Forget about Kevlar: Liquid Body Armor Hardens on Impact - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/tech/liquid-body-armor-120405.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1 <comment><USER2> Non-Newtonian fluidics is at work here [0].

If you want to try it at home, mix cornstash with water (roughly 2 to 1) and create an Oobleck [1]. Guaranteed success with kids (and adults who remained young at heart).

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-newtonian_fluid>

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-newtonian_fluid#Oobleck> , [http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s...](http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEcQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYp1wUodQgqQ&ei=Gtd-T7vYIo- XhQefhrS7Bw&usg=AFQjCNHSC5eRptPCPrY72fG9FnSC5wUa7w&sig2=7Vjz3jJh1V1KfqOd- LWHaQ) , [http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s...](http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CE4QtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DyHlAcASsf6U&ei=Gtd-T7vYIo- XhQefhrS7Bw&usg=AFQjCNHRJVW9YlV37CefPKBWT2ENJDxz4Q&sig2=Ri- PMfdi1jSyTOFPwzOQaw) , [http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s...](http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFUQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metacafe.com%2Fwatch%2F371779%2Fthe_amazing_oobleck%2F&ei=Gtd-T7vYIo- XhQefhrS7Bw&usg=AFQjCNGZ1_tBwJNc1BHZzX5obv4eI0t5kg&sig2=lJ6wkxs2i39o5zZ6Mh6OHQ)

<comment><USER3> Another example of a non-newtonian fluid (Except, in this case, shear-thinning instead of shear-thickening) would be ketchup.

<comment><USER2> It explains some kitchen accidents...

* Tilts the bottle

It doesn't come out.

* Taps the bottom

Still nothing.

* Tap tap tap...

Nope.

* TAP!

Ketchup ocean in my plate...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good... the slow blade penetrates the shield... but look down. We'd have joined each other in death. However, you did seem to finally get in the mood.

<comment><USER3> I don't think kevlar protects against blades either

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's actually quite old, the idea of using liquids as a body armor. The problem with implementation was the weight of the liquids.

From this article, it has appeared that the problem was solved, since they mention that is a lot lighter and provides more freedom of movement.

<comment><USER6> [http://news.discovery.com/tech/winter-olympics-body- armor.ht...](http://news.discovery.com/tech/winter-olympics-body-armor.html)

Being used for skiers and mentions its use in body armor at the time (2010). I'm pretty sure I read an earlier article than that one as well, perhaps from 2006 or so but I can't find it.

I can't tell from this new article if they've improved the fluid, or the method of application to kevlar is the novel part.

<comment><USER7> first i saw about non newtonian liquids was a british science entertainment show.

and about a year afterwards they began talking about using the same as armour. just stuck in my mind as the kids show came first.

from 2003. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkS1ymQ73oc&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkS1ymQ73oc&feature=related)

from 2004. [http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/science-fiction- news.asp?newsn...](http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/science-fiction- news.asp?newsnum=108)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Question: If it hardens when it is disturbed, does it mean that it hardens if the wearer runs, for example? This would mean you still can't properly armor joints...

<comment><USER9> 500+MPH impacts are vary different than simple joint movements. Think of it like this, if you slowly move your hand though water you don't feel any resistance, jump off a bridge and hit it at 100MPH and the stuff might as well be concrete.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article does not show what the name of this new product is that I can find.

D3o has been out for a while and some of the videos are really impressive.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D3o>

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of the armor in Dune.

</comment><comment><USER12> I remember a Larry Niven fan in high school excitedly explaining the concept of armor that hardens on impact. <http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=927></comment>


Terminal/Shell integration – a proposed protocol - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/Per_Bothner/specifications/blob/master/proposals/semantic-prompts.md <comment><USER3> While we're at it could we please bring back file upload/download support, like terminals used to support 20 years ago. The lrzsz ZMODEM implementation actually still compiles on modern systems despite not having been touched for 20 years, and in any event server-side packages are readily available. I got it working with iterm2 (one of the few, if not only, terminals on macOS that let you hook escape sequences), but this is really something that should be built into terminals.

Once upon a time you could easily push print jobs through the terminal, too. Unfortunately the terminals didn't prompt the user before spooling the job locally, so you could send print jobs to logged in users using the write(1) and wall(1). Good times....

Which, come to think of it, is probably an attack vector people should keep in mind when drafting and implementing these protocols. Who here hasn't accidentally cat'd a file downloaded from the internet even though you hadn't yet resolved to trust it yet? Perhaps you were cat'ing it to vet it, but forgot to pipe it to od(1) or hexdump(1).

<comment><AUTHOR> I vaguely remember file upload/download using Kermit, but it's been so long ... I'm not sure this should be part of "shell integration", though.

However, I could be open to adding it to DomTerm, if I can understand the benefit and usage. What would you use this feature for and what should the user interface be? It only makes sense when connecting to a remote computer - but I assume you'd use ssh for that. In which case you could use zssh - <USER2> scp. Please explain why these are insufficient.

<comment><USER3> It's mostly about convenience and reduced friction. I can't count how many times I've been working interactively on a remote server, which can require non-trivial invocation incantations (e.g. different ssh config file) or multiple hops, and wanted to be able to quickly download some data or upload a binary. Of course you can _usually_ copy it to a file and downloaded it on the side, but the friction can be stressful.

For example, at my current job a shell session often requires logging into a k8s node through a bastion host, which in turns requires ScaleFT (which causes automation and configuration headaches), and from there maybe entering a container.

To use scp or sftp you need to follow that whole sequence again, which if you've got 5 terminal windows open and were bouncing around machines debugging a problem, can be a headache. Just getting to the same working directory can seem like a chore. I usually copy a file to /tmp if I'm gonna scp it, but that's not very secure (e.g. a previously unreadable file might become readable under /tmp because it was was 0644 but located under directories lacking group or other execute permissions, or because it was 0600 and owned by a user, like root, lacking ssh/scp/sftp remote access) and I hate myself for this habit.

zssh is problematic because you need to know ahead of time that you'll want to transfer some files, but in many contexts you would rarely know this ahead of time.

The server-side utility, like lrzsz, might not be installed, but you can install it without having to end your session. The link in the tool chain that necessarily requires widespread, upstream adoption to achieve the convenience dividend is the local terminal software.

Myself and, I suspect, a great number of developers would find much more value in easy file transfers across existing sessions then in being able to display graphics or even more featureful command edit capabilities. I think these newer semantic terminal extensions are an awesome idea (a friend and I almost tried our hand at it 12 years ago, actually), but I _know_ I would immediately and regularly benefit from in-band file transfer support whereas other improvements are more aspirational. If there's any chance this specification stands a chance at widespread adoption by mainstream terminal applications, then I pray that it directly address the file (or binary blob) transfer pain point, and the easiest way to do that might be to build on ZMODEM as lrzsz is already widely available in Linux and BSD package repositories.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you create an issue on the DomTerm git site ([https://github.com/PerBothner/DomTerm](https://github.com/PerBothner/DomTerm))?

There are two separate issues, I think: The protocol and the UI. Since DomTerm has extensible escape sequences to send and receive arbitrary data, it might make sense to start with a simple DomTerm-specific protocol and implement a UI for that. I.e. instead of sz/rz you would use a 'domterm put-file'/'domterm get-file' command. That would require installing the domterm command on the remote end, so not as convenient as sz/rz. (On the other hand, using domterm at the remote end enables detachable sessions, so that is the long-term plan anyway.)

Once the UI is there, if there is demand, we can add the zmodem protocol. There are JavaScript implementations that can be used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A few terminals support special escape sequences for "shell integration", which allows nicer display and features for shells and other REPLs. In addition to the actual proposed specification (in the main article link), I've written an article with screenshots ([http://per.bothner.com/blog/2019/shell- integration-proposal/](http://per.bothner.com/blog/2019/shell-integration- proposal/)) to show what functionality this proposal enables, based on the current DomTerm implementation ([https://domterm.org](https://domterm.org)). I welcome feedback both on the proposed specification, the DomTerm implementation, the feature set, and the blog article.</comment>


For $149 a Month, the Doctor Will See You as Often as You Want - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603374/for-149-a-month-the-doctor-will-see-you-as-often-as-you-want/ <comment><USER2> The TechCrunch article has a few more details.

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/17/anappleaday/](https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/17/anappleaday/)

"Forward also plans to offer vitamins and other supplements and wearables through the onsite store and Aoun said he would like to offer other alternatives such as acupuncture in the future."

Add-on services that wealthier clients will pay for are rather profitable. An ob/gyn office a friend worked in was making more money off the vitamins, supplements, botox and microdermabrasion stuff than anything else.

It sounds like they're going to use a model like the Minute Clinics in CVS too, just with a prettier image. They're hiring Nurse Practitioners who will probably see you most of the time for office visits and then there's a primary care physician overseeing everything.

It's not a bad idea and works great for most routine healthcare stuff. I'd love too see CVS or Walmart or whoever start a subscription service like this, as it would (hopefully) help to reduce the number of minor ailments in our ERs.

</comment><comment><USER3> I know a couple of hypochondriacs that actually might like this.

It also may make sense for the elderly.

For everyone else it doesn't seem to make much sense. I get a checkup once every year or two and that's pretty good.

<comment><USER4> I see your perspective, but you're essentially arguing the point that the only people who regularly use healthcare services are 1) hypochondriacs and 2) the elderly.

I think if you were to look at the data on who actually uses healthcare services and visits doctors in the US, you'd find a very different story. Certainly the elderly are a large portion of the overall cost, but I think to say "everyone else" only goes to the doctor once every 1-2 years is just not accurate.</comment></comment>


Google Launches Fusion Tables - <AUTHOR> http://tables.googlelabs.com <comment><USER2> Its crazy how much tech google can build that a normal startup couldn't, because these techs lack of a business model.

</comment><comment><USER3> The page won't load at all for me.

Can anyone provide a quick hint to what it actually is?

Thanks.

<comment><USER4> Think of it as any of the basic DB gui tool + visualization features: plots/graphs. You can create tables, import data from excel/csv, modify, view, visualize.

The one visualization feature I like is the intensity map - it plots it by geography. Something I always wanted to view on several data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why so many dupes lately? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=650239>

And this one has 15 points...</comment>


I hate Strong Female Characters - <AUTHOR> http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters <comment><USER2> Hollywood writes strong female characters because it can't write realistic women characters (something like 90% of produced scripts are written by men). All it can do is caricatures: Bella from twilight on one hand and the Kung-Fu princess on the other.

It's just the flip side of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test;](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test;) [http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-famous-films- th...](http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-famous-films-that- surprisingly-fail-the-bechdel-test.php;) [http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film- schools-teach-screenwrit...](http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools- teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/).

One of the shows I really like is Orange and Black. By setting the show in a women's prison, the writers are forced to develop a range of female characters who don't just sit around talking about men.

Tilda Swinton's character in Michael Clsyton is also great. So is the female Israeli soldier in World War Z.

<comment><USER3> Bella from Twilight was written by a woman, and consumed mostly by women.

<comment><USER4> Seems to me that Bella, and Twilight in general, are very anti-feminist. She's only strong when it is a plot-point to get herself into trouble where she can be rescued by a man. The movies struck me as the worst sort of teenage princess fantasy.

<comment><USER3> Of course, but the claim was heroines are only shallow because they are written by men.

Also Bella's case might indicate that it's simply not worth it for Hollywood to create deeper characters, because the shallow ones sell better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have not achieved gender-role balance, we just attributed to women all the qualities a capitalistic, highly-competitive society values in traditional men roles.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but with significantly less pay. New Zealand is doing comparatively well -and pays its females approximately 10% less than its males. Pretty pathetic stuff. [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have always thought that a lot of so called strong female characters in TV and movies are essentially, to a greater and lesser degree, a male submissive fantasy, and nothing to do with feminism or equal status.

The trick to getting it right might well be to just let decent female writers write female characters. Heh, at least then if we still get the same, it their fault!!!!

<comment><USER6> >it's their fault! Females can be their own worst enemies. My wife was recently asked at a job interview when she planned on having children. This is against the law here in New Zealand. The person who asked was female and the males in the room visibly squirmed as it was asked.

<comment><USER8> No offense, the men were thinking it. If the project had a hard deadline in a few years, any respective employer would think through this option. Failure to do so (under certain circumstances) could cost you dearly. This is despite "what the law allows you to say".

<comment><USER9> I like how you immediately made up a bunch of circumstances to justify it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > What do I want instead of a Strong Female Character? I want a male:female > character ratio of 1:1 instead of 3:1 on our screens.

It's going to be hard. What are the highest grossing movies? Fantasy/sci-fi and crime thrillers? That means you will have to put up with all the just ratio movies being fantasy, because it's hard to come up with a typical convincing crime thriller plot where there are as many women as men.

Realistic films try to portray the reality. If producers start following a feminist agenda, they'll have to sacrifice that. For example, are there many female undercover police officers? Are there many notorious female gangsters? What about bank robbers?

<comment><USER9> > Realistic films try to portray the reality.

Heh. No, they don't. We call it fiction because it's fictional.

What you're really saying is that, as a culture, we're incapable of believing something if it doesn't conform to certain expectations. Which, yes, includes being unable to believe that women might be undercover cops, might be notorious gangsters, might be bank robbers.

Funny story: that's _exactly the problem_.

<comment><USER10> > Which, yes, includes being unable to believe that women might be undercover > cops, might be notorious gangsters, might be bank robbers.

Really, are there many prototypes in real life? I suspect there may be enough to inspire a handful of movies, but after that it will become obvious that it's a niche film.

<comment><USER9> Why do you need prototypes? Do you personally know any undercover cops, notorious gangsters, or bank robbers? Is there something particularly gendered about these roles that requires a man to play them?

<comment><USER10> Most of the crime movies I like are based on real events. As many of those movies also tend to become classics, I think my preference is not that peculiar.

Do you really suggest that authors should be obliged to cast at least 50% of roles as females even when it does not reflect the reality being portrayed? Why? Just to make a case for feminism? Don't you think it would hurting the equality cause in the first place?

<comment><USER9> > Most of the crime movies I like are based on real events.

Tell you what. Provide some examples so that I can actually work through one and explain how it could have been adequately feminist without detracting from your entertainment. It would be helpful if it has a Wikipedia article detailing the original real life inspiration, since I don't know anything about this subject.

> Do you really suggest that authors should be obliged to cast at least 50% of > roles as females even when it does not reflect the reality being portrayed?

Nope. As long as any females present in the movie are portrayed with equal realism, it's fine. This is virtually never the case. I recently read a 2009 feminist critique of _The Wire_ which noted that despite Snoop and Kima, females were depicted fairly poorly overall. I love _The Wire_. But they were right.

One of the biggest hurdles with feminism in entertainment is that the problem isn't with _particular_ movies. It's that the _crushingly overwhelming majority_ of the movies are sexist. So you find that no one is willing to be the first person to decide to not be sexist, because you're breaking the mold. It wouldn't be terrible if only, say, 20% of movies were sexist. But the percentage is closer to 90, 95.

Just like video games are only for boys, so of course they're all male fantasies. Or comic books are only for boys, so of course they're all male fantasies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I used to think all the fuss about women being treated differently was in large part an exaggeration in this day and age. But then a few months ago I woke up from a dream vision of Storm (from the X-Men movies) being 'strong'. Weird because I've never even seen the movies. But the "strength" was forced and farcical in the absence of actual depth of character.

What struck me was that that was a fairly subtle observation, nevermind examples of e.g. discrimination that is much more obvious. So that vision raised the question of what _else_ had eluded my perception, and made clear that there is still a lot of progress to be made.

<comment><USER9> I don't understand what you mean by Storm being strong or not strong. She's a claustrophobic mutant with massive self-esteem issues that have to be overcome in order to provide effective team leadership.

The thing about Storm's story is that it's unexceptional amongst the X-Men. The essential narrative of X-Men is "teenagers have growing pains", so self- esteem issues are the stories' bread and butter.

The _other_ essential narrative, that of fearing and Othering a group for ambiguously poor reasons, is one which Storm could provide an interesting voice for if any of her writers weren't busy making her the token black girl. The dialogue between Xavier and Magneto is reminiscent MLK Jr. versus Malcolm X (not exactly, of course, but I'd be unsurprised if this was a direct inspiration).

<comment><USER11> As I said, I've never seen the movies (or read the comic books, for that matter), so I don't know what in the bonkers you're saying. It's just the fact that it was a female character being portrayed in a particular way. I probably should have been clearer about that.

<comment><USER9> I don't understand how you even know who Storm is.

<comment><USER11> Yea, it is weird. The dream was probably inspired by an X-Men trailer I must have seen, but I don't know why Storm was singled out. Though I've had enough practice with dreams to know the recursive detail-filling manner in which my brain makes them, so the answer is probably mundane, like maybe I saw two bright things and my brain knew that Storm's eyes glow bright so it filled in the rest with Storm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Strong female characters in fiction are often neither genuinely female, nor genuinely strong -- it's as though "strongfemale" is its own type of being. It's a character with a mostly-male personality, lots of curves revealed by a tight-fitting outfit, and the only bit of feminine personality that comes through is a flighty, childish crush on one of the male leads.

I know plenty of genuinely strong women. My wife, my mother in law, the principal at my son's school, and so on. These are people who can handle tough situations, who show genuine leadership qualities, and so on. I've also been delighted by a few strong female characters in modern media -- Shu Lien in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon; half of the main characters on My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic; Zoey from Firefly; Delenn, Ivanova, and Lyta from Babylon 5. One thing they all have in common is that they have real, feminine personalities and real strength that doesn't overshadow their personalities.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. The internet community has dubbed these the "Faux Action Girls": [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FauxActionGirl](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FauxActionGirl)

"Faux Action Girls" generally stop fighting when their wrists are grabbed, or when they get into the famous "Long-Hair Choke Hold" (erm... since when is hair a weak-point of the human body??).

I can come up with tons and tons of examples of "Faux action girls", but there are indeed plenty of genuine heroines.

Samus Aran (before the crappy game Metroid: Other M) was a true female Action heroine. She was rarely sexualized and _got shit done_. Its only in the modern era (ironically, after year 2000 or so) when she began to be sexualized with her Zero-suit and crappy love stories --- Uggghhh... Metroid Other M :-(

<comment><USER12> The negative type I was referencing would more appropriately be called "Action Faux Girl" \-- plenty of in-combat competence, but the only thing that identifies the character as female is her large bust. Her personality and dialog sounds like it was written by a man, possibly as a target for his own adolescent fantasies.

<comment><USER14> Do the main target audience for action films want to watch and listen to a female character who sports a typical "female personality" as written by a woman, though? I don't know if I want Monica from FRIENDS shooting nazis in WW2, I should think that'd kind of ruin the movie for me.

<comment><USER13> Magical Girl animes are pretty famous for emphasizing female personality stories. Madoka Magicka had romance and friendship. Of course, it didn't stop the magical girls from kicking ass once in a while: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDYea3qPzSU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDYea3qPzSU)

Here: Sayaka is struggling with the reality of her situation. She has recently learned that she has her very soul has been ripped out of her. Without her soul, it is harder for Sayaka to feel the pains of conflict, both emotionally and physically. (By the end of the above fight scene, she has learned to regenerate her body, since the absence of her soul negates all pain she feels when her body is attacked).

Her newfound ability to negate the feel of pain also negates her ability to feel intimate with Kyosuke. The implications of Sayaka's realization to "no longer feel any pain" ultimately drain on her psyche... and lead to an interesting situation regarding the romantic relationship between Sayaka and Kyosuke.

<comment><USER14> The anime genre isn't exactly known for its correct representation of the real world.

<comment><USER13> You bring this up when the subject includes Superman... a nearly invulnerable alien wearing Red and Blue spandex who can absorb the sun's energy, and who's only weakness is a rock that was found inside of his spaceship from when he was delivered to earth.

Yeah, right. Most movies aren't known for correct representations of the real world. But _good_ movies explore human emotions: romance, tragedy, adventure, etc. etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The SFC is a bit bland, but not as annoying as the 'hotshot.' You know, the incredibly attractive yet unattached 30-something career woman who just happens to be the best damn pilot/hacker/narco/sniper/pathologist/demolition- expert on the team, and a convenient love interest for the maverick male lead.

<comment><USER16> They simply don't appear to exist in the US (especially the west) but I've met a few in Europe, South America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, off the top of my head I can think of these female lead roles who are 'strong' and a whole lot more, including sometimes vulnerable, weak, contradictory and even capricious:

Carrie from Homeland // Sookie from True Blood // Sonya from The Bridge // Sarah from The Killing // Jackie from Nurse Jackie // Tara from United States of Tara

All of those are TV shows, not movies. But I think that is just my own bias, I have a hard time remembering characters in movies because I only get ~90 minutes of exposure, compared to 450-1000 minutes a year with TV.

One point in support of the argument though -- Sucker Punch which was primarily a female cast, had to cut the most pivotal scene in the entire movie where the lead choses sex & death of her mental self rather than fighting because, despite not being explicit, it was the difference between a PG-13 and an R rating.

<comment><USER3> Jodie Foster, Sigourney Weaver, Merryl Streep come to mind - are they the wrong kind of strong?

Miss Maple was a famous literary detective.

<comment><USER8> Great list. Add Judi Dench, Renee Zellweger, Cate Blanchett, Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, the list is quite big...

As I mentioned in another post, you see what you want to see ("victim mentality").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what McDougall thinks of Elementary, the Sherlock Holmes show where Watson is played by Lucy Liu. The show still has some of the problems McDougall mentions, but it's the most interesting and complex version of Watson I've seen.

(SPOILERS: Anyone who watched the entire season knows that there's more to be said regarding female characters, but there's no way to discuss it without ruining a major plot point.)

</comment><comment><USER9> A little more of the same thing:

[http://feministing.com/2013/08/20/the-skyler-white- problem-c...](http://feministing.com/2013/08/20/the-skyler-white-problem-can- we-accept-complex-female-characters/)

<comment><USER3> Funny sentence in the first paragraph: "I agree that female characters in pop fiction rarely get to be full, complex people".

Maybe she shouldn't be reading so much pop fiction if she craves complex characters...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Edit: Downvotes for what? Is it really enough to select a few movie posters with more men than women on it to confirm a theory?

How many thousands of movies are there? Does this analysis really hold any water at all? I seem to remember movies with all kinds of female characters. So I suspect that article just picks some unfavorable movies and makes a fuss.

Apart from that, there may be real world reasons for less women being "heroes", that is, putting themselves into the line of fire. The simple reason being that they don't have to.

<comment><USER9> > I seem to remember movies with all kinds of female characters.

I'd challenge you to provide an equal number of counterexamples, then.

> Downvotes for what?

Your last paragraph is blatant sexism, fyi.

<comment><USER3> "provide an equal number of counterexamples, then."

Equal number to what? What is the number we are looking at - did anybody even count anything here? I already mentioned several female action heroes in other comments, like Underworld, Resident Evil, Buffy, Dark Angel, Aliens, Aeon Flux, Nikita. If you only count movies that are actually worthwhile, the comparison to male hero movies is not bad (I can only compare to mostly worthwhile movies).

Also some things don't make sense, as somebody pointed out, WW2 didn't have that many female soldiers, so why would you expect 50% of WW2 movies to be about female soldiers? You could go on and complain that there are too many WW2 movies, but that is hardly convincing as a feminist issue.

"Your last paragraph is blatant sexism, fyi."

It's not actually. Would "women have boobs" also be a controversial statement? It is very obvious that it is easier for women to reproduce than for men, and it is statistically proven. Just because you can't see it (like boobs hanging off a person) doesn't mean some difference does not exist.

Men get to do the life threatening jobs because men are more expendable. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction (only about one baby can be produced every nine months per woman).

It doesn't mean that women can't do life threatening jobs, just that there is a reason they usually don't have to.

If it is sexist to assume that there are differences between men and women, then maybe it was sexist. Then I'd have to say I'd rather be sexist and stick to science than give up logic for ideology.

Edit: I wonder what is the feminist explanation for less women doing risky jobs? The patriarchy doesn't want women to be cannon fodder because they could start believing they can be aggressive and revolt against men? Or really just the media - if more female warrior movies were being made, women would be flocking to the military by the millions?

<comment><USER9> > Edit: I wonder what is the feminist explanation for less women doing risky > jobs? The patriarchy doesn't want women to be cannon fodder because they > could start believing they can be aggressive and revolt against men? Or > really just the media - if more female warrior movies were being made, women > would be flocking to the military by the millions?

[http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we- have-...](http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always- fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/)

<comment><USER3> That link isn't really relevant. It's about probabilities. Of course women can pick up a gun, or make fancy careers, or murder people, or abuse kids, or whatever else you can imagine. The likelihoods for them doing it is differrent than for men, and the reason is partially in incentives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe its the stuff that I watch, but I've just finished reviewing "Neon Genesis Evangelion" where Ritsuko describes the super-computer system that runs Nerv. The three computers are dubbed "Three Magi" (and named after the Biblical characters), and the whole base refers to their judgement in all things. The three computers were designed after Dr. Naoko Akagi's personality (Ritsuko's mother):

* She as a Scientist * She as a Mother * She as a Woman

It was Caspar, the supercomputer built after Dr. Naoko's personality as a "Woman" who defeated the 11th angel (with assistance of Dr. Ritsuko, the current maintainer of the supercomputers).

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-

In more recent games, Portal and Portal 2 are famous for the female character and female villain. GladOS, the evil supercomputer, is more than just cunning, she is meticulous, calculating, scientific. She is driven by experimentation and wants nothing more than to discover more about science.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>---

Saber, of the Fate series, is gender-crossed King Author who magically has teleported to the modern era. (In Fate series, King Author was always female, but history books have rewritten that fact). Cheezy, I know, but she's a great character. She is chivalrous, honorable, and a "fair fighter" above all. Though the series, she contemplates her miscalculations at the end of her reign. She was forced to kill her own child (Moldred), and her last memories of the era was her left dying on the battlefield (before magic teleported her into the modern era).

Ironic, because Saber is originally from a Japanese Visual Novel H-Game. But her character is deep, beyond just "strong". Granted, she is very very "strong". She is arguably the most powerful Servant who was summoned in the 5th War, and certainly stronger than the "Master" who summoned her. But her character goes far far deeper than just "I'm stronger than you".

Although, her interactions in the 4th War (Fate/Zero) were definitely better written. As Saber, the honorable king of knights, is forced to fight along side Kiritsugu (who is willing to use underhanded techniques, including ones that may kill and maim innocent bystanders).

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>

People tell me Laura Croft was a good character in the recent game. I haven't gone through it yet though, so I can't comment on it.

\</comment><comment>-----

I mean, yeah, fiction is filled with crappy _male_ heroes who are nothing but "strong". The article brings up Superman, and also brings up Buffy. (I argue Xena, Warrior Princess, is a better 90s example of a poorly written "strong" female character however). These are all shallow characters, be they female or male. It simply isn't fair to compare Sherlock Holmes against such crappy characters.

But entertainment is about finding and highlighting the best characters across all genres of fiction. It seems to me that the one who wrote this article just isn't familiar with any stories with interesting and unique female characters.

To which I respond: he's certainly not watching / reading the same stuff I've been seeing.

<comment><USER18> Merida (of Pixar's _Brave_ ) was proud, rebellious, impulsive; she endangered the well-being of those around her, and was slow to take responsibility for her mistakes. Not bad. :P

<comment><USER13> I dunno. It might have to me not really liking the plot of Brave (wtf was going on with the Bears???). I guess the character was fine, but mostly forgettable IMO.

A better character would be Aisling from "Secret of Kells". She was proud and impulsive Fae, a being of nature. She has lost her family in a war against Crom, the pegan god of Ireland before Christianity arrived. She assists Brendan, a Catholic Scribe in training, in completing his task of writing the Book of Kells (One of the first written Illuminated Bibles of Ireland. An artifact enscribed during the Dark Ages and survives today in the a museum in Dublin).

She wasn't the main character, but she's the "White Wolf", a Fae of the Forest, a wise being who has seen many things from many ages... and is the narrator of the trailer. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMPhHTtKZ8Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMPhHTtKZ8Q)

I believe she's the only character to fell a Viking (which makes sense. The rest of the cast are basically monks and scribes. Aside from the Vikings and Aisling, no one has combat abilities of any note).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Where do I begin? Great and terrible article. Riddled with victim mentality (bad), but desire to improve story telling of movies with a very narrow focus (somewhat good).

Here's an example of victim mentality, but not from the author's perspective. \- why are the villains in movies often English or German. Discrimination! \- why don't we have Australian heroes in movies? Australian actors are forced to change their accents and nationalities... It's disgusting... It's xenophobic!

Now take those examples with a grain of salt. I don't have a victim mentality that insists on x% of movie heroes being Australian ... It's superficial and mandates others on what they must think.

I remember a gay author who was told to add more straight characters - the one story of his that I heard kept on referring to a straight dog.. When I asked my gay friend about the importance of a "straight" dog, he explained the back story of the mandate... The dark side to political correctness.

Here's where I partially agree with the author. Black Widow and the other "Rambo in slacks" were pathetic characters by Joss Whedon - some of the worst I've ever seen. Arrogant, rude, completely self-absorbed and able to take down 20 "baddies" at the same time with their bare hands. Remember Stallone as Rambo? Well, Joss Whedon thinks that adding slacks makes Rambo a better character... Yeah, right. But rather than see "sexism" and "insistence of 50% female leads", I see "crap writing", "area for improvement" and "lost opportunity". Let the writers decide what gender a character is... But highlight opportunities for thinking out of the box (go Aussie heroes ;)

Having said all of that, I'm a huge fan of Legend of Korra. Korra is a believable heroine who retains her femininity and humility: brilliant writing. Lin Bei Fong: a tough as nails woman that shows compassion and vulnerability. Many writers and directors could learn a think or two from Di Martino and Koneitzko (the Korra writers).

One of my other heroes is JK Rowling. In her Potterverse, she chose to have a balance of 50% male/female characters that were fairly well balanced. It worked very well and did not detract from the story. If anything, it added credibility. It was important (at least to me) that the characters made sense, more than what their gender was.

In summary, the referenced article is a thinly veilled feminist (sexist) piece that dictates too much and is too narrowly focused (aka feminism). I agree that female characters are usually poorly written and I love when I see female characters written well.

Then again, I'd also love to see corporate bankers held accountable, NSA snooping to be reigned in and sexism (from feminists or otherwise) being denounced ... I have my doubts that any of these wishes will come true.

<comment><USER2> My 9 month old displays better logical reasoning skills than evidenced in this post.

> Here's an example of victim mentality, but not from the author's > perspective. - why are the villains in movies often English or German. > Discrimination! - why don't we have Australian heroes in movies?

The difference is, only a tiny fraction of people in the U.S. are Australian, while a slight majority of the population is women. A rational example would be if 90% of American movies had Australians in lead roles. In that situation, you'd be right to wonder what the hell was going on!

> thinly veilled feminist (sexist) piece that dictates too much and is too > narrowly focused (aka feminism)

Feminism = sexism is doublespeak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> That the article deals with fictional characters doesn't lend it much credence in my view.

Does the author "hate" Grace Hopper as well?

<comment><USER20> The whole article is about fictional characters, not real life female heroes.</comment></comment>


Have Apple crushed CS5 Flash to iPhone opportunity? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codecomputerlove.com/2010/04/09/have-apple-crushed-cs5-flash-to-iphone-opportunity/

<comment><USER2> One of the better company websites I have seen recently. Love the balance between cutesy and professional.</comment>


What's on the other side of the planet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=antipode+of+current+location

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm about 13,000 feet under the surface of the Indian Ocean.</comment>


Tips for designing your personal site - <AUTHOR> http://kev.inburke.com/kevin/site-redesign/

<comment><USER2> In short, he turned his landing page into a summary, turning a blog (or, at least the front page of the blog) into more of a profile page.

The home page remains clean, despite all the extra info. But to me, I don't see a huge difference...Maybe I'm just against textured backgrounds (ughh, it's horrible!).

<comment><USER3> Indeed, the textured background is pretty useless. It adds nothing significant to the visual presence of the site. All it does, at least on my monitors, is make me go, "Wait...that's not a solid color."

Personally, I would've played around with some colors and patterns more: making the headers darker and adding something in the background that would complement well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback; I'm not __that __happy with it either. I just didn't want plain white. I'll play around with some stuff this weekend.

<comment><USER3> In addition to my comment (as I didn't expect you to reply), I apologize if it came off a little /too/ straightforward. I just re-read my comment and felt that it might be a huge kick in the nuts to some people, though it's usually how I give feedback to myself and the designers I work with.

But anyway, good luck finding something you (and probably your users too :)) are happy with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> His homepage reminds me of this quite a bit: <http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, although his site is much prettier, and the post view pages look like dave.is or zach holman's site. It's a coincidence we are both using Interstate Condensed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Or you can take the hardcore approach, make your own CMS, your own SQLite database, search system, comments system, sharing functions, etc.. from scratch. On the plus side, I never have to install WP security updates! ;)

<comment><USER6> But you do have to keep on top of whatever security holes there may be in your own code, and fix whatever bugs pop up. Hopefully before a XSS vulnerability is exploited.

<comment><USER7> For a low traffic site that is updated a couple of times a month, how about static pages with some scripting on the client machine? I use

        text files -> bash script calls markdown and adds header/footer -> another bash script generates indexes -> lftp syncs

<comment><USER8> Jekyll/Octopress+Git <http://octopress.org/>

<comment><USER7> Thanks, I had seen Jekyll but this looks like Jekyll plus sensible defaults for a website with all the bells and whistles. My personal site has no bells, and I can't whistle too well. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This site is solid and quickly gives a good idea of the who the owner is and what he does. Love it. It would be great to combine this design concept and personal information with the indie web experiments (syndicating and aggregating your actions, microformatting the heck out of everything, etc) <http://tantek.com/> advocates for on his personal page. Together, it's a good model for the future of the personal web presence.

<comment><AUTHOR> Funny you mention that site, it was one of the ones I used as an inspiration...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Photo of yourself on the front page is just tacky.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you give me some more feedback? Is it just _having_ a photo on the page that's the problem or is it the photo itself?

I A/B tested a few photos on hotornot.com but I'm not sure that the photos that tested best there would do the best on my own site.

<comment><USER10> When I see a profile pic, especially in the top left, I immediately question whether the author is interested in producing good content or just self- promotion. And yes. The picture you chose is not the most flattering.

<comment><USER11> This is a harsh comment but there is some truth in it (the photo itself is nice!). I have to admit that I almost disregarded you as someone who is self- promoting. I'm glad I didn't, because this article is good, but bear in mind that other people might do. If it was me I might put a picture on the about page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like it. I've been dissatisfied with my personal website ( <http://yllus.com/> ) for a number of reasons, and you providing a child theme that would let me quickly switch over it just the push I needed. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm not really a huge fan of his home page. I'd rather the content be on the main page, that way you can easily skim through it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. The problem with having all the posts there is that it's difficult to order them in a way that makes sense. I argued against reverse chronological order in the post.

Maybe you could show a list of post titles and short excerpts, and clicking on any post expands the content in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you work at Google, and on the Search Quality Team, no less, then shouldn't your personal page be simply a search box, with maybe a tag cloud underneath, and potentially hosted by Google App Engine or Google Sites? I'm not being sarcastic. That's what I would do, if I worked there, and had lots of content which I didn't want to continuously re-prioritize (based on who my visitors were, or what I expected they would want to see at any given moment).</comment>


Show HN: Self-updating README with cat facts (using GitHub Actions) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/hlhielkema/cat_facts_readme <comment><AUTHOR> I was inspired by Simon Willison's blog post on building a self-updating README. Article: [https://simonwillison.net/2020/Jul/10/self-updating- profile-...](https://simonwillison.net/2020/Jul/10/self-updating-profile- readme)</comment>


Going rogue to try to fix the climate - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloverly.com/going-rogue-to-try-to-fix-the-climate/ <comment><USER2> Honestly, I support this guy. Most scientists and government bodies are still in the fearmongering stage trying desperately to decrease emissions without actually putting teeth behind targets when realistically that ship has long since sailed. It's better to be testing climate engineering projects like this now than to sit around and hope that things don't get as bad as every indicator points they will be.

Granted, there are better ways to go about this with more process, oversight, and government cooperation, but every time someone even proposes a similar test, it seems to get shut down immediately.

<comment><USER3> You support vigilantism?

<comment><USER4> Vigilantism is violating the government's (presumed legitimate) monopoly on violence.

Rock dust is not violence. Governments have no legitimate monopoly on action to protect the planet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I'm not mistaken the large sockeye run of 2010 was preceded by a large volcanic explosion in the Aleutians that similarly showered the north pacific with thousands of tons of minerals.</comment>


Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem – history does - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality <comment><USER2> And yet for some reason we don't see articles asking why the more dangerous and less glamorous careers don't have more women in them. Almost like the aim is not equality, but special treatment for women.</comment>


Takashi Amano, nature photographer and aquascaper, has died - <AUTHOR> http://www.artandsciencejournal.com/post/28764629782/takashi-amano-aquascaping-can-be-described-as

<comment><USER2> This is sad news. He was a lover of nature and a true artist. Really such an interesting man. I had setup two aquariums using his products and styling advice, they looked gorgeous in my house. They were freshwater aquariums but were vivid in many ways. Visitors to my home would comment to me that I had a "really nice saltwater tank." His techniques and products made freshwater aquariums special. He also made me notice the subtle beauties in nature a lot more.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The man that inspired entire generations of aquarists, applied the bonsai concepts to acuatic gardening and created a entirely new type of aquariums using freswater shrimps, passed from pneumonia at his home in Niigata at 61 years old.

[https://orphek.com/takashi-amano-aquascaping-guru-dies- at-61...](https://orphek.com/takashi-amano-aquascaping-guru-dies-at-61-years- old/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't think of anyone else who inspired me as much as Mr. Amano throughout my life (I'm obviously more passionate about aquariums than about coding). I admire his work, his way of viewing things differently and how he revolutionised aquascaping and turned it into an art form with its own philosophy.

The world was a little bit more beautiful than it would have been without him.

</comment><comment><USER4> I spent years poring over his books, writings and using his beautiful products to build my own 'Amano' nature aquarium.

A truly fascinating man, he was apparently seen as a bit unconventional and a rebel in his home country. I think a lot of trailblazers are indeed seen that way. I hope his company survives to live a long healthy life without him at the helm.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thank you so much for sharing this. I have a significant interest in Japanese gardens but I had never encountered aquaculture as shown here. It's a sad occasion, but beautiful work.

</comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for sharing this. I had a little tank a few years ago with "Amano" shrimp in it; I never knew about their namesake.</comment>


US to build six nuclear power plants in India - <AUTHOR> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/build-nuclear-power-plants-india-190314072408714.html <comment><USER3> India has an intricate history with nuclear technology. Both the Soviet Union and the US courted India in the 1950s, but in the end it was Canada who donated a design for the first Indian reactor that came online in the 1960s. The US assisted with building another. Indian testing of nuclear weapons in the 1970s drew a sharp rebuke from several countries and the US and Canada withdrew their assistance. This also resulted in the creation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export control regime to prevent nuclear proliferation. Cut off from exporters of nuclear technology, they slowly continued with domestic designs and new research. But their tremendous size and influence made them an attractive partner in geopolitical power plays.

In 1988 the Soviet Union and India announced they would build two new reactors, and the US fiercely protested at the time. The Soviet Union fell apart, and the Russians didn't resume the project for another 10 years, but construction eventually began in 2002. In 2006 the US and India reached an agreement to cooperate and the US lobbied for an exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which was granted. It quickly became obvious that everyone wanted a slice of the Indian nuclear energy market.

Disregarding climate change for a moment, it's clear that the energy demand in India is increasing, and despite a rapid rise in the deployment of renewables, utility-scale generation is still 75% coal. This contributes greatly to pollution. Local coal lower quality than elsewhere, requiring more per unit of power. Nuclear will be an important complement to renewables as the energy mix slowly migrates off of coal. Unlike the US, which is awash in cheap natural gas that's readily stored and piped where needed, helping to even out the mismatch between solar generation and demand, India has very little natural gas, so it can't afford to pursue a strategy that deemphasizes nuclear energy.

<comment><USER4> Missing from that history was India developing nuclear weapons in the late 90s - I imagine that changed the politics immensely.

Today they are an even more important and influential geopolitical ally, and the pollution argument you raise is as important as you say, but the concerns about a power supplying them with nuclear weapons ala the alleged Israel/US history is no longer a part of it (I assume).

...then again, I could be completely wrong in any of this. Comments welcome.

<comment><USER5> One concern is nuclear material being diverted from their civilian programs to weapons programs. As a major suppler of uranium, this has been an issue in Australia for the last decade. India wants Australian uranium, but they aren't a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It seems that the $ won out though, as Australia is now shipping uranium to India.

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly- mak...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly-makes-first- uranium-shipment-to-india/8722108)

<comment><USER6> it's worth understanding why India doesn't sign the non-proliferation treaty.

The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

afaik india has a good record of preserving its nuclear secrets, and not doing "proliferation" to other countries.

<comment><USER7> > The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, > Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either > all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise, and also to assist with civilian power efforts.

<comment><USER8> > Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise

and how is that going for the big players since the treaty was singed ?

<comment><USER7> Nuclear arsenals are a fraction of their former size, and "battlefield" nuclear weapons have been almost entirely eliminated. But no-one has signed up to take the final step down to zero.

<comment><USER6> yeah, agree with you on arsenal sizes going down.

As much as I would like nuclear weapons gone, I don't see it as being done to a satisfactory level that assuages India's concerns. I don't think anyone has made a real commitment to denuclearizing, akin to what South Africa did a while ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > India plans to triple its nuclear capacity by 2024 to wean Asia's third- > largest economy off polluting fossil fuels.

One has to admire the no-nonsense problem solving happening here.

<comment><USER10> I'll admire it when the fuel is loaded and the generators spin up. Until then, it's PR, not energy policy.

Aspiration alone is no different than failure.

<comment><USER11> > I'll admire it when the fuel is loaded and the generators spin up

Meanwhile, the United States continues to shut down Nuclear Reactors and prevent modern constructions out of irrational fearmongering.

At least India recognizes the benefits of Nuclear Power...

<comment><USER12> It's a trope that Nuclear is failing because of fearmongering. Nuclear is uneconomical, especially with renewable energy dropping in cost consistently. Is France, the long time operator of one of the largest fleets, afraid of nuclear - I think it is very experienced at managing nuclear, both old gen and the very newest gen reactors. And yet this article:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french- po...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-power-costs- will-rise-if-renewables-are-sidestepped)

France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said.

France should spend 1.28 trillion euros over the next four decades, mostly on clean power production and storage capacities, networks, and imports, according to a report from the country's environment ministry. If it does this, France would progressively shut down its 58 atomic plants and renewable energy would comprise 95 percent of its electricity output by 2060, up from 17 percent last year

<comment><USER13> "It's a trope that Nuclear is failing because of fearmongering."

I think it's a large scale astroturfing effort by the nuclear industry (which is huge, with a very small number of players) and the useful rubes who play along.

Nuclear may be a necessary part of the grid mix, but the panacea presented has never remotely been close to reality -- every build takes much longer than promised, and always, with 100% certainty, costs billions more than planned. Every build has maintenance that costs multiples of the claims, operation that is far more expensive, and with waste products that there is still no viable solution for, with an eternity of costs dragging them down. And nuclear only exists because the public subsidizes it by eschewing the need for real insurance (which would be prohibitively expensive otherwise).

In every economic sense nuclear has been an enormous boondoggle, and they stopped making them because every energy provider got wise. This has nothing to do with fearmongering or some sort of ignorant public -- quite the contrary, the overwhelming public sentiment had no problem with nuclear -- though that claim frequently appears. It's bizarre.

<comment><USER14> To postulate a detachment of the economics of nuclear from public perception very hard to justify in my opinion.

Certainly nuclear has been expensive to build and operate, and the industry is by no means innocent in this. On the other hand, it's extremely regulated, and the bureaucracy built up makes it very expensive, for example, to make a routine change during construction from the blueprints. No other industry is as regulated as nuclear.

During operation it's the same way. You can spend many person-months dealing with corrective action procedures that are mandated, etc. Many of these are considered by the industry to not actually affect safety. For instance the NRC finds like 22,000 "green" findings and a few hundred "white" ones per year. The white ones have low safety significance. Yet, the paperwork and follow-up is nearly crippling.

That's good right? Because nuclear is dangerous? Wrong. Commercial nuclear over its 60 years of commercial operation has killed as many people as coal (operating as designed) kills every single day. Every time a nuclear plant shuts down, more people die because of increased air pollution.

It's not rational. It's regulated so much because people are afraid of it. It's expensive entirely because of fearmongering.

<comment><USER15> It could very well be that nuclear is so safe because of all the bureaucracy that is required. Its safety record is not a good argument for abolishing the red tape. The fact is that failure scenarios of nuclear plants _are_ very dangerous.

<comment><USER14> Are they? Tmi was before the red tape was excessive and Fukushima was a huge meltdown from a massive tsunami. How many people died from the radiation released from both combined?

The answer is zero.

I'm not saying we go non-regulated. I'm saying the current regs may be too much. I'd argue that climate change is now more of a threat than more carbon- free nuclear plants.

<comment><USER16> Isn't Fukishima still leaking into the Pacific? And hasn't the world had to redefine "safe" measures and recommendations for pregnant women and children to abstain from ocean fish because of it? Long term effects could be very bad.

I'm actually in favor of more nuclear power in the U.S. mainland. But certain locations are definitely more or less safe than others. I'm also in favor of streamlining a lot of regulation, if those responsible for a human error based disaster (including managers up to the president/ceo of contsruction/management org) potentially being hanged as a result (not shot, not electric, not chemical injection, hanged till dead).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I count 45 planned reactors and 12 reactors currently under construction in China at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China)

Somehow the two under construction in the US ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant)) are estimated to cost $25B and are complicated by Westinghouse having declared bankruptcy. Others ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Units_2_and_3)) have been cancelled.

The same AP1000 reactor model was installed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station) at a cost of just $6b, although they were also 4 years late in becoming operational. But it does seem like other countries are capable of getting these large projects done while they whither and drag out in the US.

<comment><USER18> Inability to buid high-speed rail in US corroborates with this conclusion. It is not economically ineffective,it is US infrastructure projects huge inefficiency (sadly). If we check other industries, I think we would able to find more failed big projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Big mistake. The US nuclear industry is a wreck because of the lack of standardization and economies of scale, unlike, say, France.

India should also be investing in thorium reactors given its indigenous reserves and the inherent safety advantages.

Another issue is cooling: water supplies in Andhra Pradesh are highly erratic, and this will only get worse with global warming.

<comment><USER20> The water lost to cooling ends up as steam and then precipitation. So it doesn't exactly delete water, it just disperses it. Some of it will fall straight back into the same river systems. A lot of it would probably be absorbed into the local water table—which is valuable if the table is already being tapped.

Does anyone know if there's any modelling to show how widely such activity disperses water? How much of the water is expected to land somewhere functionally useless (e.g. into oceans)?

Or, if they built a desalination plant next to each nuclear plant, would they be able to compensate for the water loss efficiently?

<comment><USER15> The trouble with nuclear in regions where water can be scarce is that you can't cool your plant sufficiently and have to turn it off. You can take only a small fraction of a river's flow for cooling without kill all fish in the river. If the river is low on water, your plant can't be cooled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is great new not just from environment perspective. This is a move that significantly reduces dirty politicians influence in India.

Guess who is awarded most of new Power Generation plants in India since private sector started building power plants? It almost entirely politicians and their family members.

Example (Owned by Member of Parliament Galla Jayadev's Family) : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amara_Raja_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amara_Raja_Group)

</comment><comment><USER22> Meanwhile in the US SCE&G abandoned their two under construction AP1000s after Westinghouse went bankrupt and the remaining two that Southern is building at Vogtle are on life support. The only AP1000s actually operating are in China.

</comment><comment><USER23> Finally something that helps us avoid the beginning climate catastrophe. Nuclear power is of the very few effective means of working towards that goal.

</comment><comment><USER24> > The two countries have been discussing the supply of US nuclear reactors to > India, the world's third-biggest buyer of oil, for more than a decade.

I doubt that any nuclear capacity will significantly affect India's oil consumption. Nuclear typically displaces coal or gas.

<comment><USER25> India has one nuclear reactor's worth of diesel power plants (about 1000 MW). And 90 times more (90 GW worth) of all kinds of smaller diesel generators used as backups during power outages.

If the new nuclear electricity decreases the outages in the grid, I am sure it will almost 1:1 turn to savings in burned diesel.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_industry_in_India#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_industry_in_India#Electricity_generation)

<comment><USER12> It could replace it faster and cheaper by financing distributed solar or wind and batteries.

<comment><USER26> Sun and wind must be coupled with nat-gas, or at least that's how it works in the US. Either that or prepare for brown/blackouts.

<comment><USER12> LCOE estimates for at least the short duration gaps has solar+ batteries beating nat-gas peakers. This is pretty recent, in actual construction bids for IIRC < 4hr capability. Expect more encroachment onto basically mature nat- gas tech space as batteries and solar continue to get cheaper.

<comment><USER27> What about solar pv module and battery module waste?

What about the environmental impact of mining and extracting the rare and not so rare elements that go into making solar pv modules and battery modules?

What about the water use in the production of these modules?

What about the greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial scale processes involved in producing these modules?

What about the impact on wildlife and the environment through land clearance, habitat destruction, species dislocation, threats to bird species, …

\---

From the way people go on about solar pv and battery tech you'd swear they had zero externalities.

> It could replace it faster and cheaper by financing distributed solar or > wind and batteries.

Faster, probably. Cheaper, probably. But at what cost to animal and human lives, and at what cost to the environment? Coal plants can be built fast and cheap too. That's why we've so many of them.

<comment><USER12> You recycle them because they're waste that doesn't fall into super specialized radioactive processing categories:

[https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the- opportunities-...](https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the- opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling)

Energy dept on energy lifecycle of PV pays back in < 3 years of their typical 20-30 year lifespan. (and that's a span to 80% sustained production - <USER2> panels can go longer...)

I could keep answering all those questions point by point, but they're googleable and I feel there is a distinct lack of curiosity on those points...

<comment><USER27> From the link you just provided:

Millions upon millions of tonnes of e-waste just in panels, _no mention about batteries_.

And the industrial processes involved?

(A) Silicon based PV panels

(1) Disassembly of aluminium and glass parts

(2) Thermal processing at 500C!

(3) Physically separating cell modules

(4) Etching away silicon wafers (using acid!)

(5) Melting broken wafers (at what temp?)

And what % rates does that give you? 100% metal reuse, 95% glass reuse, 85% silicon reuse, 80% modules reused: all in all sounds pretty energy intensive and doesn't even result in 100% recycling

(B) Thin-film based PV panels

(1) Shredding the PV panels into 4-5mm pieces to remove lamination

(2) Separating solid and liquid with a rotating screw

(3) Removing film using acid and peroxide!

(4) Removing interlayers materials with vibration

(5) Rinsing the glass (using up how much water?)

(6) Separating and processing metals

And what % rates does that give you? 95% semiconductor material reuse, 90% glass reused: all in all sounds pretty energy intensive and doesn't even result in 100% recycling

And of course you have to build the reprocessing and recycling plants which is energy intensive and generates greenhouse gas emissions because construction is a major source of greenhouse gas emission.

And again, that's saying _nothing_ about battery waste.

But yeah, solar pv panels and battery modules: great solution …

<comment><USER28> To be fair, you'll have to compare this to the treatment of the fuel waste and the decommissioned plant. Especially the former problem seems to be largely unsolved.

<comment><USER29> Treatment of fuel waste is not really a difficult problem.

This is where swiss fuel waste is stored : [https://www.zwilag.ch/en/cask- storage-hall-_content---1--105...](https://www.zwilag.ch/en/cask-storage-hall- _content---1--1054.html)

An area less than half a (european) football stadium to contain 45 years of fuel waste for 4 nuclear plants. As of April 2018, there are 449 operable power reactors in the world. That means you need an area as large as 56 football stadiums to contain all the fuel waste in the world. Not exactly an impressive area. A solar park this size would output energy equivalent to less than a 10th of one modern nuclear plant.

*EDIT: changed a 1000th to a 10th. It greatly exaggerates the solar capacity, but it doesn't change the point anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here is an article about how Russia dealt with India's civil nuclear liability law. Perhaps, something similar was agreed for American reactors.

[https://www.powermag.com/indias-nuclear-liability-law- breakt...](https://www.powermag.com/indias-nuclear-liability-law-breakthrough- for-russia-stalemate-endures-for-u-s/)

</comment><comment><USER31> In the meantime Solar Power is one of the fastest growing industries in India. Government is targeting 100GW by 2022:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India)

India's history with nuclear power plants hasn't exactly been great. Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant faced tons of protests:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Pla...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

</comment><comment><USER32> Nuclear power gets a bad rap. Instead of abandoning the technology we should be focusing on how to safely contain a meltdown. I mean if we use boron control rods to absorb the neutrons, then why not encase the whole thing in a boron tomb that vacuum seals when radiation is detected?

<comment><USER33> modern reactors have core catching devices that are supposed to catch a meltdown and prevent it from going into the ground [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_catcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_catcher)

of course these have never been tried in an accident because both Chernobyl and Fukushima are very old reactors. On the other hand before Fukushima I used to see people say that the problem with Chernobyl is there was no containment vessel as there is in western reactors, then in Fukushima the containment vessel did melt through. So who knows how well the core catcher would work in practice.

<comment><USER34> The cores at Fukushima didn't "go into the ground" either. That doesn't prevent water in the core carrying radioactive material all over the place, once things are compromised.

<comment><USER32> True, but radioactive water is much easier to deal with than radioactive air because the hydrogen will capture the neutrons converting to Deuterium which is relatively safe and isotopes of oxygen are relatively shortlived. So as long as you can filter the heavy metals, it's in theory, less of a mess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm starting to get the feeling that all terrestrial energy generation should ultimately come from sunlight, and our nuclear reactors should be out in space, and on other celestial bodies, especially those further away from the sun.

But in order to do that, we need to further develop nuclear reactor technology by building utility-scale nuclear energy plants here on Earth--not because we need our energy to be nuclear, but because we need our nuclear energy to be reliable and efficient.

The cynical part of me is thinking that the US can apparently build nuclear plants anywhere on Earth except in the US.

<comment><USER36> Why? There is literally no reason to have nuclear reactors in space.

Building a modern reactor that is not based on 60 year old technology would make more sense, but regulation have made that impossible and the government itself has 0 interest in doing so.

<comment><USER35> Radiothermal generators already power satellites and space probes.

Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel currently available to us.

Wind and water power is unavailable when there is no atmosphere or weather cycle. Solar power requires more surface area as you get further from the sun. Solar panels and storage batteries have mass, too.

Combustion fuels have mass, and the rocket equation hates superfluous mass in objects launched to orbit.

A good engine for low-gravity propulsion would be a nuclear reactor that heats propellant to a very high temperature and then releases it at high velocity. That's not the sort of engine that could get you to orbit, but it does provide a lot of delta-V once you are up there. Propellant can be found outside of gravity wells, and a refuel mission carrying nuclear fuel is cheap to launch on a dollar per joule basis.

Nuclear waste does not endanger the environment if there is no environment to endanger. No one is likely to stumble across it accidentally. Criticality accidents would only kill the crew, if there even is a crew.

Habitats that are buried deeply to protect against radiation and to contain a bio-friendly environment may not be able to rely on solar alone. They would likely need a large mass of batteries to make it through storms and nights, and an RTG or a full-blown reactor might provide more reliable power for less mass.

<comment><USER36> Ah. Sure for propulsion I love nuclear reactor and NTR. But not to get it back to earth. haha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> India undoubtedly become power hungry, when I was visiting couple of years back power cut has become a norm which i don't remember when I grew up. There are so many wind mill installation around my hometown but at the same time there is so much opposition for nuclear power. [https://media- cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/a1/06/fa/...](https://media- cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/a1/06/fa/the-sky-the-clouds-the.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER38> While Afganistan is called the graveyard of empires, India is where emperors face their first miserable defeat.

There is a book titled "Confessions of an economic Hitman". The book is written by an ex-CIA agent to was an economist and would write a lot of fake reports claiming developing nations can grow much faster only if they invest heavily in infrastructure. Then US would generously offer loans in return of assurance that the contracts will be awarded only to American companies. Fe decades down the line those countries would be left holding the can and debt. This model failed miserably for USA in India because India' growth story after 1990s turned out of be true, India's hunger for infra actually grew. Enron who had a weird misadventure in India eventually had to file for bankruptcy.

While I am happy that India is tripling the nuclear energy capability I am unhappy that American companies are involved. It might end up badly for Indian but more than likely to Americans.

<comment><USER39> Your premise here seems to be "countries paying back their loans is bad for the companies that built the infrastructure", and I think I'm really going to need some more explanation for that one.

<comment><USER40> "When some of those countries were unable to service their debt we often said, "Ok, you may not pay now, but your country will vote to support the US at the next vote in the UN. Or you will allow the US to build a military base on your territory." Or something else of the kind."

[https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711161059158765-economic...](https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711161059158765-economic- hitman-interview-us/)

<comment><USER39> That seems like it would be _bad for the US_ not _bad for the companies in question_ , who got paid either way.

<comment><USER40> The gist I got from the article is that those companies would also get benefits, like cheaper access to resources or monopolies in their areas of operation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wish the US would build six new (clean, safe) nuclear plants in the US.

<comment><USER42> There's two under construction now in Georgia and one came online in late 2016 in Tennessee. But these are all additions to existing facilities.

The cost of new nuclear power is far beyond most traditional and even renewable power generation, so we're not likely to see many more any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Let's hope they got their waste management figured out

[https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/indias- nuclear...](https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/indias-nuclear- industry-pours-its-wastes-into-a-river-of-death-and-disease/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Could we get 6 new reactors in the US?

I'm actually serious... I don't get why we still have coal power plants at all. I know there are various risks involved, and disposal is another, but a lot of lessons have been learned and there's a lot of room here for this. It's just incredible that a couple of movies could set back nuclear power in the US for as many decades as has happened.

</comment><comment><USER44> Can somebody explain to me what happens with all the nuclear waste? How is nuclear power anything else but an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen? We pile the waste on and on, how do we deal with that?

<comment><USER45> When we burn fossil fuels a huge volume of hazardous waste just goes into the environment, and we know what it does then. With nuclear there is also a huge volume of hazardous waste, but at least it remains spatially consolidated and in our control. The consensus best solution is deep burial. Sure we might run out of space and create nuclear "landmines" over the very long term, but it's a preferable tradeoff to the much more imminent threats of the global warming.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High- level_w...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_waste)

<comment><USER44> How would you describe:

>and we know what it does then.

What is it that it does then?

<comment><USER45> Greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, poisoning the hydrosphere and biosphere, etc; not going to dignify the question with further details.

I don't understand why one wouldn't believe in the environmental dangers of conventional energy sources but be hyper concerned about the "environmental catastrophe waiting to happen" from nuclear energy sources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> What happens to the liability act?

</comment><comment><USER47> I wish all civilian nuclear power plants operate under UN [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build%E2%80%93operate%E2%80%...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build%E2%80%93operate%E2%80%93transfer)

<comment><USER48> I guess that would be the peak of globalization, when you wean off energy control from individual countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I wonder what types of reactors they'll be building. I've recently heard of Thorium reactors (and I don't understand enough about them) but I'd love to see them start spinning up around the world to see if they actually are as good as they seem.

</comment><comment><USER50> Hope they don't built it in Tamil Nadu. We already have two.

</comment><comment><USER51> This is exciting I wonder if Westinghouse will ever use some of the technology that Transatomic developed.

</comment><comment><USER52> Hopefully nuclear power can help India grow more greenly and catch up economically with China.

</comment><comment><USER53> India is the key ally to all developed countries in the western world, be it the Rafael Deal for fighter aircrafts to other countries like Israel agreeing to setup defence manufacturing in India all are keen to be engaged with India. US especially after Trump became president has been very much Pro India as opposed to Obama who was definitely anti-india and Pro Pakistan, If the US has to tame china it needs India , these geo political equations I believe favours India and that is why you see all these things happening now</comment>


Article: NASA Solar Sail Visible Over Parts of U.S. and Canada - <AUTHOR> http://www.space.com/10975-skywatching-tips-nanosaild-solar-sail.html

<comment><USER2> According to wikipedia, I think this is technically the NanoSail-D2 satellite as the first was lost on launch.</comment>


Analyse Asia 48: Decoding the Asia Landscape with Jamie Metzl - <AUTHOR> http://analyse.asia/2015/07/26/episode-48-decoding-the-asia-landscape-with-jamie-metzl/ <comment><AUTHOR> Synopsis: Jamie Metzl, currently a senior advisor to Cranemere LLC & a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, joined us to dissect the economical and geopolitical landscape of Asia. Drawing from his illustrious career and experience in foreign relations and international diplomacy (Asia Society, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Senator & now Vice President Joe Biden, Department of State, National Security Council and United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia), we discuss the slowdown of the China economy and the recent equity bubble burst, the eventual fate of North Korea and how it affects South Korea if reunification ever happens, and Japan's population decline & its impact to the region as a whole. Last but not least, we have a short chat on Jamie's fiction novels and yes, there is a sequel to "The Genesis Code".</comment>


Ask HN: How do you begin to build your new project? - <AUTHOR> I'm embarking on my first "decent-size" project - I know that's quite hard to define with the large variety of HNers.
It's a Rails app. So far most of my planning has been on paper, which I like as it is very quick, accurate and I can do it almost anywhere.
However it's hard to edit (pencil/eraser is fine for small areas - but what about moving large parts of a layout/diagram), impossible to search and not backed up anywhere.
So how do you guys do this? I have tried Visio, Gliffy and one or two others for loosely "UML" diagramming - just to get models and their relationships down, but I can't find anything I get on with.
Bonus question; what is your guys process for beginning a new project? Do you plan user flows/stories and base your models around those interactions? I'm looking to learn from you guys and your experience so any info in this regard would be fantastic, thankyou! <comment><USER2> I work full time, so my projects are done in evenings, on the train etc.

I have an A4 sketch book and pencil I carry with me pretty much everywhere. Ages before i start coding, I'll be sketching out idea after idea for the project; everything from screen layouts, data flow, bits of text (If a good idea for some working comes up), names, db design etc. I've tried doing this stuff in software, but nothing comes close to pencil+paper for me

These drawings/notes aren't means as permanent artefacts, but rather as an aid to helping me think through the idea and flesh it out. As I build up the idea I spend a lot of time playing with it in my head (I'm very visual and seem to have a good ability to mentally model things)

When I have a few hours free, I'll start coding, but then often only until I find the next thing I hadn't considered and then I'll head back to the sketchbook.

When coding, I start with the back end process first. I also use Rails, but I'll build my models first, and I make them so I can control them completely from the console. I don't start building the UI until I'm happy with the way everything sits together.

Then, once things are nicely underway and most of the major problems are sorted out I'll lose interest and start on something new (actually, at any one time I've usually got a minimum of 3-4 project somewhere in their lifecycle between initial enthusiasm to abandonment)

<comment><USER3> Wow, nice twist on the last sentence. I have that problem too: the project is no longer a challenge and so its not interesting.

<comment><USER4> It's not a "problem", it's a gift.

Engineering the project is the hard part, but for a lucky some of us, it's the _fun_ part. "Polishing" your project, on the other hand, blows. Who wants to spend the day building flow for user account cancellation or tweaking the registration page, when you could be optimizing code?

The win-win situation here is clear: Do the engineering that you love & pays the bills, hire cheap talent to do the cheap, boring parts. Because, at least speaking for myself, if I'm being honest a $12 hour designer would do these "menial" jobs _BETTER_ than me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's how I get started:

1\. Write down succinctly who it's for and what problem it solves.

2\. Write scattered thoughts down on a notepad, discuss with stakeholders, consider variations on solutions.

3\. Inevitably you end up with a feature list, but try to abstract those to "customer benefits", refactor your feature list.

4\. Capture this list in a text file under version control.

5\. Draft a data model on paper / in an editor (using ORM, ERD or whatever you are comfortable with), then walk possible use cases against the data model.

6\. Make changes to the model until it works for every use case considered (And I mean EVERY use case, NOW is the time to play with your data model).

7\. Once that seems OK, I sketch (on paper) then build (in code) the UI for the simplest AND the hardest use case.

8\. All of that takes relatively little time, yet gives you a pretty good starting point without any wireframe or data modelling tools.

9\. Show it to someone (i.e. do a demo); it won't work as expected.

10\. Refactor and iterate. When the initial use case is working (demonstrated to some one else), built a prioritised list of __new capabilities __for your software.

... now we're started.

<comment><USER6> Exactly - to add to your #4, I start a repo for the project and shove the entire thing, docs and all into it when I start creating anything new.

Automation here is your friend - I scripted it to create a new repo, create a remote branch to a private git server for backup, make a standard directory structure, etc. for various project types.

The fundamental thing about this is making a ritual out of your best practices - the list above is a great example of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it actually depends on the language that you use. When I used languages based off C, that didn't lend as well to rapid prototyping, that didn't have a good repl; I would do a lot of design work on paper. I usually ended up over engineering things with this approach though.

Now that I think and write in Lisp, I find it is a much better approach to draw up one or two UI frames and then code up the UI with hard coded data. Then I just slowly build the hard coded data out and the actual app in. I don't actual engineer much at all. I just let it flow out. This leads to a much more efficient design process in terms of the time to quality ratio.

It also seems to me that every time I try to program bottom up on paper, I do a terrible job at it. It works much better when I have actual code.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's interesting how everyone builds their model's first.

I used to but found it less rework if you build the GUI first. That way you build your model knowing exactly what is required.

But I too use pen and paper. Nothing quite compares to it, just yet anyway :)

</comment><comment><USER9> I know you were asking about design, but the first thing I usually do with a new project (usually commit #2) is to make sure the deployment process works.

Then I usually setup a CI service that runs the specs on each commit, and deploys to a staging/demo server automatically if they pass.

The reason I do this first is that deployment becomes more difficult the further into the project you get. It's easier to work through deployment issues incrementally rather than just before launch, or when you want to demo the app to someone outside.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is something I was considering. I've never personally dealt with the full deployment process by myself with Rails, so I was going to look at this when I get to coding. I wasn't planning on CI, but it's something else that I'd like to do.

If you use Rails, any recommendations for CI? Thanks for the comment.

<comment><USER10> You could run something like Autotest for continuous testing & quality control: <http://ph7spot.com/musings/getting-started-with-autotest>

You can run Capistrano for continuous deployment: <https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano>.

If you wanted to go the extra mile you could also setup different staging environments on your server: [http://cjohansen.no/en/rails/multi_staging_environment_for_r...](http://cjohansen.no/en/rails/multi_staging_environment_for_rails_using_capistrano_and_mod_rails)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most recent wireframing tool I have used is Google Docs. Search the templates for 'wireframing' - there are a lot of good template sets for the task (browser buttons, iPhone, etc.)

See: [http://mortenjust.com/2010/04/19/a-wireframe-kit-for- google-...](http://mortenjust.com/2010/04/19/a-wireframe-kit-for-google- drawings/)

<comment><USER12> Didn't know about this. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> My current workflow for homegrown projects:

\- brainstorming in a mindmap (for ideas); I keep it for as long the project goes

\- sketches on paper

\- once the ideas get clearer, I use acunote to create iterations/sprints (only what's really planned in there)

</comment><comment><USER14> A few pieces of paper that contain classes, some UI screens, some other bits and pieces, stuck to the wall above my monitor.

Alternatively, a big whiteboard with all that stuff next to my monitor.

Purpose is to have all the reference material available for glancing at during coding.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best place to start? - <AUTHOR>

I'm relatively new to programming. I'm fairly experienced at C and basic HTML/CSS, but that's about it. I'm not really sure where I should go from here. Should I learn C++? Ruby? Javascript? What's the next step you would take if you were in my place?<p>Any thoughts you might have, please share. <comment><USER2> It depends on what you want to do. Do you just want directly marketable skills? Then learn PHP, Perl, Java, JavaScript, C++, Ruby or Python.

On the other hand, if you want to increase your personal skills then learn something radically different. A variety of Lisp such as Scheme, Common Lisp or Clojure would be one option. Another option would be OCaml or Haskell. These are truly mind-expanding and will help you in the future.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you were my protege I'd tell you to learn Lisp. If you were my friend, I'd recommend you learn Ruby on Rails.</comment>


Obama may cancel Moscow visit over Snowden row - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/usa/obama-moscow-trip-cancel-281/

<comment><USER2> I actually like Putin better, these days.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on Building a Web App/SaaS. - <AUTHOR>

Hey, fellow hackers, I'm a CS grad with a decent amount of programming knowledge and experience with Java/Python/PHP/JS and a few DBs - SQL and a few NoSQL stores.
I want to build a service which allows for user sign up (form submission / CGI-stuff), data collection + storage + (DB stuff - NoSQL stores or MySQL) and displaying that data for each user (with some data viz). I've some decent background in UX/UI design, and have a clear idea of how I want the front-end to be in HTML5+JS.
I've been looking at various MVC frameworks in Java to build something like this, but I've no experience building on them - Spring, Play, etc. And probably Hibernate for ORM. I do plan on having a REST-based API so that I can have other clients in the future.
How should I architect it, and where do I begin? What would I need to educate myself on before embarking down this path. I seek your valuable advice HNers. Thanks in Anticipation. <comment> t-crayford Look at dropwizard.codahale.com, it's probably closer to what you want eventually.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion, seems interesting. Any examples which have used Dropwizard, Tom?

Is the site itself inclusive on what I'd need to know if I plan on using DropWizard? Who would be an ideal candidate to use DW, and how do I educate myself enough to be able to use this effectively and if possible contribute back to the project itself.</comment></comment>


Quantum Dots Encode Vaccine History in the Skin - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/imaging/quantum-dots-encode-vaccine-history-in-skin <comment><USER2> Will patients have access to a reader that decodes ALL of the imprinted information? Is there a way to erase the information? What other information will be stored unrelated to medical history?</comment>


The largest climate rally in US history tells Obama not to be a fossil fool. - <AUTHOR> http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201302182241-0022553

<comment><USER2> Hate to be another to point this out but: does it matter at this point? Even if we turned off the USA, China and India would still tip us far past 400ppm by 2050.

Those two, as well as most of the developing world, seem to have _zero_ interest in doing anything whatsoever about CO2. The entire movement to curb CO2 seems exclusively American and European, with a small amount of participation from Japan.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best pricing pages you have seen? - <AUTHOR>

We are working on presenting our pricing page better and are looking for some good examples. <comment><USER2> From my personal library, here are two articles you may find helpful:

10 Principles of Effective Pricing Pages [http://conversionxl.com/10-principles-of-effective- pricing-p...](http://conversionxl.com/10-principles-of-effective-pricing- pages/)

Doubling SaaS Revenue By Changing The Pricing Model [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/08/13/doubling-saas- revenue/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/08/13/doubling-saas-revenue/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think 37signals did a really good job of a pricing page. [http://highrisehq.com/signup](http://highrisehq.com/signup)

Keep it simple. Give people a few options to pick from. Tell people what the most popular option is. You could always A/B test different versions to see what is working.

</comment><comment><USER4> For a Saas service?</comment>


What job title should I be aiming for? - <AUTHOR> I've been consulting as an independent consultant (full-stack dev/software architect/lead technical point) with a national company for several months. They _really_ want to hire me.
In order to set aside my independent consulting practice, they're willing to offer a nice salary and title. Since the IS/IT department is so small at the moment, there's room to really choose my title.
My role will involve high-level architecture, and detailed implementation. It will also involve working with c-suite execs and product strategists to transpose the product vision into code, and guiding the companies technological decisions.
I've entertained the titles CTO, Chief Architect, CEA (Chief Enterprise Architect), etc. I want to  choose a title that fits my responsibilities, as well as a title that is level with the high salary I'm aiming for. In this area of the country, "Senior Dev" or "Software Architect" aren't "high" enough to match a high salary, nor do they truly match some of the roles that I encompass.
What are your thoughts on the title that I should aim for? What "lofty" role still involves direct implementation of code? In this regard, the IS/IT department is kind of like a startup. <comment><USER2> Whatever you want your next job title to be.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Big Boss"</comment>


Dangerous People - <AUTHOR> http://rdegges.com/dangerous-people

<comment><USER2> As an undergraduate student studying Computer Science, I completely agree with this post. One of the main reasons that I chose CS is that programming/design knowledge has immense value in the world today, and it is one of the few areas in which a person can create something incredibly valuable with little to no barrier to entry.

I especially enjoyed this quote: "With a laptop, an internet connection, and 50$ you can bootstrap even the most abitious technical projects by yourself."</comment>