The 10:10 Code - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2010/06/1010-code.html <comment><USER2> See also the GeoHash, which lets you remove characters from the end at a gradual loss of precision:

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

In my mind the big issue with these is that while they're easy to transmit, you don't actually want to store them because then you lose the ability to do proximity or point in polygon searches.

</comment><comment><USER3> It looks like this algorithm will give you better and better accuracy as you get farther from the equator. There must be some way to compress the location information with that in mind and shave a couple of digits off the result?

<comment><USER4> This has always bothered me, as well. I don't like the solution the military grid reference system came up with: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MGRSgridSouthPole.png>

I'd much prefer a solution that removed the square grid requirement and the dissimilar angular coordinates, divided the earth into roughly equally sized and shaped sectors, and ideally was hierarchical so that you could achieve a naming scheme similar to the geohash. A bit of googling led me to this picture, which looks promising: <http://icon.enes.org/swm/icoswp/node3.html>

<comment><USER5> Yes, the military grid reference system looks ugly. Icosahedron based coordinates should be much nicer and more symmetrical.

There's an interesting observation about normal distributions that may prove helpful--especially if you find a way to use randomness to generate a coordinate system.

If you have n pairwise independent identically normal distributed random variables X_i, and normalize them to the unit sphere Z := X * 1/length(X) then Z will be distributed equally on the surface of the unit sphere (in the sense that the distribution is symmetric under any rotation around the origin).

If you add some ideas from arithmetic coding and/or the theory for de- randomization of algorithms, you might be able to get a working coordinate system out of this.

<comment><USER4> No, that's just because P(X=x)*P(Y=y) = P(Z²=(x²+y²)).

I think you could do a reasonable job by dividing first into two hemispheres, then into six(?) triangular sectors each, then recursively into four subsectors each. This would give log4(510 Mkm²/2/6/100 m^2) = 19.3 recursions, or 43 bits to reach a 100m² accuracy, assuming it really does divide nicely. Won't be square, though. Then you'd have to decide whether to use the remaining 5 bits on a checksum, or to allow arbitrary precision. Or I suppose you could add a checksum there, and interpret any further bytes as unchecked precision.

I wonder if six subsectors are required in the first phase to construct the voronoi cells. The triangular scheme should work fine with four, which seems more elegant.

<comment><USER4> After a bit of further thought, I realized that the triangular sectors aren't equilateral after just one iteration. The angles at the equator are 90°, and the polar angles are 180°/n - works when n=4. But then the four nested ones will be 3x(90° 60° 60°) and one equilateral, and so no longer identical (and probably not of equal areas).

For area-equality, shape-inequality, a recursive three-division becomes also worthy of consideration.

<comment><USER5> Might work.

Here's what I thought of: Use a Cartesian coordinate system with the centre of the sphere as its origin and the radius of the sphere normalized to 1. Each point on the square has coordinates x_1,x_2,x_3. The new coordinates will live in [0,1]^3 (i.e. three real numbers between 0 and 1).

To convert, do the following: Generate a random number r from a N(0,1) normal distribution. For each coordinate determine the quantile of q_i := r _x_i in the N(0,1) normal distribution. (This results in 0 <= q_i <= 1.)

Take the triple (q_1,q_2,q_3) and express it as a binary number. Bonus points for using octal numbers like this: Q(j) = q_1(j) + 2_q_2(j) + 4*q_3(j) where Q(j) is the j-th octal digit of the number Q after the comma and q_i(j) is the j-th digital digit of the number q_i after comma.

(This octal scheme has the property that you can cut off at any time for getting a less accurate description of the location.)

This coordinate scheme is redundant. Also a uniform distribution of random points on the surface of the sphere, will lead to a uniform distribution of coordinates in this scheme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> as far as i can tell, the "10:10 code" is just a linear rescaling of the longitude and lattitude then encoding in base 32 (with a checksum for the last four bits).

if the above is correct, why not explain it thus?

if you do this, it becomes obvious what happens to errors; we know you can gracefully degrade the accuracy (since it's a linear encoding) by dropping the bits before the checksum.

what are the coding properties of the checksum? it doesn't look like crc32 or adler. what is it? why did you choose it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, it's base 29, but no one has won the prize by checking my code. Funny how that works.

Want to fix it? ^32^29 in the code.

Update: I changed it.

<comment><USER6> i'm pretty sure everywhere you put "base", was "32" before. the only 29 in the code when i read it, was on the checksum.

why did you pick this checksum? what are its coding properties?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One problem is letter differences; so it's not quite universal. For example a surprising number of languages do not have the letter Q (slavic languages for example)

<comment><USER8> Well, there's no real universal script, so it's not like a better encoding basis (besides numbers) could be found. And dropping down to Latin script is done for other reasons, too. Probably even on the same page.

Encoding in Kanji would result into fewer characters, but would probably result in some funny phrases. ("Turn left at Ephemeral Outhouse!"). Not quite sure whether that's good or bad...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Completely tangential, but I was very excited many years ago when Swatch came up with beats, a decimal time system, intended to replace our current sexagesimal system. Even though the latter has many advantages, I suppose the real reason beats never became commonplace is the overwhelming inertia that prevents wholesale shifts in measurement systems that are used earth-wide (even though the Swatch Group is the biggest watch maker)

<comment><USER10> Good point, however time is used daily by almost everyone, whereas lat and long are used (directly) by far fewer people.

The main problem this would have is people figuring out what the hell it means! Most people have some grasp on latitude / longitude and although they may not know how to read/use it, they could probably find out.

A random code without obvious meaning is going to be a whole lot less appetizing... At least until it gets popular - I mean look at what twitter did for url shorteners... maybe that's the way to integrate this. Or get google maps to implement it, and use it in their location code (it is shorter than lat/long coords and they already use these in their queries, and they are concerned about bits transmitted...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> You want to provide a postal code for any location? I've been thinking it would be better if we had virtual postal codes. In other words, you use my name and postal code (they have to match) and the post office or FedEx connects it to a physical location without you needing to know where I live.

You'd be able to figure out roughly where it so you know how much it will cost to ship, but otherwise where I live would be private.

I'd be able to change what the code maps to and all my mail would automatically follow me when I move. Or my identity theft, depending on how competantly this is managed :-)

<comment><USER7> This service already exists; PO boxes can do pretty much what you want.

The problem is that this is a service "worth" something so the postal services can charge for it. You'd have to remove that incentive to convince them to offer it as a global service.

<comment><USER11> its kind of backwards. they charge you NOT to deliver. you pay for the storage of course. but delivery isn't cheap. its mandated by law though so they can't change it easily or even stop Saturday delivery without an act of Congress (for real)

But, even so, the PO box is tied to a city. people can't keep using it and have mail go to the right place automatically. the best they can do is forward it. so something could be shipped from nyc to a PO box in LA and then get forwarded back

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Something like this already exists: it's called MGRS, the Military Grid Reference System.

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

<comment><USER13> > PS. Many people have pointed out that there are existing systems like this, > and existing patents. As far as I am aware, none of them include a check > digit. For example, there's the Military Grid Reference System, the Natural > Area Code, this Microsoft patent and Geohash. The check digit is critical > because it reduces operator error when entering a location on a GPS device.</comment></comment>


World Health Organization's list of Covid-19 candidate vaccines [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/novel-coronavirus-landscape-covid-19f65d59aff81049f5a50d37bebf0caf93.pdf <comment><USER2> This site tracks them really well [https://www.covidvax.news](https://www.covidvax.news)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As of June 9, 2020, there are 10 vaccines in clinical evaluation and 126 in preclinical evaluation around the world.

Even though I don't understand the difference between a "DNA with electroporation" vaccine or "molecular clamp stabilized spike protein" vaccine or "nanoparticle" vaccine, it's cool to see that there are so many different approaches.</comment>


Getters/Setters. Evil. Period - <AUTHOR> http://www.yegor256.com/2014/09/16/getters-and-setters-are-evil.html <comment><USER2> Eh... You don't actually present any comprehensive argument against getters or setters that I can see? You simply say the methods should be named according to context rather than a strict convention and some properties are conceptually only settable on construction. As far as I'm concerned your examples are still getters and setters, naming convention notwithstanding. If you renamed the article to have more to do with how to look at OO in order to write intuitive / idiomatic OO programs it might make more sense. But then I guess that's worse linkbait.</comment>


I Just Ordered a Ladle from Amazon - <AUTHOR> http://www.abtinforouzandeh.com/2011/12/29/I-Just-Ordered-A-Ladle-From-Amazon.html <comment><USER2> I just read what someone I've never met wrote about the experience of buying a ladle, then read what a few other people thought about it, and finally wrote something myself on the subject.

What the hell is wrong with ME?

<comment><USER3> (Sorry, down vote button is too close to up vote button on a touchscreen. Someone please up vote the heck out of parent.)

<comment><USER4> Maybe you need the chubby-fingers HN extension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The intrinsic beauty of the post aside - this sort of in-depth, but cheaply available product insight simply wasn't available before and it is pretty damn useful.

What if it's a cheap Chinese ladle that is made of led?

What if the handle is too thin and it heats up when left in a hot soup?

What if the shape of the bowl is odd?

What if the rubber grip falls off after the second use?

Any utilitarian gadget could certainly use an usability review. There is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with it. How often do you buy ladles? Exactly. Why not pick a good one then?

<comment><USER6> So, in total seriousness: I'm an amateur baker, I own six spatulas, and only one of them is very good. My second favorite was doing great until I was making a double batch of muffins and the wooden handle came out of the silicone head, and then some muffin batter got into the slot where the handle used to be, and it was obvious that I was never going to get it clean again so I had to throw it away.

(Funny thing about this is I vaguely remember Alton Brown _predicting_ this in his own review of spatulas. And then it happened just like he said.)

The good one is from Zyliss and is a silicone spatula firmly fused to its plastic handle. I have stirred some pretty viscous tubs of stuff with this spatula and it holds up, plus it's flexible enough to scrape well. My only problem with it is that it's wearing out after a few years; silicone isn't permanent and it develops nicks on the edge. I should go order three more while I'm thinking about it.

So I don't think reading ladle reviews is that farfetched at all. (Though for ladles, as for many things, I'd start at the local restaurant supply store. Those stores are big on utility and not as big on hype and markup. And, truthfully, ladles are not a hard thing to get right. Now dishers, on the other hand...)

(For some reason I am now having fond memories of Weird Al Yankovic's movie _UHF_. Fans will know why. ;)

<comment><USER7> Why not just dunk the spatula head and handle in a 5% bleach solution?

We do a fair bit of sausage and charcuterie stuff here; there's usually a bowl of bleach solution somewhere in my kitchen with something disinfecting in it.

<comment><USER6> Well, I suppose I could have done so, then reinserted the handle. Then there'd be thoroughly disinfected organic material somewhere inside of the head of my spatula. ;) This would probably not be fatal, but it was distasteful.

Or I could have attacked the problem with Q-tips and patience.

But another, different problem is that I anticipated the spatula coming apart again. I do a lot of stirring of dough with spatulas, and it's annoying when you have to constantly guard against pulling them apart. I guess I could have gotten into the whole "which glue holds wood to silicone?" materials science problem but it was easier to just switch to Zyliss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes, in the abstract, this is fairly ridiculous. However, having tried to use kitchen utensils purchased from a dollar store, it's my experience that there are some that are _completely_ useless.

So, I too would read reviews before purchasing a ladle online, because the handful of images wouldn't give me a good idea of the quality of the item I was purchasing.

Although, I personally would probably buy a ladle at a local store (thrift store if you're looking for a deal), instead of getting it shipped to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazon Prime eliminated the shipping charges on my $6.15 ladle. And it's snowing outside.

And the physical store has no reviews!

<comment><USER9> Yeah, but someone in the store might be able to outline the pros and cons..

<comment><AUTHOR> Its like the electronics stores of yesteryear. Any piece of equipment you ask about, regardless of how expensive it might be, will be met with the response "this is a great x, why I have one myself and it is just fantastic".

<comment><USER10> This. I clearly remember the day my mental default switched from "trusting sales people" to "ignoring sales people". It was the day my mom was trying to buy a two-line phone, and she had three sales people trying to tell the three different things that she actually wanted ("this cordless phone has two handsets", "this phone has a flash button", "one phone can't have two lines, you need two phones").

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is for some reason one of my favorite articles I've read on HN in awhile. Probably because it is so (personally) profoundly true, and reads almost like poetry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does that make me a programmer poet?

<comment><USER12> nothing there hinted at the programmer part...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> £42 / ~$60 seems to be the most expensive _pure_ Ladle I can find: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alessi-Mirror- Finish-4180-10/dp/B000...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alessi-Mirror- Finish-4180-10/dp/B000PS4Q70/ref=sr_1_16?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1325223701&sr=1-16)

Special mention goes to a £172 / ~$230 Exoglass Spatula: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Matfer-Exoglass-Spatula-utensils- kit...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Matfer-Exoglass-Spatula-utensils- kitchen/dp/B0039VAD22/ref=sr_1_1?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1325223701&sr=1-1)

I was curious what "Exoglass" is, apparently... "It is a special hi-tech plastic developed by Matfer of France. It is used in the handles of their pastry utensils. It is extremely durable, hygienic, and heat resistant. (Both hot and cold extremes)" but there is no reference of the material outside of cooking, is that strange or interesting I'm not sure.

<comment><USER14> How is a spatula that's 1.2m long a "simple utensil for your kitchen"?

Sure, I guess the design is probably simple, but what type of kitchen do they imagine you're running where you need a spatula that's over a meter long?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I did a very similar thing while buying an ironing board for my mother for Christmas. I thought I was crazy, reading reviews for ironing boards.

Two days later, one of them arrived on my doorstep (thank you Amazon Prime…), and the moral of the story is that my mother loves the new ironing board, mainly about how quiet it is compared to the old one, which rivals my age.

<comment><USER16> Technically speaking that's the conclusion of your story, not its moral. The moral might be that spending time looking at what seems like basic utilities results in happier users or something.

edit at 0 points 5 minutes later: :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Oh you haven't learned amazon yet? Let me help you. <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/227408/how-to-amazon.png>

<comment><USER18> I look at the 1-star reviews first to see just what so bothers people. Often it's something random ("I could not open the plastic wrap") that really has no bearing on the product itself.

If no one has a legit killer complaint I look at the middle-star reviews.

Sometimes, though, the 1-star reviews point out some flaw or omission that you'd never know about until you owned the thing for a bit, and you end up feeling duped if you bought it (hence the 1-star venom).

There's a point, though, where you have to ask yourself what's the worst that happens if you end up with a piece of crap. How much time/money are you out?

The problem (as the ladle purchase shows) is that it can become a sort of personal challenge; "I _will_ get the best item for my money!" Even when it make no sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I started reading reviews online when I wanted my first toaster oven. See, the thing is, I had no idea what I wanted from a toaster oven, or how to judge them. So I read reviews until I found out all the ways they could go wrong, and then I looked for ones that didn't do that. At least, so far as I thought I cared. "Not tall enough" isn't a problem for me because it's for toast and bagel bites. Not really going to be a problem.

Ever since then, I read the negative reviews to judge products by their deficiencies. It has worked wonders. I've never had such good appliances and footwear, and I'm not spending an arm and a leg on them, either!

This is just one of the ways that the internet is changing our daily lives and we don't even notice. It's quite amazing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reminiscent of "Spatula City".

<comment><USER20> Ah, but Amazon sells almost everything.

Spatula City sold spatulas,

and that's all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There are some freakin beautiful cheap-as-dirt Chinese made stainless steel ladles out there. Sometimes they show up in the grocery store for a song.

</comment><comment><USER22> Funny. But really, you are looking at Amazon reviews because you probably care about the design of every day things. I wish more people did. The people that do tend to be very successful.

I think about all the ladles I have ever had. I don't think I have a single one I'd recommend. Here's a few things that pop into my mind as things I wish ladle makers cared about.

First, they all have the problem of not being able to catch anything when a bowl gets to the end. There's still stuff there, but a ladle becomes useless at getting the shallow stuff. Why are ladles are shaped like cups with handles? Why couldn't a ladle have a design to help sweep the bottom of round bowls?

Second, ladles are awkward to put anywhere after using. Their handles make them oddly balanced to lean on most things. They also tend to get very hot handles when spooning hot mixtures and you leave the thing in the bowl.

Third, I'm not sure I've ever successfully used a label to get a full ladle of anything in the target container (my cup) 2 times in a row. Inevitably I spill something somehow.

</comment><comment><USER23> The illuminating thing about the internet for me is not that people comparison shop for simple objects like ladles. It's that there are enough unemployed or lonely(?) people out there who actually have the motivation to write a 250-word review about something as mundane as a plastic ladle.

<comment><USER24> Silicone, actually. World of difference.

<comment><USER23> Silicone is a type of plastic.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Classification>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> wtf, how did this post ever get on the main page? I mean for real? Go buy your own ladles people.

<comment><AUTHOR> In case anyone is wondering, the ladle that inspired my post is: <http://www.amazon.com/Zyliss-42320-Ladle/dp/B0018IAHTM/>

<comment><USER25> I don't blame you with going with this one. I mean, the first sentence of the first post reads "Wow, this is one great ladle."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can we start a discussion on dish sponges/brushes.

This is by far my favorite:

[http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Good-Grips-Squirting- Brush/dp/B000...](http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Good-Grips-Squirting- Brush/dp/B00004OCLK/ref=pd_sim_hg_5)

Yes we shall have a discussion on the merits of kitchen utensils on hackernews.

<comment><USER27> I'm not a big fan of these sponges with integrated soap dispensers, they puke soap all over your sink when you put them down.

<comment><USER28> dont like em. Too small for large pots. I prefer the brushes with longer handle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The NYT has an article with how to buy all the kitchen utensils you need for under $200: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/dining/09mini.html?pagewan...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/dining/09mini.html?pagewanted=all) (including a ladle)

</comment><comment><USER30> You could go to <http://www.americastestkitchen.com/> for in-depth reviews of ladles, they get really technical.

</comment><comment><USER31> Hrm.. I did the same thing last week.

Your estimated delivery date is: Wednesday, December 21, 2011

OXO Good Grips Brushed Stainless Steel Ladle Sold by Amazon.com LLC (Amazon.com) $9.99

</comment><comment><USER32> Having already put that much effort into it, I would have bought the highest- reviewed ladle, not the cheapest.

[http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Grips-Brushed-Stainless- Steel/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Grips-Brushed-Stainless- Steel/dp/B0001BMXKI/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1325225659&sr=1-1)

<comment><USER33> You can't go wrong with OXO. They put a noticeable amount of thought into the ergonomics of their kitchen tools that is sorely lacking in most other brands.

<comment><USER34> And now I'm reading ladle reviews on _hacker news_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I mid-read it as "ladie" at first!

</comment><comment><USER36> I learned something new about US/UK spelling differences today...

</comment><comment><USER37> That's enough of this nonsense on the frontpage.

Flagged.

<comment><USER5> > Flagged.

Careful. They took away my _flag_ option when Steve Jobs died, and I still haven't seen it back.

<comment><USER37> I'm not anticipating a rash of ladle reviews requiring my (apparently unpopular) flagging.</comment></comment></comment>