Show HN: Swift Budget – Envelope Budgeting for iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://budget.cash/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all, I made this in my spare time because I'm really interested in personal finance and I really hated all of the other budgeting apps. I'm hoping others like it, but it works for me and that was my main goal.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Main annoyance for me with other apps: the auto-categorizing of transactions. Personal finance is personal, and it's impossible to get them right 100% of the time. I use the same type of guesses so if it is right you can quickly confirm it, but if it isn't you have a chance to correct it before it goes into the wrong budget category.

Edit: also here is direct link to app store if people prefer that. wasn't sure if i should link my site or app store - [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/swift- budget/id1222420404?ls...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/swift- budget/id1222420404?ls=1&mt=8)

<comment><USER2> Hey this is really cool! I'm a big fan of the envelope system.

Is there support for having a separation between my personal finances and my shared as a couple finances? If not, are there plans for that? For example, we have a joint account and our own personal accounts.

<comment><AUTHOR> hmmm, there isn't anything specifically built in for something like that, but, I think it would work anyways. Example:

You can add as many envelopes as you want, and as many accounts as you want. So, you add all of the joint accounts and all of the personal accounts.

The accounts page will show the individual balances of each account as well as a combined total.

The envelopes will show the balance of each envelope as well as the combined total.

It'll just be up to you to put the income and transactions from each account into the envelopes you want them to go into.

I think this works, assuming I'm understanding your question correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The app looks good! I didn't liked the fact that I have to create an account to use the app on my device. Are you planning on adding a web version or something to support multiple devices? That's the only reason/benefit I can think of for the account registration.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason for account registration is so that you can use it on multiple devices now, i.e. phone + iPad or couples both using it on their phone (the main use case).

That being said, I am planning on adding web and Android versions as well. Not sure on the ETA for those yet but they are in the works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think you need some feedback [https://feedbacktoaster.com/](https://feedbacktoaster.com/)</comment>


Ask HN: (Python) Web framework of the future? - <AUTHOR>

There was an ASK HN thread earlier this year about web frameworks, and I recall someone said something I was quite intrigued by -- the framework of the future will not be WSGI based, because it will have to support websockets well.
Considering that, and any other criteria, what framework do you feel is going to be important in the future? Is it Brubeck (http://brubeck.io/) or Diesel (http://diesel.io/)? Or, more generally, what characteristics, qualities or traits are going to be important when it comes to frameworks? <comment><USER2> Regarding design choices, I think Brubeck and Diesel are indeed the future. They don't rely on the broken ideas found in WSGI and they don't attempt to bolt on concurrency. Both are designed around an async / nonblocking system that removes the horrible callbacks found in Node.js, Twisted, Tornado and even provide a system for converting your blocking calls into nonblocking calls.

On top of that, the performance of these two, by being based in gevent, blows the other systems out of the water. Tornado and Twisted are both slower due to so much of the core loop being written in Python instead of C. Here is a simple hello world comparison of Brubeck vs. Tornado: <https://gist.github.com/2252671> \- What we see is that at it's base level, meaning there's no I/O or CPU bound tasks, gevent is straight-up much faster.

Regarding features, Brubeck can already generate a REST API for you, provides auth hooks, has oauth plugins, supports the template systems you care about, works great with mongo, riak, redis, postgres, mysql, all with nonblocking support, and it even comes witha modeling layer that won't force badly generated queries on you, aka databaseless schemas.

(As said in my other comment, I am biased due to being on Brubeck's core team)

</comment><comment><USER3> You may be referring to this thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766137>

Personally, I am working in Clojure these days, in part because of this and its concurrency model.

See the Clojure Aleph library for WebSockets ([https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&pws=0&#...).

</comment><comment><USER4> Using flask with websockets via gevent is pretty easy, I imagine this would also be true for other frameworks

</comment><comment><USER2> Brubeck has experimental WebSockets support coming up soon. The basic idea is that all of the socket proxying takes place in Mongrel2 and Brubeck handlers simply process messages from the socket.

Brubeck, in this design, is asynchronous and full duplex, just like websockets themselves. The other models I've seen seem to require hooking your webframework up directly to the servers, without any socket proxying support. That might be useful for small installations, but it is a core design goal of Brubeck to make life easy as you scale up. Having Mongrel2 proxy the connections is part of how we do that.

(As the original author of Brubeck, I am biased)

</comment><comment><USER5> Pyramid + gevent-socketio is the way to go for real-time web applications using python.

</comment><comment><USER6> Using web.py and loving it! <http://webpy.org/></comment>


Ask HN: Abandoning iOS applications - <AUTHOR>

I wrote a slightly successful iPhone game ( http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/combination/id300288142?mt=8 ).
I don't really want to keep paying Apple every year, but I don't really want to take the game away from users who have paid for it. I believe users will be able to keep the game if they have it on their computer, but Apple will remove it from their servers.
I had a call from Apple today reminding me I have to renew within the next couple of days. Is there any reasonable way around paying Apple, or do I have to continue paying the Apple tax?
This of course motivated me to finish an HTML5 version for this time next year! <comment><USER2> When you stop paying your developer account membership fee, the app isn't deleted from the users' devices - it is merely removed from the App Store. This means that existing users who don't have a copy of the app on their computers will still be able to keep the app if (1) they don't delete it from their devices or (2) they don't try to restore from iCloud (which basically downloads previously installed apps from the App Store).

</comment><comment><USER3> If you have the time to put together the HTML5 version before it expires, you may want to update the app to a Browser View that pulls the HTML5 down and displays it, this way future updated can be provided without having to update the IOS app. It's a pretty simple app to write, you just check the date on the web page when the app has connectivity, if it is newer than the one you cache then replace it with the newest page and then the browser view points to that locally cached page. New updates are literally just pushing out the app to the webserver.

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure this (just a UIWebView with no additional functionality) would get the update rejected: See any of the answers here - [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7421002/app-rejected- from...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7421002/app-rejected-from-apple- app-store-because-uiwebview-need-some-advice) \- and <http://www.makayama.com/checklist.html> (question 31)

<comment><USER3> Good to know, I knew a while back developers where doing this to deliver HTML/CSS/JS developed apps to the app store. It seems Apple is now cracking down on the practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You could always open source the app. That way someone could pick it up and maintain it after you but it may also be useful if someone wants to load it on to their (jail-broken) device afterward.

</comment><comment><USER5> Do you not make money from the app? Or other apps? You can always sell the source to someone and let them maintain it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I only have one app. I made it free about 18 months, because I never updated it for iPads or retina displays, and now of course there is the larger iPhone 5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You could just let everyone who bought the iOS version download the HTML5 version.</comment>


Scam artists created a fake Bloomberg News site to pump and dump Twitter stock - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/14/8962433/fake-bloomberg-news-twitter-stock-scam

<comment><USER2> why post a lame consolidator summary when full story links (including New York Times) were already posted 14 hours ago?</comment>


Poor Guy Accidentally Steals and Then Destroys $300M Worth of Ether - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/poor-guy-accidentally-steals-and-then-destroys-300-mil-1820251726 <comment><AUTHOR> see: [http://cryptocentral.info/topic/1794/parity-wallet- critical-...](http://cryptocentral.info/topic/1794/parity-wallet-critical- security-alert)</comment>


Dear Steve Jobs: You're wrong again. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/17196/dear_steve_jobs_youre_wrong_again

<comment> brown9-2 JR Raphael: "First, when you say that Apple has more daily activations than Android, your figures include all iOS devices: iPhones, iPads, and iPods. The Android figures we've been looking at so far focus solely on phones."

The actual quote from Steve Jobs on the earnings call:

"Well, what about Google? Last week, Eric Schmidt reiterated that they are activating 200,000 Android devices per day. And have around 90,000 apps in their App Store. For comparison, Apple has activated around 275,000 iOS devices per day on average for the past 30 days with a peak of almost 300,000 iOS devices per day on a few of those days. And Apple has 300,000 apps on its App Store." (Source: [http://seekingalpha.com/article/230710-apple-s-ceo- discusses...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/230710-apple-s-ceo- discusses-f4q10-results-earnings-call-transcript))

Why is the author rebuking Steve Jobs about "your figures include all iOS devices" when that is _exactly what Steve Jobs actually said_?

Mr. Raphael even cites an article which has a disclaimer at the top that says "The story you're about to read is not (entirely) true" as evidence that Mr. Jobs doesn't allow the word "open" to be used in his house.

This feels like manufactured criticism.

<comment><USER2> I believe that the author was implying that Steve Jobs carefully chose data to support an argument when other data would have better suited the comparison that he as making. Disagreements about whether he was trying to conceal his choice in data don't seem very relevant to me.

EDIT: You are probably right about the author. He does seem to have an axe to grind. But I don't think it make his argument (in this case) less correct.

<comment><USER3> _I believe that the author was implying that Steve Jobs carefully chose data to support an argument when other data would have better suited the comparison that he as making._

Which is likewise wrong. Jobs cites total iOS activations because Apple makes no distinction. It's reflective of how the company that he represents _actually_ thinks, and he used the data that they actually pay attention to.

The author presumes that including iPads and iPods is somehow "cheating", but he's the one selectively picking only the market in which Android is succeeding. If you look at everything that runs either OS, Jobs is right. It's only if you selectively pick smartphones (and growth, specifically, as Apple's share is still greater) that Android looks good.

<comment><USER4> >Jobs cites total iOS activations because Apple makes no distinction. It's reflective of how the company that he represents actually thinks, and he used the data that they actually pay attention to.

So you mean Apple has no way to find out the number of iPhones activated per day since they make no distinction?

Analysts want to compare the number of Android phones vs. the number of iPhones sold. Apple is intentionally withholding that data because it makes them look bad and is instead talking only iOS numbers.

<comment><USER3> _So you mean Apple has no way to find out the number of iPhones activated per day since they make no distinction?_

No, that's not what I mean at all. What I am saying is that Apple thinks of the iPhone, iPod, and iPad as three different containers for the same thing rather than as three wholly independent product lines. I don't see how that's controversial or unusual, and the existence of Android media players and tablets is evidence that this thinking is not unique to Apple. It's not clear that Schmidt's 200,000 activations/day figure excluded such devices, either, nor do I think it should.

 _Analysts want to compare the number of Android phones vs. the number of iPhones sold. Apple is intentionally withholding that data because it makes them look bad and is instead talking only iOS numbers._

Nonsense. The quarterly sales figures for the iPhone were stated twice in the very same call (the transcript linked above). It's also _very_ hard to believe that Jobs is afraid that the iPhone being out-sold by the sum of all Android phones makes Apple look bad when he even said so himself in the same call:

"[...] Android is our biggest competitor. They out-shipped us in the June quarter as we were transitioning to iPhone 4. They out-shipped us for the first time according to Gartner's numbers, which we think are pretty accurate."

<comment><USER5> Clearly the only legitimate comparison is the number of phones activated on Verizon's network. Anyone who feels differently is a sheep who puts fashion and popularity ahead of the only things that really matter and has been sucked into Steve Jobs's reality distortion field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm concerned with the authors heart rate. I hope he's well.

The article certainly has truth in it, but I would propose a rename to: Random ramblings from an Android user. Also, I propose the author might take a look into Paul Grahams essay on "How to disagree"[1].

1\. <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html>

<comment><USER7> If the author wants to rant, I would think digging into the motives for Apple backing away from Java support might be more fertile territory. At least it'd have more substance to it that what amount to PR positions on numbers.

Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java development for other platforms (Android in particular)?

Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.

It's not like the cost of paying developers to work on Java is a burden for Apple, and it doesn't have the reputation Flash does for crashing/slowing the system.

Vulnerabilities could be an excuse to stay clear of Java, but like Flash, if users have it installed and have to get updates outside of the (semi) automatic software updates, users are less likely to be up to date, not more.

If the author wants a little speculation for his rant, he ought to ask questions like will Steve kill X11?

The Mac with OS X has had a lot of respect as a stable very interoperable do- everything platform. If Apple wants to change that, some of us will be kicking and screaming. Apple has been able to give users an extra nudge towards new hardware by limiting the length of time old hardware sees major OS updates. (The 1985 Mac Plus was still supported under System 7.5, well past the five year period seen now). Killing support for something without the justification of certain hardware being inadequate is a tougher pill to swallow. If Apple goes too far, they'll certainly lose more science/engineering types to Linux.

<comment><USER8> _Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java development for other platforms (Android in particular)?_

No, because Android already distributes an SDK for Mac, and can easily deploy whatever Java stuff they need along with it: <http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html>

* Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.*

Transmission, the best BitTorrent client, runs natively on Mac.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _P.S. That was a nice black turtleneck you had on the other day. You should really consider wearing those more often._

Well played, JR.

[EDIT: Wait a minute: That classless hack makes a vacuous _ad hominem_ attack his punchline, and I get voted down for pointing that out?]

<comment><USER10> You get my up-vote considering I copied that exact line to point it out until I saw you already did. This guy's Twitter handle is AndroidPower, I couldn't even take him serious writing about Jobs. Leave it to CW to get the best of the bunch!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ok, this computerworld kid has a couple of points but the writing is drawn out drivel.

The personal dig about steve's wardrobe was totally un-needed and unclassy.

Steve Jobs has masterminded the most amazing turnaround story probably in history. Have some respect at least. What an idiot this writer is.

<comment><USER12> You say that the dig about the wardrobe is "un-needed and unclassy" and then go on to say the writer is an "idiot". I think you need to look in the mirror and see that the pot is just as black as the kettle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I found his ramblings on it Just Working to be of interest. My experience with getting an IPod to just work was the same. Getting music and apps on the Android phone is far easier than the IPod. Their stance of requiring the ITunes app really harms the User Experience there. It actually suprises me that they have let it go like this for so long. I would have expected from Apple's reputation that they would have made it much easier by now.

<comment><USER14> I agree but I would assume it has to do with anti-piracy measures. Being the number-one music vendor in the US has its downsides since all the record companies (and RIAA) have a vested interest in it.

Though I could be wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't want to piss anybody off but I know a lot of Android users that would be using an iPhone but they are not on AT&T.

If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers.

Plus, we ARE comparing OSes so platform does not matter. Right now it iOS vs Droid. The fact that Apple has managed to push it on multiple devices should not count against them...just as keeping it in one carrier has hurt them.

<comment><USER16> _If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers._

I disagree with the notion that the real numbers are somehow not real, and the _real_ "real numbers" are the result of a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" situation.

<comment><USER15> Ok, you are right Gloob. Real is a bad choice of words.

If the iPhone were available on every carrier their would be a lot more people using the iPhone. It's almost like its every carrier and every phone manufacturer vs Apple.

Don't get me wrong, if I were in contract at Sprint or Verizon I would be on Droid also.

I have invested money in applications (not a whole lot). Switching platforms would also mean finding new software and purchasing some of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So it's alright for people to inflate Android's numbers by using all the phones, tablets, and e-readers when comparing them with the iPhone as was done some time ago, BUT when Apple adds the other iOS devices to the party (which off course makes a fairer comparison) and surpasses Android's numbers they're wrong?

Jesus there are more than 60 phones right on Android, more than 25 tablets, and a couple of readers. How is that a fair comparison? In any case, the real issue is not iOS vs Android, who cares about adoption rates of an OS when you're in the business of selling the product itself. The iPhone is still the most popular and best selling smartphone, and the iPad does the same for tablets. That's not going to change overnight because 20 new crappy phones from China are now Android powered.

<comment><USER18> 1) Comparing all Android devices to just the iPhone is also deceptive.

2) It is much more important to compare OS share to individual phone share. This is because it indicates the industry's trajectory far better. A user who has an Android phone and purchase another and not have to spend anytime learning a new framework; he'll highly likely buy a new Android phone (regardless of manufacturer) when he needs a new one. And on mobile devices, downloadable apps remain very important; the most popular OS (not phone!) will get the most developer attention, producing a virtuous cycle for the winner.

<comment><USER17> 1) Uhm that is exactly what I said. It's common practice to compare Android as an OS adoption vs the iPhone adoption rates. Then when people do the same for Apple and add the other iOS devices, then articles as the one in the OP are born. Read my post again, because you're agreeing with me kind sir.

2) Here you're assuming that the users actually care about the iOS vs Android wars. A regular user who has an Android phone will not buy another Android phone because of its OS, they'll buy it because it's marketed as the successor of the phone they used before. By your example a regular user of Blackberry phones would easily move to another brand because it used the same Blackberry OS, or a iPhone user would move to a different phone manufacturer because he was told it also has iOS. This is simply not true. Nexus One users are more likely to buy a Nexus Two (and not a HTC Magic 2 in contrast) and iPhone4 users are more prone to buying a iPhone5 because of the product loyalty and brand popularity inherent in both choices. Industry trajectory is not measured by who has the most amount of devices with an specific OS out there, it's measured on who has the most amount of POPULAR devices period. Twelve years ago, people bought Nokia phones because they where the most popular ones around, not because they used Symbian OS.

On the downloadable app part you seem to equate quantity with quality, which is flawed at best. Quality developers will flock to the platform that is more profitable and merchantable. You're right, the most popular platform is the one that will get more developer attention, but device share is not a measure of popularity in the mobile app sector. Profits are.

<comment><USER18> 1) Oh I was agreeing with you; probably should have prefixed that with 'I agree'.

2) I disagree with you here. How much loyalty do users have to HP, Dell, etc? Certainly some, but I feel the loyalty to Windows, OS/X, etc. exceeds that loyalty.

In terms of users wanting a certain phone, the mobile industry has changed a lot in the past 10 years -- phones are much more powerful. Users now end up investing substantial time and money into apps. Such apps lock users in; on an upgrade the user better have the damn things work out of the box.

Profits of a given device are quite different from profits of applications made for that device. Sure, there's some correlation, but how much? Case in point, the operating profit percents of Macs as a total % of computers is 35%. I'd be amazed if the operating profits of OS/X software profit as a % of total desktop software are even a third of that.

<comment><USER17> At least we agreed on one count ^_^

Anyways, on the loyalty issue, I use an iMac and a System76 laptop with Arch Linux, and as such I am loyal to my operating systems, as you probably are too. Now the machines in my college where either Macs for design or Dell's for everything else. The machines in my girlfriend's families' house are all Toshiba. My sister has had 4 HP laptops and wants a new one for christmas. These people (the regular people that are the bulk of computer users everywhere) follow brands more than anything else. I had a company that did integration of computer systems 8 years ago and trust me, most of this people (regular folks) follow brands and products, and seldom care about implementations, operating systems, and the such.

I agree with you completely on the the app lock in, and here come's a thought: The reason most people start buying Android devices, is because of the integration with their Google accounts, though you can use your accounts on an iPhone, it makes more sense to the general consumer to use the "Google phone" right? And of course, the catch with the iPhone couldn't have been far away... there are so many more usable apps, that are linked not only with software, but with webservices on the iPhone that it isn't even funny. I'll give you two examples of lock in (in my case): I will not buy an iPhone or a Nexus, because I need my Blackberry with the Blackberry Messenger service; I will also not buy an Android tablet, because they don't have Things nor Plaintext as the iPad does. iOS already has such penetration with the "cool, new, and awesome" apps that it's hard to compete with them, and in the cases where there's a cool app for Android, there's also an equivalent for the iPhone, though not generally the same case the other way around.

The one thing that drives millions of people to Android devices is not Android itself, it's both the marketing based on integration with Google services AND the AT&T fiasco that Apple for some reason didn't understand was maiming their business.

On the profits topic, I meant profit for app developers not profit on device sales. As long as iPhone developers are making thousands, and in some cases millions of dollars, in comparison to Android developers whom are making much much less on an average, quality developers are going to stick with the iPhone platform, Android being a second class citizen for them. It all comes down to the fact that developers are going to flock to Android only after, and if, it becomes the next goldmine.

To be honest, last time I used an Android phone, I liked it a lot. Until I tried the keyboard. That completely sealed the deal for me. I'm sticking to my Blackberry until I can use BBM on the iPhone (probably never :S)!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It always surprises me when someone mistakes this kind of smarminess for wit, especially if they appear to have learned to bathe and not make messes in the house otherwise. There were a couple of points in there that might have been pleasant to read under other circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why people can't accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about having biggest market share. Of course if they can they'll be happy to take it like for the mp3 players market. At the moment, looking at the numbers, Android is eating market share mostly from Apple's other competitors. Remember, this is not a race to be the company who makes the most money, it's just about making tons of money, and this is what Apple cares about. Look at the computer marktet, they don't care in selling more pc than Dell, they care of making a boatload of profit, even with their 7%.

<comment><USER21> _Why people can't accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about having biggest market share_

Thank you for bringing up the _biggest lie in technology_. It's a transparent loser's speech that, thankfully, we've yet to actually hear Apple incant.

Apple is trying quite hard to get the biggest market share: Did you happen to catch Steve bragging about leaving RIM in their rearview? How desperately he compares iPhone activations to Android activations?

Have you noticed the incredible quantities of lucre that Apple is dumping on mass media advertising lately? (I don't have the numbers, but it is, by far, the #1 advertised brand from my perspective). Have you noticed that Apple is now making products at virtually every price point?

Apple is the very definition of a mass market company. They are not a niche or a luxury maker, and delusions to that effect are simply bizarre.

Sure, they don't sell a discount iPhone, but that's entirely because consumers are accustomed to subsidized models, so going from $600 to $500 really makes no difference (it really doesn't matter whether the phone is $200, $150, $99, $49, or even _FREE_ when each comes bound with a $3500 smartphone contract).

If people were accustomed to buying devices without subsidization, Apple would have the entire low-end market covered. On the Android front by far the most popular phones are the high end phones like the Galaxy S and the Droid 2, which are hardly inexpensive devices.

Apple came incredibly close to achieving a brilliant strategic lock-in to the nascent smartphone market that would have locked them in as the default choice: Many organizations had a mobile strategy that simply relied upon "releasing an iPhone app", creating a network effect where you were either onboard with the iPhone, or you're a second class citizen. Here on HN there were quite a few single-person startups that had a business plan involving nothing more than creating an iPhone app, yielding a strong anti-Android bias -- having multiple platforms is just a PITA, right?

 _Remember, this is not a race to be the company who sells the most units, it's just about making tons of money, and this is what Apple cares about._

I edited that slightly to what I suspect you meant to say. It's another ridiculous lie that we keep hearing.

Apple had the "niche market" for quite a few years. Yeah it led them to desperately go to Microsoft, hat in hand, begging for some "we'll get the anti-trust police off your backs" payoffs (which they got, funding the recovered Apple).

HTC is a relatively new smartphone company. They've been going gangbusters on the backs of Android. Motorola was in complete mobile collapse so their balance sheet isn't quite so great right now, but without Android they would have been done. On and on. The "Apple makes more profit" angle is nice, I guess, if you own Apple shares, but otherwise it's completely meaningless.

I don't want Android to dominate. In fact I hope that RIM gets some mojo back (and that QNX plays a part. Anyone who did comp sci in Ontario is generally in love with QNX, because it's a beautiful OS), that Windows Mobile 7 can get an R2 out soon that fixes many of the failings, and of course Apple is and won't be going anywhere, and will continue to provide technology kungfu.

We need a vibrant, competitive market where one person -- like Steve Jobs -- isn't making technology decrees for an entire industry (see: Flash).

<comment><USER22> > HTC is a relatively new smartphone company.

Wrong. HTC is a relatively new smartphone _brand_ , they've been making smartphones since _2000_. They created the first Windows Mobile smartphone, the first 3G Windows Mobile smartphone, the Palm Treo 650, the iPaq and the first Android smartphone. They were probably _the_ major WiMo smartphone builder in WiMo's heydays (and they might very well still be).

HTC is a relatively new smartphone company? By that metric, RIM is just getting started building communication devices.

<comment><USER21> >HTC is a relatively new smartphone brand

Yes, that's quite clearly the _point_. If Foxconn -- the makers of the iPhone -- came out with a smartphone, they would be a new smartphone company, witty caustic replies notwithstanding.

<comment><USER23> Except that Foxconn is a manufacturing company that builds to spec. HTC designs the hardware and does white labeling. That is a VERY important distinction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What I find hilarious is when people say in the same sentence that it's not fair to compare Android numbers to Apple's because iPhone isn't on multiple carriers, then in the next breath say that comparing Android to iOS on all devices is fair and balanced. You can't have it both ways.

<comment><USER25> There are Android tablets. Why is it unfair to compare the Android OS to the iOS?

<comment><USER24> Google has made public announcements saying Android isn't ready for the Tablet yet. Just because some manufacturers managed to get it working on some doesn't make it equivalent to the sponsored and ready-for-retail iPad. It's the equivalent of someone hacking the iPhone to work on Verizon and then Google trying to claim that the carrier argument is now null and void. Even if you factor in tablet activations with phones, Android wins. Why?...

You're also conveniently ignoring the iPod Touch. iPhone sales have historically accounted for only a little over half of total iOS devices. In terms of phones, Android activations dominantly win, no matter how Jobs feels like playing around with the numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Steve jobs is right because as he's said numerous times, he doesn't give a shit about market share, what he gives a crap about are profit share and making great products, I suspect the latter is primarily to ensure the former.

The low end of Apple's products are last year's model. With 3 generations going they don't need to make 'low-end' hardware, Moore's law takes care of that for them.

<comment><USER27> The term profit _share_ makes me curious (about something). Can you please find the link where Jobs says so?

<comment><USER26> [http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples- outr...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-outrageous- share-of-the-mobile-industrys-profits/)

An old one: [http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_Talks_Mark...](http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_Talks_Market_Share_Innovation_With_UK_Newspaper/)

"If you went to BMW and asked them why they donit outsell the Ford Taurus, they would say they donit want to make that sort of car," says Mr Jobs. "Apple has 25 million customers around the world, and our goal is to give them the best personal computer that we can, with the best operating system and some of the best applications."

<comment><USER27> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Did not know about the TweetDeck thing.</comment>


India plans massive shift to electric cars - <AUTHOR> https://www.techinasia.com/india-plans-massive-shift-to-electric-cars <comment><USER2> Makes sense. India has just 32 vehicles for every 1,000 people (compared to the 800 vehicles per 1,000 people in the United States and 140 vehicles per 1,000 people in China)[1].

If you're going to mobilize 1 billion people, you may as well "leapfrog" the internal combustion engine and move straight to electric vehicles.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita)

<comment><USER3> What India needs is better public and mass transport and not improved vehicles/1000 people.

India has 4 times the population of US and 1/4 the area of US (approximately). If you consider those facts India nearly has way too many vehicles/square mile (considering 2 wheeler and 3 wheelers that run on gas).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not entirely sure if this is scalable. Do we (as in the world) have enough reserves of Lithium for this to be possible ? There is also the question of trade balance (presumably with China/Japan as well as upstream Lithium miners). Add to this, India barely has power for normal domestic consumption; even in Bangalore, the ostensible "Silicon valley" of India, power cuts for an hour or two is a daily affair.

Environmental solutions, incl. solar, are okay for assuaging the guilt about wrecking the environment (and India is totally wrecked), but frankly it's not clear if any of these are really scalable. This appears to me as another PR stunt pulled by the new regime in charge.

<comment><USER5> There might be something else than lithium running out, like cobalt. On the other hand, if you're willing to go with somewhat less range, you can go with lithium iron phosphate.

<comment><USER6> > lithium iron phosphate

Far as I can tell, lithium iron phosphate battery technology is sustainable over geologic time scales. Unlike other things that require minerals that are rapidly being depleted and will be low supply and expensive in 50 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think electrification of 2 stroke motorcycles and auto rickshaws makes more sense in the near term, both from a cost perspective (smaller batteries), and because they are disproportionate contributors to local air pollution. They could also be well suited for battery swap as a recharging method.

</comment><comment><USER8> One good thing about India is attitude towards public transportation. One city to another is [easier/cheaper/safer] by train/bus than a car for most people. I wish the Govt invested more on core infrastructure and (1) Add more trains (2) introduce high-speed routes (3) Fix the IRCTC system so that people can reliably book tickets. More cars /1000 people is not a model that would work for highly dense and populous nation like India. There is simply no space for US like Inter-state roads in Indian cities. Plus, it is easier on the environment to invest in public infrastructure than adding more cars.

Growing up in India, I have always thought about a car when I three or four people need to go somewhere. If not, thought starts with motorcycle. I wish more cities in the US were motor-cycle friendly.

</comment><comment><USER9> > The government intends to kickstart the shift by setting up and > incentivizing manufacturers of batteries and other components as well as > charging stations.

\---

"I will announce locations for between two and four Gigafactories later this year – probably four." - Elon Musk

<comment><USER10> India has already offered incentives for Tesla to open up car factories before they decided to go with China first IIRC. Piyush Goyal (minister of renewable energy, mines) still seems to be a fan of Tesla

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Q: How they gonna produce that amount of electricity?

A: Using politics and destroying the world's largest mangrove forest. (Sorry if i am so rude or offensive here)

Sad!

I dont know if govt of Bangladesh is somehow forced to build a massive 1,320 megawatt coal-fired power plant within kilometres of the Sundarbans, india will have almost 85%(+/-) of the electricity produced from here.

I would request the Norway's sovereign wealth fund and other investors to not to invest and let something good happen. To me that is not progress, We are all bad...

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy- environment/wp/20...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy- environment/wp/2016/07/18/a-new-power-plant-could-devastate-the-worlds- largest-mangrove-forest/)

[http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/risk-losing- sundarbans...](http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/risk-losing- sundarbans-1279825)

</comment><comment><USER12> Can they bring the cost down where Indians can afford it? Even in the US it seems like a luxury.</comment>


The Old Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.thefacebook.us/

<comment><USER2> Site seems completely overwhelmed. Coblitz/Codeen and coral cache (NYUD) do not have it in the cache.

Google cache: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?%7Bgoogle:acce...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?%7Bgoogle:acceptedSuggestion%7Doq=cache%3Athefacebook.us&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Athefacebook.us)

Archive.org: [http://web.archive.org/web/20130503003719/http://www.theface...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130503003719/http://www.thefacebook.us/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that the Privacy Policy page contains references to Harvard Connection. Did this really happen with the original FB that MZ launched or was poking at the situation?

<comment><USER4> It looks like this site was originally advertised as HarvardConnection.co [1] and that the references to HarvardConnection on the site are vestigial.

[1]: [http://allfacebook.com/facebook-domain- sale_b69390](http://allfacebook.com/facebook-domain-sale_b69390)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Server Error. I used Facebook circa 2004. Looking forward to seeing it how it was.

<comment><USER6> I don't remember 500 errors being part of "old facebook".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Takedown notice in...</comment>


How to read more: Simple three-step system - <AUTHOR> https://deanyeong.com/read-more-books/ <comment><USER3> For me, if I schedule something it immediately becomes a chore -- another to- do on the list -- and it depletes willpower from other things that I have to do. If I'm reading for work, that's fine. But if I'm reading for enjoyment, well, that kind of kills the point of it. I want something that refreshes me instead of exhausting me.

What I've found works is setting up my environment so that reading is easy and natural. The absolute most effective thing for me has been banning my laptop and tablet from my bedroom, and setting up my phone to charge on the opposite side of the room. I keep a book or my e-reader on the side of my bed and generally need some unwinding time before sleep so I end up reading before bed.

The other massive for me is audiobooks. I know everyone has their own opinion on whether this counts as reading, but as far as I'm strongly on the pro-side. I spend a significant portion of my day -- when I'm walking, driving, chores, exercise -- listening to either podcasts or audiobooks. I've read a lot more books than I would have otherwise, and it definitely reinforces the visual/normal/book reading habit as well. I particularly like whispersync when its available, and I can switch back and forth between reading on my kindle and listening on my phone.

<comment><USER4> How do you have patience for the slow speed of audiobooks?

Is it possible to multi-task while listening to audiobooks? I'm not sure if my focus on coding would suffer, or keeping up with the book.

My fav multitasking activity right now is to watch those "average" TV shows (such as most shows in existence) on a second monitor while I work. Sure I miss some scenes and dialog due to focusing on my work, but generally I keep up. Sometimes need to rewind if I missed something crucial.

<comment><USER5> It is possible to multi-task while listening to audio books. I find activities such as working out or driving a good match. Coding while listening to an audio book sounds like a bad idea. Coding while watching a TV show sounds even worse to me though, so YMMV.

<comment><USER6> You leave out a clause, I think: It is possible to multitask while listening to audiobooks, _so long as you 're not doing anything else that requires complex thought or processing_.

Walking, riding, driving, working out, washing dishes, doing laundry - <USER2> are tasks not at all harmed by listening to something while you do them, and indeed people have so alleviated their monotony since the commercialization of radio.

A task like programming is something else entirely, in terms of cognitive complexity, and attempting to partake simultaneously of something that requires attention to follow means one or the other probably isn't going to get done very well.

<comment><USER7> I have to disagree that driving isn't a complex task. Sure, the muscle memory but is easy but what about concentration, reading the road etc?

<comment><USER8> It's no different than cleaning. Yes, it requires attention, but your attention can (and will) pass back and forth between active and passive. Evaluate, execute, evaluate, execute, with large parts of the execute phase being pure muscle memory (i.e., maintaining your speed and lane), during which you can pay attention to an audio book.

In a more programmer related parlance, you can't perform the most rigorous part of driving concurrently with paying attention to an audiobook, but you -can- task switch pretty easily. The driving is pre-emptive.

<comment><USER9> This is why I'm nearly knocked off my bike a couple of times every time i go riding. I rarely give direct instruction especially online however i strongly encourage you to change your attitude and approach to driving before you kill someone.

<comment><USER6> I should've said "highway driving", since that is what I meant. But I drive so rarely at all any more, and more rarely still off highways, that I gave it little thought - and have spent so many years driving those same highways that, save the one time or so in five years that I drive them in a vehicle other than the one with which I am intimately familiar, little thought is any longer needed.

Walking is much more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another trick is audiobooks. I commute about an hour each day. I used to spend that time listening to the news, but that just made me needlessly stressed. I started listening to audiobooks instead and can now get through one major novel a month or a few shorter novels, just on commutes. It also gives another method of branching out: I find there are some narrators I just really enjoy listening to, and so I try some of the other things they've narrated too. Sometimes I like what I find.

You can either subscribe to an audiobook streaming service, or use Hoopla for free access through your local library.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input. I haven't really tried to listen to a complete book yet. Partly because I sometimes re-read a paragraph for multiple times and it's hard for me to do this with audiobooks.

But I do listen to book summaries such as Philosopher's Notes and Blinkist.

<comment><USER10> There's a little button that rewinds 30s for when you've absent mindlessly not been paying attention. The trouble is you go back too far and then your mind wanders again while you are waiting to catch up :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm curious if you read books in paper or on a device. Many bookworms have a strong preference for (1) paper, (2) e-ink screens, or (3) devices that offer easy markup. What do you favor?

You mention that you don't use speed-reading techniques. Is this because you find them ineffective, taxing, or unenjoyable? My understanding (based on working in literacy tech) is that many speed-reading techniques — esp those taught in study skills classes — are more akin to skimming than what educators call "close reading". On the other hand, there are tools like Spritz [1], Spreeder [2], and BeeLine Reader [3] (of which I am the creator) that are aimed at increasing reading speed, but which are very different from classical speed-reading techniques.

Since you're interested in reading, I'd be interested in your take on why you aren't using classical speed-reading techniques, and if you find the tech tools to be objectionable/not worthwhile for the same reasons.

1: [https://www.spritzinc.com](https://www.spritzinc.com)

2: [https://www.spreeder.com](https://www.spreeder.com)

3: [https://www.BeeLineReader.com](https://www.BeeLineReader.com)

<comment><USER12> If I understand you correctly, you are the creator of BeeLine Reader. Just wanted to let you know that it seems like the TLS certificate is invalid or misconfigured, because I get an error when connecting to the site with Firefox. Thanks for the links, anyhow.

<comment><USER13> Yes, I have the error "ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID". I think it's because the certificate is aimed for *.herokuapp.com domains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd argue against reading so many books for two reasons:

1\. So many popular non-fiction books these days resolve around a single idea, which would fit in a blog post. But then, they're expanded with a lot of fluff. Personal stories, other stories, anecdotes, the author's motivation to do whatever. I tend to search for "$BOOKNAME summary" before even buying most books.

For example, recently I "read" 'On Intelligence'. It has many good ratings, but man, it is unnecessarily repetitive. You can easily only read chapter 6 and nothing else. Or only read the popular highlights from the Kindle edition and be done with it.

2\. Reading all that stuff is still mostly entertainment. It might feel like learning something new, but 99% of it is forgotten anyways. Reading with the purpose of improving oneself requires action – to actually implement the given advice or knowledge. Obviously, you can't implement the advice from 50 books in a year. So why bother at all with all those books?

I read less, but try to be more serious about the content.

<comment><USER15> I think that's a problem with publishers. They simply haven't found a business model that works well for short books - which results in authors padding their ideas with babble.

<comment><USER16> One person's babble is another person's "context" though. I think most non- fiction books should have some kind of split between learnings and case studies, anecdotes, data, examples etc...

That being said, an option to buy the TL;DR version and the expanded one should actually open up many more options for most publishers (a la most online ebooks and courses with multiple tiers).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My reading slowed down when I joined the workforce too, but I've been able to keep up a rate of 10-15 books a year by making sure I have designated reading time and always a book ready to go. For me, that's while I'm eating breakfast and lunch, when I'm on a long car trip and not driving. I alternate fiction and non-fiction, fluff and educational books, and have no hesitation about putting down a book that's boring or feels repetitive. The biggest factor in making in fun, for me, is eliminating guilt from the equation. So I don't schedule it or set goals, I just leave room and opportunity for it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've been an avid reader almost my whole life. Since 2010, I've had a 90-minute commute to/from work each day. I can't afford satellite radio, and regular radio gets old very quickly. I initially started saving podcasts to my iPod and playing those, then I started ripping audiobooks from the library and listening to those. I also have an Audible subscription. That's three hours a day of "reading", per se, and I typically listen to 2-4 books a month that way.

<comment><USER19> I agree with the value of audio books! I have always been an avid reader (probably 20+ books a year) and I am the author of 24 books - but, when I started using Audible and listening to other audio books from the public library my 'reading' time increased a lot.

I enjoy reading blogs on the web and social media on HN and Reddit, but I find I generally get more from books on computer science, philosophy, spirituality, science fiction, cooking, etc.

EDIT: I would like to add that I also feel fine starting a book and not finishing it. This is especially true with technical books when I realize that only some of the covered topics are interesting/useful to me. This allows me to be exposed to more ideas.

<comment><USER20> How do you do find non-fiction to be on audio? The couple of times I tried it I found that all the unnecessary words give me too much time to be distracted. Works great for me for fiction, and I'm hoping I just had bad luck I'm my initial non-fiction selections ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I learned to read 1 to 2 books a week simply by replacing my social media/phone addiction with reading books.

Whenever I would normally scroll endlessly through Facebook/Twitter/insta/HN I pick up one of my current books for reading. This includes time on the toilet, time waiting in queues or on public transport, solo meals, winding down in bed, relaxing in the sun after a hard day at work.

<comment><USER22> But Facebook is so much easier to consume in short intervals. With books I haven't read for a few days, I have to go back a few paragraphs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why not use reading as a reward? "I finished my project on schedule. This weekend I'll allow myself to read all day long, except for a walk with the dogs" :) Modern life already have way too many systems, obligations and filled time-slots. I think it's healthy to just relax some times, and don't do anything just because it's supposed to be done right now.

</comment><comment><USER24> There are bookmarks with timers in them. Like this:

[https://www.amazon.com/Mark-My-Time-Digital-Bookmark-Neon- Bl...](https://www.amazon.com/Mark-My-Time-Digital-Bookmark-Neon- Blue/dp/0976142503)

It seems silly but it does help. It is true that you could use your phone, your Echo, or whatever, but this one has something to it.

<comment><USER25> Oh, wow. That really is a bookmark with a timer.

Remember when you wondered "has self-optimization gone to far?".

Yeah, this is the answer.

<comment><USER24> I mean, you could use your phone to set a timer. But once you pull your phone, you've got email, someone tagged you in a photo and then you are done reading.

Low technology ftw.

<comment><USER26> Same reason I won't buy a Kindle! Oh, what Android is this? Can I root it? I wonder if I could upgrade it. Etc etc. So I'm all for low-tech paper books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have very limited time for reading but lots of time for listening while I'm washing the dishes or travelling. When I find a book that looks interesting, I download an interview with or presentation by its author from YouTube, convert it to an MP3 then listen to it.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a terrible trick for reading more books: I read while I walk. I walk through Manhattan every weekday as part of my commute, through bustling populated sidewalks and squares. I am in the way. I am part of the problem. But I do get to read!

</comment><comment><USER29> Its so easy to find time to read if you just consider picking up a book rather checking your phone.

It surprised me how much reading I got done if I carried a book and read when I'd otherwise be scrolling through Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think it would work for me. When my willpower is at its peak, I prefer to work or learn stuff for work. Pleasure reading seems like a waste for peak willpower.

<comment><AUTHOR> Read stuff about your work?

<comment><USER30> During peak performance? Plus it would not count as reading the way article talks about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting that the author mostly reads self help books.

<comment><USER32> Would make their self-help guide to Reading More a very well researched piece then ;)

Some people just like books about improving themselves in some way - Personally I read mostly Sci-fi books, but I wouldn't say it's particularly indicative of anything beyond enjoying That Sort of Thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Reading, like meditation, is a treat, not a chore.

<comment><USER34> I find reading to be physically tiring - the actual interpretation of the words. Thinking is a treat, but I like my books clear but terse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> People who like to read - they read. No reason to make "systems" for reading - you do it if you want to.

<comment><USER36> What about people who want to read but don't like to read?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Good tip to limit reading time to 20 pages a day, i read way too much, often 5 books simultaneously.</comment>


Creating Web Applications in SWI-Prolog - <AUTHOR> http://www.pathwayslms.com/swipltuts/html/index.html <comment><USER2> All the example websites look really old. Has anyone used Prolog in a recent web project?

I remember seeing a modern and pretty website once that used SWI prolog and JavaScript to help you visualise natural deduction proofs but I can't find it anymore :'(</comment>


MySQL 5.7: over 1M queries/sec on a single machine - <AUTHOR> http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/archives/11-01-2013_11-30-2013.html#2013-11-22

<comment><USER2> Read-only performance for unknown kind of query with unknown size of dataset using memory-cache plugin.

Hmmm… I don't see any meaningful information. Should I be impressed? Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> Yes, you should be impressed.

Historically the overhead of SQL put a low ceiling on the potential performance of simple queries. Which is exactly why KV databases appeared in the first place, because a scalar value get in most RDBMS systems barely hit 1000 results per second, and that is being optimistic. That overhead was never optimized away because the classic use of the RDBMS was query conversations where each interaction was very expensive (e.g. large, complex queries), so optimizing it wasn't important.

But, thanks to competition, most database systems have gotten fantastically more performant. Even using the TDS interface, I can get close to Redis performance with SQL Server now, while it was beaten by one if not two orders of magnitude a few versions ago. And in this case MySQL added the ability to use a much simpler, lighter memcached API in from of MySQL, for obvious reason -- the underlying database system is fast enough that it is of value.

I should add that almost everyone who has commented thus far completely misunderstands what this is taking about. It is the Memcached API atop MySQL. Meaning you can talk to your database server through that API from any client programmed to talk to a memcached server. And that same data that you access via memcached (reading or writing) can be accessed in your normal SQL. Which is pretty cool.

<comment><USER2> When I see explicit mention of _API_ , it implies there's no running memcache daemon.

I dug MySQL 5.7 manual several times, but I couldn't find any proof that this is just an _memcache API_ atop MySQL.

But I found some proof that says there's a _real memcache daemon_ atop MySQL.

> Running memcached in the same process space as the MySQL server avoids the > network overhead of passing requests back and forth.

MySQL 5.7 manual clarifies that they're running memcache daemon inside the database engine in-process mode. So actually real memcache is serving the data atop the engine.

So, if dataset is read-only and small enough, it's likely to happen that whole the data is being served by memcache. In that case, it cannot be slower than memcache.

That's why I couldn't be impressed. The only thing MySQL doing is automatic handling of memcache daemon. That should be convenient, but not impressive.

Maybe I am wrong. If you think I am wrong, please show me some reference that explicitly mentions this is just API, and there's no running memcache instance.

Also, regardless of whatever is really happening under hood, this benchmark is still meaningless. Because database exists to _store_ data and all the hard stuffs are only happening when storing data. Writing transactions usually degrade performance a lot. That's why writing transactions must be included in benchmark to show the _real world_ performance.

<comment><USER3> >Maybe I am wrong. If you think I am wrong, please show me some reference that explicitly mentions this is just API, and there's no running memcache instance.

[https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/innodb-memcached- ben...](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/innodb-memcached- benefits.html)

Yes, there is a memcached "daemon" in the sense that they run a memcached host within mysql, which they obviously have to do. That memcached "instance" reads and writes from InnoDB and the shared buffer pool also used by the SQL engine: It does not maintain a unique memory instance, and values read or written are atomically consistent with the mySQL instance.

The single and only reason this product exists is that the memcached API is much simpler and network/parsing efficient, allowing for much better round- trip-times when doing simple queries.

<comment><USER2> OK. You're right. MySQL seems using InnoDB buffer pool. I found the mention.

> You do not need to manually load data into memcached at startup. As > particular keys are requested by an application, the values are retrieved > from the database automatically, and cached in memory using the InnoDB > buffer pool.

So memory-cache is provided the engine itself, not by external plugin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For comparison, here's a scalability benchmark for postgres (also read-only) from a year and a half ago:

[http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how- abo...](http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how- about-64.html)

It's hard for me to tell what the MySQL benchmark was really doing, but the postgres one seems a bit more "normal" (ordinary SQL queries from postgres's ordinary simple benchmark tool).

So, not apples-to-apples, but still interesting.

<comment><USER5> I would have loved if they had benchmarked it against doing them same thing in MySQL with SQL so we could see how much overhead is added by the SQL layer for simple selects.

PostgreSQL manages to reach a third of their QPS in Haas's benchmark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> InnoDB API on top of memcached. _Read-only_. On the same "biggest HW box we have in the LAB" machine.

over 1,000,000 Query/sec

Cool. Carry on guys.

<comment><USER7> Well, the performance under the same conditions was 500KQPS before, so definitely there was an improvement!

<comment><USER8> Right but if someone showed a similar improvement by adding enough RAM to prevent swapping, would you be impressed? This is what is going on here. They have very much successfully proven that RAM is faster than HDD.

<comment><USER9> They have proven that SQL-based storage is faster than NOSQL databases.

The poster of the top comment doesn't understand what this topic is about.

This is actually a benchmark of InnoDB table access. You can query it using usual SQL-commands. But if you want faster access, you can use memcache API.

"Read-only" is also misleading here. This is just a benchmark of get command.

<comment><USER10> "They have proven that SQL-based storage is faster than NOSQL databases."

Too broad of a statement. 'NoSQL' is an umbrella term, and thus likely has several contenders for a raw QPS metric.

The additional step of parsing the query is obviated by statement caching. You're right though, it's simply a benchmark of how fast the query path is to the InnoDB buffer pool. The work is to optimize internal contention.

Very impressive results though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For context, the first NoSQL interface for MySQL was: [http://yoshinorimatsunobu.blogspot.ca/2010/10/using-mysql- as...](http://yoshinorimatsunobu.blogspot.ca/2010/10/using-mysql-as-nosql- story-for.html)

(It's appeared on HN a few times).

The MySQL team decided to run with a more standard memcached interface, and MySQL actually embeds memcached to do this (with MySQL as backend storage).

Despite being read-only, the over 1M number highlights a lot work thats been done for multi-core scalability. This test was on a 48 score machine.. that was a distant dream a few years ago on MySQL 5.1.

</comment><comment><USER12> A benchmark is of absolutely no use whatsoever unless you give others a chance to reproduce it.

</comment><comment><USER13> 1M queries doesn't make sense if most of them actually use Memcached as backend. You can run more than 1M queries like "select 1", it does the same thing. The magic is Memcached.

<comment><USER14> true but offtopic. from the docs:

==== 8< ====

MySQL 5.7 includes a NoSQL interface, using an integrated memcached daemon that can automatically store data and retrieve it from InnoDB tables, turning the MySQL server into a fast "key-value store" for single-row insert, update, or delete operations. You can still also access the same tables through SQL for convenience, complex queries, bulk operations, application compatibility, and other strengths of traditional database software.

With this NoSQL interface, you use the familiar memcached API to speed up database operations, letting InnoDB handle memory caching using its buffer pool mechanism. Data modified through memcached operations such as ADD, SET, INCR are stored to disk, using the familiar InnoDB mechanisms such as change buffering, the doublewrite buffer, and crash recovery.

==== 8< ====

this is what is being benchmarked here, not pure memcached.

<comment><USER15> Are these in memory innoDB tables durable?

<comment><USER5> As far as I can tell this is just a a memcached interface to ordinary InnoDB tables, so yes. 1000k queries per second also sounds plausible since stock PostgreSQL can reach almost 400k queries per second with normal SQL queries.

The storage engines of relational databases are this fast (for read-only queries to datasets which fit in memory).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 1M queries of what? Group by, 50 table joins or simple select count(*)?

<comment><USER17> this is the memcache compatible interface, so they should be

`select y where key = x limit 1`

<comment><USER16> So memcache should be faster than 1M queries, since only thing that MySQL does here to add overhead?

<comment><USER18> Not necessarily, InnoDB has optimizations for in-memory tables and there isn't any write overhead that would make the greater complexity of the transaction/disk layer come into play.

<comment><USER19> This benchmark is read-only so write-overhead doesn't matter

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Read-Only

> Memcached

Well duh.

<comment><USER5> It is read-only, InnoDB, and memcached. InnoDB is the storage engine used here for memcached.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> But is it web scale?

<comment><USER22> No, everybody knows Mongo is web scale.

<comment><USER2> Everybody also knows Mongo has no transaction. Not a comparable product. Ah maybe comparable in this case, because this is read-only test.

<comment><USER23> Transactions apply to read-only workloads. Getting a consistent read across multiple records can be very important.

<comment><USER2> That's only true when we have any write operation. If all dataset are purely read-only, it's always consistent. And I believe this article is the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> <sarcasm> Pfft, GenericNoSQLDB has always been fast and totally mature and production ready, honest. </sarcasm>

</comment><comment><USER25> I think I can safely claim that (with the right team) I can scale any database to match that rate. The real problem with scaling is that until you hit a limit, you don't generally know where the limit is ... and at the limit, you need the system to do something reasonable (in this case, I'd say drop read and/or write requests that couldn't be done consistently). I also wonder if you couldn't perform the same feat with only memcached (wink wink).

Systems that behave erratically when you hit a limit should be avoided, and I often wonder if people publish articles like this because they themselves are amazed it was possible. For a well-behaved system, there's no need for fanfare as you grow, but when you hit a limit you have to engineer a reasonable solution.

As an aside, it's pretty amazing (to some who's first computer had 2K of RAM) how big you can scale an individual server these days. The competition I'd like to see is when another team accomplishes the same feat but with half the memory, or half the number of cores or a result set that's twice as large - and then publishes how they've done it. A little friendly competition might result in some amazing discoveries.</comment>


Apple: Cascade of Broken Promises by Seth Godin - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/cascade-of-broken-promises.html

<comment><USER2> I don't understand why he doesn't just ask for his money back, buy a laptop that _does_ meet his needs, and get on with his life.</comment>


U.S. Airport Pat-Downs Are About to Get More Invasive - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/u-s-airport-pat-downs-are-about-to-get-more-invasive <comment><USER2> I've opted out every time I've flown in the US since June 2014.

Last Sunday when I flew out from Boston, I opted out as usual and the TSA officer mentioned that I'd be subject to a new pat down, called the universal pat down. (I was not subject to this version of the pat-down the day before, on Saturday).

Honestly, the only difference between that pat-down and all my previous pat- downs was the way they approached my groin area.

Previously they'd put one hand on each side of my leg and go up until they made contact with my genitals. Then they'd repeat with the other leg. Sometimes, but this was rare, they'd push up a bit into the area.

This time, in addition to the normal pat-down procedure, the officer interlocked his hands and then rubbed my genitals, first vertically, moving horizontally, and then horizontally, moving vertically.

<comment><USER3> This sounds like a bad handjob...

<comment><USER2> I enjoy messing with the officers.

Once, an officer mentioned that my jeans were very stiff and I said that I'd just run the laundry before coming to the airport. I offered to take them off for him but he quickly declined my offer.

Anyways, I'll occasionally moan softly if I want to fuck with the officer a bit, as if I might be enjoying my pat-down a bit too much. :)

I'm flying tomorrow and next week, so I think I'm going to be moaning quite a bit more in the near future.

<comment><USER3> I opt to drive. People don't understand why, but the freedom of not being molested physically or technologically is important for my mental state.

<comment><USER2> Totally fair. And I love road trips. If I could do more, I would. However:

1\. I don't own a car.

2\. When I've rented cars, it's cost me ~$100 USD a day. I normally travel for anywhere from two days to a month at a time. On average, probably a week to a week and a half. So then this quickly becomes a very, very expensive trip - ~$700 to $1000 USD compared to $300 to $500 USD for a flight. On top of that, I travel an average of once or twice a month. So car rentals are simply out of the question for me for most trips.

3\. I live in Boston, but places I've visited in the last year include New York, Rochester, Vancouver, Lincoln (Nebraska), Montreal, Las Vegas, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Doha, and Reykjavik. It's simply impractical (if not impossible) to drive to most of those places from Boston. The three that are manageable are New York, Rochester, and Montreal (and I did do the Boston to Rochester and back drive in a rental instead of flying twice).

I've considered purchasing a car explicitly so that I'd be able to travel without flying a little more, but leasing is impractical due to limits on miles per year and I'm not ready to outright purchase a car. Either way, a car would come with additional costs (the cost of the car, maintenance, parking, etc.) and wouldn't be able to replace even ~15% of my flights, so I think it's just impractical for me at this point of time.

<comment><USER4> At $100/day, you must be renting premium vehicles. Last week, I rented a "standard-size" car for a business trip (Saturday pick-up, Wednesday return). It was about $150 total.

<comment><USER2> Nope. That's what happens when you're under 25 (or in my case for one of the trips, under 21) and you need to purchase insurance and all the other fancy stuff and then also pay fees for convention center surcharges, airport surcharges, etc.

I've got one receipt[0] on hand for $202.98 for 1 day.

I've also reserved a car for four days (4th to the 7th) for around $130 but when I picked it up, I ended up paying $450+ after insurance and the toll device was added on. The device was required because the state I live in (Massachusetts) has removed toll booths, so you can't pay by coins/cash. I was required to pay a fixed fee per day for four days for the device, despite the fact that I actually only drove on two days. The fee includes unlimited charges, so it might have made sense if I was on the highway everyday, but I was not.

The frustrating thing is that there's a lot of rental companies where you'll make the reservation for like $130 and they don't tell you how much insurance and the other stuff costs because it's different in each location. So you don't know you're getting fucked until you're signing the paper at the pick up area and it's too late. If I'd known it was going to be $450+, I'd have just booked a flight in the first place.

[0]: [http://imgur.com/a/UmkcI](http://imgur.com/a/UmkcI)

Edit:

And then if you're wondering why I didn't just switch to two one-day car rentals instead of one four-day rental to avoid paying for insurance, the toll device, etc. for the two days I wasn't driving, it's because then the price goes up significantly because it's a one way car rental - see[0].

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best solution to all this bullshit is the simplest: Ban precheck and subject everyone to the same rough groping when they go through security.

Any by everyone, I mean EVERYONE. From able bodied adults, to 75 year old grandmas, to 3 year old toddlers. Most importantly of all, any government officials should get the maximum possible delay and most secure of gropings. That way they don't just hear about this nonsense from their constituents, they feel it first hand.

Only then will we have representatives that stand up to this crap and call it out for what it really is.

<comment><USER6> America is a lobby driven govt. Some corporation will make big bucks on Something, they'll legally bribe (donations) to pass it through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sometimes I think agencies like the TSA have an incentive to be a little inefficient--they can use the ineffectiveness of their process to justify requesting additional funding.

"Oh! It looks like a few weapons got through our procedure. We told you our budget was too small -- our failure is because we don't have enough money to do it right!"

<comment><USER8> That is a time honored tradition in intelligence agencies all over the world. Well that and drugs smuggling.

The TSA of course isn't _a little_ inefficient. It is entirely ineffective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So I think everyone realizes this won't stop anything, which means the real question is what is the motive?

Is this an attempt to nudge people to Pre-check and the other related services that are privately owned? The former seems like it would be a great recurring revenue source for the agency and the latter would be an opportunity to pad someone's wallet.

Are there any financial conflicts of interest that are known about the various privately held Pre-check type companies? I believe Pre-check itself is an official government program.

Follow the money.

<comment><USER10> Pre-check is so cheap, it probably costs more than it brings in revenue.

<comment><USER11> Pre check is institutionalized racism. Given the criteria for qualification, it's not surpassing that predominantly white people are able to use it.

<comment><USER12> I didn't have time to snap the picture, but I was in the pleeb lane standing behind some very dark skinned Africans and two lanes to the right in the Lexus lane was a large group of shinning, twinkly blonde Australians. If someone wanted to fabricate a story about apartheid being instituted in America, this would have been it.

<comment><USER6> Some people are more equal than other people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _TSA officials didn't immediately address whether the new universal pat-down protocol will mandate touching of passenger genitals._

Even if the TSA tried, would they really expect the public to allow it? There has to be some limit to how far they can "search".

<comment><USER14> I don't think so. If you had told anyone 20 years ago that our current system would be as bad as it is now, people would have never believed you. But here we are. In the next few years, I only see it getting worse and nobody still caring

<comment><USER15> It's not that people don't care. But what are they going to do? Arguing with the TSA is an exercise of futility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Anecdote; I just went though Denver TSA earlier this weeek and managed to make it though the scanners while wearing my belt with a very obvious metallic belt buckle. Was waved though with no extra screening. Incidentally I was flagged aside on my way out of Minneapolis because I had a parking reminder ticket in my back pocket.

These scanners are so inconsistent that they are useless.

</comment><comment><USER17> So their approach is failing, and they don't change, just double down. Typical security theatre.

</comment><comment><USER18> I full body scanner[1] they use costs about $180 k[2]. It surprises me that there is no way to figure out if you're hiding something based on those fairly expensive device. How many cases are there where the scan has shown nothing and a quick pat around the crotch has. I understand in some cases, the scan itself might indicate "area of interest." (An officer showed me an image with red areas marked and said he would have to pat me there and if I wanted to go into a room or if it was okay right there.)

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

[2] [http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/tsa-will-finally-remove- co...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/tsa-will-finally-remove- controversial-naked-full-body-scanners/)

<comment><USER19> You can opt out of the scan and get a grope instead. That was the deal that was used to sell the scanners. Personally I have opted out of every single backscatter. Consider it my tiny form of protest at the corrupt system. Just think what would happen if even 10% of people opted out.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> You can opt out

At least that's an option. When they first introduced the body scanners in my local airport (UK) I checked if that was a possibility. If you opt-out, you don't fly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think any terrorist that wanted to sneak a weapon or explosive device onboard would just smuggle it in on one of the thousands of service trucks and catering vehicles that enter the airport every day.

<comment><USER21> Shh... you'll ruin the whole show! :)

<comment><USER22> It's called "security theatre" for a reason!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's a component of this that screams for root cause analysis. And the answer is obvious (at least I think so): Terrorism.

Before 9/11 I could fly with a beefy swiss army knife in my carry-on. Even tools like screwdrivers. No issues whatsoever. I used to do a lot of flying with equipment within the US, back and forth to Europe and within Europe selling and supporting our hardware. For example, I've flown to London with a carry-on full of tools, soldering irons, FPGA dev board, DSO's, etc. No problems.

9/11 changed all of that in an instant. Now I have to take off my shoes and carrying a screwdriver set is unthinkable.

Why? These people changed our way of life. And I am not talking about the US only. This is a mess.

The Neanderthal part of my brain wants it simple: The roles ought to be reversed. We should be able to live exactly as we did and they, the bad guys, ought to be the ones living in fear of what we might do to them.

This requires an approach to dealing with the bad guys that is, well, Neanderthal, brutal. People in fear of the consequences of their actions think twice about doing stupid things.

Bush had an opportunity to go after the right people and create that "don't you ever dare fuck with us" mental shift. Instead, well, I won't go into it. Here we are.

Not sure how this problem is solved without violence. Maybe I haven't given it enough thought. We (the world) shouldn't have to live like this. This isn't just about being inconvenienced, this is about all sorts of abuses and about every single citizen of the world being treated like criminals with no justification whatsoever other than "what if".

Does someone have any good non-cave-man ideas?

<comment><USER24> deal with the systemic inequality and lack of opportunity that make terrorism an attractive option?

<comment><USER23> That's a false narrative. Terrorism isn't a natural consequence of inequality. It's deviant behavior that can only exist in the context of life-long indoctrination by twisted minds who dedicate their lives to creating even more twisted minds.

Notice I have not mentioned a religion. Terrorism, in general terms, exists and has existed in many cultures both with and without a religious foundation.

Terrorism is also about power, the quest for it by people far smarter than the pawns strapping on suicide vests.

If inequality were a true root cause the poor of the world would be engaging in terrorist acts in every single country.

Inequality is a natural phenomenon.

I would love to be a better dancer, but I suck at it. I would probably enjoy to be able to swim faster, but my body doesn't have --and will never have-- the right shape to challenge those who do.

Beyond that, while I've done very well in life, I would love to launch and run a company at the Apple/Google/Facebook/Tesla/etc. scale but that hasn't happened for me yet. And it might never happen. Not because of some grandiose conspiracy to oppress me but because of a range of reasons, including the possibility that I am simply not good enough to do make that happen.

Utopia does not exist. Equality is utopia.

Inequality is not a root cause for terrorism. Sure, it can be used to convince weak minds that they've been wronged and as one of many ingredients to convince them to strap on a suicide vest, but, no, on it's own it isn't the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am fortunate that neither work, family, nor leisure compel me to fly to (or through) the USA at any point. I intend to keep it that way.

</comment><comment><USER26> At least we can opt out in the U.S. Well, maybe.[0]

Australia doesn't let you opt out last I checked, and I don't think Canada does either. Unsure about European countries.

There should really be a site with a list of available opt-out policies worldwide.

EDIT: Canada appears to allow opt-out.[1]

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/tsa- electronic...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/tsa-electronic- body-scans-opt-out-policy)

[1] [http://www.catsa.gc.ca/full-body-scanner](http://www.catsa.gc.ca/full- body-scanner)

<comment><USER2> I'm not entirely sure about Canada. I found some news/posts/comments on the Interwebs that lead me to believe that you can opt-out, but I'm struggling to find anything from the last 3-4 years or anything on the CATSA website.

I'm flying out of Vancouver tomorrow morning, so I'll try and report back.

<comment><USER27> Chances are unlikely that you will be subjected to anything beyond a normal metal detector. I've never seen the full body scanners used as a primary screening step in Canada.

[https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/infosheets- menu-7669.html](https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/infosheets-menu-7669.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > The agency doesn't track how many passengers are subject to pat-down > searches after they pass through an imaging scanner.

This is the most basic data thay they would collect if any of this were actually about effectiveness.

</comment><comment><USER29> Were these weapons getting through the less-invasive pat-downs? Or were they getting through the non-pat-down flow?

<comment><USER30> This question only matters if effectiveness of the procedures is what the TSA is measured on. However, if that were the case, the entire thing would likely be thrown out.

I'm not going to pretend to really understand the TSA's game. But if items were getting through, and those items were doing no harm, isn't the entire thing worthless if you're adding more security or less?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Article says there was a report that showed weapons could get past the TSA, and the TSA is responding by checking the groin more carefully.

Missing from the article: did the report say that the TSA was only failing to detect weapons smuggled in the groin area?

</comment><comment><USER32> Cancelling the policy of allowing non-Precheck into the precheck lanes will be, personally, beneficial in the short term.

I wish there was actually a comparison of effectiveness of DHS agents vs private contractors like those at SFO.

<comment><USER33> Two flights in a row returning to SFO, I had knives (~1 inch blade) found and had to check my bag, after passing through SFO with no problem. So I guess if that's your metric of effective, they don't do so well in my anecdotes.

However, I like my security theatre to be fast, and that's definitely something I've found to be strong at SFO. So I'd say the contractors are very effective.

<comment><USER32> Oh, I've had the same. And return trip finding and complaining about wine opener.

Which is cheaper / effective DHS or private contractors?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> At all the Indian Airports, Malls, Train Stations, and Subway stations, they use a metal detector wand all over you despite of the Metal Detector gate. It's kinda weird.

</comment><comment><USER35> Can i request for the officer to be female and good looking at least? And if im a evil-doer stupid enough to engage with security symbolism acts, can i escape this procedure, by pretending to enjoy it too much? Search me, do it- oh, yeah Baby, that's the spot, dont stop, that could be everything.

Sometimes i wonder why there is no "Border guards for dignity at the working place" Movement. What a job. Might even save a live or two, by getting that oncology feeling for tumors.

</comment><comment><USER36> I don't know about you guys, but I feel safer already!

</comment><comment><USER37> TSA: "Reach out and Grope Someone"

Just wait until someone intentionally or not puts their quadcopter through a jet engine on takeoff, I'm sure they'll know us better than our proctologists for that.</comment>