Ask HN: What non-technical books helped you career the most? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> The 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene. It's mostly non-obvious ways to handle conflict.

It's pretty easy to keep grinding more skill and effort. But it can be terrifying to deal with conflict, aggressive people, manipulative clients, competitors, and it can really discourage you along your career. Most people end up avoiding those things and running or hiding from problems. Trying to bring it up with management can often end up with you getting outmanoeuvred.

The book is great because it covers ways to disable threats. Most people are inept in conflict - they just dump more energy at it until they win or run out of energy. The book teaches techniques like counter-attacking, using your opponent's aggression against them, when to be more aggressive, when to be diplomatic, when to retreat, when to hesitate. How to drag an opponent into a long drawn conflict and kill them with attrition. Or how to intimidate them by making them feel trapped. The goal is to resolve and end conflicts quickly, maybe even turn an opponent to your side.

Like martial arts, it would be best to not have to use it. But I've had to several times, especially as an entrepreneur. It's also one of those things that give you enough confidence to handle certain obstacles, opening more doors and more choices that way.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cal Newport's Deep Work and So Good They Can't Ignore You shaped my thinking in determining priorities. Finding the resources/time/mgt buy-in to work on those can be a challenge.

</comment><comment><USER4> Crucial Conversations</comment>


Show HN: Signal – Simple, beautiful and privacy oriented open source analytics - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bloom42/signal <comment><USER2> The name "Signal" is already taken by a popular open source application: [https://www.signal.org/](https://www.signal.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I acknowledge this, but as those 2 projects are not similar I think there can't be a confusion between the two.

<comment><USER2> There will be confusion if you have a 100% naming conflict with a more popular software package, _regardless_ of how little overlap you think there is. If you want to keep the word "signal," rename it to "Signal Analytics" or "Data Signal" or something.</comment></comment></comment>


GitHub's Feedback Culture - <AUTHOR> https://codingsans.com/blog/feedback-culture <comment><USER2> Such a great interview, thanks for sharing</comment>


Automagica: Open-Source Robotic Process Automation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/oakwoodai/automagica <comment><USER2> This is a _huge_ area in enterprises right now - most large global businesses have (I estimate) 2/3 of their headcount at serious threat to process automation - and people are putting the money into it now - expect this area to blow up in the next year or so - definitely a area for the sensible contractor to look at.

However is _this_ automation package going to win? I don't know but OSS is likely to have a big part to play

And as for the Windows only part - well 99.9% of the processes that are currently done by humans and will get automated are done on windows machines (cos if they were done by humans using a Linux box they would have already built a shell script for it)

<comment><USER3> This appears to be a glorified services ad posing as an open source project.

The crux of desktop automation isn't that you can do the easy things, but that you have a way of doing _everything_. A 99% automated process with one manual step in the middle is still pretty useless.

Which is the reason the major vendors tend to have been in business for 10+ years. Because it's not about wrapping the Windows Active Accessibility API (or whatever they're calling it now) and patting yourself on the back.

It's about supporting, out of the box, that VB6 app with a hacked-in async UI interaction using a custom grid with a combo box in it.

And it's about exposing it in a way that, ideally, a business use familiar with Visio-only can kludge together 85% of the logic.

In short, this looks like all those times HN opines on {biology / rocketry / etc} and offers that "If they just ____, it would all be easy."

<comment><USER4> Have you worked with major vendor solutions? They don't do much more than wrapping the accessibility api and in some cases clumsily so. They have surface automation on top, but if you end up using it you are already in a bad place automation wise.

<comment><USER3> I've worked with all of the top 5 products in the space at various times. And no, they don't.

Automation Anywhere is the least compatible of the bunch, and even it includes custom translators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have used other (commercial) RPA vendors before, I do not understand why it took so long for a Python RPA platform to be developped. The commercial 'graphical flows' are such bullshit. They claim to be business friendly so that your average manager can use it to automate tasks, but in reality it sucks and just creates vendor lock-in. Looks like Automagica still has some work to do on the cross-platform area but at least it is nice to see Python code based RPA.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Cross-platform" "Only supports Windows 10"

<comment><USER7> Relax. The actual quote from the readme is:

> Automagica officially supports Windows 10. Linux and MacOS are not > officially supported.

It's cross platform, and Windows 10 is officially supported.

<comment><USER8> Looking in activities.py, I see a some functions that are OS-agnostic, but also a ton of functions that are Windows-specific in terms of process names and paths, and directly referencing the win32 lib. It's a matter of "unsupported" meaning "impossible" rather than "you're on your own". That said, the code is pretty easy to read, and would make for a good starting point to make your own automation library.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very curious on the delta with AHK.

Their syntax looks a little bit more easier and the OCR Integration with Tesseract looks nice. AHK however has way more examples.

<comment><USER10> AutoHotKey is Windows only and Automagica looks like it has crossplatform support for one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > "Our platform is built on open source technologies such as Python and > Google's Tensorflow, and is therefore easily extensible with the latest and > greatest developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence."

This... should definitely not be on your front page if you're trying to appear like a serious desktop automation suite. Just, no.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've used it for some small projects, I think their documentation is very beginner friendly. Their cross-platform support isn't that great though, half of their activities do not work on a Mac..

<comment><USER12> Cross-platform support wouldn't even be that hard to implement considering Python is cross-platform already and there are quite a lot of automation libraries for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> sikuli ís nice</comment>


Ask HN: Workable arrangements for long-distance co-founders? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for concrete examples of successful arrangements for startups where one or more of the founders were based in different locations.
Let's say that long-distance is any distance more a 3-hour drive away. As for what counts as successful, let's say that success is any time one of the pitfalls of long-distance is avoided. For example, if it's commonly said that investors are scared of investing in long-distance founders, then a success would be a case where they happily invested despite, or even because of, the long-distance issue.
INVESTORS

    - What special qualities made investors supportive?
    - If they had concern, what solved it? Did they require special terms?
    - Did the funding round, or category, make any difference? Angels vs VCs?
    - What extra legwork was needed to find/convince investors?
 YC

    - Is there any example of a YC company with long-distance founders?
    - If so, did they come in person for the duration of YC itself?
    - If so, what special qualities made YC OK with it?
    - Would changing the people XOR the pitch have made a difference?
 RELATIONSHIPS

    - How were communication barriers overcome?
    - How was anger/frustration dealt with?
    - Was regular travel a positive factor in making it work?
    - Was a certain location considered HQ? How were 'second class' issues solved?
    - Were missed social outings made up for in some way?
 WORK / PRODUCTIVITY

    - What processes helped overcome productivity issues?
 OTHER

    - For speaking engagements, conferences, parties, trade shows, etc., was anything special done to include the remote person?
    - Did the compensation arrangement or contract require any special provisions for payment, equity, benefits, roles/titles, etc.?
    - Looking back on the experience, other than a blanket statement of "don't do long-distance co-founders", what would you go back and change?
 <comment><USER2> My "co-founder" (I was solo until she joined up with me and we decided to re- invent how the company operates) is 1,000 miles away. We're on Slack when we're awake, have notifications set to trigger on keywords like "need" and "help" and "problem" and "ticket" and so on rather than every message. Our systems all log updates to their own channels, including file sharing (so we can "see" what the other is working on) and git commits (for projects not just shared via Dropbox).

We have a short call (15-20 minutes) every morning, and a project in Asana for those daily agendas so we have a quick list of "checkins" we each make. Throughout the day, if a question isn't an urgent one, we just add it to tomorrow's check-in agenda. We cheerlead for each other during those calls, too.

Hubot listens in on Slack (using the pseudonym @walken, as in Christopher Walken) so if we post what looks like a Jira issue for a client we're working on, he'll helpfully summarize it and link it. Same with HelpScout conversation IDs, the system where all other inbound email goes.

She's a designer-type and I'm a ... Well, a crossbreed of designer/developer/big thinker. When we are working on something together, we'll often just open FaceTime and leave it open while we work, for the immediacy of it.

Every other month, we get together in the same place to work, and to have some non-work interaction, like a dinner or a museum or something.

We agree to use emoji in our messages (don't groan, dear reader) because "text lacks tone", and emoji can make the difference between perceived sarcasm and playfulness.

We have phrases we've committed to using to avoid misunderstanding. For example, sometimes one of us needs to vent, and if the other were to try and help, it would only feel like we're not being heard. So we formalized saying "I'm venting:" as a sign that the other should just listen. We also don't say "I'm sorry" when the other person is done venting. Instead, we've made a game of stringing together three random-ish words as a response, trying to be funny without referring to the context of the message at all. "Purple goats warble" or "database staffordshire shitballs". iOS auto-suggestions for us are weird.

Basically, we do what we can do be "present" for the other, even when we're not actively doing work stuff.

And sometimes we do Hearthstone duels.

She's awesome. And we have a great partnership because of all of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really like the idea of agreeing on a few personal comms "protocols" in advance -- especially your example escape hatch for venting. Without a safe way to let out some negativity, anger and frustration can just hang there, and eventually develop into resentment and distrust.

I am a big believer that any environment where no one is allowed to admit they are frustrated, bored, or feeling cynical, is a toxic one, and that's especially true in the case of remote work.

I work remotely myself, and I find emoji absolutely essential. A completely neutral question such as "hey did you finish xyz?" can come off as nagging, pressuring, and even passive-aggressive, especially if you happen to be the manager of the other person. Emoji at least lightens that tone and shows that the question comes from a friendly place.

On the flip side, it's not enough to just avoid negative pitfalls. You also have to work a bit harder to achieve a truly positive environment. In person, actions like a smile or a high five can really boost morale and communicate "I am happy with the work you are doing." Over long distance, you really have to go much further. You have to actually type out, "Hey, next time you're in town I owe you a beer for the awesome job you did this week. Keep kicking ass."

<comment><USER2> Agreed about positive reinforcement; we use the "heart" in Asana and Slack reactions all the time. These little things become part of a shared visual language that becomes an effective proxy for vocal tone and body language when you're not physically present.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Dividend Finance scales on Bubble no-code platform - <AUTHOR> https://airdev.co/gallery?app=Dividend-Finance <comment><USER2> I didn't see where the company built used bubble in the article?

<comment><AUTHOR> Phil, the guy in the interview, talks about building their MVP and current platform on Bubble. Did you watch the vid?</comment></comment>


European Union Debt by Country - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/axibase/atsd-use-cases/blob/master/DataShorts/EU_Debt/README.md#european-union-debt-by-country-2005-2016 <comment><USER2> This post seems like it was meant more as a demonstration of the data viz, but to me this is just adding an overly complicated interface to a dataset that doesn't need interactivity. It's easy to show debt vs time for all countries as well as the aggregate in a single plot without drop-down menus: it's called a stacked bar plot.

<comment><USER3> Here's the stack chart in 23 lines.

[https://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/e92a4f6c](https://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/e92a4f6c)

It is in fact a demo of declarative graphics at work.

<comment><USER4> Could you do the stack chart by percentage of the total?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the wrong number to look at. It's the face value of the debt, which has no practical value; consider debt at 0% interest with a long repayment plan vs payday loans due today.

International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) is the new international standard and makes much more sense; it considers only the market value of your debt, i.e. how much you could find someone to buy it for.

Here is a sample of public debt/GDP ratios from 2013. Clearly, proper accounting drastically affects the results:

[http://english.capital.gr/News.asp?id=2321087](http://english.capital.gr/News.asp?id=2321087)

<comment><USER6> I agree there is a difference between long-term and short-term debt. Obviously if you don't have money and your payday loan matures (has to be paid) tomorrow that's different from a loan maturing in 30 years -- when you may or may not have money, and when inflation/deflation may have increased or decreased the absolute value of that debt.

But the graph in your link makes it look like Greece is less indebted than the Netherlands. As the article states, that's because the market value of Greek debt is low (lower than nominal value).

That's because few want to buy it, since many think Greece won't repay its debt. Yes, if Greece defaults on its loans they will go away. But it will have consequences. For example, lending money in the future may be more difficult.

More generally, if a country borrows linearly at some point no one will believe in their ability to repay, so market value will trend towards zero. With your measure the indebtedness of a country will go towards zero (along with the market value of its debt) the more it borrows.

It doesn't make sense. The debt is still there and defaulting on it will have consequences.

<comment><USER5> > That's because few want to buy it, since many think Greece won't repay its > debt.

You don't understand - what it means is I would be willing to take on Greece's debt obligations for an immediate financial compensation much less than the face value. It has nothing to do with their creditworthiness.

Also, because Greece's debt is actually lower than the Netherlands, or at least it was in 2013, I personally think lending them money would be a great investment and I'm not the only one[1]. It's just not an option for political reasons.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/eurozone-greece-debt- japonica...](http://www.reuters.com/article/eurozone-greece-debt-japonica- idUSL6N0VC3DO20150205)

<comment><USER7> If I'm understanding you correctly, you're not saying its the market value to become a creditor of greece (which would depend on the creditworthiness of greece). Its the market value that you would have to be paid to be willing to become the debtor in place of greece.

Am I right?

<comment><USER5> That's how I think of it. So according to IPSAS accounting in 2013, Greece's debt is 18% of GDP. If they could raise that much money, they could be debt free, assuming political will.

<comment><USER6> I agree with this (though not some of the earlier things, e.g. that Greece is less indebted than the Netherlands).

Two observations:

1\. If they started buying their own debt back en-masse the price would probably go up (as with any other good where demand increases).

2\. The problem of Greece, and other poor countries, is that they have trouble mustering resources. Raising 18% of GDP from a poor population isn't that easy. If Greece was a wealthy country they probably wouldn't have the debt they have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Per capita would be interesting to show as well.

<comment><USER3> Here's the gross gov't debt per capita:

[https://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/e92a4f6c/2/#fullscreen](https://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/e92a4f6c/2/#fullscreen)

<comment><USER8> That is more interesting, thank you. I wonder what happened in Ireland.

<comment><USER9> Deregulation and low tax rates created an outsized financial services industry that fueled a housing bubble which then burst and had to be bailed out by the state, quadrupling the public debt.

[http://crookedtimber.org/2010/11/09/cultures-of- impunity/](http://crookedtimber.org/2010/11/09/cultures-of-impunity/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Google does this quite well: [https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gd_mio_eur&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:at:bg:hr:cy:cz:ee:dk:be:fi:fr:de:el:hu:ie:it:lv:lt:lu:mt:nl:pl:pt:ro:sk:si:es:uk:se&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false&icfg&iconSize=0.5)

</comment><comment><USER11> It is impossible to pay this amount of money. For this simple reason the interest rate is zero, almost negative: European central bank is buying huge amounts of national debt. Setting an interest rate of zero is just a trick to lower debt interest payments. EU is doomed.

<comment><USER12> Is it _necessary_ to pay this money?

<comment><USER13> No it isn't. If all the debt is paid in full, the only effect this would have is that the income of the economy would be lower.

The interests are low now because many states don't invest as much as they used to do. So the demand for money is low. And when the demand for something is low, the price for it goes down.

<comment><USER14> Trying to wrap my head around "the demand for money is low, the price goes down". Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER15> If an entity doesn't see a good way to invest money, they won't borrow money to make money. This is what they mean when 'the demand for money is low'. If the government borrowed money, they would not make as much on that money as the interest payment to who they borrowed from, so they never borrow the money.

This has the overall effect of reducing money demand, reducing the premium to get that money (the interest rates continue to drop). Everyone though 0% interest was a hard line and you couldn't go lower, until negative interest rates were introduced to try and reverse this trend, which it largely hasn't.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Death of Woman in Tank at a Nevada Cryotherapy Center - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/us/death-of-woman-in-tank-at-a-nevada-cryotherapy-center-raises-questions-about-safety.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Pseudoscience gone wrong. Again.</comment>


Ice mass the size of Greenland overlooked in climate models - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-melt-20130624,0,4448493.story <comment><USER2> Most people have a distorted idea of how big Greenland is - it's actually about the size of Saudi Arabia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependenc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area)) and gets distorted by most map projections to outlandish sizes (larger than South America in some).

<comment><USER3> Most likely a result of the flaws of the Mercator projection ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Mathematic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Mathematics_of_the_Mercator_projection)).

<comment><USER4> Saying it's a result of a flaw in the Mercator projection is like saying zero being undefined is a flaw of the logarithm scale: it's not a flaw, it's a property.

If the projection doesn't work for your usecase, don't use it.

<comment><USER5> Okay, but the Mercator projection is/was used very frequently in schools where there's isn't a choice in the matter. It's such a widespread misconception and most people aren't taught about how map projections work so it's a part of the general public consciousness.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand the emphasis on 'global warming' / 'climate change' as a marquee issue to drive action on environmental protection. The science behind it seems complex and because it relies so heavily on modeling leaves significant uncertainty in the mind of any lay person that reads about this stuff. I would think a much better way to promote environmental protection would be from the human health angle. Things like Erin Broncovich, Gas Land, (or whatever the air pollution equivalent is) etc... where there is clear documented proof about how environmental contamination is literally killing people. Seems like those would be more compelling reasons to act than some uncertain doom a century from now.

<comment><USER7> > leaves significant uncertainty in the mind of any lay person that reads > about this stuff.

Unfortunately that uncertainty is almost entirely created FUD from paid staff - the same people who worked for years to protect tobacco from science.

<comment><USER8> Like how all of our models of the universe were confirmed by probes like Voyager 1, and we learned nothing new. You're right. Models have no uncertainty (and scientists are always expert statisticians, while we're at it ;).

I'll at least say that the politicization of the issue hasn't helped the media to accurately report things about global warming.

<comment><USER9> It's important to put out that the politicization wasn't two sided: it neither started political nor is inherently political, but was made political by a campaign of disinformation by corrupting special interests.

Of course, now that politicization does exist, and that corruption has worsened the quality of discourse among legitimate scientists. They're still functioning decently, but it'd be nice to know how to build a stronger scientific ecosystem.

<comment><USER8>
      | politicization wasn't two sided

Maybe at the start, but nowadays there are plenty of people on the opposite end of the spectrum spewing things like:

\- Hurricane Katrina is proof of Global Warming.

\- "There wasn't enough snow last winter. Global Warming!"

\- "There was more snow this year than last year. Global Warming!"

\- "There was a drought this year. Global Warming!"

\- "There was too much rain this year. Global Warming!"

There's also this idea that the climate has ever reached any sort of equilibrium state. With as many variables go into something like the global climate, I find it hard to believe that we can say anything with any certainty. E.g.

How do deep sea methane pockets affect the climate? Do we know how often any of these might be released into the atmosphere? Do we know if any of these had any affect on any sort of ancient climate change that we only know about from ice core samples?

<comment><USER9> Yes, the "it's a hot day in summer therefore climate change" annoys me as much as "it's a cool day in winter therefore no climate change." Any given year, or even span of a couple years, isn't enough, let alone a day in a particular region.

As for your questions, dealing with them individually with some level of certainty isn't too bad: I've certainly read convincing discussions of them. It's when dealing with things not in isolation that things become tricky. Most (though not all) feedbacks point in the positive direction, so all together they are almost certainly positive, even if that's not mathematical proof. But the magnitude of that positivity is very much up in the air.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> TLDR; Since the historical ice models, driven by fossil based sea level readings in Barbados, failed to account for the way the Earth's crust bends under the weight of a massive ice sheet on top of it, there was actually much more ice than previously thought. The exact implications aren't given, but it is implied that global warming is worse than we thought (has melted more ice).

<comment><USER11> Not sure I get the same conclusion you do from the same article.

Worse than we thought?:

"It allows for the possibility that there is significant melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," Rowley said. "Or it allows for a simple interpretation of no melting."

There is a simple interpretation of no melting.

Also, previously in the article they show that the models used to predict melting are suspect. The historical link of 'melt' being caused by CO2, may in fact be flattening caused by crust flexing.

<comment><USER12> The crust flexes in response to freasing or melting but it don't not significantly buldge without reason.

<comment><USER13> With that sentence you are either a rather prodigious 6 year old or a grammatically challenged adult.

<comment><USER14> Or a non-native English speaker?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The highly accurate dating and long time span of those fossils have allowed > scientists to estimate fluctuations in sea level, and thus ice content, by > extrapolating from variations in the ratio of oxygen isotopes

How do they estimate sea level from the ratio of oxygen isotopes? I've found just this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ18O](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ18O) but it talks only about temperature, salinity and amount of evaporation

<comment><USER16> The Rayleigh process describes the continous depletion of a reservoir through a fractionationing process - evaporation. It comes from the fact that heavier isotopes need slightly more energy for a phase change and thus get enriched in the fluid phase. In the case of water, it is mainly the stable O18 (as opposed to the abundant O16).

\- Lighter isotopes evaporate easier and precipitate down on land. If they don't return to the ocean for a long time due to freezing and glaciation, the ocean has a higher ratio of heavy to light isotopes. More ice means lower ocean level, and since the ratio in the ocean is dependent on the missing water mass, calculations directly give the sea level.

Now how do we know what the isotope ratio was in the past?

In the oceans, there are those small animals (foraminifera) that build the oxigen from water into their shells. The Wikipedia article you found discusses this. (Another fractionation process, add more calculations here. Additional temperature dependance.) When they die, they float to the ocean floor and, in time, form sediments and eventually lime rock, which can be drilled for probes.

Furthermore, different kinds live in different depths, giving us even more information. This can be used for the past 70 million years, since that's the age of the oldest ocean floors. Almost (!) everything older has been subducted again. However, it is not easy to disentangle the temperature effect from the ice volume effect.

You can check those out, if you're interested, they explain more thoroughly than the wikipedia article:

shorter lecture script: [http://www.iup.uni- heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Aqua...](http://www.iup.uni- heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/AquaPhys/docMVEnv3_13/AqSysSkript_part2_chap1.pdf)

long looooong version (read this and become a hydroscientist long): [http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/IHS_resources_publication_...](http://www- naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/IHS_resources_publication_hydroCycle_en.html)

<comment><USER15> Thanks for this comprehensive response (I didn't expect any less from HN ;)

I understood the part about O18 ending up less in the glaciers but I couldn't really grasp that if the water is in glaciers it isn't in the sea. I also thought it would be impossible to get rid of influence of the temperature (gradient with depth, latitude, ocean currents, ...) but it's probably not impossible, just difficult.

Also for anybody who doesn't click in the "loooooong" version has 6 volumes...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> At a plain reading this seems worthy science but not that newsworthy. Scientists do more (presumably good) work and adjust estimate of ice last ice- age by 10%, climate models may need minor tweak (direction not stated).

Did I miss something?

</comment><comment><USER18> Change happens, all we can do is adopt, for now. Clear coastlines, clean low river banks.

If anything, extremes are going to ramp up in count, adopt and build infrastructure around it.

Paying gigantic amount of money to members that come together few times a year do not solves anything.

<comment><USER19> >all we can do is adopt, for now.

You do realize that we are the first species to be the cause of a mass extinction event. We are also the only species to seriously consider how to terraform another planet [1]. What we need is the environmental movement to stop saying that we are actively destroying the world and the only thing we can do is stop, to one that says we have the ability to control the environment of our own world, and we should do so intelligently.

Keep in mind that we are not the first mass extinction event (the Permian–Triassic extinction event killed 96% of all species), but we are the first species to be able to exercise intelligent control over the climate. Also, while the environment will flourish after just like after every other extinction, it won't happen quickly enough for our scientist to be able to study life in the same way that they can with our pre-extintion bio-diversity.

[1] [http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm](http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> temperatures of the last 12'000 years: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Varia...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png)

</comment><comment><USER21> I think this headline (which comes from the article) is a bit misleading.

The total mass of the overlooked historical ice is about the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, but it was not all in one place like Greenland is. The article says's it's actually about a 10% error in a global historical reconstruction.

In addition, when I see the phrase "climate models", I think of the global simulations that scientists use to try to predict the future effect of climate change. This article seems to instead be about an historical reconstruction of a past climate.

<comment><USER22> _In addition, when I see the phrase "climate models", I think of the global simulations that scientists use to try to predict the future effect of climate change. This article seems to instead be about an historical reconstruction of a past climate._

But aren't the two extremely tightly coupled? I know nothing of climatology, but it's hard for me to imagine how you would construct a future model that didn't rely massively on our picture of how the Earth reacted historically to different pressures. It would seem to me that adding a rather large chunk of ice, and changing past sea level measurements would have a large effect on the predicted future response of the system.

<comment><USER21> Not as much as you might think. Models simulate a small range of time centered around the present, and are constructed by combining measurable physical quantities with physics equations. Basically, they attempt to simulate "the truth" starting from first principles.

Historical reconstruction is about really advanced ways of observing, estimating, and proxying data. The end product is a story of past climates, not a simulation or prediction.

It's sort of like the difference between an evolutionary biologist experimenting on fruit flies, and a paleontologist. You need both to get a complete picture of life, but neither's work depends much on the other.

In this case I'd be surprised if there is much impact on near-term climate predictions, because isostatic rebound is really slow at century timescales.</comment></comment></comment>


NASA announces nuclear robotic submarine to explore Titan's ocean - <AUTHOR> http://perfscience.com/content/2141256-nasa-announces-nuclear-robotic-submarine-explore-titan%E2%80%99s-ocean

<comment><USER2> I sure hope the idea of Jupiter and Saturn moon missions captures the public's eye and become economically feasible in my lifetime. In the spectrum of space missions that might actually happen someday, they have the most manageable timeline for a single generation and are easily the most exciting. I'm much more interested in reading about an analysis of a Europan water sample than than about a human setting foot on Mars.

The problems associated with operating a submersible are formidable, even in the best cases here on Earth. Coupling this engineering problem with the one of sending a spacecraft to safely Saturn seems a daunting but noble task to me!

<comment><USER3> It is economically feasible. It requires a budget addition of a few hundred million dollars to NASA. Not much in the scope of things. To push for this I recommend visiting [http://www.planetary.org/sos](http://www.planetary.org/sos) and advocate for it

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's the 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference PDF source:

[http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/1259.pdf](http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/1259.pdf)

And here is a video NASA released regarding the subject:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnKxbdpLP5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnKxbdpLP5E)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm more concerened with a rocket launch failing spectacularly when the payload includes a nuclear reactor.

Has anything like this been attempted before?

<comment><USER6> RTGs[1] have, but apparently SRGs[2] haven't. I can't see any reason for this to be any more dangerous than the other nuclear stuff we've launched into space.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Space)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_radioisotope_generato...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_radioisotope_generator)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> As the only planet on the solar system with stable bodies liquid and atmosphere, this is got to be the ultimate frontier in exploration.</comment>


Ask HW: Did you developed apps for the Internet of Things? - <AUTHOR>

What has your experience been? Would be nice to gather a few people's experience.<p>Did you had hardware experience before hand, if not how long did it took you to learn and feel confortable playing with hardware (and not only software)? <comment><USER2> And what sort of smart devices did you connect?</comment>


A Manifesto Against the Enemies of Modernity (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/ <comment><USER2> Lumping leftist politics under postmodernism is kind of a stretch, and the characterization of leftist politics here is like what you get when you learn about it from David Brooks columns. There is a leftist politics out there that values objective truth, and also attempts to grapple with arrangements of power in the world (and within societies) that are heavily informed by imperialism, racism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression. Often this means that historically repressed voices should and do get centered in the interest of seeking justice or attempting to right historic wrongs (and/or figuring out how they persist and have been systematized).

What it boils down to for me (a straight, white, cisgendered man who was born into an upper-middle class family in the US) is that the kneejerk "I guess I should just shut up" reaction to being called out as being problematic/racist/sexist/whatever is self-serving and it's too easy. You _are_ allowed to have an opinion and voice it, but some amount of self- reflection is valuable when you often aren't experienced or knowledgable in particular forms of oppression.

<comment><USER3> The authors of the article basically agree with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This manifesto makes the same mistake as the partisan left/right political parties. It lumps a whole bunch of issues together and says, "if you don't believe all of these to be true, you're not one of us." Great, another exclusive ideology that basically asks its adherents to be stupid and unquestioning. No thanks. This is already a feature of current partisan politics. How about politics for people who prefer to think for themselves? That would truly be something to see--real progress. Because there are plenty of people who don't fall into the left/right parties or this modernity middle camp. Some of us realize that each issue should be evaluated independently. I know this is literally beyond comprehension for partisans like the author of this article and every political party I've ever read about, but it is reality.

<comment><USER5> Any politics that claims to be on the side of rational discussion without ideological zealotry needs a clause "Manifesto-writers see yourselves out." Despite this particular new crop popping up online, no, it doesn't count if your manifesto is about how bad people who reduce things to manifestos are. You don't get points when your unsubstantiated, simplistic essay is about how we should be on the team that substantiates arguments and isn't so simplistic. Practicing what you preach is hard, but man, at least make an effort.

<comment><USER3> You haven't been listening very carefully, have you. The postmodernists and the antimodernists are openly, explicitly opposed to reason. It is only the modernists who are for it. So if you are on the side of reason, you are a modernist, whether you want to admit it or not. And you state openly that you are for reason and think everyone who is for reason should act together politically, then you are a manifesto writer, again whether or not you like to think of yourself as one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a great essay.</comment>


Tiny Geo-coder - <AUTHOR> http://tinygeocoder.com/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for mention jwilliams. I'm amazed at how fast news has traveled about this site.</comment>


Ask HN: How much are you paying for your karma? - <AUTHOR>

To dismiss any ideas that karma could be purchased or that anybody does:  that's not what I meant, read on.
I got thinking about this after reading a comment on another post about time = money, and wondered how much time karma leaders have spent on news.yc.  Effectually, how much have they paid for their karma.
And, no, this is not high-karma bashing.
Consuming news.yc can be a quick way to find interesting things.  Contributing to news.yc, though, is much more time intensive, especially if the content you wish to contribute is worthwhile.  Pointless comments can be published in seconds.  Thoughtful comments are, well, more time consuming as the commenter took the time to be thoughtful.
Which leads me to two graphs I wish I had:
(1) karma vs. time-on-site (2) comment rating vs. time to write the comment.
It might also be interesting to include length of comment, since concise, witty comments are an exception that can be written quickly and rated highly.
But, since I don't have those graphs, I figured I'd just ask.  How much have you paid for your karma?  A monetary value depends on how much you think your time is worth, so rather than debate whose time is worth more, we can look at it in terms of karma per hour.
Now that would be an interesting leaderboard, best-of-news.yc ordered by karma / minute spent on news.yc ... <comment><USER2> _I got thinking about this after reading a comment on another post about time = money, and wondered how much time karma leaders have spent on news.yc. Effectually, how much have they paid for their karma._

You're assuming that the only thing people get out of HN is karma, which is certainly not the case. Karma is a side-effect.

<comment><AUTHOR> While I wasn't assuming that, good catch that I neglected to mention otherwise. That said, we don't have a measure of the positive externalities to ones life, whereas we do have karma.

So, fully recognizing that there is more to HN than earning karma, I'm still intrigued by what these graphs might look like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I use this site a whole lot if you measure it by page view, but when I was running Rescue Time, it showed I spent about an hour a day actually on the site. Residual browsing takes up more time than that but it beats watching tv.

</comment><comment><USER4> Let's make it tangible. I'll upvote comments for $0.005, and posts for $0.01.</comment>


Amazon Instant Video on Apple iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000798971

<comment><USER2> I'll be the first to ask: Why not on Android?

What does this strategy get them? Are they afraid of cannibalizing Fire sales? It would seem to me that this would be a short-sighted concern, given the number of Android owners out there that would happily pay for Instant Video (myself included).

I don't think the higher-ups at Amazon are slow in the head, so I assume they have some reason for this, but I can't think of it.

<comment><USER3> Amazon Instant Video is the only advantage a Kindle Fire has over a Nexus 7. Without that, there's absolutely _no reason_ to buy a Kindle Fire.

<comment><USER4> Looking on the Amazon Kindle store I don't see an app for Amazon Instant Videos, unless it's simply on the Fire by default (and not removable)?

<comment><USER5> Yes, it's built-in (there's a "Videos" link at the top, and any videos you start watching show up in the carousel interface).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Without Airplay this is mostly worthless to me. I just don't sit down and watch movies on my phone. I'd like to stop using my xbox (and paying for xbox live) for amazon+netflix+hulu, but apple tv doesn't have all of them yet. I should probably get a roku, but i'd like to also get airplay in addition to the above 3. :-(

<comment><USER7> We bought a Vizio 42 inch on sale last year for about $300, and it plays everything we've ever needed - Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Hulu, YouTube, Pandora. It's definitely more expensive than a Roku, but did the trick.

Come to think of it, the Samsung Blu-Ray player we bought the year before also plays all of those services, too.

Both devices have been great - wireless support and smooth interfaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> FWIW it has been available on the iPad for some time, but I think the iPhone/iPod Touch is new.

</comment><comment><USER9> As often happens, my excitement was short lived :

"Is Amazon Instant Video available on Apple devices outside of the United States?

No, Amazon Instant Video on Apple devices is currently available only in the 50 US states and District of Columbia."

The same goes with the different app stores by country... I understand the bureocratic hardships, but it's hard to believe that in the age of globalization we can't have such services at global level.

<comment><USER10> This. I'm an American living in Mexico. I have an Amazon Prime account but can't watch any of the videos here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand the logic behind lack of airplay support. Can anyone explain the rationale?

<comment><USER12> If I had to guess, licensing. I imagine studios see AirPlay (legitimately or not) as a DRM backdoor by letting the stream out of the app; and thus don't allow it. Note HBO Go and Netflix apps don't allow it either.

<comment><USER13> I believe HBO's reason is that they're not using MPMoviePlayerController (the default video player). It looks like the native one, but I remember seeing jaggies around the icons after upgrading to the iPad Retina.

If I had to guess, it would be that they have some sort of proprietary DRM going on and have their own player for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Come on Amazon, bring on Airplay !

</comment><comment><USER15> This is awesome but still only available if you've got Wifi access.

</comment><comment><USER16> WiFi only??? wtf

</comment><comment><USER17> The title is misleading, Amazin video has been available on the iPad for a while. This update brings it to the iPhone and iPod Touch.

</comment><comment><USER18> Pretty scummy to not have Airplay on your first version.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you come to HN? - <AUTHOR>

I always navigate to HN by typing: Hacker News in my Chrome address bar (aka Google) , does anyone ever write: news.ycombinator.com/ ? <comment><USER2> FF: I either use the drop down in the address bar OR click in the address bar and type H and hit down-arrow then enter OR click on HN image in speed-dial OR if I'm feeling keyboardy I use ctrl+L to get to the address bar then type H and hit down-arrow, enter.

</comment><comment><USER3> I type "news." in Chrome or firefox and select "news.ycombinator.com"

</comment><comment><USER4> I type "n <Down> <Enter>" in Firefox's Awesomebar. It's like Googling for sites you visit frequently, but with a local database optimized just for me.

</comment><comment><USER5> Speed dial on Opera, pinned to the 'new tab' page in Chrome. Sometimes I start typing "news." which is autocompleted accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ctrl-l, n, enter

</comment><comment><USER7> I have the new-page within my first 8 ff tabs at all times, so I can always hit Alt-number-f5.

</comment><comment><USER8> I just press n <TAB> in the address bar in Firefox or n <ENTER> in Chrome.

</comment><comment> adam-_- Often just select the icon from the home screen of my iPhone...

</comment><comment><USER9> Command+3. It's the third shortcut in my Safari toolbar.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ctrl+Space Y. Site Launcher extension for Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have it bookmarked (news.ycombinator.com)

</comment><comment><USER12> Bookmarks toolbar in FireFox

</comment><comment><USER13> Google Reader</comment>


Gaining control of BMC from the host processor - <AUTHOR> https://www.flamingspork.com/blog/2019/01/23/cve-2019-6260-gaining-control-of-bmc-from-the-host-processor/ <comment><USER2> The description looks bad on the surface, but as always reality is more nuanced. These issues are only problematic in specific circumstances, particularly, bare-metal cloud hosting where the BMC might be in a separate trust domain to the host and the user on the host is provided with root (or equivalent) privileges. If your threat model is "root on the host owns the platform" then the only problem is that the BMC is yet another spot to hide malware.

The concern is that existing BMC firmwares have been shown as unsafe for bare- metal cloud types of configurations by default, so organisations using platforms in this environment may be doing so with false confidence.

<comment><USER3> FWIW, in my experience there's lots of middle ground between the host being completely untrusted and the user having root on both the host and the BMC. Anywhere from "we're letting random third party collaborators share our machines" to "it's only in-house users, but they may not properly secure their machines" is a use case where regular users even with root on the host would not have root on the BMC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's for reasons like this that I'm very thankful that the OpenBMC effort is getting off the ground. The prior lack of documentation and understanding of what the communication channels, and how they're configured is a huge problem. Perhaps it's time to get the SPI programmer out again and see if I can't finish replacing the BMC firmware on a bunch of my boards.

<comment><USER2> Please upstream your changes! I remember you were playing around with getting OpenBMC running on a Supermicro X11, would be good to expand the x86-64 support

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Old security overview: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/the_eavesdrop...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/the_eavesdroppi.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> Something important to note is that this is largely a BMC firmware problem - the hardware can be securely configured to maintain CIA against the host, just sometimes it is not.

<comment><USER5> A lot of these debug features are re-enabled on SoC reset so there are quite interesting attacks you can do there just given access to reboot the SoC. Attack before the OS has been loaded and has had time to disable the features and you win.

These are silicon issues as far as I know.

<comment><USER2> Right; then it comes down to platform design and whether you can reboot the soc in a mode that both reopens the bridges and doesn't kill the host, though that's not relevant if you're accessing it from the UART debug interface.

FWIW the mitigation patch in OpenBMC turns off all the bridges early in u-boot to minimise the race window for system reset/AC cycles.

Obviously would be better if it was possible to avoid the race window entirely (i.e. bridges default to closed, can be strapped open by the platform designer, and opened as required by firmware). We had asked for hardware changes along these lines for future generations (but may need to push a little harder...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I thought "reflash the BMC firmware from the host" was a feature? A hard to use, poorly documented feature, granted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Depends on your threat model and if you expect root on the host to also have root on the BMC.

<comment><USER2> Right. The experience so far is that most people find the capability surprising.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How should I go about finding an interesting job - <AUTHOR> Hello HN, I have been a long time user on HN and really respect this community; nowhere have I found so many bright people who are willing to offer genuine feedback and/or advice. And here I am asking for one.
I've reached to a point where I am finding it increasingly difficult to find a real development job in Canada (I live in the US but will be moving). It almost appears that there's a great devoid of opportunities for a good developer.
I have been following all the popular job feeds (indeed, workopolis, craigslist,  top 100 employer etc.) for last several  months and yet, I haven't found a compelling job and/or company which values developers as an asset.
I have been approached by a few companies, but they will filter me on my  (easily fake-able) skill matrix or by code spit on phone. May be it is because of my background (Java), or may be it is just me (slightly above average developer :) ). Or my be my resume has never reached to human.
Sometimes I think I should rather drop the idea of working for someone and  start something of my own, but I have tried and failed in the stage of ramen-profitability so many times that I don't have strength to really pull this off with dependent family anymore. As frustrating as this sounds, I really seek the direction where I can feed the family and still work on an interesting job.
How would you go about finding job you want in Canada? What am I missing? <comment><USER2> I don't want to get shot but...

Have you tried looking for jobs in the science/research/R&D sectors? The work isn't necessarily always the most challenging technically (compared to some of the HN fare) but it is exciting in other ways - you get to pick up a bit of scientific knowledge and work to advance the human frontier. And while the pay is not the megabucks of stock options or Silicon Valley, there are other upsides (often job security, and sane working hours).

Canada has a lot of vibrant universities and research organisations, there are definitely jobs around.

<comment><AUTHOR> This generally means enrolling full time ph.d. or at least that's what I've seen. Care to link specifics?

<comment><USER2> _This generally means enrolling full time ph.d._

Not at all. I have hired software engineers for my organisation and can tell you that scientific background is not always required. Two of my hires had nothing more than school-level education, though typically a science degree confers a significant advantage.

I'm talking about jobs like this:

[http://www.nrc- cnrc.gc.ca/careers/jobpost.nsf/EnglishAll/A10...](http://www.nrc- cnrc.gc.ca/careers/jobpost.nsf/EnglishAll/A10F023537BF8A1D8525775A00454988)

or more typically this:

<http://members.aas.org/JobReg/JobDetailPage.cfm?JobID=26533>

(not in Canada, but you get the idea)

The problem is that it is generally hard to find these jobs in global searches. The trick is, once you know where you are going to be, to look up research institutes in your areas and see what they have going.

It's not my field, but I hear there are a lot of jobs supporting medical research for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Find all the who's hiring threads on hacker news. I remember seeing at least a few interesting positions in Canada.

Buy the book "What color is your parachute". A lot of people swear by it. Personally I was too shy to find it of much use.

Look for jobs on the Joel on software job board, and the 37 signals job board.

Start an interesting blog about your programming passions.

.. just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, code spit interviews from hiring threads here on HN - very poor approach. I can point out but I would rather not.

Thanks for other suggestions! will try them.

<comment><USER3> What are code spit interviews? What was a poor approach? Just curious.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pardon me for inventing that word without realizing. By code spit interview, I meant interviews based on code exchange over phone, then without any kind of feedback what-so-ever, saying we can't proceed.

Code in question was really trivial something along the lines of calculating primes, I consider it a poor approach to judge a candidate.

<comment><USER4> I had a similar experience after applying for a job through HN, with the difference being I was never told we can't proceed... or anything, for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are outgoing, have you considered working in the sales end of the software chain? Just an idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you probably mistaken me when I said "slightly above average", I am a tech guy and it is my passion so sales is not really an option for me</comment></comment>


Fossil fuel-free jet propulsion with air plasmas - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-05-fossil-fuel-free-jet-propulsion-air.html <comment><USER2> I am not so sure that plasma exhaust of such jet engine will affect climate less than fossil fuel based engine.</comment>


Solenodon: a venomous mammal survived the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/solenodon-venomous-mammal-survived-asteroid-killed-dinosaurs-848588 <comment><USER2> I wonder why most animals that are still alive look relatively non-alien to us. A lot of animals from the Cambrian Explosion look extremely weird. Is there some underlying aesthetic principle that is somehow encoded in our brains that is related to what it means to exist in our ecosystem?

<comment><USER3> Many of the weirder-looking lineages (e.g., Tully monsters) from that era went extinct, root and branch, and most of the surviving "weird" animals live in niches that don't overlap with humans very much (e.g., extreme ocean depths).

I think it's likely that non-weird (to us) body forms are those that are better at surviving in non-weird (again, to us) environments.

You see this kind of thing in human activities, too. Most all planes look similar today compared to the bizarre variety of planes that were used in the early days of aviation (you don't see many triplanes around nowadays).

There again, the exceptions tend to be planes that operate in some kind of weird modality (e.g., stealth bombers, or the Gossamer X series of pedal- powered aircraft).

<comment><USER2> Ah, that's a pretty good theory, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Both Solenodon species are listed as critically endangered and are facing > multiple threats from deforestation, increased human activity and predation > by dogs, cats and mongooses.

They survived the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, but can they survive the Anthropocene?

As an aside, I think the venom adaptation is pretty fascinating. Given that their diet is primarily invertebrates, what purpose does the venom serve? Is it primarily for defense?

<comment><USER3> Some species of shrews (including at least one found in North America) have venom as well. They use it to paralyze larger prey, which they can then eat at their leisure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> kind of amazing that they managed to survive being relatively close to such a large asteroid impact.

<comment><USER6> It can really pay off to live underground, feeding on things that eat detritus and also live underground. That's pretty much the story of our distant ancestral mammals, and why were here having this chat. Burrow into the earth, hibernate, have loads of babies, eat anything; it was quite the winning strategy.</comment></comment>


Why Fan-Made Movie Trailers Are Often Better Than the Real Thing - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/06/fan-trailers/?cid=9068234#comment-937893484

<comment><USER2> I think it's selection bias.

If there are ~100 fans who make trailers for every major movie that comes out, a lot of them will probably be garbage, but this article isn't comparing the official trailer to a _randomly picked_ fan trailer; you're comparing it to the _best_ or _most viral_ fan trailer of the 100, the one that gained enough traction to be visible.

Also, since (in the scenario in this article) the official trailer comes out first, and the fan trailer copied footage and such from the official trailer, it's not too hard to imagine that bootstrapping from the work done on the official trailer helps the fan trailer overcome the handicap of having resources several orders of magnitude smaller (probably consisting entirely of a couple fans' free time and, if they're lucky, maybe commercial movie editing software that one of them had bought for something else.)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> read the comment from infomanXP in the disqus comment plugin.

Dear webmaster. This website looks good. I am able to read the contents very well, see the links and navigation menu. Everything is fine but ...

I was watching a fan made trailer and got bored, so i switched to the next trailer. Unfortunately the trailer that i switched from was still playing when i started the next one. I had to go back to the old one and manually switch it off.

Because I am a lazy person and don't like to go back to switch things of, i made a robot ...

1) I jQueryfied your website 2) I put this code in the console 3) I start a trailer 4) I switch to the next trailer 5) Me gusta, old trailer not playing :-)

Please consider to tune your javascript in a similar fashion.

The code:

var old = jQuery('.gallery-slide.selected'); var oldhtml = jQuery(old).html();

jQuery('.gallery-thumbnail').live('click',function(){ jQuery(old).html(oldhtml); old = jQuery('.gallery-slide.selected'); oldhtml = jQuery(old).html(); });

with kind regards [http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=14032676](http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=14032676)

Iwan Uswak

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> somebody changed the link name. the trailers are nice but I wanted to point to the commenter who onus a bug/feature and pointed it out in the comments.

the link name should be "Dear Webmaster"</comment>


The Scheme Machine (1994) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://burgerrg.github.io/TR413.pdf <comment><USER2> Quick question: why did we stop producing lisp machines, or any other machine more closely related to Lambda calculus model of computation than a Turing machine? Is it merely cultural, or are there technical reasons as to why we stopped producing them competitively?

<comment><USER3> In short Moore's Law.

Between 1970 and 2010 if you could design special purpose hardware that ran 10 times faster than the state of the art you would need to get it to market in volume in under 3 years.

If you took any longer the general purpose CPUs from Intel would by that point be within spitting distance of your superior architecture, at a fraction of the cost.

That's what happened to Symbolics, general purpose PC's could run their software faster than the dedicated machines they designed.

<comment><USER4> Also Lisp sucks in large groups. The simplicity is both its biggest strength and weakness. There are fewer smart people by definition, and the smartest people tend to want to make money. The net result is that you end up with blub powering the world.

Luckily, there's a way out: have your lisp machine transpile to blub.

<comment><USER3> The smartest people I know are not making any money.

It is the mediocrities with delusions of grandeur that do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's a similar older project done at MIT AI Lab, another Scheme CPU called the Scheme86: [https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6468](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6468)

<comment><USER6> don't forget what must by definition be the first scheme hardware design (lambda: the ultimate opcode) [http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai- lab-pubs/AIM-...](http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai-lab- pubs/AIM-514.pdf)

<comment><USER7> And the follow-on implementation: The Scheme-79 Chip [https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6334](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6334)

There is also the assq chip, meant as a co-processor for Scheme-81 chip design (which doesn't appear to have an AI Memo), as told by the fascinating Phil Agre (later of Red Rock Eater News Service fame): [https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41168/AI_WP_2...](https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41168/AI_WP_225.pdf)

I'm sorry I missed out on this: [https://www.artsy.net/artwork/gerald-sussman- scheme](https://www.artsy.net/artwork/gerald-sussman-scheme)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For all those downvoting my comments, why? Am I not contributing to the discussion?

<comment><USER7> I'm thinking that your extraordinary rudeness to Carl Hewitt, one of our elders, on the Actor thread was not appreciated.</comment></comment>


How Computing Came About - <AUTHOR> https://buriedreads.com/2019/01/19/how-computing-came-about-part-1/ <comment><USER2> I have been rereading Frank Herbert's Dune so when I read this interesting article, I thought it could have also been titled "A Historical Who's Who of Mentats." I am definitely looking forward to Parts 2 through N...</comment>


Ask HN: How much productivity have you lost because of this election? - <AUTHOR> I'm Canadian, and I can't believe how much time I've spent reading, thinking, and debating about the election.
Obviously, I can't vote, but the USA election has been unavoidable: no matter where you go, it's there.
Personally, I'm looking forward to being able to focus again! <comment><USER2> I spent no time on it. There's nothing going on. Both candidates are meh, and it's looking like it should've been Bernie Sanders. I have a feeling this is the last straw and that America is done. The new administration will essentially be doing nothing but cementing into place all the garbage that exists.

America lost its greatness due to feeding into idiot, backward, ignorant, prejudiced, close-minded, judgmental, etc points of view, and into doing the dumbest thing. The Bush years did a lot of damage, and not only has nothing been done to repair/restore anything, the idiots around have done everything in their power to make things worse.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have been glued to researching various topics ever since Hillary Clinton was forcibly pulled into her van at the 911 memorial this year. What I saw, and what was said were so at odds with each other that I put in a lot of effort this year to see just who these people were.

What I have discovered is shocking.

<comment><USER4> What did you discover that was shocking?

<comment><USER3> There is so much to tell. I don't think you would believe me. I will say this. Do your own research. Don't just sit in front the of the major news networks and let them spoon feed you. Use common sense. Close your ears to what people say and look at the evidence. Follow the money. Follow the connections.

<comment><USER5> You sound exactly like my brother.

He just discovered "The Dark Web". :eyeroll:

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm in USA. Not a whole lot up until the very end. I tend to ignore it pretty well until it all gets close then obsession with it kicks in. I pretty much know election day is a productivity write off for me so I just don't worry about it, its only a day every 4 years.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's less about this election specifically, more about the political insanity that has been our government for the last 4-8 years.

Personally, I've lost a few hours of productivity over this election cycle, but that's a tiny cost compared to the kinds of damage that a long list of governmental fiascos has created. I blame insanely, irrationally tribal politics and demagoguery for much of it.

</comment><comment><USER8> The current political crisis has been a productivity drain for me since 2008, with Tea Parties to attend, three grueling Presidential campaigns, two midterms, and all the primaries. And the shooting hasn't even started yet! I'm afraid all we'll be able to say at the end of today is "it's the end of the beginning".

</comment><comment><USER9> I may have gained productivity by focusing on work to distract myself from the anxiety, both pre- and post-election.

</comment><comment><USER10> The last few days with all the crazy leaks were pretty intense. But other than that it has been pretty manageable.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not much. Way too much drama. If predictions are right, Hillary is going to win. The end.

<comment><USER12> The predictions markets were around 70-80% chances of victory for "remain in the UK" during the few days before the elections. See what happened.

Right now, it's 80% in favor of Hillary Clinton. That leaves a solid 20% for Trump.

<comment><USER11> I don't actually care about playing oracle (and even if I did, I probably wouldn't consider anything about the UK statistically significant for US election outcomes)

When the results come out, they come out. Until then, people can spout whatever crap they want, and I can just choose to tune it all out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What do you mean by productivity lost.

Have you perhaps drank too much startup kool-aid?

</comment><comment><USER14> You get to stop hearing about it after the election? Lucky you.</comment>


Intel's High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/13059/intels-upcoming-cascade-lake-cpus-to-support-384-tb-of-memory <comment><USER3> A few months ago Intel pulled a stunt where they showed a 28 core 5GHz CPU, implying it was a production CPU that would ship this year. They failed to mention that it was attached to an industrial compressor to supply the necessary cooling for the overclocked CPU, and that it was a server socket ([https://www.anandtech.com/show/12932/intel-confirms-some- det...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12932/intel-confirms-some-details- about-28core-5-ghz-demonstration)).

Since then, whenever I see a headline with Intel in it, I heavily discount it until I can verify the facts. They've damaged my trust, and I suspect many others.

<comment><USER4> Case in point:

> chips will support up to 3.84 TB of memory per socket ... due to combining > 512 GB Optane DIMMs and 128GB DDR4 DIMMs

> ...

> in a 6 x Optane and 6 x DDR4 configuration, they will provide 3072 GB of 3D > XPoint memory and 768 GB of DDR4 RAM for a total of 3.84 TB of memory

Optane DIMMs don't really have the performance characteristics of traditional DRAM. It sounds like the real capacity per socket is 12 x 128GB = 1.53 GB, which is the same capacity as the previous generation.

That being said, I'm optimistic about Optane DIMMs - it seems like an interesting performance point in between DRAM and SSDs.

<comment><USER5> But what market are they even trying to hit here? DDR4 prices are insane, but home consumers don't run large NUMA systems.

Data center admins are going to be able to get the capitol for real DDR4 over Optane. They'd need to be ordering a lot of servers before the price point becomes significant enough that they'd order an Optane configuration and decide to benchmark them.

I'd be curious about the real benchmarking at that point. It there a performance boost to simply have more memory, even if some of it is Optane, or is it better to have a lower capacity without the Optane sticks? I have a feeling this will vary heavily by application too.

<comment><USER6> I thought the real advantage of Optane was bypassing the pcie bus, with much larger bandwidth of dimm: 80GB/s instead of 12GB/s

<comment><USER7> DDR4 dimm read throughput is about 20GB/s per dimm. PCIe 3.1 x4 is 16GB/s. I feel very comfortable claiming that these optane dimms will not reach 20GB/s of sustained performance.

The advantage here being latency (and thus single queue throughput)

<comment><USER6> But pcie bus is shared with other cards. So 8 dimms is 8x faster than 8 pcie cards.

<comment><USER8> > But pcie bus is shared with other cards.

No, it's not, that's the whole point of pcie, and dimms share the memory bus anyway, so the whole point is moot.

<comment><USER9> Well, it depends. "True" pcie slots do not share the bandwidth, but depending on available CPU lanes, which is awfully few in the last years on Intel - <USER2> lanes in top of the line i7? thats one graphics card - the slots are switched to 8x/8x, 8x/4x/4x and so on when populated.

M.2 slots are a whole another story, they are usually connected to the chipset instead of CPU on desktop motherboards (and finding this information for any particular board is difficult). The chipset is connected with CPU through DMI, which equals to pcie 4x and this is shared with everything on chipset - satas, gigabit ethernet, usb 3...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From what I remember the cooling unit alone required 1200W just to run and was the size of a small air conditioning unit, conveniently hidden under the table.

(edit: obviously i've replied to the wrong comment, this is aimed at Intel's deceptive techniques which is currently the top comment)

</comment><comment><USER11> I've weighed up the pros and cons, and my next processor will be the 32 core AMD cpu. This seems much better value than anything Intel has to offer.

<comment><USER12> The last gen 1900x (3.8 GHz 8 core) is on sale now for only $300

AMD becoming competitive again is one of the better things to happen in tech in recent years

<comment><USER13> The 2700 is available for $225 on Amazon.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, depends if you want 2 memory channels or 4 memory channels.

<comment><USER13> Ah, forgot the 1900x was Threadripper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What I really wanted to know is the performance difference in Postgre / MySQL, between 128GB of DRAM, with 1TB of SSD, 1TB of Optane via PCI-E, and Optane DIMM.

<comment><USER16> Here's some benchmark for MySQL, SSD vs Optane (Intel vs Intel): [http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/posts/mysql- performance-80-ga-i...](http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/posts/mysql- performance-80-ga-iobound-sysbench-optane-vs-ssd.html)

<comment><USER17> Not optane dimm though?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Come on, AnandTech! 3840GB != 3.84TB -- that's mixing binary and decimal systems. Say either 3840GB or 3840/1024 = 3.75TB.

<comment><USER19> They are correct here. TB is for decimal, TiB is for binary.

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

<comment><USER18> No. Their "GB" numbers are actually GiB; DRAM always uses binary units because it's addressed in binary. (Maybe if they used the correct suffix, they wouldn't have made the error.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Cores! Gigahertz! Terabytes! Odds are... still f-ing busted.

How will the numbers look after the next Spectre/TLBleed/etc patch?

I'd be more impressed by a boring processor that works.

<comment><USER21> Good question. It's probably WAY too soon to expect any hardware that's not full of vulnerabilities in the pipeline, TPM, and microcode. They need to redesign their cores from the ground up. When will that happen?

<comment><USER22> Never. Not going to happen.

<comment><USER20> That OC is scoring at -4 is proof of that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SHOW HN: Wrote & published a SCI-FI thriller in 5 days. Need feedback please. - <AUTHOR> Don't know what came over me. Just a regular hacker here. Have procrastinated to death before, but this time, I said, fcuk it. No, "I'll write it one day", just started writing.
Anyhoo, Need to know if it is any good. Please be brutal.
Premise: ————————
Every animal stays and guards its territory. Except Humans. We have yearned to explore for centuries with sea faring ships.
And, lately with starships. Why?
Answer: The Hidden gene.
Evolution in nature happens slowly. Giraffes evolved slowly from Okapis. But, humans are different. There is no continuous chain of evolution from the early primates to humans. There is a missing link.
Dr. Sanders makes a brilliant discovery of a hidden gene, but his mistress leaked the discovery to the press for cash.
The world is taken by storm. Many believe that aliens arrived, injected primates with something that sped up evolution into man. Man built technology, and finally the AI that will rule us like we rule the animal kingdom.
This hidden gene programs us to explore the space for the alien masters, who will amalgamate the colonized humans into their galactical empire. They will kill old, handicapped and diseased, keeping only fittest needed to sustain the empire. The empire will do to us, what we humans have done to powerless animals, including raising humans in farms for food.
The possibility scares the world. Anti-AI group rises to stop AI Robotics corp from developing technologies that will condemn us to slavery.
Dr. Sanders goes missing.
And, his son, John, has been paying the price ever since. A missing father. A wife killed in hostage standoff. London is burning.
And, now they have taken his 6 year old, Suzy.
Torn, desperate, and drowned in alcohol.
Will the mysteries unravel? Can John save Suzy?
————————
$2.99 on amazon: https://amzn.to/2HpOnPi
Glad to PayPal the cost if u provide an honest review. (Within terms to offer free book for an honest review.) <comment><AUTHOR> Glad to answer questions. Maybe, I should do an article on things I learned getting a book from concept to published with Kindle Direct.

<comment><USER2> Impressive progress. Did you wrote it all on your own or did you had ghostwriting help ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!!

Honestly, I cannot afford the ghostwriters.

Good ghostwriters demand upwards of $250 for 1000 words.

They have their place and could be useful of one is writing structured non- fiction. With fiction, voice is very important. And, the use of ghostwriters would compromise that IMHO

Edit: added gratitude:)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How often do you commit / push in Git? - <AUTHOR> So my company decided to try out the Scrum working methodology and hired an external consultant to get in order. The consultant was giving a talk and basic introduction about Scrum and stuff. He emphasized committing / pushing to Git on regular basis and said he knew people who pushed / committed like every 30 seconds. In my mind I was going WTF are you talking.<p>How often do you guys commmit / push ? I push in my changes when I have completely finished working on a feature / module <comment><USER2> I'll commit for small, incremental changes. Each commit is a semantic change to me- could be a small change applied in the same way across multiple files, or a larger change in a single file that does one thing.

I tend to push at the first opportunity it makes sense for other people to see my code, and then push again whenever I make enough incremental progress towards the feature to share. Our team has a culture of opening "in progress" PRs early and often to get feedback before we are too far along. This is great to share ideas and feedback about how things should work (instead of just about how they do based on implementation). It also helps keep the final code review size / time down.

</comment><comment><USER3> You need at least an atomic change, i.e compiling/testing/deploying at that point makes sense.

If you just updated a typo in some comments, it could make sense to commit it and it could take 30 seconds.

Now if you are always committing as frequently, either you are working on very easy tasks with no dependencies, either there is an issue.

</comment><comment><USER4> I usually commit whenever I've done one thing that builds and is the smallest amount of change that is still a self-contained change. For example, changes to package scripts, the code and test cases all live as separate commits. The most important thing to do is to make sure no commit breaks the build and that the commits are small enough that someone can follow what they are doing when they're bisecting in the future.

</comment><comment><USER5> I use feature branched for everything, usually named after an issue number. I created a script that allows me to commit whenever I get a task done, not the whole feature, and that script takes care of adding the files, committing them with a message, tags it with the issue number (current branch name), and pushes to remote. That way, every time I save, the changes are saved on the remote GIT repo in case my computer dies or something.

Here's the code in case you wanted to use it:

savework()

{

      if git diff --exit-code --quiet

      then

        echo "There are no changes to save, NONE!";

      else

        echo "Stage everything for commit </comment><comment></comment><comment>-";

        addit; # an alias for "git add -A ."

        echo "Commit all changes with message $@ </comment><comment></comment><comment>--";

        commit "$@"; #commit is an alias for "git commit -m"

        echo "Push branch to remote </comment><comment></comment><comment>--"
        psh; # an alias for git push origin $(git branch | grep "*" | sed "s/* //")

      fi

}

Use it like this: savework "COMMIT MESSAGE HERE"

<comment><USER6> Thank you, I'm going to modify it to:

saveallwork "commit message" \--ignore "somedir/skipme.too"

I usually have just 1 or 2 files I don't want to include in a commit, but thank you again, it will definitely shave a few mins here and there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I commit every time I complete an atomic unit of work. Write a 3-line test and a 3-line method that passes it? Commit.

Working on something that will take a week to be atomically complete and testable? (For instance, a major refactoring.) I'll write myself a checklist of steps and commit every time I complete a step.

As someone else said, once every 30 sec is too often, and once a day is too infrequent if you're coding 8 hours a day. When I'm in a rhythm I'll typically go anywhere from 10 min to 2 hours between non-trivial (e.g. typo-fix) commits.

I do not push every commit immediately. Once a day is a good minimum as a backup strategy and if you want to make sure you can work on the codebase from elsewhere or if you have a CI system to warn you of merge conflicts.

I'll also push whenever I complete a ticket (for long-running branches we typically have sub-tickets, or I'll push when I've completed work that someone I'm sharing the branch with can build on.) Git makes it easy to develop those units of work on separate branches, and when you merge them back to the feature branch is generally a good time to push.

</comment><comment><USER8> Only once so far: [https://github.com/git/git/commit/75d2e5a7b038debee406805c9e...](https://github.com/git/git/commit/75d2e5a7b038debee406805c9e21a86e7c085789) is my git commit ;-)

But seriously, I commit regularly, and rebase locally before pushing, whenever possible.

It's not really about how often you commit, it's about documenting that commit as a single unit of work so looking at it it's clear what you did, and why. This often requires planning ahead of time, and even possibly creating a separate branch just for off topic commits that you think of while working on the same file.

I'm not perfect though, it's okay not to be perfect.

</comment><comment><USER9> We use a fork model where each developer has their own fork of the "main" repository and the developer fork is cloned to the local dev machine.

Using this model I do work in progress commits as needed for different features using many different branches. Those wips and committed locally and are pushed to the remote fork many times per day for backup. For example I can do a quick push before going to lunch or meeting. I can also fetch, rebase, squash, and force push commits as desired because the only history I am affecting is on my own fork. The final merge to the "main" repository is usually 1-2 commits squashed from all the wip commits. Once that is merged I, since I am usually working on a feature branch, I can delete that branch locally and in the remote fork.

Every 30 seconds seems like a bit much, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to say I commit and push 10x a day.

</comment><comment><USER10> > and hired an external consultant to get in order.

Recipe for disaster. :p

> knew people who pushed / committed like every 30 seconds

Pushing and committing is completely different actions in the git world.

If it's a simple fix then I try to commit and push almost instantly. If it is a large piece of work that needs several days, then I "checkpoint" it by committing at least once/day.

But I try to never checkpoint by committing something that breaks the build or unit tests. Like if my work is rewriting module A to B, then my first commit would be to _add_ module B, second to change all dependencies from A to B and lastly to delete module A from the repo.

</comment><comment><USER11> Depends. If it's just the beginning of a project or a side project where I'm definitely the only person working on it then I generally just use it as a backup system. If it's a more substantial project then I try to remember to commit and branch off before embarking on new feature additions, major refactors, or really anything where several hours in you could find yourself cursing and deciding that particular adventure was ill advised or is currently not worth it.

I'm not sure there's a generalizable pattern there for which has a lower actual time interval between commit/pushes but I suspect that I tend to be spammier with them in personal projects.

</comment><comment><USER12> Incrementally, every time I make a small but significant change. I treat it like a super-save, so I can get that latest slice of work back if the disk on my dev machine dies. (The dev machine is currently a Linode.)

30 seconds is too often. Once a day isn't often enough.

</comment><comment><USER13> > I'll commit for small, incremental changes. Each commit is a semantic change > to me- could be a small change applied in the same way across multiple > files, or a larger change in a single file that does one thing. - <USER2>

I agree with that but i'd add that i'll also commit at any stopping point. Need to leave for work? Commit. Need to go home ? commit. Doesn't matter how broken the code is at that point. I'll rebase the ugly commit away. Usually the ugly commit will have a message like "INTERIM COMMIT - REBASE ME"

I'll also happily push these ugly commits to a topic branch on a remote machine for backup purposes as long as I know that no-one else is working on that branch.

</comment><comment><USER14> I commit when I add a feature, fix a bug, anything that "feels" like an incremental step. I try to commit as much as possible so I can revert without losing much work.

I push whenever I'm about to shutdown the laptop or by the end of they day.

</comment><comment><USER15> When developing something new, I make tons of tiny work-in-progress commits, sometimes dozens in a day, and frequently go back and squash them with rebase into a logical flow of changes, once it's more clear what that logical flow really is. I keep my WIP branches around locally for a while so I can go back and dig out the experiments I made along the way.

I prefer this over trying to get every commit right the first time. I also feel there's a nice change of pace in the process of stepping back, looking over the previous work, and shaping it into something that communicates the ideas well to reviewers.

<comment><USER16> What is the purpose of committing though? What does it additionally get you that you don't get by working in place without committing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find it varies with the work being done vs. relating to a discrete time duration.

In general, I try to be very atomic. As an added benefit, this makes it simpler for someone doing a git bisect later.

Fixing minor typos or copy changes across a few files could result in several commits within 15 minutes.

Working on a major feature that requires research and definition and a lot of conversation or feedback, might mean a few commits over the span of a few days.

</comment><comment> mycroft-holmes Let's be honest, that consultant has never pushed a line of code in their life.

You're probably committing and pushing at acceptable times. Screw the consultant.

</comment><comment><USER18> I use Scrum and I usually commit about once an hour. More if I'm just bug- fixing or correcting typos or adding comments.

Committing every 30 seconds seems like it would knock me out of my flow so often that I wouldn't get anything done.

That being said, if I'm working in the same files as someone else, I'll commit every few minutes (and so will they) so that the amount of conflicts we're creating don't get out of hand.

<comment><USER19> You could imagine some sort of IDE plugin that commits-and-pushes with automatic messages on every save, but god help you if your CI triggers on every push and your test suite is non-trivial.

<comment><USER18> Haha, yeah that would be way too much CI. We use CodeShip for CI/CD and they let you add "\--skip-ci" to the commit message to skip deployment for trivial stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Once per feature or major change. Smallest would be a 1 liner that takes 10 seconds. Average maybe 1 hour. At the end of 1 day I commit and push to a private branch just in case my laptop bursts into flames overnight.

</comment><comment><USER21> Commit amend for small changes.

New commit for new logical "part" of feature.

Rebase interactive when feature is "done" (in some way) to fix commit messages and squash some extraneous commits.

Push (as a branch in forked repo).

Sometimes I push before the feature is complete for backup/accountability purposes, but then I rebase anyway and push force the thing once it's done.

</comment><comment><USER22> I commit everything that I want to be able to recover/share. If it's necessary to share (e.g. open a pull request), or if I want to have a distributed backup of my work, I'll push.

</comment><comment><USER23> check in when it makes sense. In a feature branch? whenever you like as long as it's building often. In a dev branch directly? often enough so change gets into test regularly but not so often that your small change sets break the build our functionality other devs may also be working.

push and push regularly, in case you have merge conflicts. Get the continuous integration server building on commits and please have it email the team when the build fails too.

</comment><comment><USER24> I commit _all the time_ , even for minor changes and uncompilable code. But I do this on a WIP branch, which I rebase onto my main branch at the end of the day.

</comment><comment><USER25> To my private branch? As often as I feel I need to feel safe about backing up the changes I made.

How often do you press "Save Game" during a new level?

</comment><comment><USER26> I commit my changes as little checkpoints of the progress of my work, once a feature or a bug is done locally, I push it for people to review.

</comment><comment><USER27> I definitely commit at the end of the day. you should have everything you did in a day on some backup other than your dev environment

</comment><comment><USER28> Scrum is not about the how, as long as your are getting your stories done. Something seems off.

</comment><comment><USER29> Approximately once or twice per hour.</comment>