Unlisted Links Aren't Quite as Private as YouTube Promised - <AUTHOR> https://www.psafe.com/en/blog/unlisted-links-arent-quite-private-youtube-promised/ <comment><USER2> _Though YouTube claims that unlisted content can't be accessed through an Internet search, this isn't quite true._

Of course. If someone shares the link elsewhere and _that_ page gets indexed and crawled by a search engine, then it will obviously become accessible that way.

 _Thanks to one YouTube flaw, unlisted videos become visible when placed in a playlist._

Is that a flaw or "by design"? I could see this being useful for those who want to only organise videos into playlists without having them "loose".

It seems the whole point of this feature is to prevent the videos from being accessible from inside YouTube itself; whatever happens elsewhere is none of their business, so it could be argued that it is working as intended.

<comment><USER3> It would be incredibly naive to think that google does no checks on the sites they list in their searches. For one, they own Youtube and can directly look up if the video is private, and secondly, aren't there handling of this in stuff like robots.txt?...

Edit: are we Reddit now, and downvotes are a sign of disagrement?

<comment><USER4> > _For one, they one Youtube and can directly look up if the video is > private,_

If Google was found to be treating their own properties differently, there would be an outcry that you couldn't believe.

<comment><USER5> Google supports the robots meta tag:

[https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_t...](https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_tag)

They could easily add a noindex meta tag to unlisted YT videos and then have Google Search treat it like any other site.

<comment><USER6> You could still find the unlisted videos on a page that links to them (such as a playlist). Google couldn't delist pages that merely _link_ to noindex content, in general, without allowing everyone who can control noindex tags being able to delist any page that allows UGC with links.

Imagine if Google say "if it links to a non-public YT video we'll delist it", that's just a weapon to get pages that take UGC delisted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My rule is if I don't want video to be that public, I don't post it on YouTube even under private setting.

I use unlisted feature to reduce clutter on the channel while embedding them elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER8> The article is over sensationalizing something that really isn't that shocking.

I thought they were going to index unlisted videos using brute force lookups of the URL, or that an API was leaking. Now that would be Hacker News worthy.

<comment><USER2> _I thought they were going to index unlisted videos using brute force lookups of the URL_

If you're more interested in the format of YouTube video IDs, and whether it's possible to bruteforce them, see the last post at

[https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/54443/format- for...](https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/54443/format-for-id-of- youtube-video)

tl;dr: they're 64-bit integers, base64 encoded, and randomly generated.

I haven't been able to find any clear statistics on how many videos it contains, but it was slightly below 2^27 in 2008 (<80M) and based on the other statistic that between 2^18 and 2^19 videos are uploaded every day; in 10 years that's <2^12 days, so there's probably <2^31 videos on YouTube now --- roughly 2 billion. That means your chance of finding a valid video ID by bruteforce random guessing is less than 1 in 2^33. You'd probably be throttled/IP banned long before you got even a single valid ID.

<comment><USER9> They are _not_ randomly generated.

How could anyone ever prove they were random without reviewing the source code?

Eg. It could be an auto-incrementing number encrypted with a reversible cypher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does this find videos that haven't been linked anywhere and that somehow leak, or only shared ones? If it's just the latter, the article is IMHO a tad sensationalist.

<comment><USER11> While working on a programming project for one of my classes I found an unlisted youtube video in a Google search that demonstrated exactly how to complete the project. I highly doubt the kid who uploaded it wanted anyone to see. It consistently showed up in Google searches too and was uploaded the same day. There is something definitely wrong with the way youtube protects its unlisted videos. I really wouldn't be surprised if the article wasn't exaggerating at all.

<comment><USER12> The use case I'm used to for unlisted videos is edX courses. The videos are all hosted on Youtube and unlisted.

Example: [https://youtu.be/-RR1qt41oBg](https://youtu.be/-RR1qt41oBg)

I don't think they care how secure being "unlisted" is. I also don't think that using free Youtube video hosting for secured(!) private videos is a sue case anyone would reasonably expect Google to provide. I think it's a convenience feature, not meant to let you skip on hosting costs for _actually_ (truly) private videos.

I'm happy to be corrected, as I said, I only know one use case and figured out the second half that I just said on the fly, my quick thoughts given the little I know.

 _EDIT:_ Seems to be pretty well known, I found several pages with this kind of explanation: [https://www.pagecloud.com/blog/private-vs-unlisted- youtube](https://www.pagecloud.com/blog/private-vs-unlisted-youtube)

> _YouTube's UNLISTED video option gives users something between the Public > and Private settings. Unlisted videos can be seen and shared by anyone with > the video link, including those who do not have a Google Account._

Given that I found quite a few links with the same explanation, it seems that most people understand what "unlisted" means very well, given that most of those links I found were non-Google sources. So somebody wrote a blog post because they misunderstood a Youtube feature?

<comment><USER6> It's a pretty big search space but one presumably could brute force it and create a site having links to all/lots of unlisted content.

<comment><USER12> Yes... and your point is? :-) Especially, what's the relation to my comment? As I said, it is not _supposed_ to be "secret" pr "secure" at all.

<comment><USER6> That was the entire point, it wasn't a contradiction, merely a reflection. I've read the OP now, seems that one of the sites mentioned has done just that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you want private, mark the video as private.</comment>


Testing a Chinese x86 CPU: A Deep Dive into Zen-Based Hygon Dhyana Processors - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/15493/hygon-dhyana-reviewed-chinese-x86-cpus-amd <comment><USER2> I really don't see the point to US federal export control regulations on high- end x86-64 processors.

If somebody in a foreign adversary country (Russia? China?) were determined to build a really powerful supercomputer using the latest and great Intel or AMD CPUs, without sourcing them all in one batch officially, with sufficient financial resources and shell entities spread out around the world they absolutely could purchase enough processors by smurfing. Have dozens of small entities purchase small enough batches to fly under the radar.

[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smurf.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smurf.asp)

Or just set up a fake cloud/VM/web hosting operation in a friendly country and buy thousands of Supermicro, Quanta or similar barebones servers with CPUs already installed, and then divert them.

It's just as futile as trying to stop people from buying high tech things in Dubai and shipping them to Iran.

<comment><USER3> It buys time for three letter agency to counteract bad intentions.

<comment><USER2> Based on the number of Chinese supercomputers in the public top500 list I don't see any effectiveness to it.

[https://www.top500.org/lists/2019/11/](https://www.top500.org/lists/2019/11/)

<comment><USER4> The top Chinese based supercomputer requires twice the power and 6 times the number of cores.

The next requires three times the power and 3 times the cores to produce 60% of the number two supercomputer.

Seems like it's a case of "increase operational friction".

<comment><USER2> Compared to the amount of megawatt-hours being spent right now in China on bitcoin mining and cryptocurrency mining operations, the friction of having a slightly less efficient and more space hungry supercomputer seems slight... Considering the resources of the government entities that own and operate them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Starting in 2015, AMD diligently and proactively briefed the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and multiple other agencies within the U.S. Government before entering into the joint ventures. AMD received no objections whatsoever from any agency to the formation of the joint ventures or to the transfer of technology – technology which was of lower performance than other commercially available processors. In fact, prior to the formation of the joint ventures and the transfer of technology, the Department of Commerce notified AMD that the technology proposed was not restricted or otherwise prohibited from being transferred. Given this clear feedback, AMD moved ahead with the joint ventures."

Is this basically a "give us a big fat contract or pay us to not do this" request that the US Government passed on?

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if anything more is known on the Sunway SW26010 260C 1.45GHz processor which powers world's 3rd best supercomputer:

[https://www.top500.org/system/178764](https://www.top500.org/system/178764)</comment>


Ask HN: Changing languages, professionally - <AUTHOR>

I've been coding since the mid 90s and delved seriously into 10+ languages, but almost all my professional experience is with PHP.  It wasn't the plan, it just sort of happened.  On the other hand, I've spent most of the past year working exclusively with Node.js, both on open-source projects and on a closed-source venture that never took flight.  I had hoped that even if it failed, it would springboard me to a career using something besides PHP.
It didn't work.
Lately I've been going after Node.js work and consistently getting denied because my resume still just says PHP.  People skim, they don't really read the cover letters or click through to the Github profile full of Node.js projects.  Which makes sense.  I understand the spam that job ads attract.
How do I get past this chicken-and-egg problem?  Do other developers talk about open source projects directly on their resumes, right alongside paid work?  And how do you sell experience gained on a closed source project with barely a name and no associated company, website, or other marketing?  I've got this sinking feeling that I'll have to go back, launch the startup and then tank it just so that I have something easier to reference. <comment><USER2> As a person who's been doing some hiring recently (<http://www.covalentsoftware.com/company/careers.php> if anyone's interested in Java work in Taunton ;))...

I'd suggest definitely putting OS projects on your cv, if they're more relevant skills wise personally I'd be happy to see them ahead of your career history, probably with a quick explanation as to why above them.

What sort of jobs are you going for? I do occasionally get cvs from people with a lot of experience in other languages, and some in Java which I'm hiring for. The main problem is they're being put forward for positions based on past experience in other languages. Whilst a lot of what developers do is transferrable I have to measure them against other applicants with more relevant experience so often they're too expensive vs the competition. If they are applying for a more junior role to balance this out there's then a risk to me they won't be happy with the salary I can offer them and/or will return to their previous work.

Given the above I'd suggest tacking the risk by explaining you're trying to move your career into a new language hence applying for the role. This may also feed the ego of whoever you're applying to that they're working in a desirable language. If you are willing to take a slight step down based on moving away from an area of expertise you can then differentiate yourself against other applicants based on your broader experience.

HTH

<comment><USER3> Your third paragraph sums up the reason for the problem the original post described. Someone has software engineering experience in Foo Language, but wants to get a chance to work professionally with Blah Language for whatever reason. Obviously, his years of Foo programming aren't completely transferrable, and you point out that he's not going to compete for a role with someone who's been a Blah programmer all along. However, if he recognizes his lack of experience with Blah and applies for a junior or even entry-level position, you say that there's a risk he won't be happy with the salary and will skip town.

Your solution hinges on people accepting OS, hobby, academic or otherwise "extracurricular" experience as meaningful. I have not found that to be the case, and the other post someone alluded to described exactly that. I'm not accusing you of causing this problem, but you've highlighted it so perfectly that I think it warrants a little bit of exploration.

<comment><USER4> I'm going to make a controversial blanket statement and say that any company which doesn't consider extracurricular experience to be meaningful is probably not a company you want to work for. The reason being that side projects, open source experience, etc. are all indicators of passion. A company which doesn't appreciate that experience is a company which either doesn't understand or doesn't value passion in its employees.

<comment><USER2> I agree completely and we've made hires based more on the strength of peoples passion for programming than a specific skill set. This works excellently I think for junior or mid level positions beyond that though I think you really are looking for specific expertise as opposed to raw potential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I responded to a similar question yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2285213>

Just because you have some technical skill, doesn't mean you have to put it prominently on your resume. If you don't want to do PHP jobs, take PHP off your resume.

Can I program COM/NAnt scripts/batch files? Yes. Do I want to get paid to do it all day? No. Do they appear on my resume? No.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd add open source project along jobs. I.e. if you "worked on open source project A from april 2009 to june 2010", put this along "worked for company A from march to august 2010". Add then a link to the relevant repository and let the interviewer decide if it is relevant or not.

<comment><USER7> or even like this: "shipped code on [platform] to [n] users/companies/clients for company A from march to august 2010"

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why not put Free / Open Source on your resume so they can't avoid seeing it? Experience is experience.

A company name, length of time, and languages / platforms used is really all you need to say if there is nothing better to put in the space; I expect references would be helpful for most clients in that case, however.</comment>


U.S. blacklists Huawei - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/u-s-blacklists-chinas-huawei-as-trade-dispute-clouds-global-outlook-idUSKCN1SL2DI <comment><USER2> Slightly better source:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trump- telecommu...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trump- telecommunications/trump-order-clears-way-for-barring-huawei-from-u-s- telecommunications-networks-idUSKCN1SL2QX)

seeing the reasoning includes violations against ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) its difficult to see how the US isnt creating some sort of whipping boy for its own agenda. Bluecoat, Intel, IBM, and hundreds of other companies have been accused of ITAR violations as well yet were not subjected to a 7 month long PR campaign from Washington to ablate them from the economic playing field. This feels like telco's flexing their close relationship to washington and pushing for a scorched-earth policy rather than be caught completely unprepared for 5G. "if we cant sell it, you cant have it" sounds rather less like a capitalist nation.

it also bears remembering that none of their CEO's were detained in foreign airports and led to Jail to await US extradition.

<comment><USER3> > 7 month long PR campaign

While 5G may be a new front in this battle, US suspicion of Huawei goes back a long time -- at least as far back as the Bush administration. The current administration might be antagonistic toward China, but in no sense did they invent the war against Huawei.

<comment><USER4> The suspicion might go back a long time, but the PR campaign is relatively new, at least at the current level. I do remember the occasional story a few years ago, but not this barrage of articles.

<comment><USER5> i don't watch tv anymore due to the excessive 'spin' and sometimes straight out lies. usually they start off by saying "allegedly" and by the time they're done you'd think it's one of Newton's laws of motion

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've got a Huawei laptop that's pretty nice . . . but I'm reluctant to use it for anything even remotely sensitive.

Am I being overly paranoid? Or should I treat it as basically trustworthy as any other major brand of computer?

The system requires a special app to update drivers and so forth, but frankly this is not additional security exposure, since Huawei bits are all over the machine to begin with.

I'm sure y'all got opinions :-)

<comment><USER7> There is no perfect security in this world. You can only mitigate your risk exposure.

If you have substantial business interests in China, you'd prefer a non Chinese brand laptop.

If you are more worried about IRS going after your financial records, US based advertisers tracking your online activities or NSA monitoring your contacts with people in Arab countries, huawei may be a better choice, since it won't work with IRS, Facebook or NSA.

<comment><USER8> Are there recorded instances of the IRS actually breaking into people's computers remotely instead of, at the most, getting a warrant for the device to be seized? I guess you'd never know if they did that for parallel construction.

<comment><USER7> IRS can ask dell (with certain legal procedures) to unlock your dell laptop without you providing your password. It can't do the same for Huawei devices. That's a big difference.

<comment><USER9> Dell doesn't have a way into your TPM, or to into Windows its authentication loop. Either would create a gaping security hole very likely to be exploited. So no, Dell can't unlock/decrypt your laptop without your password. The most they could do is bypass your BIOS/EFI password.

<comment><USER10> It's not like gaping security holes in firmware are unheard of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It will be interesting how the unintended consequences roll out with this.

With Chinese companies already having Google free software/service stacks in China, being able to get adoption of those stacks internationally may allow the full bifurcation of the Android ecosystem, essentially eviscerating Google's monopoly.

Long term it could be a turning point to deflating American dominance of the most important market in the modern world.

<comment><USER12> More likely that I will sprout wings and learn to fly. China producing a global standard is just not going to happen.

<comment><USER13> I've no actual data, other than to note that "Japanese-made" went from being a sign of shoddiness to a sign of quality in a few decades.

<comment><USER12> If you look at the comment I replied to, they were talking about replacing the Apple store with some China-grown service. It's not happening, China is not in any way culturally compatible with the rest of the world enough to pull that off, just like Japan never managed to do that (and they were WAY more westernized than China is now).

Chinese businesses just fundamentally don't understand what western cultures want, they can just build cheap gadgets. For the next let's call it 35 years it's simply not going to happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _barring U.S. companies from using telecommunications equipment made by firms posing a national security risk_

Huh. Did the US government just make my cell phone illegal to use? Replacement is on my list of things to do, but I wasn't really planning on it this month.....

Not to mention basically every other option I could look at is also made in China, with the exception(?) of Samsung - which I'm not inclined to cough up the $$ for.

<comment><USER15> Just got a Galaxy J7 V 2 for less than $250. Does what I need it to, snappy, expandable storage, and an _actual_ all-day battery life (probably day-and-a- half). I guess I don't understand why people want super-powered phones: just carry a decent laptop. It's not easy to make use of that much power in that small a form factor any way, particularly now that very few manufacturers allow bootloader unlocks and root. Also, people buy 8-core cpu, 8-gb-ram, 1440p screen phones and expect a long battery life? It's much easier to drive a reasonable processor, reasonable ram, and a 720p screen.

I guess the market has different ideas. I get the "it's a slick piece of tech" factor, but can some one who likes flagships talk about what makes them good?

For what it's worth, I consider the Samsung Galaxy S3 the pinnacle of smartphone design. It retailed for $250 at launch. I feel like prices are going up because the smartphone industry is trying to innovate faster than chips are improving.

<comment><USER16> Never had an S3, but I had an Aviator and an S5. I miss the swappable batteries on those models...

On the other hand, I have an S8 now and it labors to render most websites. That's more an indictment of the websites, but such is the world we live in.

<comment><USER14> Try Firefox with ublock origin, see if that makes a difference. Since it's an AMOLED screen, "Dark Background and Light Text" may also make a difference for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This move "bans the company from acquiring components and technology from U.S. firms without government approval."

<comment><USER17> They have their own chips. I don't think they have to be worried like ZTE.

<comment><USER18> Mobile SoCs are not the only chips in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I will just repost this article here from Tyler Cowen, I don't think I read anyone has said it better.

>The U.S.-China Cold War Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better. That's because the major issue between the two nations is not trade or ideology but a lack of trust.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-23/u-s- ch...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-23/u-s-china-cold- war-will-get-worse-before-it-gets-better)

</comment><comment><USER20> banning them from buying components from the USA is going to encourage them to develop it themselves. stuff like this is how we lose our edge in tech, if we haven't lost it already.

<comment><USER21> Canada/Nortel might disagree with that somewhat...

<comment><USER22> Canada is nice and all but China has a Japan-level quality of human capital and an enormous population. Anything we can do they will be able to do, and probably better. Absent crazy stuff like AGI or genetic engineering changing the source of innovation, China will become the leader in high technology.

<comment><USER23> China does not have Japan-level human capital. Even if it did, the 'Japanese miracle' lasted for barely two decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Huawei has a ton of repos on Github. What happens to them?

<comment><USER25> They would lose access from China

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If this effectively bans Huawei from importing American chips.. Why no reactions after hours in American chipmaker stocks?

<comment><USER27> Genuinely curious...but what chips? Huawei is pretty well vertically integrated, and has been for some time.

<comment><USER28> The radio frequency IC chips like the tuner front ends and RF baseband. This process technology is not nearly so easy to copy and implement as regular digital elements on regular substrates. It's pretty important for mobile handsets.

This is reflected in the way 5G is being rolled out in China. Mostly new sub-6GHz 5G NR modulation basestations are being put in. Millimeter band is not being attempted initially. This gets them 15-20% modulation gain in thoroughput over LTE in the same circumstances at _most_.

<comment><USER29> Gallium nitride technology is used for the higher frequencies in 5G chips. Currently only suppliers outside of China produce such chips.

From a business perspective, pushing 5G as fast as it is pushed now by China, does not make sense. Chinese network operators would not want to deploy 5G quite as fast as they are being forced to, but China's government is imposing it.

So why impose it? There might be several reasons, e.g. to have a dominant position in setting industry standards, but one reason stands out: The complex 5G standard requires frequent software that make it harder to enforce security software reviews and anti-espionage measures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This might be an unpopular opinion but I'll post anyway. I'm skeptical of the motivation for this blacklist. Prohibiting the use of Huawei products by government agencies and contractors is an action one could reasonably justify in respect to national security. Mandating that my private company seek approval from the government before doing business with Huawei is a pretty extreme rule that limits my options on the global marketplace. I am now forced to accept the claim that Huawei devices are "tainted" and significantly more dangerous than other products. I'm having trouble accepting that argument or seeing this as anything more than trade war saber rattling.

When I think of American companies that actually care about data privacy only a few come to mind. I do believe Apple makes a good faith effort toward protecting user data, despite the company's many anti-consumer practices. There are a number of smaller companies like Purism and Yubico that go further in making this a part of their core business strategy. But generally my experience has been that American companies give a backseat to these concerns. Remember when Equifax, an American company, leaked the personal data of 143 million U.S. citizens in 2017 [1]? What about the Citrix hack from just a few months ago where 6TB of sensitive information was stolen by Iranian hackers [2]? What makes these companies more trustworthy than Huawei or any other Chinese company?

Finally, there's a line you can draw from the decisions of the past to what's happening today. The U.S. is largely responsible for the design of the modern web for both good and bad. The Internet is an amazing thing that has uplifted people around the world, including in developing countries where opportunities are needed [3] [4]. At the same time surveillance and proprietary software has become pedestrian to the point where most people (myself included) just accept it. We used Chinese manufacturing to scale this vision, from cheap Internet- connected devices to the servers that store and deliver our personal information. What kind of example did we set for China or other countries to follow? Where would we be had we followed the advice of people like Richard Stallman who warned us decades in advance?

We seem to be moving toward a more isolated world as of late. I hope we can get to a point where we're having productive conversations on a global scale about how tech could make our lives better (and potentially worse). The alternative is to let the chips fall where they may. In a world of IoT, AI and autonomous weapons, that's not a game I'd like to play.

[1] [https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/technology/business/equifax...](https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/technology/business/equifax- data-breach/index.html)

[2] [https://www.techradar.com/news/hackers-steal-6tb-citrix- data...](https://www.techradar.com/news/hackers-steal-6tb-citrix-data-haul)

[3] [https://www.cta.tech/News/Blog/Articles/2015/July/How- Mobile...](https://www.cta.tech/News/Blog/Articles/2015/July/How-Mobile- Phones-Are-Changing-the-Developing-Worl.aspx)

[4] [https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227436](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227436)

<comment><USER31> Based on the actions taken by multiple agencies in the US and other governments it sounds like Huawei is actively working with the Chinese government to monitor devices they've sold. I don't think the US has ulterior motives behind the ban, I think they're genuinely concerned about the risk. I hope we eventually get a report on what they know about the devices.

<comment><USER32> That so far has not been proven. OTOH, Cisco devices [0] have been proven to contain backdoors in the past.

I am cautious of any government tampering in devices, but as it stands such tampering has not been found in huawei devices, but HAS been found in devices coming from US manufacturers... Yet no one is asking a ban on those?

[0]: [https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq- insid...](https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside- story/)

<comment><USER33> The article references intelligence agencies hacking routers, shocking routers have bugs and vulnerabilities just like all other computers and software, or intercepting them in shipment to implant devices. No where is there any implication that Cisco purposely created a means for US or any other intelligence agencies to access their routers or otherwise cooperated in intelligence gathering which is Huawei is being accused of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Didn't they do this with ZTE also? As I recall the issue was resolved when ZTE paid a fine and promised to change board members and leadership? Could the same happen with Huawei?

<comment><USER35> There may have been extenuating circumstances in the ZTE case:

[https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-zte-order-after- chi...](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-zte-order-after-china-gave- millions-to-trump-organization-tied-project-2018-5/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Perhaps the reason is they think they will be left behind?

</comment><comment><USER37> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19923655](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19923655)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a separate action independent from this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Not really surprised, why would you allow US companies to build a network backbone using a company that has close ties with your strategic rival? Ren Zhengfei was in the PLA and the public private partnership operates very differently in China. As if the IP theft and espionage problems aren't bad enough.

It's not a coincidence that many Chinese devices have "bugs" that have them phone home.

Do you think China would allow their telecom companies to build out using Cisco gear?

<comment><USER39> Pretty sure China used a lot of Cisco gear, including to implement the Great Firewall: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest- attempt-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt- dodge-responsibility-facilitating-human-rights-abuses-export)

<comment><USER38> Sure, after transferring their IP and source code ;)

That's the game China is playing.

<comment><USER40> Cisco did sie Huawei over the alleged violation of EIGRP patents. Other than that I couldn't name any single case of IP theft, can you?

<comment><USER41> Yes an enormous amount, from every economic sector. Too many to name and trivial to find via Google.

<comment><USER40> This is the typical handwaving response I expected, thank you for confirming my suspicion that you can't actually name any.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> So finally Canada is getting the support that they sought and deserve.

</comment><comment><USER43> I find it interesting that the moderators were quick to remove the word Israel from the headline of the Whatsapp exploit article, but not China in this article.

<comment><USER44> The US blacklisted Huawei because it's closely tied to the Chinese government. So it's arguably relevant.

But regarding the Whatsapp exploit, the association with Israel is arguably less relevant. The company is closely tied to Israel, but the US has a far less adversarial relationship with Israel than with China.

Edit: I was just stating the obvious, I guess. Doesn't mean that I agree with it, however. Just sayin'.

<comment><USER45> Which was essentially the point of the gp comment .... Israel gets special treatment in the US ... even when a spinoff from their secret service is caught hacking people's phones worldwide

<comment><USER44> Not really. The comment was about HN policy, not US policy.

And yes, Israel is the primary US proxy in the Middle East. And is widely supported in the US. So of course they get lots of slack. There's little doubt that the NSA has some role in this, or is at least OK with it.

<comment><USER46> > Israel is the primary US proxy in the Middle East

Frankly, it looks like the opposite. The US are the primary Israel's proxy in the West. Israel is causing the US much more trouble than gain in the Middle East.

<comment><USER44> That's implausible. Not impossible, I guess. But it's hard to see a mechanism.

I don't pretend to know what US goals really are in the Middle East. Maybe nobody does. So assessing trouble vs gain is iffy at best.

<comment><USER47> The US is a huge ally of Israel but for very strange reasons. For one, it has a lot of Jewish people. But the biggest pro-Israel force in the US is actually the minority (still more than there are Jewish people) of fundamentalist Christians who believe that Israel's existence helps the fulfillment of biblical prophecy of the new temple in Jerusalem and the Rapture. It might sound like I'm just being fantastical, but it's sadly very real: [https://www.vox.com/2017/12/12/16761540/jerusalem-israel- emb...](https://www.vox.com/2017/12/12/16761540/jerusalem-israel-embassy- palestinians-trump-evangelicals)

<comment><USER46> I've heard the Evangelical Christians mentioned very often in relation to their support for Israel. However I'm not fully convinced that they're the _major_ force behind the US's unwavering support. For example, the article you linked states that only 53% of evangelicals actually support the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital: it's not an overwhelming majority. Meanwhile, 63% of all Americans oppose it, so it's overall an unpopular move: why was it made then?

Also, the expert interviewed in the article says that "the gathering of all the Jews in exile to the Holy Land is a prerequisite for these events unfolding" (the end of times, etc.). But then, absurdity for absurdity, why don't the evangelicals call for the Jews to be expelled from the US, which would advance the evangelical cause even more? And more, to a Christian fundamentalist, a non-converted Jew is basically an infidel, so you'd expect them to be regarded with suspicion and contempt- which doesn't seem to happen. The Evangelicals then seem to entertain their beliefs only insofar that is beneficial to Israel. Isn't that strange?

<comment><USER47> > And more, to a Christian fundamentalist, a non-converted Jew is basically an > infidel, so you'd expect them to be regarded with suspicion and contempt- > which doesn't seem to happen.

It does happen. The US right simultaneously loves Israel and isn't particularly fond of Jews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Meanwhile, it has been shown [1] that the NSA DOES in fact compromise cisco equipment. Huawei hardware has yet to be found to contain backdoors, but we should ban Huawei, but not Cisco?

While compromised hardware from _ANY_ player worries me, I worry more about American hardware than I worry about Chinese hardware at this point in time...

[1]: [https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq- insid...](https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside- story/)</comment>


How to Get Rich Quick in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/17/get-rich-quick-silicon-valley-startup-billionaire-techie?CMP=share_btn_link <comment><USER2> >>The destruction of social welfare, public education and organised labour has created what might be called the 50 Cent economy

Social welfare and education spending by government, at the taxpayer's expense, is at historically record high levels both in real per capita terms, and as a percentage of gross domestic product.

<comment><USER3> The author doesn't strike me as the type to let something as trivial as those facts get in the way of his narrative.

The irony is, just like those he describes in the article, he's also selling a something that is more fiction than fact - the story about the elysium-esque dystopian future popular in so much sci-fi these days. But hey, it gets clicks...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Worst working conditions you have written code in? - <AUTHOR> There are good times and there are worst times. I recently had to write code in a hot room with temperatures near 107F; nothing to sit on; warm water for drinking and a lot of distractions. I am sure many people have been in similar situations and would like to know your experiences.<p>PS: I asked this question on StackOverflow but it was closed. <comment><USER3> Well, I nearly killed myself with a line of bad code. I made a silly change to a flight simulator's "unusual attitude" logic. Unusual attitude training consists of putting the aircraft in a very difficult orientation (45 deg nose down, 60 deg left bank, etc.) and training pilots to recover.

Here's what the simulators look like: <http://blafsen.net/photos/simulator.jpg>

I changed the code, and brought the simulator up on motion to test it... and the machine started bucking like a horse and tossing me around the cabin. I had the instructor console right in front of me, and for a while it was physically impossible to hit the freeze button - I was being tossed around too badly.

That day I learned a lesson about testing: first check it with motion OFF.

<comment><USER4> It's still incredible that you controlled those massive machines. I would love to hear more about that.

<comment><USER3> (blush) thanks. We use these simulators for training - it's cheaper/safer than the real aircraft.

\- The pilots and instructor inside the cabin manipulate controls/switches/CBs/panels, sending signals to an bunch of interface cards.

\- The interface cards convert voltages to values, and move them into a big chunk of shared memory on the host computer.

\- The host computer recalculates the new state of the simulation, updating everything in the shared memory, 60 times a second.

\- New values in the shared memory are sent to the interface cards.

\- The interface cards convert values to voltages, driving the instruments, sound, visual and motion systems.

It all happens so fast that the pilots never sense the latency between their action and the effects in the cockpit. The host computer is the brain of the system, that's why a small bug there can be dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Back in 2000 I was working at a startup in Washington, D.C. and we had been working 80-100 weeks for nearly 1.5 months before management finally brought in some contractors as reinforcement. All of the developers were in a 20x20 or so room working at folding tables. One of the contractors that they brought in had a form of Tourette's that caused him to make this noise that I can only describe as a loud squawk at random intervals, about every 60-180 seconds. Combine that with the pressure, lack of sleep, and the effort to concentrate and it became my own personal version of Chinese water torture. I truly think I came close to having a nervous breakdown during those two weeks.

<comment><USER6> dbrown26 why did you stay there so long?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not working conditions per se, but debugging a legacy bioinformatics program written in perl. Comments were in french which I do not understand. It took three days to run and exited with:

"Error - good luck finding the bug".

<comment><USER8> I've heard stories before specifically about the bioinformatics academic circles... biotech researchers who think writing code is trivial so they never even bother to have a software engineer look at it, until it's too late.

<comment><USER7> It's true. And for some reason they all love perl.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is not my story of course but the story that immediately popped in my memory when I read the title.

Steve Wozniak's story about rewriting floppy drive low-level software the morning of a big demo:

>I got it to where it was writing data on a track, reading the data on a track. Then I got it to where it was reading the data in the right byte positions. Then I got it to work with shifting tracks, and we wanted a simple program where we would say "run checkbook" or "run color math" and it would run the programs that were stored on the floppy disk. So we went off to Las Vegas, and Randy and I worked all night and we got it done to where it was working. At the very end, it was 6:00 a.m. and I said, 'We have to back up this floppy disk." We had one good disk that we prepared with the data hand- massaged to get it just right. So I stuck it in the floppy and wrote a little program, and I typed in some data and I said "read track 0," stuck in the other floppy and said "write track 0, read track 1, write track 1." There were 36 tracks—I had to switch floppies back and forth.

When I got done, I'm looking at these 2 floppies that look just the same. And I decided that I might have written onto the good one from the bad, and I did. So I had lost it all. I went back to my hotel room. I slept for a while. I got up about 10:00 a.m. or so. I sat down and, out of my head and my listings, recreated everything, got it working again, and we showed it at the show. It was a huge hit. Everybody was saying, "Oh my God, Apple has a floppy!" It just looked beautiful, plugged into a slot on our computer. We were able to say "run color math," and it just runs instantly. It was a change in time.

But the real eureka moment for me was the very first time I ever read data back. I wrote it on the floppy, which was easy, but read it back, got it right. I just died.

I think that Steve's entire interview is probably one of the most inspiring in Founders at Work:

<http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html>

<comment><USER10> Truly inspirational. No complaints (I guess) if you're working in the trenches, it always helps if you're onto something great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wrote custom test-set software in a clean-room. Bunny suit, mask and rubber gloves for 8 hours a day. It was a windows box connected to a x-ray diffraction machine so I had to be in the room.

<comment><USER12> I was a grad student who worked in a fab. I found that after a couple of years wearing that bunny suit, mask, and rubber gloves for 6-8 hours per day (or, more likely, per night) I was completely used to it.

I used to catch myself surfing the web in the clean room after hours. "Wait!" I would say to myself, "I could be doing this _outside_ the clean room, where I could take off this silly suit!"

But they are stressful places to work. The noise is quite troublesome and the ergonomics are generally awful.

<comment><USER11> yeah, no tunes, and i just couldn't get used to the sweaty hands from the gloves. i forgot about the mask. those dark red lines in your face, i much prefer my aeron chair and office now :)

<comment><USER12> There are these cloth glove liners. They worked well for me, although everyone has a different reaction to these things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Pales in comparison to your story but I worked in a basement office, with awful fluorescents, no natural light, with 95.5FM a top 50 hits station blaring through the overhead system, in a open space for a man who was a pretty dead on 50/50 mix of Michael Scott from The Office and Buster from Arrested Development whose puppy would love to run around and shit in the back corner of the office near the server room. Other than that, it was a pretty sweet first job :)

</comment><comment><USER14> When I started programming I used to work taking care of paralysed people. This was a night job, and you had to stay awake for the entire night and listen in case any noise came from the bedroom, in which case I had to go check to see that the person had not moved to a position that could be dangerous for him.

Since there was nothing else to do apart from listen, I wrote code the entire night. The problem was that writing code can get very mentally taxing after a few hours in the night, and combined with the thought that spacing out can result in a persons death, it was a very demanding task, particularly in the period from 4am to 6am.

<comment><USER15> You could have bought one of those noise-amplifying toys, stuck its microphone inside the bedroom, attached headphones to it and turned the volume up.

<comment><USER16> Or write a program that analyze the noise level from the recording device to detect any motion and alert you. Hooked up with Growl and IM and now you have a dead-alert system. However, since it's a life-or-death situation and you couldn't focus 100% your commitment into it, I'm glad that you move on to a different job now. Working on your startup or side projects and you may end up killing someone isn't the kind of thought you need for the rest of your life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A hot, noisy hotel room, dial-up internet, 4:00am writing in _VB6_ to connect to some weird COM+ service that used VB calling conventions, then a C++ COM wrapper for that, then a C wrapper to connect to a Java JNI service. At 8:00pm I didn't know VB, either. And it had to work by 9:00am when some system it interfaced to started up. Oh - and I couldn't actually test it against anything but stubs.

<comment><USER9> How did that turn out? What was your margin of safety? I hope they appreciated the heroic effort you put forth.

I haven't done anything that crazy but have debugged (and fixed) a few memorable, painful, stressful software (usually system integration) problems on frantic conference calls mere hours before the paid-for-and-scheduled on- site training on the software commenced.

<comment><USER17> Worked fine, stayed in production use for years - might still be there for all I know. And no, it wasn't appreciated of course....

"Safety margin"! What's that? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While I was in the Navy, I coded in my 2'x 6.5' rack on my ship while deployed and while the AC in my berthing was broken. It was 105 degrees inside my berthing (that I shared with 25 other guys) and the AC motor had caught fire so we were out of luck in terms of that comfort. I don't recommend doing this, it wasn't exactly a good idea to be coding in such heat and misery.

</comment><comment><USER19> Working as a tech team-lead for a large international company, I was assigned to a team that was a year behind schedule on an 8 month project. I rallied the people, we worked for 14-16 hours every day (weekends) and managed to get the code in production in about two months.

I was proud of my team, that is what got me through the days.

After that my boss denied my salary raise with the suggestion that if I don't like the salary, I know where the doors are.

I was insulted by the insolence. That was what got me through the door.

</comment><comment><USER20> 80 hours a week for two months in the Antarctic "Pig Barn." The heat was turned off for about three weeks.

<http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/41e.htm>

</comment><comment><USER21> Coming to work from 8:30 to 5:30, sitting in a cubicle with a forced dress code, while writing in... _sob_ PHP.

Rails freelance is awesome.

<comment><USER4> Does php really deserve a sob?

<comment><USER22> Have you ever been forced to program in PHP?

<comment><USER23> Yes, and then someone forced me to code in ColdFusion and run _EXCEL_ imports into a really bad CF ORM with SQL server on the backend.

I now freelance django / RoR and PHP and I do not complain about any of them, ever. ColdFusion is the language one should be forced to work with whenever they complain about any other language, it will fix their aversion to the language in question very, very quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> -15F, fixing bugs in code that ran on a small wearable computing device strapped to a soldiers wrist. The best part was where I had to interface with the GUI to debug instead of a shell on a handheld tablet. That meant using a tiny stylus on a tiny screen while asking a soldier to stand still in 30 mph winds.

</comment><comment><USER25> I underwent surgical procedure and removed a pilonidal cyst located at my lower back. Because of the surgery I was under heavy dose of pain killers, and could not sit, stand or lie on my back.

So I had to implement a "will take only 15 minutes but is extremely important" feature, lying on my stomach with laptop on the floor, with my head dizzy because of the pain killers and a bloody butt.

</comment><comment><USER26> Committing code changes to a production trading system while passing a kidney stone.

I had been out for a week waiting for the stone to pass, I hadn't slept more than 15 minutes in a row in more than a week -- and those 15 mins were from sheer exhaustion and vicodin. I was hallucinating continuously and vigorously. Hadn't been eating either.

Good times.

</comment><comment><USER27> On a balcony overlooking Western Baghdad figuring out why our (old and pretty well tested) network code didn't see fit to push packets. Was outside because we suspected the sat terminal was causing the problem. Only ended up taking a couple hours but it was probably my least favourite coding/debugging session.

<comment><USER28> You win. :)

<comment><USER9> These stories are so incredible they might be able to compile a real "Extreme Programming" book

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> By far the worst: on site doing commissioning / systems integration testing of warehouse automation systems - cranes moving pallets around, boxes trundling on conveyors, etc.

The automated equipment we were debugging (and volume testing with things moving around continuously) was the least of it... the huge site was still under construction. All around me there was racking being cut and welded, electricians installing stuff, aromatic concrete floor sealant being applied, various random drilling and banging.

I had to write large amounts of new code on the spot as we found problems (missing features, mostly) during testing, while the automation engineers stood around annoyed and waiting.

When I first got to the site, I didn't even have a laptop - had to lug a desktop PC and CRT monitor there and back every day (carrying it across half the site and the loading dock) for the first couple of weeks. For part of the time, this involved carrying it across iced concrete, since it had been snowing.

Oh, and there was the engineer from one of the third-party equipment suppliers, an Italian company - nice chap but he didn't speak very good English; the noise level didn't help the already poor communication, and when we started our testing, we discovered he had developed his control software from an interface specification three versions old and half a year out of date.

</comment><comment><USER30> I am a contract Oracle DBA. One month long project I spent working in a gutted out strip mall that had card tables and Ethernet cable strung about.

There was free coffee though.

<comment><USER31> Did that strip mall happen to be in Canton, Ohio?

I was there too!!

</comment></comment><comment> cool-RR Not coding, but editing video. It was for a start-up I founded, and it happened 2.5 years ago. I just moved into a new apartment and had little besides my Pentium III computer and an approaching deadline. It had a bad- quality 14-inch CRT screen that I salvaged from somewhere. I mounted the screen on the computer case, sat on the floor with keyboard on my folded legs, and started working.

</comment><comment><USER32> Having my server in California crash while I was in Siem Reap Cambodia, and the only way I could get to work was turn off the AC in my room to get a better signal coming from the WiFi at fancy-hotel next door and opening the window.

It was 3AM and I had sweat dripping down my palms and wrists that I had to lay toilet paper over the keyboard and mosquitoes buzzed at my ear and neck nonstop. I had to fight with an aggressive postfix filter that kept sending mail to a lisp process and did no error checking to see if Lisp ran and processed the mail. I had to remove the filter, and manually rebuild stuff later after I had the system running around 12PM the next day.

It was one day in hell, taught me that the unix errno and process exit status can be a fucked thing to debug if you're forking multiple process from a script.

[Edit: right now I'm coding sitting on the toilet seat, with my pants on, because I'm a moody SOB and like to move around the house as the day passes :-]

</comment><comment><USER33> I worked at home in my living room for the last year. Rented an office again this year. In retrospect working in your living room was very unhealthy for me.

</comment><comment><USER34> Industrial automation controls programming at a tire factory in Georgia. It was 90 degrees outside and you're in a large room with row after row of tire ovens that run above a few hundred degrees. We had machines with thermal sensors set to fault out at 120 and ac units on their enclosures and they still faulted regularly. They spray the tires with lube so they don't stick to the ovens so there is a layer of black crap on everything. All the machines running made around 100DB of noise. I got put on the project towards the end as it was way past due and they wanted to appear to be doing something so they decided 24hr on site was the way to go so I was working 8pm to 8am.

</comment><comment><USER35> While dealing with a crying baby.

<comment><USER28> That has been my every day for 4 months. I work from home with only a 4 month old baby and a couple dogs to keep me company. (My wife works out of the home all day.) The numerous random outbursts utterly destroy concentration each time they occur. I'm honestly not sure I can do it this way much longer. I wish daycare wasn't so damned expensive...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> In 2002 I was working with a startup (that later failed). The office was in the basement of a warehouse, because they got cheap rent. The office itself wasn't terrible, decent offices and equipment. Since it was a basement there were obviously no windows. We were working 80-100 hours a week, often sleeping in the office. We had a really bad flood a few weeks before our launch date. We got (most) of the water out, but the walls started molding before they could get everything fixed. I bought my own hepa-filter and eventually "took a break" because I couldn't take anymore.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm still yet to graduate and feeling the goodness of working freelance at home.

oh my! you guys scare me off. I've always dreamed of an office for my startup where we work in a really nice garden full of trees and green grass, sitting on bean bags and chairs (freedom of posture :P) Maybe I should just do this. It's going to be really cheap and comfortable considering the temperature in my location is around 20c-24c during normal days.

I hate air-conditioned rooms. there's nothing better than the smell of green grass and evening wind blowing your nose. And listening to soft music in such an environment is really cool. But I would have to opt for a silent area for the office (which is far away from traffic jams) which would mean compromising the utilities/accessibility of the city center. When you have sounds of sparrows and pigeons in place on that soft-music, it sounds even more cooler.

I'll also have a huge hall to run for shelter incase it rains :)

And also I'll plant an umbrella kinda thing above every fella working, coz I don't want them to waste time washing them or their notebooks of crow/pigeon shit :D

P.S: anyway it's a dream office for my startup and sounds a do-able task :)

</comment><comment><USER38> Reminds me of my experiences at university. One of my friends referred to the labs as the 'blast furnace'. This was due to a lack of air conditioning and a great many computers being used at once in a relatively small area.

Also the 'quiet room' was anything but - if only one person wasn't being quiet then you would hear every sinlge syllable they uttered. Very distracting.

</comment><comment><USER39> Had to write code in Sanskrit on a banana leaf in an isolated island... but then, it was just a dream.. that may come true someday.

</comment><comment><USER40> I had to change some code on some of our data acquisition system while we were flying on NASA's KC-135 (also known as the vomit comet) back in the early 90's. Some water condensation was dripping from the ceiling on the keyboard while the other experimenters nearby were barfing their brains out. I've been in more optimal situations.

</comment><comment><USER41> My current job - I sit next to the marketing manager who spends his day either talking loudly on the phone in German or asking me stupid marketing questions that have no relevance to my job because he can't be bothered to walk across the office and ask the right person.

In addition, behind me is the CEO's office. The wall is glass and everytime I open my web browser to do some research he comes and asks what I'm doing - <USER2> far as he's concerned I should be doing nothing but writing code.

Also, to my left is a door to the office balcony where the smokers do their thing, so every five minutes during winter I get an icey blast and the stench of tobbaco when they open the door to go out and again when they come back in.

Finally, directly above my desk is an AC chiller unit that blows cold air down my back from spring to autumn making my hands so cold I can barely type.

</comment><comment><USER42> Working with back-open cubicles, loud sales shouting, people talking, and a goddamn "Sold!" bell ringing each time there was a sale.

Seriously? You need to get me out of zone just because you have succeeded to sell another piece of software?

Freelancing kicks ass.

</comment><comment><USER43> Had to write some code in a servers room, which of course was really cold. Other than that, I couldn't sit down, and had nowhere to place the keyboard on, so a pal held it up while I was typing...

</comment><comment><USER44> I had to write code in a run down house that had been converted into a make shift office. There was no AC, and my desk was fit for a kindergartner (no exaggeration). My chair was a metal folding chair and my boss was a sales guy that had no idea how to write even an Excel function. I wasn't there long.

</comment><comment><USER45> Sitting in a dusty concrete building, deep in Baja, down a 180 mile road dirt that takes 4 hours to traverse at 45-55mph, in a town with the best right hand point break on the west coast.

Hard to get work done with that right point firing and visible from the window.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More views on StackOverflow

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/741581/what-are-the- worst...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/741581/what-are-the-worst- working-conditions-you-have-written-code-in)

</comment><comment><USER46> Not so bad compared to the rest of the stories, but I still work as a developer/tech support. I have to drop whatever I'm doing to troubleshoot student tech problems, so the interruptions are frequent.

</comment><comment><USER47> Compared to my cosy abode with a Linux/Windows laptop, I'd have to say writing Java on a Sun workstation at University in 2003...

</comment><comment><USER48> 8' x 8' glass walled room - 6 developers (2 facing each of three walls), the fourth wall had the door.

</comment><comment><USER49> Trading desk, as a research quant. The office was open-plan, there were constantly people passing behind me, and expletive-laden interruptions related to market conditions were frequent.

For the first 6 months, it was very exciting, but eventually the sensory overload and taxing environment got to me, and I started having health problems. In retrospect, I think the open-plan office was much more of a contributor than the noise, which could be tuned out pretty easily. Open plan => needing to pay constant attention to how one is perceived => anxiety => diminished productivity => more anxiety => immune system fails => very sick.

I think 107 F is worse, though. I stop being productive around 90, and I'm pretty sure I'd die after 8 hours in that heat.

<comment><USER50> Etymotic HF-2s (or similar) noise-blocking earbud headphones. People know that they'll be distracting you when talking, and they reduce the outside noise quite a bit.

As for the perception issue, that's more of a showmanship issue. For people who aren't in your field but do judge, I find a few stereotypes work out well. At my last job, I filled unused screen space with random API references. The busier and more technical my screen looked, the busier and more technical I looked as a result. It's the game you have to play when people don't let good work speak for itself.

<comment><USER49> I definitely had the screen set up as you described, but I still found working with constant open-back visibility to be pretty terrible.

As humans, though we share this with most animals, we have a strong desire to do important things (eating, defecating, sex, spiritual journeys) with at least some degree of privacy. Work, at least of the mentally taxing kind, falls square into that category.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> 1\. Hm...in the front seat of my car, waiting for the traffic officer to return for 45 minutes.

2\. In a dorm room for a year with 10kb/s internet, tops. FTP was impossible without net2ftp.com. SSH and most other traffic would not get anywhere either (SVN, IRC, etc.), and I was working many hours on web projects. No Windows VM, so all IE6-7 testing had to be through BrowserShots. But I had a bunch of great Mac software which eased the pain.

</comment><comment><USER52> Ok, at home, my parents and my sisters are really kind and they don't do noise. Also my mother understand that I need some concentration when i'm on computer, although she don't know what the benefits of 'sitting for long hours in front of a screen with much gadgets and text!!'

The worst time is at school, when my friends (tech-savvy people) ask me for questions in a very noisy way that I loose concentration. So I agree with most of you about concentration, we can class it then

Concentration

Computer bugs and speed

Screen (if u sit for long hours)

Mouse and Keyboard (especially for those cheap laser mouses!!!)

Computer noise (if it's an old dirty one)

your girl friend (if u got one!!!)

Those are all factors that can affect your programming or whatever you are doing if it's mind related, like Math or Physic calculations

Also I posted it in SOF, no the question was not closed</comment>


C# performance tips and tricks - <AUTHOR> http://raygun.io/blog/2014/02/c-sharp-performance-tips-tricks/

<comment><USER2> I've been using raygun for zoomin.co.nz and it's a solid bit of kit.

</comment><comment><USER3> These are not particular to C#.</comment>


When Rome Fell, the Chief Culprits Were Climate and Disease. Sound Familiar? - <AUTHOR> https://undark.org/article/book-review-harper-fate-of-rome/ <comment><USER2> _" From the eighteenth century onward, we have been obsessed with the fall: it has been valued as an archetype for every perceived decline, and, hence, as a symbol for our own fears."_

~ Glen Bowersock

The most important reason for the fall of Rome is frankly obvious, so obvious it's never mentioned: the severe political divisions within the Empire which caused it to fracture. The bulk of the intellectual and economic power in Rome shifted to the Eastern Empire, which lasted in its original form until the eighth century, and in some form until the fifteenth. The seeds of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century were sown when Theodosius divided the Empire among his sons in 395, and there is hardly any comparable event today. There were various other reasons, of course; disease certainly didn't help, neither did the appearance of the Sassanids, the increasing irrelevance of the Senate, or famines in Gaul. But everyone on the right and the left wants Rome to have fallen because of its mishandling of their favorite political issue, be it inflation, military conscription, climate change, taxation, or as one amusingly inaccurate meme charges, _religious intolerance_. These accusations are all silly. The Roman Empire saw _multiple civil wars_ between the reign of Constantine and the conquest by Odoacer. No developed country today faces such an issue. As soon as it was no longer able to draw support from the East, the Western Roman Empire began eighty years of monotonic decline.

If there is any moral to the story, it's that monarchy is unsustainable -- but we all knew that, anyway.

<comment><USER3> >The Roman Empire saw multiple civil wars between the reign of Constantine and the conquest by Odoacer.

We may not see that today, but that was fairly common for Rome. Marius and Sulla's civil wars, Caesar's civil wars, and Octavian's civil wars all took place in a century. And chalking it all up to "monarchy is unstable" ignores the collapse of the Republic and the 4-15 centuries that the monarchy did pretty well.

<comment><USER2> I didn't mean that the civil wars were the primary cause of decline (although they helped) but that they serve to distinguish the Roman Empire from modern countries and weaken the possibility of comparison. My point is really that the Western Roman Empire never had a chance -- Rome started in southern Italy and expanded because its early enemies didn't recognize it as a threat, but they couldn't get away with that again, of course.

As to whether the monarchic system was the reason Rome couldn't keep the whole Empire under one roof -- well, the Byzantines lasted, but they did so while controlling much less territory (Justinian's conquests were quickly lost), so while my argument is weak, I admit, your counterexample is also. The monarchy was successful from Octavian until Commodus; after that, it is hard to name two good rulers who succeeded each other, and impossible to name three. I think it is not by accident that during this early period the Senate was still politically relevant and vaguely democratic. But I am also just strongly tempted to blame regional divisions on poor governance, although there were probably other factors, and I am hardly a scholar.

<comment><USER3> "It never had a chance" was a five century long empire. Sure it was destined to fall, but that's the nature of empire so far, which invited comparison to modern times. And your description of the early expansion somewhat works for the conquest of Italia, but after that they were considered a threat.

>I think it is not by accident that during this early period the Senate was still politically relevant and vaguely democratic.

The senate had no actual power starting with Augustus, who turned it into a ceremonial institution. The only time it did have a shred of power was a succession crisis, and it maintained that power throughout.

>But I am also just strongly tempted to blame regional divisions on poor governance, although there were probably other factors,

I don't understand what you're saying here.

<comment><USER2> The Western Roman Empire existed on its own for 83 years, not 500. It split off in 393 with the death of Theodosius and was conquered by Odoacer in 476. That's hardly longevity.

>The senate had no actual power starting with Augustus, who turned it into a ceremonial institution.

Early Emperors cared what the Senate thought, even if they didn't have to. Later ones didn't.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate#Senate_of_the_Rom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate#Senate_of_the_Roman_Empire)

>Around 300 AD, the emperor Diocletian enacted a series of constitutional reforms. In one such reform, he asserted the right of the emperor to take power without the theoretical consent of the senate, thus depriving the senate of its status as the ultimate depository of supreme power. Diocletian's reforms also ended whatever illusion had remained that the senate had independent legislative, judicial, or electoral powers. The senate did, however, retain its legislative powers over public games in Rome, and over the senatorial order.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunately, science journalism tends to fail to capture the role that books like this play in academic history. I doubt that the author says that climate was a leading factor in Rome's fall, but I'm sure he makes a strong argument that we should not neglect its role.

It's important in the sense that it investigates a typically neglected dimension, but I think historians will be hesitant to rank factors that led to the fall. Sufficiently self-aware historians are aware that the etiology of past events is a tricky business, and the best one can do is discuss a sequence of events with great detail that may or may not be linked by causation.

<comment><USER5> If you know historians, you'll know they actually squabble like children over stuff like this. Of course, No True Historian would ignore the role of climate in causing radiating invasion waves. Even if it was a cold day making Attila mad, it's still an equal factor.

God our universities have rotted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another collapse by changing environment is (likely) that of the Maya civilization:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse#Drought_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse#Drought_theory)

A civilizational collapse is rarely caused by a single event, but instead by multiple events - each which would be survivable on their own - causing a complete breakdown in the system. A society can survive a drought, a war, a plague, a famine, but all four at once might just be too much.

It's not for want of a nail that a kingdom is lost, but because of all accumulated failures and breakdowns which led to the point where loss of a single nail was just that one failure too much. Death by drowning in a million raindrops.

</comment><comment><USER7> Couple things I hold to be true:

1\. Everyone thinks they know why Rome fell

2\. It never involves the state of the monetary policy in place

Quick bit of evidence, the Roman government pursued fast and loose debasement of their currency to prop up their heavy spending and terrible policies. Meaning, they were "printing too many coins" by diluting the amount of precious metal in each coin.

Emperors got loose printing money to support a heavy military spending to gain power and support from them. As seen in modern countries once hyper inflation hits, its game over.

<comment><USER8> Is it possible that 2 is a consequence of other factors? Like climate change or some other combinations of forces? Was the economy unable to support the number of forces due to climate change and as a result debasement of currency was seen as the best way forward?

Hyperinflation wasn't game over for Germany. It had a brief empire shortly after it's hyperinflation period.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but they are tied! I can't remember which emperor said something along the lines of "as long as i have the army behind me", but the scales had been tipping beyond the balance between gov / private citizens.

I think its hard to find out which came first, but the moment the government started minting 99% gold coin (and they got away with it) -> 95% gold -> 90% gold till its a worthless "gold" coin too many bad things got put in motion.

I do agree its a confluence of factors. Maybe they expanded too much -> need more money -> print money -> cant exactly fire all the expeditionary forces -> print more money -> squeeze taxes out of populace -> people are getting fed up so output and tax revenues go down -> empire is too big -> attacks on Germany and Europe from the barbarians -> print more money to pay military -> squeeze people - > ad nauseum.

There's an established economic principle that "bad money drives out good". So while I do not think that just printing money is the only cause, once it occurs its down hill. You have to somehow figure out how you will try and reign it all in (thats what they tell themselves at least).

As to the Germany example, the hyper inflation can be fixed though who can really tell how traumatizing and painful it can be to those going through it. For sure it caused some discord and animosity and some people attribute it to the rise of Hitler and so forth.

My point generally is that historians should look at the entirety of factors and weigh them together. It is all too easy to point a quick finger at the military expansion, or climate or whatever and not combine them all. Very few places look at monetary theory probably because its relatively new (really with Friedman's work in middle 20th century), but also because it muddles the simplistic reason.

edit: clarity

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is obviously wrong. No sane person would argue that climate change in Roman times was man-made, therefore there was no possible action Rome could have taken to mitigate it.

<comment><USER10> That doesn't follow. Just because the cause wasn't man-made doesn't mean a man-made mitigation can't work.

For example, rain is not caused by human activity, and yet man-made roofs still work.

<comment><USER11> Plus capturing more water, diverting water, those are things that can address lack of rain. Grow crops that use less rain per produced food. There are endless things man can to do counter natural events. For us, besides all those things, don't build in flood plains, don't build in the forest that has frequent fires (probably most of them). or build houses that won't be destroyed by fires. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/mans-concrete-home-survives- raging-...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/mans-concrete-home-survives-raging- wildfire-washington/story?id=33286398)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The chief reason for _many_ civilizations to fall. Mayan (repeatedly), Aztec, those in the Arabian desert, Ur, Babylon and on and on.

</comment><comment><USER13> I like to think of the fall of empires on two levels. On the level of specifics, I would suppose there are in each case generally a number of different causes, interacting in various ways.

On a more general level, empires as such are an unnaturally large and complex form of social organization, and for that reason they inevitably collapse at some point or another.

</comment><comment><USER14> The chief culprit was permitting tens of thousands of barbarians to enter the empire. They never integrated or left. Within a hundred years, the western part of the empire collapsed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376–382)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_\(376–382\))

<comment><USER3> They had let tens of thousands of outsiders in before without issue. The difference here was the Goths beat the Romans on the field, forcing Rome to accept a bad deal. This was a result of a long period of famine and pestilence creating budget problems, leaving provinces to go into revolt, and the army stretched too thin to deal with everything.

<comment><USER15> The Gothic emigration much more resembled the emigration of the Cimbri or the Teutons than it did the resettlement of a few ten thousand peoples around the empire.

The Goths were relatively barbarian, fundamentally hostile to the empire except in the dire emergency precipitated by the Huns, and further, the original Gothic revolt predated the problems you're talking about and the defeat of the Romans in the field.

It was also almost certainly much more than a few ten thousands, despite the usual tactic of modern historians who downplay numbers in general with handwavy arguments about how _that 's just not possible_, etc. and discount the accounts of contemporary sources without any hard evidence contradicting them.

> _It was thought expedient that an accurate account should be taken of their > numbers; but the persons who were employed soon desisted, with amazement and > dismay, from the prosecution of the endless and impracticable task;(67) and > the principal historian of the age most seriously affirms that the > prodigious armies of Darius and Xerxes, which had so long been considered as > the fables of vain and credulous antiquity, were now justified, in the eyes > of mankind, by the evidence of fact and experience. A probable testimony has > fixed the number of the Gothic warriors at two hundred thousand men; and if > we can venture to add the just proportion of women, of children, and of > slaves, the whole mass of people which composed this formidable emigration > must have amounted to near a million of persons, of both sexes and of all > ages._

[http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap26.htm#goth](http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap26.htm#goth)

If they had numbered only a few ten thousand, the Roman logistics system would not have struggled so much to keep them fed, nor would it have been a major problem to account for them all.

<comment><USER3> >The Goths were relatively barbarian, fundamentally hostile to the empire except in the dire emergency precipitated by the Huns, and further, the original Gothic revolt predated the problems you're talking about and the defeat of the Romans in the field

The Goths were a major part of the Roman army for a century before the uprising discussed, and the famine and pestilence were also becoming a major issue around the same time. And the Goths were no more barbarian than much of Caesar's army, their hostility came from the overall problems the empire faced.

>If they had numbered only a few ten thousand, the Roman logistics system would not have struggled so much to keep them fed, nor would it have been a major problem to account for them all.

The empire was struggling to feed itself, even a relatively small number of people in one area can cause problems. And the contemporary sources are dismissed because we know the things written down are propaganda based largely on guesswork. Modern historians realize a million people suddenly showing up would leave a massive archaeological record that isn't there.

<comment><USER15> > The Goths were a major part of the Roman army for a century before the > uprising discussed

Different Gothic tribes cannot be conflated. Also important to note is that the 'Romanized' Goths only became so because they devastated, conquered and kept Roman territory - they weren't friendly settlers, they were neighbors the Romans had to learn how to deal with and use against other enemies.

> And the famine and pestilence were also becoming a major issue around the > same time.

Not until later, and then in part because of Gothic devastation. If the Roman Empire had not been able to feed a few ten thousand armed people, it would have fallen nearly immediately, since that would have meant it would have been unable to field any significant armies.

> Modern historians realize a million people suddenly showing up would leave a > massive archaeological record that isn't there.

It is.

Further, it's very hard to explain why it'd be hard to census only 90k people, an activity performed regularly.

<comment><USER3> >Not until later, and then in part because of Gothic devastation. If the Roman Empire had not been able to feed a few ten thousand armed people, it would have fallen nearly immediately, since that would have meant it would have been unable to field any significant armies.

The Crisis of the Third Century is what lead to the weakened state unable to cope with the Goths. Outside invasions were part of the problem, the Plague of Cyprian was a much larger part. The breakdown that occurred during this period led to widespread problems, they trade routes were damaged making it difficult to suddenly feed an unexpected influx of people.

>Further, it's very hard to explain why it'd be hard to census only 90k people, an activity performed regularly.

First, there wasn't a ton of time between their arrival and their revolt to count them. Second, the census had suffers a long period of decay by that point. Third, counting nomads is no easy work, and the general strategy of assessing taxes based on property didn't apply yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Rome was built on conquest and ran out of adjacent countries to plunder. Serious problems handling environmental and political challenges didn't come up until after economic stagnation had set in.

</comment><comment><USER17> Rome fell because they killed all their kids due to their party lifestyle, and had to use slave labor to support themselves.

</comment><comment><USER18> Rome devolved into a multicultural empire where the elites imported foreign tribes to provide cheap labor, usury was rampant and the native stock stopped having children.

Sound familiar?

<comment><USER19> And currency debasement: [https://www.goldbroker.com/media/image/cms/media/images/silv...](https://www.goldbroker.com/media/image/cms/media/images/silver- commodity-money/roman-currency-debasement-silver-content%E2%80%93denarius.png)

Too familiar

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER19> Sounds ridiculous actually. We are Rome indeed but the similarities are not exactly climate and disease...

<comment><USER21> Yes the article is written like if environmental changes were the only factor. It may very well have undermined the inner streng of the empire (as a child I learn about the lead pipes that would have been a major issue because of saturnism) but it still needed external interventions to collapse. The article even mention the Byzantine Empire which have a very clear date and cause of falling that is definitely not climate related.</comment></comment>


Microsoft reportedly working on a new lightweight browser for Windows 10 - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2014/12/29/microsoft-reportedly-working-new-lightweight-browser-windows-10/ <comment><USER2> Why not just ship with Chrome?</comment>


Inside the Troubled Development of Star Citizen - <AUTHOR> http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/09/23/inside-the-troubled-development-of-star-citizen <comment><USER2> Its amazing how many parallels I can see in some software houses I've worked at.

Scope creep, unclear prioritisation, poor roadmap breakdown, hero cultures. Its not an unusual situation at all, but it is unusual to be in such a public facing position, and to be able to grow to such a size without a product for sale.

Its like a tech bubble running inside its very own organisation.</comment>