The UK will now become a tax haven for the rich - <AUTHOR> https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/uk-will-now-become-tax-haven-rich/ <comment><USER2> The rich are busily withdrawing their money from the UK as fast as possible, and the closest thing to government policy right now is "er, we'll leave Europe but stay in Europe", so let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a normal reaction in the near future, because London will lose its role as the European Banking Authority among other things... but in the long run, freed from the EU regulation, it only remains for the UK to become a big tax heaven among the likes of Switzerland and the British Virgin Islands.

<comment><USER3> Tax havens are so 2015. At a time when there is a rising impetus towards closing tax loop-holes the UK is going to try to differentiate its economy by exploiting them? It might just work, for London, but the UK is just too big to fly under the radar, and in any case it's difficult to build a domestic economy of the size of the UK on crumbs from the rich man's table ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am pro EU, but this article is just garbage. UK already is tax heaven for rich.

<comment><USER5> UK, or London? Serious question - the concentration of finance and money in the City of London makes me wonder if the city has some different rules than the rest of the UK.

<comment><USER6> The City of London[1] is not London[2] and, yes, it has different rules.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London)

<comment><USER5> That's why I was asking - I'm aware the City has all sorts of different rules because of it's history. I just don't know how those rules impact banking, finance, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's interesting that this article mentioned Ireland with regards to corporate taxes. I don't know the background to the Apple story noted in the article, but I am well aware that corporate tax is not standardised across Europe.[1]

Ireland also has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU at 12.5%. I'm about to embark on a new venture which will require a Limited company. Ireland is extremely attractive due to the low corporate tax rate and the ease of starting a new Limited company. The other good options are the Baltic countries, such as Estonia, but things are more complex in terms of initial capital costs and somewhat of a language barrier. Or go properly offshore.

If the UK really wanted to become a tax haven for the rich, they would lower corporate and top personal tax rates. There are some plans to lower UK corporate tax from 20% to 18%, but it's still not really enough to entice many and lay claim to being a tax haven.

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

</comment><comment><USER8> All this doom and gloom for the UK is laughable.

Lets say the UK government did this.

1) Lowest business taxes in Europe.

2) Least amount of red tape for businesses in Europe.

3) High Priority Visas for tech people and other sectors like bio, engineering, etc.

4) Investment for setting up businesses.

Pretty much, things that a conservative government which is pro business does.

In one fell swoop they can keep the current businesses here and make the UK attractive for foreign investment and also, with a strong economy. Once again make it a safe bet and keep that AAA rating.

I really wouldn't bet on the UK imploding. Those who say it will, don't know what they are talking about

<comment><USER9> Your #1 and #2 say "in Europe". Either Britain will be part of the EEA so they can't have less red tape than the rest of Europe, or they aren't in the EEA so the "in Europe" part of your statements isn't relevant.

<comment><USER7> As much as many Leave voters might wish for it, the geographic position of the United Kingdom is unlikely to change and therefore they will remain part of Europe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It sounds like this is aimed more at companies than anything else. The UK can now offer tax deals that other countries can't.

What's strange is this happens between states in the US. Part of it is differences in state tax rates, and part is a willingness to cut special deals to get corporate headquarters.

<comment><USER11> > The UK can now offer tax deals that other countries can't.

This isn't so simple. If the UK wants to keep access to the EEA, it effectively won't.

<comment><USER10> Yes - my point is that the title suggests that it's about rich people doing tax arbitrage. The article is more about companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be interesting development if they turned their (already compelling) corporate structures into something Monaco like :)

</comment><comment><USER13> ohhhhh nohh!!!!!!, just like Gibraltar? Isle of man? Jersey? British virgin Islands?

UK is already a tax haven for the rich. Without it, "the City" wouldn't be the the City.

</comment><comment><USER14> Even if, another tax haven. So what?

</comment><comment><USER15> This is much ado about nothing, as a famous Brit once said.

The UK could also become a monarchy again, or it could try to invade France. This is crazy agenda-driven speculation that belongs on Breitbart or DailyKos, not Hacker news.

<comment><USER5> _And what 's a "tax haven for the rich?" You know why there are no "tax havens for the poor?" Because they don't pay taxes._

Poppycock. The poor pay plenty of taxes... sales tax/VAT, SSI/employment tax, property tax (on cars, in some areas).

You know exactly what is meant by "tax haven". Playing semantic games doesn't make the practice of shifting wealth to avoid taxes any less unsavory, even if it is legal.

<comment><USER16> Many UK citizens have an ISA which is a special account devised by the UK government, exempt from income tax and capital gains tax on investment returns. In other words, it allows you to shift wealth to avoid taxes. Is this unsavory?

Hate to keep repeating it but everybody arranges their affairs to minimize their tax bill thereby avoiding tax. It's not only legal, it's sensible. The government sets the rules (and changes or repeals them if it wishes) and good citizens obey them to the letter. If there's a highly devious suspect scheme afoot to minimize tax, the courts are there to examine it and make a judgement; if it is deemed to be tax evasion then serious consequences will and should follow.

<comment><USER5> Are those accounts tax exempt, or tax deferred? The equivalent in the US is called a 401k, which is just tax deferred. Still shifting wealth, so I suppose we're talking shades of gray.

Anyway, I'd just as soon do away with market-distorting tax code like tax- advantaged retirement accounts, mortgage interest deductions, etc and just lower the marginal rates accordingly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What does a Higgless universe mean for science? - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/95097-what-does-a-higgsless-universe-mean-for-science

<comment><USER2> For a little more of an in depth view of this situation, have a look at this from peter woit: <http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3960>

also, this paper: <http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1180>

</comment><comment><USER3> The article says nothing about what a Higgsless universe means for science, but at the end links to Wikipedia's list of "Higgsless models": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgsless_model></comment>


FB's New Real-time Messaging System: HBase to Store 135+B Messages a Month - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/11/16/facebooks-new-real-time-messaging-system-hbase-to-store-135.html

<comment><USER2> Maybe it's just me being naive, but facebook has got to be one of the most awesome places that there is to work.

I swear that every couple of months I hear about a situation that basically comes down to this:

Boss: "Hello, Ryan, we would like to do $impossible_thing""

Ryan: "Huh, that sounds kindof impossible. But I guess we could get a team of the smartest people in our industry together and build an entirely new suite of tools to make $impossible_thing into $totally_normal_thing..."

Boss: "Yeah, do it!"

6 months later

Ryan and boss (to internet): "Hey, guys, check out this thing we made. Here, you can have it for free. Have a nice day!"

<comment><USER3> _Huh, that sounds kindof impossible. But I guess we could get a team of the smartest people in our industry together and build an entirely new suite of tools to make $impossible_thing into $totally_normal_thing..._

HBase has been around for a while, and is part of the Apache Hadoop project. You don't need Zuckerberg signing your checks to work on cool projects along with really smart people.

<comment><USER2> I'm also talking about cassandra.

Out of curiosity, am I wrong about this? Cassandra was developed by facebook, wasn't it?

(I was asking because this was downvoted. I thought maybe I was mistaken about cassandra)

<comment><USER4> Yes, it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's very interesting that they didn't have the need to compromise on consistency and went with a fully consistent system, HBase.

</comment><comment><USER6> I suppose fb caches the recent messages in memory, and use HBASE as archive storage most of the time.

It depends on the developer's favor to pick up a system. If it's me, I will pickup cassandra. The consistency model is not so hard to work with.

</comment><comment><USER7> heh. I attended Jonathan Gray's talk at Hadoop World this year (which was pretty good!) and he talked a lot about Facebook's infrastructure. Gray has been a primary committer on the HBase project for a while (since inception?) and I remember people somewhat teasing that HBase was kind of the pet project of the NoSQL world. I've had fun hacking on it off and on myself. Gray amusingly said that HBase was being prepped for production in a huge way, but he couldn't give any details.

Well, I guess we know now! Definitely looking forward to all the future developments of HBase. There are a lot of interesting contribs being made.</comment>


How to Make Our Ideas Clear (1878) - <AUTHOR> http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html <comment><USER2> In the spirit of "reading philosophy backwards" [1]:

Peirce is spot-on about "force"—in the 138 years since this essay, there has been no progress on the question of "what is force?", but huge progress on the question "what mathematical relations do forces satisfy?". Peirce must be writing in opposition to someone's unsuccessful attempts to describe or define the nature of "force". (But who was that?)

I'm less convinced about "hardness". Today we'd be happy to describe the hardness of an object even if it never came into contact with anything, whereas Peirce writes, "There is absolutely no difference between a hard thing and a soft thing so long as they are not brought to the test." But maybe that's because we conceptualize "hardness" differently from Peirce? That is, now we think of hardness as an intrinsic property that can be deduced from the structure and chemical composition of an object and measured on something like the Brinell scale (1900), whereas Peirce is thinking about it as a partial order based on something like the Mohs scale (1812)?

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/11/read-history-of- philoso...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/11/read-history-of-philosophy- backwards/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The article contains the text "buried secrets" which points to a gopher link: gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/90/1

My curiosity is piqued.

<comment><USER4> Thomas Gray, "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard":

[http://www.thomasgray.org.uk/cgi- bin/display.cgi?text=elcc](http://www.thomasgray.org.uk/cgi- bin/display.cgi?text=elcc)

Found via a Usenet post from 1998:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.gathering.rainbo...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.gathering.rainbow/XtzJSMmzVlA)

<comment><USER3> Well done. I thought it might be the same as the lines quoted below, so I had also found the poem that way. Quite beautiful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Surprised to see Peirce on the front page!

If you enjoy this you should check out his other popular essay: "The Fixation of Belief" ([http://peirce.org/writings/p107.html](http://peirce.org/writings/p107.html)).

My professor had a "swear jar" for mispronouncing his name (it sounds like "purse", not "pierce").

<comment><USER6> > (it sounds like "purse", not "pierce")

There go a few brain cells I could have used to help with the grocery shopping list.</comment></comment>


OS X vs. Linux? - <AUTHOR> I was an avid user of Linux on a Thinkpad until January. I switched to a Macbook Pro running Yosemite. Was really impressed by the hardware ( great battery life and an awesome keyboard ). For a few days, OSX seemed fancy too. But I really missed Ubuntu with its fantastic package manager and minimalistic UI. I was being less productive by using OSX. I was starting to get depressed. I made the switch by dual-booting Ubuntu on my MBP. Works just fine, but has heating issues ( the area around the trackpad feels warm), terrible battery life, roughly around 3 hours and occasionally the screen freezes and then I have to do a hard restart. I am going back to Linux running on a Thinkpad. Seems like the perfect machine for development and getting things done. What do you guys think ? I am not starting a flame-war or something, I would just love to hear views on this. <comment> ni-hil If you want to try to stick with OSX you could try homebrew[1] + homebrew- cask[2] as a package manager, even if it probably won't be as good as what you were used to.

For battery life if you want to switch to ubuntu, the issue is probably that you are not using a good power manager which OSX does automatically behind the curtain. This could be a starting point : [http://askubuntu.com/questions/285434/is-there-a-power- savin...](http://askubuntu.com/questions/285434/is-there-a-power-saving- application-similar-to-jupiter/285681#285681)

[1] [http://brew.sh/](http://brew.sh/) [2] [https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew- cask](https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew-cask)

</comment><comment><USER2> I run Linux on a VM on my MBPro, and I honestly can't tell the difference between that and another dedicated laptop running Linux .. VMWare (and the newest Parallels) is pretty good at running Linux these days, and - unless you need raw metal performance - is performant enough that I don't even really notice the difference. Its like having two machines in one.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I tried that. I notice a difference when developing on my Ubuntu VM I need to run a Vagrant VM for my app while also running IntelliJ IDEA on the Ubuntu VM. :)

VMs are good enough for many tasks, but not ideal for development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been a linux user for about the last decade, but I've also had a macbook for about the last 4 years. I don't really mind the differences since I spend most of my time in the terminal anyways. After installing homebrew for package management I can pretty much do everything on OSX that I could under linux.

</comment><comment><USER5> The thing that gets me with OS X vs Linux or Windows is that the muscle memory in my hands works well with Windows and Linux shortcuts and window management. I have a MBP circa 2010 and love the hardware but the OS is meh. I really love how I can just close the lid to hibernate and it will stay like that for days. I haven't seen Windows or Linux be able to do that, although Windows on SSD boot up is very fast.

I use vagrant based VM's on Windows and OS X for development. Much better alternative than cygwin or similar. And you can custom build the vagrant VM to match your production environment.

When you are copying files, opening/closing windows, etc. all of that should be done without thinking. When it comes to differences in the OS you should go with what you are most comfortable with. They are all pretty much the same under the hood.

</comment><comment><USER6> I used Windows (business), OS X (iOS dev), and Linux (backend dev) side-by- side -- sharing a mouse with Synergy -- for about a year.

As a regular user, I'd choose Windows, hands down. As a developer (or long- time Linux user, like you), I'd choose Linux. Ubuntu is the only OS I run now.

I recently installed Yosemite on my 2013 MBP, hoping it had fixed some of my complaints about previous versions. It was, instead, as massive regression. Many others have pointed out the same.

Stick with Linux. If you're productive and happy, why consider anything else?

The unfortunate thing is that non-Apple hardware is lacking in some ways, but you can shop around a bit and find something close.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. Still waiting for a linux apple-like-hardware machine. I have heard the Thinkpad X1 is a very close competitor to the rMBP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you like running something BSD-based, maybe try one of the *BSDs ... I suggest starting out with PC-BSD: [http://www.pcbsd.org/](http://www.pcbsd.org/).

I switched from Linux to a custom FreeBSD setup a while ago and I'm enjoying it - I find it simpler, more stable, better engineered, better documented (the FreeBSD handbook is great!) and just generally a nicer OS to use. Hard to quantify, really, but it just feels nicer to use overall.

</comment><comment><USER8> I do most of my development work on OS X and Linux, but for desktop environment, I would hands down use nothing else other than OS X.

I just love the integration. Everything looks nice (yes I even like Yosemite), the system is very stable, I can go days without so much as a restart, it doesn't break after I install a package from a package manager, the upgrade process is seamless, the hardware is second to none (even Linus Torvalds agrees), and I can always get help from the Apple Store if something goes wrong. Some of these things you can get with Windows/Linux, you can actually get pretty close, but you never seem to get them all.

The hardware and software integration on Linux seems to be really iffy, even if you get Linux to dual boot on OS X. The hardware support isn't there unless you compile your own kernel, which you have to get (if it's a newer system) an unstable version of, the touchpad gesture support isn't as nice, the whole OS doesn't look as nice as OS X, and you miss out on the integration between iOS, which is really important to me, at least. OS X is a proper Unix system, so any Linux command line tool will also run on OS X. And you actually get the basic tools out of the box (vim, ruby, python, zsh, tmux, perl, etc, etc). If not, you can get a really good package manager in the form of homebrew, and while it's not as powerful as apt-get, it's pretty much all I want from a system package manager.

I am also not a big fan of managing windows or using a tiling window manager, I don't even use them when I'm on Linux. I actually prefer using OS X's default Mission Control/Expose behavior (I know.). I toyed around with Moom, Slate ([https://github.com/jigish/slate](https://github.com/jigish/slate)) but gave it up. I don't like windows to snap, that's an absolute asinine behavior that seems to be the default on Linux desktops these days, that I always have to unset. I never knew why anyone would be a fan of it, unfortunately, most people are. I just have my terminal run tmux and live there. Command+Tab is enough for me.

That all said (sorry if the above turned out to be a bit of a rant), Linux desktop environments are slowly getting much better, I'm really liking the look of Plasma and Gnome 3 (although that huge chrome, seriously?), and Elementary OS is easily the best Linux distro I've used.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will have to disagree on your say about software/hardware integration. Its bad on the Mac, but I have had no issues related to integration after 3.xx kernel upgrades on any other PC. I find a heavy online supportive community for Linux if I happen to encounter any issues down the lane compared to OSX. Like you mentioned, brew isn't as great as apt-get for which I keep going back to using dmg's.

<comment><USER8> Well, the integration between HW/SW is the best on OS X because of the fact that Apple actually makes their own hardware, as well as the software. That means, you get HW/SW support from day ONE. That's key and you can never get than on Linux. Period. Heck, for work, I have to try to make Linux work on Surface 3, and you have to patch the Linux kernel yourself to make the touchpad and keyboard work nicely. Sort of a convoluted example, but you get the idea. The heavy online support is nothing compared to going in to the Apple Store and having guaranteed support.

About apt-get vs homebrew, what do you miss from apt-get? I'm not trying to sound dumb, I genuinely want to know. For me, homebrew is much more easier to use, and you can add taps (sort of like PPAs), you can even add a tap to get OS X apps. I've never used it but I've heard good things about it, for instance, you can type `brew cask chrome` to have chrome installed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have to juggle between installing softwares using a dmg or using brew because I am unsure if I am able to install a particular software using brew whereas in the case of Linux, I am very sure that I can install any software using apt-get

<comment><USER8> How is this different from apt-get? For any missing packages, or any outdated packages, you have to hunt for a ppa or you have to compile it yoursel while hunting for the correct configure switches if you want specific features like for vim

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Two weeks ago I gave up on OSX / MBPs too. Consider the Dell XPS 13/15 line or the ThinkPad Carbon line as a replacement.

I opted for the Dell XPS 15 -> [http://amzn.to/1JeO1T2](http://amzn.to/1JeO1T2)

PS: I already own a Dell XPS 13 (2013 model) running Linux

</comment><comment><USER9> I've been using OS X personally since about 2000. Used Windows and Linux plenty at work.

Right now I've been messing around trying to switch over to Linux. I'm using Arch and it's very rough around the edges.

My computer feels a lot faster but still trying to work out the kinks. Fools errand?

<comment><USER3> It'll take a while for you to find your preferred config. SO many desktop environments, so many window managers, so much customization is possible. Its a bit of a journey.

But once you get the right config, Windows / OSX or even default setups for GNOME, Unity etc. will not come close. :)

I think I am at least 150% more productive on my Linux laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's stopping Linux running as well as on a Thinkpad on MBP?

If even Linus uses it, then surely the heating, battery life, etc problems could be easily solved. But AFAIK, they haven't yet - it just doesn't make sense? Anybody able to shed some light on why it is so?

</comment><comment><USER11> Same thing here [ubuntu 14.4 on MBP]. Also, my inbuild camera does not work. :(

Also, if I accidentally unplug my ethernet cable, I have to reboot my machine to get an internet connection again

<comment><AUTHOR> My camera works fine. I am running Ubuntu 14.04 on MBP 9,2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Perfection only lives in your mind.</comment>


Directtrack down 24+ hours, Affiliate networks go dark - <AUTHOR> http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/blackhat-lounge/410750-direct-track-down-multiple-cpa-nets-go-dark.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Directtrack hosts many affiliate networks, all of them currently down. The official Directtrack twitter account has no info. <http://twitter.com/#!/DirectTrack></comment>


Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/canada-legislation-decriminalize-recreational-cannabis-weed-marijuana <comment><USER2> Canadian News Source [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-un-marijuana- legisl...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-un-marijuana-legislation- legalize-1.3544554)

I love that they picked this day to make an announcement.

<comment><USER3> It can't be a coincidence. I hope they pass the bill next year on this day. I'll be booking work off and heading to the Art Gallery for that one.

<comment><USER4> They didn't pick the day because of 4/20 they picked it because of the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, where multiple countries raised complaints about the current state of prohibition and Canada went one step further by announcing this to the other nations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing that I am disappointed in is that I wish the Liberal government first decriminalized marijuana.

For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Simply revoke the current criminal laws. The bill would be passed quite quickly. Which would then buy time to figure out a bill for legalization.

Why is this important? Despite popular belief, simple possession laws ARE upheld in Canada, but the people charged are disproportionately minorities and poor/homeless people. IIRC, there were 40 000+ criminal charges for simple possession last year in Canada. That means thousands of citizens who are now burdened with a criminal record, making job searches difficult and border crossings into the US.

So while laws for legalizing pot are getting figured out in Parliament, more people keep getting locked up for simple possession.

<comment><USER6> Yah, but if you decriminalize possession it's a boon for the (still) illegal dealers and distributors. Is there any credible data to discredit my take on this?

<comment><USER7> If we have to keep putting civilians in jail so that criminals don't benefit for a brief time, I think that thought should be rethunk.

<comment><USER6> Well, as I mention in another comment [0], I'm uncertain as to whether the prospective bill will actually pass, and thus the "interim" situation could become the ongoing status quo. Additionally, such a situation would also include all the geopolitical risks I mention in that other comment, too, and could thus put the Canadian economy in peril.

I'm a supporter of legalization, but I think half-measures can lead to avoidable, unforeseen negative consequences.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538708)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In Australia "the Victorian government, is introducing laws in December to allow families access to medicinal cannabis in exceptional circumstances. "

You have to be genuinely, deeply sick in Australia to be allowed to puff a joint. It's like living in the 1950's. So strange that Australia follows the world so quickly towards becoming more conservative and is so incredibly slow to become less conservative, even when our cultural leader, the U.S.A. is headed that way.

[http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-children-with- ep...](http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-children-with-epilepsy-to- take-part-in-medical-marijuana-trial-20160202-gmkate.html)

<comment><USER9> Sweden is regularly prosecuting and convicting elderly people who buy or grow, and use, to ease their pains and medical conditions. No consideration is taken for the very sick, or their stories about how it allows them to live a decent life.

Then again, with politicians like these: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/07/sweden- justice-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/07/sweden-justice- minister-spoof-marijuana-deaths-story)

<comment><USER10> Yeah, she is clearly not intelligent like most ruling politicians in Sweden right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does this effect the supply chain? Let me re-phrase that, are we still criminalizing the supply side? If so, we're just exporting our violence south of the USA border.

<comment><USER12> No, they have promised legalization. However there's virtually no chance of this being a free-for-all.

What I expect the main features to be:

\- Certified and regulated producers, though not numerically limited

\- heavily-taxed.

\- no problems growing your own.

\- retail distribution depends on province. More liberal in BC, government-run in Ontario.

\- separate certifications for places "serving" (ie, pot cafes). Can't take it home with you.

<comment><USER13> We'll have to see whether grow-at-home will be permitted. Here in Canada it is illegal to operate a spirits distillery in your home. I wouldn't be surprised if it is not legalized, as it opens up avenues for "criminal selling", ie: people growing at home and selling it - bypassing taxation. And, let's be honest, government revenue from taxation is the _real_ reason legalization is even on the table.

It doesn't matter how grow-at-home laws will be written. There will always be those people who will exceed the "personal plants limit" to grow and sell to friends / the street. Especially if legally obtainable strains wind up being very limited, or if the tax is too expensive.

The whole system including strain restrictions and pricing (+ taxation) is going to be interesting to watch unfold. If officials think that your average daily consumers - not the new people who will toke once legal, but those who already consume daily - are going to tolerate an increase of _any_ amount for the product... enjoy the black market that will continue to proliferate.

I do love the lackluster "legalization will keep weed out of kids' hands!" How exactly does that way of thinking even begin to work? ;)

<comment><USER14> Here in British Columbia my friends who smoke prefer going to the dispensaries that have opened over their old local drug dealer. It is more convenient to go to a store with regular hours than to arrange a meeting. They also get to choose exactly which strains they are buying instead of having to take what is available. I think it is going to be very difficult to earn a decent income only selling weed.

Edit; there was a house worth 1.5 million for sale nearby, a beautiful custom home on a big lot, for sale for 400,000 because it had a grow op which is the same as a meth lab in the eyes of the law. No bank will lend on the property, the occupancy permit for the house is revoked, and the soil is considered contaminated until proven otherwise. All for a bunch of plants! Many laws and regulations will have to catch up for people to be able to legally grow at home with no repercussions.

<comment><USER15> I was of the understanding that the problem with grow-op houses is they're often riddled with mould and have unsafe electrical modifications:

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/12-signs-your-home- was-...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/12-signs-your-home-was-a- marijuana-grow-op-1.1340242)

<comment><USER14> A friend wanted to buy the ex grow op house and he couldn't find a way to ever get a mortgage on it. And he works at a bank selling mortgages. So while some houses may be trashed by grow ops they are all assumed to be trashed and there is no way to remove the black mark from the property.

<comment><USER16> Shouldn't that drop the price until someone can buy it outright? You know, supply and demand? What's keeping the price up? Is the previous owner unwilling to sell so low?

<comment><USER14> the 1.5 million dollar house was for sale for 400,000. I'd say the price did drop. The bank had taken the house back from the owner because he was so far underwater on it and it was the bank selling it at 400,000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very big hiccup that this policy might possibly run up against: the American border. Given the 280,326,500,000 USD in exports that Canada sends to the US [0], even a minor disruption at the border could wreak devastation on Canada's economy. If an American administration even hinted at an increase in border wait times due to newly enhanced searches as a result of legalization, any Canadian federal government would have to think very hard about the pros vs the cons of legalizing pot.

[0] [http://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/balance/c1220.html#2015](http://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/balance/c1220.html#2015)

<comment><USER17> What you say is true, though it would be a sad day when the future of what Canadians want Canada to be is limited by the financial pressure of another country.

Of course, to prevent this problem, Canada could just hint at slowing down or limiting the 12410000000 barrels of oil it exports to the USA [1]

(see, two can play that game, and nobody wins)

[1] [http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/canadian- oil-e...](http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/canadian-oil-exports- to-u-s-reaches-highest-level-ever-as-shale-production-falls)

<comment><USER18> >What you say is true, though it would be a sad day when the future of what Canadians want Canada to be is limited by the financial pressure of another country.

That day happened like 50 years ago and has been that way ever since. As much as Canadians define themselves by being "not Americans", we're very heavily influenced by the US.

<comment><USER6> Great username.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Glad to see this is full legalization being proposed.

Decriminalization is of little use to the chronically uncool.

<comment><USER20> Does smoking pot make you cool?

<comment><USER19> No, the contrapositive. Being cool helps you access the trust networks through which illegal supply flows.

<comment><USER20> Not in my experience...it's just a matter of knowing where to look.

Not that I'm really interested in smoking pot any more. It's a bit too uncool and boring.

<comment><USER19> Bully for you. Not all of us are down to hang out with old hippies, just to purchase some weed. I'd rather have Amazon ship it.

<comment><USER21> With Prime Same-Day by drone!

(And more seriously, from a reputable and regulated supplier)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm curious if all those decriminalizations and legalizations in various states & countries are having an impact on Netherlands' tourism.

<comment><USER23> I wouldn't be surprised if it had close to zero impact. As much as people like to talk about Amsterdam's legal marijuana laws, I'm skeptical many people visited that country only because of that. Marijuana isn't exactly hard to get and smoke in private in the places these laws are being enacted in.

<comment><USER24> "Marijuana" isn't one thing. Dutch coffeeshops are fairly unique in their offering a tasting menu of dozens of varieties of marijuana.

But yes, the actual number of cannabis connoisseur tourists is tiny.

<comment><USER25> >"Marijuana" isn't one thing. Dutch coffeeshops are fairly unique in their offering a tasting menu of dozens of varieties of marijuana.

Hardly unique and recently greatly outshone by the offerings in states in the US where it's legal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Probably now Trump wants to build a wall at the border to Canada too.

</comment><comment><USER27> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs)

How do they get out of this? I've read that this is a big holdup in US federal drug law reform.

<comment><USER28> UN is meeting one of the next couple of months to hopefully start to get rid of all that idiocy. Hard to justify the US's position now with 4 states and DC legalizing it and many countries have been waiting some time to get rid of these stupid treaties and the war on drugs that's literally killing some of them as we speak.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "UN is meeting one of the next couple of months to hopefully start to get rid of all that idiocy"

I think that meeting it yesterday, today, and tomorrow - hence the timing of this announcement.

<comment><USER4> Not only is it this week, but we already know that the outcome document is not going to see any real change to the current state of prohibition - the only sign of progress was a number of countries saying they want to explore different approaches and Canada saying they'll be doing this anyway.

<comment><USER28> I'd say that __is __real progress. Canada going ahead with it despite the treaty is a big "FUCK YOU" to the treaty, the US, and all the horrible shit the treaty stands for, shit the US forced down the throats of the world like everything else.

<comment><USER4> It's not a big fuck you to the US given the US already has plenty of places with legal weed and their logic is "we're not technically breaking the UN treaty because it's the states not the federal government allowing weed". US may be responsible for the treaty but they're not exactly its biggest supporter now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is there any study on the reduction of young consumers (rebel/taboo incentives) and reclaimed resources for police forces (less time dealing with petty to medium weed issues) ?

<comment><USER30> I haven't seen any yet, but Colorado is being studied very closely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Perhaps it's now time to look at investing in some of the existing Canadian medicinal cannabis producers. Like cannabis or not, it's here to stay and becoming more legitimized with each passing day. The question is, who's going to supply it? It's going to be regulated and knowing Canada, it will be regulated thoroughly.

</comment><comment><USER32> There is nothing great about smoking weed but something seriously bad about jailing people for smoking, possessing or growing. That is the reason why I support marijuana legalization but I dont think Canada wants to decriminalize Marijuana.

<comment><USER33> It has been legal in Oregon since last summer. Walking the streets of downtown Portland you wouldn't know the law changed. Really, there is absolutely zero difference that I can see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> what about Canada's responsibilities under certain international treaties to prohibit the production and supply of drugs?

<comment><USER35> ehhh, most of the UN wants to really talk about a different approach than prohibition, historically it's been Russia, China, a few smaller countries and the US that has taken a hardline on it. Now the US is starting to back away. Will be interesting to see if anything new comes out of hte next UN drugs summit.

<comment> k-mcgrady UK is probably going to keep a hardline on it. Government shuts down any potential discussions on it here.

<comment><USER34> Complete nonsense. The British government does not shut down discussion whether potential or actual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Other news sources[1] are reporting it as "legalize", not decriminalize.

[1][http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/20/canada-marijuana- leg...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/20/canada-marijuana- legaliza_n_9738222.html?ncid=tweetlnkcahpmg00000002)

<comment><USER37> Interesting, the linked article called it decriminalize, but the text sounded more like full legalization to me. If you have the political support to fully legalize, why take half measures?

<comment><USER36> From what I understand, legalization is a lot more complicated in relation to international drug treaties that Canada is a part of.

<comment><USER37> Could be. I wonder if they would be the first to fully legalize on a national level? I can't think of any other country that has.

<comment><USER38> Portugal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal)

Since July 2001, all drugs are legal subject to personal consumption limits.

<comment><USER37> Looks like decriminalization to me, which matches up with what I heard. Meaning that personal users don't get thrown in jail, but the supply chain is still illegal, and nobody would dare try to set up a legitimate business for production or distribution. So all of the profits of the trade go to criminal gangs and street violence instead of either legitimate, tax-paying companies or the Government itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> A well-timed announcement for April 20th. ;)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_\(cannabis_culture\))

<comment><USER40> Yes, absolutely brilliant.

<comment><USER41> Can something this obvious be brilliant?

<comment><USER40> [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brilliant&def...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brilliant&defid=4256078)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm a little bit worried about this, actually.

I've been to Vancouver and it wasn't a very pretty sight.

The amount of homelessness and crime is 10 times more what I've seen anywhere else in North America.

There's an entire section (several blocks) in the Downtown area that's full of homeless people and the streets smell like urine.

Shops even in areas far away from downtown put posters on their windows saying they don't hold cash overnight. i.e. please thieves don't break in at night because you will not find any cash.

At the same time, Marijuana seemed like it was very easy to obtain, and _for free_ too! There plenty of shops that give it away for free "for medical purposes". Some of them even advertise that they have a doctor who will prescribe it for you in case you don't already have a prescription!

I know correlation is not necessarily causation but easy access to Marijuana was the only significant difference between Vancouver and all the other cities I've visited in North America.

<comment><USER43> I've been to Vancouver, too, and I've seen the street you're talking about. Drove down it with my family and it was shocking. Massive piles of trash everywhere, grocery carts, garbage bag "luggage", mobs of people. It was sad and quite shocking if you've never seen it before. Nothing I've seen in SF or LA compares to this.

But...I don't think marijuana caused that. I think it has a lot more to do with a permissive city than pot. Recreational pot is legal in my city (Tacoma, WA) and we don't have this issue. In fact, we have almost no problems with pot at all. My only complaint about the entire thing is the tacky advertising and storefronts that the pot industry uses to attract clients. The market is oversaturated and shop owners are desperate to survive and are resorting to decorating normally seen at used car lots and Liberty Tax outlets.

<comment><USER42> I had to _walk_ through it with my family. It's difficult to describe the shock we experienced.

The reason I think it's linked to Marijuana is how easy it was to obtain. If these homeless people can get access to it, they probably wouldn't bother working to improve their lives. They can have an "awesome life" in their minds if they get to smoke pot. At least that's my impression of what Marijuana does to people. It makes you feel relaxed and completely care free.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope someone can challenge my perspectives, but I think the rest of the world also thinks this way. That's why all countries ban drugs even though they don't ban Alcohol.

<comment><USER44> You're really misinformed on this topic.

> _The reason I think it 's linked to Marijuana is how easy it was to obtain_

Marijuana is easy to obtain just about everywhere on the planet. I knew around 20 drug dealers at one point in the US. I buy weed here in Cambodia from an old grandma. It's easy if you're looking.

> _If these homeless people can get access to it, they probably wouldn 't > bother working to improve their lives. They can have an "awesome life" in > their minds if they get to smoke pot._

Do you have some strong evidence that a homeless person's sole desire in life is to easy access to marijuana? Because if not it comes across as a sweeping, irrational judgement against a diverse group of people.

> _That 's why all countries ban drugs even though they don't ban Alcohol._

Many countries ban marijuana because the US used its leverage to compel those countries to do so.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


WhatsSpy Public - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.maikel.pro/maikeldus/WhatsSpy-Public/wikis/home

<comment><USER2> My wish: WhisperSystems finally gets their act together and releases the TextSecure for iOS that they've been talking about for two years[1]. I still can't send a message from my Android phone to an iOS user. TextSecure is one of the best secure messengers out there[2], but until iOS support is out it's mostly proof of concept to me.

[1] [https://whispersystems.org/blog/sure/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/sure/)

[2] [https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging- scorecard](https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard)

<comment><USER3> The last HN Who's Hiring? had an iOS dev job posted by Moxie [1], so I guess it's safe to assume they're working on it.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8982023](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8982023)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm confused about what is being leaked here.

The information which the writer says is somehow available unintentionally to my contacts is pretty much the information I provide freely to my contacts, e.g. my profile picture, status.

Okay my online/offline status, if I set that to hidden, fair enough, they should fix that, but I'm just a bit confused about the other bits.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Telling the world I'm online on WhatsApp is little more than telling them I've got a mobile phone. This proof of concept doesn't know who I'm talking with, what I'm saying, my location or any other personal information, so I don't really care.

I'm a law-abiding middle-class white Western male, so I don't want to assume that my flippancy should be shared by everyone. So, who should be worried by what the OP is saying?

<comment><USER4> It's not clear from the article whether the data is available to the world, or only to my contacts. If it's public, that's worse, but, while it's not good to leak 'private' information, I've seen a lot worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "WhatsSpy Public is an web-oriented application that tracks every move of whoever you like to follow" is a stretch. When I read this clickbait headline I thought it could track GPS location, but the actual privacy leak is much less scary:

\- Online/Offline status (even with privacy options set to "nobody")

\- Profile pictures

\- Privacy settings

\- Status messages

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been using WhatsApp on Android lately since I thought they partnered with TextSecure and were encrypting recent Android <-> Android messages behind the scenes. Is this not the case?

My impression was that WhatsApp was the most private/secure text messaging app at the moment, but this is making it seem like maybe it's not.

<comment><USER8> Then the PR worked. The partnership was announced but the encryption isn't enabled yet.

<comment><USER7> I don't think that's correct. I was going off of WhisperSystem's announcement[0] where they say:

"Your messages may already be encrypted. The most recent WhatsApp Android client release includes support for the TextSecure encryption protocol, and billions of encrypted messages are being exchanged daily."

[0] [https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/)

<comment><USER9> It's not clear to me at all from that quote - I want to know that my communication _is_ encrypted end-to-end, not that it _may be_ encrypted. The rest of their statement is marketing speak.

(Not negative toward you, of course; you're just quoting)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What happens when the user changes the privacy settings? Whatsapp allows you to stop publishing this information.</comment>


How do you pronounce sudo? - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/ben/how-do-you-pronounce-sudo-4ipe <comment><USER2> Neither of those ways, I pronounce it sue-doh, but have found it really gets down to native language accent and localisation when it comes to vowels and how they are pronounced. All are correct. Though I have had somebody ask - "so like the song Sussudio". To which I always say yes and make sure they was not in the wheel group until they could work out why they can't sudo. But sysadmin 20 years ago maybe mixed humour and training in different ways than done today.

</comment><comment><USER3> sudo, like "i sweat" in spanish</comment>


Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://szeliski.org/Book/ <comment><USER2> For those interested in learning vision from a machine learning perspective I would suggest "Computer Vision: Models, Learning, and Inference" [1]. Szelinski's book is also great but gives a more classical overview of computer vision.

[1] [http://www.computervisionmodels.com/](http://www.computervisionmodels.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of my attempts at getting into CV fail because my knowledge of Maths is incredibly rusty. I did Maths up to university level, but haven't used it since.

Are there any good courses / books or other resources that would specifically help at getting up to speed with the maths knowledge required to understand a book like this?

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't recommend Szeliski for that - the book is basically a literature review (and is now a little out of date given how fast CV moves). It's great if you need a background survey on how things are done, but not for learning from.

The level of maths required varies a lot. Linear algebra is used heavily everywhere, you see a lot of optimisation (e.g. Levenberg Marquadt) and in some places graph theory. However if you're just using tools like OpenCV then you can get by with a fairly poor understanding of the maths (say 2nd year undergrad of an engineering degree).

Part of the challenge is reading past the maths. If you read a paper from Pattern Analysis there's a lot of, frankly, obtuse notation. So you see images described as discrete mapping blah blah. A lot of it is fairly straightforward set theory. It's necessary for proving things, but when it comes to actually implementing this stuff it's nowhere near as complicated as it looks.

<comment><USER3> Yes I think the notation is quite a stumbling block. Eg, As soon as I see an integral sign I am lost. I have no idea how to transform that into an algorithm.

<comment><USER4> You might be better off looking through the code of a mature image processing library like OpenCV or this one (recent HN post) written in Go which is very clean:

[https://github.com/anthonynsimon/bild](https://github.com/anthonynsimon/bild)

<comment><USER3> Good idea! Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Aude Olivia's course at MIT is also a good resource:

6.869: Advances in Computer Vision (Fall 2015)

[http://6.869.csail.mit.edu/fa15/index.html](http://6.869.csail.mit.edu/fa15/index.html)

Or just jump right into the deep end with OpenCV:

[http://opencv.org/](http://opencv.org/)

</comment><comment><USER6> The only one risky thing is that in computer vision right now things change each 6 months. So, one will never know which techniques are still state of the art, and which were outclassed by some ConvNets 4 years ago.

<comment><USER7> Regardless the impact machine learning techniques are having on the field, I still think is valuable to know and understand what are the classic methods that they are allegedly replacing.

<comment><USER8> It is actually not about "classic" vs. "modern". A lot of what's described in the book is as relevant as ever.

Mostly what's changed is that what used to be heuristics and hand-crafted features is now getting replaced by proper learned models. Also some generative models are getting replaced discriminative models since deep learning does a very good job in creating those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is maybe the best textbook on the basics of image processing, computer vision and computational photography. The author is from MS Research and they do know this stuff.

<comment><USER10> He is at Facebook now

<comment><USER11> Geez, I wonder what the offers these notable researchers are getting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Given how fast this field moves, is this still a recommended textbook (other than being free)? If not what would a good supplement for it be?</comment>


Finding Cancer in a drop of Blood - <AUTHOR> http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/natural-selection/2008/11/26/Inexpensive-Cancer-Screening

<comment><USER2> Nowhere close to prime time, but essential for the future of diagnostics, especially if we want to measure multiple analytes using very small samples. There are some systems on the market today that go in that direction (although not quite where the Health/Hood systems are)

[http://www.e2v.com/applications/medical- science/biosensors.c...](http://www.e2v.com/applications/medical- science/biosensors.cfm)

</comment><comment><USER3> A very valiant effort. I am concerned about the false positives/negatives though, and the article dod not say much in the way of that.

<comment><USER4> Yes their sensitivity and specificity concern me as well, but if it can be made to work then this will be revolutionary in the true sense of the word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is at least a decade and probably two away from affecting clinical outcomes, if their hypothesis proves correct (not that they can build the device to detect the markers but that knowing the markers will actually allow you to impact the natural history of the disease (cure you or let you live longer than expected)). The point of these articles is to secure additional funding for research so of course the results are promising but they are non- specific about likely benefits.

</comment><comment><USER6> This site is unviewable on an iPhone. It redirects to mobile.portfolio.com with no option to go to the "full" Portfolio site. Lame.

<comment><USER6> So.. I'm just plain curious: why doesn't the above comment contribute? (Why was it downmodded?) I'm trying to educate myself about this.</comment></comment>


Wikileaks and NYTimes Guantanamo Files - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/guantanamo-files/

<comment><USER2> Ha ha, what's that, they gotta beg them from another source? Good job jerks. Regardless, at least they're publishing them.</comment>


The pilot who stole a secret Soviet fighter jet - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160905-the-pilot-who-stole-a-secret-soviet-fighter-jet?ocid=aofut <comment><USER2> The best part of the story is perhaps the aftermath (the article doesn't mention the part about the plane being sent back mostly _in crates_ , no doubt as a technical and practical necessity, but which was also seen as something of abackhanded gesture, at the time):

 _The MiG that the Soviet Union had kept hidden from the world for several years was partially reassembled, and then loaded on a boat for its return to the USSR. The Japanese charged the Soviets a $40,000 bill for shipping costs and the damage Belenko had inflicted at Hakodate airport._

I miss the Cold War.</comment>


Apple Cores are a Myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/apple-cores-are-a-myth/281531/

<comment><USER2> I feel like there's something major I'm missing here. Is this satire or a metaphor? Or is this literally an article talking about how you are physiologically capable of eating and digesting (mostly) an entire apple? Personally, I don't like the taste (well, more the texture) of the apple core, so I stay away from it. But... what? The absurdity of this article just leaves me confused... like I said, I think I'm missing something.

<comment><USER3> I think that was the point, my wife eats the core, she always has. Eats the 'strings' on a bananna too. Me I'm a bit more picky than that :-). So the article is trying to point out that the whole apple is 'edible' and tries to frame it like you're "wasting" the good bits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I admit I was sure this is all about A7 chip.

<comment><USER5> I had just eaten the last bit of an apple (I've been a core eater for years) when I saw the headline and thought A7 as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be fair, the banana peel is edible, too. Have seen video where a monkey will happily eat the peel with the banana, whereas another monkey will properly peel it off with the expert ease of a human. Will I consider eating the peel of a banana? No. WIll I consider drying the peel out and trying to smoke it - let's not go there.

</comment><comment><USER7> In case anybody is wondering about the actual statistics, annual production of apple in the U.S. is valued under $3 billion. And vast majority of apples are processed, rather than consumed whole. Which means the real 'waste' from not eating the core is negligible.</comment>


Nokia May Be Down, But They're Not Out - simba-hiiipower http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/19/nokia-may-be-down-but-theyre-not-out/

<comment><AUTHOR> > [HTC G1] grabbed a certain contingent of user who understood Android, > understood the framework, and would follow Android to the grave [...]

Somehow I have a hard time imagining a future where someone would say that about Windows Phone.</comment>


Postmate.js: A Powerful Promise-Based PostMessage Library by Dollar Shave Club - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dollarshaveclub/postmate <comment><USER2> Making the world a safer, postier place.</comment>


How to Send an Email in 1984 - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-to-send-an-email-in-1984?utm-source=mbfb <comment><USER2> I like the fact that at the end of the transmission they "stream" some data (code, possibly?) to viewers at home by just airing it.</comment>


What if you're not GDPR ready? - <AUTHOR> https://www.twilio.com/blog/2018/05/are-you-ready-for-gdpr.html <comment><USER2> GDPR prison where you must read other GDPR emails for punishment.</comment>


Ask HN: What's a useful application of AI and/or ML? - <AUTHOR> I define useful as the following:
You encounter a random person on the street and they ask what it's good for. They say you can say anything as long as it is not entertainment related and benefits them directly in some way.
The purpose of the above situation is to show that application cannot be specific to a given socioeconomic status, career, job, gender, etc. It must be something that's useful to more or less anyone in the planet, even if they don't have internet. <comment><USER2> I think this is a good question to ask. But it might be better put as just "how far have applications of AI really gone".

That said, self-operating vacuum cleaners, lawn-mowers and cars would be obvious answers. Automating X is a fairly easy thing for people to understand. Whether that's where the important applications of AI are going to come from is a different question.

Just as much, do things like walking robots require deep learning or do better with deep learning rather than just regular engineering is a further question. A claim I read here is that Boston Dynamics, of Big Dog fame, was sold by Google because weren't able to convert their walking robots to working primarily via neural networks and I don't know whether a Rhoomba uses "serious" ML or not - they have been around for a while.

</comment><comment><USER3> Generating new scientific hypotheses and helping guide scientific discovery. In this regard AI / ML can help us:

develop new materials (stronger lighter materials for airplanes, so the need less fuel)

develop better superconductors (make t3h electric cheaper)

create more efficient solar cells (make t3h electric cheaper)

develop better techniques for desalinizing seawater (make freshwater available in areas where supplies are limited)

discover new drugs (cure t3h disease)

etc., etc., etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> None of the things you mentioned exist yet, though.

<comment><USER3> AI is absolutely already being applied to scientific discovery. IBM even have an entire product "Waton for Drug Discovery". See also;

[https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2016/06/artificial- intell...](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2016/06/artificial-intelligence- driven-discovery-chemical-synthesis/)

[https://medium.com/@ShaliniAnanda1/ai-and-the-future-of- comp...](https://medium.com/@ShaliniAnanda1/ai-and-the-future-of- computational-chemistry-220dc462e092)

[http://www.nature.com/news/can-artificial-intelligence- creat...](http://www.nature.com/news/can-artificial-intelligence-create-the- next-wonder-material-1.19850)

I can't cite specific instances where it has yielded specific results from the top of my head, but there's no question that AI is already being used in one or more of these areas.</comment></comment></comment>


How Much Does Meltdown/Spectre Patching Slow Down a Big Rails App? - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.appfolio.com/appfolio-engineering/2018/1/4/rails-ruby-bench-cruby-and-meltdownspectre <comment><USER2> > Maybe CPU slowdowns don't matter because Ruby is already so fast that CPU > isn't a bottleneck?

You have it backwards. It's because Ruby is already so _slow_ that you don't notice the additional overhead.</comment>


Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to turn a corner - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2008/11/01/never-underestimate-microsofts-ability-to-turn-a-corner/

<comment><USER2> Article makes a good point. Microsoft is a colossal monster that, while not as fierce as it once was back in the age of the browser wars, still no beast to be taken lightly.

I'm reminded of pg's article about "Microsoft is Dead" (<http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html>). While pg makes many good points and it is undoubtedly true that Microsoft isn't something that companies cower in fear of anymore, they are still alive and still moving forward at impressive speed. The beast may be dead, but the animal still lives. I don't believe Microsoft will be going away anytime soon. Maybe in my lifetime they'll eventually truly become a dwarf company and eventually burn out (I'm 18), but that happening soon I just can't believe is likely.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think at this point its more like turn a corner, find the onramp (in an unfamiliar neighborhood), and get up to highway speeds.

<comment><USER4> Look at the Xbox. They pretty much said "hey, we'd like to make video games", and a few years later are a major major player in the market (before the Wii, it looked as if the game was just Microsoft and Sony, and Sega and Nintendo were looking like also-rans.) Similarly, think of IE, and the amazing market share it has (its fading a bit, but there was a while when it looked as if Microsoft didn't care about IE at all...)

Its one thing to say "gosh, Microsoft has sucked at this internet thing", but another to say that they're not in the game. Microsoft has proven again and again that they can say "hey, we want to win" and they take the market by storm.

<comment><USER5> how about zune?

<comment><USER6> Zune and even iPod are both going to fail, because very few people want to carry around a music device separate from their phone.

<comment><USER7> Well, yeah. That's why Apple introduced the iPhone. I'm interested in seeing if Microsoft follows with their own product.

<comment><USER6> There's all kinds of Windows Mobile phones that have iPod-esque features. However, the device makers don't want use the Zune branding, because they want to use their own branding.

<comment><USER7> But there's a difference between having a phone that CAN play music, and a phone that's designed to make listening to music enjoyable.

My current phone has a music player. I would never use it. I would take a crappy unknown MP3 player to my phone's music player. It's awful. And a part of what makes it awful is that I don't intuitively know how to make it play music.

Compare that to the iPhone. Microsoft might try to make a competing phone. Right now, they've got nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Never underestimate Scoble's ability to rationalize the actions of his masters</comment>


European Parliament and End-2-End Encryption - <AUTHOR> As a quick experiment, and just for my own interest, I thought I'd pull and collate all the submissions about the proposal by the European Parliament to "enforce" end-to-end encryption.  To make the links clickable, I've put them in a comment.
It does occur to me that there are some missing, and that will be because items that get marked as duplicates often get deleted, and may be omitted  from search results.
My thanks to the team at algolia.com for making a tool even a numpty like me can use. <comment><AUTHOR> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567832](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567832)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14571050](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14571050)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577828](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577828) <\- The discussion is here

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14579915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14579915)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14582418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14582418) <\- Another 5 comments here

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14585536](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14585536)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14585725](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14585725)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14585730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14585730)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14586271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14586271)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14592745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14592745)</comment>


Installing Google Android for Mobile Browser Testing on Mac OS X - <AUTHOR> http://www.buildcontext.com/blog/2009/11/06/installing-android-sdk-browser-testing-mac-os-x/

<comment><USER2> If you can essentially run Android in an OS X app, then it can't be too hard to get it running on an iPhone.

<comment><USER3> It runs the whole Android system including Linux kernel. It doesn't perform that great on a desktop, it wouldn't probably fit into iPhone at all this way memory-wise. If it did, it would be extremely slow.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do I do if a maintainer is ignoring my pull request? - <AUTHOR> I have opened a pull request with pretty good Haskell code to a particular repo that addresses an open issue by another user, but the maintainer has now been ignoring me for 8 days whilst committing to master and answering other people.
I tried tagging him, asking for feedback, asking whether the direction is OK, etc but not even a single response.
The code is about 2000 lines of definitions and took about 3 evenings (>25 hrs) to write. What should I do in this situation? <comment><USER2> If we are talking FOSS-project-with-a-single-maintainer there's no reason whatsoever to expect _anything_ from the maintainer.

He may be on vacation. Or ill. Or busy doing other things. Or unable to dedicate 3 evenings to review your 2000 lines of code _right now_. He will eventually get back to you but until then it will certainly be a good idea to split your PR in several self-contained PRs, as suggested by LiamPa.

In the mean time, get in touch with the user who had the original issue and figure out together if your change actually fixes it without causing regression. This will certainly help the maintainer.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are some other PRs in a similar situation that have been ignored for months.

I just wish the maintainer would answer. Then I would know that it's more worth my while to do a hard fork than waste my time checking the thread every day.

The issue is a feature request, and it is mainly resolved by just self contained boilerplate API modules. The user posted the feature request >6 mo ago and I don't really know where they have gone, but I needed the same feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The maintainer does not owe anyone attention. Strangers demanding attention is sometimes a reason maintainers burnout and abandon projects.

If it really matters, fork the project and take responsibility for moving it in the direction you think it should go and run it the way you think it ought to be run.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Split it up, someone made a PR like this to one of my libraries once and even looking at it scared me.</comment>


Google API Console links to Google corporate SSO in a Google Android tutorial - <AUTHOR> https://codelabs.developers.google.com/codelabs/advanced-android-kotlin-training-maps/#2 <comment><USER2> There's a "Report a mistake" link on the bottom left of the page.</comment>


Whether you trust scientists may depend on your political party - <AUTHOR> https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_54c05d3617aa6d2032df7244a06da79e <comment><USER2> So that neighbor of mine who has a sign in her yard that says "SCIENCE IS REAL" is probably a Democrat?</comment>


The art of the dinner party - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/25/magazine/food-issue-art-of-dinner-party.html <comment><USER2> I love cooking dinner for 10 people. It's exciting, it takes a week of planning, a full day or two of cooking, and the glow afterwards when everyone has gone home full and happy lasts a lifetime. I can remember the faces of my guests from every party I've ever thrown.

Dinner parties are perfect because I'm completely unsociable when it comes to regular parties - I detest smalltalk. Over dinner however, talk is deep and profound and often difficult and challenging. Friendships can be broken, or new ones made that last a lifetime.

The author has a problem with cellphones? Ask kindly for them to not be at the table, forgo the Instagram credit and make a stand. It's not going to ruin everyone's day for not having a filtered photo of your lobster this one time.

For those who don't think they can cook: it's a combination of understanding food chemistry and following instructions. Think about a favourite meal you had once and try and recreate - all good food needs is passion, the rest follows.

<comment><USER3> > I detest smalltalk. Over dinner however, talk is deep and profound and often > difficult and challenging.

Smalltalk is how you get to know a little about someone so you can move on to deeper things you both want to talk about. It's really unusual to just launch into deep conversation with someone you barely know.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I used to think small talk was superficial, but it does serve a social purpose in mixed-company. It greases the wheel and initiates people into deeper conversation.

Without it, the atmosphere gets really intense really quickly, which can be weird unless you're among old friends or people who have high emotional intelligence to start with (can't always count on that).

<comment><USER5> A lot of people hate small talk because of their success rate of small talk. "How are you doing?", "yeah it's good, how have you been?" "Not too bad". "..."

<comment><USER4> There are many good opening lines, but I've found that simply asking "How's your week been?" works much better than a "How are you" because it nudges people to to tell a story.

Then I ask questions about that story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife and I's friends all have children the same age as ours and they are toddlers. Dinner parties are right out, but Sunday waffle brunch is on point. It is a fun affair with everyone including the kids. After everyone eats it becomes comically victorian. The Sober Dads and Friendly Neighbors drink coffee, BS, and supervise the kids (Out of Earshot, of course). The cocktail crowd will relax into an adult conversation as much as any dinner party without the urgency of a baby sitter or the guilt of leaving ones partner at home to enjoy an evening out. I enjoy our brunch with friends as much as any dinner party I can recall.

<comment><USER7> When I think about the reasons to pursue owning a house over an apartment, I will remember the Waffle Brunch. It sounds like such a house with a yard thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Resonates 100% with me. I also started doing dinner parties at a very young age. Always loved it, loved the hosting part and the discussions that unfold.

There is an art to a good dinner party. People have to feel welcome, you have to have a laid back enough attitude that they don't feel they are dining with the queen while still having enough structure that the dinner feels like it's going somewhere.

Maybe I am just lucky but I have not experienced people looking on their phones all the time at least not enough for it to be a problem.

The biggest problem these days are finding people who eat everything and like all sorts of food.

<comment><USER9> Do you cook the food yourself or hire someone to do it for you?

<comment><USER8> Do it myself of course :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've always struggled with dinner parties. I love them immensely, but I found that it's hard to get people to come. Just to get more than three friends in the same room can be tough. The older I get the more I find that people prefer to stay home, or go out to eat. Going to someone's home seems like extra effort

<comment><USER11> You're friends are not introvert, are they? I say "Yes" more to those who seem to understand an introvert more. I say "No" more to those I don't have much in common. In my case, I say "Yes" more to invitation from techies than from sport lovers.

<comment><USER12> Why is this being downvoted? It seems that he identify as an introvert and gives his side to the story?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My tips:

1\. Invite each guest individually. Don't use a mass mail or an online service

2\. It's not about the food.

3\. Serve something you've cooked several times before. Or order in. Or make cooking a communal process.

<comment><USER14> #3 isn't necessarily my style but not sure why the downvotes.

<comment><USER15> I wondered the same for the downvotes.

#3 (communal process) can be really fun and enjoyable. It depends on the people. Each time I experienced it, people were always having great time. Perfection should not be sought. Letting people add their creativity can help. It can really be a good idea. But do not force anyone not willing to participate and do not make such people feel like they are jerks.

#2 really depends on the people. It has been wrong most of the cases in my experience. People often enjoy food. Food is part of the pleasure for many people!

<comment><USER13> I enjoy good food too. Certainly depends on the people. For others, food is a tremedous point of stress. But I think all people can enjoy a dinner party, regardless of the food.

Two somewhat related cultural touchstones:

1\. Truman Capote's party of the century — the menu hardly seems like a highlight: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_White_Ball](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_White_Ball)

> The night's menu, to be served at midnight, consisted of scrambled eggs, > sausages, biscuits, pastries, spaghetti and meatballs and chicken hash, a > specialty of the Plaza and one of Capote's favorite dishes.

2\. Dialog from Glengarry Glen Ross:

Ricky: Did you ever take a dump - made you feel like you'd just slept for twelve hours?

James Lingk: That I -

Ricky: Yes? [James Lingk laughs.]

James Lingk: I don't know.

Ricky: Or a piss? _Great meals fade in reflection._ Everything else gains. You know why? 'Cause it's only food. This shit we put on us keeps us going. It's only food. The great fucks you may have had, what do you remember about 'em?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For people in their 20s and 30s in a culture where showing up late or not at all after rsvp is acceptable it is better to invite lots of people having all the foods on the stove keeping warm or laid out family style so people can grab a plate when they arrive or are hungry. Say it starts at 7pm and expect people arriving as late as 11pm.

<comment><USER17> I've found a good way to actually figure out how many people are coming is to require people to actually write a message to say they're going. If you just hit the "going" button and don't reply saying you're actually coming, I assume you have no intention of showing up.

Also, it's incredibly rude to show up to an event 4 hours late. 30 minutes, I can understand, if you got caught up, but 4 hours is taking the piss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure I've ever been to any dinner parties in my life. I always thought they were an upper middle class wasp thing.

<comment><USER19> I suppose it depends on the definition of dinner party. (I only skimmed TFA, so apologies if you're addressing something specific in the article.)

IMO, a dinner party doesn't have to be some stuffy affair. It's just a group of people getting together to share a meal, typically in someone's home. I often host a Sunday dinner for family and occasionally a friend or two and their families. The numbers are sometimes in the 10+ range, including kids. It's usually a pretty casual event, some food, some drinks, some nice conversations.

You might say that's just having a few people over for dinner, not a "dinner party." Maybe you're right. But I think the act of communal in-home dining, involving some family and/or friends, is very common across cultures. The WASPy "dinner party" is just one variation on that.

<comment><USER18> Yeah I get the feeling just based on the article and the comments here that people are referring more to the waspy formal dinner party and not so much the more casual / common incarnations. Obviously growing up and all that we would get together with families around the neighborhood all the time and have barbeque or whatever. As an adult I've been living apartment life, along with everyone in my social sphere, so dinner parties aren't really a thing but getting people together at a bar/restaurant is..

Dinner parties to me are just sort of a funny cultural quirk that I don't really get, I guess. Another one is how everyone else knows all the common dances at weddings. I've been to a few but not enough to, you know, get the choreography right lol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For balance, I shall quote my favorite curmudgeon, Phillip Lopate, in his personal essay about dinner parties:

 _I don 't expect the reader to agree with me. That's not the point. Unlike the behavior called for at a dinner party, I am not obliged, sitting at my typewriter, to help procure consensus every moment. So I am at liberty to declare, to the friend who once told me that dinner parties were one of the only opportunities for intelligently convivial conversations to take place in this cold, fragmented city, that she is crazy. The conversation at dinner parties is of a mind-numbing caliber. No discussion of any clarifying rigor—be it political, spiritual, artistic, or financial—can take place in a context where fervent conviction of any kind is frowned upon, and the desire to follow through a sequence of ideas must give way every time to the impressionistic, breezy flitting from topic to topic. Talk must be bubbly but not penetrating. Illumination would only slow the flow. Some hit-and-run remark may accidentally jog an idea loose, but in such cases it is better to scribble a few words down on the napkin for later than attempt to "think" at a dinner party._

 _What do people talk about at such gatherings? The latest movies, the priciness of things, word processors, restaurants, muggings and burglaries, private versus public schools, the fool in the White House (there have been so many fools in a row that this subject is getting tired), the undeserved reputations of certain better-known professionals in one 's field, the fashions in investments, the investments in fashion. What is traded at the dinner-party table is, of course, class information. You will learn whether you are in the avant-garde or rear guard of your social class, or, preferably, right in step._

 _As for Serious Subjects, dinner-party guests have the latest New Yorker in- depth piece to bring up. People who ordinarily would not spare a moment worrying about the treatment of schizophrenics in mental hospitals, the fate of Great Britain in the Common Market, or the disposal of nuclear wastes suddenly find their consciences orchestrated in unison about these problems, thanks to their favorite periodical—though a month later they have forgotten all about it and are on to something new. The dinner party is a suburban form of entertainment. Its spread in our big cities represents an insidious Fifth Column suburbanization of the metropolis. In the suburbs it becomes necessary to be able to discourse knowledgeably about the heart of the city, but from the viewpoint of a day-shopper. Dinner-party chatter is the communicative equivalent of roaming around shopping malls._

 _[...]_

 _The first to leave breaks the communal spell. There is a sudden rush to the coat closet, the bathroom, the bedroom, as others, under the protection of the first defector 's original sin, quit the Party apologetically. The utopian dream has collapsed: left behind are a few loyalists and insomniacs, swillers of a last cognac. "Don't leave yet," begs the host, knowing what a sense of letdown, pain, and selfrecrimation awaits. Dirty dishes are, if anything, a comfort: the faucet's warm gush serves to stave off the moment of anesthetized stock-taking—Was that really necessary?—in the sobering silence that follows a dinner party._

<comment><USER7> Wow that is pretty spot on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you like this article, the author (Gabrielle Hamilton) has a great book called Blood, Bones and Butter that I highly recommend (though it gets a bit dull at the end).

</comment><comment><USER22> An alternative take: [https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/dinner- parties](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/dinner-parties)

</comment><comment><USER23> Never expected this to pop up on HN!

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't understand... Why are people acting like cooking for your friends and family is a super formal thing?

<comment><USER25> Cooking for your friends and family obviously isn't formal thing at all, but hosting a dinner party is something else. A "Dinner Party" is a specific type of event expected to have a certain theme and structure that makes it different and more formal from just having some people over for dinner. Of course it doesn't have to be super formal, but certainly more formal than having a few mates over for some food and a few beers.

<comment><USER19> I'm curious what you consider the specific attributes that are required to turn "cooking for your friends and family" into "hosting a dinner party."

IMO, they're both variations on communal in-home dining, but I can see how they fall at different ends of a spectrum. Cooking for a large family gathering doesn't feel like a "dinner party;" that's just family dinner. Whereas inviting 10 (relative) strangers to dinner feels like a dinner party.

But then there's a whole gray area in the middle where I'm not sure. For example, I cook family dinner on Sunday for 4-8 family members in the area, and I sometimes invite a neighbor family or a few friends over to join that meal. Does inviting the non-family people turn it into a dinner party?

I don't know. It kind of feels like one. A lot of people who don't know each other well (or at all) and don't normally eat together are sharing a meal, some drinks, some stories. If that's not a "dinner party", what other attributes would need to be present to turn it into a dinner party?

<comment><USER26> A dinner party requires a heaping helping of pretension.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My dinner party pet peeve is hosts (or overly enthusiastic guests) who miss the point of bracketing the wines of the courses with an aperitif and a digestif, and instead bring out one bottle of red wine after the other until late into the night. It's in bad taste and a recipe for getting guests wasted, sick, or both.

</comment><comment><USER7> Why does this author continuously avoid using commas, instead using the "and" effect?

<comment><USER28> It's written in a conversational style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hit back to say: TFA is beautifully written.

<comment><USER30> What is TFA?

<comment><USER31> The {Fine|Featured|F*} Article

<comment><USER32> Or if you're Canadian (of a certain generation), The Fuddle-Duddled Article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't imagine the luxury of living somewhere with a room large enough for a big dinner table to just sit in (and not just vanish instantly because it's the living room and everyone needs the space constantly). Author seems to suggest eight or so people around the same table. Wow. That kind of thing is the preserve of the rich or the elderly, who bought a house when they were cheap. Middle-class dinner parties in someone's house used to be quite common in the UK; now they're a rich people thing. I do know some rich people who have dining rooms; a room just for eating in. It does seem very civilised.

<comment><USER34> My wife and I have seven children. So 9+ around the dinner table is apparently not the preserve of only the rich or the elderly.

<comment><USER35> Feeding and clothing nine children almost certainly requires a family income above median...

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure what the median is, but my wife is a stay at home mom (no income), and I make around $100k. In a typical 2 income household that would average out to the two of us making $50k each.

<comment><USER35> [https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile- calculator-201...](https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile- calculator-2016/) puts that at almost 75%th percentile; i.e. your household is better off than three quarters of Americans. Puts you roughly in the upper middle class.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, but those numbers don't have adjustments for area you live in ($100k is very different in Silicon Valley vs many places in the rural midwest), number of people in the family, etc. I think we would be closer to middle middle class. All of our neighbors are mailmen, receptionists, paramedics, non-profit fundraisers, elementary school teachers, paralegals (though, she got busted on a DUI and is out of work now), etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Legal digital music is commercial suicide  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/michael_robertson_music_models/ <comment><USER2> So how do Itunes and Amazon fit in with this author's viewpoint. To broadly paint all online music stores into one of three categories without once mentioning the largest and most successful certainly casts some doubt on his opinion.

<comment><USER3> I'll give it a try. Due to the ipod, I'm thinking Apple was big enough to dictate its own terms. Some of that applies to amazon besides they get to sell DRM free stuff because the labels hate apple a lot more.

Working as intended. The industry is one big middleman. Does anyone think they'll willingly let in another middleman?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What needs to happen is labels creating a department specifically for startups. Maybe a technology music startup incubator of sorts in each label, that facilitates and promotes new music technologies. Such new tech is the only way the industry will survive!

Right now it seems build an audience and then the industry will talk with you, but it's not about how each can benefit each one another... rather pay X, agree to crazy X or die!

That is so backwards - litigation as a business, maybe good for ambulance chasers, but not for companies promoting the arts!

</comment><comment><USER5> My startup (<http://harmonize.fm>) tried to go the legal route but couldn't find the massive funding necessary to do so. It's sad, since I feel that our service was so simple and useful.

The large up front fees required by the labels ensure that there are very few players in the space, and with that, very little innovation.

</comment><comment><USER6> Emusic has survived for a really long time...</comment>


Charles Bukowski on the Ideal Conditions and Myths of Creativity, Illustrated - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/10/04/charles-bukowski-air-and-light-and-time-and-space/

<comment><USER2> This is great advice, particularly to the sort of people who are always waiting for the "freedom" to pursue whatever it is they're trying to pursue. You have to make your own time, and you have to be persistent as hell. The right time will never present itself. The universe will never press a cosmic pause button on all of your life's distractions and needs.

Consider:

\- Bukowski spent many years trying to get published, failed, developed a severe drinking problem, and took up a progression of itinerant jobs. But he gave writing another shot while lying in a hospital bed, having nearly drunk himself to death. At the time, he was working in a post office.

\- Albert Einstein failed to land a prestigious academic position and took up a day job as an assistant patent examiner. He and his friends pursued scientific projects on nights and weekends.

\- _Harry Potter_ author J.K. Rowling created her famous series as a single, working mother on welfare. She worked out of train stations and coffee shops, often on the verge of homelessness.

\- Actor Jack Nicholson went on over 300 auditions before landing his first significant role.

\- Johnny Depp spent his days as a telemarketer, selling office supplies. He carved out nights and weekends to practice his craft and look for opportunities.

\- Joseph Heller, author of _Catch-22_ , worked at an advertising agency by day. Three hours a night, for eight years straight, he worked on his book before submitting it to a publisher.

Only the very fortunate have the ability to drop everything and pursue their creative dreams. Everyone else has to pay the bills somehow, and carve out the "right time" when and where they can.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is great. It's also why I think "fuck you money" is BS. Just as he says in the poem - you'll create even if you're on welfare.

I hear so many people saying once they get enough money they'll finally have the time for the things they really want to do. Just do it now, you only live once.

<comment><USER4> Poverty is not a hurdle to creativity but it's foolish to say that it doesn't affect the realm of possibilities. You can't build a new rocketship if you are on welfare (Elon Musk). You can't architect buildings if you lack the money to acquire the necessary formal education and certifications. You can't build electronics if you lack the money to own a soldering iron.

Yes, you can do other things, but maybe those other things won't be as fulfilling, as profound, or as meaningful.

Consider that if Newton, Galileo, Michelangelo, or Da Vinci were born into poverty we might never have heard of them.

Certainly many people use the excuse of not having the time or the money to follow their passions, but that doesn't mean it's never a factor.

<comment><USER5> > You can't build a new rocketship if you are on welfare (Elon Musk).

Sure you can, just not it in a single step. Even Elon Musk had to use PayPal as a stepping stone to bankroll his real ambitions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It amuses me when people create a 'sanitized' image of Bukowski. Let's not forget that this is a guy who cheated on his women and beat them, the latter even on video [1].

He was immature to an extreme degree. One of his popular quotes begins:

> _" If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This > could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your > mind..."_

That's not a recipe for happiness, and certainly not sanity. Or anything good at all. I'm not sure it's best to take advice from someone who woke up every morning by vomiting to get over last night's drinking.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0)

<comment><USER7> If we're going to judge people's contributions by personal issues they have, nothing is of use anymore, including your advice.

How can we be sure everyone is "pure" before we consider their creations? Unless we all start living in a magic reality tv show, that is...

<comment><USER6> Normally I'd agree that ad hominem attacks are just that.

But in Bukowski's case, his life _was_ his art. His personal issues _were_ his art.

It's not like he had a few minor issues while he was writing beautiful sonnets about birds, where the issues have no bearing. His writing is about how he cheats on women, how he beat them, how he drank himself sick, basically about how he was just an a * * hole to people. He glorified it (your interpretation may vary as to this, but it is certainly read that way by many people).

Plenty of people appreciate Bukowski's honesty in his writing, but the idea that one should take _advice_ from him... on _anything_... boggles the mind. Before anyone goes defending him, make sure you've read some of his stuff first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> ...if you're in software you're going to create on your little sister's beater of a laptop with the My Little Pony stickers on it.

One of the truly awe-inspiring things about the early hackers is that many of them worked without benefit of a real humming computer in front of them; they programmed with _pencil and paper_ until the opportunity to buy or bargain for a bit of time on The Computer with which to test what they've written came along. It didn't matter, and nothing could stop them. Hackers gonna hack.

<comment><USER9> I'm still using a pencil and paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Obligatory. I'm guessing this is from mid-80's:

[http://allpoetry.com/poem/8509517-16-bit-Intel-8088-chip- by-...](http://allpoetry.com/poem/8509517-16-bit-Intel-8088-chip-by- Charles_Bukowski)

</comment><comment><USER11> Silicon Valley is a culture that celebrates extremes. Extreme ideas, extreme hours, extreme success, extreme failure. People do a ton of everything or a lot of nothing, but something is being done. The point Bukowski always made was to be doing "it", what ever "it" is. Because if you are indeed doing "it", then "it" is a extreme act.

</comment><comment><USER12> there is a donation link on this page, but the content is stolen from www.zenpencil.com very blatantly.

<comment><USER13> At least it has a text only version? Who wants to read a poem in a comic. (but yeah, I agree, hosting the whole comic...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> He was pretty into computers at the time —

[http://realitystudio.org/bibliographic-bunker/charles- bukows...](http://realitystudio.org/bibliographic-bunker/charles-bukowski- william-burroughs-and-the-computer/)

</comment><comment><USER9> The same goes for software design as far as I can tell. But no amount of effort can make up for a deep well of imagination.

</comment><comment><USER14> Once, I saved up and bought myself a long sabbatical. It was the most productive time of my life.</comment>