Side projects - <AUTHOR> http://swombat.com/2012/11/6/side-projects <comment><USER2> Time for Welton's Law of Advice: for every bit of trite advice, there's an equal, and opposite bit of trite advice :-)

Although in this case, what it really comes down to is what you hope to achieve. Some side projects are good as an outlet for creativity where you _don't_ have any deadlines or things you want to accomplish or anything else. Others are more focused. The important thing is to be clear about what you want.

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe different people do side projects for different reasons and they have different goals in their mind :

\- Some do it for side income.

\- Some do it to learn a new language/framework.

\- Some do it because it solves a particular problem they have.

\- Some do it to test their ideas.

\- Some do it to have some projects in their portfolio.

\- Some do it full time and call it a side project hoping it to be a successful startup while playing safe calling it a side project.

Whatever may be the reason, whether it is a side project or a full time project or a startup, the original goal is what matters the most. If the project developer achieves his/her goal by doing this side project, it is successful, else it is a failure with some addition to his experience and knowledge.

<comment><USER4> I often do it just for the fun of solving a particular problem. The problem I find is I loose motivation in finishing the boring bits when the fun stuff is completed.

<comment><USER3> I have experienced the same. There are two ways to look at it -

1\. You had fun (which was your goal) and probably you learned something new which you can use in some other more serious projects. So, relax and let it be incomplete. If possible, release it as open source so that someone else can work on it.

2\. Find motivation in the fact that by completing it you can make something that may be useful to someone else. You can also look it as an opportunity to practice some self-discipline of completing things you take charge of. It is hard to get in good habits and we should make efforts for it. After all everything isn't fun and fun isn't everything.

Personally I have done both but I want to take the second path and I am making an effort for that. I'm choosing side projects that 1) are interesting 2) will help me learn something new 3) may help me earn some bucks. For example, my current side project is a wordpress theme for building personal website/portfolios targeted for hacker/designers. It is fun and I can use it for my own site. It allows me to learn something new - wordpress theme development/underscores and practice design. It may help me earn some bucks. I will post about it on HN in couple of days once I complete the boring bit - documentation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> He refers to paying customers repeatedly.

None of my side projects even entertain the ideas of being profitable. I can't help but feel this is why I feel better about side projects than the author.

</comment><comment><USER6> A side project doesn't need customers, a side project doesn't need money, a side project just needs to be something that you want to do. If it makes money, great! If not, it doesn't matter because you are doing it for yourself and noone else.

</comment><comment><USER7> When I first read his comment I was sure that I agreed, that we often start side projects without a plan or an agenda which make many of them "fail". Then I read yours and agreed once again. Why does everything have to be about "results." Then I realised that they question is not about either. Its about the motivation and the goal with the side project.

If the motivation is to try something new and the goal is to have fun. It does not matter if you do it for two years and then end up not doing it. But if the goal and the motivation for the side project is to start earning money on it or do start a business, then I think he is right. Then they need well defined goals, a plan and an agenda to succeed.

So it is all about the reason you do it.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you are worried about failure, then side projects are not for you. Or you don't get the point of side projects. Failures are cheap in a side project, unless your investments are huge. Side projects exist because you would not sacrifice your full time job on something you don't trust shifting to completely.

Besides, if you are familiar with the concept of iteration. Even if you fail you will improve with every iteration of failure.

One cannot decide for everybody else, if they need side projects. Personally I find side projects a nice break from the 9-5 corporate job, to try something new and different. It gives a good learning opportunity and opens up chances for some extra income.

By the way, if you are afraid of failure. I'm not talking about big risks. But if you absolutely have problems with failing. And if you are asking these kind of questions before trying anything, you are likely to do nothing substantial in life.

</comment><comment><USER9> Everything in your life doesn't have to turn into a business. I love programming and making games and solving problems, it's just as much of a hobby alongside work as going for a run in the forest.

</comment><comment><USER10> "So, perhaps better advice is to be aware that some day you will want to graduate to definite goals."

Or perhaps it would better be worded as: be aware that some day you MAY want to graduate to definite goals.

But even that sounds pretty condescending and limiting. Why should I have a goal in mind when I create? Why should I have deadlines? Why should I sprint? What's the hurry, anyway?

When I started writing a 68000 emulator, I did so because it posed an interesting challenge. When I finally got it to the point where I could plug it into MAME and play Rastan Saga on it, I was thrilled. When I got its speed to the point where it rivaled the existing assembler core, I was stoked. And then eventually it reached a point of accuracy and performance that it supplanted the old core and became the standard 68k core in most emulators in use today. Did I have a plan? Not really, other than to try my hand at emulation. Did I have deadlines? Hell no. Did I have metrics? Well, if accuracy and speed counts, then sure. Did I make any money off it? Nope. And you know what? I don't care. I created something of beauty using the skills available to me at the time.

That was over 10 years ago. Now I create different things and post them to github, but my motivation remains the same.

</comment><comment><USER11> Side projects are good for you? I think it depends. Enterpreneurial types in most cases can't specialize (they get bored and demotivated quickly while doing it) but trive while stiching things together and see them work / produce results. This is their motivation and if you are such person and do not get enough of playground at day job you have 2 options, quit or kick off some side projects. I also admire people who can specialize. Lets call them real engineer types. Only because of them we have all technology things running day to day. But I guess side projects are not such necessity for these guys. In both cases I was talking about people in software dev space.

</comment><comment><USER12> This reminded me of Tom Armitage's excellent dConstruct talk on Toys and Toymaking:

<http://2012.dconstruct.org/conference/armitage/>

 _"Toys are not idle knick-knacks: they allow us to explore otherwise impossible terrain; fire the imagination; provide sparks for structured play. They do not just entertain and delight; they stimulate and inspire. And always, they remind us of the value - and values - to be found in abstract play."_

I wish I'd treated more of my side projects as toys instead of putting off shipping them because they lacked obvious value.

</comment><comment><USER13> My own take on side projects:

<http://sachagreif.com/side-projects-from-idea-to-launch/>

I think there's a place for small-scale, non-commercial side projects. I've personally learned a lot from them.

</comment><comment><USER14> I feel like I create side projects due to my insatiable desire to be creating things. Sometimes I finish them. More often I do not. Every time, though, I learn something new and useful.

</comment><comment><USER15> The only real goal I keep in mind with side projects is to avoid becoming consumed by them unless they justify my attention (user interest, profit motive).

Be mindful of feature creep.

</comment><comment><USER16> i love the point you try to make, it is more like questioning a Kinder garden kid as to why you wanna join kinder garden. it would be more beautiful and interesting if we start anything just for fun.

</comment><comment><USER17> The economics of side projects really underscores the hypocrisy of the corporate ruling class.

First, what is the first thing that a person learns about being wealthy? _Diversify._ That's one of the most basic principles of financial common sense. Yet it's extremely frowned upon for working people to do the same with their time. If your primary asset is money, you're allowed to diversify. If your primary asset is time and you try to diversify and get caught having a side project, you're "not a team player".

For most corporate jobs, the work itself could be accomplished in 2 to 3 hours per day. People simply don't have enough productive time to fill a corporate workday, a schedule that is based more on availability (often, availability for low-margin uses like worthless meetings) than productivity.

The corporate workday is an international plane ride (8 to 12 hours, mostly sequestered in one location) five times a week. Is this about productivity? No. It's about required loyalty. Even though people only have 3-4 hours of productive time per day, the purpose of the midday plane ride is to dominate so much of someone's time as to maximize the probability of capturing those hours. It's to make it so that the person's side efforts are unlikely to be able to compete, so that diversification isn't (for most people) an option.

<comment><USER2> The reason people specialize is that there are increasing returns to specialization, as Adam Smith pointed out many years ago.

Therefore, if you specialize, you'll be able to trade your time for more money/bread/whatever. If you want, you can do a little bit of programming and a little bit of ditch digging, and a little baking, and be terrible at all of them, and get paid consequently.

It's not some plot of the "corporate ruling class", whatever that is. Ordinary people diversify their _investments_ as well, mostly via things like index funds, which can be had at very cheap prices.

<comment><USER8> Strange that the people at the top are excluded from this. People sitting on the board are on board of many other companies too!

Somehow only grass root level employees are asked to make these concessions.

<comment><USER2> People on boards are people who are, supposedly, specialized in running companies and various aspects thereof, by and large.

 _Edit_ :

> Somehow only grass root level employees are asked to make these concessions.

So you'd call someone who has spent years becoming a neurosurgeon 'grass root level'? Most people out there specialize in something.

<comment><USER8> People like me writing code who are, supposedly, specialized in writing various kinds of writing software/building things and various aspects thereof, by and large.

P.S: Its the same with every/any profession that exists on earth.

<comment><USER2> Well, if you want to program/do tech for multiple companies, that's pretty easy: it's called contracting or consulting. It pays pretty well, too, if you're good at it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


300+ Workers at NASA's DC Headquarters Vote to Form a Union - <AUTHOR> http://www.ifpte.org/news/details/300-Plus-Workers-at-NASAs-Washington-Headquarters-Vote-to-Form-a-Union

<comment><AUTHOR> These would be "Professional support specialists" that is "budget analysts, policy analysts, administrative specialists, secretaries, and others."

Title previously said "Tech Workers" \- I've removed the tech bit.</comment>


Human Brain Processing Speed clocked at less than 60 bits/s using Hicks Law - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24030/

<comment><USER2> I don't know about you but my visual systems are processing at a greater bandwidth than that. Plus I am pretty sure that my hearing system is coping well with the simultaneous audio output of an MP3 track. Plus I am supposedly doing some work - I think that 60 bits/sec is rather under estimating the total.

<comment><USER3> FTA: "Martin uses his method to determine how much information the brain can process during lexical decision tasks. The answer? No more than about 60 bits per second." So, it's not 60 bits/sec of information processing, but 60 yes/no decisions per second. That's pretty fast.

<comment><USER2> And as each decision requires multiple inputs that would again rubbish the headline figure - total nonsense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As far as I remember the book _The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size_ makes the measure to 16 bits/sec.

A very interesting read now long ago. I must read it again.

[http://www.amazon.com/User-Illusion-Cutting-Consciousness- Pe...](http://www.amazon.com/User-Illusion-Cutting-Consciousness- Penguin/dp/0140230122/)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is pretty cool - as good as an example of the power of massive parallelism as I've ever seen, anyway.

</comment><comment><USER6> I thought this might be the case. I figure that working intelligence, artificial or not, must take in a whole pile of data and throw out almost all of it, making it's decision based on a few bits.

Thing is, the throwing out part is very elaborate and takes a lot of work.

<comment><USER7> I just finished listening to the audio book format of On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins:

[http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff- Hawkins/dp/080507853...](http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff- Hawkins/dp/0805078533/)

(Hopefully I get this right... was pretty sleep deprived while listening to it.) In the book he describes the core part of intelligence as prediction - our brain is constantly making predictions from sensory inputs. While our brains do take in huge amounts of data, Hawkins' theory suggests that it is being operated on in massive parallelism - with different predictions happening simultaneously. Thus it isn't so much that all that data is being thrown away, as it is all being checked against known patterns from previous memories. He lays out reasoning for how intelligence, creativity, etc. are formed on top of this prediction model. It is a very interesting read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Speech evolved comparatively late. I'd be willing to bet a motorcycle driver processes data a lot faster.</comment>


Startup Insights From the Co-Founder of Kayak - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/12604/Startup-Insights-From-Paul-English-Co-Founder-of-Kayak.aspx

<comment><USER2> Key points (worth reading the expanded version, though):

1\. "I've started four or five companies now, based on how you count. There is one I am trying to forget." Most serial entrepreneurs that I know don't have a 100% "hit rate". Just about everyone has had at least one venture that didn't quite turn out the way they had hoped. I like that Paul's able

2\. Like me, Paul also started a company with his brother. I have to remember to chat with him about that over a beer someday. [Note to self: Write article titled "Starting Something With A Sibling: Understanding The Tradeoffs".

3\. Like many of my favorite software entrepreneurs, Paul's a programmer by training. Interesting side note: In my recent travels and interactions with entrepreneurs, I'm finding that an increasing number of founders have a design/UI/UX background.

4\. When asked "Why do you start companies", Paul has one of the best answers I've ever heard: I start companies because it gives me an opportunity to create teams.

5\. "Our priorities are always team first, customer second and profit third."

6\. The difference between an A team and an A+ team is the difference between a million in revenue and a billion in revenue.

7\. Sometimes people Paul is interviewing say "I've heard a lot of great things about you.". Paul: "Trust me, after a few months, you'll learn that the reason you're here is not me, but the people around you"

8\. Paul English on recruiting (I'm paraphrasing this from a meeting I had with him and some pieces from this interview): When someone mentions the name of a person that they've worked with that they think is exceptional, a little clock starts ticking in my head. My world goes to black and white, and this clock is in color. From when the clock starts, I give myself seven days to track them down, back channel, get them in for two series of interviews that are intense and focused, and make an offer and have them accept it. That's seven days from when I hear the person's name.

9\. At least one of the co-founders needs to be passionate about recruiting because that absolutely makes all the difference in the world.

10\. When Paul started Kayak, one thing that was very important to him was building something that his friends could use. Before Kaya, when people asked "What do you do?", his response was "I work in an operations research group at data general, and we're studying advanced processes for doing disc drive manufacturing." Clearly, unlikely to be fascinating to most people. With Kayak he wanted it to be different. I have had almost precisely this experience. For my current startup, I wanted to work on something that when random strangers asked me what I did, I wanted a decent chance that the answer would be relevant to them.

11\. "I had sold two companies. I didn't want to sell a company again. So my venture guys would sometimes say, "You know, explore it." And I'd have the meeting knowing in my mind that there is no way I am going to sell this company."

12\. When Paul was hiring his early team, he refused to hire people from the travel industry. He didn't want travel people, he wanted consumer product people.

13\. One of Paul's investors said, "You'll name this company Kayak over my dead body." Paul: "Thanks for the input."

14\. The Red Phone: Paul found the most obnoxious, loud-ringing red phone he could find and plugged it in right in the engineering office. About 30% of the time, when a Kayak web visitor saw a support phone number on the website, it was the number of that phone. The idea was to build a culture that was centered around the customer.

15\. "I guess this is the first time I'm talking about this. But I'm at the beginning of a new project, which will be my next 10 year project. I'll be at Kayak, of course, pushing it, pushing it, but I'm starting a new project that has an audacious goal of creating free low-bandwidth Internet for the whole continent of Africa. [This super-cool.]

16\. In an uncharacteristic moment, I actually asked Paul a question in the session about how his advice around recruiting as a company grows from 5 to 50 to 500 people. He had two points: First, make sure you identify the stars. He does this by asking people on his team who the brightest people they've worked with is. Then, make sure that they know how much emphasis you put on the team and go after them — aggressively.

17\. If you visit Kayak.com and hit the feedback button, you will get a response via email. Kayak responds, individually, to every email. That's impressive. What is crazy-impressive is that the email response comes from either Paul or someone on the engineering team. He gets flack for using a $150k/engineer to answer support emails when the rest of the world is outsourcing it for $8/hour or something. Why does he do this? Because, when engineers respond to support issues, when the same issues arise time and time again, they are more likely to stop what they are doing and go fix the problem so that they don't have to answer that same question again. And, because it sends a message to the entire team that they take these issues very seriously.</comment>


Show HN: Wiseer – Powerful and user-friendly text analysis - <AUTHOR> https://wiseer.io/ <comment><USER2> I've just created an account. We are getting tons of feedback, so your product sounds interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice to hear. Feel free to reach out to me any time, and I'll help you with whatever you might need :)

email@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I've been lurking on this website for awhile now, and finally feel that I am ready to share my passion project.

It's not perfect, but I think it's a rather nice product at this stage. I'm excited to hear your thoughts on it!</comment>


Code is not Literature - <AUTHOR> http://www.gigamonkeys.com/code-reading/ <comment><USER2> Asking people what they've read "just for the heck of it" is the wrong question, because _code is not linear_ , so it's extremely ungainly to read without purpose.

But as soon as the skilled code reader has a purpose in mind -- a question to answer -- he or she can rapidly find a meaningful narrative. Put into that context, programmers read code constantly, and the more they read the better they get.

So I don't like the "nobody actually reads code" claim. It's a strawman. When I tell people to read code, it's always in the context of "pick something you want to understand or fix, and read with that purpose in mind." Not "the Linux kernel is like Moby Dick, you should really read it all."

<comment><USER3> Yes I agree. But, for myself, even (or especially) with a purpose I mind, I _decode_ , not read per se. I've recently been working through the selfoss source and adding some new features, and this is the tack I've taken through it -- decode the source to find where the feature should be added. So I agree with you, and the OP.

<comment><USER2> True, but that's just a question of density. There are books written in English that are so dense that they too need to be decoded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the author has a somewhat limited definition of "literature", though he ultimately comes to the right conclusion that code must be "studied", not "read". It's true, code is typically less linear than a pulp novel, but other types of literature are also involved, with layered meanings, which must be examined carefully, with reference material handy, and lots of flipping back and forth between sections. For instance, poems, philosophical treatises, historical analyses, and math textbooks must all typically be read this way.

<comment><USER5> Have you ever had a reason to read just part of a book? Pages 236-241 of Moby Dick, with no intention to ever read the rest? That seems to be a crucial difference between the two activities.

<comment><USER6> Moby Dick is probably a poor example. Something like the Iliad or the Bible might be appropriate since extensive studies often focus on a few chapters or verses. Yes, one normally reads the entirety of the work, but studying specific parts seems more apropos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >It was just basically the way you solve some kind of an unknown puzzle—make tables and charts and get a little more information here and make a hypothesis. In general when I'm reading a technical paper, it's the same challenge. I'm trying to get into the author's mind, trying to figure out what the concept is. The more you learn to read other people's stuff, the more able you are to invent your own in the future, it seems to me.

I really enjoyed reading this article, but I would argue with its headline. Based on the author's experience and the example from Donald Knuth, it seems like the best way to read code is to go through it multiple times to the point where you could reimplement it or provide complete documentation for it.

The literary analog for code reading might be a writing a scholarly reader's companion to a book.

You can't write a secondary source for a work of literature by reading it once through like a drugstore thriller or romance. A literary analyst would read the book through completely >3 times and spend hours on certain key passages. They would take extensive notes reconstructing the innerworkings of the characters, the relationships between them, and key themes. Once the work has been comprehensively understood, the scholar can write out in an expository manner what is going on in the piece of literature, the same way that a thoroughly digested piece of software can be rewritten based on the mental model that develops as you read.

Obviously software and novels do not map completely one onto the other. I think the key similarity is that they both can be created with sufficient complexity to require taking multiple passes and following along with the author, building something similar yourself in order to truly understand them.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why do we still embed natural language descriptions of source code (i.e., the reason why a line of code was written) within the source code to the exclusion of intrinsically linked separate documents?

[http://i.stack.imgur.com/JlUiE.png](http://i.stack.imgur.com/JlUiE.png)

The potential advantages include:

\- More source code and more documentation on the screen(s) at once

\- Ability to edit documentation independently of source code (regardless of language?)

\- Write documentation and source code in parallel without merge conflicts

\- Real-time hyperlinked documentation with superior text formatting

\- Quasi-real-time machine translation into different natural languages

\- Every line of code can be clearly linked to a task, business requirement, etc.

\- Documentation could automatically timestamp when each line of code was written (metrics)

\- Dynamic inclusion of architecture diagrams, images to explain relations, call-graph hierarchies, etc.

\- Single-source documentation (e.g., tag code snippets for user inclusion in manual[s]).

<comment><USER9> Because we're stuck in a tyranny of flat text files as a representation of code.

There have been countless proposals over the years for some kind of richer file format for representing code and they have all been busts because so much of our tooling, assumptions, interoperability and culture is centered on flat text code that it's proven impossible thus far to switch.

<comment><USER10> But text files are easy to generate, easy to edit, and simple to read. What alternatives are there which remain language and tool agnostic?

<comment><USER11> I can make a file format as tool-agnostic as you like, if it doesn't actually have to have any features.

<comment><USER12> Being tool-agnostic _is_ a feature. The most important feature.

If there are other known features that are more important, they would have taken off by now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Christopher Alexander, the architect who introduced the theory of "pattern languages," wrote the introduction to Richard P. Gabriel's "Patterns of Software." He says:

"In my life as an architect, I find that the single thing which inhibits young professionals, new students most severely, is their acceptance of standards that are too low. If I ask a student whether her design is as good as Chartres, she often smiles tolerantly at me as if to say, 'Of course not, that isn't what I am trying to do. I could never do that.'"

Then: "That standard must be our standard. If you are going to be a builder, no other standard is worthwhile."

And so he asks the same thing about programming.

"But at once I run into a problem. For a programmer, what is a comparable goal? What is the Chartres of programming? What task is at a high enough level to inspire people writing programs, to reach for the stars? Can you write a computer program on the same level as Fermat's last theorem? Can you write a program which has the enabling power of Dr. Johnson's dictionary? Can you write a program which has the productive power of Watt's steam engine? Can you write a program which overcomes the gulf between the technical culture of our civilization, and which inserts itself into our human life as deeply as Eliot's poems of the wasteland or Virginia Woolf's The Waves?"

Maybe code is just _bad_ literature?

</comment><comment><USER14> " _Once I've completely rewritten the thing I usually understand it pretty well and can even go back to the original and understand it too. I have always felt kind of bad about this approach to code reading but it 's the only thing that's ever worked for me._"

This strategy may work for small programs, but it doesn't scale to large programs. For example, most people aren't going to have the time to refactor Firefox or the Linux kernel to figure out how they work.

Also, it's hard to tell a lot about a large program just by reading a listing of the source code. Certain things about the code become much more obvious if you step through the running code with a debugger. To extend the author's analogy of a program being a scientific specimen: the code is a _living_ specimen whose _behavior_ can be studied, not just a dead specimen that can be stained and looked at under a microscope.

<comment><USER15> That's a good point about running it in the debugger.

However, even with a large program, sometimes I find it helpful to write a smaller program that does much the same thing as a small part of it. For example, last year I wrote a debugger frontend in Dart, based on the Chrome DevTools debugger. Whenever I wanted to implement something I'd first look at how the Chrome debugger did it.

Currently I'm working on a reimplementation of the React framework, also in Dart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Every time I have a serious question about how something works in the Linux kernel, I use it as an excuse to do a dive into the code: [http://lxr.free- electrons.com/](http://lxr.free-electrons.com/)

I still look through other sources, including man pages, books and a lot of googling. But sometimes I just want to _see_ what it is I'm dealing with. I do this with all code bases I deal with. I think it's a good practice to get into.

<comment><USER17> I like to read cross-referenced code too. I built "SherlockCode" a while ago as a generic tool to browse code but I haven't done anything with it in a while. Here is a sample of a symbol in a file in jQuery:

[http://sherlockcode.com/demos/jquery/#!/src/attributes.js:pr...](http://sherlockcode.com/demos/jquery/#!/src/attributes.js:prop)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This reminds me of how I listen to music.

If I meet a track that I really like, I don't just listen to it. I put it on the decks, try to mix it with something else and listen how it interacts with it. I put it on the grid, sample loops, hits and small sounds. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, here's a video of Four Tet doing something similar to Jackson's Thriller:

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

Sometimes I analyze it's structure, laying empty loops in mute tracks alongside it. Sometimes I try to recreate synths that are used. Sometimes I go to whosampled.com and try to recreate the sampling process.

I'm sure writers do the same with literature they read, too.

</comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps the most important insight to be gained from this article is Abelson's statement that "a lot of times you crud up a program to make it finally work and do all of the things that you need it to do, so there's a lot of extraneous stuff around there that isn't the core idea." There is an old blog entry by Joel Spolski that elaborates on this phenomenon:

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> I agree with the author that code may not be literature. Taken from the opposite line of reasoning there have been movements in the past to make literature more like code. Specifically I thinking of Oulipo (which included Calvino as probably the most famous) on bringing new structures to literature including some generative ones which could be thought of as programming or combinatorics.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulipo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulipo)

<comment><USER21> A great group blog that keeps tabs on interactive and generative literature is [http://grandtextauto.org/](http://grandtextauto.org/). I highly recommend it.

I wonder how blurred the lines can truly become between code and literature, though. If a piece of code is primarily intended to be read and discussed, does that make it literature?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would be interested to know what the OP thinks about stepping through code as opposed to reading it. To me, reading code and stepping through it in a debugger are two complimentary ways of understanding it. I call those the static and the dynamic way of viewing code.

<comment><USER22> Interesting. Does something exist where I can visually trace through how my javascript code is being executed? It would be wonderful to have a visual representation.

<comment><USER23> Most browsers have a "Development Tools" option that provides a number of tools including a step-through debugger similar to those in XCode/Eclipse/Visual Studio.

I personally use the development tools in Safari most of the time.

<comment><USER22> Really? Why Safari in particular?

<comment><USER23> I tend to use Safari (on Mac OS) as my go to browser, so the simplest answer is probably familiarity as corresponding functionality exists in Chrome and Firefox which I've had no problems using when needed. That said, IE is not so good.

I think Chrome and/or Firefox provide more support for live editing of the current web page, however I've never made much use of that functionality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I try to read as little code as possible. If I have to read the code of somebody else (other than code review) it is usually because the code contains some flaw; only rarely because I genuinely don't know how the code does what it claims to do.

Don't read code. Read papers. Build a model of your algorithms etc. in your mind. Describe this model in a wiki. Translate the model into interfaces. Then write the code that implements those interfaces.

</comment><comment><USER25> Of course, the whole point of "literate programming" is to provide hints and structure for the human reader. This is done not by creating some structure in the code that makes sense to the compiler and a human, but by breaking up a program into pieces that are put together later.

I feel that this is really nothing that a good compiler couldn't do with a higher level language today. However, in doing so I would wind up with a heavily polluted namespace of helper methods and such that really don't help me understand what I was trying to do.

So, in the vein of reading code. I've only read a few sections of "The Stanford Graphbase," as I just got it a couple of weeks ago, but I can already tell this would have been a much better introduction to a few graph algorithms than I had in my undergrad.

Further, all of the "literate" programs I have written have been much easier for me to jump back into. Precisely because I have much of my "decoding" notes. So, code isn't literature, because we don't write it with a narrative for humans in mind. But, there is no real reason we couldn't.

</comment><comment><USER26> I like the OP's summation that we should approach code reading as code decoding. My interest in literate code and readable code has recently accelerated in conjunction with my interest in code correctness. I think the way forward in both these contexts is through functional programming.

In particular I, and the IT shop at Tachyus, have chosen F# as the way to go forward for a number of reasons. Sticking to readability, F# (and other FPs to a greater or lesser extent) allow production code that "reads" more expressively in terms of conveying what the code is actually accomplishing to the reader (and to the compiler) rather than the frequently tangled instructions to the compiler on _how_ to accomplish the task coming from traditional imperative and OO languages. F# also has some very useful tools to emit a form of literate code that produces publication ready HTML or MD, [http://tpetricek.github.io/FSharp.Formatting/](http://tpetricek.github.io/FSharp.Formatting/) (This project will soon be accepted as a top-tier project by the F# Software Foundation, [http://fsharp.org/](http://fsharp.org/)) It may not be _to the letter_ of Knuth's idea of literate programming, but certainly in the spirit.

I did _read_ some code lately. Actually I had to go so far as stepping through it in the debugger to properly _decode_ it, [http://jackfoxy.com/transparent- heterogeneous-parallel-async...](http://jackfoxy.com/transparent- heterogeneous-parallel-async-with-fsharp/) (the code snippets here have tool- tips in my article, just one of the features available with FSharp.Formatting), but this is really the exception in F#. The vast majority of code is easily accessible to any programmer of reasonable quality (with proper introduction to FP) in any IT shop. The deeper functional stuff like Continuation Passing Style and Applicative Functors (e.g. heterogeneous parallel async) in most cases is already available in core libraries. And when not a literature search and/or getting in touch with the FP community helps.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think code is sort of a combination of literature, ToDO and shopping lists, and directions to somebody's house, written from your own perspective. There are recurring themes and characters, but it can get lost in a sea of detail.

</comment><comment><USER28> Code can be literature in specific cases, such as the Shakespeare programming language. It's just a whimsical, esoteric language, like lolcode, but it reads like the Immortal Bard himself was an early adopter of learning to program.

Example of a conditional statement:

      Juliet:
        Am I better than you?

      Hamlet:
        If so, let us proceed to scene III.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_(programming_langua...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_\(programming_language\))

<comment><USER29> Shakespeare is only superficially readable. In reality, the logic executed by the program is very nearly unrelated to the way the program reads to a human. Essentially it's a cute syntax over the same old FORTRAN, much like lolcode. It was a missed opportunity to represent logic as meaningful literature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Seems like a worse metaphor to me, naturalists don't examine specimens in order to learn how to make better animals but that's precisely the reason coders are expected to improve by reading code (although I always assumed that "reading code" meant reading it over and over to get a detailed understanding but apparently that was just me?).

What is the goal of reading literature we're talking about? We're mixing up reading a book for pleasure and gaining a deep understanding of a piece of literature to become a better writer.

Reading a piece of code or a book once is not going to do anything to your skillset as a producer, at least books are specifically written to be read once for pleasure. The equivalent for code would be using a piece of software, not reading the code once.

If you want to be a better writer then you get a deep understanding of a piece of literature, the same applies to code. I have recently read a lot of code, because I was debugging/modifying a library I was using (the Requests lib in Python). It's very nicely written and I did get some good ideas from it, but it was work.

I don't think the metaphor is flawed at all. I think that this was a result of coders thinking that people would get better at writing by reading literature or that this was the point of literature seminars. I guess a lesson in understanding other disciplines at least a little bit before trying to take lessons from them?

</comment><comment><USER31> It's a cultural, psychological, linguistic mixup more than anything else. People do read code all the time, they just hesitate to respond to a question like "what code have you read recently". It's hard to answer that question in english without implying that you have completely read a program (rare) that was completely written (in other words, "finished", which is even more rare).

If you asked a different question, like "explain how you read code in the course of a typical project or experiment" you will get a ton of examples. They might describe how they look to understand the basic data structures, and then imagine some sample data flowing through the algorithm to understand the purpose, and then examine the details, edge cases, and interactions to see why some non-obvious choices were made. Then they might describe how they use this to find what parts of the code should be generalized, specialized, or extended to fit new functionality.

It might be interesting to incorporate code reading into an interview to see the strategies that people use. It would be quite difficult to make it a fair question, though, because patterns vary widely and it often takes more than an hour or so to adapt.

<comment><USER32> I think it is understood that we all read code during a typical project. I think what the OP is referring to is code reading for the purpose of improving your skill in general, to get exposed to code that you wouldn't normally see by just working as usual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Having just implemented a specification where the spec was less useful than some source, I'd say that literature is not code for sure. And as someone who has read literature, though I wasn't an english major like the author--you know it seems like they encourage english majors to treat writing as a specimen--it seems true that code is not literature either, it doesn't even compare for entertainment value for example.

<comment><USER21> That's an interesting point, that literature can also be approached as a dissection. But I think that Mr. Seibel's observation still holds. Literature is primarily intended to be read and discussed, while code is primarily intended to perform a job. One lends itself to an experiential conversation and the other very contextual explaination.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Great quote from the article: "But then it hit me. Code is not literature and we are not readers. Rather, interesting pieces of code are specimens and we are naturalists. So instead of trying to pick out a piece of code and reading it and then discussing it like a bunch of Comp Lit. grad students, I think a better model is for one of us to play the role of a 19th century naturalist returning from a trip to some exotic island to present to the local scientific society a discussion of the crazy beetles they found: 'Look at the antenna on this monster! They look incredibly ungainly but the male of the species can use these to kill small frogs in whose carcass the females lay their eggs.'"

</comment><comment><USER35> I imagine getting a bunch of people to sit around and project a cookbook recipe up on a screen.

</comment><comment><USER36> As someone who also tried to hold code reading groups I agree 100% with the conclusion.

The first code reading session I held, I chose underscore.js and it was a successful code reading session, because -- unlike most libraries and programs -- a functional utility library was a nice linear read with mostly self- contained functions. However, when we got to more complex programs and libraries with more code to handle accidental complexity (e.g. handle browser and DOM inconsistencies, or UNIX fragmentation etc) it was considerably harder to read and the presenter found themselves jumping between different code paths and functions like they were debugging the program.

</comment><comment><USER37> The main problem I see is that code is read left to right, top to bottom (for the most part) but it is rarely, if ever, written that way. The order that decisions are made is almost as important as the decisions themselves. But, we lose almost all of that order or 'context'. Worse, although we can place comments in the code, we cannot attach comments to the evolution of code. Evolutional comments could describe why things are changing in the proper context and make reading code a lot easier.

<comment><USER38> > we cannot attach comments to the evolution of code

I guess Google has spoiled me. When reading code, I constantly look at its development history - commit messages, diffs and line-by-line "blame", linked bugs and code review threads. If you have good tools for that, there's much less need for inline comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Code is not literature because literature only contains the highlights worth knowing where code has to provide the comprehensive instructions for everything to operate.

A good code reader should be like a tour guide, and a good tour guide doesn't visit every single building and street in a neighborhood but rather describes the historical context of the neighborhood and then visits a few interesting places.

</comment><comment><USER40> _" The point of such a presentation is to take a piece of code that the presenter has understood deeply and for them to help the audience understand the core ideas..."_

I do get lots of value out of that. My favorite example is Beazley's GIL talk: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt- vMVdM8s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-vMVdM8s)

</comment><comment><USER32> For me, the fastest way of understanding code is a mix (back and forth) of _reading_ it and _running_ it. Some questions on how it works are more easily answered by running it and seeing what happens, while other questions are better answered by reading (e.g. what are all the possible cases here?).

</comment><comment><USER41> At the very least, when we program we're writing a story to whoever might need to understand it later on.

</comment><comment><USER42> Oh, but it could be: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_(programming_langua...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_\(programming_language\))

</comment><comment><USER43> May I bring up that whether or not you read code, you ain't gonna read it literally. Imagine following all jump statements with out fail. That's the machine's job, not yours.

</comment><comment><USER44> Some literature really does need to be "decoded" in a similar way, however. (Speaking as someone who recently finished _Ulysses_...)

</comment><comment><USER45> Emmm, so there are now "Code reading groups" ? I need to get with the times. Is this a new thing ?

</comment><comment><USER46> Oh my effing hell

This is how I code and read code..damn and I thought I never would see the day where someone finally got it..

</comment><comment><USER47> I am not English major, but I am pretty sure that the idea of becoming a writer by reading pieces of other people's texts is wrong. This is simply not enough. There is a "second component" in good writing, and it is not just about language usage.

One could read Selinger or Pamuk or Sartre or Hesse, to realize that this second component is much more important, while masters like Nabokov whose speciality is playing with words might show you that wording is also important.)

The transition from reading to writing ones own texts, not imitating or copy pasting is also not clear, and, of course, one never could become a good writer only by excessive reading. Writing and speaking are different cognitive tasks from reading or listening.

So what? Reading of good code is important, it teaches style, how to be brief, concise, precise. But where to find the good code? Well, the recursive list functions in Scheme are worth reading. Some parts of Haskell Prelude are worth reading, some macros of Common Lisp, etc.

The code of "the top writers" are worth reading. Code from PAIP or On Lisp or SICP are obvious examples, while some code, like from Practical CL which is mostly a mechanical translation of OO stuff only adds more confusion.

So, reading "good" code is still the must, the same way that reading Catcher In The Rye or Zen And Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance or Atlas Shrugged is still the must.

But programming is about writing, which means expressing ones own ideas and realizations and understanding, so one must have these in the first place.

In this sense programming is like writing a poetry - it must emerge and form in ones mind before it could be written down. The best poetry is written exactly like this - committed to the paper suddenly as it emerges, without any later changes.

This reflects the process of "emergence" of ideas or profs in a mind of scientists who are continuing to persue a problem for years - suddenly it is here, as if it came from subconscious. It seems that the best code, like these classic Lisp procedures or parts of Prelude has been written this way.

Of course, reading Java is as meaningless as reading graphomans or some lame and lenthy political pamphlet in a third-rate newspaper.)

<comment><USER13> "In this sense programming is like writing a poetry - it must emerge and form in ones mind before it could be written down. The best poetry is written exactly like this - committed to the paper suddenly as it emerges, without any later changes."

Are you sure that's true? Can you cite some examples?

Lisp is famous for its interactivity: the read-eval-print loop, SLIME, Lisp Machines, Emacs, etc. Avid Lisp hackers even edit code inside of running systems. The "bottom-up approach" to programming (as advocated by Paul Graham) is almost the opposite of what you describe, isn't it?

Generally speaking, I think both programmers and poets work in a dynamic way with their texts: moving stuff around, seeing what works, doing experiments, asking others, etc.

That's one reason why Knuth's idea of literate programming seems so academic and remote for most programmers: how are you going to keep all of that text up-to-date when you start refactoring?

<comment><USER47> I would say that there is no contradiction with bottom-up approach, and it was popularized before PG by SICP lectures with image manipulation DSL for making these beautiful recursive image patterns.

Your each iteration in a bottom-up process could be based on a small insight after thinking about a subproblem. Later one just re-uses ones own realizations and adapts them to new requirements.

Also I think that it should be not just linear bottom-up process, but recursive one, when you regularly "call yourself" with the old problem, but a "new you, evolved with experience". Starting from the bottom, from basic building blocks is crucial. The only "addition" is that nothing will be set in stone and you should come back to "simplify" and refactor even what is at the very bottom.

I also never advocated Knuth's idea or that whole programs should be printed as books (while some procedures such as map or append are worth to be printed and framed).

As for poetry, well, I thing almost every youth wrote some in his late teens or early twenties, and yes, I told it wrong, not a whole poem emerges in ones mind, but a few central passages, the main scheme, to which some ornaments could be added later.</comment></comment></comment>


The yuan is displacing the dollar as a key currency - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21564880-yuan-displacing-dollar-key-currency

<comment><USER2> China will not replace the USA as the central economic power, even if the economy of China exceeds that of the USA. Step back from the details for a moment and think about great economic centers when they are at the peak of the power. Is there any generalization we can make that is true of all civilizations, in all centuries, and for which we have fairly detailed records, even going back thousands of years? Yes, there is at least one generalization that we can make with confidence: each center, when it was at its peak, was a place where foreign merchants felt safe and comfortable. Does that hold true today in China? Do foreign merchants feel they can make deals as equals with the native Chinese merchants? Can foreigners trust that the Chinese courts are fair and neutral and unbiased?

Islam was at it peak in the 800s and 900s, and during that time Jews, Christians, Hindus and other groups, which had been hated in the past and would be hated again in the future, were all welcome.

Venice was at its peak in the 1400s, and muslims merchants felt safe there, despite the strong anti-muslim sentiment in much of Europe at that time. The same holds true of Amsterdam when it was at its peak in the 1600s.

As for England, as it reached its peak in the 1700s, we have Voltaire's famous description:

"Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied."

I am using the phrase "economic center" in the sense that Fernand Braudel uses it in his book "The Perspective Of The World": [http://www.amazon.com/Perspective-World-Fernand- Braudel/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Perspective-World-Fernand- Braudel/dp/0006860796/ref=la_B000AQ3IK8_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351185475&sr=1-7)

He does not use the phrase to mean "the biggest economic power", though often the center is the biggest economic power. But he also applies it to Antwerp in the 1500s, when the religious wars were at their peak, and when, despite the wars, southern Europe and northern Europe needed to find a way to trade with each other, and market and political forces established Antwerp as the center of trade in Europe, because it was a northern city still mostly under Spanish control -- the perfect meeting place of north and south.

I am not saying that the USA will always be the center of the world economy. But I am saying that the next center will be open to the world, in the same way that previous economic centers were. China is not currently open to the world in the same way. It would take a political revolution as big as the one in 1949 to transform China into the kind of open political entity that former economic centers have been.

And can a nation really have the dominant currency if it is not the central economic power? It is reasonable to say that Chinese yuan will become more important over time, but this title implies a larger change: "The yuan is displacing the dollar as a key currency". If the implication is that the yuan will actually replace the dollar as the dominant reserve currency, then that implication is probably false. Politics plays a large role in these shifts, not just economics.

<comment><USER3> > Do foreign merchants feel they can make deals as equals with the native > _American_ merchants? Can foreigners trust that the _American_ courts are > fair and neutral and unbiased?

As a foreigner, I feel somewhat qualified to answer that question.

No. Categorically, no.

<comment><AUTHOR> The corruption perceptions and international ease of doing business surveys and rankings would provide more statistically significant evidence to counter your anecdote. Note that competition is relative - we may find the U.S. courts deplorable on specific issues but they _do_ turn out a measure better than most other economic powers' courts, e.g. China, Russia, or Brazil.

<comment><USER4> ...but not much.

The U.S. is ranked 24 out of 180 on the corruption index. While this isn't the level of China or Brazil, it's not exactly rosy either.

<comment><USER5> Did you look at the actual data behind this survey? I just did, and it's a little sketchy.

The US ranks alongside the rest of Europe for most of the data sources that include the US (many of TI's data sources do not), except for two surveys which sharply differ:

* TI's own "Bribery Payer's Index", which gives the US a 4.6 out of 10 (a score more compatible with Southeast Asia than North America) in the crosstabs, but for which the actual TI BPI report gives results back in line with Europe.

* IMD's survey from 2010, which gives the US a 6.5 (again, significantly lower than Europe) but for which no actual data appears to be publicly available.

In both cases, the actual data extracted from these surveys (the TI index is a meta-analysis of many surveys; a survey of surveys) is "phone surveys to business leaders"; TI has selected specific questions from these surveys as indicative and discarded the rest of them. In the IMD case, for instance, there appears to be one question at all that's selected from the survey: "Is there bribery or corruption, yes or no".

A 6.5 score from the IMD report puts the US in the 6-7 band along with Estonia, Malaysia, Spain, and Israel. This seems like an extraordinary claim, as is the claim that there is less bribery in Qatar and Chile than in the US.

Similarly, the 4.x score in the BPI survey puts the US in a band with China, Russia, the Czech Republic, the Philippines and Argentina. This _is_ an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.

If you excluded the BPI and IMD surveys from the data set, the US would probably be duking it out for tenths of a point at the top of the list with the rest of Europe. As it stands, we're simply in the top quintile, unlike China.

<comment><USER4> I agree that this is an extroidinary claim, but it is technically named as the _Corruption Perception Index_ , which is relevent to the discussion about the perception of organizations doing business in different countries.

The real question is: Is there any other data on this scale to refute or back this research?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The correlation in currency movement is most likely a result of concrete steps taken by China over the years to reduce the need for an intermediate currency, traditionally the USD, in trade between two countries.

There's plenty of evidence that the seeds have been planted for a free- floating (potentially gold-backed) Yuan to eventually sit alongside (not necessarily displace) the Euro and USD as a major reserve currency.

January 2012: "Sheikhs fall in love with renminbi"

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA24Ak03.html>

March 2012: "China has signed a $31bn currency swap agreement with Australia, a step towards boosting the renminbi's profile in developed markets. Beijing has established nearly 20 bilateral swap lines over the past four years, but Australia ranks as the biggest economy yet to sign such a deal"

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4b6c4ab6-7404-11e1-bcec-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4b6c4ab6-7404-11e1-bcec-00144feab49a.html)

April 2012: "This morning, we saw the launch of the first RMB bond outside of Chinese sovereign territories. And it happened here in London. This builds on the progress London has already made toward becoming the western hub for RMB.'

[http://citywire.co.uk/global/london-launches-its-first- offsh...](http://citywire.co.uk/global/london-launches-its-first-offshore- renminbi-bond/a582756)

June 2012: "China and Japan began direct trading of Chinese yuan and Japanese yen in Tokyo and Shanghai on June 1, in a move to boost trade and investment between the world's second- and third- largest economies, and also viewed as a further step to enable the yuan to become a truly global currency."

[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-06/04/c_1316294...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-06/04/c_131629478.htm)

June 2012: "China and Brazil strike $30bn bilateral swap deal to reinforce economies. Announcement also includes plans for joint satellite launches, culture centres and language networks

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/22/china-brazil- bil...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/22/china-brazil-bilateral- swap-deal)

August 2012: "ZIMBABWE has been urged to follow the example of some Central African countries which have taken the initiative in using the Chinese currency - the yuan. Last month a number of Central African banks were given access to yuan-denominated bonds by the China Development Bank Corporation (CDB)."

<http://allafrica.com/stories/201208160818.html>

October 2012: 'Chinese Gold Imports Through August Surpass Total ECB Holdings, Imports From Australia Surge 900%"

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-21/chinese-gold- import...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-21/chinese-gold-imports- through-august-surpass-total-ecb-holdings-imports-australia-sur)

<comment><USER7> Hmm, what evidence do you have that China wants a gold-backed yuan? AFAIK, yuan is at present a fiat currency.

<comment><USER8> Isn't the notion of a gold backed currency considered antiquated now? My understanding is that both the US dollar and Euro are fiat currencies as well, the US dollar having abandoned the gold standard in the 70s (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock>).

<comment><USER6> This week's edition of Forbes:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2012/10/03/gold- can-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2012/10/03/gold-can-save-us- from-disaster/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As the article mentions, most of the emerging economies that are starting to be affected more by the yuan than the dollar are in East Asia. That only makes sense, anyway. The dollar isn't being displaced as a key currency, it's losing some prominence in emerging markets--which, if they're ever to emerge, will float freely, anyway. It's exactly what you'd expect.

<comment><USER4> Shanghai is also poised to replace Singapore as the Financial hub of the east.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 25 years ago they said this about the yen.

10 years ago the Euro was going to take over the world.

Now the yuan is the enemy even though people still flock to the dollar even with interest rates near 0%.

<comment><USER11> Don't count out the Euro just yet! From Wikipedia reserve currencies: \- 1999: USD 71.0%, Eur 17.9% \- 2012: USD 62.2%, Eur 25.0%

Sure the next 5-10 years might be worse for the Euro, but for things like a global reserve currency one should think in 50+ year frames anyway...

<comment><USER12> The basis of the Euro is on a multi-state entity with closed books and little regulation. This basically means the liability of any single country can impact the whole of the EU and by extension the Euro. Until the EU makes a part of membership, approval oversight on all member country budgets, the stability of the Euro is a bit fractured. (Getting oversight is something the countries generally refuse on the non-incorrect grounds of state independence, but then why join a combined currency in the first place? UK got it sorta correct)

And for clarity, the reason I see the multi-state being an issue is, it is slow to act to resolve issues or expose issues, since resolving issues takes a combined intent and single states have little incentive to keep their books correct publicly (plenty of upside, little downside).

While I don't see the dollar being the world currency forever, I also don't see it needs to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's pretty obvious that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to cut down on spending enough to start chipping away at the national debt. Hopefully the (partial) weakening of the greenback's status as the world's primary reserve currency will force them to take action.

<comment><USER14> It's obvious that the Republicans and Democrats TOGETHER can't do it. Either party has things they'd be happy to cut (extra healthcare, extra military, extra tax cuts) - it's the combination of both together that are making the deadlock.

Also, it is mathematically as much a problem of not raising revenue as it is a problem of cutting spending. Strange that you did not mention this.

It isn't at all obvious that the level of the national debt is the only issue influencing the dollar's usage as a reserve currency.

<comment><USER15> yes, the solution to wild spending is always to cast a critical eye at how to extract yet MORE of the US GDP to spend on garbage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> SDR (Special drawing rights) will displace the dollar before the yuan does. SDRs are instruments created by the IMF that represent a basket of currencies held by IMF member countries.

The yuan currency market is too small and illiquid to displace the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

<comment><USER17> I doubt that SDR will ever replace the dollar. From wikipedia:

> _Special drawing rights were created by the IMF in 1969 and were intended to > be an asset held in foreign exchange reserves under the Bretton Woods system > of fixed exchange rates. After the collapse of that system in the early > 1970s the SDR has taken on a far less important role.[5] Acting as the unit > of account for the IMF has been its primary purpose[Williamson 1] since > 1972._

> _Private parties do not hold or use them._

<comment><USER16> Who knows how it will play out. I read a fascinating book on the topic. The author is bullish on SDRs.

[http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global- Crisis/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global- Crisis/dp/1591845564/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351185057&sr=8-1&keywords=currency+wars)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article seems to be looking at trends from the crisis years vs the pre- crisis years. It seems odd that it'd leave out any consideration of the fact that there's been a substantial amount of uncertainty in the global economy of the last couple years, and that whenever the economy seems like it's heading for trouble, the dollar gains and less "safe" currencies (the rupee et al) decline. One would think that would at least have a significant effect on the fact that the correlation between the dollar and developing world is shifting.

</comment><comment><USER19> They are certainly trying... however, Iran-Dubai-Turkey triangle consists of gold.

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/how-iran-evades- wes...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/how-iran-evades-western- blocakde-turkey-dubai-iran-petrogold-triangle)

And it lets Iran sell its oil to others pretty easily.

<comment><USER20> Gold trade has features that are similarly key to bitcoin trade: immune to inflation, anonymous, and untraceable. Could BTC supplant Gold as a currency in that regard?

<comment><USER19> Gold functions without electricity, so, I doubt it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There is one important aspect that the article doesn't address, which I think would be a crucial element in any strategy to dethrone the US dollar:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=yuan+oil+china+iran>

<comment><USER22> right night one needs dollars to buy oil from the "cartel" ... when one decides one wants to use euro or yuans one finishes like Saddam or Gadafi ...

<comment><USER23> r/nonsensical-conspiracy-theories is that way.

<comment><USER21> While I don't think the post you're referring to offered any deep insights, it's definitely not a conspiracy theory to state that the ability of the US to sustain their deficit spending largely depends on the dollar remaining the default currency of the global oil trade, and that maintaining this status quo is one of the key missions of US foreign policy. As such, it's one of the factors that determine US military presence, or interventions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yea right. Wait until a crisis and watch all the wealth flood into dollars.

</comment><comment><USER25> At what point did the dollar become the standard? Post World War 2 I'm guessing? What was the equivalent before? Anyone know?

<comment><USER26> It was after bretton woods.

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system>

<comment><USER25> That was exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > The yuan is displacing the yen as a key currency in Asia

FTFY (well, at least fixed that for the Economist headline writers)

</comment><comment><USER28> Uh huh. I think I read this same article a few years back, only instead of yuan it said euro.

</comment><comment><USER29> didn't they say the same about the Euro and the mighty strength of Europe that has a bigger GDP than that of the US, yet look where they are now..</comment>


Cryptographically Private and Verifiable Financial Instruments (Ethereum/Fabric) - <AUTHOR> https://www.calctopia.com/2017/11/02/cryptographically-private-and-verifiable-financial-instruments-on-ethereumfabric/ <comment><USER2> Block-chain is definitely the coolest crypto tech right now, and it's good to see that the banking industry is kind of taking the lead on this. Thanks for the post, because this article was really interesting!</comment>


Times Now Plays Darth Vader Imperial March Theme for PM Modi on Stage - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ezgDdUaiiec <comment><AUTHOR> Goodness at 3 hour 30 mark towards the end.</comment>


Show HN: Curated collection of greatest explainers from all over the world - <AUTHOR> http://explainers.world/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys! Last September I decided to create a short explainer for one of my e-commerce product. I did not have any experience neither concrete understanding of how the video should look like - time, style, story. So I went online googling for some inspiration but didn't find a source that would really satisfy my needs. Guess what - I created one=). Right now, there're 130 videos on the website handpicked by me that you can filter through a bunch of categories: explainers, crowdfunding, commercials, tutorials, educational, customer testimonials and company testimonials. The last categories are not really "explainers" type of video, but I thought it still would be valuable to showcase them.

Check it out on [[http://explainers.world/](http://explainers.world/)]

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this!

P.S. You can also sign up for a curated newsletter with best product videos delivered to your inbox every week. Look for a bottom bar on our website.</comment>


Slack to make it easier for bosses to download your private chats - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/40547684/slack-picked-a-weird-time-to-make-it-easier-for-bosses-to-download-your-private-chats <comment><USER2> The company I'm working for is using google's gsuite. The employees are using their company email address to log into slack so whenever the bosses wants to read their private chat they just login with the employee's email account.

</comment><comment><USER3> Look, we understand.

"If the company is paying for a service they have every right to view everything the employees are doing with the service"

But it's still a huge fucking breach of privacy and I my opinion of my company would be shattered if I found out they actually were reading through people's DMs. I simply wouldn't want to work for that place.</comment>


Microsoft opens up coronavirus threat data to the public - <AUTHOR> https://www.cyberscoop.com/microsoft-coronavirus-threat-intelligence/ <comment><AUTHOR> 'Microsoft is making the threat intelligence it's collected on coronavirus- related hacking campaigns public, the company announced Thursday.

'"As a security intelligence community, we are stronger when we share information that offers a more complete view of attackers' shifting techniques," the Microsoft Threat Intelligence team said in a blog post.[0] "This more complete view enables us all to be more proactive in protecting, detecting, and defending against attacks."'

[0] [https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/05/14/open- sour...](https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/05/14/open-sourcing- covid-threat-intelligence/)</comment>


DIY Weapons of the Syrian Rebels  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/02/diy-weapons-of-the-syrian-rebels/100461/ <comment><USER4> War propaganda now top post on HN.

Edit: if you are also dismayed, use this link to find people who want to show something new to the community:

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22show+hn%...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22show+hn%22&sortby=create_ts+desc&start=0)

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Made 'custom' for the tech crowd. Almost every image is accompanied by the words "A Free Syrian Army fighter ..." because you know, without those words we might confuse them with terrorists or guys from Palestine fighting Israel.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the people of Syria have a right for their own freedom, but it is striking how selective our news is. Ben Ali, the dictator from Tunis was supported by the West for 23 years, as was his neighbor the dictator from Egypt, as is Saudi Arabia, hell even Saddam was.

It's not just a war over there. There's a war for your minds as well. Reminds me of the famous "incubator story" where Iraqi soldiers stole incubators from hospitals in Kuwait and left the premature babies to die on the floor. Never happened, but was crucial for the public opinion in the West. Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)>

<comment><USER6> This article is proof to how controlled, biased and disgusting media in America is.

<comment><USER7> The difference is that in America you can watch Al-Jazeera or the BBC or even TeleMundo(1) as well. Sometimes people forget this when they complain about media bias. It could be much worse. Imagine a country where the only news you can watch is a government approved faux-news(2) channel.

(1) TeleMundo is also American but has a somewhat different ideological slant.

(2) For fun, pronounce that with the X and imagine that this was the only news network you were permitted to watch. How different would your world-view be?

<comment><USER8> ... with the net effect being that people believe they are choosing media of their own free will, and therefore much less likely to question what it says. Even though all of the major culturally-sanctioned channels are advocating a consistent bias, their emphases create an illusion of variety.

I doubt people in places with state-controlled media tune in and think they're getting the whole story. In the Western world, we've moved beyond the battle for facts - the battle is for control of their interpretation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Atlantic did this same feature with Libya 2 years ago [http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of- th...](http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan- rebels/100086/)

Here's a great post about how an Afghan refurbished a PKM machine gun: [http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/afghan-gun- locker-...](http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/afghan-gun-locker- battlefield-ingenuity-and-a-weapons-longevity/)

</comment><comment><USER10> War is a very good negative example of the fact that the economy is not zero- sum. Think if all this work - as well as that of the other side - <USER2> inventiveness were going towards productive pursuits, rather than blowing up other people and their things. Most everyone would be far better off.

<comment><USER11> In this instance, the alternative is brutal oppression. They're better off rebelling than not.

ETA: Of course it'd be better if both sides went about things peacefully and democratically. To parent's point (now better understood hence ETA), the situation is the consequence of governmental leadership viewing socioeconomy as "zero-sum", and the oppressed taking extreme & desperate steps to eliminate the "zero-sum" restriction.

<comment><USER10> Most likely. Note that I also said "the other side". If both sides went about things peacefully and democratically, they'd all be better off on average.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For some reason you don't see a post in Atlantic glorifying palestinian rockets and mortars even though they look quite similar, I guess.

<comment><USER13> Because the main use of the Palestinian weapons are to target civilians?

<comment><USER14> As opposed to the NATO-backed terrorists known as the FSA? The same ones who shot down a civilan aeroplane?

<comment><USER13> You are _fully_ aware of that a relevant counter to my point would have been that the FSA mainly attacked civilians. A single example from such a heterogeneous mix as FSA in a civil war? Sigh...

I'd continue with the lack of NATO-backing, but since your (Karma 72) account's comment history makes claims that North Korea can't be called communist (they are not true Scotsmen either, eh? :-) ) I'll just let it rest here. Bye.

Edit: Clarity

<comment><USER14> A comment I made almost two months ago is relevant here... how? And not refuted either, just pointed out? I quite support North Korea on the grounds of their anti-imperialism. That doesn't mean I support the regime (hyperbolised Western media reports notwithstanding).

Anyway:

* The USA has openly joined the war [1a, 1b]

* The FSA uses child soldiers [2]

* The FSA executes surrendered soldiers with child soldiers [3]

* The FSA bombed a university [4]

* The FSA abducts innocent foreigners [5]

[1a]: [https://www.mail.com/int/news/world/1684058-western- efforts-...](https://www.mail.com/int/news/world/1684058-western-efforts- syria-shifting.html)

[1b]: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria- obama...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order- idUSBRE8701OK20120801)

[2]: [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-syria-un- idUSBRE...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-syria-un- idUSBRE82P0W220120326)

[3]: This would be a link to a graphic video, google it if you want

[4]: This would also be a link to a graphic video

[5]: <http://rt.com/news/russians-kidnapped-syria-embassy-250/>

<comment><USER13> I made a point. You didn't have an answer, you still have no answer.

I made fun of you, because you lacked an answer and instead took single examples from very heterogenous groups (not even correct, you couldn't answer yread). You ignored that.

Instead, you grumble when I dismiss you because you seem to consistently support dictators against democracies.

After being unable to argue my points, you are only writing to claim that FSA is supported by NATO, despite not answering "yread"'s questioning of your last claim.

(Are you actively looking for discussions to write this?)

Some simple points:

1\. Obama has, according to all news, been unwilling to support FSA with weapons, no-fly zones, etc -- despite e.g. bombings of suburbs filled with civilians. This shame comes from under table dealings with Russia and/or fear of islamists getting support.

2\. Your first link discussed how the British might _talk_ to FSA, not that NATO supports them actively and about e.g. how the Syrian army shells suburbs -- NOT that the US had joined the war, which you claimed. I didn't check the rest.

3\. Your one-eyed criticism of one side and ignoring the artillery/bombs against cities, torture, etc, etc, etc from the other side tells volumes.

4\. It is hard to see if you're a troll, a leftwing extremist or some paid Iranian "50 cent army" shill. But that doesn't matter, the difference between a griefer, a "useful idiot" and a propagandist is minimal: You're a complete waste of time, at best.

<comment><USER14> What points did you make? You said you wouldn't continue with the lack of NATO-backing because you have more karma than me or whatever you meant by that.

I don't ignore nor support the things that go on in the current regimes ceteris paribus. But I do support them over, in North Korea's case the USA and UN, and in Syria's case the FSA.

I could provide more links to news sites but it's obvious that despite your claims of my closed-mindedness, you are unwilling to listen to any other points of view than 'freedom® good, everything else bad'.

Your fourth point (if you can call it that) is mostly just ad hominem. Who's the idiot again?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I suspect the fellows in the pictures could add a few new chapters to the Improvised Munitions Handbook [1] and add some refinements to the ones that are already there.

The pictures of them building mortar shells and missiles are pretty interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that turning the nosecones on a lathe is the preferred way of forming them. I mean, you'd be removing a lot of material from the outside, then turning it around and removing a lot more from the inside to make room for the contents. Does anybody know if they're usually formed from sheet metal as I had always thought, or if they're actually pretty heavy-duty for improved penetration of the target?

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_Handbook)

<comment><USER16> I haven't seen mortar rounds made, but I would guess their noses are forged or formed then turned to final dimensions.†

By whatever process they are made in the large military industrial complexes, these pictures show how they are made when you can't invest in custom machines, tooling, and material. You are seeing what happens when you have a bunch of bar stock in inventory and a lathe.

It's the "I need a message queueing system and all I have is PHP" version of a mortar.

␄

† Alibaba will hook you up with Wotech Industrial to sell you forged mortar shell blanks for just such an operation: [http://www.alibaba.com/suppliers/forged-mortar-shell- supplie...](http://www.alibaba.com/suppliers/forged-mortar-shell- supplier.html)

Medico is a pressing company and mentions on their web page that they've made over 7 million mortar shells of various types. <http://www.medicomfg.com/products.php> (In the second picture of the last row, the part held in fingers, that pattern you are seeing is pressed in before the metal is formed into a cup. It provides the fragmentation pattern to get the part to break into a nice even spread of the maximum number pieces that still carry lethal energy into human flesh. Probably a 25mm OCWS round. You could set them for a distance and have them airburst just after they went in a window or over a wall. Looks like the program was canceled. Maybe precision and 4 rounds per second didn't need to intersect.)

1916 video of a press forming large mortar noses: [http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675048466_manufacturing-...](http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675048466_manufacturing- mortar-shells_filling-shells-with-explosives)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, these photos are awesome (#20 and #21 especially so), even if half of them are staged.

So how's that gun control thing working out for Assad, I wonder?

<comment><USER18> If they can use video and controllers like that to control the gun, what would stop them from making it wireless?

I would imagine the benefit of using something like that remotely would be worth the risk of possible signal interception.

<comment><USER19> Complexity and reliability. If the batteries die on your xbox control mid- Halo, it's just annoying. If the batteries die on your remote machine gun with the enemy literally at the gates, it's life and death.

I don't think there's much need for wireless inside the tank in any case. Maybe for a remote placement turret without a vehicle mount it would be more useful.

<comment><USER18> I actually meant wireless so that you wouldn't have to be present inside the tank, you would control the gun remotely.

You would still use wired controllers, but you would use wireless networking to control the tank close by. As long as you maintain a connection with the tank, you are safe from enemy fire, and the enemy would be shooting at an empty tank, with no way of telling what your physical location is.

<comment><USER20> Even more increased complexity. That would require them to make electronic controls for the steering, gas and whatnot. More parts would thus be required.

In addition such a system is highly prone to jamming considering the kind of parts they have available, and the location of the controlling transmitter can be quite easily triangulated.

Just wanted to point out that it's not so easy to make a wirelessly controlled tank and the benefits can be dubious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Beautiful photos, good lighting, _great_ casting... what's not to like. They still missed one "rebel" in flip-flops, must've missed the memo from the Lebanon crew. Though he's technically working on a secret factory, so I guess it doesn't count.

(edit) For those downvoting - you can't be in combat and wear flip-flops. Ask your favorite person who's been to the military service. If you are in flip- flops and holding a gun or throwing a grenade, then you are an actor re- enacting fighting in a staged photoshoot.

<comment><USER19> Dude, have you ever seen footwear in the third world? There's a lot of people out there who are lucky not to be barefoot. People don't wear flip flops in combat by choice, but many don't _have_ a choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The "Use j/k keys or ←/→ to navigate" functionality on this page is really useful.

</comment><comment><USER23> There is something to be said about human ingenuity. With minimal tools, the ability to create these weapons and armored vehicle is something special.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sort of related, guys builds a AK-pattern rifle out of a shovel: [http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/build- yourself/17...](http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/build- yourself/179192-diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.html)

<comment><USER25> To be frank, he got the mechanism, the scope and the barrel from a store. What he actually built was the scaffolding, which is still nice but more like assembling or repairing an AK than building one.

<comment><USER24> True enough. I was still impressed though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The more I see pictures like these The more I wonder how well America would have fared if the rest of the world disengaged its self from our revolution the way we are disengaging ourselves from the Syrian one. I understand you don't want to put boots on the ground, but at least give them something so they are not fighting tanks and airplanes with giant slingshots.

<comment><USER27> They're probably worried that whatever weapons are donated will eventually be used agains them. Fair point considering the number of religious nut jobs currently on the side of the good guys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> so if they fight govt hated by US it is rebels, but if they hate US they are terrorist

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html)

<comment><USER29> You clearly have an axe to grind against the US here.

Terrorism conventionally refers to asymmetric warfare directed strategically against soft targets, often in peacetime. Good examples include the attacks of RAF and IRA in the 70s, Timothy McVey, the Unabomber and the WTC attack in the 90s.

Syria is a war zone. It is in civil war. War has always terrorized civilians.

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra This reminds me of: <http://grossfater-m.livejournal.com/1113851.html> (Not related to any rebels, but it's claimed to be a real device)

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm just hoping that once this conflict ends eventually all of these bombs, rockets etc. won't be used to attack other countries in the region (i.e. Israel)

<comment><USER31> Doubt it. They're getting a lot of weapons from other countries that have just had civil wars, like Iraq and Libya. When this is over, the weapons will probably make their way to the next country undergoing an Arab Spring movement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I agree that on its surface it is propaganda. I also think its interesting to see how people fabricate weapons in a war zone (or not). Some of them don't seem like they would actually do what the designer hoped.

In general, in this age of 'high tech' weaponry, it's amazing that rebels can go up against a modern army at all much less keep it bogged down for as long as they have.

That said, in a non abstract way the material is deeply saddening.

</comment><comment><USER33> Photo #20 impresses me as it can be used as a real gun controller real game play. I wonder if it is every going to be used. Seems scary

<comment><USER34> (professional) Systems like that are already in use: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS>

<comment><USER33> The battle is really turning into a game!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wonder how safe those slingshots are. Throwing heavy objects are hard, and remembering some mythbuster shows, a bit dangerous. Have the grenade bounce, fall out of the slingshot grip, or rubber-band back and you got a big problem.

Is this actually in big use, and how common is "misfire"?

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm jealous. Looks like they're having a mighty good time. Such freedom to be a man I'll probably never know. It's sad to think that the time for people to truly rebel is quickly running out.

<comment><USER17> You were modded down (Score: -1, Bloodlust or whatever), but you still have a good point: if the Syrian regime were as technologically well-equipped as most Western governments, this uprising would have been a very short one.

We are going to be in a lot of trouble if a major Western power ever goes ape the way Germany did only one lifetime ago.

<comment><USER37> >if the Syrian regime were as technologically well-equipped as most Western governments, this uprising would have been a very short one.

What's the gap between most dictatorships and most western governments look like anyway? Is it mainly Nuclear arms?

<comment><USER17> The traffic signals in one intersection a block away from my house include six cameras. I don't know what they're all for... but I'm guessing that it would be a bad idea for me to trundle my homebrew trebuchet up to that intersection and start chucking grenades around.

<comment><USER29> When you are discussing "chucking grenades around" in your own neighborhood, it seems that cameras are the least of the worries for peaceful, law-abiding civilians in your area (not to mention police who are just doing their jobs).

Why it is publicly acceptable to talk like Timothy McVey?

<comment><USER17> Abstract thinking isn't your strong suit, I take it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Notice the trend with the revolution photojournalism? Toyota pickup trucks. There's a reason my beat-up Tacoma pickup has the nickname 'Taco Jihad' - <USER3> ingredient to uprisings.

<comment><USER39> It has definitely become a reliable form of light cavalry.

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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux#Reputation>

<comment><USER40> These types of vehicles are now widely referred to as "technicals":

      > Africa, says [David] Kilcullen, is where the truck got its
      > nickname as a fighting vehicle, "the technical." "When
      > [nongovernmental organizations] and the U.N. first went into
      > Somalia," he says, referring to a period in the 1990s, "they
      > were not able to bring their own guards. So they got so-called
      > 'technical assistance grants' to hire guards and drivers on
      > the ground. Over time, a 'technical' came to mean a vehicle
      > owned by a guard company, and then eventually to mean a Hilux
      > with a heavy weapon mounted on the back." [1]

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/14/why- rebel-g...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/14/why-rebel-groups- love-the-toyota-hilux.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Smoking inside a mortar factory...?

I cringe looking at that picture...

</comment><comment><USER42> looks like the a-team is helping the rebels

</comment><comment><USER43> #9...that's a trebuchet! FAVORITE SIEGE WEAPON All TIME.

</comment><comment><USER44> Seriously, is there anyone who buys rebels story anymore? Wasn't Libya enough? But, to open ones eyes, one must face the ugly truth.

<comment><USER45> Yes, there is: (a portion of) people who try _not_ to generalize and fall victim to logical fallacies. Even if Libyan rebels were all terrorists and Gadhafi was a good guy ( _I'm not saying that' what you're sating; I'm just trying to make a point_ ), it doesn't mean Syrian rebels, or North Korean rebels (of future!), or anyone else for that matter, are also X (I'm saying X, because I'm not entirely sure what you were implying Libyan rebels were).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I know I sound fairly like a white imperialist bearing the burden and all that, but bear with me.

We (i.e. first world countries) created really fantastic consumer devices for our daily lives. #30 showed a Samsung Galaxy S3 being used as a guidance tool for a missile. Do we have a moral obligation on the carnage brought about by our devices?

Yes I am aware that you can hack anything into weapons, given the breadth of human ingenuity, but does anyone else here feel a little morally obligated that these technologies are being used for targeted mass destruction?

(that said, I'm really impressed by the S3 being used... as well as the pirated PS3 controller being used to control a machine gun)

<comment><USER15> Does Toyota have blood on its hands for manufacturing pickup trucks? Are the people put machine guns in the back balanced by the people using identical pickups to deliver aid? What about all the pickups that people use going about their day to day lives? Some of the people using trucks in their daily lives are no doubt able to raise their standard of living by using the truck to carry more material more effectively than they could without.

I won't go so far as to call all technology inherently neutral (machine guns and nerve gas being just two examples I'd be pressed to find much neutrality in), but cell phones, like pickup trucks are about as neutral as you're likely to find. Globally, for every person using their Galaxy S3 to target missiles, there are probably a comparable number using a similar phone to coordinate medical or material relief efforts and tens or hundreds of people just using their phones as they go about their lives, many of whom benefit materially from the ability to contact other people or look up information online at their convenience.

And if you aren't convinced of the neutrality of pickups and cell phones, what about the companies that made: 1) the pot the guy is stirring explosives in? 2) the lathe they're turning missiles on? 3) the ladder that got incorporated into the slingshot? 4) the glass beverage bottles that have become Molotov cocktails? 5) the steel pipe and sheet steel that show up in weapons in half the pictures? Do they/we all have a moral obligation on the carnage brought about by these things?</comment></comment>


Typing in Yiddish - <AUTHOR> https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/284087/typing-in-yiddish <comment><USER2> It's interesting to see that the old yiddish typewriter layout is actually not identical to the modern hebrew typing layout.

While they're almost identical, about 5 letters have been swapped: ח, א, ס, ף, and ב is just removed from where it is in the modern layout, and moved to the top right, in a location that modern keyboard's don't have (to the right of where P would be, in QWERTY).

<comment><USER3> Well of course it's not identical - they were assembled independently (this one by some random schmoe in New York) optimized for different letter and digram frequencies in different languages. I'm actually impressed by how _similar_ they are.

Another reason for difference, aside from frequency differences in the two languages, is that this keyboard distinguishes some characters that aren't on modern Hebrew keyboards. For example, there are separate אָ and א, בּ and ב, etc.

<comment><USER4> And double yod and double vov. Microsoft still had a proper Yiddish keyboard map available. Apple doesn't.

<comment><USER5> > Microsoft still had a proper Yiddish keyboard map available

Do they?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh my. I'm the maker of the only-cross platform Yiddish keyboard (well, macOS, Windows, Linux). I've made variants of QWERTY and the Israeli keyboard and they've been well received but life got in the way, they've suffered from bitrot, I had to take my site down,[0] people have asked me to put it back up and its been nagging me on my to do list for ages.

This post has given me resolve to sort it out today!

Also, I'd never heard of this Jonas and I'm going to add his variant too.

[0] [https://web.archive.org/web/20141218093006/http://shretl.org...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141218093006/http://shretl.org/)

<comment><USER6> The archived images of your Yiddish keyboard look good.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for looking!

Apparently the Windows one never survived the transition to Windows 10, so I need to look at it again.

As for the macOS and Linux ones... I must admit I haven't actually tried them in a while... Assistance or testing really appreciated!

[https://gitlab.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&snippets=&scope=&se...](https://gitlab.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&snippets=&scope=&search=yiddish)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Assimil have an excellent Yiddish language course.

I would like to one day, be able to read Isaac Bashevis Singer in the original.

<comment><USER5> Haven't tried Assimil's course, but I'd recommend Lily Kahn's excellent Routledge guide, Colloquial Yiddish, which aside from being pedagogically excellent is very funny and had me laughing a lot.

[https://www.amazon.com/Colloquial-Yiddish-Lily- Kahn/dp/04155...](https://www.amazon.com/Colloquial-Yiddish-Lily- Kahn/dp/0415580196)

There are also many courses on offer around the world. One of the great things about them is they tend to also pass down Yiddish culture too, not just the language. Happy to help you find one and get you on track to read IB Singer!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is a manual for basically one or max two writer of the author! Private language we may argue but we know private typewriter existed.</comment>