The SeL4 Foundation: What and Why - <AUTHOR> https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/the-sel4-foundation-what-and-why/ <comment><USER3> I'd be really happy to see seL4 thrive and I like that this blog-post shows that the people behind it understand what could potential hold it back - <USER2> infrastructure around it. It needs what GNU and systemd are for Linux. And it needs an Arduino/Raspberry Pi - a halo platform that I can buy and play around with.

What I wonder is how this formal verification works. seL4 is written in C and apparently the formal verification is done in a different language. Is it possible to have a programming language where the compiler does the formal verification?

<comment><USER4> > Is it possible to have a programming language where the compiler does the > formal verification?

Such compiler would require solving halting problem. Most problems related to search of formal proofs are undecidable.

<comment><USER5> > Such compiler would require solving halting problem.

Wrong: Because of the finite memory instead of an unbounded tape (among other reasons), computers are strictly less expressive than Turing machines.

<comment><USER6> Does the proof that the halting problem is not solvable actually make use of the unboundedness of the tape?

<comment><USER5> Of course it does (implicitly!).

Otherwise the number of possible states of the Turing machine T that we want to check whether it halts or not is finite and we just have to "simulate" the program and see whether it terminates or it reaches again a state that it was already in.

<comment><USER7> How would the "if this program halts then run forever, else halt" algorithm work on a real computer? I imagine it would fail with stack overflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That "Verification of the multicore kernel" thing seems like it could use some bold, underline, and italics. I doubt it is as simple as adding an AArch64 model.

<comment><USER9> Definitely not simple, but simpler than you might imagine.

Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that the microkernel can't be run from more than one CPU at once and can't be preempted, which is an important design decision.

Its execution time is, however, constrained into the WCET, complete with proof. And that is a very small amount of time, allowing for hard real-time applications to be built on top of seL4.

<comment><USER8> Every time I learn more about seL4, I fall a bit more in love with it. Can't wait to see what people do in terms of integration over time.

I think it would be super cool to see L4Linux updated again, and on seL4 this time; maybe start shifting device drivers into tasks behind a low-overhead abstraction. We're going to have Linux and POSIX applications for a _loooong_ time, but maybe we can make incremental progress toward something a bit less braindead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Simple question: What are some seL4 "distros" one can install today? Which types of hardware is supported? And how usable the userland is?

<comment><USER11> If you're looking for a desktop/end-user operating system (even for a server of some sort), you're not really looking for L4. You might as well just use Qubes; the security model will be similar (in that you'll be "using" hosted Linux, not the underlying OS directly).

L4 gets interesting if you're building another _platform_.

<comment><USER10> Well, I think it's an interesting idea in itself to build a full operating system based on a secure kernel, even if it's server/CLI only, runs in a virtual machine as a prototype (think GNU Hurd). Isn't it?

<comment><USER11> If you're going to build a new OS, sure. That's how you should think of L4: as a toolkit for building new operating systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looking at all the comments here, one question seems missing yet relevant: why is CompCert not used?

</comment><comment><USER13> Hm, as to userland, I wonder why they don't seem to mention GenodeOS in any way?

<comment><USER9> Genode is Affero GPL licensed. Very troublesome.

That's probably why.

<comment><USER13> Ohhh, now _that_ is something I totally missed, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > seL4 is a game-changer

probably overstating the case.</comment>


React-Native Expo BoilerPlate - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alicancelik/react-native-expo-boilerplate/stargazers <comment><AUTHOR> I created more than five project in last mounth this is why i felt compelled to do . This is for me and people who are excited and curius to develop react- native project. If you see or fix any mistakes please do not hesitate. Thank you for all your supports</comment>


A Review of MVC - <AUTHOR> http://mikepackdev.com/blog_posts/34-a-review-of-mvc

<comment> azza-bazoo "a program is without value before it is used by an end user for something valuable"

Nice snippet of advice there. Also the rest of Trygve's original post is an excellent reminder (and in simple terms) of MVC as an idea, rather than MVC as a label to slap on the next bit of JS code you publish on github ... which is basically all the intro paragraph says.

<comment><USER2> Pattern not product? I agree.

I do believe that many nouvelle programmers in their rush to absorb and contribute to the art integrate too many things too quickly and try to fabricate the magic recipe they just learned about into a hammer they can pound on everything regardless of whether the particular problem is a nail or not.

<comment><USER3> I would say the same thing about over-using and integrating frameworks. Backbone, NodeJS Mustache and coffee script. For what? If all a programmer has ever done is use frameworks they will never understand tacitly the problem its trying to solve.

I'm a strong advocate for using no framework, then building your own, then and only then introducing a library or framework because they can do it better.

This allows you to understand the pain of its absence, understand how to fundamentally solve the problem through abstraction or organization, and then fully leverage and reap the benefits of a well designed framework.

Some would say you don't need to walk 100 miles to understand the value of a car. But thats from the product side. I would say you need to understand the weaknesses of a car to build the next generation vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here are a couple of the reports:

Including Thing: <http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1979/mvc-1/1979-05-MVC.pdf>

Revision: <http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1979/mvc-2/1979-12-MVC.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER5> It's interesting that MVC is mostly introduced to most people as part of a web based architecture. From my understanding of MVC, the view can be updated by the model, and view can update the model. Which makes sense in the context that you have multiple views into the model. This doesn't tend to happen with web based MVC.</comment>


ShowHN: A Chrome plugin to deal with the HN's 'Unknown or expired link' - <AUTHOR> http://ksat.me/chrome-plugin-to-fix-hn-unknown-or-expired-link/

<comment><USER2> Whenever I see the "unknown or expired link" error, it serves as a reminder that I just spent too much time browsing HN, again.

That said, the error sure is annoying so I just installed this. Thanks for making it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The plug in does not prevent the Unknown or expired link error for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> It won't prevent it, will just reload automatically when the page expires

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Glad to see that I'm not alone in this frustration</comment>


Show HN: Answers as a Service as a Service - <AUTHOR> http://askmagicseth.com <comment><USER2> I got a 404 when I put in my credit card info :(

<comment><AUTHOR> You can ask me here... I'll answer on the site :-)

<comment><USER2> How many horse owners in America have iPhones?

<comment><AUTHOR> 400K

<comment><USER3> Please show your work.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's on the site!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Texas Bans the Sale of Tesla Cars - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/nightline-fix-abc-news/why-texas-bans-sale-tesla-cars-140842349.html <comment><USER2> I've seen Telsa cars around my area in Texas. To be fair, there are plenty of ways around it.

Also.... It's rather eye-opening that the Yahoo community is so toxic. I don't really stick around to check out the comments, but....Damn. It seems like a ton of unintelligent hate-filled people congregated to this one and are having a massive party.</comment>


Mexican Cartels Enslave Engineers to Build Radio Network (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2012/11/zeta-radio/ <comment><USER3> I, for one, am always surprised yet impressed by the things the cartels do. All the while not being shocked at all.

They would be such an interesting psychological / sociological study if it didn't mean potential torture and beheading of researchers. I mean this level of organized crime makes Al Capone look like a petty pick pocket.

<comment><USER4> Want to be really impressed and horrified? See if you can dig out the 90s Wired article on the Colombians using an AS/400 to do analysis of copies of telco records. Whenever they found the logs showing cartel members calling numbers registered to police officers, they'd kill the cartel member.

Big data before it was cool.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.geek.com/news/outclassed-by-technology-in-the- dru...](http://www.geek.com/news/outclassed-by-technology-in-the-drug- war-549059/) [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cartel-supercomputer- of...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cartel-supercomputer-of-1994)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yeah, let's keep drugs illegal, it really seems to work.

<comment><USER3> While I agree with you, the illegal drug trade got these guys started and off the ground, I think at this point they would have other avenues to keep themselves in business. I hear the human trafficking business is quite lucrative and booming these days down their way.

<comment><USER7> Well, you can't really be a small cartel. Even if the other businesses are profitable, a cartel needs a certain size to pay for constant expenses like bribes, armed forces etc. Politicians and the police don't give you a discount because you're small and people still need to be just as intimidated even though you're doing less shit.

Just removing one illegal activity might knock the sum value of dangerous, illegal activities below the threshold where cartels can work.

<comment><USER8> Just to add some more. The legalization of pot hurts cartel's income. I read somewhere, that pot accounts for 60% of the cartel's profit in a multi-billion dollar industry! I mention this because of the recent trends in the US where states are beginning to legalize it. I'm sure they weren't too happy to hear that Oregon and Alaska legalize it as it only takes part of the profit away. Once the US is fully legalized, it won't be a hugely profitable business anymore so they will hurt. This means less profits, which means less power for them. With less power, then perhaps there will be less violence in Mexico?

<comment><USER9> What would stop the cartels from investing in legal storefronts and capturing profits regardless? (This certainly shouldn't be construed as an argument for the morass we have now, just an interesting aside.)

<comment><USER10> Presumably nothing if the money they use to invest is considered legitimate.

Nevertheless, it really seems logical that as a society we should prefer that market competition occurs legally in a open and free market rather than violently in an illegal and black market. The difference between the two types of economic activity is tremendous.

<comment><USER9> It's certainly logical but my question is if it will actually impact Mexican cartel revenue as much as some people claim.

If the alternative to cartel weed is industrially-farmed weed propping up another unholy conglomerate I'm not sure either is better.

<comment><USER11> Has anyone done a comparison of the death rate from unholy conglomerates and the Mexican drug cartels?

<comment><USER9> Are you asking because you plan on doing so? I'd be interested to hear what you find. Here's something to get you started: [http://online.wsj.com/articles/j-p-morgan- fined-92-million-b...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/j-p-morgan- fined-92-million-by-eu-over-cartels-1413907417)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At this point, isn't it more accurate to call them a terrorist organization? They have their own military, communications network and a healthy (seemingly never ending) supply of soldiers to do their bidding and the citizens are sufficiently terrorized.

Forget fighting ghosts in far off lands; right next door is where the terrorists are.

<comment><USER13> They're probably not Muslims, so they're not "terrorists". Only Muslims are terrorists nowadays.

<comment><USER14> Daesh is butchering kurdish women. You know, selling 9 year olds christians and kurds because they are "kafirs". Majority of the kurds getting killed are muslims as well.

Genuinely dislike what you're insinuating but it borders close to clouding criticism as 'islamophobia' as the left-wing do in Sweden.

<comment><USER13> I was being sarcastic, as another poster pointed out. Daesh is not the point of discussion here, though yes, their actions are abominable.

<comment><USER15> Hint: if your comment is only a single line of sarcasm, you're probably not contributing anything to the conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sad story. Transmitters though are generally easy to find (not perhaps to decode if encrypted but RF energy is easily localized). As a radio amateur we used to do transmitter 'hunts' where we could locate and disable a transmitter hidden in some area.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is it just me, or does anyone else think that dismantling these radio networks is backwards? By using these radios the cartels are giving the authorities free information about their movements and evidence that's useful in their conviction. Even if the traffic is encrypted there are ways around that. The logical thing to me is keep the radios going and listen to them.

<comment><USER18> I'd say more "useless" thank backwards.

Having evidence is not really a problem. In Mexico, you will see narcos in the streets with very outlandish behavior. With a functioning judiciary system they would be arrested and jailed easily and immediately.

The problem is that drug cartels have control of the everything, including the police and the judiciary system. You should read about the meetings where they show to the policemen what they do to the ones who betray them; it's terrifying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The free market solution is for Mexican engineers to band together and raise a private army with their earnings.

You think I'm kidding, but I am actually making a point about rule of law - <USER2> _literally_ just named the free-market solution. Think about it the next time you dismiss the state.

<comment><USER20> Well, the state is the one who started the whole ordeal by making drugs illegal. So I would argue that in a real free-market no engineer would have been kidnapped in the first place.

<comment><USER19> That is an interesting point! But in failed states (where de facto nothing is "illegal" as there is no rule of law), life is hardly peaceful. The source of the strife may be drugs in this case, but it's just because that's what pays well enough to approximate a lack of a strong state enforcing rule of law, even in a Western country like Mexico.

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

<comment><USER21> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on John Hasnas' "Myth of the Rule of Law".

[http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm](http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)

<comment><USER22> I'd like to refute your succinct list by posting this incredibly long essay. If you don't read it fully then you don't get to disagree with my point.

Effective!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Legalize all drugs. Full stop.</comment>


TurboTax Uses Dark Patterns to Trick You into Paying to File Your Taxes - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-just-tricked-you-into-paying-to-file-your-taxes <comment><USER3> They're not perfect, but I've had success filing with FreeTaxUSA - federal is free, state is $15:

[https://www.freetaxusa.com/](https://www.freetaxusa.com/)

Obviously too late for people this year, and my tax situation is relatively straightforward so I can't speak to how well it handles edge cases, but the first year I used it I went through the process with both TurboTax and FreeTaxUSA and got the exact same estimated refund.

The last straw with TurboTax was when I needed to get some details from a previous year's tax return and found out that they would not let me access a return _I 'd paid to file with them_ unless I upgraded my plan. Absolute scum. I took the opportunity to also close my Mint account (same parent company as TurboTax) which I barely use and has been sending all kinds of transaction data for them to profit from.

<comment><USER4> CreditKarma is 100% free for everything. I've used them the last two years without issue, although they dramatically improved the service this last year. It was a little rough year 1.

<comment><USER5> I want to try CreditKarma's free filing, but since its free, I'm the product, and i'm not sure what that means, when handing them all my tax info yet..

<comment><USER6> This statement, "If it's free, I'm the product" is becoming less and less relevant because, "Even if it's not free, I'm usually the product anyway"

Think Comcast, Verizon, various Android phones, various modern TVs, etc.

<comment><USER7> Okay, granted many companies do it, but you're still dodging the parent comment's issue about this specifically. WHY is it free, WHAT are they doing?

<comment><USER8> _WHAT are they doing?_

I think his point is something like "Who knows, but you can be sure TurboTax is doing it too"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The _real_ dark pattern is their ability to bribe the Congress into preventing IRS from implementing free filing.

<comment><USER10> Nah, you're missing the forest when looking at the trees. Go bigger. Why the hell is the tax code so damn complicated that it requires certified experts and special software to perform _personal_ tax filings? I can see the case for a complex code for business taxes since there are many different industries that have different rules. But personal returns should never, ever have such complicated rules. And that doesn't mean I agree with business taxes being complicated, merely that the argument is much more reasonable.

<comment><USER11> > Why the hell is the tax code so damn complicated that it requires certified > experts and special software to perform personal tax filings?

My response is:

>Nah, you're missing the forest when looking at the trees. Go bigger.

Why are we even having to file our own taxes? The IRS already checks everything. They have all the information that you enter into these systems (in fact, turbo tax has frequently had my W2 before my employer gives it to me, as well as many other documents).

So having us, or some middleman, doing it is double work. Let the IRS do it (because they determine if there is fraud or not), they send you a copy and you send it back either as is or with modifications.

If taxes are done this way who cares how complicated it is? (I'll hedge that in that it is harder to check the IRS's work, but I think less people care about this)

<comment><USER12> Stolen from Twitter [1]:

"Government: You owe us money. It's called taxes.

Me: How much do I owe?

Gov't: You have to figure that out.

Me: I just pay what I want?

Gov't: Oh, no we know exactly how much you owe. But you have to guess that number too.

Me: What if I get it wrong?

Gov't: You go to prison"

[1] [https://twitter.com/jordan_stratton/status/11181414550616719...](https://twitter.com/jordan_stratton/status/1118141455061671939)

<comment> streb-lo You realize that only a portion of people get audited right?

Sure, your government could calculate everyone's taxes but I'm guessing those taxes would need to go up...

<comment><USER13> The IRS does in fact compare the data you send them to the data they have. Presumably the IRS, famous for it's computer system, isn't hand-checking every return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In my experience this year, TurboTax prompted me that I could save money by upgrading to a paid plan via taking advantage of some extra deduction. I thought, "if it's going to save me more than I pay for it, why not?"

I clicked through and found that this deduction wouldn't actually save me any money. I then couldn't find a way to get back to the free plan (they only charge you after you file, so this should be possible).

After struggling for a while, I called Turbotax support, which had me download screen-sharing software and kept telling me to press some button to cancel the paid plan, and it wouldn't work, telling me that it wasn't possible to switch back. He couldn't figure it out, couldn't switch it off on his end, and eventually told me I would have to create a new Turbotax account and start over.

Oh, and for the icing on the cake, he never stopped the screen-sharing session, and saw me input my SSN when I recreated my account. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm a fool for not closing it out myself, but I was really stressed, and it would've been professional to end the screen-sharing after we ended the call.)

<comment><USER14> The paid plan upgrade is based on which forms you input, not necessarily which deduction you get. So hypothetically, even if your best choice is the standard deduction, they expect you to pay if you have some of those other tax forms.

I guess my question is, if you know the standard deduction is the right choice, can you just not input the tax forms that you don't need for that?

<comment><USER15> Everyone should just use freetaxusa.com. I've used it for years, the UI looks almost the same as TurboTax and costs like 12$ total to file both state and federal.

<comment><USER14> Can I point on the inherent irony of recommending a site called "free"taxusa that costs $12 to file?

<comment><USER16> In Texas, or any other state without state income tax, it's $0. The federal part is always free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hey, just an FYI.

You never have to pay to file taxes. Like the forms are free on IRS.gov. You can fill in the information and mail it in with any money you owe too. There are help guides that step your through the process of filling out the forms as well, like worksheets to calculate deductibles if you need it.

It's very important that you go to IRS.gov and look at your options before you _ever_ pay someone to do your taxes. [https://www.irs.gov/forms- instructions](https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions)

It's good to have free software and keep forms fillable, but we as a society NEED to know how to perform taxes and that the process DOES NOT COST MONEY. You most likely can do it yourself.

The reason we're in the mess now is because people have been so willing to believe that taxes are too hard and impossible for the individual. Who's telling you that you shouldn't do taxes on your own? Look at their motivations.

<comment><USER18> It's a tradeoff between money/convenience, or money/time. Of course no one NEEDS to pay the $49 for TurboTax. They do it because it is easy.

The reason Intuit has been able to make so much money is that no one wants to waste hours poring over verbose IRS instruction publications, which are not trivial for a layperson to fill out correctly.

<comment><USER19> I quit doing my own by hand because one year I forgot to copy line 13b of form 123a: to line 26d of form 987d... The software does this automatically for me. I generally think software is slower than doing everything by hand ( I use TaxAct, I don't know how turbotax is different) because of all the stupid waits while it asks questions that don't apply (retirement income...).

<comment><USER20> New Jersey used to have a PDF form with JavaScript that would copy around all the duplicate values automatically. The only annoying thing about it was that it only worked in Adobe Reader. This year they went to a poorly designed plain PDF form that only let you fill in individual digits for each line item, with tabs needed to shift each place value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I want to take this opportunity to mention that the IRS Free Fillable Forms service is completely free for anyone.

It might not be the best choice for everyone, but I found that despite all these tax services' low cognitive load, they ask so many questions with so many steps that the actual _time_ that it takes to file with TurboTax wasn't actually any faster than just biting the bullet and reading some instructions.

Again, I think it's not a great choice for many people but it's the one I'll be using moving forward.

<comment><USER22> I've looked at that section on the IRS site every other year for twenty, still can't make heads or tails of it. I end up opening another tab and downloading 1040.

<comment><USER21> It's not much different than logging into any other tax website provider, except that it's less slick and nice, and you have to actually fill out the forms rather than answering questions.

This is the actual direct link to the site in case you actually haven't been able to find what you're supposed to use:

[https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/](https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/)

<comment><USER22> That seems reasonable. However, it looks like a third-party rather than the IRS, which doesn't inspire confidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> TaxAct has one dark pattern where they slide in a question in the middle where they basically ask your consent for marketing stuff to you. It's confusingly worded in a way to make it sound like you'll unlock additional savings.

But the good part is you can decline that, and the rest of the time they stick to the task at hand. Now they do have separate pricing tiers based on your needs but I don't find that dishonest. In fact they have a quick selector to help you identify which tier you need to get based on your situation.

<comment><USER24> The entire dark pattern is creating a fucking painful and confusing q+a that is incredibly difficult to go back and edit, instead of just showing me a form to fill out, with hover over info bubbles that show me the actual IRS explanations of each field. But that would show the only reason why we are using them is to e file, because their system is much more difficult than the IRS', and they have been able to keep anything but the most rudimentary e filing off the IRS site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I almost got burned by one of those myself. Until I checked the fine print at the end, I didn't realize there was a _separate_ $40 charge for paying for TurboTax out of your refund (rather than with a credit card). That can't cost anything on their end and seems designed to target people who don't have the money lying around.

<comment><USER26> I mean, that sounds like a pretty fair service to me: offering short-term credit while also streamlining the customer acquisition process.

<comment><USER27> A few years ago my finance class had a homework assignment which was to calculate the interest rate you were paying for this "service". It was a good assignment, because there is no "right" answer, because it depends how you define certain values, but all the figures came back with this "service" is like a loan with a 40-80% interest rate.

<comment><USER26> Sure, that's a pretty high interest rate. If you have the liquidity, you definitely should pay upfront. But it's conceivable that for some (small) segment of the population, that loan is worth it.

Payday loans are a similar situation, it seems exploitative to many/most people. But those people who think it's exploitative are the ones who don't need the service in the first place. If you can avoid it, you should never ever get a payday loan. But if it's between a payday loan and missing a rent payment and living on the street, it's a pretty attractive and rational proposition.

Would it be better that a certain segment of the population not have any access to credit? Or is it better that they have access to expensive credit? Moreover, if they want some (expensive) credit, it's pretty paternal and condescending (and sometimes racist) to say that they aren't rational enough actors to deserve it.

<comment><USER28> It's not (only) that it feels explorative because of the rate; it feels explorative because they use dark patterns to make it non-obvious that there is a fee in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wrote this up last year describing some of these tactics employed by Intuit:

[https://uxdesign.cc/turbotax- design-1a37356adc61](https://uxdesign.cc/turbotax-design-1a37356adc61)

<comment><USER23> Very nice writeup!

This kind of condescending flow is exactly why I stopped using TurboTax about 10 years ago. Apparently it got even worse since then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> You can still file free if you make over $66,000 per year, it's just a more limited edition. I have used it for years with no problems. If you are comfortable with filling out the forms yourself and reading the accompanying IRS form instructions, you should be fine. It's federal only.

[https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/#/fd](https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/#/fd)

Protip: some of the forms do the math for you, but some don't. Also, there are no worksheets available. So, I use a spreadsheet to do the math and calculate the worksheets.

</comment><comment><USER31> Credit Karma does a good job providing free federal and state tax filing.

Disclaimer: I work there but not on tax

<comment><USER6> If you work there, maybe you can pass this along to the right people: I tried creating an account for filing taxes, CK told me my SSN needed to be unfrozen (that shouldn't matter for tax filing purposes), I temporarily unfroze my SSN and kept retrying to create my account on CK. For the next two days, it kept telling me my SSN was frozen. Then, I gave up!

<comment><USER31> I'll definitely pass that along. Thanks for taking the time to share.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> TurboTax has a pretty troubling history of working against the best interest of taxpayers, from stuff like these dark patterns to their constant lobbying to ensure that the IRS won't offer any taxpayer services that would be of wide benefit to people.

</comment><comment><USER33> I know very little about filing tax and I was helping someone equally clueless this year. The 10+ prompts and tricks to try and get us to upgrade was fine, but we suddenly ended up in a page that was asking permission to request free credit score. I wanted no part of it and the person with me was frustrated enough and wanted to just accept it. Clearing browser and re-logging was the only way to get out of that screen and it put us in the initial page. No idea what that was about but I figured that is the `price to pay` for dealing with free software.

</comment><comment><USER34> For us Canadians out there too, SimpleTax[0] is complexity free as well! Super simple design, easy to file. We've used it for a while.

[0]: [https://simpletax.ca/](https://simpletax.ca/)

<comment><USER35> SimpleTax is awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Definitely experienced this helping a friend who qualified for FFA. I ended up contacting them on Twitter and they gave me a promo code after recognizing the site was misleading.

The solution probably entails making it illegal for them to upsell folks below the income bar, and require them to provide the free filing option based on the forms entered.

<comment><USER36> > "The solution probably entails making it illegal for them to upsell folks > below the income bar, and require them to provide the free filing option > based on the forms entered."

In the current environment where they appear to have enough political influence to block the IRS from allowing people to file their taxes online, it seems unlikely that any constraints will be imposed on their pursuit of profits.

<comment><USER14> Realistically, if they can be required to provide free filing to eligible people, a significant benefit to them over the IRS helping directly remains intact: Most people who file their taxes for free will use the same app once they're no longer eligible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The state to which the US tax system is an absolute hellscape becomes crystal clear when/if you move abroad. I currently live in one of those small european countries touted (often accurately, sometimes not) as a utopia, and sure enough filing taxes is basically 99% automated. The more complex your income the more work is involved - of course - but for the vast majority of users who own 1 piece of property and derive most of their income from an employer, it's basically ready out of the box.

The hardest part for me - by far - of filing income tax is and remains filing my US taxes, which unsurprisingly becomes extra complicated and burdensome as an overseas citizen.

We can only dream of the day when the bizarro hydra that forms the anti-tax- reform lobby is somehow defeated, but that realistically feels like a not-in- my-lifetime kind of deal.

</comment><comment><USER38> I used the Free Fillable Forms to file my taxes this year. However, it seems that the backend for the free fillable forms is provided by Intuit. It seems you really can't escape them unless you file on paper and mail in the forms.

</comment><comment><USER39> Yep, I fell for the 'audit threat' and paid $19. Even if I was pretty confident that I wont get audited or even if I did there won't be any problem as my tax return is as simple as it gets and I have nothing to hide.

</comment><comment><USER40> I have never used TurboTax, but I have used H&R Block online filing every year of my adult life, and haven't had any issues.

One year I was curious about my refund (thought I was paying more than I should) and brought my return in to an actual brick & mortar H & R Block office, and they told me that my return just about perfect, but they urged me to increase my monthly withholdings to avoid paying taxes at tax season, which turned out to be good advice for the next year (would have had to pay much, much more than the previous year, my withholdings were WAY too low).

<comment><USER41> Not sure why you were downvoted. I used to use TurboTax until about a decade ago when I switched to H&R Block. In my opinion H&R Block's UX is superior to TurboTax's and I didn't run into nearly as many dark patterns as I used to. Granted, TurboTax's website could've (and apparently did) change a lot in the time being.

It's always best to try and get a $0 refund with $0 owed. Big refunds may _seem_ cool but you are really just making an interest-free loan to the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I used Credit karma it was pretty painless for a 1040. e-filed both state and federal and didn't cost a dime. Albeit I bet they hope to get revenue from credit card recommendations.

<comment><USER43> They don't support all states unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I know there's slight irony in using google for this. But if you want to add an annual reminder to use freetaxusa.com

[https://calendar.google.com/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=cWEx...](https://calendar.google.com/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=cWExcjdycjQ1Ymk2djQ3NjA3dGozaTlpYWtfMjAyMDAzMTUgbWlrZWdyYWYwMDBAbQ&tmsrc=mikegraf000%40gmail.com&scp=ALL)

</comment><comment><USER45> I signed up for Inuit's Self Employed Quicken that comes with TurboTax just to handle quarterly estimates, and it turns out they don't support states. They told me there's so many of them.

Not that I appreciate government websites, since the quality is pretty shoddy, but when a company has no incentive to handle any smaller markets how is this a good system?

</comment><comment><USER46> Regardless of whether Intuit is willfully or accidentally using dark patterns to get paying customers, their incentives completely explain how they ended up with such a complete garbage endpoint.

Of course, that is being very generous, because they are also directly influencing the policy makers that establish the incentive structures for Intuit.

<comment><USER47> You think they accidentally tripped and fell into their website design?

<comment><USER46> No, it is likely intentionally bad. Angel's advocate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The real dirty secret of tax software is that even after all they've done to try to make filing your taxes as difficult as possible, I _still_ find just using the IRS's "FreeFileFillableForms" software to fill out and submit my own 1040 far easier than any software I've ever used.

In particular, every piece of tax software I've used has had trouble with figuring out what I owe on scholarships and stipends, and letting me enter it in the software. After four hours fighting H&R Block's "free" software one time, I swore I would never do it again and just do my own taxes now. Far easier, and faster.

Plus since I'm a California resident filing state taxes is as easy as reading numbers off the 1040 to put into the FTB website.

</comment><comment><USER49> It's bad even when it stays free. Massachusetts has a tax site (which seems to be created and run by Intuit) which you can use to file for free. It, however, has been built purposefully to make it much, much more difficult to use than the paid version (that they push hard when you file your federal taxes with TurboTax).

The free version does very little error checking prior to submission. It won't even check for things like empty fields that are required for everyone (e.g. the field for your birthday on the state health care form).

The state paid for the free version with tax money and it lacks fundamental usability.

      * Doesn't perform basic validation
      * Doesn't calculate fields that can be automatically calculated (though there is a button you can press which will fill some of them)
      * Takes 24-48 hours for "processing" after submission before you are notified of acceptance.  In actuality, this tended to be 4-15 hours, but still... it's just doing basic validation.  I got rejections for empty fields and miscalculated fields (ones that I shouldn't even have to enter at all.)
      * Reports errors in a obscure manner, which makes it a chore to determine what is wrong (violates "Business Rule F1-1025", etc.)
      * Amounts to an electronic version of the paper form, where it only really does exactly what you put on it... add incorrectly: won't be detected, skip a line: no problem
      * I could go on, but you get the idea

If you use the paid product that is available from the same company (Intuit), it will handle all of the above automatically. So really we have is a company that has made a crippled version of software they are already selling. They double-dip with a lot of people this way and they don't compromise sales on the paid product. If you wait until the last day to file using the free site, you are unlikely to get it accepted in time since you won't have a second chance for submission.

The product built for the state could just be a really poorly written and managed contract, but knowing the way Intuit behaves generally, I doubt that is all that's going on.

</comment><comment><USER50> I used turbo tax and had to file multiple state returns. They showed a few blatant pages saying I could maybe get higher deductions with an upgraded version, although I suppose I knew enough to know that wouldn't be the case. It wasn't hard to file everything on the free tier. They won't let me get a copy of the return without paying anymore which is dickish, but they did say that would happen pretty clearly so it's just a matter of downloading a copy while it's available. You can upload that pdf copy next year so that's fairly convenient.

The dark patterns are bad... but I really have no reason to look elsewhere?

Well except passing bank login credentials. That was uncomfortable, but hey, just change them immediately after as it's a one time service.

<comment><USER3> > I really have no reason to look elsewhere?

TurboTax actively lobbies the government to make filing taxes difficult. So one reason to look elsewhere is simply to avoid giving money to a company that behaves that way.

<comment><USER50> If you reread my post, I haven't given them any money. Their free tier is fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I encountered this with H&R block when I had a particularly complex tax situation a few years back (had worked as a contractor for several corporate entities and also had the tail end of full time work plus investment income). H&R block quoted me 3-4 rates, insisting I pay them more money at each step to finish the process.

I realize it's hard because the number of complications that _can_ come up in filing taxes is difficult to enumerate and customers may not know their exact status.... Even so, I'd say the current setup that these companies use is very scammy and unethical.

<comment><USER32> If your taxes are complex enough to warrant having a tax preparer handle them for you, I recommend avoiding H&R Block. Instead, ask your colleagues, friends, and family for recommendations for an independent tax preparer rather than a chain.

<comment><USER52> Just so you know, that independent tax accountant probably uses the pro version of TurboTax.

<comment><USER32> Not all. Mine certainly doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Most of what you're paying for as a TurboTax customer is not the benefit of the software. You're paying for the company to lobby the government to make filing your taxes more expensive.

Intuit has the perfect scam.

</comment><comment><USER54> When I was young my mom would go into H&R Block to do her taxes. She was a single parent raising 2 kids on minimum wage income. She wasn't tax savvy at all and English was a 2nd language. I recall her paying $89 at the time. I always found it odd that someone as poor as her had to pay money to file taxes. I was too young to say anything at the time. So much for free tax preparation. I wonder how many millions of Americans and for how many decades have been ripped off by these scumbags.

</comment><comment><USER55> Another example: when you're done filing, TurboTax offers you the option to pay your taxes via credit card -- e.g. if you want points/miles -- for a fee of 2.49% (or more, haven't checked recently) The verbiage seems like it's the only way to pay via credit card if you filed via TurboTax.

However it's not true. You can file via TurboTax without paying. Then directly go to the 3-4 IRS authorized payment providers who will let you pay via card for less.

</comment><comment><USER56> It is way easier and faster to file your taxes using paper forms. And free! Maybe your hand isn't held as much, but for a group of people that know how to use ctrl-f, it should be pretty easy to get it done.

Now, this is certainly unfortunate. I'd prefer to submit my taxes electronically via simple forms on the IRS website instantly. But with the lobbying, this is what we're stuck with.

</comment><comment><USER57> I guess I will switch to freetaxusa next year. I've used turbotax for 25 years (I worked for Chipsoft, the previous owner before Intuit, in 1994). I found receipts going back to 2007: $99.98 $96.98 $61.98 $71.98 $86.98 $86.98 $66.98 $66.90 $66.90 $39.95 $19.95 $84.90 __* They must have tricked me into clicking something for a bogus $50 deduction maximizer. $44.95

</comment><comment><USER10> I agree with the base assessment the article poses which is that dark patterns are used to get you to pay. But the underlying implication is clear from the tone and wording in the article - that this is a bad or dishonest thing.

First off, Intuit is under no legal obligation (to my knowledge anyway) to provide any service for free. They have promised to do so, but I don't think anything related to this promise is legally binding.

Second, they're in it to make money so clearly all advertising is going to be geared to the paid products.

Lastly, the idea that typing a reasonable search into Google and having the page with the actual result be the 5th link which you then click into and have to read the requirement of getting something for free is somehow shady seems a bit dramatic. Not to mention that when I type that same search string into Google now it's the first link after the featured snippet (which is also a link to the IRS, but a different page). I don't think that's in any way unreasonable or undesirable. That's about as close to idiot-proof as you can get in my opinion. And we're talking about something that's free here so there's pretty much no incentive to assist it. And in this case, as per the article, there's active incentive to hide it and yet it's still really easy to find.

<comment><USER58> I could see the logic of the argument "these aren't dark patterns", or (to a lesser extent) "these are dark patterns(and therefore dishonest), but dishonesty isn't bad". I'm having trouble working through your argument "these are dark patterns, but they aren't dishonest". Might a fair restatement of your argument be something like: "Reasonably informed people should know that Intuit is a profit-seeking entity, and should therefore expect Intuit to pursue all legal means to increase profit"?

<comment><USER10> That restatement is pretty accurate and I would agree with it.

And I wasn't saying dishonesty isn't bad. I was saying the implication the article makes that they are dishonest is something I disagree with. So _" these are dark patterns, but they aren't dishonest"_ is indeed what I'm saying - you are correct in that. I generally don't view dark patterns as dishonest. I think that's where you really took issue. I find them more of an annoyance to keep an eye out for and circumvent. And I believe nearly all dark patterns can be spotted and avoided simply by paying attention - i.e. which button is actually confirm and which one is cancel, doing a ctrl-f to find the word "unsubscribe" so you can easily find it, actually reading the words on buttons/links rather than using color as a content guide, etc.

EDIT - grammatical error.

<comment><USER59> Aren't your examples an admission that dark patterns are dishonest, though? It's not like these companies are e.g. randomly coloring their buttons and just so happened to pick a misleading one. They're intentionally choosing colors that you associate with the _opposite_ of what you want to do. The entire purpose is to trick you into performing an action you don't want to perform.

<comment><USER10> That's a fair point and I think it comes down to the word usage - i.e. dishonest vs misleading. I would agree that they are either misleading or intentionally obfuscatory. I would not, however, say that they are dishonest because to me dishonesty means something more like an outright lie or intentional untruth. The fact that a button says "no" but is colored green is indeed intending to trick you, but it does in fact mean "no" when you click it and the appropriate action is then taken by their site/system. Similarly, the unsubscribe link might be hard to find and not colored as a link, but it's there and it works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Regular reminder that intuit and H&R Block lobby to keep the government from simplifying tax filings to protect their business.

</comment><comment><USER61> I've used [https://www.freetax.com](https://www.freetax.com) for the past three years and paid nothing. I have a complicated return as well - <USER2> income, rental property, capital gains, and I receive distributions from being part-owner of a company.

</comment><comment><USER62> Lobbying congress to pass laws so the IRS can't offer free filing is a very dark pattern indeed.

</comment><comment><USER54> My tax situation was simple enough but I've always used a service. This year I used a few services but didn't file, them printed out the infilled returns and was shocked at how few documents I would have to fill out if I did it on my own.

I ended up using Tax slayer and filed for free.

</comment><comment><USER63> H&R Block try to get you to pay at every other page while you are filling your return... But I still went with them because the last 2 years I filled the forms online at a couple different companies and H&R Block was getting me more back.

<comment><USER64> Your taxes should come out the same no matter where you fill them out. If you get different numbers between services, you're missing something on one of them.

<comment><USER63> I know that but I have very simple taxes and was too lazy to lookup the difference... it just appears that H&R Block's defaults are better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Can also recommend this paper for more information on how 'Dark patterns' work: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17406186](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17406186)

</comment><comment><USER66> I switched to hr block when I saw what turbotax wanted to charge. I saved 70 bucks by switching and I got to verify my taxes were figured properly!

</comment><comment><USER54> Let's not forget this is the same company that robbed tech workers in secret do not hire pacts that included eBay, intel, apple and google.

</comment><comment><USER67> One of the many examples of why we need GOOD government...

</comment><comment><USER68> news flash: the entire tax filing and tax payment industry, to say nothing of tax code itself, uses dark patterns to this effect.

</comment><comment><USER69> That's why I don't feel bad pirating their software for the past 5 years. They are scum and are not playing fair.</comment>


What a Google Penalty Looks Like - <AUTHOR> http://mitchfournier.com/2011/07/21/what-a-google-penalty-looks-like/ <comment><USER2> Interesting - thanks for sharing. I personally don't like the part at the bottom: "If you found this post interesting, please consider voting it up on Hacker News. Thanks!" I don't like it for two reasons:

1) Quit telling people about this site - it's bigger than it should be already lol

2) It's just pandering for vote karma

That said, have an upvote :)</comment>


Ask YC: Any of you use Dvorak? - <AUTHOR> I started using a dvorak keyboard about five years ago purely for nerdy fun. I enjoy it personally, but would never try to evangelize it. Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else out there used it and if you knew of any dvorak-friendly editors and such... Emacs is a nightmare in Dvorak...<p>Edit: A follow-up question if you do use dvorak would be: If you actually have a dvorak-in-hardware keyboard, which one? <comment><USER2> aoeuidhtns! I've used Dvorak for at least six years now. Love it.

For anyone interested in learning, I found that the best sites were: <http://www.gigliwood.com/abcd/> <http://dvorak.nl/learn.plp> and the program KP Typing Tutor (great dvorak exercises). interesting comparison tool: <http://www.siteuri.ro/dvorak/>

How about the awesomeness of the dvorak home row? 3269 Scrabble words (OSPD) can be typed on the home row, including nine 15-letter words (such as tendentiousness) 206 for asdfkhjkl. Longest: halakhahs and haggadahs

_____ Estimated finger travel distance (horizontal) for all of the above text QWERTY: 15.3m Dvorak: 10.5m

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, I use it and I really think it has helped my wrists. I don't type much faster than I used to, but it feels much more comfortable. Another good trick is to swap your ctrl and capslock keys.

I don't have any trouble using vi with dvorak. Navigating using hjkl still makes sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I definitely feel like my wrists move a lot less using Dvorak, so it is more comfortable for long periods for me at least.

I'll have to try the caplocks/ctrl switching.

<comment><USER4> Steve Yegge's post "Effective Emacs" has instructions for how to do this, plus some other emacs tips: <http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/effective-emacs>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> DVORAK is remarkably easy to learn, all things considered. I just started today after checking out jmilton's links, and while the going is a bit slow, it's not as bad as I expected. I'm not sure yet if it will really be beneficial, but I figure I'll give it a shot for two reasons:

1\. I like to challenge myself. I'm currently learning to play Guitar Hero left-handed, and it's been interesting. This is along those same lines, but it might actually benefit me.

2\. It will be fun to mess with my friends when they try to use my computer.

In my limited usage so far, yes, the typing is slow. It's really frustrating that I can no longer type as fast as I can think. The hardest thing, however, seems to be re-learning applications' keyboard shortcuts. If Firefox and GMail is hard, what's vim going to be like?

(This message was typed using DVORAK.)

<comment><USER5> After some more research, I think Colemak (<http://colemak.com/>) is going to be a better alternative. The bottom row stays the nearly the same, which means that a lot of the common application shortcut keys remain the same. It's also based on more modern, computer-assisted research into English word frequencies. One cool idea it uses is to change Caps Lock to Backspace.

I'm still worried about vim, though. One nice side effect of my planned switch to Colemak is that I now have a legitimate reason to put off learning Emacs. After my switch to Colemak is complete, I'll try to tackle SLIME.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sure, for about 15 years. I agree that it's more comfortable, not faster.

Coincidentally, this is about the same length of time I've used Emacs. I don't see what's nightmarish about it. The keys either have English mnemonics (C-b/C-f = back/forward), or are completely arbitrary (C-v = page-down). Its keyboard commands are not at all tied to the Sholes layout, like some editors I could mention.

I think it's less nightmarish than, say, being a native Swedish or Japanese speaker and trying to figure out what C-b and C-f mean. But then, I've found that the way keyboard shortcuts are encoded in one's brain differs greatly between people. Maybe visual learners find hjkl more natural, and auditory learners find bfpn more natural.

<comment><USER7> "The keys either have English mnemonics (C-b/C-f = back/forward), or are completely arbitrary (C-v = page-down)."

Bad example for a completely arbitrary key... v looks like a down arrow. Hence, page down.

<comment><USER6> Ah, you must be one of those visual-learner types!

<comment><USER7> The funny thing is that I always thought (just like you) that C-v was an arbitrarily assigned key before you mentionned it. I guess we could call this "contradiction intuition" or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I also use Dvorak, but had to retrain myself on VIM. I originally used QWERTY to learn VIM, then switched to Dvorak because I totally sucked at touch typing on QWERTY. That layout never made sense to me, but Dvorak did and now I'm happy to report I can type along at about 35 WPM. Which to me, is screaming fast!

What's really odd is now I've been able to touch type on QWERTY too! It takes a few seconds for the brain to switch modes, but it'll do it. I'm not as fast as Dvorak, but I can hope on another keyboard and work.

I've used Dvorty Boards in the past, and now use TypeMatrix ZVR-2030 keyboard. On laptops, I switch using software, and just ignore the keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use Dvorak exclusively. I've started using it right when I started touchtyping (I'm 21, I started touchtyping something like a year and a half ago. Previously I was a "fast" hunt-and-pecker, except I didn't really hunt at all).

I got frustrated with touchtyping Qwerty very quickly because... well, it just felt dumb when I tried typing "street" or "states". Why should two such common nouns with common letters be so awfully awkward to type?! And there's the seemingly random arrangement of keys, which incidentally is ACTUALLY random...

Anyway, I found out about Dvorak, read about it, started using it and never looked back ever since.

You say you started using a Dvorak keyboard... do you mean a Dvorak keyboard _layout_?... Typing Dvorak on a Qwerty keyboard is not a problem at all. In fact, I'd say it's beneficial. When I started touchtyping Qwerty, I kept looking down at the keys out of habit and lack of confidence, and that impeded my speed and learning. Whereas when I started touchtyping Dvorak, I couldn't "cheat" by looking at the keys anymore. For the first 2 days, I printed the Dvorak layout on a sheet of paper that I put beside my keyboard, and I'd refer to that only when I didn't know a key. After that, I scrapped the paper and was typing very slow but autonomously. My habit of looking at the keyboard died a quick death because my keyboard had Qwerty printed on it and thus was useless!

I don't see why you say Emacs is a nightmare in Dvorak, because the key combinations are based on mnemonics, not physical key location. Ever tried Dvorak in vi? Now THAT is a problem.

I bought a TypeMatrix 2030 and with some remappings, it's a charm to use Emacs with it. In particular, I can press CTRL with my left thumb, so if for example I have to type C-x C-f (qwerty equivalent: C-b C-y), I don't have to switch between the right and left CTRL keys, I just press and hold CTRL and then type x and f. By the way, I bought a Qwerty-labelled version so I wouldn't be tempted to start looking at the keys again :) If they had a blank version I would have bought that.

You ask for a Dvorak-friendly editor, but I think you should be looking for a keyboard-layout- _agnostic_ editor. In my experience, Emacs is one such editor.

<comment><USER9> "Previously I was a "fast" hunt-and-pecker, except I didn't really hunt at all"

So, does that make you a pecker?

\-- sorry, couldn't help myself.

<comment><USER7> We learn something new every day... even if it's just a silly slang term ;P

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-priori I use Dvorak too... have for about 5 years now, for no reason other than that I like it better.

I also use Emacs just fine, but then again I learned Emacs after Dvorak, so I don't really know how much different Emacs is on QWERTY.

</comment><comment><USER10> I switched to dvorak for a few weeks a few summers ago. Initially typing every single word was insanely frustrating, and it didn't get much better for me.

I've been using QWERTY for 18 years and I continue to stick with it simply because it's familiar and I'm surrounded by machines all day every day that don't allow me to change the keyboard layout. Alternating between keyboard layouts several times every day is just not worth the frustration for me.

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes, I've been using Dvorak exclusively for a year or two. Vim was annoying at first, but it's really not too bad. Even if you don't remap the keys the new locations of hjkl make reasonable sense.

My question for you Dvorak users is how easily can you switch back and forth between it and qwerty? I can do it without much trouble, but I know another guy who has a very hard time switching. I'm curious what the general trend is.

<comment><USER12> I had a tough time initially. I basically lost the ability to type qwerty without looking at the keys for about 6 months. Then I started gaining it back on an OS-by-OS basis: I was conditioned so that if I was looking at a Gnome desktop (school computer labs) I'd type Qwerty, yet on a WinXP desktop I'd type Dvorak. Then it went to app-by-app: I'd type Dvorak on Word and AIM, but Qwerty on Eclipse and a few other Linux apps. And then I became fluent in both keyboard layout and can can basically touch type on either.

Still need to switch into Qwerty for some games, though, because their keybindings don't make any sense. It's also really annoying on typing tests that have you type "hjkl" over and over again. vi was never a problem, because I learned the keybindings on Dvorak first, though I might have trouble if I sat down at a Qwerty terminal with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been using Dvorak for about seven years. I'd recommend using ABCD to learn:

<http://www.gigliwood.com/abcd/>

</comment><comment><USER14> I have been using the Dvorak keyboard since around 1995 ... here is a short guide I right on the switch on an old mac using a dot-matrix printer! :)

On editors, most on Windows and Mac are fine because the keyboard mappings are switched at the OS level. So, I don't think it's a problem. Sometimes key- binds in apps are not matched but not often.

I do not use a dvorak-in-hardware keyboard. I just don't look at the keys.

Best wishes,

\- Mike

</comment><comment><USER15> I find it alot more comfortable. I can also type a bit faster. After years of QWERTY, I measured my speed right before I switched and I could hit 78 wpm. Now, after about 2 years of Dvorak I can hit 90 wpm.

</comment><comment><USER16> I use it too, for about 10 years now. I agree with what everyone else is saying--it may not be faster, but it is definitely more comfortable. I use emacs, and I've never found the commands to be a problem.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've used it for the last 5 years or so. I used to have to sleep with the wrist braces - I can't be certain that dvorak has made a big difference but it seems to help

</comment><comment><USER18> I use the "programmer dvorak" layout. Nicer for {} etc etc, initially scary for numbers but you get used to it. All dvorak sucks for ctrl-c/v/x.

</comment><comment><USER19> Using it, for two years, with vim. First two weeks were hard.

</comment><comment><USER20> i do. felt tingling in wrists so decided to switch in may. PC also uses it. It wrecked my brain for a while. i use it with the kinesis keyboard.

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen Hells yeah, switched a few weeks ago. It's awesome.

</comment><comment><USER21> _Dvorak_ : been using it for a few years. i switched to it cold turkey. one thing that can screw you up is touching qwerty after switching, something you don't really need to do. dvorak is implemented as a language and comes standard in most OS's, so the excuse that "it will be difficult when using someone else's computer" is a poor one. some people can probably learn to use both layouts without too much trouble... i'm not one of those people, and i would advise against trying to use both, as learning dvorak will be much more difficult

qwerty is simply atrocious. the semicolon key says it all. who the fuck puts a semicolon key on the home row? i've heard various explanations for the retarded layout but i think it's just retardation. even the story of how it was to balance the hammers for typewriters to minimize collision seems retarded since the manufacturers could have switched around the letters on the hammers themselves

something that people miss is that dvorak is about comfort, not speed. sure, someone who is good at typing will probably be substantially faster on dvorak then on qwerty, but for me at least it's all about comfort. though i do type quite a bit faster than i did on qwerty

re: Vi, it wasn't hard switching at all. one thing i learned to do was use 'ce' (replace to end of word) rather than 'cw' (replace word) since c and w are on the same finger in dvorak

specifically i use programmer dvorak <http://www.kaufmann.no/roland/dvorak/> which leaves the basic dvorak alphabet unchanged but switches around the symbols. instead of `1234567890-= the top row is $&[{}(=* )+]!#. the numbers are shifted

i took things a step further and started using a program called AutoHotkey: <http://www.autohotkey.com/> i have LAlt + C mapped to Esc, LAlt + H to Backspace, LAlt + T to Enter, Caps and Enter to Ctrl, and RAlt to Caps. these are global, not just for Vim

 _Ergonomic Keyboard_ : i use a microsoft ergonomic: [http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Natural-Ergo- Keyboard-4000/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Natural-Ergo- Keyboard-4000/dp/B000A6PPOK/) i'm surprised these aren't much more popular. it's probably because of patents or something, or people don't realize how much better they are. they are as much an improvement over regular keyboards as dvorak is over qwerty. dvorak + ergonomic keyboard will get you FAR in terms of comfort

i also use a wacom tablet instead of a mouse. i've never had any wrist pain or anything with this setup. i'm anal about comfort for the same reason i use Vim rather than a silly IDE. i figure if i'm going to be typing and using a computer so much, generally hours a day for the rest of my life, then the tools i use are extremely important and it's worth it to invest in the best ones

<comment><USER22> Supposedly you're not supposed to switch to dvorak too quickly, like within a 48 hour period like I did. It kind of scrambles your brain a bit, and I lost my ability to qwerty for a moment there. With time I started typing quicker in both dvorak, and qwerty again.

Can you talk a bit more about using the tablet as a mouse? I have a multi- monitor set up now and just noticed theres a spot on my desk for a tablet. I suppose it would have to be put into relative mode, not absolute.

<comment><USER21> when i used two monitors (my expensive graphics card died T_T) i kept absolute positioning, which is one of the things i like about tablets. you don't need to know where the cursor is, you just move the pen where you want the cursor to be and it's there, so it's more direct than a mouse. it also feels more 'connective' in general. when using scrollbars for example it feels like you're "grabbing" them rather than just interacting with them. or at least it does to me

with the wacom software you can map multiple monitors to different sections of the tablet, so i mapped a large portion of the tablet to my work monitor and a smaller portion to the second. something like:

       _______________
      |               |
      |               |
      |               |  <-- monitor 1
      |               |
      |_______________|______
                      |      |  <-- monitor 2
                      |______|

actually i don't remember if i used the wacom software to map or if it was something in the desktop settings. in any case it's possible. and of course, relative positioning works fine as well

i'm sure everyone is intimately familiar with the wrist pain from mice usage. it doesn't happen with pens because your wrists aren't contorted like they are with mice. pens are more flexible since the only thing that matters is where the point is, not where the whole unit is. the hand/arm/wrist posture when using a pen is more natural than the posture you have to assume when using a mouse (notice you have to actually twist your arm thingie to use a mouse)</comment></comment></comment>


Uncalendar Review (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://paintingstufftolooklikestuff.blogspot.com/2015/01/uncalendar-review.html <comment><USER2> Interesting, it's tempting to try one, but I am not sure I am ready to let go off the convenience that digital agendas have to offer: they are available everywhere, thus I don't have to worry about forgetting it, or where to store it.

<comment><USER3> Which do you use? I have yet to find the correct form factor, including an UX that works for mobile and laptop alike.

<comment><USER2> I mostly use basic (event tracking) calendars for now, but they definitely aren't as flexible as the one presented here in terms of UX.

More specifically, I use my Nextcloud server with WebDAV as the web interface and server, Simple Calendar (with davx5) as a mobile application, and Thunderbird as a desktop one.

If you know of more sophisticated ones, feel free to share them :)</comment></comment></comment>


Understanding Clojure Transducers Through Types - <AUTHOR> http://conscientiousprogrammer.com/blog/2014/08/07/understanding-cloure-transducers-through-types

<comment><USER2> There are some interesting comments at the bottom from Rich Hickey.

</comment><comment><USER3>
        trans :: (b -> a) -> (c -> a -> c) -> c -> b -> c

in Haskell is just

        trans f reduce c = reduce c . f

isn't it? What am I missing here?

<comment><USER4> He ends up calling that `mapping` later

        mapping :: (a -> b) -> Transducer b a
        mapping f xf r a = xf r (f a)

which, modulo a little renaming, eta-expansion, and point elimination is the same as your `trans`

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like parametricity ensures that

        Transducer a b

is isomorphic to

        b -> [a]

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER4> Nope—[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8160327](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8160327)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > ...a level of abstraction that I think has not been expressed much in the > world of dynamically typed languages, although the techniques are two > decades old in the Haskell community in a statically typed setting

Calling Clojure "dynamically typed" in this context (or any context), is confusing, as it is more of a mashup of a few ideas from functional and OO languages than a typical dynamically typed language. For example, Clojure does not have dynamic dispatch (except for multimethods, which are a limited form of dynamic dispatch) other than that offered by OO polymorphism (interfaces/protocols). In other words, it lacks the most important mechanism that lends dynamically typed languages like JavaScript and Ruby their power.

It is a language that, like Java/C#/Go, is based on interfaces, which are then mixed with some functional concepts. Unlike the aforementioned OO languages, Clojure usually uses only a handful of such abstractions (or interfaces; or protocols). So, while the translation to Haskell requires such concepts as type classes and higher-rank types, this has nothing to do with dynamic typing, and a lot to do with plain old OO polymorphism.

<comment><USER7> Clojure is dynamically typed in the sense that programs are not type-checked at compile time, values are tagged with types, and type errors are runtime errors. On other words, it is dynamic, in contrast to static type systems. This says nothing about strong vs weak typing, nor expressiveness of the type system, nor type-dependent semantics like polymorphism.

Personally I find it less confusing that dynamic typing is a small and comparatively well-defined concept, than mixing it in with aspects of polymorphism and dynamic dispatch. Dynamic dispatch doesn't seem to me to have much to do with dynamic typing; it's a fundamental tool of expression in C++ and Java, and those are both statically-typed languages.

I'm curious why you think multimethods are more limited than dynamic dispatch. It seems to me that their expressiveness is a strict superset of dynamic dispatch. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER6> > Clojure is dynamically typed in the sense that programs are not type-checked > at compile time, values are tagged with types, and type errors are runtime > errors.

Well, yes, but that has little to do with the way Clojure abstractions work; namely, they're not based on dynamic dispatch, but on OO-style polymorphism.

But BTW, your definition is not entirely complete, and the distinction between statically typed and dynamically typed is not always so clear cut when you're not talking about extremes such as Haskell and JavaScript.

Statically typed languages like Java, C++, C# and Scala can, and do have runtime type errors because they allow casting. They also all have type tags (well, optional in C++). I.e., most statically typed languages don't attempt to eliminate all type errors at compile time. Clojure indeed does very little static type checks (I think only function arity is checked).

Even in Haskell values must be tagged with types, and the type tags are inspected at runtime. Otherwise, pattern matching wouldn't work (pattern matching is always based on type reflection).

> I'm curious why you think multimethods are more limited than dynamic > dispatch.

Because methods can't (or rarely do) "appear out of nowhere" or get installed at runtime as they do in, say, JavaScript or Groovy.

<comment><USER8> > Even in Haskell values must be tagged with types, and the type tags are > inspected at runtime.

This does not fit my understanding of pattern matching in Haskell. Say you are matching over a value of type `Maybe String`. The type of the value is always `Maybe String`, it's just that its value might be `Just "foo"` or `Nothing :: Maybe String`. It is not to my knowledge tagged with type information at runtime in a compiled program, merely value information. The different values an ADT disjunction can take on all have the same type as each other.

> Otherwise, pattern matching wouldn't work (pattern matching is always based > on type reflection).

What about pattern matching a String against a series of literal values? I don't see how this is based on type reflection, merely inspection of values.

<comment><USER4> In this context "tag" refers to the part of a value of type Maybe a which indicates whether that actual value is of the form Just a or Nothing. In other words, it's entirely runtime information distinguishing between various members of the same type

<comment><USER8> This is my understanding as well, and that's why I objected to the parent post's assertion that "even in Haskell values must be tagged with types, and the type tags are inspected at runtime". The enum/ADT discriminator tag is value information rather than type information.

<comment><USER6> Just and Nothing are different types even if the Haskell nomenclature doesn't call them so. The word "type" in Haskell means something different than it does in other languages. Haskell uses type to mean the mathematical notion of a set, while in CS, type usually refers to data memory layout. When comparing Haskell to other languages, we can't confuse terminology. In OO terms, for example, Just and Nothing are subtypes of Maybe, so the tag differentiating the two is _exactly_ the same as that used to verify downcasts from the supertype Maybe to its subtypes, in, say, C++ or Java. Haskell implements the very same mechanism (call it reflection or RTTI).

<comment><USER4> Meh, that's a way to talk about it but the standard type system of Haskell doesn't include subtyping like that. It's possibly you could apply a subtyping analysis to Haskell, but it's certainly non-standard and I'm not sure what you really, literally gain.

<comment><USER6> Haskell doesn't _call_ them subtypes, but they're _implemented_ using type tags, just like RTTI. Haskell simply uses different words to mean the same thing (and the same words to mean different things). You can't say these aren't type tags just because Haskell doesn't call these things types.

<comment><USER4> I can say it's not a subtyping relationship because it happens entirely at runtime and my definition of types—the one consistent with what I referred to as Haskell's standard type analysis—does not include runtime dynamics.

If you want to pick a definition of typing which includes runtime information (and referencing RTTI, clearly you do) then we can shift to that vocabulary and talk about whether such an analysis includes a subtyping judgement. I'm not familiar with it.

But it's certainly _not_ consistent with the standard Haskell type analysis. So there shouldn't be any surprise that the vocab doesn't match up.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Interview with co-founder of Reddit.com, Alexis Ohanian - <AUTHOR> http://adamfuhrer.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/interview-with-co-founder-of-redditcom-alexis-ohanian/ <comment><USER2> This:

"We've got an album (When Will Then Be Now?), too, which we're trying to get on iTunes. That will be a sad day for the music industry."

made me chuckle.</comment>


Show HN: A multi-touch document manipulation system - <AUTHOR> http://liquidtext.net/demos/ <comment><USER2> It's a kind of belated consolation that people are finally waking up to the potential of transclusion, structured notetaking and active reading in assisting and boosting human intelligence, decades after the onset of the still unfulfilled visions of forefathers such as Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart; and it's definitely great to see skillful people working on the vastly unpopular field of general-purpose _production_ software of the literary kind. But this is _just the thing_ that ideally shouldn't be productized and shut into the walled garden of an iPad application, unable to flexibly integrate into a user's broader systems of knowledge and memory. Hopefully the technology will have much more extensive implementations beyond the application.

We should have had this kind of thing as a standard part of our common user- facing software by now; in all software related to reading and writing. All implemented in free software, open protocols and standards, in a distributed manner, not tied to one company or organization. In 2012, I should have been able to practically link a paragraph of my comment here to a line on a local PDF file, another paragraph on that file to a particular portion of a web video, and string a group of such links and transclusions together, comment further on them, keep them under version control, and share them with others, without being tied to a single service or application. This stuff should be _infrastructure_.

And this is what personal computers were supposed to be all about, before the original naive and optimistic vision of enhancing human intelligence and distributed production and sharing gave way to the current situation where personal computers are used mainly to mindlessly consume centrally produced crap. I'm still looking forward to and willing to work towards an updated variant of that vision, but it's going to be an uphill battle.

<comment><USER3> Assuming you keep track of this area, are there any other interesting projects out there?

<comment><USER2> I assume you mean _recent and active_ projects; there's nothing recent I can remember that attempts to do the kind of thing I tried to describe in the second paragraph of my comment. (Which is why I intend to start working on my own modest, desperate attempt at it in the following months.)

However, there are various projects, some of them historical, that have attempted to tackle it in limited contexts, or implemented _parts of it_ , or have envisioned it in holistic systems that are now outdated. Almost all of the somewhat interesting ones I've come across can unfortunately be classified as one of the following: 1) Productized, narrowly focused yet-another-app 2) Academic or overly specialized in-house or personal project with no real effort at widespread usability 3) Unmaintained and outdated 4) Essentially vaporware

With that said, here are a few links of interest, with the forefathers noted first:

* Xanadu: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu>

* NLS: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLS_%28computer_system%29>

* Relations: <http://relations-rcp.sourceforge.net/>

* Zettelkasten: <http://zettelkasten.danielluedecke.de/en/index.php>

* semantic-notes: <https://github.com/jsomers/semantic-notes>

* Synapsen: <http://www.verzetteln.de/synapsen/shots_e.html>

* flashbake: <https://github.com/commandline/flashbake>

* ConnectedText: <http://www.connectedtext.com/>

* The Literary Machine: <http://sommestad.com/lm.htm>

* Leo: <http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html>

* Smart Notebooks (currently seeking funding on Kickstarter): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1947703258/smart-noteboo...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1947703258/smart-notebooks-keeping-on-the-same-page-across-th)

* Bibkosh: <http://www.bibkosh.com>

* gitmarks: <https://github.com/hmason/gitmarks>

* Lifestreams: <http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/freeman/lifestreams.html> , <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/fflifestreams.html>

* Locker: <https://github.com/quartzjer/Locker>

* Telehash: <http://telehash.org/>

* Singly: <https://www.singly.com/>

* pan.do/ra: <https://pan.do/ra#about>

* Papers: <http://www.mekentosj.com/papers/>

Some related reading:

* <http://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/1.html>

* <http://takingnotenow.blogspot.co.uk/>

* <http://www.visi.com/~snowfall/notebook.html>

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20100422130439/http://gilest.org/...](http://web.archive.org/web/20100422130439/http://gilest.org/luvly/20040322-lion.html)

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20100108034547/http://software-li...](http://web.archive.org/web/20100108034547/http://software-libre.rudd-o.com/Streams_vs._documents)

* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book>

* <http://www.xanadu.com.au/ted/XUsurvey/xuDation.html>

* [http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/reading-with-the-stars...](http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/reading-with-the-stars-teaching-with-the-highbrow-annotation-browser/37591)

* <http://www.openannotation.org/>

* <http://www.katsommers.com/2010/11/02/web-narrative/>

* <http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/tag/dymaxion-chronofile>

* <http://www.jagshouse.com/swyft.html>

* <http://al3x.net/2009/01/31/against-everything-buckets.html>

<comment><USER4> * Smallest federated wiki: <http://wardcunningham.github.com>

<comment><USER2> Thanks; I forgot about it somehow. Previous HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4199260>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like it, but in all honesty - I don't see how multi-touch brings any advantage compared to a keyboard+mouse for this application.

The workflow is a bit different yes, but there is barely anything in there that really takes advantage of multi-touch gestures more than zoom, and there are many great zoom implementations available when using a mouse.

Regardless this could be quite useful, my biggest gripe is exporting your work, you should be able to export it to a PDF or something so that anyone can read or print it while still retaining comments, links etc. in a good, intuitive, way. That will make or break it in my eyes (granted I've only glanced at it so far) and I didn't see anything about that on the site/videos.

Not saying that it is badly suitable for multi-touch but I just have a hard time seeing myself working with my hands like that for a long session. Mouse + keyboard is vastly superior in terms of ergonomics and if I will be writing long comments a real keyboard is a must.

On a tablet? Sure, but feels like the UI requires a larger screen than a tablet.

<comment><USER6> My thoughts exactly. In fact, watching the presentation gave me the impressions that the touch ui was actually slightly awkward to work with, compared to using a mouse.

That's not a problem, as the application it self is quite interesting. So I think they should focus on that and then let the ui be secondary. When using it on a tablet, touch-ui is used, when on a laptop/desktop machine, the mouse/keyboard ui is used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Calls to mind aspects of Xanadu, which is nice to see: <http://www.xanadu.com.au/ted/XUsurvey/PTF2CLO8.JPG> <http://www.xanadu.com.au/ted/XUsurvey/xuDation.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> This is great. When reviewing/editing/revising technical manuscripts (journal articles, technical reports, dissertations etc) this would be extremely handy, and cut out the constant scrolling to check and recheck definitions and parts of the document with others. Referring back to the materials and methods section is an obvious use-case.

Would be nice to see the layout of comments/notes etc on the RHS be more structured (snapped to a grid?) though. Shouldn't have to zoom in and out on these.

Now if this was combined with one of those Wacom 24 or 27" touch screen displays ... :)

</comment><comment><USER9> This looks really awesome. For a long time, I've thought that multi-touch has been very under used, it's nice to see people thinking outside of the desktop OS paradigm. I would imagine this would be quite useful with a Wacom tablet as well - any thoughts on that?

I've never reviewed articles before, but one thought from looking at your video is that it might be nice to be able to group things in a more concrete way, for example, if you are picking out different themes from the article. I was immediately reminded of BumpTop. I think that a part that is not necessarily focused on in the video is more rigorous organization of the snippets that you take out of the article.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nifty!

But how do you avoid the "gorilla arm" problem with large touch-screen monitors?

<comment><USER11> A touch screen table would solve that problem. In a perfect world we would have desks whose entire surface is a multi-touch screen, not as a replacement but additionally to "regular" monitors to allow exactly these kinds of interfaces.

<comment><USER10> Not really--you'd still be using large-arm motions on a large surface, holding up your arms so you wouldn't generate false touches. Even palm detection won't help, as you'd still need the large-scope motions to tie things together.

<comment><USER12> The "false touch" problem is solvable:

"Swept Frequency Capacitive Sensing" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4tYpXVTjxA>

Basically the idea is to make devices aware of the physical context of user interactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This looks amazing. It's nice to see a different take on a UI for working with bigger documents. I must say I'm not a huge fan of touch interfaces but something like this could port well to a kinect type interface. Project the screen onto a wall and add some voice recognition and kinect and you could have fun working on big texts while standing and moving around the room. You could write a book in a room without a chair or desk.

</comment><comment><USER14> How well does this work with LaTeX and other document formatting systems?

</comment><comment><USER15> This looks awesome.

</comment><comment><USER16> Seems really cool but I can't ever see using a giant touchscreen all day like that. Imaging the fatigue that would ensue and the Repetitive Use Injuries (RSI) that would occur.

I really like the concept though. I would really like to see something that used similar features in a coding IDE.</comment>


Top Grossing Flashlight App of All Time to be  Acquired for $1M - <AUTHOR> https://www.apptopia.com/listings/flashlight-by-i4software

<comment><USER2> Well they are ASKING for $1M. Nothing says they'll get a buyer.

Or am I missing something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Heads up - I'm from the Apptopia team- but yes they're asking $1 M & the app has made over $1.4 M total already(whereas apps like Instagram & SocialCam got acquired for much more with no revenue at all).. In terms of a buyer there's no guarantee, you're right about that, but big companies like Energizer would benefit so much from acquiring the app as a branding play that the $1M wouldn't mean much.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but "asking price" isn't necessarily "getting price." And may or may not have much to do with "actual long-term value." :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, good point. We're very experienced in app valuations and I agree with you 100% that asking is not getting. But this app has millions of users, which is a huge deal because so many people can be reached through the app! In addition, they are only available to 25% of people with iPhones since the app only works for the iPhone 4 & 4s.. think about how crazy their user base will be once the iPhone 5 comes out next month! This is a huge asset you can not overlook during the valuation process.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are smart people who are very good at what they do happier? - <AUTHOR> I consider myself average, and I have been struggling recently with that fact. I have a decent job as a Data Scientist, but I feel like I am not very good at it. I have been thinking of trying something which I am really good at, but I can't really find anything.<p>Do people who excel at what they do find better satisfaction in their work? <comment><USER2> Find out your strengths and focus on developing those, and just be good enough on your weaknesses.

When I first became a programmer I was obsessed with clean code and architecture principles but would lose every debate about it with my co- workers, and always end up rewriting my code to match some principle someone follows. This would happen at every job and became very stressful and unpleasant. Now I have accepted that I will never be a first class code architect and although I am very secure in my developer skills, I don't really get involved in coding debates. I am content to let other people do the architecting and just tell me what to do, and much happier for it. I found other strengths I have on the job.

<comment><AUTHOR> This resonates with me. I do lot of data work myself, but at the end, I get better inputs from my colleagues on how to proceed further. Lot of my colleagues are Phds and they seem to have knack of diving deeper into problems. This makes me afraid that I won't be able to lead a team or hold a managerial position later in my career.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> People who excel at what they do generally stay occupied enough to not inspect their current state of happiness too frequently, because they are usually preoccupied with work even when not working.

Think of it as the intersection between "No work is ever wasted" and "The reward for good work is more work." It's a messy amalgam of random ideas somehow coalescing into new products/features in the nick of time, every time.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think there is a fleeting sweet spot where your pretty good at it, but not so good it's become routine.

But, I think it varies by person. Some people are happy at factories, others ...

</comment><comment><USER5> No necessarily mate. They could be good at what they do but sick or can't find someone or or...

</comment><comment><USER6> No, that would be an extremely simplistic view of happiness

</comment><comment><USER7> You need a good balance of things that matter to you, actually. There's no secret to happiness. Good luck man.</comment>


VR timeout room for kids - <AUTHOR> I think I've asked about this before, but this is such a good idea. Some hackers must be doing this. Place your kid in a VR timeout room. A 10x10 room with a lock. Yes the kid is locked in the room. But he/she gets a two hour ride in the park, or educational talk about healthy food, point is parent can leave and monitor kid from phone. <comment><USER2> Sorry to throw rocks at your idea, but you apparently haven't experienced an angry kid: I would not hand them a 800$ - 1000$ device while they're throwing a tantrum. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> no man picture a "padded room" and a helmet like [http://www.daqri.com](http://www.daqri.com) We can make it safe and indestructible and it's the future of babysitting. VR babysitting is a trilion dollar industry.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Running pace calculator - <AUTHOR> https://pace.ninja <comment><USER2> Think it needs some more instructions. "26.2 in 4" gives nothing. Clicking on "marathon" gives nothing. Only when you've typed in a valid (with no real hints) distance does it tell you what's a valid duration.

Also it seems very confused: "100y in 16m" says "Zoom! That's almost as fast as a James Bond car heli-skiing in the Swiss Alps." I'm pretty sure he was going faster than 9km a day there...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yeah I've played around with instructions a few times but it could definitely be clearer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a former college distance runner. This is neat. I always converted pace in my head, but this would be useful as an app I could quickly check. Since it's presumably all frontend JS, have you considered enabling it as an offline app so people can keep it on their home screen? I've done this before and it's pretty easy - you just need to make sure to include a cache manifest listing all the files required to run offline, and a favicon set with icons for iOS/android (google "favicon generator").

In terms of mobile UI, it might be nice to eliminate the need to scroll to see results. See if you can fit the whole interaction in one screen (maybe push up the inputs to make room for the results).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! I'll see what I can do to make the results easier to see on mobile. I have thought about looking into making it offline; haven't gotten around to that yet but I'll prioritize it higher!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rounding to the nearest second would be fine. Including the pace for 400 meters would be nice for track-oriented users.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! That's super helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! I'm a runner and was unhappy with all of the pace calculator websites I could find—they were awkward, slow, confusing, couldn't handle arbitrary distances, or couldn't extrapolate, say, a mile pace into a 10k time. This is my attempt at something less terrible!

I'd really appreciate any feedback!</comment>


Gcc: Internal Compiler Error Bug Known for 10+ Years - <AUTHOR> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970 <comment><USER2> For anyone confused by the syntax: these are all about statement expressions. It's a GCC extension, not standard C.

[https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement- Exprs.html](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> So?

<comment><USER4> If you think a post is inappropriate for HN, please flag it and move on.

<comment><USER3> Not at all. I was hoping for additional background and context. Any particular reason to highlight this bug today?

<comment><USER4> Other than announcement posts, I think HN members general post submissions whenever they come across them. Looking at the bug report, it was updated today, so it likely caught someone's eye.

A comment consisting of the single word "So?" is dismissive, particularly in a text-only environment devoid of tone of voice or body language. It doesn't convey any of the interest you've shown in your follow-up.

<comment><USER3> The title chosen by the OP is devoid of tone of voice or body language too. To me, the OPs phrasing seems borderline negative. Sounds like OP is either ridiculing the project for not fixing a bug for 10 years or perhaps OP thinks a bug fix is owed to them.

<comment><USER4> Yes, the submission title could arguably be better. Given the bug ticket title is "mixing ({...}) with VLA leads to massive breakage", there wasn't a lot to work with.

However, the title of the submission is beside the point. All of the things you're including now would have been great as part of your initial comment. None of that is conveyed in "So?".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Binge Breaker - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-binge-breaker/501122/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> If anyone's interested in discussing this approach to things, Joe Edelman's made a couple of talks about what he refers to as Empowering Design (first two links here: [http://nxhx.org/](http://nxhx.org/))

He's made a prototype chrome extension of the app he describes in the second talk, which is designed to collect people's reasons for using things & their thoughts/feelings around those reasons. Here's the github and gitter: [https://github.com/livable/reasons](https://github.com/livable/reasons) [https://gitter.im/livablemedia/reasons](https://gitter.im/livablemedia/reasons)</comment>


Welcome to the Cyborg Olympics - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/welcome-to-the-cyborg-olympics-1.20353 <comment><USER2> [http://www.bedetheque.com/BD-Dragons-Tome-1-Les-jouets- olymp...](http://www.bedetheque.com/BD-Dragons-Tome-1-Les-jouets- olympiques-23759.html)</comment>