The Miracle Sudoku [video] - eigen-vector https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKf9aUIxdb4 <comment><AUTHOR> I almost didn't watch that's because who cares about someone solving a sudoku puzzle, but that was brilliant.

That's one happy solver; it was worth it just for the absolute joy he gets from it. Amazingly quick solving too. Good to watch him develop extra strategies during the process.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I liked how he realized two possibilities for a number that were next to each other, also meant the box around it could be cleared.

I really enjoy finding patterns like these in constraint games. After confirming the pattern for myself a number of times, the brain later just does it on autopilot. If people have tips for similar games I would be happy to try them.

Edit, my tips: Simon Tatham's Puzzle Collection [0] has lots of them. Apps exists for mobile devices as well. Everett Caser [1] also have lots of logic games where one can learn patterns. I've played Sherlock and Honeycomb, and my favorite is Willa's Walk. They look a bit funky, but the apps work fine on Android.

[0]: [https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/](https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/) [1]: [http://www.kaser.com/ww.html](http://www.kaser.com/ww.html)

<comment><USER3> If you're into that feeling, learning a game like go might be something you'd enjoy. There's other parts to the game, but finding clever tactical moves is a huge rush of that.

There's also books and sites with "go problems", chosen puzzle positions, for a quick fix (but only after you know the game a bit).

<comment><USER4> Hey I made a website with books full of go problems. It's become quite popular: [https://tsumego.tasuki.org/](https://tsumego.tasuki.org/)

It's non-interactive not just because I'm lazy, but also there's some reasoning for why you should solve problems rather than click around and randomly try things out :)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your site! I've been there before. I really like the Cho problems.

<comment><USER4> Cho Chikun is the popular one. My favourite is Gokyo Shumyo!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The lightning speed of his observing standard rules across the board is impressive but expected after months of practice. The agility with which he picks up new rules and starts working with them is sign of a beautiful mind. This was a pleasure to watch.

<comment><USER6> It's really impressive to me how clearly he articulates what is going on in his head while solving.

<comment><USER7> that's my favorite part. not that he can solve it, but that he articulates the process, seemingly at full speed and totally relaxed.

reminds me of race car drivers that do live narration

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In case anybody sees this comment before the video: I'd highly recommend trying to solve the puzzle yourself. After you see the rules stated in the video, click the link in the info. It took me a bit longer than this guy, but it was a very fun puzzle.

<comment><USER9> I'd never done sudoku before and was a little disappointed to find it was so mechanistic. I'd sort of expected there to be some degree of exploration and backtracking, or perhaps having to solve multiple digits simultaneously while attempting to keep it all in your head. Is this puzzle representative of normal sudoku puzzles or do the additional constraints change it?

<comment><USER10> Basically the challenge is in finding the thought process that leads you to an answer.

The kinds of puzzles done on this channel tend to be pretty tough. the designers of the puzzle usually make it so that there's really one good path for solving (and brute forcing _really doesn't work_ relative to thinking hard about the problem).

There's a lot of stuff going on in this puzzle that's not at all present in normal sudoku, and things like "OK let's try and look for where _all the 3s could be at once_" is easier said than done.

<comment><USER9> I guess to me if still _feels_ a bit like brute force. You just go over all the squares and all the rules in a loop, adding and eliminating possible digits. There don't seem to be any sticking points where it's not clear how to make progress.

<comment><USER11> The "exploration and backtracking" you mention originally is the brute force method of solving sudoku by computer: recursive backtracking. If you want an example of sticking points, I'd recommend the Robin Hood sudoku:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdtWTg4LrqQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdtWTg4LrqQ)

It can be brute forced with enough patience, but the fun for me comes in developing intuition on where to look next. The hints of a sudoku have meaning: they lead to the completed grid. Finding the next step in the puzzle amounts to understanding some of its construction.

<comment><USER9> I guess the bit I'm missing is why the miracle sudoku (the two I can find) are special. As far as I can tell, they don't require any intuition at all, you just sit down and work through the rules that are right in front of you. Surely they're much easier than normal sudoku because of the extra rules? Are they noteworthy because of the construction of the puzzle, rather than the solving of it?

<comment><USER12> It's mostly about the construction. The "miracle" part refers to just two clues (filled-in numbers) leading to a unique solution, which is a ridiculously low number.

<comment><USER9> Understood, thanks very much for explaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How on earth do you create a puzzle like that? Coming up with the rules it's presumably simple to generate solutions with a computer program, but how do you then work out the cells which need to be filled in order to not only minimally describe a single correct solution, but also leave a reasonable deductive pathway to that solution?

I think that's what boggles me most about this, the deductive pathway that's been created by the puzzle creator is a complete joy in its unfolding.

<comment><USER14> Sudoku at its heart is a graph colouring problem. When you add the new constraints, it changes the connectivity of the graph. This sudoku, with all of its extra constraints, becomes a highly connected graph which greatly reduces the number of possible valid puzzles. Throw in the fact that the grid is already symmetric about both axes of reflection and rotationally symmetric about the centre and that further constrains the set of valid puzzles.

I'm sure you could write a program to take all these constraints and generate a ton of puzzles and then scroll through them to find ones that look great. It also wouldn't be too difficult to sort them in ascending order of givens.

<comment><USER11> Speaking of great-looking puzzles, this youtube channel covered a visually stunning pi day sudoku some time ago. As you said, it uses extra constraints to reduce connectivity, but still, I find it amazing that the digits of pi can fit so well into a puzzle. (Pi begins at the top and moves clockwise.)

        +-----v-----+
        |   |431|   |
        |  8|   |4  |
        | 3 |   | 1 |
        |---+---+---|
        |2  |   |  5|
        |3  | 6 |  9|
        |9  |   |  2|
        |---+---+---|
        | 7 |   | 6 |
        |  9|   |5  |
        |   |853|   |
        +</comment></comment></comment><comment>-----+

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N41yZsxIsK8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N41yZsxIsK8)

<comment><USER15> +1 for the great formatting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This guys is my "ASMR" bedtime watching. I just love his overall demeanor and child-like thrill from puzzle solving. I can be wired when I start his video and by the end I'll be blissfully calm and head-clear. I think he has a tremendous talent of focus. As other posters have said, he can spot constraints so quickly. I still get a small kick out of spotting something before he does, though. Doesn't happen often, mind.

<comment><USER17> I actually had to double check if Sean Lock ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Lock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Lock)) hadn't taken up a new hobby of solving sudokus on youtube, he both looks and sounds incredibly similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My favourite part is his own disbelief as he ... spoiler ... continues to solve it.

A few minutes later... when the first three on the board causes a cascade of solvable cells after a build up of deduction. Amazing.

<comment><USER19> He also said he was closed to ending the recording because he thought he was being trolled by the creator.

It was fun seeing him slowly realize that it was not a joke at all.

<comment><USER20> I once spent an hour trying to solve a sudoku puzzle on a whiteboard in college. It turned out that the person who left it there made a mistake when they started to solve it, so given the state it was in when I started (no way to tell what was original and what was their deduction) it was impossible to solve.

I'm not bitter, of course not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's a solver in python with z3: [https://gist.github.com/sielicki/fd86d68733133f654128519b3c4...](https://gist.github.com/sielicki/fd86d68733133f654128519b3c4e12c2)

(note, most of the code coming from here, I just slopped together the additional constraints, [https://ericpony.github.io/z3py-tutorial/guide- examples.htm](https://ericpony.github.io/z3py-tutorial/guide-examples.htm) )

        $ time python3 game.py
        [[4, 8, 3, 7, 2, 6, 1, 5, 9],
         [7, 2, 6, 1, 5, 9, 4, 8, 3],
         [1, 5, 9, 4, 8, 3, 7, 2, 6],
         [8, 3, 7, 2, 6, 1, 5, 9, 4],
         [2, 6, 1, 5, 9, 4, 8, 3, 7],
         [5, 9, 4, 8, 3, 7, 2, 6, 1],
         [3, 7, 2, 6, 1, 5, 9, 4, 8],
         [6, 1, 5, 9, 4, 8, 3, 7, 2],
         [9, 4, 8, 3, 7, 2, 6, 1, 5]]
        python3 game.py  7.47s user 0.15s system 97% cpu 7.801 total

<comment><USER22> FWIW, "Boring Sudoku" a solver in Prolog w/ CLP(FD):

[https://swish.swi-prolog.org/p/Boring%20Sudoku.swinb](https://swish.swi- prolog.org/p/Boring%20Sudoku.swinb)

\- - - -

I don't mean this in a critical way, just an observation. To me the video was boring because watching a human do machine work is frustrating (to me). (As fast and as clever as that fellow is, he's still _so slow_ compared to a computer.)

However, designing elegant constraint rules to encode the special constraints of this puzzle _is also a puzzle_ , and _that_ puzzle seems interesting to me. (Although not very because it's not _that_ challenging.)

I have the same problem with most video games: after playing just a little while I get bored and want to reprogram the game itself instead of just playing it.

Do y'all feel me, or am I just a freak?

<comment><USER21> That's cool, but that doesn't solve this puzzle. It's just a normal solver unless I'm missing something.

<comment><USER22> You're correct.

Adding constraints that encode the additional rules is also a little puzzle, eh?

I'll probably work on it later this evening for fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 25 minutes you'll be okay with never getting back.

<comment><USER24> You can also if you want turn the playback rate up of the video and have the same satisfaction in half the time :)

<comment><USER25> I recently started increasing playback speed on many videos I watch. It's really hard at first, but I quickly got used to it, to the point where I now use an addon to increase playback speed to 3-6x where appropriate.

When there's something complicated, or something I want to enjoy and savior, I jump back and slow down.

This is an incredible time saver.

I got inspired to do this by observing a blind programmer use a screen reader with insane speeds.

<comment><USER26> which addon are you using for speedup?

<comment><USER27> Enhancer for YouTube can do that, but you can also do it with simple userscript. The userscript I found somewhere few years ago:

      // ==UserScript==
      // @name         Mediabord
      // @version      01.1
      // @description  tryd to take over the world!
      // @author       j
      // @match        *://*/*
      // @grant metadata
      // ==/UserScript==

      document.addEventListener('keydown', function(event) {
          var vidz = document.querySelectorAll('video');
          function is_text_box(element){
              var tagName = element.tagName.toLowerCase();
              return  tagName === "textarea" || tagName === "input";}
          if(is_text_box(event.target))
              return false;
          vidz.forEach(vidz => {
              switch (event.keyCode) {
                  case 221: // (])
                      vidz.playbackRate+=0.25;
                      break;
                  case 219: // ([)
                      vidz.playbackRate-=0.25;
                      break;
                  case 220: // (\)
                      vidz.playbackRate = 1;
                      break;
                  case 83:
                      vidz.currentTime+=3;
                      break;
                  case 65:
                      vidz.currentTime-= 3;
                      break;
              }

          });
      });

<comment><USER28> Wait, what? Youtube has builtin control for that for years, behind the cog wheel at the bottom right of the video.

<comment><USER29> They're using the addon to be able to get 3x and 6x speedups, which are not available by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Impressive work from a board that initially appears too open-ended to solve but turns out to have sufficient constraints.

Well worth watching. (Aside: the solver reminded me oddly of Professor Falcon.)

<comment><USER31> Oh my gosh Professor Falcon!!! You reminded me of those times when as a kid i wad so excited and inspired by that movie!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is clicking on an existential level for me.

Lex Fridman's podcasts in particular have been sort of forking in two directions lately, one on artificial intelligence, consciousness and just a somewhat muted wonder how the human mind operates and our present lack of understanding of how it comes together systematically to create our experience. The other is about physics and how the experimental and theoretical come together to try to give us a better understanding of the fabric of our universe.

For this video, in the former case it shows how plastic the mind can be. I'm probably about the same age as the guy in the video and honestly have been struggling with an experience of cognitive decline lately. To see how adaptive the brain is to not only develop grooves that accelerate analysis in the long form, but also adapt to new rules and constraints almost as quickly is really quite remarkable (and for me personally, encouraging).

His quick pattern analysis at the end uncovered the second case for me. This is obviously something we've seen in many other situations as well, but how a collection of 'particles' with multi-dimensional constraints can form order and even crystalline structure from almost nothing.

Very fun video to watch. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER33> There is something irreplaceable about the first time you solve a difficult puzzle, especially one that you anticipate to be daunting. As a Sudoku enthusiast (though not at Simon's level) this was surprisingly vicarious to watch for what's usually a silent solitaire experience. Well done!

</comment><comment><USER34> For some reason this video ended up in my Youtube recommendations last week, and I clicked on it because the thumbnail caught my attention. Didn't regret it, and I've watched a few others. Another that was pretty interesting in the development of techniques to approach it: [https://youtu.be/Zk4qNEDXFSw](https://youtu.be/Zk4qNEDXFSw)

Edit: Ah no, the first I saw was actually [https://youtu.be/hAyZ9K2EBF0](https://youtu.be/hAyZ9K2EBF0) which has a diagonal rule, and a magic square in the middle.

</comment><comment><USER35> Now I want a making-of video by the creator of the Sudoku.

<comment><USER36> I wonder how much of that is programmed/automated and how much work is still being done manually...

Backtracking and eliminating numbers can be easily automated.

<comment><USER37> I made a sudoku solver back when I was in school. It's quite simple and almost a textbook case for backtracking. Even brute-force algorithms are instantaneous on the hardest puzzles.

<comment> ben-schaaf I'm still mesmerized by the 15-line prolog sudoku solver: [http://programmablelife.blogspot.com/2012/07/adventures- in-d...](http://programmablelife.blogspot.com/2012/07/adventures-in- declarative-programming.html)

<comment><USER38> It's just using a library, you can get the same effect in any language with a constraint satisfaction library.

<comment><USER36> Completely agree here, the entire 'solver' is a library there.

However, it does show how cool and versatile SAT solvers are for people who haven't used or seen them yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> At the beginning I was wondering whether 9 and 1 were to be considered consecutive. It's not stated anywhere, but it seems that the solution has this property.

</comment><comment><USER40> This was great fun! They have a new miracle sudoku[0] up since a couple of days, as well. Seeing him color the potential twos (aside from two wrongly colored squares) and then piece by piece ruling them out almost looked like a game of life, with new patterns emerging.

[0] [https://youtu.be/Tv-48b-KuxI](https://youtu.be/Tv-48b-KuxI)

</comment><comment><USER41> I get the feeling that he would be a very impressive programmer.

</comment><comment><USER42> It did the follow up sodoku (a new miracle sodoku), which I think probably is a bit easier as it starts with 3,4 in a slightly more useful constellation.

I have to say while I'm not the biggest fan of normal sudokus the ones with extra rules are quite interesting.

And the cracking the cryptic channel has quite a bunch of such sudokus.

</comment><comment><USER43> Ever since seeing this video I've been wondering if there's some deeper mathematical basis for this puzzle, because of the extremely regular pattern that it happens to produce.

For example, the way consecutive digits are actually in order, but separated by a single square (and looping around the edge of the board)

<comment><USER44> See this thread (disclaimer: I have zero clue to its accuracy).

[https://twitter.com/NikhilBukowski/status/126262285333933670...](https://twitter.com/NikhilBukowski/status/1262622853339336704?s=20)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Here's link to the puzzle:

[https://cracking-the-cryptic.web.app/sudoku/tjN9LtrrTL](https://cracking-the- cryptic.web.app/sudoku/tjN9LtrrTL)

About the guide to controlling the interface for the game:

[https://cracking-the-cryptic.web.app/how-to-play](https://cracking-the- cryptic.web.app/how-to-play)

(Links are little odd, if you want to find them yourself, just click the YouTube, view the video description, it's the top link.)

</comment><comment><USER46> I was just thinking the other day how I've never seen a YouTube video at the top of HN. along comes this video to prove me wrong.

</comment><comment><USER47> I immediately saw what the full pattern was when he had half the 2s filled in and was wondering if he saw it and kept going through the solution for the purposes of the video, or didn't see it at all until the end.

That never ended up becoming clear and now I'm just left wondering.

<comment><USER48> Unsure what you mean by "the full pattern." Do you mean you could work out what the entire grid was, from just half the twos alone?

<comment><USER47> The twos and the existing ones. I made a reasonable guess that proved to be correct.

All the twos had symmetry and can be plotted on the grid like a tile pattern...and every increasing number in a row is two positions to the left of the lower number. It was blatant at that point in the vid.

Right at around 12:14 and then confirmed by the 18 minute mark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Not a big sudoku fan, but wow! I might have under-estimated how exciting it can be.

</comment><comment><USER50> and we have rotational symmetry! brilliant!

</comment><comment><USER51> How do know if a certain puzzle is impossible (ie malformed)?

<comment><USER2> That is a "decision problem": Does this puzzle have a solution?

For Sudoku, that's easy to verify. That makes it an NP-problem. But for Sudoku, finding a solution is very difficult, so difficult that we say it's NP-Complete. So the only way to verify that a Sudoku can be solved, is really to try a bruteforce (potensially sped up with guesses/backtracking) and then find out if you cannot continue because of a broken constraint somewhere.

<comment><USER2> > _For Sudoku, that 's easy to verify._

I meant: For Sudoku, it's s easy to verify that a given solution is correct. (cannot edit)

Of course, being given the solution first in order to even try, can be a bit boring. For that, there exists "zero-knowledge proof" where one can reveal one knows an answer, without actually divulging it. Here is a writeup about someone doing that for Sudoku: [https://manishearth.github.io/blog/2016/08/10/interactive- su...](https://manishearth.github.io/blog/2016/08/10/interactive-sudoku-zero- knowledge-proof/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Any other puzzles with deep deductive reasoning where one can get better at through playing. One comes to mind: hexcells, any others?

<comment><USER53> There's a whole world of chess composition/problems. You can even be a grandmaster chess composer or solver. Some composers are legendary in the chess world, e.g. Troitzky, Sam Loyd, Kubbel. Chess problems come in various kinds, and are a bit like cryptic crosswords - they seem impossible at first but there are customs, tricks, conventions which make them easier with experience. "The role of aesthetic evaluation in the appreciation of chess problems is very significant, and indeed most composers and solvers consider such compositions to be an art form."

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

<comment><USER52> What would be a good book to get into chess problems and the culture/aesthetics of them?

<comment><USER53> Sorry, I wouldn't know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> puzzles and progamming - two of the best ways to while away the time.

</comment><comment><USER55> This video was just fabulous to watch.

</comment><comment><USER56> [https://www.google.com/search?q=483726159](https://www.google.com/search?q=483726159)

</comment><comment><USER57> As a college project in C, we were to write a soduku solver. Smart people solved it by programming in fancy heuristics. Not being smart, I just brute forced it...though I tried to be fancy by representing the data at the bit level. I doubt it made it any faster lol.

That said, when the hardest Soduku problems in the world succumbed to a brute force search to my lame program in less than a few something something ms, I kind of shrugged at the fancy methods. But I suppose that is why I'm still just a mediocre programmer :)

The brute force method was basically move forward until you hit a dead end, backtrack, go forward again until you hit another dead end, etc.

Edit: I'm not being dismissive of people who implemented better solutions. Honestly, at the time I was amazed at their skill. But I still chuckle just because the problem is trivially sized for brute force methods, and would have to be scaled much larger to actually make more sophisticated methods worth the effort in any situation other than personal satisfaction and education. In a business situation in which you do not expect the problem to scale, spending more time for a sophisticated solver may not be worth the effort. But yes, Soduku is for entertainment and R&R

<comment><USER58> I was discussing this with a friend. I too made a brute force sudoku solver. It was somewhat smart since it was keeping track of what options are available for each cell and updates those options as it puts/removes digits.

The friend told me he was working on a sudoku solver and was trying to explain his non-brute force algorithm. I told him I did a solver back in collage and it was basically instant even though it is brute force.

<comment><USER57> Amazing. I got down voted for my story. HackerNews does not like Mediocre Programmers I guess lol.

I bet I could write a better algorithm today if I was motivated. Back then I was not as experienced in programming, and I struggled with even figuring out how to represent the data and the state. Its all about learning from where you were at the time.

<comment><USER59> It's more that solving Sudoku by Brute Force is easy.

But the trouble with brute force sudoku solvers is you can't use them to create sudokus solveable by humans with a unique solution.

That's the fun stuff in writing a sudoku solver/generator.

<comment><USER58> Sure you can, just brute force your way to ensure there is only a single solution. You can try all combinations and count how many reached to the end and check if count == 1.

Generating sudokus while all you have a sudoku solver seems an interesting challenge. Sounds like it can be done though, just a matter of creating random boards by adding one digit at a time that doesn't break rules and check if # of solutions is 1. I imagine even that would be fast enough, at least enough to create sudokus at a reasonable rate that can supply entire human population.

You can do anything given enough brute force!

<comment><USER59> That doesn't guarantee you that you generate a Sudoku solveable without backtracking.

The human techniques are all about forward actions only, never guesses.

<comment><USER58> Hmm I don't get what you mean. For a valid sudoku there shouldn't be any guessing involved? So during any stage of solution, there should be always a single move that is the only option option move solution forward?

But even then humans do "moves" like "if i put that number here then that eliminates all other possibilities, that leaves us only that other number", which is kinda like guessing. So even if there are no single so human also tries if a valid move will block all future valid moves. A brute force algorithm does just that, except that it has a much larger memory and computation speed so it can think that at 9x9 depth to find a perfect solution

<comment><USER60> > For a valid sudoku there shouldn't be any guessing involved?

In the philosophy presented on that channel, it's not that such a Sudoku puzzle is "invalid," it's just not particularly interesting or 'beautiful'.

From my viewing, there appear to be two differences between "logic" and "guessing" (or "bifurcation"):

* Bifurcation/guessing is just as happy with a correct guess as an incorrect one. If I guess that a square is a '1' and then fill out the rest of the puzzle without finding a contradiction, then that's a good (in fact the best!) guess. "Logic," on the other hand, seeks contradictions to rule out possibilities * "Guessing" is content to proceed arbitrarily far down the solution tree to find a solution (or contradiction), whereas "logic" limits itself to a few steps that can stay in a human's working memory.

The latter point is certainly fuzzy, and it leads to developing some heuristics (such as [https://www.sudokuoftheday.com/techniques/hidden-pairs- tripl...](https://www.sudokuoftheday.com/techniques/hidden-pairs-triples/) or [https://www.learn-sudoku.com/x-wing.html](https://www.learn- sudoku.com/x-wing.html)) to reduce more complicated deductive chains into "single steps."

However, the difference is clearer with the kinds of puzzles highlighted on the linked channel. These puzzles often include additional constraints, such as "the first three cells in the row form an increasing/decreasing sequence." "Logic" then provides universal derived constraints (such as "a 9/1 can never be in the middle of this sequence") that are more obviously distinct from depth-first-search guessing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Using my CL based sudoku solver [1], I got the following solution. The solution is valid but different from what is shown in the video. IIRC, a sudoku board can have multiple solutions but anyone out here can explain why so? I am no sudoku expert or enjoying solving sudokus anyways!

[1] [https://github.com/dmsurti/sudoku](https://github.com/dmsurti/sudoku)

```

(setf board

          #(0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

            0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0))

```

```

* (sudoku:print-board (sudoku:solve board))

1 2 5 | 6 4 7 | 8 9 3

8 3 4 | 5 9 1 | 6 7 2

9 7 6 | 3 2 8 | 4 5 1

\- - - - - - - - - - -

5 8 9 | 2 3 4 | 1 6 7

2 6 1 | 7 8 9 | 3 4 5

3 4 7 | 1 5 6 | 2 8 9

\- - - - - - - - - - -

4 9 2 | 8 1 5 | 7 3 6

6 1 8 | 9 7 3 | 5 2 4

7 5 3 | 4 6 2 | 9 1 8

```

edit: formatting

<comment><USER59> You have consecutive numbers appearing next to each other.

One of the constraints is that no consecutive numbers can appear orthogonally.

This isn't a standard sudoku, there are extra rules. There would be a huge number of valid solutions to the board under regular sudoku rules.

EDIT: and you've missed the King's move constraint as well and I presume the Knight's move as well.</comment></comment>


Elon Musk Tells The Oatmeal He's "Happy To Help" Fund Tesla Museum - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/14/electric-cruisebeast-creator-elon-musk-tells-the-oatmeal-hes-happy-to-help-fund-tesla-museum/ <comment><USER2> This is bothersome as I have no beef with Tesla but his history of eugenics promotion gets swept under the carpet. His business failures, of course, have nothing to do with poorly thought out concepts and questionable return on investment, but by dirty tricks by Edison. Its also worth pointing out most, if not all of Tesla's patents, are based on previous works and are not original works.

Apparantly, Tesla fandom is impossible without absolutely hating Edison, which is bizarre. That's like being unable to appreciate Mercedes without hating Porsche. There's this terrible whitewashing of history with Tesla. His advocates clean up his image and purposely turn the narrative away from him toward Edison when presented with any criticisms.

I'd like this museum to show us the historical Tesla, not the fanboy generated meme that appears in web comics. I took my wife to a Tesla presentation at a science musueum in Milwaukee a couple years ago and it was the most shrill and factually questionable presentation I've ever seen. It was more or less an hour of Edison bashing with hints toward things like time travel, death rays, and free energy. I want Tesla to get his due, but not the whitewashed grandfatherly Tesla of meme legend, but the real very flawed guy. A bright engineer who failed in business for valid reasons.

I guess everyone likes an underdog story, but this one is beyond reasonable.

Eugenics quote: [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1010618-the- year-2100-will-s...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1010618-the- year-2100-will-see-eugenics-universally-established-in-past)

<comment><USER3> I admired Tesla's research. Now I've heard his words on eugenics, my admiration only grows. Eugenics is not about killing people. It's about ensuring children are born into the best possible environment for them to succeed.

Left-wing metropolitan elites always seem to crush any debates around eugenics, but whilst we're not allowed to talk about it, it's happening here in 2014. Project Prevention are doing great work in sterilizing drug addicts (voluntary sterilization in exchange for cash) to prevent children being born into misery.

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

We need to stop reeling off Godwin's law straw-man arguments against Eugenics and consider why a number of national heroes (including Winston Churchill, Walt Disney, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg) were proponents.

<comment><USER4> > Eugenics is not about killing people. It's about ensuring children are born > into the best possible environment for them to succeed.

No, its not. Eugenics is about ensuring that only people with the "best possible" (from the point of view of its proponents, which is _always_ subjective) genetic makeup live. Killing people with undesired genetic makeup, penalizing or preventing reproduction by those with undesired genetics, and promoting or compelling reproduction by those with desired genetics are among the means of eugenics.

"Ensuring children are born into the best possible environment for them to succeed" is _not_ eugenics.

> Left-wing metropolitan elites always seem to crush any debates around > eugenics, but whilst we're not allowed to talk about it, it's happening here > in 2014. Project Prevention are doing great work in sterilizing drug addicts > (voluntary sterilization in exchange for cash) to prevent children being > born into misery.

Aside from discussion of whether that's a desirable policy, if it's really motivated by concern for childhood environment and not about eradicating drug addiction on the assumption that it is purely hereditary and preventing drug addicts from reproducing will prevent drug addiction, its not eugenics at all (as your wikipedia link correctly states, its been _compared to_ eugenics, which is not the same thing as _being_ eugenics.)

> We need to stop reeling off Godwin's law straw-man arguments against > Eugenics and consider why a number of our national heroes (including the > likes of Walt Disney) were proponents.

Just because someone is a "national hero" because they did (or are national mythology has attributed to them) something good in one domain doesn't stop them from holding reprehensible views in other domains. "National heroes" are not gods, and we are poorly served by treating virtue in one domain of life as granting special consideration in unrelated domains.

<comment><USER5> Eugenics range from encouraging some people to reproduce to genocide and includes everything in between: selective anti-conception, sterilization, and abortion. Reducing it to just genocide is dishonest.

And, if we're going to judge by modern standards, it's not even unpopular in our times. The word was dropped after the atrocities carried out by Germans but often the same people who express their horror at the idea laud and support Planned Parenthood despite its roots and policy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is this story not right for HN when it's hosted on a random site, but suddenly becomes good when it's hosted on Techcrunch? If anything, my impression is that Techcrunch degrades the quality of a story.

Dan's thoughts on the first Tesla Museum story were interesting:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7741883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7741883)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've wondered how well being The Oatmeal has financially treated Mr. Inman. Even with the popularity, does he still barely pay the mortgage? Olympic-size pool in the backyard full of $100 bills? If he's driving around in a top-shelf Model S, I guess he's not starving.

Regardless, very cool that Musk ponied up. Makes me want to go buy a Tesla even more now.

<comment><USER8> From his wikipedia page "In 2012, its annual revenue was around $500,000, 75% from merchandising and the rest from advertising"\- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be cool if Tesla Motors decided to make the museum part of their corporate function to fund the construction and ongoing operations of the museum.

<comment><USER10> and investing (more) in the state might do a little help their case in new jersey.[1]

[1] [http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/people-new- jersey](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/people-new-jersey)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Super admirable that Mr. Musk is willing to help given his extremely busy schedule. Shows that he understands the importance of the public being more knowledgeable about the origins of what our present-day technology relies on.

</comment><comment><USER12> A somewhat better URL, a primary source

[http://jalopnik.com/5935362/elon-musk-pledges-to-support- nik...](http://jalopnik.com/5935362/elon-musk-pledges-to-support-nikola-tesla- museum- project?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_twitter&utm_source=jalopnik_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)

(note Inman's "pledge drive" letter is classic Inman and amusing to read as usual)

<comment><USER13> That URL refers to Inman's first pledge drive, for $800k, to save the site. Musk donated $2500 and Inman raised almost $1.4m.

Inman is now asking Musk directly for $8m, to build a museum. The only primary source is this tweet - [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/466518346574626817](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/466518346574626817) \- which simply says "I would be happy to help."</comment></comment>


Moving Opendoor's Data Science Stack from Heroku to Convox - <AUTHOR> https://labs.opendoor.com/moving-opendoors-data-science-stack-from-heroku-to-convox/

<comment><USER2> glad to see convox is doing good. I'd come across one of the founders at gophercon and found the setup quite interesting</comment>


Is there a 'Hacker News' for design? - <AUTHOR>

The closest thing I can find is reddit/r/design. Anyone know of any other ones? <comment><USER2> The site <http://www.undrln.com/> used to look like Hacker News except I think their color was yellow. It featured user-submitted links/articles and voting. It looks like they have significantly changed the site's format though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would say any design problems and questions could probably be engaged with pretty well here on Hacker News, I've spoken to many good designers through HN.

It's more of a start-up community then hacker one, designers are a strong part of that community.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do you know about Forrst?

<comment><USER5> Dribbble should be mentioned too. Dribbble is basically "teaser shots of what I'm working on", while Forrst is "can I get some feedback on things I'm working on?"

It should be noted that Forrst has developers posting code too (just not nearly as much as design)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> SmashingMagazine.com is a pretty good resource for designers as well.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is not exactly what you're looking for, but 99designs.com is a neat site.

I used to enjoy conceptart.org, too, but haven't checked it much lately.</comment>


Mobile App Development [ One for all ] - <AUTHOR>

Is there an application which I can use to create mobile phone app - one app for major mobile platforms, which is free + which can access native phone features, like accessing the file system, etc.<p>Please provide links. <comment><USER2> I am developing a commercial Mobile App Development framework which can work on Android/IOS and in the future WP8. It is different from PhoneGap. You can play with it in the google play store. <http://www.htmltoapp.com>

If you want a free framework, you can try PhoneGAP/Cordova with JQuery Mobile.<http://cordova.apache.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Cordova is awesome! Have you used it to create something? How was it?</comment></comment>


LungoJS - Create Powerful Mobile Apps With Just HTML5, CSS3, And JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://functionn.blogspot.com/2012/03/lungojs-create-powerful-mobile-apps.html#.T2oJlo6890Y.hackernews <comment><AUTHOR> Direct Link For Those Who Prefer It: <http://www.lungojs.com/></comment>


Show HN: Viola (from LibCello) Adds Smart Pointer Support - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/eatonphil/Viola

<comment><AUTHOR> Let me know if there are any other interesting features you'd like to see added to Viola! It's definitely a work in progress and it's really interesting to see how far you can distort C with GCC!</comment>


Show HN: Create dynamic comparison matrices for your wesbite without coding - <AUTHOR> https://www.archyn.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN,

Founder and main developer here.

Archyn allows to build comparison matrices were any change on an Element is seamlessly cascaded everywhere without hassle.

I've built this because I wanted to have a smart comparison matrix generator without spending too much time on the logic and necessary orchestration.

For the record, all the examples you see in the landing page where built using this generator.

Basically to make your own Matrix you need to:

\- Declare the Elements and Groups you'd like to compare,

\- Create Qualifers and Affinities to link them (thing 1 "likes" thing 2),

\- Create a Matrix and select which Elements or Groups you want to compare,

\- Publish your Matrix and copy/paste its proposed code,

\- Voilà!

Once done, your Matrix becomes live: any change to its Elements or Affinities will be cascaded down to it automatically.

Some sample data is already loaded when you sign-up so that you can play around to give you an idea about the concept.

Don't hesitate to give the free version a run, it's ad free with no time limit, and any thing you do remains private in your own Workspace (no sharing).

Also with any paid version you get the possibility to publicize your matrices so that you can embed them in your own website as well as an access to the JSON API for more complex scenarios.

AMA, suggestions and critics are welcome.</comment>


Looking for a programming tutor - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for someone to each me backend programming. I have taught myself HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and jQuery but need to learn the backend (and lots of other things) to complete a website I'm working on.
I'm located in NYC and am happy to pay well to meet and learn from a talented and experienced individual.
Please send resumes to email@example.com <comment><USER2> <http://airpair.com>

To see other sessions

twitter.com/airpair

</comment><comment><USER3> Try posting your need on <http://www.airpair.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> bootcamper.io</comment>


Are We in a Social Networking Bubble? - <AUTHOR> http://rogerandmike.com/post/15563392521/technology-waves-and-valuations-are-we-in-a-social <comment><USER2> _> For entrepreneurs, the key message is to be really careful about doing a social networking startup in 2012. The social networking wave is about to crest. There are very few ideas and opportunities in this space that aren't crowded. _

We take a too-narrow definition of social networking. If we want to find the next big thing in the Internet, we need to take a step up the stack of abstraction and think more broadly about connections.

Human beings are wired to connect. It's fundamental human nature, and the subject of the still-new social neuroscience field. [1]

Evidence of this is pervasive throughout our culture. Relationships, marriage, cities, tribes, fan clubs, Hacker News itself - _connecting_ in a meaningful way with other people is what we do.

The Internet's success is it's ability to facilitate connections, making them easier, more personal and more meaningful: email, IRC, instant messaging, gopher, the web, facebook, twitter - it's not just facebook and twitter that are "social networking," every successful Internet communications technology has improved the state-of-the-art in allowing us to connect with each other.

So don't consider "what's next for social networking" -- or "the social networking wave is about to crest." The label restricts your mind. Ignore labels, think big. Consider human nature, relationships and how you can connect us to each other in a more meaningful way. Perhaps you'll find the essence of what the pundits will call 'web 3.0.'

1 - [http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/10/22/how-to- read...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/10/22/how-to-read-a- face.html)

<comment><USER3> "The Internet's success is it's ability to facilitate connections, making them easier, more personal and more meaningful"

I agree that the internet can better facilitate connections but in what regard do you feel that the internet has made interpersonal relationships more personal and meaningful? In my opinion it has done dramatically the opposite. In fact Id argue that the internet doesn't have a role in having a personal and meaningful relationship with someone.

<comment><USER4> Agree completely. I think the quantity of our relationships have gone up, while the quality seems to be going down.

<comment><USER5> Honestly I think this line of thinking is a load of baloney. Creating meaningful personal relationships is up to you, not some internet site. You can still call, send a letter, show up at a door, grab a bite to eat, get some drinks, take a walk in the park, play stickball in the street. It's up to _you_ to maintain close relationships. Granted, it's impossible to have "1430" close friends like on FB, but it's not bad having a wider, loose connection with thousands of people ontop of that.

Also, it's still up to you to call your mom, meet up with old old friends once or twice a year, go out to your hometown bar the night before Thanksgiving. Facebook doesn't take away those "moments you'll never remember with the friends you'll never forget." It just lets you keep in touch with those who might otherwise have dropped off the face of the earth. Don't blame some "social media". Also, kids these days, are just kids, let them socialize, it's probably not any worse than video games or TV, and you can't stop adolescent girls from gossiping, even if you take away their text messaging.

<comment><USER3> That actually is an interesting point. I agree with you pretty much completely from an individualistic perspective - you are responsible for maintaining your own relationships and Facebook is not forcing your relationships onto a digital wall.

I think the only contradictory point Id make is that Facebook (and other networks) makes it convenient to get lazy and boil more of your relationships down to just being digital which likely degrades the meaningfulness and quality of a relationship. For example, talking to or going out with a friend is many times triggered by wondering how that friend is doing or whats new. Facebook removes or degrades that trigger in that you can find out whats new with your friend through their profile without any interpersonal contact.

Now (while again I completely agree that we as individuals are responsible for ourselves) on a macro level when you have billions of people being nudged toward this direction Id say it does create a pretty significant impact on the overall level of quality relationships within our society.

<comment><USER6> A friend told me one time about a theory he read about, that has to do with how the brain interprets goal accomplishment with sharing your goals. Apparently, the idea is that if you go around telling people about your goals the brain gets the same kind of "high" as if you had actually accomplished them. This diminishes the likelihood of you completing them because in your mind you've already gotten the benefit and the rest is just a lot of extra effort.

I wonder if it's the same thing with Facebook and other social networks. By "socializing" on FB the brain gets the same kind of high as if you had actually spoken to the person, thus making you feel satisfied with the social interaction so you don't seek them out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "In the early phases of a technology wave, massively powerful gathering forces exist below the surface, but only a handful of visionary technologists, entrepreneurs, and investors really see what's starting to happen."

As someone who might be considered "visionary" in that I bought many domain names way back in the non-obvious mid 90's I don't even agree with what this statement says.

You think something is going to happen and you take a gamble that you are right and try to limit your downside risk. If you knew you were going to be right you would gamble even more. But rest assured that for that gamble to work out many things would have to happen and the payoff is certainly not quick and certain. Most importantly if enough people take enough chances in different areas statistically some are going to be correct in their assumptions because of things beyond their control and many will fail for the same reason.

And statements like this stating that you should stay away from the froth and "Generally, [you] are better off finding the next gathering wave and a blue ocean of opportunity" are worthless. Essentially find something new to gamble on and you might be the one that guesses correctly about the new new thing. If it were only that easy. It's not.

</comment><comment><USER8> All other things being equal, yes, it's better to get in on the next thing early than to get in on the current thing late.

But the variables that go into a) when you came up with your idea and b) how convinced you are that the idea is worth pursuing are Not Independent of the wave functions discussed in the article!

Part of the reason you're convinced that your social networking idea is sound is that there are concrete examples of successful businesses operating in the space.

At the end of the day, you either believe in your idea's potential to create value for investors in virtue of creating new/increased value for users, or you don't.

If you do, go for it and live with the wave phase you're dealt.

If you don't, waiting around hoping to pitch it in Next Thing terms probably isn't going to help you.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, but no.

Let's remember that "social networking" is a very, very big thing. In essence it is the foundation of most major communication networks, including the old phone network and the modern internet. It is more than just the little windows into socialization and networking that twitter, facebook, linkedin, etc. represent.

People trying to make the "next facebook" or twitter or what-have-you are going to have problems due to the saturation of very capable competition. But that doesn't mean we've plumbed the depths of facilitating social interactions through software, there's still plenty of room for innovation and disruption.

<comment><USER10> I agree with you. To me, Facebook's success has been from their ability to become the internet's "telephone book."

You're probably going to have a really hard time building a better telephone book, but the telephone book didn't stop email or any later forms of communication from coming to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Google, Facebook, iPhone, Android, Tumblr, etc. had markets that seemed all stitched up (i.e. search, social network, smartphones, iOS dominated smartphone market, blogging).

I would hazard a guess that in 2012-2014. Facebook would have taught the mass market of the concept of social network and grease up adoption of more specialized ones thereby widening the addressable userbase for players that have a great product.

We can see this happening with Instagram, Pinterest, Etsy, Reddit which are all social networks with 1 or few social objects at the center.

For example, Facebook has 800M and Instagram has 15M. thats 1.8%. I would guess that as Facebook gets more and more bloated - that ratio (1.8%) will get bigger as more & more users will need a more insular group and specialized features. In turn, niche social networks will have a higher ceiling of XX% of 800M/1B total social-network-exposed people (courtesy of Facebook - the social network gateway drug so to speak)

</comment><comment><USER12> Worth reading, from someone who has a bit more insight than your average blogger.

</comment><comment><USER13> I hate to go Napoleon Dynamite, but you can't know from inside the bubble. The question to ask is whether there is anything for social networking to grow into? What are its horizontals and verticals?

</comment><comment><USER14> No more "bubble" talk until you actually define what you mean by "bubble."

<comment><USER15> Did you read the article? The author defined quite clearly how they thought the overvaluing and market correction (ie bursting of the bubble) would progress. They even made a graph!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> before reading: emphatically yes.</comment>


Classical (and Faux) Glories of New York - <AUTHOR> https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/classical-and-faux-glories-of-new-york/ <comment><USER2> I had the pleasure of getting married in one of these structures: The 113 year-old Grecian Shelter [1] in Prospect Park.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grecian_Shelter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grecian_Shelter)</comment>


To become a better leader, don't read Steve Jobs's biography - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/984174/silicon-valley-has-idolized-steve-jobs-for-decades-and-its-finally-paying-the-price/ <comment><USER2> I would tend to think reading Steve Jobs' biography is much more helpful than reading what someone who runs a company called "Courageous Growth" tells you to do.

By seriously, when I did my first startup I read too many "MBA type" books, where all they talk about is "how to manage people by putting them first always and myself last", "how be come the servant CEO than a leader", etc. They are all valid pieces of advice, especially when your company grows large.

However when it comes to early stage startups, this is exactly the opposite of what you should strive to be. From my experience, trying to be nice to everyone (aka trying to be "seen as" a nice guy) is extremely counter- productive from the company's point of view.

My point is, if you're doing an early stage startup, don't try to "become a better leader". That's the worst and the most useless meta thing to try to do. Instead, focus everything on getting your product to work. Really that's the only thing you need to do. You don't need to be a "great leader". You can become one once you get to that point. Most startups don't even reach the point where you being a "great leader" is necessary. I see so many people making the mistake of thinking they're doing well when all they do every day is waste time doing meta things, like "networking" on Twitter about useless political stuff, meeting people for coffee "to pick their brain", learning about "how to be come a better leader", etc. They all don't mean shit. Just make the product work.

Then decide if you want to be the lasting CEO or if you want to hire a CEO to handle all the management. If you're not the type to manage people and get bored doing that, just hire a good CEO, you don't have to be the greatest CEO in the world to change the world. But if you want to try being a better leader, then do it when you get to the point where you need to. Don't waste time at the beginning trying to do this. This is one thing I regret the most from my first startup.

<comment><USER3> _" My point is, if you're doing an early stage startup, don't try to "become a better leader". That's the worst and the most useless meta thing to try to do."_

If your company has any employees, you'll need to be at least a _competent_ leader, or your company will be at risk of failing (e.g., your key employees might get fed up with random, incompetent management and quit). Being a manager/leader is difficult, especially if all you've ever done before is being a programmer. There are lots of things to learn, and there are many things you don't know that you don't know. (I learned this the hard way by being promoted from a programmer to a mid-level manager a long time ago.) So if you're new to leadership, you may want to spend some time learning about leadership skills before it's too late.

 _" If you're not the type to manage people and get bored doing that, just hire a good CEO."_

You'll probably have quite a few employees (100 maybe?) before it makes sense to hire an outside CEO (they cost a lot of money). If you can't competently lead that size of startup, your company may not survive long enough to hire an outside CEO.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does paying for Google mitigate the privacy issues of the free accounts? - <AUTHOR> We all know that if we are not paying for a product, we are the product. But I was wondering about Google's G-Suite product. If I pay for that, is Google now double-dipping? Or does it offer (at least some) protection against 3rd-party's buying my data? <comment><USER2> I think that the answer lies in Google's terms and conditions for both free and paid plans, but I'd subjectively go with the double-dipping answer.

Remember: the first part of the text is "If you're not paying, you're the product" but it's closely followed by "but paying doesn't shield you in any way from also being a product".</comment>


Ask HN: Advancing career without working over-hours? - <AUTHOR> I am almost 30 and started programming when I was 18. I am about to become a father and I already feel that I can't work as much as my younger colleagues.
At my current employee, people get promoted who put the most hours in, since they then also end up putting more work down and knowing the systems better. I get it, when you work 60 hours each week, you will be the go-to person.
But I wonder what people do with familys? I have friends in the big FAANG companies and smaller open source companies. The hours of work is everywhere the same. You put in over hours and nobody complains since you know, you got a pretty good job and you can't complain.
After so many years however, I lost the ability to oversee bad (project) management and see it more of a: This is badly managed, you should hire two more people for this team etc.
I seem to be in the minority though. So I wonder what other people with families do: Are you switching companies to have saner work hours and "downgrade" your work environment? I really like working with ambitious people, but they I haven't found a company yet with sane hours but also with people eager to learn. I somehow manage to do both, but still fall behind inside bigger corporations.
Any advice or companies who manage both? <comment><USER2> This isn't assembly line work. If your brain is too tired, it doesn't matter if your butt is in the seat, you're still not going to be effective. In fact, you may be _negatively_ effective - it may take time to undo the damage that you are doing to the code base.

One of the rules of XP is "Quit when you're tired." XP is all about going as fast as you can. The fastest you can go involves quitting when you're tired. Stay longer, and your productivity goes down, not just that day but the next, and maybe even the day or two after that.

It sounds like you're working at a place that doesn't understand that. (It also sounds like you're working at a place that is somewhat exploitative.) To get a reasonable life, you may have to leave for somewhere else.

Unfortunately, right at this moment is perhaps not the greatest time to be changing jobs. If your current job is stable and unaffected by Corona, you probably should think twice before you leave - unless you're pretty sure that the new job is _also_ stable and won't be affected by Corona.

</comment><comment><USER3> You are confusing effort with impact. They are not the same.

Working more hours _can_ lead to bigger impact, but generally that scales linearly. The better route to success and promotion is to focus on the inflection points: the bits that actually move the needle for the entire team / company.

Weirdly, as you become more senior in _impact_ you may actually end up working less. If you have a strong record of delivering the _right things_ then you can push back on unrealistic expectations. In fact, refusing overwork (except on occasion) is a powerful signalling mechanism.

If are effective at your job and your management team doesn't understand then it's time to find a new gig.

</comment><comment><USER4> From my point of view, if someone works 60h/week and you work 40h/week, yes, he's working 50% more than you, he's dealing with more situations, more clients, more meetings, more problems... if you and the other one have the same intelligence, he'll probably move faster. Ok, probably this is a simplification and the curve can get saturated at one point, because 9 pregnant women can't produce a baby in 1 month... but maybe the saturation point is not 60h/week, maybe it's higher.

In my case, I've accepted that my career is going to advance more slowly, I've weighed up my work/career and my life/happiness/family, and the last one weighed more.

Of course, as other colleagues have said, working smart, finding clients, thinking 80/20, focusing on goals, looking for patterns... and it will probably make the curve more vertical.

Where do you live? I think another variable is the work culture of the country, for example in Spain the work culture is now evolving to allow a better balance between life and work. In other countries in Europe, for example, this mentality of working without overtime is fully established.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have never worked more than 40h a week and always climbed the ladder.

Look for other companies I guess ? A good signal for me is when there are loads of people with families in the company whom have worked there for more than 5-10 years.

A red signal is a minority of people being experienced or having families.

<comment><USER6> So I get this right you are saying what has worked for you is to find companies where most people are middle aged with family obligation and have become comfortable in their jobs. And there you can differentiate much easily and move up faster than you would at a cutthroat place. as even with a little more effort in such a place you will stand out which can be done while maintaining a 40 hour week?

I take it you are single and/or have no other family obligations which gives you an "edge"?

<comment><USER5> That was a lot of reading in-between the lines!

The company I work has a lot of very eager and smart people who put 40h a week and have families. They are experts in their field of work (Image processing).

I would say I have been climbing the ladder because I have good soft-skills and strong leadership skills. It happened naturally and was not part of an evil plan or something I tried too hard.

I am OK with not being a programming wizard or using all the latest tech in every project. I am very good in getting people to work together productively and having them delivering projects constantly.

I have gone from Senior to Lead in the past two companies I've been at within 6 months and now am now growing a department.

<comment><USER7> Ding ding ding! This person understands. You will NEVER be able to grow a department if you work 80 hours a week hero coding. The longer you work the more irritated you become. The more irritated you are the less people will like you. When enough people hate you you'll be fired.

Learned the hard way in my early 20s. Now I only put in the extra hours when the site is down, I'm on pager duty, and we're losing 100k+ dollars every few minutes. I'm friendly and very organized. I manage my own Jira board and let my boss know when we need more people on a project. Definitely not a programming wizard but boy can I get two different departments working together.

<comment><USER5> Yeah it is crazy to hear some people work 60h as the norm and 80h, wtf?

I've done a couple of 50-60h stints in my career for rolling out a big project globally or things like that and I was... absolutely... exhausted and drained.

I couldn't think straight, I was being rude to people I love.

To think that people can actually put this amount of hours constantly (am talking 60h!!!) is mind blowing. Maybe my brain is just different and it can't do more than the regular hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a complicated topic with no single right answer because the situation involves so many factors. Here's a few things to keep in mind. First, if the company truly only values those who overwork, it may be signs of a somewhat toxic environment and may be a reason to look around. Not saying it must be, there's a lot of other factors. Even a company that values overworking could be a good place to stay for other reasons too. I wanted to state this early and get this out of the way first (just so I can clarify that I don't discount the possibility that the company can be bad).

Then, you can also try to understand what the company leadership truly values. In my experience, most company leaderships truly value impact, not working hours, but it's easy to conflate or even confuse the two; it's even possible that leadership values impact but to other regular employees it may _look_ like they value hours.

In my own experience, companies and leadership that I worked for usually value impact; and over the years, what I've gathered is that the best way to make good impact to the business is to truly understand the business and domain knowledge deeply and communicate effectively, as an engineer. I'm nearing my late 30s with a young kid now and had similar thoughts as you a few years ago. It turns out ultimately what employers care about isn't the amount of hours I put in; but rather if I understand the business and domain deeply, I can correctly spend my time on the most impactful things; and can communicate these things effectively. I have hardly ever worked over hours in my past 2 years at my current company; and am still highly valued.

On a totally different note though, it is also worth considering taking up a less intense role (if that truly is a problem at your current place) during the first year or two of your fatherhood. It's well worth the break time from developing your career to spend much needed time with family instead -- not just the baby, but your spouse who'll no doubt need you to be there for very much. Part of my reasoning to switch away from my last job was for this; and it just so happened that I also ended up at a good (remote) company that isn't all about working hours but good impact.

<comment><USER9> > In my own experience, companies and leadership that I worked for usually > value impact; and over the years, what I've gathered is that the best way to > make good impact to the business is to truly understand the business and > domain knowledge deeply and communicate effectively, as an engineer. I'm > nearing my late 30s with a young kid now and had similar thoughts as you a > few years ago. It turns out ultimately what employers care about isn't the > amount of hours I put in; but rather if I understand the business and domain > deeply, I can correctly spend my time on the most impactful things; and can > communicate these things effectively. I have hardly ever worked over hours > in my past 2 years at my current company; and am still highly valued.

This is eloquently put. Resonated with me. Would you mind getting in touch offline for a short discussion and help answer some questions of mine? I will take a No as well. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What was your behaviour couple of years ago? Have you worked overtime? Did you have older colleagues that time?

The answer is simple. If you don't want to work overtime then don't do it and see what will happen. Most likely nothing.

Think about how you can deliver move value to the company by working smart instead of putting more hours (hint: automate your job, try to bring new clients).

</comment><comment><USER11> I've worked in many places and my impression is that, , workplaces and managers are incredibly diverse, on basically any possible dimension. A workplace that suits your needs definitely exists, the question is how to find it.

In my case, I've just randomly stumbled upon into it some time ago and I'll probably stick with it for as long as possible (Before that, I've mostly had jobs that I felt were a not a great fit). Unfortunately, "randomly stumbling upon" is not much of a strategy, but I guess it's points to changing jobs often. I don't believe that the important aspects of a job can be sussed out during an interview, so you essentially need to take a chance on a job, join the company and, if that's not what you were looking for, leave 1-2 years later. Repeat until satisfied.

</comment><comment><USER12> Only take on high value, high visibility work. Position yourself to get this work. Play politics. When you switch jobs, overstate your previous role, create a persona, a coherent timeline of professional progression.

Thats it, otherwise you have to work hard like everyone else.

<comment><USER7> I agree. It's this simple. But it's not so much playing politics as it is using common sense to work on things that make money or cut costs. Or writing code in a way that another team in the company can easily use.

Did this for two and a half years. My boss quit and took me with him to a better gig. Your network is your net worth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd imagine if you switch to a company that asks less of you, you will get promoted more slowly. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

<comment><USER14> No relation to getting promoted.

If the company is growing quickly you will be promoted quickly. If it is getting smaller people get laid-off demoted. If it's holding steady than working extra hours might make you more valuable if someone leaves.

Working 20 more hours only marginally increases your chances. Marry the owners daughter would work better.</comment></comment>


ForgeFed: A federation protocol for interop between version control services - <AUTHOR> https://forgefed.peers.community/ <comment><USER2> Check the roadmap. ForgeFed recently received funding from NLNet and you could be compensated for work on roadmap items: [https://notabug.org/peers/forgefed/issues/87](https://notabug.org/peers/forgefed/issues/87)

These are some forges under consideration for ForgeFed support: [https://notabug.org/peers/forgefed/issues/59](https://notabug.org/peers/forgefed/issues/59)

Here is ForgeFed issue on Gitea project: [https://github.com/go- gitea/gitea/issues/9045](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/9045)

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw the initial discussions in 2018 and was intrigued enough to start writing a module for our VCS. But after a while I noticed it was (still) only a glorified notification system. I saw no advantage over email notification, and could not even really test the interoperability as there seemed to be no actual "client" application that could even receive notifications. Has this situation improved? What should I look at first when attempting integration again?

<comment><USER4> what's your vcs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> See also from 2018:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17288727](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17288727)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17850233](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17850233)

</comment><comment><USER6> It'd be good to know how to contribute. Do they have regular calls? Are the documents written async? How are things agreed upon? Do they need outside input?

They don't seem to have a CONTRIBUTIG.md

</comment><comment><USER7> Can somebody TL;DR this for us? What language(s) is/are used, for example? That can be quite important as well, some runtimes and/or compilers produce security-imperfect code after all.

If this is to take off it should be quite secure.</comment>


Is there an HN Web Service - <AUTHOR>

Do anyone know if there is a Hacker News Web Service? <comment><USER2> <http://api.ihackernews.com/>

<http://www.hnsearch.com/api>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> iambot, I was wondering if there is a bona fide web service for Hacker News, like a WSDL document, endpoint, etc.. Specifically, it would be called a syndicated web service in .NET.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks vyrotek

</comment><comment><USER3> what do you mean? like an API?</comment>


Neuralink Progress Update, Summer 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvmgjBL74w <comment><USER2> Wow, you beat me by only a few minutes. At least I get the first comment. In any case, this is momentous. It's amazing to me how little attention neuralink gets — it's subreddit is pathetically small. This company/product will be the most important company/product ever conceived of. People don't understand that they are witnessing the birth of something bigger even than the domestic computer. It will ultimately be considered the start of a new stage of evolution rather than something that changed how we live.

The initial products treating various low-hanging fruit neurological injuries/diseases, or that connect motor cortex to peripherals, will not even begin to touch the potential of these devices, even rudimentary ones.

All you have to do is extend some of those threads into the deep brain and it's game over — the world will forever be changed into something totally different. It will change what we are fundamentally, and we still haven't touched the potential of the device.

The brain is always guessing. Your consciousness occupies a simulation of the world that is hosted inside one part of your brain. Sensory data is translated into primitives, sort of like video game assets, that are re-used and conform to repeating patterns in the environment — abstractions. Be it an object, a person, there is a neural representation of it stored in the brain. Sensory data is taken in by parts of your brain that translate the data into the presence or absence of these abstractions. If something is detected, it is inserted into the simulation and you experience it. This simulation is all you ever experience. Not all sensory data is translated directly into an abstraction. The end result of sensory data translation is a sparse data set — a simulation that only has a few things present within it. As an optimization, the brain then looks at the abstractions that are present in the simulation and then guesses what might be in the parts of the simulation that were not populated by the sensory translation hardware. The guess is placed into the simulation as an abstraction, the same as if it were based on sensory input. The key here is that the brain guesses way more and way more accurately than anyone appreciates. There's no way to tell since all abstractions are equally real in your experience. Most of the things you experience are guesses... what do you get when you take away sensory input from that system? You get a dream. Dreams are not poor simulations, they are astonishingly good guessing.

When we figure out how to interface with these abstractions, naturally it will be totally insane. Imagine augmenting your senses so that there is no guessing at all, every abstraction is put there deliberately and is totally accurate to the real world. It is a way of experiencing the world that cannot be described in words other than saying it would be totally unlike anything before. Things will be possible like simply knowing where things are, even if they are behind you or out of view. It gets to the level where it's like trying to describe an lsd trip...

And the use of abstractions is not limited to the physical world. We will discover the neural whereabouts of many useful abstractions... it will be trivial to augment ones ability in almost anything, like math or chess or counter-strike or empathy or almost anything else one could imagine, all in a way that is totally seamless, new intuitions — indistinguishable from natural ability.

And that's just the obvious stuff. Enjoy yourself for now. The world as we know it has officially ended. You'll all think back to this comment soon. It will be sooner than you prefer. I guarantee it.</comment>


Using Algorithms to Determine Character - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/using-algorithms-to-determine-character/

<comment><USER2> Too bad there are no details about the algorithm. I'd use something supervised, for how it's described in the first part it looks some sort of bayes</comment>


Journalists aren't the enemy of the people. But we're not your friends either - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/business/media/trump-election-journalists.html <comment><USER2> When was the last time you read a news article about a topic where you are an expert, and walked away from it thinking that it would help laymen better understand the topic?

Journalism is a bit of a personal frustration of mine. It's _so important_ to the function of our society to have an informed population, but we don't, and it's because of the consistent lying that is done by journalists that we don't. Maybe not solely, but the news is one of our primary sense organs, and it's currently broken, or perhaps worse: it's currently on psychadelic drugs and is telling us things that aren't real. If it goes on long enough, we're going to end up schitzophrenic as a society. I think that at the very least we are in the middle of a metaphorical psychotic break. I hope we recover from it, and I really wish that the journalists would at least try to help us, instead of blatantly trying fuel it.

And while we're at it: shut down twitter. It's the drug dealer give our sensemaking organs the drugs.

<comment><USER3> > It's so important to the function of our society to have an informed > population, but we don't, and it's because of the consistent lying that is > done by journalists that we don't.

Are you sure it's that important to have an informed citizenry? I'd say we've never had one, anywhere. We've had some people being informed, sure, but the masses have never been informed well. They've been lead and entertained. If it's that important, how have we made it this far?

What's more important for a nation than the media informing people is the media being on the same page and projecting a similar image. Of course, you want them to not report that aliens have landed when they haven't, but you certainly don't want only half of them reporting it. I don't believe that the facts really matter that much overall. But if you lose the "shared reality", you're losing cohesion.

<comment><USER4> >What's more important for a nation than the media informing people is the media being on the same page and projecting a similar image

So like this?

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair-n...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair- news-anchors-script.html)

> I don't believe that the facts really matter that much overall. But if you > lose the "shared reality", you're losing cohesion.

So you'd rather live in a made up fantasy world as long as we all share the same made up fantasy world?

I just can't understand how people can think like this...

1984 should really be assigned reading for everyone in high school.

<comment><USER3> > So like this?

Well, yes. I mean, we've had that in a more sophisticated way for the longest time via press agencies. They deliver the news to the media companies, the editors rewrite it a bit to match their audience's taste and add a bit of opinion, but the basic facts are the same. Sinclair was probably just too cheap to spend the extra few bucks to hire somebody to write 20 scripts that have the same content but aren't worded the same.

> So you'd rather live in a made up fantasy world as long as we all share the > same made up fantasy world?

I'd prefer if we all shared reality. But we have a terrible hard time finding out what reality even is, and if you read any kind of media, you're certainly not learning about reality, you're just learning about whatever reality the media thinks is real (or wants you to think is real). And in that case, yeah, a shared fantasy is better than many fantasies. You can communicate about a shared fantasy reality. You'll have a hard time communicating when you don't share reality.

<comment><USER4> >I'd prefer if we all shared reality.

Unfortunately, unless you can see out of my eyes and think my thoughts, you and I, as well as you and everyone else will not share reality.

That's what being human is, we all live in our own reality.

>You'll have a hard time communicating when you don't share reality.

It's worked for thousands of years. You don't need to share reality to communicate with people, you need to be able to stop and see their reality for a bit, understand it's different than yours and be ok with this.

I just want to seriously ask, on a planet with 7 billion people scattered around the world how can you possibly expect everyone to share the same reality?

How is the reality of people from two completely different places in the world ever going to be the same?

<comment><USER3> > It's worked for thousands of years.

I think it has, but not the way you put it. Rather: we've shared reality for thousands of years, and that's why it worked. We've had the occasional lunatic who didn't share our reality, but they ran into a mammoth or tried to pet a sable tooth tiger. For the rest of us, it was easier. When you said "three mammoths behind the forest", I had a pretty good idea about what you were talking about.

> I just want to seriously ask, on a planet with 7 billion people scattered > around the world how can you possibly expect everyone to share the same > reality?

We don't need literally everyone anywhere on earth to share the same reality. We need a shared reality mostly with those we come in contact with, for practical reasons I'd say in a nation, but probably also in political blocs (though the details can very well get more fuzzy the further away somebody is). Can't have Europe think the Soviets are great while the US thinks they're terrible, that won't work in an alliance.

And we don't need to have everyone share it either, a super majority is enough. It's not an issue if you have 1% of people believing that reptilians are running the government and looking for politicians blinking sideways on TV. It starts to become a problem when you get larger groups that don't share reality. A small group of 1% will get carried away by the flow. That's much different with a group of 10, 20 or 30 percent.

> How is the reality of people from two completely different places in the > world ever going to be the same?

It's not, but then again, even here on the internet, you're mostly speaking to people from your part of the world (geographically, but even more so culturally). It really doesn't matter whether you share reality with somebody you have no points of contact with. And, I think, it's much easier to even accept that somebody perceives reality differently when they're very clearly not like you. There might be a bit of a condescending tone of "oh, of course, they fell for the propaganda their government put out... well, that couldn't happen to me", but it's much more acceptable for a Chinese person to have a drastically different world view than for your neighbor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ah. The journalists and reporters. Of course. Much concern.

Never a mention of the owners, publishers, editors, boards, and personages of influence.

Never a mention of the quid pro quo of coverage for access.

We should focus all our concern on the journalists. Those dastardly story tellers using their immense power to boss around the mail clerks.

<comment><USER6> Trump mentions Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, all the time. But of course journalists themselves also have power. The power to decide what information reaches their readers, how it is presented - that is power. Not bossing around mail clerks.

<comment><USER5> Name one investigative report that was published against the wishes of the hierarchy.

Whereas stories like this are innumerable:

Whistleblowers punished for attempting to report unlawful rBGH in milk [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsui...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit)

<comment><USER7> Ronan Farrow's investigation of Harvey Weinstein was nearly squashed by NBC, where he worked at the time. He had to take it to The New Yorker.

<comment><USER5> Farrow is a _terrific_ example. He's like the next Seymour Hersh.

Edit: The New Yorker was Hersh's home too. Of course. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personal opinion: I think it was around 2004 when the media slowly stopped being the journalists that protect our democracy, and instead corporations and individuals with political agendas. Sure there were plenty of newspapers and outlets that leaned one way or the other, but it was never so blatantly partisan, to the point of suspect. Journalists are not the enemy of the people, but the media of today certainly doesn't act like it.

<comment><USER9> > 2004

A year or two before that you had Judith Miller at the New York Times uncritically helping the American government start a war on false pretexts. And more than a century before then, American newspapers were hard at work starting the Spanish-American War for bullshit reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Now is a wonderful time to read these words of Wisdom of PG

[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1278678974500147202](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1278678974500147202)

"Journalists used to have a monopoly on the news. This power bred restraint; whatever their private feelings, they avoided overt personal attacks. Now this power and the consequent restraint are both evaporating. Now they're just Twitter users."

<comment><USER6> Power doesn't breed restraint.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, these words of, well, whatever they are, are both illogical and ahistorical - journalists have been making personal attacks since the dawn of the field.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think the prima facie case for journalists is incredibly strong, even for some of the more questionable types of journalism mentioned in the comments like explanatory journalism, narrative reporting and opinion.

I think a lot of the problem today has to do with media literacy: a lack of knowledge among casual readers/viewers about the purpose of journalism, and the difference between the various kinds (and what those kinds allow in an ethical/professional sense).

However, I don't think the conversation ends there. Given that environment, institutions need to do a better job supporting journalism in a way that reflects that knowledge. I don't know if it's possible for a paper that calls itself "the paper of record" to include an opinion section, or even lifestyle reporting, and maintain its "objective" journalistic reputation.

Opinion, interpretative, and explanatory journalism is probably best life to the magazines, or websites that explicitly share a particular editorial viewpoint. The Economist is a great example of this type of institution.

</comment><comment><USER12> 27 years ago this appeared in Wired magazine, from a speech given by Michael Crichton...I think it applies

[https://www.wired.com/1993/04/mediasaurus/](https://www.wired.com/1993/04/mediasaurus/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Journalism is dying because the quality the average journalist produces is no better than what can be had for free from amateurs writing blogs and tweets. They are 100% responsible for their own downfall and the compromises it has forced on them.

</comment><comment><USER14> We need better sources of news. It is somewhat happening already with the rise of individual 'reporters' on YouTube and other social media who amass followers and support themselves with patronage, advertising, merchandise, etc...

</comment><comment><USER15> This from the people who created the standard of "According to an anonymous source familiar with his thinking".

If you want to convince me that journalists are NOT the enemy of the people, then stop donating money to political causes and then publishing damning reports to opponents of those causes sourced only from unverifiable anonymous sources.

</comment><comment><USER16> It journalists were capable of objective reasoning they would've gone into tech instead.

<comment><USER17> unscrupulous people will do unscrupulous things regardless of where they work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The movement away from objective journalism is probably not a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER19> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHimia_Fxzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHimia_Fxzs)

<g>

</comment><comment><USER20> I think they are the enemy of the people and our nation. Neither side can be trusted to deliver unbiased information and instead do their best to invoke feelings of fear, hostility, anger, hatred, but most of all fear in an effort to sell more commercial time/clicks/papers. And a large part of both sides look to their news outlet to confirm their bias and at the same time grow their bias based on the latest injustice/tragedy/incomprehensible outrage, further driving the (two) sides further apart, growing their hatred for the other side, fear that the other side is going to end their way of life, so on.

People still mostly believe what they watch and read, blindly. Especially when it coincides with their own views. And by making up more lies, more exaggerations, or making it seem like we are all going to die if Trump/Biden gets elected as the next God, they are perpetually making things worse with each story.

How hard is it to be honest and unbiased? Isn't that your job anyway?

</comment><comment><USER21> I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell.

Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists.

If you want for something to spread, it's better for 100 people to really like it than for 1000 people to find it OK. That's the pattern we're seeing in the media right now.

Mr. Smith has a quaint notion of journalism, and one which is not shared by his publisher, who indeed see it as a reasonable endeavour to 'combat Donald Trump'.

I think that the future of media is to completely abandon the pretense of neutrality and to become blind cheerleaders for 'their side'; if you want the Republican coverage, you'll go to Fox or OAN, and hear the latest theories about how the President is morally infallible and how the libtards ought to be rounded up and shot. If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times, and hear the latest theories about how the President is an evil man and how the fascists ought to be rounded up and thrown in prison.

I don't think this will be too bad. Before, you'd trust your neutral newspaper to give you both sides of the story. Now, you'll have to read two news outlets. But this isn't the end of the world, as long as people can adapt to the change.

<comment><USER22> There are sides to a story, and then there's false information. But on the lines of what you're saying, I think that education should probably train students in that style of media literacy: reading both sides of an issue from neutral, partisan and extremist perspectives, and reasoning about how to synthesize them.

<comment><USER21> I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between the two. You can take facts which are _not wrong_ and use them to argue any point, no matter how ridiculous. If that's grotesque enough, it's misconduct already, even if you're _not technically lying_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Journalism is dead. Completely dead.

Just look at the Covington High School fiasco. Or look at YouTube for 'The Walls are closing in'. Or look how long the Russiagate narrative dominated the headlines, only to dissolve in a day.

Yes, true journalism is dead.

<comment><USER24> > Or look how long the Russiagate narrative dominated the headlines, only to > dissolve in a day.

I've heard that the word "impeachment" was not mentioned once during the Democratic convention. Six months after the trial that we were told over and over again the evidence was so, so, so convincing toward a guilty verdict!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Journalism is not as important as journalist want us to think. Reporting is important. Clear, unbaised reporting gives us what we need to be informed. Nobody asks for story driven reporting, that is a fabrication.

A journalist is a reporter who wants to be Real Writer. Which is to say that they want to do more than give us the facts, they want us to know it via the filter of their experience and analysis. It is a self important profession, all the moereso because universities degree it. Who gets a degree in mere reporting?

</comment><comment><USER26> At the end of the day, they're just another competitor in the Attention Economy. Their coverage of Big Tech for example makes a ton more sense if you view it as going after your competitors, rather than some high-minded Truth Seeking.

I mean, it's not all bullshit, every participant has some differentiating angle they believe in, like Googles Organizing the World's Information, Facebook's Connecting People, NY Times' Paper of Record etc.</comment>


Seattle 3 Year Time-Lapse Video from the Space Needle - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@rmbrualla/seattle-3-year-time-lapse-video-from-the-space-needle-9a9e76cfe8bf <comment><USER2> > What is going on with the cars on the top floor of this parking garage in > Queen Anne? They seem to stay in the same spot for months at a time.

Most likely city vehicle parking. They are all painted the same because they are probably part of a fleet. Most likely they are different cars that all look the same.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an interesting view into just how quickly Seattle is changing.

I love Seattle, and I want to see it grow, but I worry about how it changes as it grows. I'd hate to see it follow San Francisco's path to inequality and social strife.

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks like Sim City on the fastest speed

<comment><USER5> When this was released I even made a YouTube mashup to that effect :) [http://vmashup.com/lNMOknGm](http://vmashup.com/lNMOknGm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> NASA should try to do this from Space. (Space Station? )</comment>


Simulating Supply and Demand (12 min. animated video) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNtKXWNKGN8 <comment><AUTHOR> The video made a lot of intuitive sense mathematically due to the animations, just like 3Blue1Brown does.

I wonder what other sources regarding this topic would be good to learn. I'm very interested in knowing more about it.</comment>


YubiHSM – hardware security module HSM for your server - <AUTHOR> https://www.yubico.com/products/yubihsm/ <comment><USER2> The pricing for this appears to be $650.

<comment><USER3> $650 is dirt cheap compared to most HSM pci-e cards or standalone devices. Those can easily start at $20-45k.

Mr. Robot actually has some great examples of standalone networked HSM's!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> But how many keys can it store? And how does it handle them in case of tampering? Will it erase them, like other HSM do?

</comment><comment><USER5> Why is blatant advertising like this making it onto HN in the guise of newsworthiness?

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this a new release? Curious if BitWarden supports devices like this.</comment>


The early days of home computing – in pictures - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gallery/2020/apr/11/the-early-days-of-home-computing-in-pictures <comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone know what one could do with those really early computers that just had a few switches on the front? How did you get data in?</comment>


The Erosion of Creative Freedom? The Battle over Publicity Rights - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/173890/The_Erosion_of_Creative_Freedom_The_Battle_over_Publicity_Rights.php

<comment> dan-k While I agree that this ruling in favor of EA is correct, I find it telling that this is the only time I've heard recently of a court reversing the trend of granting outrageous intellectual property rights, and it's in favor of the massive company in the entertainment industry. But I'm probably just being paranoid; it's not like the US is a plutocracy in disguise...</comment>