Schematics – Python Data Structures for Humans - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/schematics/schematics

<comment><USER2> [http://colander.readthedocs.org/en/latest/](http://colander.readthedocs.org/en/latest/)

Is really mature and I've found it to be a wonderful tool - it has an addon called Deform for serializing forms into colander schemas but colander is not limited to that.

I've used it for creating "schemas" for API endpoints and validating them. It would be nice to use it DB backed ORMs but even there you're kind of covered with a SQLAlchemy Colander attachment...

<comment><USER3> Hey, one of the authors of Schematics here. I think Colander rocks. I had no idea about it until two years into the Schematics project and we just kept going.

Choice is good! If you dig Schematics, check out Colander too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With my CS background, I find this usage of "Data Structures" in the title confusing. I was expecting some sort of visualization framework for viewing tree/graph structures, so I think the title is a bit misleading.

<comment><USER5> I thought it was going to be about data structures for circuit design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems like a more developed version of voluptuous (a validation library):

[https://github.com/alecthomas/voluptuous](https://github.com/alecthomas/voluptuous)

Voluptuous is perfect for putting as validation in from of a JSON API. Not sure what I would use schematics for

</comment><comment><USER7> Cool. What about using traitlets to get a larger type library? For example, see: [https://github.com/kanzure/modelo](https://github.com/kanzure/modelo)

Also, do you have any thoughts about hooking something like this up to sqlalchemy?

<comment><USER3> There is a project on the Schematics org page for using with sqlalchemy. I haven't used it myself, but I would look there first.

[https://github.com/schematics/schemalchemy](https://github.com/schematics/schemalchemy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> More Python data validation packages here: [https://github.com/vinta/awesome- python#data-validation](https://github.com/vinta/awesome-python#data- validation). Personally I dig Valideer.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't fully understand the purpose of this

<comment><USER10> Schematics makes it easy to specify an API interface. It will let you bind / coerce json to your types, and then validate that the provided json bound exactly (no extra fields, no missing required fields, custom validators). We also extended it to provide a polymorphic type that will bind to a class based on a discriminator value in the json (based on an old gist from one of the schematics contributors). The roles definition also allows you to provide different serialized views of a model (though whether the model should be aware of that concern is questionable, but a nice shortcut).

We use schematics to back the data on our domain models. It provides models that are separate from persistence models that live in the data / client layer (database or external service bound), and gives you a few nice things for free (like validation) and you can attach behavior to them.

The only things I would like to see added are:

      - A native polymorphic type (we're going to try and submit a pull request with our implementation within the next month)

      - Roles (lists of fields that are output) optionally separated from the models.

      - Support for redefining a model (currently it is difficult to add a self referencing field and have schematics pick it up for you, or add fields through mixins).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does the implementation of OrderedDict differ from the one in the standard library?

<comment><USER3> It may be similar now. It was borrowed from Django before there was one in the stllib</comment></comment>


GitLab v4.1 released - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gitlab.org/gitlab-4-1-released/

<comment><USER2> While I love that this is being built, am I the only one that feels a bit dirty about the blatant UI ripoff they are doing of GitHub.

GitHub is a company that in my opinion can't get enough hacker karma, they have done a brilliant job of innovating time and time again and delivering a brilliant product that makes all our lives better. I can't even bring myself to use open source projects on Google Code, it just isn't worth the time. They always seem to act honorably and do their best to provide an incredible product.

Taking all that hard work, in features AND look and feel and blatantly ripping it off would make me worry about my karma. The authors may just find themselves reincarnated as Cobol programmers in their next life.

<comment><USER3> They have actually changed the UI from earlier versions, probably to make it look less like github, and it _does_ look very different[1] to github now.

I like the new look (I think it's more usable than github). In particular I find the "Commits"-tab more intuitive for inspecting code across multiple branches, even though I can't exactly put my finger on the reason. On github I often have to double-check which branch I'm looking at, on GitLab it feels more natural to me.

Basically the only UI-change I would make at this point is on the project- homepage. I'd show those tooltips to the _right_ of the filter-buttons (not above) so they don't cover the other buttons while you hover.

[1] <http://demo.gitlabhq.com/>

<comment><USER4> Looks pretty similar to GitHub for me <http://gitlab.org/screenshots/>

<comment><USER3> Well, of course it still looks _similar_ (albeit not identical). Why should they change perfectly fine visual elements unless they can improve on them?

I see nothing questionable in copying a good layout anyway, as long as you don't try to fool the user into thinking you _are_ the product that you are borrowing from. There is no point reinventing an existing wheel unless you can make it significantly rounder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I run GitLab on my development VPS and use it for all my projects (and everything to do with them, including client interaction via the wall and issues). It's quite brilliant.

I nearly decided to hack in a Public Mode myself last year, I'm glad it's finally implemented!

This has prompted me into getting back to work on my KanBan SPA, that hooks into GitLabs issues api. I do wish they gave the api a bit more love in this release, but I can't really complain: My $20/m VPS gives me self-hosted Github, Dropbox, and Gmail/Gcal/Contacts "clones". Not bad!

<comment><USER6> I'd love to hear more about the 'Dropbox clone' you're using here. The idea of keeping a VPS around as my own private cloud is something I've been thinking about for a while; I'm very interested to learn from someone who's already done it.

<comment><USER7> Could possibly be Sparkleshare[1] which uses Git as the underlying sync technology, especially if he has already got git set up.

[1]: <http://sparkleshare.org/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone know whether the public mode is just a list of URLs that you can clone from, or does it allow public users to browse the full gitlab UI? Thanks!

<comment><USER9> It only gives a list of URLs you can clone from :)

<comment><USER10> Requests for web-browsable public view:

<https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/12>

Project lead sees it as outside of scope, possibly to not get into trouble with Github?

<comment><USER11> Why would they get into trouble with Github?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> so nice this gitlab project is, so sad it is that it'll get hit by the commercial hammer, since the dev is spending his full time on it.

</comment><comment><USER13> nice release btw :)

<comment><AUTHOR> ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Finally. Resque is such a PITA with Gitlab. Hopefully the upgrade script will work properly now. I have to fix quite a few bits and pieces every upgrade. Top piece of software, though.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. It was also eating a lot of memory.

Upgrade (4.0 -> 4.1) ran smoothly. Only thing that was missing in the upgrade guide was installing a new version of the post-receive hook, but since gitlab:check mentioned that and even provided the command to fix this, it wasn't a problem.

<comment><USER16> gitlab:check is doing a great job at keeping the insanity of the gitlab pace at bay. I started pre-2.0 and have had to go through some hard upgrade steps (just recently went from 3.1 to 4.1 and had to move sqlite to mysql).</comment></comment></comment>


My Repo, My House, My Rules - <AUTHOR> https://hueniverse.com/my-repo-my-house-my-rules-1b2e860914d4 <comment><USER2> > I've recently realized people misguidedly think GitHub repositories are > public space.

I feel it is quite similar to public space. It is open and accessible to everybody. There is a certain etiquette in public space that you should adhere to though. I think that is where the real issue lies. A few people have unrealistic expectations of open source maintainers. I have seen very rude behavior towards maintainers, people get this weird sense of entitlement sometimes.

<comment><USER3> The Github guarantee: satisfaction or your money back.

"Here, take it, and scram."

"Take what?"

"Exactly."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone posted something in public space, and wonder how come people interact with it. :D

If you have a PR tab open for people, or issues then why are you complaining that they are using it? Make your repos private and stop complaining.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Github encourages us to specify a license on our repositories. This specifies the expectations a user can have.

2\. There is a mechanism for people to participate - a pull request. The owner has the right to decide if this is consistent with the project goals and respond accordingly.

3\. Charitable interactions are productive. It encourages collaboration and the result is the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That is fun. Too much drama causes developers to find other uses for their time and talent.</comment>


Three-quarters of drivers don't want to own an autonomous car - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-04/billions-are-being-invested-in-a-robot-that-americans-don-t-want <comment><USER2> I bet if you look at polls from the 1990s about the internet, you'll find a lot of people saying they're just fine without it, thank you very much, and they prefer the warm, personal experience of calling up a real human to book their plane tickets or whatever instead of punching their credit card number into some newfangled machine.

But in the end, people went ahead and developed more and more infrastructure for the internet regardless, and now most people couldn't live without it.

<comment><USER3> > I bet if you look at polls from the 1990s about the internet, you'll find a > lot of people saying they're just fine without it, thank you very much, and > they prefer the warm, personal experience of calling up a real human to book > their plane tickets or whatever instead of punching their credit card number > into some newfangled machine.

The enjoyment of driving is not about human warmth, it's about control and adrenaline. I don't think the comparison makes sense. I'd be more excited about autonomous cars if I could turn it off in the country (as some cars today allow) for recreation.

I definitely agree with what you're saying—I know I'm probably in the minority for enjoying driving at _all_ —but I frankly can't imagine anyone enjoying reading their credit card over the phone.

<comment><USER4> "On average, Americans drive 29.2 miles per day, making two trips with an average total duration of 46 minutes."[1]

For how many of those 46 minutes do you think they are enjoying control and adrenaline? I would guess approximately zero, and once you tell them that they can spend that time instead surfing the internet, or eating breakfast, or videochatting with their family, they will.

[1] [http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/new-study-reveals-much- motor...](http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/new-study-reveals-much-motorists- drive/)

<comment><USER5> It's far more likely that for many people it will just mean working on your commute to work. Personally I would rather be driving.

<comment><USER6> I think there's a lot of things I'd rather be doing on a commute than drive or do work. For on thing, with a self-driving car, I could do things that many people are already doing while driving, albeit unsafely. Things like eating breakfast, talking on the phone, and fiddling with the radio. Hell, if the commute was long, I might use the time to catch up on sleep.

<comment><USER3> You can already do this on public transit; why wait for self-driving cars?

<comment><USER7> Where does your public transit system get its funding? Does it really provide you the same level of privacy?

Any transit system I've ever used was:

Over crowded.

Purposefully designed so no-one could sleep. Also, I really wouldn't want to sleep on an artificially created publicly shared surface.

Frowned upon to talk on your cell phone, or eat a meal.

I definitely couldn't get any work done, even if I tried.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is pretty much the definition of a "faster horse" scenario. Most of the population perceive the world as it is, not as it could be. (This is the S vs N in Meyers-Briggs.)

It will actually be insurance companies that force the change at the consumer level. Charging crazy premiums for irrational holdouts that insist that their love of driving is better than safer transportation will force the hands of many from "no thanks" to "well, if I can save $500/month..."

However, regardless of consumer uptake it's the long-haul trucking companies that stand the most to gain from autonomous vehicles. I don't have a stat handy but robot long-haul would be 25% the price and 4x faster. Something like 20% of highway accidents involve big rigs.

<comment><USER9> I really don't think people will be the irrational holdouts they claim to be. People say a lot of silly things they don't actually mean. While many of us enjoy the feeling behind the wheel now and then, it's actually a nuisance for most people most of the time.

One thing I'd love to see is a safe racing mode where the computer allows people to drive like maniacs, but intervenes before the situation actually becomes dangerous. I suspect at some point automatic drivers will become so precise they will truly be able to scare the shit out of passengers safely.

<comment><USER10> > I suspect at some point automatic drivers will become so precise they will > truly be able to scare the shit out of passengers safely.

You can pretty much get that already on closed test tracks, with self-driving cars that do 'speed runs'.

An example (though without passengers): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol3g7i64RAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol3g7i64RAI)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This reminds me of a Planet Money episode (a great podcast). [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/07/29/427467598/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/07/29/427467598/episode-642-the- big-red-button) . In it, they talk about people not wanting to ride elevators not controlled by a human operator, and how companies got people to ride them. In the same way as elevators, people will eventually adapt to self driving cars even if the industry needs something like a manual mode for emergencies or a big red button.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. This article is just as silly. Wide-spread adoption and integration of driverless cars is a long way off yet. I don't know how long, but I also don't care since it isn't my job to predict the curve. I have zero doubt that it will happen. Humans are horrible operators of machinery. At some point the machines will absolutely be better at operating themselves under our direction. So in the meantime, let's find some people who are unnerved by all the media conversation and get some click bait out of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So I'll spin the title a different way: "Billions are being invested in a robot that will truly liberate an aging population, the injured and the disabled, and those that simply don't care to own an automobile."

The poor title notwithstanding, the trust issues cited in the article are good to be aware of. Nevertheless, I'll be shocked if self-driving vehicles aren't a technology that utterly reshapes transportation in the U.S.A. in _very_ short order.

<comment><USER14> Not much, compared to taxis and Uber already available.

<comment><USER15> The problem there is cost. Even Uber and Lyft are too pricey for most people to rely on them for a daily commute. If autonomous cars drive that cost down to something comparable to bus fare, that's going to cause a major shift in the way people get around.

<comment><USER14> The problem is daily commute. Why people are still moving from one computer to another in 21st century?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> From the article: _Sherman, 21, a mechanical-engineering student at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, trusts the technology and sees these vehicles eventually taking over the road. But he dreads the change because his passion is working on cars to make them faster. "It's something I've loved to do my entire life and it's kind of on its way out," he says. "That's the sad truth."_

That group has already been obsoleted by Tesla. It's embarrassing to the gas car guys that Tesla's family sedan has a better 0-60 time than everything except a few supercars. Supercars that are not only insanely expensive, but unusable for ordinary driving. (Top Gear had a funny video in which they're trying to get a Veyron out of a driveway without scraping the undercarriage.)

If you're really into that stuff, you have to get into electric supercars.[1] A friend of mine who grew up in a rural town fixing cars now works for the company that makes those. Zoom is not dead, but it now sounds like "chunk- whine", instead of "vroom".

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/9/7517291/renovo-coupe- electr...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/9/7517291/renovo-coupe-electric- supercar-ces-2015)

<comment><USER17> [It's embarrassing to the gas car guys that Tesla's family sedan has a better 0-60 time than everything except a few supercars.]

I think the term "embarrassing" may be a little excessive here since you are singling out only a single aspect of a car's performance (0-60 time in this case).

Sure, the Tesla beats many (family) cars of a similar price range at short- burst/short-term acceleration, but it falls really short when you need that kind of power over longer periods of time [1], such as around an actual race track with turns. For example, a GTR is known to be a few 10th's slower in terms of 0-60 times, but would destroy any Tesla in nearly all other forms of racing. The GTR is also a 4 seater Nissan, which can arguably be considered just as practical as an electric car of today.

When you compare overall performance to other sport oriented family cars (such as the M3 or M4), the Tesla isn't embarassing anyone.

That being said, I realize the Tesla isn't a purpose built track car, and for what it is, it's one hell of a performer, but I constantly see people bringing up the 0-60 time, saying how it destroys so many gas cars, but it's really more complicated than that.

EDIT: Just to add (in reference to your "you have to get into electric cars" comment), a CTS-V with under $10,000 of modifications will beat the Tesla P90D in a drag race, and still be ~$10,000 cheaper all said and done. I don't think it's possible to add performance modifications to the Tesla at all, so this is another area where gas cars have the advantage.

[1] [http://insideevs.com/expected-tesla-model-s-fails-lap- nurbur...](http://insideevs.com/expected-tesla-model-s-fails-lap-nurburgring- full-power-video/)

<comment> semi-extrinsic The best quote from your link IMO:

"[If the Tesla didn't go into] reduced power output mode, a B-T-G lap under nine minutes is possible. According to the Bridge To Gantry site, that would put it in the company of some really quick hot hatches."

So if the Tesla didn't have insufficient cooling for going around a race track, it would be about as fast as a Honda Civic Type R. I.e. supercars are way out of its league.

Plus, the Type R is about $40 000. How much is the Model S again?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The stats were driven by the "Vehicle Hacking Vulnerability Survey". " How do you feel about autonomous or self-driving vehicles?" was asked alongside questions like "How big of a problem do you feel vehicle hacking will be in the future?"

If the questions were "How safe a driver is your 75yo mother?" or "Do you think autonomous cars will increase or decrease deaths caused by drunk driving?" the survey might have shown different results.

<comment><USER19> TMT is a great way to manipulate survey results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I know quoting Jobs is passe, but this seems relevant: "But in the end, for something this complicated, it's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."

<comment><USER21> In Henry Ford's (apparently apocryphal) words, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." One is reminded of how much preferences can change when faced with options they couldn't previously imagine, every time one hears of grimly determined "in-control" rush hour commuters.

<comment><USER22> _> We have no evidence that Ford ever said those words._

[https://hbr.org/2011/08/henry-ford-never-said-the- fast](https://hbr.org/2011/08/henry-ford-never-said-the-fast)

<comment><USER21> Hence, the parenthetical remark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would love a completely autonomous car that I could get into, enter a destination, and read a book while it takes me for a ride.

I am TERRIFIED of the "semi autonomous" cars that require the driver's attention to take over if the computer gets confused, like current tesla or mercedes models... because the people driving these cars are NOT going to be able to take over when required. Many people are terrible drivers when they are pretending to pay attention because they are doing the driving, there is NO way they will have the situational awareness to take over in an emergency.

<comment><USER24> I agree. Having a vehicle that requires me to take over in an emergency defeats the whole point of a driverless vehicle. I'd just rater drive myself then as I prefer to be a driver and not a passenger.

Basically there should be two modes. Full auto when I'm too tired to drive (or sleeping) and semi auto where it takes over in an emergency. And a third mode of full manual for off roading.

<comment><USER25> >Basically there should be two modes. Full auto... and semi auto

You'll need to come up with better names if they're ever going to be sold in Commiefornia \s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if there's going to be a lot of weird social side-effects to self- driving cars like call screening was when answering machines came into wide use on phones.

For example, as it has been explained to me, self-driving car software will drive defensively by default, and offensively/efficiently when they judge it safe.

Okay, so say self-driving car driving hits critical mass. In this scenario, most people in cars are free to amuse themselves with their phones or reading books, etc while riding their self-driving cars to work. Many are looking down, not at the road, perhaps they're not even in the drivers' seat.

What will happen if there's that one lunatic who opts to drive himself to work and drives in the most offensive, reckless manner? Won't all of the self- driving cars he encounters slam on their brakes to avoid collisions? There likely won't be any accidents, but there will be MANY frightened or startled commuters!

What will this phenomena be called? Road Trolling? And, will there be collective Twitter hashtag outrage that develops as a result?

I can imagine in the most extreme Los Angeles commuter scenario, a serial Road Troll being hunted by one hundred fellow commuters that he rudely cut off on his drive - their auto-drive cars set to "follow that car!", eventually becoming cornered in some residential area when he runs out of gas and then beat to death by the angry mob.

<comment><USER27> Nope. When blatant law-breaking like this happens, every car that observed it will send a detailed record of the event to the police including the license plate. (Maybe after their passenger hits the big flashing "Report reckless driving" button.) Using street cameras the car will be automatically tracked until it stops (possibly alerting other autonomous cars to the upcoming presence of a dangerous driver which in turn drive extra defensively), where the police will arrive minutes later to arrest the driver if the infraction was serious enough or the driver will receive a letter/email with a ticket for reckless endangerment.

<comment><USER26> Hmm, I suspect there is a big gray area here and not the Brave New World you describe.

One can be an intensely rude driver and still fall within the law. Trolls might randomly hit their brakes hard just to see the auto-driver behind reflexively lurch and enjoy the passenger's reactions. Probably no one gets hurt, and there's no way to prove the troll wasn't legitimately trying to avoid hitting something.

<comment><USER28> Doesn't even need to be a traffic infringement, most jurisdictions have loose catch-all minor crimes like "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct", with pretty low burdens of proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> That's okay, when autonomous cars are mature, most people who ride in them _won 't_ own them. They'll use a device to signal a ride service which will send the car.

And driving a manual car will be an expensive luxury, comparatively, because once autonomous cars are mature (which includes being significantly safer to operate), the total cost of riding an autonomous car vs. the total cost (including insurance) of driving will heavily favor the former.

<comment><USER30> Agreed. For me, the cost of taking an Uber 4 or 5 times a week is already lower than the cost of owning a car, all things considered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't want driverless cars because half the time I don't even know where I am going. I routinely drive aimlessly around to discover new locations, listen to music and explore. Could driverless cars be programmed for a "scenic mode" and take me on curated tours by other people? Sure, yeah that might be cool. Though nothing will replace the spontaneity of deciding street by street, if I should go left, right or straight at an intersection; where I should stop to enjoy food or drink in an unfamiliar place; or accidentally discovering a part of town I never knew existed. Driverless cars, to me, feels like a small death in the spirit of human exploration.

<comment><USER32> So why can't you just say turn left or turn right etc... Just not being the one driving.

I've done exactly what you've described but also had the passenger telling me spontaneity saying go left right forward.

There is nothing inherent that says you can't do that with autonomous cars. But also it's likely that there will always be cars you can drive for fun just like you can still ride horses for fun.

<comment><USER33> Even better options:

"pick a random route"

"pick the least-traveled route over the last three months within 50 miles of my location"

<comment><USER25> Just because it's a on a map doesn't mean it's actually a maintained road.

I think you'd very quickly wind up going down an unmaintained dirt road and getting stuck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Safety sells. Let's say it's 2025. You can buy a Tesla Model Z, or GM's latest sedan for about 30 grand. In addition to the E-MPG rating, there's also a new sticker for deaths and injuries per mile driven. The Tesla auto-drive enabled car has a death rate one tenth that of the GM car. Which one is your spouse going to insist that you buy?

I personally like to drive, especially on road trips, but I like the idea of a car that has much better reaction time that can correct if I do something stupid, or it sees something I can't (via vehicle to vehicle reporting).

Speaking of which, there will be many many opportunities to reduce impact severity. Example: a vehicle pulls out in front of you unexpectedly. If the car can react instantly where you'd take a fraction of a second, it can shed enough speed to reduce the severity of impact significantly (if not avoid it altogether). Reducing speed by 25%, will reduce the impact energy by almost half, so even small improvements will result in big differences in injuries and fatalities.

<comment><USER35> What if the GM has a better rating? Will you find some reason that it's wrong, or didn't account for X, Y, and Z, to rationalize your desire to buy the Tesla regardless?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What a lame article title.

The actual article presents evidence that Americans are getting more comfortable with self-driving cars, and points out that peoples' concerns aren't very valid.

Honestly, I almost didn't read the article because of the title. Fortunately there was a tiny fit of rage in me that clicked to see what the author actually was saying.

<comment><USER2> My first thought when I saw the title was "that's a really mean thing to say about Hillary Clinton."

Edit: for posterity, the original HN title was identical to the article's title: "Billions Are Being Invested in a Robot That Americans Don't Want".

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Hah! Found it! This discussion reminded me of Robert Heinlein's rant against the automobile. Turns out it is from the YA novel "The Rolling Stones"[1]:

"Despite the name 'automobile' these vehicles had no autocontrol circuits; control, such as it was, was exercised second by second for hours on end by a human being peering out through a small pane of dirty silica glass, and judging unassisted and often disastrously his own motion and those of other objects. In almost all cases the operator had no notion of the kinetic energy stored in his missile and could not have written the basic equation. Newton's Laws of Motion were to him mysteries as profound as the meaning of the universe.

Nevertheless millions of these mechanical jokes swarmed over our home planet, dodging each other by inches or failing to dodge. None of them ever worked right; by their nature they could not work right; and they were constantly getting out of order. Their operators were usually mightily pleased when they worked at all. When they did not, which was every few hundred miles (hundred, not hundred thousand) they hired a member of a social class of arcane specialists to make inadequate and always expensive temporary repairs.

"Despite their mad shortcomings, these 'automobiles' were the most characteristic form of wealth and the most cherished possessions of their time. Three whole generations were slaves to them."

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_\(novel\))

</comment><comment><USER38> I am really fascinated by how this is going to play out. I am actually somewhat skeptical that fully autonomous (in the sense of arbitrary A to arbitrary B) is really going to happen anytime soon. I heard John Siracusa on his podcast outline convincing reasons why it wouldn't happen "in our lifetime". Conventional wisdom at this point seems to be that Siracusa is wrong, but his doubts resonated with me. I hope I'm wrong!

<comment><USER39> This. For sure. Most roads will need to be upgraded to 'robo friendly' the little English lanes, hedges either side, one track with passing places (got to do a lot of reversing or bumping up the hedge to get past.) These will all be tricky for robots to navigate.

<comment><USER40> Yes. Roads are built things, so they are designed to be usable for the vehicles that use them. When most of these are robot cars, then the roads will be optimised over time to match.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The grandchilden of millennials won't even understand what the fuss is about or why they have to learn to drive in the first place.

<comment><USER42> Already starting to happening. I know a kid in high school who's annoyed by his parents insisting that he learns to drive. Some of that is because he believe the tech is going to get good enough by the time he gets out of college, the rest is because I've set an example that it's possible to achieve a car-free lifestyle already if you make it a major priority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I don't want a first generation autonomous car...but around generation three I'll probably all in.

* First Generation: expensive, mostly working, in very few cars

* Second Generation: bug fixes, slightly less expensive, in more cars

* Third Generation: an add-on option for the vast majority of cars, work 99.9% of the time.

* Forth Generation: politicians stop complaining about all the people having sex in cars.

</comment><comment><USER44> >Sherman, 21, a mechanical-engineering student at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, trusts the technology and sees these vehicles eventually taking over the road. But he dreads the change because his passion is working on cars to make them faster. "It's something I've loved to do my entire life and it's kind of on its way out," he says. "That's the sad truth."

I don't fully agree - horses didn't disappear, but instead are now mostly kept by people that just love horses, love interacting with them and love riding them.

The same is likely to happen with cars. Most likely people that race them will continue to do so, provided they have the means. If at some point driving a non-autonomous car becomes illegal to drive on certain roadways, they will be trailered to where they are legal to drive. Horses are legal on regular road, but you cannot have them on a Freeway because it's no longer safe.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm sure horseless carriages freaked people out when they first came out too. And driverless cars don't mean nobody will ever drive for fun, just like autopilot on airplanes didn't eliminate getting pilot licenses for recreation.

The history of people being scared and unprepared for technological change is pretty thorough:

[http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of- tech/12-technologi...](http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of- tech/12-technologies-that-scared-the-world-senseless-1249053)

<comment><USER46> Not really.

My grandfather grew up in a rural part of Ireland that had no electricity until the late 1920s. One of his earliest memories was when a man came to town in a car with a battery powered lantern. It was the first most people had ever seen if either, and everyone around went to the pub to see the car and light.

The car was an obvious improvement over a horse, in terms of speed, cost and versatility. Very few people voyages more than 10-15 miles from their place of birth pre automobile.

Autonomous cars are not that. They will clearly be expensive, and being a service with complex liability problems will most likely be an Über-style, pay by the drink model. As amazing as Uber is, riding them is a lot more expensive than leasing a Honda Accord.

They also make occasional distance trips prohibitively expensive. I do a 1,000 mile road trip every year -- which costs about $500. What would a robot Uber cost?

IMO, they are a solution looking for a problem. Negative effects will include undermining public transit, and making suburban sprawl worse.

<comment><USER47> Wouldn't a 1000 mile trip be far more cost effective to do by flying? A round- trip flight plus some Ubers on the other end could easily end up being under $500.

<comment><USER46> 4 people from Albany, NY to most places is $3000 + rental car. Plus my wife and I are tall, and sitting in a airline seat and dealing with the airport drama sucks.

Or I drive for 20 hours and get another week in a 5 star hotel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> And they probably never _will_ own one. But they also won't own a regular car anymore, either.

The promise of self-driving cars is that, for less money than you're spending to own a car today, you'll summon a self-driving taxi whenever you want, of whatever type you want right at that moment (convertible, economy car, four- door, pickup truck, SUV, limo...), and then after it drops you off, you never see it again.

<comment><USER49> I disagree. I would like to own a car, so that I can have my stuff in it and not have to wait for it, etc. but it's nice not to have to drive it myself

<comment><USER48> You're not the "they" my comment was referring to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't want a self-driving car either. I enjoy driving. I like to be in control.

But for commercial purposes, self-driving cars are inevitable, of course.

<comment><USER50> Do you fly your own airplane as well?

<comment><USER23> if I could rent a jet + fuel for the same cost as say, a first class ticket? yes, I would.

<comment><USER14> You are in luck — there are some startups on track to deliver that in a few years. Still have to get the pilot license, though.

<comment><USER51> I doubt the underlying economics will ever deliver a rental jet at an all-in cost under $4/mi. My piston single-engine airplane (wildly cheaper than a turbine to purchase, maintain, and operate) runs over $1/mi.

When I poke around Google flights at my common trips, it's hard to estimate tightly the cost of a first class ticket, but it seems around $1/mi for most of my routes (some Carribean routes are much cheaper than that). There's no way to operate a jet for that amount. Even if you take a family of four (where the personal airplane cost doesn't go up much, but the first class tickets obviously do), you can't quite cover even the variable costs of the Cirrus SF50 (the cheapest variable cost jet). That doesn't leave anything for maintenance, positioning flights (which require crew), capital costs, insurance, hangaring while not rented, training, or profit for the rental outfit.

I'd love to be proven wrong, because I'm absolutely in the target market for even a $2/mi all-in rental jet (and already have the pilot quals/hours to qualify, except for the type-specific type-rating). I doubt it can be done for under $8/mi to the end user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Put me down as one who does not want to OWN an autonomous car. I don't. It is ridiculous to tie up so much capital in a vehicle I use no more than 1-2 hours a day, max.

But I would LOVE a world in which I can call an autonomous car to my door whenever I want one, just like I'd call Lyft today. Or book one in advance to drive me a greater distance and wait to bring me back.

</comment><comment><USER52> I think the success of driverless cars will depend on the experience. If the cars are incredibly slow/cautious and you look like a segway riding dork but just inside a glass cage.. then I don't think it works.

Get the user experience right. The youtube videos of tesla drivers drinking coffee and reading the paper at high speeds looked like great fun to me.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm expecting "Minority Report", not "car that drives better than me" from this.

First priority is not getting me hurt. Second priority is not getting me in trouble. Third priority is not causing damage that costs me. Fourth priority is to go fast.

I thus want a car that can figure out potential hiding spots for cops. When there are no cops, I expect the car to disobey the law. I want it to go 2x the speed limit, drift around corners, and take winding roads faster by sometimes going into the wrong lane.

</comment><comment><USER54> Makes sense. People don't even want to give over control of their social media feeds. "The algorithm" is never designed for the end user's interests.

</comment><comment><USER55> 98% of drivers would refuse to drive a flying saucer[1].

Let them see it, as a reality and not an abstraction, and then lets see if their minds change.

I have a feeling it's like, in the early IBM PC era, people would have said, why would I want a portable handheld computer with a Star Trek touch screen and a global network, that sounds useful for engineers and nerds and maybe executives. And it doubles as a phone? How very Buck Rogers.

[1] may not contain actual statistics.

</comment><comment><USER56> >Three-quarters of drivers don't want to own an autonomous car

Means that there's a market of ~60 million people that would buy an autonomous car.

</comment><comment><USER57> One problem with autonomous cars and most modern cars is that they are connected to the network all of the time (which can be a security and a privacy issue). Take this for example: [http://www.businessinsider.com/ford- exec-gps-2014-1](http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1) .

</comment><comment><USER58> Self-driving will transform personal cars but it will come second. the first industry it will transform is long-haul trucking.

</comment><comment> awinter-py 4/5 of autonomous cars don't want to carry around a pesky human but you don't hear them complaining

<comment><USER10> If you were to really anthropomorphize cars, I imagine that they'd consider humans as useful symbiotes that repair injuries and retrieve fuel from the deposits found here and there on the asphalt seas.

<comment> awinter-py You don't need to anthropomorphize autonomous vehicles for them to talk.

The last barrier to their legalization will be 'what happens in a crash'. To deal with that, they'll have to be permitted to develop moral opinions _as well as_ the ability to testify about those in court. It's a core feature.

<comment><USER10> This is a weird claim to make when there are already legal self-driving cars out there that have no such capabilities.

<comment> awinter-py testing only

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Legislation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The flip side is that even if only 25% want self-driving cars, that's still a pretty damn big market.

</comment><comment><USER60> You can probably draw a very similar chart of people who wouldn't buy a car when it replaced the horse & cart

Or people who would "never" drive an automatic car or ... blah blah blah

It's going to happen at some point here ... just like HDTV finally did :)

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't want to own _any_ car, but I'd like to ride in an autonomous car.

</comment><comment><USER62> We changed the baity title, as the HN guidelines ask. In this case a neutral subtitle was available.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><USER63> yet people ride automated trains at the airport all the time. i bet if you asked them right after riding these trains if they'd ever ride a train driven by a robot, they'd say no, right after just riding one.

<comment><USER64> Except those people have probably never _driven_ a train before. It's different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Wow, 25% of car owners are ready for autonomous cars. That's a huge market

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm just happy that the author of this article broke up the generations as Boomer, X, Y, and Z. I've always found the term Millennial to encompass too large of an age group to be meaningful.

</comment><comment><USER66> 30 years ago most cars in the Netherlands had shift gearing. Automatic was more expensive and considered not cool, 'not for real driving'. Nowadays everybody prefers automatic shifting...

</comment><comment><USER67> I wonder how this compares to airplanes -- when the first commercial airlines came into existence, did people complain that they weren't able to fly the plane? What about autopilot?

<comment><USER14> Lots of people are on their way to learn and get their pilot licenses, because freedom and excitement of flying do matter to them.

<comment><USER47> Compared to the number that drive their own car or the number that take commercial flights, there are a very, very small number of people who do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> The general public will quickly start wanting self driving cars when they realize they can drink and get home. No more taking turns to be the responsible driver etc.

<comment><USER40> You have basically described Uber (1). No co-incidence that Uber is interested in self-driving cars. "Do I want to _own_ one?" is the wrong question, why bother owning one when you can summon one when you want it?

1) [https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249958](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249958)

<comment><USER68> (I'm living in Europe, in the countryside, and I think a car that can drive me home will be a big win. I think taxis etc are for built-up areas.)

<comment><USER40> There will be cases where "owning your own self-driving car" will make sense, they just won't be the majority of what's now covered by "owning your own car".

I'm living in Europe, in a city, and looking forward to being driven to and from social engagements this weekend, because drinking. There is going to be a human behind the wheel of that taxi but that's incidental. I don't own a car because the costs greatly outweigh the benefits and there are always alternatives.

<comment><USER68> I've lived in several European cities and owning your own car has been a liability full-stop.

Interestingly, everyone I know in a city in the US has a car. All they do is complain about traffic, but they own one nonetheless.

For everyone owning a car today, I think tomorrow they'll want a car with self-drive feature.

Its not strange that a survey conducted by car interest groups find their readers uninterested in self-driving cars, as their readers are car enthusiasts. The kind of people who aspire to owning sports cars. The kind of customer who probably doesn't want an automatic either, nor cruise control etc? ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I don't want to/think I'll ever _own_ an autonomous car. But I want one someone else owns to pick me up at the snap of my fingers.

</comment><comment><USER70> Wait until they charge a toll to leave your garage. If the traffic is bad, for instance

<comment><USER71> Why even have a garage? Tell the car to park down the street with-in range of the security cameras from a local business and plant a garden where your garage used to be or turn it into a billiard room.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I'm really glad that it's not up for a popular vote, then.

</comment><comment><USER73> And three quarters do.

</comment><comment><USER74> Americans also wanted a faster horse.

</comment><comment><USER75> Who cares? They'll accept it eventually. And if they don't, it won't matter because they'll have no choice. This isn't an election. Self driving cars are coming and they will reduce accident rates amongst many, many benefits. If people are stupid cowards, let them walk.</comment>


Google Employees Press 14 Buttons to Operate Their Toilets. - <AUTHOR> http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2008/06/26/google-employees-press-14-buttons-to-operate-their-toilets/ <comment><USER2> What the hell is 'wand cleaning'? (Second picture, bottom left.)

<comment><USER3> It is evidence that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

(And according to the manual, that particular button is for cleaning the "cleaning wand", which is the thing that does all the washing and drying mentioned elsewhere on the panel.)

<comment><USER4> Is there a cleaner for that button that cleans the cleaner of the cleaning wand?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. I've never seen a washlet with the buttons translated into English before.

</comment><comment><USER6> Like I want to have a toilet splash water on me.

Most stupid idea ever, sorry.

<comment><USER7> More than that, I like my plumbing and my electrical systems to be _completely separate_. Yeah, Yeah, I know all about GFCI, but how much power does all that stuff take and exactly where is it all pointing???

Plain old flush toilet for me thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is going to make such an awesome 2009 South Park episode.

<comment><USER9> Cartman: "It should be perfectly clean now that my shit don't stink!"</comment></comment>


General Electric Wants to Act Like a Startup - josh-wrale http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-07/ge-taps-lean-startup-ideas-for-faster-cheaper-product-rollout

<comment><AUTHOR> An alternate title: People with incentives to promote lean startup methodology score massive consulting contract with GE.

<comment><USER2> ...the incentives being the contract.</comment></comment>


One man's incredible efforts leads to biggest crate discovery in Australia  - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/20080819/NEWS01/808190301/Vineland-man-s-quest-Prove-crater-theory?nclick_check=1

<comment><USER2> I find this fascinating on two levels - the superficial :

There are some good reasons to want to follow this up - the biggest being 60 miles of pseudotachylyte which either came from the worlds biggest impact or the worlds biggest earthquake. EItehr way that is worth looking into.

The main problem I see is timing - there are it seems no major extinction events that are "missing" a cause. And I see nothing in this to estimate a date.

and the deeper: This guy is not being ignored or frozen out by the scientific establishment - there are simply not enough of them to do all the work that science throws up. That a retired guy can be leading a charge into a potentially major piece of Earth history (true or not) is an indicator that really we need more universtiy places, more funding and more humans.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, it can be seen as, a possible supportive fact, to the theory, that the millions of elderly around globe, can become a major force, if they turn to going on such hunches. They are better suited to form the other side of research, the research based on intuition, rather than based as a job/interest field.

After retirement, you can safely say, you have lived your responsibilities, and this example promotes, that how going out to find things that touch your curiosity, can really work well. Elderly have all the time and skill to do research, as research for yourself, does not require meeting weekly/monthly deadlines, and due to having seen life already, their hunches are way better than that of a 20 year old.</comment></comment>


Code for "Glow: Generative Flow with Invertible 1x1 Convolutions" - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/openai/glow <comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion of the paper [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17491285](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17491285)

demo: [https://blog.openai.com/glow/](https://blog.openai.com/glow/)</comment>


Are you more likely to cast the deciding vote or die on your way to the polls? - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeremyscheff.com/2012/09/vote-and-die/ <comment><USER2> This is one of those things I wish I had a good answer for. People try to make that point, "my vote will never be the swing vote". Yet it is intuitively obvious that if nobody votes, or if only the really motivated people vote, results will not reflect the constituency. Unfortunately I don't know how to argue it on an individual basis.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps this points towards a larger scale failure in modern forms of "representative" democracy. Since opting out is the only alternative to arbitrarily picking between unsatisfying options - there's no "none of the above" box on a ballot sheet - it makes sense that voting becomes skewed towards those special interest groups irrationally motivated enough to actually vote. Notice that based on this evidence not voting is actually an entirely rational decision.

<comment><USER2> _there 's no "none of the above" box on a ballot sheet_

I find myself wondering if you've voted before. You can write in anyone you like.

<comment><USER3> Legitimate thing to wonder I suppose, also a decent ad hominem. I'll elaborate on my point:

You are always forced to make a choice - you can write in whomever you want, but you cannot opt to suspend the process and await alternatives. Your expression must always be in the positive, and never in the negative. The implicit attitude is "either offer an alternative or don't vote at all" \- so many people opt not to vote.

For myself my attitude is something like: There seems to be a root problem within the political process. I don't know what it is. It seems to be rarely talked about. The options presented seem to be within a very narrow and oversimplified spectrum that ignores ambiguity and complexity of any kind. Rather than pick between a bunch of things I don't want or agree with I'll just not vote. Some people choose to vote under these circumstances citing the cynical position of "choosing between the lesser of two evils". I don't.

<comment><USER2> _you can write in whomever you want, but you cannot opt to suspend the process and await alternatives_

Ah, it was not clear you meant, an option to reject the candidates and hold another election.

 _also a decent ad hominem_

Aww, shucks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rebuttal via recent news [1]. The key here is down ticket races, especially off-cycle, your vote has a big impact.

"The razor-thin margin between Herring and Obenshain, which has fluctuated consistently since Election Day, stood Wednesday morning with Herring carrying a 106-vote lead on his opponent."

Given VA's election turnout (for this seat) of 2M voters (only 25% of the population of 8.7M), this is a hairline-thin vote split. Electoral history in the USA is rife with these kinds of very small splits. See MN: Coleman vs. Franken, for example.

[1] [http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/11/va-attorney-general- rac...](http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/11/va-attorney-general-race-herring- s-lead-slips-over-obenshain-96784.html)

<comment><USER5> 106 votes is still enough that your vote wouldn't have changed the outcome. Even a 2 vote spread means it wouldn't have been worth your time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The electoral college is the crappiest form of democracy I know. (I find ironic that the US presents itself as "the champion of democracy" with that system) but if you don't vote you relinquish your right to decide. (and your right to complain too)

</comment><comment><USER7> Recommended:

[http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed- Economic...](http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed- Economics/dp/0765808684)

<comment><USER8> That's kind of an extreme leap. I read this back in 2005 and it impacted my thinking a lot. After delving deeply into anarcho-capitalism and the whole "Mises" thing however it's very much a long shot political philosophy that doesn't seem to understand how humans work - typical then of Economists (Full disclosure my BS was in Economics).

I would instead recommend Bryan Caplan's "The myth of the rational voter."

<comment><USER7> I'd say that the anarcho-capitalists have a better conception of how individual humans work than any of the current economic schools. At least they don't pretend to understand how humans value things: value is subjective.

I agree, however, that anarcho-capitalism is a long shot politically, and I'm not particularly satisfied with how they address externalities like pollution or common services like law enforcement.

I've settled on parvumianism (to coin a neologisim): in favor of small political units in which the appropriate political mechanism can be chosen and meaningfully consented to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Buy a lottery ticket on your way back from the polls.

That way you have a higher chance of changing your life.</comment>


UCSD Pascal pioneer Ken Bowles has died - <AUTHOR> http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-kenbowles-obit-20180909-story.html <comment><USER2> UCSD Pascal was the first "Java" in that Pascal was compiled to machine- independent P-Code that was then interpreted. (I used it in the 1980s.) The main problem it had was it was slow. In the 90's, even with the CPU advances, interpreted Java was still too slow. It took Symantec's Java JIT compiler to really make Java work.

I.e. what UCSD-Pascal lacked was a JIT compiler. Even a simple one would have made a huge difference.

UCSD-Pascal was the right idea, it was just before its time. I think Java owes a lot to Ken Bowles.

<comment><AUTHOR> By '80 or so it was possible to link to assembler, and the recipe was to code inner loops in assembler. With a Digital Equipment LSI-11 CPU and its simple, highly regular machine code, this was workable for a time.

<comment><USER3> LSI-11 [http://www.cpushack.com/2017/11/22/cpu-of-the-day-dec- lsi-11...](http://www.cpushack.com/2017/11/22/cpu-of-the-day-dec- lsi-11-chipset/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The UCSD P-system OS (from the 1970s) always had a single line menu bar across the top of the screen, whose entries might change when different applications ran. I have always suspected that was the inspiration for the Macintosh menu bar.

This slide deck has a brief history of UCSD Pascal and the P-system OS, with quite a few technical details:

[http://pascal.hansotten.com/uploads/ucsd/reunion/Richard%20K...](http://pascal.hansotten.com/uploads/ucsd/reunion/Richard%20Kaufmann%20-%20What%20The%20Heck%20Was%20UCSD%20Pascal.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Bill Atkinson ported UCSD Pascal to the Apple ][, and he was one of the very core Mac developers. Apple Pascal was probably one of the very few software systems that spanned all of Apple's computers at the time. The Apple /// made heavy use of it and had the benefit of a lot more RAM. Then the Lisa Monitor used the same menus as earlier Apple Pascals. I think the Lisa Pascal was licensed from another company and wasn't a port of UCSD Pascal though. One of the first pieces of code for the Mac was a port of the Lisa Monitor, so those Pascal menus were probably the first menu bar on the Macintosh. The Macintosh Toolbox, while written mostly in assembly language had Pascal bindings and much of it was originally written in Pascal before being rewritten in assembly, QuickDraw was based on LisaGraf which was written in Pascal.

[https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...](https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Joining_Apple_Computer&showcomments=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember on my Apple ][ playing Wizardry, written in UCSD Pascal: [https://www.filfre.net/2012/03/making- wizardry/](https://www.filfre.net/2012/03/making-wizardry/)

Pretty sure there were a few text adventures written with it too. The non- flashing cursor and glacially slow text output is a sure tell: [https://archive.org/details/RamboFirstBloodPartII4amCrack](https://archive.org/details/RamboFirstBloodPartII4amCrack)

(edit: another article from the same source about the P-Machine and Bowles: [https://www.filfre.net/2012/03/pascal-and-the-p- machine/](https://www.filfre.net/2012/03/pascal-and-the-p-machine/))

</comment><comment> open-source-ux Ken Bowles authored the book _Beginner 's guide for the UCSD Pascal System_ in 1980. Here is a complete scan of the book on archive.org:

[https://archive.org/details/Beginners_Guide_for_the_UCSD_Pas...](https://archive.org/details/Beginners_Guide_for_the_UCSD_Pascal_System_1980/page/n0)

</comment><comment><USER7> Ken was a great guy. We both lived and worked in San Diego so I would occasionally see him. The last time was around 1980. I had been using UCSD Pascal to write my Go playing program for the Apple II, and ran into him at a party. He and his wife were just heading to the South Seas to go SCUBA diving (a favorite hobby of his). His work positively affected many people. RIP

</comment><comment><USER8> I used UCSD Pascal quite a bit during my undergraduate days; my school (UC Irvine) had bought a bunch of (I think) Terak boxes for the computing center. I ended up getting the UCSD-Pascal card for my personal Apple ][+, hooked it up to a 24x80 CRT (because programmers always need large displays), and that allowed me to do my homework ... at home (I know, amazing)! I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bowles for being such a good evangelist.

</comment><comment><USER9> I first programmed pascal on Osborne-1 when studying at AUT(then ATI) in AUckland, New Zealand in 1982. Great language that recently have looked to again in its fpc variant for its write-once run-anywhere - seems the folks looking after freepascal keeping the Ken Bowles spirit alive!

Big thanks to Ken Bowles for the impact on all of us who code.

</comment><comment><USER10> RIP Ken Bowles,

Unfortunately, this only highlights the continued lack of ability for some US publications to get their act together regarding Europe.

<comment><USER11> What's it got to do with Europe?

<comment><USER12> The submitted link can't be accessed from Europe: "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I met him once, in the 1980s. At the time he was talking about implementing Ada on something like the P-System.

<comment><USER14> Rational Software started as a company selling Ada Machines, they then pivoted to other industries.</comment></comment>


New term to describe bad programming: Biological - <AUTHOR> http://doubtingtommaso.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-term-to-describe-bad-programming.html

<comment><USER2> He has a point for smaller-scale programming. Certainly, even when designing part of a larger system, one should aim to be as clear and well-structured as possible.

But beyond a certain scale, complex systems, including complex software, must be grown and not master-planned. This is one of the main advantages of iterative design and development.

Organic life passed this level of complexity long ago. Yes, evolution is dumb enough that it has passed up some obvious improvements. But humans are not (at least not yet) so smart that they could design even a bacterium from scratch, without resorting to iteration, and trial-and-error.

<comment><USER3> Actually, we are designing a bacterium from scratch. But to do it, we are doing some cut and paste from previous examples.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_cre...](http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life.html)

There is, however, a modicum of refactoring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the argument is totally flawed. Brains and eyeballs are biological. Perhaps biology is more bottoms up than top down or more like generate and test, yet it produces systems of incredible complexity that are remarkably robust. For example a human heart beats ~ 1 billion times, I've yet to see a human designed and architected pump do that. We just don't understand very well yet how the liver and pancreas work and western medicine is particularly weak in taking a holistic or systems view to the body.

Software, bad or good, is not like biology and it's not like construction. Software is mathematics.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't think that characterizing biological systems as having no order whatsoever is exactly accurate. I understand the point he is making, but I'm not sure the parallels hold up particularly well.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've certainly worked with some programmers who's approach seemed more like evolution and intelligent design.

<comment><USER7> Heh, best argument against creationism yet: If God were omnipotent and omniscient and God designed the human body, then it wouldn't be such a phenomenal mess!

<comment><USER8> Or maybe the Universe was a hastily done outsourcing job?

Seriously though, as messy as organ systems and biochemistry may be, the weird thing is that it all works by itself, using basic chemical properties. I remember how some textbooks can make it sound like proteins and molecules are ordered around in a cell, but in reality everything just floats around, is attracted and repelled to other stuff in the right places, and it works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, basically, we need to refactor the human body.

I am quite alright with that.

<comment><USER10> I would be alright with that as well, if every piece of software I'd ever written was 100% bug free. I envy your perfect track record.

<comment><USER9> Make sure you can ship after every commit!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> -> _"A good developer would never put the end of the digestive system right next to the start of the reproduction system - not even if that would require fewer lines of code (which it undoubtedly did)."_

Whatever point he's trying to make in this post - and I'm not going to take the time to try to figure it out - I'm sure there's a simpler way of saying it.

<comment><USER12> Basically, "biological" describes a system that works decently, and which has grown through incremental changes, and yet is a poorly architected mess inside. It describes something that appears to be great from the way it works and the way it looks on the outside, even if the internals are a mess that require 10 years of schooling and residency to fully understand and maintain ;)

<comment><USER3> Not even that! 10 years and continual refresher courses and on-the-job training for a lifetime -- just to have an _inkling_ and at best a _hazy but uncanny knack_ for fixing. But even this is not even enough in _all_ cases.</comment></comment></comment>


100-year-old San Francisco woman dies one month after losing eviction battle - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/28/san-francisco-100-year-old-eviction-iris-canada-dies <comment><USER2> Interesting that the article does not touch on the owner's claim that the 100-year-old woman didn't actually live in the property.

<comment><USER3> It does mention that the issue was in question:

"The owners claimed that Canada eventually stopped living in her unit and failed to maintain the property, but Canada and her family vehemently denied the accusations and said she wanted to remain in the unit until her death."

The judge agreed with the owner.

<comment><USER2> It mentions it but doesn't question whether the claim is valid at all. The large bulk of the article underneath the photograph of the woman on the bed discusses the woman's emotional reaction to the result. I was left wondering whether she really was a victim of an injustice or she was not actually living there, as the owners claimed.</comment></comment></comment>


Nintendo Switch runs FreeBSD - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/story/29698/Nintendo_Switch_runs_FreeBSD <comment><USER2> Does it, or is it just using portions of the FreeBSD source code? I.e. TCP stack?</comment>


Pentagon Confronts a New Threat from ISIS: Exploding Drones - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/world/middleeast/iraq-drones-isis.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> I can't say I'm surprised I'm only shocked they didn't really prepare for the eventuality. A small vehicle that can travel in 3 dimensions can easily carry explosives and other weaponery. It's only a matter of time before this is common place and with the ability to throw a drone out of your backpack and send it flying it's going to get worse.

I always remember FPSRussia's drone [1] and I'm surprised they haven't made these in mass over there.

[1] [https://youtu.be/SNPJMk2fgJU](https://youtu.be/SNPJMk2fgJU)

<comment><USER3> _I can 't say I'm surprised I'm only shocked they didn't really prepare for the eventuality._

One of the countermeasures we can expect is "persistent aerial surveillance" (airship based eye-in-the-sky platforms), which are semi-secret platforms being used in battlefields by the US currently. I wonder how rapidly one of these systems can detect an unknown drone in the air.

Amazed you believed the FPSRussia video.

<comment><USER4> Now I'm curious of the physics involved, how do you keep a drone from spinning out of balance after shooting?

<comment><USER5> It's CGI it's part of the promotion for one of the COD games.

<comment><USER4> So...?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After reading "unmanned: illusion of perfect war", it seems American military has more drones than all countries combined. American drones have killed quite a lot of civilians. While I don't like war, it was about time someone gave US a taste of their own curry.

<comment><USER7> It's one of those things that outrages everyone, until they get the same capability, and then is utterly adopted. We do a lot of things wrong, mostly to do with overuse of our assets, but there is nothing inherently wrong with drones.

Our policy of using them so freely on the other hand...

<comment><USER8> Or, to flip the viewpoint around 180, "Drone strikes are a safe, low risk, low cost and legitimate method of snuffing out the lives of people we believe and supporting, funding, training, or harbouring people who mean to do us harm with absolute impunity and no consideration for the justice system."

...until the 'other guys' start doing the same. Then it becomes a heinous, unfair act of terror.

<comment><USER7> Exactly... perspective dominates all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It was only a short matter of time...

Now imagine what happens when drones with explosives/guns/chemical weapons start flying into sports stadiums, concert halls, etc in unpredictable swarms.

<comment><USER5> You had RC planes and helicopters for well ever, quads are no different.

<comment><USER10> But quads _are_ different.

Quads take less skill to operate, because they hover and are self-stabilizing. Also first person video hardware did not exist in the past, so finding a target is much easier.

It's easier than ever to fly several kilos of something somewhere a few hundred meters away.

<comment><USER5> I had FPV setup for my heli in 1998-1999.

Helis were also stabilized with gyros.

If an 8 year old can learn to fly in an afternoon a determined attacker can do so also, lets stop pretending that barrier to entry is a thing for people who strap 20kg of PETN and ball bearings to their chests.

<comment><USER10> What if the determined attacker is just funding the attack, and needs low skilled labor to perform the ground work?

And how much did your FPV unit cost? Certainly today they are cheaper and far better than they were in 1998?

<comment><USER5> Not that expensive overall cheaper than say a modern DJI.

As for the better you'd be surprised but the only thing that has improved really is the camera.

FPV is still transmitted today in the same analog manner as it always was.

As for the skill required, it's still the same level of skill if you are planning such an attack you'll train the drones executing it regardless if you are using a quad or an 1986 RC plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Decision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Decision) \- modern warfare

<comment><USER12> I've been meaning to read Kill Decision for quite some time. Daniel Suarez has some really unique perspectives using near-future fiction. Daemon and Freedom™ were fascinating glimpses into the potential of the future of modern day technology.

<comment><USER2> Kill Decision was fantastic. Not as good as the Daemon series in my opinion but anyone who liked that series will not be disappointed with Kill Decision.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It has been obvious to some for years that small quad/hexa-copters with POV capability is the hellfire missile of an insurgency. We've talked about it here on HN lots of times.

However, as it is true with many ideas, there is the idea and there is the execution of that idea. Now that there are confirmed uses of this sort of system in the field I expect much more energy in finding ways to mitigate them. On the plus side it is easier to destroy/disable a drone than root out a sniper's nest, on the down side it is really hard to defend soft targets from pop-up deployments of them.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just recently 2 french special forces commandos and their local handlers have also been targeted by this new kind of attack [1] (in french).

[1] [http://www.lemonde.fr/proche- orient/article/2016/10/11/irak-...](http://www.lemonde.fr/proche- orient/article/2016/10/11/irak-deux-commandos-francais-gravement-blesses-a- erbil-par-un-drone-piege_5011751_3218.html?xtmc=irak&xtcr=1)

</comment><comment><USER15> That long range beam forming microwave weapon (DEW?) they were working on could probably do the trick. It'll be a pain to have to monitor for this crap though.

<comment><USER16> No need. There are automated machine guns that use microphones to automatically do counter-sniper fire. I'd imagine a platform like that will emerge to counter this threat.

<comment><USER15> The problem is with missing all the time. With the DEW, your ordinance intercepts at the speed of light, and covers lots of area down range. With machine guns, you have a 1/many chance of hitting the thing any given second.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So the elephant in the room.. what steps will governments take to prevent a domestic attack?

</comment><comment><USER18> There's already a small, really fast drone that's just packed with explosives in wide use today. They do suck at steering though.

Of course its an RPG.

</comment><comment><USER19> Another term for 'exploding drones' is 'cruise missiles'.

</comment><comment><USER20> People, this is so much bigger an issue than anyone is giving it credit for. This is huge. Without exception every American three letter agency, and others, are _completely_ dropping the ball by not giving this faaaaaaaaaaar more weight than anyone is giving it. Literally there is this tiny little wall, it looks like this >< and it's like 0.5 mm wide, and the only thing separating one side from the other (safety versus a complete disaster) is the fact that it takes some intelligence to play with drones and terrorists are by definition dumb (since it means they have not even understood enlightenment philosophy, that you can disagree with someone but defend to the death their right to say or believe differently from you - a 250-300 year old advancement in civilization.) That's it. This is not a wall that you can count on remaining up, as drones become turnkey easy to use automated solutions. Agencies need to act on this _now_ because they will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. This is really, really serious.

EDIT: I've been downvoted, but I don't think drone software has any backdoors, safeguards, or even registration requirements, and I don't think drone manufacturers even vaguely consider that they might be making what could be part of munitions, or give a second thought to completing an order to a war zone or to anyone, except of course unless there is some kind of general embargo or difficulty (that applies to every class of products.) I think it's being left too free, to be honest, and the possibilities that will unfold naturally are not going to be well. I strongly advise agencies to put in the necessary legal and technical safeguards today, not when it is too late. Other posters point out that this stuff might apply "just as well" to model airplanes -- but I personally don't think this is true at all. A model airplane won't fly to a specific user-supplied location unattended. it's a different beast entirely and it's not being handled with enough seriousness, in my personal opinion. I don't know that much about drones though. (Just flew a small cheap model helicopter toy, like a $20 one. I'm basing this based on general reading.) I stand by my comment.</comment>


Smart Phones COULD have saved the world - <AUTHOR>

Now they are used to stream more of the corporate medias propaganda driven metanarrative (ie pop-culture, movies, music, reality-tv). <comment><USER2> Then also computers, television, radio...

Instruments are neutral. It's what you do with them that matters.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Tell us how they could have saved the world.</comment>


Man creates kinetic sculpture that moves and lives on its own - <AUTHOR> http://wimp.com/kineticsculpture/ <comment><USER2> Theo Jansen and his TED Talk

[http://www.ted.com/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html)</comment>


How to Write a Lisp Interpreter in Python (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://norvig.com/lispy.html <comment><USER2> I'm always impressed how the magic of interpreters and compilers can be explained so succinctly.

Inspired by Jonesforth, I wrote a complete Lisp interpreter in a single ARM assembly file: [https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp](https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp)

<comment><USER3> How long did it take you? The documentation is A+ (it reminds me of this compiler: [https://github.com/thejameskyle/the-super-tiny- compiler](https://github.com/thejameskyle/the-super-tiny-compiler) ).

<comment><USER2> I estimate it took 60-70 hours, of which 2/3 of that was for the documentation.

Thanks for the compliment and the link to TSTC. I'll add it to my personal list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Obligatory link to today's best solution, using the Python AST and running straight off bytecode: [http://hylang.org](http://hylang.org)

<comment><USER5> I've always found Hy interesting, but cannot picture anyone using it in production. Are there any real live examples?

<comment><USER4> The maintainers quoted having a few customers using it, but here's my stuff: [http://github.com/rcarmo/sushy](http://github.com/rcarmo/sushy)

<comment><USER5> That code is more readable than I expected. :) May you share more about the experience of using it? Do you keep a blog?

<comment><USER4> Erm. My blog runs on it, it's the demo site :)

<comment><USER5> Well, ok. :)

I tweeted the repo link to the HyLang account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Original HN Submission + discussion here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745322)

(and many re-submissions after that)

Follow up:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1746916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1746916)

</comment><comment><USER7> For anyone wanting to try something similar yourself, I highly recommend MAL. It's a Lisp dialect designed to be a learning tool: there's a nice guide for implementing the interpreter. It doesn't take much away from the learning, but it really lessens the possible frustration a lot. [https://github.com/kanaka/mal/blob/master/process/guide.md](https://github.com/kanaka/mal/blob/master/process/guide.md)

Just in case anyone is interested, here's my implementation in Python 3.5+. I'm guessing it took me about 15 hours to write. [https://github.com/dancek/mal/tree/python3-dancek/python3-da...](https://github.com/dancek/mal/tree/python3-dancek/python3-dancek)

Of course, Peter Norvig's followup to the linked article may also interest anyone who read this far: [http://norvig.com/lispy2.html](http://norvig.com/lispy2.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Is LISP still relevant? ;-)

I'm curious whether folks think the ideas of LISP are still resonant and powerful in the startup world and wider industry.

This is different from the question of inspiration. Yes, I admire.

Does PG, for instance, still think that startups can have 'secret' technical advantages and use strategies like 'running upstairs', i.e. choosing to do hard things as a competitive advantage.

By ideas of LISP I mean things like programs-as-data and a small kernel from which the system is bootstrapped.

</comment><comment><USER9> He he, I wrote a (primitive) Lisp interpreter in Python once. It was crappy and really slow, but it had lexical scoping and a (naive) macro system. Fun times... ;-)

</comment><comment><USER10> Along the same lines may I say buildyourownlisp.com somehow manages to be a great intro text to C as well as lisp. Highly recommended

</comment><comment><USER11> Here is my version of a lisp interpreter in python:

[https://github.com/keithgabryelski/plisp](https://github.com/keithgabryelski/plisp)

it's not meant to be pythonic -- it's meant to readable and organized

my inspiration was Interpreting LISP by Gary D. Knott written in 1997 (the pdf of it is included in the repository)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is currently the final project of CS61A, the introductory CS course taught at UC Berkeley.

[https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/fa14/proj/scheme/](https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/fa14/proj/scheme/) (no link for the current semester is up yet)

</comment><comment><USER13> Surely something more like

(how (in 'python (write (interpreter 'lisp))

:-P

<comment><USER14> More like:

      (howp (write (interpreter :of :lisp
                                :in :python))))

<comment><USER15> > howp

"how?" is not a predicate (i.e. something that returns a Boolean value), so it wouldn't be named howp.

<comment><USER16> Somebody read the Jargon File...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is from 2010. Please mark in the title.</comment>