What Alternate Reality Games Can Teach Us About QAnon - <AUTHOR> https://mssv.net/2020/08/02/what-args-can-teach-us-about-qanon/ <comment><USER2> It was inevitable that the internet would birth a new religion or two...

<comment><USER3> I find Qanon fascinating in the abstract. It combines elements of conspiracy culture, the new age, and New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Christianity.

These are three things that historically didn't go together, with the new age in particular being not entirely incorrectly associated with the occult. Of course new age is itself an odd hodge podge of occultism, spiritualism, new thought / "the secret" / prosperity gospel, appropriated native beliefs, and hippie counterculture stuff.

I also find Qanon deeply disturbing for its totalitarian tendencies, such as cheerleading for mass arrests and martial law. The combination of fringe Christianity with the new age has a not so great history with groups like Heaven's Gate and The Solar Temple. It's a combination that seems to self destruct as the new age and occult/magic(k)al influence brings out a strong tendency to try to immanentize the eschaton.

<comment><USER4> > cheerleading for mass arrests and martial law

One of the darkly hilarious parts of the latest "Q" drops was that the entire cast of Friends had been arrested and executed. (Why? One can only imagine it had something to do with laugh tracks.)

It feels like "Q" predicts "marshall" law (his acolytes can never get the spelling right), executions of public figures, or impending power grabs/coups every month or so. None of them pan out, but his followers will usually call those predictions "intentional disinfo."

I imagine the only way this kind of hysteria ends is with a new conspiracy theory. And that gets uprooted by yet another conspiracy theory. And so on until the heat death of the universe.

<comment><USER5> Someone I was close to was a former Seventh Day Adventist and I remember riding in a car with their father listening to an audio book retelling of the story of the beginnings of the religion, which consisted of a series of wild predictions of the date of rapture followed by disappointments and a new "corrected" date. I couldn't understand how the modern church could so openly embrace an origin story that seemed to me to undermine the legitimacy of the entire religion, paint it as founded by charlatans. But for believers the same facts seemed to have the opposite effect. I still don't really understand it but I think about it often in situations like this Q stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would caution people from dismissing it as a too-crazy-to-matter fringe group.

Trump's rise was certainly boosted by his involvement in birtherism.

The Trump equivalent of 2024 or 2028 is probably tweeting about QAnon right now.

<comment><USER7> Birtherism was rooted in racism. It would not be a stretch to say Trump won partly because there are an awful lot of racists in the US.

<comment><USER6> Birtherism exploited racism. It was fundamentally a political tool used to identify true believers and to galvanize them to political action.

<comment><USER8> Birtherism was inherently racist in and of itself, though. If Obama was white it simply wouldn't have been a factor. It relied on suspicion of an "other" as a key component.

<comment><USER9> There's nothing inherently racist about attempting to claim your political opponent cannot legally be president.

<comment><USER10> That might be true in the abstract but anyone who had more than the slightest awareness knows that what was directed at Obama was based racism. The same people made racist comments about Africa in general, said he was inarticulate in ways straight out of minstrel shows a century ago, refused to accept his Christianity insisting that he was secretly following their favorite Other religion, and used various threats and rhetoric from the Jim Crow-era south against someone born in Hawaii.

You don't lynch someone in effigy because you're trying to say that you don't think they aren't 35.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Qanon has made a few thousand posts. If one were to analyze it/them why not include some of the posts as evidence/criticism?

<comment><USER12> Q has made those posts. Qanon is the amalagamous sea of adherents who have theories totally detached from Q. It's much easier to critique qanon because their theories are insane.

I would recommend checking out the Epstein stuff and the spygate stuff, since that looks like it's unraveling now (will we learn soon that Cruz campaign was also spies on?)

Qmap.pub

<comment><USER8> Hasn't Q made plenty of posts that turned out to be totally incorrect ? I'll admit, the whole thing baffles me: Q makes incredibly vague posts that sometimes end up somewhat matching reality and everyone decides they're an insider clued into every nefarious thing going on in the world. If they were, why be so cryptic? It doesn't pass even a simple smell test.

<comment><USER11> Q is an ocean of possible interpretations. Which seems like a drug for humans. Watching this closely for ~3 years has been a fascinating study of people and the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interestingly enough liberals are more likely to know about QAnon than conservatives. I listen to both right wing and left wing podcasts+news and the times I hear about QAnon are on left wing ones. I'm not sure what to make of this.

Edit: genuinely curious why I'm being downvoted, I found this pretty interesting

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/30/qanons- cons...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/30/qanons-conspiracy- theories-have-seeped-into-u-s-politics-but-most-dont-know-what-it-is/)

<comment><USER14> > Interestingly enough liberals are more likely to know about QAnon than > conservatives. I listen to both right wing and left wing podcasts+news and > the times I hear about QAnon are on left wing ones. I'm not sure what to > make of this.

Doesn't that just show that liberals are more likely to _talk_ about it, at least in the sources to which you listen, than that they are more likely to _know_ about it?

For example, one explanation—which seems plausible to me, but which I do not claim is the truth—of the observed facts is that conservatives who aren't QAnon believers don't want to discuss what they see as a fringe position within their party, whereas conservatives who are believers only discuss their beliefs with those they feel are, or might become, initiates. I can also believe that liberals would be both more frightened by these beliefs, hence more likely to talk about them, and more motivated to highlight what they perceive as fringe or embarrassing beliefs of their ideological opponents.

<comment><USER13> The more a podcast or news station talks about something, the more their listeners know about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Qanon is a funny thing to me. The actual things written by the person or people under "Q" are almost completely detached from what I see people share and post on social media.

But as someone who followed the spygate saga, Q seemed to know just enough inside baseball to make it interesting and keep me curious. I thought maybe some foreign intelligence op or something.

To give Qanon credit though, they were taking about Epstein for two years, when Epstein was still considered untouchable. Apparently their cohort isn't so untouchable anymore.

<comment><USER15> >But as someone who followed the spygate saga, Q seemed to know just enough inside baseball to make it interesting and keep me curious. I thought maybe some foreign intelligence op or something.

You ever see a psychic or other con-person work? Think more like that.

<comment><USER12> Based on what I've read, I think I can safely rule out a con- _man_ unless they seem to have intimate understanding and knowledge of the inner workings of the FBI, though a "con" is certainly on the table.

Among the intelligence people I follow (such as Rich Higgins, former NSC staffer), the consensus seems to be that Q is a psyop _against_ POTUS, from either a foreign or domestic intelligence[1]). People can decide for themselves.

I can't point to any concrete "predictions" from Q other than Ted Cruz's campaign was also spied on. The only "prediction" with a date turned out totally false.

[https://twitter.com/RichHiggins_DC/status/126075222668070093...](https://twitter.com/RichHiggins_DC/status/1260752226680700934)

<comment><USER10> That guy is currently repeating predictions that teen angst over losing TikTok will lead to a Pol Pot style uprising and comparing the protests in Portland to Nazis. I wouldn't trust him on anything without a credible source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't tell what's sloppier, the theories promulgated by supposed Q followers, or the debunkers.

Why is it so hard to find a thoughtful, technical, ripping to shreds of Q's posts?

<comment><USER16> Why would you want such a thing? It's clearly wrong, correcting it is just like people 'debunking' flat earthers or strong atheists arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

Its only value is a sick kind of entertainment - "I am so much more clever than these idiots". I say this as somebody who has consumed this kind of media myself in the past.

<comment><USER11> I think if you look closely you'll see that it's something entirely different.</comment></comment></comment>


Lambda School (YC S17) now pays eligible students $2k/month - <AUTHOR> https://lambdaschool.com/stipend <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, co-founder of Lambda School here.

We launched our online CS academy with no upfront tuition almost two years ago.

Now with thousands of students enrolled and hundreds already employed and paying back we wanted to take the next step and open up access to folks who couldn't afford to pay to survive while attending.

Of course, that introduces significant risk on our part, as students still only pay us back if they get a job paying $50k/yr or more, but we've spent the last two years perfecting our admissions and course to select hard-working folks who are likely to have what it takes to get hired and do everything we can to get them there.

For context, we have dozens of full-time interview sourcers and multiple companies per day coming in to interview our students - incentive alignment is powerful. Now that that's working we can afford to take more risk.

We're hoping we reach a point where anyone anywhere can move quickly to a high paying job, and only pay back if it works!

<comment><USER2> Are you thinking of expanding into programs outside of web development?

As a cyber security engineer I think that this is something that would really help get more people into the industry. And there just isnt enough universities that have programs. My Alma Mater is going to be starting one soon but... Looking at the class list I cant help but feel like the 4 years are wasted and a more concentrated program would yield better results.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, cyber security will be our next track. We also have a UX design track, as well as data science, iOS development and android development.

<comment><USER2> Thats really cool to hear! I'd be interested in what you guys end up commiting to teaching for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a far, far better deal than the one that I got for university (CS at a major US research institution, class of 2004), which involved a sticker price of about $140k, a work study assignment unjamming printers to justify ~$2k of wages per semester to cover (barely) the meal plan, and ~$X0k of non- dischargeable debt which started ticking the day I graduated, despite the fact that I was earning salaryman wages (~$30k) for the first 6 years of my career.

Lambda School is quite possibly the most impressive startup I'm presently aware of. They are going to hit tertiary education like a freight train.

<comment><USER4> I couldn't agree more. The traditional education system is broken for training software engineers in my opinion. I thankfully dropped out my freshman year, but some of my classmates were literally not capable of using Git (branching & resolving merge conflicts) for their senior capstone projects. Given almost every company uses Git all day every day how is a $250k education helping prepare them for working in the real world?

I love that programs like Udacity (and likely Lambda School as well) teaches Git(hub) as a 101 level course and use traditional workflows to submit, critique, and grade code.

I do, however, still think traditional universities still have a place, especially when it comes to research. I'm referring to things like AI/ML.

<comment><USER5> Under no circumstances would I be happy if my degree program taught me how to use git.

I can't think of a single skill more stupid to learn in university.

My degree came a lot cheaper than the modern ones but if I got a similar experience now as then I wouldn't feel cheated.

My undergraduate provided opportunities to program lisps & assembly & write published articles on data structures & I literally went to the local state school.

<comment><USER6> Just because I like telling this story: My university taught me every sorting algorithm known to man (or at least it felt like it at the time). After graduating, I traveled for a bit in the UK and got a job at a travel tour company doing odd jobs. One day the finance department asked me to sort a room full of records. Normally it took them 2 weeks to do the work.

"Right! If there is one thing I know how to do, it's sorting", I though.

Finished the job in half a day (shell sort -- which sadly was the only one I could actually remember...) They thought I was a freaking genius :-) Who says you'll never use this stuff?

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a great story.

How many times have you told it? :)

<comment><USER6> At least 3 times on HN :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a current student at Lambda School going part time. So this is pretty biased:

I've been enrolled for about 6 months. I've had previous programming experience so I feel I've had a leg up. But had no idea how to use the skills or build anything. I've never felt this confident with what I've learned in my life. Period. Everyone I've interacted with is genuine, welcoming, and gives me the impression they want me to succeed. I'm truly grateful to be able to be enrolled and I look forward to working to be able to pay back the school the value they've imparted in me.

Thank you Austen and everyone from Lambda School!

</comment><comment><USER8> While I think what Lambda School does seems pretty great I have to wonder what will happen when the next recession hits. If their new grads aren't getting hired, they can't afford to pay for their current class. It feels like something that is only possible right now because of bubble economics and cheap VC capital.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have to prepare pretty seriously for a recession - recessions are when school enrollment explodes because job opportunities dry up.

I can't go into all the details publicly, but it's something we have to take serious consideration to prepare for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> @austenallred What's the catch? Lambda School has always struck me as scam like with a very vocal CEO and over promises.

What happens when regulators start cracking down on these practices and what makes you think Lambda will be successful when most bootcamps have failed or been acquired.

<comment><USER10> I agree that Lambda School sounds too good to be true, but once you start looking they've got real answers for just about everything. I'm a high school teacher, and after watching students struggle with decisions about what to do after high school, I love what I'm seeing with Lambda School.

What do you think regulators need to address at Lambda School?

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess "seems too good to be true" is an OK marketing problem for us to have.

If you'd like you can attend classes on a trial basis and check it out!

<comment><USER11> What exactly is your admissions criteria for someone to get accepted to LS?

How big of a problem is that for your student-to-job conversion rate when the criteria has to become less stringent to scale?

<comment><AUTHOR> We look mostly at how well they do on our pre course work, how hard they work and how quickly they can climb steep programming learning curves.

We're seeing over 1,000 applications/week. Top of funnel is not our issue.

<comment><USER12> What are your issues then?

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't have any "issues" in the sense of things that will kill us immediately, with the possible exception of an out of the blue regulation, so I try to spend time on Capitol Hill from time to time to make sure they know the good we're doing.

But really it's just that things take time. Two years ago we didn't exist. Now we have over 1,000 concurrent students, 60+ full-time employees, and 120+ contract technical mentors. And mostly we think about product and how to make everything better as quickly as we can.

We want to continue improving everything as we 10x the number of students and open up opportunities to more people, all while improving our outcomes ([https://lambdaschool.com/outcomes](https://lambdaschool.com/outcomes)). It's just hard to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> RE: Those interviewing at Lambda (rejected)

Luck of the draw with who decides to interview you, I had a guy from the admissions team with zero enthusiasm essentially just reading off of a list of questions. I tried to answer well but giving off good energy from a dead duck is hard. I also was more practical with my answers of wanting to get into coding, jump in profession, curious, experience as a BA, writing technical docs and general data analysis. Each response by the interview was simply: "hmmm ok." Rejected around ten minutes after my TEN minute call. PS tell them you love coding, live and breathe it, etc.

<comment><USER14> Hey there -- this isn't right, and I'd love to know more about what happened. Do you mind emailing me with more details? I'm firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER15> huh, didn't know there was another collison brother. you guys are like the weasleys.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, the third brother isn't quite as successful as the other two, who are brilliant. He works at a payments company in San Francisco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While this program could be useful to many students, it's a loan program.

> Upon completion of the program, students will pay 10% of their salary for a > five year period once they're making at least $50,000 per year. The max > possible payment is capped at $50,000.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an income share agreement, which is quite different than a loan, and you only repay if you get hired making $50k 94 more. And it's also a school that's run quite differently than other schools out there. We have to do everything differently from first principles to make this work.

If your point is "the $2,000 isn't free" then yes you're 100% correct.

<comment><USER17> That brings to mind the literal classical lawyer joke/logic exercise Paradox of the Court. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court) Paradox of the Court.

I suspect the $2k could suffer from a free-rider problem from those who never intend to acquire such a job - especially in low cost of living areas with few jobs but unwilling or unable to relocate. Ideally it wouldn't make sense to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Just a heads up. Your site website navbar header is pretty hard to read (desktop, chrome, on mac). Here's a screenshot of what it looks like for me. The links are blending into the background.

[https://imgur.com/Gil5L9c](https://imgur.com/Gil5L9c)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, you're 100% correct. Currently working on a redesign.

<comment><USER19> Maybe worth doing a quick hotfix until the redesign is pushed?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya the hacky way is to use a new image with a dark background, will have it up soon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fix pushed, will deploy momentarily

<comment><USER20> I love how responsive members of this community are

<comment><USER13> I mean the cofounder himself made the post, this is essentially a targeted post on HN

<comment><USER21> Good response time nonetheless. Sam Altman recently did an interview where Tyler Cowan asked, "How quickly should someone answer your email to count as quick and decisive?"

Sam's answer: "You know, years ago I wrote a little program to look at this, like how quickly our best founders — the founders that run billion-plus companies — answer my emails versus our bad founders. I don't remember the exact data, but it was mind-blowingly different. It was a difference of minutes versus days on average response times."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It is an interesting system.

I did a "full time" 3 month long more "traditional" structured boot camp. I really wish it had been longer and that they.... filtered .... students as it went.

<comment><USER21> Do you mean the teacher's effectiveness would be improved if slow learners were cut from the class?

<comment><USER23> I wouldn't say slow learners are typically the problem. From my experience in teaching it's the students with lazy habits that tend to break down the professors' effectiveness. People that refuse to "learn how to learn" and expect everything to be googled for them can be difficult to filter for during the interview process and really cause a drag on the class as a whole.

<comment><USER22> > teaching it's the students with lazy habits

I think that's very much a thing. I do think that some folks ... just can't beyond that, but I agree lazy habits are the worst and frustrating.

I put in a TON of time outside class when I went to a bootcamp. I'd make progress and come back with a quick question for the instructor, and there would be a series of people with the same questions waiting to talk to the instructor who clearly did nothing since the last time they talked to the instructor and were asking the same question as the day before who are mildly perturbed the instructor doesn't just give them the answer...

A lot of the time I just gave up trying to talk to the instructor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _" Upon completion of the nine month program students will be required to pay 10% of their salary for 5 years."_

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that covers the price of tuition and repayment of the $18,000 Lambda School gives out in stipends, as well as cost of capital and risk (you only pay back if you're making more than $50k/yr, otherwise you pay $0).

<comment><USER25> If I make $50,001, would I have to pay back the full 10%? Or is there some sort of gradient?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you'd pay $5k/yr.

In fact you might just want to ask for a raise to $55k and be net ahead because that's not a great software engineering salary.

<comment><USER26> Being net ahead at $55K suggests the repayment is tax deductible. Is that the case?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, that's an oversimplification on my part to not complicate things, you're right it would need to net higher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How does taxes factor in with Lambda school? Are they taking pre or post tax income?

<comment><AUTHOR> You pay on a percentage of pre-tax income.

<comment><USER28> Wowza. People are gambling on tax rates of every level?!

<comment><USER29> You _may_ be able to deduct the payments as either an education expense or an unreimbursed job expense, but I haven't dug into the tax code to find out for sure. I'll be the LS people know though. :)

<comment><USER30> Unfortunately you can't deduct the payments. There is some potential legislation around that, but it hasn't been pushed through yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can you compare your model to Modern Labor, which also received a lot of attention for a similar premise recently?

[https://modernlabor.com](https://modernlabor.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Modern Labor's founder used to be a finance partner of ours, and decided to do something similar to what we had been working on. Modern Labor is (and this is my biased opinion) focused on the finance part and on bringing cost down, less on building "the school." We are mostly focused on building the best school there's ever been, and finance is a necessary piece for us but not necessarily the driver.

Just different models!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hey Lambda team. Congratulations on the ISA program and living stipend! I'm sorry for having so many questions. We have an ISA program as well and I found these to be the most important questions people have about coding bootcamp ISAs:

1\. Do the payments begin if the new job is not in-field (not related to Software Engineering)?

2\. Is there a grace period or deadline (depending on your point of view) before the payments begin? If so, how is the monthly payment amount calculated?

2\. Is there a grace period in the event they stop working after the payments begin?

3\. Do the ISA payments kick in if it's not a new job? In other words, if they continue working in a job that makes >=$50K/yr?

4\. Are the requirements for participating in your ISA program similar to obtaining a loan? Good credit, no defaults, etc..

Sorry if I missed any of these answers in the announcement or terms. We have been offering an ISA program at our Houston and Atlanta based bootcamp for just over 6 months now and recently adjusted it based off feedback so that payments only kick in when the new job is in-field, includes a grace period, and must be a new job. However, we couldn't do much for the credit history requirements. An ISA is essentially a delayed loan and requires the same (if not stricter) credit history requirements. It's a good alternative to taking out a loan for some, but it's usually not a fallback if you can't get one.

Thanks Lambda team!

<comment><USER14> 1\. The language around what counts as in-field is in our ISA. It's more dependent on what skills you use in your job as opposed to your title. You can see a sample ISA we use at [https://lambdaschool.com/faq/](https://lambdaschool.com/faq/).

2\. You pay nothing between when you finish the technical portion of the class and when you get a job, and after you start your job, there's a 30-day grace period.

2\. The payments stop if you stop working. You can think of them as being 24 monthly repayments that will pause if you lose your job.

3\. It does, but only after they finish the technical portion of the class, and they're using the skills they learned. We do look at things on a case-by- case basis.

4\. Nope! We don't care about your credit score or your debt load. Things get tricky if you have a fraud conviction, but anything short of that won't impact our decision.

Hope this helps!

<comment><USER11> Wait, does #3 imply you enroll students who don't want to work as a programmer after graduating? i.e. a online marketer who wants to learn coding as a skill set.

I would assume these types would be filtered out during the admissions process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Austen: does your admissions process give any weight to outside referrals? I have a friend who would be an incredible fit for your program. I'm an engineer at a top company and I'm sure he could reach my level with some guidance, I just don't have time to give him that support myself.

<comment><AUTHOR> It should.

Email me the details and I'll pass on to the admissions team. firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Austen, I was wondering if you would consider some online version of Lambda for regions where Lambda isn't there. I don't mean the academic part, but the hiring part. Sort of an evaluation of a student's skills to see if they are on par with those educated by Lambda Faculty. On the basis of those evaluations/tests/ projects , you can use your network to get those people jobs/ internships. For eg: I am from India. Currently in a 2nd tier college. Learning ML,NN, Data science and am doing Kaggle currently. But, college CGPA and college name is a major hindrance while getting internships. Am thinking of dropping out after 2nd year, because it's a huge waste of time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lambda School is entirely online; we don't have the infrastructure just just yet to go into India, but hopefully in coming months we'll open up.

<comment><USER34> Cool. Thanks. For me, the study materials , curriculum is not the hindrance. Being among like minded individuals, getting internships is the problem. If you think about it every education institution which develops into a brand has 1 key thing. Great, ambitious students and matching support. That's what I want. To be part of respectable group of individuals. Now, I know this might not fit the DNA of Lambda School, but, i think a new service where students submitted an application along with their work, projects and the site listed these students ( with very strict vetting to identify unique students, with their unique skillset mentioned) and partnered with companies for internships ONLY (no jobs )in the beginning. As the validation of the students skillset would start to take place in 1-2 years, the brand would gain recognition like Lambda. A small upfront application fee would be charged.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So if I'm reading this right, the normal LS program costs 17% of your salary, but this program pays you $2K/mo while you attend and then only charges 10% after? Of is it 10% on top of the 17%?

Either way, good on you guys for trying to do something that helps people that are disadvantaged. You guys should start a charity arm that people can donate to so that more people can get the stipend!

<comment><AUTHOR> There is no 17% if you're taking a living stipend.

It's either:

1\. No stipend, 17% for 2 yrs

2\. Stipend, 10% for 5 yrs

They're mutually exclusive.

And we do have a charity arm! [https://lambdapaf.org](https://lambdapaf.org)

<comment><USER29> Excellent! Sounds like a fair deal.

Didn't know about the charity -- that's great! Is it a 503(c)? The website doesn't seem to have too much info about where the donation goes.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have a fiscal sponsor if you want to send large donations, which would go to a 501c3 and be tax deductible.

The fund itself is a small nonprofit waiting on 501c3 approval.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Syllabuses are here, fyi: [https://learn.lambdaschool.com](https://learn.lambdaschool.com)

</comment><comment><USER36> In the FAQ ([https://lambdaschool.com/faq/](https://lambdaschool.com/faq/)) it says:

> We offer part time courses for some of our tracks. Part-time course hours > are Monday-Thursday 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 12 noon Pacific.

Are these times also for EU students?

</comment><comment><USER37> Best would be a company that just takes on apprentices for $20/h. No debt.

</comment><comment><USER38> Looks amazing. Just recommended it to a few of my friends who are considering moving into a career in technology. I hope this becomes a new model for education, both tech and non-tech.

</comment><comment><USER39> Fantastic work. You and the other founders should be very proud of what you're doing.

This is exactly what the world needs more of. I recommend this to anyone looking to switch careers.

</comment><comment><USER40> Do you guys make any money on the recruiting end?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm an experienced developer looking to dabble in some of the tracks you offer.

What's the best way to determine if this is a fit for me?

<comment><AUTHOR> Email email@example.com.

Admittedly we're mostly built for folks trying to break into tech right now, but will be modularizing and offering different segments in the near future.

<comment><USER42> I'd be really interested in filling in some gaps that I have.

I'm self-taught, but I definitely have some gaps in the algorithm side of things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can I ask how many students have a degree already? I'm not sure if its a University alternative or a capstone course.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's more a university alternative. About half have a degree of some kind, very few in CS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I really hope you guys succeed. College is a dead model - this is life changing. At scale, it's world changing.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is a great initiative! Thank you Lambda School. Will be following your progress closely.

</comment><comment><USER46> Dang. This really is like a no brainier now. Keep rocking it!

</comment><comment><USER47> This is fantastic work, I wish you guys all the best!

</comment><comment><USER48> That's an interesting business model

</comment><comment><USER49> This is US-only, I presume?

<comment> barry-cotter [https://lambdaschool.com/eu/](https://lambdaschool.com/eu/)

And the EU and U.K. Other countries coming soon, Canada in ~two weeks.</comment></comment>


Estonia Wants to Collect the DNA of All Its Citizens - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/is-a-biobank-system-the-future-of-personalized-medicine/409558/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> This is the same government who can't remember that RSA keys generally use _positive numbers_? [https://crbug.com/532048](https://crbug.com/532048)

The idea in theory is interesting, but for something even more high-profile than national identity cards, please hire some folks who can triple-check your work....

<comment><USER3> Looks like they screwed up the DER encoding more than the actual cryptography, incredibly stupid but understandable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> THe article notes ~$5K to sequence a genome, it sounds like we are pretty close to ~$1K genome sequence[0] going into production. This is a great thing.

The privacy concerns surrounding this topic are _very_ real and _very_ complicated. It took me a long time to make up my own mind, however, I am convinved this is a great step forward. Having access to the sourcecode of 8 Billion github repos, if you had the technology to process the data, would make you quite good at fixing bugs so to speak.

The value of a genome will be quite high in the future, and if we allow the data sets to be public this will cut out many IP issues. Anonymizing the data is fundamental, as is an open process and total transparency around collection, storage and the resulting sequence. All this data needs to be public and free.

The value of rare genomic anomolies will be evident in the near future, and having public data is a way to combat unethical testing or information siloing.

[0][http://www.nature.com/news/is-the-1-000-genome-for- real-1.14...](http://www.nature.com/news/is-the-1-000-genome-for-real-1.14530)

<comment><USER5> So...

The weird thing about DNA and genes is that the data, should you have access to it in it's original form, as samples of biological material, is never anonymous.

The techniques that effectively anonymize genetic information, typically render it as an unusable data set for practical purposes.

The only thing that makes DNA anonymous is constructing an unrelated set of hash keys as lookups, and then using these coded tokens as decoupled representational references to a remote system that mitigates requests. Even then, even without access to the direct data, the traits expressed _COULD_ still accidentally identify certain members of the set very easily.

How many albinos are in the set? How many male albinos? How many male albinos with blood type O positive? Oh look, it's Joe and it turns out he's a carrier for this other embarrassing genotype. Whoops, secret's out and everyone knows, and there's no going back!

So phenotypes can still identify people inadvertently, and then provide opportunities for the enumeration of members, through process of elimination, inherently weakening what might become a theater of anonymity.

But more terrible still, is, let's just say they give the raw genetic data up. Say you have a juicy tidbit of information you pulled from the collection of samples, and you think you know who it is. So you surreptitiously snag a hair follicle from them. It's them all right, and you can prove it conclusively. Maybe your a nice guy and you won't misuse this sort of advantage, but is that true for everyone at large, throughout society?

With DNA, genomes and genetic evidence, you kind of just have to keep saying to yourself " _this is not anonymizable, it will never be anonymous, we cannot truly de-identify anyone 's DNA_" and the sooner we come to terms with that, the better we'll get at dealing with this sort of data.

<comment><USER6> Re "anonymizing DNA": In a sense, isn't an individual's DNA sequence the closest thing to a perfect and intrinsic identifier? Only fails to work in the case of identical twins ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sweden already does this . Since 1974 all newborns have been DNA tested and stored in the "PKU" bio register. [http://vavnad.se/cms/sites/Biobanken/home/in- english.html](http://vavnad.se/cms/sites/Biobanken/home/in-english.html)

It's also been used to catch at least one murderer of a celebrity, but generally is not used for crime such as rape cases.

<comment><USER8> "a celeberity" = The foreign minister

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> About 75 years ago, Nazis occupied Estonia and exterminated Jews. I don't think it's wise to keep a population's DNA on file.

<comment><USER10> ...what?

<comment><USER9> DNA could be used for nefarious purposes. If eugenicists like the Nazis could have stolen Estonia's DNA records, they could have more efficiently committed genocide.

I can't find the story now, but there was one country which kept on file the religion of each citizen. Nazis gained control of the building with those records. Some rebels were successful in burning those files, saving many people's lives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting. I do worry about the security implications, especially after watching this talk[0] about the security of Estonia's e-voting system. The government does not seem to have a wonderful sense of how to handle information securely, and does not take to criticism of its security protocols kindly. Here[1] is a tweet from the Estonian CIO in response to questioning about the video.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY_pHvhE4os](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY_pHvhE4os) [1] [https://twitter.com/taavikotka/status/612281286011568128](https://twitter.com/taavikotka/status/612281286011568128)

</comment><comment><USER12> I didn't see anywhere in the article mention the ability (or lack of) to use DNA for criminal prosecution. Does anybody have more information about that?

<comment><USER4> _" Estonian Human Genes Research Act governs the activities of the biobanking project: It establishes anonymity in clinical research, enables donors to decide which studies they want to participate in, and gives donors full control over who has access to their data. By default, a donor's doctor is the only other person who can look at his or her genetic information through the portal"_

In Estonia, if you meant relative to this article, the DNA is anonymous and it is implied unusable in court. If you are referring to the recent article about invalidity of DNA evidence in court cases, IIRC it was procedural but I couldn't find much more on it, and I too would be interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does this apply to e-Estonians as well?</comment>


Why Are Mountains So High? Mysterious Anomaly Exposes Limits of Theory - <AUTHOR> https://scitechdaily.com/why-are-mountains-so-high-mysterious-anomaly-exposes-limits-of-conventional-theory/ <comment><USER2> It seems like the headline should be "Why Aren't Mountains Higher?" If I'm reading it right, once mountains hit an certain height, the erosion increases unpredictably, meaning height is reduced beyond what is expected.

<comment><USER3> I theorize that there are two factors: First glaciers are efficient at gnawing at mountains, and second rock is brittle therefore mountains tend to set in the timespans of millenia even if there are no landslides. The second one might be the one that is unpredictable.

In Switzerland there's a tiny town, Brinzauls, which is setting as a whole together with the slope it sits on about three or six feet a year, because in the depth of a few hundred feet there's water flowing through the cracks of the bedrock. There are plans to bore a tunnel along the water-carrying stratum to drain it to stop the movement downwards.

This is just an example of one of the many things that might happen to crop down mountains.

The setting movement is unpredictable because it also depends on the climate. In oceanic climates water could quite literally be dissolving mountains from below.

<comment><USER4> Freezing temperatures and wetness during winters are also important as the power of freezing water in cracks are so great.

<comment><USER3> Yes, generally this is true, but for the special case in Switzerland is it not, because the cracks are so deep underground (several hundred feets).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> " _The researchers analyzed samples from a broad range of mountain landscapes across the tropics, including Venezuela, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Taiwan, controlling for rock type and climate conditions to assess parallel comparisons. They found that after mountains reach a certain elevation, channels between mountains suddenly become extremely sensitive to subtle changes in their inclines, thereby limiting the height of the mountains above. They added data from hundreds of mountain ranges worldwide and found they followed a similar pattern: the height, or relief, of the landscape is capped after crossing a threshold driven by channel steepness._ "

Could someone walk through this pattern in simplified English? I'm not making heads nor tails of the article.

<comment><USER6> " _The researchers looked at samples from a big number of mountain landscapes [...], comparing their rock types and climate conditions. They found that once mountains pass a specific height, the channels_ [they mean the area between mountain peaks/ridgelines, basically the path e.g. a glacier "rides" on] _become very sensitive to even the smallest changes in their steepness, and that limits the heights of the mountains around them. After adding more data from hundreds of mountain ranges, they could confirm this pattern, that mountain height is limited once its channel 's steepness crosses a certain value._"

Not sure if I understood "mountain channel" correctly, I don't know much about geology, please correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: Think I got "channel" correct though, there's e.g. the English Channel, if you imagine it without water, England and France could be seen like mountains.

<comment><USER7> Uh, the English Channel is only 174m deep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I seem to remember reading somewhere recently - and, annoyingly, I can't find it so have no idea whether it was a "reputable" source - that gravity itself imposes a hard limit on the maximum height of mountains. I guess it makes sense given that the larger a mass in space is, the more gravity forces it into a spherical configuration. Still, happy to be told I'm wrong.

<comment><USER9> Probably not correct since the earth is pear shaped not spherical, and the size of mountains are quite small relative to the earth's curvature. However from the article erosion of mountains seems to be impacted by water, limiting height, so on a smaller similar planet by material and water composition it would stand to reason that force of water given the same mass would be less so perhaps mountains would erode more slowly relative to continental drift and therefore be higher.

<comment><USER10> I was reading about extraterrestrial mountains once, and what I retained was that there aren't any mountains on other planets/moons that are really amazingly higher than earth. By which I would infer that water erosion probably isn't the overwhelming limiting factor.

<comment><USER11> Umm... not true.

"The highest mountain on Mars is also the highest mountain and volcano in the entire solar system. It is called Olympus Mons and is 16 miles (24 kilometers) high which makes it about three times higher than Mt. Everest"

My knowlege is old, but iirc I think the reason for Martian mountains being (potentially) higher than earth is the the rock is physically stronger due to lower water content. On earth, the water that eventually makes its way into rocks reduces it's strength, but, on Mars, the relative lack of water makes the rocks physically stronger.

<comment><USER10> 1\. You're telling me what _I_ mean by "really amazingly higher"? Well, you don't get to do that. In my opinion, the scarp/cliff around Olympus Mons doesn't count, and disregarding that, it's less than 40% higher than from Mauna Kea/Loa to the seafloor. Frankly, a mountain would have to be well over double earth's highest base-to-peak to be "really amazing" to me. Ten times would really be "really amazing".

2\. There's a Wikipedia page on the subject of tallest mountains in the solar system and it says the current leader is (probably) Rheasilvia on Vesta.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Layman curiosity about mountains (for fictional worldbuilding):

Are they completely solid inside?

Or can they be "porous" with natural caves or holes internally?

How/why?

<comment><USER13> They can have caves and such. Granite and I believe also sandstone tends to be totally solid, but limestone tends to form extensive cave networks from water seeping through the rock. Basalt can also have caves from anciet magma chambers but I don't think those usually lend themselves to human exploration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Surely covered in the article (paywalled) or literature, but sounds similar to a _critical angle of repose_ [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_repose](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_repose) where a pile of sand subsides if too steep.

Not applicable to hard rock (non-granular), but a river bank profile with erosion due to flow granular particles, may behave as if granular.

</comment><comment><USER15> The question is why are they so high if there are limiting factors previously not fully accounted for within the current models. The folks from the Electric Universe paradigm have an alternative model that can explain some of the features "standard" geology may struggle with. I think this might be a good example of one of those.

<comment><USER16> > folks from the Electric Universe paradigm have an alternative model

Sigh. Go on then. Don't tell us it exists, provide a link.

<comment><USER15> I apologize. Here [http://www.eu-geology.com/?page_id=192](http://www.eu- geology.com/?page_id=192) and [https://www.google.com/search?q=electric%20universe%20mounta...](https://www.google.com/search?q=electric%20universe%20mountains)

<comment><USER5> " _How could the process of fossilization [of sand dunes into mountains] be imagined? A dune of loose conglomerate can not simply sink into the earth, be transformed by penetrating liquid magma, and come back to the surface as rock, while the typical dune structure and shape is maintained. The process of fossilization must therefore take place at the surface and it must happen quickly. This is where electricity comes into play. On one hand there is the possibility of melting and solidification, when electricity is introduced through the top of the mountain. On the other hand, it may be a direct electrical conversion. Experiments [Steinbacher 2011, 586] have shown that it is entirely possible to transform dust and soil electrically into different types of rocks. The process first melts the material mixture. Then crystals of different size and composition form. Upon further exposure to electricity, they begin to melt itself. Essential parameters are the composition of the material, current and voltage, and the exposure time._ "

That's terrifying.

<comment><USER17> > The process of fossilization must therefore take place at the surface and it > must happen quickly.

> Essential parameters are the composition of the material, current and > voltage, and the exposure time.

Is this all trying to say that mountains are just fossilized sand? That is certainly a .. novel... theory of geology.

Fossilization of organic matter generally takes about 10k years, give or take. Fossil is a word that tends to encompass a lot of things though, so it depends.

Still, the amps that you'd have to pump through a dune to get it all to melt/solidify would be astonishing. Think a constant lightening bolt for years on end. Most sands are insulators afterall.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


System call conversion for year 2038 - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/643234/6e05b14dcd966636/

<comment><USER2> OpenBSD made some good progress back in 5.5 (May, 2014)

[http://www.openbsd.org/55.html](http://www.openbsd.org/55.html)

      o time_t is now 64 bits on all platforms.
      o From OpenBSD 5.5 onwards, OpenBSD is year 2038 ready
      o The entire source tree (kernel, libraries, and userland
        programs) has been carefully
        and comprehensively audited to support 64-bit time_t.
      o Userland programs that were changed include arp(8),
        bgpd(8), calendar(8), cron(8), find(1),
        fsck_ffs(8), ifconfig(8), ksh(1), ld(1), ld.so(1),
        netstat(1), pfctl(8), ping(8), rtadvd(8), ssh(1),
        tar(1), tmux(1), top(1), and many others, including
        games!
      o Removed time_t from network, on-disk, and database
        formats.
      o Removed as many (time_t) casts as possible.
      o Format strings were converted to use %lld and (long
        long) casts.
      o Uses of timeval were converted to timespec where
         possible.
      o Parts of the system that could not use 64-bit
         time_t were converted to use unsigned 32-bit instead,
         so they are good till the year 2106.
      o Numerous ports throughout the ports tree received
        time_t fixes.

<comment><USER3> NetBSD also switched over in 6.0 back in 2012.

<comment><USER4> And FreeBSD apparently started in 2001: [http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2004-June/012487.html](http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2004-June/012487.html)

While it did advance the state of the art in many things, Linux really clings to reinventing the wheel in obvious cases. NIH FTW.

<comment><USER5> While Linux certainly reinvents the wheel in some cases and NIHism exists everywhere, the syscall interface of an operating system is not the place where one can just lift BSD code and drop it in and expect it to work. This work needs to be done carefully in a Linux-specific way. The "NIH" approach is sort of a requirement.

<comment><USER6> Linux seems to have a policy of avoiding breaking changes. Nice for maintaining software, but it's not the best quality kernel as a result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So what this means, according to the comment by user Arnd at lws, is that even though I built a 64 bit time machine I still cannot travel further into the future than 2242 or further back than 1698? My life's work, ruined.

<comment><USER8> Time to use RISC-V processors. They can be 128-bit.

<comment><USER7> What if I want to go even farther? Can someone on HN tell me if 128 bits is enough to get me from the dawn of the universe to the end of time (at work so I can't do it myself for another 4 hours).

<comment><USER9> If you a single type that counts the number of Plank Time units (10^-44 s) from the big bang until the heat death of the universe, how many bits would you need?

If the heat death of the universe is 10^100 years, that's 6*10^150 plank times [1]. log_2(that) ~ 500 bits. So you'd probably go with 512 bits for a maximally-precise time type that will never need to be updated for either size or precision.

[1]: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+10%5E100+years%...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+10%5E100+years%2Buniverse+age+to+Planck+times)

<comment><USER10> Two points:

\- Quantization of time is _not_ a part any widely accepted physical theory, and the evidence we have so far is consistent with time being continuous. Timekeeping with Planck time units would be "nice" (well, "overkill" and "impossible" are two good words to come to mind as well), but there's no reason in theory that you can't go finer.

\- When your time is this fine, you also need to talk in very specific ways about reference frames. Time passes at different rates at different altitudes, and relative velocities also screw with you. Where's your reference clock? In some inter-galactic space, stationary relative to the CMB?

<comment><USER9> To be fair, this is more an exercise in taking "future-proofing" to a logical extreme than something practical (or even possible).

With that context I (arbitrarily) chose plank time to be the smallest possibly-ever usable (maybe not practical) time scale for timekeeping.

That's a good point about location. If we're going for extremes, we should put it in one of the especially large spaces between galaxy clusters: supervoids[0]! If there were a clock made at plank time frequency, I wonder how much of an effect structures would have on it at interstellar, intergalactic, and void space distances. At this accuracy (and these distances) I imagine the _clock 's own gravity_ would be a major source of time dilation.

Perhaps the best setup would be an extremely small (think the size of a virus) clock with a small support station that provides energy to it and reads ticks back, kept a few hundred thousand light-years away to avoid gravitational influence.

Another thing. 10^100 years is a _long_ time. So long that if the time from the big bang to the heat death of the universe were one second long, the universe isn't even 1 plank time old yet. 10^100 years is so long it starts making sense to talk about the half-lives of elements that are considered perfectly stable. To make _any_ clock that is designed to operate continuously for that long would be a crazy undertaking even for an interstellar civilization.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_\(astronomy\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What this made me think of is how many 32 bit, Linux-based, microcontrollers and IoT devices are out there and in the making. Many of these might actually still be relied on 23 years from now.

<comment><USER12> It is worrying. A possible work around for the remaining 32-bit systems would be a patch to switch to using an unsigned 32-bit integer for time storage, however this will only work for systems that don't need to deal with dates before 1970, but pushes the problem back to 2106.

<comment><USER13> You also will have to be absolutely sure that those systems will never run code that compares timestamps using a signed 32-bit comparison. That means vetting all the code, not only the OS.

Even for devices where all the code is in ROM, that can be difficult. Source may be lacking, or there may be binary blobs bought from companies that do not exist anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Please don't post LWN subscriber-only content until it's released to the public. I value LWN and would like to see its subscriber numbers increase, not have its content poached by content aggregators.

<comment><USER15> I appreciate your concern, but we don't mind if an _occasional_ subscriber link is posted this way. It gets us a lot of readers we might not otherwise reach and, with luck, leads to more subscribers going forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Fixing the kernel now gives applications >20 years to get fixed up. There will still be a huge scramble in the dying months of 2037...

<comment><USER17> Today a commented on a bug report from someone who still hasn't migrated to a UTF-8 locale. And when POODLE happened, there were still servers on SSLv3. So, yeah. :-(

<comment><USER18> My phone's web-browser only supports up to SSLv3 :(</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Full Time Job + Startup. HOW?? - <AUTHOR>

I've been working on a startup ever since January and things were moving rather quickly through the school year. But ever since starting with a paying internship, things have been in a stall. I can't get any serious work done. <comment><USER2> It's tough. Best advice I've heard, and which works for me when I can apply it, is to pick a set time of day and religiously devote it to your start-up.

I know some comic artists with day jobs, and pretty much every one of them gets up way early and gets drawing before going off to work. If they try to leave it until later life just butts in and it never happens.

Part of this is realizing that you'll have to do without certain things. You will not be able to watch every movie, every TV show, every spots event, etc. you might like to because there just isn't time. (And if not entertainment, then other things.)

It's a sacrifice, it's work, it's hard. If you can, try to arrange your project so that you hit useful, appreciable milestones fairly often. Divide your goals into small, manageable tasks. If you can see progress you'll find more motivation to continue.

And give regular updates here on HN so we can cheer you on.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this tip about doing it before rather than after work

<comment><USER2> If that works for you.

Some find it better to do stuff late at night. But a common theme I hear is to be consistent, make it a habit.

Chances are you'll _want_ to do it, but the more automatic you can make it the less likely you are to skip out or find excuses ("reasons", they say) to not stick to a plan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't kid yourself. Side projects can be done in your spare time. But a true startup will require full time dedication.

<comment><USER5> Many good companies start out as side projects that grew to the point of crowding out the full-time job. The odds of it happening are lower than if your startup is your full-time job - which already gives low odds - but it's much higher odds than if you're not working the side projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's better to save enough money for 6 months to a year, and then quit. This is what I did.

When you work a regular job, it's very difficult to switch your thought process from work to startup. Not to mention the fact that you will pretty much have no free time left over (which I need to be healthy and happy).

I tried to do both..and it just didn't work for me.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm in the same boat. Graduated last year, started on my project 3 months ago, and I've barely just got a working prototype up now.

You just have to bite the bullet... work 9 to 5. Then get home, and work some more. Then work weekends.

I've tried several strategies to get myself to be more productive

\- block reddit and HN (didn't last long).

\- block out all external distractions;use headphones, loud music of choice. For music, try to stick to ambient stuff (classical, techno, things without lyrics). I find that songs with lyrics distracts my train of thought as well.

\- have a good environment to work. If you're comfortable you'll fall into the zone a lot easier. Although, if you want to change it up a little, try and find a local coworking meetup group.

\- anytime you are not working, be thinking of your business. Your startup has to be your life and soul if you want to go all the way. e.g. when you're showering, sitting on the toilet, commuting, walking or having lunch, before you sleep. On the way home you should be thinking about what you want to accomplish tonight, and aim towards that as soon as you get back.

\- talk to people about it. If you're talking to people and they're not convinced, that means: a) your idea sucks and you're deluding yourself, b) your idea may have potential, but you are not confident about it enough to be able to convince other people, or c) your idea is great, but other people don't see it <\-- this rarely ever happens. But ultimately, by talking to people, you face objections. Objections are the number 1 crucial factor in selling; you cannot sell someone a product if they don't tell you what they're worried about. So talking to people lets you build up a portfolio of objections that you can counter with solutions, and you'll grow more confident with your idea. More confidence = more enthusiasm and productivity.

Sure your work is going to take a hit... but if you're already working on being self-sufficient, I doubt your job is the last thing you're worried about. (Here I am writing Access VBAs, and Excel macros...)

</comment><comment><USER8> I am in a similar situation. The start up bug bit me in May. I had several ideas. I picked the one I thought would be easiest.

I thought I would get my beta version out by now but it's been hard. Some changes that I have made that have helped me:

\- I do not work more than 40 hours at my work anymore..even if it feels like it's the end of the world. Surprisingly, this has made me more focused at work. I do the same amount of work in a shorter amout of time.

\- As other hackers have mentioned, I set up a scheduled time to work on my start-up. Initally, I began with working on the weekends but I was too distracted by other fun things that I could be doing. The times that work best for me are during lunch breaks and before/after work during weekdays.

\- I made it clear to my husband that I will be busy during the weekdays but free over the weekends. This way he had no major expections of me over the weekdays. I think getting him Starcraft 2 also helped :P (j/k)

\- I wanted to read books about how to start a business, google analytics, etc..I pretty much paid fines to the library without going though a chapter. Then I discovered audio books. I listen to them on my drive to work. I finished 4-hour work week in 2-2 weeks and am onto to another one.

Lessons learned for the future:

\- Don't spend too much time designing the site...just get a template that has worked for others.

\- Don't have deadlines at the end of the summer. I noticed that I am more busy over the weekends in the summer.

\- Don't venture into new technologies if you already have skills that you can do with.

Sometimes, you just have to do both. You'll figure out the way that works best for you. Hang in there.

</comment><comment><USER9> _"If startup failure were a disease, the CDC would be issuing bulletins warning people to avoid day jobs."_ \-- <http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html>

This quote matches my personal experience as well as the experience of friends. If you _really_ want to do a startup then do everything you can to work on it full time. Nothing will improve your odds more.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yeah its tough. Try to at least validate the market your going after. Ie get 10 people to say they will buy your product without actually coding it or coding very little of it.

IF you can do this then you can quit and start it fulltime.

Yes this is much harder than it sounds but by doing so you would have de- risked your business as much as you can by doing it part-time.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've been working nights and weekends on a project since December, and will be launching within the next two weeks. I know it's a cliche, but you just have to make time. It's like exercise - sometimes you have to wake up at 6am to get three miles in.

</comment><comment><USER12> Most tips are about working harder.

One thing that can make all the difference is to work less. Cut features ruthlessly. Spend less time on things. Cut down to the bone of what's important to prove your concept, not all the other stuff.

<comment><USER13> In the same vein, perhaps hire one of those "virtual assistants" to help you with all the mindless little things that creep into life (making reservations, data entry, etc). Probably money well spent if time is your limiting factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not exactly sure that you're ready to do the startup thing, with behavior like taking up an internship.

<comment><USER15> Maybe I'm just not understanding your comment fully, but how does this apply to his/her situation?

People need money to live (ESPECIALLY after college), which usually entails getting a job, and an internship can be a good way to get your foot in the door (it's how I did it). It's common knowledge that it can be at least a year before a startup reaches ramen-profitable. There are multiple companies that the founders were doing other work while hashing out the idea for the startup.

So, again, how does your comment apply?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> ya gotta "burn the boats". I have done several side projects and could not keep up. while you are working 20hrs/wk or maybe 40 if you are a super hero, someone else somewhere is working on a competitive project full time and spending probably 3 times as much time as you. so they win.</comment>


What The Fuck Is My Career Objective - <AUTHOR> http://whatthefuckismycareerobjective.com/ <comment><USER2> yeah the company's "About us" isn't much different, so what do they expect? <http://www.langoor.com.au/about-langoor>

It works both ways guys

<comment><USER3> Touche indeed.

Though a new website is on its way and its a bit less general. Our business has already changed quite a bit and we are more specific in our focus.

:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "If you receive resumés from India you probably receive these blanket career objective statements that make no sense"

I'm afraid you'll get these kinds of resumes from lame people from anywhere, not just india...</comment>


Forget your blog: 5 reasons to keep a personal log - <AUTHOR> http://www.53miles.com/archives/forget-your-blog-5-reasons-to-keep-a-personal-log There is a scene in the movie Weird Science where the main character looks up something in his so-called 'log'. "You keep a diary!?", the other geek asks. "No, of course not! Teenage girls keep a diary, I keep a log". Here's why you should too. <comment><USER2> The book the "Artist's Way at Work" by Mark Bryan, Julia Cameron, and Catherine Allen offers an approach called "morning pages" that is similar to a log but helps to overcome writers block (as well as act as a refinery for written pieces still percolating). Some references:

<http://www.artistswayatwork.com/>

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0688166350>

<http://paperartstudio.tripod.com/artistsway/id3.html>

although the book encourages you to write them in longhand I found that typing on a laptop in a coffee shop or library or anywhere that was different from where I normally worked (to break association with work space) worked for me.</comment>


Ask HN: Easiest way to process payments (starting witho a business entity) - <AUTHOR> I've got a side project, and I'd like to see if it has legs (image-scale.com). It's a SaaS business. I would like to charge customers for use i.e. get a credit card at sign-up.
After a little searching, it looks like I need a business entity (LLC, C-Corp, etc.), along with a bank account to make this happen.
I am an American citizen, but I currently live in Switzerland.
Best-case scenario, I could find a purely electronic way to sign up for what I need and find a payment processor (I've used braintree in the past). Any ideas? <comment><USER2> Stripe is the best for this.</comment>


Ask HN: Why people continue working in video game industry? - <AUTHOR> Its a common knowledge that being a video game developer for AAA titles means put up your soul to see it get done. Browsing for big companies on Glassdoor gives you a clear picture of what everyone goes through - Twelve hours workdays, six days a week with no paid overtime, terrible management, and intense work pressure [1].<p>If I am not wrong developing 3D games is insanely hard thing to do, for variety of reasons. So why would anyone want to continue working in this industry when he can (hopefully) get better job opportunities by quitting?<p>[1]: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Rockstar-Games-Reviews-E20887.htm <comment><USER2> 1) Many of them don't. The turnover of grunt level coders and QA staff is huge, and the senior figures in the industry mostly made it through the days before crunch-time was simply "all-the-time", and now have the seniority to avoid it themselves.

2) An endless supply of True Believers. The games industry feeds on exploiting the idealism of youth. Young guys who grow up with 'making games' as their dream job, but no idea how the sausage is made, are hired up for QA jobs and junior programming jobs with promises to do just that. And when they burn out or realize they're just going to be doing bug testing for the rest of their lives because they don't actually have the experience to be anything else, the industry shrugs and hires one of the thousands of others lining up at the door with the same dreams.

The whole reason the indie market in games has exploded is precisely because of this, I think. The ones who burn out but still have the talent, or who're smart enough to avoid the AAA system to begin with, just say fuck it and make their own games like almost everyone once did in the 80s. Market standards have shifted from necessarily expecting only the AAA experience, and while few indie games are going to rival the sales of the next hoorah-FPS game, if you're lucky, talented, and willing to spend a fuckload of time self- promoting, you can eke out a living without the meatgrinder.

<comment><USER3> I agree with (1), but it's much beyond just low-level staff; even senior people have considerable turnover. Since I'm an academic AI researcher, I've tried to cultivate contacts with AI leads at AAA companies, because they often have interesting problems and perspectives, especially on how AI and design interact. A problem with this is that they keep leaving! For various reasons, of the senior AI people I know pretty well (AI leads on games like _Sims 3_ , _Black & White_, _Halo_ , _F.E.A.R._ , etc.), all but one no longer work at "AAA" game companies.

Some stayed in the industry but moved into a consulting role where they could control their own hours and assignments better; some branched off and started small indie-game studios; some moved to a non-game tech job; and some went to grad school. People have different motivations, but there seems to be a feeling that the job of AAA AI lead is getting more and more boring and management-constrained, while the working conditions are getting worse. And on the other hand, that the alternatives are better than they used to be (much bigger indie-game scene, more relevant academic programs, etc.), so maybe it's time to get out and do something else.

<comment><USER2> I have suspected for some time that, at the present rate of churn, game dev is increasingly moving to a movie-like model, where a given crew assembles for one product, then scatters when it's over.

It's certainly the way I'd expect things to go if I were applying at most studios these days.

<comment><USER4> It makes sense in the movies to hire a crew of contractors just for the shooting because shooting takes few weeks, months tops. A game production can take anywhere from a year to several years, contractors usually don't want to commit for such long terms so it will take a while just to staff your project. Then, as you have shipped, you let go all your contractors and immediately start hiring new ones for the next slated project? Makes very little sense.

The churn you are seeing now is the effect of the poor financial state of the industry. A lot of studios are spending more money to make the games than the games bring back. Such studios eventually have to get out of business either through bankruptcy or through being shuttered by its holding company.

As a studio is nearing the inevitable end people employed there are leaving and the studio starts hiring, sometimes this is amplified by the management trying to "fix" the expensive production problem by expanding. Since the stable and profitable studios do not hire much, especially among people without industry experience, most of the new hires go into the studios that are already circling the drain and will be laid off in a year if not a month. This is what's creating the impression of the high churn IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a long time lurker, but finally a topic I know a little about.

I can't speak for every company out there, but I worked at 2K / Irrational Games through the Bioshock days. Things may have changed in the last few years. I left several years ago to work twelve hour days, 7 days a week, for no pay at all in my own company.

You have to ask yourself what you want in life. Do you want to spend years working on B grade games nobody has heard about, or do you want to work on a AAA game with a huge budget that everybody is talking about.

Do you want to be the best, or do you want to be some average joe.

If you want to be the best you have to work hard, and you have to fight, and you have to put aside some other things in life. And if you're doing it, you will expect it of the others around you.

If you don't mind being a member of an average team making average games, well you can have a better work life balance.

It sounds a little harsh, but I honestly think it's as simple as that.

<comment><USER6> Working on a AAA game does not make you "the best." And working on a B grade game does not make you "some average joe."

The "best" person is the person who most enjoys their life.

<comment><USER7> I took "be the best" as meaning, be the best in your chosen field. Some people like to see how far they can push themselves because they are competitive. Working at the high end offers opportunities to do that.

Compare with being a designer working at Apple vs being a designer working at Dell.

<comment><USER8> > Compare with being a designer working at Apple vs being a designer working > at Dell.

I bet they would work similar amount of hours and payments.

<comment><USER7> I meant industrial design. I would think the (pretty small) industrial design team at Apple work longer hours for more pay than their equivalents at Dell, though that's just a guess.

<comment><USER8> Could be, my bet was based on the fact that corporations tend to be more employee friendly than game studios, in terms of private life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think most people don't enter the games industry because they see it as a subset of programming. They learned to program or create art to make games, not vice versa. Many programmers began coding because they wanted to make games, including myself. But I think most people don't find game code interesting after they make some initial demos, outside of a few areas like computer graphics, which is pretty centralized nowadays in engine vendors like Unity and Unreal.

But there are those who believe in games, who live them day and night, who idolize famous developers like rock stars. They would like nothing more than to work at $GAMEDEV.

As a result, they might not be comparison shopping with other company types like other programmers between financial, startup, BigCo, and others.

I myself considered entering games for a long time, but growing fear of entering such a predatory industry, as well as a growing interest in PLT and other CS topics, led me away from that path. I still would consider joining or starting a small indie team, and participating in game jams or game hackathons. But I personally don't see the appeal of AAA jobs - the artistry isn't there the way it is with indie games, and the pay isn't either.

One note - the movement to F2P games like Dota2 and LoL seems to be improving this trend. These games ship features when they're done, like a SaaS product, and can avoid the crazy crunches and turnover that a release cycle perpetuates. Riot and Valve also have some of the highest industry scores on Glassdoor.

<comment><USER8> I am on the same boat, was a IGDA member for a few years and even attended GDCE from my own pocket.

But as I discovered more and more what it would mean to work in the games industry, I eventually gave up.

Life after work is just too precious to invest it into games.

Although consulting can be hard sometimes, it still is way better than any game studio.

<comment><USER10> Surely passion for games outweighs the other things? Perhaps the Indie Game Dev movement is a better way to go...

AAA games companies should stop over-promising features and over-working their staff, and go the Blizzard route of "It'll ship when it's ready", I'm sure that will make for a much happier working environment for game developers.

<comment><USER2> Passion doesn't pay the rent.

<comment><USER11> yep, but it does feed the soul.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been programing games since I was 10 years old and games are the only reason I went into Computer Science. I started off at a smaller studio out of college and accepted a salary about 15% less than my friends who went into Aerospace and Finance. I didn't care, because games is where I wanted to be and I loved every moment. I found games interesting, intellectually challenging and ultimately very rewarding. I moved from UI to game play to AI, did some Audio programming, dabbled in graphics, helped with design, etc. There was always something new to learn and do. Fast forward and many of my non-game industry friends were bored with their jobs, not learning new skills and maintaining legacy code. Some friends left the game industry to find greener pastures and more money in other fields and eventually came back due to the lack of creativity and monotony many non-game jobs entail. This is obviously subjective and perhaps the kind of person that is not attracted to making games would find those other jobs rewarding and that is not to say that all game jobs are dynamic and wonderful.

Regarding long work hours and terrible pay, not all employers are created equal. I eventually worked for a couple of different AAA companies before going indie and I had a very good salary and benefits at both companies surrounding by extremely talented developers. I have a few friends who I would say have extraordinary salaries and perks, however, they are very good at what they do. I have worked the crazy crunch times sure, but I think that is becoming less common especially after the EA Spouse debacle and the industry matures. It does still exist at some companies, however, there are many other jobs and industries out there that are just as demanding. I eventually went the indie route mainly just to see if I had the chops to run a small company and be the captain of my own ship. It was a question I wanted to answer for my own personal growth.

Working at a game company just so you can have a "job" is probably not a good idea. Just like I wouldn't recommend starting or joining a startup unless your heart is really into it and you love what you are doing because, yeah, there are going to be some long hours sometimes and there is a good chance you could be making more money elsewhere. If you like games, want to make games and are passionate about it, there are good companies out there that will pay and treat you well. Seek them out.

</comment><comment><USER13> The same way people go on doing CRUD business apps 8 hours a day. It's probably not a stressful but being someone who was doing that for 10 years it really kills you. There is zero room for creativity, zero room for solving programming puzzles, its donkey work.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think it's a common mistake for young people to aspire to be a game dev just to make games.

The journey (programming) is the most important not the destination (the game).

If you don't like coding you won't be happy making games (and there's a good chance you won't make games at all).

If you like coding you don't need a job in the game industry. Apart from the work environment, for a real programmer coding challenges in others industries are as fun as in the game industry.

<comment><USER15> this 1000x's.. like everyone else here i taught myself to program when I was a child in QBasic and Pascal so I could make games. I've never made a single game beyond tic-tac-toe when I was a kid. I still love programming though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For a game designer there are no better opportunities that I am aware (I am not a designer though).

For an artist - there is the VFX industry, which is much worse from what I've heard (at least game artists don't go on protests). A concept artist could probably do some illustration freelance, not quite as same as a FTE with benefits and salary.

For a programmer, and I am one, I don't see anything that could be as fun. Besides, programmers in the games are paid pretty well.

For a QA - beats me, QA are treated pretty badly, I guess they are there for the chance to break into the industry.

Producers - it seems there is oversupply of middle management, they could probably do the same job of sitting on meetings in a Fortune 500 company for a much better salary but nobody is offering them such a position.

<comment><USER16> VFX here.

For programmers its quite sweet, unless you insist on working long hours.

unless there is a real crisis (as in data missing, lack of power or stuff on fire) I'm out the door at clocking off time. We are not curing cancer, no one will die if I leave at the contracted time. But then perhaps being, Helpful, talkative, friendly and having no qualms about telling people that seeing my family is infinity more important than dealing with their lack of planning may be why.

I really do feel pity for the people (normally artists) that feel like they have to stay late. for example, people at the Moving Picture company were having dailies at 10PM (a review of the work with crit and dishing out new shots) They start at 9/10AM.

There are laws against this sort of thing, unions and other mechanisms to stop employers taking the piss. However people just leave (the industry) without actually doing anything (Apparently here in the UK middle class people don't do unions.)

Seriously, everyone grumbles ([http://vfxsoldier.wordpress.com/](http://vfxsoldier.wordpress.com/)) but little to nobody actually does anything. All it takes is 20-30% of the work force saying "actually no, we're not going to work more than 40 hours, deal with it or fire us"

No employer can replace 20-30% of a workforce and keep a project schedule.

<comment><USER4> It's pretty similar in the games. Some companies forbid crunching, many are just encouraging it and very few are actually forcing crunch. E.g. one big publisher offered the studio were I worked at the time a contract that demanded working on weekends. The studio walked away from the deal but other studios had signed up with them and, I figure, they might had similar contracts.

Most of the crunch, though, is voluntary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is my first year working with a gaming company. Working on Watch Dogs, The Crew was quite intense at times but the people have so much passion they make it worthwhile. Game dev are often younger than say enterprise software dev. They have time that needs filling rather than old people who maintain a completely different relationship with time.

</comment><comment><USER11> The game industry is quite dysfunctional. It had been proved that crunch is counter-productive. But there is macho thing to it and it's reassuring to managers. And as jay_kyburtz's comment shows, there is also a lot of (misplaced IMHO) pride participating in a AAA project. It is the kind of discourse managers tell their team to make them work harder, but in a team of 200+, everybody is just a (replaceable) cog in the machine.

Nevertheless, Gamedevs love what they do because a game is full of interesting problems. As a friend told me : the best game is to build the game. On the other end of the spectrum, working for a crud project in an enterprisey environment can be soul crushing.

I've done a few years in the industry and it is a good place to work on hard problems and becoming a very good coder. But except if you go to the indie (or middleware) route, it is not sustainable : it has the same alluring seduction as Hollywood and it is even harsher (due to its ties to the finance industry).

</comment><comment><USER18> There are a bunch of good comments here already but as someone that's worked as a game developer for years here's my take on it. I do have a few comments on the question itself before I get to my reasons for staying in the game industry.

First, not all game companies are created equal. The example you cited is from a company with a reputation for working long hours in and industry that already has a reputation for working long hours.

Second, compare what you read there to typical start up culture. All of the listed downsides are present to some degree in start ups. Are people more forgiving of this for start ups because of the potential for financial reward?

As someone else mentioned, not everyone sticks around and turnover for junior employees is pretty high.

Most people get into working in games because they love playing games. Making games and playing games are very different activities. I'd call this a necessary but insufficient reason for staying in games. If this is the only reason someone is in the games industry they'll probably, but not necessarily, leave relatively quickly.

Now that I've gotten generalities out of the way here's some reasons why I stay in games.

For me money isn't an issue. I could probably make more doing something else but I make enough to cover my expenses and have a pretty comfortable lifestyle. I'd need a very significant pay raise to consider leaving the industry if that was the main reason to go.

Making games is hard. I like working on challenging things. There's also a very wide variety in the challenges. If you don't like working on one type of challenges there are other challenging problems to work on.

Another big thing for me is the people I get to work with. Because of the wide variety of roles you see people with very different backgrounds making games. Personally, I prefer this and the impacts it has on company culture over the more tech heavy companies. I'm also very fortunate to work with incredibly talented people every day at my current job.

</comment><comment><USER19> For people who have gotten far enough into it(and I would count myself among them) there is a "point of no return" where you're like any other devoted artist - you see designs that have not been made and that you have to make. No amount of money can buy them because they aren't realized in any form yet, and only you can do the work. This is at the core of the artistry emerging from the independent scene these days, although you have to go trawl sites like itch.io and Warp Door and play a sampling of free games to actually see what's out there - the commercial sector isn't going to reward all of that stuff, and this group is drifting inexorably towards Patreon as a funding source.

But there is a dual vision here. The point of no return is not the thing attracting people to the AAA sector, and it isn't even held by the majority of independents, who feel a lot of pressure to think about the bottom line constantly, pander to a perceived audience, and just put out something, anything, that will keep their doors open. You only get past that thought pattern if you've hung on long enough and attained a certain mindset(which I attribute to chance factors, not all of which are necessarily good or healthy). As you outline, a cold industrial-capitalist labor valuation indicates that you get worse payment and conditions in games than equivalent work elsewhere.

No, what gets everyone in there, including younger, more naive me, is some combination of exceptionalism, short-term thinking, or status seeking. Framing life in terms of "it'll be so cool to put these things on the screen" or "I'll be recognized for this work later!" People who feel this way have trouble keeping away from it - they are "working to live," even as the system makes them "live to work." Like any workaholic, they may be escaping from personal issues, and there is a combination of intrinsic empowerment in helping to create a tangible virtual world, and a social power in working on big, impressive geek shibboleths(amaze your friends who said you'd never amount to anything: "I worked on this popular successful game"). The people who break tend to reach a point where they need a more stable situation, they feel disillusioned about the type of works they're making, or they're just burned out from the repetitive aspects.

</comment><comment><USER20> Because of the thrill of it.

My day-to-day is devops with a little frontend. It's drugery. I got into programming because I wanted to do games programming. That's where I started. It was thrilling, doing demos, entering competitions, pushing pixels. Fucking thrilling. But then I needed to get a job. Nobody needs a games/graphics programmer. So, I read a couple of database books, and now life sucks.

I'd love to go back to where the rubber hit the road.

<comment><USER21> So, what is preventing you from doing just that? Life is short. Computer projects are big. Do the math.

I know this may sound harsh and stupid, but just reminding you to follow the path of love, and not stick to any dayjob.

Left my dayjob in 2012 december. Been following my heart since then, a difficult path, but so rewarding, I couldn't even dream about what has happened since then before when I was still in the mindset that I have to have a steady job.

It's not like that. Once you decide to go forwards, the Universe and the World around you starts to adapt to that projection. Encouraging everyone here to follow your hearts and not accept what is considered normal as your destiny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You'll find this applies to any creative industry. The conditions will be terrible compared to less creative jobs because the work is fun and everyone wants to do it, creating intense competition.

However, people will find it tough to quit and get a regular job because... the work is fun. It turns out enjoying what you do counts for a lot.

</comment><comment><USER22> I can only speak for myself but my reasons are:

1\. I love making games more than making big money.

2\. I get to work with smart people who care about their work.

3\. I feel like I'm solving interesting technical challenges.

4\. Most studios I have worked at are managed reasonably well. Your "common knowledge" is a broad generalization based on the most horrific examples around.

</comment><comment><USER23> Simple answer: 90% of us (including me) started programming because they want to make videogames. Nobody wants to start programming because "I want to make Drupal/WordPress/Whatever websites".

;-)

<comment><USER24> Unless it is sarcasm, you are wrong. Just look at PHP and you'll see how wrong you are.

<comment><USER4> Any particular point on PHP you suggest to be looking at? I also went into programming at the age of 6 wanting to make games, I also, despite looking at PHP, cannot imagine any kid around that age doing the same because of the Drupal/Wordpress/PHP/etc. So could you please expand your answer a little bit?

<comment><USER24> What I mean is, there is a huge amount of people that started learning programming just because they wanted to do some web related stuff, and probably WordPress themes are king.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> what tricks can I use to not get denied on C.C.</comment>


Show HN: Undo send mail for Apple Mail - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lichtschlag/undosendmail/ <comment><AUTHOR> I am a big fan of Gmail's undo send feature for emails (stalls the delivery for a moment so that you can stop if you spot a mistake in the last moment).

I wrote this plug-in for Mail.app to support a similar undo send mail feature a while ago and use it every day. I have recently polished it up and made it compatible with the upcoming OS 10.11. Maybe this is something that is of value to you, too.</comment>


Context menu positioning using pure CSS - <AUTHOR> https://mionskowski.pl/positioning-a-context-menu-using-pure-css <comment><USER2> I like this, simple and clean solution.</comment>


Microsoft to Launch Amazon EC2 Rival. Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/azure-and-ec/

<comment><USER2> And they are going to offer virtual linux servers, which you can customize all you want.

This is great, because Amazon could use some competition, and tying everything to .NET did not make Azure a relevant competitor for many domains.

Let's hope this brings the prices down. Amazon has had a huge profit margin, that people were willing to put up with, simply because no other party offered quite the same flexibility and scale.

</comment><comment><USER3> "This distinction is subtle. And the terminology is annoying."

No, the distinction is not subtle or annoying. An analogy would be brewing your own beer. There are several ways to do this. Buy everything and brew it yourself at home (EC2), or start a brew at a brew shop and let them watch it for you (Azure, AppHarbor, Heroku, AppEngine).</comment>


IT Jobs Explained with a Broken Lightbulb - <AUTHOR> https://blog.toggl.com/2016/12/developers-explained-with-lightbulbs/ <comment><USER2> That's bitter.</comment>


Saudi blogger to be publicly flogged on charges he insulted Islam - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/saudi-arabia-blogger-raif-badawi-public-flogging

<comment><USER2> Typical Wahabbi bullshit. This is how they help prop up the Saudi royal family.

</comment><comment><USER3> literally terrible.</comment>


Redesign: Divvyshot Friends Page - <AUTHOR> http://monicaokubo.com/blog/2009/08/13/redesign-divvyshot-friends-page/

<comment><USER2> pretty great redesign.

I'd make the "add to divyshot" button say "add as friend" and possibly remove the "Home" menu bar icon (clicking the logo should do that)</comment>


How Far 31 light-years away is? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@lucassasiain/how-far-31-light-years-away-actually-is-5850507d0654 <comment><USER2> "...it will take 31 years travelling at the speed of light, which is not really true"

<comment><USER3> The question is "how far" it is. It says in the article: Distance is tricky in space. So to put this in a perspective of time that we can all understand, and not to say something like, it will take 31 years travelling at the speed of light, which is not really true, and humans can't do yet. Is necessary to measure this in a different fashion...

And I invite you to read it...</comment></comment>


My Motherland: Finding–and writing–the worlds where only I had been - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/09/15/my-motherland/ <comment><AUTHOR> "I remember when this idea came: in our small co-op dorm at Radcliffe, Everett House, in the dining room, where you could study and typewrite late without disturbing sleepers. I was twenty years old, working at one of the dining tables about midnight, when I got the first glimpse of my other country. An unimportant country of middle Europe. One of those Hitler had trashed and Stalin was now trashing. (The Soviet takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1947–48 had been the first event to rouse the political spirit in me.) A land not too far from Czechoslovakia, or Poland, but let's not worry about borders. Not one of the partly Islamized nations—more Western-oriented…. Like Rumania, maybe, with a Slavic-influenced but Latin-descended language? Aha!

I begin to feel I'm coming close. I begin to hear the names. Orsenya—in Latin and English, Orsinia. I see the river, the Molsen, running through an open, sunny countryside to the old capital, Krasnoy (krasniy, Slavic, "beautiful"). Krasnoy on its three hills: the Palace, the University, the Cathedral. The Cathedral of St Theodora, an egregiously unsaintly saint, my mother's name…. I begin to find my way about, to feel myself at home, here in Orsenya, matrya miya, my motherland. I can live here, and find out who else lives here and what they do, and tell stories about it.

And so I did."

I really like this piece of writing (apparently it's an excerpt from Ursula K. Le Guin's introduction to a new edition of her unpublished first novel). Reminds me of all the time I spent making up imaginary places, ostensibly for a D&D campaign that never came to fruition and turned out to be more about making impossibly elaborate maps of imaginary empires. Unlike Le Guin who was obviously very driven and productive, they never resulted in anything. But on the other hand, at some level I think I became a professional historian because of those maps.</comment>


Oakhurst OT case of missing-comma fame settled for $5M - <AUTHOR> https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/08/dairy-drivers-ot-case-made-famous-by-a-missing-comma-settled-for-5-million/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344624](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16344624)

50+ comments, 80+ points</comment>


How Indian families took over the Antwerp diamond trade from orthodox Jews - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/459422/how-indian-families-took-over-the-antwerp-diamond-trade-from-orthodox-jews/ <comment><AUTHOR> In the meantime, I have to wonder if companies like Diamond Foundry: [http://diamondfoundry.com/](http://diamondfoundry.com/) and others are going to take over the overall diamond trade.

(Or, for a different perspective: [http://iwantwhatitsworth.com/blog/diamond- foundry-lab-made-d...](http://iwantwhatitsworth.com/blog/diamond-foundry-lab- made-diamonds-scam/))</comment>