Inside the world of longsword fighting - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/video/sports/100000003040466/inside-the-world-of-longsword-fighting.html <comment><USER3> Interesting to see HEMA become increasingly popular.

I've done European medieval combat re-enactment for a few years, so I'd like to expand on that one fighter's comment on the "thee" and "thou" thing.

Generally, in the re-enactment community, there are three different focusses: one is authenticity, trying to replicate historical costumes, equipment and trades; another is entertainment of an audience that is rarely familiar with the subject matter; the third is combat, both as a martial art and as a form of group sports.

The theatricals that seem to be popular at American "ren faires" and the medieval markets in various parts of Europe are strictly an expression of that second focus. Most re-enactors I've met are either into the first or third one (or a mix thereof).

I see HEMA as a logical evolution of that third focus, though I personally find its emphasis on duelling and professional competitions (with all the restrictions that brings) less intriguing.

I guess my point is that you can have medieval combat without the "thee" and "thou" parts outside of HEMA as well. It's very different from HEMA and certainly attracts a different kind of people, but it's still an alternative even if you couldn't care less about the theatrics.

<comment><USER4> HEMA=Historical European Martial Arts

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I though the term also came up in the video but I may have remembered that wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Semi-Related to this is Lars Andersen taking archery to the next level by using forgotten skills he learned by looking at old art and various texts. Worth a watch!

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk](https://youtube.com/watch?v=BEG- ly9tQGk)

<comment><USER6> I wish he'd share his knowledge with someone of better physical shape, such as :

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8b1zWOgOKA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8b1zWOgOKA) [https://www.youtube.com/user/FrenchFreerunFamily/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/FrenchFreerunFamily/videos)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks like great fun!

I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-)

It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.

And, I assume a medieval fighter would take far smaller chances than these modern hobbyists knowing a counter blow could be (almost surely would be) fatal.

Also, these guys fight one on one. But in a war you would have to guard yourself from blows and cuts not just from one enemy but from a crowd of enemy soldiers, left and right.

The guy you were fighting might be using a sword or he might have another weapon. Maybe he was using a shield and you didn't. And if he had a sword, he might not have read the memo that it should be max 4 feet long.

And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow he might be fighting uphill or downhill, and just keeping ones balance when striking or blocking would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor.

<comment><USER8> I'm a HEMA practitioner from The Netherlands

> I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though > :-)

It does actually resemble it very much, but medieval longsword fighting was probably very different than what you _think_ it was.

> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor > than in this ultra light modern equipment.

Not really. The main difference is visibility. First, the modern HEMA equipment is a lot heavier than e.g. standard fencing gear. It's a lot thicker (like those dog attack suits) and often have steel or kevlar plates in the inside. Second, medieval gear wasn't all that heavy. I have a full suit of maille (as it's really called) and it weighs less than 15 kilos, helmet included. A full steel plate armour shouldn't weight more than 25 kilos. That's less than modern soldiers have to carry around on the battlefield.

The biggest difference is that a fencing mask gives you better visibility than a historical closed helmet.

> these guys fight one on one

That's what happened in medieval times too most often. The original medieval books were written mostly for one-on-one combat, either for dueling or trial- by-sword. That happened a lot more than being caught in a war on a battlefield. Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics.

> And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow [...] would be hard compared to > fighting indoor on a floor.

My HEMA group trains for this as well, and I suspect many other groups too. It is also mentioned in the medieval books. I have trained in loose sand, in the surf on a beach, in deep snow, etc. It's true that competitions are usually held indoors on an even ground though.

<comment><USER9> _Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics._

Just curious - could you explain this in a bit more detail? It's surprising.

<comment><USER10> He puts it a bit too general, but against full plate armour, swords are nearly useless. In the late Middle Ages, when plate armour became increasingly common, people started using weapons with better armour-piercing capabilities, like maces, warhammers and various polearms.

Swords are great against lightly armoured and unarmoured targets, like peasants, archers and civilians. Swords remained in use as a side arm and civilian weapon, and a popular duelling weapon, which may also be why so many medieval manuscripts are about one-on-one fights. Carrying a polearm with you everywhere you go is a lot more cumbersome than having a sword hanging on your belt.

But swords were absolutely used on the battlefield. Romans and vikings used them a lot. Knights had them of course, and even they became increasingly less useful against other knights, they often didn't really want to kill each other anyway. Pikemen generally had a short sword as backup weapon (the Katzbalger), and there's of course the massive two-handed swords used by Landsknechts to break up pike formations (supposedly; nobody knows for sure). But again knights in plate armour, you'd better get something that can knock holes in it. If you want to kill him, that it.

You might compare the sword to a pistol. You don't usually send a mass of soldiers into battle with just a pistol; you give them assault rifles (or polearms). But officers and civilians tend to carry a pistol, and maybe some soldiers have one for backup.

<comment><USER11> >they often didn't really want to kill each other anyway

Can you elaborate on this? What were they doing with swords instead?

<comment><USER12> They killed peasants and mercenaries instead. The knights they took hostage for ransom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The book illustration/art history blog BibliOdyssey has some great scans of a 16th century German longsword fighting manual called Der Fechtbuch that features some of the moves seen in this video. As well as some that really surprised me, like the opening illustration of two combatants fighting with reversed swords (hilt to hilt rather than blade to blade) which was apparently an actual technique used for bludgeoning.

[http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2012/06/der- fechtkampf.html](http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2012/06/der-fechtkampf.html)

<comment><USER13> I remember an old post on /r/askhistorians about medieval fighting, and this article was referenced. There was even a video of two re-enactors emulating the style. It was vastly different than everything I'd come to expect from films, but it makes more sense when you think about it. Armor could be extremely effective for taking a direct sword hit, so the strategy was to almost wrestle your opponent up close and wedge the blade in between the plates, using both hands as leverage to slice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If anybody is interested, with the revival of HEMA, we're starting to end up with longsword players who are getting up there with good Kendo players.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw)

<comment><USER15> damn. both of those guys are really good

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Inside the world of having a video player that doesn't let you adjust the volume.

<comment><USER17> Yeah that is extremely annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The documentary "Reclaiming the Blade" is about the semi-lost art of medieval and renaissance sword fighting, and is quite good. If this topic is even slightly interesting, you'll probably find the documentary entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm not the type to be into this kind of thing but that slow-motion kill was sick! He/She caught their opponent wide open AND had the presence of mind to instantly defend. That was legit.

<comment><USER20> That slow-motion was pretty awesome, I agree. You could tell that the fencer had practiced that to where retreating into a defensive guard was likely instinctice. :)

When you look at many of the plates from earlier fencing manuals, such as those of Fabris or Capo Ferro (Italian fencers from the 1600s), many of the prime guards and ways you strike are done so that you are parrying in measure -- your blade and hilt are in a position that prevents the opponent's sword from connecting with your body. Many similar ideas are present in other swordmasters' treatises.

Disclaimer: I'm a terrible fencer, but several of my friends are up to their eyeballs in historican fencing, so when I go home on holiday, I get an earfull of it. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sword fighting and middle age reenactment is quite big in Germany and Central Europe.

<comment><USER22> Interesting. Do you have any idea about where should I start looking? I'm in Germany now, and this looks fairly interesting.

<comment><USER23> The HEMA Alliance has a club finder which lists groups all over the US and Europe: [http://hemaalliance.com/?page_id=748](http://hemaalliance.com/?page_id=748)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hi All,

       Fascinating to see this matter being discussed on here.

       By way of putting my cards on the table, I am a former curator from the Royal Armouries in England (most recently taking care of the RA collection at the Tower of London). I now live in Boston where I founded The School of Mars, teaching arming sword inspired from a variety of early manuals.

       A lot of the myths seem to have been adequately busted in this thread, for which I am thankful. But just to recap.

\- Actual swordplay, even in armour, was much faster than we tend to give it credit for. The weapons were properly designed (longswords usually no more than 3lbs. and balanced such that the blade's weight was compensated for by a heavy pommel), allowing them to fly in the hands of someone trained to use them. The armour, too, was custom made for each person, fitting them like a second skin, allowing for a wide range of movement and for the weight (usually 45-60lbs for a battle harness) to be spread throughout the whole body rather than being carried in one or two places. Some of our interpreters would demonstrate this by doing somersaults, cartwheels, and even yoga poses in their harness.

\- Yes, battlefield combat is a very different game from tournament style 'one on one' combat. Some techniques are more suited to one than the other. However, many of the techniques in the manuals are usable in both situations, and it is more a matter of the mindset and application of the individual. I agree that most of the HEMA community trains for tournament style combat, because this is mainly the way in which techniques are demonstrated and used in competition. It would be very interesting indeed for training regimes to work out systems of teaching how to apply these techniques to a battle environment.

\- Categorizing HEMA is going to depend largely on what your intentions are in studying it. If you want to attempt to accurately re-create the style of fighting from a particular master/manual, and restrict your research/practice to just the contents of said manual and any contextualising resources, then you are more in the realm of re-enactment. I am not yet convinced that the full realization of this is possible, given that we are dealing with texts of variable clarity and no living individuals from an unbroken lineage to verify our theories. That is not to say that there isn't a martial/competitive aspect to this particular type of re-enactment, but in this case one is dealing with a fundamentally 'dead' style, with a set end date and a finite number of techniques, unable to change after its period.

\- To make it a martial art requires that we allow the style to be organic, to grow with modern practitioners and teachers as everyone discovers variations of the style that suits them (much like the masters did themselves). This is the idea that I am attempting to bring about with School of Mars. The manuals form the foundation of the teachings, but as new insights from modern practitioners, who may have been exposed to other styles etc., the techniques adapt, or have new techniques or applications added on. We today have the benefit of access to a rich martial heritage that spans the globe, which the early masters did not. To some the thought of mingling them could be seen as heresy, but in my opinion doing so is simply part of reviving the martial arts of Europe in a modern setting. I suspect that the early masters would have leapt upon the opportunity to gain inspiration from other martial styles had they the ability.

/rant. :-)

<comment><USER3> About the battlefield combat: I'm not sure HEMA can really explore battlefield combat at scale, at least not with very strict minimum requirements on armour.

HEMA tries to follow the authentic fighting styles very closely and therefore places a lot of emphasis on killing/disarming blows, including stabs to the head (at eye level) or throat and slashes at the hands. This works with sufficient protective gear under controlled conditions.

Battlefield scenarios as seen in re-enactment are far more chaotic. It works because the ruleset is the spectral opposite of HEMA: no stabs to the head, no blows to the hands. Basically medieval combat without the "fun parts".

I don't think it'd be possible to create that kind of environment with a HEMA ruleset without making a whole lot more dangerous and accident prone.

OTOH battlefield re-enactment can frequently get away with barely any armour at all (because the rules emphasize safe techniques) while plated gambesons and face guards seem to be the norm in most of HEMA.

Meh. What do I know anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'd start with a "You fight like a dairy farmer"

<comment><USER26> Hehe.

> How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

All of them (spoilers!): [http://www.worldofmi.com/gamehelp/insults/mi1.php](http://www.worldofmi.com/gamehelp/insults/mi1.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This looks so great: I've been looking for a martial art to supplement my daily workout and give me some strength and agility - and some fun - <USER2> seems a lot more exciting than the Krav Maga classes I was looking at. Anyone know if there's a good place in the UK to do this?

</comment><comment><USER28> European here. We've been doing this for a while.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is so freaking cool. They are much faster with the sword attacks than I would have imagined.

</comment><comment><USER30> Cool! I was watching "Big Giant Swords" on the Discovery channel (a fantastic show) and they touched on competitive sword fighting last week. After seeing this, the whole thing makes a lot more sense.

</comment><comment><USER31> If you live in Vancouver there actually is a srs swordfighting school [http://www.academieduello.com/](http://www.academieduello.com/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Hmm....may have to find somewhere to do this in Orlando.

</comment><comment><USER33> Sadly, it doesn't play in Chrome on Linux.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think I found my new hobby.

</comment><comment><USER35> The girl says "size shouldn't matter". Yeah right, because you are fighting for points.

<comment><USER35> Why the downvotes? This is swords and armours, not guns. Strength matters a lot. Since apparently you already live in fantasy land, why don't you try fighting "The Mountain"? Then tell me if size doesn't matter.

<comment><USER36> Have you actually trained in any of the sword disciplines? If you do, you'll find that technique, speed, grace, and mental toughness are more important than size or strength. _Ceteris paribus_ , of course, size and strength are advantages, but you'll find that _ceteris_ are rarely _paribus_. Swords are tools, and human beings using tools are capable of surprising things.

I guarantee you, if you've played kendo at any decent dojo, you've had your ass kicked by an unassuming Japanese lady, or possibly her granddaughter. Even if you are like a Mountain, whatever that's supposed to mean.

<comment><USER35> I don't want to be a dick, but have you actually had a real sword fight? Have you pierced someone's armor and make him bleed? Of course you haven't.

The Mountain is a fictitious character from the popular TV series Game of Thrones. He uses a huge sword that you wouldn't be able to stop the same way you stop your fake swords brandished by girls. And I only dared to use him as an example because all of this is basically just that: a game, a fantasy.

If I had to pick a guardian, I would choose a newbie sword man from the middle ages over your instructor (who has never had a real fight) any day.

If you think Kendo is real, see what the guys from Iaido have to say about them: When they pick a real sword, they simply can't handle the weight, and the ones that can don't know how to actually cut stuff, because all they have learned is to win points in a game similar to tag.

<comment><USER36> Do me a favor and figure out what you're complaining about. Is it that the interviewed HEMA "girl" enjoys the fact that size is less important in her sport than in some other sports? Is it that her sport is not as "real" as your favorite HBO program? Are you instead complaining about getting downvoted for those obnoxious opinions? Maybe you don't like my opinions about sports I've played? Perhaps you'd like to put some words into my mouth? Oh, now I see, you're an iaido fan. After all the other stuff you've said, that's just cute.

<comment><USER35> > Is it that the interviewed HEMA "girl" enjoys the fact that size is less > important in her sport than in some other sports?

With a very serious face she said exactly this: "It's a serious martial art". Then the narrator says she's already a champion (with just 3 years of training? while studying/working as an engineer? lol) that fights opponents twice her size. And then she goes on with her fantasy: "It's hard for me to fight small people because I'm SO used to fighting with people taller than me or larger than me" (yeah right, that totally makes sense, lol). And _then_ (some context huh?) she says that size shouldn't matter. I have seen this sort of delusion in many activities, including but not limited to religion and "martial arts". And let me tell you, it's all fun and games until someone crashes against reality.

> Is it that her sport is not as "real" as your favorite HBO program?

I specifically said both are fantasy. But it's hilarious that you out of all the people try to mock me for this. By the way, I'm pretty sure the actor who plays the Mountain got more training than you. I would bet my life-savings to him in a fight where he used only armour (no sword) versus you or your "champion" with armour and a real sword. It will probably end like this:

[http://youtu.be/pRY4Mpmfk1o?t=3m19s](http://youtu.be/pRY4Mpmfk1o?t=3m19s)

That's not the Mountain by the way. Check him out: [http://media.joe.ie/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/gameofthrones...](http://media.joe.ie/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/gameofthronesmountain1.jpg) . But don't worry. What does it matter that his arm is the size of your torso? You are very fast and skilled. It's not like he wouldn't cut you in half with a single swing, right? Because size doesn't matter.

> Oh, now I see, you're an iaido fan.

No, you don't see ;), because I'm not a Iaido fan. In fact I've never even tried it.

> After all the other stuff you've said, that's just cute.

Is it. I think you are cute.

If it was seen just as a sport or a game, kind of like cosplay, I wouldn't mind. But the girl in the video truly believes she's a warrior and that can't end well.

<comment><USER3> > But the girl in the video truly believes she's a warrior and that can't end > well.

Does she? For all one can tell she seems to believe she knows what she's doing when she's using a sword in HEMA. Does an experienced kendo, aikido, taekwondo, <insert established MA here> fighter think of himself as a "warrior"?

I'd sure hope not. In fact I'd hope nobody today really thinks of himself as a "warrior". A soldier maybe, but even then it seems a bit antiquated and out of place. And worrying, if they would carry that notion over into their civil life.

If you're trained to disarm actual attackers in actual violent conflicts in actual life-or-death scenarios (not staged fights where both fighters use a formal style and fight with any kind of ruleset), maybe it's somewhat understandable you'd think of yourself as a warrior. But that is no more applicable to her than it is to a participant in any other martial art.

You seem to project some kind of anachronistic grandeur onto the notion of being a _real_ "warrior". It's a sport. Like the vast majority of martial arts today already are.

You're right, an HEMA "world champion" (or whatever) likely couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag in a realistic life-or-death situation. But that holds true for any martial art taught as a sport.

And unless your day job (or geographical circumstance) involves an extremely high chance of getting into those situations, there's no reason this should matter. And if you do have a high chance of getting in those situations, why the fuck would you care about what kinds of martial arts are performed as a sport?

Aside: in any HEMA fight I would rather bet my money on the one with the better reflexes and legwork. And although I've seen big guys with almost feline grace, generally big blokes tend to overvalue their size/strength advantage and underestimate the importance of speed and balance. And I'm not sure I'd ever bet any amount of money on a paid actor who has been taught what kind of moves look good to a television audience. We're talking about free fighting, not choreography here.

<comment><USER35> That "paid actor" has a Strongman career. See his personal records:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafth%C3%B3r_J%C3%BAl%C3%ADus_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafth%C3%B3r_J%C3%BAl%C3%ADus_Bj%C3%B6rnsson#Personal_records)

If you think your "leg work" can save you from someone who can lift 400+ Kg, you live in fantasy land. Unless you mean you will run like hell.

There is a reason why contact sports like Box or MMA have weight categories. Size matters! And swords aren't such good weapons that they remove the strength factor. If we were talking about guns, or even bows, then sure, dexterity beats everything else. But in close combat you don't want to fight someone who can literally crush your body with his bare hands.

Edit: A picture with Arnold, for comparison:

[http://www.dv.is/media/cache/0c/10/0c10973a39a53647327481c60...](http://www.dv.is/media/cache/0c/10/0c10973a39a53647327481c607be9889.jpg)

And Arnold didn't focus on strength when he trained, but this man did. Imagine that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Someone should use their clout within the sci-fi and geek worlds to run a kickstarter for a video game based on realistic sword fighting, then completely drop the ball!

<comment><USER3> Too soon, mate. Too soon.

I mean, I still have the t-shirt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> ...and it's a video. I look to the NYT for words on a page...I wish they wouldn't waste resources on stuff like this just for the "oh, it's cool" factor.

<comment><USER39> Only 26 words down is this link: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/sports/for-longsword-a- com...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/sports/for-longsword-a-comeback- ages-in-the-making.html?_r=0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> "it's a serious martial art"

It may be a serious, and quite cool, sport. But i don't think something that has zero real world practicability or application falls under the banner of a "martial art".

<comment><USER41> It's sitting on the top of the front page with 28 points. I've got no idea why I keep coming to HN looking for hacker news.

<comment><USER42> Well this is closer to the original meaning of "hacking" I guess :-)

<comment><USER43> It is very "close to the metal".

<comment><USER44> It involves a lot of low-latency pings.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Classic HN: "BitC isn't going to work in its current form" (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3749860 <comment><AUTHOR> This is an experiment in submitting "classic" threads. We already have a culture of periodically resubmitting old stories, but in this case, I think that the combination of the old thread _and_ the story is what is so interesting.

The original submission is, as far as I can tell, the only post-mortem on BitC, which was a research effort for a robust systems programming language. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitC) for more. The ensuing HN thread has even more insight, as other language designers talk about their own experiences in trying to make a better systems language. Particularly interesting is the comment from pcwalton, talking about similar difficulties with the beginning days of Rust, and how they were overcoming them.

<comment><USER2> Classic HN had me expecting "No wireless, less space than a nomad, lame" style comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting looking back on how this compared to the lessons learned by Rust in the lead up to 1.0.

Issues in which Rust observed the same problems and changed course to fixed them:

\- Compilation model: Rust originally wanted to do a static compilation model, like BitC, but it eventually went with a hybrid model that leans toward link- time optimization.

\- Compiler-Abstracted Representations vs. Optimization: Again, Rust wanted to abstract representations from the compiler, but eventually it just went to a model in which the representations aren't hidden from the compiler.

\- Insufficiency of the Type System: Rust also had by-ref parameters only, but as that was insufficient it eventually grew the lifetime system (as well as the subtyping needed to make it usable).

Issues in which Rust persevered anyway:

\- Inheritance and Encapsulation: Rust went with interfaces and unified them with the typeclass system.

\- Instance Coherence and Operator Overloading: Rust went with a Haskell-like approach to instance coherence. It is sometimes annoying, but it's rarely an insurmountable problem in practice, and Rust is a lot more flexible than most other non-C++, non-D languages here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some of this you covered in your comment in that thread ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3750882](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3750882)). Is there anything in the past four years that you learned since that comment?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> SPARK is the only one still going strong in verifiable, systems, programming space. I had hopes for ATS and BitC. There's Rust tie-ins but it's not a verifiable language. There is ongoing work to produce necessary models to make it one but it's quite complex. It's fine, though, as languages like it, Go, and Wirth's were really about raising the baseline safety/security of average code. Way better goal. Whereas, the verifiable languages are about making the highest level of assurance easier even if one must sacrifice some benefits of popular, complex languages.

So, we have SPARK. After much work, C can be subsetted with HOL and AutoCorres. Not really designed for it, though. So, we just have one proper for imperative with another made to work with monumental effort.

Far as functional, we have quite a few options that are prototypes with some production use. Haskell & HOL used with seL4 plus plenty others. Tolmach et al did Habit system language based on Haskell but I think it's on pause. ATS seemed quite practical but hadn't heard anything on it recently. COGENT is a new one for verified, functional, systems language that compiles to C with IIRC certified translation. The ML's have many practical implementations and were designed for theorem proving. CakeML latest in that. PreScheme was verified with VLISP and could be rebooted. There's also model-driven and DSL approach from Hinjtens at iMatix, CertiKOS with DeepSpec team, and Ivory at Galois.

So, this is what we're at since BitC folded. Anyone know of any work I missed with at least one deployment of low-level, OS-style code with realistic, verification capability?

<comment><USER5> [http://www.sparkel.org/](http://www.sparkel.org/)

<comment><USER4> SPARK for ParaSail? Hell yeah! Didn't know about it. Thanks for the link.</comment></comment></comment>


Richard Feynman's Little-Known Sketches & Drawings - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/01/17/richard-feynman-ofey-sketches-drawings/

<comment><USER2> That last portrait really nails home the point that artistic ability isn't something innate, it requires work and dedication just like anything else. I think a lot of engineering-minded people (myself included) have this view of art as something that is inaccessible because they lack talent, but Feynman shows that that isn't really the case.

<comment><USER3> Having just seen the Van gogh exhibit in Amsterdam, currently on display with lther important impressionists in the hermitage in Amsterdam, I appreciate this too- he started painting at 27

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _"My friend Dudley Wright suggested 'Au Fait,' which means 'It is done' in > French."_

Hum... no, it doesn't.

(For one, it should be spelled "Au fait" -- you don't capitalize every word in French, even in a title).

And it either means "by the way" if used at the beginning of a sentence, or "let's get to the point" if used in "venons-en au fait" (the "fait" is the "point"). This is sometimes shortened as "au fait!", said in an imperative tone.

I like the drawings very much, though.

</comment><comment><USER5> Slightly relevant; if you are in New York, Edward Tuftes' gallery is currently showing his sculptures of Feynman diagrams: <http://etmodern.com/ETmodern/ET_Modern.html>

The best thing in that gallery is even further off topic, but well worth it; the documentary on Inge Druckrey & typography, (available to watch at the above link).

</comment><comment><USER6> Better than anything I could draw. Here was one of the most re known physicists/smartest guys around saying...hey, I'm not really an artist but I'd love to give it a shot.

Kind of makes you wonder if that same line of the thought led to his scientific successes.

<comment><USER7> Unbridled curiosity. I highly recommend the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" - it's very good and insightful into how he approaches situations and how his thinking style shapes him and eventually his surroundings.

<comment><USER8> That and "What Do You Care What Other People Think?': Further Adventures of a Curious Character." Some of the best books I've read.

<comment><USER9> It should be noted that "What Do You Care ..." is comparatively more serious than "Sure You're Joking ...". Two of the longest sections involve the death of his wife during Feynman's days at Los Alamos, and the investigation of the Challenger crash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One copy available on Amazon UK for £1,965. [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art- Richard-Feynman-Character/dp...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art-Richard- Feynman-Character/dp/2884490477)

</comment><comment><USER11> Not really that little known as every biography of his references this stuff, and it provides the source material for a number of Feynman anecdotes.

</comment><comment><USER12> IIRC, Feynmann received some notoriety as the famous physicist who hung out at topless bars...as this was one way he found subjects for nude portraits

</comment><comment><USER13> I love Feynman, but these aren't that good.

<comment><USER14> This was created for comments like that: <https://twitter.com/shit_hn_says>

<comment><USER15> There are some seriously WTF comments there:

"Affiliation with MIT right now, even as a student, looks to me like affiliation with the Nazi youth"

"PG built Viaweb in Lisp because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then"</comment></comment></comment>


Lessons from Building and Scaling Reddit's Ad Serving Platform with Go - <AUTHOR> https://about.sourcegraph.com/go/gophercon-2018-from-prototype-to-production-lessons-from-building-and/ <comment><USER2> As the founder of a SAAS ad serving company, I can say that as slick as (I think) my platform is, it's not a problem I would want to tackle again. There will be a large volume of technical challenges and required features to support.

It'd be like writing Apache or Nginx from scratch. It seems simple on the surface and then you wake up to all kinds of inconvenient and unexpected technical challenges.

I'm not sure Reddit's engineering resources are best allocated to building ad serving infrastructure and software. It was going to be an ongoing headache from the start, and worse, it sounds like it was build with a language and stack that was fairly new to the team.

My prediction is that it will become a high cost and difficult to maintain project that will also prove difficult to hire for when this engineering team gets tired of working on the (currently new and fun, soon to be old and scary) adserver and moves on to other jobs.

My point being that some challenges are best left to third parties who make solving some problem its full time job. I truly do not say that out of bias, just experience building and managing such a complex system.

<comment> grey-area They were already using a third party service. It was slow and opaque, so they ditched it.

At the scale of reddit, and because this is _how they make their money_ , this is clearly something they want in house and something it would be a competitive advantage to control, if nothing else it gives them a much clearer conduit to their advertisers, and much greater control over things like ad selection.

<comment><USER3> The problem with Reddit ads isn't their tech, it's their people. The ad approval process is a farce - and human-managed. Oh, and those humans are assholes. You have to go through many denials - for no reason - submit a ticket to get another approver and approved - for no reason stated. It was the most upsetting process I've ever dealt with.

<comment><USER4> It seems odd that there's a stringent ad approval process when the site proudly lets Redditors post any garbage they want. I'd have expected anything SFW and not obviously fraudulent to be allowed.

<comment><USER5> It's obviously not very stringent. A lot of the ads they run lately are outright scams, including even advertising Scientology: [https://i.redd.it/6cd1ricqc8j11.jpg](https://i.redd.it/6cd1ricqc8j11.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I advertised on reddit for our startup roughly one year ago and it was the worst ad management experience I have ever witnessed. For the size and age of reddit the advertiser backend was a real shame. The kind invoices they provide you is laughable, it feels like the whole backend was built by amateurs.

On top of that, the traffic we received from reddit was very bad for our e-sports/gaming-related website.

<comment><USER7> Hey bflesch, a year ago we weren't even running our own ad server and had just released an early v1 of our new ads management interface. It probably felt like the "worst ad management experience [you] have ever witnessed" because the other major ad management platforms have multiple years and hundreds of engineers/designers on us :) We've made substantial progress since then, I'd encourage you to not judge us too early and give it another shot, the platform and products are improving rapidly.

p.s. If any engineers or PMs are interested in helping us build out a world class, high-scale ad platform please get in touch (email in profile). We are hiring for senior and above positions in NY and SF.

<comment><USER3> If you work in the ad group, my advice is to fix the ad approval process. I've never had such a disappointing experience in my life. Seems like the approvers have editorial control based on personal preference over any objective evaluation. Since reddit is all about the ebs and flows of whats hot and whats not, sure is a shame your advertising platform is a joke at monetizing that because of the terrible approval process.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the feedback! We are completely revamping the approval process over the next few months so I am expecting substantial improvement in this area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A means for rapidly selecting and loading an advert which will then be blocked by the users' browser.

(Although even without adblock, are there actually all that many overt ads on Reddit, other than the sidebar ad which nearly always is an ad for a different subreddit?)

<comment><USER8> There are also promoted posts intermingled with user generated content. They are specially visible in the mobile app

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > 12M posts per month, 2B posts per month

Curious, which one is it? I suspect the former.

<comment><USER10> Maybe 12M articles / self posts, 2B comments?

<comment><USER11> Nah, no way on average an article gets 166 comments. That must be page views or something.

<comment><USER12> Why not? Most front page posts have several thousand posts, which seems like it might be enough to offset the 0 comments that most submissions will get.

<comment><USER13> The front page is obviously not representative in any way of 99% of the posts made on the platform. Look at the slew of posts made on reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/all/new/](https://www.reddit.com/r/all/new/)

Most will be lucking to reach 10 comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Thrift has been around since 2007, and is one of the first rpc protocols.

Done reading there.

Not sure if bad written or just not knowledgeable, please do your research.

<comment><USER15> What's more likely: there is an error in transcribing or the developers of one of the worlds largest websites think the first RPC protocol was written in 2007 (over, say, REST, which their entire API is built on).

<comment><USER16> Given the continual attitudes seen within tech... sadly, the latter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Go-kit looks pretty nice, anyone else have experience with it?

<comment><USER18> It can be surprising how little code you're actually using from the Go-Kit project, and how it's really more of a structure for your app.

It will not save you time typing: each route can have a transport request decoder and response encoder (encoder's are often shared), a request and response type, the actual business logic, a function that takes the request struct, applies it to the business logic function and returns a response object, a function that takes the previous function and connects it with the transport machinery (building the actual endpoint), and possibly middleware implementations.

However, by teasing all of these things apart from the very beginning it's very easy to come back later and add a circuit-breaker, or (as the article says) switch your transport from HTTP to grpc (or support both).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Half of the times it just sits there blank. Sometimes it loads in 2-3 seconds. Rest of the times it loads within 1 sec. Rarely, it also shows a default ad( I work in same industry, hence the term).

How is that great?

PS: Not talking about native ads.

</comment><comment><USER20> Enrichment Service, aka surveillance capitalism center

</comment><comment><USER21> Ads on reddit are incredibly deceptive. I'm not sure why advertisers tolerate it. 98% of the ad clicks on mobile are surely fraudulent through being intentionally accidental. The ads are designed to look exactly the same as real posts at a glance, with a username, post date, upvote/downvote arrows, deceptive title meant to make it look like a real post, comment section, share link, and image thumbnail. Reddit users are all conditioned to believe that they can tap a thumbnail and be shown a larger preview while staying on the site. On these ads, it takes them to the advertiser's site instead.

[https://i.imgur.com/Vm68wLP.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Vm68wLP.jpg)

<comment><USER22> Have you actually run ads on reddit, or are you saying this as a user?

If so, what stats have seen (impressions, clicks, conversions, etc.) for your ads?

<comment><USER23> I agree with OP. My 99% clicks on reddit mobile ad are unintended. It is very annoying, for if I press the back button to early, then the firefox browser will back too the page previous to the page containing the ad I clicked. So generally, I will wait the ad fully loaded then press the back button.

<comment><USER24> You and OP might not be typical users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Enrichment service is responsible for getting more data and information > about the request, user ...

Where do you get info about user and whats in it?

</comment><comment><USER26> Cool. Maybe these guys should get in touch with the redesign guys and get them fired. Also fire any executive that thought it was a good idea.

Because all the hard work to serve ads more efficiently goes to waste when the site is a mess and unusable.

<comment><USER27> What are the actual complaints with the new design? I've been using it on and off and I can't say I've noticed any major issues. Though I'll admit most of my browsing is one on the mobile app these days.

<comment><USER28> I get obnoxious multi-second lag when entering text into a comment box on my phone, even on a thread that only has a couple comments. It's... befuddling how this made it to production and remains. And no, I don't want to use your stupid app. I'm not a fan of loading 1000's of shitty apps on my phone when a simple web page is sufficient.

<comment><USER29> Somehow the scrolling is also broken on their mobile site, and that can't be by accident. Is it some sort of javascript middle finger to urge users to move to their app? I've never experienced scrolling issues like that on any other site, ever.

That they make their mobile site intentionally unfriendly and frustrating is infuriating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Brilliant, thanks for writing.

</comment><comment><USER31> i will add to not use the default http.Client/Server,

poor performance, instead use fasthttp

<comment><USER32> I like my HTTP package to actually speak as good an approximation of HTTP as it can, so fasthttp wouldn't be my first option.

Furthermore, the HTTP stack doesn't show up on most web servers' profiles. net/http is better understood by the community, interoperates with libraries better (e.g. golang.org/x/oauth2), and is better supported.

Use net/http.

<comment><USER33> The main issue with net/http is that it generates a lot of garbage which is definitely going to show up in your profile if you're handling a lot of requests per second.

<comment><USER34> Allocation pressure imposed by net/http has never been a top K source of profile CPU burn in any service I've ever written, and I've written plenty of high-performance, high-QPS services. fasthttp is rarely if ever a good idea.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How do you do profit-sharing to encourage user contributions in a web 2.0 site? - <AUTHOR>

Is there something as simple as adsense that can be used to reward users for their contributions to your site? <comment><USER2> Not that I know of, sounds like a business idea though.</comment>


Horror Fans and Morbidly Curious Individuals More Resilient in Covid-19 Pandemic - <AUTHOR> https://psyarxiv.com/4c7af/ <comment><AUTHOR> Similar article: [https://esiculture.com/an-infectious-curiosity-morbid- curios...](https://esiculture.com/an-infectious-curiosity-morbid-curiosity- and-media-preferences-during-a-pandemic)</comment>


Tears of Steel, the Blender Foundation's fourth short Open Movie - <AUTHOR> http://mango.blender.org/production/tears-of-steel-download-watch/

<comment><AUTHOR> And the IRC channel is pretty busy right now, #tearsofsteel on freenode.</comment>


Leaking Docker containers? - <AUTHOR> http://fe.popgen.net/2014/05/leaking-docker-containers/

<comment><AUTHOR> More info about this issue:

[https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/6345](https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/6345)</comment>


Bitcoin Hackathon, 2.-4. September, Finland. Programmers/hackers, join the fun - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoin-hackathon.com/

<comment><USER2> Bitcoin Hackathon eh? Didnt they just have one of those last week? Some guy called Tom won.

<comment><AUTHOR> By fast googling: <http://bitcoinhackathon.eventbrite.com/>

But this is in different part of the world etc., I don't think one extra bitcoin hackathon will do any harm :)

<comment><USER2> I was facetiously referring to the Tom Williams and MyBitcoin.com fiasco. Anyways, good luck with your event. Sounds like it'll be a lot of fun and the Aalto Garage is an awesome place! If i was still in Finland, I'd be there!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Finland is a good place to do it, now that many former Nokia engineers are out of jobs.

<comment><USER4> Finland is also home to a high percentage of the best hackers in the world, especially during the peak of the demoscene (Future Crew, etc.) days.

<comment><USER5> TRSI Red Sector were the best :-)</comment></comment></comment>


New GIMP 2.6 Gives Photoshop a Run for Its Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/New_GIMP_2DOT6_Gives_Photoshop_a_Run_for_Its_Money

<comment><USER2> "That means that closing an image no longer closes the app and it also means there's drag-and-drop support for opening images."

I have Gimp 2.4.7 on Fedora9 and it doesn't close the app when you close any or all image windows, and there is support for drag-and-drop opening to either an already created image window or to the tool palette window.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gimp has been developed by developers for developers. They don't understand how designers use imaging applications and apparently they dont want to know either.

For example they've been told so many times that non-modal dialogs on ms windows sux. Your workspace windows appearing on the taskbar not only clutter everything, it also makes your ork harder by switching between windows. Just to cater this thing a project called gimpshop was forked but gimp community should have included it in the core. hoever they've always shot down this idea.

If they want to compete with photoshop they should focus on usability rather than features. The scripting features might be awefully cool for developers but for designers who have to sometimes make hundreds of clicks to get one pixel straight, usability matters the most.

<comment><USER4> Did you read the article?

>"Perhaps the most welcome change to the UI is that the palettes (toolbox and docks in GIMP parlance) are now utility windows, which means that they won't show up in your dock or task bar as separate windows"

Apparently it doesn't yet apply to the Windows build (I haven't tried), but they have fixed the two single biggest and most obvious GUI annoyances - multiple pointless and confusing menus and multiple windows in task-bar. Another one of the biggest requested features - CMYK support - is on its way. It's /long/ overdue, but Gimp is actually seems to be making huge strides in the right direction.

<comment><USER5> Good for them, but I don't understand how they waited until _2008_ to get this in. It seems like such a basic UI concept to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the GIMP is one of the biggest casualties of pirating. It's ironic.

<comment><USER7> How so? Since the thing that matters most is that the people who develop it, and the people who use it and get involved, are enjoying the software, I don't see how not having those users that pirate Photoshop is any negative.

I've been an Open Source developer for over 10 years...and while it's nice to have a lot of users (particularly if you want to make money on the software in some way), the kind of users you have is more important than the quantity. I'd take one good Open Source fanatic over a dozen Photoshop pirates any day. The pirates don't _do_ anything and they have little respect for the developers of the software. If I were building the GIMP, why would I want them to use my software?

If the goal of the GIMP developers is "kill Photoshop", then I guess piracy is a negative...but if the goal is "make awesome software", then there's nothing pirates can do to impact them in any way. I kinda suspect the goal for most Open Source developers is "make awesome software" first, and stuff related to proprietary competitors is way down the list, or not even relevant. (Again, assuming money doesn't enter into the equation...in which case, the story is somewhat different.)

For what it's worth, I've been a GIMP user since the very first public release (I remember the first mention on Slashdot), and I haven't used anything else in that time...never needed to. Regardless, I think GIMP is clearly one of the great success stories of friendly, consumer-oriented, Open Source software...and it gets better and more successful with every release.

<comment><USER6> You've already responded to my 'how so'. I would've said 'more users' you've said 'crap users.' Fair enough.

It's just that photo editing software has a relatively high learning curve. I think (anecdotal, I have no references for this) that due to the cost of photoshop many users start experimenting on pirated copies. Mostly kids & hobbyists. Years later they may buy a copy or take it with them to the workplace. By that stage, they're used to photoshop to the extent that it's the only option.

<comment><USER7> There's certainly validity to the theory that piracy helps protect market leaders. It's the reason Microsoft doesn't aggressively fight piracy in developing markets (and if they do address piracy, it is by making the software available for practically free through legitimate channels).

I'm sure there are some Open Source developers out there who do want every possible user, and want, more than anything, to oust their leading proprietary competitor. I'm only among them when I'm thinking like a business man, and trying to figure out how to make money from my software.

<comment><USER8> Microsoft gives away its most important products for free for students in Germany. I guess they would not pay anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The GIMP is an example of a user interface that has sucked for many many years, but because certain people are used to it being that way, it was never changed.

<comment><USER10> I agree that the UI in GIMP is pretty bad, but I really don't find Photoshop's UI to be so clever and easy to use that it blows away the GIMP.

I even prefer the keyboard shortcuts in GIMP better: "m" for move (it's "v" in Photoshop... what?), "r" for rectangular select (it's "m" in Photoshop).

If you've used one for a while, the other seems weird and clunky with an almost identical feature set. Having used the GIMP more lately, I'd say in response: Photoshop is an example of a user interface that has sucked for many many years, but because certain professionals are used to it being that way, it hasn't changed.

<comment><USER11> For the record, rectangular select is "m" in Photoshop because the Photoshop tool is called the "Marquee" tool (because the flashing dots around the selection look like a theater marquee). So move gets "v" instead.

"V" is actually a better key for move than "m" because it's more convenient to hit with the left hand; many experienced Photoshop users work with the left hand on the lower left corner of the keyboard and the right hand on the mouse/graphics tablet.

<comment><USER12> Oh please, stop assuming Qwerty or we'll still be stuck with this shitty layout in 500 years!

<comment><USER11> Heh... I wasn't expecting a keyboard layout complaint as much as a left- handedness complaint, since the latter is bigger problem for more of today's users.

But as I presume you are someone arguing for a more ergonomic layout, I assume you can appreciate Photoshop's ergonomically fortuitous default choices. And as you are someone who likely knows how to remap a keyboard, I assume you are already capable of relocating a shortcut key to an appropriate location and making up an alternate mnemonic to match whatever letter is already there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> GIMP doesn't give anything a run for its money if I can't figure out how the menus are laid out. I've tried and tried but I'm not going to spend 20 minutes trying to figure out how to do an unsharp mask when my Mac with CS3 is sitting right next to my linux box. Call me stubborn.

I'll have to install it and see what they mean by "The result is a version of GIMP that behaves much more like Photoshop and makes a very capable replacement for those not locked into an Adobe workflow." for GIMP 2.6

(edit: yeah I know there is gimpshop but i was just saying for the sake of argument..)

<comment><USER14> It amuses me that you have internalized the meaning of a technique called (without irony) "unsharp mask" but can't spend 20 minutes reading a tutorial to figure out how to do it in a different tool.

It's not for you. You have photoshop and like it, and apparently don't mind paying for it. Slamming competing software when it is blindingly obvious that you have no intention of using it is basically just knee-jerk jealousy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Still no 'Direct Select' tool in GIMP, which is basic of basic tools in Photoshop and any other photo editing program.

<comment><USER2> GIMP has supported editing all components of a path, converting to a selection, moving the entire path, and adjusting the handles, for a while. If I remember correctly, it was buggy until around GIMP 1.2.

The second half of the video on this page, after the "Direct Select" tool is chosen at 0:16, is completely doable in The GIMP.

[http://shapeshed.com/journal/photoshop_101_path_and_direct_s...](http://shapeshed.com/journal/photoshop_101_path_and_direct_selection_tools/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Now that this version exists, we need one that gives Photoshop a run for its _money_.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is hosting on the cloud so cheap? - <AUTHOR>

I am amazed by how cheap services like amazon EC2 are. Somehow, the numbers just dont add up: electricity,cooling,hardware, bandwidth. 2cents/hour just doesnt make sense.
Am i missing something? <comment><USER2> Agree to fgblanch.

On the first view AWS services seem to be cheap. But be aware of additional costs, for traffic, requests (no, that is not in the traffic included, e.g. SOAP requests), IP addresses, persistent storage or snapshots for your servers (e.g. EBS).

Big advantage within the AWS services is that you can reduce your CAPEX and your invest in your own hardware infrastructure.

If you calculate your use case detailed, you will see that sometimes dedicated servers offers are still cheaper than some cloud hosting services.

<comment><USER3> _But be aware of additional costs, for traffic, requests (no, that is not in the traffic included, e.g. SOAP requests), IP addresses, persistent storage or snapshots for your servers (e.g. EBS)._

Here is what it cost me to run 2 micro instances behind a load balancer for 4 days (the hidden costs were more than the servers themselves):

      US East (Northern Virginia) Region
      	Amazon EC2 running Linux/UNIX
      	  	$0.02 per Micro Instance (t1.micro) instance-hour (or partial hour) 	193 Hrs 	3.86

      Amazon EC2 EBS
      	  	$0.10 per GB-month of provisioned storage 	4.183 GB-Mo 	0.42
      	  	$0.10 per 1 million I/O requests 	144,345 IOs 	0.01
      	  	$0.15 per GB-Month of snapshot data stored 	0.193 GB-Mo 	0.03
      	  	$0.01 per 10,000 gets (when loading a snapshot) 	3,195 Requests 	0.01
      	  	$0.01 per 1,000 puts (when saving a snapshot) 	3 Requests 	0.01

      Elastic IP Addresses
      	  	$0.01 per non-attached Elastic IP address per complete hour 	506 Hrs 	5.06

      Elastic Load Balancing
      	  	$0.008 per GB Data Processed by the LoadBalancer 	0.013 GB 	0.01
      	  	$0.025 per LoadBalancer-hour (or partial hour) 	95 Hrs 	2.38
      	  	  	Download Usage Report » 	11.79

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first thing is that it is virtual hosting. You don't really get a machine, you get a virtual one . And you can have a lot of virtual machines under a Physical one. SO this divides costs a lot.

Also I'm not sure but I read somewhere that in the beginning the idea for companies like Amazon or google was to reuse their infrastructure(hardware, bandwith, electricity) by selling virtual machines inside their servers. So they invest in the machines for their services but try to pay part of this inversion renting part of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Even with virtualization - how many virtual instances can you possibly fit on a single blade server to give reasonable performance? I'm guessing 4 to 8? A quick calculation shows that electricity costs for a 200W machine is 3 cents. Cooling costs same. So that's 6 cents/hour for just these two.

<comment><USER5> I think it is a lot more than 4 to 8. The probably have between 16 and 64 GB of RAM per machine, and if they are 512MB instances, they fill it up. So figure 32 to 128 instances per machine. Those machines may use more than 200 watts, and the "reasonable performance" may be not that good.

Has anyone here ever tried out the Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud ?

<comment><USER6> These numbers look right. For low-end VPSs, I've seen a rule of thumb of 4-5 VMs per core. Amazon's Compute Units are probably close to (but not quite) 1 core/hour. Since they later launched micro instances, even one core must have been overkill for many customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> OK look at this way. A cheap _desktop_ CPU(4G RAM) costs > 200$. Say 4 VM instances on it (i really am not sure if that can give good performance).Electricity cost for this is 3c/hr. Bandwidth extra - say 1c/hr. Cooling is 3c/hr too. So, if i need to recover the cost of this machine over 2 years (the average life of cheap off-the-shelf stuff) i would need to charge 7.25 cents/hr. And i haven't even considered network equipment, maintenance, redundancies, etc.</comment>


Magic Leaps in Talks to Raise Money from 'Major Health Care Company,' - <AUTHOR> http://thein.fo/79a1f759e173174d <comment><USER2> Magic Leap has churned through so much money ... what could this health care company get out of this by putting more money into Magic Leap that nobody else got out?</comment>


Breaking In To A Front-End Development Career - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onwardsearch.com/2012/11/breaking-in-to-a-front-end-development-career/

<comment><USER2> Staying informed is probably the best thing you can do as a front-end developer. At the moment, things are changing pretty quickly - not only with the technology, but also with front-end techniques like OOCSS, SMACSS, and BEM. Front-end is finally trending away from something trivial to something worth investing a lot of effort into. Both CSS and JavaScript techniques are going through major architectural shifts in terms of how people think about them.

Something I would add to this list is "branching out." Front-end developers are responsible for making sure the vision of the design and UX teams are faithfully implemented (if they're not wholly responsible for these things, themselves) as well as integrating with the server-side team. As such, the front-end developer needs to be able to understand the goals and objectives of these teams, which means you need to know something about what they do and how they do it. Understanding UX, design, and server-side coding practices and terminology will help you communicate better when working with these people. You'll be able to more fully understand what they're trying to achieve and the role you play in that. I'm not saying you need to know how to be a UX designer, graphic designer, or server-side developer; but you do need to know enough to communicate with these people.</comment>


The American Housing Crisis Might Be Our Next Big Political Issue - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/is-housing-americas-next-big-political-issue/560378/ <comment><USER2> Unfortunately it seems so far that voters in California are reacting to the problem by supporting more of the policies that caused the problem in the first place, e.g. rent control, opposing new market-rate housing, etc. It's pretty easy for politicians to sell those bad solutions, which is why we ended up with them in the first place.

I doubt the YIMBY movement is going to solve the problem, because they have alienated many lower-income voters.

<comment><USER3> The amount of popular support for rent control depresses me in the same way that the popularity of lottery tickets does. People in general seem to have an endless capacity to believe that the rare, improbable, valuable opportunity will go to them.

<comment><USER4> Rent control isn't the fundamental cause of high housing costs: it's mostly a matter of supply and demand. And, yes, rent control limits supply a bit, but nowhere near as much as complicated, arcane, and expensive building and zoning codes.

Given the trade offs, the only reforms I'd make to rent control is having some kind of gradual income requirements. The higher your income, the less rent control you get, up to the point (say, $100k+) where you aren't protected by it at all. Even that is mostly for optics, though, and wouldn't help housing costs too much.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, but my primary bone to pick here is that people seem to be proposing further rent control as a viable solution to the housing problem, rather than fixing existing restrictive building codes.

<comment><USER5> Further rent control _is_ a viable solution to the problem of existing residents being displaced. It isn't a solution to the difficulty of _moving_ to desirable areas, but rent control advocates don't consider that a legitimate problem. Or at least are okay with dampening the upward mobility of already affluent creative-class types to protect marginalized communities.

<comment><USER6> Notice how the possibility that actually non-affluent people would move somewhere for a better job is not something they think about.

<comment><USER7> Nope, that's because rent control makes that problem worse, so it's best to ignore it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a regional issue, not a national one. Most urban Americans do not live in cities with skyrocketing housing costs.

<comment><USER9> I thought one third of the country lived between Virginia and Massachusetts, with nearly the second third living on the west coast.

<comment><USER8> Something like 80+% of urban Americans live in cities with an average house price below $300k.

<comment><USER10> The question is where do people in their 20-40s live and also how fast is housing prices growing in those areas. Yes you might live in an area that has houses below 300K but if incomes are low and the annualized growth of house prices is 2-3x the inflation rate you got a problem.

It's not just a SF or NYC problem. Look at what is happening in Denver, Austin, and Pittsburgh. All these cities are seeing dramatic housing price increases.

<comment><USER8> Every time this discussion comes up, someone points out Austin as if it somehow validates the idea that housing is expensive everywhere. But, no. Austin is expensive, but very few people live there. That's why I provided the statistic. Forget individual cities and look at the macro number: _more than eighty percent of urban Americans_ live in affordable metro areas.

I don't know where you're coming from with Pittsburgh, where the average home price was $125,000 in 2017.

If somebody wants to make the argument that housing prices are a calamitous problem for tech industry employees, that will be supportable. But most Americans don't work for the tech industry (I would not be surprised if _most programmers_ don't work in the tech industry).

<comment><USER10> > more than eighty percent of urban Americans live in affordable metro areas.

I'm sorry but you didn't prove that. You proved that 80% of Americans live near houses that are under 300k. To prove that 80% of Americans aren't suffering from housing issues you would have to show that 80% of American households earn an income such that with 25% of that income they can afford a reasonable home. I don't know the answer to that.

I perfectly understand that insane housing prices are a local Bay Area issue. What I'm unsure of is what the case is for most of Americans. The reason I say this is because my high school friends set (of whom 0% are engineers and 0% are in Bay Area), a significant portion (>30%) are struggling with housing related issues. I know that's anecdotal, but I'm just asking if anyone has a real data point to indicate if the housing issue is national or not. Citing that most of America has low house prices does not answer that question.

For context I grew up in an area where a 100K house would be considered luxurious so I am perfectly aware of how low housing prices are in America compared to Bay Area. That area also has lost tons of jobs so in order to support themselves, the younger generation has had to move to higher COL cities where there are jobs available (and where they can't afford housing). If you have any references that show that 80% of the population can easily afford local housing then I would gladly agree with your assertion that the housing issue isn't national.

<comment><USER8> Go look at house price to income ratio rankings. They broadly track house prices, which is to say, Chicago --- which does not have a housing price crisis --- appears in the same place on both rankings, and San Jose appears on the top of both lists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I keep seeing parallels to the situation in USSR after WWII - there was a chronic lack of housing: some of the housing stock had been destroyed in WWII, there were new couples that were owed (by the state) housing, and of course the existing housing stock had further deteriorated (it was that many years older than before the war).

Khrushchev championed the construction of pre-fabricated concrete "plank" 5 story buildings - they built 2 factories in different parts of USSR and cranked them out, delivering them mostly by train to all corners of the country.

The designs were pretty much the same, down the interior furnishings and apartment layouts (a plot point of the perennial New Year's Eve favorite movie, "Irony of Fate"), and fit and finish were sub-standard. BUT, people did get their housing, had kids, went on with their lives.

With all the post-USSR criticism of Soviet leaders, you realize that Khrushchev had very few bad things said about him...

I think the person, or organization, that is seen to (somehow, however they do it) solve the housing problems we have, will have a great deal of political goodwill and possibly political power.

EDIT: some "Khrushchevka Housing" info [https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/the-disappearing- mass...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/the-disappearing-mass-housing- of-the-soviet-union/518868/)

[https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/moscows-new-housing- mega...](https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/moscows-new-housing-megaproject- confronts-soviet-history-57312)

[https://khrushchevki.wordpress.com/](https://khrushchevki.wordpress.com/)

<comment><USER12> Some readers unfamiliar with the matter might conclude based on your post that Khrushchev somehow managed to solve the problem. No. In most places, you had to wait a couple of decades (or longer). I left USSR at the age of 36; we , the family of 4, occupied a 160 sq ft apartment (with "partial conveniences" \- you probably know what that means), which we inherited from my grandmother, with no chance of getting anything else in a lifetime. We couldn't buy an apartment either, even if we had money (we didn't) - "cooperative" housing was not available. BTW, I worked as a project lead in a military research center back then, so the situation was not due to low status or something. Here's an article that provides some details (in Russian, sorry): [https://masterok.livejournal.com/2892813.html](https://masterok.livejournal.com/2892813.html)

EDIT: BTW, would it be a good idea to organize AMA thread for those who'd like to get some first-hand account of what the life in USSR looked like in the 60s,70s,80s (all aspects, including technology)?

<comment><USER13> Perhaps not, but my experience visiting Moscow recently suggests that they're in perhaps a slightly better place? There are dense residential areas in various parts of the city, even if the housing stock is older and less than stellar. Those areas are well-served by transit, which is expanding, improving, and generally seems to function better than most of what's in the Bay Area. It's by no means perfect (protests against renovation/relocation programs and the current waste management snafu clearly demonstrate otherwise), but at least they're doing _something_ , as opposed to what appears to be a partial "ignore the problem and we can keep single-family homes throughout all of the SF Bay Area forever" mentality here.

<comment><USER12> If you visited it recently: please keep in mind that modern-day Russia is not USSR. It's completely different country - at least in terms of economy. In USSR, money meant NOTHING. In today's Russia, it means EVERYTHING. That's the difference.

EDIT: forgot to mention that Moscow is not a typical Russian city. You won't make a big mistake if you consider it a separate country. Whatever you observe in Moscow is specific to Moscow only. The state of the roads/public transportation across the country at large is (reportedly) not much better than it used to be in USSR (on average).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I see a lot of discussion of YIMBY policies like building more market-rate housing. My intuition favors these kinds of policies, but when I've tried to find high quality evidence that they actually achieve objectives like:

\- Lower housing prices overall

\- Lower housing costs for low-income households (heading off the concern that only building market-rate housing could hypothetically lower the price of luxury housing without meaningfully reducing housing costs for low-income households)

\- Fewer people have to leave the area because of high housing costs

... I haven't been able to find much. What are the best sources that say that YIMBY policies and especially pro- market-rate housing policies actually work? Or the converse - that affordable housing quotas or similar policies tend to make housing less affordable overall.

<comment><USER15> Tokyo/Japenese housing regulation is often cited as evidence for this hypothesis.

[https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco- housing-...](https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing- costs-tokyo)

<comment><USER16> The Japanese are used to living in tiny accommodations. If we follow their route we could probably reduce costs a lot. Get rid of parking spots. No outdoor patio. Can easily reduce the square footage by 50%.

<comment><USER17> As far as I can tell, they basically don't build Japanese apartments without outdoor patios. No one has dryers, everyone hangs their clothes outside.

But to your point, my anecdotal impression is that even though the average 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom in Japan Tokyo is smaller than an equivalent in the US, the price per sq foot in Tokyo is also much less than in New York, San Francisco, or Los Angeles.

Hard to find reliable, cross-country data but this blog post [1] pegs price for rental square foot for SF at $4.75 and Tokyo at $2.79.

It's also true about the parking, but again regulations are at play here. Minimum parking requirements are the norm, not the exception in the US. Developers can't build less parking even if they want to. Even a giant metropolis like San Francisco didn't start to eliminate minimum parking requirements until the late 90s [2].

1\. [https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/what- is-1500-wor...](https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/what- is-1500-worth-worldwide-rent-per-square-foot-around-the-globe/)

2\. [https://www.livablecity.org/parking-history- sf/](https://www.livablecity.org/parking-history-sf/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It will probably be a big issue and be solved as well as education costs and health care are being solved right now. There will be many words and no solution. There are way too many people benefiting from the current state.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you want to really address the zoning problem on a cultural level, you have to find a way to create an "expectation" of the quality of life in some category of multi-unit building which is acceptable to the modal American. It's pretty typical to expect apartments to be noisy, smelly, not-so-private places which are not so desirable to live in. I can't say my own experience living in an apartment has really contradicted this, either.

I'm speculating here, but I think that part of the reason people oppose housing types considered _unpleasant_ is that people may be less likely to stay in them if they have the opportunity to move. If you move into a nice unit (house, townhouse, apartment, whatever) in a stiff market, and the market eases up and you can afford to move, you might not, because moving is a lot of work and the expected benefit is small. But if you move into an unpleasant space in a difficult market, you're likely out of there as soon as you have the chance. This might imply that unpleasant housing types are more likely to become vacant during a market downturn, and because of problems associated with vacant housing, people might want to avoid unpleasant housing being constructed near them. The key exception here are the small add-on units recently legalized in San Francisco; because the main unit will remain occupied, issues associated with vacancy and disrepair of the subsidiary unit are prevented.

However, there aren't clear standards that determine whether a multi-unit building will be a place people want to stay, whereas SFH are usually for whatever reason _expected_ to retain their occupants. So when I say "to create an expectation", I mean an expectation among the neighbors that whoever moves in is going to like the place they live in enough that they won't move out in five years when the market cools off. And if you expect the market will never cool off, you're also assuming you never solve the housing crisis, which is not a good founding assumption for making plans to solve the housing crisis.

I could imagine standards like: external entrances, private outdoor space (balcony), in-unit laundry, sound insulation, and separate ventilation. But those are just _my_ preferences; any actual standards ought to be based on reliable evidence of some kind. It may be possible to survey the kinds of units that people move out of during housing market downturns in order to identify some predictive characteristics which can both influence housing standards and allay the concerns of voters.

<comment><USER5> I think you're on to something, but at the same time it's the nicer multifamily buildings that face stiffer opposition, due to the perception that such buildings are inherently reserved for the impossibly wealthy. Outside the YIMBY camp, no one believes that building enough of these could make them affordable. But when you really look at it, the most extravagant high-rise condos are physically equivalent to below-average houses with no yards. Made abundant enough, they should be priced that way.

<comment><USER19> >but at the same time it's the nicer multifamily buildings that face stiffer opposition, due to the perception that such buildings are inherently reserved for the impossibly wealthy.

I do think you're looking at two different opposition demographics here. On the one hand, you have homeowners concerned about the future of their neighborhood; on the other hand, you have low-income communities concerned about gentrification. While they occasionally support the same political candidates -- particularly in San Francisco -- they live in different places, and crucially, the latter often live in neighborhoods which have had many apartment buildings for years (e.g. the Mission). These are not entirely separate fights, but I did mean to address the homeowners' concerns in this particular argument, motivated by the observation that suburbs are quite common and underutilized. I would even say that building larger apartment buildings in low-income medium-density districts is the norm for addressing housing issues right now (that and building exurbs), while upzoning less dense areas is not currently performed in a way that seems to point to a more general strategy for addressing housing issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Look at Canada (Vancouver and Toronto specifically) for a glimpse of how bad it can get if anti-development urban policies combined with pro-home-inflation monetary and banking policies are allowed to run unchecked. The prices are even more insane than San Francisco / Silicon Valley when considered as a multiple of median income.

It's really kind of incredible. These prices seem economically impossible, yet there they are and houses are apparently selling. It seems like there actually is no ceiling to house prices. A lot of people blame cash buyers from overseas using real estate as a financial instrument but I have yet to see hard evidence that this is prevalent enough to explain this madness.

<comment><USER21> I think TO housing starts have outpaced population growth. I think it's actually just a bubble. Different from a place like SF where supply is the limit and demand is exploding from real economic factors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Too late for us but hopefully it will make obtaining a home easier for our children!

</comment><comment><USER23> We routinely oppose building for the majority because the homes built would not fit a minority.

Vancouver is proposing new parking norms that force at least half the parking spots in a residential parking garage to be extra tall, to accommodate tall vans for disabled people.

This is a great idea, but it again raises the cost of building new homes, for the benefit of the minority who need a full-height van because of their disability.

</comment><comment><USER24> The 'crisis' (an overused word) has developed since Glass-Stiegel was repealed. There used to be two kinds of banks.

It became possible to think of houses as investments. Stop the speculation. Return to sound principles.

Or will we wait until the same thing happens to food, water and then air? Can't happen? Why not?

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a regional issue and it boils down to the fact that micro-managing what people build on their own damn property has had negative consequences.

Regulation isn't going to solve this problem. Regulation caused it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Cheap detached homes are the _norm_ in the vast majority of the United States. What's happening in California and the Northeast Corridor is a serious problem that should be addressed, but the issue isn't going to catch on at the national level, because, again, cheap detached homes are the _norm_ in the United States.

When Millennials on the coasts talk about how their generation won't ever own homes, I have to wonder if they're seriously that out of touch.

Here's a house that's for sale in my hometown of St. Louis. I just picked a neighborhood at random and selected the first house I saw for sale around this price (~$100k):

[https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Saint-Louis- MO-63116/3...](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Saint-Louis- MO-63116/3019850_zpid/85934_rid/1-_beds/0-600000_price/0-2428_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/38.564794,-90.290579,38.56295,-90.29346_rect/18_zm/)

This is a quiet, safe, well-maintained, working-class neighborhood. That house is nothing to write home about, but it's not a bad little bungalow, either. That'd be a great home for any young family.

I get it, I get it -- "but then I'd have to live in St. Louis!" That's funny, I guess, but who is the joke really on? How much is that ocean worth to you?

<comment><USER27> > Cheap detached homes are the norm in the vast majority of the United States

Perhaps by land area. But not necessarily by population.

Something like 1/3rd of the population lives in the DC-NYC-Boston corridor. Throw in the West Coast, Chicago, etc. and you're looking at a much more national problem.

<comment><USER28> Chicago is an odd inclusion in that sentence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's a fiat induced worldwide suicide pact. Only one way out.

</comment><comment><USER30> the focus on housing is short sighted. there will always be a physical limit based on the geography of the area. most political agendas are focused on concentration of wealth to maximize public programs i.e. mass transportation. i think we've reached a point where redistributing high paying jobs across a larger geographic area is the only real solution for most large cities.

<comment><USER31> Which of these cities is even near to the physical limit?

I think you're getting downvoted because none of them are at any sort of physical limit.

Density is amazingly good for humans: it promotes huge amounts of intellection and economic growth.

Density is what so much of the country is yearning for, and being denied by prior generations and entrenched wealthy residents.

There's only one place density should go: cities. And they have a _ton_ of room for growth in the US to even match other dense cities in world, such as Paris.

<comment><USER30> physical limit is probably to narrow to effectively argue my original position. there are many limiting factors including physical boundaries of geography. consider the political climate, economic environment, accumulated technical debt of past construction practices, artificial boundaries development by cities to bolster real estate values, not to mention investments made by individual home owners and businesses. there are a lot of forces at play to gain consensus especially when you have significant momentum moving along a trajectory started easily 30 years ago that led us to where we are today. and not to mention the accumulated debt of a city like san francisco which the last i read was at $10B. these forces are like concrete or better yet non-newtonian in nature, the more you stir the pot the more rigid it becomes.

i agree there are a lot benefits to density, i'm not down playing those benefits. but i do think we have a lot of great technology in play and coming down the pipe that allows us to have many of the same benefits across large geographic areas.

also i feel large cities are captive to it's wealthy benefactors whether it's a company, an individual, or a politician who wields influence.

more importantly, it's far easier to create incentives to entice companies with high economic value and high paying jobs to an area with few competitive forces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Stop printing money.

<comment><USER33> Could you elaborate?

<comment><USER34> It's not a terribly elaborate solution, just a simple and good one: let's have the federal reserve stop promoting monetary policy that encourages reckless spending, easy money, expensive houses, and tons of plastic shit.

Some people present it as a solution to all the world's ills, which it is far from. But it's a good foundation for many solutions for many ills.

<comment><USER35> It still won't matter in real terms. _Real_ housing prices will still continue to rise, until the fundamental housing shortage is solved in places like the Bay Area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The REAL cause of the housing crisis is more and more rich people/companies view real estate as a way to make money. Not just as a way to park wealth to defend against inflation, but to make $. With astounding return rate.

Frankly, I think the only way housing crisis can be resolved is

1\. taxing severely anyone who owns multiple house/condos (not apartment units) with the plan of renting. Probably gradually higher tax rate based on number of units or monthly rent fee.

2\. Heavy tax for profit made from flipping a house.

The goals of the tax would be to control excessive amount of $ from flowing into real estate.

Real estate investment is made out to be a really smart/great investment. But why?

<comment><USER15> If your goal is to create a Venezuela like housing crisis sure, you could do 1 & 2\. I'm not sure the rest of us want that.

<comment><USER36> My goal is not to create a Venezuela like housing crisis.

But housing investment is sucking in $ from everywhere, even non-American investors. Some at top are raking in money while everyone else is paying for it.

There is a reason more and more wealth is concentrated in less and less people at the top.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Duplicate post gets higher upvotes - <AUTHOR> "Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try"
This article had been posted 8 hrs back by two members within 1 hr of each other. The first post is by a member having 200+ points and the second duplicate post by a member having 5000+ points.
The second post is now at the top of the page with more than 745+ upvotes, while the original post has quietly died to page 3 of HN.
Is this just how things are or does higher karma have advantages in posting? <comment><USER2> it happens all the time that duplicates are necessary for a story to get attention (and probably the reason why duplicates are allowed at all), and often the early submissions are by high-karma posters, so I don't think it plays a role.

</comment><comment><USER3> Original formula didn't count karma as a ranking factor. But who knows how it works today.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417)</comment>


Here's what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

<comment><AUTHOR> Actual paper: "Learning from mistakes in climate research" [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5)</comment>


On canaries and the journalist coalface - <AUTHOR> http://withpretext.com/post/673179066/on-canaries-and-the-journalist-coalface

<comment><AUTHOR> (Posted in response to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1414193>, which is a _really_ on-the-money comment.)</comment>