Ask YC: Providing Hosting Services? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
A friend and I are talking about doing some hosting for a niche industry where we know some people.  We'd be reselling a machine based somewhere like Layered Tech, which has these requirements for resellers:
http://www.layeredtech.com/dedicated-servers/resellers.php
Has anyone ever worked selling hosting services?  I don't imagine the margins are good, but it might not be something bad to get a bit of money if it's steady business without a lot of hassles.  What kinds of software is out there for billing and managing the business?
We're thinking a pretty small operation... 10's or at most 100's of clients.  Worthwhile? <comment><USER2> Terrible business...1&1 and similar hosts killed all of the margins.

I was basically given a hosting business with 50 clients when the owner didn't want to maintain it anymore. Even paying another company to do support, we had so many issues: credit card chargebacks, customers complaining about things that aren't our problem, server issues. I think at one point I figured I would be making less than minimum wage with the time I put into it (with no hope of growing out of that). We eventually sold for a paltry amount just to wipe our hands clean of it.

The only time it is worth it to do hosting is when it's in conjunction with another service...for example web designers often do hosting because a) they work it into part of their contract with a decent rate, instead of the insanely low-margin rates online now and b) since they made the website, if there's a problem they have fewer people to deal with (i.e. vertical integration).

</comment><comment><USER3> I tried half a year program of doing small game server rentals instances. Not reselling, exactly, but providing slices of (good-priced) dedicated servers.

Very low margins, lots of support headaches, lots of competition.

It probably depends on the strength of your niche. We had a semi-big brand name to bank on, and, even if we had thousands of customers, it wasn't going to pay off much in the long-run because of the market saturation and low profit.

If you have some really solid provisioning technology, a strong niche, volunteer support staff (or a PROVEN automated support model), then you can shave some more profit out of it and make it successful.

YMMV, of course. The best entrepreneurs succeed where others fail, so you may want to pursue it.

</comment><comment><USER4> You might try reading Matt Heaton's blog (<http://mattheaton.com/>).

He's the CEO of bluehost and hostmonster (which I use) and he provides a lot of insight into what the industry is like.

I'm sure there are many other good hosting blogs out there too, which you could find via google.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's kind of a horrible business. Billing is a nightmare (I wrote my own software so that it integrates into everything else that I bill for), clients can be demanding and not really all that technically-savvy, and you have to be constantly on guard for security problems. I'm running tail -f of Apache logs non-stop, and I've caught enough problems with client sites (including sites of some prestigious institutions that you've probably heard of, and wouldn't think had issues) that it's actually worth doing, crazy as it sounds.

Reselling a server that you don't have physical access to is also risky because if anything happens, you're at the mercy of the technician on the phone. Sometimes they're great. Sometimes you have to find a new ISP the same day and transfer 8GB of data across the country because you have no other way to recover a dead server.

It's a perfectly competitive market--theoretically, anyone can put a hard drive on the internet, just like theoretically, anyone can grow corn. That means it's a buyer's market. Be forewarned.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, nice reality check...thanks! We were actually hoping to do setup and afterwards have people run their own servers (much as LT themselves do).

I don't think it's a _perfectly_ competitive market from a higher level point of view:

<http://www.welton.it/articles/webhosting_market_lemons.html>

but in terms of prices it certainly is.

<comment><USER6> You might have better luck with just referring your contacts to LT and getting a referral bonus. You certainly can't compete with other providers on price (chances are you're a lot less efficient so your costs are higher) and definitely can't compete on service (since it seems LT will handle all issues, or your clients will call you and you'll have to call LT).

The only advantage I see is that you know the clients and they might trust you even if you can only provide less service and for more money than other alternatives.

The web hosting market isn't as bad as it sounds. Sure, there are hundreds of providers, but just ask around and you'll see the same handful of names coming up over and over again. The remaining are often people like you that decided to get into hosting to make a little money.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: My first website, an episode list for over 3000 shows - <AUTHOR> http://episodelist.org

<comment><USER2> Congrats on putting something together, hope you had fun doing it. What are your next steps for this project? Mine would be to polish the frontend design. I'm not sure of your comfort level with frontend design, but as a programmer with no design skills I usually look to [https://dribbble.com/](https://dribbble.com/) for inspiration or use Twitter Bootstrap. good luck

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks pretty good. I've been using [http://www.airdates.tv/](http://www.airdates.tv/) for this stuff. One suggestion would be to add more service providers like Google Play Movies and Vudu.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use wikipedia for this: List_of_Your_Favourite_Show_episodes always works:

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

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

and there are usually links to individual episodes pages.

</comment><comment><USER5> Check the Amazon TOS if you're doing this for the $$'s.

You have ThePirateBay links next to the Amazon links which they may frown upon for no good reason.

</comment><comment><USER6> Very nice. Do you have a NetFlix API key or have you used some other source of info for them?

</comment><comment><USER7> On the home page, where it lists all recent aired episodes, would be nice to show the "Available On" related to that episode only. Many series aren't up- to-date on those services, which is sad.

</comment><comment><USER8> Individual episodes have links to Pirate Bay

</comment><comment><USER9> Nice!

Two questions:

1\. What stack are you working on?

2\. How does the "instant" search thing work?</comment>


Pilots who risk their lives flying tiny planes over the Atlantic - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34484972 <comment><USER2> My dad was a career U.S. Air Force fighter pilot. After returning from combat duty in the Korean War, he did a tour of duty as a ferry pilot. He made the North Atlantic crossing many times in single-engine jet fighters, often in winter. The planes usually crossed in flights of two or more aircraft. My dad said that he and his squadron mates had an informal agreement: If one of them had an engine failure, another one would get behind the troubled aircraft and try to _push it_ to maintain air speed. Fortunately they never had to try it.

<comment><USER3> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRNbcPS3A9c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRNbcPS3A9c)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push)

<comment><USER4> That is pretty cool. Pardo was an amazing guy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Ying_Lee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Ying_Lee)

For some reason, the link sites recently carried a bunch of articles about the Chinese-American aviator Hazel Lee, who is buried in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. Her job was to deliver planes during WWII, which is notable because she flew lots of different aircraft.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for sharing that. She sounds like she was an incredible inspiration to the people around her.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I still find it hard to believe that it's cheaper to pay someone (per the article, for transport from UK to US) $20k to _fly_ your plane, than it is to dismantle and put it in a shipping container, and reassemble it on the other end.

Maybe I have a naive understanding of the complexity of taking a light aircraft apart? I do know though, that shipping a container from Europe to Australia (!) runs a bill of around $5k, and I can't imagine the plane referred to in the article taking more than two containers.

<comment><USER8> Most planes aren't designed to be disassembled, and you would be paying for a complete structural rebuild while paying a certificated mechanic's hourly rate.

<comment><USER9> ?

Small aircraft are readily dissembled. The wings and tail feathers of most of them are bolt on affairs. This isn't to say that it's an easy task; it takes knowledge and skill like most things small aircraft. I have personally seen two people take the wings and tail feathers off of a Cessna 18x in less than four hours.

<comment><USER8> Stop bringing facts into the argument!

I thought the older planes were built so that the wing spar isn't detachable without major surgery. But I defer to your actual expertise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you liked this article you'd probably also enjoy the book "Wind, Sand, and Stars" by Antoine de Saint-Exupery. It's all about his time flying as an airmail pilot through the Alps, over the Sahara, and crossing the South Atlantic in the early 20th century.

<comment><USER11> Both the original French and the English translation by Lewis Galantière are lovely.

Chapter 3 is my favorite humanist defense of technology, and one of my favorite pieces of prose about engineering and design:

 _And now, having spoken of the men born of the pilot's craft, I shall say something about the tool with which they work—the airplane. Have you looked at a modern airplane? Have you followed from year to year the evolution of its lines? Have you ever thought, not only about the airplane but about whatever man builds, that all of man's industrial efforts, all his computations and calculations, all the nights spent over working draughts and blueprints, invariably culminate in the production of a thing whose sole and guiding principle is the ultimate principle of simplicity?

It is as if there were a natural law which ordained that to achieve this end, to refine the curve of a piece of furniture, or a ship's keel, or the fuselage of an airplane, until gradually it partakes of the elementary purity of the curve of a human breast or shoulder, there must be the experimentation of several generations of craftsmen. In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away, when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness.

It results from this that perfection of invention touches hands with absence of invention, as if that line which the human eye will follow with effortless delight were a line that had not been invented but simply discovered, had in the beginning been hidden by nature and in the end been found by the engineer. There is an ancient myth about the image asleep in the block of marble until it is carefully disengaged by the sculptor. The sculptur must himself feel that he is not so much inventing or shaping the curve of breast or shoulder as delivering the image from its prison.

In this spirit do engineers, physicists concerned with thermodynamics, and the swarm of preoccupied draughtsmen tackle their work. In appearance, but only in appearance, they seem to be polishing surfaces and refining away angles, easing this joint or stabilizing that wing, rendering these parts invisible, so that in the end there is no longer a wing hooked to a framework but a form flawless in its perfection, completely disengaged from its matrix, a sort of spontaneous whole, its parts mysteriously fused together and resembling in their unity a poem._

[...]

The rest of the chapter [http://pastie.org/pastes/10477072/text](http://pastie.org/pastes/10477072/text)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Reminded me of Worst Place to be a Pilot [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jFsVRQyhlg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jFsVRQyhlg)

<comment><USER13> They sensationalize this as "worst", but I'm sure many pilots would choose jobs such as this over the mundane task of operating a large airliner if the pay and career prospects were equal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very cool. Surely there are other ways to transport light aircraft though...

<comment><USER15> Seems like many of these aircraft would fit in shipping containers with some slight disassembly.

<comment><USER16> Yep.. here's a pic of an L-39 Albatros being shipped from Germany to the US after a nice restoration:

[http://imgur.com/FfkBMjC](http://imgur.com/FfkBMjC)

It was probably just cheaper and less risky to put it in a box. (The L-39's range is only about 550 nautical miles, maybe 700 on a good day).

That said, here's an article written by a pilot who ferried an L-39 across the Atlantic. It talks about all the details that had to be taken care of (even more so since it was a former military jet): [http://www.internationaljets.com/overtheocean.html](http://www.internationaljets.com/overtheocean.html) [http://www.internationaljets.com/overtheocean2.html](http://www.internationaljets.com/overtheocean2.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the L-39 stories! I don't want to own one, as I'm sure I'd eventually bore of 100gph fuel burns, but I enjoy the rented ride.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reminds me of this account of ditching during a ferry flight to Hawaii:

[http://www.equipped.org/1199ditch.htm](http://www.equipped.org/1199ditch.htm)

</comment><comment><USER18> And I thought this article was going to be about ETOPS ...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's funny, but from the anecdotal evidence it sounds like single-engine ferry flights are at least a couple of orders of magnitude more risky than any ETOPS scenario. Fewer lives are put at risk, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems like an amazing job and I am a bit jealous. I often wish I'd chosen a different path in life.

</comment><comment><USER20> I would have thought that there existed some local or international entity regulating private airplanes and their itineraries. I would assume the same way you can't get on the highway with a bicycle or a scooter, these airplanes shouldn't be allowed to fly over the Atlantic.

<comment><USER21> Why not? The reason you're not allowed to get on the highway with a scooter or a bike is because it's dangerous _to others._ The only danger to me taking my airplane across the Atlantic is _to me._

I see this misunderstanding a lot among non-aviation people. I don't _have_ to tell anyone what I'm doing when I fly. I can go to the airport, right now, and fly my airplane pretty much wherever I like. I don't _have_ to file a flight plan (provided I'm flying visually - non-instrument). I can take off and fly pretty much wherever I like. I can take whatever route I prefer, provided I keep in contact via radio with the relative controllers of the various airspaces I might pass through and keep an eye out for other airplanes.

If I'm flying instrument, I do have to file a flight plan and stick to a planned route (or communicate changes to my route). And unless I'm just up doing practice around the local area, I always file a flight plan even if I am going VFR. My personal rule is over 50 nautical miles or into a class C airspace or above (basically, the area around most decent-sized airports), I file a flight plan. It's free, keeps me safe and keeps ATC happy.

There are some other ICAO rules when your start crossing ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone - the distance from shore where you must be identified). I have never personally encountered this so I would have to brush up on the appropriate procedure before doing it. But there is still nothing stopping me from doing it provided I follow the rules.

Flying is quite free and liberating. Not so much as driving, but more than most people seem to realize. It's up to me as a pilot to exercise good judgement in not getting myself and others killed.

<comment><USER22> >Why not? The reason you're not allowed to get on the highway with a scooter or a bike is because it's dangerous to others. The only danger to me taking my airplane across the Atlantic is to me.

Quite a lot of aviation regulations are designed to protect people from killing themselves and their passengers. For example, the requirements for carrying lifejackets/rafts, survival gear, etc. depending on where you're flying.

Also, as pointed out in other comments, there are requirements for flying this route (IFR, HF radio, liferafts, etc.), which are probably sufficient to protect pilots from themselves. Yet, even if you follow all the rules and wear a survival suit (which I don't think is required), it's still a highly risky endeavour.

<comment><USER21> > Yet, even if you follow all the rules and wear a survival suit (which I > don't think is required), it's still a highly risky endeavour.

Absolutely, yes. No one would argue that this is not a massive risk. It's risky, and there are lots of regulations that make it safer.

But just because it's risky doesn't mean it should be illegal, which is what OP seems to be implying. It's a risk, but ferry pilots do a lot of smart things to mitigate that risk.

Aviation in general is a risk, which is why we have massive tomes of rules [0] that make it safe. And even if you follow every rule to the letter, bad things can still sometimes happen that are completely out of your control. Weather could go south in a hurry, or you could have a mechanical issue and lose an engine. How you deal with those issues will decide whether you live or die.

It's risky, but it's not illegal. With a properly trained pilot and a properly maintained airplane, those risks can be controlled. Part of being a good pilot is about minimizing risk wherever you can and being ready for anything that can possibly happen in the sky.

FWIW, I would not even dream of doing a flight that long over water, and I have massive amounts of respect for those who do. Hell, I never fly further from shore than I could glide if I lost my engine. The thought of being alone in a Cessna over the North Atlantic without being able to see the shore scares the hell out of me.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/FAR-AIM-2015-Regulations- Aeronautical/...](http://www.amazon.com/FAR-AIM-2015-Regulations- Aeronautical/dp/1619541475)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tether has issued $450M USDT in past 4 days - <AUTHOR> http://omniexplorer.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=3MbYQMMmSkC3AgWkj9FMo5LsPTW1zBTwXL <comment><USER2> [https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/7rad7q/a_reminder...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/7rad7q/a_reminder_every_time_that_tether_starts_a/dsvghqm/)

> What if the crypto community is simply too stupid to ever let the bubble > burst?

> Like. Literally nobody has ever been able to trade their tethers back into > dollars, and they've been around for over a year at this point. How the fuck > do people have imaginary money and simply not want to get real money from > it, not even once, in over a year?

> Maybe the buttcoiners were right, and we are witnessing the birth of > something completely new here: The market that was too dumb to even realise > that it should crash.

<comment><USER3> If these tethers turn out to be impossible to trade for dollars, then the best way of getting out of them would be buying BTC, right?

Fun times...

<comment><AUTHOR> That would cause high prices on Bitfinex due to Bitcoin buying, while deflating prices on Coinbase and Gemini due to cash outs.

During the last month of MtGox it was common to see $2,000 price gap between Gox and US exchanges. I have a feeling history is going to repeat itself very soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Finally people are waking up to this.

Summary of Tether for the uninformed:

1\. Their terms state that they owe you nothing in exchange for Tethers you hold

2\. This effectively means Tether is backed by nothing. The 1:1 peg with USD is a total farce

 _Tether must and does at all times reserve the right to refuse to issue or redeem Tether Tokens..._

 _No Representations & Warranties by Tether: Tether makes no representations, warranties, or guarantees to you of any kind. The Site and the Services are offered strictly on an as-is, where-is basis and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, are offered without any representation as to merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose._

What this means:

Tether can print 1 billion Tethers, buy up 1 billion Bitcoin, and then cash out into dollars. In other words, they have engineered a way to more or less counterfeit U.S. dollars by counterfeiting cryptocurrency.

I hope they go down hard.

<comment><USER5> Why would anyone buy a Tether? Are people getting into cryptocurrencies really that clueless? I can see the idea behind bitcoin, that somehow it can hold value due to its inherent scarcity and high demand. But if the Tether supply is unlimited and controlled by a single company, how could anyone possibly believe it would hold its value?

<comment><USER2> > Are people getting into cryptocurrencies really that clueless?

I have bad news for you... YES. Check [http://supercoolawesomemoney.com/](http://supercoolawesomemoney.com/)

<comment><USER5> Wow, is there any way to see how much SCAM they have sold so far?

<comment><USER2> Looks like not a lot. 0.01088891 Ether

[https://etherscan.io/address/0xdf4B1A742D3B4F87099C835d5423B...](https://etherscan.io/address/0xdf4B1A742D3B4F87099C835d5423B54f0B5Ed4e8)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How are the big players in cryptocurrency not pushing back on this? It has potential to take down the entire ecosystem.

<comment><USER7> How would it take down the entire ecosystem? Bitcoin alone has a $194B market cap. $450M is a drop in the bucket.

<comment><USER8> > How would it take down the entire ecosystem? Bitcoin alone has a $194B > market cap. $450M is a drop in the bucket.

I'm not sure you can compare those numbers like that. If somebody used $450M to buy bitcoin, the market cap would likely rise much much more than $450M.

For example, if I look at the GDAX order book right now, I see that the bitcoin price could be pushed up $200 by buying less than $3M worth of bitcoin. That corresponds to increasing the market cap by $3.2 billion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As far as I can tell it has mostly issued Tethers to itself [1](as Bitfinex). Bitfinex/Tether are hoping that they can entice customers to use their platforms for arbitrage with other exchanges such that they can cream off a healthy margin without actually holding much currency themselves.

[1] [https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/spoiler-alert-the- institution...](https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/spoiler-alert-the-institution- buying-tethers-is-bitfinex-themselves-f56af29ce60c)

</comment><comment><USER10> Disclaimer: I think Tether is shady, likely illegal, and would never use it myself. However, I think there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for where this Tether is coming from and why no existing Tether has ever been redeemed for USD.

First, understand that Tether and Bitfinex are the same people. Bitfinex has hundreds of millions of dollars in their accounts. It is likely that most or all of the Tether is bought directly by Bitfinex in order to satisfy Tether withdrawal requests. The money comes from USD deposits to Bitfinex.

When people want to convert Tether to USD, rather than redeeming from Tether.to directly, they send Tether back to Bitfinex, which credits it to their USD balance at a 1:1 rate. The USD can then be withdrawn as a wire transfer. Crucially, this process does not require that Tether be redeemed, because Bitfinex maintains a large balance of both USD and Tether. As long as Tether demand keeps increasing, Bitfinex can simply sit on the Tether they receive until it's time to hand it out to someone else doing a Tether withdrawal.

The only situation in which Tether would ever be redeemed is if there was a bank run on Bitfinex. As Bitfinex's USD reserves fell they would need to redeem the Tether that they hold for USD. So far, Bitfinex has not faced this situation and so no Tether has ever been redeemed.

So, I've described a way in which Tether could be relatively legitimate. Is that actually what's going on? Nobody knows except the management of Bitfinex. Personally, I don't trust them. The incentives for fraud are astronomical, and even if it's been entirely legit up to this point it's unlikely to remain so forever.

<comment><USER11> If that was true, why would Bitfinex not agree to an audit to prove the funds were held?

And do you really believe 450m was transferred to Bitfinex in the last 3-4 days?

<comment><USER12> Only scenario I can think of for those kinds of numbers is a big bank or hedge fund buying in.

<comment><USER12> (Obviously unlikely given the offshore-ness of ot all.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can somebody explain, in detail, the conspiracy theory here? Preferably in a way that doesn't emotionally _assume_ some nefarious action?

$450M is a lot of money. Why do you assume that tether is lying about this?

If tether aren't actually backed by anything, isn't that just about the worst ponzi scheme imaginable? Like some sort of reverse ponzi scheme, actually? They give you "fake" tethers, and you get to buy "real" bitcoins with them.

<comment><USER14> > Can somebody explain, in detail, the conspiracy theory here?

For tether to maintain a 1:1 ratio of 1 USDT to 1 USD, they have to have a backing of $450M from some company or bank that has USD to give them. As of now, they have no US based banks even doing transfers with them, let alone working with them on being solvent.

Tether promised to be open to auditing, and none of the latest issuings have been audited as having actual backing currency.

<comment><USER15> I'm far from knowledgeable on this, but, as I understand it, for tether to maintain that ratio, the issuer of tether must both be willing to buy and sell one tether for one dollar, to and from anyone, at any time. The moment that stops, you're operating on faith, and you're no longer pegged to anything.

<comment><USER16> Well, it's a good thing they don't have anything like this in their Terms:

> "There is no contractual right or other right or legal claim against us to > redeem or exchange your Tethers for money. We do not guarantee any right of > redemption or exchange of Tethers by us for money. There is no guarantee > against losses when you buy, trade, sell, or redeem Tethers."

Oh, wait, that's exactly what is in their Terms...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> And I'm sure every single one is backed by legitimate USD deposits...

<comment><USER18> So supposedly someone somewhere has, what, 2-3 Billion USD in a bank account?

<comment><USER16> Yeah. But not Wells Fargo. And they won't tell you unless you sign an NDA.

Meanwhile this bank is supposedly receiving upwards of $100MM/day in deposits for this account and blissfully unaware...

One born every minute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Their terms of service currently has this clause:

 _Beginning on January 1, 2018, Tether Tokens will no longer be issued to U.S. Persons._

[https://tether.to/legal/](https://tether.to/legal/)

So these USDT are being issued to non-U.S. Persons. How does that work? A non-U.S. Person wires funds in their local currency to tether who applies the current exchange rate for that currency to USD then issues an equivalent number of USDT? Why would anyone do that instead of just purchasing the tether for their own currency?

<comment><USER20> It's so they're not caught out by laws pertaining to "USD-backed securities" enforced by the nice people at the SEC.

This doesn't excuse them from previous transactions they've already made.. Which means likely they didn't start printing Tether until after 1st of Jan. It's likely they have loans out for the amount stuck in escrow since Taiwan froze their wire's in April.

This is the heist of the century. They're 5% of the way to ENRON level shenanigans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't "issued" mean sold? Didn't they get $450M in dollars for them? Or did they just give the USDT to themselves or something?

<comment><USER21> The most likely explanation is that no one is purchasing those Tethers and that they have been printed out of thin air.

* Tether purchases are "temporarily disabled" for regular customers. [https://wallet.tether.to/app/#!/signup](https://wallet.tether.to/app/#!/signup)

* Tether claims that these large purchases are being made by nameless "institutional investors" but didn't name who those investors would be.

* Why would large institutional investors be stupid enough to purchase billions of dollars of useless cryptotokens from a shady company anyway?

<comment><USER15> Oh man... That means the tether isn't even pegged any more! If I can't buy them from the issuer for one dollar each and I really need a billion of them for some reason, then they're worth more, no? Conversely, if I can't sell them, they're worthless.

<comment><USER21> It gets better! From their terms of service:

"There is no contractual right or other right or legal claim against us to redeem or exchange your Tethers for money. We do not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of Tethers by us for money. There is no guarantee against losses when you buy, trade, sell, or redeem Tethers."

Apparently they changed this text earlier this month to make it sound less like a total scam but the original text is still available on archive.org:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20171224172135/https://tether.to...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171224172135/https://tether.to/legal/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Shameless plug, I wrote a little telegram bot to send an alert whenever new Tether are created: [http://t.me/TetherAlerterBot](http://t.me/TetherAlerterBot)

</comment><comment><USER23> Tether will end up being the pretext US authorities use to raid various exchangers. It's coming folks. Do not leave your coins at an exchange wallet, ever.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tether is a foreign company, so the raid has to be from international authorities... but boy that raid story will rival Silk Road or Megaupload stories.

<comment><USER23> This is not going to matter one single bit. US authorities will claim they have evidence or reasonable suspicion that Tether funds were converted to coins that were later sent to addresses believed to be under the control of US-based exchangers. Money laundering raids 101.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Sometimes I wish I could forget all about integrity and honesty and just use my knowledge to make a quick buck by scamming people like all these cryptoscammers do..

<comment><USER25> Or do not do that but use your tech knowledge to make money from the market in a non scammy way. Past 1.5 month including the 'crash' of the past days were a party without scamming people. That is a quick buck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> A US public company can do the same thing in terms of their authorized stock vs their shares outstanding. You can print money without it being backed. This means increasing your 'authorized' as you see fit. Just get approval from the SEC/Finra and your buddies and you're good to go. Now lets talk about other organizations printing money that's not backed by anything e.g. the Fed, QE 1-4, countries with inflationary problems. Cryptocurrency offers far more transparency (as we can see here) and has true global reach. This FUD needs to stop and more effort needs to put into understanding financial engineering and it's importance and relation to software engineering.

<comment><USER27> I think you should look up how stock dilution works, how that typically destroys share prices, etc. I would like to suggest learning how finance works, starting from Investopedia /s

<comment><USER28> It would destroy the issuing company in a similar way that Tether refusing to pay out would destroy them. The analogy holds.

<comment><USER27> Yeah - I agree it's a ticking bomb - hasn't exploded yet, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Visual Introduction to Morse Theory - <AUTHOR> http://bastian.rieck.me/blog/posts/2019/morse_theory/ <comment><USER2> Massive thanks for article and more in particular this site. Ever since high school I have struggled with n-d space (for n>3), this site and previous article in the blog [http://bastian.rieck.me/blog/posts/2019/manifold/](http://bastian.rieck.me/blog/posts/2019/manifold/) is an amazing introduction.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for this kind feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is a (tiny) insight that I find missing in this introduction, the fact that the complexity can lie either on the function or on the manifold. The two extreme--and most common--cases of Morse theory are: a very complicated manifold with a simple function on it (e.g. one coordinate), or a very complicated function defined on a flat manifold. The theory applies the same to both cases but the insights are very different.

May I add two beautiful texts of historical interest but amazingly readable:

* J.C. Maxwell, "On Hills and Dales", 1870. [https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/hilldale.pdf](https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/hilldale.pdf)

* A. Cayley, "On contour and slope lines", 1859. [http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/cayleyconslo.pdf](http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/cayleyconslo.pdf) "[http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/cayleyconslo.pdf](http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/cayleyconslo.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for this! I'm doing an undergrad thesis applying TDA to EEG.

Currently I've been trying out using a sublevel set filtration on EEG data using a sliding window. For some reason the total persistence (sum of barcode lengths) can classify seizure vs non-seizure time segments.

Do you have any idea why it's able to do this, or where I can learn more?

I know that seizure events correspond to less determinism, as opposed to more chaos.

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds super interesting! I know that there's a lot of work by Perea and Harer about topological time series analysis out there. Most of it is based on sliding windows to my understanding. I would say that the total persistence is a quantifier of the topological complexity of an object (at least when being evaluated in relation to something else; obviously, we can make it as a large as we want by just scaling our weights accordingly)...

Let's discuss this further offline if you want! Drop me an e-mail and I can rope you into my current research on this topic.

<comment><USER4> I just sent a message to the email on your website :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Could please somebody provide some kind of motivation for a non-mathematician on that? I tried to start with reading the previous article, but I have no idea, what I should be doing to find myself in need of the tool I'm trying to understand here.

<comment><USER6> Morse theory can be used to prove that certain solutions exist/don't exist.

A simple example is: you have an angular robot arm that can turn 360 degrees. Can you come up with a smooth algorithm that moves it from any current position to any other position? Morse theory answers this because your configuration space is a torus.

Edit: Maybe one could say that Morse theory is the intermediate value [1] theorem for manifolds on steroids.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem)

<comment><USER5> Not sure if I understand you correctly. Do I need to prove that out of mathematical curiosity or for some profit? I mean, if it's the latter, isn't that kind of obvious (and the solution seems to be an exercise in geometry, not differential topology)? Maybe there are examples, where it would be much harder to see without some kind of sophisticated mathematical tools, but I don't see how it helps me in your example.

<comment><USER6> > Do I need to prove that out of mathematical curiosity or for some profit?

Knowing that a solution (or how many) exists or not is valuable because it tells you wether it's worthwhile to search for one. The robot arm example above helped an engineer friend of mine because his boss was not happy with his non-smooth solution. I could provide him with the papers that you cannot do better. This saved him time. Is it worth the overhead to learn Morse theory as an engineer? Probably not. Is it worthwhile to know it exists and ask a mathematician? I would argue yes.

<comment><USER5> Ok, that makes sense: apparently, I don't understand what is meant by "smooth algorithm". I assumed that it simply means you don't have to stop the manipulator on the path from A to B, but if it's something different, that might be helpful indeed. I'm failing to find a clear definition of what it actually meant when used like that, though.

<comment><USER6> Say you want to move from A to B on a circle. A simple algorithm would be to just go the shortest way from A to B which is well defined if A and B are not antipodal. If they are, you could define to always go against the clock.

Now this algorithm is fine, but it is not continuous (smooth), because a small variation in an antipodal point gives two vastly different paths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Rendered formulas are too small (Chrome and FF on Windows).

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here; I have the same issue with Android, but it seems related to `MathJax`. I initially said that formulas should scale to 100% of the surrounding text...

Can someone with more CSS knowledge chime in here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hey, I know Morse code - I was a squad radio operator in the military!

I can tell you that you don't memorize Morse code with math, you memorize it by creating syllabic mnemonics and the key is to learn how to trust your brain when the broadcast is at higher rates.

Of course there is also Chinese Morse code operators that broadcast at such higher rates that we couldn't intercept easily

<comment><USER9> I think you are a little bit confused.

This is about Morse theory (topology), by Marston Morse. The Morse code you are talking about is something else, by Samuel Morse.

<comment><AUTHOR> The confusion was unintentional, but this is why I added a footnote in the article :)</comment></comment></comment>


Stripe's new guide format – Accept a payment - <AUTHOR> https://stripe.com/docs/payments/integration-builder <comment><AUTHOR> Once again, Stripe innovates in the dev docs space. This is a masterclass on what excellent documentation should look like.</comment>


Cisco's Talos team analysis of WannaCry worm - <AUTHOR> http://blog.talosintelligence.com/2017/05/wannacry.html <comment><USER2> > .der, .pfx, .key, .crt, .csr, .p12, .pem, .odt, .sxw, .stw, .3ds, .max, > .3dm, .ods, .sxc, .stc, .dif, .slk, .wb2, .odp, .sxd, .std, .sxm, .sqlite3, > .sqlitedb, .sql, .accdb, .mdb, .dbf, .odb, .mdf, .ldf, .cpp, .pas, .asm, > .cmd, .bat, .vbs, .sch, .jsp, .php, .asp, .java, .jar, .class, .mp3, .wav, > .swf, .fla, .wmv, .mpg, .vob, .mpeg, .asf, .avi, .mov, .mp4, .mkv, .flv, > .wma, .mid, .m3u, .m4u, .svg, .psd, .tiff, .tif, .raw, .gif, .png, .bmp, > .jpg, .jpeg, .iso, .backup, .zip, .rar, .tgz, .tar, .bak, .ARC, .vmdk, .vdi, > .sldm, .sldx, .sti, .sxi, .dwg, .pdf, .wk1, .wks, .rtf, .csv, .txt, .msg, > .pst, .ppsx, .ppsm, .pps, .pot, .pptm, .pptx, .ppt, .xltm, .xltx, .xlc, > .xlm, .xlt, .xlw, .xlsb, .xlsm, .xlsx, .xls, .dotm, .dot, .docm, .docx, .doc

Phewww! Good thing I'm using .tex to write my thesis and write most of my code in .py... lol

<comment> semi-extrinsic I recently tried to email someone a .tar.gz of some .py files, and their academic email (large US university, hosted gmail) refused to let it pass. I was left to wonder what kind of research they do there.

<comment><USER3> Research with modern tooling like git?

<comment><USER4> I still believe you should be able to send files through email. Why should I setup a git server( static ip + domain name) to share a piece of code? What's next? "Modern tooling" like Google Docs instead of local apps?

<comment><USER5> > I still believe you should be able to send files through email.

Refusing to listen to what people have been telling you since the inception of email does not make you right, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Apart from the invididual victims, ransomware seems like it should have a good effect on computer security overall since it actually harms the people who get infected and motivates them to do security better. Most viruses keep quiet so people don't know or care if they're infected and contributing to DDOSs or spreading to others. I sometimes use computers that have obvious viruses on them, and it the people running them just let it happen because it doesn't stop their work.

<comment><USER7> Yes. I can't wait until self-driving car ransomware appears.

The amount of rage the customers will feel towards the makers of whatever non- secure self-driving or "connected" cars receive the ransomware should give those car makers a nice kick in the behind to get their act together.

Then we'll see how quick the car makers will be about implementing features such as "unlocking your car remotely from the beach."

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't say I "can't wait" for car viruses, but I do worry about all the stupid remote/automated features being advertised these days. You just _know_ it's going to be exploited, and cars are at the top of my list of things that should be as safe and secure as possible.

<comment><USER9> That mostly boils down to lowering the attack surface.

Individual cars doing their own thing, no problem. Cars talking to cloud, big privacy problem, potential security problem. Cars talking to each other locally, smaller privacy problem, but bigger security problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are some bitcoins flowing in into their wallet

[https://blockchain.info/address/115p7UMMngoj1pMvkpHijcRdfJNX...](https://blockchain.info/address/115p7UMMngoj1pMvkpHijcRdfJNXj6LrLn)

</comment><comment><USER11> "it is simply scanning accessible servers for the presence of the DOUBLEPULSAR backdoor. In cases where it identifies a host that has been implanted with this backdoor, it simply leverages the existing backdoor functionality available and uses it to infect the system with WannaCry." \- Not a security person but that seems pretty clever, and incredibly worrying. I presume we'll see more of this type of attack in the future - but curious if this has been a popular vector of compromising in the past? Also curious about what a / how a killswitch domain works?

<comment><USER12> > Also curious about what a / how a killswitch domain works?

From the article:

The above subroutine attempts an HTTP GET to this domain, and if it fails, continues to carry out the infection. However if it succeeds, the subroutine exits. The domain is registered to a well known sinkhole, effectively causing this sample to terminate its malicious activity.

<comment><USER11> But why??

<comment><USER13> Why does it do it? To avoid triggering in many sandbox environments, as they often are not connected to the internet and track and respond with generic yes/"correct data" formats

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've seen a few mentions of something along the lines of "The malware then checks for files with a file extension as listed in the appendix and encrypts these using 2048-bit RSA encryption."

I'm not super well versed in crypto, but is this possible? I assume they use symmetric encryption and then RSA encrypt the symmetric keys?

<comment><USER15> Probably. They could use RSA to encrypt the entire file, but that would be much slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Unreadable on Chrome on iOS [https://i.imgur.com/j13tqGn.png](https://i.imgur.com/j13tqGn.png)

<comment><USER17> Seems they fixed it. (Did a refresh and alls good now)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there a domain we can connect to with https?

Seems strange that an article as important as this wouldn't be served securely.</comment>


Moving into the future: Army shows off drone destroying mobile laser system - <AUTHOR> https://warisboring.com/moving-into-the-future-army-shows-off-drone-destroying-mobile-laser-system/ <comment><USER2> That headline is backward. The laser destroys drones. They didn't show a drone destroying the laser.</comment>


Church Sues Zoom After Bible Study Hacked with Pornography - <AUTHOR> https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/05/13/church-sues-zoom-after-bible-study-hacked-with-pornography/?slreturn=20200416141756 <comment><USER2> I saw a thread on Twitter about a teacher-parents meeting session being gatecrashed by a grifter posting "hard-core pedophilia".

To be honest I find it quite disappointing that people would even bother to go to the elaborate lengths of finagling their way in (presumably whilst covering their tracks) just for the sake of causing grief to others.</comment>


Spomenik - Futuristic Communist Yougoslavia monuments - <AUTHOR> http://www.foto8.com/new/online/blog/1268-spomenik <comment><USER2> My family is Serbian (Bosnian Serb, more accurately). What my family went through during the Tito era and prior is an interesting story. My grandfathers cousins were part of the Black Hand who assassinated Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo leading to WW1. My father was an active participant in anti- government movements during the 70s and was kicked out of the country as a result (and later arrested when he return, resulting in an international diplomatic indecent as he was an Australian citizen at the time).

Anyway, we weren't allowed to visit again until '01. When we did, we attempted to visit Jasenovac, but the police had road blocks on every road approaching the site in a wide radius. We were blocked from approaching the site from two different directions, and on the second attempt were essentially told to go away and that there was 'nothing to see here'.

The Croatian government has since become a lot more progressive, but there is still a large element of denial for what is essentially the Auschwitz of the Balkans.

The old Yugoslav government of Tito also didn't acknowledge what took place at Jasenovac - which is a large part of the reason why the rest of the world doesn't know about it. Tito pushed it all aside in the name of moving forward with 'brotherhood and unity'.

And btw, a lot of the monuments that you see in this post, at least those that were dedicated to the partizans and 'the workers', have since been heavily graffitied and vandalized. The local populations took their anger for the former state out on these huge monuments that were built at large expense.

<comment><USER3> Your family has some serious history. I consider the guns that killed Arch Duke Ferdinand to be some of the most important objects in the physical world (outside the much more important realm of ideas). I visited the war museum in Vienna where they are kept, alongside the car the duke was riding in and his uniform, a year ago. All the events of 20th century as we know it are shaped by a few objects in that room. Sure some will say they are "merely" the sparks that lit the potential energy in the powderkegs of history but, nevertheless, they are the sparks that did it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fascinating: _the monuments "had to be neutral enough to be acceptable to both victims and perpetrators. After all, once the slaughter was over, the former opponents had to collectively form the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia."_

<comment><USER5> This is one of the sources of the appeal of Balkans for "foreigners" and one of the sources of frustration and despair for the Balkan people themselves.

We never dealt with these issues in any way whatsoever. As is the cultural norm of all of the Balkan people, shit that we don't want to deal with is pushed away, compartmentalized and annotated (for future ammunition against those who have caused the atrocities). This left the entire region susceptible to manipulation by those who wished to tear the region apart. A lot of anger has built up during the 50 years between Jasenovac and the wars of the 90s.

(Full disclosure, I'm a Bosnian Serb, as well)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> For the story behind one of the monuments:

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

[http://www.france24.com/en/20100725-israels-peres-visits- cro...](http://www.france24.com/en/20100725-israels-peres-visits-croatian- auschwitz)

</comment><comment><USER7> Check out yugoslav dinar banknotes from 1955 onwards <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_Yugoslav_dinar> for great examples of socialist realism.

<comment><USER8> Socialism realism is a bit of doublespeak, though. Here's Wikipedia:

> Socialist realism held that successful art depicts and glorifies the > proletariat's struggle toward socialist progress. The Statute of the Union > of Soviet Writers in 1934 stated that socialist realism "is the basic method > of Soviet literature and literary criticism. It demands of the artist the > truthful, historically concrete representation of reality in its > revolutionary development. Moreover, the truthfulness and historical > concreteness of the artistic representation of reality must be linked with > the task of ideological transformation and education of workers in the > spirit of socialism."

Read that twice if you missed it - it must be truthful, and also must take the task of ideological transformation. That is, propaganda.

"Socialist idealist" might be a friendly way of describing that style of art, or "socialist propaganda" would be a less friendly way. But either way would be far more accurate than socialist realist. As someone whose spent lots of time around the world, the socialist countries have had absolutely terrible taste outside of a rare few well-done landmarks. Soviet housing in Eastern Europe is still brutal and cold and spiritually oppressive, and the older people there simply don't smile and look proud like you see on the banknotes.

Actual realism in art positions itself against romanticism. The socialist propaganda art is highly romanticized. The name's very much an Orwellian-style misnomer that hasn't been appropriately discarded yet.

<comment><USER7> Maybe, you seem to know that better than I do. I remember it being described during 80s as socialist realism. For example, this note: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000din-1963.jpg> depicts this guy here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alija_Sirotanovi%C4%87>

Guy won the international miners contest where he shoveled 'with ease' 25kgs in one go and similar mythic stories behind it. And every single note had a similar story behind it that furthered the myth of "workers in the spirit of socialism".

<comment><USER6> > And every single note had a similar story behind it that furthered the myth > of "workers in the spirit of socialism"

In Yugoslavia AFAIK the only note in that period with the real story is the one you've mentioned (but the other person was depicted in that older note). For others, citation needed, as the Wikipedia article is very specific. Old 1000 note "Arif Heralić" then some monuments or the most famous people, or generic faces, without real stories.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CoffeeScript 1.7.0 - <AUTHOR> http://coffeescript.org#changelog <comment><AUTHOR> There's also a nice writeup of some of the more user-visible changes available here: [https://gist.github.com/aseemk/8637896](https://gist.github.com/aseemk/8637896)

<comment><AUTHOR> _(couldn 't edit parent, so)_

Top 3 things tl;dr

Paren-free chaining (think jQuery or d3):

        bar = svg.append 'rect'
          .attr 'fill', 'papayawhip'
          .attr 'width', width
          .attr 'height', 0
          .attr 'y', height
          .attr 'data-hover', data.slug

Ellipsis for soaking up matching parameters, even if you don't want to name a variable:

        [first, ..., last] = arrayOfStuff

        lastArgumentFn = (..., last) -> last

... and generally improved source maps.

<comment><USER2> Nice… I had been using '__', but it seems like this will allow you to use it multiple times in a parameter list.

<comment><USER3> It's even cooler than throwaway names [0]. You can index from the back:

      arr = [1, 2, 3]
      [..., two, three] = arr

or look for node-style callbacks...

      myFun = (..., cb) ->
        cb()

But you can't use it multiple times. That would allow for ambiguous syntax:

      # disallowed
      [..., whatAmI, ...] = [1, 2, 3, 4]

[0] [https://gist.github.com/aseemk/8637896#expansion-in-array- de...](https://gist.github.com/aseemk/8637896#expansion-in-array- destructuring)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let's all take a moment to reflect on the elegance of the grammar.coffee file [0]. Notice how the function named 'o' provides simplicity as it plays well paren-less function calls.

[0] - [https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee- script/blob/master/src/g...](https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee- script/blob/master/src/grammar.coffee#L70)

<comment><USER5> Wow that is insanely beautiful to my eyes — thanks for pointing this out! Only thing that might make it better would be a litcoffee version :)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for pointing out litcoffee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is coffeescript still hip? I used to read a lot about it on here, maybe a year or two. Where is it at? Mainstream?

<comment><USER7> There has been a development of hate towards CoffeeScript in most JavaScript communities. CoffeeScript seems to be very popular in the non-JS communities that need to write JavaScript, like in the Ruby and Python web development communities. CoffeeScript was designed for non-JS coders to feel a lot more comfortable writing JS.

<comment><USER8> _There has been a development of hate towards CoffeeScript in most JavaScript communities._

This is FUD. CoffeeScript _is_ JavaScript, and if you come into CoffeeScript thinking it works like ruby just because it looks like ruby then you're in for a rude awakening.

Personally, I'm a fan of CoffeeScript's streamlined syntax compared to JavaScript.

For example:

      describe 'when the universe exists', ->
        it 'should be active', ->
          expect(universe.active).toBe true

vs

      describe('when the universe exists', function(){
        it('should be active', function(){
          expect(universe.active).toBe(true);
        });
      });

It's no surprise that newcomers are sometimes inclined towards CoffeeScript since one the biggest obstacles for a budding javascript programmer is the seemingly incomprehensible labyrinth of brackets, parenthesis and semicolons (not to mention the confusion that ASI adds to the picture) that one must endure to grok the language. Of course, it's not really _that_ hard to understand, but CoffeeScript filters out a lot of "syntax" making it easier for a newcomer to tackle the meat of the application. Less is more.

<comment><USER9> And moreover,

        describe 'syntax after upgrading', ->
          it 'should be even meatier', ->
            expect parentheses.required
              .toBe false

Very tidy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Updated the wrapper.js script we use to run uncompiled coffeescript files in node. It now checks for the existence of .register() and calls it if it's available.

[https://gist.github.com/davidbanham/8678004](https://gist.github.com/davidbanham/8678004)

</comment><comment><USER11> I absolutely love CoffeeScript, with how it structures classes and functions makes sense (plus the python like syntax was a big plus for work). JavaScript seemed to unorganized, unclear, and cluttered for big projects.

<comment><USER12> I do a fair amount of coffeescript work and every time I see the compiled source I'm so glad that I'm writing in coffeescript. It's not just that it makes certain JS gotchas almost non-issues (almost! there are still several things that can trip you up), it's that it makes clean, concise and correct programming so much easier. There are a lot of things, like curried functions (`f = (a) -> (b) -> result`) or testing for membership in a list (`if foo in [a, b, c]`) which one is much more likely to use in coffeescript than JavaScript because the syntax is so much nicer. Having good syntax doesn't just make it easier to read and write, it promotes good habits and discourages bad ones.

<comment><USER13> If I weren't coding ClojureScript now I would at least be in CS. CS is nice, but Clojure is just too strong a language.

<comment><USER12> I still need to try out ClojureScript. I've heard great things. I prefer the coffeescript syntax, though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This should make consuming promises a lot more readable!

        api.get 'comments/1'
        .then transformComment
        .then (comment) ->
          appendwithEvents comment, 'click'
          cacheComment comment
        .fail console.error

</comment><comment><USER15> > Leading . now closes all open calls, allowing for simpler chaining syntax.

I feel like this is an important improvement, but I don't really understand what it means. Can someone elaborate on what this means and how it works? How did things used to be different?

<comment><USER16> It would have been nice if their code example for this feature showed how the code would have looked in the prior version of Coffeescript.

<comment><USER17>
      $('body')
      .click (e) ->
        $('.box')
        .fadeIn('fast')
        .addClass '.active'
      .css 'background', 'white'

If I omit as many parentheses as possible. Also for the other example:

      result = range(1, 3)
        .concat(range 4, 6)
        .map((x) -> x * x)
        .filter (x) -> x % 2 is 0

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love the paren-free chaining but

>When requiring CoffeeScript files in Node you must now explicitly register the compiler. This can be done with require 'coffee-script/register' or CoffeeScript.register(). Also for configuration such as Mocha's, use coffee- script/register.

Since I have not been specifying my CoffeeScript version, I have a feeling this update is going to break a lot of my Node.js code. Am I right?

<comment><USER17> If you are running your code via 'coffee' or if you are compiling your code to JS this won't affect you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The greatest thing that I found in 1.7.0 is a step towards JSDoc with better comment support :

        ###*
        # Test
        ###

will be compiled to

        /**
         * Test
         */

And until now

        /**
        # Test
        */

</comment><comment><USER20> What does %% do? The documentation says: a %% b is the same as (a % b + b) % b, but what is the difference between "true mathematical modulo" and the standard modulo?

<comment><USER21> I guess: -2 % 6 = -2, but -2 %% 6 = 4.

<comment><USER22> Yep. I think the name for it is true or Euclidean modulo. Here's the pull request that introduced it and two other new operators: [https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee- script/pull/2887](https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/pull/2887)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Woohoo! Been wanting to chain without parens for a while. Much appreciated change!

</comment><comment><USER24> // for integer division instead of comments? Are these guys on crack?

<comment><USER25> # has always been for comments. What are you talking about?

<comment><USER26> Furthermore, # has been used for comments before //, so he's even "wronger" than he probably thought :)</comment></comment></comment>


Decision tree research papers from the last 30 years - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/benedekrozemberczki/awesome-decision-tree-papers <comment><AUTHOR> A curated list of decision, classification and regression tree research papers with implementations from the following conferences:

Machine learning:

        1. NeurIPS

        2. ICML

        3. ICLR

Computer vision:

        1. CVPR

        2. ICCV

        3. ECCV

Natural language processing:

        1. ACL

        2. NAACL

        3. EMNLP

Data Mining:

        1. KDD

        2. ICDM

        3. CIKM

        4. WWW

Artificial intelligence:

        1. AAAI

        2. IJCAI

        3. UAI

        4. AISTATS</comment>


Web slows after Jackson's death - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8120324.stm

<comment><USER2> Did the BBC really just use "Fail" as a one word sub-header?

<comment><USER3> Indeed. Which either means the meme can now die, or it's part of our language.

<comment><USER4> I'll vote for part of the language. Something this widespread isn't a meme.

As an English dick, I'm fine with "Fail". It's simple and to-the-point. Much better than "Fmylife" or similar flippant things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder what big scale incident will be so important and newsworthy that it would bring the web completely to a halt.

If the likes of twitter and Google were prominent when 9/11 happened, that would have caused big enough congestion in all the networks worldwide.

<comment><USER2> Google was pretty prominent when 9/11 happened. Most major news sites went down. Google actually mirrored a copy of cnn.com and linked it on the front page of Google.com under the search box. As far as I remember, Google itself never went down.

<comment><USER5> I remember the major American news sites like cnn.com and msnbc.com becoming more or less swamped and unreachable by the late morning of 9/11. They came back a little while later with static, text only versions of their home pages for the rest of the day.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a very good point to remember when designing high traffic web applications. Add the functionality to switch the site to just text mode on the occasion of overwhelming traffic like the ones described above.

Any pointers on how to do this?

<comment><USER6> Stop serving images? Obviously creating a text-only template is best, like another poster said, but the images are going to be the biggest drain. Simplifying your layout could help if you are under huge strain, but not as much as removing images.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


$695 USB cable wins TAS's editors' choice award - <AUTHOR> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2013-tas-editors-choice-awards-digital-interconnects/ <comment><USER2> It's nice when you can have a self-aware laugh occasionally.

This is clearly self-parody from a publication that I gather _is_ serious about audio hardware, right up to the edge of woo-woo imperceptible stuff, but probably not over that line.

A lineup of digital interconnects, which by definition are either perfect or have obvious signal dropouts, combined with language like "neutral without sounding bleached, dynamic without sounding piercing, detailed without sounding analytical" is a comical amplification on what I'm guessing is their usual review style.

This is The Absolute Sound's equivalent to the fake HN frontpage that makes the rounds now and then.

[edit]

Evidently, I was too quick to give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems most of the defense around audiophile-grade digital cables is that they "reduce jitter" (which somehow then translates to noticeable changes in different areas of the audible spectrum that can be described in wine- spectator terms) – does anyone have a good link or explanation on this principle?

<comment><USER3> Jitter is definitely a real phenomenon: [http://www.tnt- audio.com/clinica/diginterf1_e.html](http://www.tnt- audio.com/clinica/diginterf1_e.html). It's easy to forget that these "digital interconnects" are all fundamentally analog. Whether you can hear the distortion created by jitter or not is an entirely separate issue.

<comment><USER4> That may be true, but this is a USB cable and (IIRC) USB is packet-based. There is no way that clock jitter can influence the final result.

(edit: upvoted for the informative link, in any case)

<comment><USER3> USB is packet based, but USB Audio still recovers the clock signal from the timing of bits on the wire. This recovered clock is used to drive the DAC, which produces the final analog waveform.

<comment><USER4> Interesting! Just read up a little on that, and from here [http://www.edn.com/design/consumer/4376143/2/Fundamentals- of...](http://www.edn.com/design/consumer/4376143/2/Fundamentals-of-USB-Audio) it appears that is only one of several options (and acknowledged as a bad choice)

<comment><USER3> It is only one of several options, but it's also the most common one. It's a lot more expensive to build a device that operates in isochronous. You need to have a local buffer, extra compute capability, a high-quality local clock, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I want the painted on 'shield pattern' on the cable which keeps outside interference out of the cable :-)

I had an friend who made up some 'artisan' Ethernet cables on a whim, they had arrows indicating the direction of enhanced data flow, so you plugged the arrows facing "in" to your client, and "out" for your server. There were some cables that had been balanced for both in and out packets but they were twice as expensive.

</comment><comment><USER6> The sad part is I'd love to buy a $30 cable thats indestructible cable shielding and jacket, plenum rated insulation (just because) perfect dimensions so it fits great, anti-corrosion plated, visual and tactile indication of which side is up (which I can do with a paint pen but for $30 I want it done for me). Oh and superflex so in my car at -20F like last week its still flexy. And of course totally waterproof or at least if it gets wet, once dried out it'll work perfectly and undamaged.

But no, all we're allowed in a supposedly free market is $3 DX junk, $3 DX junk marked up to $15 at the brick-mortar store, or $700 audiophool stuff.

<comment><USER7> While our market may not be as free as I would like it to be, the lack of USB cable selection is separate from the issue of market freedom.

I like the cable you're describing. If you start selling them, I might buy one.

You might know this already, but I'll mention it anyways because I was looking at it recently: there exists something called "ultra flexible wire" that has a very high strand count compared to normal stranded wire. For example, standard 28 AWG wire has 7 strands of 36 AWG, but ultraflexible 28 AWG has 41 strands of 44 AWG. This makes it considerably more flexible.

[http://www.daburn.com/2671ultraflexiblesub- miniaturewire-u/l...](http://www.daburn.com/2671ultraflexiblesub- miniaturewire-u/lstyle15681692.aspx)

USB/headphone cables made from this wire could be quite a compelling product.

<comment><USER6> A cousin of the superflex antenna wire the "trail radio" ham radio guys use, or "litz wire" which is handy for certain RF coil purposes WRT skin effect.

I would imagine ultra tiny diameter wire would suffer from strength issues and fatigue failure. Something like copper plated steel "copperweld" made into litz wire would be pretty awesome. OR would it? Gold plated into ultra fine diameter stainless steel insulated individually and braided into a LITZ wire.

Litz wire is not cheap, even the Chinese stuff is significant fraction of a buck per foot.

If you'd like to see a cable that costs $600 and is fairly priced the Pasternack company sells truly exotic aerospace microwave cables that are quite expensive. You know, to hook up the antenna on your space probe, that kind of thing. Built by hand, individually tested and swept on a network analyzer, that kind of thing. I buy .mil surplus stuff, made by them, from ebay (not new). And going the other way if you do broadcast engineering, $600 is a rounding error when installing a 100KW rated feedline for a TV station. $600 worth of high current service entrance cable for AC power is a depressingly short length. But $600 for a USB cable is impressive in a totally different way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love that this is still alive and well in 2014.

Psychoacoustics are still very much apart of the audiophile world; although, the internet has helped reduce the hype to some degree. People believe whatever they perceive and aren't inherently objective.

A/B tests do crop up from time to time in various audio / video communities (AVS and some car audio forums hold some pretty objective events) but science doesn't always provide an answer people want to accept.

<comment><USER9> In 2012 I attended an A/B blind test for speaker cables... [https://sites.google.com/site/audiosocietyofminnesota/Home/a...](https://sites.google.com/site/audiosocietyofminnesota/Home/april-2012-speaker- cable-listening-test)

It was interesting that there was a preference for the higher priced cables. It is too bad that I did not save my votes to see if my poorly trained ears matched what the others preferred. It is hard to say if there is justifiable benefit in spending big money for cables but I would say it is worth spending a little bit more than the cost of lamp cord based on this test.

With the digital cables to me it seems like a high data rate, low error rate and decent buffering system is all that is necessary for good sound. Given the data rates required for audio (even SACD is in the low MiB/s range) a cheap USB cable should do the trick.

<comment><USER10> It makes sense if there was an audible difference with speaker cables, particularly if the amps were high power and the cables represented a range of gauges. Trying to power a line array with 22 gauge speaker wire isn't going to work very well.

The stuff in that article makes monster cable look like a bargain.

<comment><USER11> No, but you can do some pretty straightforward electrical engineering math to determine that 22-guage speaker wire will fail in that case. Show me the physics and math that show failure with a USB cable. One of the major issues here is that USB is like the AK47 of the interconnect world, designed to work it some pretty terrible places. So when you experience jitter, it not actually the GD cable, it's most likely one of the devices on either side using a shitty controller and not handling data loss gracefully.

Audio is so subjective anyway. You'll never win an argument with these people. You just have walk past them and try not to laugh. It's the same as the issue on wines. Doesn't matter how many double-blind tastings you do, some assholes will just sleep better knowing they're not drinking shit I made in my bathtub, even if it tastes the same a Bogle sauvignon blanc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What's the difference between an audiophile and a musicophile?

"An audiophile uses music to listen to stereos."

</comment><comment><USER13> Can't tell if joke or not.

Have audiophiles gotten The Onion treatment yet? Seems like such low hanging fruit.

<comment><USER14> Actually some people _objectively_ (as in 'visible on MRT scans') enjoy certain things more if they know they are somewhat superior, even if the 'superior' thing is the very same thing as the control 'inferior', just labeled differently.

There are examples and references in _" Thinking fast and slow"_ by Daniel Kahneman.

So the sellers of the $700 digital cable actually sell more enjoyable experience to certain (gullible) people, and do it _exactly_ by putting an exorbitant price tag and raising hype around an otherwise ordinary USB cable. They are not in business of selling exact sound reproduction; they are selling _exquisite experiences_. And for an experience, emotional details are _more_ important than the dull objectivity of spectrograms.

Imagine that you receive a pen as a gift from your loved one, nicely wrapped and solemnly handed. Compare it with an experience of owning the very same pen model which you hastily bought in a store for $10 because you needed something to jot with. The elevated joy of using the gifted pen is not in the pen, but in you and your experience, your memory. Same applies to audiophile equipment, collectible postal stamps, etc. The material thing just serves as a reminding token.

<comment><USER13> Sort of the placebo effect of the audiophile world.

Now, the question is do the people who buy $700 cables not knowing it's equivalent to a $10 cable get _more_ enjoyment than the people who know they're equivalent and buy the $10 cable?

If so, that's somewhat sad for us educated people. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

<comment><USER14> I assume you heard about status consumption. The fact of paying $700 (and people around knowing it) may be the enjoyable thing; for some it's even worth the $700.

The buyer might even never need to plug the cable in :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I remember mercury filled speaker cables being discussed briefly in the 80s. [1]

Hypothetical review of such cables:

"This wire lends a liquid transparency to strings. The fluid quality of horns has to be heard to be believed. There is a silvery quality to the brass, with no sign of the hard-edged, coppery sound normally associated with speaker cable...."

[1] [https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/Ba...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/BaPccdHhJ1k)

<comment><USER16> Hmm, at what point does a wire become a hose?

Also, I am in love with that superconducting cable idea. You could make a fortune with the razor-blade model selling audiophiles "special" LN2 on a subscription basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For that price I would expect the cable to follow me around the house/office, like a snake, and respond to my telepathic commands about where to plug in.

<comment><USER18> I would pay that much for a USB cable that, whenever you blindly reached behind your PC or monitor to plug it in, would always be oriented correctly with the plug. Think of all the time saved.

<comment><USER19> Take a look at all of your USB cables. Check to make sure that the top side of each connector has the USB logo cut into it deeply enough that it's easily felt by your thumb, and that there's no such engraving on the back. Throw away any cables that don't meet this test. It then quickly becomes very easy to tell when you grab a connector whether your thumb is on the top or bottom, and it becomes second nature to always plug your cables in correctly.

The USB-IF should deny a USB license to every cable manufacturer who doesn't do this right.

<comment> mark-r Except when the socket is vertical instead of horizontal.

<comment><USER20> Or the device is reversible top to bottom: horizontal is gone then, too.

(USB power plugs, for example)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For the cost, you could hire an orchestra to live in your basement. Of course, you'd need to wear electrum goggles and a visor of pure onyx for the best sound reception, because quantum mechanics.

<comment><USER22> Don't forget to burn them in by having them play 48 hours of noise

<comment><USER23> Please, this is nonsense.

It has to be 12 hours of brown noise, followed by 12 hours of pink noise, followed by 24 hours of white noise.

Really, the amount of misinformation around here about basement orchestra break-in procedures is astounding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I still wonder why the people who design and sell these products aren't all in jail.

"Audiophile" nonsense is a prime example of how consumer protection laws don't work if you invoke any kind of pseudo-science in your marketing.

<comment><USER25> I would say that the bullshit audiophile products are in a minority and there certainly are legit audiophile products.

<comment><USER26> As a former professional recording engineer, I'd say the opposite.

<comment><USER27> Eh, there's plenty of cheap garbage that you really want to avoid, at least in the world of analog cables. I've used so many instrument cables that don't make good contact. At some point I wound up just soldering Neutrik connectors on to good quality bulk cable.

The advantage Monster has is that their stuff is reliably good and widely available, even if it is obscenely overpriced.

<comment><USER28> Re: Monster. I haven't bought any of their stuff in years, but IME their interconnects were fine, but speaker cables not so much. I ended up terminating the speaker cables myself after the connectors on the originals and on the replaced (by Monster) cables fell off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is ridiculous, but its amusing to me that collisions between audiophiles and computer folks often unearth ignorance on both sides. E.g. The number of people who think that digital audio means that the signal on a spdif cable is always identical (ignoring clock recovery). Can you hear it? Who knows. But all cables are fundamentally analog.

<comment><USER29> It's a cable. It can't do anything weird to the data. If it gets through intact, it will be identical.

Factors like attenuation and shielding matter in certain circumstances, but not for a meter of USB.

<comment><USER3> I'm not really talking about the cable, but the idea that digital interfaces like SPDIF/USB Audio/HDMI are "bit perfect." The digital phenomenon of bit perfection, as programmers see it, is a fiction created by buffering, retry, and error-correction. SPDIF doesn't do any of these, and USB Audio doesn't do all of these in all modes. SPDIF receivers (and depending on the mode, USB Audio receivers) will recover the clock signal from the input signal, and use that clock signal to drive a DAC. So it's not just the sequence of ones and zeros that is relevant (a digital phenomenon), but the timing of their appearance on the cable (an analog phenomenon). Variation from the ideal timing will cause a distorted clock to be recovered by the receiver, which will cause distortion in the analog signal produced by the DAC. Whether or not these distortions are audible, they are certainly measurable.

<comment><USER30> In over 100 audiophile bashing posts, at last someone who actually understands the issues. USB cables have an 'eye pattern' which affects the timing of the signal presented to the DAC.

If USB cables make a difference, then there is probably an argument for doing something else (not ignoring the problem because USB cables must be 'perfect'). Like putting the DAC and computer driving the DAC in the same box and connected by I2S with the DAC as the master.

There are some good articles on the Audiostream site about why 'bit perfect' doesn't cut it in the context of audio:

[http://www.audiostream.com/category/industry- voice](http://www.audiostream.com/category/industry-voice)

<comment><USER29> What kind of insane hardware depends on CPU timings and doesn't have a hardware buffer that always plays at the same speed? Jitter in the intermediate steps doesn't matter when you're moving digital data from one place to another, as long as the buffers are larger than the amount of jitter.

DAC is hard. Moving a couple megabits of data five feet over a cable with multi-millisecond buffers is not hard.

I don't think it's even possible to use USB for 100%-throughput unbuffered data. I call bullshit on the eye pattern affecting playback.

Just because a difference technically exists in some circumstances with an oscilloscope does not mean it makes a difference in normal use cases.

Also wow that site called wireless a 'potential long-term health risk'.

<comment><USER3> What you're describing isn't as easy as it sounds. In order to have a "hardware buffer that always plays at the same speed" you need a high-quality locally generated clock, plus a decent amount of local buffering. But in a USB audio device or SPDIF device, you can't run a totally independent clock, because it will get out of sync with the clock on the host device sending the data. There are various tricks to get around this (e.g. having a feedback loop using a sideband), but it's actually a non-trivial problem. See: [http://www.cypress.com/?docID=45044](http://www.cypress.com/?docID=45044) for one approach. Most USB audio devices don't even attempt to do this. They try and recover the host machine's playback clock using the timing of USB SOF packets (which are sent every millisecond-ish) plus the timing of the USB audio data packets it receives.

<comment><USER29> Yes, sure, those things are hard, and they have _nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of passive components like cables, as long as they are not in the failure range_. Or anything to do with working-transceiver quality except when it comes to the clocks that the transceivers are using.

When you talk about jitter introducing significant distortion based on packet timing, that's something that can only happen in two ways: either the audio receiver is using an absolute garbage clock, or it's using an absolute garbage and shortsighted algorithm for adjusting its clock rate, and not trying for a stable sync. The quality of transceiver and cable components is not a factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Poked around their site, it's definitely caters to the rich who are dumb and think a 600 dollar usb cable will make their digital sound files sound better on their 60K speakers driven by their 100K amp. I've seen references to a $300 dollar power cable that they think is a steal. The site is real, just ludicrous.

</comment><comment><USER32> Link to audiophile-cable vs coat-hanger-used-as-audio-cable blind test:

[http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound- as-g...](http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good- monster-cables/)

<comment><USER33> thanks for that, i lolled :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Has anyone on HN been tempted to pander to the audiophile crowd?

Making some simple one metre long cables would be cheap enough, even using exotic materials, and the markup is huge.

<comment><USER35> I'm into it. Want to start a business?

<comment><USER32> I'd go with maglev cables. Have some sort of base or track on the floor that would keep the cables levitated. Less strain on the metals inside. A clearer path to your audio purity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I guess it must be a joke.... Ha.

This reminds of some guys I knew in the 90's when CD burners were newer that swore that the gold cdr's sounded better then the blue ones. I tried to tell them how digital audio works, but it didn't help. One of them decided the gold ones had a lower error rate. Conclusion in search of a mechanism/hypothesis.

If 16 gauge lamp cord was good enough for Paul Klipsch, then it's good enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER36> _Diamond USB has a relaxed quality that fosters deep musical involvement._

It's a parody.

<comment><USER37> That, and they have a $15 Belkin cable at the bottom.

<comment><USER38> Even better (or worse depending upon whether this is actually a parody or not.. sadly I don't think it is) is that they refer to the $15 Belkin cable as "ridiculously inexpensive". I feel like a chump when I'm forced to buy a a USB cable for more than a couple of bucks (usually because I need it _right now_ and thus monoprice, et al aren't an option).

<comment><USER39> I think I have had exactly that cable in the past, and it was a quality piece of cable. I know most people vote "buy the $0.02 cable", but after buying some truly _cheap_ cables, I have come to appreciate cables with decent construction. Yes, they both pass data the same, but only one falls out and falls apart.

Oh, and shielding. You never get shielding on cheap cables. Doesn't matter for USB, but I've never appreciated my stereo or headphones picking up an incoming call to my cell.

<comment><USER40> As a guitarist, I've played with many, many cheap cables. They all sound the same, except when I take a step to the side. At that point, there's two types of cables: the ones that continue carrying the note you're playing, and the ones that cause your amp to emit the most godawful sounds you've ever heard.

The difference in the cables, of course, being the quality of the construction on the plugs.

<comment><USER41> I've gone through a ton of cheap guitar cables, and then one of my housemates got a Canare cable. Ever since, it's all we buy -- insanely high quality construction, and it has a sheath over the sleeve of the guitar side, which cuts off signal when you unplug. No more having to kill your amp to disconnect your guitar. They're a bit on the pricey side, but not bad at all considering what you get. (What I normally buy: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004I46DS2/ref=wms_ohs_prod...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004I46DS2/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1) )

<comment><USER40> Nice, I'll take a look at those. The cables I'm using right now have to break at some point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The best example of this kind of crazy thinking is the massive volume of articles you'll get from the audiophile community about how Blind AB audio test are flawed because when they do the test blinded they can't hear the difference between the expensive and the cheap components but when they do the test unblinded they can instantly hear the difference.

It's funny every time.

<comment><USER42> I found my favourite

[http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are- flaw...](http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed- editorial?page=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Better cables == sharper corners on your bits. Fact.

;)

<comment><USER44> They enhance your Word documents! Really!

<comment><USER45> Support for Excel documents is coming in a future version. Upgrade pricing will be available!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Back before I was married, in 1999 or so, I fell for the "premium" cable ruse. I spent $150+ on some component video cables for my Sony XBR high-end, CRT TV (this was pre-HDTV). I didn't believe in the audiophile stuff (they were crazy), but _video_ quality could certainly be distinguished by an "amateur."

One month ago, my Comcast DVR's HDMI port failed, and I had to dig out my old component video cables for my 7-year-old plasma TV. They worked perfectly, after 15 years. But the quality is no different than the $2 Amazon-branded HDMI cables. My lesson: 1) premium audio cables are bullshit; 2) premium video cables are bullshit too.

</comment><comment><USER47> The top rated comment and its subsequent discussion are golden:

 _I am a retired sound engineer who spent a lifetime in major sound studios and I can state categorically that there wasn 't a one cable in all those recording studios that cost more than a dollar or so per foot. Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording studios that cost in the millions and where the search for the right sound is an obsession. A cable's only function is to carry what goes in one end out to the other. To talk about the sound altering effects of cable is heresy. They can't and they don't. It's marketing hype._

</comment><comment> mark-r My favorite part is where the $275 USB cable is described as "mid-priced".

I subscribed to The Absolute Sound for many years, and found it to be useful in many respects. If you're going to put together a sound system that sounds anywhere close to realistic you need to be open minded and insanely dedicated. In this case though it seems clear they've gone off the deep end.

</comment><comment><USER44> If this is parody...then it's golden!

<comment><USER48> No, unfortunately it is not a parody!

There is so much bullshit going on... It's really really sad.

Do some research on jplay for example: [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=9285...](http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92856)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I decided to check the prices on those cables and was surprised to find that some are even more expensive. For example, an AudioQuest "Diamond" USB to iPod cable runs $1,495! Here's the link: [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/audioquest- diamond-16-4-usb-a-to...](http://www.bestbuy.com/site/audioquest- diamond-16-4-usb-a-to-apple-ipod-ipad-cable-black- gray/4759942.p?id=1218523201475&skuId=4759942)

</comment><comment><USER50> You can all laugh, but I use these types of cables to copy data to my portable HD and I have never experienced any data loss since I started using them. So there.

</comment><comment><USER51> In a slightly related story, our CMS team believes that there's a problem unique to PNG files that prevents them from being stored in alfresco.

</comment><comment><USER52> Strewth. What exactly do these people think they're getting for their money? And how do their beliefs proliferate? Is it like religion, where the guy who misinforms you doesn't believe he's misinforming you? Or crack-pushing, where the guy knows he's doing wrong?

<comment><USER6> If you were asking seriously, the best analogy I can think of for audiophile / consumer electronics is the car biz, its merely the traditional conflict between marketing and engineering.

I recently bought a really nicely engineered car, I researched the history of the engine development and last decade of its production, its awesome, long term reliability, the power train is awesome but the rest of the car is pretty good too. But marketing advertisements claimed it came with not one but two attractively dressed hot young women, donuts, and a park pass. Trying to analyze how they thought those three items will excite every member of the general public is amusing. Anyway I think one department may have been lying to me / ripped me off.

<comment><USER52> Yeah, I was absolutely asking seriously :)

It's easy enough to see how someone who doesn't understand the basic science could be taken in by some of the claims made for these cables - what I can't make my mind up on is whether the people _selling_ them know and understand that they're lying.

(edit: to be clear, I'm as sure as I can be that the people _producing_ the things must know that they're liars)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Classic [http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Cable- Version/pr...](http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Cable- Version/product-reviews/B000I1X6PM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1)

</comment><comment><USER54> Seems like the whole industry can be explained by the Asch paradigm ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments))

</comment><comment><USER32> Audiophiles should just say they buy these for the aesthetics. Then nobody can mock, er, I mean, argue with their buying choices. Some of the stuff does look good.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm picking up strong readings on my douchiness radar.

</comment><comment><USER56> Ha... Now, they could at least tell us how their tests were done.

Something tells me that they could se the price tag and brand while they were testing them.

</comment><comment><USER57> I wonder if there is a correlation between religious people and audiophiles.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm still not sure if I was reading something like The Onion.

</comment><comment><USER59> It is hilarious ... a friend of mine builds high end, custom, all-digital (Class D) amplifiers. Basically, if you want a good review, you have to give the reviewer a free unit.</comment>


Computational Quadrinitarianism (2018) - <AUTHOR> http://comonad.com/reader/2018/computational-quadrinitarianism-curious-correspondences-go-cubical/ <comment><USER2> A mathematician pontificating so that they don't have to learn a different notation and map things themselves. Yawn.

Why would any programmer even want language designers to try to consider this viewpoint? Do they get to analyze the specific typical variety of introduced constructs? What does it give in return for this huge amount of time to wade through specific mathematical motifs utilized? (Except for compiler recompiler authors and of obfuscation tools, maybe.)</comment>


Recruiting - A Tutorial - <AUTHOR> http://blog.capwatkins.com/recruiting-a-tutorial <comment><USER2> If you're getting cold-called by a recruiter, that recruiter is a spray-and- pray inside salesperson, and no list of suggestions is going to make them worth working with. You have the complete correct answer at the very top of this post: find out who they work for, and blacklist that company.

<comment><USER3> One of the problems with having the personality of an experimental physicist is that one gets irrational pleasure out of testing the very, very obvious. You know the theorists are probably right, you know the published data is probably right, but who can resist the experiment? Seeing is believing!

Taking a cold-call from a recruiter is on the list of "things I have tried in the whimsical spirit of experimentation". It did not go well. Fortunately, I was ready for that. Expecting it, even.

My one quibble is that perhaps you shouldn't judge a company too harshly if a poor recruiter claims to represent them. Companies are often desperate to hire, efficient recruiting is not a skill that everyone is blessed with, so they sometimes take fliers on bad recruiters as well. More importantly, one simply cannot trust a strange recruiter to honestly represent their relationship with a company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd add another one here - make sure you learn about the candidate prior to the interview.

I once tried to hire someone who had contributed heavily to an open source library we were actively using on a project. We didn't ask "what experience do you have with X", because we knew about this candidate's significant contributions to X.

Unfortunately, a lot of recruiters are dropping a net across a river, figuring that an intensive technical screening will filter out the small number who can actually do the job. And of course, having done lots of tech interviews, I do understand why the technical screenings are done. But I also know that they can suggest a kind of laziness, an implication that you don't need to get to know a candidate's work, because if they can get through your screening, then of course they can code. But asking "what experience do you have with technology X" to someone who is all over the commit log for X can make you seem like the sort of company that isn't really aware of what's going on in your space.

I didn't succeed in hiring the programmer I mentioned, but I'm pretty confident that we made a good impression on a strong candidate.

</comment><comment><USER5> A few weeks ago, I had an email from a recruiter that contained a job description that I had written just a few days prior. This guy was trying to recruit me for my own team.

I forwarded it to HR, and our company no longer uses that firm.

<comment><USER6> I once got 7(!) separate recruiter calls for a job at a company I was fired from years earlier, for the position I had at the time. You'd think they'd do a basic search to make sure the company name they're recruiting for isn't already on the resume!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't mind so much when they call. I just ask them over and over how much this fantastic opportunity in South Dakota pays and what the exact benefits are (ie: what is the name of the insurer they use, do they pay _full_ relocation, etc). No one wants to give this data out, and yet it's rather critical. It's pointless to discuss my qualifications when your pay is at the median or below.

</comment><comment><USER8> _This experience, as I understand it, is not uncommon. In fact, Andrew seemed surprised that I was unhappy with being cold-called at home. "This is industry standard," he argued with me._

Someone once tried that line with me when they were ripping off my stuff and selling it as their own. For some reason, it now really really sets me off these days.

</comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately, anyone with an email address and a phone number can call themselves a recruiter. And because $15 billion in fees is up for grabs every year in the USA, annoying/dirty/spammy tactics are the norm, rather than the exception. You'd be surprised about how many people calling themselves tech recruiters think "Rails" is a form of transportation :)

</comment><comment><USER10> If these behaviors didn't work they wouldn't do it. Recruitment agents don't care about being a dick they care about money and quotas

</comment><comment><USER11> The worst I've gotten from a recruiter was just a few days ago. All it was was an email with the subject "Please call me right away thanks", and the message only contained his sig, including his phone number. This is bad in so many ways I wouldn't even know where to begin enumerating them.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you're in the EU brush and sick of this, brush up on your local implementation of the Data Protection Directive ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive> )

</comment><comment><USER13> > Read the profiles. Know who you're contacting

This is the most annoying part. I have been contacted several times for various technology lead positions because of the buzzword-hits approach that lazy recruiters use.</comment>