Forget Setting Goals. Focus on Systems Instead - <AUTHOR> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/230333 <comment><USER2> A few years ago, I thought that I loved entrepreneurship bc it gave me the ability to be creative and to build whatever a I wanted, whenever I wanted.

Then one of my mentors gave me a challenge: 1) In 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in the entire world, that is the color white...(I could only muster up about 2 things)...Then, 2) in 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in you refrigerator, that are white...(I came up with about 8 things)

This was then led to him describing how I should not think about the entrepreneurship life as an unlimiting venture, he argued that I should put limits on myself and develop a process to get to whatever goal I set out to achieve.

This article echoes that sentiment of focusing on making the process more efficient and use the goals as a way to plan, but don't focus on the goal, focus on the process. I really liked this article. Thank you for sharing!

<comment><USER3> IIRC this example is also in Heath's book "Made to Stick". It's a pretty mind opening example (as most on that book.) Looks like you had a good mentor.

<comment><USER2> I will for sure have to check that book out! Thank you for the note!

<comment><USER3> Ot's on my top 3 ever for marketing-ideas-stuff, together with "Mastery" and "Influence". Probably the best 3 non-fiction books i've read lately, for the usefulness/interestingness ratio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me a bit of Scott Adams thing [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230462610...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121813075903866)

<comment><USER5> No kidding. It's the same idea.

It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now.

Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes.

<comment><USER6> _> "It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now."_

I think it might be easier to just recognize that an awfully lot of the web isn't any kind of journalism. For instance, this is a reposted blog entry on a site full of "Top X" lists. The context is the disclaimer.

 _" >Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes."_

Why?

One is a 1300 word blog post, the other is a 257 page book with a major publisher.

It would make for an arduous life if everyone was required to research and/or acknowledge the first recorded instance of every notion they have before sharing.

<comment><USER7> This is basically systems thinking, which was around before Scott Adams was born. It's okay for people to independently come to the same conclusion in a way that's meaningful to them. He's not claiming an invention, he's trying to pass on wisdom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This point is made very well in the book How To Fail At Almost Everything by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, an excellent read [http://www.amazon.com/How- Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/15...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost- Everything- Still/dp/1591846919/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390192643&sr=1-1&keywords=scott+adams+-+how+to+fail+at+almost+everything+and+still+win+big)

<comment><USER9> Am I the only one who thinks the article is just a summary of Scott Adam's book?

<comment><USER10> That was my first thought - "he just ripped off Scott!"

<comment><USER11> Scott wrote a Goals vs Systems blogpost before he wrote the book:

[http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/](http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/)

EDIT: oops, this was after the book. The one before the book is as follows:

[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/systems/](http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/systems/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with focusing on the system is that it gives you an excuse to procrastinate. Last set too hard? Well I workout everyday anyways! That bag of chips is irresistible? Well I ate healthy all week!

The Goal vs System approach work for two distinct types of people. If you generlaly like laid back, passive work (ex. stable job with a a few nice sideprojects, worksout everyday, has a nice rythmic life), then the System approach is for you. You're already pretty content with your life, and everything you do should work toward maximizing stability and hapiness.

The goal approach is different. If you're a frequent procrstinator; if you have brief bursts of productivity followed by long lulls of laziness; then goal is for you. Goal forces you to deal with situations that you'd rather procrastinate, essentially keeping your energy in check.

For most entrepreneur, I'd imagine the second approach would work better.

<comment><USER13> This doesn't discredit goals, they're still very useful, and your process must align with your goals to help reach them.

The way you'd think about procrastination, for example, wouldn't be to simply set goals of productivity, but to find the underlying causes of your procrastination. Often this is a lack of organization, a lack of system to determine what to do next, a physiological issue, a lack of time to meet your basic needs, or a lack of ability.

All of these have systemic roots, and systematic solutions. Improve your system and get your tasks out of your head (GTD), fix your metabolism (systematic exercise, diet, etc), change your schedule to make time for your unmet needs, or systematically learn skills that allow you to progress faster.

Systems thinking isn't about ignoring goals, but rather about solving the roadblocks, which are usually systemic in nature due to the natural complexity of human nature.

Rarely are solutions so simple as "want your goal harder." Look one or two levels deeper, and you get into systems thinking, and you find better solutions that are more effective. You still have to want your goal, but you'll be more successful at actually reaching it.

<comment><USER12> What we're discussing here isn't how to maximize happiness. An entrepreneur's job isn't to be happy, it's to get things done.

I specifically bring up entrepreneurs because 1.) I assume most people here can connect and 2.) it's one of the professions where short term productivity fix (2-3 years) is more important than bringing a lifetime of "fixes"

Yes you can solve your underlying procrastination problem. But assuming it's an underlying psychological issue, can you genuinely undue decades of "damage" in short enough timeframe to run your company?

Simply put, there just isnt' time for you to accomplish whatever habit you didn't have before but want to gain by using a system. That's why a system is great for people who are fine with a stable, long-term job. But for an entrepreneur, a "quick fix" solution of using goals will get you further.

<comment><USER13> This is simply false. Goals are incomplete realizations of the processes needed to accomplish them. You'll find a process whether or not you use your goals in full; the question is whether you do it intently and with awareness of the consequences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Systemics is an undervalued competence area. It should be taught in school. ( _Before_ coding.)

<comment><USER15> This is interesting. Do you have a reading list or any good resources on the topic?

<comment><USER16> I'm currently doing a course on systems thinking for an MSc in software engineering and our main text book is _Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World_ by Ray Ison. Oddly it has almost nothing to do with climate change but I'm finding it a pretty good primer to systemic inquiry and the terminology involved.

I'm also finding learning about systems practice is making a huge impact on how I consider my work and my role within it. My goal in taking the MSc was to eventually become a "real" engineer and I'm finding systems to be a hugely important first step with that.

<comment><USER17> This book looks fascinating! Thanks for mentioning it. (I do a lot of climate change related activism, and I'm always on the lookout for resources like these!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this year.

>Can you imagine if I had made it my goal to write two books this year? Just writing that sentence stresses me out.

This is precisely why the goal is important. This guy focused on the system, and instead of writing two books, produced twice as many words of not-books.

At college I had some friends who wrote many extremely cool game demos. Not one published a game. I focused on publishing a game. It turns out that writing a game involves a hell of a lot more than writing a demo (a lot of boring shit actually).

I expect it is the same with books and online articles. 115,000 words of articles doesn't make a book, and I expect doesn't require the practitioner to develop a system capable of writing books.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you liked this you should read The Score Will Take Care Of Itself by Bill Walsh who lead San Francisco 49ers to win three Super Bowls.

Jack Dorsey recommended this book at the recent Startup School

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care- Itself/dp/1591843...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care- Itself/dp/1591843472)

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

</comment><comment><USER20> This does only work if the system guarantees that you'll reach whatever you set out to do. I don't think that is the case most of the time. Even in his example:

> In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is > about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this > year.

No, he hasn't written two books. A book is usually not a collection of random articles, but has a clear structure. Furthermore, only writing the book will never get it published. Whether one wants to self-publish or work with a publisher, both things will need a significant time/work investment at various points in time, and will most likely not be covered in his (initial) system.

Similarly, if you wanted to launch a software business, you'd probably create a system that includes writing software. If you're good, it may also include talking to users. If you'd forget about your goal and just followed that system, you'd never launch. Even if you arrive at a state where you want to release your software, you need to (consciously) break your system and care about one-off tasks like setting up a company, terms of service and what-not.

<comment><USER2> I don't think that the author disagrees with you. The headline is definetly hyperbole, but he does not discredit the values goals can bring. In his own words "None of this is to say that goals are useless. However, I've found that goals are good for planning your progress and systems are good for actually making progress."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I read this last night in some off-hand article I came across but really liked it. I'm translating from Portuguese, but here's what it said.

"You know those things that we start doing almost by chance and they end up becoming a goal in life? There's a lot of people that choose their profession like this: do something because you want to and then that thing ends up being so important that it lasts many, many years. It doesn't mean that it's any less important than the projects that already start out with large goals."

There's obviously something to be said for marrying the two. I've been captivated by a subject matter for my entire adult life (though I'm only in my 30s) but I never seriously tried to make it into a business. I never made it a matter of 'sink or swim' and I think that's been my problem.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is an encouraging piece of advice to those who have set goals and had trouble achieving them. Focusing on process allows you to revel in the success you feel from "ordinary" work and gives you the encouragement you need to push through to the next day.

</comment><comment><USER23> Systems thinking and process thinking are very big.

Built to Last by Collins covers this a lot. They don't skip goals (it's a big part of it) but much of the book is about soft things done right. Leadership is huge. Building systems is huge.

</comment><comment><USER24> I forgot everything about the article when the blocking newsletter popup appeared.

</comment><comment><USER25> As part of setting systems for yourself, set your environment to make fulfilling these systems easier. I call it "friction less systems" for the lack of a better term.

1\. Make it easier to exercise everyday by choosing sports that are close to home (or at home).

2\. Make it easier to not indulge in junk food by not having junk food at home.

3\. Make it easier to drink more water by having the same water bottle as part of the gear you carry with you.

4\. Make it easy to not waste time watching TV by not having a TV.

5\. Make it easy to not waste time playing video games by not uninstalling video games once you are done indulging in them.

<comment><USER26> So Aymeric, you stopped playing video games? ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> To simply put it:Focus on the process, not the result.

</comment><comment><USER28> The article went on to describe in hundreds of words when it really needed one and that's _methodology_. You have to be methodical in your approach to success. Rinse and repeat the effort every day until things start taking shape.

<comment><USER13> It's larger point was that how you think about success matters very much. If you focus on your goals, you'll lose sight of process; but if you focus on correct process, you don't need to have sight of your goals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Aren't 'systems' just smaller recurring goalz?

<comment><USER30> They are more like the means used to reach the goal. But if you get rid of the goal, there's no need for the system. So I think his idea "Forget setting goals" fails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > For a minute or two, I thought about doing my final set. Then, I reminded > myself that I plan to do this for the rest of my life and decided to call it > a day.

Never.

</comment><comment><USER32> If you don't focus on your own goals, you're just working for someone else.</comment>


Zoox, Self-Driving Car Startup Valued at $2.7B, Is for Sale - <AUTHOR> https://www.theinformation.com/articles/zoox-self-driving-car-startup-valued-at-2-7-billion-is-for-sale <comment><USER2> Good riddance. Get those half-baked unproven ego-driven prototype death-traps off the public road. Get back to us about using public roads AFTER you've proven it works.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is one week after this PR stunt: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sBpkgRA6sM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sBpkgRA6sM)

<comment><USER4> Of course. At this point, every self-driving cars developing company wants to get out, so "testing" is actually "selling".</comment></comment>


Some airlines and regulators ground 737 Max in wake of Ethiopian Airlines crash - <AUTHOR> https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/airlines-and-regulators-ground-737-max-in-wake-of-ethiopian-airlines-crash/ <comment><USER2> This entire industry is (was?) based on "safety-first" principle. After two very similar incidents, I find it incomprehensible that airlines are still flying with this aircraft. Two catastrophic incidents within a few months for a new aircraft is simply unprecedented.

At the very least, MAX8 fleet should be grounded for a few days, just until the FDR/CVR of ET302 are analyzed. They've already found the boxes, so it should be only a few days before we have a preliminary report.

<comment><USER3> All indications are they already know what happened. This is entirely a result of Boeing trying to get this plane pushed through without requiring additional training. Problem being... they changed the behavior so that pilots flying it like a regular old 737 don't know what's happening.

I hope there is a lawsuit of some sort so that boeing doesn't pull this ever again.

<comment><USER4> The fact that a critical software (MCAS) is installed and not disclosed to the pilots is significant blow to their reputation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I honestly don't understand why Boeing themselves don't ground the airplane. Having individual countries and airlines slowly doing it for them, just generates a ton of negative news stories. And the longer they wait, the more it will seem like they only did it because of pressure.

And God forbid there was another crash, Boeing would be history.

<comment><USER6> This is an important point.

Boeing is being reckless with their whole business and showing bad leadership. Regardless if they are sure that there is no real risk with their planes; their reputation surely is at risk.

<comment><USER7> Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X which was slated for this week.

<comment><USER6> That is even worse; they are sorta implying whatever is wrong with the max is also wrong with the 777x.

They need to ground the max so they control for how long for and what is needed to clear them.

<comment><USER8> I disagree. They're simply showing enough compassion to know that it's not appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.

<comment><USER9> believe he'd like a s/part/party/ in there.

That said, it's more realistic they're delaying it because they don't want the bad press of the 737MAX to bring down the announcement of the new plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> TFW when _Indonesia_ grounds a US made aircraft type based on safety concerns! It wasn't so long ago that USA banned Indonesian carriers from flying into their airspace.

As a former commercial pilot, I applaud the individual countries and airlines that are enforcing a grounding pending the investigation. The two accidents just bear too many similarities to assuage all fears that there could be a specific problem with the aircraft.

<comment><USER10> Would you say that at this point it's starting to be a peer pressure issue? Once several national regulators ground the aircraft, if any regulator chooses _not_ to and there's an incident then they'll be raked over the coals. Legally and career-wise, it's far safer for anyone in the hot seat to follow suit.

<comment><USER7> I daresay the pressure within the industry (plus fear of PR and legal repercussions down the track) may be playing a big part in some airlines and governments calling for the grounding. No one wants to be the guy to say "Oops" if the investigation shows up a critical issue with the plane (or worse, if another 737 MAX goes down the same way soon). As much as it will be a hit in profits to call a grounding, the alternative would be way worse.

(I am thinking too that if the investigators DID find a flaw in the aircraft type, the operators may have an avenue to claim compensation from Boeing for lost revenue and profits).

Personally, if I had to get on a flight tomorrow, and I saw it was a 737 MAX, I would be asking for my baggage to be unloaded and I would wait for another flight on a 737 classic, Airbus etc. And this is not just brand snootiness either - If new Airbus models had 2 crashes in a short space of time under similar circumstances, then I would boycott those until the officials have eliminated a flaw in the system as the root cause.

UPDATE: Just heard that our local aviation authority (Australia) has banned the MAX from entering or leaving the country. There are a few stuck in Sydney (Fiji Air and Silk Air I believe) that will have to stay on the ground until further notice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some background: 3 months ago, also discussed on HN, in the wake of the previous 737 Max crash:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607)

"Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and Others (wsj.com)"

And user Neracked remembered there Feynman's ending of his text in the Rogers Commission Report, 1986:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

[https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roge...](https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers- commission/Appendix-F.txt)

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report) investigating 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, related to how the managers then were responsible)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is really troubling.

I have a flight in a month from NY to Cali on Southwest and they use that same plane (according to a quick Googling at least).

Am I crazy to think about cancelling the flight or trying to use a different airline with a different plane?

I'm going to wait to see what the FAA has to say before making a final decision. I don't keep up with the airline industry, but hopefully they aren't too corrupt (aka. profit driven).

Edit:

I just discovered [https://www.seatguru.com/](https://www.seatguru.com/). It's a site where you can pop in your airline, flight date and flight number (no sign up required) and it reports back which plane is being used in the flight.

In my case it is the 737-700 and 737-800 (I have 1 connection) which I think are different planes than the MAX?

In any case, if you're flying in the near future I recommend checking that site out. I just wonder how accurate that site is (it seems legit from an outsider's POV).

<comment><USER13> Well I don't care to speculate but the first officer had only 200 hours of flight logged and the captain had over 8000. A lot of captains will let the less experienced first officer fly take off and landing if it's favorable conditions and easy terrain to give them more experience. I don't know who was flying the plane but it certainly could have been the fo because it was vfr conditions and seemingly favorable terrain. As to your flight you should probably be fine as there is a us rule that the fo needs to have 1500 hours to be qualified. That coupled with the fact that the pilots are now keenly aware of the failure mode of the 37 max means you are probably fine.

<comment><USER14> I would certainly cancel. Boeing still has not applied a software update, and pilots were already aware of the 737's failure mode, the 2018 crash! The FAA is being protective of US industry.

<comment><USER15> Not all 737 models are affected. the -700 and -800 have excellent safety records; among the best of any airframe. These issues both happened with MAX (MAX 8 iirc) airframes.

SouthWest does fly 35 MAX8 airframes it appears. [0]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> TBH at this point everyone should do it, since it will be a nightmare flying on these, until the investigation is over. I can't imagine how the crew feels when assigned to such a fight in these circumstances.

<comment><USER17> The current theory of "why" is that the new system should work automatically so there's no need for retraining, but if it goes wrong the pilot can disable it; but since there's no retraining, the doomed pilots didn't know why the planes were doing what they did and how to disable it.

If I were a pilot and got assigned the same model, I would make sure to learn the procedure to disable it. And make sure the procedure really works, although how would I do that, can I ask Boeing? Since it's software, what other variables did they forget to include in their testing?

<comment><USER18> The pilots are required to, by memory, know when this particular situation is happening and how to disable the system. The checklist is the runaway trim checklist, to turn the system off the pilot flips switches next to the trim- wheel, which moves with the automatic trim to visually indicate trim adjustments. This is not new to the MAX, only MCAS adjusting the trim is new to MAX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Oops. Germany, too, follows suit and closes their airspace for the MAX.

[https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschla...](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland- sperrt-luftraum-fuer-boeing-737-max-8-16085000.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> Lots of comments asking why not ground these planes, so let's just for a moment imagine some reasons why that may not be the best decision if your goal is safety first. First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US. Second, perhaps Boeing already has some advance information pointing to a different culprit than MCAS. Third, an MCAS failure need not doom the flight if the pilot responds correctly. Perhaps US carriers feel that their more experienced pilots can deal with an MCAS fault. Fourth, maybe US planes are better maintained and Boeing hasn't seen any MCAS/AoA faults on US planes.

These are all guesses on my part. I don't know. What I do know is that the FAA and Boeing have way more information than any of us, that this situation is complex, that there are factors likely none of us have considered, and that we're all pretty terrible at assessing risk.

Another 737 Max crash is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. If they aren't grounding this plane, it has to be based on something we don't know. Consider that grounding the plane might be the right PR decision but the wrong safety- first decision.

<comment><USER21> >First, we know that any decision that forces passengers from flying to driving will likely lose more lives, just due to the inherit risk in flying vs driving. So it's possible that grounding the plane will cause cancellations and force some passengers into driving, especially in the US.

Well air travel is safer than driving in aggregate, over decades, across hundreds of models of cars and dozens of models of planes.

Even though Ford cars on the whole are quite safe, the Pinto was a death trap. Likewise although Boeing planes are safe on the whole (the regular 737 is very safe) this model could be a death trap. I disagree with your claim here. Two crashes in under 6 months is an abysmal safety record.

<comment><USER20> Right, that's an example of Simpson's paradox (I think).

I agree two crashes in six months seems abysmal, but it could also be an awful coincidence with different factors at play. If it's so obvious that Boeing should ground this plane and they aren't, might it be due to something we don't know?

Yes, this could be another Challenger-type situation of executives overriding engineers, but the incentives don't make sense to me for that to be the case.

Anyway, I've played devil's advocate enough here. I'm just trying to understand the situation too.

<comment><USER22> Another possibility is that the 737 MAX 8 is, just like the rest of the 737 fleet, an outstanding performer with one flawed subsystem, the AoA sensor. The FAA and the aviation industry in general has been very excited to deploy these AoA sensors; they've reduced regulatory hurdles across the board to get AoA sensors of all different types installed and retrofitted into airplanes of all sizes and shapes. The reworked part 23 rules were first put to work on AoA sensors, and the expansion of AoA deployment was part of the drive to do the part 23 rework (which has ripple effects across the entire industry, for the better.)

But when you push new technology, inevitably there will be unexpected failure scenarios. This may be one of those, with a particularly catastrophic series of events.

It is a simple fix, and Boeing is already rolling out software updates to manage this failure scenario. If it does turn out to be the MCAS/AoA fault, it would in fact be the best scenario, because it's already fixed.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for the info. I guess the question for me is: even with a bad AoA sensor and the current MCAS behavior, can it be safer flying a 737 Max than whatever equipment I'd end up on if the 737 Max were grounded until the s/w update is deployed.

I seem to recall after the MCAS came to light as being involved in the Lion crash, some folks here were arguing that there was no way that exact crash would happen again because all pilots would now be aware of that failure scenario. And yet here we are. Unless the Ethiopian plane crashed for another reason entirely.

<comment><USER22> Well yes, although it's possible the Ethiopian Air pilots haven't seen that memo. If I recall correctly, a fast remediation suggestion was to switch off all avionics power. As a pilot myself, I would be deeply reluctant to do such a drastic move, especially in an emergency. With the airplane in an overpowering dive, removing all instrumentation in one kill switch move just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. While I don't know the 737 MAX 8 electrical layout, in small planes that would also kill the radios, transponder, and navigation systems, possibly also flap controls, lighting, and some direct instrumentation. Such direction would have to be very strongly communicated if it were a viable escape from the MCAS/AoA failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Several more airlines grounded their 737 Max fleets today, but none of the US carriers did.

<comment><USER23> Nor any European carriers, nor EASA. I also notice that Canada is not interested in grounding them at this junction. I'd imagine that US pressure is preventing the Europeans and Canadians from grounding them. At least so far anyway.

<comment><USER24> Maybe it's a confidence thing. Maybe small operators from these regions feel less supported/confident than their European or American counterparts. This might be a very pessimistic approach but I suppose a lot more phones go ringing when someone from Southwest or RyanAir calls and asks:"Yo, what's up with my planes?".

<comment><USER23> That just makes it sound worse. Why should Norwegian get better support from Boeing than Comair? While I have no doubt that FAA or EASA would have reacted with more expediency had the crash occurred in their jurisdictions, it scares me to think that Boeing treats its customers differently, depending on whether they are Western or not.

<comment><USER25> the treatment is probably proportional to how many planes they order. Im sure if ANA or Singapore Airlines have some issue with their 787s, Boeing would respond immediately. Has nothing to do with western but everything to do with money.

See Lauda 004 for how Boeing treats a small Austrian airline. They only responded once the CEO (Niki Lauda) forced their hand by saying he would do a public stunt if they didn't respond.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that Boeing is discriminating based on the locality of an airline, but there is no denying that there is more money to be earned in places other than Indonesia or Ethiopia. That probably does reflect Boeing sells and airlines buy aircraft. This is just a strong hunch, I have no empirical evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Airbus is a charity in any way and their sales are different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you guys are interested in some close-to-the-details reporting on individual crashes, [http://avherald.com/](http://avherald.com/) is an excellent resource. For some reason I couldn't find the specific crashes related to the 737 Max in their logs though, I didn't search very very thoroughly though. It may only show certain carriers.

<comment><USER27> You can search for "B38M". The top two are the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes.

</comment></comment><comment> dis-sys UK grounded all Boeing 737 Max

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502](https://www.bbc.com/news/world- asia-47536502)

</comment><comment><USER28> What would be the quickest way for me to check which aircraft a flight I want book is being carried out with?

<comment><USER29> Go to any flight radar (online, google etc) and look up the previous flights with the same flight number (letter/number combo) as they usually mention the type. 99.9% of the time the plane is the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It seems Eu will also ground 737 max [http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk- grounds-boeing-737-m...](http://fortune.com/2019/03/12/europe-uk-grounds- boeing-737-max/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Uk also announced grounding [https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv0KKw5_zgAhWNoYMKHWaEB7UQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F2019%2F03%2F12%2Fboeing-737-max-8-ethiopia- australia-singapore-stop-planes-amid- crash%2F3138054002%2F&psig=AOvVaw3ElVOljnKqmEG3RU1lDxTv&ust=1552487129561429)

</comment><comment><USER31> Doesn't this just damage the brand of the other 737 Boeing has, that from what I understand has a terrific record? I'm guessing most consumers are going to be apprehensive if they're flying on any kind of 737. Whereas, they pull the Max and passengers would know that they're not on the troubled plane.

<comment><USER32> No, for the very reason you state.

<comment><USER31> Not sure I follow. What I'm saying is most people won't make the distinction between the different 737s.

<comment><USER32> I thought it was well-known that 737s have been flying for decades, and an issue with a 737-Max would, necessarily, be about that specific plane.

I certainly don't expect people to grasp the nuance between the 737-max800/max900, if there is one in this regard.

<comment><USER31> I see. I mean, I actually enjoy flying despite the hastles of getting to and from the plane. But, I'd rather not take my family on a Max. However, when I hear 738 8 Max and I see 737-800 on my ticket, I immediately wonder if they're the same thing. The presence of articles like this make me think this is a pretty common concern:

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-boeing-737-800-how- are-the-planes-different/)

And this is despite the fact that I've always felt safe on Boeing planes because they've historically had such a great safety record.

I would assume this is gonna have a negative impact on the 737 line as a whole, since people tend to read just the headline. Whereas, had they immediately grounded the Max, there'd be no question; as a passenger you'd know you weren't on the troubled plane, because they grounded that one.

It's like when Romaine lettuce gets recalled; a lot of people just stop buying lettuce because they're just not sure which kind it was that got recalled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> While it could certainly be the same issue, I've seen enough airline crash stories to know that your first assumption can be wildly incorrect. Typically people who investigate these things try to have no pre-conceived notions of what it could be, not much different from debugging a software crash.

</comment><comment> ajay-d Boeing says they'll issue a software update in the coming weeks. Is that what the problem was? [https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases- statements?item=1...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases- statements?item=130402)

<comment><USER34> InternetofShit is starting to kill people..

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> France too.

</comment><comment><USER36> There are reports that this aircraft was trailing smoke and making unusual noises before it crashed.

From my understanding of the earlier crash it was a combination of the pilot fighting an auto-trimming system and I'm not aware that was smoking on its way down.

This would seem to be a different type of incident which just happens to be in the same model of plane.

<comment><USER37> There's also the fact that witnesses will tend to say all sorts of weird things that get proven false in video footage later on. So I personally would be cautious about believing the smoke and unusual noises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It sounds like no one system of keeping the plane level is fool & error proof.

OK, this might be a stupid idea, but what about a simple old spirit level, a fancy oil based one that will never freeze, mounted to the side of the cockpit to give the pilots a emergency true level backup when all else fails?

<comment><USER39> I would rather expect the anti-stall system to be based on a speed indicator rather than a level indicator. Though not an aviation specialist.

<comment><USER40> Beyond the point, made by others, that a spirit level will not give you the airplane's attitude (on account of acceleration), it is also the case that the airplane's attitude does not tell you the angle of attack, which also depends on the airplane's vertical speed with respect to the airmass. Pilots-in- training are taught not to rely on the airplane's attitude (normally judged, in visual flight, by the position of the nose or top of the instrument panel relative to the horizon) as an indicator of whether a stall is imminent.

In a steady state, and for a given wing configuration (flaps/slats/spoiler positions), there's a causal relationship between angle of attack and speed (which also depends on air density, aircraft weight and load factor (how many gs you are pulling)), such that the _indicated_ airspeed (which measures ram air pressure in a pitot tube, and fortuitously cancels out the density dependence) has historically been the proxy for angle of attack - and, at least in small airplanes, it still is.

Even small airplanes often have a separate stall warning device, which is triggered by the movement of the leading-edge stagnation point (where the flow divides between going above and below the wing) as the angle of attack changes. In its simplest form, it is operated by a small tab which is flipped up when the stagnation point moves below it.</comment></comment></comment>


Youtube founders don't have password to the delicious blog - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/apr/27/youtube-founders-buy-delicious

<comment><AUTHOR> "At the time Yahoo had fired all the staff working on Delicious"... "However it looks like nobody wrote down the blog password, or got it from the departing staff. So nobody can put new posts there"

Looks like they're running Wordpress 3.0.1 on the blog. If they have access to the database, should be easy to gain access...

 _IF_ they have access to the database :)

</comment><comment><USER2> Why... why is this news? Any hacker person could fix this problem in 5 minutes.</comment>


Loneliness on the Job: Why No Employee Is an Island - <AUTHOR> http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/no-employee-is-an-island/ <comment><USER2> Inclusiveness is definitely important. I'd be interested about the following trade offs in a more practical, balance sheet, sense:

1\. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with _not_ feeling lonely.

2\. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?

3\. If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?

In general, to what extent should employers focus on this? This reminds me of how some employers try to encourage an active lifestyle, which is generally positive, but at what point are things simply _intrusive_?

<comment><USER3> > How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it > worse by highlighting things

This is my experience exactly. I'm sure at a certain company size it might help form connections, but at my larger company people arrange into cliques. It's like the high school cafeteria all over again.

I've switched to eating at my desk, not because I don't want to be social, but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.

<comment><USER4> If you're at a company where you can't find a place to sit in the cafeteria because you're being rejected by cliques, holy shit. Get out of there this instant. To be honest, I'm so surprised by this statement that I can't help but feel skeptical about it, but if it's true, then you must've found one of the worst places to work in the entire world.

In my darker moments, I feel like a social cancer sometimes, and am no doubt really abrasive and unfun to hang around with some days. But even so, in the 2 decades I've been in the tech workforce, I have never felt like my coworkers were cliques of snotty teenagers looking down on me to such a degree that they wouldn't let me sit with them in the cafeteria. If this is your environment, it's not you, it's them, and you need to get out of that company ASAP. Basic adult respect should be a precondition for working at any professional workplace.

<comment><USER5> Most likely it's not that they're outright telling him to move, instead they probably show disinterest or make it clear in some other non-confrontational way that they'd rather not have him sit with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My current job makes me feel very lonely. I'm not close in age to many of my coworkers and the place is very cliquey. It feels awful. I was on the verge of leaving, but actually ended up staying when I made a close friend. When that relationship dissipated, I interviewed elsewhere and put in my notice.

The social climate really makes a difference in a way I didn't appreciate until I started this job!

<comment><USER7> I haven't made friends at my job. I don't have the same interests as any of the other developers.

On the other hand, I have a group of five friends that I made at my previous job that I keep in touch with in a private Slack group and we meet for lunch once or twice a month.

I knew I was going to be a short timer at this job for various reasons and never bothered.

I do keep in touch with one former coworker at a job I had in 2011. I married her....

<comment><USER6> I personally require more, like, personal engagement with my colleagues, I guess. I want to feel like I'm working with friends, but some cultures can make it feel like I'm often working with adversaries.

Some workplaces require you to "break into" the cliques in order to progress or work on high-visibility projects. This can make career progression feel like a political issue more than a technical issue.

That said, I also coincidentally married a woman I met at work :) And also keep up with friends from old jobs. This will likely be the first job that I'll end up leaving without keeping in touch with anyone. That's how isolating some places can be!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here in Poland it's very risky to connect with your colleagues. I think it's the case for all countries with low social trust rating. In theory, you're working together for common gain, because if your company is better off you should earn more and work should be easier and quality better, right? Yet in Poland people are very eager to get advantage of one another. It's got to the point where I don't trust coworkers by default. I'm helpful, but careful.

<comment><USER9> Is this a general thing in Poland? Any other Polish people feel like this?

A lot of my work is being outsourced to Poland and I am thinking I could use their distrust of each other to my advantage in some way.

<comment><USER10> My view is the opposite - Poles are more honest (which usually translates to - more whiney) at their jobs than Western people, where centuries of capitalism have taught people that it's best to keep your thoughts to yourself and pretend to be happy/content. Poles have yet to internalize this lesson.

<comment><USER8> It depends what you mean. To Poles Americans look quite fake with their smiling mask, and adjectives ranking from "good" to "awesome". The world "beautiful" sticks out like a sore thumb when you read web frontend/design blogs. Words like that are reserved for truly astonishing works. There is no expectation that you feel great all the time. Ask and you usually get an honest answer(bragging on a job interview notwithstanding). It's not like I heard about India where I heard IT workers often don't ask questions or are afraid to admit they don't understand something. There is also no strong expectation to participate in polite small talk like in UK. Gosh, it's hard to say, I'll have to travel a bit to see Poland from outside.

But leave your bike, or even an umbrella unattended for a few moments and it's likely to get stolen. If you drop money in a public place, it's very unlikely to be returned anywhere - it's seen as a windfall. Fenced houses and (multi- flat) blocks are getting VERY popular. In fact, people bring screens to beaches to separate themselves from each other (usually by family), sometimes even "reserving" spots on public beaches(they have no right). Some foreigners half-jokingly use the term "polish disease" to describe materialistic attitude of many Polish girls. Government clerks are famously unhelpful and make you do their job. Recruitment agencies are almost entirely focused on employer needs. Cheating in school is widespread and very rarely reported by classmates. You're seen as a snitch. It's similar with reporting bad drivers. Tax avoidance and frauds are more tolerated, even among politicians("Everyone does that / all political parties do it anyway"). There are many laws and rules which are not used in practice - the most spectacular example is the Smoleńsk plane crash in 2010 where most of the political elite, including the president, died.

Also keep in mind Poles working abroad are usually the most ambitious and honest ones, because they understand Westerners appreciate that. It's refreshing being able to just focus on doing a good job, and with expensive equipment.

I guess the bottom line is Poles often don't trust you, but are honest about it.

This is of course largely a product of Soviet influence (technically Poland was a part of Warsaw Pact, but NOT a part of Soviet Union) and resulting material powerty. Romania, Russia are similar but even more grim.

What is jaw-dropping to a Pole?

"I was a construction worker in Denmark. At the end of the shift, I suggested that we store our tools indoors. - Why? We'll be working in the same place." (expecting theft)

That until recent years Swedes didn't lock their homes.

In a swedish fairy tale "Moonintrolls", one of characters suggest that they repair an old boat they found, so that they can use it better _or give back a nice boat if the owner shows up_. The idea that you might be happy about giving back an object you put your work into like that.

That in other countries ministers delegate work and important decisions up to their subordinates, and that most of civil service and (local) administration stays when the ruling party changes. Polish politicians like to micromanage, and behavior like that is seen as sign of weakness.

Interesting read on social trust in various countries: [http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/uncategorized/social- tr...](http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/uncategorized/social-trust-is-one- of-the-most-important-measures-that-most-people-have-never-heard-of-and-its- moving/)

<comment><USER11> Which rule was not used in the Smolensk crash?

What would happen to you in the workplace if you behaved like a Westerner and looked for opportunities to contribute to others' priorities, praised others' work, and shared your productivity enhancers?

You're totally correct that it's refreshing to just be able to focus on doing a good job. I work so much voluntary overtime just because I know that it's a rare time when you are someplace your contributions are needed and welcome. A lot of times you have a lot to offer and no organization that can get it to people who need it.

<comment><USER10> > What would happen to you in the workplace if you behaved like a Westerner > and looked for opportunities to contribute to others' priorities, praised > others' work, and shared your productivity enhancers?

I curently work in a large Western Europe organization (30k employees), which does a lot of its software development in Poland. I'd say the work is in many ways organized in a terrible way (courtesy of the higher-up geniuses in the HQ). My observation is that the rank-and-file employees in the Western Europe branches tend to more often eat shit and smile about it than people in Poland. That may be because I don't know them as well as my Polish collegues though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What I've always been taught is when you go into work, you cease to be a person, and become a thing. You have no dreams, desires, wants, emotions, or needs (You may be hired to _project_ an emotion, but you're not to have any authentic emotions yourself). Your sole reason for existence is to provide the labor your employer is buying.

Your own loneliness is your sole responsibility. If you don't have the information you need to do your job that is your manager's responsibility to remedy, but their job stops the instant you have the tools you need to do yours.

<comment><USER13> I haven't worked for an employer that's held that view since high school (when I bagged groceries).

I'm skeptical any successful business treats high-skilled employees that way.

<comment><USER14> This was every company I've ever worked at or consulted to, which is in large part at the root of why I went freelance. Are there really great companies with culture that treats highly-paid, highly-skilled professionals as _professionals_? Yes, I'm sure there are, but they are _rare._

<comment><USER15> The worst are the ones that constantly say, "We're like a family here." Family of psychopaths maybe.

YMMV, I find companies in the Midwest would rather you check your empathy at the door.

<comment><USER12> You detailed my thoughts _much_ better than I did.

Maybe it's my Midwestern upbringing, but I'd rather just get my job done than be an emotional sop for my coworkers, or worse have other people be an emotional sop for me.

<comment><USER16> > but I'd rather just get my job done than be an emotional sop for my > coworkers, or worse have other people be an emotional sop for me

I don't think you have to be in THAT kind of relationship with coworkers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> On one of my jobs the entire team was a certain nationality and spoke a different language (this was in a country where English is the default and dominant language). When they talked to me they talked in English otherwise they would talk in their own language even when having discussions about work. I felt very excluded. I tried to stay on but couldn't. I left just after three months.

</comment><comment><USER18> I never really liked co-workers.

But I never really liked most people.

Started remote working, because it gave me more time to meet with people of my own choosing.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've experienced lonliness on the job but I've come to realize it has more to do with having meaningful work than meaningful relationships. If I'm doing work that is contributing and adding value I will not care at all about the people I'm surrounded by or if they even know I exist. When I'm underworked I start to feel excluded and isolated.

Currently I'm bordering on overwork and I find socializing taxing. When I work from home I do twice as much work but I don't need to sleep on the couch after work.

</comment><comment><USER20> As a baby boomer, this would have confused me 'till recently.

I've been studying generational differences for an upcoming talk, so I'm tuned into generational attitudes.

We had a mail-list thread this past week about an employee who felt lonely. I found it hard to relate to, but someone on the thread mentioned a YouTube video by Simon Sinek, it's about Millennials in the workplace. It really clicked-- I can see how some people feel this way.

<comment><USER21> What about this confuses you? Is it that someone could be lonely at work, that someone would expect not to be lonely at work, or something else?

Your confusion is as surprising to me as workplace loneliness is to you and I'm genuinely curious to see your answer.

<comment><USER22> No op, but it's not surprising that someone might feel lonely in any context. What's surprising is that so many people would lack the social skills to rectify this problem that employers have created policies where they instruct your co-workers to be your "friend.". And it's equally surprising that an employee would have this expectation of their employer. It's rather juvenile, like parents setting up play dates for their kids.

<comment><USER21> I don't see the idea that managers should assign friends in this interview. Where are you getting that from?

<comment><USER22> I was referring to this comment in the grandparent post:

>We had a mail-list thread this past week about an employee who felt lonely.

<comment><USER21> You're assuming the mail-list thread was about managers ordering people to be friends with the lonely employee. Maybe that's what happened but I doubt it.

<comment><USER22> That's true, it may not have come from the top down, but it's still a foreign concept to me culturally. If I found out my coworkers were sending out communication regarding my perceived loneliness I would be mortified and GTFO asap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a developer, I've definitely felt lonely at work. I'd guess that it's caused by my personal feeling that development should treated as a collaborative effort by default; it's too hard to do solo most/all of the time, and yet my teammates & I are often expected/encouraged to work solo.</comment>


What Html5 needs to take over on devices - <AUTHOR> http://www.dev-articles.com/article/What-Html5-needs-to-take-over-on-devices-425002 Html5 is the way to go. A consequence of that is the necessity to identify what we can't do with it and find solutions for them. In this article I try to list the missing functionalities <comment><USER2> Easy monetization is the top thing I need for HTML5 to be able to take over on any device. It is what I love most about developing for any devices with an app store, they handle all the micro-payment mess, hosting, etc for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> good... that is true, thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It also needs native apps to stand still while all those features get worked out. Which isn't going to happen, nor should we want it to.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes I agree thanks, but I haven't see that much evolution in the last year... from the api point of view</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which JavaScript libraries do you use for non single page applications? - <AUTHOR> Hi there.
When you have a project that is clearly a SPA there's a plethora of articles and questions about the best tool for the job. Personally I've worked before with Backbone, Ember (really early days) and very little AngularJS.
More often than not, I prefer to not use a library. Not even because of size or page load times, just to avoid having to deal with dependencies, all the build environment around it and sometimes the learning curve.
Almost inevitably after some period on a project, I see myself wasting a lot of time on JS-related work. Maybe it's one page with an interactive form or it's a bundle of components that are complex. But at the end of the day I catch myself thinking I'd have been better off using some kind of framework. The general overhead of writing it all myself (re-inventing the wheel I guess) when complex components come into play makes me doubt my earlier decision of not using something. We know it's all about trade-offs.
Taking all that into account plus the ever-growing number of JS libraries that are available today it made me wonder if there are libraries that stand in the middle that I never heard of? Certainly HN can answer that.
If you were building a non single page application today with maybe some complex interactive pages. What libraries would you use? <comment><USER2> Vanilla JavaScript; no libraries except XMLHttpRequest, WebSocket, LocalStorage, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> So you write `el.innerHtml = "<div>stuff</div>";`?

Can't remember the last time I did that. Probably back when I used PHP on my first internship.

Don't you think it's a lot of added overhead rewriting the same over and over? Things like data binding, validation, etc. If you do two projects with vanilla JS you'd end up with a bunch of similar functions for this basic stuff.

<comment><USER2> Perfect! A no nonsense, innerHTML modification. Hah!

I transform my data into a JSON object, suited for the front end. So the only Controller -> View boilerplate is a "call the api" JavaScript function.

My comment is primarily a criticism of the JavaScript world where folks can NPM their entire server infrastructure (containing plenty of needless files)...</comment></comment></comment>


Ephemerons - <AUTHOR> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2016-January/038094.html <comment><USER2> "" Java already has 4 "weak" reference types with different "strengths": SoftReference, WeakReference, Final reference and Phantom ""

Is it normal for a language to have that many types of weak references ??

<comment><USER3> WeakReferences are elsewhere e.g. [1]

My understanding of SoftReferences is that they sound like they're going to be useful in implementing caches, but then cacheing is hard, and generic solutions like a SoftHashMap end up being toys. While they're are probably cases where SoftReferences are useful, they're not common, hence they're not elsewhere.

Phantom references are partly due to problems with the way finalize is implemented in Java, and partly due to difficulties writing low level code in a higher level language, hence they're slightly Java specific anyway.

[1]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/WeakMap)

[https://community.oracle.com/blogs/enicholas/2006/05/04/unde...](https://community.oracle.com/blogs/enicholas/2006/05/04/understanding- weak-references)</comment></comment>


Top-level await in JavaScript is a footgun - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/Rich-Harris/0b6f317657f5167663b493c722647221 <comment><USER3> He posted a follow-up superseding (or extending) the submitted post:

        > A lot of people misunderstood Top-level await is a footgun, including me.

[https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/41e8ccc755ea232a5e7b88de...](https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/41e8ccc755ea232a5e7b88dee118bcf5)

<comment><USER4> This is probably the bigger deal. It means that not only is top-level await _dangerous_ , it's potentially destructive even when used correctly.

<comment><USER5> It's also based on yet further misunderstandings (in this case not understanding the ability of engines to do speculative fetches).

<comment><AUTHOR> Domenic, I do wish you'd at least _try_ to engage fruitfully in these discussions without resorting to your usual snark and condescension.

When you talk about speculative fetches, are you suggesting that engines would guess at which modules were going to be imperatively imported before actually running the code? That doesn't seem like a general solution, or even a particularly desirable one, but I'm interested to learn what you're referring to.

<comment><USER5> And I wish you'd try to engage with me instead of jumping to your usual tone arguments.

Yes, that is indeed what I am referring to, as engines already do for HTML.

<comment><AUTHOR> When I tried to ask you about this stuff on Twitter the other day, this was your dismissive response: [https://twitter.com/domenic/status/774762508091551745](https://twitter.com/domenic/status/774762508091551745)

Speculative fetching is possible in HTML because <link> and <img> and <script> tags etc are declarative. Similarly, modules can be fetched without the code executing because `import` is declarative. How can a browser prefetch modules when it encounters an imperative statement like `x = await import(computedModuleId())` without actually running the code?

<comment><USER5> Yes, I found all of your points wrong, as I'm explaining in a medium with more than 140 - @-names characters in this Hacker News thread.

See above for a response to your point here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know that the argument that "silly developers shouldn't be allowed to do silly things" is a valid one, but I don't see a convincing argument that top level await is worse than what developers are currently doing, which is use synchronous functions to do IO at the top level.

If anything, top level async would be an improvement, as it would give developers no reason to do synchronous IO.

Edit: Additionally, ES6 modules are already imperative. There isn't any way to make them declarative.

<comment><USER7> ES6 modules are declarative in the sense that the dependencies are statically analyzable.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If anything, top level async would be an improvement, as it would give > developers no reason to do synchronous IO.

Top-level async would make asynchronous IO no different from synchronous IO! It's the worst of both worlds.

> the dependencies are statically analyzable

Exactly – which means modules can be loaded concurrently, without having to execute the code. By contrast, imperative loading has to happen sequentially. I explored this aspect of it in a follow-up: [https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/41e8ccc755ea232a5e7b88de...](https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/41e8ccc755ea232a5e7b88dee118bcf5)

<comment><USER5> > Top-level async would make asynchronous IO no different from synchronous IO! > It's the worst of both worlds.

That's false. You could still do plenty of things while this asynchronous I/O is happening (including allowing the user to interact with the page, or load other modules in the background).

> By contrast, imperative loading has to happen sequentially.

Yes, but notably, declarative loads are not blocked on imperative loads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, this makes me a little sad because the title makes it seem like top-level await is, in general, a bad thing, but upon closer reading, there only seems to be an issue with using await in conjunction with import -- is this a correct assertion, or am I missing something? I've been making heavy use of await lately, and would love if it were available at the top level, but I have zero intention of using it in the way it's described in the article?

<comment><AUTHOR> Whether or not it's a module or something else being awaited isn't the problem. The issue that if your app.js (or whatever) has dependencies on modules with top-level awaits, however far removed, it can't execute until they're done. In other words top-level await essentially blocks your entire app.

Using await inside an explicitly async function is great, because it only blocks code inside that function – the effects are localised and much easier to predict/reason about.

<comment><USER8> Ah, thank you, that makes sense. The term "footgun" is pretty interesting here, as it generally refers to something that allows one to shoot one's self in the foot. In this case, it's allows someone else to shoot you in the foot by hiding it in their code :/.

<comment><USER9> On the subject of whether or not this is really a problem because people can just be educated not to do this, the author said:

> You'll educate some of them, but not all. If you give people tools like > with, eval, and top-level await, they will be misused, with bad consequences > for users of the web.

This is still a footgun, because it makes it easy for people to introduce wide ranging and sometimes subtle bugs in their software.

<comment><USER4> And as we all know, what JS is missing is a new way for unknowing devs to build slow and buggy products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is basically the same old argument against `await` itself: that it allows developers to write bad code that should be parallelized more (by using Promise.all etc.).

It didn't stop await inside async functions, and it's not going to stop top- level await.

(The argument also seems to be predicated on some fundamental misunderstandings, in that it thinks everything would have to be sequentialized. See my other replies throughout this thread.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for clarifying the point re module evaluation not being sequential – that would seem to break some fundamental guarantees about execution order, but I guess that's a separate discussion. The point stands that your entry point has to wait until each of its dependencies and each of their dependencies (&c) have finished before your app can start, and it unavoidably slows down module loading.

> This is basically the same old argument against `await` itself: that it > allows developers to write bad code

It magnifies the effect to a degree that isn't immediately obvious – hence footgun. Users are the ones who will suffer, therefore it's right that we exercise some restraint.

<comment><USER5> > The point stands that your entry point has to wait until each of its > dependencies and each of their dependencies (&c) have finished before your > app can start, and it unavoidably slows down module loading.

That's true regardless of whether you use top-level await or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's true that your dependencies have to execute, obviously, but it's _much_ easier to slow things down if you can block while asynchronous work happens. Right now that's not possible.

Meanwhile, you still have to do more work to load the app in the first place ([https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/41e8ccc755ea232a5e7b88de...](https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/41e8ccc755ea232a5e7b88dee118bcf5)).

I'm genuinely curious about the statement that modules can execute concurrently, and what that means for predictability. Jotted down some thoughts here: [https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/9a270920e203e6df9477ca02...](https://gist.github.com/Rich- Harris/9a270920e203e6df9477ca02318fb640)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I agree that top-level await is weird. But the bigger issue is that importing stuff shouldn't be an imperative statement ("load the code at such-and-such address"). That's marrying the language to irrelevant details of how it's parsed and executed. Instead, import should be a static construct that can get special treatment from interpreters and compilers. Header files in C are another instance of the same mistake ("let's make imports work by textual inclusion"). Such tricks can save time in the short run, but a proper module system like Java's is always better in the end.

<comment><USER11> > but a proper module system like Java's is always

Java has a package system not a module system.The difference is important because Java might introduce a module system in the future. And Java isn't built around async programming by default, even loading a jar is synchronous.

<comment><USER10> I stand corrected about packages vs modules, good point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another misconception here is the lack of understanding of engines' speculative loading capabilities. It's very easy for an engine to notice `await import('./foo.js')` or even `await fetch('./foo.json')` during the tokenization phase, and realize it might be a good idea to go fetch that file (and in the former case, all of its dependencies). This is already done for HTML's tokenization phase (with img, iframe, etc.), and would of course make sense for JS as well.

<comment><USER12> But if the engine speculatively loads modules, doesn't that counteract the developer's intention to increase performance by loading a module only when needed?

This is not a problem in HTML loading, because HTML doesn't have `if` statements.

<comment><USER5> It is a problem in HTML, actually, e.g. `<div hidden><img src="foo.png"></div>`. Per spec that fetch should not happen until the div becomes un-hidden. (Which is only determinable at runtime, since you can override the UA stylesheet for div[hidden].) But browsers make the intelligent tradeoff that the image is likely to be used, by doing a low-priority fetch for foo.png.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not terribly familiar with this new proposal but I have used the regular async/await features quite extensively and can't really see a problem here.

Since async/await deal with promises, there's nothing stopping anyone from _not_ awaiting a dependency at the top level so that some loading logic can be run.

In addition, since these are promises, there's nothing stopping us from awaiting multiple promises at once in parallel like so:

        const [dependency1, dependency2] = await Promise.all([promise1, promise2]);

All await does is schedule the resumption of the code following an await later on, so any JS not depending on this blocking dependency can continue to run. That is, await doesn't block the entire execution, unless the rest of the entire app code is sitting behind an await.

I don't even understand why top level await is necessary given HTTP 2 server push. The point is that import statements at the top can be statically analyzed so the web server can determine which dependencies to push down to you with your request. That's not quite here yet, but by the time this proposal is ready I'm sure it will be.

I guess if you need to use runtime evaluation for something to determine you're dependencies it makes sense but I've found that's rarely the case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree that `await` by itself is useful, and your example shows the correct way to use it for concurrent activity. The problem with _top-level_ await is that any modules depending on a module with a TLA cannot execute until it's done – the effects cascade and magnify throughout your app, rather than being confined to an explicitly async function.

<comment><USER6> > The problem with top-level await is that any modules depending on a module > with a TLA cannot execute until it's done – the effects cascade and magnify > throughout your app, rather than being confined to an explicitly async > function.

Can't I already do this by putting a fs.readFileSync call or a synchronous AJAX call in my code?

<comment><AUTHOR> The comparison to sync XHR is apt – put it this way, if you could go back in time and prevent synchronous XHR from being a thing, wouldn't you?

<comment><USER6> Yep, I probably would.

However, the argument against allowing await in top level code doesn't make much sense if all of these bad side effects already exist.

<comment><USER14> This would just increase the surface area of a bad side effect, though. Barely anyone uses sync XHR and the API is being phased out to the Fetch API - <USER2> would we encourage re-adding baggage like that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Even assuming all goes well, you've prevented yourself from doing any other > work, like rendering views that don't depend on that data.

Is that right? `await` is non-blocking, no?

<comment><AUTHOR> An async function is non-blocking. await is blocking _within the async function_. Top-level await basically boils down to a proposal to wrap your entire app inside an async function.

<comment><USER5> That's false. It wraps each individual module within an async function. They can each proceed concurrently. (And all of them proceed after any `import`ed modules load.)

<comment><USER14> But any module with a dependency on a module with top-level await will have to wait for that dependency. As will anything depending on that.

It's not difficult to imagine some code nested deep in some NPM module completely changing the load behaviour of your app without you knowing.

<comment><USER5> Yes. Let's rephrase that first sentence.

"Any module with a dependency on data that it needs to execute will have to wait for that data before it executes."

That's a good thing.

<comment><USER14> Is it a good thing for your entire app to be held up by any component that needs to load data? I'm sceptical.

<comment><USER16> So you're ok that your app waits on module dependencies, but data dependencies it should not?

<comment><USER14> But my app doesn't wait on module dependencies - the code is bundled. It does wait on code parsing time (which no, I don't consider ideal) but that's a far cry from waiting on an async data download operation.

As far as I'm concerned, an explicit call to `ModuleB.loadData()` is far better than having it happen as part of module loading, without me necessarily being aware of it. Right now, module loading is assured to be synchronous, and losing that certainty seems like a bad idea to me.

<comment><USER16> If you're going to perpetually use scripts then this conversation doesn't apply to your. Your script bundles will continue to work as they already do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Am I the only one who is happy using normal callbacks? I think they are the best representation of the asynchronous flow.

<comment><USER18> Well, I was happy using normal callbacks, but then promises made me a bit happier and now I even happier with async/await.

You can definitely write clean code with only callbacks, but one has to be pretty careful if there are many nested asynchronous actions.

Promises and await make that code very much clearer.

<comment><USER19> And then as you use promise based code more and more (including with async/await), you eventually come to realize that while it looked good at first, its deeply, deeply flawed, and is at best a stepping stone to Observables :)

<comment><USER20> An observable is semantically very different to a promise, even if it can be thought as a promise with subsequent success calls.

Here is the proposal: [https://github.com/tc39/proposal- observable](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable)

<comment><USER19> Your point being?

The semantic is different, but everything a promise can do, an observable can do (with roughly the same amount of code), but the other way around isn't true.

Observables are just better in basically every ways. Real world implementations also have proper error handling and decent APIs to handle aborting -today-, while the TC39 is still jumping back and forth trying to figure out how to handle it in promises so that Fetch can stop being useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Also, not to forget, `async import` would hide any potential syntax errors or errors in loading, since promises silence exceptions unless explicitly handled. Unless, of course, there's a special exception (no pun intended) to how promises work for imports.

<comment><USER5> This is false in every modern browser and environment.

<comment><USER21> Really? They break if an exception happens on the await line? What happens if there's a `unhandledrejection` handler set?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Slighty off-topic, I'm surprised/amazed that top-level await is permitted at all.

This looks like it would allow some interesting new patterns in web programming, though at the expense of wreaking havoc with traditional execution models.

For example, await in event handlers:

      <button onclick="await doOneThing(); doAnotherThing()">

Is the event object still valid when doAnotherThing is called?

Or await in script blocks:

      <p>Welcome back,
        <script>
         document.write(await fetchUsername());
        </script>
      </p>

Look ma, I stalled the page load with no synchronous XHR!

<comment><USER23> top level await is only possible in grammar w/ `await` as a reserved word. This is limited to Modules (type=module) and async functions. You can't put it in your click handler or random Script like the examples you gave.

<comment><USER22> I wasn't aware of that restriction. That makes sense. Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I was never a fan of async/await in C#, I just never found it that useful.

I've seen examples of it in JavaScript and the author is always like, "Look at what you normally have to write and now look at what you COULD write with async and await!"

And it's like the same goddamn code with a few minor differences.

If they axed the whole proposal, I could get through this holiday season without even being depressed a little bit.

<comment><USER25> I find async/await in C# to be super useful, and fairly addictive once you start using it. Say you want to do three independent things in a function. How would you run them in parallel without async? Delegates, background workers, or threads? With async, this is simply done with Task.WhenAll().

<comment><USER11> What's wrong with threads and synchronizing? async I/O has its own level of complexity. But to be frank a better option is go-routines + channels + select construct like with go. That's really what makes both Go and Erlang unique.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> just make your http2 server read "package.json" and push the dependencies to the browser. Could even use unique module url so popular modules would already be cashed ...

</comment><comment><USER27> Yes, top-level await sounds silly. It would freeze the entire app... You couldn't even render a loading progress bar - It would defeat the whole point of loading modules asynchronously.

<comment><USER23> incorrect. `await` is a reserved word only in async contexts, the UI thread event loop still runs while `await`ing.

<comment><USER20> If you run an await as a first thing in the top-level, you have nothing in the event loop to run. Await blocks everything after itself, and that is very dangerous if done on the top-level.

<comment><USER28> In that script, yes. But in JavaScript you can have multiple scripts :)

<comment><USER20> > in JavaScript you can have multiple scripts

You mean, you can embed multiple script elements in HTML? Yes. But allowing global await in ES spec means also enabling it in node.

<comment><USER23> or you could just do `import('a'); import('b');` to load `a` and `b` in parallel</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Futures of JavaScript? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/zeduhow/top-3-futures-of-javascript-388b49645876 <comment><USER2> This is the truth, not a long list but a helpful one. I think it's worth a read.</comment>


Effective Facebook Ads Images - <AUTHOR> http://insight.io/blog/2010/10/11701-effective-facebook-ads-images/ <comment><USER2> Seriously cool. I'll have to do some data mining on this...</comment>


Show HN: Gundo (my Vim undo tree visualizer) - <AUTHOR> http://sjl.bitbucket.org/gundo.vim/ <comment><AUTHOR> I posted this a while ago, but I'm posting it one more time because it's now 1.0.0.

I'm fairly confident it's not going to eat anyone's data and that it's ready for real use.</comment>


Analysis of Body Position of Cattle Using Google Earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.futilitycloset.com/2012/02/14/beef-tack/

<comment><AUTHOR> The paper:

[http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13451.full.pdf&title=...](http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13451.full.pdf&title=Magnetic%20alignment%20in%20grazing%20and%20resting%20cattle%20and%20deer)</comment>


Who Ever Thought a 404 Page Could Be So Cool - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetechscoop.net/2011/08/02/nosh-404/ <comment><USER2> Same story, different sources:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2835820> <\- some discussion

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2836385></comment>


Uxbox – The open-source prototyping tool - <AUTHOR> https://www.uxbox.io/ <comment><USER2> Looks very similar to another open-source prototyping tool:

[http://pencil.evolus.vn/](http://pencil.evolus.vn/)

[https://github.com/evolus/pencil](https://github.com/evolus/pencil)

<comment><USER3> pencil kicks ass, blows omnigraffle out of the water and you don't have to find with omnigraffle every few weeks when they do an update and claim again that your license is invalid or pirated!

<comment><USER4> And funny, just did a search and found a cracked copy in under a minute. Looks like that DRM really works...

It's like the "pls no pirate" messages on DVDs that pirates never see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can I please just test it without having to sign-in? If it's browser based there's really no excuse no to load it up immediately and let people explore it first.

<comment><USER6> If there is no demo, there's no way I'm playing with it. Period.

<comment><USER5> They are targeting a sophisticated userbase. They aren't fooling their target market into giving emails without trying it out first.

Too many companies use emails as a metric over sales. Selling someone after the fact is much harder and no VC is caring about email only signup numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pretty cool that it's written in clojure [https://github.com/uxbox/uxbox](https://github.com/uxbox/uxbox)

<comment><USER4> Yes, though I wonder how it will affect the ability of others to contribute to the project. The upside to, say, C++ is that tons of people can contribute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Question to HN: is there any UI prototyping / wireframing tool out there than can handle a pen/stylus, the kind of Surface tablets and similar devices come with? I've recently got a Windows device with a pen and I would _really_ love to use it for that purpose. I've tested several web and desktop solutions, and none of them could handle it in any useful way.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is this still actively worked on? Site is copyrighted 2017, and the Twitter account also seems to be silent since June 2017.

<comment><USER10> I see activity on their GitHub from less than a month ago: [https://github.com/uxbox/uxbox/tree/develop](https://github.com/uxbox/uxbox/tree/develop)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm running a UI/UX design firm for B2B software companies and we use Sketch, XD & Invision on a daily basis. (And constantly trying out new ones to see which improve our process). Would love to somehow collaborate and help take this product to the next level, since we'd be helping out to build the tool we ourselves want to use. Not sure how to get in contact, so please find my contact details in my bio.

<comment><USER12> I'd recommend getting in touch through their Github page, where the project is hosted and developed. Open an issue or submit your first pull request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there more here than "coming soon"?

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks like the demo has bugs ([https://i.imgur.com/cSgIlWs.png](https://i.imgur.com/cSgIlWs.png)). Clicking on the "icons" icon doesn't show anything, but the readme picture ([https://github.com/uxbox/uxbox/tree/develop#uxbox](https://github.com/uxbox/uxbox/tree/develop#uxbox)) clearly shows that it should open in the bottom left sidebar.

I would have followed the project if it was more active, but no commits in 21 days for master branch, 28 days for develop branch and a diff of 246 commits between the 2 branches leaves me perplexed.

</comment><comment><USER15> Site links to the official SVG spec. Does anyone else find it disturbing, that on the official W3C SVG website there is an announcement for a conference in 2016?

</comment><comment><USER16> what does it DO? Like... you can't tell unless you sign up. All i know is that it generates SVGs and somehow this is related to creating prototypes.

</comment><comment><USER17> This makes for a brilliant alternative to Figma. Kudos to the author for building this.

<comment><USER18> How so? It already says it's in "development" stage, while Figma is a far more mature tool.

The website doesn't even list the features of the tool. "Wireframing" is very broad. You can create wireframes in PowerPoint if you need to. Other functionality, like generating a clickable multi-screen prototype that can be loaded on a mobile device or shared with a client, that's more advanced functionality that's required for corporate design work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> With So many vc Money the Space, what is your ambition of making this oss ?

</comment><comment><USER20> Page copyright says 2017

</comment><comment><USER21> I didn't make it past the signup. Just wanted to have a look...

Also why not use standard identity providers?

Also, why not make your front page actually say something useful? There are lots of words, no real content. Also, the project tool seems to indicate it's been dead for 4 months?</comment>


Ask HN: Most Hacker Friendly Smartwatch - <AUTHOR> Over the last years I've been looking at ways to easily track stuff in my life. From the most mundane like time I wake up, when I leave for work, when I arrive, every poopy diaper, nightly bottle, job change, etc.
I've built a backend in Google App Engine (for HA, with sync to plain text locally), that uses tags to easily convey this information and allows additional information in plain text, geo location and float values.
But I've noticed that I need a lower friction input method. Since most of these things are recurring, a heuristic frecent list of tags to choose from will be enough in 90% of the cases, I thought a smart watch where I can choose the tags from that posts to my backend would be ideal.
What platform would be the easiest (and cheapest)?
I've got quite some experience with Go, JS, python, bash, but I'm not opposed to learning something new. <comment><USER2> [https://www.pine64.org/pinetime/](https://www.pine64.org/pinetime/) maybe?</comment>


Ask HN: Fedora style version of RedHat RHEL MRG?  - <AUTHOR>

Has anyone tried out the Redhat RHEL MRG product? It is a variant of their enterprise Linux distribution with a realtime kernel, optimized messaging based off Apache Qpid, and Condor/EC2 integration. I'm particularly interested in the realtime and messaging components performance relative to the standard enterprise alternatives.<p>I realize various parts (or perhaps every line) of MRG is available in various ways, but does anyone know of a Fedora style project with the bleeding edge versions all nicely packaged so hobbyists like myself can experiment with the technology? The CentOS guys have MRG on their todo list but it seems there isn't enough demand for them to get to it sooner rather than later. <comment><USER2> I haven't but I really wished that the realtime patches would be made a standard part of the kernel. Lots of code could take advantage of that.

MRG supports MPI, the de-facto message passing interface for clusters, that alone makes it worth looking at.

One step closer to QnX...

To have the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patch in stock kernel would be very nice. A real-time kernel is not just for people controlling machinery.

If you are going to spend time on this will you please do a write-up of your experiences ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be happy to - though I guess I'll have to get one of those "blag" things the kids talk about.

I'm also pondering SUSE's real time extensions. They at least make it easy to get a trial version of their enterprise distribution plus a trial version of the real time extensions to install on top. Redhat of course have a 30 day trial of RHEL but not, as far as I know, of MRG.

30 day trials aren't ideal - I have no intention of going into production without a real license but it'd be rather useful for educational purposes to be able to experiment without a timed trial (especially when hacking in the evenings only on it).</comment></comment>


Apple removes 'misleading' anti-virus app from iOS in alleged crackdown - <AUTHOR> http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/apple-removes-misleading-anti-virus-app-from-ios-in-alleged-crackdown <comment><USER2> Investing time and money into iOS is a risk. Period. This isn't new. Anyone who gets yanked out of the apple's walled garden knew it was a possibility before said investment took place.

It's hard to feel sorry for anyone who gets put through this.</comment>


IronFunctions Alpha 2 - <AUTHOR> https://www.iron.io/ironfunctions-alpha-2/ <comment><USER2> Big fan of Hot Functions. Doest this utilize lamda like code format?

<comment><USER3> Yes. You can import Lambda functions like so:

[https://github.com/iron- io/functions/blob/master/docs/lambda...](https://github.com/iron- io/functions/blob/master/docs/lambda/import.md)</comment></comment>


Steve Case: fewer tiny startups in the third wave - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@stevenlevy/steve-case-is-bullish-on-tech-s-third-wave-even-if-it-s-kind-of-a-bummer-94eaadde75da#.4eo23gm4f <comment><USER2> _" The former head of AOL talks about the future of startups, what went wrong in the merger, and what Donald Trump told him."_

So many things wrong with this opening sentence.

<comment><USER3> Can you elaborate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I kepe seeing all these promoted stories on Steve Case (by steve case), seems kinda weird. I am trying to understand why he cares so much about me knowing who he is and what he thinks? Running for something? Trying to raise a fund? Looking to become an advisor? There has to be something behind paying for readers?

<comment><USER5> As you might notice from the article, he has a new book out where he positions himself as a startup pundit. However, since he chose to write a _book_ , it seems he may be a bit out of touch.

<comment><USER6> You're right. Most Millennials don't have the attention span for a book.</comment></comment></comment>


Win $25,000 for ideas that inspire "a better world through media and technology". - <AUTHOR> http://www.changemakers.net/en-us/competition/powerofus

<comment> puzzle-out Ashoka are a well run organisation, and many of the entries are inspired and help restore the faith. My experience of mentoring such groups in the past is that a) they put together a great entry b) they win something then c) they all get jobs in the city and the team disperses on graduation. Well, with less of those jobs I hope a positive of this crisis could be that the teams stick together and execute.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Don't know much about this competition, but from a quick review it looks like a great opportunity for the right early stage startups/hackers. Only about 90 total entries with a week until the deadline, so seems like decent odds.</comment>


I think we're better than this. - <AUTHOR> http://iericallen.tumblr.com/post/48107300713/i-think-were-better-than-this

<comment><USER2> I agree it would have been more tasteful to exclude the commercials prior to the video about the Boston Marathon. I can see how it would be distressing to sit and wait for a commercial to end when you are fearing for the safety of someone you love. I hope your friends and family are safe and the same to the rest of HN.</comment>


Show HN: Owlorbit – Share your location/msg with friends and family in real-time - <AUTHOR> http://owlorbit.com/ <comment><USER2> > Use the "close your eyes" feature and become unsearchable on the map.

"If you can't see them, they can't see you!"

</comment><comment><USER3> So, this appears to be iOS only, and makes this claim:

> Stop fumbling through different apps > Have conversations that will lead you > all to the same place.

Literally every iOS device on the planet has Messages.app installed by default, which supports sharing location with the people you're talking to. So what does your app do differently?

The claim about "different apps" (aka fragmentation of the IM space) is quite ironic, as you've just added _another_ app to the pool.

<comment><USER2> > Literally every iOS device on the planet has Messages.app installed by > default, which supports sharing location with the people you're talking to. > So what does your app do differently?

Something I can see it that it takes away the friction. If you see a constant stream of all of them the inevitable ping-pong messages of "where are you? share your loc" will be gone. And the moments of someone going quiet for some minute(s) will not be as annoying.

That being said I don't see myself using this app - seems like a hassle and as you said it just adds another app to keep track of.

<comment><USER3> Maybe its a generational thing. I'm in my early 30s.

The people I'm likely to see regularly and want to share my location with, I just have allowed to see me via Messages/Find my Friends. If I'm going to meet someone else, I just do the old fashioned thing and ask where they want to meet, and then go there.

<comment><USER2> I'm in my late 20s. It might be a personal thing, I have just been in the situation where I am meeting someone and the "1 minute delays" are enough to cause friction and I (personally) don't like that.

And I have no experience with Find my friends, maybe that's the same case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use Glympse on Android and this works well with my Iphone carrying friends. What advantages do you have over glympse? I am not affiliated with Glympse, I am just a big fan of their product. [https://glympse.com/](https://glympse.com/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> btw the API is SSL-only =], the landing page is just a static page hosted on s3</comment>


Largest Known Prime Number Discovered; Has 17,425,170 Digits - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213225424.htm

<comment><USER2> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5170765></comment>


Ask HN: How to validate my B2B SAAS idea - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to work out how I can validate my B2B SAAS idea. I have a solution to a specific 'pain' that certain business's have.
I've already done a custom version of the program for a specific company - and they love it. But I want to make it more generic and market it as a SAAS.
I've made a landing page similar to the twitter Buffer App idea - but the problem is I'm only getting 1-2 users a day after a month because I rank poorly on the SEO for the search terms.
I was thinking of using google ad words - but I thought it might seem silly advertising a product I dont yet have? <comment><USER2> 1\. Post a link to your landing page.

2\. Set a price and allow leads to sign up to be notified when it is ready. Slow rollout. This does 2 things. It let's you know businesses are willing to pay for it, and gives you an list of early adopters who feel enough pain to try a "new" product to ease that pain. Adwords is a good solution, but I would first make sure you have your early adopter demographic nailed down. If you don't already have it nailed down, try to schedule some interviews with 3 or 4 businesses you feel are your target market. If you can't find that many willing to sit down and discuss, the pain point isn't high enough for that group.</comment>