the fact that he attracted a lot of eyeballs.

Also I don't think a blog has a business model inbuild. Slamming ads on something can be part of a business model, but is not a whole business model.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: Software Development Nightmare - <AUTHOR>
 was preparing to do a lecture (at workplace X) then when I went to start talking my presentation got deleted and I could not recover it.  I ended up going down and not giving the lecture this was embarrassing.
Then when in this room suddenly a major bug happened in my software, and I was struggling with the bug and still switching windows trying to see where is my presentation, nothing succeeded, could not find the presentation and the bug just got growing and growing, and I was super nervous almost before a breakdown.
ahh, what a nightmare. <comment><USER2> It seems you've mistaken ycomb for Twitter

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like the rule of demos to me. Don't worry too much about it, do better next time.

<comment><USER4> Always have hard-copies or screenshots as a fallback has been my experience. Demos really do seem to fail a lot more than you'd expect, or maybe its just the failure is a lot more noticeable and memorable.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Assume the universe is a simulation. Why is c the speed of light? - <AUTHOR> Is it the processor's clock-speed, always constant? <comment><USER2> Why a technical reason? Maybe it's a deliberate design decision, like how the physics are set up in a video game. Maybe in this sort of scenario, they did some playtesting and found that setting light to that speed made the game more 'enjoyable'.

Then again, it could be a way to cover up for a lack of content. Set the speed of light to be faster, and it might theoretically make it so a species with massively advanced technology could reach the edge of the universe. More convenient and realistic than an invisible wall.

</comment><comment><USER3> A connection between the simulated universe's speed of light and its host CPU's clock speed would imply _real-time_ simulation. I see no reason why that would necessarily be the case for a simulated universe; most research-grade physics simulations humans run today aren't real-time. (They would be real- time or faster if we had the hardware to run them that way — I imagine a sufficiently accurate physics "REPL" would help a researcher tremendously — but we make do without them.)

<comment><AUTHOR> This doesn't make sense to me. Assuming this is a simulation, real-time isn't "real" time.

<comment><USER3> By "real-time" above I mean from the perspective of whoever runs the simulation. Compare: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real- time_simulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_simulation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The puzzlement consists of using "universe" in two incompatible contexts without paying clear attention to the distinction between the contexts.

The first context is the ordinary one in which the universe is roughly the container for everything that is including ourselves.

The other context is one in which the universe is a simulation of a container for everything that is including ourselves that is indistinguishable by us from an actual container for everything that is including ourselves.

It's fine to use the latter definition, so long as one recognizes that the use is very odd and problematic and any conclusions one draws while using it are simulated conclusions about the simulated container and not conclusions about the actual container for everything that is including ourselves. To put it another way, if the universe is a simulation then "light" and "speed" and "C" refer to elements of the simulation and need not have a one to one correspondence to entities in the actual universe. Human knowledge can only be knowledge of the simulation.

Our knowledge is limited to things it is possible for humans to know. If we're in a simulated universe, then we can only know about the simulation.

<comment><USER5> I have a similar view, but at the same time I still have a little bit of hope that even if the universe was a simulation, there would be some way to somehow go outside the simulation (e.g: by 'thinking', if that would make sense, about outside-the-simulation concepts; something like escaping the VM). But it's kind of an emotional reaction to the realization of the limits of one's mind/perception ;).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The question is too simplistic, because, within the simulation, the speed of light appears constant in different reference frames that move relative to one another. The simulation doesn't favor any particular reference frame; it's a supervisor over all possible reference frames, so to speak.

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps the Universe is simulated by a distributed computing system. The speed of light could ensure that state remains consistent throughout the system without requiring synchronization of all of the nodes. Only spatially adjacent nodes need to communicate with each other and the speed of light could be tuned such that the bandwidth limit between the nodes would be never be reached.

</comment><comment><USER8> If the universe is a simulation, it would have to be on an analog computer which doesn't have a clock speed as such. Or a digital computer running sufficiently tiny time steps to be indistinguishable from an analog computer. In either case I don't think c is directly related to "clock speed". I'm not a good enough physicist to tell you what it does mean. That's my feeling anyway.

<comment><USER9> I would be inclined towards digital due to the presence of Planck length and Planck time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's the refresh rate of "their" displays.

</comment><comment><USER11> Actually the speed of light is just a constant that interconnects spatial and time coordinates.

In special relativity everything moves with c light speed in a 4-dimentional pseudo-Euclidian space. It means that the light speed constant c is just a measure unit that interconnects time and spatial coordinates. And the actual spatial velocity of a particle is just a projection on the spatial coordinates of it's 4-dimentional velocity which always has length equal to c.

So the existence of light speed constant seems more like a boundary condition that limits class of possible solutions rather than something connected with the processor's clock-speed.

</comment><comment><USER12> It is my understanding that when determining the official figure,the General Conference on Weights and Measurements took an average of some of the most accurate measurements that were available at the time. But I think that there were variations in each case. So we could assume that either our tools were just not precise enough, or that the speed of light is not actually constant. (or both?) I'm curious, are physicists these days routinely measuring the speed of light, and if so are these measurements consistent?

</comment><comment><USER13> It is the fixed rate at which all mass-energy is moving through space-time. The rate never changes for anything. If an object is moving slowly through the space axis of space-time then it is moving quite rapidly, though at a fixed and predictable rate, through the time axis, and vice versa. C is the rate at which time and space are flowing in the simulation. Clock speed is a good analogy.

</comment><comment> thomas-b Could just be a bug between time and space being linked while it should not.

Or we need to buy the FTL DLC

</comment><comment><USER14> What video game doesn't have constants?

      const LIGHTSPEED = 299_792_458

<comment><USER15> How many significant figures does it need to have, do you think?

And that makes me wonder, how does this simulation deal with irrational numbers and real numbers? How does it represent pi and radical 2? The Greeks were afraid of these numbers. Are they are problem for a theory that we are a simulation run on finite resources?

<comment><USER16> I think it has to do with the concept of computable vs non computable functions. One stand is that if the Universe is a simulation then by definition it is computable but we can clearly define and reason about non computable things (which suggests that it is not in fact just a Turing machine and may in fact the hyper computer running the simulator. But you can't really get above that. So the speed of light is just a defined constant which no meaning and we can't pierce the through hypervisor.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Computationa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Computationalism)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Without knowing physics, maybe we should find a good simulator, change the speed of light constant and see how the interactions change.

Alternatively, see if different equations scale differently based on the speed of light.

</comment><comment><USER18> c is the speed of light because then you can create a constraint over the size of the universe, also make everything that is placed inside of this universe that has mass locked inside it, as it would take infinite energy to get something with mass(which also would go to infinite) to be at the same speed of light.

</comment><comment><USER19> Because that value made life, as we know it, possible.

</comment><comment><USER20> Hardware limitation?

</comment><comment><USER21> In order for any simulation to proceed at a steady state, there must be _at least_ one constant. Everything else can be variable, but in order for time to progress at the same "tick", it has to have something to measure by.

That said, why create a "tick" when the perception of that tick can vary by individual? When I go into code mode, 10 hours can slip by in an instant, and I'm not hungry or thirsty until I come out of it.

Perhaps it's just an affectation of focus, as time still "ticked" by at it's normal rate.

Einstein said that the effects of time move more slowly the closer you get to C, so it makes sense that C would be the univeral "tick" if this was a simulation. As evidenced by Mars rovers _and_ Voyager, an earth clock on another planet or in space still ticks at the same rate (Voyager and Mars are moving through space at the same rate we are moving around the sun, about 61,000km/hour).

There's no other reason for light to move at a steady speed, and nothing apparent that's stopping it from going faster.

<comment><USER22> This "tick" theory gets my vote.

I see c as an emergent quality of a base granularity. If the universe is a cellular automata then c would be related to the distance between two successive layers, between what just happened and what is happening now, between now and next.</comment></comment>


Hey language snobs: don't pinch pennies - <AUTHOR> http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/hey-language-snobs-dont-pinch-pennies/#more-271 <comment><USER2> I wonder if personality has something to do with it. My guess is that language snobs are INTP, whereas Blub programmers are more INTJ. From the descriptions at <http://www.personalitypage.com/portraits.html>:

"INTPs value knowledge above all else. ... They hate to work on routine things - they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others."

By contrast, "[an INTJ's] primary interest is not _understanding_ a concept, but rather _applying_ that concept in a useful way. Unlike the INTP, they do not follow an idea as far as they possibly can, seeking only to understand it fully. INTJs are driven to come to conclusions about ideas. Their need for closure and organization usually requires that they take some action."

Since INTPs are less motivated to action and "hate to work on routine things," they are driven to higher-level languages, because those languages help them focus on concepts instead of implementation details. But this means that the people using these languages get little done -- precisely because they are more interested in concepts than in implementation.

<comment><USER3> _"... My guess is that language snobs are INTP, whereas Blub programmers are more INTJ ..."_

Do you really believe in the _"psycho-babble"_ Myers-Briggs claims it tests? If you can show me any peer reviewed scientific studies that back the claims made by these tests I'd be more than happy to read them and judge for myself. Until then MBTI theories are as believable as any other pseudoscience.

<comment><USER4> I think a lot of people put too much faith in Meyer-Briggs, but I think psychologists tend to use it more than anything as an estimation tool just to get an idea of where to start with someone they're not familiar with. They can also be useful for describing some common personality memes, but a lot of times people mistake the categorizations as being predictive rather than descriptive and that's where they tend to quickly get into psycho-babble territory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"Snobs"_ sparked off this chain of reasoning for me:

\- Snobs have overly critical attitudes (by definition).

\- Overly critical attitudes cause perfectionism.

\- Perfectionism causes procrastination, because if you haven't actually done anything, you can't be criticized (especially not by yourself).

So it seems inevitable that language snobs would not produce much work (note: there any plenty people using the languages listed who do created finished work - one could claim that these people, in general, are noted for not having overly critical attitudes, and hence are not language _snobs_ ).

<comment><USER6> It's possible you're right in general, but as a counterexample note that the working code you and I are using to post these comments was written by someone whose attitude toward existing Lisp dialects was critical enough to make him want to write his own.

<comment><USER5> Did he spend his energy being critical of them, or on working on a dialect that he found valuable?

<comment><USER6> I don't know how much energy he spent implementing Arc, but the energy he spent before Arc's release writing critically of existing dialects was at least as much as you might see "language snobs" expend. My point is, you can't deduce from someone's highly critical attitude that they won't produce useful code.

<comment><USER5> You could well be right (that a highly critical attitude does not prevent writing of useful code).

But relating it back to "snobbery" - which I think is a highly critical attitude and "therefore I'm better than you" - I don't think PG was damning the other dialects, but was criticizing specific aspects while appreciating other aspects (maybe: "this is really cool, but the syntax is annoying", "they had a great idea here, but implemented it stupidly").

I haven't read the essays in question, so it would be an interesting test to have a look...[time passes]... I just scanned the articles under under "lisp" on PG's site, and didn't see any criticism of lisp - only praise. While I'm sure that his criticism of Lisp exists, praise also does, so I think his highly critical attitude towards lisp dialects was not in order to claim that Arc is fundamentally superior, but to improve on some specific aspects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think he's pinned down the groups wrong; here's how I see the poles of language snobbery:

\- Language snobs come in a couple of sorts; hard core programming language wonks, and tinkerers. Tinkerers play with every technology and get excited enough about a new technology coming out that they have to get their hands on it. They know and use lots of programming languages because programming languages are neat. The downside is the depth of knowledge is often somewhat limited and they tend to get distracted by the next thing.

\- Luddites who code. Luddites consider new technologies, aside from the ones that they're making, largely annoying and quite possibly evil. They tend to stay behind the technology curve, but tend to know their tools quite well. They like to get things finished, since that was the point, right?

</comment><comment><USER7> It might be an unpopular position to take here, but I really think that what I think of as "language snob languages" (Lisp, Haskell, Erlang, OCaml . . . not Ruby or Python, though) can't ever be mainstream because the barrier to entry is just too high even for competent programmers. There's a network effect problem to be sure, where people don't use it because the docs/frameworks/examples/toolkits aren't there, but part of the reason those things aren't there is that the language doesn't appeal in the same way to people who want to build those things and the languages themselves have enough of an impedance mismatch with how people think about things to keep a lot of otherwise-competent engineers from investing their time in them.

In other words, it's not just about tools or marketing or docs: some languages, while certainly more useful in the hands of a skilled expert, are so complicated and require so much dedication to perfecting their use that they can't possibly ever become mainstream.

The high barrier to entry for those languages is not just because of docs, tools, lack of standards, etc. It's just an inherent part of those languages, and what makes them so powerful is exactly what makes them difficult to get started with and what keeps them marginalized.

<comment><USER2> C is more difficult than Lisp or OCaml, but it's extremely popular.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure I agree . . . pointers in C throw people for a lot of loops, but aside from that the types are as simple as you'll let them be and I'm pretty convinced that most people have an easier time thinking in an imperative fashion than a functional fashion. The functional nature of Lisp just throws most people for a loop at first, because it doesn't match the naive breakdown of most simple programming problems. Likewise, the type system in OCaml throws a lot of people for a loop.

Mastering pointers, worrying about memory leaks, dealing with the loose typing, etc. are all things you need to do to write code well in C, but you can kind of muddle through as a beginner without those. You can't even get started with Lisp until you figure out the right way to break down your problem, and that's a huge barrier for most people. To put that another way, it's easier to mentally model what your algorithm should be in C than in Lisp (for most people), even if the actual implementation is a pain to get right, and its the mental model that's a barrier to entry for more "advanced" languages.

That said, C is certainly a harder language to learn than Python or Ruby.

<comment><USER2> If we were talking about purely functional languages, then I would agree. But Lisp isn't purely functional; it has assignment and loops and arrays and all the rest. You can program in the subset of Lisp that allows the same "mental model" as C and get the same results without worrying about pointers or buffer overflows. So I think Lisp is strictly easier.

<comment><USER8> The fact that you only have one way of programming in C, 'the C way', can actually be a blessing. I've found that I've been paralyzed by the flexibility of Lisp. There are so many different ways to do the same thing that it is hard to choose between them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The message:

* BASIC (LSL, Java, C#, VB, PHP, Perl, etc) programmers win when it comes down to getting projects finished (versus Lisp, SmallTalk, Python, Ruby, Scala, Haskell, etc).

* using inferior tools has a cost associated with it, so does _not_ using those tools.

Conclusion: find a balance and get things done.

<comment><USER10> _BASIC (LSL, Java, C#, VB, PHP, Perl, etc)_

One of these things is not like the others.

<comment><USER11> Which one?

<comment><USER10> I'll give you a hint:

It is a dynamic language with closures, higher order functions (lambda), map, join, the option to work in an expression-oriented manner, and the ability to modify the language to suit the task.

It's worth noting that a couple of the languages in the other list (the not "inferior" languages) lack one or more of those capabilities. What's trendy is not always the whole picture.

<comment><USER9> I've just summarized the article.

 _Language Snobs stress the superiority of one programming language over others. Some languages are extremely guilty of this (Lisp, SmallTalk, Python, Ruby, Scala, Haskell, etc) while others aren't (Java, C#, VB, BASIC, PHP, Perl, C, etc). The snob languages talk about why they're so great, and the other languages just point to what has been written in them as proof that they're great (or at least good enough)._ </quote>

<comment><USER10> Yes, and then you used the term "inferior tools" to refer to the first set of languages, which wasn't in the article.

I'm saying the classifications don't make sense:

If the point is "people who use the languages get things done", then Ruby and Python clearly belong in the first list, as there's plenty of code in those languages doing work in all sorts of fields.

If the point of the second list is the superiority of the languages due to purity (Smalltalk, Scala and Haskell, I guess, but not Lisp) then Python and Ruby don't belong in the second list. If the point is capability (where "dynamic" is a capability along with all of the other goodies, shared by almost all of the second list languages), then Perl belongs in the second list and Scala probably doesn't, since Scala is the language that has the least in common with the others in the list (which is not to say it has significantly more in common with the first list).

The point of the article is probably valid, but the lists are flawed. No matter how you classify the languages, at least a couple of the languages are out of place in the lists they've been put in. Leaving Perl, Python, and Ruby out of the picture altogether would have left a gaping hole in the argument (as they are quite good and powerful tools, with which lots of people have written useful code), but cramming them into the wrong slots also makes the argument weaker. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the argument turns out to somewhat weak...huh! It seemed so compelling to start with.

<comment><USER9> 1\. I agree on your point about classification. Moreover the whole topic of language capabilities is overrated. There are many many decisions one should make during a work on software project and the choice of language is just one of them (maybe even it is not the most important one).

2\. _But life, business, and software are full of trade-offs. If you can accept a little imperfection here, some cruft there, and sloppy duplication there, they you can hire from a bigger pool of employees, deploy to a wider range of platforms, hit more markets more frequently. The key point that the penny pinchers miss is that while using inferior tools has a cost associated with it, so does not using those tools. The important thing is to Always Be Shipping._ </quote> (press C-f, type _inferior tools_ )

The article does not reflect my opinion (EDIT: but accidentally I agree with the above fragment). I was trying to make a short version (summary) of the article and as Joel (joelonsoftware.com) said:

 _the trouble is if you put something up without writing a long enough post to actually make your full case, uhmm, you just get misunderstood, was sort of what I concluded._ </quote>

<comment><USER10> Life's hard that way, aint it? Everybody always misunderstanding everybody else.

<comment><USER12> Thankfully at hacker news it doesn't get ugly (yet !), unlike programming.reddit.com has become.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Breaking WPA2 Wireless – Ethical Hacking with Kali Linux [4] - nhc-forum http://nhc.bijayacharya.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8&sid=dcda713b79952bab5c2d0b25fc59a523 <comment><AUTHOR> the website cannot be accessed.</comment>


Trying to spark an emotional connection in the commoditized airline market - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-01/pivot-to-millennials-it-might-work-for-airlines <comment><USER2> My opinion is that airlines brought this upon themselves. With the introduction of yield management[1] they used variable pricing to get most revenue. But it also meant that although customers get the same flying product experience (same seats, same plane, same service etc) they could each have paid wildly varying amounts. The airlines started the game of trying to charge more, which lead to consumers responding trying to get charged less. So now you see airline related sites all focused on price.

It is a hard issue to address, but if you tell your customers that you focus on issue X (prices in this case), don't be surprised when they respond in kind!

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

<comment><USER3> Why has no airline tried having a pool of aircraft and flying them on different routes depending on current demand for that route?

<comment><USER2> There are charter operators who do that kind of thing, such as for holiday destinations and religious pilgrimages, as well as cargo airlines. There are also "wet leases" where a provider has aircraft and crew packages you can deploy for a fee, as well as dry leases where it is just the aircraft.

However as other responders mentioned, aircraft logistics are complicated. Unless you operate virtually identical aircraft (the Southwest, Ryanair etc model) then you need both pilots and cabin crew that are certified on the aircraft model. Plus you need appropriate maintenance staff, baggage handlers, gate staff etc.

It is just too complicated to pull off logistically. That isn't to say major airlines don't have the ability to respond on-demand. They do have spare aircraft around, and have ones that can be chartered. For example that is how sports team travel around the US.

Also be aware that airlines have a typical load factor (how many of the seats they sold on each flight) of around 85%. There isn't that much slack in the system. 25 years ago, load factors of 65% were considered the norm. These higher load factors are also why the frequent flyer programs are so much more stingy now - they have more paying customers to fill more seats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For some extra background on EasyJet and Ryanair's ability to charge lower prices than Air France and KLM, Wendover has a short 8 minute video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=069y1MpOkQY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=069y1MpOkQY)

</comment><comment><USER5> It's amazing to see AF, which used to be one of the stogy legacy carriers, trying an experiment. Most of the legacy "experiments" have been simply low cost, and it's hard to pull that off when you have so much, well, legacy, when your competitors in that strategy are all-in (e.g. easyJet, Ryan, Spirit, Norwegian). Air Berlin re-invented themselves as an easyJet-like carrier for a while (amazingly cramped seats) but apparently couldn't change their DNA. I wish AF the best of luck -- and they seem to be trying the experiment in an interesting, incremental way.

On the distinctive side though there are other new-entrant carriers trying that strategy (Virgin, JetBlue) and mostly pulling it off (well, Virgin didn't make it in the US). In the US I prefer JetBlue when it's available, then Alaska/Virgin, and then Southwest. I'll pay a small amount more but know I'll get a reasonable product. I avoid the legacy carriers where the experience is both expensive and dire, even for international flight.

My experience: former Espace Bleu on AF, 100K on UA, Exec Platinum AA, Mosaic on JB. In other words, despite being considered one of the desirable passengers on UA and AA, service is so bad and so generic that I avoid them.

</comment><comment><USER6> For short/medium haul flights, all I care about is price and itinerary times. For me it's a simple transport utility like a bus or train and so commoditization feels inevitable. I actually care more about the airport and ground transport options that I do the flights.

Long haul is a different story and it feels like there's still lots of space to differentiate.

<comment><USER7> I'm actually starting to get excited about good airport food options these days.

<comment><USER6> hahaha :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Back to old fashioned service and perks maybe? I still have drawers full of engraved metal spoons, branded playing cards, and even "Junior jetter wings" that I collected 3 or 4 decades ago when flying.

I look back at these mementoes with fondness, and while I cannot actually remember the flights or the destinations any more, it does elicit a strong emotional tug towards that airline.

What will it cost an airline to give each kid that flies with them a set of metal or plastic wings? $1? Get that brand association and pride in early!

<comment><USER9> Most airlines I've flown recently still have plastic wings for kids. You just have to ask for them.

<comment><USER8> That is cool. Most Australian airlines don't seem to. I am guessing the US (and maybe European) ones still might do. (Some of my pins are from Pan Am, BOAC and SAS)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've always been confused as to why people are so dissatisfied with airline quality. If what you say is all I care about is price and nothing else matters, then of course your experience is going to be awful as carriers slash everything to save money. If you are willing to pay (nicer seats, priority boarding, airport lounge access, food, booze etc) then flying isn't that bad. This goes double for flying international.

<comment><USER11> Hmm. Could it be perhaps that cheap prices and bare-bones service _isn 't_ what the majority of people wants, and that since that happens to just be the most profitable thing for airline companies to offer, they pretend that's what the customers are demanding?

I mean it's not as if there's no precedent for that kind of behavior. The idea the airlines are entirely subject to the whims of consumer demand seem laughable at the surface.

Maybe phrased another way: What evidence do you have that this is what customers want?

<comment><USER10> If customers were categorically willing to pay for and expected nicer features then the nicer features wouldn't be optional, they would be standard and the prices would rise. The fact that we are going in the opposite direction with more and more standard features turning into options with correlated price drops supports my theory.

Similarly, if users cared about quality then budget carriers would be dying rather than exploding in popularity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Once you've hit the bottom, the only way is upping the service level.

RyanAir have been trying it [1], EasyJet to some extent [2]

[1] [https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/michael-oleary- pla...](https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/michael-oleary-plays-down- new-nice-guy-ryanair-image-29719137.html)

[2] [http://corporate.easyjet.com/about/strategy](http://corporate.easyjet.com/about/strategy)

<comment><USER13> Virgin seems to have done well. Their safety videos have a similar aesthetic to the ad in the article, and their service has been good every time I fly them.

Now, if only they would fly to places I typically go...</comment></comment>


Firefox 71: A year-end arrival - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/12/firefox-71-a-year-end-arrival/ <comment><USER2> See previous discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21694285](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21694285)

</comment><comment><USER3> Firefox is on a serious roll this year, from performance improvements to actual privacy hardening that matters. Since Chrome rolled out auto-login, I've made it my personal mission to stop using it, and now I'm realizing I haven't even installed Chrome on my newly imaged laptop. I doubt I'll have any reason to switch back.

<comment><USER4> There are a couple of websites that Firefox doesn't work. Same experience on mobile.

But Chrome works all the time.

<comment><USER5> This is absolutely true, though I have still switched to Firefox and no longer use Chrome. I've taken to filing bug reports or reaching out on the "contact us" page of websites when I find a feature isn't working correctly on firefox.

<comment><USER6> Sometimes those are FF bugs (or "bugs", but FF wants to fix them anyway), and you can report them to the firefox-run [https://webcompat.com](https://webcompat.com) through the menu.

> People expect websites to work regardless of the device or browser they are > using. When a site works in one browser but not another, that is most likely > a web compatibility bug that we want to know about.

I reported an inline-svg rendering bug in FF preview. It only took a minute or two, and a volunteer responding within a day that they had replicated the problem and moved it to a Github issue, which frankly amazed me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Sometimes you need to find a CSS file that defines a color, or work out > which file generates a button label on a page. Full-text search makes this > possible by letting you search through all resources in the Network Monitor.

This is incredible.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, love this feature, will be a definite time saver. I like all of the updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if they couldn't use Firefox Replay's features to enhance privacy: "taint" code that has touched identifying or fingerprinting information. If that code tries to exfiltrate such information, replay that data path with dummy values.

It would also be interesting to extend this to the OS level (maybe for user data first, and maybe move on to fingerprinting information later).

</comment><comment><USER10> > The Network panel has a new Messages tab. You can observe all messages sent > and received through a WebSocket connection.

This is awesome. Definitely a feature that separated FF from Chrome DevTools

</comment><comment><USER11> >We would however like to highlight Picture-in-picture (PIP). If you start playing a video on a web page, but then want to check out other content, you can activate PIP and keep the video playing in a small overlay while you continue to navigate the rest of the page (or other pages).

That's pretty nice.

</comment><comment><USER12> Only reason I haven't moved to Firefox on my Mac is that I can't reassign keyboard shortcut for tab change (without using any external software).

Firefox default is Cmd-Shift-[], which gives me pain in left hand if I use it too much. So I have used OS keyboard to reassign the tab change to Cmd-[]. Most apps seem to respect it, but Firefox doesn't.

Does anyone have a better solution?

<comment><USER13> [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/shortkeys/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/shortkeys/)

allows you to set a keyboard shortcut for it (among other things)

disclaimer: I don't personally use it.

<comment><USER12> I don't install any addons on my browser. Wish Firefox worked just like others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I agree that Firefox has been doing great.

The one thing that's really lagging is adding back support for more of the customizations that were lost in the transition to the new architecture at FF57.

For example, one of the most useful and popular add-ons ever was called Tab Mix Plus. Here's a link to the open issues blocking the re-implementation of this functionality.

[http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=73159#p73159](http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=73159#p73159)

</comment><comment><USER15> I switched from Chrome back to Firefox some time ago and generally I'm happy with it.

Just this Firefox Lockwise stuff seems to be buggy. Every once in a while it disables automatic password fill-in. The security menu is also badly labled, it states something about asking if login data should be stored, but it's also resposible to fill it in after it was stored.

</comment><comment><USER16> There is a weird and pretty nasty bug in FF71. When using a built-from-source version (such as are available in distros), it breaks at least LastPass.

See: [https://forums.lastpass.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=356405](https://forums.lastpass.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=356405)

</comment><comment><USER17> My favorite feature is enabled subpixel positioning of text on Linux. Gives text a more evenly spaced look.

</comment><comment><USER18> Dont forget that if you manually update, Firefox destroys your update settings:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576400](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576400)

<comment><USER6> The Mozilla person who marked this wontfix summed it up pretty well, in my opinion:

> hi, the distribution folder is a way for third-parties to bundle/modify the > browser - when a user is paving over a firefox installation with a setup > file provided by mozilla, the assumption/signal is, that they want to > receive the plain unmodified version of firefox. that's why the distribution > folder is getting removed by default. this is the documented behaviour and > if you want to keep the distribution in place when using an installer from > mozilla, you'd have to run it with the /RemoveDistributionDir=false > parameter: [https://firefox-source- > docs.mozilla.org/browser/installer/wi...](https://firefox-source- > docs.mozilla.org/browser/installer/windows/installer/FullConfig.html)

> so i assume this bug is a wontfix...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When will Firefox support dithering in gradients?</comment>


Chinese students using "inclusion" to oppose Dalai Lama graduation speech - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-diversity-to-justify-their-opposition-to-the-dalai-lamas-graduation-speech/ <comment><USER2> Amazing how college campuses, once a bastion of free speech, are now the breeding grounds for those who demand freedom _from_ speech...at least, speech with which they don't agree.

<comment><USER3> "Amazing how", "Interesting how", "Amusing how", "Funny how" followed by some trite, oft-repeated generalized remark are not very productive ways of starting a constructive conversation. There are plenty of real issues to be discussed around this protest in particular. The general ideological issue you're pointing out here has been beaten to death, and not constructively, with no agreement or resolution or even steps made in that direction. I don't know if internet forums are a place where such a discussion can usefully be had. Regardless, comments like this are no way to initiate such a discussion.

Perhaps you think this submission isn't appropriate for HN, which is a perfectly legitimate position. If so, please flag it and move on.

<comment><USER2> _" Amazing how", "Interesting how", "Amusing how", "Funny how" followed by some trite, oft-repeated generalized remark are not very productive ways of starting a constructive conversation._

For politically-charged articles, some times it's the _only_ way to start a conversation without being downvoted.

And despite your criticism about my "trite" remark, you seem to be contributing more to shutting down the conversation than promoting it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dalai Lama is fake news.

<comment><USER5> Please comment civilly and substantively on HN or not at all.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


Did our cosmos exist before the big bang? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html?full=true <comment><USER2> Yes: <http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html>

<comment><USER3> great read, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For the past 26 years my dad has told me it has. He says this big bang is just one of many big bangs and that big bangs have been going on for an infinite amount of time (forever).

He also told me about particles smaller than atoms before quarks were moved from theory to fact. I never really thought much about all the stuff he told me until I started hearing of discoveries and theories about the same stuff.

He studies Sanskrit and the Vedas.

<comment><USER5> I noticed you're already down to (-1) and seem to be new to the site... Just a little pro-tip, don't bring out any views around here that go against the tenets of scientific naturalism.

If you do, you're generally assumed to be yet another irrational religious fundamentalist and the drive-by downmods will come faster than you could imagine. Awhile ago I couldn't even discuss design theory in contrast to biological evolution without getting dismissed as someone irrational who just had an axe to grind.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem of course is that naturalism has it's own limit or else it too becomes dogmaticism. There's stuff we just can't know from empirical observation. Indeed, I'd argue the question "why" has a genesis just beyond rational thought. Empiricism might help to explain away those urges but I don't see how it will ever address their origin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think that you'd have a hard time tracking down the cranberry juice, unless you are some kind of universe-reincarnationalist,</comment>


Form Follows Function - A collection of interactive HTML5 experiences - <AUTHOR> http://fff.cmiscm.com/#!/main

<comment><USER2> Great collection! It'd be interesting to see more posts on the techniques behind the demos.

</comment><comment><USER3> So many pretty things! I'm a huge fan of seeing what people can do with HTML5.</comment>


Typr.in (Specializing in hand-typed urls) - <AUTHOR> http://typr.in/ln <comment><AUTHOR> A friend of mine built this a few years ago. The use case is that you want to share a link with someone over the phone or any case where the person is hand- typing the URL.

Just go to the URL bar and prefix the url with "typer.in/ln/news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15450646" and you get a short link that has characters that are easily pronounceable, such as [http://typr.in/2uw7](http://typr.in/2uw7) (this thread).

I find this tool incredibly useful every now and then.

Caveat is it doesn't work with the scheme prefixes right now, so you have to delete the [https://](https://) when you use it for secure sites.</comment>


Effects of Supplements and Dietary Interventions on Cardiovascular Outcomes - <AUTHOR> https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2737825/effects-nutritional-supplements-dietary-interventions-cardiovascular-outcomes-umbrella-review-evidence <comment><USER2> They conclude:

"Reduced salt intake, omega-3 LC-PUFA use, and folate supplementation could reduce risk for some cardiovascular outcomes in adults. Combined calcium plus vitamin D might increase risk for stroke."</comment>


In Lockdown, Mathematicians Crack a Stubborn Geometry Riddle - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/in-lockdown-mathematicians-crack-a-stubborn-geometry-riddle/ <comment><USER2> This Wired piece is a copy of the original story: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-geometric-perspective- cra...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-geometric-perspective-cracks-old- problem-about-rectangles-20200625/)

<comment><USER3> Which is here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23675892](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23675892)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looking forward to many more scientific breakthroughs. And loads of new art and great music albums to be released next year.

I would like to contribute myself, but I first need to quit social media (does that include HN?)</comment>


Volkswagen Ambitions Fueled a Scandal - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/business/as-vw-pushed-to-be-no-1-ambitions-fueled-a-scandal.html <comment><AUTHOR> This NYT article is the best summary of the scandal I have seen thus far.</comment>


66% of VPNs are not in fact broken - <AUTHOR> https://nohats.ca/wordpress/blog/2015/10/17/66-of-vpns-are-not-in-fact-broken/ <comment><USER2> How can I check my VPN version (Am I vulnerable)?

</comment><comment><USER3> Am I understanding this right?

The original report said that if you assume the NSA has broken 2 primes, 66% of VPNs _in the 1% of IPs surveyed by the researchers_ respond as if they'd be broken.

The linked article points out that many types of VPNs won't respond to the query method used by the original researchers, many VPNs will respond with false positives, and some will give false negatives.

So basically, we have no idea how many are broken, but some very large number still?

<comment><USER4> What does it mean to "break 2 primes"? Is there some prime number that's calculated secretly but somehow unknown?

<comment><USER3> From micaeked's link;

        For the nerds in the audience, here's what's wrong:
        If a client and server are speaking Diffie-Hellman,
        they first need to agree on a large prime number with
        a particular form. There seemed to be no reason
        why everyone couldn't just use the same prime, and,
        in fact, many applications tend to use standardized
        or hard-coded primes. But there was a very
        important detail that got lost in translation between
        the mathematicians and the practitioners: an
        adversary can perform a single enormous
        computation to "crack" a particular prime, then easily
        break any individual connection that uses that prime.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but this is my understanding;

For a client and server to communicate securely, they can exchange crypto keys publicly via Diffie-Hellman. D-H relies on a very large prime number and a second smaller prime, both of which can be broadcast publicly. The two clients add their own secret key to the primes, perform an operation, and send the result to each other. They then each perform one more operation on the received number with their secret key. If you compare the two resulting values, and they match, then you've established trust and can communicate using the resulting key.

This is safe since the primes are so large and the computational complexity is so high, it'd be infeasible to break them in the lifetime of the connection. However, to save a bit of time, rather than calculating a new very large prime every time, much software just had "built-in" primes (512-bit and 1024-bit numbers) and relied on the secret keys to provide security.

A recent paper proved that with breakthroughs in algorithms and a huge budget, reusing primes wasn't safe. The authors showed that for a known 512-bit prime, with a week of precomputation on a computing cluster, they could break subsequent connections using that prime in about one minute. Extrapolating their results to 1024-bit primes, they estimated to "break one prime per year" would cost on the order of $200M - $300M in hardware, which is well within the budget of the NSA who spend about 5x that amount annually on crypto programs and more than 50x annually for their entire budget.

They then examined a bunch of public VPN networks and saw that in their estimation, about 66% use one of two 1024-bit primes. So if the NSA had been running their 1024-bit prime-breaker for two years and had precomputed the groups for the two most popular primes, breaking each subsequently 'secure' connection would take about 30 core-days or a matter of seconds for someone with the budget of the NSA.

<comment><USER5> I suspect (or wish, rather) that this is likely not what happened.

I imagine this suit over at NSA, who probably started from a technical background. Couple of guys from a project team tell him they can break significant portions VPN connections, for $400M (because govt). All they need is to break a couple of primes. He thinks for a couple of days. He asks what happens if someone changes the primes. Silence. Someone says processing power will have made cracking further primes much easier in the future. "But the size of primes will have grown too," he says. "Not this time guys, maybe someday."

This reminds me of a link I found here a couple of days ago. 1 Euro for 4096 bits of Prime.

Mmmmm.

[http://www.mappamathics.com/](http://www.mappamathics.com/)

<comment><USER3> Then the NSA suit realizes that changing a few primes would require massive bureaucratic organizations to coordinate and rewrite / upgrade software that's "in the wild" without a compelling financial incentive to do so and then he laughs maniacally.

But seriously though, is there any doubt that the NSA would spend even 1/30th of their annual budget to intercept traffic that self-selects to be "more sensitive" than random internet noise. How much intel could you gather if you had 2/3 of the privileged conversations of companies, countries, and citizens who were explicitly trying to protect their communications?

Even if the advantage only lasted a few years, it'd be an absolute gold mine. Not that it needs to be though, there isn't exactly a Board of Directors ensuring that the NSA investments meet certain returns.

Cool link for the primes though, that's a pretty clever idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> reddit thread from a couple days ago: [https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/3qarhc/66_of_vpns_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/3qarhc/66_of_vpns_are_not_in_fact_broken/)</comment>


Ask HN: When is the right time to quit work and be a freelancer?  - <AUTHOR>

Hello.
I work as a junior Python developer, and seeing many of you guys who are freelancer makes feel like being overused in this job which undoubtedly I love and all, but nothing matches the joy of working for yourself at your own pace.
The question or questions are:
1- when do you think it's time to quit your job and start your own company.
2- if you're a freelancer, how do you manage your time? What do you do when don't get a job for a while? Is it worthy of the feeling that is you're definitely getting your paycheck at the end of month?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> > but nothing matches the joy of working for yourself at your own pace.

That's the opposite of how I would describe freelancing. You aren't working for yourself at your own pace, you are working for your clients at their pace. Rather than having one boss, you have multiple bosses. Sure, you can pick your projects and have the client agree on a timeline you set, but I assume you can do that on the job as well.

That work doesn't include the time you need to spend on marketing, branding, creating proposals for jobs you get passed over on and a long list of other things which you don't have to do when working a typical job.

You might think you would have more freedom as a freelancer, but that's often not the case. If you could charge high rates and live super cheap, then this would largely be true. But living super cheap often means that you are living in an area which makes charging high rates relatively difficult (you can't get that "face time" which certain clients require, which means you have no leg up on your competition which might be charging less.) This is where your marketing really helps.

As a freelancer you will likely find that you are working more hours than you were at your job. Every hour working is really working. I can only put in about six hours of coding per day because I'm at such a high level of focus. At your job, you may be there eight hours, but how much of that time is spent truly working? Again, on top of that time spent on client work, you have other non billable tasks you have to do for your business. And since you are still trading dollars for hours, you still have that ceiling of 24 hours per day.

Another point that I believe is critical to consider is that there is a lot of gray area between freelancing and working a regular job. For some people, the only difference is in the forms they are having to fill out for taxes. I have had long term freelance gigs which were basically jobs. And people who have jobs should probably be marketing themselves just as a freelancer would. If you find this describes you in your freelancing, then you should probably just stick with a regular job.

Instead of freelancing, you would be better off removing that word from your vocabulary. Instead, shoot for running a sustainable business which doesn't live and die by your hourly work. Do some Googling to find case studies of people like you who have been able to move on to different business models, or at least supplement their hourly work with other forms of income. You aren't truly your own boss until you are able to earn money while on vacation or sleeping.

To answer your questions:

When to make the leap?

As the other comment mentioned. You need to have at least 3 months living expenses, but once you dip below that, you are approaching critical levels. You should have at least 6 months, but the more the merrier. This is so important as the lower you get, the more desperate your cash flow situation becomes. The best case scenario is that you can plan out months, maybe even years rather than having to worry about what you are going to eat tomorrow.

You should have a decent amount of experience built up, but a lot of people make the leap without this. I think there is a market for all levels of experience. A lot of freelancers go that route simply because that's the only way for them to get work as a developer. You do what you have to (and this applies to the financial part also.)

How do you manage your time and what to do when you don't have work?

There is a ton of work out there. I rarely if ever hit a point where I have nothing on my plate. If I do, it's because I'm between projects and in this case I can still take on small stuff.

Time management is something that is different for everyone. There are tons of tricks out there. Google it. ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> I would say there is no exact "right time" to quit and become a freelancer. While going off on your own can be highly rewarding, it is not without stress and requires high degrees of focus and hard work.

With that said, if you are single I would have at minimum 3 months of living expenses saved up before I even thought of quitting my full-time, secure paycheck job. Preferably you would have 6 months to a year worth of savings just in case. If you are married and have a family, I would at least say 1 year worth of savings before I quit.

Prior to quitting though, I would get my feet wet by finding small jobs on the side and slowly building up clients. This is good not only from the experience prospective, but provides you with contacts and portfolio material.

Managing your time can be tricky and everyone has their own methods for doing it. Personally, I use several lists to keep track of on-going tasks and use software like Basecamp to manage projects. My lists that I keep are for daily, weekly, and overall project tasks. Each day I try to complete at least the daily list and build the next days list from the weekly and project lists.

Working for yourself it is inevitable that there will be slow months or months where you do not get any new clients. This can be depressing and add stress. The key here is to not let it get you down, know that everyone experiences bad months and just keep moving forward with current projects. For slower months I always reach out to past clients to touch base, feel them out for additional work, and depending on the relationship I have built with them, see if they know anyone looking for my services. Referrals are your best friend.

I am not going to try and make it sound glamorous, freelancing is not, but on the flip side it can be very rewarding and provide you with excellent learning opportunities and growth. Just understand that there are a lot of things that going on long with it. You are now responsible for all your own taxes, insurance, and the "business" side of the house.

Based on your job title, it sounds like you are young and just getting started. I don't know your experience level or education, but I would say solely based on your title, to continue working for a few more years at least. If freelancing is something that interests you, start small and part time finding and taking on small jobs here and there if you can. This will give you experience managing your time, working on projects independently, and a little extra income, all while you still collect a steady (and guaranteed hopefully) paycheck from your employer.

Good luck!</comment>


Using Crowdsourcing, ML to Measure Violence and Abuse Against Women on Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://decoders.amnesty.org/projects/troll-patrol/findings <comment><AUTHOR> 7.1% of tweets sent to the women in the study were "problematic" or "abusive". This amounts to 1.1 million tweets mentioning 778 women across the year, or one every 30 seconds.

Women of colour, (black, Asian, Latinx and mixed-race women) were 34% more likely to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets than white women.

Black women were disproportionately targeted, being 84% more likely than white women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.

Online abuse targets women from across the political spectrum - <USER2> and journalists faced similar levels of online abuse and we observed both liberals and conservatives alike, as well as left and right leaning media organisations, were targeted.</comment>


WordPress 4.2 Stored XSS - <AUTHOR> http://klikki.fi/adv/wordpress2.html

<comment><USER2> I was surprised there is no plugin to limit the size of a comment, so I ended up editing `wp-comments-post.php` line 129 from:

if ( '' == $comment_content ) {

to:

if ( '' == $comment_content || 32768 < strlen($comment_content) ) {

<comment><AUTHOR> I was surprised that the PHP database access layer doesn't throw an error and aborts the transaction (like the other DAL I know would do).</comment></comment>


The Community Has Beaten Epic At Porting The Unreal Editor To Linux - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/the--has-beaten-epic-at-porting-the-unreal-editor-to-linux.3671

<comment><USER2> I just hope that the UE3 desaster (promised port to Linux never happened) won't happen again.

Given the Steam Box rise, I have a bit of hope left. By the way, has anyone tried porting a 3d FPS over to a Raspberry Pi? I'd really be interested in its performance.

<comment><USER3> Quake was ported to Raspberry PI. It was part of a contest. More information probably on the PI website.</comment></comment>


Python overtakes JavaScript as most queried language on Stack Overflow - gat-nick https://www.developer-tech.com/news/2019/mar/01/python-overtakes-javascript-most-questioned-language-stack-overflow-new-data-shows/ <comment><AUTHOR> The decline in JS searches started at the same time MDN launched their redesign...

[https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/07/the-mdn-redesign-behind- th...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/07/the-mdn-redesign-behind-the-scenes/)</comment>


Health insurance rate hikes. Why so surprised?  - <AUTHOR> http://katgleason.tumblr.com/post/40181379382/health-insurance-rate-hikes-why-so-surprised

<comment><USER2> Perhaps I'm the stupid one here but I was never expecting higher levels and availability of health care to be less expensive (or even _as_ expensive), at least in the short-term. I supported it anyways because it's the right thing to do.

A cheaper health-care option would be to take the sick out behind a barn and put them out of their misery, which is why we don't turn health care into a linear optimization problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is my understanding that one of the most cited justifications for passing healthcare reform was to lower costs. Specifically, the monthly cost for individuals who need to purchase their own health insurance plans.

<comment><USER2> As the bill was being debated it was my understanding that the lowering costs would come from improvements in health as a direct result of increased preventative care and earlier detection of disease (in the stage where it is cheaper to treat).

It is impossible to have the increased preventative care come before patients' access to that care, just as it's impossible to detect illness when a patient cannot even be seen due to lack of insurance.

That was the reason I said I didn't expect a reduction in price in the short- term, because it simply doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean costs won't eventually go down compared to what they would have been if PPACA didn't go into effect, but that's getting beyond my ability to predict based just on simple principles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Health insurance covering male maternity care is a complete no-op. It adds no benefit, but it never costs health care companies either. So it shouldn't cause a premium rate rise so is a bit irrelevant.

I get the feeling it was cited as an example to make the reforms look stupid, even though it doesn't actually have any negatives.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was cited because health care plans are not sold by gender. Therefore the plan's actuarial risk assessment needs to account for maternity whether or not the person signing up for the plan is a male or female.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The ignorance on display here is a bit astonishing.

Health insurance in MA is not equivalent to health insurance in Idaho; in MA insurance is much more tightly regulated so that you can rely on it. What good is a largely unregulated insurance policy that refuses to pay out when you're really sick?

Now, if Idaho had strong regulators that were enforcing the same sort of standards as MA, you might be able to compare but then you'd run smack into the fact that...the cost structures are completely different. Everything is more expensive in MA, including housing and doctors.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a good point in comparing Idaho to MA housing and pricing costs. But then how can you justify California's low insurance monthly rates (before the new hikes that just happened this month) California: $157

<comment><USER4> I don't know much about the state of CA insurance regulation. I live in MA.

Off the top of my head, it seems like mean premium prices is going to depend on a lot of different factors, ranging from demographics (younger folks make up a larger fraction of the population in TX than in MA) to cost of living.

I think your whole analysis fails because you're missing half of the Cost Benefit Analysis. You're looking only at costs, without assessing benefits. One might as well look at Somalia and proclaim how awesome it is to not have to pay taxes.</comment></comment></comment>


Has the 9th Circuit Court been overturned 80% of the time? - <AUTHOR> http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37198/has-the-9th-circuit-court-been-overturned-80-of-the-time <comment><USER2> In other "news", the Green Bay Packers win the Super Bowl 80% of the time.

They are, of course, hopeless slackers because the Saints win 100% of the time.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions)</comment>