Of Hamsters and Foxes: How a Failed Startup Can Be a Real Success Anyway - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mirozoo/of-hamsters-and-foxes-how-a-failed-startup-can-be-a-real-success-anyway-a333a17ee0e#.2pbubiljn <comment><USER2> I don't understand the value of this over simply building a mini ITX system for cheaper and equal/greater performance? The only advantage this has is being able stay portable with the external GPU but $500 just for a dock is insane.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems that you have commented the wrong link...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting read. Could you please elaborate on the startup/VC/software scene in Germany (Berlin?). It sounds like you didn't have experienced friends that would have help you change your mind earlier (intervention)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, Itai! We'd contacted about 50 VC companies in Germany prior and during our development of teamspir.it. Unfortunately, the response rate was almost zero and we only had one meeting with a wannabe VC.

You're right: We neither had the right connections nor an adequate track record at that time.

I must admit that as a VC guy, I wouldn't had been interested to invest in teamspir.it back then, too. As described in the essay, USP, concept and target group really were not clear enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Somehow I expected an article about a start up doing something with cute animals...

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe then it would have been successful! ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I felt this log startup like using facebook but only for companies or personal work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, in the broadest sense, it had some basic features in common with FB. If we would compare it to similar tools available today, it should have become a mix of jell.com, 15five.com, idonethis.com and Slack. (But we'd also planned some unique features before we ran out of cash.)</comment></comment>


Are you a technical person? - <AUTHOR> http://johnfn.github.com/johnfn/post1.html <comment><USER2> "What restrictions have others placed on you?"

Among other things, I have come to the realization that the way that our schools are structured (in the US anyway) promotes this type of thinking you're talking about.

There's a reinforcing feedback loop taking place:

1\. You have no natural interest in (say) algebra, possibly due to lack of knowledge about what it is and what it is for. This is never explained to you in a way that makes sense to you.

2\. You don't spend time thinking about algebra, and neither does your subconscious.

3\. You do your homework, but don't care much, and don't care to learn. Because you don't care, you don't care to understand deeply. You're now stuck learning in a shallow way, or, in other words, memorizing inert knowledge. The knowledge is mostly unusable to you, and the homework and tests are structured in such a way to allow shallow understanding to get by, so you're fine. You mainly care to meet the expectations of the teacher (get a good grade and be viewed favorably), so all is good.

5\. Because of the above, you mostly suck at tests, and mostly suck at meeting the teacher's (and peer's) expectations. You suck compared to others in the class.

6\. Because you don't fully understand the implications of what you're learning, you continue not to care. Because you are sucking, you care even less.

7\. See #1 with the same or other topics.

I'd recommend reading about Carol Dweck's Entity vs. Incremental Self-Theories on Learning. Incredible stuff.

"The amount of skill that you have in a certain area is proportional to the amount of work that you put into it."

Instead of using the word "work", I would say "proportional to the amount of time you and your mind spends on it." One reason people are significantly and seemingly naturally better at certain skills is because they are naturally drawn to it. Things you are naturally drawn to you both consciously AND subconsciously spend time on. In the past I've never spent much time contemplating or trying to understand the intricacies of the stock market, and neither has my mind, and I have never had much interest, and so I'm not a particularly skilled stock broker.

<comment><USER3> I second the recommendation of Mrs. Dweck's texts. Her book "Self-Theories..." changed my life. Or at least reinforced the changes I was undergoing then:

The right strategy and appropriate effort are much more important than results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a developer/designer, I spend a lot of time getting this _exact_ message across to developers who "don't do design" and designers who are afraid of code. I've given that same schpiel many times before -- in almost the exact same words ("false dichotomy", "labels", "we can be skilled at anything we dedicate ourselves to").

Can't upvote this enough.

<comment><USER5> Can you recommend any books (or projects) that would be good references for learning design?

<comment><USER6> What kind of design do you want to learn?

If you're just starting out, you have to break it down a bit into some of the component parts. Typography, composition, color. Print design is different than web design. 3d design is another thing entirely; and so on.

Let's say the goal is print design. Get hold of a layout program, such as Quark, InDesign, or Illustrator. Start by doing basic things like business cards and letterhead. Work on just the type first. Use only 1 font at first; then different weights of the same typeface. Then start trying to add in drawn elements or even just geometric shapes.

Remember: if it doesn't work in black & white, it won't work in color. When you are ready for color, keep in mind that the 3 strongest colors in design are black, white, and red. Black and red are the easier of the three; so put extra attention into the use of white (negative space).

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately, you've really jumped the gun here.

I'm a programmer who isn't so hot with design. But I certainly know how to use a program to layout objects; that's trivial to learn on the grand scheme of things.

What I (and other non-designing devs) don't get is how to know what "doesn't work". I have at most a fuzzy idea of what are considered good and bad designs, much less how to produce them.

One of the biggest issues is the lack of feedback. With beginning programming, you are getting constant feedback from the computer. It even tells you where you are going wrong (line numbers, variables, etc.)

Design lacks such an objective feedback system. Sure, there's the times when your friends will agree that iteration B is superior to A. But actually getting feedback on what to do next? Pretty tough.

<comment><USER6> Time to learn the term "design brief," which relates to the design like a program specification relates to the program.

What is the design supposed to accomplish? What should it convey? What kind of reaction should it elicit from the viewer? While these ideas may not be completely objective, they can be expressed in written form. Doing so is one way to bring some objectivity into the the process, as well as a way of keeping everyone "on the same page." Adhering to the spec is a also a good way of finding out if your spec is useful or not. If you find the design veering away from the brief, go back to the beginning and start again; re-write your brief, and re-iterate the design.

Now a quibble about your mention of knowing how to use a program to lay out objects. (Note, "lay out" is the verb and "layout" is the noun.) One such "object" is of course type, and learning how to size, lead, track and kern your type is more than just placing objects (letters) in proximity. Knowing how to use the program is one thing; achieving great visual results is another.

How to learn what works and what doesn't? Get some design annuals, subscribe to design magazines, start reading design blogs. Most importantly, find a good designer who will critique your work. All of these activities will develop your eye and your design sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Joe Kraus once said in a talk that companies, especially startups, need to triple down on what they're good at rather than focusing on all their weaknesses - that's really the only way a startup can win since it can't be better than a big company at a lot of things, but it can be head and shoulders better at just one thing. I'm not sure how this applies to people, especially since balanced people can bring a fresh perspective to things (i.e. a programmer with some creative background might approach a problem in new and interesting ways).

Without arguing the efficacy of the TigerMom approach, this is indeed why a lot of parents force their kids to do something - you may not have a knack for it at first and be tempted to write off that it just isn't for you, but you need to put in a little more time to really figure out what your true learning curve for something looks like.

One interesting question is whether you really love doing something or just love doing it because you had a knack for it initially and picked it up quickly (which results in a positive feedback loop: you spend more time on it and get even better at it compared to the things that you didn't have a knack for at first). I think college really hammered that home for me - before, I just really liked a lot of math of science because it seemed to come naturally, but to find what you really love doing, you have to hit the wall and see if you enjoy it when it becomes a struggle.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't disagree regarding the dichotomy between Technical/Creative per the article. I also subscribe to Heinlein's "Specialization is for Insects" truism (below).

However, one of the best pieces of advice I ever got from one of my favorite mentors (Bob Muglia) was to never take a job where you have to do something you know you are not good at.

I have always sucked at detailed-status-list tracking. I eventually figured out how to compliment myself with others who could do it. However, at one point in my career when I was looking at new opportunities I saw one that would have forced me to get good a being very detail oriented. When I showed Bob my potential job options and asked for his advice he told me "Don't take the detail job. You will suck at it and you will hate it. You have other super-powers that are valuable and you should focus on finding jobs where you can apply those."

You CAN do anything, and you SHOULD try everything. But in the end, you'll be most successful if you focus on what you know you are great at.

\----- "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects". -Robert A. Heinlein

</comment><comment><USER10> To me, this is consistent with Paul Graham's essay "Keep Your Identity Small." If I have strongly identified myself as a "technical person" then I have excluded myself from the possibility of becoming conversant in non-tech things, like good graphic design. Because I'm just a techie!

Then this got me thinking about footnote #2 in the essay - that perhaps it is a net win to call oneself a scientist, which implies that one is not committed to any belief in particular. I was pretty pleased when I read this; "great, I'm a scientist, I must be pretty open-minded!" Easy.

Except that - and this article seems to highlight the point - if you box yourself into being a "scientist" (I will suggest that many of us techies consider ourselves scientists, or at least science-minded) then you run the risk of excluding yourself from non-science things. Things like graphic design. (or marketing, accounting, or musicianship.)

So. I am not a scientist! Not a techie. Not a designer. I am a person who is pretty (darn) good at technology and still has a lot of difficult things, like graphic design, to practice and get better at!

<comment><USER11> This is interesting, but I disagree. It's certainly possible to be able to engage in rational discussion about things related to ones own identity.

I am a programmer, and primarily I identify as a C++ and Python programmer. Compared to other languages, for a given problem (unless it's truly massive, where the efficiency/expressiveness gain over the other two is large to offset becoming an expert in it), I am almost certainly going to provide an adequate solution quickest in one of those languages.

But if you say that Python is slow, doesn't do concurrency well, or has trouble scaling to truly large, 100+ programmer codebases, I'll agree with you.

And if you call C++ a large, ugly, language with a ton of ways to really screw yourself, and that is tied to a slow edit/compile/debug cycle, I'll agree with you there too.

Here perhaps maybe enlarging my identity helped, if I was just a Python programmer, I wouldn't see how static typing and a really good code searching system would help getting an anchor on a large, complicated C++ code base. Those static types and non-virtual functions means that yes, I can see every place that this particular function is called in our entire code base without having to dig all that much. And if I was just a C++ programmer, I wouldn't know the bliss that is hacking a 200 line program in Python, and solving some mildy complicated but mostly self contained problem in few hour session, all without the bondage of makefiles, compiles, static typing and seg faults.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is very interesting to me, as a computer science student, who does "techie" things like code a take a lot of technical classes, yet always been considered (or considered myself) a "artistic" person.

When I was younger, my best subjects were Art and English, and my worst subject was always Math. This had continued to be true, as I consider myself much better at design than at coding or problem solving. I wouldn't say the dichotomy is necessarily true or false - I hate to think we are stuck as one or the other, and I certainly know people who are talented at both.

On the other hand, in my observation, there always seems to be an inherent aptitude - I struggle and work a lot harder with "technical" things; but it can be overcome - I am still a CS student at top university, and am not a phenomenal coder, but I can keep up. For so-called "technical" people, you may or may not believe in the dichotomy, but that doesn't mean hard work can't make you better at "creative" work than "talented" others.

</comment><comment><USER13> Edit: Imagine what would happen to the industry if you changed titles from software engineers to software artists.

I long the day when software engineers start looking at themselves as artists. Take this from someone who isn't an engineer. You take your ideas and turn them into something others can interact with, play with, control, morph, do other freaking cool things with and sometimes they even get a feeling/emotion out of it. That's f _& &_ing art to me.

<comment><USER14> That prompts an interesting (to me) idea: software as social commentary. Anyone have any examples of that?

<comment><USER15> Do you mean like online interactive games?

I do not know if this is what you were looking for, but I have seen some interesting behaviors arise depending on how the system is set up in Dark Mists. Usually it has to do with where the rewards/incentives lie, such that behavior can be guided towards it, and it is always a new lesson in humility when unexpected incentives appear.

Yet in other ways, there is the outside-game community with its rules and ethics. Here is a specific example: Players are concerned about gangs of other players logging in and coordinating because they want to believe they play a game in which the coordination is completely in-character... a sign of the work we have put into the game to focus it on role-playing.

When designing an RPG (stress on the role-playing part), I have learned that it is not just about the game mechanics and features. It is also about building the community, the mini-society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I recommend pointing people to this excellent comic: [http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1995#c...](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1995#comic)

</comment><comment><USER17> One article in today's blog of 37signals.com/svn resonates very much with the message.

[http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2919-ten-design-lessons- from-...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2919-ten-design-lessons-from- frederick-law-olmsted-the-father-of-american-landscape-architecture#extended)

Here is an excerpt: </comment><comment></comment><comment>===== Olmsted had no formal design training and didn't commit to landscape architecture until he was 44. Before that, he was a New York Times correspondent to the Confederate states, the manager of a California gold mine, and General Secretary of the United States Sanitary Commission during the Civil War. He also ran a farm on Staten Island from 1848 to 1855 and spent time working in a New York dry-goods store.

His views on landscapes developed from travelling and reading. When he was young, he took a year-long voyage in China. And in 1850, he took a six-month walking tour of Europe and the British Isles, during which he saw numerous parks, private estates, and scenic countryside. He was also deeply influenced by Swiss physician Johann Georg von Zimmermann's writings about nature's ability to heal "derangements of the mind" through imagination. Olmsted read Zimmermann's book as a boy and treasured it. </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====

</comment><comment><USER18> _What restrictions have others placed on you?_

This is what happens when you identify with your chosen profession too closely. Psychologists refer to it as a persona: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_(psychology)>

It's tempting to believe that others have placed these kinds of restrictions on you, but the truth of the matter is that we put these restrictions on ourselves. That's the truly important discovery: you have control over the mask you wear (albeit not unlimited control).

</comment><comment><USER19> "I make sofware, it's one of the few art forms that really pays off nowadays"

This is my usual line when somebody ask me what I do for a living.

Still, I can see in many people's eyes (especially girls) a spark of prejudice: ( IT Guy = pragmatic, heartless, frustrated, framed boring nerd )

</comment><comment><USER20> The irony of the supposed dichotomy of creative/technical is that both art and programming are incredibly creative fields where one must synthesize with very limited constraints. It is very difficult to excel at either without passion and dedication.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think this is more a matter of transferability. If you're good at one quantitative or technical skill, it's not so hard to learn another, and you can do it pretty quickly. Teaching yourself to become an artist is a bigger gap. I can appreciate design (although I never studied it formally) but I can recognize that it may be more efficient to get someone else to do it for me. The optimal degree of specialization isn't always "none."

</comment><comment><USER22> _The amount of skill that you have in a certain area is proportional to the amount of work that you put into it.... This realization changed my life._

Heh, this realization does change your life... very, very slowly. Catching up on all those hours invested is hard. Making them pass pleasantly is also a challenge. Spending all day and half the night doing something is easy when it's a source of pride and your refuge from all the stuff you _aren't_ good at.

I spent years aspiring to be good at music. I took piano lessons for years as a kid, even after my parents told me I could stop. I played saxophone in junior high orchestra band and junior high jazz band. I wised up in high school, but then in college I wasted a few hundred bucks on a guitar. I sold it after a month, but then later I started going to the music building several times a week to play the Hanon piano exercises. I actually kept it up for several months before I stopped. No real music, just Hanon.

Music was a waste of time for me because I absolutely hated it. There was the generic pleasure of improving at a skill, but that was the sum total of the pleasure I derived from it. My entire goal in learning music, from the time I was a child until I wasted that fifty or so hours in college, was to play music that I liked hearing and that other people would like hearing. Of course, I was so far from that.... I remember as a child being conscious that my older sister's playing bugged the crap out of me. The mistakes, the awkward tempos. And she was much better than me, five years ahead and also better for her age than I was. The entire payoff for playing music was always _years_ away, even assuming I suddenly became extremely dedicated. Every hour between me and my goal would be me enduring the misery of producing noises that I disliked and was ashamed of. I thought that was just the way it was. I flagellated myself for not being disciplined and far-sighted enough to pursue that distant dream like so many other people did. I knew some kids just enjoyed making bad music, but I didn't think they were the ones who would be good at music someday. I just thought they had horrible taste. The ones who were actually good had clearly been tougher than me; they had fought through all the shame and humiliation of playing badly. They were fierce and ruthless with themselves, and finally, after thousands of hours of hardship, they were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Nowadays I know that's not how it works. I'm more realistic with myself. I could be a great dancer before I'm forty, except that I don't really like dancing. I could be decent at drawing, except that I don't really like to draw. Every couple of weeks I get a great idea for a cartoon and wish I could draw it, but I really don't want to sketch crummy cartoons every day so I'll be ready when I get a good idea. Programming, though.... Fire up gdb and look at a core dump? Why the heck not? Install a new library and play around with it? Fun! Read through some code, figure out how it works, and be on the lookout for a memory leak? Ooh, kind of exciting, I might be the one who finds it.

Those aren't especially stimulating activities, and there's no glamor in them. They're nothing I could brag about to my friends or show off to a cute girl. (I'm working on HTML and CSS now to fix that :-P) They're just something I usually don't mind doing and often find pleasurable. I never chose to be good at programming, and I actually took a pretty snobbish and dismissive attitude towards it until I found myself making a living at it. (Looking down on it was probably what enabled me to believe I could be good at it. Pfft, I can do this, any idiot can do this, especially if he's half-autistic like me.)

I still get off on stupid tangents, though. I took a vacation several years ago and was extremely frustrated with the performance of my point-and-click digital camera. I ended up buying a DSLR, and suddenly I felt the pressure. I had to become a good photographer. My friends were taking pictures and putting them on Flickr (now on Facebook) and I had to keep up. I couldn't _suck_ at taking pictures. Especially not after I bought the DSLR. I bought a crapload of books and read at least a third of the ones I bought. I read on the web. I took classes. I took my camera with me to places and took pictures instead of having fun. The fact that I was taking shitty photos became a huge monkey on my back. Still is, kind of. Last fall, I took an amazing trip to a place I'd been wanting to go to for years, and I obsessed over the quality of the pictures. When I got back I immediately looked through them and couldn't find a single one I liked. For weeks I procrastinated processing them. Finally I did. They sucked. It was awful. Now I don't even know if I should take my camera with me on the next vacation I take.

So please, let me indulge in the misconception that I am just a "technical type." That way I can take pictures in peace, without knowing that it is really my fault and my shame if they suck, and that I should be putting in the hard work so that one day I will be competent and my friends will not have to endure my shitty photos. No, my shitty photos are not my fault. I am just not a creative type. I am a techie. Leave me alone and stop reminding me that all my artistic deficiencies are just one big character flaw!

<comment><USER23> From one photog to another:

\- _everyone_ sucks at taking pictures. The difference between a good photographer and a bad one is largely how well they curate their work. Don't go to the MOMA and get depressed because the walls are lined with incredible works by incredible photographers - realize that it's an _incredibly_ selected subset of everything they've done. After all, you're taking decades of a career and choosing only the finest, oh, 50 photographs?

\- your keep rate shouldn't be much above 1%. 99% of the pictures you take will be shit, and that's just the natural order of things. Throw these out - preview them at home from the SD/CF card, and make sure none of them ever survive to your HDD. Treat the remaining 1% carefully (back them up). Spend time editing them and looking at them with a critical eye to see if they can be better.

\- slow down, think more. New photographers mash the shutter release as if it dispenses candy, particularly in the digital age. Put a jar on the kitchen table at home - put a quarter into it for _every single picture you take_ (or $0.50, or $1, depending on what is good for you). Donate this jar to charity or something - the point here is to force you to take fewer pictures. You will work harder for each one, and think more before each shot, and these will make your work _dramatically_ better. Personally, I do this by shooting film. I rarely leave home with more than 50 exposures or so in the camera/bag. On a good day I'll shoot maybe 15 pictures.

\- go shooting more. What work inspires you? Ansel Adams? Winogrand? Cartier- Bresson? Look at _lots_ of photographs and think about what makes them great and what you like about them. Then go out and try to "see" the same images in real life. A photographer's eye is far more important than their ability to operate a DSLR.

\- join a critique group. Yes, this will suck for your ego, but it is _extremely_ helpful for your development. Join a _small_ group (5-10 people max) so it's not a complete zoo. These people will tell you _how_ to make your pictures better and give you actual directionality in your improvement.

 _Lots_ of people in photography are hackers. If you're ever in Seattle, give me a shout and we'll go shooting. Otherwise, keep snapping.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure about the kitchen jar one since I don't know if I take too many pictures or too few! My keep rate is higher than 1% because family and friends expect to see a few photos of the things I do. On my last trip, I took about four hundred pictures and picked about twenty for a quick slide show for friends. (That's a week's worth of pictures. Even on a trip by myself I take less than a hundred a day.)

Can you suggest a place online for finding a critique group?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> While I agree with the conclusion that you only get out of something what you put in, a quick review of the history of genius will reveal several characters that did have an innate talent that was indeed cultivated through hard work, but was not learned "from scratch". You may, in fact, be the artistic type, and glean from that a certain advantage over someone who is not.

</comment><comment><USER25> We should act and do as though there are no limits to what we can do, but we have to remember that nature & nurture do impose boundaries. We just don't know what those boundaries are.

</comment><comment><USER26> It feels like someone could learn some Zen here. Most things in life are not of type boolean. It is true that these labels are a wrong concept in some way. But of course the same applies to the idea, that everybody can do everything in the same quality and quantity, just after spending the same time learning it. It is too simple a point of view, isn't it?

Other than that I also get the feeling these days, that you can't be a good coder without any ideas about design. To understand how we construct software we all naturally learn the interface to processors, electronic waves and so on. Why should learning about the human interface not be as important for understanding how we should design our software. Also we all need to express what we have in mind, which also needs some design abilities to create appropriate ppts and prototypes.

</comment><comment><USER27> people need to stop attaching themselves to what they do, this way its easier to both have fun just doing, no matter skill level or adherence. I've seen bizarre cases of very skilled people tearing themselves up just because whatever they do is not perfect in any given respect, be it technical or artful. They end up miserable.

I don't design. I could, but I know that the time I would spend designing would be twice the amount compared to a skilled designer. Instead I ask someone who loves design. collaborate with them to create something awesome. We bash and we chastise, but always realize that its about the work, not the person or his/her skill level.

This does not translate well to corporate, but for the better it really should.

</comment><comment><USER28> This article perpetuates a dichotomy that I have only just (at 50+) realised is false: creative versus technical. Technical people create: software and hardware often come out of nothing more than an idea.

The real dichotomy that this article is getting at might be effectively described as artistic versus non-artistic, but even that is not a complete description of the distinction. Maybe it comes down to the old left- brain/right-brain thing?

I used to call myself non-creative, until several good friends united to point out that I do create things, just not things that you could plausibly turn up in art galleries.

<comment><USER29> Really? I thought it was about building skills by just applying yourself. You don't learn guitar or Ruby in a night. You practice and play with them for years and integrate them into your projects.

<comment><USER30> Knowing how to play guitar like a virtuoso != being artistic. Head on down to Guitar Center to see what I mean.

<comment><USER31> I agree. If I made a robot that could follow musical notes and play the guitar perfectly, would anyone describe its playing the guitar as 'creative'? I hope not. This is a lab-like situation where we can know for sure that the robot is using zero creativity to play the guitar. It is just following instructions, it is not creating anything new.

However, if the robot could create new algorithms on the fly and could use them to tweak the way it played the guitar for the better, then we could say it is a creative robot.

Creative guitar players, like the second robot, invent new ways of playing a particular piece of music, or just a few seconds of it, to induce specific reactions in the listeners. This is creativity, and it seems to be rare not common, possibly because of how difficult it is to master the notes, and then to build rapport with the audience and manipulate their emotions.

<comment><USER32> Learning something is not a creative process, but finding better ways at doing it (after learning) makes you an artist. Same rule applies to learning following skills: \- Music \- A programming language \- Cooking

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've recently taken up hobby blacksmithing (focusing on blades). The skills required were completely alien to me at first.

At this point, I can hardly make nails. But stretching myself in such a dramatic way has really fueled my creativity, even when it comes to developing software.

No matter how much I struggle, I know that in 20 years of systematically pounding away on evenings and weekends, I'll have enough skill to make some good stuff. I'm confident that I can become a ABS Journeyman, and perhaps a Master if I live long enough.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm reminded of the wonderful (sadly now defunct) web comic "The Life of Riley" in which this is a major, ongoing plot arc.

Starting here: <http://www.pyrocam.com/life-of-riley/comic.php?strip=25> and continuing throughout the entire 600+ comics of the series. That particular plot arc follows Dan, the artist, who unlocks his technical side, eventually ascending to demigodhood by learning to leverage both types of creation.

If you want an amusing distraction, it's worth a read. (Also interesting to see references to some of the other major web comics of the day... many of which are now long gone.)

</comment><comment><USER35> I got caught up in that sort of identity thinking about the time I was getting out of high school but thankfully realized how wrong it was a few years ago. I think that was probably one of the damaging ideas that ever got in my brain.

I'm not sure how much natural talent there is for various skills but I do know that believing in natural talent is harmful.

<comment><USER36> _I'm not sure how much natural talent there is for various skills but I do know that believing in natural talent is harmful._

That sounds like the argument that you should believe in God because religious people are happier. I don't see why the truth is harmful: you can get better at just about anything with practice, and the degree to which that happens varies with the individual and activity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> _Hackers and Painters_ is a good answer to this. Is the person who wrote that a "technical person"?

</comment><comment><USER13> There is an artist in everyone. Everyone.

</comment><comment><USER38> Case in point: shawn inman

</comment><comment><USER39> From Less Wrong: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/5a9/learned_blankness/>

</comment><comment><USER40> If your blog is actually _served up in production_ by Github, yeah, you're a technical person.

<comment><USER41> It seems that you didn't actually read the post. Your comment is only in response to the title, and it's actually a good example of what the post was trying to combat.

<comment><USER42> Additionally, these sorts of clever one-liners are what HN comments shouldn't be about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think there's a good reason why there's often a separation between creatives and technical people, and this is it:

In order to be creative, or more specifically "artistic", you have to be comfortable with the irrational. In fact, you truly need to be able to appreciate the irrational.

Most technical people I've met (particularly engineers) can't make that jump, and it's not easily taught or learned. By definition, there's often not really a rational way to go about irrationality.

<comment><USER43> Most art is most definitely rational, deliberate, and reasoned. It doesn't appear so when you're thrown into the deep end (personally, although I'd been exposed to it countless times, it took me a while to appreciate work like that of Mondrian). Blocks of code look equally irrational to non-coders.

All the great Renaissance painters were as obsessed with math as they were pigments. Their art is accessible, so probably appears rational. Modern art is also rational, but understanding why it is rational sometimes means the viewer needs an understanding of its history, or the artist's intentions.

Cubism is a great example of this: it might appear irrational for the artist to paint a subject's eyes and their nose on the same plane, but it is not. Cubism is a process in which multiple vantage points are presented at once. Even though it is not a mechanical process dictated by strict rules, it is indeed a process.

        while i
          --i
          subject.angle = random() * 360
          # copies a nose, eye, etc.
          feature = copy( subject.facial_features[ random() * 10 ] )
          paint( feature )

__Edit __: I'm afraid I didn't express myself clearly -- by `rational`, I mean: reasoned, thought out, and deliberate.

<comment><USER42> The output may seem rational, but was the process of synthesizing it 100% rational? Can you write a program that creates the Mona Lisa while explaining each decision along the way?

<comment><USER43> The rationale for the decisions da Vinci made while painting the Mona Lisa are actually pretty well documented <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa> .

<comment><USER42> Yes, they are. I think we can agree that there is a beautiful elegance to it that is similar to that of mathematics.

But that doesn't answer my question, which asked how to write a program that was capable of outputting the Mona Lisa while rationalizing the decisions it is making. Shouldn't we be able to feed everything we know about the Mona Lisa into a program so it could generate something similar? If not, why not?

<comment><USER43> I'd say that simply because something is rational doesn't mean it can be codified into a computer program (yet). (Maybe my example code disrupted my point more than helped.) The design of most computer programs is rational, but a computer isn't sophisticated enough to program itself.

I'm actually having trouble thinking of an important human endeavor this was _not_ in some way rational. Maybe some `Outsider Art` created by mental patients? Programmers who work in `BrainFuck` or `LOLCODE`? I guess I'd only think of something as irrational if I thought a reasonable person would not come to a given conclusion based on the same inputs (such as knowledge, skill, experience, etc).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Current stabilty of the Hacker News Front Page - <AUTHOR> http://hnrankings.info/6/1-10/ <comment><USER2> Don't look now. But there is a typo in the title.</comment>


Snowden Docs Reveal Scope of Secrets Exposed to China in '01 Spy Plane Incident - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/04/10/snowden-documents-reveal-scope-of-secrets-exposed-to-china-in-2001-spy-plane-incident/ <comment><USER2> I really love it when The Intercept publishes articles like this, a precious glimpse behind the curtain of secrecy, and an opportunity to learn something delightfully detailed about something that I was previously never going to know enough about to satisfy my curiosity.</comment>


Going Public Circa 2020; Door #3: The SPAC - <AUTHOR> http://abovethecrowd.com/2020/08/23/going-public-circa-2020-door-3-the-spac/ <comment><USER2> SPACs traditionally don't have any guaranteed primary capital. 100% of their investors can redeem. So you are guaranteeing the sponsor their rake but they are not guaranteeing that you'll get any money from the listing. Plus this article doesn't mention the warrant coverage, which cannot be negotiated down, and IPO fees (when SPACs go public, the bankers defer their fees until the SPAC completes a transaction). I think this article researched the inefficiencies of the IPO process to the last detail, but somehow forgot to do the same on the SPAC process. Door #3 is just as rigged as door #1.

Source: invested in several SPACs transactions and PIPEs

<comment><USER3> > Source: invested in several SPACs transactions and PIPEs

You sound very credible.

Would you have some time to elaborate more on your experience with SPACs? No need to name names; just more details on the critical aspects you highlighted.

<comment><USER2> Thanks. There is one aspect of SPACs that is completely unmentioned in this write up that's actually the most important - valuation. While it reads like Bill believes the goal of a "SPAC-off" is to negotiate the sponsor take, that's not the primary goal. Each SPAC completes an acquisition, with a PRICE. That price is not set as $/share - that's fixed at $10.00 - but in the number of shares the "seller" gets. I was involved in one transaction where a SPAC was desperate to complete a deal before it expired, and it vastly "overpaid" for a crappy business. I put quotes around that because not a single investor except for the Sponsor rolled into the deal at $10.00. They ended up having to raise outside equity at $8.00 per PREFERRED share, and even that wasn't enough. Then they went to the bankers and issued them more shares in lieu of their IPO fees and then the sellers ended up contributing more money with a complex security. So the problem in those situations is the company is put into a bind - if they pick the SPAC that's paying the highest price, then most likely there won't be any new capital raised at all while the sponsor will still get their rake. If they pick a low valuation, then they can assure capital and negotiate down the rake, but then you are giving a below market valuation and incurring a rake plus paying IPO fees so why not just do the IPO to begin with. And because the sponsor's rake is in shares (with a lockup), even if the shares go from $10 to $3, they will still get paid. Think about this incentive - the sponsor can announce the crappiest deal - buy WeWork or whatever - wait 6 months, watch investors lose 70% of their capital, and still make a profit by selling their sponsor shares (which are issued for effectively ~$1/share as the sponsor contributes 1-3% of the initial capital at $10/sh but then gets 10-20% rake at $0/share).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The bigger question is why it has come to that, that door #1 is such a joke.

Is competition not supposed to drive down the bargaining power of the investment banks in terms of fees and IPO discount? Apparently not.

Are institutional investors who are part of the 30x oversubscribed and not getting allocations not really upset with this process as well? Why would they not want to pay a higher price and benefit from a smaller IPO "pop" than the 30% build in the system?

There is probably a massive business opportunity to get IPO investors and IPO'ing companies connected in a much more structured and technology based way.

<comment><USER5> IPOs are the way they are because of a lot of historical reasons. Before everybody and their uncle had a stock trading account, the investment banks and their moneyed clients were often the only way to get access to capital in meaningful quantities. The biggest investment banks hoarded these contacts. It was therefor hard for other banks to compete. Obviously if you were going to IPO, you'd want to go to the biggest bank with the most moneyed contacts. That caused a concentration of power.

If the fundraising rules for direct listings are changed, and it looks like that may happen, then there are fewer reasons to go the IPO route (there are still benefits, such as the investment bank and their customers taking all the risk should the IPO be a flop, but that seems to not happen a lot anymore).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My understanding is that its a shift in the SPAC model that's making them take off recently.

In the traditional SPAC model, if the SPAC shareholders choose to redeem their shares, the acquired company gets less money, or the deal just doesn't go through. This actually decreases the certainty to the company of any deal. See the case of Far Point, where COVID hurt the company and the SPAC was able to get out of the deal (in fact, management urged shareholders to vote against the deal they had put together!).

Recently, however, SPACs are tending to have small amounts of capital (or at least, few investors), and rely on the PIPEs to make up the difference. As the article points out, the PIPE process isn't too far off from the typical IPO process: your bankers (SPAC management in this case), market the deal to potential investors, and build orders.

In my view, as this approaches its limit, SPACs become very similar to IPOs, with one key difference: regulations. They're not required to file S1s and many other restrictions around marketing to investors no longer exist. In other words, as this trend continues, it seems that the main value that SPACs provide is just a way to do IPOs while skirting many of the SECs requirements.</comment>


'No evidence' for vitamin benefit - <AUTHOR> http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/04April/Pages/Noevidenceforvitaminbenefit.aspx

<comment><USER2> To be clear: No evidence of a decrease in mortality with the intake of anti- oxidants. The study does not target vitamins as a whole.

<comment><USER3> It also doesn't seem to address intravenous administration of vitamin C which was Linus Pauling's strongly held belief.

 _Early clinical studies showed that high-dose vitamin C, given by intravenous and oral routes, may improve symptoms and prolong life in patients with terminal cancer. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies of oral vitamin C therapy showed no benefit. Recent evidence shows that oral administration of the maximum tolerated dose of vitamin C (18 g/d) produces peak plasma concentrations of only 220 µmol/L, whereas intravenous administration of the same dose produces plasma concentrations about 25-fold higher_

<http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/7/937>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The title of this article is completely misleading. Please don't submit titles like that?</comment>


APL\B5500: The Language and Its Implementation – Gary A. Kildall (1970) [pdf] - vezzy-fnord https://www.cs.washington.edu/tr/1970/09/UW-CSE-70-09-04.PDF <comment><AUTHOR> A few historical implementations of APL are very interesting. The Burroughs 220 version by Larry Breed was the defining factor of what became the APL environment. Jim Ryan's APL for the Burroughs 6500 was nothing short of amazing and pioneered many of the performance enhancement mechanisms now used in production optimizing compilers. John Walters (ex-IBM) built an APL compiler for HP which compiled very good code but retained the interactive character of APL. Much of the early history is documented in the ACM Quote- Quad.

<comment><USER2> The user manual for Jim Ryan's APL\700 implementation is here:

[http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/apl/Manuals/APL...](http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/apl/Manuals/APL700UserReferenceManual/view)

If we can get a working Burroughs B6700 emulator (see elsewhere in this thread) we may have enough pieces to see APL\700 working again. We're seeking the APL\700 Installation Manual (Form 5000805) if anyone has a copy.

Note the use of the "\" in the name was intentional according to Jim Ryan, "APL "expands" the '700 series" (comp.lang.apl)

As drallison notes, APL\700 was a compiler to an intermediate language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The likes of Hoare, Dijkstra and Knuth hacked on these Burroughs machines:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems#Langua...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems#Language_support)

Pardon my slip; Dijkstra didn't "hack", of course.

<comment><USER4> If you have any interest in these machines, the web-based B5500 emulator is a fantastic toy:

[http://www.phkimpel.us/B5500/](http://www.phkimpel.us/B5500/)

<comment><USER2> We and others are working on emulators for the Burroughs B6700 too. If anyone can help find software for any of the Burroughs systems from that era, in particular the ESPOL compiler and the so-called INTRINSICS libraries it would be appreciated. Any software or documentation for Burroughs systems from that era would be helpful too, the related systems include Burroughs B6700, B7700, B6800, B7800, B6900, B5900 and B7900 (listed in order of release date). We may use later MCP revisions to help cross-compile to earlier versions or identify system related changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Kinda off topic: Those who are interested in modern implementations of APL and similar vector languages are invited to join #kq on Freenode IRC.

We have John Earnest who implemented K5 in Javascript (oK.js) and Kevin Lawler who worked on both Kona (K3) and his new friendlier Kerf.

Some really interesting discussion about array languages has been happening there lately. Join us!

<comment><USER6> Is this only for theoretical discussions about language design, etc.? Or can we ask dumb questions about how to do simple things in k and q? Not really a fan of Google Groups. It would be great to have an IRC channel for common questions.

<comment><USER5> We just happen to talk about other implementations due to the Q licensing thing from a few weeks back. Of course we love to help newbies learn the language too. There are some real k/q geniuses in there (I'm not one of them). Come say hi! I'm tlack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, I had no idea "Mr. CP/M" was into APL...

<comment> vezzy-fnord He was into quite a lot of things. One of the rare examples of a person who was simultaneously a skilled programmer, a computer scientist and a business- savvy entrepreneur (though one sadly plagued by a lot of obstacles and circumstance).

I would go as far as to say that, at least as far as individuals go, he was the single most important in initiating the PC revolution, doubtlessly more so than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or even Woz from the perspective of fundamentals.

He is also virtually unknown to the public. Go figure.

<comment><USER8> The contributions, from the Wikipedia entry about him:

"In March 1995, Kildall was posthumously honored by the Software Publishers Association (now the Software and Information Industry Association) for his contributions to the microcomputer industry:[3]

\- Introduction of operating systems with preemptive multitasking and windowing capabilities and menu-driven user interfaces.

\- Creation of the first diskette track buffering schemes, read-ahead algorithms, file directory caches, and RAM disk emulators.

\- Introduction of a binary recompiler in the 1980s.

\- The first programming language and first compiler specifically for microprocessors.

\- The first microprocessor disk operating system, which eventually sold a quarter of a million copies.

\- The first computer interface for video disks to allow automatic nonlinear playback, presaging today's interactive multimedia.

\- The file system and data structures for the first consumer CD-ROM.

\- The first successful open system architecture by segregating system- specific hardware interfaces in a set of BIOS routines.[22][23][24][25] "

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wonderful! But just think of the guy that had to manually type up these diagrams on on page 22 and 28 (at least I assume the text is done on a typewriter with the arrows and balloons being added later by hand?).

</comment><comment><USER10> We had Burroughs mainframes at college (not sure why, although there was a Burroughs factory about 20 miles away so that might have been the reason). Algol 68. Good times..

<comment><USER11> Someone implemented ALGOL 68 for the Burroughs 5500 or descendant? I'm way envious.

<comment><USER2> If anyone finds a reference to its existence we would appreciate the details please. Bauer and DeRemer's Compiler Construction text speculates about ALGOL 68 on a B5500 but we've not found any evidence so far it was attempted. As you will see about the discussion of ALGOL-68R ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_68-R](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_68-R) \- the first implementation of ALGOL 68) it took considerable resources to support it, likely more than the B5500 could provision.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a great find! Not to hijack the thread - but does anyone know the status of "chasing men who stare at arrays"?

<comment><USER13> Thank you to everyone who has kept my project alive in their hearts and minds. I am still on hiatus and while I do plan to start it up again I am not sure when.

In the mean time:

\- Roger Moore has been working on his Wikipedia entry and notes: "It seemed easier to find citations from my brief time in academe than the remainder of my life. I will have to wait and see what Wikipedia editbot thinks of it." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore_(computer_scientis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore_\(computer_scientist\))

-As for my father, there's not much new on the programming language front however his Alpaca business is holding its own: [http://www.manitoulin.ca/2015/06/30/lobo-loco-alpaca-farm-th...](http://www.manitoulin.ca/2015/06/30/lobo-loco-alpaca-farm-thriving-and-growing-at-one-year-mark/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Mary _and_ Sally. Hurray!</comment>


The presentation of Music As Data - Music Programming using Clojure  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sfalma.com/post/4693922385/dyncon2011

<comment><USER2> Does anybody know how to get this running on Mac? I've got lein going but I don't really know where to go from there!

<comment><USER3> Assuming you have git installed:

        git clone https://github.com/jonromero/music-as-data.git
        cd music-as-data

Now follow the steps on <https://github.com/jonromero/music-as-data> listed below "How to use".</comment></comment>


CppMem: Formalised Interactive C/C++ memory model - <AUTHOR> http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/ <comment><USER3> This looks interesting, but hard to grasp for those who's skill set doesn't overlap the technologies used in the demo. Could someone give a summary of what is going on here? Is this a showcase of standard C++ memory management, or of some custom system? What language are those model predicates written in?

<comment><USER4> A "memory model" and "memory management" are two different things.

Memory management normally conotes the process for allocation and reclamation of memory in a program.

A memory model defines where reads can get their information from in a program. In most contexts that is informally "the most recent write" in terms of wall clock time (i.e. sequential consistency).

In C++, C and Java, this is not necessarily how things are. For example in Java writes can be buffered preventing reads in other threads from seeing them right away. This means those reads will get a value from an "older" write (again wall clock time).

It's all really bad for reasoning about your program :(

<comment><USER5> > It's all really bad for reasoning about your program :(

True, but it's really good for performance in a lot of incredibly common cases, which is why it's a case of a tough tradeoff they had to make - <USER2> than a malicious choice to just make our lives more difficult. :)

(An expert in this stuff would probably also wave their hands and say something about exotic and/or legacy hardware that those languages need and/or want to support.)

<comment><USER6> It's more than exotic/legacy hardware: ARM[0] and, to a (much) lesser degree, x86 have non-SC memory models.

[0]: [http://preshing.com/20121019/this-is-why-they-call-it-a- weak...](http://preshing.com/20121019/this-is-why-they-call-it-a-weakly- ordered-cpu/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very impressive visualization! It'd be great if there could be a <del> legends table </del> (or even better, tooltips) explaining all these confusing acronyms...

EDIT: found doc. Still it would be great if the legends is nearby.</comment>


Blame the Banks for All Those Boring Chain Stores Ruining Your City - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-22/blame-the-banks-for-all-those-boring-chain-stores-ruining-your-city <comment><USER2> > Not long after he leased out the shell of a once-iconic Phoenix steakhouse, > developer Lorenzo Perez got an email from a broker. He learned that the new > space, now home to an award-winning restaurant, a small garden store, and an > independent bookshop, was worth about $195 a square foot.

Was curious, found an article which said that the restaurant was Beefeaters [1]. The independent book shop is the second Changing Hands [3], whose location in Tempe has been doing very well for 40 years[2].

[1] [http://www.phoenixmag.com/valley-news/meet-the- newton.html](http://www.phoenixmag.com/valley-news/meet-the-newton.html) [2] [http://www.changinghands.com/40th](http://www.changinghands.com/40th)

[3] [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Changing+Hands+Bookstore/@...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-112.0793562,19z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x872b12c3cb044a61:0xfb5d1e0889caeab4!8m2!3d33.509696!4d-112.078809)

This part of Phoenix is an interesting blend of poverty and wealth. Central north of Camelback has some very nice properties.

Missouri Ave, 1/2 mile to the north, gets progressively wealthier the farther east you go. At 24th St (3 miles from Central), Missouri ends at Frank Lloyd Wright's Biltmore Hotel... The houses around here all priced in the multi- million dollar range.

Missouri Ave gets progressively worse the farther west you go. My aunt used to have a house at 11th Ave & Missouri... It was a perfectly normal middle-class neighborhood, with small post-war homes.

I helped a guy move his family from the cheap motel at 7th Ave & Van Buren to the sketchy apartments at 21st Ave & Missouri (3 miles to the west of Central Ave)... I think he said his kid had started a fire at their last place.</comment>


An Arc REPL online - <AUTHOR> http://dabuttonfactory.com:8080

<comment><USER2> Can you provide the patch to arc that you're using? I want to see if I can break out of the sandbox.

<comment><AUTHOR> Check your mailbox.

For the others: tell me if you're also interested for the patch, but I'll maybe let dfranke test it a bit before to release it (the guy is good; see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639976>).

<comment><USER2> Thanks, got the mail. After a quick glance at it I'm not betting on having an easy time breaking out, since you're basing on the sandboxing primitives built into mzscheme and aren't abusing them in any way that jumps out at me immediately. But I'll look at it more later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, this is awesome! I'm just learning Lisp/Arc now, so this will be a very handy tool for me.

One quick suggestion...put a hook on the "onkeypress" event of the arc textarea for the up and down arrows, so that you can scroll backwards and forwards through the command history (which you could store in a javascript variable as a simple string array).

<comment><AUTHOR> _> I'm just learning Lisp/Arc now, so this will be a very handy tool for me. _

I'm very glad if it can help you learn! It's mainly for this purpose that I code this little thing (and to myself learn Arc doing it :-))

BTW, see also <http://lotrepls.appspot.com/>, _the Lord of the REPLs_ by Google. You can program in Clojure and Scheme (and also in non-Lisp languages like Ruby) with it.

 _> put a hook on the "onkeypress" event of the arc textarea for the up and down arrows, so that you can scroll backwards and forwards through the command history _

Yep, this is on the TODO list, I'll work on that. Thanks.

<comment><USER4> That was fun. ctrl+space is already bound on my system, and / brings up inline search in firefox, so I had to copy and paste "/switch" to get it to change languages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Arc users need to get together and write a draft spec that makes a lisper proud.

The "scripting language" style manual doesn't cut it. Go for RNRS, CLtL, Dylan-book, T-manual, Moonual, style of documentation; stuff that holds water.

Ditto for Clojure, FFS!

<comment><USER6> On Clojure documentation:

* There is a very informative book about clojure by Stuart Halloway: <http://www.pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure>

* <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming>

* [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=clojure+tutorial](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=clojure+tutorial)

Take your pick.

<comment><USER5> I hate to nitpick, and I am sure many of those documents will grow into something fantastic, but the difference between Lisp documentation and "scripting language" documentation is one of caliber.

Compare any existing clojure documentation to any of these _traditional_ Lisp specifications:

<http://library.readscheme.org/papers/t_manual.pdf>

[http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.0/ansicl/ansicl...](http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.0/ansicl/ansicl.htm)

[http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs- Z-H-2.html#node_toc...](http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs- Z-H-2.html#node_toc_start)

<http://www.opendylan.org/books/drm/>

Then google the manuals for the "lesser" Lisps; ISLisp, EuLisp and LeLisp.

I.e. A manual; specification + examples, etc. Lisp texts have a specific flavor and you wont mistake them for others. It doesn't have to be written by Guy Steele or Kent Pitman for it to be useful, by the way :-P It's not as codified as the Unix manpage format.

In a nutshell, Lisp manuals usually go this way; a short introduction to the Reader syntax; an overview of the special forms; high-level description of the type system; in depth discussion about the evaluation model and all top-level forms, then In depth discussion about the language _specified_ parts of the type system over several chapters.

Each identifier is clearly labeled by its type and evaluation method, e.g. _special variable_ , _generic function_ , _condition_ , etc. Its uses and abuses. Its side-effects, if any. Its exceptional situations, what conditions it might raise, if any. Examples. And finally links to other related symbols.

Nothing is said about regular expressions, database access, web API or GUI toolkit. A Lisp documentation is sufficient for implementing the language, as well as daily use. That's really the main difference I can think of. The C book by Harbison and Steele _C: A Reference Manual_ is the closest thing I have seen to a Lisp-style manual for a non-Lisp programming language, and it's no coincidence ;-)

Regards.</comment></comment></comment>


Scarfolk is a town in North West England that did not progress beyond 1979 - <AUTHOR> http://www.scarfolk.blogspot.com/ <comment><USER2> _Scarfolk is a fictional northern English town created by writer and designer Richard Littler, who is sometimes identified as the town mayor._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarfolk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarfolk)</comment>


Death of a startup founder – FactorDaily - <AUTHOR> http://factordaily.com/attune-arvindkumar-alagarswamy/ <comment><USER2> Omg! Completely inspiring. His dream and versatility roles in his lives will be motivating everyone around him.

The values he had created in his time is unparalleled. May God bless all</comment>


Flappy Bird developer says 'No' to everything - <AUTHOR> http://www.thechocolatelabapps.com/flappy-bird-developer-says-no/

<comment><USER2> [http://www.thechocolatelabapps.com/flappy-bird-developer- say...](http://www.thechocolatelabapps.com/flappy-bird-developer-says-no/) Actual link.</comment>


When Patients Read What Their Doctors Write - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/08/14/340351393/when-patients-read-what-their-doctors-write <comment><USER4> I would imagine a lot of the concern over this is more of the existential fear resulting from the balance of power between patient and doctor than anything else. The Internet started that, with patients able to become much more knowledgable about their own conditions (with the unfortunate side effect of every symptom being cancer).

Once patients become knowledgable, the doctor moves from a pillar of all knowledge to a (hopefully) trusted, knowledgable advisor. That change frightens many in the medical community[1], but it will yield better outcomes.

My own story is one of overcoming obesity and, at times, nearly crippling depression using that ability to gain knowledge to learn how to feed my body. In the process, I've stopped medications and have had to teach my doctor certain things (like why I'm not gong to either worry about my cholesterol or take any drugs for it).

The medical community currently has an abysmal record with treating chronic health problems. There are a lot of reasons for that, but, IMO, the most glaring is people abdicating their health reonsibility to somebody else (whether doctors, pharmaceutical companies, or government guidelines). As people take control back...when they realize they have some control...they will become more healthy.

1\. Source: my wife is part of that community and sees it regularly.

<comment><USER5> Doctors absolutely _hate_ knowledgable patients, from what I can tell, however.

I've just spent two years begging for an ultrasound because I've strongly suspected I have gall stones - and my GP has consistently rebutted me, and has written stuff like "hypochondriac" in my notes - he left the room, didn't lock his computer. Tut tut.

I initially tried playing totally stupid and letting them reach their own conclusions, but they just kept going "norovirus". When I then started talking about Murphy's sign, cholecystitis, why this lead me to think gall stones - they responded with a complete shut-down, get out of my surgery, type affair.

Went abroad. Got an ultrasound. Severe gallstones. Took them back to my GP here, they refused to even look at them. About to go abroad again to have a cholecystectomy.

So. Educated patients - if this is to help healthcare, doctors have to be on board too, and I don't think they ever will be, as an informed patient is viewed as a threat, as you say.

<comment><USER6> Maybe you should file a complaint with the medical standards board, sounds like you'd have a valid case if this story is true.

Although I'm assuming you're in a country where you'd have a medical standards board or some kind of complaints procedure, which not all have...

<comment><USER7> The problem for most patients is that filing a complaint, making sure it gets into the system, staying on top of it to make sure it isn't buried, responding to criticisms and building justification for the claim, and then maybe losing in the end because you have an unsympathetic judge / board / whatever is too much of a pain in the ass. This being compounded by boards of reviewers in many places that are friends with the reviewed, so you get an effect like the police, with a wall of white, rather than a wall of blue.

Just switch doctors, tell folks you know not to use that doctor, and tell the doctor why you're leaving. Network effects and market forces can make an impact on this kind of thing if you're diligent.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure what kind of insane complaints procedure you've had to deal with, but here you just file it, they sometimes come back for more information/questions, and then that's the end of it. You sometimes get a letter with a result, but there's none of that other stuff you listed ("making sure it gets into the system," "staying on top of it," "making sure it doesn't get buried," etc).

Plus you don't really "lose." You make a complaint, they investigate, and then take action if they feel it is justified. There isn't any "prize" for "winning" so therefore you don't lose.

Ultimately I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sounds like FUD to me, essentially "don't complain because it might be a hassle and the free market will magically solve the issue anyway."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One problem with this approach is patients who are making stuff up entirely. They're not a large part of the population, but since they relentlessly seek medical attention (often to the point of self-harm), every doctor is familiar with them.

Giving such patients editorial power over doctors' notes gives them a further lever with which to manipulate the system.

It's a weird situation in which the doctor/patient relationship is actually adversarial, and it poisons a lot of otherwise good ideas predicated on the assumption that doctors and patients want the same thing.

<comment><USER9> So, I think that the best way to address this would be to allow it to be mostly open. The default is for all notes from the doctors and patients visible to everyone; but doctors can write "hidden" notes that only other doctors are able to see.

In a lot of ways, I see this like a public bug tracker. For bug trackers, it's generally best for everyone to see all changes, to be kept up on what's going on and be able to most usefully provide extra information. But for security sensitive issues, or internal discussion that involves things that the end user needn't know about, many have a way of posting "protected" comments that only certain privileged users can see.

<comment><USER10> Where do you draw the line about what's "protected"? It seems pretty arbitrary, so easy to abuse.

<comment><USER9> In general, you have to put a certain amount of trust in your doctor.

They are helping you make pretty life altering decisions. Now, there is a bit of a cultural barrier where they aren't used to the idea of patients being as involved in their medical care, but on the whole, they are there to help you.

If you're really all that worried about your doctor writing lots of secret notes and not letting you see them, even once there's a system in place to allow you to easily collaborate with them, maybe it's time to get a new doctor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've met the guys behind a German startup called "Was hab ich?"[0] - <USER2> translates roughly to "what have I got?".

It's a platform that lets people post their doctor's notes and have med students interpret it for them in an easy to digest form.

It helps both patients better understand their conditions and med students learn how to read and interpret diagnosis.

It's a non-profit as far as I'm aware, since part of their philosophy is giving access to patients irrespective of their financial ability. I think it's a really neat concept. Sadly only available in German / Germany.

[0] [https://washabich.de/](https://washabich.de/)

<comment><USER12> Very interesting. What happens if the med students give advice contrary to the physician?

<comment><USER11> I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think they give any advice. The students only interpret / translate what the physician wrote in their usually-cryptic notes, and turn it into a simple, understandable form that almost any person can understand.

If I remember correctly (I don't speak German nor understand medicine), the note can say something like "test XYZ - negative results". This can sound scary to someone who doesn't understand what this test is about. The interpretation could be that negative results on this test means the patient does _not_ suffer from some kind of disease, and this indicates normal function...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You know. I checked the source (still checking) but it really seams what they did was give patients access to their notes, and then _ASK_ them if that improved things.

How could this honestly be considered evidence that this is a good idea? This is the standard of evidence that a Homeopath would present.

Who could take this seriously? Patients reported taking their medication more regularly, here's an obvious question: Did they actually take their medication more regularly?

Maybe somewhere in the body this is answered. Let me keep looking.

edit: _NO_

      although self-reports fall short of objective data, open
      notes may prove to be a simple intervention that has an
      important effect on medication adherence.

Good, glad they lamp-shaded it.

edit2: [http://www.myopennotes.org/](http://www.myopennotes.org/)

oooooohhh. This makes more sense. This is a paid for study.

Why does this have 200 upvotes?

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this is great; I know for a fact that when I try to describe a series of symptoms to my doctor he will be typing away, and I think there's a lot of what I'm saying that gets lost going from the ears to the fingers. I also think, having both patient and doctor "on the same side" makes it seem more like a team effort and empowers people to take more of an active role in their health.

</comment><comment><USER15> I work in a family practice every other week as a requirement for medical school. I've noticed that EMRs are very disruptive to a doctors bedside manner. For every visit the doctor types notes into a laptop while the patient speaks to her. Communication is inhibited and the doctor struggles to maintain rapport with her patient.

I would love to see the patients EMR displayed on a screen so the patient could see what the doctor typed as he spoke. This would make the process collaborative instead of one sided. It would also be a great feedback mechanism where the patient could double check that his doctor understood what he just said.

<comment><USER16> A doctor also might theorize about possible causes of the issue while trying not to implanting ideas of symptoms in the patients head. When I did computer repair, I was very careful not to put my own words in the clients vocabulary when I was still trying to gather information, as I wanted to keep from coloring their memory / experience. Same thing would apply here. Maybe a good compromise would be for the doc to summarize their notes at the end and ask for feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My doctor types at a computer whose screen is explicitly set up to point at both of us. I was surprised and appreciative when he first did so.

<comment><USER18> I too have seen this at a chain of clinics where I live: the doctor's laptop is hooked up to a wall-mounted screen, where I can actively watch what is being typed into my reports. It surprised me too, and makes me feel much better about the whole experience.

<comment><USER19> Do you have any implementation details I could take to my doctor?

(My doc currently uses a laptop that only she can see.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not having access to my own medical records is something that continues to annoy me to this day. I've heard a few arguments as to why the security is better than Fort Knox, many of these touched upon in the article ["Doctors want to be Free" and "Oh my, Liability"], but I have yet to buy any of them.

I hope this "open note" deal continues to trend, and becomes more so; horray for privacy, but bleh to "so secure, I can't see it".

<comment><USER21> As the article mentions, HIPAA gives you the legal right to access your own medical records. If you request it your hospital or health care provider they have to give you a copy. Admittedly it may not be as timely as the OpenNote system, but you do have access. (Assuming you live in the US. Does anyone know about similar laws in Europe?)

<comment><USER22> In The Netherlands a law called WBGO gives you the right to access - <USER3> correct - your own medical records. The law was instated Apr 1995.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've had Crohn's disease for about 35 years, and my experience makes me agree strongly with the article.

I have to go see my GI doctor a couple of times a year[1]. He's the department head at a teaching hospital, and so my appointments with start with a first- year resident examining me. After that, the "real" doc comes in, and the resident presents to the doc his findings and conclusions.

While I guess that some folks might object to an examination by "only" a resident, I find that this helps me because of the interchange between the resident and the teaching doc. At the same time the doctor is teaching his resident, he's also leaking that teaching to me. As a result, I come to understand my condition better than I would if were just going to a regular GI practice. And because management of a chronic disease like Crohn's is all about understanding its effects specific to your own case, getting this kind of feedback is invaluable.

[1] I moved recently, and need to find a new doctor with whom I can relate to like this. But it's easier to talk about in the present tense.

</comment><comment><USER24> This doesn't surprise me at all, but I'm happy to see it.

Just look at how many blatant errors are in an average person's credit history, one of the most sensitive and important files any other party will ever hold about them, and mostly driven by computer-generated automatic updates. They are still borderline works of fiction for significant numbers of people.

Those credit histories are a lot more limited and objective than a person's current medical condition and past medical history, so I find it difficult to imagine even the most diligent medical professionals could collectively hold numerous conversations with a patient and perform numerous tests over the course of that patient's entire lifetime and _never_ misunderstand something, fail to record a potentially significant fact mentioned in passing during a conversation, or simply make a mistake and record the wrong thing.

I learned something about lawyers and accountants very quickly after I started my first business. They charge a lot of money for their expert knowledge, and often they do understand subtleties in their fields that I don't, but they also still make dumb mistakes. I have found my working relationships with those professionals are dramatically improved, and the end results likewise, if we work more collaboratively. For simpler things, I get familiar with the issues (often with the expert's help) and make a first attempt myself that the expert can then review. For more complicated things that I simply can't do, we schedule time for the expert to talk me through the big picture and double- check any key details.

I cannot imagine why doctors do not routinely work the same way. It seems to offer all the same benefits and moderate all the same risks for all the same reasons. The only major difference is that in the case of a doctor it could literally be my life or quality of life at stake rather than just some numbers on a page or words in a court, which surely makes it all the more sensible to work collaboratively as much as possible.

</comment><comment><USER25> After going through Cancer with my sister in the 1990s and then the last 5 years with my son.

YOU ARE YOUR OWN EXPERT. Everyone else always drops something about you and you ALWAYS need to remind and talk about all the issues out loud with your doctor. If they don't find a new doctor if it is a big medical issue.

</comment><comment><USER26> Similar topic: "How Doctors Think" ([http://www.amazon.com/How-Doctors-Think- Jerome-Groopman/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Doctors-Think-Jerome- Groopman/dp/0547053649/)) is a great book. Amazon blurb:

"How Doctors Think is a window into the mind of the physician and an insightful examination of the all-important relationship between doctors and their patients. In this myth-shattering work, Jerome Groopman explores the forces and thought processes behind the decisions doctors make. He pinpints why doctors succeed and why they err. Most important, Groopman shows when and how doctors can -- with our help -- avoid snap judgments, embrace uncertainty, communicate effectively, and deploy other skills that can profoundly impact our health."

</comment><comment><USER27> In some of the counties ("Landsting") in Sweden, the patient may log on electronically with a electronic ID (certificate based, issued by banks) and view their journal at any time.

All patients have a right to their journals, as far as I know - although, there might be restrictions on parts - such as psychiatric treatment I guess - and everyone can request to get a copy of their journal. A bit of a pain in the ass to obtain - but surely possible.

I just thought it might be interesting to add to the conversation/article how things are working in another country/part of the world.

</comment><comment><USER28> As a complete outsides I don't see why anyone would be surprised, going to the doctor is quite often an expression of powerlessness, you have no idea and no control over what is going on _in your own body_ and you need this powerful semi-stranger to do some divination on you and tell you what's wrong. Of course giving someone even a semblance of control over the proceedings helps them feel more engaged and more knowledgeable about themselves.

<comment><USER29> I think it can be pretty complex. A lot of people (especially older people) will have a preconceived idea of what they have, and come to the doctor only to get confirmation, or have a prescription. Then some will only take the drugs matching what they think they have, and just ignore everything else the doctor told them (my parents do that).

Or for people with chronic issues, there isn't much mystery about what's going on, only some variations between a month and another, most of the time. What's special is that the patient will be motivated enough to do a lot of research (in the time there was no internet, go through medical documentation, even research papers), taking time to understand well enough what's happening to them. Then, a doctor might diagnose something different than their previous doctor. Or prescribe different drugs with different side effects. Or sometimes the doctor might not be as well informed on the subject as their patient is, because it's not their specialty for instance.

These might be the cases where having transparency and trust between the doctor and patient are the most important and crucial to have the patient cooperate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Brief article, but well-done -- this is one of the core ideas of our start-up (though we have no direct association with OpenNotes project).

I liked this in particular: _Delbanco tells me that he considers OpenNotes to be "like a new medication." Just like any new treatment, it will come with unexpected side effects._

We've been negotiating these side-effects for a few years, now, with more & more success. Many of the obvious objections ("I need to discuss test results with patients before they see them!") have simple technical solutions, so we implement them (blacklist a set of tests that have a built-in delay before the actual result is shown to patients --though they can see that a new result is ready -- and give the clinician a daily list of what patients have gotten delayed-view results).

It _is_ difficult for many doctors to get used to the idea; I have personal experience trying to get access to letters being written between specialists _about me & my treatment_, and just getting evasive answers even to persistent attempts. But it's so valuable to good care.

</comment><comment><USER31> Back in the day, when Google Health tried to show patients their EHR data, here is what ensued:

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/healthcare/google-health-faces- its...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/healthcare/google-health-faces-its-first- test/2122)

</comment><comment><USER32> The biggest indicator of health is nutrition, yet it's one of the most poorly understood topics in medicine. Ask five different doctors and you'll get five different responses as to what are the accepted parameters in a healthy diet. What we need is a concerted research effort by governments to make headway in figuring this thing out instead of relying on research by teams funded by large agribusiness conglomerates. We also need (at least in the US) to start regulating what goes into our food. It's unacceptable to call something "lite" when you've just stripped out healthy fats and added chemical fillers made from corn sugar.

It's just as unacceptable that someone can graduate from high school without knowing how to balance a checkbook, open a checking account, or know that you should probably be reading the nutritional labels on the back of the food products you purchase... it's a societal failure.

<comment><USER33> > Ask five different doctors and you'll get five different responses as to > what are the accepted parameters in a healthy diet.

You really wont. It'll be pretty much advice about eating a varied diet, not too much fat, salt, or sugar, with a lot of vegetables and a wide range of fruit and veg.

<comment><USER34> You really will. Eggs, for example, have been controversial forever [0]. And who could forget the USDA Food Pyramid, encouraging people to eat 6-11 servings of carbs [1]? The 90s heralded the low-fat craze with the mantra "Sugar doesn't make you fat. Fat makes you fat." [2] We've swung the other way in recent years with the anti-carb options that started in earnest with Atkins and branched out to keto/paleo.

Nutrition is tricky and is _heavily_ marketed by extremely powerful industries.

[0] [https://www.google.com/search?q=eggs+health+controversy](https://www.google.com/search?q=eggs+health+controversy)

[1] [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/USDA_Food...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif)

[2] [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-10-25/features/1998298...](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-10-25/features/1998298194_1_sugar- makes-you-fat-premature-aging)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> the only problem - in the US - with this is that the more you tell them the more they will bill you. It's like as if every little piece of information that otherwise should help a doctor identify what's wrong and result in a faster and more accurate diagnosis makes the billing department's job that much easier. Now they don't have to break down one single item and charge you 10 ways, they can break down each of your statements and charge you 10 ways for each.

<comment><USER36> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please share.

<comment><USER35> From personal experience, I saw how a level 1 sprained wrist ER visit turned into a level 4 case, using some of my detailed description to establish criteria that made the case seem bigger than it actually was.

It's called "upcoding", "phantom billing" etc and are common medical billing fraud practices. [http://www.business2community.com/health- wellness/the-5-most...](http://www.business2community.com/health- wellness/the-5-most-common-types-of-medical-billing-fraud-0234197#!bFAgN2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Doctors writes too bad (poor hand writting) that sometimes patients cant understand. In India we are talking about a rule ( law ) where doctors have to write in CAPITAL only.

<comment><USER38> That's going to be a non-issue once doctors start typing instead of writing. Maybe there should be a rule that requires doctors to type their notes whenever possible.

I'm not even talking about a real computer, which might be too expensive for doctors in rural India to purchase and maintain. Even a 60-year-old mechanical typewriter should be better than most people's handwriting.

<comment><USER33> > That's going to be a non-issue once doctors start typing instead of writing.

It will be a lot better, but:

35 instead of 3.5?

7.5 uG or 7.5 mG?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I would love this!</comment>


Dumbass Detector - <AUTHOR> http://dumbasscam.com/face/ I think everyone could use this. <comment><USER2> Yeah... ummm.... I fed it an image of some of the most prominent women in computer science and half of them came up as dumb asses including Hedy Lamarr, inventor of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's just for fun, it isn't really able to detect dumb asses. Kind of a preview to the upcoming Dumb Ass Cam app. [http://dumbasscam.com](http://dumbasscam.com)</comment></comment>


Smartphones Embracing 'Kill Switches' as Theft Defense - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/antitheft-technology-led-to-a-dip-in-iphone-thefts-in-some-cities-police-say/

<comment><USER2> My guess is that a load more people will be locked out of phones that they legally own, than in genuine cases of theft.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gee, not only do people _pay_ for their (social-)surveillance devices, do said surveillance devices _reduce their health and their very potency for reproduction_ , fetishize their surveillance devices as fashion, but they now also want to cede the continued functionality of their devices to a third party as they have been convinced to live in fear of their beloved devices being stolen!

Absolutely astonishing.</comment>


Bringing back the <blink> tag with CSS3. (Just for fun) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zombio/blink

<comment><USER2> I suggest that you take a look at:

Some killjoys have removed the blink tag from Firefox (jwz.org)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6182690](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6182690) (294 points, 60 days ago, 149 comments).</comment>


Compete data confirms Facebook traffic drop - <AUTHOR> http://valleywag.com/tech/followup/compete-data-confirms-facebook-traffic-drop-309940.php <comment><USER2> If their traffic drops a little more, can we finally stop talking about facebook? :)</comment>


Ask HN: Selling IDEs for proprietary platforms? - <AUTHOR> Hey there, I'm developing for a proprietary platform and have been quite frustrated with the developer tooling that is provided by the platform vendor.
The current state is that you have to use Eclipse with a plugin provided by the vendor. There are some problems with the plugin:
- sometimes it's quite buggy (occasionally you have to wipe the workspace it has crashed in to start up Eclipse again)
- there are some UX problems
- the integration with the platform itself could be improved
My plan is to build an Atom (some of my peers already use it when they can avoid the Eclipse plugin) package that improves on that.
The way I would go about that is to offer the package for free while in development. The users would have to register and will get a time-limited license for free. As soon as the package is mature enough I would start charging. That's similar to the way Cursive (https://cursive-ide.com/) was built.
Before I'll jump into it I have a few questions that some of you maybe could help me with:
- Atom is MIT licensed. That means I can bundle the package with Atom and sell it as a stand-alone app, right?
- what are the concerns regarding the brand of the platforms vendor? Say the vendors name is X, can I call my package "X Integration" or something similar without getting into trouble? Would a simple disclaimer that I'm not associated with X do it?
- what is the best way to reach out to such small niches? There are hardly any development resources for the platform on the internet, so maybe that is an opportunity?
- probably a bit too early to ask, but how would you charge for it. One-off payment for a year of updates (like Cursive) or recurring subscription (like Jetbrain)?
Thank you for any help you can provide. <comment><USER2> I don't have any answers for you but wish you well in your endeavour. All Eclipse based proprietary IDEs I've come across in embedded controllers have been terrible. Would love to see an independent developer provide a better solution. I hope there is a market for you there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the encouraging words.

Unfortunately I'm targeting more of a web based platform. But it's good to know that there apparently is demand for such solutions in another niches.</comment></comment>


What is the most spectacular engineering disaster in the history of mankind? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Engineering-1/What-is-the-most-spectacular-engineering-disaster-in-the-history-of-mankind

<comment><USER2> Hands down, and orders of magnitude worse than any of those listed in the Quora article:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam</comment>


Ask HN: Will someone replace Sunrise calendar? - <AUTHOR> Sunrise calendar is being shutdown 31 August. It has some great features like: - Easy OAuth integration with Google, TripIt, Trello, Asana, Todoist, etc. - 'Meet' which allows you to send people a meeting booking link with your realtime availability. - Cross platform, works nicely on desktop, mobile and web.
Fantastical has been suggested, but it doesn't do any of the three things above :( Anyone heard any whispers about a new company filling the gap?
http://blog.sunrise.am/post/144196642739/its-almost-time-to-say-goodbye <comment><USER2> Seems that MS taking it over last year was it's death knell. I assume Outlook is not an option. It's as if MS took it over just to gut it. First I've heard of it.. too bad. They have only been around since 2013.

<comment><AUTHOR> Outlook unlikely to be a good option unfortunately, I just need a calendar for Mac and Android.

It's a shame, I'd pay for it if they kept running it as a standalone product and they might be able to use that as a channel to get me using their other products over time... but alas, I will just stop using their product all together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's a curious question: was there a need for sunrise? Between iCal, google calendar and Outlook, the calendaring market seems pretty full and perfectly functional. Is there something I'm missing?</comment>


Ask HN: science grad student here, how can I prepare for a career in industry? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN, I'm a regular here, posting on a throwaway for privacy.
I'm currently pursuing a doctorate in the life sciences. Originally I planned on pursuing the tenure-track path, but my experiences and the realities of the job market have caused me to reconsider. I do a lot of software development and statistics as part of my research, and I think a career combining data analysis and software development (a so-called "data science" job) would be very interesting and suited to my strengths.
I have an active GitHub account (and am a somewhat regular poster here) with projects in half a dozen languages and a decent math/stats background. I've contributed code to a couple major Python libraries. But, I have no real work experience outside of academia to speak of.
I'll be graduating in about 2-3 years. In the meantime, what should I be doing as a graduate student to improve my ability to land such a position upon graduating? <comment><USER2> You have a long uphill battle, although in most cases, having a PhD and papers you can point out can be useful. For example if I see your application, I'm gonna ignore most of your resume and what you said you did in grad school, find your first first author paper (and all subsequent ones), pull them up and skim them, and decide if you have a clue.

cultivate friends who work in the software industry. listen to how they differ from academia. Many people in academia are the world expert in some specific problem, but have trouble transferring that knowledge outside the sphere. Especially bad is people who are stuck in a long-term "this is how it's done" attitude. I find a lot of people in life sciences to be terrible at big data because they embedded poor learning/knowledge and can't unlearn it.

understand what industry does, why, and how. Industry exists to make money. Period. You need to learn how to work in that kind of environment.

spend a lot of time learning to distinguish between "feeder" job positions and "bespoke" job positions, and identifying the latter. Ex-scientists do best with bespoke job positions that match their interests, rather than feeder jobs that dump you in whatever "fungible" SWE position the company thinks you belong in.

you should learn politics and how hiring works. There is no easy way to do this, but your prof probably hires people and has some opinions. I had one prof who had everybody in the group evaluate every resume in detail then rank people by score. if the score was above a threshold, they were invited in for interviews, and scored again (several times). This has been my experience in industry as well. If you understand the metric, and can tailor your application for it, you're in good shape.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do a real machine learning online class or some data analysis online class. Some of the online classes from MOOCs can get you more of a sense of the difference between doing software deployment/statistics for life sciences versus doing it for other categories like market analysis, twitter, or prediction.

Also there is Kaggle competitions if you do those well, or sometimes even attempt them and rank decent I think you can qualify for some entry positions by meeting employers interested in such abilities for data analysis.

Also promote yourself, instead of just saying you have a github account with x projects, make landing pages with work that is well thought-out/done so people looking for a project can find your page. Flask can make github pages hosted from github repositories for instance. A blog works wonders for recruiting potential from what I've heard.</comment>