Ask HN: What do you automate in your life and work? - <AUTHOR> Do you have scripts or devices that you write to automate some of your work? <comment><USER2> Pretty much everything that's worth automating, mostly macOS specific stuff though vim KM macros & Alfred workflows:

[https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/macos/macos- apps/alfred](https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/macos/macos-apps/alfred)

[https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/macos/macos-apps/keyboard- ma...](https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/macos/macos-apps/keyboard-maestro/km- macros)

</comment><comment><USER3> I had to book my uncle some blood tests. The website is slow and appointments are always booked up the moment they become available.

So I wrote a script that automatically receives the same json payload the website does, and notifies me when that payload includes a free appointment slot.

I've done this with other services and not only has it saved me time, it's gotten me free booking slots that I otherwise had no hope of getting.</comment>


African leaders launch landmark 55-nation trade zone - <AUTHOR> https://m.dw.com/en/african-leaders-launch-landmark-55-nation-trade-zone/a-49503393 <comment><USER2> > The African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) is a trade agreement > which is in force between 24 African Union member states,[1][8][9][10] with > the goal of creating a single market followed by free movement and a single- > currency union.

Wikipedia says they are also looking to create an Africa currency.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Continental_Free_Tra...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Continental_Free_Trade_Agreement?wprov=sfti1)

It seems the news today is Nigeria (the biggest African country) signing it

<comment><USER3> Ghadaffi wanted to create an African currency as well [0]. I wonder if the African countries will now succeed. I feel it will definitely be in their interest as it seems currently France has control over African monetary policy [1] which (I feel) could still be considered some form of colonialism.

\---

[0]: [https://medium.com/@evantaxi/6-years-ago-today-the-us- helped...](https://medium.com/@evantaxi/6-years-ago-today-the-us-helped- murder-gaddafi-to-stop-the-creation-of-gold-backed-currency-275c2c57509c)

[1]: [https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/africa/CFA-franc- Franc...](https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/africa/CFA-franc-France- Africa-controversy/4552902-4950882-r08s4t/index.html)

<comment><USER4> I'm glad to see this mentioned. Ghadaffi had big plans for uniting Africa, which would have been horrible for the Europeans who have been plundering the continent for centuries.

I've always felt that was the real reason the he was ousted. Other national leaders, both in and outside Africa, have done far worse than him yet have never been invaded.

<comment><USER5> Given that decolonization ended more than 40 years ago, "the Europeans who have been plundering the continent for centuries" are either dead or retired. How is African countries reaching an agreement would be horrible to anyone, including them?

<comment><USER6> The notion of individuals being responsible for exploiting Africa and them being dead meaning the exploitation no longer exists is like saying USA ceased to exist when founding fathers passed away.

Newer history of Africa is almost exclusively defined by consequences of external manipulation, driven by financial interests.

In general, you can look up the definition of "neocolonialism".

<comment><USER7> That's true to an extent, but "almost exclusively" gives very little agency to the people. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were colonies until the middle of the 20th century.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hope this helps Africa develop its economy in a way that's positive for the people that live there, all of them. Not sold on the idea of a single currency, that hasn't worked so hot for Europe, especially the weaker economies like the mediterranean countries.

Aren't they repeating the same mistake Paul Krugman refers to as "original sin of monetary policy"?

[https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/original-sin- an...](https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/original-sin-and-the-euro- crisis)

<comment><USER9> It's much worse for Africa than the EU. Here are the ratios of GDP per capita of the highest to lowest states in each region, excluding outliers DC and Luxembourg:

US: 2:1 (Massachusetts $66,000 : Mississippi: $32,000)

Eurozone: 4:1 (Ireland $71,000 : Latvia $16,000)

Africa (PPP): 50:1 (Equatorial Guinea $35,000 : Central African Republic $700)

CAR isn't even an outlier. There are several African countries with less than $1000 GDP(PPP) per capita and several with over $10,000. So it's much more diverse than the Eurozone.

<comment><USER10> According to wikipedia Guam has a GDP per capita of $30,500 and American Samoa has an even lower GDP per capita of $13,000 so 5:1 is closer to reality for the US.

That said. The US is not the only country to oficially use the US dollar. Among others, Ecuador has a GDP per capita of just under $12,000 and uses the US dollar, Palau $16,000, East Timor $5,500, and lowest are Marshall Islands and Micronesia both with GDP per capita under $4,000 bringing the ratio closer to 1:18.

Also there are plenty of counties with even lower GDP that uses the dollar unofficially, so I don't see a problem with a high GDP per capita ratio.

Edit: Equatorial Guinea is also an outlier with high GDP and low population. We could arbitrarily decide to include San Francisco in the US example with a GDP per person of over $100,000 bringing the US ratio up to 1:7 and the US dollar ratio to 1:25

<comment><USER11> It's not as if most people are rich in Equatorial Guinea. It's an appalling outlier in terms of inequality, even on such an unequal continent as Africa.

"Only about half of the country's population has access to clean drinking water, overcrowded living condition is—surprisingly given the country's low population density—rampant and very few children enjoy the advantages of urban life such as education, medical services and recreational facilities." [https://borgenproject.org/equatorial-guinea- poverty/](https://borgenproject.org/equatorial-guinea-poverty/)

I tried to find data about GINI for the country but the World Bank and the UN don't have anything. [http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/income-gini- coefficient](http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/income-gini-coefficient)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow. This is a great boon for their capital markets. I wonder if we'll see a Wall Street / London / Singapore of Africa soon!

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX0ozxrZlEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX0ozxrZlEQ)

<comment> barry-cotter Realistically it's probably London. You can fly from Cape Town in 12 hours and they already have the expertise and trust. If it's an African city Lagos or Johannesburg.

<comment><USER12> You can say that about Tokyo in the 1980s, but Singapore pulled through.

<comment> barry-cotter In Tokyo in the 80s, and probably now, the median financial professional could not work in English, and that's probably still true now. Tokyo has an enormous and liquid financial market but Japanese is not a regional language, never mind a global one. Paris has a better shot at being the go to place for African finance than Tokyo did of being Asia's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "History teaches us that unity is strength, and cautions us to submerge and overcome our differences in the quest for common goals, to strive, with all our combined strength, for the path to true African brotherhood and unity."

_ Haile Selassie

<comment><USER14> People who preach unity are people who wish to consolidate power, because they are the same thing. Unity tells you nothing about what principles you are to unite under.

<comment><USER15> People who preach disunity have a pretty solid record in trying to consolidate power as well. Divide Et Impera.

<comment><USER14> Which is why it can make sense to have a common defense even if you're otherwise independently governed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Recently someone put forward the theory that now that globalism is dead, there would instead be multiple competing factions with which countries would align. They proposed that the factions would be: The USA, the EU, and China.

Looks like we may now need to add the AU to the list.

<comment><USER17> "Looks like we may now need to add the AU to the list. "

Honestly, I doubt it.

The more interesting question is: Who is Russia going to align with? No country can rule the world that does not rule Russia, the heartland. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History)

PS: Thanks for downvoting. Please show that you are not familiar with major concepts that shaped many of the last conflicts we have seen. Take this as a start: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard)

<comment><USER18> The idea that the geopolitics of the world in 1904 are the same as that of 2019 is silly. It's quite clear that the US is no longer an "outlying island" on the world stage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder how much China was involved in this. We may never know but this feels like a play they would push. That way, China can form a "TPP of the East" easily without having to negotiate with countries individually. Lock out the West and extract natural resources at their leisure.

</comment><comment><USER20> Much like when the EU was created, this news is apparently being almost completely buried by the U.S. media.

<comment><USER21> Don't apply malice where it can be explained by most Americans not paying attention to anything outside the US.

<comment><USER22> And it's not hugely different than Europeans. I mean, when I lived there how many told me that Tasmania wasn't a part of Australia or they were downright shocked that Christmas is in summer like they've never heard that before. You don't even need to follow anything to have a clue about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Now is the time to put pressure on China with regards to human rights and trade. With this organization this African Union has the potential to open a huge market of labor and consumers with ultra high growth potential.

This can be a huge win for classical liberalism.

<comment><USER24> This African Union (AU?) is likely going to be quite friendly with China given Chinese investment in the area, so I doubt they'll be the ones to put pressure on China.

<comment><USER25> The African Union (a political organization not centered around free trade) has existed for a long time: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union)

This African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is just one of the AU's recent initiatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's just an extension to the current free trade zone?

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

<comment><USER27> Indeed -- can anybody provide more details on the agreement? The only policy detail the article lists is that the deal eliminates "most tariffs". Is that the entirety of the project? Are the goods for which tariffs remain critical ones like oil, minerals or food? How is "most tariffs" even measured --as classes of goods? trade volume in dollars?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Get organized, improve, build infrastructure (take help from but don't forfeit your land to China).. all great!

Single currency? Please don't!! You are giving up control of your monetary policy. It will be another EU.

<comment><USER29> Forfeiting your land isn't good but selling some for a fair price and using the money sensibly can be one of the fastest ways of getting wealthy.

<comment><USER28> Selling your port? [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri- lank...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka- port.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is what Africa always needed. Large federation or empire. If they had large empires hundreds of years earlier, they'd have large sectors that would speak the same language, stop tribal warfare, invest in the common defense, and lots of that money would go towards science centers and dissemination of information. Instead, other empires ran roughshod over them over the years.

<comment><USER31> White empires destroyed millennia of stable political culture in Africa

<comment><USER32> Are you joking? There was no stable political culture in (sub saharan) Africa to speak of - it was primarily tribal and ad-hoc. Colonialism had indeed some serious disadvantages, but it's also primarily the reason why modern cities with infrastructure and major industries exist in Africa.

<comment><USER31> The cities as they exist today may have been augmented and developed in part through European effort, but they are a far cry from what would have been there had the preexisting social orders not been intentionally decimated and if their resources had been spent on their own development rather than Europe's. Your belief about African societies is a product of after-the-fact justification of the destruction and attempted erasure of the preexisting civilizations.

<comment><USER32> I'd say it's highly likely there would be not much else than warring tribes and the most basic of technology (such as agriculture and mining). Africa is a really tough place by definition, and for civilizations to thrive you need not just political stability, but also a cultural inclinations that are mostly lacking in sub-saharan society.

<comment><USER33> First off, if you are just trolling, well done, this is top shelf stuff.

If not could you expand on the following points?

What does "tough place by definition" mean?

Which "cultural inclinations" are missing in Africa? Are there any other places that you think similarly don't have them or this only the case in Africa?

Probably the most extreme example of the horrors of colonialism is Belgian Congo.[1] No surprise that this is one of the most unstable and violent places in the world. [2]

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State)

[2] [https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/democratic-republic- congo](https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/democratic-republic-congo)

<comment><USER32> I am not trolling - and I understand we are approaching an emotional threshold here for some.

Lots of factors ranging from hostile climates, tribal/ethnic wars, political issues, language barriers ... the list goes on.

In addition to this, you have cultural traits that simply make it harder to build (or rebuild) a civilization. I think many people living on the continent would understand what I mean.

Nobody in their right mind denies the horrors of colonialism, but one should not consider all historic events as exclusively negative.

Not much of technology was invented over thousands of years (in sub-saharan Africa). Without colonialism (of some sort), it could be very possible that Africa would have remained in the stone age for the next thousand years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Congrats. If I may post a GERMAN link from the same source that sounds very pessimistic: [https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/14-plaene- in-44-jahren-...](https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/14-plaene-in-44-jahren- afrikas-zukunftsvision-mehr-als-freihandel_id_10897130.html)</comment>


2000x performance win - <AUTHOR> http://dtrace.org/blogs/brendan/2011/12/08/2000x-performance-win/ <comment><USER2> This is not really a 2000x performance "win", this is GNU grep(1) being so bad at dealing with UTF-8 to the point of being basically unusable.

The PoSix locale system is a nightmare, but the implementation in GNU coreutils is even worse, when it is not insanely slow it is plain broken.

I wasted days tracking down a bug when we moved a script from FreeBSD to a linux sytem that had an UTF-8 locale, even for plain ASCII input GNU awk could match lines erratically if the locale was not set back to C! I'm sure this bug has been fixed by now, but is by far not the only time I have found serious flaws with UTF-8 support in GNU tools, it seems this days the only way to be safe is to set the locale to C at the top of all your scripts, which is quite sad.

This is also required because due to POSIX locale insanity the actual behavior of tools as basic as ls(1), and more fundamentally regexps matching changes based on the locale, making scripts that don't set their locale at the top unreliable and nonportable.

Or using a toolkit with decent UTF-8 support, like the from Plan 9 that one can use on *nix systems via Plan 9 from User Space ( <http://plan9.us> ) or 9base ( <http://tools.suckless.org/9base> ), if you use those also your scripts will be much more portable, as there are all kinds of incompatibilities among for example awk implementations.

<comment><USER3> here's another "fun" grep locale oddity:

       $ echo HI | LANG=en_US.utf8 grep '^[a-z]'
       HI
       $ echo HI | LANG=C grep '^[a-z]'
       $

apparently en_{GB,US}.utf8 orders a-z like aAbBcC..zZ.

       $ echo ZI | LANG=en_US.utf8 grep '^[a-z]'
       $

<comment> iso8859-1 This is what I get:

        $ echo HI | LANG=C grep '^[a-z]'
        $ echo HI | LANG=en_US.utf8 grep '^[a-z]'
        $

How come?

<comment><USER4> I was able to reproduce the bug. It could be a version thing.

      ; grep --version
      GNU grep 2.6.3
      ; echo A | LANG=en_US.utf8 grep '[a-z]'
      A

<comment><USER5> No, I have the same version but not a similar result. I also have the en_US.utf8 locale installed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone understand what the bug in grep was?

UTF-8 regular expression matching shouldn't be different from ASCII at all, as far as I can tell. In UTF-8, every byte by itself can be identified as a start byte or trail byte, so if you want to match a regular expression, you don't even have to care about UTF-8 in any way. Any legal character in the regexp you want to look for can only match at a legal character start in the haystack.

<comment><USER7> GNU grep uselessly converts UTF-8 to some multibyte char internal representation.

You are completely right, matching regular expressions with UTF-8 text is the same as with ASCII text, one of the reasons why UTF-8 is so good.

<comment><USER8> You both are wrong. If you take arbitrary byte in ascii stream you can be sure that this is a whole char, but if you take arbitrary byte in utf-8 stream you can get a start of a char / end of char / or whole char.

<comment><USER7> Obviously choosing an arbitrary offset in the byte stream might not align on rune boundary, but UTF-8 is great because you can determine that. You can determine the start/end boundaries in any subset of the byte stream, as opposed to most other encodings.

The issue is completely unrelated to the fact that matching regexps in UTF-8 text is the same as matching regexp in ASCII text. The regular expression tool doesn't even need to care that the text is UTF-8. It's just byte comparisons, the tool doesn't even need to be aware of rune boundaries.

<comment><USER9> Don't some of the common cases of searching require the ability to quickly skip forward N characters for high efficiency? That's simple pointer arithmetic in the ASCII case, but requires reading each byte skipped in UTF-8, right?

(I'm particularly thinking of Boyer-Moore -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer%E2%80%93Moore_string_sear...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer%E2%80%93Moore_string_search_algorithm) \-- but I'm sure there are other examples as well.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In case anybody else was wondering what LANG=C means,

      > The 'C' locale is defined as the "default" locale
      > for applications, meaning that their strings are
      > displayed as written in the initial code (without
      > passing through a translation lookup).
      >
      > There is nothing special about the C locale, except
      > that it will always exist and applies no string
      > replacements.

      -Malcolm Tredinnick

[http://mailman.linuxchix.org/pipermail/techtalk/2002-Novembe...](http://mailman.linuxchix.org/pipermail/techtalk/2002-November/013691.html)

<comment><USER10>
      > If the locale value is "C" or "POSIX", the POSIX locale is used

      - The Single UNIX ® Specification, Version 2

<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xbd/envvar.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As far as I know, grep uses Boyer-Moore for string matching when possible. Giving a variable char size encoding such as UTF8, plain Boyer-Moore isn't possible, but it is the asymptotically faster algorithm known.

Hence even perfect versions of grep will slower by arbitrarily large factors, depending on the input.

So while there may be problems, expecting no difference or no significant difference between encodings is not correct either

<comment><USER12> _> Giving a variable char size encoding such as UTF8, plain Boyer-Moore isn't possible (...)_

That you get UTF-8 input and produce UTF-8 output doesn't imply you are better off using UTF-8 for processing. Translating UTF-8 to fixed-width UTF-32 and back is of linear complexity and takes small, fixed amount of memory. The only trade-off is when processing /very/ long lines -- up to four time more memory would be used for buffer.

As mentioned in other posts, Unicode requires normalization of certain character combinations into other characters, so you'll be processing all input characters anyway. Just prefix an extra step to it, not even a separate loop.

And so you can do Boyer-Moore with Unicode at very little extra cost :-)

Some text-intensive programs of Plan 9, including grep, use internally fixed- widht format called `Rune' for unicode, exactly for reasons of performance. UTF-8 input is translated into strings of Runes for processing and translated back for output.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> For getting dtrace-like traces under Linux I strongly suggest getting oprofile (<http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/news/>) working on your target machine. I've used it on a PPC embedded board and it worked wonderfully. Do not optimize that which you have not measured.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is this really a bug in grep, rather than a bug in Solaris's libc? I've never seen grep so slow, and I've been using UTF-8 locales for _years_.

I'm not denying that grep was buggy (there's a link to grep's bug tracker to a bug that was closed more than a year ago), but I'm surprised at the magnitude of the slowdown.

<comment><USER15> The official GNU grep used to be absurdly slow at UTF-8. Linux distributors very quickly noticed this and fixed it when they switched to UTF-8 by default. But GNU grep maintenance was essentially dormant for years and these patches were only integrated in 2010.

For an old, unpatched GNU grep a 2000x slowdown is quite believable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It actually was 4000x times faster by using C's inbuilt counter ("-c") instead of "wc -l".

Any risks with just updating to latest version of grep instead of using the LANG=C hack?

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone able to verify the author's claim?

I only get a 2x improvement when switching LANG on Redhat linux on EC2:

% export LANG=C % time grep done nohup.out | wc -l 152929

real 0m0.343s user 0m0.233s sys 0m0.112s

% export LANG=en_US.UTF-8 % time grep done nohup.out | wc -l 152931

real 0m0.771s user 0m0.673s sys 0m0.100s

% grep --version GNU grep 2.6.3

Author is using grep 2.5.3, I am using 2.6.3, so not testing the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER18> I enjoyed seeing your debugging process and picked up a few tricks.</comment>


A Psychological Exploration of Engagement in Geek Culture - <AUTHOR> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142200 <comment><USER2> << present evidence that individuals may engage in geek culture in order to maintain narcissistic self-views (the great fantasy migration hypothesis), to fulfill belongingness needs (the belongingness hypothesis), and to satisfy needs for creative expression (the need for engagement hypothesis) >>

I agree with the above being the main apparent drivers of engagement for most of geeks.

However, one big blind spot in the above is the desire to acquire knowledge thru intellectually rooted, rational debate (analysis and counter-analysis)

Geeks are not entirely a bunch of narcissists who want to belong and be creative. Sometimes, and I would say most times, the underlying motive is knowledge acquisition.

Geeks tend to acquire knowledge constantly and tend to avoid activities that don't contribute to knowledge acquisition. So beneath all the narcism, desire for belonging and creative output there really is a much stronger and much more persistent need for knowledge acquisition...

The authors of this study went for the outward qualities rather than the implicit knowledge acquisition motivation.

me thinks :)

<comment> brian-armstrong What does convention going have to do with knowledge acquisition? I don't see how they're related.

<comment><USER2> They've picked a very narrowly defined behavioral model (convention going) for their generalized observations about geek culture, so the basis of the analysis is wrong, which makes your question somewhat inconsequential.

We don't engage primarily because of some narcissistic need, need for belonging or need for showing off. We engage mainly because of our much more essential and more persistent need for grater knowledge and deeper understanding.

<comment><USER3> Non-geek conventions are also for "greater knowledge & deeper understanding". Geeks aren't unique in that regard.

<comment><USER2> They picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to derive conclusions about a much bigger sub culture. That's what I mean by the basis of their analysis being flawed.

<comment><USER3> Actually, they picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to test hypotheses about a sub culture that obviously exists outside that behaviour model.

I'm not sure what else you expected them to do.

While it is far from conclusive (and the paper is _very_ clear about that), the idea of testing out a hypothesis in an artificially defined context is kind of how empirical science is done. As you get more confident in the hypothesis, you make predictions about more and more varied contexts.

<comment><USER2> Making behavioral hypotheses about athletically inclined people based on a behavioral model of the crowd in live sport events is not simply empirical science but bad science. You are confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify)

<comment><USER3> ...but that's not at all analogous to the study. Dragon*Con isn't a convention where the general public goes to be entertained by geeks. The people who attend are just as important, if not more, contributors to the culture.

By their definition of geek culture is "a subculture of enthusiasts that is traditionally associated with obscure media", The difference between the control group and the study group was in how they were recruited (an offer that encouraged geek participants/discouraged others, and one that was generically inviting), and they even made an effort to measure engagement with geek culture along with the personality traits.

<comment><USER2> You are STILL confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify) ... What I was saying, not by way of direct analogy, is that the convention itself, the phenomenon, has its own behavioral biases, and so its' the wrong model to start with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know it's easy for me as a random internet guy to poke holes in their work after skimming a paper, but it seems to me they are describing enthusiasts for anything, not just geek culture. From the research methods, it's not clear to me if they controlled for that possibility.

Like, imagine the people who work on old motorcycles. You'd probably find narcissistic fantasy (the rebel, loner image), seeking community with people who share the vision, and people who have time on their hands and an interest in being creative with machines.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. I would also include people who enjoy accumulating huge sums of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Was it Sartre or Camus who said "existence precedes cognizance"? As far as I can tell, I was born a geek - from my youngest memory.

I guess that when you only have the "hammer" of psychology everything looks like a "nail" driven exclusively by current psychological theories.

<comment><USER7> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)

The quote actually has the opposite point: you are what you do, you aren't something due to being born that way.

<comment><USER6> I took it to mean that things exist - and that all the meaning is just intellectual overlay on that existence. Wasn't the famous example that meaning exists independent of words? The meaning was already there - and the word with its meaning is an overlay? (Guess there's a reason why I'm not a philosopher...)

<comment><USER7> "

To claim that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in humans, and that an individual's essence is defined by him or her through how he or she creates and lives his or her life. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."

"

Disclaimer: just pulled from wikipedia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think 'geek' means anything any more and even the researchers fall back to relying on self identification. Title of the paper should be amended accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER9> > Table 4. Correlations between Appearance Ratings of Dragon _Con Photographs > and Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Geek Engagement.

So, I _haven't* read the entire paper, just skimmed it; but it seems to me that what they're saying is that those geeks who are likely to have their photograph taken at Dragon*Con, are more likely to be narcissists.

That looks as if they are selecting for a subset of geek culture that is more likely to contain narcissists, and then stating that the results are representative of the entirety of geek culture.

Side Note/Related Note: 'Geek Culture', is not relegated to conventions, and in many ways it lies outside it -- Reading, knowledge-gathering, etc. are largely introverted activities; and geek culture itself grew up around early - mid 20th century Science Fiction and Fantasy. So I find it difficult to understand how they could claim that the subset of geeks who visit conventions is representative of the entirety of geek culture in the first place.

<comment><USER10> You mean cosplay girls who wear slave Leia or slutty Chun Li costumes to cons are more likely to be narcissistic? Stop the presses!</comment></comment>


The Mochileros: High Stakes in the High Andes - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-07eeeebb-d450-4e4b-98d4-755369be7855 <comment><USER2> I think this is the first time I've seen Shorthand [1] being used in the wild. I saw Shorthand not too long ago on HN, I believe

[1] [http://shorthand.com/](http://shorthand.com/)</comment>


The Engineering IT Supply Manifesto - <AUTHOR> http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/the-engineering-it-supply-manifesto.html

<comment><USER2> The author uses a 5 person startup with 1 IT guy and 4 most likely computer literate engineers as a model for responsiveness and efficiency and wonders why this doesn't scale to large organizations. That's a ratio of 1/4. At a university, the ratio of support staff to students might be 1/134. If large organizations were staffed at startup ratios, the salary costs would eat up any gains from increased responsiveness.

The real advantage of uniform hardware and software throughout an organization is the time savings which allow for smaller IT support staff. The suggestion to "hire an intern for every ten people at a company" is a poor cover-up for the salary cost expenses.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your org's Slack best practices? - <AUTHOR> I'm on a 30 person team and we're getting feedback that many are overwhelmed by Slack. Curious to hear how you organize your internal Slack channels and what norms you communicate with your colleagues. <comment><USER2> * Do not use `@here` or similar if you can avoid it.

* We have a couple of all-sites channels that a restricted on who can post (in practice or effect for the smaller ones) that are subdivided by function.

* Use threads and switch to threaded conversations fast rather than in channel discussions.

* Keep team "business" and "social" channels separate even if they are effectively the same groups of people.

* If have a support channel, make sure to put what the resolution of the issue/conversation was in a summary comment at the end.

* If you're remote, jump to video/voice conferencing before you get to a 200+ comment thread ...

That's a few for starters.

(formatting)</comment>


Ask HN: Why Google permits blank search inputs? - <AUTHOR>

Just wondering why Google does not prevent searching for empty inputs through Javascript?? Better User Experience? Lesser JS code in source? Anyone, any ideas? <comment><USER2> They don't? I just tried it and neither clicking the button nor pressing enter got me anywhere.

<comment><USER3> They disable it with Javascript. Try disabling Javascript and you can search with a blank input. Without Javascript, there is nothing to stop you from submitting the form with a blank input.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you dream about? - <AUTHOR> Personally, I dream (literary and figuratively) that I can fly... <comment><USER2> Lucid dreaming is really interesting practice if you're into these things. Also, I think Jung had this explanations for things we see in sleep. Sleep is a training for our brain to handle different situations and a bridge with the unconscious. Symbols we dream of may be metaphors that have meaning just for us after detailed self-introspection.

</comment><comment><USER3> Building a new type of computer.</comment>


The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing) - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/03/the-myth-of-big-salaries-its-all-marketing.html <comment><USER2> _should the guys who drive an armored car that carries millions of dollars in bonds get paid more than the guys that drive an armored car that only carries thousands of dollars in cash? Does the amount of money handled change the difficult of the work?_

I think this is an interesting aside in the article. Seth seems to be arguing that it's the same work, but it really isn't. The amount of money handled does change the difficulty. First, it's going to require more trips to move the money and that is increased labor. More importantly, the risk goes up the more money you're transporting. Maybe those changes are small. OK.

The real difference comes in the value to the firm hiring you. If you're being entrusted with $1M vs $100K, the firm has a greater interest in making sure you're good at your job. Loosing $1M because you hired a poor driver is worse than loosing $100K because you hired a poor driver. Likewise, when we're talking about hiring for a CEO, a firm will want the best since they're entrusting that person with the livelihood of the firm. His or her job may be no more difficult than anyone else's job, but the firm has a high interest in making sure the CEO is competent. An incompetent person in an entry-level position is unlikely to be in a position to do the damage that an incompetent CEO could do to the firm.

So, by paying high salaries, firms hope to be able to take their pick of managers and get the most competent. However, firms have yet to show that they are able to determine the competent from the incompetent. So, at the moment, most firms are simply paying high salaries to whomever is good at politicking and showing themselves in a good light regardless of actual competence.

There is a theory behind it and it's not just marketing. However, the fact that firms have proven unable to filter the competent from the incompetent limits the applicability of that theory.

<comment><USER3> _So, by paying high salaries, firms hope to be able to take their pick of managers and get the most competent. However, firms have yet to show that they are able to determine the competent from the incompetent. So, at the moment, most firms are simply paying high salaries to whomever is good at politicking and showing themselves in a good light regardless of actual competence._

Correct. I would go further and argue that paying stratospheric salaries for executives actually reduces the quality of people selected. The number of competitors increases, but the nature of the competition changes dramatically and therefore the selection process becomes a nasty pile of fail. Short- sighted narcissists instead of leaders rise. They elevate like people, and so on, until their worldview completely dominates the corporate sphere.

High-ranking political positions pay a middle-class salary (although the social access these positions offer corrupt this intention) for a reason: people who attain them should be those who want the job and to do the work (in this case, to lead) rather than those seeking the material perks.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, as the number of applicants increases due to large salaries, the difficulty to figure out which candidates are good increases.

One area that economists often point this out is in education. Many would like teachers to be both paid more and held to a higher standard (when being hired) to get the best teachers. However, as you increase the screening and competition for teaching jobs, the ones with the most alternative options (who are likely the best teachers) will seek jobs elsewhere rather than being subjected to a battery of tests and bureaucracy.

In this case, there aren't as many alternatives since CEO positions are at the top of the pile. Likewise, political positions come with other desired perks - namely power and prestige.

Economics in this area is really hard. If you (or anyone) come up with a better system of screening individuals for positions, the world will be a much better place. Right now, we typically rely on things like resumes, experience, interviews, etc. which don't really give a good picture. For example, someone who worked on impressive thing X might have had a really minor roll in X and someone else who worked on slightly less impressive Y might have been integral to Y, but resumes can sometimes deceive on that. However, both of those candidates can be filtered above someone with no experience. Eh. I really wish I had a good solution to this - and other rating problems. Yelp is nice, but just because many people are rating things doesn't make it accurate - sometimes people get angry over something that isn't the other party's fault and can take out retribution which skews the ratings.

Interesting to think about though.

<comment><USER3> _Economics in this area is really hard. If you (or anyone) come up with a better system of screening individuals for positions, the world will be a much better place. Right now, we typically rely on things like resumes, experience, interviews, etc. which don't really give a good picture._

There's a solution, but it's radical: a massive push in the direction of social equality, decoupling one's material well-being and lifestyle (somewhat) from one's job position. Right now, the perks associated with a corporate leadership position are so obscene as to create an incentive for the wrong people not merely to put themselves forward for these positions (which could be attributed to a benign overestimation of one's skill) but to actively manipulate the system.

Obviously, society needs to encourage and reward hard work, but the mainstream corporate approach is seriously broken. Hard jobs should pay more than easier ones, and high-ranking jobs should only be available to those with sufficient experience and knowledge, but the concept of a job title as a reward for previous accomplishments (work for less than you're worth now, maybe be an overcompensated and famous CEO later) has proven itself to be a practical disaster, in addition to the model's ethical problems.

The main reward for a high-power job should be the work itself, so that those who fill the positions are likely to be people who actually want to do the job (and are likely to be good at it) rather than those who want the salaries and status. 95% of Fortune 500 executives are not people who want intrinsically to run companies; they want the perks.

Regarding material rewards, that's a matter of "getting the stakes right"-- not so low as to be insulting (since trivial rewards/costs are less incentive than intrinsic motivations) but not so high as to encourage people to lie about their talents, skills, and work ethics (more than they already do, human nature being what it is).

<comment><USER2> How would this work? There would still be a huge incentive for firms to offer higher salaries to get who they wanted to hire.

 _The main reward for a high-power job should be the work itself_

Well, if the work itself is equally rewarding at two firms and one is willing to pay you 10x as much, why shouldn't you go to that firm? Are you proposing some sort of law against compensation about a certain point? Limiting all salaries to $250K per year or something?

 _decoupling one's material well-being and lifestyle (somewhat) from one's job position_

Does this also include decoupling one's material well-being from one's output? To be fair, in the next paragraph you address that saying, "Obviously, society needs to encourage and reward hard work," but who is determining what is hard work in your system? Is this your personal morality? You've decided that certain labor is worth more than other labor and think society should use your values?

 _high-ranking jobs should only be available to those with sufficient experience and knowledge, but the concept of a job title as a reward for previous accomplishments has proven itself to be a practical disaster, in addition to the model's ethical problems._

Other than previous accomplishments, how else can firms screen people? This isn't just a CEO thing. It's pretty much how all labor works in our system. You've been here for x years and so should be earning more. You did well on project y and so you should get a raise. You've shown an aptitude for z so we're promoting you.

\--

I'm not trying to tear your argument apart. It's just that there's a reason why "radical" solutions are often not solutions. Often times they might fix one thing while breaking 10 others. The problem we have here is that we can't figure out who is good at being a manager (or any sort of employee). You're arguing for a changed system that doesn't actually address that problem. We still have no idea who to promote. People will still lie about qualifications because people want to be the boss for power reasons in addition to monetary reasons. Would you argue that politicians are such better managers because they're in it for the position rather than the money? I wouldn't say they're inherently worse than business leaders, but I wouldn't say they're a better bunch either.

Likewise, we currently value labor based on market offering. You've suggested a move to the "hardness" of the job being the basis of compensation. What makes a job hard? Is computer programming harder than teaching? What about construction work? It's really subjective.

\--

Clearly there are problems with the system, but you need to address the root of those problems. How do we accurately measure employee (from the lowest level to the CEO) output value? How do we screen potential applicants for all jobs accurately?

This isn't just a problem at the CEO level. I've seen programmers that couldn't say what a linked list was, but they got past the screening process and coasted on a salary. Likewise, there are CEOs that are doing great jobs managing their companies. This isn't merely a CEO problem, but rather a whole labor problem - it's just more repugnant to us that an incompetent CEO is getting paid millions when compared to an incompetent low-level worker doing nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Law firms tend to be partnerships, so if partners want to give a new guy a ton of their own cash, good for them.

Wall street transformed itself from mostly partnerships, where partners invested their own money along with their customer's money, to corporations where professionals invest other people's money.

Apart from that, we have the system of deciding compensation for CEOs. The CEO picks people to sit on a compensation board, and they then recommend/decide what the CEO should get paid.

Warren Buffet in all his years of being an investor has been asked to sit on a compensation committee exactly once.

In conclusion, it's the system stupid.

Obviously CEO's salaries are going to go as high as can be in the current system.

Obviously people investing OTHER people's money are going to take more risk then people investing their own money.

</comment><comment><USER5> From the article:

 _Aside: should the guys who drive an armored car that carries millions of dollars in bonds get paid more than the guys that drive an armored car that only carries thousands of dollars in cash? Does the amount of money handled change the difficult of the work?_

The amount of money handled does change the cost of failure. It also changes the amount of risk the drivers face.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. Seth Godin is assuming the only factor that should affect pay is the difficulty of the work.

<comment><USER7> I pay my blind limo-driver a ton...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've noticed that Seth Godin seems to think everything boils down to marketing. Sometimes it feels like a bit of a stretch.

<comment><USER9> I don't know... the more business experiences I have the more I realize how significantly more important marketing is than any other aspect of business. Same thing with selling yourself. It feels like a stretch, and it's hard to swallow considering that I'm an engineer through and through, but most data that I've seen fits that conclusion.

<comment><USER6> I have very little business experience, but I would guess this is less the case with engineers. Nerds care a little more about substance because that's what their job entails. Meanwhile, business guys care about how one sells oneself because that's their trade and they enjoy seeing it done well.

<comment><USER10> Good marketing gets you hired. Good networking gives you job opportunities around the globe. Good marketing gets you promotions and bonuses. Good marketing keeps your group's product from getting the axe.

0 errors, 0 warnings isn't all that important.

<comment><USER11> Eventually the fakes get found out. You have to be able to back up your marketing with something real.

Most good organizations will be suspicious of pure marketing claims unless they can be backed up with hard evidence. So yeah, they'll interview you based on that referral, but you still have to ace the interview. They'll hire you based on the interview, but they'll fire you if you don't perform well on the job.

<comment><USER12> > Eventually the fakes get found out. You have to be able to back up your > marketing with something real.

How long is "eventually"? You only need a handful of years marketing crazy financial products to walk away with a fortune. The people who get found out aren't the ones who get hurt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One good alternative explanation of CEO salaries is by analogue to sports stars. Most people can see the impact of hiring a standout player for a team. There may a huge pool of competent players but a team full of mediocre players will most likely lose. Paying the big bucks for the best players can make sense. In a free market the amount paid to stars will be close to the perceived increase in profits that having them will provide. I'm surprised I haven't heard this argument made.

Of course running a company is a lot less transparent than sports so people can't really judge if these CEOs where ever talented enough to justify these wages. Certainly the performance of their 'teams' has lead to doubt of the value of their talent. The suspicion is of course that instead of a a free market there is essentially collusion at the top levels of these companies where all the decision makers vote to pay each other more.

<comment><USER14> I agree about the collusion bit but for another viewpoint

"Measurement alone is not enough. An example of a job with measurement but not leverage is doing piecework in a sweatshop. Your performance is measured and you get paid accordingly, but you have no scope for decisions. The only decision you get to make is how fast you work, and that can probably only increase your earnings by a factor of two or three.

An example of a job with both measurement and leverage would be lead actor in a movie. Your performance can be measured in the gross of the movie. And you have leverage in the sense that your performance can make or break it.

CEOs also have both measurement and leverage. They're measured, in that the performance of the company is their performance. And they have leverage in that their decisions set the whole company moving in one direction or another "

PG in the essay "How to make wealth".

"Measurement and leverage" is a good way to judge if a job is worth being paid very highly for imo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really don't agree with this: "After a million dollars or so in salary, the absolute amount that a person is paid has no real impact on their life." This might be true for an average person, but "big" CEO's live a certain lifestyle (especially in big cities) and it's not a cheap one. You'd be surprised to know how many of them end up with debt even thought they make 10+ millions a year.

<comment><USER16> I'd say that the main problem then isn't the income - it's just that the person receiving it can't manage his or her own money. It's also funny that the same person is considered the best person to manage a big corporation...

If people like that are the best available for the job, it's just scary.

<comment><USER17> Oh, no, living the lifestyle you need to live to be a successful investment banker is incredibly expensive. You really do need a big impressive house (or penthouse in Manhattan) to impress clients with. You have to stay at the same resorts where your clients stay. You have to do a thousand little things that say "money is no object" in order for people to trust you with their money. Irrational but true.

It probably is rational for them to spend into debt in the early part of their career to build up credibility.

<comment><USER16> If you need this and that to impress your clients, wouldn't it be more rational if the -company- owned the house and paid for the resort? Then when they replace their CEO they could continue using the same impressive resources instead of having the new CEO buy the same stuff once more.

Even the goverment does this - puts new presidents in the same old White House instead of letting each new one build his own.

<comment><USER16> And perhaps even more interesting - who gave money to the clients to spend on such unproductive things? It's the client's money that pays for everything in the end, of course.

I'm sure it's human nature to fall for flattery and impressive displays of wealth, but since most of this money comes from institutions of various kinds (many of them owned or controlled by governments around the world), there should be a at least a decent amount of checking what the money is used for. It's one thing to waste your own money this way, but quite another to waste other people's (sp?) money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So, he basically assumes that Wall Street has settled into an absurd equilibrium point where any one firm would have a massive incentive to break with the pack, yet they all refuse to do so because not one person at Goldman/Morgan/Barclay's etc understands marketing as well as Seth Godin? Convenient..

<comment><USER19> Just because 1000 people want the job and are "qualified" doesn't mean they would do as good a job. Consider this example:

Company A has 1000 employees that they pay 100 dollars a day, totaling $100,000. They can hire Joe to be COO for $1000 a day or Zach for $5000 a day. Based on both mens track record the company estimates that Joe will increase efficiency 1% while Zach will increase efficiency 10%. Since a 10% increase in efficiency will likely gross them $10,000 a week and only cost them $5000 (Zach's salary) they hire him instead of Joe.

The same thing happens all over the place. Someone that can make a 10% change company wide is worth FAR more than someone that can only make a 1% change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There was an issue of _Lone Wolf and Cub_ that mentioned a Japanese aphorism about this:

        One bowl of rice, two bowls of rice.
        One mat, two mats.

What it means: No matter how rich you are, you're not going to be able to eat much more than two bowls of rice and you can't sleep on more than a few tatami mats at a time.

But I would love the ability to do whatever I wanted, live wherever I wanted, and have a foundation to save the world.

<comment><USER21> Very true, and I reckon the 'foundation to save the world' thing is a pretty commmon wish. (It's on my list, and on the list of a fair few people I know, but that could just be the circles I'm in). <naive> Perhaps we should all just club together (n% of profits from m successful startups) and give the Gates Foundation a run for its money... </naive>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Aside: should the guys who drive an armored car that carries millions of dollars in bonds get paid more than the guys that drive an armored car that only carries thousands of dollars in cash? Does the amount of money handled change the difficult of the work?"

Potentially yes.

I disagree that a person should be paid by the difficulty of their work. Who decides that? One job might be more difficult to one person than another. I think programming is pretty easy, and construction work is a lot of effort - should I get paid less for programming than a construction worker?

So what SHOULD one's pay be based on? The value of their labor - the value their labor provides. This is very similar to how businesses work, which is why is it sound from a game theoretic sense. Businesses (typically) charge an amount that is based on what their product is worth. You buy the item because it provides more value than the cost of giving them that money. This way, both the business is incented to charge somewhere around that amount (because they get value from the sale) and the consumer gets value as well (cost - value to them).

</comment><comment><USER18> This is also a fairly egregious application of Signaling Theory.. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)>

</comment><comment><USER3> You also need to consider the role of blind, brainless optimism.

People overestimate their chances of making it to the CEO level in large corporations, unaware of just how much the game is rigged against them, especially if they didn't inherit a network of connections. Since people-- especially the talented young people who are the workhorses of most companies-- tend to make career decisions based on future income, this is a way to inflate peoples' anticipated future income with no intention of delivering on the promise.

<comment><USER20> _inflate peoples' anticipated future income with no intention of delivering on the promise_

Not only that, but without having made explicit promises in the first place!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wall Street has generated (perhaps manipulatively) trillions in revenue -- hundreds of percent increase -- since the 70s. Shouldn't firms be paying salaries and bonuses reflective of the profit generated? Seth doesn't know his stuff on this one. Fluff piece. Boring.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I associate session data with an access token? - <AUTHOR> Trying to figure out a best practice here.  My REST API is working well, but there is one small piece of data (other than the authenticated user) that I need to just persist for the life of a client session.  I figured since the client is passing an auth header with every request anyway, it would be a good idea to associate this information with the respective auth token.  Are there any design considerations I should contemplate before implementing this? <comment><USER2> If your client session is long lived, it could outlive the life of the access token -- that is, if the access token is either manually revoked or automatically expires. BTW, totally not grokking the requirements/goals around association.</comment>


DanceJam launches. Am I alone in being hyped about this? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/01/can-touch-this-dancejam-opens-to-the-public/

<comment><USER2> Yes</comment>


Windows 8 to introduce ARM; First Public Demonstration Expected This Week - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/windows-on-arm-more-details.html <comment><USER2> This could be a good opportunity for Microsoft to dump a ton of legacy baggage in Windows 8. Windows developers will ultimately need to support ARM/x86 and the path of least resistance is going to be Microsoft's latest & greatest framework. Great time to draw a line in the sand and reinvent Windows. Microsoft can send the message to developers that if you want your app to run on Windows 8 you need to stop using that Windows 3.1 style font selection dialog box, stop barfing files all over random spots of the file system, stop using crappy early 90's style installers, etc.

<comment><USER3> This might be a stupid question, but that's exactly like the OSX/OS9 switch, right?

<comment><USER4> It would be more like the OS 9 -> OS X switch happening at the same time as the PPC -> Intel transition, but without the old CPU architecture being totally deprecated.

Apple's notable for having made 3 major transitions (68k to PPC, MacOS to OS X, and PPC to Intel), but all three of those were as minimal as they could be given the circumstances. The architecture transitions were made with almost completely transparent binary compatibility and minimal changes needed for source code, while the source-incompatible OS/API change was made as gradual as possible with a long grace period (which a few companies chose to exploit rather than update their apps before it was too late).

Windows as a system is clearly not clean enough at the moment to easily switch architectures without needing a lot of complex compatibility stuff thrown in. If they try to force developers off old APIs and introduce a new architecture, that new architecture will be a second class citizen and will need a lot of external factors to give it traction.

<comment><USER5> > _"Windows as a system is clearly not clean enough at the moment to easily > switch architectures without needing a lot of complex compatibility stuff > thrown in."_

Windows currently runs on two radically different architectures...x86/x64 and Itanium. It has for more than nine years.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Architecture>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition)

<comment><USER6> It may run on Itanium, but it doesn't support more than a fraction of the x86 server functionality.

[http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc772344(WS.10).a...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc772344\(WS.10\).aspx)

I don't see how Microsoft will ever shed the x86 legacy in Windows. Intel would have an interest in killing off arm-based laptops with aggressive pricing, and there really isn't any history of Windows developers rebuilding apps to support other chip architectures.

<comment><USER4> Wow, that's a sad list. It looks like they didn't even port half of the server components to the Itanium, and they warn you not to use .NET for anything performance-sensitive. The closest thing they've got to a modern, portable environment and their first port of it is so embarrassingly slow that they have to warn you on the feature list. Even worse, their modern GUI APIs (WPF) weren't ported at all, so even simple .NET apps are at risk of not working due to not using an archaic GUI toolkit.

Clearly the NT kernel is quite portable. There's plenty of evidence of that (MIPS, PPC, Alpha, IA-64... ). But there's no evidence that even the most modern and supposedly portable components of the desktop experience are actually at all portable. Hardly any of it has (as far as we know) actually been ported.

<comment><USER7> There's no reason all of that stuff couldn't run on Itanium too, but it's a matter of choosing what to invest in; OS releases have a huge test cost with supporting anything, and Itanium is too small a market - ARM is different because it's clearly consumer-based and it's here to stay. I assure you, it is all portable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem Microsoft faces is that the primary selling point of Windows is the third-party software... which won't run on ARM.

Solutions: all providers recompile for ARM (unmanageable). W8 emulates x86 (slow). W8 does very tricky JIT recompilation of x86 to ARM, as if it were a VM (amazing).

Launching _.Net_ a few years back means that at least all software written for that is trivially retargeted. A clever (or serendipitous?) leveraging of its platform.

Apple tackled this problem differently: by banning alternative software platforms from iPhone/iPad, they rapidly created a substantial 3rd party software base of native apps from nothing.

<comment><USER9> I believe that DEC (Compaq?) shipped very capable JIT recompilation of x86 to Alpha a long time ago. They were trying to get past the hurdle of Intel's lock in. It didn't work.

<comment><USER10> And SGI tried something similar on their MIPS processors. That didn't work either

<comment><USER11> Actually they shipped some of their workstations with softwindows 95 (which in the meanwhile, became Virtual PC, then was bought by Microsoft). It was close to usable on really fast machines :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One thing both Google and Apple might be getting wrong is if they won't let developers make serious money. They are both encouraging very low prices like $.99 for "apps", which might mean that a lot of interesting software will never be written for those systems.

Microsoft always allowed and encouraged application developers to make money from their Windows applications, even though a "cheap applications means we can sell more Windows" strategy would naively seem to make sense.

If I had to pick an OS winner, Android is still the one I would bet on, but with this move, Windows definitely seems to me like a more credible contender.

Max Klein wrote about this at one point, but he apparently deleted it. The post is cached here:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_6hkDvC...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_6hkDvCzHMYJ:maxkle.in/why- im-investing-in-windows-phone-and-skippin/)

<comment><USER13> > They are both encouraging very low prices like $.99 for "apps"

Please do explain how. Apple at least (I don't know about the Marketplace, apart from it not being available to a number of developers) has a wide range of available prices, there are GPS software for far north of $100 apiece, and a number of other applications which definitely aren't $.99.

Even in games, "big hits" are generally closer to $10 (when not on sale) than $1 (and outlining this kind of stuff is very much why Apple introduced a third "tops" list in the appstore). And please also explain how Microsoft would solve a race to the bottom which is the combination of users being cheap fucks and developers still wanting those users.

> Max Klein wrote about this at one point, but he apparently deleted it. The > post is cached here: > [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_6hkDvC...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_6hkDvC…)

Doesn't say anything about iOS, and completely handwaves away the problem for Microsoft (apparently, microsoft "cares that he's making money" and will moneyhat him or something). Garbage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This feels awfully late given that Windows CE has supported ARM since 1996. I never understood why Microsoft was reluctant to get a full-blown XP running on ARM (minus the x86 & DOS hamstrings). Windows CE always felt like a precursor to something that Microsoft didn't have the vision to follow through with.

<comment><USER15> > I never understood why Microsoft was reluctant to get a full-blown XP > running on ARM

Because they tried (and failed to gain traction) before with MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha and Itanium.

<comment><USER16> NT originally ran on MIPS, before it ever ran on 386.

<comment><USER15> And that's why there never was an Office for MIPS...

<comment><USER16> Actually, the reason for Office never being ported came down to two things: different byte order and lots of x86 assembly mixed in the office code for performance reasons. Office was never 'portable'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if this is why Intel unveiled Sandy Bridge a few days early.

</comment><comment><USER18> Anyone have insight on whether this is Microsoft gunning at mobile platforms, or loosing faith in the dominance of x86?

<comment><USER15> You can smell their fear.

As long as I can buy an ARM-based netbook subsidized by crapware/adware on Windows 8 and replace the thing with a decent OS, I'll be happy.

Sadly, I won't be able to brag about using a Windows-proof computer anymore...

Now, seriously, Windows failed once on RISC platforms because software vendors were not interested in supporting them. Can an ARM-based Windows desktop function when the only software it runs is Windows? And, perhaps, Office? Would a Windows user live without 3rd-party software? Would all 3rd-parties rush to support Windows on ARM? I doubt it.

And, of course, it reminds me of FUD maneuvers of the past, like Windows for Pen Computing. It may well be designed to prevent people from seriously considering moving to Android (or classic Linux) on ARM-based platforms "because Windows 8 will support ARM and is just around the corner". Seen it before. And it worked, BTW.

<comment><USER19> _Now, seriously, Windows failed once on RISC platforms because software vendors were not interested in supporting them. Can an ARM-based Windows desktop function when the only software it runs is Windows?_

I guess a lot depends on how much developers embrace .NET; .NET apps are compiled to CLR bytecode which presumably could run on ARM devices just as easily as on Intel.

<comment><USER20> > I guess a lot depends on how much developers embrace .NET; .NET apps are > compiled to CLR bytecode which presumably could run on ARM devices just as > easily as on Intel.

The only problem I think would be with mixed assemblies, those containing both native and managed code, which can exist for PC applications. XNA games for example run on PowerPC (Xbox 360) and ARM (Zune/WP7) but their development is much more constrained than PC applications.

<comment><USER19> True, we've had to put porting our .NET app to Mono (for Mac/Linux support) on hold because of that -- the grid component we were using had a load of native code under the .NET layer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Uhh. I accidentally searched reddit using this number for other posts about it, and then I refreshed the page and the site is down.

Am I being paranoid or did I accidentally break their server?

<comment><AUTHOR> Try Techmeme.

Here's the discussion on this topic: <http://techme.me/B0l1></comment></comment>


The Starwars X Le Creuset Collection - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/lecreusetsa/status/1179999700616978432 <comment><AUTHOR> I never thought I'd submit an ad about cookware to HN, but there you have it.</comment>


Walmart is hiring only temps at many stores - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2013/06/14/obamacare-is-turning-walmart-workers-into-temps/

<comment><USER2> Linking basic* health care to employment as a default is ridiculously stupid. There is no real relation between a person's health and their job.

You can either view basic health care as a benefit to society as a whole, like a highway or a fire truck, and socialize it, or you can view it as a product for sale.

Viewing it as a benefit of a particular employment is not logical. This is like trying to mandate that your employer pay for your car insurance... there is no connection of mutual benefit.

Basic health care needs to be connected to the individual, while "extended health care" (or additional options, etc) can certainly be offered as a benefit. The employer _does_ have an interest in you getting back to work faster, being in better health than the average, reducing the stress of your medical issue, etc, etc.

Interestingly enough, a socialized (single payer/universal, etc.) system of basic health care with privatized add on's and extras is _basically the way every civilized society on the planet operates except the USA_.

*You can define "basic" differently, but for my argument I mean a level of care that ensures a respectable level of heath is maintained... usually it is simply seeing health care as a human "right" and therefore not subject to withholding by the state or other actors.

<comment><USER3> You say that it isn't logical, but logic isn't your argument it's an argument of basic human rights (which I tend to agree with you on).

To play the devils advocate, linking health care to your job means that productive citizens are being taken care of. This fosters a "survival of the fittest" situation.

That isn't really how it plays out, but I think that's the allure to many of us Americans. I've spoken with others who who believe that you must work to earn certain things, such as health care. It is often toted that people who are obese, smoke, do drugs, and participate in other health risks are more likely to be on government aid than those who "earn" it. They use this fear of being taken advantage of to fuel a desire a knee-jerk reaction to health care.

Yet there are valid concerns. Especially with the migration of such an entrenched system.

If the US government is going to take on Health Care that money needs to come from funds already in the budget. The US government is poised on the edge of failure, the only thing keeping us going is a mass _faith_ in the ability of the government to pay back it's loans, and thus receive more.

Also this points to a bigger break in the system. US Agencies (I can't speak to foreign agencies) incentivise the spending of your _whole_ budget. If you don't spend it all then obviously you don't need it all. This creates a mad spending rush at the end of the fiscal year and an atmosphere where you have not only the _right_ but the obligation to spend your budget.

I think a lot of people are intimidated by the concept of introducing another burden to the US budget when we are already incentivising the wrong thing.

I think if we could cut back the budget in other areas, this would make it possible to introduce a true health program.

I'm only touching on a few reasons why this isn't being done immediately. I do think that our defense budget is outlandish and could be put directly towards health care, but that is a huge transition in the work force. That is soldiers to medicare specialists. That sort of transition will take time.

<comment><USER4> To me, as a European, your summary of the US-perspective on health care explains a lot. Over here, universal health care is supported by public opinion, mostly because it is seen as a question of ethics (with a healthy dose of "it could happen to me" hedging).

The consensus here is that society has to take care of the sick, independently of the circumstances of their life. It is important to note that I wrote society, not state. The state is seen as the agent through which society effects this, not the principal actor. The fact that it is seen as a question of ethics and a part of "we the society" probably also explains the rather vitriolic contributions that some of my European compatriots provide in discussions on the US health care situation (even though it is probably none of our business).

<comment><USER5> But health care is linked to employment in most parts of Europe as well. Unemployment benefits allow you to pay for it but if you those run out or you don't take benefit of them for some reason (say you live on the street) you're out of luck.

Hell, even if you have a job you might have to pay for health care yourself due to certain circumstances and if you're in monetary trouble you might not be able to do so.

Not to forget that freelancing or self-employment might bring you to the point were beeing unemployed is more beneficial to you because you have to pay for everything yourself with much higher rates.

<comment><USER4> Many details of the implementation are different in the individual states of the EU, since the health sector has so far not been harmonized. My experience is from Germany, where there exists a mixed system in which you are not allowed to have no health insurance. If you are self-employed or earn enough, you can switch to a private insurance company.

You brought up one very important thing when you wrote about monetary trouble and self-employment. Because even a mandatory insurance scheme as the one in Germany has holes in it. I recently learned that, if you are self-employed, have private health care and run into financial trouble, you can end up in a state of "inactive health insurance", where you still have basic health insurance, but you always have to go to the emergency ward at the hospital. So far, a few ten thousand people are affected by this (out of 80 Million), but it is a de facto hole in the system.

However, when I point this latter situation out to people around here they usually become quite enraged. In a way, this reinforces my point about the perception of health care as an ethics issue.

<comment><USER5> > where there exists a mixed system in which you are not allowed to have no > health insurance

True. If you don't have one you have to pay a fine. Which is troubling if you couldn't pay for it in the first place. I have that problem at the moment. I guess it's mostly my fault for not taking every help I could get. So far I haven't gotten any troubling mail, but I'm sure I'll be in trouble once I have to get back into it.

Everyone around me feels uneasy about this. I didn't have the need to go to the doctor in a very long time, but I can relate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> They were doing this long before Obama even ran for president. I remember first hearing about this in the early 2000's

<comment><USER7> Yeah, Walmart is infamous for restricting people to part-time hours so they don't have to provide benefits.

But of course this is a Forbes blog, and who knows what the political slant of the blogger is.

<comment><USER8> A working solution is to make the government provide the benefits, which is what Scandinavian countries tend to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yet another example where perverse incentives lead to unintended effects.

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the primary problem: health insurance is tied to employment.

Until we get past that we are going to have a broken system where the customer is not the customer. The insurance company and then your employers are the customer.

<comment><USER10> I think you got it wrong. The exchanges may be a first step in separating healthcare from employers. If I can buy into an exchange there is less risk for me. The risk is spread throughout the exchange. As a want-a-be entrepreneur I think the current system stinks

<comment><USER11> It might be a step, but the obvious first step is remove the laws that make employer based insurance so much more attractive. Specifically the huge tax advantage, and group insurance laws. The whole ACA is a really complicated partial fix to the employer - healthcare problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Which conveniently hides the fact that many state and local governments are cutting hours to do the same business is doing. Wal Mart gets called out because of past activities amongst major unions to denigrate them because of their anti-union stance. The idea being, get the biggest retailer and the rest fall into line.

However they merely reflect what many other type of employers do, they just are more noticeable because of their size.

</comment><comment><USER13> Walmart is turning walmart workers into temps, not Obamacare. What an awful title from Forbes.

<comment><USER14> Technically not Forbes though, a forbes.com blogger.

I don't get why they keep running the thing though, it's systematically garbage, are the hits so much more important than the forbes brand?

<comment><USER15> I think it's some kind of give and take. More hits for Forbes and you can piggyback off their name. I'm kinda vexed by the entire thing. I hear people say they've been mentioned "by Forbes" or that "they're in Forbes", but really they're on this blog site. It seems dishonest somehow, but I'm not sure how or if that's the right label. I think Forbes is really risking their online brand with this stuff. It's not always super clear what's a blog and what's a Forbes writer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Pretty sure Walmart is doing that.

<comment><USER14> And was doing it long before obamacare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why on earth would anyone think tying healthcare to your employer is a good idea?

Surely care should be available to all - if you are the CEO of a fortune 500, a temp at Walmart or even unemployed.

<comment><USER18> Who pays for it?

<comment><USER17> The same people that pay for other essential basic services like roads, firetrucks, police, elementary schools, judges, etc. etc. etc. - i.e. everyone through taxes.

<comment><USER18> If I pull a fire alarm when there's no fire, I get fined. If I speed on the highway or run a tollbooth without paying, I get fined. If I decide not to go to elementary school, I get fined. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy#United_States) Who decides what health care I have access to, and what health care I'm required to take (vaccines, vitamins, exercise, etc)?

<comment><USER2> Have you lived outside of the US at all? Perhaps in a country with universal health care?

I only ask because anyone who has knows that in a vast majority of examples, the simple act of guaranteeing basic care has nothing at all to do with the questions you raise, in the same way that not paying to use the interstate has nothing to do with you being able to drive to your friend's house for free.

<comment><USER18> Grecy didn't say any of that. I'm responding to two comments: 1. "Surely care should be available to all" and 2. "everyone through taxes".

<comment><USER2> Yes, but given that variants of this system are in place all over the world, your questions have already been answered a hundred times over, should you choose to look for the answers.

<comment><USER18> Yeah there are a lot of different ones. I'm asking for grecy's opinion. Anyway if you want my "answer", I think we shouldn't do it. Tyranny can be much more efficient than democracy but that doesn't mean it's reliable. Same with socialized healthcare. Corruption is too easy and too damaging to gamble with.

<comment><USER2> If you want my answer, I think your opinion is ignorant and ignores basic fact in favour of ideology for ideology's sake. Unless of course you also support disbanding the entire US Armed Forces (you know, those guys with guns and stuff that can literally destroy anything that we've socialized?), your stance is hypocritical.

You are the epitome of the exact thing that you fear, and you don't even seem to realize it.

<comment><USER18> edited: If I were doing ideology for ideology's sake, I would support disbanding the whole US armed forces. But in capitulation to "fact" I only support getting rid of most of it. I'm not in favor of the military- industrial-congressional complex.

edit2: what does the military have to do with socialism, anyway?

<comment><USER2> >what does the military have to do with socialism, anyway?

How, exactly do you pay for a military?

How, exactly do you pay for universal healthcare?

Why is the implementation of one okie-dokie and the other the "path to tyranny"?

<comment><USER18> I'm OK with a military being strictly limited by laws to prevent abuse. Not so much with healthcare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The title is completely unsupported by the content of the article, which presents no evidence that Obamacare is prompting the practice of hiring part- time workers. In fact, it clearly states that Walmart supported Obamacare because it fit with their part-time worker strategy, _which was already in place._ The article also states

"The recovering economy could also help force Walmart, and other like-minded employers, to back off this policy and hire full-time workers with benefits."

</comment><comment><USER20> Actually, there are a lot of companies being forced into this, not just Wal- Mart. Most full-time jon vacancies are being simply deleted or relegated to two part-time employees because of the mandate in this legislation.

There's nothing political about the truth. To not recognize (or admit) the connection between the two is serious head-in-the-sand syndrome.</comment>


Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 <comment><USER2> A paper was just released that showed this paper was wrong. Humorously the authors say they are now waiting for someone to show they are wrong.

<comment><USER3> Do you have a link to the new paper?

<comment><USER2> [https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/evaluating-a-new- cr...](https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/evaluating-a-new-critique-of- the-reproducibility-project/)

[http://chronicle.com/article/Can- Science-s/235582](http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Science-s/235582)

<comment><USER3> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


UFC (Live Event Tomorrow) Wants You to Watch Brawls, Not Its $5B Lawsuit - tren-hard https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-05-08/as-ufc-pushes-may-mma-event-fighters-say-deals-are-getting-worse <comment><AUTHOR> I m so excited about the Tony ferguson</comment>


Google: We May Offer Buzz Independently From Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/google-we-may-remove-buzz-from-gmail-36145

<comment><USER2> Headline here is completely wrong: the article stresses they'll keep it in GMail, they're just going to offer it to non-gmail accounts. This'll be GApps and is unsurprising, to me.

<comment><USER3> I can't see the original article any more, but the relevant piece is quoted in this post, whose interpretation agrees with the headline:

[http://mashablemirror.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-buzz-is- st...](http://mashablemirror.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-buzz-is-staying-in- gmail.html)

However, they contacted Google to confirm and were told: "No, we're not planning to remove Buzz from Gmail. Among some of the features we're considering is building a standalone Buzz experience in addition to the one in Gmail, but I can't confirm anything right now."

The lack of consistency suggests that Google is having a hard time deciding how to handle this but knew they had to address it quickly. I hope they back down and fix the privacy issues, but I'm not sure they would think Buzz will be worth their bother unless they can convince people to give up the expectation of privacy. Meanwhile, I've voted with my mouse by following these instructions:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121137>

<comment><USER2> Ah, looks like the headline's been changed: it read "Google may remove Buzz from GMail" when I saw it.

<comment><USER3> The original headline reflected a common interpretation of what was said, but either Google didn't intend that interpretation or they changed their minds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> All of this could have been avoided if they simply had a button that asked users if they wanted google to automagically add social contacts from gmail and give users a preview of what that would look like.

They should have also clearly indicated in the preview what was private and what was public.

BTW, what happened to their beta testing / invite only methodology? Also doesn't google beta test things internally first? If so, I'm sure they would have gotten very similar feedback from their 10,000+ employees.

<comment><USER5> It's a land grab. They had to gain users and build social/advertising groups quickly. I think there's something going on behind the scenes with Twitter and/or Facebook that terrifies Google right now. Otherwise they wouldn't have made such a bone headed move. They know better. The deployment strategy was a carefully calculated risk in my opinion.

<comment><USER6> That's very interesting. What could Facebook possibly do to terrify Google? Maybe I'm not being creative, but I can't think of anything offhand. I'd love to hear some conjectures.

<comment><USER7> Maybe Facebook moving into the e-mail area scares Google?

[http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/05/facebooks-project-titan- a-f...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/05/facebooks-project-titan-a-full- featured-webmail-product/)

This would put Facebook in the middle of even more conversations/social interactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Once it's gone from gmail, nobody will use it and nobody will care. Massive fail for Google, strike two in the social networking department.

<comment><USER8> Yep. The only reason it caught on was because it was made available through a tool everyone uses already.. kind of like how Internet Explorer is used..

<comment><USER9> And with landing pages that have obscene conversion rates (which is why people feel raped IMO).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think Google should remove Buzz from GMail by default. Technically it probably makes no difference. Same privacy risks either way. The bigger issue is perception. I think most people approach GMail as a private space. They are very aware of the private data they keep in GMail. They've been using GMail for users under this assumption of privacy. All the sudden this public information exchange is one click away. If every bit of my information on Facebook was leaked I wouldn't be too upset because I've always approached it as a public space. I have an expectation that nothing on FaceBook is really private. I have an expectation everything in GMail is.

</comment><comment><USER10> This was a most troubled release from google, almost everything was done wrong, to alienate common non-techy users and privacy advocates. Just check out the Buzz help forum ([http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/label?lid=3a6323...](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/label?lid=3a63236689cf8dbd&hl=en)), it's pure hatred.

However I would still love if they have the guts to make it stay. Out of all attempts at social media (i.e. facebook, ff and twitter) this one looks like the only acceptable solution which does not seem to suck (no ads, no flashy children toys, no annoying "updates" from hardly known people, and no character limit which dumbs down posts from even the brightest authors). If it is removed from gmail, it will sadly die. If it stays, public will learn to live with it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Please update this headline, it's inaccurate

</comment><comment><USER12> Google's social skills are like Frankenstein ...</comment>


ShowHN: My service tells you if a port randomly opens up on your server. - <AUTHOR> http://portnotifier.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Only took a few nights to make. It's a service I've wanted for a while. Just put in your server IP or hostname and your email address and if a port opens up at any point, you'll get an email.

Edit: Just fixed a bug that wasn't letting people sign-up :S Next time I'll run my tests even if it's a "little fix that won't screw up anything" ;-)</comment>


Adobe CEO: Flash 10.1 Adoption Has Exceeded Every Other Flash Player In History - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/16/adobe-flash-adoption/

<comment><USER2> How odd, I have removed flash from my machines completely now for over a six months. I wonder how true this statement is; or if it is like the 'fudged' windows 7 sales numbers?</comment>


What's the Difference between an Entrepreneur and a Robot? - <AUTHOR> http://www.gobignetwork.com/wil/2007/4/18/whats-the-difference-between-an-entrepreneur-and-a-robot/10136/view.aspx <comment><USER2> The robot is the one with wheels:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluesmoon/432175003/>

<comment><USER3> I know this is way late, but that was funny as hell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a little silly. How do you know when you have found a robot? When someone says no. How do you know when you have found an entrepreneur? When someone says yes. No doubt a good entrepreneur can find an encouraging angle on a lot of bad ideas, but that insight still does not make a bad idea good.

Innovative people have a lot of ideas; successful innovative people are able to understand which ideas are worthwhile and execute them. An entrepreneur with promise may well tell you: "You are dead wrong."

Of course a buffoon may well tell you the same when you are well on your way to conquer the world. This article does not offer helpful insight into understanding who to respect (save for not respecting the author of course).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> fp - it's supposed to be silly. The point was to make sure the person you're talking to and is providing advice has actually built a company and is not just a robot talking out of their ass.

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry. I would not have been so cold had I noticed the author submitted the article and would likely read the comments. I was tactless.

I read some of your other work and found it to be sensible and helpful. Although I still think that this article, standing alone, may raise suspicions of charlatanism. It would be a great shame if that was the idea people took away from your work.

But, I am not convinced that I am not a robot talking out of my ass. What do I know?

<comment><AUTHOR> thx falseprophet - the article as kind of tongue and cheek and if it were the only thing I had read (of my columns) I would have probably had the same response as you!</comment></comment></comment>


On Security and PHP - <AUTHOR> http://devzone.zend.com/7052/on-security/ <comment><USER2> Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 1048576 bytes) in /usr/local/zend/var/apps/http/devzone.zend.com/80/_docroot_/wp-includes/wp- db.php on line 1774

Oh the irony...oooh, the irony!

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is it a given that compiled languages will have less security vulnerabilities than dynamic? I've worked with C, Java, PHP and Python and all have their fare share of different issues.

Also, the author referring to reddit and HN as places that 'haters gather to hate' leaves a bitter taste.

<comment><USER4> The whole article is basically one angry rant rather than an intelligent counter argument.</comment></comment>


Darkwinds: A game of great pirates and cryptocollectibles - <AUTHOR> https://mego.cl/2018/04/02/welcome-to-darkwinds.html <comment><USER2> This is actually really interesting, shame that the whitepaper is just quite bland and nondescript. I think there is potential here.

> > [https://playdarkwinds.com/whitepaper/darkwinds.pdf](https://playdarkwinds.com/whitepaper/darkwinds.pdf)</comment>


Submitting Changes to Voter Registrations Online to Disrupt Elections - <AUTHOR> https://techscience.org/a/2017090601/ <comment><AUTHOR> Essentially, the hackers who now possess the EquiFax "asset" can not just commit fraudulent economic activity but also hack the US election system:

"We found that in 2016, the District of Columbia and 35 of the 50 states had websites that allowed voters to submit registration changes. These websites determined whether a visitor was an actual voter by requesting commonly available personal information. Some websites gave multiple ways for a voter to self-identify. Of these, {name, date of birth, address} was required in 15, {name, date of birth, driver's license number} was required in 27, and {name, date of birth, last 4 SSN} was required in 3. We found that an attacker could acquire the voter names, demographic information and government-issued numbers needed to impersonate voters on all 36 websites from government offices, data brokers, the deep web, or darknet markets."</comment>


500 Startups plans a fund that's all about designers - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/06/500-startups-designer-fund/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Venturebeat+%28VentureBeat%29&utm_content=Twitter <comment><USER2> If they want, I'd know a startup founded by a designer ;)

Anyway, I totally agree, it's also true even better is when the designer is part of a team of co-founders that bring technical knowledge.

<comment><USER3> You've missed the point the article. FTA:

"Enrique Allen, the firm's designer and the founder of its accelerator program, announced The Designer Fund today at 500 Startups' first Demo Day. He noted that many successful startups including YouTube, Tumblr, Android, and Flickr were founded by designers. That's not surprising, he said, since designers have a deep understanding of people's real problems and are paid really well to make what people really want, compared to many startups that fail because they make what people don't want...

Hence the creation of The Designer Fund. The goal is to invest in startups that are founded by designers..."

This isn't about designers being co-founders; this is about designers being founders. Do you still agree? To be perfectly frank, I do.</comment></comment>


Traefik: Load Balancer for Microservices - <AUTHOR> https://traefik.io/ <comment><USER2> The name means "wooden coffee shop" in Swedish.

</comment><comment><USER3> Has anyone used both Fabio and Traefik? I looked at Traefik but needed TCP proxying and SNI, so I'm using Bud+Fabio and it's been fantastic.

Reactive "zero-config" routing is invaluable, I can't imagine going back to Nginx.

<comment><USER4> What is Bud? Do you have a link? I searched but came up with nothing.

<comment><USER3> Oops it's aka bud-tls:

[https://github.com/indutny/bud](https://github.com/indutny/bud)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does it do zero copy? Go doesn't support it without a patch/hack.

<comment><USER6> Can you do zero copy in Go?

I don't think there's a way except having code that supposed to do it in a different language.</comment></comment>


Best US students opt-out of sci/tech as ranks swell - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/10/study-argues-us.html

<comment><USER2> I can't help but think that we'd be better off if the "financial engineering" field was was regulated back to a much smaller segment of the economy.

I'm not normally a fan of government intervention but we've wound up requiring massive amounts of it anyway. At least if the top talent was producing tangible things we'd have something more to show for it than an ever larger deficit.

<comment><USER3> It probably makes sense for the government, or any organization for that matter, to regulate the behavior of other organizations it is responsible to bailout if their behavior gets out of control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I tend to agree that low interest in science and engineering is driven by a rational response to market conditions - that talented people can do better in other fields.

However, I am confused about one thing...

"Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical sciences"

I'd need to read more about this study. Are social science majors included in the STEM numbers? Are botany majors included? If so, this would weaken the claim that we are overproducing "STEM" workers.

</comment><comment><USER5> The headline of the article has changed to "Study Suggests U.S. Could Use Fewer, Not More Science Students"</comment>


The Night a Drone Swarm Descended on Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34800/the-night-a-drone-swarm-descended-on-palo-verde-nuclear-power-plant <comment><USER2> Unreadable. This article is written in a super click-baity, scaremongering way. There may be some interesting info in here, but it's not worth wading thru the BS to find out.</comment>