Threema Goes Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/open-source-and-new-partner <comment><USER2> This is really big news. I use Threema because it is the only messenger out there that is:

a) always end to end encrypted (unlike Telegram)

b) supports account creation without any phone number (unlike Signal)

c) supports phones without google messaging service (unlike Signal, it formally supports it as well but in reality it's just a big battery drain)

It not being open source was always a bit sad for me, because most of the other apps on my phone are open source.

I'm curious about the multi device sync. I hope that it will be implemented in a way that doesn't use passwords but pair syncing. This is bad from a usability perspective (firefox abandoned it because of usability), but the only way I'm aware of how syncing can be made secure.

<comment><USER3> Out of curiosity what does Threema do that Element[1] (née Riot.im) doesn't? It seems to tick those boxes, but admittedly is still in quite active development and may not be as polished.

[1][https://element.io/](https://element.io/)

<comment><USER4> It's more a question of "what does does Element do that Threema doesn't"?

Element is a Matrix client, so you connect to the global open Matrix decentralised network, rather than just closed-source servers run by a (newly- sold) company like Threema. Typical Matrix implementations are entirely Apache licensed open source, so you get full control and visibility both clientside and serverside. Matrix also already provides synchronised multi-device conversations, as well as more advanced cross-signing verification for E2EE key validation than Threema. Finally, Matrix is an open standard protocol maintained by the non-profit Matrix.org Foundation, that anyone can contribute to via the open governance process ([https://matrix.org/foundation](https://matrix.org/foundation), [https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals) etc) - the Matrix standard gives developers full freedom to write their own clients/servers/bots/bridges/whatever.

Personally I'd say that Element & Threema have similar levels of UX polish these days (but I'm biased, working on Element). It's perhaps true that Threema's relatively limited featureset means that polish is easier to achieve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know yet, in the announcement they didn't qualify what open source means for them. Will the complete client be open source? Will only parts of the client be open source? what about the server? which license will be used? We'll have to wait and see if this is useful or just marketing for the company.

<comment><USER6> > Within the next months, the Threema apps will become fully open source, > supporting reproducible builds.

Probably one that only allows creating builds for reproducibility. Which is perfectly fine in my opinion, as they are supported by app sales instead of donations like Signal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "...and an acceleration of the product development thanks to the entry of the German-Swiss investment company Afinum Management AG." Can anyone explain what Afinum is/does? They're just a place that buys parts of any type of thing?

"We invest in small- and medium-sized companies. Because we are one of them." That just left me wondering if anyone has heard of them?

[https://afinum.de/en/portfolios/](https://afinum.de/en/portfolios/)

<comment><USER8> I'm German, and mildly interested in investing. Never heard of them, but I have heard of three of the companies (Ledlenser, Görtz, SIGG) in their portfolio. I would call all those three companies solid high-quality manufacturers. So I'm slightly optimistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now _that 's_ an interesting change. More investment is always a bit worrysome due to "and what's the plan to make money", but Threema IMHO is nice to use and being open would be good for trust and thus maybe also adoption.

<comment><USER10> Well, they already have a working money making scheme. Going opensource doesn't change that.

Threema has 3 sources of income AFAIK. A per install fee for regular users, a special client for enterprise users and the same for schools.

Not a money-printing machine but pretty sure a steady income.

<comment><USER11> > A per install fee for regular users

It was hard enough to get my friends to use signal and that was free. While I really do like Threema, The fact that it cost money on iOS makes it hard for me to push on my friend group.

<comment><USER12> I have similar minded friends. They have no issue dropping a bunch of money on some cosmetics in a game or random garbage that gets thrown away immediately.

So i ended up just buying a bunch of licenses for threema and giving them away. I know that isn't an option for everyone but it was how i was able to convert my friends over.

It isn't a big issue for me to do that. Even with buying 10 licenses, it is a small enough amount that its easy to budget for. Plus, i like to support companies and developers who (at least to me) seem to care.

<comment><USER13> What bothers me is that on iOS you can't buy licenses for others unless you have a credit card on file. I prefer using iTunes prepaid cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> They might want to play down the "Swiss == secure" angle, e.g. from the About _Precision, reliability, and discretion are typical Swiss characteristics, and as a true Swiss company, Threema lives these values every day._

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

Personally I am happy with Riot.im/Element Matrix. Is there some feature which distinguishes Threema from it?

</comment><comment><USER15> Could someone with experience of Threema comment on the quality of its voice and video calls, especially for group calls of up to a dozen or so participants?

<comment><USER16> Slightly off-topic, but interesting. Threema contributed back to web-rtc with security improvements they made for video calls.

[https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/177980](https://webrtc- review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/177980)</comment></comment>


Is an MBA worth it? - <AUTHOR>

I don't know what to do.  Got accepted to a top ten school, but think I can learn everything online. <comment><USER3> I worked in product marketing management for a couple years, as a break from software development, alongside MBAs. Every MBA I met I asked that question to, and every one of them said that there was value in the networking, but not much value in the education itself.

If you're thinking about building a career in early-stage tech companies, I'd also worry that the rules are changing too fast for a curriculum to track them, and they are bending more in the direction of software development than in business arcana like Porter's 5 Forces.

Accounting courses, though. Being able to work with cash flows. People have told me that was valuable. Of course, you can get that without paying for an MBA.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have an MBA and I am a software developer. Looking at it purely from a financial perspective, I wouldn't do it again unless: a) I could get some tuition assistance from my current employer and b) I could identify specifically how it would help my career after graduation.

From a knowledge perspective, my emphasis was in Finance and I learned a lot about corporate valuation, capital structure, raising capital, foreign currency, exchange rates, arbitrage, etc. Most of all of that was theory. If I were to get a finance job, I'd have a good basis for all of the things I'd still have to learn to apply those theories to reality. Other than my emphasis classes, there were some really great classes (Operations, Strategy, Ethics, Entrepreneurial studies, Negotiation and Mediation), some "ok" classes (Accounting, Cost/price, some applied math classes) and some classes that were completely worthless (touchy feely HR classes, classes that taught the management theory de jour, etc). I read more business books than I can count, read and discussed many, many case studies, wrote dozens of papers and gave countless power point presentations. This was useful in that I was exposed to a lot of opposing ideas, learned to write for business, learned how bad power point is at conveying information and generally got better at public presentation.

Generally speaking, the value wasn't in the coursework itself, you can get that for almost nothing by reading a bunch of books. There are lots of online classes that you can take for free and you can go to toastmasters to improve your presentation skills. The value was in the other people in the program: a) class discussion is between students who all have work experience and come from different backgrounds and b) networking. Not all MBA programs are created equally, investigate the curriculum and talk to some current students. Find out how many classes are taught by faculty vs. adjunct professors. Adjunct professors aren't always bad, especially if they are currently working in the industry they are teaching classes about and are willing to help you with networking after graduation. Find out what style of program is it. Mine was more entrepreneurial focused and less "big management" focused, so it largely avoided the issue of cranking out a bunch of group think clones that think they can solve any issue by applying some classroom theories. With all of the reading, writing and presenting, I can see how easily it would be to fall into that trap after you've cleverly navigated so many various case studies by applying various popular management strategies.

If you want to start a business, some MBA programs can be helpful because of the networking and because you'll have enough knowledge of various business topics to better engage accountants, lawyers and other professionals. If you have a corporate job, it can be a good tool to help climb the management ladder - some companies require it to rise to certain levels in management. If this is true, see if they'll pay for part of it. I personally think all of the programs are overpriced. I also think the actual value of the MBA has decreased as more universities crank out more MBAs semester after semester. If you can two or three immediate benefits, if you can find a style of program that meets your needs and if you can afford it, go for it. You won't be worse off coming out of the program, but you might not be as better off as you hoped to be.

</comment><comment><USER5> Congratulations - once you are accepted the rest is easy - after the decision that is.

It's time for some deep thinking - each case is very personal and you need to decide what's important to you and determine what you will get from going to a great school.

For me I saw Positives: \- Learning: although in theory I could learn as much from books or by just doing it, I was going to be in a learning environment where I would have great teachers and peers - and the focus was learning. I learned a huge amount, and I recommend over-loading, getting beyond the business school and picking your subjects by professor as well as by what you want to learn. \- Rubber stamping: My background before MBA school was hard to describe to people, but having an MBA from X made it easy to describe what I was and what I could do. \- Opportunity: It certainly opens doors that sometimes I didn't even know existed, in my case PE and McKinsey, and in other peoples' cases start-ups and so on. The net present value of your future income certainly rises, but you'll also take more control of your future. \- USA: If you are from offshore then you get the right to work in the USA after you finish. It's not that simple but the USA is where a vast amount of business gets done and so you get to deal with big numbers. \- Change: It's a definitive move (and market signal) that you want to change what you do, either to switch careers or to upgrade the path that you are on. \- People: You get to meet and hang out with a group of highly vetted amazing people for two years, and longer. \- Fun. This was the deciding factor for me. It was a legitimate two years away from work and doing stuff that was enjoyable.

and Negatives:

Cash flow: You simultaneously stop working and start spending a large amount of money, and that's going to set you back for a few years. But I focussed on net present value and it all worked out alright. For some the payoff may be negative, but with an MBA you should forever be able to find decent paying work. Options: Going to school means you can't do something else in that time. While most things can be put off for a couple of years, if your mate Bill has invited you to join him at his start-up called Micro-soft* then maybe you should do that instead. USA: If you are not from the USA then the food, politics, police and poverty may be difficult to live with. It all depends on where you are coming from, and which school you are going too. Some schools are in or near upsettingly poor and violent areas. Meanwhile that right to work post degree isn't necessarily a right to stay and do a start-up - <USER2> watch out.

Overall if you can get into a top school it's generally a sign that you don't really need to go. If you do go, I generally recommend you should, then embrace it by experimenting with subjects and activities, treating it as a collaborative rather than competitive situation and making sure you are having fun.

(*Steve Ballmer didn't do the second year of his Stanford MBA for this reason)

<comment><USER4> Mine was 4 nights per week for 2.5 years. Not all programs are during the day and force you to give up working. However, working and going to school left me time for _nothing_ else. I had to reintroduce myself to my old friends after graduation.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thanks HN. Really appreciate the advice. Funny, I expected to hear more of the hacker mentality -- forge your own path, cut the fat, efficiency efficiency efficiency. Found this great DIY MBA post while trolling old HN posts. [http://jfornear.co/diy-harvard-mba/](http://jfornear.co/diy-harvard- mba/)

A little background is this is a one-year add-on to an MD. The healthcare aspect is a whole separate discussion, but briefly, my decision is complicated by the fact that I will be doing a residency and not using any of the MBA skills for several years (besides the leadership, team management, etc.). I'm hoping the MBA will serve as a starting point for launching a healthcare- related technology company later in my career -- writing a business plan, drawing on former connections for co-founding, securing funding, etc. I think most of the considerations you all mentioned regarding the decision still apply.

Do I think the skills are worth learning? Yes, absolutely. Are the business course offerings directly in line with what I'm passionate about at the moment (coding, stats, data analysis, web dev)? There's overlap, but this is one of my bigger sticking points. Am I going to be bored out my mind in Accounting? Sometimes I wonder if I should wait until after residency and go for a hardcore Informatics MS. Do I like the idea of delaying work/income for a year? No. Do I like the idea of taking on so much debt? No way. Do I want to surround myself with intelligent people who have the balls to start companies and move large sums of money around? Hell yeah. This is one of the biggest draws. Do I want a corporate job? I like the idea that an MBA could mark me for leadership at an academic medical center. Do I like (and need) structure? As much as I love MOOCS/MIT open courseware and think of myself as an auto- didactic person, I know myself enough to say that the going would be much tougher without a formal program.

It's not an easy choice, but I'm grateful to have the chance to make it. Appreciate your insights.

</comment><comment><USER6> Of course you can learn online. So what? Here;s why you need to saddle yourself with $125,000 additional debt-- even though it might become useless soon.

Let me explain how companies hire. If you want a job done, there are two things you can look for in an applicant.

COMPETENCE. You verify the ability to do work. You can do this by (a) asking the person to perform tasks, (b) reviewing examples of their current or past work or (c) conducting an interview that is so highly detailed that it shows that they understand the work

Verifying competence takes a fair amount of time, so you can only do it for a few people, unless you want to spend all your time doing it.

CREDENTIALS. Ask the person to submit pieces of paper that indicate ability to do work. This includes (1) years of experience in the industry (2) employment with a company who does the work, (3) references or recommendations from people who do the work and (4) a college degree.

Credentials don't guarantee that the person has any competence (even if they aren't lying, they could have been a complete screwup). But they take very little time to process-- any job-tracking application (Taleo) can automate the work.

Guess which method most companies use.

A friend who is a criminal defense attorney has a saying that applies. "It's nice that you're innocent. But how can you prove it?"

I'm confident that you can learn everything an MBA knows, and learn it better than most MBAs do, and understand more. (I have.)

Very few employers will take the time to verify that you do. If YOU don't have the credential, they'll give the job to someone who does.

NOTE: All the preceding assumes you want to be hired for jobs that require an MBA in the posting. If that's not the case, it's an entirely different issue, but one nobody can answer.

</comment><comment><USER7> There are different ways of looking at this. Some I've come up with are ROI, happiness, and intelligence.

If you quit working for two years and pay for school, will you gain money in the long term? When?

If you are able to attend school, will it make you happier in the near term? Will your new career and life trajectory make you happier in the long term?

Do you think the knowledge and skills you'll learn while getting an MBA are worthwhile to learn for two years? Will these skills apply in the long term?

I know MBAs get knocked around a lot here, but my own opinion is there will be something to gain in attending class with smart, motivated individuals while at a resource-rich learning center, such as a top ten school.

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes an MBA is worth it. Especially one through a good school.

Education teaches you discipline and foundation skills. I cannot begin to describe the importance of both. The former is super important in productive people and the latter will help you move faster as an employee or a founder.

How many success stories do you know of education done via online learning? Online learning sites are great at delivering content but poor at motivating users to continue learning, creating a human connection (business is done through humans not machines) and as a reference.

FYI, I have a B. Computer Science and an MBA.. and code.

PS. Congrats on getting accepted to a top school!

<comment><USER9> I'm finishing up B.S. in Information Systems, which is pretty much a business degree with a couple of programming classes. I'm getting to the point where I need to make a decision about a graduate degree, so I have a question for you.

Do business classes ever get to the point where they stop feeling like literally every aspect of running/managing a business is a common sense decision that someone should automatically know the answer to? My economics classes were pretty enlightening, but pretty much everything else was a waste of time and money. Does it get better?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Do you want a corporate job? Then the MBA and the school at which you earned it is of some importance. Also remember that there is an oversupply of MBAs - too much supply, falling demand. So even if you dream of a high paying corporate job, you will have to accept that there is a high level of competition.

BTW: I don't have an MBA, so my view is that of an outsider looking in, based on a mixture of real world (TM) observations and reading business magazine articles.

</comment><comment><USER11> By that logic you would never go to any school since you can learn almost anything online. But the MBA's value includes branding and networking, which is why you made a point of mentioning the "top ten" school. What is your alternative? Is it a rare opportunity? If you got into HBS, GSB or Wharton, I would almost certainly go to B-school.

</comment><comment><USER12> You don't do an MBA to learn, you do it to get a Harvard/Stanford stamp on your resume and to party with future movers and shakers. Duh.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think the biggest benefit is the network you will build there. There are some really cool/smart people there.

</comment><comment><USER14> No.</comment>


Ruby's Unary Operators and How to Redefine Their Functionality - <AUTHOR> http://www.rubyinside.com/rubys-unary-operators-and-how-to-redefine-their-functionality-5610.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RubyInside+%28Ruby+Inside%29

<comment><USER2> I'm not a Rubyist, but isn't overloading operators to do things completely unrelated to their normal semantics (like most of the examples here) generally a terrible thing to do?

<comment><USER3> These are just easy to understand examples. I don't know any Rubyists who would actually define these methods in exactly this way. If you look at the Ruby StdLib, you'll see that, most of the time, libraries implement operators in a way that is consistent with the spirit of canonical methods. For example, in Unix, a network socket is abstracted in a way that is similar to a file. You read/write from it in similar ways. This is an abstraction pattern. Ruby also has patterns. Lots of them, actually.

For example, many Ruby objects accept a block. The ampersand unary operator is used in a particularly common pattern that interacts with methods where a block would normally be passed.

Imagine you have an object that is implemented as a collection of items; like a collection of query results, wrapped in an object. Let's also imagine you want to call a method on each of the items. In Ruby there are two simple ways to do this. The example below uses an Array, upon which many common patterns are based [1].

1) Using a simple map function, which passes the receiver as an argument to a block:

      ["Hello", "WORLD!"].map { |x| x.downcase }
      #=> ["hello", "world"]

2) Using the unary operator of the Symbol class to pass a proc:

      ["Hello", "WORLD"].map(&:downcase)
      #=> ["hello", "world!"]

The second example uses a pattern combining #map from Array and #to_proc from Symbol. This looks like magic the first time you see it, but it's actually pretty simple to follow when you look at the two examples side by side.

Ref:

[http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.3/Array.html#method-i-map](http://www.ruby- doc.org/core-2.1.3/Array.html#method-i-map)

[http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.3/Symbol.html#method-i- to_p...](http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.3/Symbol.html#method-i-to_proc)

The article linked in the submission is definitely worth a look. My explanations are obtuse, because I'm still an amateur after all these years.

[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/06/what-does-do-when- used-a...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/06/what-does-do-when-used-as- unary.html)

1: Actually, Array includes Enumerable, which is the specific module where many of Ruby's common patterns are implemented, but I didn't want the language to become too dense.</comment></comment>


Microsoft Security Essentials Ranks as Best-Performing Free Antivirus - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5433229/microsoft-security-essentials-ranks-as-best+performing-free-antivirus

<comment><USER2> It's interesting that you should mention this--I've been running bareback for (well, any time is too long) after McAfee ran out for me. So my current defenses are spybot and mse.

I'm curious what do other folks who use free security choose?</comment>


Why Commercial Solar Needs 'FinTech' - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wundercapital.com/2016/04/20/why-commercial-solar-needs-fintech-2/ <comment><USER2> Not just solar, commercial equipment in general with some kind of insurance backed into the loan. And allow used equipment.</comment>


Concourse v3.0.0 - <AUTHOR> https://concourse.ci/downloads.html#v3.0.0 <comment><USER2> The site could have been more explicit. What's a CI?

Never mind. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration)

Not even a trace of "continuous" or "integration" on the whole Concourse page.</comment>


Dr. Richard Hipp calls them "Postmodern Databases" - <AUTHOR> http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2010/06/12/postmodern-databases/ <comment><USER3> _He thinks that NoSQL is not a very good name for the new databases we're seeing these days, so he proposed a new name: postmodern databases. Why postmodern?_

We've had similar points raised before, yet the term "NoSQL" continues to gain in popularity. There were similar concerns around "AJAX" and "Web 2.0" - <USER2> survived and are only just starting to be replaced.

Community-coined terms like NoSQL, AJAX, and Web 2.0 _start_ as literal, descriptive terms. But after a while they become "brands" that represent a myriad of concepts and ideas that do not necessarily fit into their original definition. This is because they're not controlled or maintained by a single entity (like, say, "brands" like Redis, Twitter, Ruby or Django are).

(BTW, PomoDB would be a cool name for a new "NoSQL" database system ;-))

<comment><USER4> I still haven't figured out what Web 2.0 is supposed to be. The closest I've been able to figure is that it's either a pure buzzword, or synonymous with DHTML.

If NoSQL goes the way of AJAX, that's fine. It's not a very good term, but at least it means something useful. If it goes the way of Web 2.0, no thanks -- I'd much prefer a different term, any different term, so long as it's actually descriptive.

<comment><USER5> Web 2.0 = Ajax + Social Media, basically. Websites that don't have to refresh the entire page to conduct user interaction, plus social news/networking/blogging/etc.

<comment><USER3> Don't forget gradients and rounded corners..

<comment><USER6> The lack of sharp edges are what make it safe for everyday users!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love the term. It has clarity, and also hints of self-mockery.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>

<comment><USER8> If I have to start reading Heidegger again just to understand what my database is doing I will be seriously freaked out.

I am fairly sure that Jaques Derrida is an alias for __why_the_lucky_stiff.

<comment><USER9> They disappeared off the face of the earth about 5 years apart, but other than that, I can't tell too much of a difference. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The thing that bugs me about the 'NoSQL' name is that it seems to lump together "relational vs key-value/object store" and "centralised vs distributed" as one and the same distinction. They're not.

Databases based on the relational model can be distributed, 'post-modern' as this guy puts it, too.

There's some interesting work by logician/comp-sci/AI folks in this area, applying epistemic (and other modal) logics to multi-agent knowledge base scenarios, but I think it got a bit forgotten about because of its association with AI (think: lots of robots going around gathering knowledge which may or may not be consistent with eachother) rather than more mundane things like distributed relational databases.

Here's a course I remember taking on the subject, which might interest anyone who thinks 'post-modern' databases or models of knowledge are interesting: [http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/teaching/courses/multiagent/index...](http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/teaching/courses/multiagent/index.html)

<comment><USER11> Are there any good distributed relational implementations?

Joins and referential integrity seems to add difficulty to the distribution problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> By this logic, unit testing is not postmodern :)</comment>


Introducing the Microsoft Driver for Node.JS for SQL Server - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlphp/archive/2012/06/08/introducing-the-microsoft-driver-for-node-js-for-sql-server.aspx

<comment><USER2> "access from any Node.JS applications"....running on Windows. Pretty big limitation which suggests it's business as usual at Microsoft.

Also

      "Driver={SQL Server Native Client 11.0};Server=(local);Database=AdventureWorks2012;Trusted_Connection={Yes}";

really should be:

      {server: 'localhost', database: 'AdventureWorks2012', trusted: true}

<comment><USER3> For some reason the driver also requires Visual C++ 2010 as well as SQL Server Native Client 11.0, and includes significant C++ boilerplate which was clearly pasted verbatim from existing C++ codebases, thus ensuring the driver is beyond modification and customization for the typical Node dev.

> The Microsoft Driver for Node.JS for SQL Server is hosted on Github, > accentuating our continued involvement with the Open Source community.

Except, this isn't so much openness as it is an underhanded attempt at migrating more developers to their proprietary platforms. It certainly makes business sense for them and I'm not going to make any normative claims, but I wish they wouldn't beat around the bush. The "Open Source" community that they're trying to cater to is more bullshit-averse than they seem to realize.

<comment><USER4> > Except, this isn't so much openness as it is an underhanded attempt at > migrating more developers to their proprietary platforms.

Shame on them. They shouldn't be contributing software at all if it won't work on every platform. For all they know, I might want to connect to SQL Server from Node.JS running on my Commodore 64, but they don't provide the native code compiled for the 6510.

<comment><USER5> Is there a name given to your type of argument? The idea is to simply reply with an an absurd extreme counter example. People use it all the time. Perhaps it's some sort of extrapolation argument?

<comment><USER6> Reductio Ad Absurdum (e.g. "for Microsoft to support anyone but themselves they thus must support every fringe platform, including those popular twenty years ago"). It's a particularly boring tactic of response and never adds anything to the conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm starting to like the new Microsoft.

<comment><USER8> All they need now is to bundle in mingw32 + msys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For those on *nix, there is this: <https://github.com/w1nk/node-odbc>

It's not native SQL server, but does the job.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't write for Node nor SQL Server, but that connection string looks gnarly. Is there a reason for not using a plain object that could then be merged with a set of internal defaults, then serialized from there? Ruby uses this pattern often, it's very clean and idiomatic.

<comment><USER11> Yes. It is standard on windows to use connection strings. Also it stops then node.js driver being coupled to particular SQL client versions.

It does look rather gnarly but if you work with it for a bit, you will find that connection strings are incredibly powerful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was expecting to see that someone ported jTDS (<http://jtds.sourceforge.net/>) to JavaScript. I have zero idea if something like Emscripten could be used for an effort like that, nor if it would be performant enough for use in a database scenario, but I think a pure JavaScript library would probably be useful to a wider audience.

<comment><USER13> <http://github.com/pekim/tedious> is a pure JavaScript implementation of (some of) the TDS protocol.

[Disclaimer: I'm the author.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've opened an issue to discuss the options for the connection object/array.

Please feel free to let us know what you believe is a good approach!

<https://github.com/WindowsAzure/node-sqlserver/issues/17>

Thanks,

Jonathan @kop48</comment>


Real-time stream of WordPress.com posts and comment - <AUTHOR> http://en.wordpress.com/firehose/

<comment><USER2> Anyone subscribe to this?</comment>


Data Downfalls (written by a Facebook Director) - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=438715804140

<comment><USER2> Is there a public facing link viewable without signing in to Facebook for those of us without an account?

<comment><AUTHOR> Facebook notes doesn't have this functionality, so unfortunately no. I also didn't write the note, so I don't feel comfortable reproducing it.</comment></comment>


Printing 1 to 1000 without loop or conditionals - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4568645/printing-1-to-1000-without-loop-or-conditionals?newsletter=1&nlcode=9810|d230

<comment><USER2> Looks like most of the responses assume integers. It would be impossible to print all real numbers, so printf("numbers from 1 to 1000"); looks like the best answer to me</comment>


Ask HN: does a compressed spring weigh more than the same spring uncompressed? - <AUTHOR>

A comment on the recent Higgs Boson thread [1] stated that a "a compressed spring weighs more than the same spring uncompressed". Since I'm a complete physics noob, this intrigued me. A google search unfortunately didn't help much [2].<p>So, is this really true?<p>[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4193590<p>[2] http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=161069 <comment><USER2> Since the compressed spring has stored energy the answer would be "Yes, but so little as to be completely unmeasurable." E=mc^2 applies to all energy and mass, but if you work the equation with sample energies, you will quickly discover that a substantial amount of energy becomes very, very little mass.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just to add a little weight in numbers, billswift is right.

Also, if you heat something up, it will weigh more.

Even though the change in mass is very small, it can sometimes be measured. When an electron and a proton combine to form a hydrogen atom, energy is given off, so the mass of a hydrogen atom be less than the sum of the mass of the proton and electron. Physicists can now measure the masses of these three things precisely enough that they can confirm that this is true.</comment>


What are your favourite keyboard hacks or shortcuts when coding? - <AUTHOR> Newbie dev here. I'm trying to improve my workflow but trying to not use my mouse at all if possible. Just wanted to see if you guys had any cool keyboard shortcuts or hacks that speed your workflow. <comment><USER3> Use i3, and switch the default keybindings from using j/k/l/; for movement to using h/j/k/l like vim. Increase the amount you can move floating windows with the keyboard from 10px to 100px per shortcut keypress. Same thing with the window resizing shortcuts.

Make CapsLock be another Escape. That key is more useful that way.

You can have bash or zsh use vi-keybindings with a simple `set -o vi`.

You can have all REPLs that use readline use vi-keybindings with a simple `set editing-mode vi` in ~/.inputrc.

If you use either urxvt or tmux, you can setup a mode that allows you to control the cursor in the terminal buffer and copy things. This is tremendously useful for when you executed a command and you want to copy piece of the output to use in a new command. You can do it in a few keypresses. Guess what? In both of these you can setup vi keybindings for the cursor movement.

Now that everything's been set to use vi keybindings, get good at using them effectively.

Get creative making keyboard shortcuts. I have a shortcut that toggles the placement of all floating windows in the current workspace to another new workspace. So I can just hit that to hide all floating windows, work on the tiling windows below, and then call the floating windows back when I need them.

You can browse quickly in Firefox using only the keyboard without needing extensions like Vimperator. When you want to click a link, just Ctrl-f and type some unique text from the link, hit Enter until you focus the link you wanted, then Escape and Enter (or Ctrl-Enter if you want a new tab). If you want to use text near the link because the link's text is too common or is an image, then do it and then use Tab or Shift-Tab to select the link you want.

Now, you can put the mouse in your drawer.

Just joking, there'll be annoying sites that instead of using <a> tags for things, they decided to put a click event listener, so you'll have no choice other than refusing to use those sites.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ctrl-A - <USER2>

Ctrl-E - end of line

Ctrl-W - delete word before cursor

Ctrl-K - cut from cursor to end of line

Ctrl-X Ctrl-E - edit line in VIM

Ctrl-D - show choices (git Ctrl-D)

Ctrl-X Ctrl-I - choose selection

Alt-T - transpose words

Alt-F - jump to next space

Alt-B - jump back to previous space

Alt-Backspace - delete previous word

zsh-autocomplete and fzf Ctrl-R for history.

and many more in VIM but that another whole story</comment>


Android passes iOS for most mobile app downloads - <AUTHOR> http://androidcommunity.com/android-passes-ios-for-most-mobile-app-downloads-20111024/ <comment><USER2> I don't think it makes much sense to count DRM store subscriptions (here 'app downloads') on Android and iOS, since the two platforms have such a different approach to platform design (integrated on iOS vs. connected on Android).

For example, there is nothing similar to a 'Locale plugin' or a 'ADW Launcher Theme' on iOS, and there is no approval process on the most popular Android store.

There is only one DRM Store on iOS, and on some Android devices there is no Store at all.</comment>


The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html <comment><USER2> I agree that the gender pay gap is troubling, but I'd like to see more fathers as primary caregivers instead of looking for ways to make primary caregivers also earn as much as primary earners.

Even in very liberal sf bay, there are not so subtle exclusionary biases against fathers as primary caregivers which I have experienced on parental leave. In passing in the grocery store, there are nods and acknowledgments, but in classes, the local "mothers group", and the support infrastructure for new parents, there is a lot of non-inclusive language. As a most privileged person, I take this all as a very gentle lesson in what it is like to be not in a position of privilege, but I do think it contributes to men opting out of primary caregiving. Also, breast feeding.

Choosing to prioritize children over career reasonably impacts career trajectory. I'd prefer if we had more gender oblivious parental policies and expectations instead of reinforcing gender essentialism through overly targeted programs.

<comment><USER3> The breast feeding should not be dismissed a minor reason. Faced with a crying (so likely hungry) baby, a woman can just offer her breast, and have a happy and quite possibly sleepy individual a few minutes after.

For a man who's left home with refrigerated mother's milk bottles, the ordeal involves getting the bottle out of the fridge, warming it to exactly the right temperature via one of those monstrous bottlewarmer thingamajigs, giving it a good shake and then performing a few samplings to ensure it's properly warmed, not too cold or too hot in some places. Most of the time the temperature is inconsistent and the bottle requires a little more warming or time to cool off.

Finally a proper-temperature bottle is presented to the baby, who meanwhile is crying his socks off, pretty convinced at that point that a 3-minute delay means eternal starvation for the rest of his short life. Getting the baby back to the happy state is significantly more involving and time-consuming at this point.

This also assumes that baby will be perfectly fine with 1 bottle, and not 1.3 or 1.7 bottles (which doubles the time requirement for the procedure).

<comment><USER4> I've given bottled breastmilk to my son for almost a year while my wife worked.

Breastmilk can be kept at room temperature for up to 6 hours.

I usually had a bottle ready for an hour or two before my child was hungry.

Also since it lasts for so long, if the baby doest finish it at that point I can usually give it a few hours later with the second batch. But I usually wasted 20-30ml a day, as I preferred to err on the side of my baby not being hungry.

Getting a child on a schedule, or close to it, is very possible and relieves all.the problems you mentioned, except when he is on a growth spout, but thats a problem even with breast feeding.

<comment><USER5> Not every mother produces adequate supply where you can just leave extra milk out and if the baby doesn't drink it, say "oh well" and toss it out. Not every baby gets on a predictable schedule either - my 6 month old didn't fall into a regular nightly feeding schedule until he was about 4 1/2 months old.

That said you make a good point that with careful planning and measurement, and with an adequate supply of milk, you can do a pretty decent job. But it still doesn't equate with my wife's no-muss no-fuss ability to roll over at 3AM and pop the crying baby on her breast, or the oxytocin she gets from the experience.

<comment><USER4> Not every mother can breastfeed either, if she can't pump enough (which happened to us with our second child) then you'll have to consider mixing with formula.

My wife was usually pretty mad at me for wasting even the little I wasted, but the alternative is to warm up only a bit at a time- that gets the baby angry very quickly.

Frankly the nights are extremely hard with bottles, but my wife breastfed in the nights, so it I didn't get to experience that part much. That said it doesn't have to be bottles exclusively, just when the mother isn't home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What if gender pay gap was just a result of men being pressured to take on more risks in life (i.e. a wider gaussian). And, the ones that have failed (or died) are no longer included in the data?

For instance, when I look at the homeless people in the US, 95% are male. I'm sure the prison population is also skewed toward males.

What if ... men just are over represented on both ends of the curve but the low end isn't given attention?

<comment><USER7> Men are overrepresented on both ends. See [https://www.edge.org/response- detail/10670](https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10670) for some of the data.

However that doesn't explain why in many industries for many jobs, apparently equivalent men and women are paid differently.

<comment><USER8> An interesting theory there is that it's primarily a combination of (a) women aren't socialised to negotiate as hard (b) everybody is socialised to regard a woman negotiating hard more negatively than a man doing so.

Since both of these things seem to me to suck anyway I figure we might as well fix them and see what happens. Of course, exactly how 'fix them' works is a tricky question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, people sometimes suggest deemphasizing long hours as a solution to the wage gap.

I once worked at a startup where we'd established product-market fit, and all our problems boiled down to tech debt. The codebase simply needed to be rewritten. Doing so wasn't so intellectually hard that you needed to be a genius; you just needed a decent mastery of general programming, and to be willing to _put in the hours._ I worked a couple 90-hour weeks to get it done in time for our largest client's launch, and became the person on our team who knew the most about our codebase. This gave me enormous leverage in salary negotiation.

How do we stop me from doing that?

<comment><USER10> Where I work, the union would get rather angry if someone continuously works overtime and your supervisor would get a stern talking to. Some overtime is okay, for more overtime you need to get explicit permission, and I think there is a hard ceiling around 70 hours a week.

<comment><USER9> What if I secretly kept coding at home?

<comment><USER11> You would quit in a few days in a union shop because it doesn't align with your personality. They expect clock punchers and care more about process/seniority rather than productivity.

People who want to complete tasks with ruthless efficiency will struggle immensely with the waste at union (and government) orgs.

Sorry for the rant, but you're question isn't worth worrying about because people that would want to work from home wouldn't be working in a union shop that barred work.

<comment><USER10> Did you work in a company with a union? Because what you write is not true in my experience. We most definitely don't care more about process or seniority than productivity. Compenent, productive people get promoted.

The union working rules make sense for the company. It's not sustainable to work that much. Worker burnout and churn is bad for the company. Fostering a culture that forces people to work until they drop if they want to get ahead is toxic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Men are on average a couple of years older in a relationship ([https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whats-the-average-age- di...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whats-the-average-age-difference- in-a-couple/)).

That extra few years of career growth can provide a strong financial incentive for the woman to become the primary caregiver, after which the salary differences snowball.

I'm not sure any of the proposed solutions will address this source of imbalance.

<comment><USER13> > will address this source of imbalance.

Why is it important to do so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _> Even when mothers cut back at work, they are not paid proportionately less. When their pay is calculated on an hourly basis, they are still paid less than men for the hours they work, Ms. Goldin has shown in previous work. Employers, especially for jobs that require a college degree, pay people disproportionately more for working long hours and disproportionately less for working flexibly._

Time spent at work is traded off against free time. Your first hour of free time in a day is worth more to you than your 20th hour of free time in a day. So on average, people are going to need to be paid disproportionately more to do work more in a given day, on a marginal basis: the marginal value of free time increases as you have less of it.

This has nothing to do with the sex of the worker, although _if_ women and men value free time differently one would expect that to be reflected in overall compensation.

<comment><USER15> It seems weird to me that eliminating the "gender pay gap" is something businesses need to be actively concerned about. As long as they are offer equal pay for equal work they should be largely agnostic to the lifestyles choices of their employees

<comment><USER16> You're right, and that's exactly why we have these discussions, push for legislation, put (social) pressure on businesses, etc.

The problem I see is that businesses are not agnostic to the lifestyle choices of their employees. Rather, they're _antagonistic_ to them.

If not for our collective efforts, I'm sure a business would happily force people to work over the weekend for a pittance, break down the work/leisure barrier even more, and possibly have us sign away the right to our souls and bodies upon employment.

<comment><USER14> _The problem I see is that businesses are not agnostic to the lifestyle choices of their employees._

The parent comment said:

 _" As long as they are offer equal pay for equal work they should be largely agnostic to the lifestyles choices of their employees"_

But that's the rub: in many jobs you can actually accomplish more by working long hours, and often those are exactly the jobs that carry prestige and high salaries (banking, surgery, etc.) So employers can't be agnostic with respect to that particular lifestyle choice and still offer equal pay for equal work.

If women are trading off work hours for free time, what people are really asking for is increased pay for women and decreased pay for men, based on faulty understanding of the marginal value of free time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article makes me think of the sci-fi book Ethan of Athos.

"The population of Athos is sustained using uterine replicator technology. [ ... ] Through military and community service, Athosians earn "Social Duty Credits" towards reproduction. Regulations also allow for a "Designated Alternate Parent" who can earn Social Duty Credits by coparenting a partner's sons. Homosexuality is generally the norm on Athos, and while partnerships are typically romantic and sexual, some are merely mutually beneficial arrangements based on finances and child-rearing."

"... while there are many examples of "Planets of Women" in fiction, Athos is the only "Planet of Men" she can think of. She writes that "I couldn't have imagined what a feminist notion a planet of men is, and how tied up with nurturing children Athos is, accounting for the costs in a way that doesn't dismiss it as 'women's work.'""

In their economy, child-raising is an economic activity that's accounted and paid for by society.

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

</comment><comment><USER18> Not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

1\. The great Thomas Sowell addressed this directly in the long long ago (1980s?). His challenger reported a discrepancy in remuneration for women over 40. He correctly identified an additional dimension: never married. 40+ never married women experienced no income discrepancy.

2\. The recent resurgence of this issue has been debunked, most notably to my knowledge by feminist economist Christina Hoff Sommers. Again, it's as simple as child rearing.

Suitably terse explanations from ReasonTV and PragerU may be easily found on YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER19> We often read interviews of high achievers talk about how they balance their family-life/kids/work and yet still accomplish so much in their professional life. It's tough but they can manage, and we assume, of course, they are intelligent/hard workers.

Well, I know a guy who had quite close contacts with high-wealth/high- achieving individuals due to his work in startups. He himself came from a upper middle class with a degree from an Ivy League.

What he commented about how high wealth individuals balance family life and still kick ass in their professional life was quite amusing.

He basically said, it's the nannies.

From the time the kids are born till they go to junior or high school, a parent basically has to deal with dropoff/pickup for daycare/school/activities. And it's non stop when school's in session.

If a parent happens to be a homemaker, great. But these days high achievers rarely seem to marry a homemaker as their friends/contacts are from college/grad-school/work who also have capacity/desire for achieving something in professional life.

And of course if you are in a high income bracket, you also tend to have more activities (private lessons for this and that) for kids. And this means more rides to give.

If you have nannies that can handle feeding/rides/laundry(omg, the laundry)/etc, then the parent(s) can put in long hours in office without interruption, fly to other cities/nations for meetings with little hassle, etc, all of which is required to kick ass and takes names in one's professional life.

The question is, can you build your income level high enough, and fast enough, so that you can afford nannies when you have kids?

<comment><USER20> The better question is how will you feel when your children starts calling the nanny "Mommy".

As someone that has used au pairs, nannies (both live in and out), and daycare, we finally decided one of us staying home was the best for our children. I'm male, I've been home with the kids since September 2015. I don't know yet if it was the best decision for me, but studies seem to show it is the best for my children. I'm going for happy kids that contribute to society, I don't define their or my success by amount of money in a bank account.

<comment><USER19> > The question is, can you build your income level high enough, and fast > enough, so that you can afford nannies when you have kids?

Haha, I meant that to be a sarcasm but I guess I wasn't clear enough. No it's great that one of you decided to spend more time with kids. Kids grow up fast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My wife makes almost 2X what I make, and I earn a great Silicon Valley wage. So I end up doing a lot more of the child rearing for our kids, which is fine with me. However, we are currently dealing with the situation where she might be able to catapult her already great career, which would entail us moving to a less desirable location of the country, and I would likely lose my job and would need to find a lower paying remote programming job, so I'm definitely in the situation that is talked about in the article.

</comment><comment><USER22> So there is no pay gap. Certain people, mostly women choose to not work as much and make less. They should make less.

If I as a person decide I only want to work 2 days a week and my coworkers are all doing 5x8hr days. Why should I doing less work be paid the same?

This seems easily solved. Women should stop having kids if earning the same is important to them.

<comment><USER23> So the only options are is to not have kids. What about the option where the man gives becomes the care giver, or if they both do it equally. I think the real issue here isn't so much that "there's a pay gap", but rather that this second options is usually missing. That's where the lack of equality is. Why does it always have to be women that are the caregiver and have to give up on their career?

<comment><USER24> Because of biology, it makes more seonse for the mother to be the primary caregiver (everything else being equal). Two reasons that I can think of:

1\. The mother _has to_ take time off (probably at least 2 weeks or so), to recover from childbirth. So there's more of an impact on the primary earner's career if that's the father.

2\. If the mother breastfeeds, she spends some time doing that. If the father breastfeeds, the mother spends some time pumping the milk, then the father spends some time feeding the baby, so the time spent feeding the baby is approximately doubled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seems the classical political/economic/philosophical divide of meritocracy versus providing based on people's needs.

Let's say we don't reward people for working longer hours and aggressively seeking better opportunities, what is their motivation for trying harder? Should we say "you're not allowed to work longer hours because many people out there can't compete with it"?

Is it just for women to earn less over their lifetimes due to their biological drive towards motherhood and the downtime that entails? Is it just for men to be rewarded for their biological drive to compete and provide a better life for their loved ones?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "It is logical for couples to decide that the person who earns less, usually a woman, does more of the household chores and child care, Ms. Kerr said. But it's also a reason women earn less in the first place. "That reinforces the pay gap in the labor market, and we're trapped in this self-reinforcing cycle," she said."

<comment><USER26> Hmm. Does that make sense? If wages are fair, a (particular) woman's wage shouldn't drop until _after_ she drops out of the workforce, at least temporarily. Which means there shouldn't be a bias in who is earning less, at least for the first child.

<comment><USER27> If companies are investing wages, training opportunity cost, and other resources into having a productive workforce some time in the future, it would be rational (though not fair) to invest less in those workers who were less likely to be in the workforce in a couple of years.

That is, one can view a wage not as a reward, but as a retainer. If companies aren't paying you to be nice to you for what you've done in the past, but are paying you on past performance as in indicator of what you'll do for them in the future, then it would be rational for them to take more factors into account when estimating your future output. Estimators of your probability of leaving the workforce would be one such factor.

It's not fair, but it might be rational.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm confused by this title. To the extent the article supports the title, it places blame not on motherhood, but the larger imbalance in expectations toward domestic responsibilities. However, it also notes that raises are lower, and lateral transfers are less productive for women.

<comment><USER29> Looks like the problem is too complex to boil it down to a catch phrase, but 'motherhood' is maybe a reasonable proxy if it _doesn 't_ imply that there's nothing to do about it. It would be interesting to compare outcomes with countries that have very progressive parenthood vacation policies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Well yeah, obviously. It surprises me that an idea as basic as this is newsworthy. Could someone please fill me in on what people thought was playing a larger role than this?

<comment><USER31> Many people find it more convenient to instead believe the difference is caused by people in charge automatically offering women less than what they would offer a man. Of course, studies controlling for the type of job, credentials, experience, ability, etc., show that to be a poor hypothesis, but it is nevertheless a phrasing that makes it easy to make people angry (and vote for you).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Today's Mother's Day. Call your mums people

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HB3xM93rXbY](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HB3xM93rXbY)

PS: I have always thought that mothership should be rewarded much higher by society, e.g. through tax breaks, or even real money payout. In the end, people with no kids have an unfair advantage as they can earn more money while mums are at least contributing at the same level to society and should thus be rewarded.

</comment><comment><USER33> The wage gap just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because different occupations create different amounts of value. Why can't people accept this fact? Why can't people accept that women may want to live their lives differently from men?

Women choose to engage in different productive tasks than men do. It's why you generally don't see women working oil fields or cutting trees or building buildings or being DJs or yes, spending 16 hours straight coding. It's also why you generally don't see men being homemakers, teaching young children, nursing, etc. More power to the people who CHOOSE to go against these norms, if they so desire.

Why tell women to do things they don't want to do? Why imply that what they've chosen to do isn't good enough?

<comment><USER34> The gender wage gap does exist. It's simply a fact that women earn less than men. The real question then, is why. Is it because sexist managers pay women less money than men? Are women less likely to negotiate their offers as aggressively as men? Do women on average have to work longer to get promoted (and consequently earn salary raises) and why does this happen? Is it because women are more likely to pursue careers that pay less? Is it because men are seen as more attractive when their income goes up but this doesn't hold true for women? Are women and men just biologically inclined to pursue different career paths? Does the wage gap exist because women are more likely to work part-time? Is it because women are more likely to choose to prioritize child- rearing over their career? Is it because society expects women to prioritize motherhood? Is it because managers pay women less because they assume women will be less committed to their career?

Some of these possible reasons are obviously more concerning than others. If the gender wage gap is 100% due to less concerning reasons, such as women simply making the choice to prioritize motherhood over their career, then you could argue that while the gender gap exists it's not a societal problem that we need to address since it's not caused by institutional discrimination of any sort. The reality is a lot more complicated and nuanced, and it's probable that there are several reasons that can explain the gender gap, that don't necessarily compete with each other.

<comment><USER35> >>The gender wage gap does exist. It's simply a fact that women earn less than men.

Not for the same work it does not.

When you actually look at the data the vast majority of the so called gap is directly attributable to field of work. Right or wrong Teaching, Social Work,Child Care and Nursing pay less than Executives, Programming, STEM Fields, etc.

There is now more than ever more opportunities for women to enter these higher paying fields, many many many still choose not to. Do you advocate for forcing Women into STEM vocation against their will?

<comment><USER36> > Right or wrong Teaching, Social Work,Child Care and Nursing pay less than > Executives, Programming, STEM Fields, etc

But when we only look at nursing we still see a gender pay gap.

When you look at nursing, specifically midwifery (surely the most feminised sector of nursing) we see that at lower pay bands the ratio of men:women is almost no men to almost all women. As we go up the pay bands we see that ratio changing.

We see this for many different types of health care staff. Ambulance workers start with a 60:40 male:female ratio at the lower bands, and end up at band 8d with a 95:5 male female ratio.

So, for the English NHS when we only look at eg midwifery (we see it when we look at other HSCS staff too) we still see a gender pay gap.

Have a look at the English statistics here: [http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/2021/Website- Search?pr...](http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/2021/Website- Search?productid=23815)

NHS Workforce Statistics - September 2016, Provisional statistics

Publication date: December 20, 2016

We want this file: HCHS staff in NHS Trusts and CCGs in England, Equality and Diversity, September 2016 [.xlsx]

Hospital and Community Health Services Staff statistics.

      	Midwives
      	Payband	Men	Women	Total	Ratio men:women
      	Band 5	11	2301	2312	0.00:1.00
      	Band 6	57	18294	18351	0.00:1.00
      	Band 7	36	4663	4699	0.01:0.99
      	Band 8a	2	183	185	0.01:0.99
      	Band 8b	1	31	32	0.03:0.97
      	Band 8c	2	15	17	0.12:0.88

Here's the table for Ambulance staff.

      Ambulance staff
      	payband	men	women	total	ratio men:women
      	Band 4	2222	1479	3701	0.60:0.40
      	Band 5	5986	4072	10058	0.60:0.40
      	Band 6	3553	1889	5442	0.65:0.35
      	Band 7	610	202	812	0.75:0.25
      	Band 8a	85	25	110	0.77:0.23
      	Band 8b	49	10	59	0.83:0.17
      	Band 8c	14	1	15	0.93:0.07
      	Band 8d	14	1	15	0.93:0.07

<comment><USER37> > we still see a gender pay gap.

Could you explain the gender pay gap in these midwifery statistics please? I am struggling to find that information.

I see that as people get higher bands (probably get older) they get paid more. I see one or two men in the higher bands which to me raises some statistical significance queries. I see that the _Ratio_ of men to women increase from incredibly small to very small, but that doesn't (to me) indicate a gender pay gap. Unless the "gender pay gap" here is that men are paid less compared to women as there are less men in the profession? Perhaps it's about the definition of "pay gap" \- does it just refer to unequal outcome? Does it mean that we should expect the same ratio to occur in all pay bands, equally (e.g. not allow men to have pay grade 8), and if we do not see the same ratio that there is a pay gap by virtue of unequal representation?

<comment><USER36> For midwifery we see that even though hardly any men enter the profession (just 11 men at band 5) we still see men in the senior positions (2 at band 8a, 1 at 8b, 2 at 8c).

So, if hardly any men enter the profession and very many women enter the profession I'd expect to see no men at band 8x (because the tiny number of men have to compete against a huge number of women at each promotion). Instead we see a higher percentage of men at band 8x than at band 5 or 6. This shows one of the mechanisms of the gender pay gap: men get promoted faster and further than women. This debunks one of the points some people are making in this thread that the gender pay gap disappears if you only look at one profession.

I've added the numbers for ambulance staff.

At the entry level positions we see a split of 60% men to 40% women.

As you go up the paybands you see the percentages changing - you see men being promoted more readily than women, until you get to the band 8ds where we see 95% men to 5% women.

Why are the ratios changing? Why do we see a higher percentage of men in senior roles in health care professions?

<comment><USER37> Thanks, I see what the point is now. To show how one there is a similar effect or mechanism in play even when looking at another (and you could say non obvious) field. I was confused as I assumed it indicated The Gender Pay Gap in it's own right but I think it has more accuracy in saying that it shows to be evidence of one of the indicators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why was this downvoted, seriosly. That is pretty usual problem through the genders are normally flipped.

<comment><USER39> We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14334303](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14334303) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Well, who wants the expensive wedding, the n kids and the white picked fence?

<comment><USER41> I'm a guy and I do, my gf doesn't really want any of that. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm pretty sure the ACTUAL reason is that sometimes people say "you guys" instead of "y'all" in work emails and on slack.

<comment><USER43> But the fact that their movement for equality is called feminism and their satan is called patriarchy is absolutely not relevant, please look the other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> And here's me thinking why nobody is talking about the elephant in the room that is the massive gender pay gap in the straight pornography industry.</comment>


Microsoft faces anti-monopoly probe in China - <AUTHOR> http://m.bbc.com/news/business-28519908

<comment><USER2> how hack any thing please say</comment>


Rakuten acquires crowdsourced subtitling video site Viki for $200m - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/01/rakuten-viki/

<comment><USER2> TechCrunch should just make a deal to _officially_ syndicate the big startup stories from AllThingsD instead of scrambling to reword the news they break.</comment>


Our oceans broke heat records in 2018: the consequences are catastrophic - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2019/jan/16/our-oceans-broke-heat-records-in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic <comment><USER3> Everyone should agree that Nuclear energy (+solar and wind expansion) is an excellent way to solve our problems with CO2. China and India perhaps need it the most, as most of the CO2 growth is coming from those countries (U.S. and Europe have declined emissions in recent years)

<comment><USER4> why should everyone agree with this?

i respectfully disagree. first, project drawdown considers nuclear[1] a "regret" solution, because we have no story for dealing with nuclear waste. in the US specifically, until i see some movement on the yucca mountain [2] political clusterf*ck[3], i won't see nuclear as worth considering.

also, energy generation is only 25% of "our problems with co2"[4]. agriculture and transit make up the bulk of the other 75%, and i don't think we're going to have nuclear trucks or cows any time soon.

[1]: [https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/electricity- generation/nu...](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/electricity- generation/nuclear)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository)

[3]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU)

[4]: [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting- clima...](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate- change)

<comment><USER5> You're making the perfect the enemy of the good. You say nuclear power is "not worth considering" because of waste, but the current dominant methods of energy generation not only generate waste but evenly distribute it over the entire earth, to the extent that it threatens our way of life on a timescale of decades. Nuclear power is _strictly_ better from a waste perspective - <USER2> the waste is in one place. Species don't go extinct from nuclear power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "but the people who have denied the science and the solutions own a special responsibility that history will judge harshly."

This is pretty arrogant. There are myriad so-called "solutions" proposed and not all of them are good or will work. Which will work and which won't can be the subject of reasonable disagreement (nuclear anyone?).

But no, this high priest has spoken no one can question his "solution".

Please.</comment>


And - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2014/03/16/and

<comment><AUTHOR> The title is a good reference to one of yesterday's top comments on "Worse" :)

<comment><USER2> Which one?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think Marco is trying to game or troll HN? ttps://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/445294785772142593

Regardless, this was a good post; presumably those 18% of users that visit his site are on Retina MacBooks? h

</comment><comment><USER4> This title is more than a little ridiculous.

It's rather annoying to have to click on the link to have literally _any_ context for what the post is about. Great for driving up pageviews, but that's beyond even HuffPo/Gawker levels of linkbait.

It's even worse than "Worse"[0] - even after reading the post, the word "And" has next to no descriptive power, except perhaps in a vague metaphorical sense ("I added some code, so it's the old code _and_ the new one").

 __EDIT __: Looks like this is the author 's idea of "trolling": [https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/445375836343271424](https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/445375836343271424)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7405846](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7405846)

<comment><USER5> I don't think you know how click bait works. For that you actually need a descriptive headline (i.e. one that actually says something) but then you use exaggeration or selective reporting and maybe question marks (or outright untruths) to make that headline appealing.

This headline is emphatically _not_ click bait. It just doesn't say anything and wouldn't lead anyone to click on it. If you think that headline helps driving up views then I really can't help you. Why would you ever think something so ridiculous?

As you already figured out, this headline is a reaction to the completely bonkers top-comment yesterday whining about the headline of Worse. You are talking about a private blog here and not using descriptive headlines is a HN problem, not a private blog problem. Not every author has to bend to the whims of some link collection site and use headlines that fit that site. It's really as simple as that.</comment></comment>


Programming Paradigms for Dummies: What Every Programmer Should Know - <AUTHOR> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3465 <comment><AUTHOR> Named and Unnamed state.

 _"It seems that we need to have and not have named state at the same time. How do we solve this dilemma? One solution is to concentrate the use of named state in one part of the program and to avoid named state in the rest. The bulk of the program is a pure function without named state. The rest of the program is a state transformer: it calls the pure function to do the actual work. This concentrates the named state in a small part of the program."_

This very closely resembles the philosophy behind Clojure.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is Oz's set of primary datatypes: [http://www.mozart- oz.org/documentation/tutorial/node3.html#l...](http://www.mozart- oz.org/documentation/tutorial/node3.html#label14)

This is a god damned nightmare if you want to actually use the language. Why? Because each of these types has separate methods and syntaxes that are used for manipulation.

Go on, try to write something that is generic, I dare you.

Oz is, without a doubt, the best example of why you should not try to be everything to everyone that I have ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone used Mozart/Oz for anything?

This chapter is fascinating. Or rather has me fascinated with Oz. However, I see that Mozart was last updated in 2008.

</comment><comment><USER4> what every programmer should know: publishing their works in a pdf will make it hard for other programmers to read it.

<comment><USER5> Could you tell me why ? After all, pdf is an iso standard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Mmm... Computer Science... 39 pages of things that have no bearing whatsoever on what I do every day while building a startup.

Does anybody here really care about any of this stuff? I program computers for a living, and I couldn't even muster the energy to page-down through that mess of tables and graphs.

<comment><USER7> Programming computers is about creating abstractions, if you ignored the abstractions others have methodically thought out - well, then you'd still be programming in assembly.

The author, peter van roy, has written a book, ctm, that many consider the successor to sicp, and created a programming a programming language, mozart/oz, that is the most advanced and well thought ever (it's descrined as almost like magic on it's homepage).

<comment><USER6> Sure, but then most of Computer Science is common sense to anybody who's been doing it since they were a kid. I'm perfectly happy not knowing the CS terms for the things that I do or the design patterns that I use.

In 1995, I was asked in an interview what it meant to "deference" a pointer. I hadn't the first clue what this guy was talking about, despite having 5 years of self-taught C and C++ under my belt at that point, much of that time spent deferencing away happily without a fancy term for it.

<comment><USER8> You sound mildly anti-intellectual. Also, it's called "dereferencing".

<comment><USER6> I hope not. I'm all about learning, provided it's useful and not just a bunch of definitions for common knowledge.

And if I'm ever back in 1995, I'll ask that guy if that's what he meant by "deferencing." :)

<comment><USER9> "I'm all about learning..."

... I just don't want other people to be doing it on my Internet, so I'm going to complain when I see others doing it.

Seriously, what do you think you're adding to this conversation? That there are people who think they don't need that there fancy book learnins' is not news.

<comment><USER6> Yikes, why the attack? We're commenting on an article that somebody posted. I found it boring and said as much. That's all that has transpired here.

<comment><USER10> I saw an article here a few months ago, about how there were three kinds of people—people who weren't really "interested" in anything per se; people who had one Thing that they spent all their time thinking about; and people who were interested in _everything_ , and would readily consume information about any topic. Entrepreneurs tend to be the third type; that is one of the main reasons HN was renamed from its original title of "Startup News." (The term "Hacker" is, in usage, 99% similar to "someone who wants to know everything about everything, just for the sake of it.")

Basically, the community is trying to reject you—a person who has explicitly stated that they are not of the third type—like a foreign body.

<comment><USER6> I agree with your 3 groups, but if you read my post history you'll see that I'm firmly in the 3rd camp. Anything related to building and growing a tech startup gets my full attention here.

As I stated in my first post on this thread, this article seems to not contain anything of value to a person building and growing an entrepreneurial startup. If I had to bet, it was the anti-anti-intellectual crowd doing the rejecting here, on the assumption that I don't like knowledge.

<comment><USER10> Er, no—having dispersed interests _focused around a central subject_ , like running a startup, is the _second_ group. The point is that the people in the third group don't _care_ that "this article seems to not contain anything of value to a person building and growing an entrepreneurial startup", because startups are just one of their (unlimited) interests.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dirty COW Was Livepatched in Ubuntu Within Hours of Publication - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow-livepatched-in-ubuntu.html <comment><USER2> Never heard about Canonical Livepatch Service before that.

It looks really interesting and useful for patches like that, but, sadly, very expensive for use in production - it requires Ubuntu Advantage support package which is $250 per instance per year.</comment>