Problem Solving with Algorithms and Data Structures [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/compsci105s1c/resources/ProblemSolvingwithAlgorithmsandDataStructures.pdf <comment><USER2> I like the careful review of python at the start.

The "stories" in the writing seem good. If you want to learn by reading somebody explain how to solve a problem, I think this is a good text for you.

I don't think there are enough exercises... with a title of "problem solving..." I was expecting more focus on (challenging?) problems in the exercises. If you want to learn by thinking about how to solve problems, this is not the text for you.

I could not find a comparison of the orders of various operations on ADT's. I thought I would find something like that in Chapter 3. I think that omission makes it hard to understand the big picture.

Details seem raw:

* The table on page 9 shows the Pythonic not equals operator is `=!`.

* 2.7 Programming Exercise 4 should really be specifying linear _in what parameter(s)_ for clarity. The operation is O(nk) presumably. Exercise 5 assumes that n = len(data) from Exercise 4. The claim that O(n log(n)) < O(n k) depends on k and n, but that isn't clearly stated.

* 3.14 Programming Exercise 7: this exercise has in mind only one particular solution. Does not a double ended queue have O(1) enqueue and dequeue?

<comment> i-am-curious > Does not a double ended queue have O(1) enqueue and dequeue?

Yes. It's a basic data structure implementable using vector or linked lists.

When using the linked list, you can even do erase in O(1) assuming you have the pointer already. This also turns out to be super useful

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is an updated and interactive version of this book here [https://runestone.academy/runestone/books/published/pythonds...](https://runestone.academy/runestone/books/published/pythonds/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> You might find the Debug Visualizer extension for VS Code helpful to visualize algorithms and datastructures [1]. It kind of works with python, but works best with Javascript/TypeScript.

[1] [https://github.com/hediet/vscode-debug- visualizer](https://github.com/hediet/vscode-debug-visualizer)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the mentioning this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not impressed with the dynamic programming part, which is what I'm trying to learn right now.

It simply lists it under recursion and after skimming, I see no mention of bottom up DP (iteratively) and there's only one problem about it.

I'm still looking for a good resource, but this one gave me quite a bit of insight [1]. Since it reuses the same problem over and over again and tweaks it, which gave me a better view of DP.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTjRGe0wRvI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTjRGe0wRvI)

<comment><USER7> "Algorithm Design" by Kleinberg & Tardos is pretty good. Chapter 6 is its Dynamic Programming chapter, and there are 9 examples in the chapter with pseudocode and analysis.

Some of its dynamic programming examples: Weighted Interval Scheduling, Segmented Least Squares, Subset Sums / Knapsacks, RNA Secondary Structure, Sequence Alignment (aka: Diff), Shortest Path in Graphs.

All in just a ~50 page chapter.

The other chapters on Network Flow, Greedy Algorithms are also excellent.

"Algorithm Design" is an advanced text, but that's how it covers more material than easier textbooks since it won't waste your time on the beginner level stuff.

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

Honestly, given the beginner-nature of the textbook here, I think they're doing a decent job. Dynamic programming isn't as fundamental as the stack / queue / sorting / searching etc. etc. that's being discussed in "Problem Solving with Algorithms and Data Structures".

Dynamic programming is definitely something that should be reserved for more advanced textbooks (with maybe, at best, an introduction to the subject at this level).

<comment><USER6> > Honestly, given the beginner-nature of the textbook here, I think they're > doing a decent job. Dynamic programming isn't as fundamental as the stack / > queue / sorting / searching etc. etc. that's being discussed in "Problem > Solving with Algorithms and Data Structures".

Ah, I think I set my expectations wrong with regards to the level.

My bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What I love the most about this is the explicit showing of how to build the various data structures. Many DS courses will make implementing the structure the homework assignment, but the reality is the algorithms have been implemented to death online and the real benefit comes from analyzing which is most optimal. It restricts the possibilities for automatic grading, but students at this level should be progressing towards the "Evaluate" phase of Bloom's hierarchy any way. They should be getting practice assessing the benefits between data structures, not trying to reinvent the wheel.

That said, many job interviews expect people to be able to implement data structures on the fly. However, I'd say that's more a limitation of the interview process rather than an issue with the textbook.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't want to be sarcastic, but, with what else can you solve problems if not with DS and Algos? Is there any other methods that we do not know of?

<comment><USER10> Lol. Like, the rest of math? Geometry? Constructions? Counter examples? Probabilistic methods? Non-computable theorems?

<comment><USER11> I always felt Math use data structures and algorithms. Properties of whatever you manipulate let you have some sort of known structure with proven theorems, then you use these theorems one after an other until you get to where you maybe "want" to be .

<comment><USER12> It seems to me that mathematical objects are often more abstract than data structures are required to be. For example, you can reason about a triangle without specifying how you would represent it. You could represent a triangle as a list of three points, or as a list of side lengths and angles or even a list of angles which forces you to reason about the class of similar triangles with those angles. In fact, to represent certain algebraic structures is an entire subfield of algebra (representation theory) distinct from the parts of algebra that reason about those structures without trying to represent them.

<comment><USER13> Representation theory is about study of functors between category of vector spaces and category of interest, which is quite different from the problem of different representations of a triangle.

<comment><USER12> Different how? They are both ways of making abstract descriptions of an object more concrete, which is analogous to the job of a programmer designing a data structure to concretely describe an abstractly specified computational object.

My point is just that in math, you can reason about an object even if you can't concretely represent it. For example, you can figure out properties of a number or function that you don't know enough about to write down. But in programming you can't use an object unless you have a concrete representation of it, and often getting that concrete representation (in both math and programming) requires a kind of work which is quite different than the work of abstractly describing or specifying it. So it's maybe not always appropriate to call an abstract description of a mathematical object a "data structure", since often it's more analogous to (say) the interface of an object than it's implementation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am going to try and find time to read more of this. I really enjoyed a quick session with it. It felt like a model of clarity and good organization.</comment>


Ask HN: Very Bad Situation at Work – Need Advice - <AUTHOR> 	Dear HackerNews community, at the moment I'm facing a very bad situation at work. As a little background, I was contacted by a recruiter from my current employer. Everything went well initially, but then it took more than a month to get the contract (first major red flag). I signed regardless, the alternative would have involved management of close to 25 people ehich I did not want. The first couple of weeks everything was fine, then I had the first situation where my boss didn't get a point out of my domain (not his). Then everything went south, he provoked me at evry opportunity, my work turned overnight into shit and it all culminated when he threated me with unspecified consequences should he ever have the impression that he couldn't trust me. A follow-up with his superior went nowhere, it was just a misunderstanding and I should self-reflect on my behaviour, I have to stay for the next year at my current team as well. I'm down on my nerves and my family is suffering. I could afford some time without income, so. What can I do? <comment><USER2> Control what you can, look elsewhere for another job, then quit.

If your company is unwilling to change, change your company, find another job.

And priority one is your family!</comment>


A little search tool for C++ headers - <AUTHOR> http://www.whichheader.com Hi! I've made a little online tool for searching through C++ headers. It's pretty basic; You enter a search term and it presents a list of header files that match the term, and the libraries that they belong to. If you click on a result, the actual header file is loaded.
I find it handy, hopefully others will too.
There are definitely some short-comings that I need to fix (I need to include boost, and make it work with IE), but I'd really appreciate any feedback to improve it. <comment><USER2> Good idea.

But what is the button for? It does not seem to do anything.

Also, it would be useful to be able to restrict the search to finding the definition of the given term.</comment>


Startup Studios – are they a thing? - <AUTHOR> http://writing.makeshift.io/pieces/startup-studios-are-they-a-thing <comment><USER2> I quit my job a month ago. Started a startup studio with a few buddies (business, sales, marketing, artists, developers, designers, product engineers). In our first month we made 50k~ish. We have a vodka brand we did videography for, a few startups we did product design for, UX, mobile apps, websites, everything.

Also allows us to exponentially build our portfolio and spend capital on expanding rapidly into new areas.

After the first few startups you start to get a sense of what your internal process looks like, this allowed us to ship products faster and charge more too.

This all started when I was working on a mobile app startup (single app) with my buddy and looked at him and asked "what if we sold shovels in the gold rush instead of competing in it?"

Best decision we ever made.

I should probably write a blog post.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds interesting. I'd read it. At my company Makeshift we had a similar idea (the shovels) - hence our strapline 'we make tools for startups'

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is getting ridiculous. We're having full on conversations about what to name our already buzzword saturated offices. This studio is doing the same thing I've seen incubators do which is the same thing smart companies have always done. Provide good places for people to work hard.

It will never matter what you call the office as the terms are arbitrary. Find a place to work and then just work hard. Call it the immaculate teakettle house if you like, just make money while you do it. What is in a name, an office by any other name is still where I code.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmmm... I've never heard the term "startup studio" before, and this post didn't really define it before diving into the nuances of it.

(i.e. I feel like I started reading about horsepower and power-to-weight ratio before being told I was reading about a car.)

... Does anyone else know what a "startup studio" is?

<comment><USER5> Looks like they want to take the concept of a movie studio maybe. There are some similarities, I think, between the two industries, mainly in that they are both really about producing hits, but I dunno, it's also a bit of a stretch. Once you're done with Post-Production, you're pretty much done. Stories don't require much maintenance.

<comment><USER6> There's a lot that happens with the artifacts after post production but it's not very glamorous. Initial distribution, licensing, merchandising, negotiating rental and streaming windows (i.e. more distribution), disc releases, special editions, etc etc.

Stuff like that for franchises like The Hobbit or the Twilight series can easily last a decade. There was recently an article about how The Shawshank Redemption is still being distributed and is still amassing residuals 20 years down the line[1]. Operations don't stop after opening night.

[1]: [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230453610...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304536104579560021265554240)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but you're talking about Operations, not Production. You don't just keep adding new scenes to a film once it's done, or fix bugs. You make sequel if people really want it that bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well they are certainly a thing when you can point out examples of them aren't they.

Perhaps this structure works best in cultures that have difficulty accepting failure. Moving on to another project when one isn't working out is easier than admitting defeat after the failure of a whole company. It's the same obviously but psychologically it's easier for us.

Generally I have this sneaking intuition that the success of the multiple project approach depends on the size of the market and the type of consumers. It's fairly well accepted that it's harder to start rocket-ship type startups in the UK than it is in the US. Perhaps we are better suited to this approach?

Either way, I like the idea and it seems to be the business version of what more product-focused engineers do in their spare time. I am personally aiming to create a project a year at this point and would like to make them additive too if I can.

This, to me, is companies operating as people.

</comment><comment><USER8> The Melrose Center in Orlando has an interesting model. They provide tons of infrastructure and space for all kinds of creative and technical work: video, audio, electronics, 3d printing, along with workstations loaded with all kinds of software: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxkyuXAzAIg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxkyuXAzAIg)

All for free for county residents :) [http://tic.ocls.info/](http://tic.ocls.info/)

Also in Orlando - [http://starterstudio.com/](http://starterstudio.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I didn't know there was a term for it, but I've been running a "startup studio" ([http://prontotype.us/](http://prontotype.us/)) for the last two years. Our terms are a bit different - we take only take a minority share and don't (currently) work on the marketing side of things, but the concept is the same - building software for early-stage entrepreneurs to validate their idea & market.

</comment><comment><USER10> I consider IdeaLab [http://www.idealab.com](http://www.idealab.com) to be the ultimate Startup Studio. Science ( [http://science-inc.com](http://science- inc.com) ) also labels themselves a startup studio.

If your "studio" is doing design/development work for other companies, that automatically disqualifies you as a startup studio (in my book)

</comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like a condensed version of Google</comment>


Ask HN: Share with me your favorite recipe - <AUTHOR> I am building an open recipe database, with many more features. I would like to receive your favorite recipes so I can include them in the data set and work out my initial architecture. <comment><USER2> I'm an American, but my favorite dish is from the Philippines. I lived there for about a year doing a religious service mission. Anyways, the dish is called Bicol Express named after Bicolanos (people of Bicol [which is a city in the Phillipines]) they like this dish really spicy, but most Filipinos prefer a more mild version. Here's a recipe from this site [1] that turns out pretty well which seemed pretty mild to me though has a nice enough kick to it. Here in The States I usually just skip the ampalaya, vetsin, and bagoong (alamang) or shrimp paste. Because of preferences and because some of those things are hard to find in American grocery stores and the closest Asian store is pretty far from me. All the following is from the site I mentioned above

"""

Ingredients:

1 med. Eggplant, cut in 1" slices

1 med. Ampalaya, cut in 1" slices

6 pieces red pepper cut in 1/2" slices

6 pieces chili finger (sili)

1 cup coconut milk (first extract)

1 cup coconut milk (second extract)

4 cloves garlic minced

1 med. onion

1/2 to 3/4 kilogram pork, sliced small

1 tbsp Bagoong (alamang) or shrimp paste

2 tablespoons cooking oil

salt

vetsin

Cooking Procedure: Sauté the garlic, onion, pork, shrimp, and bagoong Add second extract of coconut milk and bring to a boil Simmer until pork is halfway cooked Add the vegetables (including the peppers and chili fingers) Add first extract of coconut milk and bring to a boil Simmer until cooked Add salt, vetsin to desired taste

Hot Tip: I prefer freshly extracted coconut milk rather than processed-canned coconut milk. If you want it to be super spicy-hot, add more red chilies

"""

[1]: [https://lahatsarap.blogspot.com/2011/08/bicol-express- recipe...](https://lahatsarap.blogspot.com/2011/08/bicol-express-recipe.html)

<comment><USER2> If I had to describe it in two words I would say it's kind of like a mild 'coconut curry'. Kind of similar to some Thai food I've had that was given that exact two word name. I also usually use more or less one to two Serrano peppers usually instead of the chili fingers.</comment></comment>


I lost $1m on Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/11/experience-i-lost-1m-on-bitcoin <comment><AUTHOR> To ease the clickbait-y headline a little - he invested £23,000 in Bitcoin, saw the worth of his coins grow to about £1.2m, then the price plummeted and the investment is now worth about £4000.

</comment><comment><USER2> Ironically, he didnt lose a cent in BTC. He bought well below the levels today. He also sold them at $4k with profit. His losses are from altcoins, which were never really worth anything to begin with.</comment>


Show HN: Mystery Gift Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.mysterygiftmachine.com Seeking feedback on the site and votes in TechCocktail's "Boston's Hottest Showcase Startup" Poll http://j.mp/NlZiqQ
We launched a totally new site this morning and are near 1st in voting against all odds (we have 30 Twitter followers @MrEGiftMachine versus 3,000+ for our competition).
Can HN push us over the finish line? <comment><AUTHOR> Seeking feedback on the site and votes in TechCocktail's "Boston's Hottest Showcase Startup" Poll <http://j.mp/NlZiqQ>

We launched a new site this morning and are near 1st in voting against all odds (we have 30 Twitter followers @MrEGiftMachine versus 3,000+ for our competition).

Can HN push us over the finish line?</comment>


The Interim Operating System - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mntmn/interim <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10222934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10222934)

</comment><comment><USER3> My keyboard is... weird. When I type Shift-9, I see ')' instead of '(' and I can't even figure out how to type a '+' character.</comment>


The state of deep learning in Debian - <AUTHOR> http://www.danielstender.com/blog/work-for-debian-1605.html <comment><USER2> Not to be to critical of great volunteer work, but I wonder if this makes sense at this point in time. Most frameworks still move very quickly and break APIs left and right. For most users, it makes more sense to install a framework with their favorite Python/Lua package manager.

I can imagine that at some point, bringing in frameworks will be necessary because applications will start relying on them, but are there any such applications in Debian yet?

</comment><comment><USER3> Sadly, the authors of Brainstorm haven't worked much on it since the end of November last year. Currently, I don't see why one would prefer Brainstorm over more popular deep learning libraries that are more actively maintained and have more examples, documentation and features.

<comment><USER4> In fact, "Brainstorm" is one of the least used packages among all deep learning libraries. For reference, here is the number of new Github issue tickets created over the past 15 days (2016-05-15 to 2016-05-30):

#1: 131 tensorflow/tensorflow

#2: 107 fchollet/keras

#3: 91 dmlc/mxnet

#4: 64 BVLC/caffe

#5: 61 Microsoft/CNTK

#6: 42 deeplearning4j/deeplearning4j

#7: 26 tflearn/tflearn

#8: 23 Theano/Theano

#9: 16 NVIDIA/DIGITS

#10: 10 pfnet/chainer

#11: 9 Lasagne/Lasagne

#12: 8 torch/torch7

#13: 8 NervanaSystems/neon

#14: 6 mila-udem/blocks

#15: 1 autumnai/leaf

#16: 0 karpathy/convnetjs

#17: 0 tensorflow/skflow

#18: 0 IDSIA/brainstorm

<comment><USER5> Interesting that even autumnai/leaf has more activity, as I believe that it's in a state of limbo as the original authors are discontinuing work:

[https://medium.com/@mjhirn/tensorflow- wins-89b78b29aafb#.cue...](https://medium.com/@mjhirn/tensorflow- wins-89b78b29aafb#.cue38w8z5)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Think `sudo apt-get install [tensorflow|caffe|theano|caffe|brainstorm...]`.

This is a welcome addition to Debian and derivatives like Ubuntu.

</comment><comment><USER7> When will Linux get a decent speech-to-text input device?

<comment><USER8> Perhaps when windows gets decent font rendering, package management, and filesystems.</comment></comment>


Paul Graham on Mixergy : Video Link (working link) - <AUTHOR> http://www.justin.tv//mixergy#from-11.04,February-9-2010

<comment><AUTHOR> This link will start later in the video:

<http://www.justin.tv//mixergy#from-11.05,February-9-2010>

</comment><comment><USER2> The link doesn't work for me, but this one does: <http://www.justin.tv/clip/256d3b4ba66875ae>

(Interview starts at 8:40)</comment>


Google Cloud Next Update - moving to digital conference due to COVID-19 - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.withgoogle.com/next/sf/update <comment><AUTHOR> Tldr: conference is moving to a free digital experience. Registered attendees will be refunded by March 13, 2020.

<comment><USER2> I see you created the post, can you change the title to reflect that? The title they chose is very generic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hopefully that's a bit clearer. Having been a lurker on and off again for years here, I wasn't sure how best to avoid editorializing the title.</comment></comment></comment>


Guido van Rossum Exits Python Steering Council - <AUTHOR> https://discuss.python.org/t/steering-council-nomination-guido-van-rossum-2020-term/2657/11 <comment><USER2> The link doesn't directly go to Guido's post. I'll quote it here for reference:

> I have thought about this some more. I appreciate the thought (@thomas, > @pf_moore) that you'd like me to be on the SC for a while longer. But it > seems to me we have many excellent candidates, and after a brief discussion > with the current incumbents I have decided to withdraw.

>

> Part of my reason is that in the end, SC duty feels more like a chore to me > than fun, and one of the things I'm trying to accomplish in my life post > Dropbox retirement is to have more fun. To me, fun includes programming in > and contributing to Python, for example the PEG parser project. But I don't > see participating in the SC as fun. (This is true for all SC members, I > imagine, and an important duty it is! It's just that I've done enough duty > for Python in the past 30 years, and I want to focus more on having fun.)

>

> I will still be around though! I will be reading and answering mail, > sometimes reviewing PRs and participating in issues and discussions on > python-ideas, python-dev, or discuss.python.org (and even Zulip and > Twitter). If the new SC asks me to act as BDFL-Delegate for a PEP I'll > consider it, and if they have other questions for me I'll try to answer > them. I'll just not be acting as an official member of the Steering Council.

>

> I am sure that an SC without me will do just fine, especially if you all > vote for Barry, Brett and Carol – they will provide continuity. I'm not > endorsing other candidates, they're all great!

<comment><USER3> Link worked for me....

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's Guido's withdrawal: [https://discuss.python.org/t/steering-council- nomination-gui...](https://discuss.python.org/t/steering-council-nomination- guido-van-rossum-2020-term/2657/11)

<comment><USER5> Ok, we've changed to that from [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8101/#results](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8101/#results). Thanks!</comment></comment>


Build2 – A C++ Build Toolchain and Package Manager - <AUTHOR> https://build2.org/ <comment><USER2> Ugh. Hate to be Debby Downer. I mean, nice effort, but one of the crappy things about some of these newish languages is how each of them comes with their own package manager baggage that is different from the package manager that all the rest of your software is installed through.

So I have my Debian setup and I'm happily using apt to install all my software. Now ruby comes along and I need some libraries and have to go and install everything with gem. And I can't use apt to see what gems I have installed and vice versa! Argh!!! Now I have to write some python code and here comes pip... And node/npm... and on and on.

apt-get install libx11-dev is just fine for my C and C++ development needs, thankyouverymuch. I don't see the value in yet another incompatible package manager.

<comment><USER3> Let's say that you and I both create a library. You try to publish your C++ library to the standard debian repository, and I'll try to publish mine to cpam, npm, pip, etc...

If you actually manage to get your library included, then we can compare how long it takes to update your library.

<comment><USER4> Systems like Debian, though, have the ability to add custom repositories. So after the initial, possibly small package that just configures the sources.list, everything's handled with all the other updates. That's something that npm, etc, can't do.

<comment><USER5> Npm and many other package managers support custom repositories just fine

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice work. However, I think the C++ community is best served by standardizing on CMake. It is widely used by many projects, and many IDEs natively support it natively (for example Jetbrains Clion, and Microsoft Visual Studio 2017)

In addition, "modern CMake" is much better than classic CMake" and the project is improving with such things like CMake server.

<comment><USER7> CMake is not a package manager or package repository, though. CMake can discover libraries and it can build your code, but that assumes you've already fetched a dependency somehow. Sure, you can use system package managers, but these are different on every platform.

I've been writing a simple video game in C++ recently, using CMake to build. I wrote a little bit of code that fetches the few libraries I need in order to have a complete/deterministic build process that works on linux/windows/mac. It lets me change versions (by specifying a new url to a source tarball). Versioned dependency management is so typical and convenient in many other languages and is such a pain in the butt with C++ because CMake is this thing that's sort of good enough. But my CMake experience doesn't compare well at all with maven, pip, gem, cargo, or even npm.

<comment><USER8> Conan ([https://conan.io/](https://conan.io/)) tries to tackle the package management for C/C++.

<comment><USER9> While Conan still has some room to grow, I love the approach they take to package management for C++.

Too many C++ tools couple package management and build which increases their adoption cost and makes it more work to package third part packages. Conan takes the approach of managing dependencies and then giving your build system of choice the information it needs to access those dependencies via conan plugins. I think I had read that the author of Conan was involved in biicode and that the third party packaging problem is what inspired him to create Conan.

Some other cool things about conan

\- Can be used for more than C++

\- SCM independent

\- Artifact caching

\- Options allow clients to customize your package (creates distinct artifact)

\- Scopes allow developers to modify your build (like conditional build steps so doesn't create a distinct artifact)

Some things I think can be improved

\- Needs to separate out dependency lock file like Cargo or Poet

\- Build tools need to be packaged in Conan for tracability / reproducibility

\- Plugins are in Python which is heavy for deployment and has a large compatibility surface

\- Easy to hit limits of declarative dependency files, being forced into implementing them in Python (see above)

\- Project templates are hard coded.

<comment><USER10> I dislike it is written in Python instead of C++.

No need to force me to install Python just to run a build tool.

<comment><USER11> Python is a great solution to the problem as well as being installed on most Linux distros by default. Chances are devs would need for their other dev tools anyway even not on a Linux machine.

<comment><USER10> A build tool should be written in the same language as it is targeted for, no need for third party dependencies.

Many of us only install what we actually need, or what the IT department allows on our images.

I certainly don't want to open a IT ticket to get Python, just to be able to compile random package X.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been by this page a few times. It's interesting to see work in this area, but there are only 15 packages on cppget.org. Obvious ones (boost, protobuf, folly, etc.) are missing from the list.

Is this still in some sort of alpha state with respect to new package submissions? Or is nobody volunteering to maintain the missing packages?

</comment><comment><USER13> Any compiler already supporting some experimental version of modules?

If library devs could start trying those out, it might give it some traction...

</comment><comment> m-j-fox I feel like the name bpkg is taken. BSD uses it and a search shows there's a Bash package manager that calls itself bpkg also.

Maybe call it cpkg?

</comment><comment><USER14> this is awesome we need the maven of cpp

<comment><USER15> > maven of cpp

Oh dear god no. Can we please have a way more sane manager than a maven of cpp?

<comment><USER16> What are the problems you encountered with maven (I've only used it a few times)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why would I use this instead of Nix?

<comment><USER18> Last time I looked at Nix it had a problem with dealing with cross- compilation. The problem is mainly that many packages still use autotools which does not have a descriptive toolchain. Ultimately, it could provide a descriptive toolchain and then map that toolchain to the different build systems, which is similar to what cget does, but perhaps a separate tool to do this could be helpful so this could be shared among different package managers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> why not use github for package repository?

<comment><USER20> Do you mean git? Not sure what difference github makes over vanilla git in this case..

GoLang kind of does this (via "go get") and it sucks for multiple reasons:

-you can only distribute packages as source, meaning you need to compile them yourself (this has pros and cons, but it would be nice to be able to distribute binaries if you want)

-your dependencies reference a commit hash, and unless you micromanage your dependencies and constantly look at the github repository's tags, you have no semantic versioning, making it a lot more likely you'll encounter breakages

-there's no way for your dependencies to specify dependencies, unless they're using git submodules (very few projects do), and even with submodules, you can't share dependencies across packages

The list goes on..

Git is for source control. Package managers offer a lot of different (and awesome IMO) features. Lack of package management is one of my biggest gripes with GoLang honestly.</comment></comment>


Aks HN: What requirements for downvote activation? - <AUTHOR>

I know this question was often here. I read before that you need 100 karma to be able to downvote. Now I have 201 and never saw a downvote button anywhere. What other requirements are there? <comment><USER2> According to the FAQ, downvote arrows only occur after you reach _a certain karma threshold._ A long time ago, this was bumped to 200, and about a year ago (October 31, 2010), that was again increased to 500: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853529>

I believe that the marker is still at 500.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I guess this is no longer accurate (Feb 2009): <http://ycombinator.com/newsnews.html>

_We've also doubled the karma threshold for downvoting comments (to 100)_</comment>


Bill Ford Isn't Scared of Apple - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/backchannel/bill-ford-isn-t-scared-of-apple-9822fd3ecb78#.t8akt1pny <comment><USER3> Writing this story, I got a good sense of the difference between silicon valley culture and auto industry culture (at a time when carmakers perceive the threat from tech companies and are trying, sort of, to be more nimble and tech-ish). Bill Ford is a great entry point because his heart is in the environment and innovation--but his soul runs on fossil fuel motors zipping down the highway. And now Ford (the company) is trying to get into services-- and to take on Uber.

<comment><USER4> As an auto enthusiast for a couple decades plus, I can really appreciate the approach and attitude Bill Ford seems to be reaching to achieve. The inventor and innovator side of me enjoys the often blase notion of "disruption" that comes with SV culture, but I've still got distinct reservations about the general "practical ethics compass" of the approach, to coin a phrase for lack of a better one that I know. Where SV and Auto culture meet in the middle definitely interests me.

I guess what I find more appealing about Auto industry culture is the general notion of accountability (give or take) with respect to products. Auto companies are not nimble, should not play 'fast and loose' with regulations like safety, and they have public shareholders as well. This is a different model - one that I honestly believe serves the Auto industry well - <USER2> there are perfectly reasonable avenues to take SV-like approaches - it's called R&D, and taking stuff out racing. WRC. BTCC. Le Mans. All sorts of different avenues!

This isn't to give Auto companies like Ford a free pass when they make mistakes (Firestone and Ford comes to mind) but rather acknowledge that there's still merit in their approach to creating, manufacturing, and supporting products.

<comment><USER5> Well said. I too would like to see Brick and Mortar models survive and thrive. SV speed and scale of disruption these days, is too quick for anyone's good. If we want more whales in the ocean we need larger oceans. We are getting very good at producing whales fast. We need to get better at producing more ocean.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My opinion: "I don't want to sound arrogant," This is critical, remember Ballmer dismissing the iPhone? and Blackberry... and telcos...

"Apple doesn't know how to handle a supply chain, or market its wares" that could also mean they can disrupt and disruption points are associated with market changes (check vapor engine vs fuel or iPhone vs every other phone).

"We are going to build smart cars, but we also need to build smart roads, smart parking, smart public transportation systems, and more," and this is the critical point, I'm old in tech years... and I like my clockwork internal combustion engines, I like to be able to drive them but the future people may not, getting what that future mass wants is the million dollar goal. For example... people may not want a car but to get somewhere and for example in NY that sound more rational than in TX, can we build a company around providing "Car as a service" (you hear it first here from xlayn :p)

"the Ford executives believe that the firm's in-house tech expertise is under- appreciated" or it can also mean they could leverage someone else expertise... (this is a question, I don't really know the answer).

Last but not least... he want's to get the company into something while keeping the strong advantage they have in what they are strong and not becoming a hipster startup (as in lets make a trillion dollar company around 140 characters but there is no revenue model)...

Edit: typos

<comment><USER7> > "the Ford executives believe that the firm's in-house tech expertise is > under-appreciated"

5 minutes trying to use a Ford's music system makes it pretty clear that, at least for tech UI, they are awful. That they aren't publicly sheepish about it suggests that the guys in charge don't even notice the differences.

<comment><USER8> ... but isn't Sync a Microsoft product built into Ford cars? It certainly was when I worked there in the mid-2000s.

EDIT: Gen 1 and 2 are while the upcoming Gen 3 is built by Blackberry.

"Ford cited issues with Microsoft's complex software dragging down its scores with Consumer Reports and other consumer magazines being a reason it switched to BlackBerry."

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

<comment><USER9> I tried out Sync myself, and I strongly agree with jessriedel. What's more, I don't think the bad design can be blamed on MS; much of Ford's side of it was a failure too. From my review at the time [1]

\- They don't make it easy to get someone to show you the system. (pts 1 and 2)

\- They make it so that if you just leave your iPod (a lot of people didn't have the phone at the time) plugged in, it has to be prominently visible to thieves (pt 4)

\- Despite them expecting you to use Sync for anything and everything, it's on an inner row of the steering wheel, requiring a really long thumb stretch to reach. (pt 6)

\- Hitting the phone button when you don't have a phone set up with it, will disable the audio system (and thus, further Sync action) until next time you turn the car on. (pt 8)

[1] [http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2008/07/setting-sync- strai...](http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2008/07/setting-sync-straight-or- sync-sucx.html)

<comment><USER10> That blog post is from _eight_ years ago.

I am currently driving a C-Max and some of your points aren't relevant:

\- The dealer rep went to lengths to train me on the sync system even though I insisted I didn't need it. (Maybe it's different elsewhere)

\- The USB connection is inside the cubby between the seats, so you don't need to leave mp3 players in visible locations.

\- The sync activation is on the steering wheel, near the volume buttons, and is not at all difficult to tap.

All in all, Sync has a weird tiered command system which is why I don't use it much, but it's not for lack of physical design.

<comment><USER9> I know -- the point was to criticize how many serious blunders they committed in their initial attempt and which couldn't be blamed on Microsoft, to substantiate the point about poor UX expertise. Certainly, they eventually got it right 8 years later, but the point stands that they don't have some stellar in-house team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _"So many of those features are going into the vehicles today — self- > parking, lane keeping, all these things that ultimately are going to be very > much a part of full autonomy. And customers are already getting used to > it."_

This reminds me a lot of how advanced and amazing the avionics and support systems are on Airbus planes, and why shit pilots crash them whenever anything doesn't go exactly like a simulator textbook. It's a part of the future of automotive "advancement" that I'm not optimistic about. This is certainly a personal opinion, one coming from a guy who likes to really be involved while driving and has his fair share of mistakes on his record, but I think it's worthwhile to keep in mind.

<comment><USER11> And the number of accidents with advanced systems + shit pilots is still lower than that of good pilots + no advanced systems.

That's also worth keeping in mind.

<comment><USER12> Nobody is arguing against radar altimeter, weather radar, gyrocompass and artificial horizon.

I'm very doubtful that the actual autopilot has saved any lives. It's more likely to just allow captain to nap.

<comment><USER13> Tired pilots are very dangerous. So, the actual numbers on this might be counter intuitive. We may very well be at a point where flights would be safer without on board pilots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One thing that's really uplifting is to see the giant tidal wave of uptake in electric drive platforms.

I really don't think you'd see this without Tesla really setting the bar with the Model S. Now we're seeing GM, Ford, BMW, VW and many other auto companies making serious commitments.

<comment><USER15> I want to see a company release a cheap framework for an electric car that anyone can build on top of. Just the chassis and battery pack maybe with in- wheel motors. Then people could design and print their own cabs.

I saw the documentary by BMW on making the i8 and while their technical knowledge/competency is impressive at this stage it seems they are way over- engineering when a simple solution would suffice.

<comment><USER16> The auto industry has an Apple product model (keep design in house and release very well-finished products) as opposed to a PC model (build a platform for both hardware and software that others can design, build, mix, and match for). Sure there are Delphis and other suppliers, but they build nuts and bolts while the drive train, chassis, and body have remained the domain of the auto companies. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm very interested in the production of standard drivetrains and chassis, analogous to processors and motherboards, that hobbyists and customizers can build upon.

<comment><USER15> I'm thinking more of an enabler for Michael Dell type entrepreneurs. With the democratization of design/manufacturing tools, a framework as I have described, will allow smaller players/designers express their vision. While I agree that the auto industry is very closed, I feel that the playing with the interior of a car allows for more creativity than the interior of a pc or phone, especially when there is no need to design for a driver.

<comment><USER17> There was something similar to this when cars first came out. You'd buy the engine and the frame and hire a coach building company to build the body and the interior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Palm CEO Ed Colligan's remarks regarding Apple's prospects in the mobile phone market:

> _Responding to questions from New York Times correspondent John Markoff at a > Churchill Club breakfast gathering Thursday morning, Colligan laughed off > the idea that any company — including the wildly popular Apple Computer — > could easily win customers in the finicky smart-phone sector._

> _"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make > a decent phone," he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. > They're not going to just walk in."_

[https://web.archive.org/web/20061205211900/http://www.mercur...](https://web.archive.org/web/20061205211900/http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/16057579.htm)

</comment><comment><USER19> > Anyone who spends a few minutes in a Tesla gets that it's different from > other cars — more a delightful digital device than a cabin pulled by > belching engine — and even those who aren't "car people" experience object- > lust.

I think this highlights some disconnects between Silicon Valley and Detroit.

* Detroit hasn't made "belching" engines since the 1980's.

* Average car age is 11.5 years. [1] It's pretty clear that people are OK with the user experience in their vehicles.

* "Selling Cars" is not a market prone to disruption. The cost structure is hideous. Enormous capital is required for at least 5 years before you sell anything, and after that your sales trickle in slowly.

* "Mobility Services" may be an amazing new market; we'll see. 11.5 years means there are a lot of old cars on the road that people may want to replace, but it also means that people are OK with those cars, and that there are a lot of people who have a minimal amount of money to spend on a new car.

* Upmarket vehicles _absolutely_ have to differentiate themselves in a number of areas, and while UX is increasing in importance, it is a middling 5th place after Safety, Quality, Reliability, and Performance.

* UX is difficult in automobiles. If you get UX wrong in an app, you can update, or your app can die and people will forget about it. If you get UX wrong in a car, people will hate you for it, but still buy your cars. [2] You can't download buttons and knobs [3] if people can't get used to your touchscreen. [edited]

* UX in autos can't be flashy or distracting, should get out of the way, be usable with 5% of the user's attention, but it must provide enough information and feedback to be used reliably and quickly.

1\. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/29/new-car- sales...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/29/new-car-sales- soaring-but-cars-getting-older-too/30821191/)

2\. [https://www.google.com/search?q=cue+sucks](https://www.google.com/search?q=cue+sucks)

3\. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a1531/421...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a1531/4213770/)

Disclaimer - I work for GM, these opinions are solely my own.

<comment><USER14> WRT app updates Tesla has an advantage over everyone in that they do App OTAs on a regular cadence(just got 7.1 last night).

Fun fallout from dealership agreements is that it looks like GM and others can't legally do OTAs for their vehicles(dealer owns all software updates/upgrades) which gives Tesla a distinct advantage:

[http://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11202274](http://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11202274)

<comment><USER19> I did not know that. It is a big challenge to get the best value out of the traditional partners in the automotive space: Labor (UAW), Dealers, and Suppliers.

And by challenge, I mean it is a big mess.

Also, call me a fuddy duddy, but OTA updates for automobiles _SCARE_ me. They should scare Tesla as well, and I hope they do. They've done well for now; in 5 years will they still have the same discipline? That being said - the OTA mechanism has a HUGE value proposition and they absolutely deserve the kudos they got for it.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, if you don't have diligence and discipline you shouldn't be doing OTA updates regardless of what industry you're in.

FWIW they've got a pretty awesome bug reporting mechanism via the voice command "report <X>" which sends a snapshot of the car along with the description.

They also have the ability to pull more detailed logs remotely(with your permission). Had a few spurious messages come up, called service and they were able to pull logs, verify that it was fixed in an upcoming OTA and not an issue. Much better than having to drive to the dealer(which is ~2 hours roundtrip for me). It's very slick to be able to pull CAN bus + other diags remotely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm skeptical of the ability of big, old companies to change their internal cultures enough to become nimble and responsive.

Old companies have calcified political structures and old managers that have enough political capital to detonate any change that threatens their fiefdoms.

Software/Services businesses are not slow and comfortable with huge moats that just appear. You can't afford to be slow and bureaucratic. You have to be constantly changing, reorganizing, and employees have to be comfortable living/working in a zone of continuous chaos ... where you aren't exactly sure what the next step is ... but you are experimenting to find out--and internal groups are always rising and falling ... and managers are always rising and falling.

</comment><comment><USER21> Ford is the only American car brand that is considered a "normal car" in Europe. I exclude Opel/Vauxhall that are owned by GM but no seen as American brands.

<comment><USER22> That's largely because Ford Europe was largely autonomous, and also did things like introduce a lot of modular chassis innovations, as well as EU-specific designs like the Mondeo, original Fiesta, and Kuga, not to mention C-Max. They deserve a lot of respect for putting up a good fight against VW on their home turf.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sounds like he's trying to change Ford from a product company to a services company. That's going to be really tough - all those mid-level managers have to be pointed in the new direction.

<comment><USER24> Depends on how long it takes. If the timeline is not too short then many of those mid-level managers may not be around long enough to factor in that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I had an uncle retire from Ford Motor Credit and a cousin still working there as an engineer on the F150. I have faith that company will transition well into the autonomous car and electric car future. They adopted MS Sync pretty early on compared to competitors.

On Bill Ford, I don't know the whole story on him, but I could see how he was a bad CEO and a decent advocate and visionary for these technologies. For a wealthy man who probably doesn't have to do anything, he sounds commendable to be trying so hard to contribute.

It's a bit of a shame in a way that the government bailed out GM and Chrysler because Ford deserved to gain more advantage out of that due to their good decision making. I hope that moving ahead they reap more rewards than they have in the past for their forward looking moves.

I'm still preordering a Tesla Model 3 in March, but I'll definitely keep my eye on what Ford has to offer soon.

</comment><comment><USER26> Apple just doesn't seem like they'd make an f150 competitor. Which like what half of USA Fords sales?

<comment><USER27> An electric truck would be an interesting proposition - good torque for towing, and a large footprint gives plenty of battery space, but currently I'd imagine the high cost of entry and the range problem stop it from being viable.

The new smaller engined forced induction Ford trucks seem to be getting good reviews, so perhaps the segment is more open to innovation than I would've guessed

<comment><USER26> Personally I'm hoping that electric trucks will eventually allow late 80s early 90s sized compact pickups (like less than 190 inches in length) to find a market again.

Though I'm not holding my breath for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Despite all the noise Tesla makes about their "advanced manufacturing capabilities", their productivity is very low by auto company standards:

Tesla: 12,000 employees, about 50,000 cars/year, 0.24 man years per car.

Ford: 181,000 employees, 3,230,000 cars/year, 0.06 man years/car.

Tesla is heavily subsidized by government, sells an expensive car, makes very few models, and still loses about $4000 per car. Something is wrong there. Their head count is way too high.

<comment><USER14> ZEV credits haven't been a significant part of their income stream for quite a while.

Also they make ~20% profit per car but are reinvesting large amounts of capital for Model X/3 + Gigafactory.

Please don't go throwing around FUD like this without looking into things in a bit more detail. See their last quarterly report for the figures I referenced above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> He will be.

He _will_ be.

Obligatory SW:ESB reference aside, I think that the danger Bill may not be cognizant of is just how advantageous vertical integration is for companies like Apple. Other companies disregard it at their peril.

The thing is, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool car guy. I love cars, and probably will never own an electric car. I prefer my snarling twin-turbo V8 german bruisers that have an extremely high rubber-to-tarmac transmission rate.

But: I know which way the wind is blowing.

<comment><USER28> _" Bill may not be cognizant of is just how advantageous vertical integration is for companies like Apple."_

The CEO of Ford not being aware of the advantages of vertical integration? That's a joke. Until 1989, Ford made its own steel. They still operate foundries and rolling mills. The Ford River Rouge plant was once the most vertically integrated auto plant in the world - iron ore came in at one end and cars came out the other.

Apple doesn't make iPhones. Foxconn makes iPhones.

<comment><USER29> That's the thing - until 1989. The current leadership may not be, but that doesn't mean they weren't in the past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> _"We are going to build smart cars, but we also need to build smart roads, smart parking, smart public transportation systems, and more"_

This is what will slow down the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles, be they in the form of a transportation service initially or not. The infrastructure just isn't there yet.

</comment><comment><USER31> _> Anyone who spends a few minutes in a Tesla gets that it's different from other cars — more a delightful digital device than a cabin pulled by belching engine — and even those who aren't "car people" experience object-lust._

Is there any car listing for $75,000 that _doesn 't_ inspire "object-lust"?

<comment><USER32> Possibly a really big utilitarian van with a super expensive diesel, like a Mercedes Sprinter? (but ooooh that headroom)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > "The point of the day was to emphasize Ford's evolving strategy."

And the "point" of emphazing Ford's evolving stategy is to make it appear that Ford is moving and grooving with the times and won't be left behind and ultimately to have a positive impact on the stock price.

</comment><comment><USER12> >example of Apple and Nokia. Only Apple successfully built a broad customer experience and robust ecosystem. "You can become extinct when you only focus on the hardware," he said.

I'm pretty certain Nokia's problem was never focusing only on hardware. They focused on software all the time. The problem was that Symbian sucked and they didn't open up for alternatives until it was too late. Samsung actually does just hardware and they are doing fine.

<comment><USER13> Samsung's smartphone profits are tanking fast. Sure, Google saved them in the short term, but in the consumer electronic industry over the long term you really need to be a good software company or your margins are going to end up paper thin.

<comment><USER34> I think if there's one thing Ford should be afraid of from Apple it's not taking marketshare, it's taking profit share. Apple has carved out exactly that slice of the the smartphone market where you can make a profit, and left everyone else to fight over the no-margin remainder. Apple could conceivably do something similar in cars by building one or two models that compete directly with the most profitable cars (though it seems that all of Ford's profits actually come from big trucks--hard to imagine someone hauling a half- ton of manure in the back their rose gold Apple Pickup).

[1] [http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/30/ford-f-150-profit-per- veh...](http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/30/ford-f-150-profit-per-vehicle/)

<comment><USER35> > Apple could conceivably do something similar in cars by building one or two > models that compete directly with the most profitable cars

If it were that easy, why hasn't anybody done it?

<comment><USER34> Because it is actually not easy? Keep in mind Apple has unprecedented resources so not easy is not really a problem for them, as Musk pointed out recently they've hired thousands of people to work on this. Also I think it has been done to some extent, Tesla's Model S is now (by some measures) the bestselling luxury car, and can probably be credited with accelerating BMW and Porsche moving towards all-electric vehicles.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Gnome Foundation Facing Lawsuit from Rothschild Patent Imaging - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imaging/ <comment><USER2> Sounds like a parent on AirDroping a photo?

Seems daft to go after the GNOME foundation.

<comment><USER3> You need an easy win before going after bigger fish.</comment></comment>


The Air Force Wants to Use Falcons to Punch Drones Out of the Sky - <AUTHOR> http://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-falcons-drones-research/ <comment><USER2> They should have speakers on the birds so every time they collide with a drone the speaker shouts "FALCON PUNCH!!!"</comment>


Zynga execs in trouble for insider trading - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/courtville-the-zynga-lawsuit-made-simple.php

<comment><USER2> At least they don't have to worry about the Google chef problem any more.</comment>


Why the fuck was I breached? - <AUTHOR> http://whythefuckwasibreached.com/ <comment><USER2> "The fucking KGB used overwhelming force to gain access to some data. But we have since told them to not do it again, so it will never happen again."

Yeah, that feels pretty accurate for today's political climate.

I love fun toys like this and would love an awesome list of them if anyone has one.

<comment><USER3> This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

<comment><USER4> I got the teenagers got into the server room through an empty window and hacked into our coffee pot. We told them not to and it can't happen again.

<comment><USER3> You naughty person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't tell if the random excuses are completely made up or come for actual breach incidents. If the latter, it would be interesting if the site actually gave an example, or linked to a story, where a company used a similar excuse or reported cause.

</comment><comment><USER6> >>> But we have since upskilled our cafeteria staff, so it will never happen again.

I am not sure they are being entirely serious with their random excuse generator. I could not recommend use of this to corporate legal.

<comment><USER4> Because they won't let you upskill your cafeteria staff?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish I could submit my own options to the pool of responses. I could certinly come up with some entertaining responses.

</comment><comment><USER8> Reminds me of Microsoft's Elevation of Privilege card game, although this one was obviously designed with tongue-in-cheek. Still, everyone ought to click through a few excuses and think whether they are relevant to the systems we maintain.

</comment><comment><USER9> Interestingly my malware and adblocking lists (via pfblocker-ng) has blacklisted this site as a known bad site!

</comment><comment><USER10> For origins, see bofh excuses: [http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ballard/bofh/bofhserver.pl](http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ballard/bofh/bofhserver.pl)

</comment><comment><USER11> "Upskilled our cafeteria staff" is the phrase of the day. Use liberally.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just TY!

</comment><comment><USER13> funny how this site is not https

<comment><USER14> Other than the increased CO2 footprint what would - in this particular case - be the benefit?

<comment><USER15> Genuinely curious, by what proportion does it increase CO2 footprint by? Tried searching online but couldn't find anything.

<comment><USER16> TLS takes considerably more watts of power on the basis it actually does more work and shuffles more electrons around the CPU. I suppose that loosely converts into carbon footprint.

However even if it is an issue, most sites sending 6 meg of JavaScript crap down that gets recompiled on every visitor's machine, autoplaying videos and advertising would be doing more damage. So if anyone is going to complain they should probably start there...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the idea is that if you refresh the page you get another random excuse.

It is a bit silly but as someone who cares about security, almost everything that helps to bring attention to the widespread problems this industry has with security is good, -even if it is a bit silly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Why on earth did this make it to the front page. What a silly site.

"Haha some company got breached and they made decisions I consider a mistake. Haha they hired a CISSP,how lame."

How marvelously retarded. How about demonstrating some understanding of the complexities and difficulties involved in securing any large corporation? How about suggesting some solutions?

I can tell you one problem clearly: Management and C-suite do not get clear,useful and actionable security risk analysis _with_ what practical solutions exist. I can also tell you idiots who communicate this way are worse than actual hackers trying to breach companies.

Of course there is a bigger problem of legal accountability which is a law making and voter education problem.

Oh and regarding CISSPs, do you have any idea how hard it is to hire people that know their tradecraft? Even for a decent salary and benefits and schedule? Very difficult if you're not a fortune 100! Would OSCP impress you? Wth is a guy who only knows pentesting worth unless you're hiring for a pentester? Heck, a CISSP that can't even code but undetstands security threats/risk and can communicate is worth 20 OSCPs for most orgs!

<comment><USER19> It's a joke site, it generates random excuses for data breaches.

<comment><USER20> It's more funny because it's so often true.

Just like how many people get a dashcam _after_ a crash, organisations tend to get serious _after_ the breach.

<comment><USER17> > Just like how many people get a dashcam after a crash, organisations tend to > get serious after the breach.

To the degree that they get serious that is. As far as I can see a big part of the joke here is that even that is questionable.

<comment><USER21> The part I liked is the idea that "We take your privacy and security seriously" is literally the "Thoughts and Prayers" of the data industry.

<comment><USER18> What's wrong with either one?

Ok,they claim to take security and privacy seriously,so what?? It's a freaking company! Would you prefer a thoughtful post on medium that uses simple language like "we were wrong and we accept full responsibility,here is what we learned..."? How about no response at all,is one owed to you?

Shouldn't they take privacy and security seriously? How is claiming to do so by itself a wrong? How are thoughts and prayers wrong? How are declarations of good intent mutually exclusive to meaningful action?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Check Your Mouse - <AUTHOR> http://mousechecker.com Check if your mouse works. <comment><USER2> Is this a clickjacking trap?</comment>


Learn Elixir with a Rubyist (IV) – Types, Data Structures and Pattern Matching - <AUTHOR> http://joaomdmoura.com/articles/learn-elixir-with-a-rubyist-episode-iv <comment><USER2> As a Ruby programmer trying to take a look at Elxir, i still find it hard to read. Maybe functional languages take time to get used to but it doesn't seem as "clear" as procedure or oop style. I know the added benefit of speed and concurrency, but for most apps we build it is not needed for now.

Do any Ruby programmer find Elxir easier to write or read? Im genuinely curious to hear about this because a lot of Ruby devs are writing Elixir.

<comment><USER3> I slung Ruby 2008-2015, and started using Elixir heavily in late 2015. Aside from simple scripts that typically involve shelling out to Unix utilities, I find Elixir easier to write in just about all cases at this point. The syntax is even more consistent than Ruby's (to the point that it's homoiconic) and the language docs rule. Once you get a few concepts like pattern-matching and pipelines under your belt, it gets easy.

It was helpful that I wrote a bunch of Scala from 2013-2015, so I was familiar with working in an immutable FP style -- that made it a gentler transition for sure.

What have you found hard to read about it? The community is still settling on what code style "should" look like, so maybe you saw some funky Elixir, or maybe it's something deeper.

<comment><USER4> > What have you found hard to read about it?

Not the OP, but: keeping state: Agents, GenServers etc. FP/immutable approach does offer some great advantages, but also makes some otherwise trivial stuff (say, something akin to setting an ivar in Ruby) convoluted and tough to read.

<comment><USER3> Elixir does make you think hard about the global state you keep. It's an "eat your vegetables" decision, and I've acquired the taste. Keeps me out of trouble when designing things. Contrast this to Ruby, where class variables and globals are all over the place and thread safety is a pipe dream. [EDIT: it's not that Ruby-the-language forces this worldview, but Ruby-the-community adopted it and most Gems show the effects of that.]

As far as ivars, you'll have to work hard to emulate that. There are no classes or instances. Probably you want to just use a map or a struct to represent an instance and its state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can the Ruby people please stop blogging about Elixir and explain things relative to Ruby? There are way too many 'Elixir-for-Ruby-programmers' tutorials on the net already.

Elixir is pretty great and enthusiasm is good but I feel this leaves a large group of people in the dark.

<comment><USER6> The last thing I want Elixir to be is shoehorned into the web app space and community of Ruby, but it seems inevitable. Oh well.

<comment><USER7> This might be a controversial thing to say, but Ruby would be a pretty obscure language today if it wasn't for Rails.

If you want Elixir to remain obscure as well, keep hoping that it doesn't get picked up by web developers and Rubyists.

I for one want the language to eventually overtake Ruby in popularity (hopefully with Phoenix overtaking Rails). So yeah, the more individuals and communities that adopt it, the better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you had to make a comparison, what would be the pros and cons of using elixir vs node.js?

<comment><USER9> I'm currently working in both. If we are just talking about them in terms of their respective merits, Elixir is my preference. It has a wonderful compiler, pipes allow for composable chains of logic, the Phoenix framework is wonderful for web development. Literally every interaction with it I've had has made me think "wow that's just a great example of excellent programming taste...". In terms of scaleablilty, I've heard stories of a single server able to handle millions of requests. Not personally been able to verify that (nothing I've done in the language has reached that kind of scale sadly...). Once you get used to pattern matching, you'll wonder how you ever lived without it. The community is amazing and supportive. The language creator Jose Valim has responded to my emails directly which is really cool.

With Node, you can cobble together pretty much everything I've described (except for maybe pattern matching) above but it's a bit of a kluge IMO. You can program functionally. And you can make yourself a kind of "compiler" via linting or perhaps by using Flow or Typescript. I've yet to find the experience fluid or pleasant. The language is just not designed for that stuff. ES6 is a huge improvement that said. And before you go thinking I am a node hater, I love JavaScript and use it all the time. I'm just painfully aware of its shortcomings because of how much I work with it.

My biggest issue with Elixir is that it's hard to set up a proper CI/Deployment pipeline. It CAN be done and I've done it but nothing "just works" like it does with Node. Try dockerizing a phoenix app or setting up a heroku instance to see what I mean. All of these things work but it's an obscure language so one needs to be more advanced to understand and address problems in that area.

To sum up: very excited about Elixir and hope it continues to grow. If I was starting a new project I would probably use it.

<comment><USER10> I'm working on both too, and one point that I faced was the Node 1.5GB RAM limit per node process (at least on Heroku [https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/node- concurrency](https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/node-concurrency) \- I know it can be worked around though, although not on Heroku), which can force you to run multiple processes (aka clustering) depending on your use cases (e.g. thousands of client websockets connections from the process, if you need to listen to a large number of e.g. Slack connections).

This can lead to a more complicated architecture than with Elixir, where a single Elixir process will be able to use more RAM & all the cores, too.

On the other hand, I love the dynamism of the Elixir ecosystem, but it's not yet as rich as Node's one, and it's still harder to find a proficient Elixir developer, than a Node one.

But personally yes: the fundations of Elixir are very, very strong, and I'm investing in it completely (in addition to Ruby & Node, which I already use).

<comment><USER11> Good points!

> where a single Elixir process will be able to use more RAM & all the cores, > too.

I think you mean a "single instance of the BEAM" here as a single Elixir process is pegged to 1 CPU core.

<comment><USER12> It's useful to think of the work of m Elixir processes being distributed to n cpu cores by the BEAM scheduler. An Elixir process is not a system process in the way we usually think of the word process if coming from a non-BEAM world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Poll: As a founder, what is your salary(2016)? - <AUTHOR> If you can, please also add location, number of people in your company, age of company and if you are funded <comment><USER2> $25 last month, $0 this month.

Founded in Malaysia, a year old. Three employees including me and my cofounder, and our operations executive who takes no equity.

Funded $2500. Profitable but screw bootstrapping.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. What is a typical industry salary for your role in Malaysia?

<comment><USER2> Probably a lot more lol. For a founder of a non-profitable seed-stage startup, it's around $700/month. If you take a government grant, it's closer to $350/month + your tech skill market rate.

Around these parts, it's quite rare for a founder to be full time on investor- funded salaries. Founders are expected to have a full time job, and pay a technical guy on the side.

By comparison, a good engineer (3y, non-elite degree) would make about $1500/month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My main side project made me about $1700 last month. It earns from ads from a international user base. I work alone on the project, and did exactly nothing the whole month.

Its not funded and initial costs are just time, running costs about $30.

</comment><comment><USER4> $0.</comment>


Beware of personalization filter bubbles - must see - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B8ofWFx525s

<comment><AUTHOR> Personalization is not good for you, or anyone else. Only marketing dummies believe in it because they don't understand it but it makes them sound interesting.</comment>


The shortest (active) domain name - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Even HN doesn't accept the link, but it's [http://ai/](http://ai/).

.bh, .dk, and .pn have similar arrangements, but this is the only one which isn't a redirect or server page.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone going to Silicon Milkroundabout event tomorrow? - <AUTHOR>

Just wondered <comment><USER2> Link: <http://siliconmilkroundabout.com/>

And its in London, so unfortunately no.</comment>


We Timed Every Game. World Cup Stoppage Time Is Wildly Inaccurate - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/world-cup-stoppage-time-is-wildly-inaccurate/ <comment><USER2> The article fails to mention "precedence". The usual stoppage time is lower because it's always around the same amount of time and it's a single digit number. Psychologically the ref will always gravitate to that familiar number.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Putting more than 10 minutes on the board would represent such a break from > tradition that it might incite a riot.

It does, but it would be nice to know the average through history. It seems as though it's about 1min extra time for each 2min wasted. Which makes sense why players waste time now. If it was 1:1 time wasting would just be more of an opportunity to catch your breath and organize your formation.</comment></comment>


Dean Kamen On Colbert Report: Segway Inventor Has New Device For Injured Troops - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/dean-kamen-on-colbert-rep_n_526946.html <comment><USER2> This is, of course, going to be godawful expensive -- but I hope it gets treated as a "right" in a way that the iBot chair wasn't. I don't mean this particular device necessarily, but there needs to be something driving these enabling technologies to the point that economies of scale can bring the injured (and, where possible, those suffering from congenital disabilities) into full participation in this world. Accommodation is nice, but removing the need for accommodation would be a hell of a lot better for all of us.

<comment><USER3> The trouble with the iBot was that it was only reimbursed as a wheelchair. You wouldn't believe the hassle Dean Kamen went through with various government agencies and legislators trying to get it reimbursed at a reasonable rate, but it never happened.

I think prosthetics are better in this regard. Kamen went after arms specifically because prosthetic legs are already really advanced (therefore expensive and properly reimbursed).

<comment><USER2> See, that's the kind of nonsense we need to be done with once and for all. A "mere wheelchair" is something a person recovering from an accident or surgery might need to use for a few weeks, or, perhaps, something like the equivalent of a bicycle for someone making a deliberate decision to be active. But for an alarmingly large number of people -- quads, high-loss paras, people with CP, MS or spinabifida, etc -- the "chair" _is_ a prosthesis, a strap-on body that allows them to move through and interact with a world that is otherwise denied to them. Until enough people can see that, we can't say we've progressed much beyond the point of handing out begging-bowls...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wikipedia linked to this article with some details on the arm: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/dean-kamens- luke...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/dean-kamens-luke-arm- prosthesis-readies-for-clinical-trials)

</comment><comment><USER5> So, how does it _work_?

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure where people got the idea that it's controlled by myoelectrics, because it's not. (They're not ruling it out for future versions.) The current version is controlled by reading physical force on pads placed on various muscle groups and in the shoes. You have to actually contract muscles/curl your toes to control the arm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Someone who has time to listen to the whole thing:

Do they mention Zaphod Beeblebrox?

<comment><USER7> No, they don't.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which is the better macbook pro of these two? - <AUTHOR> So, I have been asked if I want to have a new mackbook pro at work as someone left and their laptop is going spare.
When I go to system information, my current mackbook has:
>  MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Early 2015) >  Processor: 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 >  Memory: 8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3 >  <comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---- >  Model Name: MacBook Pro >  Model Identifier: MacBookPro12,1 >  Processor Name: Intel Core i5 >  Processor Speed: 2.7 GHz >  Number of Processors: 1 >  Total Number of Cores: 2 >  L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB >  L3 Cache: 3 MB >  Memory: 8 GB >  Boot ROM Version: 184.108.40.206.0 >  SMC Version (system): 2.28f7
and the newer one is:
>  MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017, Two thunderbolt 3 ports) >  Processor: 2.3 GHz Intel Core i5 >  Memory: 8 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3 >  </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---- >  Model Name: MacBook Pro >  Model Identifier: MacBookPro14,1 >  Processor Name: Intel Core i5 >  Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz >  Number of Processors: 1 >  Total Number of Cores: 2 >  L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB >  L3 Cache: 4 MB >  Memory: 8 GB >  Boot ROM Version: 18.104.22.168.0 >  SMC Version (system): 2.28f7
They seem so similar and yet the newer one has a lower Processor Speed.
Interested in your thoughts. </comment><comment><USER2> If speed is the deciding factor try find the models [https://browser.geekbench.com/mac- benchmarks](https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks) Last time I went with the older model to avoid the new keyboard and touchbar (personal preference). Check the battery cycle count in 'About this Mac' -> 'System information' -> 'Power', beware if it says "Condition: Service Battery" or similar.</comment>


Most Bizarre People on Earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.digital-karma.org/culture/weird/most-bizarre-people-on-earth <comment><USER2> three decades without sleep??? Oh god..

</comment><comment><USER3> Jesus!</comment>


Senators decry link between Egypt and U.S. 'kill switch' bill - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20030332-281.html

<comment><USER3> I still haven't heard a single remotely plausible argument for why a kill switch is a good idea. What's the worst that a "cyber attack" can do? Take down the internet? So why do it _for_ them?

Including text in the law forbidding the president from using it to prohibit citizen's communication is incredibly disingenuous, too, given that that's one of the main points _of the constitution_.

We already know the US government isn't _allowed_ to do this kind of thing. So why give them the tools? If there's no tool there isn't even any temptation to use it.

<comment><USER4> I think it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, but to be fair, the proposal is not to grant the power to _disable_ the Internet.

The proposal is to grant the power to _partition_ the Internet. So, it would not be analogous to how Egypt disabled the Internet almost entirely within their borders. Depending on how you look at it, it's either a subtle distinction, or a huge difference. It still serves the exact same purpose (granting the power to shut down "troublesome" communication channels even if they are physically located outside the country). On the other hand, its activation would not in and of itself impact the vast majority of American citizens (because they only use U.S.-based sites).

<comment><USER5> The internet is a global _inter_ network, a network of networks, as it were. That's where the name comes from.

Partitioning the internet is isomorphic to destroying the internet.

<comment><USER4> Would you say that the Internet is "destroyed" whenever there's an earthquake or something that cuts trans-Atlantic cables? Would you say that it's "destroyed" by China's filtering?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd be willing to bet Lieberman has barely used the internet. Ever.

I mean, my Nana won't touch it, and she's about 10x as progressive as him, so...

<comment><USER7> Look over Lieberman's job history ... he has never held a job in the private sector, period.

<comment><USER6> Well, plenty of people in the public sector know how to use a computer :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You see, the President will only switch off the internet to preserve freedom.

<comment><USER9> Maybe they'll cite Independence Day, when our own satellite communication network was used against us. If the bad guys are using "our" Internet to communicate we should shut it down and evacuate everyone to Area 51 with the help of Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum.

<comment><USER10> Would that citation be fair use, or would the MPAA issue a DMCA notice?

<comment><USER9> It feels like it would pass a fair use defense test...not taking too more than necessary and shouldn't harm the commercial market for the original.

And any bill with an internet shutdown is something the MPAA could get behind :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What I don't understand is how it is acceptable to essentially "void" all the contracts for internet and point to point/transport (which would travel over the same fiber and routers) just because the gov't says so.

The entire idea of having a court system is to ensure justice in criminal issues and in civil issues, protect the enforcement of contracts. Somehow this is getting turned around.

<comment><USER11> Isn't that kinda the point? If <foreign government> launched a massive DDOS against US servers, you don't want people dithering over violating SLAs when they could be stopping the attack

<comment><USER12> But why is a massive DDOS against US servers an issue though? As long as critical infrastructure doesn't go down (i.e. you get what you deserve if your nuclear reactors are controlled via a publicly accessible telnet session, or if they can be DDOS'd at all) then the damage is minimal. It certainly doesn't warrant a military-level response.

<comment><USER13> _As long as critical infrastructure doesn't go down_

That's the whole point. Critical infrastructure is the only thing the bill covers.

 _It certainly doesn't warrant a military-level response._

The bill has nothing to do with the military.

<comment><USER12>
      > The bill has nothing to do with the military

The president is the commander-in-chief and this bill is about preventing 'cyber attacks' from outside of the country. That seems to be encroaching into 'military' territory in my book, even if there isn't a particular branch of the military involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "When the President does it, then it's not illegal."

\- Richard Nixon

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8>

<comment><AUTHOR> "L'État, c'est moi"

\- Louis XIV

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Senators decry people watching them break what's not broken. Film at 11.

</comment><comment><USER15> I haven't seen any kind of justification for the provision making the president's hypothetical action immune from judicial review. And I can't think of any justification, either.

Anybody care to explain what they're thinking?

<comment><USER11> I'm actually OK with the bill aside from this provision.

(Worth noting, though, that the bill hasn't been reintroduced yet so we can't actually see that language... and CNET's source for this removal of judicial review appears to be a single lobbyist for companies opposed to the bill.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's an idea: let's pick out one provision of the bill that sounds sketchy when summarized and whip ourselves into a massive rhetorical frenzy over it in lieu of reading so much as a word of the rest of it and considering ways it could be improved to better address the problems it is attempting to address.

Oh wait, you're way ahead of me, as usual. Stay classy, HN.

[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3480rs/pdf/BILLS-111s...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3480rs/pdf/BILLS-111s3480rs.pdf)

<comment><USER17> "A final decision in any appeal under this subsection shall be a final agency action that shall not be subject to judicial review." Section 254(c)(1); appears on pg. 402 of the linked draft.

I am against any law which contains those words. Other parts of the law are troubling to various degrees, but that single sentence is enough for me to know that I oppose this law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> considering that the Internet becomes an "additional, external, brain lobe" (how many of you remember things instead of looking it up everytime, or take for example Google voice/translate or any other traditional "brain" function that tomorrow will be transferred to and/or extended by Internet) - <USER2> government power on the Internet means government's power over your brain. Because tomorrow the unconnected brain vs. connected will be like being a pedestrian vs. riding a car.

</comment><comment><USER11> Of all the possible threats to a free Internet, the idea of a rogue US President shutting it off seems pretty far down the list. This is not something worth worrying about.

<comment><USER19> True - a rogue US president isn't a problem.

Of course a Chicago mayor shutting off bits of it when there is a G20 protest.

Or an Alabama governor for a civil rights march.

Or just an MPAA owned senator shutting down an ISP because of a pirate copy of a movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "No, it's fine, we're good guys, we won't abuse these powers."

Benevolent rule is still rule. And the risks of centralized power being wielded by a benevolent authority falling into the hands of a malicious authority is very real and should _never_ be ignored.

</comment><comment><USER20> the reason for this bill are a bit somewhat false..

Note, to date the number one entity skilled and reacting fast to cyber attacks on Net infrastructure has been commerce not government. In government has shown to be poor performer in this area.

It would not surprise me if this bill was being lobbied by MPAA/RIAA</comment>


Testing TLS/SSL encryption anywhere on any port - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/drwetter/testssl.sh <comment><USER2> This is testssl.sh. Good stuff. Highly recommended.</comment>


Microsoft teases unveiling of DirectX 12 later this month - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57619982-75/microsoft-teases-unveiling-of-directx-12-later-this-month/ <comment><USER2> Newer versions of DirectX allow multithreaded access to GPU rendering. Are there any plans to introduce the same feature in OpenGL?</comment>


Fewer Americans want to serve in the military. Cue Pentagon panic - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/10/fewer-americans-serve-military-pentagon-panic <comment><USER2> This always happens during low unemployment.</comment>