Ask HN: Enterprise companies building on Linode, Digital Ocean, others? - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to help my company move more into the cloud for greenfield projects, and while I know that not all clouds are the same such that the only thing that separates them is price, the price discrepency between something like a linode vm or a digital ocean vm (albeit with shared cpu's but then again so are GCE's VM's -- shared cpus) and one on GCE or Azure or AWS is close to 5-7x in price. A 8GB ram, 4 core, 96GB SSD, 4TB bandwidth linode VM costs 40 bucks max a month, whereas something similar on Azure or GCE would be closer to 200.<p>What linode or the others might not have is all the tools that an AWS or GCE or Azure give but if that's not needed (if not yet) to me, it makes sense to build on a linode or digital ocean than an AWS or Azure. Are companies doing so, if so who? Care to share any experiences? <comment><USER2> Just use what you feel is best. If you don't need all the fancy enterprise integration stuff like Azure offers, save some money especially on a smaller project . I'm sure the enterprise prefers the big clouds because they see Microsoft, Oracle, etc... and because those companies throw around big buzzwords.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. I just think charging 5x as much for all the added infrastructure seems a bit ridiculous. For my small projects the smaller hosts are what I'd use especially since I am fitting the bill.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you disrupt the current dev. hiring process? - <AUTHOR> We're in 2017, we work in one of the most innovative fields and we still have one of the least innovative hiring process. How would you improve the hiring process for Software Engineers in 2017? What would be your ideal hiring process? <comment><USER2> My solution would be to setup a standard exam that would result in a score. This score would be valid for a period of 6 months, which would help candidate applying to multiple companies at once using the same score. You would have the possibility to re-apply to the exam several times until you'd land a good score. Your score would expire after 6 months. This exam would be hosted by several skilled engineers from different companies. They would be trained in evaluating technical skills and would be specialized in different areas. When you'd apply for a job, there would be a place to enter your score or a way for the company to pull out your score. Then they would trust that score and not run any technical interviews during the hiring process.

Instead, they would only focus on cultural fit. All you'd have to do is to chat with the team about work, life, etc. Of course, you'd get invited only if you have a certain score. By focusing on cultural fit, this would increase employee retention. Also, this would balance out the referral process and give an equal chance for everyone. My score would be comparable to your score in a meaningful way.

Long story short, we need a GMAT for software engineers in order to normalize the process.</comment>


Google's Nexus 4 Wireless Charger now for sale - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_4_wireless_charger&feature=email-display-wir_char-o&utm_source=email&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=wir_char&utm_content=o&gclid=CLC14Ijr-LUCFYbF4Aods2EAAA&gclsrc=ds

<comment><AUTHOR> purchased mine immediately following the email, maybe too soon...however Google has a history of running out of their exclusive devices quickly</comment>


Near the advent of the Dynabook - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook

<comment><AUTHOR> Something that can compete with the display qualities of paper, but bring with it the ability to run scripts, play sound and video media, create my own media by sketching, composing music, writing, creating new hyperlinked content, and do all this while interfaced with the global network through 3G or better -- this device would bring about a revolution in personal computing at least as big as the advent of the iPhone.

The article describes the Dynabook as being like a laptop. If you've heard Alan Kay speak about the idea, you know that it goes beyond the notion of a portable workstation, which is what the laptop/notebook is.</comment>


Every Covid-19 Commercial is the Same - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM3J9jDoaTA <comment><USER2> Never miss the opportunity of shilling for a few more bucks on the back of a crisis... every corporations marketing department motto.</comment>


Show HN: WebComponents.dev – The Modern IDE for Web Platform Developers - <AUTHOR> https://webcomponents.dev <comment><AUTHOR> Hi! Co-Maker here. We are going out of BETA soon and would love to have HN feedback

Specially for Show HN we built a little Hacker News Custom-Element button [https://webcomponents.dev/edit/RE957cUuYlJO0DZFJIz3](https://webcomponents.dev/edit/RE957cUuYlJO0DZFJIz3)

Happy to answer any questions

</comment><comment><USER2> Why does everyone create and require custom IDEs?

Why can't we use our normal IDE?

(IDE can also be designer, normal tools for our job)

<comment><AUTHOR> In our case, it's to offer the most rapid experience possible. There is no checkout, setup of build, npm install or other things. It's all ready to go immediately. Also we built really specialized views and features for the job. You have immediate feedback out-of-the-box or you can review UI changes graphically by comparing results, to name a few.

This been said, we are working on a CLI to "checkout" the components locally, use your editor of preference but still benefit from everything above.

Thanks</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I fix my posture after years at the computer? - <AUTHOR> My posture is absolutely horrible.
I have a pretty bad postural kyphosis (hunched back) that can only get worse if I keep being at the computer the whole day.
I read some stuff about how to fix it (exercising your neck, etc.), but I don't feel like that would solve anything.
I've seen people work standing up, sitting on an exercise ball, resting their feet on a footboard, etc.
How do you guys do it? Is there something relatively easy that I can actually implement and keep doing? <comment><USER2> Walking.

Aside from the many, many other benefits you'll get from making it a regular habit, it can really help to strengthen the muscles needed to maintain good posture (just be sure to walk with your head held up).

The beauty of walking is that it is so easy to work into your daily life. In the right environment it's a very pleasant thing to do. I often find myself heading out to get lunch and instead of stopping at that place a block away, I'll go an extra couple of blocks just because I'm enjoying the walk (usually, this has something to do with the trains of thought that walking encourages). It never feels in the slightest like 'exercising'. As a programmer, I consider walking while thinking to be one of my most productive activities.

I'm not suggesting that walking is _the_ solution for you, but I'm confident that it will help to improve your posture if you don't already do a lot of it.

<comment><USER3> This is nice, and blew me back to some advice I think from a Bruce Lee book or interview I read or saw years ago on generally being fit.

* Get off the bus 2 stops early and walk the rest.

* Take an extra flight of stairs instead of the lift the whole way.

About generating habits, not about magic.

For the OP: Stretch, get the time to get up, be aware of your posture, stretch, do gentle things, and take regular steps, don't expect a leap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If your back is hunched, the solution is to stretch it in the opposite direction: the following works for many people and if you go to a doc or PT and get something like this for first line treatment you are lucky:

[https://www.amazon.com/Treat-Your-Back-Robin- McKenzie/dp/095...](https://www.amazon.com/Treat-Your-Back-Robin- McKenzie/dp/0959774661)

Look at the yoga position

[https://www.yogajournal.com/poses/cobra- pose#](https://www.yogajournal.com/poses/cobra-pose#)!

Also see

[http://reichandlowentherapy.org/Content/Practices/Grounding/...](http://reichandlowentherapy.org/Content/Practices/Grounding/bow.html)

The bow position is easy to do because you can just stand up and do it as opposed to lying down as you would for the Cobra and McKenzie exercises.

I also like lying back on an exercise ball to stretch.

If your neck hurts, neck exercises are likely to make your neck hurt more because your neck is already being worked too hard already, the key is to do exercises that get other body parts to put your neck in the right place, see the neck exercises in:

[https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pain-free-pete- egoscue/1102...](https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pain-free-pete- egoscue/1102301816?ean=9780553379884&st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_BN+Bing+Books_00000000&2sid=Bing_e&sourceId=PLBiP74830)

<comment> Kepler-295c This was the only solution that worked for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a youtuber[0] I've been following lately, he explains the effects from sitting too much infront of a computer and how to fix them.

I've already learnt about APT[0](Anterior Pelvic Tilt) which is a common problem that happens when sitting for prolongated periods of time.

Forward Head Posture[1]: happens when your neck is not straight above your shoulders Computer Shoulders

Computer shoulders[2]: when your shoulder are rounded(bro physique), happens when you rotate your shoulders to reach your keyboard

He've got a lot more about posture.

There also another youtuber you probably seen him before(Athlean-X)

Videos from Athlean-X about posture corrective exercises:

Perfect Posture in 5 Steps (BAD POSTURE BUSTER!)[4]

How to Fix Your Posture (NO MORE ROUNDED SHOULDERS!)[5]

How to Fix Anterior Pelvic Tilt (SIT HAPPENS!)[6]

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/user/GuerrillazenFitness](https://www.youtube.com/user/GuerrillazenFitness)

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9IRDtQvhk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9IRDtQvhk)

[2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBYHvKDKn0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBYHvKDKn0)

[3]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMv5cMiIWEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMv5cMiIWEk)

[4]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQqgf8kB6R8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQqgf8kB6R8)

[5]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2VQ_WZ8Bto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2VQ_WZ8Bto)

[6]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-CrEi0ymMg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-CrEi0ymMg)

</comment><comment><USER6> Keep your keyboard and monitor separated by height. Laptops are evil for upper back posture.

Think of how high your eyes are above your elbows. Most of us need the center of our monitors to be 2-3ft above our keyboard height for proper ergonomics. Even typical laptop risers don't cut it.

Get your eyesight checked - and get it rechecked annually, because it can change significantly in as little as six months. Nearsightedness (myopia) and astigmatism may both cause you to lean in closer to your monitor to read clearly, causing your back to hunch. Corrective lenses make this unnecessary (though they alone won't break you of the postural habit.)

Lower back posture is a separate issue - and that's what sit-stand desks, exercise balls, and the like try to address. That said, they also strengthen your core, which may be necessary (though not sufficient) to straighten your upper back.

You may want to consult a physical therapist for specific exercises to straighten your posture, for guidance on how to do them most safely and effectively, and for a program that ramps them up gradually as your strength increases.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'll let others address keyboard heights and such, but here are some body- centric things that helped me:

1\. If you are overweight, fix that first. 2\. Do yoga 3-4 times per week. 20-min sessions are OK. Even sun salutations will help a lot. 3\. Work on strengthening your posterior chain. I don't mean lifting heavy, just getting tone and activation. 4\. Learn what it feels like to have good (better) posture. Work with someone (pro or not) to pose you and work with you. Or just use a mirror. 5\. EASIEST: Learn simple tricks like rotating your wrists outward (thumbs forward) when standing or walking. And get your eyes up near the horizon, etc.

IME, these things can make your posture visibly better. But habit and genetics are tough to overcome. As in most things, expect modest early success but steel yourself for the long haul.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you're at correct weight you can try some physical exercises.

[http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Backpain/Pages/low-back-pain- exer...](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Backpain/Pages/low-back-pain- exercises.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER9> I just bought this product: [https://shop.blackroll.com/collections/other- fascia-tools/pr...](https://shop.blackroll.com/collections/other-fascia- tools/products/blackroll-posture)

It still doesn't arrive, so I'm not sure how good it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought about buying something like that, but I often work at the house and I'm not rich enough to risk my girlfriend sees me wearing that.

There's an infomercial in Italy for a product called Royal Posture, which is supposed to force you to have a good posture.

I'm looking for ways to do it without having to wear something, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd personally suggest the Molding mobility routine to you as something to do every day. Works wonders for the back.

Here, have a look [https://phrakture.github.io/molding- mobility.html](https://phrakture.github.io/molding-mobility.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> This has been useful for me: [https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/posture- power-how-to-co...](https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/posture-power-how-to- correct-your-body-alignment.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Switching to a sit-stand desk was life changing for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> So, I assume it doesn't get tiring..?

Did you have a hunched back and did it improve..?

<comment><USER13> I did not have a hunched back (that I'm aware of), so my comment may not help you, but I found that a standing desk was more comfortable, and forces me to have a better posture more often than sitting did. I still sometimes lean over to peer at things, but I can no longer slouch back in my chair while coding.

Standing sounds like it would be tiring, but strangely it's never bothered me -- probably because I can change my stance, balance, or even move side-to-side while I'm working (and indeed, did so while typing this). I did not expect to like it as much as I do, but I've been using one for five years now and have few complaints.

edit: The key for me is that my monitor(s) are at eye level, so I don't need to look down. (Laptop screen is an exception, though, and is the main contributor to the discomfort I sometimes feel.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll try it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> try yoga to gain flexibility. your body will open up leading to a good body posture. you too have to try sitting in correct way</comment>


Accusations Fly Between Uber and Lyft - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/accusations-fly-between-uber-and-lyft/

<comment><USER2> Please do not editorialize titles.</comment>


Commonplace Books - <AUTHOR> https://alexschroeder.ch/wiki/2019-12-05_Commonplace_Books <comment><AUTHOR> Both Alex Schoeder's musings, above, and the Wikipedia article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book)) offer intriguing ideas.

The fact that there are published commonplace books is something I want to track down.

<comment><AUTHOR> Alex _Schroeder_.

I would _really_ like to have a > 1hr edit window at times.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do companies use Taleo for hiring? - <AUTHOR> No offence to the good people of Taleo is meant, but the candidate system TOTALLY SUCKS. The UX for sign up, login, upload, is so much worse than say, applying to jobs on Stack Overflow.<p>Why do people use it? <comment><USER2> Because the buying decisions are made by executives who get their backs scratched in several different ways, if you know what I mean.</comment>


Commitment vs. Forecast: A Subtle But Important Change to Scrum (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.scrum.org/resources/commitment-vs-forecast-subtle-important-change-scrum <comment><USER3> I still think it ironic that when looking at the actual Agile manifesto at [http://agilemanifesto.org/](http://agilemanifesto.org/) (which is short and uncomplicated), that the first line is "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools" and these days practicing agile, at least in a big-house corporate environment feels like anything but.

<comment><USER4> The Agile Manifesto suffers from "the curse of knowledge": The signatories are all very experienced, and deeply understand all of the differences between projects and people and when to be flexible and when to be rigid, and they know that it's important to _not_ specify a method for _every_ situation. But there are many, many people entering the software industry who don't have their years of experience, and who need very clear, basic instructions as a starting point, and hence Scrum steps in to fill the gap. What's unfortunate is that scrum isn't a program for developing software managers from rigid, by- the-book managers into experienced, _agile_ managers: Instead it encourages newbie practices for everyone, forever.

<comment><USER5> > Instead it encourages newbie practices for everyone, forever.

I feel like YAGNI is similarly abused, I don't know how many times I've said "You know what, while we're at it we should...." only to be overridden with "YAGNI!", only to be proven right 3 months later, only now the cost of refactoring > value of the feature, and saying I told you so isn't being a "team player", so no one ever learns.

I very often wonder if I am the only one that feels this way.

<comment><USER6> > I very often wonder if I am the only one that feels this way.

You're not. One of the bigger issues I've seen with Scrum is not being able to shoe horn in work that needs to be done because business didn't identify it as a "story".

I believe development is there to serve business and any processes used to facilitate this serving should be defined by development. I don't dictate how a general contractor satisfies my requirements for my home build, I leave that to them. I just expect my requirements to be met at or near budget.

A lot of these software process issues boil down to managements never ending quest to commoditize developers.

<comment><USER7> There's an analogy I like to use... you're baking bread. Bread is just flour, water, yeast, and salt, plus maybe decoration ingredients. You mix things in the correct proportions, let it rise, bake at the right temp/time, and you get bread. Easy, right? Then someone wants you to put in raisins. "It should be easy! It's just a handful of raisins, I don't see why you're telling me it can't be done!", they shout, five minutes before the oven timer goes off.

Scrum is, at heart, _designed precisely to stop the behavior you 're demanding_ \- that is, the endless stream of "small" interruptions and constantly shifting priorities. The raisins.

Why are you trying to "shoe horn in work" for _this iteration_ that you weren't aware was even an issue when the iteration planning happened? Is production down? Is it a hair-on-fire emergency that threatens the business? Or is it just "important". FUCK important. If it's so important, put it in the story backlog and have it done in the next iteration.

If it's important enough to disrupt the iteration, it's important enough to cancel the iteration, toss all that iteration's unfinished work onto the backlog, and start over. That's how Scrum is supposed to work, but never does, because _someone_ wants raisins at the last minute and thinks it's not a big deal.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I have seen businesses die, both ways. The problem is that YAGNI cashes out to "make the right decisions" \- it's logically a tautology, but an emotional encouragement to drop features. Dropping is usually the correct decision - but too often catastrophic when it's not. If you invoke YAGNI you have to be careful you aren't "picking up nickles in front of steamrollers" \- a great idea until suddenly it's not. Fortunately, frequent iteration gives people a more realistic view of the cost of raisins.

<comment><USER7> I haven't seen businesses die because they _can 't wait two weeks_ for a new feature, and had to have it _right now_. I have seen businesses die because a development team was so paralyzed by constant interruptions that they were dysfunctional and couldn't get any real work done.

<comment><USER8> If it's a better data structure, then two weeks might set the course, alas. It's happened to me. Fact is, one can't get away from judgement calls, slogans might nudge in one direction or another, but it all remains a judgement call what's just a raisin and what isn't. The fatal problem is bosses up the chain who want to demonstrate they matter and are worth their expense by throwing in superfluous raisins; having a crude slogan (misleading or not) to deter them is fine by me.

<comment><USER7> A "better data structure" is almost never an emergency. And being unable to adapt or extend a data structure in the future is not agile, and it's not the simplest thing that can possibly work.

Back when I first started building a startup, I thought "Thank Dog I no longer have to deal with stupid compromised software, and can start writing everything right!" By the time I was getting anywhere, I was well into toss- over-wall methodology. I did things that I knew full well were compromised and would hurt me later, because the work needed done, and needed to "be done". It was a real education.

I actually have a lightning talk in mind on this subject, called "Why software sucks", that argues that suckage is the nature of software development, and that "barely works" is the best we can realistically ask for - or even should ask for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My team moved from scrum to a kanban style process a couple years ago. The benefits were immediate. We no longer have drawn out sprint planning meetings where we discuss requirements of features that we never end up working on in that sprint. We don't waste time debating complexity of features. Everything is now just ad hoc. When we need more requirements definitions, we pull the necessary members of the team together and discuss it. When we see that there needs to be architectual discussions and high level planning, we do it immediately when we recognize the need for it. The idea that you can try and commit to or even forecast how much can be completed for a period of time is pretty absurd. Just identify the minimum requirements of what needs to be done and do it. Retrospective is still productive. But sprint planning is a waste of time IMO.

<comment><USER3> If you read the actual Agile manifesto, what you are doing now is more agile than scrum :)

<comment><USER10> A lot of the artefacts of a process are intended to help teams transition from the old way of doing things and to help teams who have stalled or failed to deliver. Sprints, as far as I understand them, were intended to get the wheels turning and to demonstrate results at regular intervals so the customers for any software development effort could see progress and gain confidence that the team was going to deliver. Once everything is up and running smoothly then it's entirely reasonable to drop all that and just focus on delivering - <USER2> don't need a lot of packaging an rituals to do that.

<comment><USER11> But Scrum is working! Why would we ever change?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We had Ken Schwaber come in to our shop early on in Scrum when we were struggling to get a new product going, and at its basics Scrum made tons of sense. Get a small group of people together to figure out how to make the highest priority items to ship to the customer (each written in a few sentences), then _leave that group alone_ until the sprint was done. The "commitment" was on delivering the value in the few sentences, not matching mockups, specs or some never-ending chain of tasks.

It was a really simple and effective approach, but where it broke down was: there's a lot of people/roles/depts who have no idea how to work incrementally. UX "needs to work ahead", product "needs the whole backlog", Ops "have their own backlog", etc.

Scrum didn't work with everyone hawking over a few engineers - then it just becomes task tracking bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER13> Now I would suggest to deprecate "sprint". It is not healthy to sprint continuously. Sane software development is much more like a marathon.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if this is meant to be facetious, but I actually fully agree. "Sprint" is a terrible analogy because in reality it is impossible to be sprinting all the time. I usually just say "iteration".

<comment><USER15> I'm confused, doesn't your statement mean the analogy is good? You can neither "sprint" at work continuously nor constantly sprint in reality.

<comment><USER14> Let's say you do 2 week sprints as part of your process. You do a sprint, finish it, and then do another sprint immediately after. How is that viable? Effectively it means that you never stop sprinting. I don't think it's sustainable.

<comment><USER15> Is that actually what scrum suggests sprints are? Thanks, I missed that, that's silly if so. I assumed by the name that this was like a one week a month kind of thing.

<comment><USER16> I think there's quite a lot of getting hung up on the word itself here... According to the Scrum guide, a sprint is just:

> a time-box of one month or less during which a "Done", useable, and > potentially releasable product Increment is created. Sprints have consistent > durations throughout a development effort. A new Sprint starts immediately > after the conclusion of the previous Sprint.

([http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events- sprint](http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events-sprint))

There's nothing that says you need to "sprint" through your sprints, quite the contrary it's supposed to be a way of measuring your team's steady-state output by making the feedback loop short.

If people are really hearing the word "sprint" and thinking "ah, Scum is telling me to work at 110% all the time without stopping", then I put forth that no methodology or change of terminology is going to save them from themselves. However, I suspect there's something about the timebox structure that makes short-term thinking the default unless discipline is applied, and discipline is hard.

<comment><USER17> Exactly. The point of time boxing is that you have to stop and reflect on the time spent. It gives you the chance to switch tasks if priorities have changed or to split the current task.

Or to go on to the next sprint with the same task. But here lies the problem in many cases. The sprint is taken not as a time box but as a deadline. A sprint should meen: "You can work 2 weeks, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day on this. Then you stop to think."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Funny to see this. I thought getting commitment was one of the soft mechanisms of scrum. An annoying one, because power dynamics are always at play. Still a mechanism, though.

I think I'm supportive of the idea on removing it. Seems the goal is ultimately to find ways in rhetoric and action to align the teams in working to the end goal. Which, often, might require tradeoffs to reach a timely delivery. And timing is a requirement.

<comment><USER19> It probably made more sense to put it in in the beginning when the process was still being sold to senior managers. Now that scrum is much more embedded, taking out for the reasons given makes more sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yes yes yes. It never made sense to me that our ticket sizing was supposed to be an estimate and yet the planning that used those estimates was considered a commitment. Totally insane.

<comment><USER21> [https://imgur.com/a/OnJKA](https://imgur.com/a/OnJKA)

<comment><USER22> Fantastic, I'm using this in my next presentation to management.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am a big fan of scrum precisely because of the word commitment (I hand't realized it was removed). Forecast means we need to use a larger estimate next time. Commitment means: "how can we still get this live". In a good culture the answer to this should rarely be work extra hours or reduce code quality - it should be reduce scope of functionality. Without the commitment you often get micro feature creep, where a bunch of non-essential micro features are added. A bit like this ([https://lawsofux.com/parkinsons- law.html](https://lawsofux.com/parkinsons-law.html)). It is also the obvious moment in time to tell a product owner "we need to remove functionality x or not ship". Without the commitment that important conversation is never had. In my experience micro & macro feature creep is one of the biggest issues in sw development. Obviously you can still do the above with the word forecast, but forecast empowers you less to actually change anything (apart from better aka higher estimates next Sprint). On a general note: I feel scrum is often misused to "manage" engineering teams, when it is really a productivity tool that the team should use for itself.

<comment><USER24> Depending on the size or the organization, that word commitment can create numerous issues.

It can keep teams from collaborating because of a need to finish their commitments first, effectively blocking the other teams and delaying actual delivery of the product. You can see the same issues in customer support requests. The second that somebody decides to measure completed sprint commitments, you are in deeeeeep trouble because it forces people to low ball to hit that number. It removes your ability to pivot.

The entire concept of sprint commitments in a moderately sized team is borderline destructive.

This change is the best news about software development I've read in YEARS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wrote an article on the negative psychological impact of commitments in sprints ([https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scrum-makes-you-dumb- daniel-j...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scrum-makes-you-dumb-daniel- jones)). It's great to see renewed focus on shifting away from a term that has been used to make developers' working lives unpleasant, leads to lower-quality code, and gives false certainty to stakeholders.

</comment><comment><USER26> This PDF is pretty nice. Regarding the differences of Kanban vs Scrum. [https://www.crisp.se/file-uploads/Kanban-vs- Scrum.pdf](https://www.crisp.se/file-uploads/Kanban-vs-Scrum.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER27> Is Agile & Scrum still relevant? I am seeing more and more consultants who used to selling this stuff have moved upmarket into Lean and Digital Transformation of companies.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can we deprecate scrum in 2018?

<comment><USER29> Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. I'm sure few people here have any fondness for software processes, especially in the corporate decadence stage, but that's no reason to make HN worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER30> [http://programming-motherfucker.com/](http://programming-motherfucker.com/)

<comment><USER31> do people really pair program in real life? I've never actually seen it

<comment><USER14> Yes.

<comment><USER31> at which company did you see it, and was it everyone

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Tag [2011] is missing...

<comment><USER33> Thanks! Updated.</comment></comment>


Shower Thoughts: On the Origin of HN and Its Persistent Nastiness - <AUTHOR> Hacker News exists because day jobs are not satisfying enough, leading everyone to get on here, where the stakes are so small (making the battles so fierce) trying to prove they're so smart.<p>Change my mind. <comment><USER2> I don't really notice it unless it's brought up like this. I recuse myself from conversations in the real world that take the same tone. One can't argue people into being civil and decent, (this most likely has the opposite effect) but you can deny them an audience. Literally not worth getting involved with.</comment>


USGS Announces Largest Continuous Oil Assessment in Texas and New Mexico - <AUTHOR> https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-announces-largest-continuous-oil-assessment-texas-and-new-mexico <comment><USER2> Incredible how the US has transformed into the largest producer of crude oil in the world in the matter of a few short years. It's definitely a geopolitical weapon to attack those in the Middle East with, especially the Saudis, although it's not clear to me whether they are complicit or not with this current US policy of pumping and dumping oil. Now that ISIS is all but dismantled, maybe the other target is Syria and Iran or even Russia. In a similar way Reagan outspent the Soviet Union in nuclear arms race, this definitely feels like pumping so much oil and keeping oil prices low is in order to destabilize at least one or two of our political enemies that rely on oil revenues.

<comment><USER3> Reagan didn't spend the USSR into disintegration.

The USSR collapsed as it did due to the dramatic oil price drop caused by Paul Vocker's strengthening of the dollar in the 1980s. Oil is priced in dollars, so if you considerably increase the value of the dollar, you'll sink the price of oil, which will hammer most foreign oil producers. The dollar index went from ~80 to ~160, from roughly 1980 to 1986, by far the greatest dollar move in modern history. Oil moved inversely to the dollar gains. The USSR economy was heavily dependent on the price of oil staying as high as it was in the 1970s (oil went from ~$20 to $100+, levels it had never remotely seen before). Having gotten used to the price of oil being so high throughout the 1970s, their already weak system was unable to absorb the outsized shock of oil plunging from $100+ to $30 during ~1980-1988.

In the 1950s the USSR barely had an oil economy at all. From 1960 to 1980 (they passed the US in oil production around 1975-76), their oil output had climbed by about seven fold, making them very dependent on that resource.

Had oil remained high, the USSR could have continued to spend as necessary to try to keep their system together. For an economy as dependent on oil as theirs was by 1980, removing that much revenue by tanking oil from $100 to $30, is a deadly wound on top of an already shaky foundation. While very plausibly their system would have failed regardless eventually, a high oil price would have likely bought them more time.

The dollar is what broke the USSR. It's also what threw Russia into a sudden and dramatic recession after Crimea and curtailed their pursuit of further territorial annexation (at least for a while). The US stopped QE and signaled the beginning of rate hikes, which sent the dollar soaring and took took oil from $105+ in June 2014 to under $28 in about 18 months (the global economy was growing fine and oil had been in oversupply for years; it was the dollar move that popped the market). Oil tanked immediately after the Russian Crimea events in July-August 2014.... The dollar is by far the greatest weapon in the US arsenal. If you want to restrain Russia, push the dollar high.

<comment><USER4> Utter rubbish.

I recently saw a Werner Herzog feature-length interview documentary called "Meeting Gorbachev". In it Gorbachev describes in his own words how and why the USSR dissolves. The USSR was always an unequal political union with Russia as its command centre. The other republics were always jostling either for a more equal union and frequently nationalist sentiment overrode pan-Slavic sentiment. If the USSR had managed its internal economy better and if they weren't cut off from the outside world it could have survived indefinitely. In the end Gorbachev made a series of moves (perestroika and glasnost: anybody who lived through this period knows these terms and what they mean in practice) that brought about the impending dissolution. Garbachev would have been the leader of an independent leader of a now independent Russia but he was politically outflanked.

It is typical US arrogance to think that they have their hands always and every time directly on the levers that make and break nations and political entities. It is a prime example of the mentality of US exceptionalism. Many many factors interweave and interplay in every geopolitical landscape: internal politics, internal economics, internal resource allocation, external pressure, military strength, alliances, the list goes on.

Yes, oil/dollar moves may have had some impact. How much of an impact, that would be difficult to say. But it was in no way as impactful as you make it out to be and in now way as directly instrumental. And besides, when you look at the history of Federal Reserve policy you can see that US economic reasons (recession, interest rates) prompted Volcker's actions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These guys at the USGS are a bit late to the party but they're doing a good thing (for the economy, maybe not the environment) by publishing research like this.

Many companies have formed their opinions on these plays already, often with superior data, but foreign companies, smaller companies, and firms not as focused on the region will benefit. The hope from the USGS side is that it will spur investment into the region.

The biggest issue? Cost of extraction/breakeven pricing, bar none.

Fwiw: I worked in the energy industry as a geologist for some years.

<comment><USER6> Why are they not mining these plays already when they have convincing data ?

<comment><USER5> The areas are either considered higher risk or more costly to extract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I understand the perceived geopolitical need for energy independence, I sure hope we don't develop this. With recent reports like the NCA4 (nca2018.globalchange.gov), it's pretty clear things are going to get a whole lot worse with climate change, that will take a very long time to retool our infrastructure even with a strong economic incentive. Cheap and plentiful oil certainly doesn't help.

I also think that flying over this region (Permian basin / western Texas) on a clear day is --- as it is currently, without further extraction --- one of the best ways to understand the sheer scale of energy extraction required to support the American economy and lifestyle. If you haven't seen it, check out the satellite imagery of Pyote, TX on Google Maps or similar.

<comment><USER8> Cheap and plentiful oil helps poor countries dealing with climate change way better than expensive and inflexible renewables. This is the actual dilemma that is worth discussing, not whether rich nations who can afford the way more expensive and much less scaleable renewables. But most of the political elite dont care cause they have found a new political course to use as a way to control many voters.

<comment><USER9> At least from the electricity perspective, renewables are both cheaper and more flexible than oil for developing countries. They do not require dependence on a constant stream of imports, because the resource - wind, water, sun - is already there.

They can be built at any scale, from rooftop solar to utility-scale wind power, so they don't require the access to capital involved in building large thermal power plants.

<comment><USER8> Renewables are not reliable nor are they cheaper or more flexible, not sure why you think that. Poor countries dont drive around teslas or have fance electrical grids. Oil is by far the best choice for them by several factors.

<comment><USER10> I don't pretend to be an expert. It seems like rooftop solar + a battery would be a far more reliable power supply in reasonably sunny regions, than oil in a place that doesn't have a stable electrical grid.

The alternative to solar is what, generators in every building and delivering fuel? The efficiency of that sort of scheme must be terrible, and you're still relying on regular delivery of fuel.

Am I missing something?

Personal experience tells me that this sort of thing is possible. I stayed a few days a few years ago in a friend of a friend's house that relied solely on solar + batteries for power (apparently the cost of getting it hooked up to the grid made this setup far cheaper). Completely reliable. Power had to be rationed slightly more carefully than in grid connected places, but it wasn't a real impediment in any way. This was in Ontario, Canada. Which isn't one of the sunniest places in the world.

<comment><USER11> I'm going to put it out there that when two (now three) non-experts discuss the relative costs everyone gets to be wrong about everything, so why bother? Nevertheless...

Firstly, relative costs will be region specific. Secondly, prices are always in a state of flux over the medium term. Thirdly, there are probably tax and subsidy implications. Fourthly, I suspect the rooftop solar is going to be a poor choice compared to utility-scale centralised solar and a grid so your specific arguments may be academic (I certainly hope so, those industrial solar towers look amazing vs. rooftop panels). Fifthly, the failure modes of the two systems are different making a comparison challenging.

For example, how reliable is a solar system in the face of three days of cloud cover? Vandalism? Do these panels actually last 20 years, given that manufacturing techniques are presumably changing and we haven't had 20 years to test them out? What are the actual fire risks posed by house-powering batteries?

Putting together a similar list for generators is easy but I know the answers to a lot of those questions because I'm quite familiar with fossil fuels, as we all are.

Anyone who says either is going to be more suitable for purpose without an opinion sourced from an engineer or a couple of case studies is just making stuff up. You can't first-principles this sort of thing, it is very context sensitive. Even case studies I mistrust, because solar can look very good if the grid is mismanaged by environmentalists to the point people opt-out.

<comment><USER9> First of all, I am a power systems engineer.

Oil and refined petroleum products are not an economical source of power generation, which is why it isn't used anywhere in the developed world except at small scale where lots of fuel storage is required, like the Canadian Arctic. Coal and natural gas are much more appropriate, if they are available.

The biggest advantage to renewables, as I stated in my initial comment, is that they don't have to be transported. Arguments about resource adequacy (not enough sun, not enough water) are largely irrelevant because fossil fuel power is _already_ rationed in developing off grid locations due to the massive cost of transport. Recall that developing countries do not have advanced transportation infrastructure nor a highly developed power grid to transit energy.

Finally, energy security is a major concern for all countries, especially those with limited ability to purchase US$ priced global commodities, and oil is an import in most of the world.

To suggest that, for instance, countries in sub Saharan Africa are better off spending their minimal foreign currency reserves importing diesel and trucking it across the desert on non existent roads rather than using abundant solar energy flies in the face of the facts.

<comment><USER12> Microgrid engineer here, and I completely agree. Developing nations bypassed expensive comms grids in the 90s and went straight to cell phones. The same thing is happening now with energy. Rather than building out an (even more) expensive electrical grid, they're putting in distributed renewables. Result: Everybody has electricity but there's no grid. It's happening because of economics; not ideology.

<comment><USER8> not the same at all. The investments into getting phones into peoples hands were market driven, energy infrastructure is not.

<comment><USER9> A person living 3 days from the road in Nepal deciding to put in a small solar system to charge their phone and provide a bit of light absolutely is market- driven.

<comment><USER8> Sure but that's not enough to keep them safe from mother nature, provide for heating, cook their food, transport them etc. You are talking about a fraction of what it is to live as a person in a relatively safe environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not surprising. The boom in the Permian Basin has already been massive. Driving through southeastern New Mexico, you see a hellscape of hastily strung, sloppy power lines across vast fields of drill rigs, with signs warning you of the possibility of poison gas.

</comment><comment><USER14> I drove through this region on my way to Carlsbad Caverns and the extraction already happening is surreal. You can see flares for miles. Not so far away, herds graze in the shadow of windmills.

<comment><USER15> Flares? I thought it was illegal to flare off NG and Y grade?

<comment><USER16> I don't know about the legality, but last time I drove through, there were some pretty massive flares. They lit up the surroundings for tens of miles. Like hell on Earth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No need to develop these fields when we can import oil instead.</comment>


Ask HN: Rejecting an accepted job offer. Is it ethical? - <AUTHOR>

I recently accepted an offer from Y! and given the current turnaround of events, I am having second thoughts. Given my legal status I cannot afford to be in unstable position. What's the best thing to do in this position? <comment><USER2> I'll veer away from the legal status aspects of it :) But as far as rejecting an accepted offer, an offer letter isn't binding. It is signals your intent to sign a contract (i.e. that long employee agreement that no one reads). And even when you sign the agreement depending on which state you reside in, you are probably in a "right to work" state which means you can quit without cause, and they can fire without cause. So rejecting an accepted offer isn't that big of moral deal to me.

The main thing is what is making your change your mind. Another thing to consider is the size of the market where you are. If you are in a small market (say Spokane, WA) then word might get around that you are "wishy-washy". In a larger market, maybe not.

I've been on both sides of this before. From the employee side, I'd reject an accepted offer if something came up that gave me pause. I've rejected an accepted offer when I realized I didn't really want to move to Boston. Things change. They understand that.

From the employer side, I'd rather someone reject an accepted offer vs. coming to work and not really wanting to be there. It costs quite a bit of money to on board an employee - benefits, computer, parking passes, etc. While some of that might be in the works because you accepted, I doubt much of it is. I'd rather eat the cost on the few things I did vs. bringing you on and having you quit a few months later or having to fire you later for not working out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Turnaround of events where? In your life? Or with Yahoo!?

If something's changed in _your_ life - unforeseen - that makes it more difficult to accept, it'll be easier for everyone to understand and accept. If it's just a case of... "I changed my mind"... well... they'll move on and get over it, but you'll have a bad mark there. The people you let down may remember this, and they move on as well. Basically one changed decision probably won't have much of a difference, but if this is a pattern in life, it'll have longer-term repercussions over taking the gig for several months or a year until something better comes along.

</comment><comment><USER4> You are conflating two questions:

1) Is it moral? 2) What's the best for me?

It seems like your legal status is a big incentive to take the Y! job, so that should encourage you to follow through.

But... if that's not an issue, it might be a little unethical, but you know what... screw Yahoo. You're just a guy, they are a billion dollar corp. Do what's right for you.</comment>


Julian Assange is expected to address the world's media at 11:00pm (AEST) - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-19/julian-assange-live-blog/4208800

<comment><USER2> From his speech:

"The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice"

I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should be held up as a shining beacon of justice.

It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2].

[1]:<http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador> [2]:[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2y...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2yf8X1FT5_w9UWANn3bjQ?docId=CNG.a24fb352dbca8778c3acc558060f5fa5.311)

<comment><USER3> The US has committed atrocity's just as bad as most countries. EX: Slavery, Bio warfare vs American Indians along with the 'trail of tears' etc. ( _Many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee_ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears>) The Atlantic Slave Trade actually killed ~16 million which is several times more people than all the Nazi concentration camps put together.

But, IMO it's not meaningful to look at a country and say their good or evil. You look at individual acts and say that's good or that's evil.

<comment><USER4> I think that there's no such thing as a country that "is" good. There are those which do good and those which do not.

There are plenty of atrocities to go around, almost every one of them justified by people hating whoever was at the other end of the atrocity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone in their right mind believe that this is NOT politically motivated?

Take a look at how many policemen are standing guard in that picture. In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would _never_ get that level of response from local police. No matter how much Sweden might have begged for it.

<comment><USER6> I'm more intrigued by the complete lack of information about the two women involved in the case. You would think journalists would be trying to speak to them or trying to get their side of the story but theres been complete radio silence.

It's very suspect.

<comment><USER7> What do you mean by "their side of the story"? The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say? I believe their identities are not released because that's Swedish law.

Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.

<comment><USER8> "The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say?"

Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.

<comment><USER7> I'll rephrase:

What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.

<comment><USER8> "What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion."

Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If Julian Assange is worried about being extradited to the US (which seems to be his main objection to going to Sweden) why is he in the UK in the first place? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US in place and have extradited several people to the US.

<comment><USER10> I think it's because UK can't extradite someone who may face the death penalty (if Assange is charged with treason or espionage he might).

<comment><USER11> Sweden also can't.

<comment><USER12> Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the CIA for rendition, who were subsequently handed over to the Mubarak regime where they were tortured. The victims had no chance of legal recourse, as the time between being nabbed and handed over was only a few hours. Whether or not Sweden's laws allow it to do this, the fact of the matter is that Sweden _has_ done this.

In comparison, the UK has a proven track record of standing up to the US on similar issues, given that it demanded the return of its citizens from gitmo. If extradition was requested in the UK, from past experience Assange would at least have a chance to fight it in the courts, instead of being unceremoniously handed over.

<comment><USER11> And it was a scandal. And it happened in secret. And it happened to people no one knew or cared about.

It's disgusting shit alright, but that won't happen to Julian Assange. Never ever. That's completely ridicoulos.

No one inside the Swedish government can or will want to pull something like this with Assange. I'm not sure how you can even begin to believe that.

<comment><AUTHOR> They definitely couldn't do it secretly, but why couldn't they pull it off? Sure there would be outrage, but governments have faced that before over issues much larger than this. (eg. decisions to go to war and such)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The actual speech in "text": Part 1: [https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697...](https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697/photo/1) Part 2: [https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936...](https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936/photo/1)

</comment><comment><USER13> This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere.

I say the more we keep talking about Assange the less we're actually using our brains to figure out the fine details of what works and what doesn't work in democracies. For the media, this is becoming a story of drama and conflict. I'd ask them politely to please go peddle it somewhere else.

I have no opinion on whether Assange was set up or not, but I will say this: he is purposely using his publicity as a self-aggrandizing tool. He has been doing this since long before the charges were brought. The more we buy into this narrative of one-man causes, the more we harm our ability to make a better world. Instead we just head down the road of civil unrest and conflict. Assange is not my hero, even if there were no criminal charges. The things I believe are more important than one man, and I refuse to have my principles owned by somebody else besides me.

<comment><USER8> "This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere."

If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either. Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles cough _DanielBMarkham_ cough.</comment></comment>


How to hit back at the digital haters - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9d8733c-0a42-11e3-9cec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2d1ZGQ3di

<comment><USER2> Paywall.

</comment><comment><USER3> Paywalls are digital haters.</comment>


Merry Christmas HN - 50% off tickets: happyhnholidays - <AUTHOR> http://superconf.net/?discount=hellyeah!

<comment><AUTHOR> I love Hacker News & figured this is one way I can give back. 50% off tickets with discount code: happyhnholidays

Merry Christmas!</comment>


JSONx is an IBM standard format to represent JSON as XML - <AUTHOR> http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_6.0.0/com.ibm.dp.xm.doc/json_jsonx.html

<comment><USER2> Unless it's some unchangeable legacy system, I can't imagine how one would justify twisting data in this way. And besides, this approach doesn't allow the app to be "unchangeable"; you'd have to adopt a new schema, and as long as you're doing that you might as well just switch to a real JSON parser.

Even their simple example makes my head hurt...

<comment><USER3> > Unless it's some unchangeable legacy system, I can't imagine how one would > justify twisting data in this way.

It seems to be allow JSON data to be consumed and produced by an existing IBM toolchain designed for handling XML; which is probably useful for organizations that have invested heavily in the XML toolchain.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I think so. I mean, it is ridiculous and horrible, but ... After thinking through it for a few minutes and pairing it with an XSL schema translator, this could enable some integration on systems where there is no code and it's all pure XML data driven.</comment></comment></comment>


iPad Pro is better than any Mac - <AUTHOR> https://www.cultofmac.com/693991/why-the-2020-ipad-pro-is-better-than-any-mac/ <comment><USER2> Apple agrees too: it's a 100% locked-down computing device.

Since when did geeks abandon the idea that you should be able to execute arbitrary code on a device you own? Not have to ask permission from a multinational company--and accept the answer "no" when the code is deemed too dangerous, subversive, or undercuts their preferred business model.

<comment><USER3> Many devices you own do not allow you to execute arbitrary code, such as my microwave and toaster.

<comment><USER4> My toaster is so simple I could probably fix it with a soldering iron and parts I found in the dumpster. What's your point?

<comment><USER3> People do not (and should not) have an expectation of executing arbitrary code on all devices they own.

<comment><USER4> I _absolutely_ have an expectation of being able to run arbitrary code on my devices! This is what a general purpose computer is.

If not, how should developers (and hackers) work on stuff then? How should the curious budding programmer get inspired to create?

Moreover, how should the motivated user fix a problem they found that the developers didn't consider? Are they beholden to the powers that be? Should they be?

General purpose computers sparked a revolution of ideas, products, and productivity; now you'd take that away from us! Why?!

<comment><USER3> Making devices that are not general purpose computers does not take away general purpose computers.

<comment><USER5> When people start marketing iPads as replacements for notebook PCs, _some_ users are expecting it to be able to do what they could do on their Mac OS or Linux machines.

<comment><USER6> So whose fault is that - the users or Apple?

<comment><USER4> Clearly Apple's for trying to sell us on this new vision for computing, which is just plain worse. Sorry.

<comment><USER6> So people who are suppose to be good with computers aren't intelligent enough to know how the iOS platform - that's been out for 13 years - works?

<comment><USER4> You're losing me in this line of reasoning... I know quite well how iOS works.

The issue is, to make good software, you need users. If everyone is using iOS, there's no $/time/energy left for the others. To make progress with technology we can't be held hostage by our platforms, as Apple would have things.

This is about having both the developers and the users put on the same playing field, and moving forward. Not backwards, like we've been going for years now. Sure there's been some steps in good directions, but ask yourself honestly if technology is truly working for you? Or are you working for technology?

<comment><USER6> If "everyone" is using iOS - which empirically not true and never will be at the prices Apple charges - have you ever thought that their priorities may be different than yours?

Have you ever thought that iOS users not having to deal with the cruft of modern computing operating systems and the insecurities is progress for them?

I only hear geeks complaining about the "walled garden". Most people want something that just works.

<comment><USER4> Right, and last I checked my step dad has just as much trouble with his iPad as with with late Windows computer. He doesn't do a lot with computers. And I'd fathom a guess, it's not just nerds complaining... just look at the music industry, or the news paywalls, but I digress.

Everyone's got an opinion, and they all stink, you know. At least with the general approach, you can swap out opinions at will.

</rant>

<comment><USER6> Has your step dad had to worry about viruses, malware, adware, and ransomware on his iPad? Has he had to worry about popular video conferencing software installing a web server in the background that reinstalls itself every time you uninstall it (Zoom)?

The "music industry" isn't complaining about Apple. iTunes and now Apple Music gives more money back to artists than its competitors.

What do news paywalls have to do with Apple?

As far as revenue, the App Store generates more revenue than the more "open" Play Store even though Apple has less than a fifth of the market share.

<comment><USER4> I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

<comment><USER6> The forest for someone who wants to make money as a developer is go where people are the most willing to pay - the Apple App Store.

The forest for most people - who aren't developers and even for those who just want a device that works - is mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I still think a tablet is a fundamentally worse form factor than a laptop for most tasks.

Such as what I am doing right now, typing while sitting on the couch. Even that cool new keyboard case seems like it would be unwieldy in this scenario.

And when watching a movie, a laptop holds itself up with no accessories – useful pretty much any time you are watching something.

<comment><USER7> With the big screens and high resolutions on modern phones, all I use my iPad for is Netflix in bed, pretty much. Youtube before phone screens got large- ish. I don't want a tv in my bedroom, takes too much space, cables and dust and all that.

<comment><USER4> How do you hold it up without your arms getting tired?

<comment><USER7> Uhm. I grew up reading in bed at night so I'm just very strong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not ready to replace any of my computers with the iPad unless I'm allowed to freely install and run any apps I need, and run them constantly in the background, not relying on APNS for push notifications to wake apps from sleep.

</comment><comment><USER4> False.

Even though macOS is deteriorating in my eyes, at least it's still an OS I kinda control, and can do with as I please. I challenge anyone developing systems software to use this new iPad as a replacement for their Mac.

<comment><USER8> You can even install Linux to replace MacOS X.

<comment><USER4> I haven't had a Mac in a while now... how well does Linux still work on Mac hardware? I'd expect some features to be difficult. Does WiFi and Sleep mode still work at least? Other basic features?

<comment><USER8> Ubuntu derivatives have an amazing support of Mac Hardware, sometimes works even better.

[https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/tutorial-create-a-usb-stick- on-...](https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/tutorial-create-a-usb-stick-on-macos)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Adding the [opinion] to this title would be helpful.

It's a thought provoking discussion, but one that I don't feel has changed much since the first iPad Pro came out in 2016. Its software really impedes "traditional computer" workflows, despite having really impressive leaps in hardware.

A more accurate title, if I was to write this article, is "It's pretty amazing how capable and powerful the iPad has become". But comparing to the Mac, even when it ticks every single hardware box, still continues to fall very short as a Mac replacement.

</comment><comment><USER10> What about software? Do we get a terminal app? Can we install Docker?

</comment><comment><USER11> > But the iPad Pro comes with a 120Hz Liquid Retina display with ProMotion > technology, which can also slow down to show movies at 30 frames per second, > as the movie gods intended.

Movies are recorded at 24. If it were 30, there wouldn't be a need for a 120hz display to show movies without judder or adaptive refresh.

</comment><comment><USER12> It frustrates me to no end that this perfect piece of hardware is so shackled by software that it's essentially useless to me. It feels like seeing a juicy steak on your plate but once you put a piece of it in your mouth it's just smoke...

</comment><comment><USER13> If only Apple ported HyperKit over and let us run a fully sandboxed, virtualized ARM userland... iSH is great, but not enough.

</comment><comment><USER14> If it could just run Mac OS with touch screen clicks that would be sa-weet. Love the form factor

<comment><USER6> A desktop OS with a touch screen worked so well with Windows....

<comment><USER15> Actually, it worked out very well for Windows 10. It's the most popular desktop operating system on the market with a global market share of about 40%.

Every top PC manufacturer has a line of touch models and they've been continuing to make new models every year for the past 7 years, so they must be selling...

I think a lot of people just repeat whatever Apple/Steve Jobs said, but if you look - Apple has a long history of poo-pooing things right up until they do it themselves. It's part of their corporate playbook. They switched to Intel CPUs after talking shit about them for decades. They switched to multi-touch after sticking to the single mouse button for so long, citing how more than one button was too complicated for people...

That's what's happening now. Apple is trying to turn their iPad into a Surface. Of course the people who are wanting more freedom than iOS allows are going to be waiting a long time as Apple slowly and carefully adds general computing capabilities (as they have been doing), but in a way that stifles any sort of competition where they don't want it.

<comment><USER6> I have two Dell 2-1s I use regularly running Windows 10. My personal laptop and my work laptop, and I have a Dell. All the things wrong with Windows 10 as touch OS.

\- x86 is very power inefficient. Every benchmark shows that iPad Pros out perform most x86 laptops. iPads get 10+ hours battery life compared to 3-4 hours from both Dell's when they were brand new.

\- Instant On/Standby time. My first gen iPad was still getting standby times of 3 weeks while still getting notifications 5 years in. Of course my 2017 $469 iPad with cellular will go about a month on standby. My laptops? They take forever to wake from sleep and standby time is not nearly as good.

\- Windows 10 is nowhere near as memory or CPU efficient as iPadOS. Can you imagine running Windows with 3GB RAM? The lowend surfaces had 4GB of RAM and ran horribly.

\- Most Windows apps and parts of the OS itself has still not been rewritten to be touch friendly. Microsoft Office is even a better experience on iPads than Windows using a touch screen.

\- Of course Windows on ARM has been a disaster.

\- the 16x9 display of my laptop is horrible in portrait and landscape trying to use the onscreen keyboard.

As far as Jobs "talking shit about x86", Next was already in the process of porting Next to x86 before Apple acquired them. Jobs admitted that they always had a port of OS X on x86.

Also, the Mac supported multiple mouse buttons since MacOS 8.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> *for consumers</comment>


Conversocial - CRM Social Media Tool Raises $4.4M - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/28/conversocial-crm-social-media-tool-raises-4-4m-led-by-octopus-investments/

<comment><AUTHOR> And, we're recruiting in London :) Coffeescript engineers, Python engineers and dev-ops</comment>


Cryptocurrency historical price data collector library in Python 3 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/guptarohit/cryptoCMD <comment> contra-bit This looks interesting. I will try to integrate it into my python Data Visualization Portfolio, where I used Pandas and Matplotlib to visualize 6 Mayors Banks over the last 10 years Anyone interested?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure! Is your project on GitHub? Would like to have a look.</comment></comment>


ADHD increases likelihood of smoking, substance abuse [study] - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/06/01/boston-mass-general-study-adhd-increases-likelihood-of-substance-abuse/

<comment><USER2> This is not news, but a replication of a frequent finding of studies of ADD/ADHD individuals. It's likely that some ADD patients use nicotine as "self-medication" of their attention disorder, for which nicotine has a partial, haphazard therapeutic effect (along with lots of side effects from smoking as a drug delivery system).

<comment><USER3> Just to add, well-treated ADHD has much a much lower incidence of substance abuse, but still slightly higher than the average joe. This may be related to the impulsivity and novelty-seeking elements of the diagnosis.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: How fulfilled are you with tech entrepreneurship? - <AUTHOR>

It's time to dig deep within ourselves and get a little mushy.
I feel, well I know, that I have a passion for both entrepreneurship and medicine. Both passions are very time and labor intensive and to most people seem like two mutually exclusive passions, with no room to pursue both. Ideally, however, I'd be able to mesh the two and pursue an entrepreneurial project with a medical flavor.
I'm at a fork in my life's road right now. Look down one path and you see a long arduous road to M.D.-ship. I feel that being a doctor, you acquire an invaluable ability to help people directly, helping them retain, maintain, and improve the most precious attribute to human nature - life. Everyday, you're helping people grasp and grip onto their last thread. In my opinion, there's great fulfillment found in knowing that you're saving a brother, a son, etc., but it requires roughly a decade or more of your life, depending on specialty. Drive down the alternate path, and you get an exciting adrenaline filled life with extreme highs and extreme lows. You're out on your own leading a team to success during your youthful years. You're on the bleeding edge of tech, steering the ship into newly found waters with the hopes of finding untouched hordes of fish just waiting to get caught. And if you find yourself in dead waters, you refocus, and make way in a new direction full force. But zooming out, in the end, it's just a web page, a new widget, etc. Not to belittle the whole field, because God knows I love it all, but do you find fulfillment in that? Do you feel that you are using your life to fulfill an honorable purpose?
I feel that if I give up medicine, I'd be giving up a chance to truly help people, and have a direct and positive effect on others, yet if I pursue it, I'll be missing out on the young exciting 'I make my own rules' type of entrepreneurial life I've always dreamed of living. Hopefully, I can drill my way down the middle of the fork and forge my own path.
EDIT: I'm not just asking for advice. I'm curious as to find out what people in the tech entrepreneurship field feel towards the purpose they're working to accomplish. <comment><USER2> I've worked in ER/Critical Care for the last 15 years of my life, and I'm almost finished with my degree in software engineering. I've gotten a lot of flack from people, because I'm leaving a "caring" field and pursuing "living a life in front of a computer" or "making a better mouse trap".

So, I've had quite a long chance to think these issues through. And, I've thought a lot about medicine and health care as well as it's limitations in terms of being rewarding.

One of the biggest problems that I have with either nursing or medicine, is that to get into the industry, it's tall barrier to entry. But after you're in, it's hard to get kicked out. You pretty much have to molest someone, recklessly kill someone or be on drugs to get booted out of the profession. And, that leads to a large set of problems. There are personality disorders in health care that simply would not be tolerated in the business world. I've seen people yell at each other, physically assault each other, throw dirty scalpels and charts. What other industry would tolerate that without involving the authorities?

Another problem that I see this: as an individual committed to growth and learning, is that there is no financial reward for becoming better at my job. It essentially becomes a volume business, not a quality business. If I am phenomenal at starting IV's or phenomenal at diagnosis or perform great life saving feats requiring inhuman feats of physical endurance--my bank account doesn't look any prettier. As a nurse, I'm rewarded for hours worked and more to the point for overtime worked. This produces nurses who work tons of overtime, especially during nursing shortages like we have now. And on the medical side, doctors get reimbursed by diagnosis or procedure, not by quality of work done. So, the doctors who make the most money are those who see the most patients, or who perform the most procedures on patients. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the highest paid doctors tend to be those who perform generally needless procedures: dermatologists and plastic surgeons.

But, as an entrepreneur, I get to make things and build things. Perhaps I don't save a life every day I go to work, but I can build something that can make thousands or hopefully millions of people's lives a tiny bit better, and that's pretty rewarding. Imagine how many people's lives have been improved because of Google. How many people now can earn a living because they are proficient at the Microsoft Office suite of applications? I know that I certainly consider my life to be qualitatively better because of innovative technology like the internet, cell phones, computers, better monitors, better user input devices, web applications like Gmail, Twitter, Hacker News, Slashdot, etc... How much financial benefit do you think that web apps like Ebay or Craigslist have created for the nation if not the world? How many people have been reunited with old friends because of Facebook or MySpace?

Those products don't get made without startups and entrepreneurs. Those products all help people. And, the best part of all... If I can make a product that a lot of people find benefit in, I get financially rewarded for the benefit that I can bring to other people.

</comment><comment><USER3> You have described a very romanticized and inaccurate picture of both medicine and tech startups. I come from a family of doctors and most doctors are not directly saving lives on a daily basis. Likewise, the work in a startup can be incredibly mundane.

I could paint an equally distorted portrait of both fields: Do you want to be stuck at an HMO, explaining to crabby hypochondriacs that you can't just give them a script for oxycontin based on website printout they are waving in your face? Or would you rather stay up until 4 am every night restarting the server while your business partner tweets about doing shots next to Arrington at 111 Minna?

Anyway, that was mainly an exercise in creative writing. The only real advice I have is that if you have any inclination to do work in a medical related field, it is a good idea to have an MD. I've worked on biomedical software projects and was always just a paid lackey.

I knew a kid in boston in medical school who ran a successful web-based startup part-time while he was in medical school. He was a "kid" too, I believe he was 18 or 19 years old. Thanks for bringing this up, I should see where that guy is now.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am fully aware that both fields have their dry/monotonous/painstaking moments. Hard work and consistency is pretty much required to succeed in all fields. I was just mainly looking at the idea of fulfillment, and the fact that you can give up a decade for one type, or jump right into real life as a younger individual in pursuit of a different type.

<comment><USER3> It depends on what your actual options are. If you have a great startup plan that you are putting on hold, maybe it is worth avoiding med school. If you plan on being an entrepreneur anyway, you don't have to give up a decade, you just give up 3-4 years - you don't have to do a residency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Modern medicine is in desperate need of entrepreneurial approaches. Finish your training and practice for a few years so that you understand the issues deeply and can address them with authority. If you are entrepreneurial you will find a way to blend it into your practice. It's not too late to start a company in your 30's once you have gotten a thorough exposure to the issues.

<comment><USER5> My current company that I work for, was started by three people in their late 30s early 40s. 6 years later, it has 230+ employees and it is doing pretty good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would you be content studying medicine while others were running around creating successful startups? Or would you feel a bit like a grounded child having to watch his friends play outside?

If you love helping people then medicine can be a good choice. But practicing medicine has changed considerably in the last 10-20 years with managed care. While I come from a family involved in medicine, I was always encouraged to pursue my passion for computers instead because the rewards of being a doctors are just not what they were. You might be painting a picture a bit too pretty for the lifestyle of the average doctor.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do both, like my doctor: <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/health/15well.html?8dpc>

</comment><comment><USER8> You can look at it this way...

Taking the entrepreneurial path will equip you with a multi-faceted skill set, kind of like a swiss army knife, and if all goes will, some money in the bank too. In my opinion, you can use the skills and capital to develop a product or service that could help people on a much larger scale. However, in the end, we still need a doctor in the house. God knows you love it all...I suggest you start asking Him what you really should be doing.

</comment><comment><USER9> It seems like entrepreneurship is what you are really excited about, but medicine appeals more to your altruistic self.

Clearly, you should go for entrepreneurship - also there are going to be ample opportunities in entrepreneurship to truly help people - possibly have a bigger impact then you might have by studying medicine which will take care of your altruistic leanings.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you are successful as an entrepreneur you could do much more good with the wealth you've created than you could as a doctor, even if you spent the rest of your life helping people one on one.

That said, success is far from guaranteed.

</comment><comment><USER11> Have you also posed this question to a Medical Forum? Of course the people here are going to advocate entrepreneurship.

</comment><comment><USER12> You can probably have a bigger impact on health as an entrepreneur than a doctor.

I'm working on a start up addressing the medication adherence problem. I think a solution to a problem like that helps more people then an MD in most circumstances would and represents the exciting lifestyle you love. I think you got yourself a false dichotomy set up.

It sounds to me like you have a passion for technology and a guilt issue around helping people with health care. You're saying "on one hand, I feel obligated towards A, and on the other, I've dreamed of B."

From what you said, I think you should stick with tech and find a way to work on a start up that could produce equal health benefits to an MD. I particularly think you shouldn't get an MD. You sound like you really don't want to get one.

Feeling like most of web 2.0 would be a waste of your life bodes well for you. It means you have high personal standards and clearly perceive the big picture when most people are distracted. You should feel fine belittling almost the whole field. Most of them are wasting their lives on completely frivolous things. Especially the ones who get by on ads. If you don't feel comfortable clearly criticizing people without sentimentality, you will never be able to manifest your high standards.

But the frivolity and lack of moral vision common to most start ups are not a prerequisite to starting a company. It's false that giving up medicine costs you a chance to truly help people. Apply technology in such a way that it has medical import, with high standards, and you can have your dream and help more people than you would as an MD.</comment>


A new concert hall in Hamburg - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/augmented-reality/what-perfect-sound-looks-like/ <comment><USER2> Contrary to what the article states, the acoustic design of the hall have been widely criticized by audio/acoustics experts. In fact, after the premiere concert many (experts and casual visitors alike) have even described the acoustics to be a major disappointment.

<comment><USER3> This issue of acoustics always seems to come up. You'd think we would have this sorted out by now, since we've been building music halls for hundreds of years. Are we trying to build them too big? Too cheap?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: If you have the Washington Post app installed, there's an Augmented Reality feature that puts acoustic tiles on your ceiling.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have no opinion about this concert hall until I experienced a concert there. In the meantime I have experienced 2 concerts (and looking forward to a third in a few months) at a surprising venue with great acoustics, seating, and style, Weill Hall at Sonoma State University [http://gmc.sonoma.edu/about/about_Weill_Hall](http://gmc.sonoma.edu/about/about_Weill_Hall)

</comment><comment><USER5> pretty amazing architecture for a music hall!

</comment><comment><USER6> Beside being absolutely hideous on the outside, there is no way that hall has good acoustics.

Having seats to the side and behind the stage means you will have bad merging and resolution of parts. Orchestral seating is specifically designed for an audience sitting in front. For example, when attending a performance of Shostakovich'a Cello Concerto, the cello was very difficult to hear, as were several other orchestral parts, causing "holes" in the score. It was an atrocious experience.

Toyota is pretty much a charlatan. Walt Disney Hall has one of the most atrocious acoustics of any hall I've been to. They actually had to invest quite a bit of time and money trying to "fix" (unsuccessfully) the sound after the initial opening. This is why performances there require microphones and reproduction using speakers, in the hall!

I actually had the opportunity to play (piano) on stage and have a friend go seat by seat, evaluating the sound from each position. Needless to say, all the expensive seats had, by far, the worst acoustics. Best sound was from row H, way off-center.

I've heard from orchestral musicians performing there that they couldn't hear themselves, or their fellow performers properly either, making performing challenging. At some point, I recall the hall receiving the distinction of "worst hall" from performing musicians.

On top of this charade of "good acoustics", which I am shocked that Germans fell for Toyota's BS, this hall is terribly ugly and unappealing.

How sad.

<comment><USER7> I disagree entirely about it being hideous on the outside.

I was _extremely_ skeptical while living near Hamburg in 2006, when graphical representations were just being publicized. But having been back in the fall and seeing how it fits into the Speicherstadt and projects into the Elbe, I'm happy to have been proven wrong.

> At some point, I recall the hall receiving the distinction of "worst hall" > from performing musicians.

When was this? It's only been open a few months.

<comment><USER6> > When was this? It's only been open a few months.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear with my pronouns. I was referring to the Walt Disney Hall that I was describing in the paragraph before.

There are no miracles with acoustics. Try all you want with acoustic baffles, you won't be able to get good acoustics and distribution of orchestral parts with seats to the back right of an orchestra. There's nothing wrong with the traditional "bowl" shape of a good concert hall!

<comment><USER7> Ahhh, that makes more sense. I see now that you mentioned Walt Disney Hall there.</comment></comment></comment></comment>