Ask HN: Do you say "Sequel" or SQL? - <AUTHOR> People that I've worked with (as well as a number of past professors) use "Sequel" when referring to the database (not a movie).<p>I know it's fairly common, but it really bugs the hell out of me. <comment><USER2> MySequel, Microsoft Sequel Server, Oracle SequelDeveloper (which now you mention it does sound like Hollywood), T-Sequel, but PL/EssCueEll. For Oracle SQL*Plus, I think I go back and forth. Odd and inconsistent, I agree.

Why does it bug you?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because it's (often) spelled SQL (e.g. MySQL). But yeah, inconsistency.

At least we don't deal with inconsistencies in too many places as software developers. /sarcasm

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I abbreviate more often than not, I'm early 30s. Most of my communication regarding databases happens online anyways so I tend to write out "SQL" or "RDBMS" a fair amount. In verbal conversation I might say "My Sequel" but I usally refer to Postgres as "PG". IMHO they're minor differences in the vernacular.

<comment><USER4> For some reason I couldn't remember how to say Postgres and used "Pos-gststs- something" a few times, so I kept it afterwords :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> These are the things that stopped bothering me at some point along the way. I still prefer SQL to Sequel, and in general prefer acronyms to be spelled out, but at the end of the day it _really_ doesn't matter.

In all techno-religious matters you're better off just embracing the variety.

<comment><USER6> Pretty much agree, with the massive exception that I used to work with a bloke who pronounced "HTML" (which I spell out) as "h-timmell". That drove me mad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I say sequel when talking about the language. I'm in my early 30s for reference.

I say relational database when I want to talk about the DB itself to distinguish it from the others :)

Btw ... the reason it is common is because sequel used to be a predecessor to SQL.

</comment><comment><USER8> SQL actually first started out as SEQUEL and then was changed due to trademark issues, so calling it "sequel" is not all that incorrect.

<comment><USER9> The way I remember it from Date's db book way back in the late 70's, is that first there was QUEL which stood for QUEry Language. The follow-on improved product was SEQUEL which stood for Structured English QUEry Language and attempted to be more like grammatical english (following on from the concepts of COBOL). The intention was that management (probably accountants) would be able to use this query language themselves to check up on what the programmers had put in the DB. This was then commercialized under the name SQL partly because it was a follow-on improved version of SEQUEL and partly because TLA's were very marketable. Somehow it ended up being used as an interface language for talking to DBs and management never used it at all. I say SQL, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is less syllables while conveying the same idea. Stop letting it bug you and use the version you prefer. It isn't worth the mental energy.

<comment><USER11> I have it down to one syllable. Skwull.

<comment><USER10> That works as long as people get it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Lately, we've been using the incredibly poorly named Ruby ORM Sequel.

Since, in our office, SQL rhymes with "equal," Sequel rhymes with either "seek well" or "neck will".

Oi.

</comment><comment><USER13> I say Microsoft sequel server to non-techies(but M-S-S-Q-L to people who know what it is), and MyS-Q-L always.

</comment><comment><USER14> people using "sequel" used to be a good indication they were more familiar with Microsoft SQL server, as a lot of the promotion for it pronounced sequel; where most other SQL admins went with the more formal S.Q.L. pronunciation.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's sequel and know-sequel for me too. Another early 30s.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sequel, for the same reason I say fibee for FBI. Oh, wait.</comment>


The mystery of why some people hate raw tomatoes - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/tasters-choice-why-i-hate-raw-tomatoes-and-you-dont/ <comment><USER2> Alas, despite the title, and my hope that someone could finally help me justify my deep aversion to raw tomatoes, the article provides little enlightenment:

 _Frankly, the scientific community has been sadly remiss in getting to the bottom of the mystery of why raw tomatoes make some of us gag, despite a few scattered flavor studies._

Oh well. I guess it'll remain a mystery...

<comment><USER3> I think a big part of it, at least for me, is the mucoid layer around the seeds. If I seed raw tomatoes, they go down fine. But those seeds: it's like eating someone else's boogers.

<comment><USER4> Okra is worse. [https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg- cbf76cc77c20cdd2e90413...](https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg- cbf76cc77c20cdd2e9041360241ca88d-c)

<comment><USER5> While we're at it, don't forget natto. Though I guess it's cheating since it's not "fresh".

[http://www.sakura- hostel.co.jp/blog/assets_c/2011/10/natto%2...](http://www.sakura- hostel.co.jp/blog/assets_c/2011/10/natto%201-thumb-320x370-1546.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hated raw tomatoes, and then I had a proper heirloom tomato which made me realize it's actually that most mass-produced tomatoes are _terrible_

<comment><USER7> This is why tomatoes are a big reason for my vegetable garden. It's near impossible to get a good-tasting tomato in the store. The ones that taste really good either don't look good (marketing suicide) or can't make the thousand-mile journey through our food supply chain.

Of course some people may still have an aversion to fresh tomatoes for other reasons. We're all wired slightly differently when it comes to food.

As an aside, the article mentions brussel sprouts. They have a very different taste when they are fresh (usually if they are not sold on the stalk, they likely aren't fresh). I've suprised many people who told me they didn't like brussels sprouts then tasted fresh the ones I cooked.

Same for peas. Growing up in France, we'd get peas that were harvested less than 4 hours before eating. Past that threshold, the sugar becomes starch and the taste changes significantly.

<comment><USER8> For green peas, I actually prefer them not sweet (or very little sweet), because we use them as a legume and eat it as a dry or gravy dish with rice or chapatis/rotis. But I prefer the taste of fresh green peas to that of dried yellow ones (even after cooking the latter after soaking in water, they taste somewhat bland and floury).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I will never understand this attitude that everyone must like the same things, or that there must be _justification_ for disliking something. And then of course you get the inevitable "oh well you just haven't had a _real_ tomato/cilantro/Harry Potter/whatever" people, which adds a lovely dollop of hipster authenticity fetishism to the whole chauvinism shit sandwich. It's a matter of taste, people. Some people don't like the things you like and that's that. Deal with it. _sunglasses descend onto face_

<comment><USER10> Yeah, you might _think_ that and then meet my friend who HATES both chocolate AND coffee (at the age of 45... plenty of time to adapt to coffee, but not liking chocolate is unfathomable to me), and go "WTF, seriously?" ;)

Tastes are one of those things that we just can't (no matter how hard we try, or want to) grasp rationally. These entirely subjective experiences are just... not rationally conveyable.

This spills over into sexual preferences as well, btw (not to derail the topic, but thinking of sexual preferences as mere "taste variation" is useful IMHO).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I love tomatoes -- but a majority of tomatoes that people get are in prepared food, and those are selected or engineered to be stiff, flavorless hunks of red plantflesh. You owe it to yourself to try off-the-vine heirloom tomatoes (with balsamic/olive oil/salt) if you don't like tomatoes; it is truly a different experience.

<comment><USER12> My parents grew heirloom tomatoes 30 years ago. I wasn't able to enjoy them raw. Cucumber and tomato salad with a bit of oil is tolerable though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It took me the better part of 35 years to determine I have an allergy to most nightshades (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, ...) [https://draxe.com/nightshade- vegetables/](https://draxe.com/nightshade-vegetables/)

I think my body knew this before it registered consciously...

I now chose this to explain my life-long aversion to tomatoes and eggplant. But french fries are still my kryptonite :(

</comment><comment><USER14> Well this was vindicating, and then frustrating (they still don't know why some people don't like raw tomatoes).

</comment><comment><USER15> There's a thing that annoys me in the article (and in the comments here). And it's this: which tomato you don't like? What do you mean by tomato, exactly? All of them? Or just the slimy pale slice in your hamburger? Here, check a picture of a tiny sample of tomato varieties:

[http://img1.amando.it/imagesdyn/articoli/52/21/65408.jpg](http://img1.amando.it/imagesdyn/articoli/52/21/65408.jpg)

Now, many of these taste as different from each other as they look. They also have different uses- some are excellent for sauces, some others in salads, some can be eaten as fruit. So what's the point in talking about tomatoes in general? Can we be a bit more precise, in the name of science? :)

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't care for cilantro, mention in the article... but after forcing myself to eat it, quite a few times, I've gotten over it... About the only foods I don't care for and have tried to get past, and eat them.. are any kind of squash, other than pumpkin, the texture of raw meat, and any kind of organ meat I just don't care for.

But cilantro, and lots of other veggies, I've gotten past, and now some things like just by making myself try them. Growing up, we had a rather limited sample palette, my mom didn't like a lot of things. It's as an adult I've come to expand things.

</comment><comment><USER17> Any correlation to not liking olives? I really don't like raw tomatoes, but a hint of olives (green or black) is repulsive to me.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm the complete opposite - I can't stand the flavor or texture of cooked tomatoes.

Raw tomatoes are great, as are tomato based sauces

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm in the same boat w.r.t. tomatoes, and like very few of the nightshades, potatoes and chili peppers being the exceptions.

I find the smell of tomato plants to be totally repulsive, far worse than the tomatoes themselves.

My gagging when forced to eat tomatoes as a kid was seen as histrionics. It's satisfying to have some external validation

</comment><comment><USER20> My understanding is that people don't like the "mealy" taste of many supermarket tomatoes. The reason they develop this taste is that they are picked prematurely so they can ripen in transit. Tomatoes are meant to ripen on the vine, hence why some are great and others are not.

</comment><comment><USER21> Oh awesome. This got me to dig out my raw 23andme genome data and it turns out I have the "supertaster" gene for bitterness as well. Explains why I hate all the foods (cauliflower, raw tomato, broccoli) and drinks mentioned (tonic water and alcohol generally) - very cool to know :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Other side of the coin: I don't like cooked tomatoes. Iranian cuisine has them, on top of rice dishes. I like Iranian cuisine otherwise, which I've had in a few restaurants in India, but not the fried/boiled tomatoes. Prefer them raw like in a salad.

</comment><comment><USER22> In my case, one of the reasons I hate raw tomatoes is because the seeds look like an alien egg cluster sac and I know they can pass through human digestive system and still remain viable unharmed by the digestive juices.

<comment><USER23> If someone offers you Kopi luwak, refuse.

<comment><USER24> Because the civets are usually kept in terrible conditions just to make novelty coffee?

<comment><USER23> That's a fine reason.

But I was just being immature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> tl;dr We don't know yet.

</comment><comment><USER26> There is a component in tomatoes that has a "grassy" flavor and that by my observations gets stronger when a tomato rots. I wonder if that (a) is true (b) related to the effect for some people.

</comment><comment><USER27> Baby/small child don't eat /shouldn't eat tomatoes.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'd like a genetic analysis.</comment>


US Govt. plant USB sticks in security study, 60% of subjects take the bait - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/28/us-govt-plant-usb-sticks-in-security-study-60-of-subjects-take-the-bait/

<comment><USER2> A similar study was done in a busy town center some time ago. Tens of USB drives were left around the town over a couple of days as if they had been dropped or forgotten. Each contained a (Windows only) auto-run program that called home, a couple of password protected document files (containing gibberish) so the drives looked like they'd actually been used, and a text file called "if found please return to.txt" or similar with an email address and a note asking that this address be contacted if the stick were found lost.

I forget the exact numbers and can't find a link to the report at the moment but a fair proportion of them, at least once over the next couple of weeks, ended up getting plugged into a Windows machine on a network that let the call-home happen. At least one of them seemingly got plugged into a machine at a bank branch (presumably they inferred the machine was at a bank from the address the call home request came from) which is somewhat worrying: bank machines that may have access to sensitive information not being locked down at all so the drive could be plugged in and used, the program could run, and the program could access the internet without restriction from that location. A couple of the drives were seen by the server they called home to multiple times, implying that some fools were using the drives as their own without removing any existing information from them. Very few people contacted the email address, so presumably most of the drives that got to phone home once were swiped, wiped, and claimed by their finder (human nature, don't you just love it).

Obviously there is no saying what happened to the ones that didn't call home - they were either not found, found and handed in somewhere where they still languish, found and binned, not plugged into a machine configured to allowed the autorun and call-home to happen, or so on.

I considered grabbing a bunch of cheap flash drives and repeating the experiment myself in my home town but never actually bothered, mainly because it would mean spending beer money on drives I'd never see again!

</comment><comment><USER3> See also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704831>

(Yes, I've set each to point at the other. Neither has comments yet, same story, different sources, although this submission seems just to be summarising and commenting on that one.)

</comment><comment><USER4> 60% plugged them in, don't you need autorun or need to execute something to make it effective?

Otherwise couldn't you plug it in, look at the directory and format it and not be exploited?

</comment><comment><USER5> Surely you'd disable the USB ports on computers that are connected to a "clean" network if you thought this was an issue.</comment>


Apache Kafka, Samza, and the Unix Philosophy of Distributed Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.confluent.io/blog/apache-kafka-samza-and-the-unix-philosophy-of-distributed-data <comment><USER3> Kafka is represented as a very unix-friendly message tool, when it is no such thing. Kafka is (one of) the worst of the collection of message bus daemons. It imposes small(3-6mb) message size limits, or else performance goes to hell. Kafka also fails to "do one thing well", and instead tries to provide everything-and-the-kitchen-sink (clustering, compression, etc) built-in, but poorly.

For some contrast, take a language like python, which will allow you to create example programs to test out Kafka VS RabbitMQ VS zeromq. You will quickly find that one of the message bus daemons constantly gets in your way, fails to reliably deliver messages, and consumes a ton of system resources compared to the other two. Hint: It's kafka!

I really can't say enough bad things about kafka. Having used it and unfortunately been forced to implement it at a number of "big"(juniper, cisco, vmware) companies, it has been a horrible and disappointing experience for both the end-users and the developers, every single time.

tldr; don't use Kafka, use a real messaging bus.

<comment><USER4> Can anyone provide a legitimate criticism of Kafka? "It sucks, doesn't use it" isn't very helpful or productive. The closest thing I can find is [http://engineering.onlive.com/2013/12/12/didnt-use- kafka/](http://engineering.onlive.com/2013/12/12/didnt-use-kafka/) which is more critical of zookeeper then anything else.

I'm evaluating Kafka for a new project and it seems to be a perfect fit. I've contemplated building something from scratch in python, as my reliability and performance demands are pretty minimal. However, it seems that a lot of thought went into Kafka's design and it's feature set is perfect match for my problem. Specifically the unlimited buffering, log compaction and the ability to replay logs from arbitrary offsets.

If there are any viable alternatives to Kafka what are they? Bonus points if the JVM isn't involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> there's a live stream of this talk happening now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-0cSdxiLLY#t=222](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-0cSdxiLLY#t=222)

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem of "Unix Philosophy for everything" is forgetting that involves multiple buffer copy and parsing. So if you're able to reduce the space problem at first step(s), you can reduce the problem, being that method efficient enough so the buffer copy + parsing become not significant (cheap step(s) for finding needle(s) in a haystack, and then, apply the higher cost operations).

However, for operations not involving filtering, i.e. when processing every line/record, you can increase the throughput avoiding IPC memory copies and parsing on every step (the copy + parsing could take an important portion of processing time).

<comment><USER7> I often play a game where I first write some shell script in some way that was quick and easy to do. I start it running and see if I can in another terminal figure out the faster "correct" method. I rarely ever win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > you can't just pipe one database into another, even if they have the same > data model

> awk doesn't know about the format of nginx logs

So the complexity of the implementation is a direct function of the dimension and heterogeneity of the data[-], but it still reduces to:

pgsql notify | client daemon | process | search engine

[-] high throughput is another matter

<comment><USER9> Also you can pipe from one database into another, you just need to have a common format (SQL), or be able to convert to a common format. every database I know has a tool which will take text from stdin and can return text on stdout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's true that database servers in the RDBMS ecosystem are not analogous to gzip or wc or even awk in the Unix ecosystem; they are analogous to Unix itself, and they live in an uneasy détente with it. They are the "ground of being" upon which various components can be composed, the role Kleppman proposes here for Kafka (and Hadoop, and all the other nonsense underpinning Kafka). You could argue that in fact database servers are terrible at composability even of the things you can put into them (scripting languages, data types, triggers), and I think that is true. More lower down about why that is.

The question of how to build an "operating system for the internet" is really interesting. How can we make it as easy to write a networked program that can be composed with other networked programs, in the way that you can compose tail and grep?

Kafka and Samza aren't it; they're cluster-centric, not internet-centric. They assume a single administrator, Kafka's publish-and-subscribe model is inherently unreliable in the presence of spammers or other sources of system overload, and spammers are unavoidable if you can't kick them off the system. (If you're going to run Hadoop in "secure mode", then it uses Kerberos for authentication; I need say no more.)

With regard to system overload, this is exactly backwards:

        As long as the buffer
        fits within Kafka's available disk space,
        the slow consumer can catch up later.
        This makes the system
        less sensitive to individual slow components,
        and more robust overall.

You can reliably feed terabytes of data through a Unix pipeline consisting of a fast process feeding that data to a slow process (e.g. rot13 | some slow Perl script). Without backpressure, you have to buffer the terabytes of intermediate data, which will fill up your disk, causing your system to fail; or you can drop data, causing your system to fail. Systems without backpressure cannot provide this kind of composability reliably. (Similarly, systems that require you to name your data outputs in a global mutable-object namespace, like Kafka topics, pose obstacles to composability. This, more than anything else, is what limits the composability of queries in traditional SQL databases.)

Don't get me wrong. I think pub-sub is great, and especially for loosely- coupled integration of different systems. I use pub-sub systems every day. I've even written a few. But don't make the mistake of thinking that they're the networked equivalent of Unix.

IPFS might be it. There's a whole panoply of other projects which, like IPFS, are trying to build a decentralized internet OS (MaidSafe, Ethereum, and so on) and probably sooner or later one of them will succeed.

One more minor quibble, which to my mind shows that the author wasn't very interested in writing true things instead of false things:

         you can pipe
         the output of gunzip
         to wc
         without a second thought,
         even though the authors of those two tools
         probably never spoke to each other

David MacKenzie and Paul Rubin are in fact listed among the contributors to gunzip.

</comment><comment><USER11> TLDR; author likens message oriented distributed architectures to the classic unix pipe, while lambasting us for forgetting (in RDBMS design, etc.) the composability lessons of the 1970s.

</comment><comment><USER12> It would be even closer to the Unix philosophy if a competitive distributed graph processing framework such as these could became available on something _other_ than the JVM / Java ecosystem. I personally am not using either for this exact reason and hope that Golang's goroutines will get their own distributed processing analogue, or that Mirage OS will take off.

I am amazed that these systems, Storm / Samza / Spark / even the new Flink are _all_ Java / Scala based.

<comment><USER13> Why do you find this surprising?

What other language and runtime platform provides:

1) Productive, high-level programming languages.

2) Portability to any OS.

3) High runtime performance for the server-side usage model.

4) Real shared-state SMP (necessary for memory and core efficiency).

5) Standalone, single-directory distribution of the applications and all library dependencies.

6) A broad, stable, mature base of well-documented, well-tested libraries.

The CLR has some advantages over the JVM, but it also shares most of the JVM's attributes.

<comment><USER12> A mature, reliable, performant, but unadventurous platform which attracts corporates. I am not knocking it - I think it's obvious that the JVM is well suited, but isn't there room for at least one or two competitors on other platforms? Do any exist that you know of? I tend to be a bit more adventurous in my coding projects and given that embarking on projects requires one to be enthusiastic about one's tools, I cannot use this as Java leaves me cold. This sounds flippant but really I don't think it is. I love the idea of DAG workflows but I don't want to do it in Java, even with all its strengths.

<comment><USER14> The other benefit of the JVM is the multiple languages that run on it - <USER2> you try Clojure or JRuby already? Or do you mean Java as in JVM and you don't want that in your stack for some reason?

<comment><USER12> I am not a fan of any compatibility layer technology as I am a bit of a bare- metal purist, and I believe Linux does this already. The original post waxes lyrical about the Unix philosophy, but part of the Unix philosophy is supreme efficiency and this is violated by the JVM. I know I know - performance is comparable but then coding is a bit like art - you have to love what you are doing.

As for using other languages - I played with Python on Storm but I very quickly found that I had to basically use Java because the entire community and documentation was java-centric (last I checked - a few months ago).

I may be being obtuse here - in fact I know I am - but my point is that there is a large community out there which is not Java friendly (logically or not) and so I lament the fact that all the advancement in this new, very exciting, field, is JVM-based. My dislike for Java was sealed by the Bloomberg terminal API, some of which's basic functionality is 5 to 6 dots deep. Seriously I had 80+ character function calls. This.that.that.this.this.finally()!

Perhaps we'll just have to kick in, leave our biases behind and start running with the JVM.

FWIW my use case is streaming fixed income (bond pricing) data analysis. Python/Numpy is running out of steam fast for me and we're using quite a bit of C. I basically come from the scientific computing set. We're applying advanced statistical analysis to pricing (not HFT - we're operating in the 5 minute thru 1-week horizon - not 5ns).

<comment><USER13> In one breath "I am a bit of a bare-metal purist" and in the next "As for using other languages - I played with Python on Storm".

So which one is it? :-)

<comment><USER15> I am not the OP but it is not necessarily a contradiction.

The underlying goal in Pythonic data-science is that one pushes as much of the computation into pre-packaged loops that have already been written in a close to the metal language (C, C++, Fortran). Well, that's as far as the intent goes, practice deviates from it by degrees.

This does not work quite as well in Java (or JVM) because JNI is just supremely god-awful. JVM semantics are overly strict, this over-specification kills optimization opportunities. Is heavy on memory, I would rather use the memory for loading more data than fill it with overhead. Finally there is this OOP culture that gets in the way.

That said, JVM is one of the most mature, and well engineered VMs out there (Java is another story), but not very well suited for number crunching, because there is more to number crunching than calling BLAS APIs.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why My New Professional War Camera Is a Cheap Chinese Knockoff - <AUTHOR> https://www.outsideonline.com/2175146/why-my-new-professional-war-camera-cheap-chinese-iphone-knockoff <comment><USER2> This article reads like an advertisement and is lacking the most important part: Sample pictures that the reporter actually took with the advertised phone.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that there is no discussion of time to start the camera app or the shutter lagging behind the capture button. I would have thought that these things would be the biggest negative of using a phone as a "war camera".

Perhaps the P10 is fast enough that he just never felt this problem.

<comment><USER4> Best message on this topic. Thanks.

What the old Leica of old did was the famous 'F8 and be there' \-- basically at F8 with a mirrorless rangefinder there was enough DoF to shoot pretty much anything, at anytime (apart from pitch black) and still come out with a printable picture... Even a modern DSLR doesn't give you that, as the autofocus will take a bit of time, unless you disable it. Same with the u4/3 and other mirrorless.

I preferred digital carry-on is a Panasonic DMC-GM1 with a fixed 14mm lens. It's bigger than a mobile phone, but it's also considerably better, and the battery last weeks, not hours.

I also still shoot my 1947 leica IIIc, and the old leica M2, just because I love handling them!

The funny bit is that I can shoot _anything_ and _anyone_ _anywhere_ with my old 35mm rangefinder, and people will look at you and smile at you even. Try that with a digital monster or a mobile phone and people will just close down like a clam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > * And it can handle Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) files, which are vastly > higher-quality than MP3s and more compressed than WAV.*

Why does a photographer care about this? And who seriously compares this sort of thing to MP3 these days anyway, when we've had better codecs for a long time?

<comment><USER6> One who shoots video and records audio segments as well??

That's why he mentions shooting 4K video and plugging in a Rode microphone later in the piece.

<comment><USER5> I'm not aware of any video format that uses FLAC.

<comment><USER7> Well, the video codec doesn't handle audio anyway, so neither am I.

The container format is what I suspect you mean, and Matroska can handle just about anything. There are others, but that was the first off the top of my head, and IMO the only one worth using these days whenever possible.

This wikipedia chart is useful: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_formats)

<comment><USER5> I don't think I've seen an .mkv in literally years. I didn't think video recorders recorded in that format either. .mp4 and .mpeg are still the video containers that I see 99% of the time (note: I don't use a WebM-capable browser, so I don't see WebM videos).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How can Nikon and Canon even exist now [Chinese brand smartphone] can take photos?

Oh, that's right, SLR's take much better pictures.

This reads like an ad.

</comment><comment><USER9> I agree that the P&S cameras have been made obsolete by phones, yet it is all about the sensor size and the geometry and physical size limit the phones in that regard, unavoidably. The low light performance, zoom, etc will suffer. I think the DSLRs are outdated as well by the mirrorless, such as Sony and micro-four third cameras.

<comment><USER10> Not only sensor size but the ergonomics. I agree that in daylight my iPhone 6S is basically as good as my somewhat older Nikon, but the way you handle them both in order to take a photo really play into the final quality of the image.

The phone will always be like a tiny window to the world, while the camera is more of an extension of my eye. Might be a personal take, but for me it makes a lot of diference and it shows in my photos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd love to see more journalistic photos taken by the phone. Anyway, the article mentioned something interesting though:

"The trick now is a low-profile, fast, connected tool that still allows the user to control image quality. What's the best photo gear for this new age of real-time, run-and-gun, snap-and-post journalism?"

A smartphone can easily handle those. Image quality wise, probably it won't outclass your new shiny Fuji X or Leica M, but then again the major concern of photojournalism is capturing the "decisive moment" decently, and not about ISO performance or bokeh, for example.

<comment><USER12> Image quality is overvalued when everybody use tricks to post-process their images.

Behind "allows the user to control image quality" we could have brighter dawns + extra aeroplane (that wasn't here), changing clothes tones to corporate colors, putting more red in blood or more sad in faces, eliminating objects or people, adding either perfect skin or a frown and eye bags in the face of a politic, etc, etc...

The "decisive moment" currently is not recorded, is created from scratch.

Historic or journalistic value on the other hand is not necessarily about image quality.

<comment><USER13> No matter how much you "tweak" your photos, you are not getting the quality of a DSLR.

You are not getting the focal distance and zoom of a 70-200.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Am I overly paranoid to remember that Huawei phones were found to be phoning home to China and spying in the past?

<comment><USER15> any source of this? from what i remember those were phones from shady resellers who installed there all kind of spyware, not if you buy Huawei out of the box, it's pretty clean

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I stopped reading when he said Huawei is knockoff for 400$. This guy knows maybe about photography, but has zero idea about smartphone brands.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wondered years ago how long it would take for the single function camera to be extinct. My answer is fast coming into focus.

<comment><USER17> Oh, I dunno. When is a phone going to do this:

        http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2016-hawk/2.html

or this:

        http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/fog.jpg

or this:

        http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/hockey-portraits/104.html

I love that phone tech is getting better but I'll take my 1DX & the 200mm f2.0 over a phone a 100x. Phone is handy as heck because it's always with you but there are some things you just can't do without a great sensor and great big honking chunk of glass.

<comment><USER18> If you're impressed by these photos, then try my suggestion and get a film camera, since you already have Canon gear, get a Canon AE-1 for like $120 used on Amazon (or cheaper on ebay), it will work with all your existing lenses, and try Porta 400 film taking similar photos like these.

The reason why I say this because it seems like you've reached a local maxima for DSLRs and by trying your hand in analog you'd see what's really missing in your pics.

<comment><USER17> Dude, I started on a Canon AE-1. Well that was my first personal SLR, I really started on a Pentax K1000 (didn't we all?).

I've done a _lot_ of film. I think before I went back to that I'd try post processing. I'm of two minds on post processing, I know it can make things "pop" but I like pictures to be realistic. Sometimes that makes them look worse than you might like but they are real.

That said, I am sure a ton of my keepers would benefit from post.

See my profile if you want to try and convince me in email, I'm a total nerd about photography stuff. Not great at it, I've got a shitty eye for composition, but still love it.

<comment><USER18> Well I came from a poor country, so due to leap frog effect, I directly got into digital photography, and eventually I went into analog.

The things I have learned about digital and post processing (and I did that a LOT) is:

* Always shoot in RAW mode, why ruin you images by making the stock software by Canon to convert them into dumpy JPEG format.

* Always underexpose digital photos. Digital sensors these days have pretty good exposure latitude (almost as good as analog some even say). When you shoot in RAW and underexpose, you can recover almost everything. Digital sensors are HORRIBLE in capturing highlights. You're commenting on how proud you are at your camera in capturing the shadows of the fog scene, but the highlights of the photo are completely butchered.

* While post-processing, invest in a good monitor calibrator. Granted they can be expensive, the cheaper version of that is to at least do your work in middle brightness of the monitor (irrespective of the actual brightness level you work in) and then crank it up all the way and see how it looks, and crank it all the way down and make adjustments.

* For actual software, I prefer lightroom, because you can create all sorts of presets for it and see immediately how any photo will look in it. You can also buy presets (like VSCO has some good ones) from third parties to expand your collection.

* Discard more shots. That (i.e. being more selective) makes a HUGE difference between a good photographer and an average one.

Finally, I'd say you should try your hand in Medium format analog. Nearly nothing I did in digital came close to a single Medium format shot I've taken.

<comment><USER17> I'm curious as to what digital bodies you have tried? The medium format comment is interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Totally not an ad!

When he says that the P10 camera is the same thing as the iPhone 7 Plus...

</comment><comment><USER19> Was that an ad?</comment>


Amazon Textract – Now Generally Available - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/05/amazon-textract-now-generally-available/ <comment><USER2> Gave this a try earlier - had to install their demo Python to get a "real" text file output (ie with words assembled into paragraphs); it was both slower and less correct than `tesseract` for my sample files (an alumni letter, a shopping receipt).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract_\(software\))

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a powerful service, but the requirement to let AWS keep your documents is a powerful disincentive for many companies, no matter what the rest of the privacy policy says. The Azure text recognition container can be hosted locally and in that case doesn't send document contents to Microsoft.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which service are you referring to?

I found this:

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive- services/co...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive- services/computer-vision/concept-recognizing-text)

And this:

[https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive- service...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive- services/computer-vision/)

But a quick scan doesn't reveal local installation options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> N.B., the service limits are quite low for many types of SaaS applications and customer support has no ETA on increasing them: [https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws_service_li...](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws_service_limits.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> The limits do seem low (one doc every 4 seconds for synchronous calls). However, from the doc you linked:

"Amazon Textract has the following limits that you can change."

So I think you can just file a support ticket and get these limits changed.

Here's limits that can't be changed:

[https://docs.aws.amazon.com/textract/latest/dg/limits.html](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/textract/latest/dg/limits.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Only Northern Virginia, Ohio, Oregon, and Ireland?</comment>


Stories is to Instagram what Streaming was to Netflix - <AUTHOR> http://meshedsociety.com/stories-is-to-instagram-what-streaming-was-to-netflix/ <comment><USER2> test</comment>


Ask HN: Is this a bad time to be majoring in Computer Science - <AUTHOR>

There have been a number of news articles which have stated that there has been a somewhat significant increase in the number of students who are majoring in CS. Therefore, is this a bad time for someone to be starting an undergraduate program in computer science? <comment><USER2> If it's what you love, it's never a bad time. This is true for virtually anything. There are times when it may be easier or harder to make a living doing so, but if you love it, you should work at it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Enrollments are somewhat up compared to the past few years, but still not particularly high, especially relative to the growth of the tech industry over the past decade. So I wouldn't worry about enrollment increases unless they get much larger.

Here's a graph, showing how much below the early-2000s enrollment peak we still are, even in raw numbers not adjusted for percentage of the population, or percentage of the degree-holding population: [http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/0...](http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/2009-10_undergrad-CS-production.png) I think some of the perception is due to how changes are reported as percent-increases and percent-decreases: to reverse the 50% decline in enrollments that took place between 2004 and 2009, we'd need an _100%_ increase in enrollments currently, which we aren't anywhere near.

Plus, if you're good, it seems to be near universal consensus around here that it's very hard to hire good computer scientists, whether you're hiring for a startup or a larger company, so the supply/demand still seems to be very much in the supply's favor.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do it because you want to. There were a ton of people who jumped on the bandwagon in the late nineties, but a lot of them faded away after the dot com crash.

Don't do it for the money, there are plenty of other ways to make about the same amount from an hourly perspective. Do it because you want to.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'll reiterate a theme running through the comments here.

Do what you love to do.

Whether or not you get rich doing it you will be happy and you will enjoy your life because your day to day existence is filled with memories of doing something you love doing. Life will throw annoying things at you and they will be more tolerable if you have things to do which you enjoy.

That being said, if you love programming or systems analysis, this is an excellent time for you. We are fast approaching a time where 100% of the population will be experience a computation platform in their daily activities. There are lots and lots and lots of things that can benefit from that, the environment is target rich.

</comment><comment><USER6> Consider that even if there are increased numbers, if you are in it because it's what gets you motivated, those numbers will fade away over time (they'll be the developers that only last 3-5yrs before switching careers). Meanwhile, you'll still be there because you enjoy what you do. Believe me, computer work is not going away any time soon (even if the bulk of it is not thrilling or exciting).

</comment><comment><USER7> I had similar worries when I started college in 2001, time of 9/11 and dot-com crash. But I did CS anyway, and it has been the best edu/career decision I've ever made.

</comment><comment><USER8> Numbers are only important if you're not looking to stand out. There are plenty of doctors, lawyers, writers and economists coming out of Universities at any given time. You don't hear about most, because they don't do anything worth hearing about. Many went down a path dictated by economic incentives or family obligations.

If you are doing this because you _want it_ , you're sure to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's a good time, since the average quality of your colleagues will be increased compared to the low-enrolment periods. This means more engaged classes, happier professors, better team projects, more ambition, more achievement. You're more likely to meet a great founder. You'll have a better educational experience and thus get better value for your time and money.

(I'm a CS prof)

</comment><comment><USER10> Even if it's a bad time NOW to be going into CS, that won't be the case forever. If you have enough resources to survive the lean times, seems like you'd do well to get the CS degree so you'll have it when times get better.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's a fine time _if you are interested in it_.

It's a great career path.

From your interests stated elsewhere in the thread, a CS degree will suit you nicely. AI is a popular topic in many schools.

</comment><comment><USER12> Companies are always in need to good programmers and Computer Scientists. Why not go to school for CS now while the economy isn't perfect and then you'll be out when it starts to pick up again.

</comment><comment><USER13> Do what you love, or at least want, because ultimately your choice of course is not something that binds you irrevocably to one career or another.

</comment><comment><USER14> Major in math.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am considering majoring in Computational Math because my primary interest is Data Science and Machine Learning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are you in it for the money or because you love technology/programming?

<comment><USER16> I agree with this question. If you're in it for the money than you should probably look into something else. The fact that you're questioning going into CS probably means it possibly may not be for you.

If technology/programming is something that you love to do, then there is no question to go into CS if you're wanting a formal education.

<comment><AUTHOR> I definently enjoy programming. From GUI development to data science, I love sitting at a computer and thinking through problems. However, I think it's only natural to be worried about job market realities.

Let's say I loved art. What use is studying art history if I can't get a job and would be living paycheck to paycheck.

<comment><USER16> Well, lets say you love art and get a business degree. How happy would you be making a good living but at the same time listening to mindless suits who love to hear themselves talk in boring ass meetings 9 HOURS A DAY.

Doing what truly interests you and being poor isn't a bad place to be IMO and this being the worse case scenario since CS folks usually do well financially.

If you enjoy technology/programming, you most likely will never be homeless if you get a CS degree. The "Good" employers see passion in potential employees and usually want these type of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Be better</comment>


Web Vi - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/webvi/

<comment><USER2> I had a brief play around with the example, and pretty quickly came across bugs and unimplemented commands (for example: 'b', 'e' and 'O' are missing, but 'o' acts like 'O'). I like the way the cursor changes colour to hint at the current mode.

However, what I'd _really_ love would be a bookmarklet I could click to Vi-ify every <textarea> on the current page. I've got "It's All Text" set up in Firefox to open <textearea>s in gvim, but it's still clunkier than editing right there in the page.

<comment><USER3> The Pentadactyl plugin for Firefox (<http://dactyl.sourceforge.net/pentadactyl/>), which is a better-maintained fork of the well-known Vimperator, allows you to hit <C-T> in any textarea or text input to enable Vim-style keybindings inline. <C-I> opens the text for editing in an actual Vim instance, like the plugin you mentioned.

Of course, Pentadactyl changes a lot about how the browser works beyond just text editing, so it may not be for everyone.

<comment><USER4> I can't live without pentadactyl.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wait, are you kidding? It looks a hell of a lot less convincing than, say, jim: <https://github.com/misfo/jim>

edit: For example, 'A' doesn't work.

</comment><comment><USER6> The one thing that most vi-mode implementations don't get is that vi(m) is really about the possibility to configure every keystroke. Its not about "j" is "up" and "dd" deletes the current line.

<comment><USER7> Absolutely not, as "j" is down.. ;-)

But in seriousness, although I agree about the importance of configurability, I still find that things like "j is down" and "dd deletes the current line" are an important, integral part of the vi-philosophy.

Placing the most common tasks behind the easiest key-bindings for maximum efficiency and ergonomy is the idea that got me to try out vim in the first place.

I like that someone (Bill Joy and Bram Molenaar) has solved the most common issues in editor-usage in a great way leaving me to configure only some special cases.

</comment></comment><comment> jarek-foksa I'm rather skeptical about text editors implemented on top of the canvas element. Mozilla has already tried that with Bespin project and it failed miserably (huge code base, poor performance, limited accessibility).

Wouldn't it be easier to just use div element with contentEditable attribute? Currently contentEditable has limited API and a lot of inconstancies across browsers, but in the longer run it seems to be the way to go: <http://ehsanakhgari.org/blog/2011-08-31/future-editing-web>

<comment><USER8> contentEditable isn't very cross-platform, comes with its own set of keybindings, and it's difficult to decorate the text you're working on as you type without glitching things.

I'm also skeptical about canvas, so when I implemented my own jsvi years ago (at <http://src.internetconnection.net/vi> and now at <http://geocar.sdf1.org/vi> ) I didn't use canvas. It works everywhere but chrome (which won't let me capture escape), and it produces the same results all the way back to MSIE6.

In retrospect, I would've had an easier time overriding keystrokes on a textarea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's another example of vi being completely exported to Javascript, but without the canvas element.

<http://gpl.internetconnection.net/vi/>

What disappoints me about all these implementations is the absence of text objects, though. I love getting edition words or parentheses using commands such as caw and ci"

<comment><USER8> Hi there.

I'm the author of that vi.

What are "text objects"?

PS: "caw" and "ci" aren't in vi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Keybindings are way off on non-qwerty keyboards.

<comment><USER11> Second that. With my belgian-french keyboard, some keys are correct, some aren't. I can't even refer to an online picture of a qwerty keyboard. Very confusing.

I also tried switching to a qwerty keyboard layout on my computer, but then I'm told that ':' is not a valid command (this might have to do with my lack of vi-savyness, so I'm taking tips - but using ':' to enter some commands is how it works on my linux box anyway).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The the ACE editor behind cloud9ide.com seems to be undergoing pretty active development (<https://github.com/ajaxorg/ace>).

There is also a vim mode under development. <https://github.com/Gozala/vice>

</comment><comment><USER13> This is neat. Although, I can't get by without some VIM commands and is there a way to export text?

</comment><comment><USER14> 0 (zero) does not work.</comment>


In No One We Trust - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/

<comment><USER2> > If any of them thought about the social implications of their activities, > whether it was predatory lending, abusive credit card practices, or market > manipulation, they might have taken comfort that, in accordance with Adam > Smith's dictum, their swelling bank accounts implied that they must be > boosting social welfare.

Stiglitz is doing violence to Adam Smith here, an author I suspect he has not re-read in a long time.

This quote from Stiglitz would more appropriately reference J.M. Keynes rather than Adam Smith. To wit, Keynes wrote in the _General Theory_ :

> It is better that a man should tyrannize over his bank balance than over his > fellow citizens.

Smith, on the other hand, was very clear in advising the government against the conspiracies of businessmen and against viewing rising profits as a sign of national wealth:

> "His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. > it is the stock that is imployed for the sake of profit, which puts into > motion the greater part of the useful labor of every society. The plans and > projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most > important operations of labor, and profit is the end proposed by all those > plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, > rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension, of the society. On > the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and > it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin...

> "Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their > knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of > their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of > their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, > and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, > from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, > was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any > particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects > different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the > market and to narrow the competition, is always in the interest of the > dealers...

> "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this > order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never > to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only > with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes > from an order or men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of > the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress > the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and > oppressed it."

 _Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Chap. XI, Part III, "Rent of Land: Conclusion"._

</comment><comment><USER3> "I suspect there is only one way to really get trust back. We need to pass strong regulations, embodying norms of good behavior, and appoint bold regulators to enforce them."

Isn't this the exact opposite of trust-building behavior? Trust defined as "a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something." So the author is arguing for more trust in our regulators and laws, because we can't trust the people we are regulating.

I don't think that you way to build trust with a person or group by creating stiff rules and penalties for cheating, you do that after they've proven they can't be trusted. I think a more convincing conclusion for the article would be something along of the lines of: we've learned our lesson that banks can't be trusted, so we need to impose heavier regulation.

<comment><USER4> I think the idea is something like "locks keep honest people honest."

If you make clear rules and get people to follow them, and people see that everyone else is following the rules, that makes following the rules normal and rule-breaking an unusual transgression, even without a panopticon.

It's tricky to pull off, but how else would you do it?

<comment><USER5> The main thing we need to do is get back to real, darwinian consequences for stupid behavior. Banks would NOT have made all those "toxic" loans, nor would they have been able to bundle them into derivative products (because nobody would have bought them), if they had been exposed to the real risks they were taking on.

<comment><USER6> Are you certain about that? Because I sure am not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems a more appropriate title for this would be "In Government We Trust."

Apparently large powerful entities aren't to be trusted, except for when they're called "government."

<comment><USER5> Neatly ignored is the large role the government had in pressuring banks to make all those bad loans.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, the banks sure were pushing back on all that pressure!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Similarly, teachers must be given incentive pay to induce them to exert > themselves . . . Do we really believe that giving them $50 more, or even > $500 more, as incentive pay will induce them to work harder?

No, I don't believe that at all. The idea is that you give teachers incentive pay to reward high performers and to attract individuals who are better teachers, and to give the high performers a reason to stay in teaching rather than to defect to another field. Similarly, the idea is that you give the CEO incentive pay to incent him to be a CEO, to attract good CEOs, and to keep your good CEO rather than lose him to another company.

Maybe these ideas are flawed, but certainly the notion is not that by giving the CEO incentive pay he will toil for 7 days a week at 14 hours rather than just 6 days at 12 hours.

</comment><comment><USER9> What we need is politicians who commit to giving the popular vote of their constituents decide major issues. -- A trial in Liquid Democracy if you will.

We also need term limits in congress, no more career politicians, or at least no consecutive terms--take 1 term off between terms. -- Personally I think President should be a 6 year term, sometimes 4 is too little, sometimes 8 is too much. A single 6 year term may make more sense. Senators would be the same a single 6 year term, and that's IT go get a REAL job, - Senators/Congressmen are essentially living on Welfare, we give them posh health plans, good wages, good benefits, and their voters pay all their bills via fund-raising. You should be only allowed one term in each national government position.

<comment><USER10> I've discussed this idea with my girlfriend (a former Federal worker) and she opposes this idea, because an inrush of freshmen Congresscritters who have no idea what is what would be beholden to the rank and file of Federal workers who aren't elected and thus, know the system more than those elected do.

In other words, the institutional knowledge shifts from elected Congresscritters to unelected bureaucrats.

<comment><USER9> Nah, I'm convinced that if we were to stop elections, and go to a 100% random lottery that selects 200 random citizens w/out any idea of their credentials, we would have a healthier political system than the one we have now.</comment></comment></comment>


Google App Engine Broken For 4 Hours And Counting - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/02/google-app-engine-broken-for-4-hours-and-counting/ <comment><USER2> this is a bit like flying vs driving. If you're in the drivers seat you have control - you hope - and your destiny is in your own hands, if you're in a plane it is someone else driving (unless you are an airline pilot). The accident rate is lower for planes per mile flown but if it goes wrong then it usually does so in ways that make the headlines. Still, more people die driving than flying.

When the 'cloud' goes down (or at least some part of it) then you'll notice this immediately because of the large number of sites going down all at once. But when you compare it with the accumulated downtime of all those users had they not been 'cloud users' but hosted on their own kit then it is very well possible that the balance is still in favour of hosting in the cloud.

<comment><USER3> Nice analogy but like all analogies, it's too simplistic and flawed. You left out one important and critical part: the hypothetical passenger in your example is tied to a specific plane/airline. If you don't like your pilot or plane type, you cannot move to a different airline or request a different plane or a different pilot since you're chained to the specific plane.

Due to Google App Engine's API lock-in, you're stuck with them as a provider... quite possibly forever due to heavy BigTable dependency.

Even though I'm a huge fan of cloud computing, I'd rather use a strategy that uses platforms/planes that are built from reusable parts and allow you to switch your plane/airline provider as you please. Don't like Delta? Just go to AA counter and you don't have to change your luggage, clothing etc.

Until there's a second, GAE-compatible, ISV provider that offers full compatibility with GAE, I'd avoid GAE like a plague.

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry sir, but if my pilot is stuck in a thunderstorm and I don't think he knows what he's doing, I can't "request a different plane."

<comment><USER5> It's a _metaphor_ , not a description or some sort of iron law of physics. If I was on Google App Engine right now _and_ there was a competitor that I could switch too, then I damn well could be up, especially if I took the opportunity to keep both options actively available for myself. No matter how hard "switching planes in midair" might be, it's just a metaphor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The bad thing is we can do nothing but wait. The good thing is we don't have to do anything but wait ;-)

</comment><comment><USER4> Now fixed again, as per my own app and as per [http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-downtime- not...](http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-downtime- notify/browse_thread/thread/f7596d1d0bd0f0f9?hl=en)

<comment><USER4> Not sure why I was downvoted: It just got fixed a few minutes ago, as stated on the link and as per my own app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> At least their communication is good: [http://groups.google.com/group/google- appengine-downtime-not...](http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine- downtime-notify/browse_thread/thread/f7596d1d0bd0f0f9?hl=en&pli=1)

<comment><USER8> I disagree. The GAE status page was down for hours: <http://code.google.com/status/appengine>

What's the point of having a status page it's only up as long as your service? We shouldn't have to hunt around a Google Group for information about what's going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's the point of hosting in a cloud if there's still a single point of failure like this? I realize that it's currently free, but I thought one of the main advantages of moving to the cloud was redundancy and fault tolerance.

</comment><comment><USER10> Cloud outages may not be frequent, but they sure are noticeable.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm so tired of reading about web servers/services going down.

<comment><USER12> You are supposed to say something clever like, "Too bad TechCrunch isn't hosted on App Engine..."

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is worse than the 8-hr outage of S3 sometime ago... most apps could still respond without S3 static assets. If your entire app is hosted on AppEngine, you're screwed for 4 hrs and counting...

<comment><USER13> > This is worse than the 8-hr outage of S3 sometime ago

I don't think so. Javascript files hosted os s3 would hang the page loading and without css/images the app would be useless too.

<comment><AUTHOR> But you could quickly recover by hosting those JS files yourself and relinking them. If your app is coupled tightly with AppEngine APIs, then there is nowhere else you can host your app.

<comment><USER14> Theoretically you could fire up AppScale on EC2: <http://code.google.com/p/appscale/>

<comment><USER15> What about your data? Most web applications have persistent data of some sort that is vital to the user experience -- without it, you don't have much of a site.

[Edit: And keeping a hot copy of that data is a lot harder than it sounds]

<comment><USER16> GAE still had read-only access to data so it would be possible to backup and move elsewhere

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> multi-tenant architectures are the geocities of cloud computing. This is the main problem with something like gae, if they have an internal problem it takes down their entire cloud and all the apps with it.

<comment><USER18> which means that a lot more people are mad and it gets fixed sooner. Have you ever had a problem with cable tv or phone service that just effects your home? It can take weeks. If it effects a whole city, it is fixed within hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> hmm... My appengine site is running just fine

Update: Actually, my app is in the "read only mode" they described... the moment I tried to update anything it went to hell :)

</comment><comment><USER19> I concur, my blog on App Engine is down.</comment>


Show HN: Vittyo, Roll your own video store - <AUTHOR> http://www.vittyo.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

My co-founder and I have recently launched our project which lets people build stores to sell their streaming video content. We've been working on it for almost 5 months now.

Let us know what you think!

Sincerely,

Chris & Ivan

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks pretty cool, congrats!

My main concern is how do you plan to compete with YouTube? They offer a rentals marketplace which may still be in beta. Also, they have serious money behind their technology for large scale streaming, and currently have a majority of the traffic in that space.

<comment><USER3> just like Vimeo, we are trying to target at the "indie" and more serious group of video makers than YouTube, by providing them lots more room of customization and personal branding.

the focus is very different: Vimeo and YouTube are more like a hub, while we try to be a service.

<comment><USER2> Thanks! guys for helping me understand a lil bit more.

We are currently in the YouTube Rentals program, may have to test it out and see how some of our content performs on your platform. Once we finish, off course.

Keep coding!

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, let me know if you have any questions or feedback!

email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congratulations! Love the design and the simplicity.

What do you use for video encoding?

<comment><USER3> We tried many solutions, currently using Zencoder.

<comment><USER4> Glad to hear it - I'm a co-founder over there. Let me know if you need anything. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice, I like the simplicity.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. We worked really really hard on that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the idea, have thought about doing something similar in the past.

It looks like all the stores are hosted as subdomains of vittyo.com. It would nice to run a vittyo store on my own domain.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it's in the works :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Two things:

1\. Check your spelling.

2\. Buffering...

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey moe, I can't do anything about the buffering unfortunately, but could you link to the spelling error?

Edit: thanks, Ivan fixed it a few minutes ago

<comment><USER8> There aren't 2 Ts or any Ys in "video", duh.

<comment><USER9> Nice try, GWB. We all know there's a "Y" in "Vidya" as in "Vidya games".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just to make sure: can the customer download content, not just stream it? Thanks.

<comment><USER3> Right now it's only streaming, but the purchase will be recorded and the viewer can stream it as many times as she likes. It's easy to do the downloading option but less secure in terms of piracy issues.

<comment><USER10> Why not make it an option (for the content producer)? A lot of filmmakers generate income from stock footage on the side as well. You guys could undercut the stock footage monopoly. Just a thought from a _prospective_ client. Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is officially on the roadmap. Cheers :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice one Chris & Ivan! Love the simplicity also.

</comment><comment><USER12> What percentage of the sales are you guys taking or is there a monthly fee?

<comment><USER3> We don't hav a specific pricing plan yet, that's way running beta to figure out people's usage pattern first.</comment></comment>


Microsoft tests new AI chatbot 'Zo' after shutting down 'Tay' earlier this year - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2016/microsoft-tests-new-ai-chatbot-zo-shutting-tay-earlier-year/ <comment><USER2> One of the responses I've seen from Zo was a static response about Xiaoice, "U KNO HER???", and it was the exact same as Tay. Presumably Zo has some new logic, hopefully to prevent the same problems for occurring, but it really is pretty much Tay 2.0 under another name.

<comment><USER3> They seem to have "solved" the problem with a large blacklist of terms and topics. If you mention any of the things that got Tay into trouble the Zo will simply say that she is uncomfortable with the direction of the conversation and stop replying if you repeat it. They have also removed some features such as face recognition in photos (all photo features have been removed actually) since I assume it is harder to blacklist photos of hitler and concentration camps than it is to blacklist words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Do you know Cortana?

>Cortana is a great assistant and im a great friend

>What about zune?

>I liked Zune. :(

>I do miss tay.ai though

>i think you're talking about another ai that i'm not too familiar with... sry

</comment><comment><USER5> me> Did you see that ludicrous display last night? zo: What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early</comment>


An analysis of the Super Street Fighter IV game balance - <AUTHOR> http://ryuuko.cl/post/104724306802/from-game-balance-and-meta-game-to-matchup <comment><USER2> This is a really interesting article because I've yet to see real statistics done on all of this data we have of the game. One interesting thing to note though, is that each iteration of Street Fighter has had different important features in matchup analysis.

Take for example Super Street Fighter 4 (the second iteration in the Street Fighter 4 series). The game had a lot of value in more defensive characters.[1] Looking at the tier list, you can see that the top three characters were thought to be Honda, M.Bison and Guile, three charge characters. Charge characters require you to hold backwards to do most or all of their special attacks, meaning that you inherently play them defensively due to the requirement of needing to hold backwards. But, many players complained about how defensive the game had become, so in Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition, the defensive characters were reduced in power and the offensive characters became much better.

Yun, Seth, C.Viper, Cammy, Fei Long, Akuma and Rufus were all characters that put on a lot of pressure in this version and had very damaging combos. Many players find this more exciting than the much more defensive oriented Super Street Fighter 4, but eventually the offense was toned down in Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition 2012, which struck a nice balance.

[1] [http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2012/mar/29/tier-rankings- su...](http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2012/mar/29/tier-rankings-super-street- fighter-4-and-older-versions/)

<comment><USER3> As for (former) top tiers: you're forgetting Yang ;-) He was considered top tier in Arcade Edition too, and was nerfed considerably in Arcade Edition 2012 to the point many thought he was not tournament viable anymore. The game gradually went from favouring defensive characters to rush down characters, and now with Ultra Street Fighter 4, back to zoning/footsie characters: I believe Ultra Street Fighter 4 has seen the most diverse top 8 in tournaments (see Evo for example) from all iterations when it came to characters, which makes me believe that it is currently balanced quite nicely, meaning that almost all characters have a good shot at winning a tournament. Well, except for maybe Dee Jay, Honda and Dhalsim unfortunately.

For those wondering why there have been so many iterations of Street Fighter over the past few years: aside from introducing new mechanics and characters, SF has been "broken" a few times in the past with the discovery of so called un-blockable setups. These unblockable setups caused hitboxes to overlap in such a way that it would leave your opponent in a state where he/she could do nothing other than to get hit with an the attack. The only way to block it was to do it frame-perfect, which is incredibly hard to do considering the game runs at 60fps. Especially under tournament pressure :)

It was broken again with the discovery of so called vortex setups, which kept your opponent in constant 50-50 guessing state after being knocked down: will the attack hit from the front or back? It wasn't uncommon for even the aggressor to not know what side it would hit. A vortex like that could easily lead to stun, and a subsequent KO if you guessed wrong for more than 2 times. Talk about unforgiving right? ;-) Characters like Ibuki and Akuma benefitted strongly from this and almost allowed for autopilot gameplay. No fun if you were on the receiving side indeed.

In an effort to combat gamebreaking setups like unblockables and vortexes, Ultra Street Fighter 4 introduced the delayed wakeup mechanic which allowed you to mess up the timing of your opponent if they tried to do a vortex/unblockable setup. It's kind of a lazy fix, as I think it'd been better to just fix the hitboxes. Even though it does a decent job at combatting these setups, it also considerably slows down the pacing of the game as well.

As the article shows, some characters do better against other types of characters: zoning characters have historically been able to do incredibly well against grapplers for example by playing a keep-away game. Grapplers on the other hand generally tend to have the advantage against rushdown characters, and rushdown characters usually are able to blow up zoning characters. Considering that the game has been out on the market for a while, it shouldn't come as a surprise that most tournament players are able to play 2 or more characters from different "archetypes" at a high level. This "counter-picking" was historically frowned upon and considered a "cheap" move, but I believe it has become more accepted as of late due to bigger prize pots coming into play in tournaments.

I've unfortunately been able to infer how the article factored in some character specific strategies: divekicks can generally be mitigated with a fast standing jab for example, and some characters are prone to longer combo's due to larger hitboxes. It'd be interesting to see how this would affect their model as it is something that I think matters in matches: Dudley is able to do an extended bread and butter combo for example on Balrog(boxer)/Abel, which leads to not only more damage, but also more stun.

After playing the SF4 series for over 6 years, I still thoroughly enjoy playing this game in my spare time and in tournaments. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that some fellow startup founders _cough_ Tobi Lutke from Shopify _cough_ are incredibly good at the game as well, and can't wait for them to improve the net code in Street Fighter 5. Probably has to do with being competitive I guess ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The main problem with Tier-lists is that it relies on the players to get matchup experience before they really reflect reality.

I'm not a competitive SSFIV player, but lets take Smash for instance. Melee has Yoshi climbing up the ranks in the later years, as the community learned how to put up with Yoshi's disadvantages, and take advantage of some new tech.

Similarly, Brawl had Olimar climb like 15 positions or something. He was considered like C-Tier at the beginning before moving up to top5 by the end of Brawl's run.

Some characters take longer to learn than others. Tier lists change over time, as they are a reflection of the community. The "true" tier list... the one with hypothetically perfect players... will never be discovered. Humans always learn and adapt to each other.

That said, Tier Lists are an excellent tool for learning the metagame and discussing game balance. But within the context of "which character should I pick"... Tier Lists are generally a poor tool. Especially early in a game's life before the community establish's a metagame.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am confused by "This game has tiers, with high-tier characters consistently beating low-tier characters" leading to a conclusion of "this game is well balanced", can anyone explain?

(Also, anyone have any links for getting into fighting game theory? As someone who's so far only really studied Starcraft, I'm surprised by the depth being discussed here; my own understanding of fighting games is pretty much limited to "mash buttons and die"...)

<comment><USER6> Here are some links for getting into fighting game theory!

First, the pdf "Playing to Win" [1], from shoryuken.com; this is a pretty well-written resource that will go over the basics.

There's a youtube clip [2] discussed in the first chapter that demonstrates some important concepts as well.

Finally, read through the footsie handbook [3] by, i believe, Dave Sirlin, to learn about what footsies are; they are the most important fundamental skill to a player and what take you from "mash buttons and die" to "beating your friends every single time until they learn footsies of their own"

[1]: [http://shoryuken.com/srk/FightingGamePrimer.pdf](http://shoryuken.com/srk/FightingGamePrimer.pdf)

[2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEIAy7kAeWE&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEIAy7kAeWE&feature=youtu.be)

[3]: [http://sonichurricane.com/?page_id=1702](http://sonichurricane.com/?page_id=1702)

Dave Sirlin has also written a bunch of really interesting stuff on balancing fighting games; you may be interested in his series of articles on how he rebalanced Super Street Fighter II: Super Turbo ([http://www.sirlin.net/articles/sf](http://www.sirlin.net/articles/sf)).

Fighting games are actually incredibly interesting to play and to watch! I know that all of this stuff can be overwhelming, but good fighting games are surprisingly deep. You should give them a try!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting experiment, but I'd like to see the data for Ultra, since Super is obsolete.

<comment><USER8> Yeah. For example, I know there were buffs, but PIE Smug has single-handedly moved Dudley up the tier list. The man is like the top 10 Dudleys or something.

See also: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBSJImHvIDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBSJImHvIDs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If they had devoted all this effort to beating the MLB they'll be rich.

<comment><USER10> Or poker or financial markets.</comment></comment>


An Introduction to Lomography - <AUTHOR> http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/05/an-introduction-to-lomography/

<comment><USER2> There is a great analog 35mm fisheye camera you can pick up for about $25. I just got one and loved the results (<http://www.ramynassar.com/2011/04/28/my- new-camera/>). Great tutorials in that link, can't wait to go through some of them...</comment>


Junk call nightmare flooded woman with hundreds of bizarre phone calls a day - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/junk-call-nightmare-flooded-woman-with-hundreds-of-bizarre-phone-calls-a-day/ <comment><AUTHOR> I have a friend going through this now - roughly a call per minute, DND ineffectual, has tried Call Protect, ShouldIAnswer, Nomorobo, Hiya, and TrapCall. Paid to upgrade ShouldIAnswer. Do Not Disturb set to allow only contacts to call. Confirmed number was on Do Not Call registry.

Calls still coming.</comment>


Is Silicon Valley getting too big for its boots? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/technology-and-politics <comment><USER2> Jealously is always an ugly thing.

The technology sphere is one of the few in the US economy that is still fully functional, dynamic, often fast growing, highly innovative, and wildly profitable. It's also one of the few in which you can still get very wealthy starting from very little, and do it fairly quickly.

The parts of the country mired in perpetual erosion, from Detroit to Baltimore etc, are extremely envious of Silicon Valley. The truth is, Silicon Valley has separated itself off from the collapse that the rest of America has experienced, and it has been able to do so because so much of tech is still a free market. That free market has produced bountiful wealth, and outsized influence that goes with it, while much of the rest of the country has stopped producing new wealth.

There simply are no other fields in which I can spend $100 tomorrow and set up a new business (AWS, or a dedicated server, and off you go). I need no permission. I need no lawyers. I need no zoning permits. I need no environmental studies. I need no retail space or warehouse. I need no tv spot, newspaper ad, or yellow pages placement. I need no consultants. I need no incorporation to get started. I don't need an army of workers. I don't even need to buy any software. I'm limited only by ... me. Oh and I need a $150 Windows XP machine with notepad and a free copy of WSFTP from 1997 that would run equally well on Windows 95, with a shitty $50 17" LCD monitor - and most of that hardware you can pick up for free from lots of sources.

<comment><USER3> You're pointing out the advantages of development as a field and assigning them to Silicon Valley as if the two were identical. Not only that, you're pointing out Detroit et al as though industry were totally location-dependent, without any consideration to one of tech's greatest strengths (for many of us), that you can work in the field from just about anywhere.

Accusing Silicon Valley detractors of jealousy and envy contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, particularly when they are talking about the culture of a place and you are conflating it with an industry.

<comment><USER2> No, actually what I pointed out is that Silicon Valley has benefited tremendously from riding said field. I did not say Silicon Valley == tech sector; it's the greatest embodiment of it. The only reason Silicon Valley has the culture it does today, is courtesy of the technology sector and the wealth that has come with it. I'm not confusing the concepts, they require each other. The reason FWD.us is able to make waves is because of the wealth and influence the technology sector has made possible.

You can attempt to work in a field from just about anywhere, but that's not how most companies are started, that's not how talent pools, that's not how rich geographic ecosystems of labor + capital are formed, and that's not how Big Things happen. You'll also find, education from anywhere is not as beneficial as the total punch of collaboration + social + network value of actually going to MIT or Stanford or Wharton or Harvard et al.

There are very good reasons why so many of the great tech companies have come from Silicon Valley. There are very good reasons why - in the age of being able to 'work from anywhere' - Silicon Valley continues to be Silicon Valley.

14 out of the youngest 25 members of the Forbes 400 are products of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER4> "The only reason Silicon Valley has the culture it does today, is courtesy of the technology sector and the wealth that has come with it."

I'd give a fair amount of credit to the universities, the gold rush and the acid craze, too. Tech culture didn't just pop into existence at unixtime 0.

<comment><USER5> Don't forget, Hewlett Packard - Founded in 1939 in Palo Alto...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am surprised by the attitude from people here to this post.

In its 3 points the common theme in the article is that the geeks don't listen, are self-centered, don't care about others, ... yada-yada. I know this talk very well because it is what I hear from my wife most of the time, about a thousand things.

Now, in political terms it is irrelevant if this is correct or not. In a democracy the perception of a majority is the truth, despite any logical consistence. If you want to be heard, you need to "show that you care". Logical coherence alone doesn't buy you empathy. We need to avoid the label of arrogant if we want any kind of political influence.

I think it is worth thinking a little more carefully about the article. Not on whether it is correct or not, but if this perception is common or not.

[edit] Typo [/edit]

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that's all well and good, but it reminds me of some douche with a camera going to a black/muslim/white/whatever neighborhood, insulting everyone, and then when people get pissed, "I TOLD you they were uncivilized!".

The first graf of the article starts with the author being butthurt about geeks not finding the economist as relevant as the author/employee does (disclaimer: I used to subscribe, either their quality has notably declined the last 5 years or I've gotten smarter).

The rest of it is place-ism about how geeks should stay out of politics and leave it to the oil companies and defense contractors where it belongs.

It's not reinforcing geek stereotypes to point it out as a crap article.

<comment><USER7> Where does the author say geeks should stay out of politics?

I'm not seeing "place-ism" in the article the same way you are. The author appears to be disputing the arrogance and isolationism often attributed to Silicon Valley by pointing out that groups like FWD.us are getting involved in political discussions. He seems to celebrate the fact that Silicon Valley is getting involved in the "politics-as-usual"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "IF YOU'RE an engineer in Silicon Valley, you have no incentive to read The Economist,"

Wow, "unnamed tech entrepreneur", I strongly disagree.

I have yet to find a news source that competes with the Economist. Just reading a single issue cover-to-cover gives you an unparalleled snapshot of what's going on around the world. They aren't afraid to use technical jargon, and are pretty brutal about the assumed knowledge of their readership.

If I were able to touch only a single thing outside the technology "bubble"; the Economist would be my #1 choice.

Disclosure: I have no current, or prior, relationship with the Economist. I have merely benefited enormously and grown a lot as a person using the knowledge that I've gained reading it (or listening to the audio edition) over the past few years.

<comment><USER9> Aren't you missing the point a little? The context were incentives in social events; (s)he's saying that unlike in places were reading the Economist might be valued (or even expected) by peers, SV isn't one of them. (Not that I would know)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A know a _lot_ of Silicon Valley people who love The Economist; I'm actually a subscriber just so I can read it on the iPad. OTOH, I rarely read The New Yorker.

If the author of that article would like to visit Silicon Valley and see what it's like first-hand, I'd be happy to show him or her around. I promise no lame parties, and plenty of people who care deeply about policy, direction and magnitude of scientific, technical, economic, and social progress, etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> > _Among the biggest political debates this year—gun control, immigration > reform, deficit reduction—I see few signs of solutionism at play._

This single sentence ultimately highlights the failings of the entire philosophy that created the article. The reason he sees few "signs of solutionism" is that specific solutions for these problems abound, the "debate" is over which is acceptable. The author enjoys living in a world where whomever expends the most effort repeating their viewpoint through mass media eventually wins "political consensus" and some centrally-dictated incremental change gets made for their favored direction. Of course if you're a professional journalist who is ultimately supported by vested interests that align with your views, this is a great world to live in.

The fact that something as amazingly straightforward to solve as gun "control" (hint: there's two very simple solutions) is _still and always_ "up for debate" just shows the brokenness of that system. It's not particularly surprising that techies, having chosen _doing_ instead of _talking_ all their lives, want to focus on ways to move the world forward instead of expending energy on the quagmire of politics.

(Of course none of what I said is addressing the looming problem that this "tech uber alles" philosophy gets watered down and ends up letting hackers comfort themselves that technically-deficient but socially-popular centralized websites are empowering individuals rather than merely different masters, but that's a topic for a different day)

<comment><USER12> This article is incoherent and mostly hand waving. The fact that everyone is disagreeing with it for different reasons either speaks to its shallowness or to the fact that it is just wrong about the valley being ideologically homogeneous.

The part you put in parenthesis is the true problem that every hacker should be contemplating every day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Although I do enjoy the Economist's coverage of subjects like Africa, EU politics, book reviews, and obituaries, I find their coverage of American politics to sometimes be very sub-par. A couple of examples:

\- Endless war-mongering. They pushed heavily for the disastrous war in Iraq. After the Boston bombing, they asked whether America was getting complacent. They post a lot of stuff implying that America should go to war in Syria.

\- Their coverage of American presidential politics is horrible. In 2000, they endorsed George W Bush, a political scion who was clearly an anti-intellectual and bit of a fool, over Al Gore, a visionary vice president who had co- presided over the longest economic expansion in American history. In 2004, after 4 disastrous years, their "endorsement" issue was titled "Incompetent vs Incoherent".

This stuff, especially the war-mongering, has made me care a lot less about the Economist than I did when I was, say, 18. Given that SV is a very forward- looking place, it is unsurprising that the Economist is less respected than it is in many other locales.

<comment><USER14> So what you're saying is that you don't like The Economist because their biases don't align with yours?

<comment><USER4> In the case of the economist, it's pretty jarring to see a magazine normally full of facts and figures turn into a political hack job when it comes to covering US politics.

Bush comes into office with a balanced budget and a recession, passes a really big tax cut that brings us into deficits, they applaud. Passes an expensive an inefficient medicare expansion, they're silent.

Obama comes into office with a trillion dollar deficit and a near-depression on his hands, passes tax cuts and a stimulus bill while attacking healthcare costs, and he's "presiding over a spending problem". Nevermind that he's been cutting discretionary spending since 2010.

It's not that their biases don't align with mine -- it's that their biases are so transparently hacky that it destroys any credibility the rest of the magazine has.

<comment><USER14> You don't think your oversimplifying the situation? There was more going on when Bush took office than just a balanced budget.

BTW, Obama isn't attacking healthcare costs, he's expanding coverage. The cost part comes next.

<comment><USER4> Sure, there was a recession, which I alluded to, and other stuff, well, I was working with a few sentences, not a book.

The CBO graded obamacare as reducing medicare costs (the biggest driver of our budget deficits). Expanding coverage should have a positive impact on costs, too. But I agree that expanding coverage was at least as important the bill's authors.

I wasn't trying to oversimplify the situation more than is necessary for a few sentence summary -- and people could disagree with my characterization. The coverage towards each president from the Economist is enlightening though, especially when you divorce it from policy or compare their coverage of similar policies from both administrations. That's where the hackiness comes in.

<comment><USER14> Fair enough. Your original post just came across a little "this is how it is".

Keep an eye out on the cost when the ACA fully rolls out. I'm in the industry and it's not turning out the way people predicted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not familiar with the precise aims of FWD.us but if it's coming across as to the public as wanting to ease the regulations so that they can "fire Americans" and "recruit cheaper software engineers from abroad", I think they might have a PR problem.

<comment><USER16> Once you get past the splash page on the fwd.us web site, the heading is "The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform".

What else is that supposed to mean, spin not withstanding? (although it might not be so much "fire Americans" as "lower salaries for existing employees")

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The dig at "big data" was interesting. The article contends that their are "subtler, wiser ways of thinking in fields that it may not be suited (such as politics)". I wonder what "subtler and wiser" ways the article is referring to? Later on, it admits that Zuckerberg et. al. had to resort to lobbying to try get things done. So is lobbying the "subtler, wiser" way of thinking? If it is, I'm personally ready for something new.

Edit: My comment should not to be construed as support for fwd.us, it's policies or "big data" applied to politics. It just seems like that unqualified "subtler, wiser" is meant to imply that people should stay at home and let the _real_ political players play.

<comment><USER18> I really don't see how it says to "let the real political players play". They probably just think they have better 'method' than big data.

I have my own viewpoints about big data, but they could stop with the mystic nonsense and just actually specify what they're talking about, but that does not mean they implied that "the real political players play".

<comment><USER17> "Interestingly, Mr Packer takes all this to be a sign that the tech industry may be showing signs of maturity. Rather than airily rise above the fray, or, worse, try to produce a technological fix to a political problem, it, or at least those elements represented by FWD.us and the grizzly political hacks it has hired, has chosen to dive deep into the political mud."

In this section, I take "maturity" to mean that Zuckerburg et. al. have had to emulate what others have done: "diving deep into the political mud". A technological or any other type fix seemingly cannot work (according to this commentator). Only big money (elements represented by FWD.us) and "political hacks" can get the job done. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From what I have read (still not made my attempt to move to the Valley) it is very interesting mix of people that are liberal in social sense and libertarian in economic one with some general anarchism just for the fun of it. It is a bit tough for a non hacker to grok the culture.

</comment><comment><USER20> My take on it is this --

1) The Economist piece is really a reference to a New Yorker piece.

2) The author seems to be indulging in schadenfreude / triumphalism over the "new" SV strategy of engaging in politics.

It's a rather stinky bit of smugness really.

If any locale has gotten too big for its' boots, it's NYC, especially the borough that provides The New Yorker with most of its' readers. This is both fact and more importantly, a very common perception by those who live outside the five boroughs.

As far as "playing ball" politically, I'm sure the author, if asked nicely, can cite numerous instances where ball-playing has hurt both their personal interests and what they perceive to be the "national / global interest."

So to the author I would say, "Be careful in your wish-making."

</comment><comment><USER21> "So it is reasonable to be wary of an industry of rich and powerful men eliding its own interests with that of the country at large, or of claims that techniques appropriate to fix problems in one field can be applied mutatis mutandis in another."

Words to live by.

</comment><comment><USER22> Too big for its boot? IT industry in US makes more money than Entertainment Industry. IT industry is the top field in this country via the sheer amount of money we make. Yet we have very little influence in Washington. We are just a bunch of nerds and geeks. Download a public file that someone shouldn't have made world readable, you get prosecuted and jailed. Damn nerds! We have been bare feet for too long. We don't even have boots, let alone get too big for our boots. IT needs to lobby the hell out of DC, lobby/bribe, whatever they call it. The laws being passed should be passed on behalf of our industry, not to protect dying industries.

</comment><comment><USER23> Read Steven Johnson's post about Packer's article, interesting and clarifying

<https://medium.com/the-peer-society/410c644cebe4>

<comment><USER24> And the HN discussion:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5745444>

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> tl;dr: The economist has sunk to playing the man, not the ball.

<comment><USER26> It's been relatively "tabloid" for a couple of years. In fact I go as far to say that the majority of publications (including The Times, the NYT, and other highbrow broadsheets) have gone down this route. Journalism seems to think it's voice is the only voice we should listen too, trouble is, it rarely knows what it's talking about.

<comment><USER27> I wouldn't go so far as to say the Economist rarely knows what it is talking about. I'm a subscriber, and I thought I don't support all of its views, I think it is still a very intelligent and thoughtful publication. If you're not a subscriber, maybe you try it out for a while in earnest before making an assessment.

<comment><USER26> I _was_ a subscriber and avid reader for around 15 years. I'm speaking from experience.

Edit: I stopped my subscription because the once challenging publication has become, IMO, far too populist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Meanwhile, a good old-fashioned lobbying effort continues in Washington; the > New York Times reports a push to ease regulatory oversight of the hiring of > foreigners and the firing of Americans.

I thought we were past the corn-laws way of thinking, or anyway I was expecting better from The Economist. Plus, and most important, it's economically disadvantageous in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER29> all your base.

</comment><comment><USER30> There was no reason for me to read any further as soon I hit

 _It is a place where bland libertarian fantasies about technology replacing (or "disrupting") politics are welcomed_...</comment>