Life is Short (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/vb.html <comment><USER4> For related reading, I recommend this Tim Urban piece, "The Tail End": [https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail- end.html](https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html)

 _I read about five books a year, so even though it feels like I'll read an endless number of books in the future, I actually have to choose only 300 of all the books out there to read and accept that I'll sign off for eternity without knowing what goes on in all the rest._

...

 _I've been thinking about my parents, who are in their mid-60s. During my first 18 years, I spent some time with my parents during at least 90% of my days. But since heading off to college and then later moving out of Boston, I've probably seen them an average of only five times a year each, for an average of maybe two days each time. 10 days a year._

 _Being in their mid-60s, let's continue to be super optimistic and say I'm one of the incredibly lucky people to have both parents alive into my 60s. That would give us about 30 more years of coexistence. If the ten days a year thing holds, that's 300 days left to hang with mom and dad. Less time than I spent with them in any one of my 18 childhood years._

 _It turns out that when I graduated from high school, I had already used up 93% of my in-person parent time. I'm now enjoying the last 5% of that time. We're in the tail end._

<comment><USER5> >I read about five books a year, so even though it feels like I'll read an endless number of books in the future, I actually have to choose only 300 of all the books out there to read and accept that I'll sign off for eternity without knowing what goes on in all the rest.

makes you want to take some time off and read, doesn't it?

<comment><USER6> I highly recommend audio books.

I tallied it up and last year I read 58 books averaging 1.8 hours of reading a day.

It's great!

<comment><USER5> I don't think audiobooks are really the same; Maybe I just need to figure out how to make it read faster, but so far it's just slower and less immersive. Audio is a thing, like I really enjoy history podcasts when I'm doing other things that require attention, but it's different from reading 'cause I'm not immersed in the world of Mike Duncan or Nate DiMeo - I mean, I really enjoy listening to them but it's like watching a movie on a screen; reading a book is like watching a movie on a occulus rift (only, you know, good) I mean, one of them is there in the room with you; the other becomes the room, absorbs all attention.

<comment><USER7> You can speed it up, and I've done that for some books, but I agree it's not the same. Specially for books from which you want to extract actual concrete knowledge, there is nothing like paper.

However, for the right books, audiobooks can be even better in my experience; books where you want some "wisdom" and feelings more than concrete stuff, and where a peaceful, somewhat-slow is appropriate.

I listened to Lab Girl, an intimate autobiography, read by the author, and it was fantastic. I am now going over a book on buddhism, and because I don't really care about remembering the details of Maharana's life, I love listening instead of reading. With such a book, reading faster doesn't seem to make much sense, I wanna go slow and savior its lessons.

In any case, it's been a good complement to my traditional reading; even when it isn't the best way to read a book, it's a fantastic way to make the most of commuting or doing chores.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a side note, not only one's life is short, but the entire human history is short. I'm over 40 and it struck me that if I repeated my life 50 times it would already go back B.C.! We've invented and developed ALL the things in between. I don't think I could live 50 times and do that myself. That was some amazing achievement, humans.

<comment><USER9> Really good comment. Remind us that 2 thousand years seems a lot, but isn't that much.

If you let me, I advice you to study philisophy, and you shall realise that our history is much bigger than our calendary. And if you study "The republic" os Plato, you will see that our material achivements are improved a lot,for sure, but the humanity as a whole civilization is in decay. Plato's dialogues explain how our civilization evolves and decays in cycles, and we are currently in decay. Democracy is the system that currently rules the world, and it is one step before tirany.

<comment><USER10> The 2400-year-old opinion of a specific philosopher, brilliant though they may be, does not necessarily reflect reality. One of the harder mental blocks I had to get through with philosophy, though it seems incredibly obvious both in retrospect and to those who haven't yet encountered it, is that philosophers write with no authority on metaphysical matters; any time a philosopher says the nature of a thing is thus, they are surely wrong. This is contrasted with technical matters, where it's possible and indeed common for our intellectual giants to describe things precisely as they are. I mean this as no slight against philosophy, nor to denigrate its utility, but as a simple observation that your mode of engagement with the material must differ; see the common interpretation that reading the philosophical corpus is more like listening in on a conversation spanning the ages rather than learning a just-so list of facts about our world.

<comment><USER9> A "2400 year old opinion", to me it is a proof of how good and unbreakable it is for surviving so many years. You are a very smart guy, more than me, for sure, you also should try it, fight against your mental blocks and give a try on philosophy, it can enlighten your life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> By far the deepest and most eloquent writing on this subject that I've ever read has been Seneca's _" On the Shortness of Life"_.[1][2]

[1] - [https://www.amazon.com/Shortness-Life- Seneca/dp/1941129420/](https://www.amazon.com/Shortness-Life- Seneca/dp/1941129420/)

[2] - [https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/on-the-shortness-of- life.pd...](https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/on-the-shortness-of-life.pdf)

<comment><USER12> Seneca's _On the Shortness of Life_ is truly spectacular:

"It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it... Life is long if you know how to use it."

<comment><USER13> *have the ability to use it for your desires...the 40 hour work week leaves little for much else.

<comment><USER14> only if you do something you have no interest in for 40 hours a week.

<comment><USER15> I am building the pyramids so that some day a dead pharaoh can lay inside them.

<comment><USER16> If only. You're lucky if something you worked on lasts more than a decade.

<comment><USER17> Semi relevant note: When I followed the link PG has on his website for 'Hackers and Painters', Amazon reminded me that I ordered that book in 2005.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have a one year old and this is such empowering advice. I discovered a lot of this on my own somehow, but reading that blog now reminds me to cut the bullshit that somehow keeps creeping back in. When explaining to my boss and peers why I was quitting my dream job, I would repeat, "life is fleeting, I want to watch my son grow up."

I've had that wish for a few months now. I have another job that's a bit less rewarding but I work from home and it's far more relaxed. I've already remarked to myself or my wife a dozen moments that I would have missed if I was elsewhere that day: at work, in traffic, etc.

I feel so blessed that I was lucky enough to figure this out this early in life.

<comment><USER19> Hey! I've been trying to find positive stories of people who sacrificed work for deeper personal lives. Would love to chat with you over email if possible! My email is email@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This makes me so anxious and depressed. I'm convinced that nothing will make you more unhappy than reading articles like this about how you're doing your life wrong. A good life seems to come from being content with a bad one.

<comment><USER21> Agreed, life is a lot more enjoyable when you don't worry too much about how you're living it wrong and wasting it.

I especially find the "you only get X weekends with Y" formulation depressing. It makes it sound worse than it is, and enforces a valuation that may not at all be true for you.

<comment><USER22> even worse are revelations such as "You've already had 90% of the social interaction you'll ever have with X person", where X could be someone like your mother or father.

<comment><USER23> Time is such a lousy metric for things like that. I get so much more out of an hour with my mother than I would have when I was 6.

That 5% of time may be a significant portion of the experience (for lack of a better word).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Alright. This isn't Reddit, but: how do people find meaningful things to do (instead of addictive, unrewarding habits) when options, at any particular time, seem to be very limited (i.e. I have 2 hours, starting now - what's available?)? Is it even possible to choose particular meaningful activities consciously (e.g. why would I expect travelling to X to be a great experience if I haven't done it before?), or do they happen by accident if you just expose yourself to many different situations (like having kids)? It seems like the "just say yes" principle is key - don't plan how to spend time based on what you know, just try more things and stop doing what turns out pointless. And, like pg writes, do it now.

Practical result: it's probably better to go to a new club you don't know yet every time you go out, than to frequently visit your favourite one. Even if it feels wrong to habitual animals like us.

Apologies for the rambling.

<comment><USER25> I think one of the most meaningful things in life for many people is connections to others, and it's something we can do easily during those periods that you mention. For example, PG's post made me think about how I could call my mom when taking a break since I don't see her often, and beyond that I should probably spend more time texting people and keeping up other such relationships.

<comment><USER26> This is good advice. And as far as "single-player" activities are concerned, I think pursuing curiosities as far as your interest will go is a good way to discover new interests. Read an article on a topic you find compelling? Find additional reading material. Maybe take a class. Catch the urge to make something? Go for it. Something might stick or it may not. Either way, you'll have done something you might not have otherwise done and it won't have been a waste of time.

<comment><USER24> > I think pursuing curiosities as far as your interest will go is a good way > to discover new interests. Read an article on a topic you find compelling? > Find additional reading material

As we get older, we develop stronger biases, so we think we can dismiss more and more as not worthwhile without even trying it. That's why I believe some outside influence is key.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I admire pg's sentiment here but I think the analysis is inaccurate.

There's all these "regret minimization" techniques and books out there - <USER2> they all fail at one thing; giving the true reason for why every person will ultimately have regrets: You are not you. The exhausted and tired you has different weights assigned to activities, most strongly correlated with energy required. The stimulated you after drinking 4 shots of expresso or taking amphetamines, is more than willing to do the things that tired you would probably have not done.

We wrestle with lazyness, consumption versus actual action, the great now for the shitty future or vica versa. You really can't please all modes of thinking -- ever. The deathbed mode of thinking is another entirely different beast.

But what pg says about "importance" vs "what matters" rings true and really penetrates through this incompleteness of self-thought. Love is the only thing that could never be wrong. Because it isn't a binary - it's not even just a feeling - it's a thing that modes of thought can't erase despite their different weighting schemes.

Do whatever you do - but do it for love. I promise you it won't be a regret.

</comment><comment><USER28> might be good to be pg and have plenty of time to spenD with its own kid, after doing a phd in one of the most expensive colleges in the US, selling a company for tons of money, creating a extremely successful incubator

i used to enjoy his essays for a long time, til i started to see how out of the world of most people even the basic stuff he writes there -- he is able to afford to spend time doing stuff nobody can, then it's kinda of easy to be successful at whatever he does.

<comment><USER11> This reminds me of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs.[1]

It has often been described as a pyramid, with physiological needs at the bottom, and self-actualization (or maybe self-transcendence) at the top. The full heirarchy is:

      - Self-transcendence
      - Self-actualization
      - <USER3>
      - Social belonging
      - Safety needs
      - Physiological needs

It's difficult for the higher needs to matter much when one hasn't fulfilled the lower ones.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_heirarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_heirarchy_of_needs)

<comment><USER21> I don't really think this is correct.

People who have issues getting basic needs met are just unlikely to also get their higher needs met. But I the misunderstanding of needs is also why people do things like smoke and drink and people from more healthy backgrounds don't understand why.

And people have been known to forgo comfort for causes. The basic things matter because without them you will often be in danger, but they don't necessarily matter psychologically.

I think self-actualization, i.e., some degree of mattering, some degree of respect, is important to pretty much everyone, it's just that if you are lacking food and shelter you're also probably having trouble finding a purpose, as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Telling a weird and only slightly related to the 'not waiting' part of this article (which I like).

I recently got bitten by bitcoin trading. Knowing nothing about trading it was extremely wasteful. Also soulless... every dollar I made was someone else's loss. But it made me approach waiting and time efficiency differently. I'm a very attentist person.. I wait.. waiiit.. In bitcoin there's a tension (I did minute scalping) to get started and leave at the right time. Also since no one wants to wait watching charts, it made me learn rust/kotlin in the mean time with way more energy. Stretching and working out too.

Surprisingly this stupid activity gave floor to other more fulfilling ones. Life is complex sometimes.

ps: sometimes too life make you blind to what would be your perfect life and then you miss it. uneasy feeling to get over.

<comment><USER30> I'm sorry you had a bad experience with that. I had the opposite experience where I started to get back into to bitcoin with a set of small trades and turned a small profit. I bought some more bitcoin and ethereum. The objective for me though was to learn the platform. It actually made me think of new ideas about how you could use the platform. I personally think that you need some skin in the game to truely understand some technology.

My perspective through trading bitcoin is that it isn't as zero sum as you say but more like your gain and someones loss could be seen as you are interacting with a system that may make people money in the long run.

I think its good though that you started to learn Kotlin and Rust and maybe you are being a bit too hard on your self of being guilting when you are trading cryptocurrencies.

<comment><USER31> Crypto peaked at 707 billion, according to CoinMarketCap. Less than three months later, market cap has now plunged by 65% to $245 billion, a drop of $462B.

Given how high transaction costs are (and production via electricity usage) crypto trading is almost certainly negative sum.

The only way it wouldn't be is if the non-monetary benefits (eg sense of security for different asset class, online purchases) exceed the electrical inputs.

I would be very surprised if it does given eg Steam and Bitcoin conferences stopped accepting crypto payment and the sense of security in an asset class is low after seeing -65% returns in a quarter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A pleasant essay, but I think it is a bit dismissive of the situations people are in. A simple example is the teenagers he mentions. You can't help but worry a ton about what people think about you as a teenager - your "social subprocess" has just kicked on, and you are overwhelmed by a great number of new senses and feelings. Telling a teenager not to worry about things does nothing but make everything worse. I can come up to you and inject you with adrenaline and nothing you do (short of medical intervention) will make you feel calm, and certainly me telling you to "just calm down" isn't going to help.

The essay is well intended, and well written as usual, I just have an issue with the underlying assumption that people can simply change everything as desired.

<comment><USER33> It's the gospel of someone who experienced, by common standards, extreme success. No more, no less. I find his essays mostly to be opinion pieces without exceptional insights or conclusions that would make them stand out if they were not attached to his persona.

<comment> aaron-lebo I still enjoy reading some of his stuff, but over the years I've realized that most of his writing lacks any rigor or evidence for what he says. He'd be a much better writer if it weren't for the way people read his good and usually thoughtful writing and take it for truth. This happens as you say due to him being successful, which I find kind of pernicious. I've found some of his stuff in hindsight simply wrong, but he'll never go back and correct it, nor will people listen to criticism.

My only wish was he was more cognizant of this and wrote accordingly, but his writing has gotten less rigorous and more flowery over the years, not less. It's a real problem across tech. I've read some comments on HN describing tech as devoid of culture, which has some truth to it, but the bigger issue is we don't really care about evidence, and that comes from the top.

<comment><USER34> I've actually noticed that too. I remember reading his articles from the early days of HN and being enamored by their insights... mad respect. But then he tweeted something along the lines of "There's no Uber or Lyft here in Austin, Texas. How do I get anywhere?!" (Uber and Lyft had left Austin at the time) which fundamentally changed my view of the guy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sam Altman published a very related piece three years ago:

"The days are long but the decades are short" [https://blog.samaltman.com/the- days-are-long-but-the-decades...](https://blog.samaltman.com/the-days-are- long-but-the-decades-are-short)

<comment><USER36> You are right, it's a nice article!

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > After my mother died, I wished I'd spent more time with her. I lived as if > she'd always be there.

I love this article, and this line has always hit me particularly hard. He goes on to mention that she encouraged this illusion, and I think many people who are older do this as well.

As someone who is going through something similar, what do you do in this situation? Of course you can adjust your life to live as if people won't always be there, but how do you get them to stop encouraging the illusion?

</comment><comment><USER38> I definitely agree with this article and believe that life is short, but it's also a good idea to relax and not worry about it all too much. I think the relaxing and having a piece of mind is undervalued by most people. It helps you have a better quality life however short it is. Remember that the time you spend on worrying about how short it is is also part of your life which you are kind of wasting. Having said that I agree that we should consider the bullshit in our life and cut in favor of things that we really want to do, because at the end life is to short for that.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Relentlessly prune bullshit, don't wait to do things that matter, and savor the time you have. That's what you do when life is short."

Wise words. It took me a long time to learn this the hard way.

</comment><comment><USER40> I see this and I understand the sentiment but my emotional reaction is basically "Nah."

Life is long and good. Even when shitty things happen to you, it's a gift to be alive. (A gift from whom, you might ask? Probably nobody, but nobody knows! Isn't that exciting?) I'm about to celebrate my 10,000th day on Earth. That's a lot of days! And I have a couple times that more ahead of me if I'm lucky and I do some exercise.

I'm not waiting to do things that matter to me, not because the clock is ticking, but because I _want_ to do them now. And I might not want to do them later, so it'd be a shame if I didn't.

Of course I'm terrified of the day it ends. It keeps me up almost every night. But pragmatically, the more I think about that, the less I enjoy the time I have. And I plan to arrange a good vitrification at the end of things so I have a small chance of coming back for an encore. You've got to be practical about life, but you don't need to be pessimistic. Life may not be long _enough_ , but it is long.

<comment><USER41> Couldn't have said it better myself. I went on a trip with a friend for my day 10k celebration, hope yours is a good one :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Related: two of President John Tyler's Grandsons Are Still Alive.

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john- tylers-g...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers- grandsons-are-still-alive)

John Tyler was born in 1790, and he took office in 1841.

</comment><comment><USER43> Oh my. My son is 7, and I know time with him will fly by. But realizing I can count the childhood Christmases that we have remaining hits me so much harder than knowing his childhood will fly by in general

I savor every day with him, even when I'm busy and a bit frustrated. I tell him that as well.

Reading the opening part of this hit me in the gut.

</comment><comment><USER44> Interesting piece but perspective matters.

> don't wait to do things that matter, and savor the time you have. That's > what you do when life is short.

It depends on your situation. If you cashed out and don't have to worry about paying rent and feeding your family (like Paul) then it's easy to spend more time with your family.

If not: You are constantly torn between spending time with your family and getting your startup/career/job right to be able to finance the next vacation/school/flat. It's actually even worse. Every minute you spend with your family you face opportunity costs losing money you could invest into your family. If you work only your kids won't remember you.

Try to cash out before you hit 25, not later than 30.

<comment><USER45> I am not from silicon valley, is cashing out before 25 that usual? How much money are you talking about?

<comment><USER46> At macro scale not everyone can retire early. It's a pyramid of sorts. Who is going to wash the rich person's car? Until we have very advance tech, the answer is the person who didn't get lucky and cash out at 25.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Nice article, and I agree, life is short.

This is, of course, not a new observation. It's Easter, so here are a few Biblical quotes with the same sentiment:

"What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes." (James 4:14 ESV)

"Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow." (Psalm 144:4 ESV)

It's an old observation... but it's also timeless. It's good to be reminded. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER48> the corollary to "time flies when you're having fun" is that misery never ends. Chronic depression and entry level retail is the next worst thing to immortality...

</comment><comment><USER22> For those with kids, is it better to have them early, or later?

I've always thought it's better to wait until at least my late 30s, so I can live the first half of my life completely on my terms. My father was in his late 30s when I was born, and I think it was a pretty good decision on his part.

<comment><USER4> I have a friend who was in his late 30's when he had his first kid. Now, he is 50 years old, his youngest kid is 8 years old, and I have heard him remark on several occasions that when he is attending his second child's high school graduation, he will be a 60-year-old man.

I've heard him remark somewhat wistfully that he wishes he had been able to spend his 30's (when he was younger and had more energy) running around in the park and tossing around a frisbee or rollerblading with them, rather than struggling to keep up with them now as a 50-year-old. And mind you, he's a pretty healthy guy (was a college athlete, not currently overweight or with any chronic health problems), he can bench press more than most guys half his age, and he still wishes he'd had those younger years to spend with his kids. I've also heard him mention once (in a much more somber tone) that if his sons wait as long as he did to have kids, he might not get to see his grandkids grow up, and even if he does get to watch them grow up, he will be a very old man by the time they're old enough to swim or throw a frisbee. (If physically keeping up with your kids as a 50-year-old is tough, imagine trying to do the same thing as a 80-year-old grandparent.)

Here's a question: would you rather spend your 30's globetrotting (or otherwise "living life on your own terms"), and then be raising kids into your 50's? Or would you rather spend your 30's raising kids, and then have your 50's to go on globetrotting adventures? Everything I've heard from parents tells me that raising kids takes immensely more energy than touring Europe.

Another thing that might go overlooked is that although I've seen some parents abandon hobbies to spend more time with their kids, I've seen some people with hobbies that they've gotten to share with kids that have been a great bonding experience, be it something like woodworking or playing a musical instrument or a martial art or running a side business on Etsy. And even if it's something that doesn't involve the kid, parents still get to have lives; I have a friend who has a full time job, is raising three kids, and still managed to write a novel in the past year. Modern American society has burdened parents (and kids) with lots of obligations like soccer practice/youth sports league of your choice, a constant regiment of scheduled afterschool activities and an attitude that says if you let your kids play in the park unsupervised you're a neglectful parent, but most of the anecdata I've observed tells me that both parents and kids seem to enjoy themselves more and have better relationships when they have large amounts of unscheduled time during the week; one of the things I'm most grateful to my parents for is the large amounts of time that they left me to entertain myself and discover my own hobbies.

Here's another thing: after your kids grow up, you (hopefully) get to be friends with them. My parents (now mid-late 50's) are empty nesters, and one thing that I'm constantly struck by is how much I enjoy being _friends_ with them, traveling back to their part of the country once a year to go on vacations together once a year, calling them every week to commiserate about the trials of adult life, and so on. We have the kind of incredibly tight familial bond that you only get from living under the same roof with someone for 18 years _and_ they're also incredibly good friends. If all goes well, I'll be able to spend the next several decades with my parents continuing to be a part of my life, and that's something that I'm immensely grateful for. The earlier you have kids, the more years of your life that you get to spend with them, and the more years of their life they get to spend with you.

<comment><USER49> With regards to the children argument I have largely seen the opposite where the parents directly/indirectly confess that they to a large degree regret having kids in their 30s /20s and would have rather globetrotted or did their own version of their pursuit of happiness.

My point is not that children are the source of the problem but that these things about what you would rather do is personal to each human.I don't think one can make a blanket statement about rasing kids or doing you thing as there are quite many people on either side who regret the path that they have taken.

Also your bond with your parents is quite heartwarming and I hope you od realize how lucky you are to have that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Read it before a couple of times but always good to read it again, it is my favorite Paul Graham essay.

</comment><comment><USER51> Life is short for those that have triggered immortal processes. There are no easy ways to do this however. (the easiest way being starting a family)

Most people probably feel that life is too long and boring and are always looking for something to do.

It's probably somewhat offensive to these people to claim life is too short when their major negative emotion day to day is ennui.

I think the internet has exacerbated this problem for some people. Those who can't bring themselves to do things because they can easily see that it's already been done before but weren't young enough to grow up in this new environment to easily consider doing things like game streaming or YouTube channels.

<comment><USER51> Should add that for many tech people the immoetal process often chosen is founding a company. Without a source of meaning like children they often don't have the motivation to grind out the rest of their days as a cog

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Arguing on-line can be a _good_ thing: it sharpens both your logic and articulation skills. If you don't like on-line debate, you can leave.

A good online debate ends up looking like a geometry proof: based on these givens, here's the logical conclusion using cold, hard, and clear logic.

Now, it may be that people disagree with the givens, being that many of them depend on assumptions of human behavior and psychology that would take million$ to settle in controlled studies, but at least one narrows down the reasons for their preference. Another reader can then "shop the proofs" and select the one with givens that best match their own circumstances or shop practices. Thus, good debates create clear(er) decision trees even though disagreements remain. Parameters will remain parameters.

</comment><comment><USER53> "Life is too short" is also the core tenet of a philosophy called "Memento Mori" (remember that you will die!). It was even used as a greeting, instead of "hello" by the members of certain religious sects.

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

<rant> But the opposite is also true: while I am alive, I am never dead (as silly as it sounds). I never experience death. For me it is an eternal now which is always alive. Should I worry about things I will never experience? We only experience the death of others, we don't know what it is like not to be alive 100 years from now. Why should we care about that when we are in an eternal now that is always alive?

One way to deal with death is to leave something of you behind - kids, ideas or social impact. Another way is to remember that there is a great number of people who died as well - everyone before a certain birth date in fact. It's not like going in a strange place, it's like going where all these great people went before us.

When we die we're divided - the matter that was in our bodies goes to earth and is recycled in nature, possibly becoming part of another life. The genes pass on to our kids and our grandchildren, then spreading out in a vast number of people 10 or 20 generations later; genes have a life of their own. The ideas we had fly from mouth to mouth, having a life of their own as well. The memories are left with our friends and family and will have a second death when they die. But does it matter to you if you're remembered by someone who is not close to you? The life that was in us just reinvents itself again. We're split into pieces and every piece goes right where it should.

Another thing to ponder about: what else is a lot like death? In a sense, it's the time before we were born. It was like death, because we didn't exist, and then we came into being. How was it before we were born? Was it a bad experience? We have had eons of death before our short ~80 year span and it didn't affect us negatively one bit. If we're not affected by the 'no-life' of the time before we were born, why should we be affected by the 'no-life' that will be after we die?

In the end, what is important? I think all reasons in life are related to survival instincts. Even learning to walk and grasp, or how to function as a member of society, or how to date and how to raise children - they are all in the service of self replication (and protecting one's life). Our fundamental reason for being is self replication, and all our "good things in life" come from things that support it. Thus it is this recursive loop that creates the root value (that of being alive) and from it come all our other values.

But this kind of thinking is relative. When we're lifting ourselves from the basic loop of survival, we see how many of the things we hold dear and important are irrelevant. There is no universal good or reason to be. Meaning is being invented every moment and we're in control of it. We should think ourselves free and ignore the survival game as much as we like. That's the beauty of it - we're free to reinvent ourselves, or to embrace our instincts and values, which have been chiseled by countless generations of genetic selection before us. One strategy is exploration (there's no rule, we could be anything), and the other exploitation (holding dear the good things in life, those which fit our survival instincts). They're both valid. </>

<comment><USER54> I use this sentiment as a sort of a trick to help combat anxiety. There may be a billion universes in which I die this week, but it can't be this one, because I am subjectively alive and experiencing this one. I can only experience the timeline in which I live. There may be other timelines, but I wouldn't know about them, because I'm alive in this one.

I don't experience the timelines where I do/did die, by definition. I can only enjoy the one in which I don't/didn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> OTOH eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die

</comment><comment><USER56> No matter what you do, life will always feel short.

</comment><comment><USER57> Life isn't short, it's the longest thing you'll ever do.

</comment><comment><USER58> Who is this man? I wish I could be his friend.</comment>


Bushehr port: Seven ships ablaze in latest Iran mystery fires - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53417227 <comment><USER2> Looks like Israel has made a tiny drone that can carry a small shaped charge that can punch a hole is a gas tank or cylinder of flammable gas. With IR video and encrypted coms and larger plastic propellers that make a lot less noise they can fly in at 500 feet to an area and with no IR searchlight (dead reckoning via GPS or an Israeli secret GPS, waaay off band to our GPS) it can rreach an area, descend, light up, select target and self kill in contact with a target, or attach magnetically, set timer - OR - trigger remotely? and fly the drone away. Drones with 30 minutes to do this, only 6 inches wide are on youtube. The era of small sabotage has begun. Expect Iran to also do this, and israel needs to operate a picket to stop these. I am sure Iran has assessed the fragments and will also make a picket...All informed spec about what I would do after that TED episode [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK6IGG5zRU8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK6IGG5zRU8)</comment>


Ask HN: What platform would you pick to optimize for hiring top talent later on? - <AUTHOR>

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, but it's an interesting exercise. In the past I've built projects on technology stacks that have turned out to be difficult to find people skilled in later on. Looking it at it from the other end, if you know you'll need to scale the team up, what platforms (if any) would make this easy? <comment><USER2> If you really want top talent, platform's less of an issue than problem. As long as you choose a platform that is appropriate to the problem you're trying to solve (e.g. you probably shouldn't write web-apps in C or weather simulation code in pure Ruby), I think most of the people you'd consider 'top' talent would recognize that the platform is secondary.

<comment><USER3> This also relates to what PG said,

"When you decide what infrastructure to use for a project, you're not just making a technical decision. You're also making a social decision, and this may be the more important of the two. For example, if your company wants to write some software, it might seem a prudent choice to write it in Java. But when you choose a language, you're also choosing a community. The programmers you'll be able to hire to work on a Java project won't be as smart as the ones you could get to work on a project written in Python. "

That may be why the OP is having trouble finding talent, because talent doesn't like the stacks he used.

<comment><USER4> I don't know that it's fair to compare communities based upon intelligence. Though not a Java programmer myself, I work with J2EE programmers and they're as mixed a bag as the Python hackers in the sysadmin group.

While I would choose LAMP over J2EE any day where the choice is available, it would be due to the community strictly from a technology forecast POV. The issues with Java as a community stem from any combination of things, from a slow evolution of the language and JDK, to Oracle's handling of the community and assets. OpenJDK is making that a little less worrisome, but as far as infrastructure goes, I would say LAMP (P: Perl/Python/PHP) offers the more reasons to choose it.</comment></comment></comment>


Chumby Industries shuts down - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/20/2963003/chumby-broken-up-employees-at-technicolor-technology-sold

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty surprised this is just getting out now. The company essentially ceased to exist as anything but a legal entity back in December of last year.

However, most of the team is still working together at a new company as mentioned in the linked article on theverge. And most of us still even sit at the same exact desks we sat at while working for chumby.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm interested to know what HN thinks this means for hardware startups. Is this a case of Chumby not executing well enough or is it too hard to build a hardware startup? I think it's the former, but many people out there including investors seem to think otherwise. Some even go as far to say it is not worth doing a hardware startup because software scales soo much easier.

<comment><USER4> Hardware startups can be very risky..

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

<comment><USER5> Very risky, but not all failures.

Square, FitBit, MakerBot, Nest, Tesla

<comment><USER6> I don't think Square counts as a hardware startup.

Food for thought, is a bank that only provides internet banking services and providing a 2-factor auth dongle a hardware company?

<comment><USER7> In fairness, I doubt most traditional banks actually _design_ their own 2-factor authentication hardware. But yeah, calling Square a hardware company is nevertheless a stretch. (particularly as the hardware component is a freebie/loss-leader IIRC)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Chumby is gone. But it's lead engineer Bunnie has a new company, BunnieStudios. <http://www.bunniestudios.com/>

BunnieStudios makes the netv device: it's an HDMI pass-through injector, and it's interface is all web based.

<comment><USER3> The NeTV is a fascinating device. Until now it wasn't possible to manipulate video protected by HDCP unless you got an expensive license. Probably not doable for hobbyists and startups. Bunnie solved this by performing a man-in- the-middle attack to inject video in the stream. Since he is not decrypting anything he is not breaking the DMCA. Brilliant! The development platform is also really nice. They have a virtual machine with the toolchain setup so you can start developing immediately and push firmware to your device through the net.

Bunnie gives more details here: <http://youtu.be/37SBMyGoCAU>

Hopefully, he will have more success outside the consumer market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can't say this is unexpected... I haven't used my chumby for months, but does it mean the chumby channels are going to shut down as well after this summer, leaving everyone with a useless box that cannot do anything ?

<comment><USER10> Yeah this is what I fear as well. I didn't know everything including the interface depended on a server. A little annoying once you figure it out after paying for one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I still use my Chumby as an alarm clock, and it works really well. I hope that it will be possible to keep it running without the chumby servers through some hacks.

Really sad to see that it didn't work out.

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe I'm cynical but this reads as an innovator becomes a zombie, a patent portfolio that's worth billions in potential lawsuits, or perhaps more fuel for the arms race.

</comment><comment><USER13> I had a chumby. His name was Grumpy. I sold him. Got out in the nick of time.

</comment><comment><USER14> Aw sad day. I had one of the original Chumby's right after they went on sale. Haven't used it in year since the wifi became so flakey but it was nice at the time.

</comment><comment><USER15> $17.5m raised and lost for a leather-coated-open-source-widget-powered-alarm- clock in their early days, to a smart-TV platform in their later days.

Sad story of a multi-pivot failed, hope somebody there takes the time to write the posthumous, I'd read it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumby></comment>


Hyperboria focused on security, scalability and decentralization - <AUTHOR> http://hyperboria.net/

<comment><USER2> I am very surprised that there's no discussion on this topic yet. HN, what's happening?

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps there is another way for this to find its way to the frontpage. I was surprised no one else had submitted it before. There are active subreddits for it.</comment></comment>


Mars Rover Finds Changing Rocks, Surprising Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/science/mars-rover-finds-changing-rocks-surprising-scientists.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well <comment><USER2> It is fascinating to see how much geological history the team has been able to uncover with the various point measurements and a stratigraphic analysis. The best summary I know of is in this article in _Science_ ([http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6257/aac7575.abstract?...](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6257/aac7575.abstract?sid=4250fa26-519a-4e0c-bec2-907515c707fc)), which documents the discovery of stream beds feeding an ancient lake within Gale crater, river delta formations with progressively finer sediments, and small eroded canyons. It's impressive work.

(Full text article appears to be here: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Linda_Kah/publication/2...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Linda_Kah/publication/282734758_Deposition_exhumation_and_paleoclimate_of_an_ancient_lake_deposit_Gale_crater_Mars/links/561bb9e308ae78721fa102b8.pdf))

</comment><comment><USER3> Does the end say there is life on mars?

"The scientists did not present new findings on organics, the carbon-based molecules that could serve as the building blocks for life. Dr. Vasavada said that signs of organics had been spotted, but the scientists were still analyzing them.

"Stay tuned," he said. "There are organics in several of these samples we've been seeing lately.""

<comment><USER4> "Organic" simply means "containing carbon". Not all organic molecules originate in living organisms; in fact, probably the overwhelming, stupefyingly huge majority of organic molecules in the universe are of non- life origin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Original story from NASA: [http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/rocks-rich-in- silica-present...](http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/rocks-rich-in-silica- present-puzzles-for-mars-rover-team)

</comment><comment><USER6> Got to pump up that funding with continuous new discoveries.

<comment><USER7> If you're not making new discoveries, what's the point of doing science.

<comment><USER8> Confirmation of existing discoveries perhaps?

<comment><USER7> Maybe once there are a few hundred rovers driving around up there.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Not One New York Police Officer Has a Body Camera - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/nyregion/despite-national-trend-new-york-police-are-slow-to-adopt-body-cameras.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 <comment><USER2> I was so excited when police body cameras became a thing. I figured that some kind of beureucratic oversight would stop most, if not all funny business-- BOY WAS I WRONG!! They 'accidentally' turn them off, don't bother wearing them or don't give the public access to the footage.

These cameras are completely worthless until they start working for the public and not abused by corrupt police depts. All cops need to have these and they need to be uploaded to a third, impartial party at the end of the day, every day, or abuse will be commonplace. I guess I did read somewhere that police complaints dropped 97 (??) percent since the use of body cameras, but where? Certainly not nation wide.

<comment><USER3> The police departments have nothing to gain and everything to lose from this, so these shenanigans make some twisted sense to me. One could argue that they stand to gain [back] the trust of the public, but I honestly doubt that they even really care about that, since at the end of the day their paycheck is written by the government and not the population, and they're the ones with the guns and the license to kill.

<comment><USER4> Sure they have something to gain - proof against frivolous lawsuits, for which they are often the target of.

<comment><USER5> Of which the city [residents] pays to defend against and pays for any damages.

<comment><USER4> Yes, and this is a good thing for everyone involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Los Angeles is going large on the concept of body cameras:

[... The LAPD already has about 860 cameras, purchased through private donations. Last year, the LAPD negotiated a contract with Taser International to provide thousands more as well as replacement equipment, digital storage of the recordings and thousands of Tasers. ...]

[http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-body- cameras-2...](http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-body- cameras-20160417-story.html)

Perhaps there is a SAAS opportunity in there somewhere?

<comment><USER7> That's part of Taser International's business. They basically are providing a lifecycle solution from replacement to cloud storage for their body camera product.

Edit: Although I have no idea if they are doing it "well" and there may be pain points to fix in the day to day. So yeah, probably an opportunity there.

<comment><USER8> I imagine that the classification or definition of 'well' is somewhat specific to the role in this discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Key quote:

"What do you expect to happen when the N.Y.P.D. sets the terms and the pace of police reform?" Councilman Torres said in an interview.

</comment><comment><USER10> Well some cities that have had them are actually losing them because retention rules keep changing and beyond thirty days it becomes very expensive to manage all that video. Think of just the storage requirements then go beyond that to determine providing usable queries of the video along with proper protection of the video until expiration

<comment><USER11> Once we get all this NSA dragnet nonsense stopped, we will have two shiny new zettabyte-capacity data centers that we can use to store all the video. Simple!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does anyone know more about the current common retention rules?

Seems to me an easy way to cut down on the amount stored is to detect for interactions (say, other voices in the recording, definitely gun shots, etc), and then save an amount before, after and during. Maybe twice the response time for a call, for the before? The after may be harder. You can then pair it down from there. Or, could dispatch control it? Start recording when dispatched / called, stop recording when the situation is resolved, according to dispatch.

</comment><comment><USER13> >department's approximately 35,800 officers

>a company had been chosen to supply up to 5,000 over the next five years.

>The Police Department says it is committed to outfitting officers with body cameras

So the plan is to equip a whopping 1/7th of officers in the next five years? I must be thinking of a different definition of "commitment" than the one the NYPD seems to use.

<comment><USER14> I will say that not all of those 35,800 are patrol officers, though I share your sentiment about the NYPD's level of commitment.

<comment><USER15> And not all patrol officers are on duty at the same time.

I wonder how much current equipment is checked out daily and shared?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In the recent Charlotte police shooting incident, it was disappointing to see how unhelpful the body-camera video was. I'm not sure whether that was an anomaly, or whether it's just very difficult to get useful footage from a body camera.

<comment><USER17> Maybe they need additional 360 cameras deployed on an extendable periscope above a cruiser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why not focus on something that can be fixed without need for extra budget, like, say, ending stop and frisk?

You don't need a police body camera to observe that abuse of power.

<comment><USER13> Why not both?

<comment><USER18> Because we have massive police abuse right there in the open, and nothing is done about it. And not for lack of evidence!

If the city won't deal with this problem, what makes anyone think that of all things, cameras will remove any roadblocks?

Without serious interest in tackling police abuse, cameras are a feel-good placebo.

Eric Garner was killed on video. Exactly what has been done about that? Nothing and nothing?

<comment><USER19> Last night, the candidates for Vice President had a minutes-long discussion about community policing and implicit bias. To say that nothing individual incidents had no effect is to miss the forest for the trees.

<comment><USER18> Eric Garner's death certainly had an impact across the country - but one place where it didn't was the NYPD.

This is precisely why we can't have both. I have the feeling that body cameras are used as a smoke-and-mirror diversion, by organizations that aren't committed to change.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Self-incriminating Crypto Passphrase and the 5th? - <AUTHOR>

I heard somewhere long ago that if your encryption passphrase was self-incriminating for any kind of crime (stealing a candybar when you were a 13 or willingly speeding last week) you would legally be protected by the 5th Amendment if you were ever legally forced to divulge the keys. Is this true? <comment><USER2> Couldn't they just force you to type it in in a private room?</comment>


Elon Musk Keeps Tweeting - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/elon-musk-keeps-tweeting <comment><USER2> _What will the judge do to him? What can she do? Yell at him? Tell him, no this time he really needs to do what she already told him to do? Put him in jail? You can't put Elon Musk in jail; he has a whole company for drilling tunnels!_

This article goes in an unexpected direction after a few paragraphs.

</comment><comment><USER3> The contempt for the law that's on display here is pretty remarkable. The fact that he probably won't face any consequences really drives home that there are two justice systems - one for the rich and one for everyone else.</comment>


Show HN: Excel 2013 - <AUTHOR>

Not exactly a side project but my work for the last 2.5 years. As an avid HN lurker would love to hear feedback.
Background: I am a PM on the Excel team in charge of the advanced data analysis tools (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bi/Products/OfficePreview.aspx)
To download: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/en <comment><USER2> We really want VBA to use all cores of the CPU rather than just one.

VBA is currenly simply too slow, NOT able to use more than 25% of CPU capacity (3 out of 4 cores are idle when VBA is running).

</comment><comment><USER3> I see that Excel still doesn't have any macro programming options except VBA. Where is support for C# (at least) programming of macros?

<comment><AUTHOR> C# is absolutely supported through the COM interface. Although the built in IDE can only do VBA there is a full library that can be used with C# (how most add-ins are built)

<comment><USER3> Right, you can automate Excel in C# from outside of Excel or make an add-in, but you can't store code inside an Excel document or edit it from within Excel, or assign a worksheet control handler to directly execute C# code, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> thats right, but now you can do all that with JS/Html5. All in all I feel your pain though since i fall into this limitation myself (not a huge VBA fan).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for the preview! I don't understand if this is a web app or desktop app.

<comment><AUTHOR> the apps will stream to your desktop but are desktop apps. O365 is also available which is the web apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there going to be a release for OS X?

<comment><USER6> As a follow-on question from someone who was forcefully converted from Win7 to OSX at a new job;

Is the release for OSX going to be productivity-crippling due to bugs (status bar disappears at random, etc.), frequent crashes (usually with powerpoint involvement), and haphazardly changed shortcut keys?

Love your Excel-for-Windows work though.

<comment><AUTHOR> again I cannot comment on the OSX release because I actually don't know. If your having stability issues make sure to send those crash reports we actually have some pretty cool collection and analysis tools for crashes that lets us work on the reliability of the product.

<comment><USER6> No worries, it was mostly tongue-and-cheek anyways. I went from being a maestro at the keyboard to hunting and pecking with the switchover to the OSX version. This is nobody's fault but my own.

I'm very curious to try the Windows version though, what are some of the bigger changes? (Aside from the better pivot tables, better sharing, and smart-fill on the product page).

<comment><AUTHOR> For Excel in particular the list is actually really long. The big ones are flash fill (pattern recognizition for data cleansing), quick analysis (live preview of different analysis elements with your data), side by side Excel sheets, Chart animations, automatic PivotTable recommendations, automatic Chart recommendations, Data model (Powerpivot - in memory data analysis engine that allows creating relationships between data sources -db style), among 100 more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Flash fill looks sick.

<comment><AUTHOR> its really is pretty awesome, straight from Microsoft Research. I have been using it for the last couple of months and I don't think I could live without it at this point :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's Your 5 Runs? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rypple.com/2009/07/22/whats-your-5-runs/

<comment><USER2> Been a distance runner for over eight years and tried out the Nike+ for about a month two years ago. Basically it's not accurate. Mine was off on pace and distance constantly. It's in the garbage now.

The way I calibrated it was I ran on a treadmill at a constant pace for 1 mile. After I'd get pace results that were off by a minute sometimes, and mileage results off by 1/10th of a mile. I calibrated it like 20 times before giving up on it.

That might not seem a lot, but to a serious runner it is. A 6:00/mile pace is far more grueling than a 6:30/mile pace. I ran a 1/2 marathon with it and Lance Armstrong congratulated me for finishing when passing the 11.5 mile marker. Uh, another 1.6 to go dude. If I let it pace me it would have ruined the race for me. Fortunately stop-watches and mile-markers still rule all.

You can look at reviews for it on Amazon. Many had the same experience I did. People still buy them though because people like stats. "You finished a marathon. Achievement unlocked!" etc...

It's more for new/amateur runners to the sport. They don't care so much about accurate pace and distance. Just having something say "You did good!" makes them happy. Running for 30 minutes is difficult enough for many, without worrying about accurate stats. And heck, if that gets you running, by golly go and buy one! The more people taking care of their bodies the better! :)

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

The idea behind the uploading of your workout data online is really cool though. If it was replaced with a GPS unit, and the cost stayed affordable, lots of problems solved for runners like me. Garmin has a nice, albeit bulky, runners GPS wrist-watch unit, for $300...

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

The data saying "5 uploads and you're hooked" probably has a lot of more "serious" athletes like me dropping out before hitting the 5-upload mark.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I was thinking it was likely that people dropped out after not getting any benefit from it - like your experience, and there are many ways that it might not deliver a benefit for some people, including manufacturing defects, not being able to calibrate and/or connect it, not being comfortable with the shoe itself etc. They seem to be reading an explanation into the data, which sounds plausible, and is impossible to refute if that's all the data you have.

A little data is a dangerous thing.

BTW: I assume by "off by a minute", you mean the time component of the pace ratio (time/mile) representation was off by a minute, not that its measurement of time was off by a minute. I'm not down with the joggin jargon, so that was confusing for me.

<comment><USER2> Oh sorry. Yes, you're correct. "off by a minute" meant that it would read 7:00/miles (~8.6 MPH) rather than 6:00/miles (10.0 MPH) for pace.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find this particularly interesting because I run a golf handicap site with a free account that lets you enter up to 5 rounds worth of scores. At that point, the demo shuts down and you need to upgrade to lift the barrier.

The limit of 5 was chosen because it's the bare minimum needed to build a handicap (an inaccurate one, but nonetheless). But it turns out, as I've noticed over the course of the last two summers, most people upgrade when they hit the 5 round limit and then go bananas with it. I have one user who just passed the 150 round mark and most upgraded accounts have 35+ rounds.

On the other hand, a lot of the accounts that I term "dead" are demos with one or two rounds in them entered in over the course of a few weeks. They eventually never come back to even finish the demo either: because they think my site sucks or it's just not something they're motivated to keep updated.

</comment><comment><USER5> My question is that if you were to collect that data, is it causation, or is it just correlation? Should you invest everything you can to get every user to 5 runs? Or is that just an effect of different levels of interest?

<comment><USER6> In my experience (specifically to the Nike Plus) it's a combination of both. Users who get to 5 runs on their own is certainly an indication of interest, however by encouraging users to get to 5 runs, you get a follow-on effect of "wow, look at how much running I've been doing" and further engagement. It's really satisfying building up a history and continuing to contribute to it.

It's like the Jerry Seinfeld advice to use a wall-planner to chart out your tasks. For every day you complete the task (e.g. going for a run), you put a big red X up on the chart. Then it becomes about continuing a streak, rather than a daily chore. Nike Plus is a fill-in for that wall planner (and works even better when competing with friends who can see and harass you when you break that streak).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In Safari 3.2.1, all I see is a big blue empty rectangle. Works in Firefox, though (of course).

</comment><comment><USER8> This was probably the best post I've read all week, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER9> If there ever was a solution looking for a problem, this is it.

Exactly the opposite of, "Just Do It".

<comment><USER6> What do you mean by a solution looking for a problem? What are you referring to from the article specifically?</comment></comment>


Google's Position on Flash is as Bad as Apple's - <AUTHOR> http://www.cforcoding.com/2010/04/googles-position-on-flash-is-as-bad-as.html

<comment><USER2> I've had my iPhone for a couple years and I've never missed flash. I just don't need it.

<comment><USER3> On the iPhone I don't think its that big a deal, but the iPad is a bit different. The closer a device gets to replacing a computer, the more important it starts to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And Adobe's position on Flash is like the Apple ][ zealots who mourned the advent of Macintosh.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the most frustrating part of working in the software industry? - <AUTHOR> After graduating college, I was faced with the cold hard reality of life. Working in software is just like any other industry, it's not always the magical fairy land I was told.
I became aware of competition, micromanagement and unrealistic deadlines. I have made several mistakes due to my naïveté and being unaware of those things.
For those who have been working in the industry for a while. Is there anything I should watch out for if I want to succeed? Does working in the industry requires playing some office politics? <comment><USER2> Here are some things I've learned the hard way:

1\. Negotiate your salary. That means doing research up front about what you can get, and then making sure you ask for it, and making sure you don't let previous salary set baseline for what you get. Read this _before_ you start looking for a job: [http://valerieaurora.org/howto_salary/](http://valerieaurora.org/howto_salary/)

2\. If you really aren't happy at work, or if there's layoffs, start looking for a new job. Don't hang around hoping it'll get better. It might, but it might not, and better to look for new job while you're still employed then after you've left (voluntarily or otherwise).

3\. Some companies will want you to work long hours. This is total bullshit and counter-productive and you should avoid such companies ([https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/08/18/productive- programme...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/08/18/productive- programmer/)). Find out during the interview process (tactfully and carefully!) and walk away (politely and without mentioning the reason!).

(You can get the full stories of the many and varied career and software mistakes I've made over the years over at [https://softwareclown.com](https://softwareclown.com)).

</comment><comment><USER3> I worked in the industry for 20 years, at all kinds of software companies. If I can _help_ it, I'll never work at a company again. The single most frustrating thing is the extent to which programmers are forbidden, by process, from being programmers and doing programming. Even after 15 years, and with "senior" in my title, _most_ of the time (not _all_ of the time) I was constrained by process to make tiny, incremental changes, adorned by a ton of very low-utility process. My day to day work was seldom different, and often _more_ tedious, than the work I did in my first year in the industry. Management considered every code change to be _a risk_ , rather than _my profession_ , and everybody had to work to the lowest common denominator of capability on the team.

Now I work for myself and actually do programming all day.

</comment><comment><USER4> False sense of security of your job.

I worked for more companies that had problems with their budget or even payroll _after_ stepping into the programming career, than I have when I was working jobs with a lower entry barrier like cashier or workshop assistant. I never had an employer burn me money-wise before becoming a programmer.

</comment><comment><USER5> For me, it's just all about education.

Never stop studying your field.

You will naturally rise to the top and you won't have to play any silly office politics as it will become quite clear that your skills far outmatch those of your peers.

Most people go home and watch TV or play Xbox, or get drunk.

Don't be most people.

</comment><comment><USER6> You need to understand what your definition of success is, this may take a while to formulate and will also change over time. If you want to be more involved with business side functions then knowing different personality types and how to work with them will help you be successful.

No matter what profession you are in, there will be office politics or team dynamics to some extent. Different sets of personalities interact differently.

Focus on what you like best about writing software and try to find companies that allow you to do more of that and less BS.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've had great success just doing my job, and ignore the small stuff. I don't really care for office politics, and I've always kept myself out of it.

The joy of software engineering, in my opinion, can be found when you focus on getting fun work. If that was not available at my current job, I have always been able to switch.

For the last couple of years, I've gotten a nice extra boost by changing specialization (from embedded to iOS) ND starting as a contractor instead of regular job.

For me, software engineering is usually good fun.

</comment><comment><USER8> Watch out for the endless arguments between programmers on emotional topics like: what is the best programming language, operating system, database, framework, UI toolkit, vi versus emacs, spaces versus tabs, trivia in style guides, etc.

A programming language is a tool, not a religion, and the fact that you only know one does not make you qualified to discuss the issue.

</comment><comment><USER9> Being made to use technologies you don't like at work.

</comment><comment><USER10> Open floor plan offices</comment>


Google Throws Down the Gauntlet, Kills EAS Support - <AUTHOR> http://winsupersite.com/mobile-devices/google-throws-down-gauntlet-kills-eas-support

<comment><USER2> Moving away from proprietary standards, to open ones, is a declaration of war? Wow.

Could it be that Google is tired of paying to license a technology that has free alternatives? Especially considering that they will keep the proprietary option for its paying customers; this seems very likely.

</comment><comment><USER3> Holy over-the-top rhetoric batman!

I think this shines light on a problem with iPhone and Win mobile architectures. I commented on this in another thread, but android's interoperability through intents and custom sync providers means it doesn't matter what API a 3rd party wants to use. As long as they sling a little bit of java, they can make their service a 1st class citizen on android.

If iPhone and WinPhone had these capabilities, ditching Exchange ActiveSync wouldn't matter _in the slightest_ because even if google didn't write the adapter, some enterprising app author would!

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there anyway to get gmail push on an iphone without EAS?

<comment><USER5> The gmail app for iOS ?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Beside chatbots, what are the best application for AI in ecommerce? - <AUTHOR> AI is a trending technology right now. There are a ton of companies applying AI in different industries like autonomous cars and chatbots.<p>What do you think are the best application for AI in e-commerce and who is doing it well? <comment><USER2> > _There are a ton of companies applying AI in different industries like > autonomous cars and chatbots._

No, there are companies _marketing_ AI in those industries. AI as most people think of it doesn't yet exist. The most famous example is the massive fraud that is/was IBM's Watson[1].

It's common for companies to say they're AI when they're actually doing text- search, crowdsourcing work from real humans, or doing statistical regressions on a data set.

Even autonomous driving is not exactly AI because it can't react well to novel situations. Waymo is way ahead of the others because it has massive amounts of training data, not because it's AI is so much better.

If true AI existed, Google and Apple would certainly have it, and your phone's voice assistant wouldn't be laughably stupid 80% of the time. Facebook might also have it, and their chatbot initiative would've been more successful.

> _What do you think are the best application for AI in e-commerce and who is > doing it well?_

This is like saying what is the best application for being smart in e-commerce. It's so broad that it's impossible to answer. Theoretically AI can do tasks that previously only humans could do, but it can do them faster and cheaper.

That's applicable to literally everything in e-commerce (and any other services industry).

1\. [https://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM- ab...](https://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM-about-Watson- and-AI)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer and share your good information with the community. I am not looking for the "best application for AI in ecommerce", I want to learn what other companies are doing with AI in the ecommerce field. I just search for a few hours angel.co, looking for companies that really apply AI, but dind't find anything interesting, most of them are applying marketing automation selling as a AI.

<comment><USER2> I think you misunderstood me. What I meant to say is that AI doesn't exist. The companies claiming to sell it are lying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Personalized items based on past purchases. In clothing I'd settle for items in my size based on past purchases.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer. Do you know any company doing this? and maybe selling as a service/product? We all know that Amazon, Alibaba, eBay use AI for a lot of stuff related to product recommendations and so... but I want to learn more about startups and small companies doing this.

<comment><USER3> Check Shopify AppStore. There are a lot of e-commerce plugins</comment></comment></comment>


GitHub Flow Like a Pro with These 13 Git Aliases - <AUTHOR> http://haacked.com/archive/2014/07/28/github-flow-aliases/

<comment><USER2> One alias that I find really useful is,

summary = !git log $(git log -1 --merges --pretty=format:%H)..HEAD --oneline

This prints the log summaries on one line up to the last merge commit. If you are working on a feature/topic branch (and you collaborators do too), this will just print out the commits you have add for the feature. I often use this to go back and rebase fixups or suggestions from a code review.

<comment><USER3> This is useful, but try...

git log --all --graph --pretty=format:'%Cred%h%Creset -%C(auto)%d%Creset %s %Cgreen(%cr) %C(bold blue)<%an>%Creset' \--abbrev-commit --date=relative

... you get visual branching and merging, branch names, useful dates, authors, etc.

<comment><USER4> I prefer to see some details about the files in each commit:

log --pretty=format:"%C(yellow)%h%Cred%d\\\ %Creset%s%Cblue\\\ [%cn]" \--decorate --numstat

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I like some of these. 'wip' and 'wipe' are two operations that I regularly used. However, as I entered them into my .gitconfig I couldn't help noticing that their similarity is something that would undoubtedly bite me on the arse at some time.

<comment><USER5> Due to autocompletion and likelihood of accidentally accepting the wrong one of either of these I renamed my wipe alias to clean.

       clean=!git add -A && git commit -m "TMP: Save before clean reset" && git reset HEAD~1 --hard

<comment><USER5> Note clean is a bad alias though as already a proper git command. I changed my alias again to ditch... :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >cm = !git add -A && git commit -m

I think it's a better idea to use git add -p to review your changes before commiting them.

<comment><USER2> Alternatively, 'git commit -v' also provides a way to review the changes before you commit them. If you are not going to 'cherry-pick' the changes for the commit, this has the added benefit of showing all the whole diff at once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like his idea of having an alias to commit to when he wants to save off work.

If you combine that with a checkout (co) alias which saves the current branch and checks the latest commit message of the destination branch and 'reset HEAD~1 --mixed's when it was 'SAVEPOINT' and functionally you have regular git that allows you to move around between branches without committing first.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there really a reason why the common functionality should be this difficult to achieve? I don't know about you guys, but apart from the very basics, I always have to refer to a manual to complete yet another awkward command line flag. In my opinion this is like unnecessary paperwork. Don't get me wrong, I like git. It's just that it would be nice to see the core team come closer to the user, by default.

</comment><comment><USER5> I frequently get into a messy rebase then I hit the zipline eject button:

eject=!git reset --hard && git checkout master && git rebase --abort

Although I prefer multiple commands to be a bash or as below a fish alias:

      function giteject
        git reset --hard
        and git checkout master
        and git rebase --abort
      end

<comment><USER9> if you name the bash script "git-eject" it would still work the git command and your should get autocompletion for your command, too.

<comment><USER5> True, dotfiles aliases fixed! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> this is awesome! thanks for this.

Although when I went to share it in slack, the preview text was "You've been Haacked and you like it". I personally find that a tasteless slogan; but more- so it should be the title of the post I linked, not the site title.

I have a few aliases in my .bashrc file that I use:

alias git-branch-list='for k in `git branch|sed s/^..//`;do echo -e `git log -1 --pretty=format:"%Cgreen%ci %Cblue%cr%Creset" "$k"`\\\t"$k";done|sort'

alias c="git commit -m '"

alias s='git status'

alias a='git add'

I use the first one to hop around branches and see when the branch was last updated. The others are just because I am super lazy. But reading the post I am moved to be even lazier!

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's because his name is Phil Haack ... I actually like it :)

You are right though, his title tags on his blog aren't really descriptive... Which is uncommon for a "reasonable" popular blog (Haack is almost as known as Hanselman in the .Net world, untill he left Microsoft for Github a couple of years ago - he's been more quiet since then :-) )

I added an issue for his site here: [https://github.com/Haacked/haacked.com/issues/178](https://github.com/Haacked/haacked.com/issues/178) (gotta love developers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a more complicated version of the 2015 Fukuoka Ruby Award winner Git Reflow:

[http://github.com/reenhanced/gitreflow](http://github.com/reenhanced/gitreflow)

<comment><USER12> Do you think this is a necessary complication to Git Reflow, or think the aliases created for git workflow are worth the cognitive effort to categorize them and use them ?</comment></comment>


You can use Wolfram Alpha to try and predict the Super Bowl. - <AUTHOR> http://slashdot.org/topic/bi/wolfram-alpha-suggests-super-bowl-winner/

<comment><USER2> This could have been really cool, but looking at games from the 90's as a predictor for the current SB?? Sports results from teams (and players) long past is not what I'd call useful longitudinal data, lol.</comment>


Why Clojure will win - <AUTHOR> http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/why-clojure-will-win/ <comment><USER2> I like Clojure but I currently don't see any enterprise adoption of it. I see some startups and some students and hobbyists using it. Interestingly Scala seems to get some traction in enterprises here in Germany. I think enterprises love a lot of language features, complexity, security. Maybe Scala with its everything and the kitchen sink feature set, static type system, Java-like syntax and last but not least OOP appeals more to the "manager-friendly conservatism" as the blog author says.

<comment><USER3> While I can't speak of traction in enterprises in Germany, I wonder what the notion of "Scala with its everything and the kitchen sink feature set" is about.

This seems to be a popular meme, right until someone asks for details – _crickets chirp_.

<comment><USER2> Well, with "Scala with its everything and the kitchen sink feature set" I mean that Scala incorporates almost all language features one can think of for a statically compiled programming language (I don't think it makes sense to distinguish if a certain feature is provided by the language itself or a library as in Scala that distinction is fuzzy): \- type inference \- classes \- interfaces (sort of: traits) \- methods \- variables (var) \- immutable values (val) \- higher order functions \- singletons \- functional programming: map, flatMap, reduce/fold, ... \- actors \- coroutines (I think there was a compiler plugin for that) \- implicits \- powerful type parameters \- Futures \- it even has a turing complete type system

That is good and bad. Good: you can probably find good use for every feature Scala has. Bad: On a sufficiently big project with one or more extra clever developers most probably every feature will be used and that will make it extra hard to understand for normal software developers that have to maintain it for long years after the original extra smart developer already left the company. See it a bit like that: On a hard to understand scale with 1 being easy to understand und 10 being extremely hard to understand Java projects can go from 1 to 6 and Scala projects can go from 1 to 10.

Personally I like simple languages more. And I don't need a compiler to catch errors that a unit test would also catch.

<comment><USER3> I guess it depends on where one comes from. If one compares Scala to Scheme, sure, Scheme is ridiculously simple compared to Scala.

But if one compares Scala to languages which are actually used in the wild like Java, C#, PHP or C++; Scala's footprint is just incredibly small.

All of the features you mentioned are available in languages like Java or C#, too. The difference is that in most cases the implementation is so poor and incoherent, that the feature is next to useless.

I guess one just "sees" more language features being used in Scala, because almost everything which ships in the language makes some sense, while in Java/C#/PHP/C++ you have tons of utterly useless "features" which don't add any benefit, but still force people to learn them in case somebody else used them.

I have never seen "On a sufficiently big project with one or more extra clever developers most probably every feature will be used" happen in real life. In my experience one of the strengths of Scala is the way one can use some advanced feature where it makes sense, without having it bleed through the whole code. Compare that with Java's, C#'s "Oh, you used some complicated Generic type over there? Guess what, we will make every user suffer from it throughout your whole code base!"

In a sense, I prefer a language (Scala) which ships with 100 features where 90 of them make sense to a language which ships with 400 features where only 50 make sense, like C# (multiply "feature" count by 10 for C++).

      > And I don't need a compiler to catch errors that a unit test would also catch.

Well, using the compiler means that it will also catch errors which you haven't written unit tests for. Tests can't prove the absence of certain categories of errors, compilers can.

<comment><USER2> I don't want to sidetrack that thread as it was about Clojure. Just a quick correction: Java has no type inference, higher order functions, coroutines, implicits (it has some standard implicit conversions but not implicit conversions that can be added by the user) and no Turing complete type system.

And of course: Using a statically typed language is no excuse to not write unit tests. Unit tests serve as a safety net checking if the behavior of the implemented unit is (and stays) correct. As a side effect this will also find all type errors a compiler will find. I have programmed a lot in Java and also in dynamic programming languages and in my opinion type errors just don't happen often enough to justify the additional amount of work and complexity that comes with static type systems. However I'd agree that if you want to get the best possible performance you probably need a statically typed language as the compiler can then optimize the generated code better.

<comment><USER3>
      > Java has no type inference, higher order functions,
      > coroutines, implicits (it has some standard implicit
      > conversions but not implicit conversions that can be
      > added by the user) and no Turing complete type system.

Type inference in Java:

      int bar = new Object(){ int foo = 42; }.foo;
      // Magic? No. Type inference.

Higher order functions in Java:

      http://download.java.net/jdk8/docs/api/java/util/stream/Stream.html
      Looks pretty higher-order to me.
      Also possible in older version in Java with stuff like Google Guava or FJ.

Coroutines in Java:

      http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2846428/available-coroutine-libraries-in-java

Implicits:

      Having them built into the language is even worse.
      In Scala you could just de-import them and have them gone.
      Anyway, pick C# as an example instead if you want to have
      user-defined implicit conversions.

No Turing complete type system:

      interface Interface<T> {}
      class Bang<T> implements Interface<Interface<? super Bang<Bang<T>>>> {
          static void bang() {
              Interface<? super Bang<Byte>> bang = new Bang<Byte>();
          }
      }

      Looks pretty undecidable to me. In a way, it is even
      worse than other languages: You are unable to tell
      whether the type checker will terminate in finite time
      (like some other languages), but don't get any additional
      expressivness in return (unlike those other languages).

      > As a side effect this will also find all type errors
      > a compiler will find.

No, absolutely not.

      > I have programmed a lot in Java and also in dynamic
      > programming languages and in my opinion type errors
      > just don't happen often enough to justify the
      > additional amount of work and complexity that comes
      > with static type systems.

This comment certainly explains a lot. You are suffering from the "I used Java and Java is statically typed and it sucks, therefore all statically typed languages have to suck" fallacy.

<comment><USER2> It seems we have different definitions of what type inference, higher order functions and Turing completeness means. :-) Regarding coroutines in Java: I don't know if libraries using native continuation mechanisms or bytecode manipulations prove that Java (the language) has continuation support. :-) I don't have anything against Scala. In my very first message I even said that I see the odds for Scala winning higher than the odds for Clojure winning - because I already see some enterprise adoption of Scala. Although I see the probability of Scala winning quite low. As you noticed with Java 8 Java is already borrowing a lot of useful things from Scala. I am sure conservative corporate decision makers will see less and less reasons to switch to Scala as time passes by. Also I don't think that Java sucks. I was just making a point from personal productivity experience. Your experience might differ from that.

If I have a function: def upcase(s: String): String... The compiler with its static type system can tell me if e. g. I am trying to call the upcase function with an Int argument. But in my experience something like that just does not happen very often. Most programmers are not so stupid that they try to fit a square peg in a round hole. ;-)

A unit test can check if the returned string is really the upcase version of the input parameter. Plus if the programmer would really assume that he could upcase an Int it would just as well give the feedback that his assumption was wrong-like the compiler.

<comment><USER3>
      > It seems we have different definitions of what type
      > inference, higher order functions and Turing
      > completeness means. :-)

I don't think so. The definitions are pretty much standard and those are the ones I'm using.

I think we can agree that the way Java supports those features ranges between unusable and pretty terrible in practice, but that's not what your claims were about.

Your notion of Scala having more features than a "standard" mainstream language might even be correct, it is just that the points you have given don't support your point here.

      > Regarding coroutines in Java: I don't know if libraries
      > using native continuation mechanisms or bytecode
      > manipulations prove that Java (the language) has
      > continuation support. :-)

Then Scala doesn't have continuation support either. Whatever definition is applied, it needs to be applied consistently.

      > I don't have anything against Scala.

I never suggested that and even if you had something against Scala, it would be perfectly fine – for me and probably for everyone else.

It's just that you have claimed a few things which I think are incorrect, either factually or in the way they were worded, and I'm offering some data points against it. This all happens in good faith and in the hope that we both will have gained some knowledge at the end of this discussion.

      > As you noticed with Java 8 Java is already borrowing a lot
      > of useful things from Scala. I am sure conservative
      > corporate decision makers will see less and less reasons
      > to switch to Scala as time passes by.

I think most Scala users would agree that Java 8 copying Scala is a good thing, because it strongly validates what the designers and users of Scala have been doing for the last 10 years. With Java moving closer to Scala, adopting Scala becomes a lot easier from a management POV which in turn removes a lot of the concerns corporate decision makers have.

      > If I have a function: def upcase(s: String): String [...]
      > A unit test can check if the returned string is really
      > the upcase version of the input parameter.

      def upcase(s: String): UppercasedString

Now the compiler can check it, too.

<comment><USER2> Only replying partially as I don't want to repeat myself.

Ok, then let's just ignore continuations as they are somehow available in both languages although the Scala one feels a bit more officially endorsed to me.

> def upcase(s: String): UppercasedString

Even with that type signature of course the compiler can not check that for input "a" the output will be "A". Your code could have a bug and upcase "a" to "B" (Off-by-one errors are quite common) and your compiler would be perfectly happy. That is the whole point why unit test are more valuable than compiler type checks: checking specific code behavior and not only static types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> michaelochurch's closing sentence: _" Unlike the typical enterprise Java stack, it's optimized for lifelong learners. That, above all, is why it will win."_

Here's a speculative reason why it may not win:

Java, Ruby, PHP, Python all won because intermediate level programmers could, all of a sudden, successfully build 2000-era sized apps.

These languages are not doing so hot for 2013-era sized apps. It now takes extreme skills to successfully ship 2013-sized apps which is why a small portion of the programmers are making most of the money.

The next language to win will be the one that lets an intermediate team ship apps again. Java let your average C++ programmer build much bigger apps without crashing. In 2000, Java _forced_ you to program right by 2000 standards; the programmer needn't have figured it out himself.

A language that lets a strong architect say, "NO! you CANNOT do I/O in the view, that goes in the controller!", that lets an architect shape what good code should look like and have the language enforce it, can lead a team of intermediate programmers to success.

Clojure is like a musical instrument - a brilliant artist can do amazing things, but a mediocre artist will produce mediocre output. Clojure works great if you have 5 brilliant architects collaborating - Datomic, core.async, ClojureScript, all these are outputs of brilliant minds collaborating; the company behind these products has a reputation for only hiring the best of the best.

But I think a business can make more money by putting 5 brilliant architects on 5 separate projects and giving them a bunch of intermediate programmers. The intermediate programmers learn; the architect multiplies; the pointy haired boss gets rich, everybody wins.

</comment><comment><USER5> I never did see his definition of "win", but Clojure does have a great community and I consider that one of its greatest strengths.

That said, I can never see Clojure "winning" as in how Java "won". For all of Clojure's strengths, it's at best an intermediate step up from Ruby, Python, Perl... It's not that next order of magnitude leap of productivity that is necessary to "win".

The research just isn't going in that direction. The research is going into type systems and static guarantees. And I think the real productivity boosters of the future will be in very smart tooling - a conversation with your IDE I would say. Maybe Clojure could have different views (different surface syntaxes). Maybe it could be the basis of something like intentional programming. But straight Clojure with Emacs isn't going to be "winning" in the big way.

</comment><comment><USER3>
      > but it will win in the next 15 years in a major way,
      > because it is already one of the most interesting

the most interesting ... what?

Anyway, I think they have already won in a major way: The managed to build a community which is supportive and friendly. This is a huge deal when you have a look at the poisonous behaviours of individuals and the wide-spread arrogance typical in most Lisp communities.

Before I learned about Clojure, I certainly wouldn't have believed it if someone told me that there was a Lisp-like language without the pretentious assholes.

      > An enterprise Scala project, for example, is typically
      > going to present the frustrations that come with
      > components that live outside the language. Learning Scala
      > isn't that bad, but Maven and Spring and Hibernate? Ouch.
      > In Clojure, most of the typically "external" needs are
      > provided with idiomatic libraries that can be reasoned
      > about within the language.

That doesn't make much sense. One can do exactly the same in Scala. The big improvement on Clojure is that it is completely pain-free and seamless to keep the old components around and migrate gradually to better solutions (or just keep the legacy parts which work – why bother changing it?).

      > while every static language worth its salt has an
      > interactive mode ("REPL") it doesn't have the same
      > first-class-citizen feel

Maybe this has changed, but the last time I used Clojure's REPL, it was completely unusable, with basic things like auto-completion, history and navigation being completely non-functional.

I think the opinion voiced in the article is interesting, but past experience tells us that the chances of a Lisp to get even slightly popular is low to non-existing.

<comment><USER6> _the poisonous behaviours of individuals and the wide-spread arrogance typical in most Lisp communities_

Is that really true of most Lisp communities, or just Common Lisp's?

<comment><USER7> It must be true for others, too. happy_dino is a good example.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Ukpd – a Node.js module to provide access to UK Police Data - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/AlexChesters/ukpd <comment><USER2> I was not aware that the UK police department had open data access. This is great and I hope other countries follow this model too.

I checked the crime categories and there's no mention of cyber-crime. Is there any other data source that tracks this?

<comment><AUTHOR> > I checked the crime categories and there's no mention of cyber-crime.

Good spot, I haven't looked myself but there is a list ([https://data.police.uk/static/files/police-uk-category- mappi...](https://data.police.uk/static/files/police-uk-category- mappings.csv)) of the full list of categories; it may be that cyber-crime falls into one of the other categories provided by the API.

<comment><USER2> True. There are two sub-categories referencing crime involving a computer under 'Public Order'</comment></comment></comment>


Gokul's S.P.A.D.E. Toolkit: Square's decision-making framework - <AUTHOR> https://coda.io/@gokulrajaram/gokuls-spade-toolkit <comment><USER2> > As a discrete set of alternatives start to emerge, I strongly suggest > quantitatively modeling out the impact of each one and revisit your Setting > — specifically the why, the optimization function. It can be very hard with > ambiguous decisions to get down into the numbers, but it's very valuable to > do so. Figure out your value metric, your success criteria.

In software engineering decisions, estimating the superiority of an alternative (eg: some performance measure) can be a long process depending in the level of detail required. Napkin calculations can be done in minutes but building a prototype can take as long as delivering a working product.

When the assessment of alternatives is abridged, confidence in the decision is compromised. This may be one reason (not including changing requirements) why agile methods are popular — they absolve stakeholders of committing to an alternative up front.

Douglas Hubbard's "How to Measure Anything" discusses some ways to assess the information-value of improving estimates. His approach can help strike a compromise between doing napkin calculations and building fully-functional systems.</comment>


How the first human to take steps in outer space nearly didn't return to Earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_9035/index.html

<comment><USER2> I'm a big fan of this article so hopefully nobody takes this the wrong way but HN needs to add something about duplicate submission.

Maybe adding a 'Dupe' button/link that takes you to a form where you can enter the original HN url that the article was already submitted on? That way it would be easy to 'reconnect' to the original submission/discussion

Anyway, great article, I highly recommend reading it if you missed it a month back or so when it originally appeared on HN.

<comment><USER3> Most of the time, duplicate urls are caught on submission and you're forwarded to the previous entry rather than creating a new one. At least that's been my experience.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Academic papers visualized as a tree? - <AUTHOR>

Is there any software / website that will visualize an academic paper and its "children", and their "children", etc. as a tree-like structure (up to depth of x...)?<p>This would be remarkably helpful in learning a bit more about a niche topic. <comment><USER2> Do you mean visualising the tree by citations? All of these help, but papercube has a good following.

[http://flowingdata.com/2012/01/01/visualizing-citations- in-r...](http://flowingdata.com/2012/01/01/visualizing-citations-in-research- literature/)

[http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/10058/visualizati...](http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/10058/visualization- of-citation-data)

<http://papercube.peterbergstrom.com/>

<http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/ase/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this is what I was looking for.</comment></comment>


Europe should be grateful for NSA spying, Rogers says - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57609492/europe-should-be-grateful-for-nsa-spying-rogers-says/

<comment><USER2> Ahah, thanks oh glorious USofA for ... the laugh at least.

Oh and seriously, they have a lot of nerve.</comment>