Could Affiliate Links Kill Pinterest? - <AUTHOR> http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/affiliate-links-kill-pinterest/

<comment><USER2> The analysis of the DMCA Safe Harbor status in this article is incorrect. Subsection (a) -- "Transitory Digital Network Communications" -- is just one of four distinct ways in which a service provider can qualify for Safe Harbor status. (The author is correct only in that it doesn't apply to Pinterest.) Of the three others, the most relevant for Pinterest is subsection (c), "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users".

In any case, links are not copyrightable works, so the fact that Pinterest is modifying them to alter or remove affiliate tags is most likely irrelevant.

Read the whole thing for details: <https://images.chillingeffects.org/512.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> A link doesn't need to be a copyrightable work for the "material" posted by a user to be considered altered. What matters is how a court defines "material" and whether or not the court would define that "material" as modified by the service provider or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This was written by an affiliate marketing website.

</comment><comment><USER4> For some reason, it seems likely to me that they are doing this so that they can eventually add their own partner/affiliate tracking. It could be the only real viable model for them.

<comment><USER5> It seems reasonable. As long as the quality on the site is not dropping what is the problem with affiliate links?

<comment><USER2> One word: Spam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The primary argument being that altering links might be construed as a a modification of material hosted on the service.

<comment><USER6> I would suspect that a judge would be eminently willing to hear an argument that such a modification isn't really substantial and need not indicate the sort of editorial control that the law is considering when talking about who qualifies for various protections. It's _far_ from clear that s/&refererId=.*//g exposes them to additional liability.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. Especially not when algorithmically managed. It is in no way comparable to a curated service / site.

The author refuses to admit any bias in their position, too (that they make money in and around the world of affiliate marketing).</comment></comment></comment>


Docker Networking and DNS: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - <AUTHOR> https://technologyconversations.com/2016/04/25/docker-networking-and-dns-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ <comment><USER2> Personally, I like how Kubernetes handles this with an independent service that's built upon flannel (Kube-DNS). I'd rather Docker stick to running containers, and that's it.

<comment><USER3> Weave ([https://github.com/weaveworks/weave](https://github.com/weaveworks/weave)) is actually a nice DNS/SDN solution for Docker. Quick and easy to set up.

<comment><USER4> I tried Weave but ultimately had to abandon it, as there were too many issues in resolving DNS directly to containers. Kubernetes resolves DNS to a virtual IP that in turns maps to the container IPs, which I found to be a much better approach.

<comment><USER3> My initial work with it was pre-docker networking. Admittedly, I need to spend more time with Kubernetes, but the rapid evolution and multiple solutions to service discoverability, load balancing, and networking in the Docker eco- system is a bit of a challenge to keep on top of and figure out what's best/right for the situation. I suspect, near term, the solution is "what works for me now, I'll figure out something else as I have time/down the road."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You also have to account for how your individual programming language handles DNS lookups - i.e. does it do its own caching? Round robin can quickly breaks down when using DNS.

<comment><USER6> This is the reason why kubernetes uses proxying rather than DNS for load balancing. The number of pitfalls with using DNS for loadbalancing are just too large.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Cheap email marketing via Amazon SES - <AUTHOR> https://emailoctopus.com <comment><USER2> Once switched to sendy no more crazy email costs. Sure it is not as nice as mailchimp, but saving ~70$ per month.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think this should be in Show HN.</comment>


Ask HN: Need help understanding role at Google - <AUTHOR> I have a interview for the Product Technology Manager role at Google next week, job description https://goo.gl/ntTHLs. I wasnt able to find much information regarding the role online and wanted to request if someone could share insights about the role. While on the Google careers site, the role comes under Product Management, I wanted to know how this role is different from regular PM, what does the career path look like and how is the role compensated compared to PM. Thank you ! <comment><USER2> Those are some great questions to ask your interviewer. They show an interest in the position, and a desire to succeed in it.</comment>


Intel's 49-Qubit Chip Shoots for Quantum Supremacy - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/intels-49qubit-chip-aims-for-quantum-supremacy <comment><USER2> Did they give any numbers on the _quality_ of the qubits? For example, IBM's 20 qubit chip has 2-qubit operations with error rates on the order of 5% [1] (some pairs of qubits are better, some are worse). Quantum supremacy experiments require thousands of operations (tens of layers of parallel operations). Qubits with even a 1% error rate per operation just won't cut it.

1: [https://youtu.be/T-8uuq7Izl8?t=26m58s](https://youtu.be/T-8uuq7Izl8?t=26m58s) "Experimental quantum computing at IBM" [26:58]

 _(Disclosure: I work on Google 's quantum team.)_

<comment><USER3> > Did they give any numbers on the quality of the qubits?

No they didn't. I've also had problems finding the benchmarks for their 17 qubit processor. I would appreciate if someone could link them to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I guess taking every branch by default avoids the specter of branch prediction vulnerabilities?

(This is me failing my saving throw vs urge to make terrible nerd jokes.)

</comment><comment><USER5> What makes one quantum computer superior to another? Not number of qubits, I guess? IBM has a 50-qubit machine.

<comment><USER6> IBM talks about a metric called "quantum volume" that combines number of qubits with error rate to summarise useful computing performance. See [https://dal.objectstorage.open.softlayer.com/v1/AUTH_039c3bf...](https://dal.objectstorage.open.softlayer.com/v1/AUTH_039c3bf6e6e54d76b8e66152e2f87877/community- documents/quatnum-volumehp08co1vbo0cc8fr.pdf)

(disclosure: IBMer, but very different area)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I assume these are massive like D-Wave's systems? [https://youtu.be/60OkanvToFI?t=392](https://youtu.be/60OkanvToFI?t=392)

</comment><comment><USER8> What is it means for humanity?

<comment><USER9> Better drugs/more complex medicines should be possible. Chemical interactions are hard to do on classical computers (operating on 5D+ arrays), true quantum computers should be able to help with those computations.

<comment><USER8> Do you have easy material for me to understand how quantum computing enables that kind of things? And does it use clasic numerical method computing or using different kind of mathematical approach? Actually I'm not sure whether my question makes sense or not

<comment><USER10> I enjoyed reading this paper:

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.0261.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.0261.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it vulnerable to meltdown?

<comment><USER12> maybe if you run out of liquid helium ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Breaking Bitcoin With a Quantum Computer

[http://fortune.com/2018/01/06/breaking-bitcoin- cybersaturday...](http://fortune.com/2018/01/06/breaking-bitcoin- cybersaturday/)

Quantum Resistant Ledger

[https://theqrl.org/](https://theqrl.org/)

<comment><USER14> It is unknown if BQP >= NP or NP-complete

<comment><USER15> NP-completeness is a property of problems, while BQP is a complexity class (set of problems). If any NP-complete problem is in BQP, then NP is a subset of BQP.

But it's not even known whether BQP > P, so we could have P = BQP < NP.</comment></comment></comment>


RPN/RPL Implementations - <AUTHOR> http://www.finseth.com/rpnrpl.html <comment><USER2> For more about emacs calc, which (like OpenOffice Calc) does a little bit more than its name might imply: [http://nullprogram.com/blog/2009/06/23/](http://nullprogram.com/blog/2009/06/23/)

</comment><comment><USER3> BibTeX uses RPN in its style definition (.bst) files. Diving into the standard style definition files gives you a taste for how long the system has been around, with many comments dated in the early nineties. Here is an example of a function:

        FUNCTION {emphasize}
         { duplicate$ empty$
             { pop$ "" }
             { "\emph{" swap$ * "}" * }
           if$
         }

I believe this is also somewhat similar to the PostScript language.</comment>


America's Dwindling Economic Freedom - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066 <comment><USER2> Huge pinch of salt and 'citation needed' on this. The Heritage Foundation is a self-described conservative think tank, and just seems to be relabelling 'low tax' as economic freedom here.

The purported benefits: "Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity..." really? From 2000-2008, Ireland held 3rd or 4th spot in the list[1], and is now 11th. Worked out great for them, what with the recession, the bailout, and the 2nd highest level of household debt in the world[2].

To those who would reply 'but that's outside forces, economics is complicated,', well, exactly. Reducing it to a list like this is wishful thinking.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932013_Irish_financ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932013_Irish_financial_crisis)

<comment><USER3> I think the point there is not that fact that Ireland had a major economic crisis, but what the response to that crisis was. My memory on this is imperfect, but I recall all the banks getting nationalised and the losses being pinned on the taxpayer. That would demonstrate a loss of economic freedom in the way the index seems to weight it (lower public debt and lower taxes = higher economic freedom). So I don't see a particular problem there.

If Ireland had followed more of the Iceland model post-crisis (dissolve the entities, prosecute the execs, reneg on debt) then I think the results for Ireland would probably be different.

<comment><USER2> The problem isn't that the rating for Ireland went down when the economic indicators did, it's that HF claim the rating is a predictor of economic performance, without a shred of evidence.

<comment><USER3> The way I see it, if Ireland hadn't pinned the taxpayer with the losses, their economic freedom would be higher, and their economic growth would probably be better. Certainly Iceland has fared better than Ireland in terms of economic growth since the 2008 crash - though Iceland appears further down the list of Economic Freedom. If Ireland _had_ acted differently, it would likely have had better growth, and would be higher in the list as in the past. I think this case is fine in terms of the methodology.

<comment><USER2> You're not seeing the wood for the trees. Ireland is just one example _among many_ where it is a poor predictor of growth. I could pick out China, India, Brazil (and complain about the weighting given to small countries), or just point at...all of the data:

[http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Freedom1996.gif](http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Freedom1996.gif)

It's comically bad. Random things like penis size correlate better with economic growth [http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5008876deab8ea62620...](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5008876deab8ea626200000f/gdp- male-organ-penis.png)

(that's from a real paper from the Helsinki Center of Economic Research, btw, though it's obviously tongue in cheek)

Even its correlation with GDP is pretty shaky: [http://www.heritage.org/index/book/images/in-2014-chapter-1-...](http://www.heritage.org/index/book/images/in-2014-chapter-1-chart-2.jpg)

This is nothing but a list to write press releases around. There is no science to it, and we shouldn't take it any more seriously than articles about the mathematical formula for the perfect sandwich.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm annoyed. I came here to point out who the heritage foundation is, but bazzargh has it covered: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062656)

TFA complains about "marginal income rates of %43" as though this were the general case. For what it's worth, %43 is the highest capital gains rate, the highest income rate is %39, which is for incomes of over 1.8MM: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)

With that out of the way, the highest marginal tax rate was around %90 during the boom of the 50's and 60's, and is lower now than during Regan administration for example: [http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal- individual-...](http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal- individual-1.html)

If one is a member of the very highest tax bracket, then one might be tempted to measure freedom by the myopic comparison of income tax rates. It would be unsurprising if the Heritage Foundation were concerned about the very highest tax rate in great disproportion to it's nominal consequence.

There are other economic freedoms: freedom from excessive gov't granted monopolies (patent/copyright), freedom from protectionism, tariffs, limited work visas, etc. Even rich guys driven to distraction by high tax rates ought to be able to find something say about these sorts of things in an article about economic freedom, but no specific structural reforms are proposed. News flash: partisan think tank doesn't like taxes, president.

For the rest of rest of us, real freedom also means not being imprisoned for interacting with other consenting adults in ways that are illegal, and not being denied due process in various ways such as: torte reform, civil asset forfeiture, being spied on by agencies who are immune from judicial review, etc. Could we take a break from wringing our hands about the welfare of the ultra-rich, and work some of that stuff too?

<comment><USER5> _For the rest of rest of us, real freedom also means not being imprisoned for interacting with other consenting adults in ways that are illegal..._

You mean interactions like paying a consenting adult $7.24/hour to clean your bedroom? Selling a consenting knowledgeable adult a substance which has not passed FDA review? Paying a person without a medallion to drive you to a different location?

As far as I know, you don't escape from patent/copyright or work visa issues by travelling to other nations. Incidentally, those things are included in the Heritage rankings, and collectively get more weight than tax/govt spend.

[http://www.heritage.org/index/about](http://www.heritage.org/index/about)

<comment><USER4> >> You mean interactions like paying a consenting adult $7.24/hour to clean your bedroom? Selling a consenting knowledgeable adult a substance which has not passed FDA review? Paying a person without a medallion to drive you to a different location?

When I said the article proposes no particular structural reforms, and ought to take on protectionism, &c. I meant that these are exactly the sort of issues I would like to have seen addressed.

It seems like we have in common more than you think :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmm. You know those dozen or so countries even further down the list than the US do sorta seem like nice places to live. Germany, Sweden, Japan and so forth. Maybe there are just a lot of countries in the world, and not everybody can be in the top 10 for everything every year.

The reasons the author lists for why my freedom is suddenly so limited don't seem like they would really impact me all that much. So there's more health care regulation. And now I'm supposed to be panicking?

Perhaps not.

<comment><USER7> "...nice places to live...why my freedom is suddenly so limited don't seem like they would really impact me all that much"

 _Economic_ freedom, that is the freedom of companies to do as they please, is often in conflict with _individual_ freedom. For example, I find myself with much greater freedom as an employee or as a consumer in Germany than in the US, because the inherent imbalance in power between the two parties is leveled by regulations curtailing the corporations' freedom.

<comment><USER3> Economic Freedom is the freedom for you as an individual to follow your own path. It has nothing to do with individuals vs corporations. Regulations do not make you free.

How free are you to start up a company in any given field? To earn income doing a task of your choosing? To spend your income on items of your own choosing?

That is the essence of economic freedom.

In the details it shows that the USA is still very high in certain areas - like personal freedom in labor mobility - but is getting marked down for continued and excessive debt.

I think the list is somewhat imperfect (Hong Kong is no longer a country, despite it's commendable history of low taxation and personal freedoms, now lost to being a chinese micro-state).

The discussions around healthcare seem to muddy the waters - although it is a hot topic I don't think it really counts for much as most of the countries above the USA have much more regulated or state owned health care.

<comment><USER8> > Regulations do not make you free

Regulations prevent more powerful others from removing my own freedom as they want.

<comment><USER3> See my other reply, but the only 'more powerful other' that has the ability to remove your economic freedom is a government. A large corporation cannot remove your ability to change jobs, spend your income how you like or start up a new business unless they do it through the government.

Microsoft or Apple can't prevent me from starting up a new company or buying some other product unless they get the government to regulate my other choices out of existence - which means they can only harm me by decreasing my economic freedom. The exact opposite to what people seem to be trying to say here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You can see a big difference when you look at Africa. Countries like Botswana and Mauritius really have seen great gains in economic growth through economic freedom, yet we think the whole continent is struggling. Compare that with Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbambwe at the bottom. For a while Botswana was outpacing Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea in economic growth rate.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here's the actual index [http://www.heritage.org/index/](http://www.heritage.org/index/)

It's a pretty well made website. You can export filtered data in csv, there are profiles for each country, etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think its two difficult to put the US and UK (as examples) on the same scale as other countries. Miller suggests that tougher regulation has caused the US to loose points. I would argue the US needs more regulation, compared to smaller countries, for stability.

<comment><USER12> I think the point being made is the blunt nature of the regulation - "entire industries" are being regulated. More regulation doesn't necessarily mean better regulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> tldr; Arbitrary number made up by conservative think tank not known for intellectual rigor is declared to have risen, press released.

</comment><comment><USER14> Unscientific rubbish. Discourse about economic justice is "value laden" but talk of economic freedom is based on "economics without values."

</comment><comment><USER15> Norway, which is the "happiest" country is ranked number 32 on this list.

</comment><comment><USER16> That's kind of a silly list. Look at the 11 countries above the U.S. in 'economic freedom'..

First, there's Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Mauritius -- Mauritius...?!?!? -- Ireland, Denmark, and Estonia.

Really? You're really going to compare those postage stam...sorry, countries, and their so-called economic freedom to the U.S.? Really?

Australia, Canada, Chile, and New Zealand...OK, I can perhaps buy that. Particularly Australia and Canada.

Now look at the countries below the U.S. Included are:

Taiwan, Germany, South Korea, Israel...all doing quite nicely on the capitalist front.

Not to mention Norway, Sweden, Finland, and several other countries with arguably higher standards of living and qualities of life than the U.S.

A silly list purporting to demonstrate an even sillier implication.

<comment><USER17> A friend just moved back to the us from Denmark and can't shut up about how much better it is for business in the US.

<comment><USER18> Jante Law. "Who are you to start your own company? Do you think you're better than an employee?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems like bullshit. Australia has ludicrous regulations on competition, including a massive minimum wage, with all sorts of knock-on distortionary problems, yet it makes the top five.</comment>


Am I wrong in hating React JS? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/front-end-hacking/am-i-wrong-in-hating-react-js-811ef963aa2d#.b39zthwvb <comment><USER2> To reply to your complaints:

> I hate html in javascript. I hate JSX.

At least it's just HTML and JavaScript.

In my opinion it's better than learning a new messy templating DSL, i.e.

                {{::item.name}}

        <select ng-options="item.subItem as item.label for item in ::vm.items2 track by item.id" ng-model="selected"></select>

> I hate the lack of CLI. I hate the ridiculous amount of shit I have to do to > simply get a project started.

You can use the official Create React App CLI [1].

> I hate the sheer amount of boilerplate code and the verbosity.

How do you recreate the following component in Ember/Angular/Backbone/jQuery/FoobarJs with less boilerplate and verbosity?

        Header.js:

        import React from 'react';
        import Icon from './Icon';

        export default ({ icon, title, subTitle }) => (

<Icon name={icon} /> {title}

{subTitle}

        );

> I hate the lack of conventions — every project I look at looks different, > every blog post looks different.

React is just a library to build views, so there is not a single way to build your app in the React world. You can use Redux, MobX, Flux or whatever you want to manage your data. You can even do it in 100% raw vanilla JS. I think it's great.

\---

[1] [https://github.com/facebookincubator/create-react- app](https://github.com/facebookincubator/create-react-app)

<comment><USER3> You definitely have to learn a DSL - in JSX you have to use _className_ instead of _class_ for the HTML tag property. There are a few other examples of this, but the point is the argument doesn't hold water against Angular's templating language.

<comment><USER4> className has always been the convention for accessing the class attribute in Javascript.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/Element/cla...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/Element/className)

<comment><USER5> And that's of course because pre ES5 you couldn't use keywords (class) as property names.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Is React a fad?_

Yes.

 _Is it here to stay?_

Yes.

 _Should I get into it?_

Depends on what you need. If you are building a web application with complicated UX needs (protip: you probably aren't) and/or the team insists on React, you probably need React. If you want an easy time getting a job in the Bay Area right now, you probably need React. If you want to avoid having your comments downvoted on HN, you probably need React.

So, it depends.

<comment><USER7> > protip: you probably aren't

Citation needed. HN has this really strange assumption that everyone who talks about web technology is working on Wordpress sites or implements TodoMVC for a living.

<comment> lloyd-christmas It's a 3.5 year old framework. Unless your career is "technical cofounder" with 6 month intervals, you probably don't get to pick your stack. People that have up and chosen React for their professional platform _and have their company succeed_ aren't going to be all that common[0]. Within those that have, people who have used it for long enough (and large enough) to burn their hand on the stove are few and far between. Remember when Angular was the golden child and could do no wrong? It's 6 years old now, and took a while before the fandom died down and you could actually find the practical criticism.

I think the assumption that everyone does a 'Todo' is definitely a poor one, but I feel like 90% of the React articles are by people that have used it for 6 months at most, company blogs included. Glancing at the angular builtwith stats[1], they had 600/10k within 4 years. 3.5 years into React and it hasn't broken 100. While these numbers don't directly translate into "complex UI", they are still indicative of long term usage, going back to my hand-on-stove comment.

[0] [https://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/React](https://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/React)

[1] [https://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/Angular- JS](https://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/Angular-JS)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You are probably just experiencing change aversion, also known as "getting older". It's normal to have these feelings.

There were people who programmed in assembly and hated compilers and C. There were people who programmed in C and hated Perl. There were people who programmed in Perl and hated PHP. There were people who programmed in PHP and hated Ruby. There were people who programmed in Ruby and hated that JavaScript suddenly was a "real" programming language.

You'll probably be able to find work in your language/framework of choice for a long time, although as time progresses it will be less "hip startup" and more "enterprise" (look at C#/ASP.NET) and "banks" (look at COBOL).

<comment><USER9> > also known as "getting older"

I disagree with that. It's not about age, it's about experience. React is essentially reimplementing ideas from the past on a new platform. I think it's more skepticism that React is 'it' as the next big UI view layer. The tolerance for bull goes down as you age, and sometimes the next big thing is just a different way of polishing the same ideas from 20 or 30 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You're not wrong in hating React, but it is a fad as much as no one wants to believe it. The reason I believe is because no matter how strong the framework, eventually it will be adopted (to some extent) into the native language (which is a good thing). Think about these frameworks:

\- jQuery

\- Coffeescript

\- Backbone

at the time, if I had asked you if those were a fad, you'd think I was crazy. And yet, because of native language enhancements, none of those frameworks are really needed anymore. And I'm sure in 5 years React, Angular, Vue, Ember...you name it, will also likely be a thing of the past.

The important thing that I've learned in my (so far very short) career is that it's always best to know the language first, and the framework second. Frameworks come and go, but the language is permanent. By knowing the language really well, it's strengths and weaknesses, it enables you to determine when a framework is helpful... _and more importantly, when a framework is a hindrance_.

As an anecdotal example, I had a client that was using a React boilerplate on NPM to do a Foursquare API request. React is like, 50k lines uncompressed? To do _that_? I was able to replace it with 22 lines of vanilla JS. If you don't know the base language, it's often easier to simply think in the framework and create a bloated environment for very basic things rather than just use what the language gives you. It's faster, it's cleaner, it's more widely supported in browsers, has a larger community, and is more defensible to use the base language than a framework, until the framework does more work to help you than harm you.

So my advice would be, if you're thinking about using React or Angular, think about why you need it. Are you doing heavy lifting on the front-end, like interactive graphics or a dashboard? Sure, those are probably pretty good choices. If not, and you're simply trying to make the front-end more RESTful, with some easier reasoning about your applications, you could probably get away with a lighter framework like Mithril, Elm, or another lightweight framework.

<comment><USER10> > at the time, if I had asked you if those were a fad

I still wouldn't call jquery a fad, just obsolete

<comment><USER11> Are you perhaps thinking of JQuery UI? The core JQuery lib is still used. And for basic front end dev it really does offer most of the utility you'll look for in other libs.

1\. Get and manipulate dom elements. 2\. Register simple event handlers 3\. Ajax calls that are simple (frankly all other ajax-ish APIs I've ever seen pretty much copy the design and approach of the JQuery one).

Also a pretty big ecosystem of simple highly focused add-ons. You (still) can get a long way with just JQuery

<comment><USER12> You can, but it pretty much is obsolete at this point.

1\. `document.querySelector()` and then just modify the DOM however you want.

2\. `node.addEventListener()`

3\. `fetch()`

There are still things that jQuery provides that aren't as simple to do with the built in functionality, but in most cases, you can get by just fine without pulling in all of jQuery. And in those cases where you can't, there are more focused libraries available for those specific use-cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wasn't a huge fan of JSX until I saw the template errors in Angular 2. Not trying to bash on the rest of Angular 2, but it really made me appreciate how JSX points out the exact syntax error at compile time. Pretty much all template based frameworks have the same problem.

It took a while for React to "click" for me, but that was mostly because of transitioning from MVC to Redux. I highly recommend learning pure React first. Build a project with that first, even if it seems like you're writing a lot of code.

</comment><comment><USER14> _I recall a few years back I hated Ember JS and kept trying to get into it and hating it then for some reason the 3rd time I did, it stuck and I LOVED IT._

Seems like you're already obstinant and opposed to tech from it's perceived novelty and new age, rather than trying to understand the problems its trying to solve.

</comment><comment><USER15> What may help is to change your perspective, and to change your word choice.

It's not hate. It's _definitely_ not hate. You don't like React, and that's perfectly fine. "Hate" has some very specific, very negative connotations that make almost impossible to have a regular conversation. One of my mentors uses the term "stop words". Hate is on that list of words that, when used, stop the conversation in its tracks.

It's ok to not like things. It's perfectly OK to not like Javascript frameworks. There's a ton of them, or you can write your own if you feel that's necessary.

But please, can we stop throwing around the word "hate"? It does nobody any good and only furthers the problems of ego and exclusivity prevalent in our industry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank for the feedback. It might have not been obvious in my article but I am definitely open to changing my mind about stuff and I gave 2 examples: Ember & VIM. So just because I hate React now doesn't mean I will not be a fan later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The reasons why you should like react

\- forces you into an object oriented paradigm with constructors/destructors

\- mutation from external sources and internal sources results in a single function being run to refresh the output.

\- inline html/xml is your freind. You can see easily how a ui is structured rather than parsing a 300 line file to see what gets created, destroyed, appended, prepended anD etc

\- all jsx results in is a "patch". This "patch" is then compiled into components (which also result in a "patch") or html elements/text/null values. This makes reasoning about the application simpler since a "controller" component may not care about updating canvas info. But the "canvas" component certainly does

<comment><USER17> I respectfully disagree. You don't need constructors and certainly not destructors (really not sure what you mean by this in the context of React, can you elaborate) and these are not really the main OO concepts. Polymorphism, inheritance are, but you don't refer to these?

There is no inline XML, and I'm not aware of any other popular (or otherwise) React alternatives where you use long files which create, destroy, append and prepend DOM elements?

I'm also not sure what you mean by patch, or what the specific benefit you're highlighting here is - just modularity? You can do that with any framework, it doesn't seem unique to React - at all?

<comment><USER16> Component will mount/component did mount is effectively construction. Component will unmount is effectively destruction. Apparently them changing the names makes you believe thats not what it is

Polymorphism and inheritance can be implemented if you wanted. Mixins were used for a while.

Xml is react native and all other alternative rendering that use jsx syntax and a form of react

React alternatives where you create/destroy/append/prepend would be the DOM.

Patching is interesting in that the inline html isnt actually html until the end of the render loop. I dont remember seeing that anywhere else to be honest. It seems more similar to transforms like in node streams.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> May be you should try it more than three times. Like you've experienced with ember and vim, the epiphany comes all of a sudden

<comment><AUTHOR> That's my plan. Maybe a month from now, i will post about how much I love React :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > I hate html in javascript. I hate JSX.

How about hyperscript? Functionally equivalent to JSX but it's pure JS, with no XML syntax.

       header(
         h1(Icon({name: icon}, [title]),
         p(subTitle)
       )

I don't think you can make an argument against building the DOM in JS (instead of using some random DSL to parse HTML template strings) without falling into the fallacy that JS === logic and HTML === presentation. But, you don't seem to be making arguments.

</comment><comment><USER20> Then don't use it, imho Elm is way better, and the way they write html in elm is a lot more pleasing and less ugly than jsx. I'd recommend taking a look. It also compiles to js and has better performance.

<comment><USER7> I love Elm too, but Elm's biggest problem is Elm. It's hard to justify picking anything other than Javascript if other people are going to be touching the codebase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm with you on the embedded HTML in JavaScript files. There's a reason everyone went nuts for MVC, the seperation of UI code (in my opinion) just makes your life as a developer easier.

<comment><USER22> We're past static view components.

Today UI elements are dynamic things and the code that drives the dynamics should be kept close to the static representation of a given view state.

React actually separates UI code and interaction logic, as it should, by hosting the static part in the render function and the dynamic part in event handlers defined on the component. This is in my opinion a great balance of SoC / cohesion as it allows proper scoping of a UI unit and fosters controlled reuse.

I don't want to sound rude but we've had enough of this MVC fanatism that completely disabled many developer's creativity and took a lot of courage and energy to the React team, among others, to challenge.

Tying view logic (and only view logic) to static UI code is probably the only way to go on the path to proper UI component sharing and reuse. Whether we like it or not, whether we put the code in separate files or use any other artifice we're bound to make these two walk hand in hand. The last bastion being style. Which the React community tried to address, too.

At the risk of saying something obvious, I think we shouldn't reason on principles and habits. Progress can't be, and never is, driven by such forces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think that enjoying working in a framework/library is very much a function of how familiar one is with the framework/library.

It might be worth giving React that 3rd try.

</comment><comment><USER24> I kind of feel this way about React, but I feel even more strongly this way about Ember.

For one thing, I haven't been to a single React site that isn't an absolute CPU hog. Facebook is the worst for this.

Besides that though, I feel like it's still some intermediate step before we have something better.

I'm bullish on Elm though. For now, plain vanilla (but mostly functional) JS works fine for me and occasionally I'll throw in Backbone/Marionette where appropriate. Maybe that's too boring for people, but I'm too busy being happy with a stable stack and making money to care.

</comment><comment><USER25> Best thing I've read about react js ever! +1 Every time some person I talk to mention react, part of me want to vomit.</comment>


Mark Cuban's Rules For Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.blogmaverick.com/2008/03/09/my-rules-for-startups/

<comment><USER2> Walk around handing out $100 bills?

That is not how I would want to be appreciated, as an employee. It would make me feel even more of a mental prostitute. If I loved my job and was being compensated fairly, how would a few hundred bucks help me.

I'm nitpicking though, since I do agree with the point of making it fun for employees. Just don't disrespect them in the process.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't knock until you've tried it (i.e., been on the receiving end).

I worked on a trading floor of a major i-bank, and the head equity trader would do this.

The guys getting the bills (other traders) are making six figures in salaries, more in bonuses, yet they always loved those unexpected c-notes.

<comment><USER2> I think it would depend on the attitude of the person dispensing the cash. If it was in good natured fun, I can see it being great. If it's meant as a serious bonus/reward, I can see it backfiring.

Like I said before, I agree w/ the general idea of making a fun environment for your employees.</comment></comment></comment>


UK Government Now Wants to Spy on Websites with Free Accounts - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/government-now-wants-to-pry-on-facebook-476289

<comment><USER2> pry? That sentence doesn't make any sense. Does it make sense for UKers?</comment>


What language should I learn (other than English) for science/tech content? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I would assume Chinese as the only language worth learning for this purpose, as in the western world all science or tech will be available in English. Chinese, however, might enable you to access otherwise unavailable knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER3> A good idea is maybe to focus on the English and the science/tech content, not on another language.

</comment><comment><USER4> Latin and maybe some Greek, for deciphering terminology, perhaps?

</comment><comment><USER5> Python</comment>


Ask HN: Non-Profit Grubhub - <AUTHOR> I was thinking today if it would be a good idea for the tech community to build out a non-profit version of a food delivery service for the sake of maximizing profits to restaurants and delivery folks in need during this crisis. The highest costs I imagine would be credit card processing and fraud. But with enough word of mouth and good will, I think this type of service could stay a float via donations/sponsors and some minimal operating costs. Are there any HNers out there interested in pursuing something like this? <comment><USER2> I am. I'd like to help.</comment>


Revealing the Top Selling Items on eBay 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://crazylister.com/blog/top-selling-items-on-ebay/ <comment><AUTHOR> Any links to additional sources of data about what sells the best on eBay are welcome...</comment>


How to Achieve a 3 Day Work Week - <AUTHOR> https://30hourjobs.com/blog/how-to-achieve-a-3-day-work-week/ <comment><USER2> What would I do all day?... I have a hard time not coding every day as it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think working on whatever makes you excited in your downtime is fine – whether that's coding, arts, cooking, spending time with your kids.

The differentiator is that you are working for yourself and not others.

<comment><USER2> I don't disagree, but I also find myself... not going outside a lot (at all). Coding for work, coding for fun. I don't do much else. I'm pretty sure I'm addicted to the stimulation of being at a desk with my eyes at a screen and hands on a keyboard.</comment></comment></comment>


Looking for users to help us test our app: Product HQ - <AUTHOR> http://producthq.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> In fact, we're drinking our own Kool-Aid: we'd love for you to use our app to tell us how our app is doing. You can't get more meta than that!</comment>


While BP pays $10bn dividends, images of the oil slick's effect on wildlife - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html

<comment><USER2> That makes me want to cry and vomit at the same time. No amount of money is going to fix that. And its just the start.

</comment><comment><USER3> ouch</comment>


LocomotiveCMS Approaches 2.0 Release - <AUTHOR> http://www.locomotivecms.com/articles/announcement-2-0-release-candidate

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing I'll say about Locomotive, besides it being just an awesome take on CMS and being incredibly powerful under the hood, is that the _quality of code_ just completely blew me away. Didier, and later other members of the team like Mario, care about the hygiene, visual formatting, test coverage, extensibility, and properness in a way I just haven't really seen in other open source projects (mine included!).

If you're looking for basically a canonical example of rails-done-right to learn from or base certain practices from, look at Locomotive CMS.

Oh, and again, it's a totally awesome (and beautiful!) CMS as well.

</comment><comment><USER2> It seems like a really nice CMS. I love aloha as an editor and the native multi site capabilities.

But sadly there is no demo link available (crossed out) and the installation is quite a bit more complex than for the usual Rails CMS :(

It's not too bad, but usually you just do a gem install and then there's a new helper method allowing you to setup a matching project.

For some very strange reason, I get a segfault when trying to do a "bundle install" in the process described in the documentation.

<comment><USER3> Hi @rb2k_, thanks for the feedback. About the demo link, since we do not have a stable version of the engine yet, we chose to disable our demo platform. But it'll be coming soon !

You're totally right about the installation procedure. Like the other open source projects such as Spree for instance, we miss an executable which will help users to start a new engine with ease. That could be perhaps your first contribution to the project :-)

Finally, concerning your segfault error, if you have time, please open an issue in github (<https://github.com/locomotivecms/engine/issues>) or on our mailing-list ([https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/locomotiv...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/locomotivecms))

thanks again !

<comment><USER2> <https://github.com/locomotivecms/engine/issues/369>

<comment><USER3> thanks @rb2k_ !

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I also get a segfault when running "bundle install" as described in the docs.

Fetching gem metadata from [https://rubygems.org/./Users/hs/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p0/li...](https://rubygems.org/./Users/hs/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p0/lib/ruby/1.9.1/net/http.rb:799): [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30 revision 33570) [x86_64-darwin11.2.0]

</comment><comment><USER5> The "fork me on github" ribbon is covering the "Editor" and "Blog" menu items.</comment>


Billionaire must let public access Martins Beach, judge rules - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must-allow-public-to-access-Martins-5778533.php <comment><USER2> At the risk of sounding indelicate, why did he buy the property when the real possibility of maintaining public access was there? I can understand he wanted some peace and solitude, but if that's the case, there are options available to him as a billionaire that aren't available to the vast majority of the populace.

Access was in the law books before his purchase and claiming the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as being present before the 1972 Coastal Zone law is ridiculous in the extreme. There were many other things legal in 1848 that aren't today for very good reasons.

      "The judge could have fined Khosla $15,000 a day for every day the gates were shut,
      but she waived all fines."

Why?

<comment><USER3> The judge had to twist the law to get the decision everyone wanted. She said closing the gate was "development" and therefore needed a permit which he didn't get. That's already quite a stretch, it would have been capricious to tack on a fine.

<comment><USER2> You're referring to :

      Mallach agreed with Surfrider that closing the gate amounted to "a change
      in intensity of use," That change, she said, could be considered development
      under the law. As a result, she said in her ruling, Khosla must apply
      for a coastal development permit if he wants to close the gate or make other
      changes to the property.

Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately. While what constitutes "use" is debatable, these are moot points considering the laws passed in 1972 and 1976:

      prohibit homes or developments from blocking access to beaches. They essentially
      make the entire coast, including all beach property below the mean high tide line,
      public property.

<comment><USER4> > Removing public access means he intends to use the land privately

The argument was that he wasn't removing public access; he contends public access never existed: "the Deeney family, which set up the first cabin in 1918, had always charged people to access the beach, a clear indication that it was a private beach prior to 1972"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Alternative framing: rich guy closed access to a California public beach for four years and pays no penalty.

<comment><USER6> I like your spin, but what good would punishment do?

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "what good would punishment do?"

Make him think twice about being an asshole in the future?

<comment><USER7> I genuinely don't see how he is being "an asshole". I guess literally everyone who owns land in US would want to protect it. If people wanted to have public access to your own garden, would you consider yourself "an asshole" for denying them that? It just so happens that his land is a beach - so maybe the problem is that someone sold him that beach in the first place? In many countries you literally can't buy beaches, no matter how much money you have.

<comment><USER8> Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, he does not own the beach itself, but only the road allowing to access it. It is a bit different. It sounds more like a right of way issue.

I guess Vinod's property is the big one on the main road and he also owns the other houses/cabins on Martin's beach road.

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+email@example.com,-122.4071547,240m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f097345ba3ed5:0x2153a636d0b993fc)

Street view with, what I assume the barrier, and the no entrance sign :

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+California+...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Martins+Beach,+email@example.com,-122.4039575,3a,28.4y,247.94h,77.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZFSJ5O-pRdmaWybsxhqIvQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f097345ba3ed5:0x2153a636d0b993fc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Down here in Los Angeles we have many rich homeowners who use fences, fake/unlawful signs to keep the public out of local beaches. Many of these beaches are in Malibu he seem to think they are above the law. There are now mobile apps that tell you where these secret beaches are and how to access them (some access routes are very hidden).

<comment><USER10> Not only do the residents of Malibu do an amazing job of keeping the general public off their public-access beaches, they also seem to have a knack for crafting ordinances and environmental regulations that keep outsiders from moving in.

In 2000, Malibu had a population of 12,575. By 2010, the population had grown by a mere 0.55% to 12,645. Compare that to the entire state of California, which during the same period grew over 10% and added 3.5 million residents.

<comment><USER11> That minuscule amount of population growth makes me think the existing population just had a few children.

<comment><USER12> Or new maids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the city / state is forcing the owner open the beach to the public, why does the guy have to pay liability insurance? He should try to seek declaratory judgment that he's not voluntarily opening the land to the public, and therefore the state must indemnify him for any liability created by doing so.

For that matter, if someone's not allowed to restrict access to their property, is it really their property at all, or is it the state's property?

If I were this guy, I'd appeal. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like he's got a good case the state has _de facto_ taken his property away from him, and he's owed compensation under the US Constitution.

Everyone here seems to be against this guy, and their comments seem to be unusually vapid -- "I like going to the beach and I hate rich people" isn't a good basis for public policy.

<comment><USER14> Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access.

If the private landowner has to insure and maintain the area then I can't see any reason why they should be forced to maintain access. If the state sees otherwise then the state should provide the services for the general public at the expense of the general public.

<comment><USER15> It's not necessarily black or white. Here in Belgium, the sidewalk in front of your house is public but the house owner has to take some care of it. E.g. when there is snow or ice, it's the house owner responsibility to remove it (and is responsible if someone get injured by sliding on it).

<comment><USER16> That's also the case in the US, not known for its strong socialist leanings.

For example, from [http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp](http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp) we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise.

Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming, [http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300](http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300) , "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good California. Funny how some smart and generally good people can also forget the law applies to all equally (or at least it should).

<comment><USER18> I can't believe this is being downvoted? I hope it's not due to disagreement (which is already a pretty stupid reason to downvote, FYI). But the comment also contributes to the discussion - or at least it does more than an anonymous downvote does - so there really is no reason for it to be downvoted.

I have canceled out one of the downvotes, hopefully there will not be a great many more.

<comment><USER19> _(which is already a pretty stupid reason to downvote, FYI)._

 _> > [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171) "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness." \---pg_

_You_ might not like it, but there it is.

<comment><USER18> I was already aware of the pg quote when I made my previous post. I stand by my assertion. FWIW, I have the same opinion of upvotes expressed _merely_ to signal agreement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Repeating as public service announcement of what folks in the know tell each other:

Vinod has a _very_ negative reputation in the Valley. He used to be known as the biggest anti-founder VC when he was at Kleiner. He'd come in, use sharp elbows to push founders around and out, then companies would crumble. He's learned but not enough.

His new marketing of himself has helped (as has Rabois), but you can't change who he is. When given a chance, he'll take advantage of early stage startups. That's why you don't see many companies he's made. And he's been at it a long time - 27 years! He gets in the way because it's all about him and his huge, insatiable ego. He's much more old school VC in that way - but in the Tom Perkins vein, not Don Valentine. It's his way because it's his money.

The only way to keep Vinod honest is to get other investors. If he's your lead, the knife isn't far from your back.

</comment><comment><USER21> Very good! "Open access" is the normal, default rule for the length of the coast here in Oregon. Always seemed like the sensible approach to me.

The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. It's an idea that should have been abandoned long ago.

<comment><USER22> >The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe.

What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?

<comment><USER23> Public access to beaches and waterways is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited:

By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.

2\. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men.

3\. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.

<comment><USER24> Also, we should strip citizenship from anyone who is not a Christian, and punish participation in pagan rituals as severely as murder. This is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis)

If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.

<comment><USER25> It's not an appeal to authority. "Because Justinian said so, and he's emperor so he should know." is an appeal to an authority.

But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.

<comment><USER24> What is Justinian's argument? He doesn't actually mention the "commonwealth" at all. He merely appeals to the "law of nature".

In any case, if there is some principle underlying Justinian's edict, what is it? How did he determine that the sea is part of the "commonwealth", but that a mountain or someone's house is not? This is hardly explained in the given quote.

<comment><USER25> This doesn't really answer your question, but I think it's interesting to note that Institutes of Justinian are doing two things here. First, they are announcing to the Romans that the seas and running waters are part of the commonwealth. Second they are making the seas and running waters part of the commonwealth. _They are simultaneously making a declaration and changing the world to fit that declaration._

In short, seas were part of the commonwealth because Justinian said so. An <ahem> appeal to authority. But an appeal that Justinian made, not benjohnson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> $1.5 billion. Enough money to live like a king for the rest of your life. And for several generations beyond that.

And yet willing to put up such a fight to prevent other people -- poorer people -- from having an enjoyment entitled to them by law.

I'm having a hard time framing this in such a way that doesn't make Khosla seem phenomenally greedy.

I really don't understand.

<comment><USER27> If we're generous in our opinion of him, it's doubtful Khosla wanted to prevent the public from using the beach. What he probably wanted was to prevent the press getting exceptionally close to him and his family, from having founders 'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on.

There is a thing called the 'principle of double effect' (thought up by Thomas Aquinas back in the 13th century; it's not a new thing) that's incredibly important to understanding the world around us - nothing we do has a single, isolated effect. Ever. There are always several causes for things, and many effects. Picking one and assuming that was the reason, or even just the most important reason, is wrong. In this case it's reasonable to think Khosla closed access to the beach for several reasons, and that had several effects, _one of which was preventing public access_ which is why it ended up in court.

<comment><USER28>
      What he probably wanted was to prevent [...] founders
      'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on.

If a guy buys a house next door to a fire station, and he's woken up by fire engine sirens, I feel a bit bad for him. But he knew when he brought the house there was a fire station opposite.

I think the same thing about Khosla's beach access - I feel bad if he's having problems, but he knew the beach access was there when he brought the property.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow. This is a really douchey thing to do... I mean even if people DID use the beach, how many people are going to be on it??? It's not going to be an eyesore.

I'm firmly in the camp that lakes, streams, coastlines, can't be property.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)

"The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam."

<comment><USER30> >The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam.

Not quite sure what it's like in other countries, but here in the UK we have 'public paths' that sometimes go through private land. You're well within your rights to use them at any time of day even though it's private.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Buchwald's decision, which is being appealed, did not outlaw public access > to the beach, but left the ocean as the only way for the public to get > there.

Shuttle boats to the beach as a (new?) business?

(If my now-retired father lived close there, I could very well imagine him doing that to earn a few bucks extra, and to give families access to a nice beach).

</comment><comment><USER32> Can't wait to head there with a stereo now.</comment>


Ask HN: which projects are great showcases for their languages? - <AUTHOR>

It's commonly said that the best way to improve as a programmer is to read great code.  I recently thought about this while searching for really elegant JavaScript, which I find is a pretty tough job since the language written in some many ways.  What I really want is something like Beautiful Code, but more up to date and more focused on elegant usage of the host language.  To get started, here's what I like:<p>- Java: XOM (http://www.xom.nu/designprinciples.xhtml)<p>- Scheme: anything from Essentials of Programming Languages (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/eopl/)<p>- C++: I like QT (http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/commits/master-stable), but I'm interested in others<p>I'd really like to see stunning examples of:<p>- JavaScript(!)<p>- Python<p>- Ruby<p>- Perl (just kidding) <comment><USER2> I would also like to see an open source javascript web app written "the right way", I have a lot of javascript code, its getting nicer, but I still feel like I am missing something.

most large open source javascript is libraries and such, they are very different from applications

for erlang it seems anything that comes out of <http://www.basho.com/> is a good showcase, mochi as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> C: Redis <http://github.com/antirez/redis></comment>


Ask HN: Is HN GDPR Compliant? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> No. I easily found examples of non-compliance:

[https://www.ycombinator.com/legal](https://www.ycombinator.com/legal):

 _"Please note that we reserve the right to refuse to (i) delete any of the submissions, favorites, or comments you post on the Site or link in your profile or (ii) remove their association with your profile or username"_

This conflicts with [https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/](https://gdpr- info.eu/art-17-gdpr/):

 _"The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:"_

There also is no export option, as required by [https://gdpr- info.eu/art-20-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-20-gdpr/):

 _"The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format"_

<comment><USER3> Not that easy. If any of the above mentioned information is not "personal data", it's not GDPR relevant.

Also GDPR does not require an "export option" to export data ad hoc. The site owner must provide personal (!) data upon request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is a |legal| link below.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know. I did go through it. It mentions California privacy acts under which you can request to have your information deleted but nothing for GDPR or europe and I have asked for questions related to deleting - of which I was told they don't do this for whole accounts but renaming is fine so I am assuming that's how they anonymize.

I am not a lawyer so I don't know even if I went through the privacy policy hence simplifying the question like above.

<comment><USER4> If it really matters, hire a lawyer because that's the only way to determine if compliance is even relevant. And until a finder of fact makes a determination, the question is still up in the air irrespective of what a lawyer might say.</comment></comment></comment>


People around the world are collectively losing faith in democratic systems - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/confidence-democracy-lowest-point-record/605686/ <comment><USER2> The concept of "democracy" in this survey isn't defined well. This poll seems to more accurately reflect that across the world, people within certain democratic systems are losing faith in their own governments—not with the idea democracy.

</comment><comment><USER3> As stated, in this article democracy isn't defined. The United States is a Republic with oligarchical, extra constitutional agencies.

</comment><comment><USER4> For those who think they can vote themselves other people's money.</comment>


The Flaw Lurking in Every Deep Neural Net - <AUTHOR> http://www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial-intelligence/7352-the-flaw-lurking-in-every-deep-neural-net.html <comment><USER2> (a) The document linked by the OP is to a blog post that discusses and extensively quotes another blog post [1] which in turn discusses an actual paper [2]. Naturally the paper is where the good stuff is.

(b) Both blog posts somewhat understate the problem. The adversarial examples given in the original paper aren't just classified differently than their parent image -- they're created to receive a specific classification. In the figure 5 of the arxiv version, for example, they show clear images of a school bus, temple, praying mantis, dog, etc, which all received the label "ostrich, Struthio camelus".

(c) The blog post at [1] wonders whether humans have similar adversarial inputs. Of course it's possible that we might, but I suspect that we have an easier time than these networks in part because: (i) We often get labeled data on a stream of 'perturbed' related inputs by observing objects in time. If I see a white dog in real life, I don't get just a single image of it. I get a series of overlapping 'images' over a period of time, during which time it may move, I may move, the lighting may change, etc. So in a sense, human experience already includes the some of the perturbations that ML techniques have to introduce manually to become more robust. (ii) We also get to take actions to get more/better perceptual data. If you see something interesting or confusing or just novel, you choose to focus on it, or get a better view because of that interestingness or novelty. The original paper talks about the adversarial examples as being in pockets of low probability. If humans encounter these pockets only rarely, it's because when we see something weird, we want to examine it, after which that particular pocket has higher probability.

[1] [http://www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial- intelligenc...](http://www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial- intelligence/7352-the-flaw-lurking-in-every-deep-neural-net.html)

[2] [http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199) or [http://cs.nyu.edu/~zaremba/docs/understanding.pdf](http://cs.nyu.edu/~zaremba/docs/understanding.pdf)

<comment><USER3> I'm sure someone else has considered this before, but perhaps optical illusions are similar examples of data that causes pathological behaviour?

Many of them constrain our viewpoint or the sequence of images viewed so we'd be unable to take the actions you mention to handle them.

<comment><USER4> Yes. But more importantly, we are continuously training our network. There is no terminating "training set" except the set of all considered classifications. Our discovery of ourselves being "wrong" about a thing is our network continually adjusting. We also have the notion of ignorance. These classifiers are often forced to come to a conclusion, instead of having "I don't know, let me look at it from another angle" kind of self-adjustment process. "Aha, it is a cat!" moments do not happen for ai. In us, it would create a whole new layer to wrap the classifier around some uncertainty logic. We would be motivated to examine the reasons behind our initial failure, and use the conclusions to train this new layer, further developing strategies to adapt to those inputs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are some possible applications of this:

Better captchas that are _optimized_ to be hard for machines, but easy for humans.

Getting around automated systems that discriminate content. Like detecting copyrighted songs.

Training on these images improves generalization. Essentially these images add more data, since you know what class they should be given. But they are optimal in a certain sense, testing the things that NNs are getting it wrong, or finding the places where it has bad discontinuities.

<comment><USER6> "Better captchas that are optimized to be hard for machines, but easy for humans."

Nope, not gonna work. You'd have to have the classifier/ANN parameters to generate these in the first place in order to locate its adversarial counterexample. Otherwise, the perturbations would likely be irrelevant noise.

<comment><USER5> The discovery of the paper was that these adversarial examples worked on _other_ neural networks. Including ones trained on entirely different datasets. They are not specific to a single NN.

<comment><USER6> Well... Not really... They split the MNIST data set and trained on disparate halves. Which is to say I wouldn't generalize from two networks trained on far less than 10x their parameter counts all the way to _all_ neural networks in existence, but of course, your opinions may vary...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nobody pointed this out yet. It would be very interesting to keep finding such perturbations that mess up learning and repeatedly add the new-found examples to the training set, retraining the model in the process. I wonder if after a finite number of iterations the resulting model would be near-optimal (impossible to perturb without losing its human recognizability) -- or, if this is impossible, if we could derive some proofs for why precisely this is impossible.

<comment><USER8> The article points out that this is the approach taken by the researchers who found the effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't find it so surprising that, out of the vast number of possible small perturbations, there are a few that cause the image to be misclassified. I suppose it is interesting that you can systematically find such perturbations. But is there anything here which suggests that a neural network which does well on a test set won't continue to do well so long as the images given to it are truly "natural"?

<comment><USER10> The interesting thing is that it gets misclassified across networks.

According to the blog post, I can build two NN with different structures and train them on a random subset of a collection of dog and cat pictures. Distort a random picture until network A misclassifys it, then according to the article network B will also misclassify it, despite it having a different structure and a different training set.

I don't think it's obvious that network B will fail as well.

<comment><USER9> You're right. I guess I just don't like the fact that it's titled as "The Flaw Lurking In Every Deep Neural Net", when in fact neural nets will continue to classify new data as well as ever.

I agree that what you point out is very interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> More like "The Flaw Lurking in Every Machine Learning Algorithm with a Gradient"(1) IMO. For example, in a linear or logistic classifier, the derivative of the raw output with respect to the input is the input itself while the derivative of the input is the weight. Knowing this one can use the weights of _any_ classifier to minimally adjust the input to produce a pathological example.

As for humans, I submit we have all sorts of issues like this. It's just that we have a temporal stream of slightly different versions of the input and that keeps inputs like this from having any significant area under the curve. Have you never suddenly noticed something that was right in front of you all along?

(1) And probably those that don't too, but it's harder to find cases like that without a gradient (not that it can't be done, because I've found them myself for linear classifiers using genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, and something that looked just like Thompson Sampling but wasn't).

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe it's a function of the fact that I'm not an AI expert, but I never thought it was that specialization for features (whether semantically meaningful or not) was localized to individual neurons, rather than the entire net. Why would we think otherwise?

<comment><USER12> I suppose it was assumed it was working in a "divide and conquer" manner, since that usually leads to a complexity reduction of algorithms? (and it was then assumed that the division was a clear region over the previous layer)

Of course there's no real need for the network to work that way, and perhaps this interpretation can be made if we assume that divisions are "fuzzy"/arbitrary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What happens when you add random noise to the inputs to the neural net?

<comment><USER14> If you rephrase your question to "What happens when I add random noise to the inputs of a neural network and try to teach it to output a "denoised" version of the input." and you've just invented denoising autoencoders.

[http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~lisa/publications2/index.php/pu...](http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~lisa/publications2/index.php/publications/show/217)

<comment><USER13> Alright, that's neat. Not at all what I was suggesting, but neat nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not an expert in any sense, just a curious bystander. Assuming that the ratio of perturbations causing misclassifications to ones that don't is extremely low, couldn't you perturb the image in the time dimension, such that "dog" misclassifications would be odd blips in an otherwise continuous "cat" signal, with some sort of smoothing applied that would average those blips away? And in fact wouldn't that be the default case in some real world implementations, such as biological NNs or driverless car ones? The input to the NN would be a live video feed captured via light focused on some kind of CCD, which is going to be inherently noisy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Of course having data that contradicts the patterns that the neural network is looking for is going to make it err even when is subtle. Humans have it easier because we handle more abstract concepts. One way to solve this is "simplifying" the data: In practical terms (for images) that means applying a bilateral filter[0], also know in Photoshop as "surface blur".

[0] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_filter](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_filter)

<comment><USER17> That's not the interesting part, the interesting part is:

 _What is even more shocking is that the adversarial examples seem to have some sort of universality. That is a large fraction were misclassified by different network architectures trained on the same data and by networks trained on a different data set._

<comment><USER16> Yeah, It is the interesting part. Because with sufficiently large inputs (even from different sources) the networks are going to be looking for the same patterns.

<comment><USER17> But why would different structures of networks fit to different data result in exactly the same type of "overfitting"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The way people classify hybrid images is a function of how far away they are. I wonder if these are essentially hybrid images for neural nets. It seems like the noise being added is very high frequency. Given that, I would bet that neural nets classify typical hybrid images the same way as they would the sharper image component.

</comment><comment><USER19> Humans have a constantly changing view of things, so any adversarial examples from one angle quickly change when viewed from another angle.

This issue can be framed in another way, something incorrectly classified could become easily classified with very minor changes in perspective.

<comment><USER5> It's not clear how resistant the changes are to random noise. Or how easily it would be to modify their procedure to create images which work even with random noise.

I do suspect noise would help, but some of the changes are things like blurring edges and lines that NNs are sensitive to. Adding noise would just make that worse.

<comment><USER19> I'm not talking about noise or blurring, though that's another point. Something like a self driving car doesn't operate on a single image, it operates on a time series of images from multiple angles and points in time. I think an adversarial example which lasts for a prolonged period of time from multiple angles would be rare if not impossible.

It needs to be investigated further.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've always thought that our brains are more complex than we can model at the moment. There is some fundamental concept that we are missing and it allows the brain to classify things we can't do with even our best neural nets today.

</comment><comment><USER21> A side question i've always wondered : if you train a nn to recognize a particular person's face from photos, will it be able to recognize a drawing / cartoon of that person ?

<comment><USER22> No, unless you've explicitly trained it to match photos to cartoon images. The article is a bit sensationalistic when it says 'what if a NN would misclassify a pedestrian crossing as an empty road?'. The truth is you can't compare a simple photo recognizer with human perception. Human perception obviously can do far more advanced things than just matching photos to memories of photos, it's not even very good at matching photos. We have depth perception, we have object isolation, we can remember and abstract shapes, we can extrapolate and interpolate, we have loads and loads of context. We don't see the world in RGBA. We see the world as a continuous stream of related information.

All these systems together make sure a human would never[1] mistake a pedestrian crossing to an empty road, and allow us to match abstract paintings to realistic images. Any serious artificial autonomous agent would similarily consist of many independent but contextualized systems.

edit: 1] Never as in, never unless the pedestrian makes a good effort to look like an empty road to all of those systems

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Should be easy to counter. Just show several dithered images to NN. Of course if there is a deliberate attack this may not be sufficient.

</comment><comment><USER23> I am immediately forced to think of Godels Incompleteness Theorems. Can it be proved that these examples always exist within some bounds of manipulation?

</comment><comment><USER24> Url changed from [http://thinkingmachineblog.net/the-flaw-lurking-in-every- dee...](http://thinkingmachineblog.net/the-flaw-lurking-in-every-deep-neural- net-by-mike-james/), which points to (actually, does a lot more than just point to) this.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a really interesting find. At the same time, I have this lurking fear that it will be misappropriated by the anti-intellectual idiots to marginalize the AI community, cut funding, et cetera. Another AI winter, just like the one after the (not at all shocking) "discovery" that single perceptrons can't model XOR.

If anything, this shows that we need more funding of machine learning and to create more jobs in it, so we can get a deeper understanding of what's really going on.</comment>


Simple, pure, and total functional language that generalizes Datalog - <AUTHOR> http://www.rntz.net/datafun/ <comment><USER2> I totally thought the article was going to be about prolog. Datalog was formulated as a subset of prolog. Prolog generalizes datalog, and is functional, etc. So generalizing a language that was the subset of a larger one in the first place is something I find odd.

<comment><USER3> Prolog isn't a total language, as a total language can't be Turing-complete.

<comment><USER4> What kind of sound does a Turing machine make?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has anyone had experience with Datalog or Datafun? What was the programming experience like? What did you build with it? Did you find that you were more productive or less? What sorts of problems was it a good fit for, and what sorts of things was it a bad fit for?

<comment><USER6> My research group (I'm a PhD student) is working on algorithms that learn logic programs from examples and background knowledge (also given as logic programs). The programs our algorithms learn are first order definite datalog programs, which means they are sets of first order Horn clauses without negation as failure and without any functions of arity more than 1 as arguments of literals or terms.

The reason for the restriction is completeness and efficiency. Definite datalog programs are guaranteed to terminate (given a finite predicate and constant signature), so the search for a hypothesis (the learned program) cannot "go infinite" even when the target theory (what you are trying to learn) is recursive, even when it has mutually recursive clauses. As a result our algorithms can learn recursive programs (which, is rather important). The space of hypotheses doubles in size when negation as failure is allowed, which improves the efficiency of the search for hypotheses.

The problem of course is that some programs cannot be expressed in definite datalog than can be expressed in Prolog with negation as failure and arbitrary functions as arguments. So that's a bit of a limitation. For instance, one has to jump through hoops to learn programs with "exceptions" (A if B except if C), say like a program calculating leap years (which have exceptions for years divisible by 100 and 400) or fizzbuzz.

This is not directly _programming_ with datalog- it's machine learning of datalog programs from data. But I think it's similar to the experience you're asking for.

My group's algorithms:

Metagol (a meta-interpretive learner for definite datalog programs):

[https://github.com/metagol/metagol](https://github.com/metagol/metagol)

Louise (a polynomial-time version of Metagol):

[https://github.com/stassa/louise](https://github.com/stassa/louise)

<comment><USER5> So you're building a program that can learn to write datalog programs. Is it because datalog programs are tedious enough they should be automateable? Why this particular research direction?

> The space of hypotheses doubles in size when negation as failure is allowed, > which improves the efficiency of the search for hypotheses.

That line confused me. Shouldn't a double in the search space decrease the efficiency of the search for the hypothesis?

<comment><USER7> Whole lot easier to understand, compose and guide than DNNs. Thats a reason enough.

<comment><USER6> Well, there's that. My intuition is that ILP should appeal to computer scientists more than statistical machine learning. Unfortunately, it is not very widely known- we're a small field.

<comment><USER7> Lets drink to its health/resurgence.

I am an more on the applied maths camp rather than the CS camp but I feel a practical and effective merger of logic and probabilistic reasoning is sorely needed to climb out of the rut we are in.

Neural Turing is all nice and dandy but it seems a very heavy handed way of expressing/learning dependencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just listened to Michael's episode on Future of Coding — highly recommended for context!

<comment><USER9> Have you got a link to that? Is it this one [https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/future-of- coding/id126...](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/future-of- coding/id1265527976)?

<comment><USER8> Yup, that's the one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really enjoyed the original datafun paper. Glad to hear there's more follow on work!</comment>


The 'Useless' Perspective That Transformed Mathematics - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-useless-perspective-that-transformed-mathematics-20200609/ <comment><USER3> From TWF #252 [1]:

""" Back in 1897, a mathematician named William Burnside wrote the first book in English on finite groups. It was called Theory of Groups of Finite Order.

In the preface, Burnside explained why he studied finite groups by letting them act as permutations of sets, but not as linear transformations of vector spaces:

'Cayley's dictum that "a group is defined by means of the laws of combination of its symbols" would imply that, in dealing with the theory of groups, no more concrete mode of representation should be used than is absolutely necessary. It may then be asked why, in a book that professes to leave all applications to one side, a considerable space is devoted to substitution groups [permutation groups], but other particular modes of representation, such as groups of linear transformations, are not even referred to. My answer to this question is that while, in the present state of our knowledge, many results in the pure theory are arrived at most readily by dealing with properties of substitution groups, it would be difficult to find a result that could most directly be obtained by the consideration of groups of linear transformations.'

In short, he didn't see the point of representing groups on vector spaces - <USER2> least as a tool in the "pure" theory of finite groups, as opposed to their applications.

However, within months after this book was published, he discovered the work of Georg Frobenius, who used linear algebra very effectively to study groups!

So, Burnside started using linear algebra in his own work on finite groups, and by the time he wrote the second edition of his book in 1911, he'd changed his tune completely:

Very considerable advances in the theory of groups of finite order have been made since the appearance of the first edition of this book. In particular the theory of groups of linear substitutions has been the subject of numerous and important investigations by several writers; and the reason given in the original preface for omitting any account of it no longer holds good. In fact it is now more true to say that for further advances in the abstract theory one must look largely to the representation of a group as a group of linear transformations. It's interesting to see exactly how representing finite groups on vector spaces lets us understand them better. By now almost everyone agrees this is true. But how much of the detailed machinery of linear algebra is really needed? """

[1] [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week252.html](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week252.html)</comment>


Genes in Space: Your DNA Experiment in Space - <AUTHOR> https://www.genesinspace.org/ <comment><USER2> I read through. This is basically an advertisement for a PCR company.</comment>


Conjecture Regarding Larger iPhone Displays - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2014/08/larger_iphone_display_conjecture <comment><USER2> Okay, I'm not trying to be a dick here. But everytime when I see the rumor about the screen size of iPhone 6, it always remind me how Gruber and Jim Dalrymple, two of the biggest Apple fans on the internet, mock the screen size of Samsung Note before.

Note became instantly popular in Asia area and I always thought there are big market for big phones. I even argued with Jim on his G+ saying there are someone who genuinely likes it, they could not believe.

Yes, of course, the 4 inches iPhone is perfect. THERE IS NO OTHER SIZE COULD FIT BETTER IN HUMAN"S HAND. Right? Right?

How times change.

refs:

1 Why Apple should sidestep the 'Phablet': [http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/03/12/why-apple-should- sides...](http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/03/12/why-apple-should-sidestep-the- phablet/) 2 Samsung Galaxy Note and a Radio Flyer wagon: [http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/02/08/samsung-galaxy-note- an...](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/02/08/samsung-galaxy-note-and-a-radio- flyer-wagon/) 3 Galaxy Note is so big it's in a timezone of its own: [http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/02/15/galaxy-note-is-so- big-...](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/02/15/galaxy-note-is-so-big-its-in-a- timezone-of-its-own/) 4 Samsung's Galaxy Note Is the Most Useless Phone Jonathan Geller Has Ever Used: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/02/15/geller-galaxy- no...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/02/15/geller-galaxy-note) 5 Samsung's Super-Sized Galaxy Note: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/02/15/techblock- galaxy...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/02/15/techblock-galaxy-note)

<comment><USER3> Here's what I wrote two years ago, when the iPhone 5 shipped:

      > There is no argument that some people really do like these big
      > closer-to-5-than-4-inch Android and Windows phones. I was in a
      > Verizon retail store yesterday (long story; don't ask) and
      > overheard a relatively small woman buying a Galaxy S III. A
      > companion asked if she wasn't worried that it was too big, and she
      > said no, big was exactly what she wanted, because she doesn't have
      > a tablet and wanted to do a lot of reading on whatever phone she
      > got. She even said she was thinking about the 5-inch Galaxy Note
      > (which Verizon doesn't carry). It was like a conversation out of a
      > Samsung commercial. Such people surely think the iPhone 5's
      > display remains too small. But, trust me, there are going to be
      > many long-time iPhone users complaining that it's too big after
      > they upgrade.
      >
      > In an ideal world, perhaps Apple would offer two iPhone sizes --
      > like they do with products such as MacBook Pros, MacBook Airs, and
      > iMacs. A smaller one with the classic 3.5-inch display, and a
      > larger (say, 4.5-inch?) one for people who want that.

[http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/iphone_5](http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/iphone_5)

That holds up pretty well, but I undershot the two sizes by an inch apiece.

Also, I haven't said whether I think a 5.5-inch iPhone is actually any good, because, duh, I haven't even seen one yet, let alone used one.

<comment><USER4> I was just discussing the screen size rumors with an iPhone 5 user yesterday, and you're spot on with the complaints about it being too big.

On his 3g (or maybe 3gs?) you could hold it one handed and reliably reach the whole screen with your thumb. One the iPhone 5's larger screen that's no longer true.

Apple's certainly aware of this problem, so even if they launch a bigger screened version I can't imagine they'll dropping the form factor of the 5s any time soon. But I'm curious to see how they'll market it.

Limiting iPhones to a single size has always let them control the touchscreen experience, but they'll have a lot of people buying phones with a worse experience because they don't think about the downsides of a larger screen.

Apple's always made it their business to make as many design decisions as possible for their users, and it's worked out well for their OSes and devices. I'm betting some people there aren't happy about giving this one up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hope Apple segments their phones and makes smaller screens as well. I want something small enough that it practically disappears in my pocket. My ideal phone would be the size of a 4th-gen iPod Nano.[1]

Business-wise, large screens make a lot of sense. Most people want them. They're great for people with poor eyesight, especially older people who won't admit they need bifocals. Women usually carry purses, so comfortably fitting in a small pocket isn't an issue. And of course, larger screens look better side-by-side. A lot of consumers are enticed by the immediate appeal of a larger screen. They forget they'll have to lug around a heavier phone that is harder to hold.

I've looked around, but I haven't been able to find any smartphone that's as small as an iPod Nano. If anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.

1\. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IPod_Nano_4G_black_c...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IPod_Nano_4G_black_crop.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER6> If @3x is a thing, wouldn't 1080p be kind of an Occam's Razor resolution for a 4.7 device?

Besides the fact that 1080p is common and marketable, it would be the perfect resolution to mirror to an AppleTV.

And having both the 4.7 & 5.5 phones be @3x would motivate developers more to add @3x assets. If the 5.5 phone is the only @3x device in Apple's lineup for a while, it might be tempting not to invest.

And then a 4K (3840x2160) at @3x might be perfect for a 12.x inch iPad. That would mirror perfectly to 1080p or 4K TVs. It would be 16x9, which is hard to imagine, but mirroring to projectors might be more important for a 12" iPad than the smaller ones? I could really see it used in presentations and education.

I say go with the standard resolutions when in doubt, even though there is no real Apple precedent.

(edit to add content)

</comment><comment><USER7> I know I'm in a small minority here (at least, judging by the years of clamor for larger iPhones), but I almost always use my iPhone one-handed, so I'm very skeptical about any larger display. Currently, when holding it in a relaxed position, my thumb can reach a bit to the left of or above the current display, but not both - there would probably be a difficult to reach zone in the top left corner. A larger size would also make my grip less stable.

To be fair, I don't have that much actual experience with larger phones, but I did switch to a Galaxy S4 for a few weeks last year, and while it wasn't completely unusable one handed or anything, the unwieldiness of doing so was one of the things that made me happy to get my iPhone back. But it looks like I'll soon be left behind if I want to continue using iOS...

<comment><USER8> I'm with you. I would still gladly take an iPhone 5s with the 3:2 form factor screen from the iPhone 4s.

<comment><USER9> Same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A thought just occurred to me: if the subpixel geometry is based on multiple of 2 on a "3x" pixel device (say, moving from rgb to "pentile"), that would allow for "sharp" rendering of "2x" assets if everything was arranged appropriately.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just a random anecdote, but I was in a T-Mobile store a couple of weeks ago, and I overheard some random woman looking at phones. When she saw the iPhone, her immediate reaction was: "Ew, oh my god, the screen is so tiny! That's awful!"

<comment><USER12> I've gotten a similar reaction: I was asked why my iPhone was so small by my gf's mom, who is (apparently) not very familiar with smartphones.

I don't think I want a larger phone, but I can understand why Apple might make them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So what is then the rationale for the "bigger" variant not being also 326 DPI? That would give something like 1562 x 878 display for the 5.5 inch one. Less pixels, therefore faster. The difference between 326 and 461 DPI is most probably not discernible for most of the people.

Another advantage: not needing one more target resolution of the resources. And another: no need for the new scale for the pixel masks by production.

<comment><USER14> Gruber does mention his rationale for not using a resolution that's close to this. Under "Other Resolutions" he says:

      1564 × 880 is feasible for a 5.5-inch phone.
      That's what you get if you maintain the 326
      pixels-per-inch density and @2x scale. This
      would increase area — the number of points
      displayed on screen — by a whopping 89 percent.
      But it wouldn't increase the size of what you
      see at all. I think the sweet spot for a
      5.5-inch phone requires you see to more content
      and to make what you see at least a little bit
      bigger. So that's why I'd bet against 1564 × 880.
     (1564 × 880 would be implausible for the 4.7-inch
      phone: it would render UI elements and text 15
      percent smaller than all previous iPhones.)

<comment><USER13> Thanks. To "see more content" is actually fulfilled with 1564 × 880. To "make what you see at least a little bit bigger" (seems he thinks that the icons and the text should be _visually_ bigger when holding the phone in front of you at the same distance as before? why? it's still a phone) results either in needing the new resources or leaving the pixel perfectness (which won't happen for Apple) -- I don't buy it. But let's see if he actually got the insider information about something so non-obvious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wouldn't it be cool if they made 5" model just to screw with rumors and then release something entirely different.

</comment><comment><USER16> This article would be awesome with some mockups. Gruber's next "and another thing" in these incredible what-ifs could be some DF artwork. (BTW does anybody else drop their large-screen phone a lot or is it just me? I really love the extra screen space but holding onto it is not as easy as it was with a smaller phone)

</comment><comment><USER17> I think now that retina is widely adopted, Apple no longer needs to worry about 2x, 3x, etc.

Even if the phones are 1.457x or whatever, I bet iOS8 will just do its best to scale elements as needed- Since the resolutions are so high already, a scaling error of a fraction of a retina pixel is totally not noticeable.

<comment><USER18> > a scaling error of a fraction of a retina pixel is totally not noticeable.

Wat?

For a photo it can be acceptable. Not great, but acceptable. For UI elements, it is horrible. Smudgy, blurry edge makes no one happy.</comment></comment>


Fast Bing Tokenizer for BERT - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.bing.com/Developers-Blog/march-2020/Bling-FIRE-Tokenizer-for-BERT <comment><USER2> Super fast BERT tokenizer. It will save you 100x time in preprocessing text.

<comment><USER3> Mainly it will help improve latency at inference time. For preprocessing training one can always add more threads, but not at inference time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> State of the art performance for BERT :-)</comment>