A Dangerous and Costly Photo in Japan - <AUTHOR> https://news.vice.com/article/best-of-vice-news-2014-this-may-be-the-most-dangerous-and-most-costly-photo-in-japan <comment><USER3> So a dash of soy sauce for anybody reading this article without some familiarity with the background: Jake Adelstein is a reporter who shot to fame with his book "Tokyo Vice", which is about being the first Western reporter to cover the crime beat at a Japanese newspaper, not a small achievement. However, in the five years since, Jake's articles have been basically all yakuza all the time, and tend to imply that the yakuza are everywhere in Japanese society, pulling strings all the time.

However, in actuality, the yakuza are slowly fading away. The police started clamping down pretty hard in 1992 and have kept up the pressure ever since, with many traditional yakuza businesses like protection money, extortion becoming more and more difficult, and increasing societal pressure on yakuza members themselves. Consequently, yakuza revenues and membership have plummeted, and infighting between groups fighting for slices of the remaining cake (drugs, gambling, illegal prostitution, etc) isn't helping. Here's a summary, cowritten oddly enough by Jake himself, although he does somewhat unconvincingly claim that the yakuza are just going underground in response:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/where- have-...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/where-have-japan-s- yakuza-gone.html)

<comment><USER4> But leaded fuel was banned in Japan in 1986.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is it, that whenever there is a FIFA WC or Olympics, that there seems to be ties to organized crime, poor working conditions, bribery and so on, but nothing ever happens, the games go through (every time) and everybody is watching, what is just a show of "panem et circenses".

Why do "modern" societies accept these kinds of festivities, with all what is surrounding them?

<comment><USER6> I think that it is merely a consequence of when you have a small number of people that get a huge benefit which is paid by the rest of society contributing just a little each. It is greatly in the interest of the smaller group to continue this by whatever means, even criminal ones. It is not really in the interest of the rest of society to end this because, as individuals, they contribute very little and it would take a huge effort to stop paying.

You get the same effect when, for example, governments subsidise an industry such as agriculture. A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week.

<comment><USER7> This is one of the things covered by public choice theory: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > In addition to serving as the vice chairman of Japan's Olympic Committee, > Tanaka is also the chief director of Japan's largest college, Japan > University, and the president of the International Sumo Association

I was curious to learn more about Japan University, but it seems that there doesn't actually exist an institution that goes by that name! The Wikipedia page for "Japan University" does not exist, and a Google search for "Japan University" in quotes doesn't turn up any results for a Japan University on the first page.

It seems that he's actually referring to Nihon University; Nihon means "Japan" in Japanese.

<comment><USER9> The word "Japan" doesn't exist in Japanese, so I'm not sure what your point is...

<comment><USER10> His point is that it's weird to have translated part of an organisation name where the organisation calls it something else. A bit like someone referring to "All Japan Airways", instead of "All Nippon Airways".

<comment><USER11> Well it is also weird that we can just call Japan Japan or Germany Germany all the time as those aren't those countries' names, yet we still do it.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8)

<comment><USER12> That is called an "exonym". Many languages have them.

In Slovakia, the St. Lawrence River forming part of the border between Canada and the USA is called "Rieka svätého Vavrinca":

[http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rieka_sv%C3%A4t%C3%A9ho_Vavrinc...](http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rieka_sv%C3%A4t%C3%A9ho_Vavrinca)

<comment><USER13> Well that's a direct translation of the name and using the Czech/Slovak version of Lawrence/Laurence/Laurent.

Rieka = river

Svaty = saint

Vavřinec = lawrence

A bit of fiddling around to connect the words together correctly (slavic languages are odd in this regard) and you get "Rieka svätého Vavrinca"

note: I speak awful Czech and even worse Slovak :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> After reading the article I spent the last half hour looking deeper into the Yakuza. It's quite amazing just how integrated they are into Japanese society, that they have a strong, highly respected morale code and the way they are semi-legal entities that the government/police (mostly) ignore.

<comment><USER15> > morale code

The yubitsume(†) will continue until morale improves.

† finger cutting

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The fact that organized crime in Japan is so open and blatant blows my mind. This type of behavior has no place in a modern society. So crazy.

<comment><USER17> Why does it blow your mind? Have we learnt nothing about democracy in the last hundred years? Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption. I am sure societies two hundred years ago were saying the same thing. In fact I would suggest that technology and the global economy we live in has made corruption more accessible to the masses.

The fact is society has always been corrupt. It doesn't matter whether you are living in a democratic, socialist, communist country or dictatorship - <USER2> has and always will be corruption. It's human nature. You are _never_ going to stop bad people doing bad things.

<comment><USER18> Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

<comment><USER17> This is the argument I hear every time, and completely glosses over my last sentence. People have been trying successfully for thousands of years to stamp out corruption. It's a part of human nature.

In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption.

It's not about accepting the practice of corruption, it should of course be punished when proven. It's about accepting that it's human nature. You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. People have been doing these things since the dawn of our existence.

I found some interesting reading around this subject [1].

> Earlier Enlightenment-era thinkers looked to society to bring structure and > civilization in order to restrain naturally corrupted mankind from chaos. In > 'The Confessions', as in his other works, Rousseau takes an opposing view. > He asserts that man begins in a pristine, uncorrupted state at birth, and > gradually becomes corrupted through the assertion of society upon the > individual. The true state of nature, says Rousseau, is uncorrupted

Whether you believe society corrupts the uncorrupted human mind, or that humans are born corrupted is up to you. _I_ believe that no matter what, corruption is part of us, and part of being in a society.

[1] [http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Iden...](http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Identity_and_the_Origin_of_Human_Corruption)

<comment><USER19> > In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. > How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no > jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of > putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or > think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions > of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption.

The person who is offered the gift says "thank you, that is very kind, but I am unable to accept gifts."

You then have a register of gifts. Anyone who is offerdd a gift notes that in the register.

<comment><USER17> But what about those corrupt people that want to accept the gifts? And who is going to enforce this policing of the gift registrar?

<comment><USER20> It makes it very easy to charge them for accepting the gifts once we find out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When I see a Yakuza with only one finger cut, I know it's a good one : he made a mistake only once. I would not mess with this guy.

Btw I believe that like death and taxes organized crime is something no human society can go without. I'd rather have the Yakuzas than say MS13.

</comment><comment><USER22> How does "Streisand effect" translate?

</comment><comment><USER23> One of the names mentioned as a higher-up in the yakuza was clearly Korean; in general ethinc Koreans are at a disadvantage in Japan, so it surprises me that they can rise to high position in the yakuza.

</comment><comment><USER24> How do we know these photos weren't photoshopped?

<comment><USER25> As a layman, I don't. But there are certain forensics you can do to be more certain. (Or at least be certain that it's a good `shop.) See eg [https://superuser.com/questions/442352/detect-if-a-photo- has...](https://superuser.com/questions/442352/detect-if-a-photo-has-been- manipulated-or-faked)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> More than 1bn for a single photo? I say bubble.

</comment><comment><USER27> > A police source said they will not specify the location of the injury > "because it's something only the assailant would know, and we wish to weed > out possible false confessions."

Whoa, Japan has cops who recognize that false confessions are a thing? Wish we had those in the US.

<comment><USER28> Don't get too excited. Japanese cops are infamous for coercing and even _creating_ false confessions when they can't solve, e.g., a high-profile murder.

And for every Iwao Hakamada[1], you have to think there are many more innocent people convicted, who didn't become big media stories and are still serving time.

[1]: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/japanese-man- fr...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/japanese-man-freed-death- row-retrial)

</comment></comment><comment> throwaway---- Jake "The Fake" Adelstein has been outed several times, and has a long-running feud going with real journalist Christopher Johnson. eg

[https://globalitewatchdog.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/jake- adel...](https://globalitewatchdog.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/jake-adelstein- nathalie-stucky-plagiarism-defamation-japan/)

[http://pastebin.com/XBtNgf1P](http://pastebin.com/XBtNgf1P) (sorry I can't find the original)

btw that top photo in the Vice article is a fake, trying to find the original now....

<comment><USER29> Are you Christopher Johnson? This is an obvious throwaway account. I've sometimes stumbled over this weird feud, and it seems that Christoper Johnson is not a "real journalist", but someone who may need psychological help.

<comment> throwaway---- lol nope, I'd hope the real Christopher Johnson would paint himself in a better light than saying he was involved in a childish feud with a self-styled reporter of the underworld.

You could say I'm just someone who is shocked at how badly everyone here wants to suspend reality and believe the yakuza story. Anyone who has met Adelstein knows within about 20 minutes of talking to him that he is just another Japan- weirdo with a big imagination.</comment></comment></comment>


Yahoo reveals Livetext, its new silent video chat app - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/29/9067375/yahoo-livetext-live-video-chat-app

<comment><USER2> Yahoo! Arrow [0]?

Not available on any of my Android devices.

[0] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yahoo.arro...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yahoo.arrow)</comment>


A New Kind of API Monitoring and Development Tool - <AUTHOR> https://apiowl.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> ApiOwl is a new kind of API testing and development platform. Built by developers because simply we didn't like anything else out there. Sharing it here with anyone who needs no nonsense testing for mission critical APIs. Would love to also get some feedback.</comment>


Used Tinder, Happn, Bumble and Dine for 2 Weeks. The Results Were Surprising - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@DineWithMike/i-used-tinder-happn-bumble-and-dine-for-2-weeks-results-were-interesting-a3988687661a#.vcslxnjup <comment><USER2> No it wont, this is just a shitty ad for your shitty app, not even mentioning _what_ causes the difference (between the competitors).

Also these assumed gender roles trigger me:

>Girls seem to be digging it too and not because they are looking for nice, free dinners

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm pretty sure I listed 3 reasons? The only important info I left out was the screen shots...I will post in a future blog.

...Actually, at the bottom I even said to challenge it yourself. You can check out other blog posts through my personal as well as the official blog for the app. There have been numerous tests ran in house to validate the match to actual date ratio falls roughly around 1% (which was interesting because in this little experiment it was way less). Dine does actually boast a 50% match to date ratio...I'm even urging you to try it before you bash it especially if you're someone who likes the concept of meeting someone for a first date over dinner or drinks (not for everyone). It's not a shitty app if it's getting people actual dates. Apps like Dine (I can name others too with a similar offline dating concept that I admire) are definitely solving the proximity and message wall issue (that mainly men face).

You sound like someone I would love to have a real conversation with. If you would like, please email me your honest feedback after downloading Dine and I will do my best to make changes. I know we are not perfect so I'm always open to listening.

Also, that "Girls seem to be digging it too and not because they are looking for nice, free dinners" was not assuming gender roles. This is common feelings or feedback we receive sometimes. If you go to our facebook page you can read some nasty comments. I always do my best to personally educate others that bills can be dutch, your treat, etc. My advice is actually always never assume.

-Mike

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Surprised he didn't check out Coffee Meets Bagel, which is in my experience the most "serious". Lots of people are on Tinder for lots of reasons, but CMB seems to be mostly people interested in actual dating/relationships.

I think the biggest with all of these apps is the need to practice your game. No matter the extent tries to match you with comparable people it takes a while to learn how to message people on a dating app -- and that mostly involves trying to be funny/interesting based on very little information.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there. CMB is actually one of my favorite apps. The have inspired me in many ways. However, their UI is a bit old school and Dine is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concept from CMB.

I still believe that Dine also does a better job in attracting people who are serious about going on a date...and I don't mean in a romantic way, I'm talking about people who enjoy good food and are single, open to meeting someone new.

Other apps that are doing something similar are like Hinge and Whim. (both good apps in my opinion for dating but they still have pros and cons as do all apps). It's all about finding which dating app is good for you personally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I bet this varies wildly on what city you're in too.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right it does. In big cities, Dine thrives. But in small towns and remote areas..it's a bit rougher...but with that said we have users all through out the US and CA an you would be surprised where some of these people went on dates lol!</comment></comment>


The man behind SF's facial recognition ban is working on more - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/technology/facial-recognition-san-francisco-ban.html <comment><USER2> This strikes me as very short sighted. With the challenges and ever decreasing quality of life in SF thanks to decisions by the city's rulers it should strike anyone as likely a step in the wrong direction.</comment>


Here's How That Tablet on the Table at Your Restaurant Is Hurting Your Waiter - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/ziosk-presto-tabletop-tablet-restaurant-rating-servers <comment><USER2> These systems are the kind of thing people with no management experience build. And they don't get good results.

It is more important to coax the best performance possible from the team on the floor this week than to schedule the best of who's left next week. By more important, I mean it has a bigger impact on the business's bottom line and a bigger impact on the guest experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely, I think in this situation less data on your employees is a good thing. Somebody's whim can determine a person's future. Very dark.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you do to make yourself feel better when you're down? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I go out to have a drink or two OR invite my friends for a short party OR play PUBG. I am single so can't go out with my girlfriend. :D

</comment><comment><USER3> Be with other people.</comment>


Important Conversion Metrics You Should Watch - <AUTHOR> http://liamkaufman.com/blog/2013/02/08/three-important-conversion-metrics-you-should-watch/ <comment><USER2> Good points. An additional one I've found useful is an enthusiasm meter.

How you define that will be application dependent but I always aim to be fairly stringent.

For a forum, something like, "Number of users that make at least 3 posts per week that are longer than 100 words" would be a good one.

Watching that number can give you an outstanding early warning system, alerting you to problems that might not be immediately obvious.

As soon as your most enthusiastic users stop being quite so enthusiastic you need to know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point! Metrics are certainly content dependent and take careful planning to get right.</comment></comment>


Twitter in Talks to Buy TweetDeck - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576271262772728114.html?mod=googlenews_wsj <comment><USER2> I'm always suspicious when I see 'in talks' sort of articles because no acquisition discussion I've ever heard of ever had a 'feel free to share this with the press' clause, and there is a real chance that by having actual talks become public, they will fail.

So one wonders, is Tweetdeck leaking this to see if someone else might come to the table? Twitter to see if the market thinks its a stupid idea? Some disgruntled employee/founder who doesn't want the deal to go through? Like I said, I get suspicious.

<comment><USER3> I saw a lot of these leaks behind the scenes, and received a few myself, and 90% of the time it is either lawyers or investors who leak the information

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems strange that this article doesn't reference the reported acquisition of TweetDeck by Uber Media back in February.

<http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/11/ubermedia-tweetdeck/>

EDIT: Thanks for the info/links. This report certainly makes a lot more sense given that the Uber Media deal never actually closed.

<comment><USER5> That acquisition didn't actually happen. It was just rumored and TC never updated their article.

<comment><USER6> That's useful to know, I assumed it was a done deal. CrunchBase stills shows that article as the most recent info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If this should happen, it feels like it'd be a desperate move. TweetDeck goes completely against the aesthetics and principals Twitter uses in it's various clients, so I assume it'd be purely for the users.

<comment><USER8> TweetDeck is the one twitter client (at least, that I know of) that makes Twitter useful. The ability to have numerous columns all live updating lets you really see current trends across just about anything you want in the twittersphere. It took TweetDeck for me to finally see why Twitter was useful. I wonder if that angle has anything to do with all of this.

<comment><USER9> Columns is nothing original to TweetDeck - hootsuite, seesmic (desktop + web), cotweet, peoplebrowsr all have 'em.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another thing about TweetDeck that might be interesting to other HNers: Max Howell, the creator of Homebrew, works for them.

<http://www.methylblue.com/>

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks like Twitter is a little worried about Ubermedia acquiring Tweetdeck and creating an alternate micro-blogging site..

<comment><USER9> Yes, I agree.

I wouldn't be surprised if they acquired Tweetdeck with the view to staff up a London office and close out Ubermedia, and in the process mothballed Tweetdeck itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting negotiations considering the insanely high amount of leverage Twitter has.

"That's a really nice Twitter client you've got there, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it..."

<comment><USER13> twitter's leverage is limited by structural constraints in maintaining a good developer ecosystem.

<comment><USER14> Which they've demonstrated that they are willing to test the limits on multiple occasions recently (ubersocial, "no new clients" post, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Another nail in the coffin for client app developers!

<comment><USER16> At 50 million this is a rather nice solid gold and diamond encrusted nail.

<comment><USER17> If owning 10% of Twitter users results in a mere $50M pay day, Twitter has serious problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if this is a talent acquisition, a product acquisition, or a user acquisition (to prevent creation of an alternate service, either by TweetDeck or Ubermedia as ashbrahma suggested[1].

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2460541>

<comment><USER19> ... I find it hard to believe they are concerned by the tune of $50million that TweetDeck would create a viable competing service.

That said, I find it hard to believe TweetDeck is worth anywhere near $50million. Based on what revenues and how?

<comment><USER20> To me this is probably for the following reasons: 1\. Talent acquisition (15 employees) 2\. Build this up into a pro premium set of tools 3\. Much less than $50m frankly I think tweet deck can't be generating more than $2-3m in revenue. I'd bet 15-20m is the price.

<comment><USER21> If Tweetdeck is mostly contractors, I hope we don't see another HuffPost syndrome where people walk off because they saw things as being unfair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's the employee base twitter seems to be interested in. It cannot go with tweetdeck UI given it has already finalized on how it wants people to see twitter (with tweetie acquisition).

Another reason can be deck.ly. That is something which twitter does not have at this point.

</comment><comment><USER23> Likely good news for the Hootsuite crew.

<comment><USER20> Because less competition or means someone else will buy them? If tweet deck gets acquired it wouldn't surprise me to see hoot suite in talks with ubermedia

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> tweetdeck kicks ass, it's the only twitter client i use except ubertwitter. but it needs an API badly...(the amazing things I would do!) I hope this acquisition goes through.

<comment><USER25> You want an API for an application that does nothing but consume an API? Why not use the Twitter API?

<comment><USER24> their UI is really good i don't want to have to spend the time to reinvent the wheel I just want to add some special search filters that require scripting

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Please god no. I'm going to have dickbars all over my desktop now.</comment>


Using 'debugger' to help in javascript debugging - <AUTHOR> http://blog.filepicker.io/post/43421141403/using-debugger-to-help-in-javascript-debugging

<comment><USER2> _Pro Tip: 'debugger' statements cannot be disabled at runtime_

In Chrome, you can just press the "Deactivate Breakpoints" button in the DevTools and `debugger` statements won't do anything anymore. Closing the DevTools also prevents `debugger` statements from breaking execution.

<comment><USER3> In Firebug (Firefox) you can selectively disable 'debugger' statements. You can even disable them only if a condition is true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can also trigger the debugger only if certain conditions exist. This is helpful if you are trying to fix a bug in a code branch that is hit very often, but the bug only happens under certain conditions.

      if (this.foo()) debugger

<comment><USER5> Chrome also supports conditional breakpoints[1].

1\. [https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer- tools/docs/sc...](https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer- tools/docs/scripts-breakpoints)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      It's better in many cases than manually setting a breakpoint in the inspector.

Why does the author believe that statement is true? I'd much rather manually set breakpoints in the inspector than have to alter code.

edit: formatting

<comment><USER7> I prefer debugger; in 2 scenarios:

1) I have the code open in my text editor but not in the inspector. Rather than open it in the inspector and search around for where I need the breakpoint I can just pop it in the code and the inspector will open up where I need it.

2) Working with single page apps where breakpoints sometimes have a hard time persisting after a file changes. Nothing more frustrating than making a change and losing your breakpoints.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just to preempt certain comments, I realize that many people have known this for ages, but there are many who have not, and to them this might just make their day.

Also, "+new Date" is neat

<comment><USER8> Since ecmascript 5, Date.now() is the standard way of doing this. Generally speaking, I'd prefer to do that (with shims for older browsers) than do the equivalent of creating a new Date object and calling .valueOf on it (which is what +new Date does).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Actually the firebug add-on for Firefox does allow you to disable the 'debugger' statement at runtime, making it safe to insert anywhere in your code.

Other than that, good tip.

<comment><USER10> Chrome Dev Tools also lets you ignore breakpoints, but I hope you're not suggesting to ship code with debugger statements?

<comment><USER5> I don't it'll be much of a concern in a few years, though we're not there yet. Currently, Chrome will just gloss over any debugger statements unless the dev tools is open; if others happen to follow suit, then leaving a debugger statement in won't have any side-effects.

<comment><USER7> Still a really bad practice, IMO

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I'm being cynical, but I find it hard to believe that any "very talented front-end engineer" wouldn't know about the debugger.

</comment><comment><USER11> This sort of post should be a "pro-tip" on coderwall.com</comment>


Warning: a corrupted video currently crashing iPhones - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/5e9vtx/warning_a_corrupted_video_currently_crashing/ <comment><AUTHOR> Would like to note that the file is the culprit, so it could be sent by whatsapp and the like and be very easily rehosted.

Seems to effect all the way back to iOS 5 (tested old ipod, couldn't test further back).</comment>


Ask HN: Best affiliate network for web based software? - <AUTHOR>

I have a web based product like WordPress and am hoping to generate some affiliate sales. I was wondering if anyone has any good stories to share? I have checked all the basic ones cj, shareasale etc. but can't decide which one would be good for software sales. <comment><USER2> Merchants will always go where the affiliates are. So you'll see them spread out across multiple networks like CJ, Shareasale, LinkShare, etc.

Some are on multiple networks.

Fewer SaaS startups use affiliate marketing as a channel (as opposed to online retailers). You can always cherry-pick and contact them to work out a deal.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think there is a good solution to this yet. It's a huge market opportunity. "Stripe for affiliate programs"</comment>


An Interesting C++ Templated Parameter Gotcha - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitalpeer.com/blog/an-interesting-cpp-templated-parameter-gotcha

<comment><USER2> This is no gotcha; he deliberately shoots himself in the foot by using a "weird" integer type. The right solution is to use value_type from container/iterator_traits (that is what it is there for):

        accumulate(begin(v), end(v), value_type{0});

Suggesting 0LL is just calling for trouble when someone realizes the vector didn't had to be long long and forgets to change the initialized value.

IMO one of the huge screw ups of the design of the STL is making sizes unsigned. It means that you get a compiler error when writing:

        for(auto i = 0; i < vec.size(); ...) {...}

since i and size() have different types. The worst part is that unsigned doesn't buy you that much (only twice as many elements).

The lesson to be learned here is: don't use weird integer types unless you really need to, and then, you should know what you are doing. E.g. if I need a long index then I use

        using Idx = long long;
        accumulate(begin, end, Idx{0});

when I'm hacking, and

        struct unique_tag {};
        using Idx = arithmetic_type<long long, unique_tag>;

when I'm serious to disable all implicit conversions and make these types of errors impossible.

<comment><USER3> Unrelated to the post but related to the code you wrote - I have found that changing the tag struct definition to a declaration will cause a compilation failure if something accidentally tries to instantiate the tag struct.</comment></comment>


Show HN: my ebook fabrication service - <AUTHOR> http://www.ebookfab.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been helping friends and friends of friends get their ebooks published for some time now, and I thought I'd put out my shingle and have a go at it.

I realize the page is a little plain, but I hope it's informative enough to get my message across. What do you think?

<comment><USER2> this is pretty good. check out hyperink (YC'10?) also. they're doing something similar (not completely the same though).</comment></comment>


Coding Passbook: Lessons Learned - <AUTHOR> https://www.billguard.com/blog/2012/10/coding-passbook-lessons-learned/

<comment><USER2> I'm seeing diagnostic techniques in there that I did not find in the Apple supplied literature. You will probably want this when you decide to make a Passbook pass.

</comment><comment><USER3> What does the bar code do anyways when using Bill Guard on passbook?

<comment><USER4> currently it's a refer link that gives you an extra card for free if your invite a friend

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excellent guideline, love what you guys are doing at BillGuard.

</comment><comment><USER6> What is Passbook?

<comment><USER2> Passbook is intended to collect "the stuff in your pocket", e.g. Payment cards, rewards cards, coupons, tickets, boarding passes, in a handy app that helpfully shows you the right one at the right time.

Once someone has your pass in their passbook you can send updates, such as special deals.

This Quora post covers it nicely: [http://www.quora.com/Passbook-iOS-app/How- will-Apples-new-mo...](http://www.quora.com/Passbook-iOS-app/How-will-Apples- new-mobile-wallet-Passbook-impact-other-mobile-wallets)

<comment><USER7> BillGuard now lets you add your credit cards to Passbook and monitor balances and recent transactions. It also notifies you to any suspicious charges made using your card.

[Disclaimer: I work at BillGuard]</comment></comment></comment>


Comparison of 10 ACME / Let's Encrypt Clients - <AUTHOR> https://www.metachris.com/2015/12/comparison-of-10-acme-lets-encrypt-clients/ <comment><AUTHOR> Resubmitted, thanks HN mods.

Let me know if I missed any clients, I'm happy to update the post!

<comment><USER2> I'd like to see if any of the alternative clients support the SNI challenge. (I don't think so, but e.g. the official client uses it for Apache and that isn't listed either, probably because it happens in the "black box" of automatic configuration?)</comment></comment>


Post Quantum Crypto Standardization Process – Second Round Candidates Announced - <AUTHOR> https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2019/pqc-standardization-process-2nd-round-candidates <comment><USER2> > _As the latest step in its program to develop effective defenses, the > National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has winnowed the group > of potential encryption tools—known as cryptographic algorithms—down to a > bracket of 26. These algorithms are the ones NIST mathematicians and > computer scientists consider to be the strongest candidates submitted to its > Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization project, whose goal is to create a > set of standards for protecting electronic information from attack by the > computers of both tomorrow and today._

> _"These 26 algorithms are the ones we are considering for potential > standardization, and for the next 12 months we are requesting that the > cryptography community focus on analyzing their performance,"_

Links to the 17 public-key encryption and key-establishment algorithms and 9 digital signature algorithms are here: "Round 2 Submissions" [https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum- Cryptography/Rou...](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum- Cryptography/Round-2-Submissions)

"Quantum Algorithm Zoo" has moved to [https://quantumalgorithmzoo.org](https://quantumalgorithmzoo.org) .</comment>


Paid a Great Deal to Be Terrible at Development Most of the Time - <AUTHOR> https://www.exratione.com/2016/01/paid-a-great-deal-to-be-terrible-at-development-most-of-the-time/ <comment><USER2> Depressing yet seemingly true.

Having really good access to things you have found out in the past but haven't used in the past could help a bit (or just any ways of quickly getting back up to speed with things you haven done in a while).</comment>


Which epidemiologist do you believe? - <AUTHOR> https://unherd.com/2020/04/which-epidemiologist-do-you-believe/ <comment><USER3> I think it is interesting that the discussions are only framed in measuring deaths, and also focus on deaths of the old.

I'm watching friends and family knocked back by this virus for weeks, and now pushing into months (36 days and 42 days since first symptoms for 2 people I know), and research in the US and China points to the increase in long term health risks in the 20 to 50 year olds that recover from this. I know people that just walk away from this with no impact, but if we only focus on death we are likely missing the bigger picture.

<comment><USER4> The "how many time the flu is this" misses how damaging this is beyond it's potential casualties, how damaging to the health care system this is and so- forth.

The thing is, I also don't think you can get away from the way that those pushing for lower-end estimates aren't arguing from pure, selfless virology. They're arguing from a "this is uncertain, so should we really risk our economy to avoid potential lives lost?" position. I can see that if you could translate the lost money directly to other lives lost. But you can't. The various state could just support people for the period of the lockdown - <USER2> the advanced nations besides the Dysfunctional US are essentially doing this. So if you phrase things in terms of just paying lives for money, I would disagree with the article, that is evil. People who actively enable that are evil. Sweden's policy looks to be baring bitter fruit and I wouldn't forgive Dr. Giesecke any blame for that if it matures. I could be wrong and I'm OK risking money on that, it's a better choice imo.

<comment><USER5> > The various state could just support people for the period of the lockdown

Isn't that just hiding the truth though? After all, what is the state, where does it get the funds? Whether you take my money today or tomorrow, you've still taken my money. I don't see any reason to believe that there will be a magical no-tax funding of government any time soon.

<comment><USER6> It's not really about money. Money is just bits of paper, or electronic equivalents, that can be produced in arbitrary quantities. It's about having sufficient production of food and other necessities to keep people alive, ensuring that it's distributed to everybody, and finding enough people who are willing to do enough work to keep the economy going at this level.

<comment><USER5> Right, obviously when I say money, I don't mean "paper", I mean the equivalent value that we represent by using money. We're generating a lot less value today, while spending as if we didn't. Suggestions for the state to pay people their usual salary while locked down for the next months/years do require some idea of how to pay for it (again: with value, not with paper). Magic aside, how will that happen?

<comment><USER7> Exactly. The estimated $25 billion dollars a day the lockdown is costing the economy is real economic output not a balance in a ledger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A lot of these discussions also sound like lockdown measures are "free". But in reality it's about balancing two unknowns.

On the one hand we don't know how dangerous the virus actually is. If you look around you can find very serious scientists calculating the risks both as very low and very high. There are a number of various complicating factors (like comorbidity, or lockdown measures) to take into consideration.

On the other hand we have some idea that lockdown is going to be really bad. We are likely to face a huge economic crisis, except a lot of the outlets for negative emotion have been cut off. That is going to have a very real death toll as well. But again, we don't know how bad this is going to be. Will it cause wars? Perhaps. Will it cause suicides? Definitely.

I am personally fairly surprised that the Giesecke view isn't more popular around the world. Having a bit more scepticism about the virus before one decides to also sacrifice a lot of people's livelihoods seems prudent to me.

<comment><USER9> The tail risk angle is pretty interesting. We have a pretty good idea of the upper bound of mortality of the virus, and we also know that with some basic precautions the worst case scenario can be avoided. It's worse than the flu, but not 10 times worse. On the other hand we have no clue what the end result will be of mass unemployment and food insecurity for millions who used to be middle class, on top of unprecedented central bank policy. It's pretty reckless to shut down the world economy and hope it will turn out OK.

<comment><USER10> We don't know that it's not 10 times worse. Data is confusing and sketchy, but there are many datapoints that indicate that the IFR is over 1%, and maybe as high as 2%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Being a swede it's hard but I don't know if non-swedish epidemiologists make the same mistakes and claims.

Giesecke has claimed less than two weeks ago that at least 600k people in Stockholm (pop 950k) have had it. We did viral and antibody tests that came up with 11%(and had to be retracted because it was based on blood donors and included all donors who had recovered and were specifically asked to donate plasma with antibodies, so 11% is above max) and 2.5% respectively.

This claim and Gieseckes claim that deaths are <0.1% were was then the basis of a study published to show the Swedish policy was right, which had to be retracted because it put the population of Sweden to be >3*45million.

Gieseckes claims and articles starting to disappear/overwritten on same URLs made me back up 4000 news articles yesterday. I think we are close to one of our famous overnight 180 degree public opinion turns from the media starting to question any claims at all.

A large anti body study was supposed to be released yesterday, and I'm waiting to see what it says. We seem to be very far off the herd immunity Gieseckes strategy is based on.

<comment><USER12> I also share your concern about claims made by Gieseke.

The article quotes Gieseke as saying "The real death toll, he suggested, will be in the region of a severe influenza season — maybe double that at most".

Sweden's official death toll was 2270 yesterday (2020-04-28). The three worst influenza seasons in Sweden since 1969 killed 807, 674 and 652 people[1]. So we've already passed his "at most" claim. The only way I can see that working out is if he feels that none of the influenza seasons in the past 50 years count as "severe".

[1]: numbers taken from the Swedish wikipedia entry on influenza. I didn't bother to check wikipedia's source. An average Swedish influenza season kills about 200.

<comment><USER13> > he only way I can see that working out is if he feels that none of the > influenza seasons in the past 50 years count as "severe".

Or that he doesn't think deaths in past influenza seasons were all attributed to influenza but rather just "normal" deaths.

The excess all-cause deaths will be the figure to look at, but it will take quite a while before those numbers are reliable.

<comment><USER9> But the excess death data will also be tainted because people, especially older people, avoid going to hospitals out of fear of catching covid19. Cancer screenings are way down, and fewer people go to the ER with heart attacks and the like. This will inevitably lead to excess mortality down the road --even among otherwise healthy people--, but it will be very hard to determine the magnitude of this second-order effect.

Of course it's also very hard to distinguish between people dying with covid19 and dying because of it. And we've never even made a serious effort to track the cause of death of the elderly.

Meaning we don't know how many people die each year from the flu, and we don't know how many people are dying of covid19. When you add it all up, it will be very difficult to learn the right lessons from this pandemic.

<comment><USER14> That's not what excess mortality means. They don't say "this many extra people died, I guess it must be covid" \-- they're not fucking idiots.

When cancer patients die because their cancer treatment was cancelled they die of a cancer related cause, and that's how their death will be recorded, and that's how their death will be reported.

> And we've never even made a serious effort to track the cause of death of > the elderly.

It's hard to understand your "we" here. Which country doesn't try to track cause of death for elderly people?

> Meaning we don't know how many people die each year from the flu,

But we can count the deaths the same way. We can look at deaths of people confirmed to have the disease, we can look at death certificates, we can look at excess mortality combined with community surveillance. The errors for all three are going to be similar for flu and covid-19.

<comment><USER9> > But we can count the deaths the same way.

When person in an elderly care facility dies we don't do a forensic investigation. We just shrug and say "I guess it was their time". So we don't have an accurate mortality baseline to do any comparison against. And that's assuming we are accurately distinguishing between those who died of covid19 and those who died with covid19, which we don't.

I'm not suggesting that people who draw conclusions from incomplete data are idiots, I'm pointing out that the data we have is completely insufficient to make an accurate assessment of covid19 mortality.

<comment><USER13> I think this is why excess all cause deaths will be the best evaluation. Lots of people who die from Covid in care homes are people who would have died from this years flu anyway. They aren't excess deaths, they are the baseline deaths.

<comment><USER9> I agree that 'excess all cause deaths' is an important metric, but we still have to correct for clear biases in both directions. E.g. fewer traffic deaths because of a lockdown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The problem with the Giesecke approach is that it relies on 2 assumptions being true. 1) that infection brings long term immunity to the currently circulating strains. 2) that covid-19 will not mutate into a new strain with equivalent pathogenicity to which those with immunity to the current strain are no longer immune. If either of these are false then you will not get a meaningful form of immunity in the population. Currently we don't have any evidence that either assumption is true so pursuing this approach carries an increased risk for very little benefit.

<comment><USER16> On the other hand, if we don't get long term immunity from the virus we wont get it from a vaccine either. In my opinion there is three paths through this. Two of them depends on immunity. 1\. Slow down the spread with soft lockdown, let it pass and get immunity. Will take a long time. 2\. Try to severly limit spread with hard lockdown. Either to open up and do lockdown again as necessary or stay in lockdown. Untill vaccine. This is a long road. Optimistic figures is a vaccine somewhere second half of next year. 3\. Contact tracing and severe quarantine for infected and contacts until the virus is eradicated. Quick, only possible if the spread is limited. You can't open your country to others until they have done the same or a vaccine is here. The unicorn exit is of course every county doing this and a total eradication of the virus. A country could possibly change track from strategy 2 to 3 if the spread is down really low and contact tracing is in place. Testing without tracing wont do it.

So soft lockdown in maybe a year or more, deaths will be in the 0,5% vicinity, more in some countries, less in some. Hard lockdown in the same timespan as above. Less deaths but will you have any society to return to? If you do hard lockdown for a while and then lighten up you're in situation 1 basically or forced to lock down soon again. Number three is very attractive. Had we all been prepared and had plans for this like South Korea and being island nations with easily shut borders like NZ it would have been simpler. But most countries were not and are not any of that.

<comment><USER17> South Korea is effectively a island nation in this context: ain't nothing much passing over their land border unless something goes severely wrong in North Korea.

<comment><USER16> Very true

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How is Giesecke's approach of "so we should do what we can to slow it so the health service can cope, but let it pass" different than what is currently happening?

As I understand it, that is what most countries do and achieve with various success. And as soon as there is any respite in the load of the hospitals, people are already pushing for a easing of restrictions in place.

<comment><USER4> A few countries have eliminated the virus entirely. Most other countries are in lockdown as more or less a desperation move and effectively have no articulated plan. Maybe they'll get infection rate down and can get testing and contact tracing working enough to do elimination in heavily effected areas but in the US, certainly, all plans are vague and the authorities seem to be reacting to events rather than planning. I think WHO articulated the elimination path but again, who knows.

But with all that, Giesecke's approach is more like getting the whole thing over with quickly, which would have brutal effect on the health care system, to say the least. IE, once this is done, all the doctors and nurses in the emergency care system are going to quit.

<comment><USER19> > But with all that, Giesecke's approach is more like getting the whole thing > over with quickly, which would have brutal effect on the health care system, > to say the least. IE, once this is done, all the doctors and nurses in the > emergency care system are going to quit.

The point of lockdowns wasn't to stay locked until total control. That simply will not happen in the US, at this point. (And I'm not sure it's feasible anywhere other than South Korea, now.)

The point was to give everybody time to react and get ready. It's been almost 45 days since the lockdowns started--healthcare workers should have all the gowns, wipes, masks, etc. that they need, by now.

The fact that they don't is an indictment of most of the governments of most of the countries.

In my opinion, we stay locked down until healthcare workers have what they need _even if a gigantic wave hits_. If enough healthcare workers die, we're all in deep shit even after Covid-19 reaches herd immunity.

Want to unlock things? Start smacking some idiot leaders around about giving equipment to healthcare workers.

When I see healthcare workers saying "Please, stop, we have all the equipment we need and then some," _then_ I'll believe we can come out of a lockdown.

<comment><USER20> > In my opinion, we stay locked down until healthcare workers have what they > need _even if a gigantic wave hits._

Do you think that's practical? This virus has a hospitalisation rate of somewhere between 10% and 20% and an ICU rate of 4-10%, and people who are hospitalised need to be in there for 2-4 weeks. If a 'gigantic wave' is even 10% of your population (which realistically it would far exceed, given how contagious the virus is) you need 10-20 free hospital beds per 1000 population of which 4-10 are ICU beds.

The United States has 800k hospital beds of which ~100k are ICU beds, for a population of 330 million (source: [https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts- us-hospitals](https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals)) That's 2.4 hospital beds per 1000 population, of which 0.3 are ICU beds.

You're gonna need at least 10x as many additional beds as you currently have. At _least_. And that's for only 10% of your population getting sick.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that lockdowns are pointless. I'm saying that they need to be longer and more thorough to get to the point where the virus is entirely eliminated, or they need to remain at current levels indefinitely until an effective vaccine or other treatment is available.

<comment><USER21> > This virus has a hospitalisation rate of somewhere between 10% and 20% and > an ICU rate of 4-10%

Part of the reason there is even a debate is because we don't know this for sure.

<comment><USER20> I've seen a lot of discussion about a "submerged iceberg" population of asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic infections that haven't been picked up by testing, but IMO this doesn't pass the sniff test when considering populations like Australia / NZ / South Korea. Any such population should cause a steady stream of serious cases popping up that can't be traced back to known sources, along with random community testing seeing an unexpectedly high positive rate. We're seeing no such thing.

The few studies where a large population was tested and shown to be widely infected but largely asymptomatic seem to fall into one of two camps: They used immunological tests (which are now under serious suspicion don't seem reliable) or they tested a newly infected population after the first cases were found (before the majority of infections had time to manifest symptoms.) They've also been reported misleadingly (eg. the aircraft carrier case where it was reported "80% of the crew were infected but asymptomatic" when actually 80% of the crew _who tested positive_ were asymptomatic.)

<comment><USER21> I'm also not asserting we know for sure that there is a 20-50x (or something along those lines) undercount in cases. Just that there is a huge amount of uncertainty with IFR and hospitalization rates, and none of your points really rule out that uncertainty.

<comment><USER20> Also true, and there's a chance I'm wrong and most people have already had a mild version and everything will be fine. There's enough evidence suggesting that the rates of severe complications and death are far higher than we're comfortable with, though, that I, for one, would prefer to err on the side of caution rather than run with "well, it _might_ not kill 10% or more of the population."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> An interesting aspect is that the authority where the Swedish State Epidemologist works is the "public health agency". That is: the agency responsible for the health of the whole population. That's not irrelevant here. Their mission is always the _long term_ health of the population. They are _not_ in a position to recommend actions that they belive will reduce deaths from Covid if they simultaneously believe that e.g the economic effects on the healthcare system will mean it is a net negative for the public health long term.

Meanwhile in other countries perhaps some authorities are working from shorter term ethical guidelines.

Using different views and optimizing for different goals isn't necessarily wrong. There is no "right" here. Everyone realizes that thousands will die in the coming years from things we can afford to treat today, but that we won't be able to afford if we have 15% unemployment. Whether that's part of the equation or not varies between countries and experts. In many places these decisions aren't even left to relevant expert authorities but rather to politicians who have an additional set of concerns (such as popularity) to deal with.

Note: Johan Giesecke is no longer working as State Epidemologist but his views are rather consistent with those of the current authority and the current State Epidemologist Dr Tegnell, so his views are probably shaped in this framework.

</comment><comment><USER22> I doubt there's a _single_ best way of dealing with this crisis across the entirety of our planet, given the incredible diversity in demographics, cultures, population density, wealth, health care systems and dna.

EDIT: should have added politics as another differentiator

<comment><USER23> and diversity in politics... don't forget politics

Korea "should" be comparable to western countries if it wasn't for politics. But they have 100x fewer deaths. They're not trying to reach herd immunity, it's a political choice.

<comment><USER22> > and diversity in politics

Agreed and I amended my comment accordingly - and thanks for pointing out my oversight!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If Covid19 is 10x deadlier than flu, they both say the same thing.

> it's like a tsunami sweeping across Europe." The real death toll, he > suggested, will be in the region of a severe influenza season

>UK fatality rate of Covid-19 is likely to be 0.8-0.9%,

</comment><comment><USER25> "Whether you're more Giesecke or Ferguson, it's time to stop pretending that our response to this threat is simply a scientific question, or even an easy moral choice between right and wrong. It's a question of what sort of world we want to live in, and at what cost."

That right there is the thing. I think there are a lot of questions that fall into this catagory. People want them to be questions of science but they are fundamentally political questions. You can use science - in ways that are fair or unfair - but at heart science can't answer them.

</comment><comment><USER26> I take the editorial stance that we should only use "believe" in a religious context, so that we tag the thought as something subjective and unprovable in the mathematical sense.

Instead put a Figure of Merit against the idea.

I 30% buy off that covid-19 is a nasty virus that one Does Not Want, and that precautions are in order to protect those with compromised immune systems (my wife).

I 70% think that a variety of leaders on all levels and parties are not "letting a crisis go to waste" here, and purging the backlog of items that they don't care to discuss in detail.

</comment><comment> 2019-nCoV History won't be kind to Giesecke.

Deaths are almost an order of magnitude higher in Sweden v the rest of Scandinavia: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths- trajec...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajectory- per-million?yScale=linear&country=NOR+SWE+FIN+DNK)

<comment><USER13> What do you think the goal is of any strategy? Minimizing deaths from Covid-19 in the 2020 spring season? Minimizing deaths from Covid-19 overall (until the disease is "over")? Minimizing all-cause deaths this year? Minimizing some more abstract thing like "quality adjusted lives lost" over many years ahead?

I'll let you know which one it _isn 't_: the first one.

<comment> 2019-nCoV Currently all that is certain is the Swedish gov has gambled with their citizens lives and in doing so they've done horribly in contrast with comparable countries. And the number of fatalities continues to grow.

How is Sweden in any better position to minimise total (lifetime) C19 deaths? Or all-cause deaths this year?

<comment><USER13> > How is Sweden in any better position to minimise total (lifetime) C19 > deaths? Or all-cause deaths this year?

One strategy is ensuring you have some protection from immunity in the population (e.g. 20%) when the first wave is over, so that together with other measures (testing, contact tracing, quarantines) you have a chance to control the virus until a vaccine is found in say 18 months, while also allowing the economy to function. That is to say: flatten the curve but not too much. You _want_ some percentage of immunity too.

The effects on deaths from the economy will take years to manifest. What quality of cancer care can be offered in a country in 5 or 10 years can definitely depend on how this situation is managed now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not this bunch for sure:

[https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/debunking- bakersfield-...](https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/debunking-bakersfield- doctors-covid-spread-conclusions/)

<comment><USER27> To which ever rational scientist downvoted me, here are the good doctors' claims from 26th [1] :

"So if you look at California—these numbers are from yesterday—we have 33,865 COVID cases, out of a total of 280,900 total tested. That's 12% of Californians were positive for COVID. So we don't, the initial—as you guys know, the initial models were woefully inaccurate. They predicted millions of cases of death—not of prevalence or incidence—but death. That is not materializing. What is materializing is, in the state of California is 12% positives. You have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID in the state of California."

Even a child can figure out why this is not even wrong.

[1] [https://www.aier.org/article/open-up-society-now-say-dr- dan-...](https://www.aier.org/article/open-up-society-now-say-dr-dan-erickson- and-dr-artin-massihi/)</comment></comment>


Why ZIP codes have 5 numbers – and what they each mean - <AUTHOR> http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-do-zip-codes-mean-2015-6?r=US

<comment><USER2> "The ZIP+4 code was implemented when it became difficult to sort mail based only on traditional ZIP codes, but it never quite caught on."

This is totally false. Zip+4 addressing (and, for bulk mail, presorting by Zip+4) is _required_ for the best mail rates. Zip+4 is generally not written in by the consumer (I do, but I'm a geek who's done mailhouse work), but it's endemic otherwise.

I bet a fair share of any reader's outbound mail here uses zip+4 as well - just look at the return envelopes/labels for bills, etc. that are done via mail.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess "it never quite caught on" meaning that not a lot of people use it..?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Learn Scala in 5 days (first 2 days free) - <AUTHOR> http://www.scalaacademy.com/scala-course/

<comment><USER2> Well this is a bit of fun isn't it.</comment>


Introducing New Ask to Answer - <AUTHOR> https://blog.quora.com/Introducing-New-Ask-to-Answer?share=1

<comment><AUTHOR> They already skipped promoted posts. It seems like promoted posts is an obvious way for the investors to get a return on their money.</comment>


Show HN: Buku – Command-line bookmark manager - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jarun/Buku/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> Somebody please write an add-on to integrate this with Pinboard, for great justice.

<comment><USER3> YES. Also if you could get it to auto-tag the URLs based on what OTHER people in pinboard used to tag it that would be awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lots of bookmark managers popping up. I've added this one to the on-going list at my own bookmark manager (dog-fooding) here:

[https://www.curabase.com/a/b86eefdd-5f52-4455-9a1e-25ad0b0e9...](https://www.curabase.com/a/b86eefdd-5f52-4455-9a1e-25ad0b0e94eb)

<comment> mh- I really like this. nice work.

It'd be cool if there was a way for me to copy ("fork", sort of) a shared page of yours, into my account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Needs a way to edit tags and comments. Otherwise fine app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please use the `-r` option to replace/delete tags in DB.

Please use the update option (-u) to update/delete comments for individual bookmarks.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it's in the manual. But -u option requires supplying full URL which is very inconvinient.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have plans to remove this. But it will take some time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Trying it now: what it needs to become part of my life is an option to edit tags, comments etc. for an entry using $EDITOR.

</comment><comment><USER7> Shut up and take all my money!

</comment><comment><USER8> I love Buku. Using it daily now!

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you find the effort useful. :)

<comment><USER9> Points for xsel integration. Information management is frustrating for me since I context shift between clients, day to day tasks, familial obligations & most of this is mostly around the browser. Eventually I suffer from tab overflow, with Chrome taking 28 of my 32 GB of RAM. OneTab autosuspends some of them, but if you write something to grab from Chrome open tabs, clustering by "time opened" (usually I'll open 3 or 4 tabs of, say, resistor spec sheets or something -- time locality is generally correlated with project for me), and the option of annotation (similar to how git does it, first line = title; anything lengthier for more elaborate stuff) and my lord would you have made my life significantly easier. If you add interop with TaskWarrior and/or emacs org-mode you'll almost certainly have a hit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the excellent idea. I took a note of it. This would definitely scale the project to new heights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> pypi package please!

<comment><AUTHOR> It was a conscious decision not to submit to PyPI at the moment. PyPi is more suited for libraries than standalones. However, if we re-format the code later so it can also be extended, we'll submit to PyPI. There's already a openbug on that.</comment></comment>


UK Startup Community Interactive Map Launched by TechBritain - <AUTHOR> http://blog.nerdability.com/2013/01/techbritain-startup-map-launched.html

<comment><USER2> I'd love to see this with a little more curation. An example (there are more): calling Inmarsat a startup is a bit tenuous when they are LSE listed with a market cap of 2.8 billion.</comment>


Canadian leader suspends Parliament to stay in power - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/12/04/canada.crisis/index.html

<comment><USER2> As a Canadian, I say this: NOT HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pardon.

Also, I can't help but find your user name humorously ironic.</comment></comment>


Meeting online has become the most popular way U.S. couples connect: study - <AUTHOR> https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/ <comment><USER2> I've met my last two girlfriends online. Both were ok, but ultimately didn't last (the relationships lasted 3 & 6 months respectively). And the dates that didn't turn into anything (of which I went on ~10 or so) were really average.

On reflection, the social aspect of meeting people through friends really helps solve a lot of future relationship problems (you have things in common, some level of shared values etc).

In my view online dating is brutal for all. As a guy you are constantly swiping and sending out a lot of messages with a very low conversion rate (I'd be surprised if 1% of all swipes turn into a date). If you go on things like /r/tinder there are lots of guys who complain about being on the platform for months or years and not having a single match. As a woman you're often dealing with hundreds and hundreds of matches. Everyone has to run a massive pipeline which means things end up being very transactional if you aren't careful.

Because there's so much competition things that wouldn't necessarily matter all that much end up being huge deal breakers (say for example height, or niche preferences).

I'm off the apps, at least for the moment, and am focusing on meeting people in the real world.

<comment><USER3> Reading about these apps, I am so glad I'm a married man, having found a great partner over a decade ago IRL. I'd stand zero chance today, where I'm in competition with thousands of men, over a handful of understandably choosy women. If I were suddenly to become single today I would not have the slightest clue what to do. My hat is off to you young men who have to deal with dating today.

<comment><USER4> Me too. These dating apps sound terrifying. (I met my wife the old fashioned way—on a message board.)

<comment><USER5> online does not necessarily mean "those apps". it can mean a message board, a game, etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't really imagine another way to date. People want to go about their day and get groceries without being hit on. People want to go to meetups without being hit on. Nobody wants to play matchmaker for two friends then be stuck in the middle when it doesn't work out. Online dating gives you a way to explicitly opt in to "I want to meet you romantically" and lets you meet people who you would otherwise have absolutely no way to encounter.

<comment><USER7> What's wrong with being hit on (assuming that it's not sexual harrassment)? What's wrong with taking a risk and setting up two friends? Why do we have to segment all life into easy-to-classify pockets of time: 'work', 'dating', 'getting groceries'? Does this not remove some element of spontaneity and joie-de-vivre that makes life thrilling and make one feel human (and not a finite state machine)? While I think the dating apps can certainly facilitate the meeting of two people who otherwise would never meet, I worry about this general attitude.

<comment><USER8> I too worry about this general attitude. Not only is flirting fun, it's built in to our species. It adds a lot of spice to life. If you don't know how to flirt without "hitting on" someone and making them feel uncomfortable then you have to up your game. I have no desire to live an algorithmic life.

<comment><USER9> I don't find flirting to be fun. I completely disagree about it being "built in" to our species. I feel that the phrase "up your game" as a strong insult in this context: I _don 't_ believe dating should be gamed; I also believe that those who do game dating are among the worst people I've met. That doesn't mean I live an algorithmic life.

<comment><USER10> Looks pretty algorithmic to me:

      #include "env.hpp"
      #define FLIRTING "not fun"
      #if __has_feature(flirting)
      #error Invalid built-in environment
      #endif

      int main()
      {

       const char insult[] = "up your game";
       Person p;

       if (has_gamed(p) && FLIRTING) {
          p.set_worst();
          throw insult;
       }
      }

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would advice most people to stay away from online dating. Especially if you social anxiety or low self esteem. Why would you place the chances of finding love in the hands of a corporation?

In the case of tinder here is why: After I sign up tinder I started getting constant ads. These ads have followed me for months, to this day. Here is the most recent example: [https://imgur.com/a/IJFCG0m](https://imgur.com/a/IJFCG0m).

Most dating apps are owned by a single company Match group. They own for example: BlackPeopleMeet.com, Chemistry.com, Delightful, FriendScout24, HowAboutWe, Match.com, Meetic Group, OkCupid, OurTime, People Media, PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Twoo, Hinge. In fact, tinder's delete account button is very conveniently placed. They don't care if you delete your account... as long as they can shuffle users around. The match group itself is owned by an even bigger corporation IAC. It owns about 150 brands worldwide. For example: TripAdvisor, Expedia, Ask.com, The Daily Beast, About.com, Dictionary.com, Investopedia, among many others.

I have a hard time believing that Tinder have any incentives to make you find date. Why would they do that? You will quit the app and they will stop making money!

I believe they use a lot of dark pattern to try to sell stuff. Here in an example: [https://i.redd.it/e13yeek795x21.jpg](https://i.redd.it/e13yeek795x21.jpg). When I used tinder they keep the notification "there is someone that like" but they would actually show me the person. Another example of the dark patterns: [https://i.redd.it/r0lheira9rh31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/r0lheira9rh31.jpg). They also shadow-ban users among many other things.

<comment><USER11> \--I meant they would not* show me the person, so the notification persisted. Pushing people towards paying and unblocking their likes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > I think that internet dating is a modest positive addition to our world. It > is generating interaction between people that we otherwise wouldn't have. > People who have in the past had trouble finding a potential partner benefit > the most from the broader choice set provided by the dating apps.

I feel online dating is skewed in favor of users who are in top x% attraction level. The return on time spent is poor if you are not very attractive.

Moreover, I think it's difficult to switch it off completely. It's harder to commit, invest time and effort to build a strong relationship even when things are not going smooth - when there is endless potential of finding someone better/more beautiful/taller/richer etc. just a few swipes away.

<comment><USER13> Dating in general is skewed towards more attractive people, whether online or not, wouldn't you agree?

<comment><USER12> Yes. What I meant was, I think the skew towards more attractive people is higher when it comes to online dating.

Offline, people may know each other from work, mutual friends etc for some time before they actually start dating (not including speed/blind dating). In my experience, getting to know someone in person first and having a sense of comfort and security makes the physical attractiveness aspect somewhat less important.

<comment><USER14> I second this. In particular with something like Tinder, the only thing that matters is attractiveness. There is no place on Tinder to put details like hobbies, interests, etc. it is just a giant game of hot-or-not.

Other sites like OkCupid are better in that respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recently had a bizare experience. My girlfriend that I met in college and was dating for 4 years broke up with me and a week later I saw her profile on Bumble.

It was definitely very upsetting. Women have a lot more power with online dating and can essentially meet someone at anytime if they are good looking. I don't doubt that she has dozens or even hundreds of messages from guys.

I don't have many high quality pictures and I don't do very well.

In online dating it's definitely true that a small percentage of men (say 20%) has sex and the opportunity for a relationship with the majority of women (say 80%).

So I guess I will be single for awhile

<comment><USER16> Better to be single than with someone who would throw away a serious relationship for some flings. At the very least be thankful she had the decency to end things with you first.

<comment><USER17> You're subtly insinuating that the woman was being shallow or petty, when in fact, she could have just not wanted to move forward with the relationship.

<comment><USER16> Weird, I thought I was overtly insinuating that. It did happen the week after a 4+ year serious relationship ended, after all.

<comment><USER17> Why do you believe that the woman owes the man anything after ending the relationship? A woman is not obligated to feel emotionally conservative just because her former partner does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a gay man, meeting other men online is the only way I can. :-(

There don't seem to be many appropriate dating spaces for the LGBTQ+ community in the physical world... maybe it's just a fact of being in your mid twenties during a time of great change, but I wish there were spaces that didn't necessitate drinking, where you could meet people in this arena.

Overall, online dating makes me quite sad. It's very easy to judge and dismiss someone online based on a few lines of text and some photographs.

That's probably why I'm still single. Nobody's interested in my profile or photos. It's hard to stand out in such a competitive arena; I'd prefer to get to know people in the flesh.

<comment><USER19> >There don't seem to be many appropriate dating spaces for the LGBTQ+ community in the physical world...

>I wish there were spaces that didn't necessitate drinking, where you could meet people in this arena.

Not sure to understand clearly.

Honestly you can go a to a bar and order a Dr.Pepper there is nothing that's going to stop you from doing that... I'm not sure to understand entirely there are many gay bars / nightclubs everywhere I'm sure most of them are appropriate spaces to flirt or engage with other people...

<comment><USER18> Ah, my apologies. I should've spent a bit more time composing my original comment before posting.

This comment is solely about my experiences: I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone.

In my experience, I go to a gay bar or a nightclub and, well, it feels like they don't want to flirt or get to know me, they just want sex.

That's what I meant about "appropriate" spaces —- somewhere that isn't going to be overly sexualised to my detriment.

I look around and I don't see anywhere I can start a conversation without someone who's behaviour (eg entitlement to have sex, or drunkenness, or harassing me, or potential violence, etc.) would negatively impact on me being in that space.

That includes being harassed by straight people in these spaces. Hen parties who want a "gay BFF", homophobes (because a small minority are increasingly vocal about their opposition and will act on it), etc. which make me reluctant to go to these spaces right now.

Are there solutions to these problems? Of course, but it feels a lot harder to implement them than it would if I weren't gay. From my point of view, the social structures we've established as a civilisation aren't quite equal (e.g. I can't just go up to someone at the supermarket and flirt with them without potentially risking violence) and that's what saddens me the most.

I don't know if you're LGBTQ+, but if you're not, the pressures and challenges the LGBTQ+ community face in this area are distinct from the heterosexual dating community.

So, yes, online dating—-for me—-is the safest way to meet other men, even though I would prefer that the real life spaces were safer and more accommodating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Personally, using apps diluted the spark of dating for me so I stopped using them. The most intense part of "mating" for me are the initial stages of attraction, trying to suss out whether or not the opposite party is attracted to you and reading the signs, that and flirting can generate a great high because there is such risk.

At the end of the day once the app sets you up you'll have to flirt anyway to generate attraction -- but if you've ever had a spontaneous flirtatious interaction with someone you're attracted to you know what I mean.

<comment><USER21> As an introvert who grew up with crippling social anxiety, I have no idea what you're talking about.

<comment><USER22> Social skills can be improved, at least in many people. I learned slowly but eventually I mostly caught up.

<comment> mkr-hn Introversion is not a lack of social skills. Introversion is an inclination toward solitude. Social anxiety is its own thing and says nothing about social skills. Even great socializers often have social anxiety.

<comment><USER23> You're giving the scientific definition, not the way the term is commonly used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am more interested to know whether successfully married couples are more likely to meet online than all couples. Maybe this simply demonstrates an uptick in number of relationships and less time someone is single until they find their long-term mate/partner.

<comment><USER25> I don't have data to back this up, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone who gets married today is more likely to meet their husband / wife online. There are a few reasons for this.

\- Lower risk of looking bad. Date didn't go bad? No worries.. none of your friends have to find out it was your fault.

\- Less pressure from family and friends to pair up with someone. They'll only find out when you're ready.

\- Fewer couples meet at work - there are many reasons for this, and some may even argue that this is for the better. But, this does mean that more people will meet online.

\- Fewer couples meet at church. There just aren't as many church goers in Western countries as before. Again, there are a few reasons for this.. but the result is that more people end up online.

\- People move more than ever. And it becomes more difficult to meet someone as we get older (no school to be a common connection), and one day you just want to meet your next relationship. So you get right down to business: get an online dating account.

\- More choices to find that perfect someone online.

<comment><USER8> Completely anecdotal but all the young couples I know getting married have all met in real life, no exceptions. It makes me suspect HN's claim that _everybody_ meets online today. My anecdotal experience says it's exactly the opposite.

<comment><USER26> I have at least 4 married couples amongst my friends that met online (2 of them through World of Warcraft, though). I'm about to get married to a woman I met through online dating.

I was actually trying really hard to date people in person too, I was going to tons of meetups, and getting some dates out of that, it just so happened that the woman I'm marrying ended up being someone that messaged me on an online dating app four years ago.

I do know married couples that met through Meetup and other in-person methods as well, so online is definitely not everyone's only option anymore, but online is a definitely viable option.

<comment><USER27> Adding games to online dating sounds great, but would be technically difficult. Maybe a Yahoo! Games of dating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That's awful to be honest.

I don't have anything against online dating in principle, though I do find it pretty weird, but there's _got_ to be a better way than relying on obscure matchmaking algorithms, shitty apps optimizing for engagement and your being single (remember, if you're not single you're not using the app), run by shady companies harvesting all of your data. Americans will always surprise me in their ability to surrender every single aspect of their life to megacorporations, even the most intimate and personal ones.

<comment><USER29> I wish I could upvote you to the top.

HNers are quick to sh*t on Microsoft, Google and all for telemetry but will gladly give all their most intimate info to these shady dating companies with no concerns for privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm sure it is, but I can't help but feel that that's mostly because more traditional ways to meet people have basically evaporated due to social and economic forces.

Personally, I found online dating such a tedious affair that I decided I'd rather be alone.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is the abstract:

> We present data from a nationally representative 2017 survey of American > adults. For heterosexual couples in the United States, meeting online has > become the most popular way couples meet, eclipsing meeting through friends > for the first time around 2013. Moreover, among the couples who meet online, > the proportion who have met through the mediation of third persons has > declined over time. We find that Internet meeting is displacing the roles > that family and friends once played in bringing couples together.

I haven't looked at the underlying data (but its publicly available - yay!), but it does sound from the abstract and the dataset's website like the author may be (and the article definitely moreso) reading into the fact that it's online too much, and not really looking into the actual dynamics of the ways people interact online. They mention "mediation" by friends, but it's not clear to me if one or both of (1) meeting at an event hosted by a mutual friend and (2) being exposed to each other because of a mutual online friend are considered "mediation" by the friend. I know a lot of couples have first interacted because they were friends-of-friends (i.e. sliding into the Instagram DMs), but there was no active mediation (i.e. setting up) from the friend. It's all passive. Other than the fact that more socialization is done online in general, those situations aren't that different with respect to how important the friend is.

The article then mentions "algorithms", which I think is a bit generous considering how popular the apps are that don't match you up based on much more than gender preferences and location. Instead, you just go for volume online and evaluate the match in-person or through subsequent chat. It seems like match-making algorithms have decreased in perceived importance as online dating has matured. e-Harmony used to push it big time, but it seems like the Tinders of the world absolutely dominate now.

<comment><USER32> If you're quoting something, prefix the line with a > symbol rather than 4 spaces. Quoting with 4 spaces is intended for entering code, and it messes up formatting if the line is long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> If that's the case then I'm doomed to real-world dating.

Apparently I need to hire a photographer and a social media coordinator, because otherwise I absolutely stink at flirting online.

Other issue is that I like intellectuals and smarter crowds. My experiences online have been rather unlucky in this area.

<comment><USER34> You're not far off about the photographer.

A friend recently introduced me to a new dating app. Every picture looked like it was taken by a professional travel photographer (with the candidate somewhere in the scene).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I am skeptical.

>I was surprised at how much online dating has displaced the help of friends in meeting a romantic partner. Our previous thinking was that the role of friends in dating would never be displaced. But it seems like online dating is displacing it.

Hmmm. In my experience friends are still pretty heavily involved (assuming one has friends). They're just not involved in the discover process, but they're definitely involved in the filtering process, perhaps moreso now.

So it seems like online dating has mostly just replaced the discovery process - how do you find people to meet. This is probably a good thing. But once you've met a person I still think your friends provide feedback that may determine whether you see that person again.

</comment><comment><USER36> Years ago I met my wife online. Now, I wonder which companies have bought our messaging histories... and when a breach will release those and any other content I posted back then.

</comment><comment><USER37> Attractive people don't need to date online. Attractive women, in particular.

Most popular way is still thru friends.

<comment><USER38> > Most popular way is still thru friends.

Do you have a recent study to back this claim?

<comment><USER37> No, I'm just saying what I think; what rings true to me based on my experience and observations.

Pretty women get thousands of messages online. It's overwhelming, and they always have men trying to date them in real life and social media.

No need to get online. Bars downtown with their girls is more than enough, if it even has to come down to that.

Friends of friends just means parties.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Note that "meeting online" includes things like social networks, games and chats, along with actual online dating. In 2017, 39% of new couples met met online. Online dating itself only accounted for about 24% of all new couples.

[https://twitter.com/dkthomp/status/1149701645070155776](https://twitter.com/dkthomp/status/1149701645070155776)

</comment><comment><USER40> At some point, it's just called "dating."

This is like saying I'm doing "online job seeking" because I find out about jobs online. At a certain point, that's just the default for how it's done. Similarly, I'm not "online working" because my job is done mostly online. I'm just working.

<comment><USER41> I'm not sure if you're being glib but there really is a fundamental distinction here. Meeting someone because of the workings of an algorithm on a platform both of you have signed up for is substantially different than meeting someone through mutual friends or even through happenstance.

And your line of work may not be differentiated by whether or not it's online, but that is not true of a whole host of more traditional jobs. I'm thinking not just of anything involving manual labor but also of the majority of service work, from hairdressing to restaurant service. All of those jobs remain in the offline realm and it would be a big deal if they were moved online, just as it's rightly seen as a big deal that courtship has moved online.

<comment><USER40> You'd be surprised by how many service jobs use the internet all day as part of their jobs. I can't speak as much to manual labor, but imagine it's similar to service work in which while not in front of a desktop computer they're using online technology. We can't just say that people with a physical keyboard are the only ones working online. You specifically mention restaurant work, but it's pretty common to see iPads and online computer systems used for payments. And hairdressing? The first thing I do when I get a haircut is go to the front desk where the person checks me in via a computer -- and others make appointments... online. We are not part of some elite class of people who use the internet.

One of the things you'll notice about this study is that it doesn't consider all SORTS of "online" ways of meeting people online to be "online dating." That's a clue that the term has lost all meaning.

<comment><USER41> In the pre-internet days, there were matchmaking services that utilized video tapes and classified ads. Current online dating firms are the spiritual descendants of those services. It's reasonable to differentiate between those methods and meeting someone in a more organic way, say on a message board dedicated to a mutual interest.

<comment><USER40> Then differentiate! My point is "online dating" is a non-sensical way to differentiate Tinder from www.MutualInterestForums.com. Maybe use "algorithmic dating" as a term? And even then, the algorithm is also often informed by your list of friends.

Also, "organic" doesn't exactly describe much of what used to be traditional dating, either. Your parents setting you up isn't organic.

<comment><USER42> > Maybe use "algorithmic dating"

Digital matchmaker services / ML-powered matchmaking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> My wife was introduced by a mutual friend in 2000. Married 4 years later. The year before I had tried dating websites such as Match and they were atrocious. Fake profiles, delayed email responses, bad dates based on what the programmers thought would ideally "match" people up.

I imagine the smartphone and dating or hookup apps are so much more sophisticated today. Or maybe I dodged a technological bullet?

<comment><USER44> Times have changed. They're not necessarily more sophisticated (at least not visibly, algorithms not withstanding), but the stigma of online dating isn't nearly what it was. In 2000, as a man in search of a woman, your chances of actually finding a legitimate mate were way lower than they are now. Sure, there's still some catfishing/fake profiles out there, but they're relatively easy to flush out, and there are many real women out there. In other words, the user pool itself has changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What site do you find the best for online dating?

<comment><USER46> It's been a while since I've been online dating (almost a decade), but the best site I found was not even a dating site (well, not _primarily_ a dating site, but most people there tended to be single):

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

I'd sign up for hikes and other things I was interested in and met a lot of women, dated a few. One good thing is that you'd tend to see the same people over and over, so you can get past the quick 10 second "like or not" rut that you get into with online dating, and you start to see people more for their personality.

But it's a time investment, with online dating I could typically go out on one or two dates a week, while with meetup hikes, I'd maybe find someone to date every month or two of weekend hiking.

Ultimately though, I found my wife on a whim through a non-dating chat service - she was living thousands of miles from me and I picked her pretty much at random (no profile, no picture, just a username, age, and gender). Took nearly a year of chatting before we even met in person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm a bit on the younger side (23) but I've used online dating almost exclusively for finding partners over the past 2 years. Being a bit of a numbers freak, I downloaded a copy of all my data from Tinder and made a Sankey diagram with it and it ended up being pretty cool to look at: [https://imgur.com/a/ueNmDlZ](https://imgur.com/a/ueNmDlZ)

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't have any way of comparing this beyond anecdotally but... I've dated one only person and for many years.

I've never had the chance or reason to use online dating. But I feel like most of my friends who do enter committed relationships from online dating don't seem to trust each other very much even after a significant chunk of time and it seems weird to me. Curious if this resonates.</comment>


Ask HN: Is Apple Sneering at Virtual Reality? - <AUTHOR> I can't help feeling that Apple is looking down it's nose and sneering at Virtual Reality.
As though pure games and pure entertainment is beneath it.
Does anyone else get that sense? <comment><USER2> I don't know, I think they will take the same approach they have tried for most of their products since they released the original iPod. They will wait for the market to mature and, if it does, create something exceptional with broad appeal.</comment>


When a billionaire trader loses his edge - <AUTHOR> http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/04/john-arnold-centaurus/

<comment><USER2> Now is a really good time to cash in the chips, or at least return outside money and batten down the hatches (which Soros and Icahn have done).

The global economy is rolling over, coming down off a massive stimulus fueled sugar high that had driven capital toward risk for several years. The next few years won't be very pleasant, the piper has to be paid. The US suffers a recession every four to six years historically; we're about due again, and we're in no condition to absorb it.

When a company like Carlyle is running for the IPO exits, the clock is ticking, just like when Fortress and Blackstone did the same thing at the end of the last risk run.

Someone will make a killing on it, others will lose billions. If Arnold really has lost his edge, and who really knows, it'd be a good call to step out of the game for a while.

<comment><USER3> loss is part of the game... he decided to quit not because it IMHO.

What to agree with you that billions made in recessions like this.

Soros and Icahn too far far from what Arnold is doing...</comment></comment>


Learning Tree-Based Deep Model for Recommender Systems - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02294 <comment><USER2> Recommendation systems are a deep learning perennial since the Netflix contest.

My impression of Youtube, Amazon, Tumblr and other is that the recommendation process in practice is close to useless. And this isn't because I don't want recommendations.

Moreover, in all these situations, I feel like it just be improved by _asking_ the user instead. There are thing I'd love recommendations on and I'd be quite willing to _tell_ these portals about my preferences. But it doesn't seem like they want to know, don't have internal search worth much, don't take my search terms account when recommending, etc.

It seems like in practice, most sites actually want the effects of not being able to immediate drill past items that leverage their crappy interface to get exposure since I assume there are extra profits in one form or another to be made with these.

<comment><USER3> I wrote the recommender at Netflix about 5 years ago (every line of code). Netflix has been degrading it since then. The problem is that many companies are hotbeds of politics over expertise. Recommender, UI, A/B tests, etc are an excellent venue for politics at the expense of the product.

Some anecdotes from Netflix: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6xiwr4/d_w...](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6xiwr4/d_why_netflix_never_implemented_the_algorithm/) (Scroll down for my comments. Ignore namp243 comments - see below).

Another example is the "Netflix prize team" at Verizon/Yahoo. They refuse to share data with any other groups (they are afraid of being discovered), leaving other groups literally nothing to do.

In my opinion Youtube recommendations are improving. They are still pretty bad but they are trying interesting approaches.

<comment><USER4> Can you share any ideas on how you would implement a new recommender these days? Any papers you like? I am trying to learn more about this topic, but good information is hard to come by. The best resources I found so far are presentations from Netflix and Spotify, but they skip over so many details and assume so much knowledge that it's hard to get good results without being able to consult someone with experience.

<comment><USER3> [https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45530.html](https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45530.html) is the most complete recent paper I've seen.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! So, would you say the future for recommendation is deep learning? While I am not opposed to it, I find it very opaque.

<comment><USER3> The future is a long time. Eventually faster computation, larger memory would allow taking smaller and smaller steps during training (coupled with avoiding "bad optima" with stochastic training). All of this would improve robustness of training.

The domain dictates whether degree of opacity (or other attributes), would rule out deep learning.

Netflix recommender does not use deep learning (which is pretty amazing given how badly they have messed it up). From the conversations I had (a couple of years ago), they gave up with it. I'm sure the Youtube team could do a better job on the Netflix data then they managed to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The first sentence of the abstract is poor English, and the fifth contains a factual inaccuracy about a very well-known recommendation algorithm (collaborative filtering is not content-based).

<comment><USER6> I agree. The fine article is very poorly written.

I was not able to find out whether they used decision trees or something novel.</comment></comment>