Violin duel draw between Stradivarius, new violin - <AUTHOR> http://agnewsarchive.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/BICH/Sep2203a.htm

<comment><USER2> I think I heard this guy interviewed on the Nature podcast last year, when his Nature paper came out (warning, PDF link):

<http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/Nagyvary_Nature_Page.pdf>

He was great. His contention is that the key to the unique sound of the Strads and other great violins of that era is the treatment of the wood, which the makers did to preserve it better.

Apparently the heirs lost the recipe, replaced it with something else, then spent nearly 300 years lost and wandering in Violin Phase Space trying to figure out where they went wrong. Those of us who have worked in semiconductor manufacturing recognize this problem all too well. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Unless Karvay didn't know which instrument he's playing, the performance is an interesting PR piece, but not much beyond that.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. At least a selection of different musicians could have been chosen. What we have proved is that ONE GUY plays a new violin as well as he plays the stradivarius.

Every violin has a "personality" and as you live it and love it, you become tuned to how to produce the best from it.

Is there a space containing extra greatness in the Strad that simply cannot be reached, even by a good player, who has not played the thing for years and years and discovered all of its personality?</comment></comment>


President Obama - Will Seek Approval of Congress for Attacking Syria - <AUTHOR> http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-syria

<comment><USER2> My take on that - he has decided on inaction but needs the congress to save him from his "chemical weapons are a red line" remark from an year ago.

I am not sure if there is any salvage of the Middle East situation right now - there are generational grudges and hatreds to unfold there. I don't think that there are good moves on that board. The pessimist in me just wonders whether the firewall should be on Bulgaria/Greece border or on the Bosphorus.

Disclaimer - I live in Bulgaria for now.

</comment><comment><USER3> This man had never deserved Nobel Peace, never.

Worst decision of committee till date after deciding not to give it to MK Gandhi.

</comment><comment><USER4> The more moralistic and self-righteous the justification for war, the more likely it is to be a dishonest reason...

</comment><comment><USER5> Sort of off topic, but I have never seen streaming video with such a high resolution and framerate. How the hell are they doing this.

<comment><USER6> Is it possible that Youtube provides the backbone infrastructure?

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Disappointment, thy name is Obama.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just concluded. Missed it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Title updated to reflect the major takeaway.

Obama said that he and his various advisors feel that Syria must be attacked in response to their usage of chemical weapons. He specified that there would be no infantry sent to Syria, just a long distance strike of "limited duration and scope". Congress will hold a vote on whether or not to approve the attack. The President has the authority to order the strike, with or without the approval of Congress.

*edit: see reply

<comment><USER9> He didn't say he needed congress to approve, just that he was going to have congress vote. He also emphasized that he does have the authority to strike without congress's approval.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you're right. I'll update my comment</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Personality Tests – Using Pop Science to Build the Perfect Workforce - <AUTHOR> https://thewalrus.ca/the-trouble-with-using-personality-tests-for-hiring/ <comment><USER2> I took one of those this weekend for a dev position, along with what felt like an old MENSA test. Answered honestly, but still haven't heard back from them.

After reading this, I suspect I probably won't hear from them in the future, and while disappointed, it still amuses me.</comment>


Bringing Native Performance to Electron - <AUTHOR> https://blog.realm.io/native-performance-electron-realm/ <comment><USER2> Nice! Went to a talk about this last week - this post outlines a fairly solid approach to syncing application state in a multi-window Electron app if you have a lot of data. I haven't used Realm, but we built something similar on top of SQLite for Nylas Mail / Mailspring: [https://github.com/bengotow/electron- RxDB](https://github.com/bengotow/electron-RxDB).</comment>


Noah Kagan/Appsumo Exploits Death of Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.launch.is/blog/extremely-poor-taste-appsumo-uses-steve-jobs-in-subject-line.html

<comment><USER2> This post is in such poor taste. The title of this post is clearly link bait and is doing more harm than the mistake that appsumo made. When app sumo realized their mistake, they sent a follow up email apologizing for what they did and explaining the situation.

Shame on Jason for using Steve Jobs name in this title to further exploit the unfortunate mistake that appsumo made.</comment>


Should we release a free developer version of Ottemo, our ecommerce platform? - <AUTHOR> We have spent 3 years building out our ecommerce platform and are successfully selling into the mid-market space where we charge enterprise prices.
We just finished a round of performance and scalability tests where we can support up to 500 concurrent shoppers on 2 T2.small instances and easily handle 100 concurrent shoppers on the free tier using a single T2.micro instance.
This has us thinking of trying to break into the SMB Market where Shopify and Big Commerce dominate.  We know we cannot compete with their marketing budgets so we are contemplating releasing a free developer version limited to use of only SQLite for the database, (we support mongodb, mysql or postgresql in production) and pulling out some of our more enterprise-like integrations.  Ottemo is built in golang for the API server and our current stores are built in AngularJS 1.x
We would provide binaries of our API server which will include SQLite and Open Source our demo store code to allow customization and creation of themes.
Will this dilute our value to our mid-market customers paying enterprise prices?  Will this block potential investment from VCs if we expand down market into the SMB space with a free version? <comment><USER2> As a developer, I'm always very wary of adopting any technology that would lock me in to a platform. This sounds like lock-in to me, since there is a binary involved, and limitations around size of data. I think your appeal needs to be on the business side where decision-makers are can see your freemium product as a short-term win, and maybe convert to paying customer if it works for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you help me understand what you mean by vendor lock-in and how it is different from say, developing a plugin for Wordpress vs a plugin for Ghost? Aren't you still choosing a platform?

Or do you mean technology lock-in, because we built our API server in golang?

For the Store, we provide a reference implementation that is open source in AngularJS 1.x, but the store could be implemented in any JS framework. We have contemplated building a competing reference implementation in ReactJS, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know much about your industry specifically, but I can say that developing software that integrates with third party services is a challenge when you _don 't_ have a test version of their architecture.

<comment><AUTHOR> Understood.

To ease this concern we are hoping to ship binary pkgs for Ottemo once we have tested this in the post golang 1.7 timeframe. This would allow access to developers wanting to build add-ons in golang and allow us to keep our source code private.

Link to Cox proposal for 1.7: [https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/2775-b...](https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/2775-binary- only-packages.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My random advice from the internet:

1\. Talk to your customers.

2\. Iterate based on their feedback.

3\. Don't intensionally make something kinda' suck.

Good luck.</comment>


Call me maybe: RabbitMQ - <AUTHOR> https://aphyr.com/posts/315-call-me-maybe-rabbitmq

<comment><USER2> Previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7863856](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7863856)

</comment><comment><USER3> > I'd like to conclude by mentioning that RabbitMQ does documentation right. > Most of the distributed systems I research say nothing about failure > modes–but Rabbit's docs have an entire section devoted to partition > tolerance, reliable delivery, and truly comprehensive descriptions of the > various failure modes in the API and distribution layer. I wish more > distributed systems shared Rabbit's integrity and attention to detail.

I would love to see someone build out a system using RabbitMQ's suggestions and see how resilient it is.

<comment><USER4> I was running a cluster of 3 RabbitMQ servers on 3 servers, all in the same data center, but different racks The page [https://www.rabbitmq.com/clustering.html](https://www.rabbitmq.com/clustering.html) highlights that "RabbitMQ clustering does not tolerate network partitions well". Very true, I had this problem too often. The error recovering is manual and a nightmare. I didn't try the shovel or federation plugins as suggested. Because my needs for queuing were very simple, I decided to build a queue on top of Redis (cluster of 3 servers with redis-sentinel).</comment></comment>


HTML5 "not ready" until 2022? Same site claims it's already changing the web - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/How_HTML_5_Is_Already_Changing_the_Web

<comment><USER2> The 2022 date has been widely misunderstood. HTML5 is scheduled to reach "last call working draft" in October 2009 - that is one year from now. No substantial change to the spec is expected to happen after this. This may actually be an optimistic timline considering the size of of the HTML5 spec.

However, HTML5 is going to go where no W3C spec has gone before: They want to create extensive test suites for all parts of the spec. This is going to be a large undertaking becuse the spec is large and defines a lot of things which is left undefined in earlier specs - e.g. error handling in HTML parsing, which is undefined in HTML4 but is defined in detail in HTML5.

The 2022 date is when it is expected that two complete and interoperable implementations of the spec will exist. This date is of course pure guesswork - when/if this will be achieved depends on the browser developers, not the WHATWG. It may be optimistic to hope that it will ever happen. As far as I know there is not _one_ complete implementation of either HTML4 or CSS2 a decade after the finalization of the specs - much less _two_ completely interoperable implementations.</comment>


At the RSA Security Conference, Things Get Testy - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/at-the-rsa-security-conference-things-get-testy-and-then-they-get-awkward/ <comment><USER2> _Around San Francisco this week, some were seen sporting Electronic Frontier Foundation T-shirts featuring a retooled N.S.A. logo with an eagle using its talons to plug into the American telecom network, symbolized by AT &T. Asked about the T-shirts, one AT&T executive, who asked not to be named, said they had a chilling effect.

"There are many of us at AT&T who are disturbed by what we've been hearing about the N.S.A.," this person said. "But when you see that," he said, pointing to the T-shirts, "a conversation becomes impossible."_

\----

The conversation became impossible when your company decided to willingly give up everything and anything about its customers for a fee. Were it not for customer apathy, I'd like to think your entire shitty company would have been fucked out of existence by now for what they continue to do. But not really, because your company probably would have just been given a bailout for failing at everything but sucking government dick.

Fuck you nameless executive. I wish I could request anonymity as easily as you can. Your shitty company brought this upon itself and there is nothing to discuss until it stops being the NSA's bitch.

<comment><USER3> This is the first thing that crossed my mind. Ten years ago we could have had a conversation. AT&T _and_ NSA decided we shouldn't. What exactly is it to talk about now?

Also, no matter how much we dislike such arguments, there's no such thing as "many of us at AT&T were disturbed by what we've been hearing about the NSA". The people who work for AT&T _are AT &T_. They all share the burden of what AT&T did.

This isn't some insensitive, extremist whining. I know, from personal experience, how hard it is to reflect on the ethics of the bigger picture you fit in. I'm not insinuating we should now start lynching AT&T employees, since we can't get at the bigger fish. However, a lot of employees who are disgruntled at the social and ethical behaviour of their company actually have an option to leave; this would be a correct approach, not complaining about not being able to talk to bystanders.

"Collective" responsibility is, by no means, absolving of personal responsibility. Even AT&T imply it on their careers page:

> At AT&T, we're connecting the world like never before. Ready to get in on > the action? Together we'll do great things.

<comment><USER4> An AT&T staffer giving me a data center tour circa 2006 told me only one of the VPs knew who the client was for one of the areas in the room. What is a staffer going to do to influence that kind of situation?

<comment><USER3> Switch jobs. AT&T wouldn't be a top partner for the NSA without competent people.

This isn't an option for a lot of people; the folks doing tech support or working in the shops and barely get along on minimum wage don't have that option. The decision makers and tech leads do.

I'm not talking out of my ass. I have resigned from a very well-paid position because of ethical reasons, and there was far, far less at stake than general privacy matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The organizers of a rival conference, called TrustyCon, which was organized > following revelations that RSA had been paid by the N.S.A., said they had > spent much of the past weekend persuading executives from the Metreon — > another big, downtown center next to the Moscone — not to kick them out of > their conference space. The Metreon was set to house the TrustyCon > conference on Thursday but Metreon's management began to grow concerned > after they received calls from RSA's conference organizers.

> The RSA organizers warned the Metreon that TrustyCon attendees were > arranging a huge boycott on their premises. In the end, the TrustyCon > conference was able to proceed Thursday without a hitch.

So RSA tried to suppress free speech (which is what TrustyCon amounts to) by planting FUD to kill a business deal (the contract with TrustyCon's venue).

Your security dollars at work.

<comment><USER6> This is not suppression of free speech (that's a very loaded term). If it was, we never would have heard about this incident in the first place.

<comment><USER5> "tried to"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Restore the Fourth SF participated in the protests with several other organizations.

We don't know who the other participants in BULLRUN are. We don't know if companies or standards bodies are compromised from the top down like RSA or the bottom up through subverted employees.

It was important to protest RSA because imposing a cost on RSA provides an incentive to companies to resist BULLRUN through stronger internal security and extracting a higher price for C-Level cooperation.

\- RSA security tried to force some of our members off the public sidewalk. ([https://restorethefourthsf.com/rsa-thinks-as-little-of- the-f...](https://restorethefourthsf.com/rsa-thinks-as-little-of-the-first- amendment-as-they-do-of-the-fourth-amendment/))

\- Most of our volunteers had positive interactions with conference attendees([https://restorethefourthsf.com/the-rsa-conference- protestvol...](https://restorethefourthsf.com/the-rsa-conference- protestvolunteer-experiences/))

There were some lovely photos of the event from the independent press.

[https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ari/tags/rsac/](https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ari/tags/rsac/)

<comment><USER5> > imposing a cost on RSA provides an incentive

Exactly. And that's the potential effectiveness of boycotting US businesses, and infrastructure like undersea cables. Of course the NSA can get at data almost anywhere in the world. You can't stop their technical ability.

But you can hurt US business by not using them. If that loses US business serious money, then the "heavily lobbied" Congress will change the NSA. Harumphs will be heard throughout the halls of Congress.

<comment><USER7> Simply raising awareness and suspicion of the American government's attempt to subvert the security features of US products is step in the right direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the > House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that he would spend much > of the week meeting with venture capitalists and young entrepreneurs to try > to rebuild Silicon Valley's trust in the intelligence community._

How? By lying to them some more? I haven't seen one truth spoken by Mike Rogers about NSA so far. And they thought he's the perfect guy to rebuild trust with Silicon Valley? Do they imagine that if he's the guy that lies the most about NSA, that also means Silicon Valley will buy it?

> _Thursday but Metreon's management began to grow concerned after they > received calls from RSA's conference organizers._

I don't get it. Why would they care what RSA thinks? Unless they got some calls from some Congressmen/NSA, too?

> _As one put it, "If you're not here, you're shutting yourself out of the > conversation, which helps nobody."_

To backdoor or not to backdoor. Yeah, that's some conversation. So from all the people who said that, and went to RSA, did they actually "have that conversation"? Or did they just sit quietly in their chairs and waited to be spoonfed some more lies? Something tells me most of those didn't even care if they put a backdoor. They're just there to get more business.

From what I hear, RSA didn't even bother to alleviate concerns about their backdoor. Probably because trying to do that would mean admitting to it, and that's rather keep people confused. This way they may get to keep some fans.

> _"There are many of us at AT &T who are disturbed by what we've been hearing > about the N.S.A.," this person said. "But when you see that," he said, > pointing to the T-shirts, "a conversation becomes impossible."_

Poor AT&T. People are so unfair to them. I mean so what they let NSA tap into their cables and gave them whatever data they wanted? That doesn't mean people should be mean to them by wearing T-shirts describing exactly what they did. It reminds me of GEMA complaining about Youtube telling its viewers that the videos were taken down by GEMA.

<comment><USER9> Both of those quotations refer to "conversation", apparently in an attempt to frame the public discussion in terms of being shut out by the privacy advocates. Where was this "conversation" when the backdoors and exploits were being developed? A victim of a privacy violation doesn't want a "conversation" with the perpetrator -- they want the violation to stop and the perpetrator prosecuted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The market will solve the problem as it always does. Customers the world over will cease relying on American software and data services, which will cause enough pain in the U.S. that pressure will finally be brought to bear on Congress to act, and the surveillance will be reined in, albeit probably too little too late to lure back much of the business.

Ultimately, we'll have a more dispersed and diversified industry with more infrastructure and offices in places that are beyond the reach of government spies. New cryptographic techniques will help protect data, and there will be a new transparency among companies that guarantee data privacy: they'll need to prove it to increasingly skeptical customers.

The internet will map around this problem as it always has.

<comment><USER11> This is the correct answer.

People have made fun of the first steps: the undersea cable that avoids the US, for example. Yeah, yeah, we have multi-billion-dollar titanium submarines to tap that. It's not the first such cable that's significant. It's when the cables to the US don't get replaced it will start to sting.

But the real break with the US will happen when you can buy telecom infrastructure and enterprise gear that runs buildable open source software, and when Internet portals start offering secure-by-default communications products like Tox for their customers (or customers adopt such products with or without support from their service providers).

<comment><AUTHOR> An economist would like this answer, but I would like to think a little document called the Constitution could also -- eventually -- put a stop to things.

<comment><USER11> The US government and people seem to be capable of deluding themselves that they are world-class in a wide range of endeavors where they actually rank below relatively poor, relatively new republics like Lithuania.

The technology industry, despite being far larger, has been led by the nose by a corrupt old-school rent-seeking content publishing industry. What chance do you give it against the Security State and the revenue gravy train behind it. Nobody fought back. Are there any YC startups making secure services for end- users?

As for the Constitution? That's been sidelined. Only the naive think it still offers any protection. There will be no meaningful change until collapse and/or insurrection break the current system. At best we might swerve at the brink.

<comment><USER12> " _As for the Constitution? That 's been sidelined._"

Mostly agree ... but in your native Illinois, they just mailed the first 5,000 shall issue concealed carry licenses: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi- illino...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-illinois- first-concealed-carry-licenses-in-the-mail-5000-of- them-20140228,0,696877.story)

That's because the Supremes finally got past the post-Civil War keep guns from blacks and other official undesirables (like your non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant parents, although that burst of gun control was back around the turn of the previous century vs. none I know of post-WWII till the '60s), took the 2nd Amendment seriously (e.g. 9-0 an individual right), and then applied the 14th Amendment to it. And then a 7th Circuit Court panel led by a judge who dislikes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but who's honest, enforced shall issue on the whole state.

Same thing's happening right now in California ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego)), and San Diego and Orange Counties have surrendered. No doubt San Francisco and other counties will engage in Massive Resistance, but the Supremes seem to be supremely disinterested in the subject, or at least they've denied cert in 2 of the 4 possible Circuits that went the other way, with the New Jersey and Massachusetts cases still in progress. We'll see.

" _There will be no meaningful change until collapse and /or insurrection break the current system. At best we might swerve at the brink._"

I'm certainly hoping for the latter, but in the meanwhile, we're getting _really_ well armed for the former two, as you note not mutually exclusive, options. Hard to see how things won't get ugly when the Feds can no longer borrow money at negative real interest rates or thereabouts or debase the dollar so much it doesn't matter.

<comment><USER11> Don't underestimate the possibility, and the horror, of just muddling through. The US is in an oil boom, which would feel like an actual boom if it wasn't propping up an economy that was really very badly damaged by the 2008 bust. That means we can pay down the wars without learning that we're on track to get dragged down by a bloated security state. Heck, we managed to spend ten years in the Graveyard of Empires and all we learned were some cheesy anecdotes in a fraudulent book about tea drinking. And that generals shouldn't date their hagiographers.

<comment><USER12> " _Don 't underestimate the possibility, and the horror, of just muddling through._"

Indeed, and I don't, for that's the worst case I'm likely to survive for medical reasons. I label it "Argentina".

I do think you obsess a bit too much on the costs of our 21st Century foreign adventures. To take FY 2007 as an example,simply because Wikipedia provides some details and the Iraq war was hot, that was famously the year of the "surge": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_bud...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget), the total Defense and Iraq and Iran war costs were less than Social Security + Medicare ... which can't get "turned off" like these, and which are going to rise dramatically as the Baby Boomers continue to retire.

Near the end of that fiscal year the CBO _" estimated that "war-related defense activities" in 2007 were "roughly $115 billion."_ (Or call it 230 Solyndras.) You have more than a passing familiarly with WWII and the Cold War, and their costs. We aren't talking about Maximum Efforts like the former where, I just randomly looked up yesterday, we peaked at building a B-24 Liberator heavy bomber every hour, 650 per month (curiously close the total number of all airplanes Imperial Japan could make in a month), and 18,482 total units (" _it still holds the distinction as the most-produced American military aircraft._ ")

The "surge" itself wasn't that big in historical terms (although this is more expensive volunteer army), 18,400 troops in 5 Army brigades, 4,000 Marines had their stays extended, etc., evidently 28,000 "additional troops" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#O...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#Operations)).

Unless the CBO was smoking something powerful, this wasn't a budget buster; not a small cost, but I can't see how you can reasonably claim it's a proportionally bankrupting cost, unless everything I've heard from secondary or worse sources is wrong, plus what I just looked up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Colbert at least ended it in reasonable style...

part 1 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7gGtVScrQo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7gGtVScrQo)

part 2 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QH4d4qNOQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QH4d4qNOQ)

 _" I'm sure that under enhanced liberty you can have all the privacy that you want, just like under enhanced interrogation you can breathe all the water you want."_

</comment><comment><USER14> "When or if the N.S.A. blurs the lines between its defensive and intelligence- gathering roles, and exploits its position of trust within the security community, then that's a problem."

That's Arthur W. Coviello Jr, RSA's Executive Chairman, who is not doing himself or his company any favors. Seriously, "IF"?! Who does he think he's trying to fool?

</comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone else see the irony in a politician saying "If you have two different agencies, it becomes a bureaucracy," Mr. Rogers added. "I think that would be a mistake."?

I think he needs to understand a few things from the constituent's perspective:

1) The government is already too much of a bureaucracy.

2) The NSA is also a bureaucracy ... and doesn't have enough oversight/transparency as it is.

3) He's not really in a position to say what's right since he's part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's over, isn't it? Let's just be honest with ourselves for a moment - privacy is dead. The steps one would have to take in order to remain anonymous today are on the level of complete and utter self-ostracization. Not even hyperbolically, not even metaphorically, _literally_ every significant thing a person does each and every day is determinable through the analysis of data that gets generated by said act.

It's too late, we can't unwind this clock. So what now? I feel like everyone's trying to unbreak the glass, unring the bell, whatever metaphor you'd like, but no one's trying to think of how to live in this world.

What does a person do, when everything there is to do leaves a trace, and the rules for what is and isn't acceptable behavior are constantly in wild flux?

<comment><USER17> We fight at the only ground it ever mattered: Politics!!!

We put _privacy_ on the forefront of the agendas of our MPs. We become more _active_ in the _democratic process_ than before.

Fighting organizations with larger amount of money that _we_ will ever have, was always a dead end. You can't fight _fire with fire_. If you create a new powerful encryption tool, you're starting an decryption race from Americans, Chinese, Russians and who-ever-has the power to pursuit it. If they can't break it, they will try to bend it, etc.

So the only thing that was ever going to work, is to held them accountable. Make Keith Alexander and the others who made unwarranted mass surveillance possible, accountable. Press towards that direction.

Snowden gave a huge leap towards that direction to the masses. He managed to stir discussion to topics that were never discussed before.

All we need to do is let our MPs know that privacy matters, for our own good.

And by "we" I mean the entire technology community. Fighting for privacy on the front of politics is the only meaningful way.

And once again, only through education people can reach enlightenment.

<comment><USER16> Politics is the answer I expected and the answer I fully, completely, and entirely reject.

The EFF, IDL, and other technology advocacy groups are _terrible_ at getting legislation passed in the US. Just plain awful. The _only_ thing they can do effectively is say no.

This is exactly the kind of response I'm talking about when I say, "unring the bell". Our lives are out there, already. You, me, anyone with a Facebook account, an email address, a cell phone - we're exposed, and the options before us are to either eschew all technology entirely, or to figure out how to live without privacy.

The ability to track the movements and activities of everyone in the world is the kind of tool that sits on the same level as nuclear weapons, as jet engines, as automatic weapons. We're never going to experience a world where systemic and universal surveillance is not happening again.

The question I think we should start asking ourselves is, how do we live in this world?

<comment><USER17> EFF and IDL are terrible because they don't have money to lobby, neither do you (I assume) and the industry that does, want's possibly even less privacy (Faceboo, Google, Twitter, FourSquare, etc).

The thing is that I don't want to erase or use a fake name in my StackOverflow or Twitter account. I know perfectly well that at any time my data could be exploited by a third party.

That's why I'm saying that the only way to get over this, is to make large part of the population _aware of the issue_.

And the more people use the internet the easier will become.

You can reject it, but in a democratic country that's the way things work: Politicians want (and sell themselves easily) for more votes. Exchange your vote for privacy, the administration might want to control our lives using espionage, but if MPs don't get votes they can't support the administration and I believe they will turn their back to the administration way more easily if they know that they will gain more votes (more _raw power_ ).

So all you have to do, is put the issue high on the agenda, nothing more. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not impossible either.

Once an NSA executive goes in jail for mis-conduction will have set a precedent. Same thing will happen in Germany, etc. Then you can say that you are _relatively safer_ because everyone who is going to exploit our data, could face prison. And that's not an entertaining thought, especially for politicians and executives.

<comment><USER18> Although I agree completely with your recommended course of action, and indeed your sentiment, I find it frightening to see our reliance on the emergent properties of democratic process so bluntly demonstrated.

We _don 't really know_ how to live in this society yet! No one has a definite solution, but greater public awareness will definitely accelerate the outcome, whether it be a solution for the general populous, or a "solution" for those in power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > American officials were quick to rebut the idea that foreign data would be > more secure outside American borders. "There's a big call for data > localization," said Richard A. Clarke, the former United States > counterterrorism czar. He pointed to the announcement this week between the > European Union and Brazil that they would run a new undersea fiber-optic > cable between Brazil and Portugal to thwart American spying.

> "First of all, who doesn't think the U.S. can't listen in?" Mr. Clarke said. > "Could it possibly be that these countries are trying to take business away > from U.S. carriers?"

Anyone want to try and parse the double-negatives here? "who doesn't think the U.S. can't listen in?"

So he's saying, "It's not worth building your own networks, because we'll just tap those too?" Is that the official US government position now?

<comment><USER20> I guess that would technically mean "Who thinks the US can listen in?", which would mean that he's attempting to downplay the possibility that the US tapping things is a relevant concern, and all these international competitors are just using the NSA as a convenient scapegoat, to drum up business.

Which actually makes sense when you consider that he's part of the machine, and just toeing the party line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems like the conversation on HN in general oscillates back and forth about fighting fire with fire and not acknowledging there can be many ways to put out a fire...

People upset about the corporate-governmental surveillance state ever-present _globally_ want those in power to change without changing their own collective behaviors seems to crowd out any discussion about other ideas that probably would be eaiser/more effective to implement by taking advantage of such realities and less focus on imposing crypto fantasies that go against the flow of current collective human behavior...

Here's an idea seldom mentioned here: have you thought about removing the oxygen that enables the fire to burn?

</comment><comment><USER5> > Around San Francisco this week, some were seen sporting Electronic Frontier > Foundation T-shirts featuring a retooled N.S.A. logo with an eagle using its > talons to plug into the American telecom network, symbolized by AT&T. Asked > about the T-shirts, one AT&T executive, who asked not to be named, said they > had a chilling effect.

> "There are many of us at AT&T who are disturbed by what we've been hearing > about the N.S.A.," this person said. "But when you see that," he said, > pointing to the T-shirts, "a conversation becomes impossible."

When you see Person C over there wearing a Tshirt, it makes an easy excuse not to have a conversation with Person B who has nothing to do with the Tshirt.

</comment><comment><USER22> I seriously hope that this whole episode blows up in the form of an implosion of RSA's top line.

That's the only message that will resonate with other NSA conspirateurs and make them think again.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Let's have a conversation"

Keith Alexanders talking points seem to be working just perfectly. Business as usual.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> >German executives and intelligence officials called Mr. Snowden a hero and said his disclosures had been a boon for business, as N.S.A. suspicions prompted global companies to look for alternatives to American products and services.

I found this tidbit interesting -- the idea that setting aside legalities and popular opinion, NSA policies are having a real (negative) effect on american tech companies.

</comment><comment><USER24> The RSA brand is now irredeemably toxic. End of story.</comment>


Stackoverflow podcast recipe - <AUTHOR> http://unhandled-exceptions.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/13/why-i-dont-listen-to-the-stackoverflow-podcast-any-more/

<comment><USER2> I don't think Jeff or Joel proclaim the SO to be a hardcore in depth learning session, I see it as primarily entertainment about technology and quite enjoy listening to it, much like a normal person watches a TV show.

And as for the example of unit testing, it is refreshing to see successful programmers question the gospel of the unit testing crowd...judging by the writings from that community, something like SO would be virtually impossible without serious unit tests or TDD, because as you know, projects are just absolute chaos without massive unit tests in place.

<comment><USER3> Not to mention the fact that at least one of the criticisms in the article is a total strawman. Joel never said that unit testing is absurd; he said that _100% coverage_ (and to a slightly lesser extent, unit testing of criteria where tests can not be sufficiently automated (like GUI layouts)) are a waste of time, and that resources could be allocated much more efficiently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well given that they try to stick to a particular format it would make sense that shows follow the same sort of flow. I've been listening to the podcasts since the beginning and have found it very enjoyable. I think that just listening to a discussion on software engineering topics is good for you. You can decide whether or not you agree with whatever is being said. It's not like anyone has software engineering all figured out anyway so you're going to have to deal with opinions that you don't agree with anyway.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm sorry, but is there criticism of the podcast here besides the authors obvious revulsion at Jeff & Joel's off-handed rejection of TDD?

I mean, don't get me wrong. There are many issues where I disagree with them, but that doesn't affect my judgement of the podcast. As others have said, I find them entertaining. I don't think I've learned anything about programming from them, and I'm not a Stack Overflow user myself, but the entertainment value is there.

So why is their constant harping on TDD a reason not to listen? If there's anything in programming that resembles religion, I think TDD has the whole "Emacs vs Vi" beaten by a mile.

</comment><comment><USER6> The show was more informative (and more interesting imo) when they were still heavily developing the site. I would imagine now that the codebase is in maitenance mode, and as a result there is just less to talk about on the podcast, regarding the development of the site. I still listen to it weekly, even though i dont find the podcast as "nutritious" as it once was.</comment>


Show HN: Rails based Asset Manager for business environments - <AUTHOR>

I started work on this Asset Manager as my first ever Ruby on Rails project at my first job. I've spent the past couple of months refining it and making it business agnostic and now it's ready to show off fully. Happy to take advice and answer questions.
Demo environment http://ryanmacg.com/
Source code https://github.com/RyanMacG/Asset-Manager <comment><USER2> You really need to explain what this is on the homepage. Why I would want to use it.

You should also ensure, you have permission to release this code.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll add some information on the homepage. I made sure I was clear to release this before I left the company I made it at

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Should have said while it does ask for an email during signup it doesn't require any activation and will work so long as the email address is in a valid format</comment>


Datto Acquires Backupify - <AUTHOR> http://blog.backupify.com/2014/12/11/protecting-data-layer-datto-acquires-backupify

<comment><USER2> yes, that's great news. I believe this acquisition will help Datto make even stronger and improve Backupify services to great extent.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some new technologies to learn for Mobile Engineering in 2019? - <AUTHOR> Agnostic of Android or iOS, what are some important technologies that you would recommend learning from a pure mobile standpoint? To be clear, I'm not looking for "you should learn backend development"..I'm specifically looking for areas of improvement in Mobile Engineering.<p>Some examples I can think of are frameworks like Flutter, Progressive Web Apps, and Augmented Reality. <comment><USER2> Coming from someone who mostly works on web projects, I am not a huge fan of Flutter or React Native. While they are suitable for simple projects, I think the real value in a mobile engineer is extensive knowledge of the features offered by native platforms. Libraries like those I mentioned remind me of Bootstrap, where there was a period where so many websites were so obviously built with it.

That said, I think progressive web apps have a lot of potential if the native platforms continue to embrace them and expose native functionality.

\--

Now, actually on point with your question, one tool that I fell in love with while learning mobile application development was Fastlane: [https://fastlane.tools/](https://fastlane.tools/) I'd recommend any mobile developer check it out, especially if you have a small team and aren't particularly experienced with distributing applications through mobile app stores.</comment>


Over 100M US political donations interactively visualized - <AUTHOR> https://www.mapd.com/blog/2016/11/01/follow-the-money-political-donations-in-america/ <comment><AUTHOR> Actual demo link is here: [https://www.mapd.com/demos/political- donations](https://www.mapd.com/demos/political-donations)</comment>


Ask HN: How are you overcoming obstacles isolating parents? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I call them daily, I try to build this into my routine around cooking a meal for myself or winding down for the evening. No real need for a purpose but they know "I'm there." I'm currently self-isolating alone so everyone is happy.

</comment><comment><USER3> My parents are distant, so they're basically on their own.

My father has a history of irresponsibility, so I'm prepared to the worst outcome.

There's not much I can do.</comment>


Why a Universal Basic Income Would Be a Calamity - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-universal-basic-income-would-be-a-calamity-1502403580 <comment><USER2> Though I don't agree with all of it, the article makes some valid points on the social problems that may erupt from UBI.

I suspect that reason UBI has the following it does today is because it's socialism dressed in a funny mask. "Hey, no socialism here! Private industry still does everything! The money to pay for it all just happens to come from large taxes on the super rich". The left like it because it's socialism, the right like it because the government doesn't do very much at all except distribute the wealth.

I tend to argue instead for actual socialism over UBI. Socialized health care, public education, infrastructure, etc. Once you stop presuming the government _can 't_ do anything well, you start to see real possibilities.

(Bias: Canadian, enjoying my relatively efficient and effective health care system and public education)

<comment><USER3> "I tend to argue instead for actual socialism over UBI. Socialized health care, public education, infrastructure, etc."

That's not socialism, at all. That's social democracy.

As someone who comes from a country that has actually been ravaged by socialism, there's a world of a difference between the two.

<comment><USER4> > _As someone who comes from a country that has actually been ravaged by > socialism, there 's a world of a difference between the two._

Those countries have been ravaged by being run by totalitarian parties that followed a specific Stalinist model

Not by anything specific in socialism itself. Social democracy is still a form of socialism, and until around the first world war there were one and the same (including being championed by the same people).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article doesn't give me any convincing arguments against UBI.

The author uses Saudi Arabia as an example as a country with UBI that works badly. First of all, I have no intimate with if there is any implementation. The author does not provide any sources, so that's not much help. A cursory Google search leads me to doubt this claim [1]. The author claims >50% unemployment in the country, again doubtful [2].

Then, the article states that proponents of a UBI claim that it allows people to self-improve and take risks, equating this with a transition from a low skilled worker to a high skilled one, which seems a far stretch. Of course automation removes low skilled jobs; but more training does not automagically turn everyone into PhDs with un-automateable jobs.

Then there are even more wild claims about it leading to a demise of the American democracy, where I don't even begin to see how the author came up with it.

1: [https://www.quora.com/Is-Saudi-Arabia-an-implementation- of-b...](https://www.quora.com/Is-Saudi-Arabia-an-implementation-of-basic- income)

2: [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/saudi-arabia- unemploym...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/saudi-arabia-unemployment- rate-climbs-127-percent-170730163025234.html)

<comment><USER6> > The article doesn't give me any convincing arguments against UBI.

I'd love to ask the author how a guaranteed income would change his life. Would he stop writing? Does he only write for the money?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Using Saudi Arabia as an argument against UBI is like using Somalia as an argument against libertarianism -- oil money or lack of government oversight are not the problems there.

<comment><USER8> The article is a bit disingenuous because saudi arabia's population increased from 5 million in 1967 to nearly 35 million today.

It's a 600% increase compared to the US's 50% increase in the same time frame.

It's the same kind of dishonest cherrypicking of data to push your agenda. No different than when people try to compare norway to the US. What applies to a small racially homogenous scandinavian with tons of oil doesn't usually apply to a racially diverse continent sized nation like the US.

This is why my opinion on economics and newspapers have declined. Too much biased cherrypicking of data and too much agenda-pushing.

<comment><USER9> The status quo is that we don't have basic income. On the agenda is the proposal that we do. A critique of a novel proposition is agenda-pushing?

<comment><USER8> > A critique of a novel proposition is agenda-pushing?

Yes? Especially when it disingenuous and cherrypicking data. As I said, people with an agenda tend to do this. Whether it is the people on the left trying to compare us to norway or the people on the right trying to compare us to saudi arabia.

<comment><USER10> name calling is disenginious, too. Everyone has an agenda. People with a "wrong" agenda tend to use wrong methods to push it. But you imply malignance of a particular flavor without giving concrete evidence for the cause ... or giving due critique (edit: wait, there is critique, just not concerned with the conclusion). Granted, to claim low quality of content, none of that's needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Right to vote was disconnected from financial contribution in the western countries quite explicitly by the implementation of general suffrage roughly a century ago, where it usually replaced capital, class and gender based limitations. It would be quite a political throwback to reverse on this. Granted, the political shift was in part to pacify and commit critical industrial workers to the established financial order, but was driven in part by the general humanistic spirit.

</comment><comment><USER12> \- Money already rules politics and we have to fight for true democracy either way

\- Most people are not egomanic workaholic persuing their carreer and don't need the job as a centor of life and pride. Why not let them play video games or do sports or anything they want?

\- Isn't automation able to replace the booring jobs?

\- Nerds still want to play with tech, give them 15h work weeks and some good pay and they will keep doing their job. High payed professionals today also would not have to work much for the equivalent ammount of money that UBI would give them and yet they still work.

\---

What I really wonder:

\- if an inflation would happen

\- how many are really incapable of finding purpose for themselves (I think most will do very fine, even if they just play video games with friends)

\- if a country stays competetive with other more exploitive countries

\- how much we'd have to pay people doing shitjobs so they stay attractive enough and if this is realistic to do

</comment><comment><USER2> Alternative link: [http://luxlibertas.com/why-a-universal-basic-income-would- be...](http://luxlibertas.com/why-a-universal-basic-income-would-be-a- calamity/)

</comment><comment><USER13> All the warm, fuzzy pro UBI articles gush about how tech giants are generously willing to support UBI in the face of jobs going away. They then paint glowing pictures of how useful that money will be for underpaid workers doing "good work," like teachers and social workers.

They never go into how bleak a dystopian future we are talking about if large numbers of jobs that pay $20k-$50k or so disappear and now you have to live on $10k-$20k with little or no hope of ever getting a job again while inflation steadily erodes the real value of your UBI. Glad to see one article exploring that (dystopian view), though it fails to mention this aspect of UBI.

We need to resolve the widespread lack of affordable housing in the US and we need to fix our broken healthcare system. That would give ordinary people substantial relief.

<comment><USER14> UBI is a non-perfect solution to the problem of the (IMHO inevitable) situation when "large numbers of jobs that pay $20k-$50k or so disappear and now you have to live [...] with little or no hope of ever getting a job again". This part doesn't depend on UBI in any way whatsoever, it's not caused by UBI but by the current trends in technology development, and it's only relevance to UBI is that "UBI people" are willing to think and talk about this scenario while mainstream politicians would (obviously) rather pretend that this problem doesn't exist, since voters tend to punish politicians that bring bad news even if they're true.

Assuming your assumptions, in this situation is living on $10k-20k a bleak, dystopian future compared to the default (if nothing changes in our policy, no UBI) scenario of all these permanently unemployable people having _no_ reasonable income?

<comment><USER13> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15060319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15060319)

The last time we faced the possibility of "automation" taking our jobs, we invented the 40 hour work week to redistribute work and raise quality of life for more working class people. We called it The Industrial Revolution.

I think of this as The Second Industrial Revolution. I think we need new ways to cut the burden of work for the average individual without cutting large numbers of people out of work entirely.

Designing it that way is not a given. And it is a design choice to say "meh, too bad, so sad that many people will simply be unemployed -- not my problem." It is a terrible design choice, but it is a choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sure, but it's the only way I can conceive of offsetting the effects of automation and AI. If there are no jobs then capitalism will essentially break. Only the extremely skilled and technical workers will be able to find jobs and the wealth disparity will grow to previously unimagined proportions. What is the alternative? There are literally no solutions in this article.

<comment><USER13> _What is the alternative?_

IIRC, healthcare now accounts for about 20% of the GDP in the US. Provide universal basic healthcare and you cover around 20% of the budget of many people. You also benefit families and people with health problems more, without having to try to give them additional benefits.

Create an adequate supply of genuinely affordable, decent housing so you don't have large numbers of people paying 50% or more of their income to rent and you alleviate another huge burden.

Then, create gig work opportunities that are well designed so that people can work as much as they like, when, where and how they so choose.

The last industrial revolution gave birth to the 40 hour work week in order to redistribute work without throwing large numbers of people out of work. Gig work done right can be a means to uncouple work from its current constraints for many people.

If your cost of living is low and healthcare is covered, part-time gig work will be sufficient to provide for your needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was skeptical about UBI until listening to michael munger's interview about it on econtalk

[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.ht...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.html)

I think one of the biggest flaws of capitalism is the assumption that those are the bottom of the pile are rational economic actors, when in fact they often have factors like substance abuse problems, low iq, disability, miserable abusive upbringings, etc which prevent them from making smart decisions or functioning at the level required to get ahead in a competitive capitalist system. We can afford to, and are morally obligated to look after them. A starter UBI is a great way to do that. It also opens the door for employers to pay these people low wages, which can help them get a leg up in the job market, without risking losing benefits. Eg. a really low intelligence person sweeping floors for $2.50 an hour is moral when they get a reasonable UBI & if taxation of corporations and wealthy individuals means they get healthcare and education for their kids etc.

So overall, socialism for the people at the bottom of society, and capitalism for the people with a high enough level of function to be able to thrive under that system.

</comment><comment><USER17> The embrace of UBI seems entirely too eager for many. It's as if the huge, unpredictable and ambitious nature of it isn't fully felt. Attempts to refactor giant economies according to high modern ideals has been tried to disastrous results, and it is completely valid to bring this up. Most disasters for which the UBI is supposed to handle aren't even particularly present yet, and may be mirages.

<comment><USER18> It's as if the huge, unpredictable, and ambitious nature of mass automation isn't fully felt by you. Attempts to refactor giant economies according to laissez-faire, high modern ideals has been tried to disastrous results, and it is completely valid to bring this up.

Yes, it's still up in the air whether it will happen, and there are reasonable arguments that it won't.

But it's incredibly telling that opponents of a basic income spend about 100% of their time saying it's solving a problem that doesn't and will never exist.

There's a real likelihood that the economy is going to go through massive, unpredictable changes. Working from that assumption, very few alternatives to a basic income exist, and most are either bad (make work schemes) or immoral (do nothing and let the peasants starve if they don't pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a nonexistent job).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> _How long before the elites decide the unemployed underclass shouldn't have the right to vote?_

It's really hard to justify the time investment in reading a piece that starts off with an implausible scare tactic like this.

One can only expect it to go downhill from there.

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anybody have a link to the complete article, I'd like to read it.

And who is Dan Nidess? I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I do know that semi-knowledgeable people like myself are usually wrong about economic issues.

<comment><USER8> > I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I do know that semi- > knowledgeable people like myself are usually wrong about economic issues.

The knowledgeable people are even more wrong about economic issues. The history of economics and economists is a history of failure. So your shouldn't be so down on yourself.

According to one of today's great economist, we are supposed to be in a global depression without end.

"So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened."

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/elec...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election- night-2016/could-trump-end-the-culture-wars)

<comment><USER6> The quote isn't from the column you linked to. That column is by a professor of history and as far as I can tell, Daniel Williams isn't an economist.

I was mostly speaking about issues like the deficit. I used to subscribe to the _deficits are bad_ theory of budgets. If I shouldn't run my household with a deficit, then how does it make sense to run the country with a deficit? Turns out, they aren't the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The universal right to vote is likely among the few things preventing the citizenries from violently overthrowing their governments. A right to vote provides at least an illusory hope of changing a government from within. Take that away, and you'll be lighting a fuse leading straight to revolution (of a likely-violent nature).

</comment><comment><USER21> Governance had become too complicated already, people with higher knowledge in governing and econ should have higher vote weight.

</comment><comment><USER22> Paywall. What is their proposed alternative?

<comment><USER7> Forge the referal to say you're coming from Twitter. (My proposed alternative, not theirs, obviously.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Usual problem. If automation is taking jobs then why does the retirement age keep going up?

Because the simplest solution that works is to progressively lower the retirement age.

It never happens does it because that would be a burden on the workers.

And that's because the problem has nothing to do with automation and money. The problem is that we are a reciprocating species. If you want the carrots I've grown then I need to see you do something of social value and benefit to me before I'll let you have any.

Hiding behind the money illusion doesn't fool people for long. You bought what I laboured to produce _and_ you spent time on the Xbox. So you consumed my time and yours. That's seen as unfair and rightly so.

Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth. What we need is a social system that ensures everybody can make that rent.

And for that we need a Job Guarantee not a hand out.

<comment><USER24> If you replace "spent time on the Xbox" with

* "took care of your aging grandmother"

* "worked on your new business that caters to the community"

* "contributed to open-source software"

* or "volunteered for a community outreach program"

how does it change your opinion? What can a job guarantee do to support the above socially beneficial activities that basic income doesn't do better?</comment></comment>


Covid-19: Wisconsin farmers forced to dump milk - <AUTHOR> https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2020/04/01/coronavirus-forces-dairy-farmers-dump-milk-wisconsin-covid-19/5108609002/ <comment><USER2> All this while Walmart and other Grocery Stores (DFW, TX) can't seem to restock Milk or Cheese in any meaningful quantities. It is shocking to experience how poorly our supply chains are managed and how quickly they break down all while the talking heads keep telling us that our food supply is plentiful.

Just in time should not be allowed in the food or pharma industry.</comment>


Google is always listening: Live Test - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBnDWSvaQ1I&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> This was refuted in reddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8bx9m7/google_is_al...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8bx9m7/google_is_always_listening_live_test/)

<comment><USER3> It's not refuted, it's just that the experiment has been contaminated and there might be multiple listening actors that are not Google: Windows' 10 Cortana, Alexa, Android/iOS phones nearby etc.

So it's either a weird coincidence or _someone_ is listening. How and who is still unclear, until the experiment is repeated in a more rigorous manner.

My hypothesis is Google running some text-to-speech from the stream, as any other form of local spying would be visible in network traces, whereas you're sending your stream to Google servers and what happens there is opaque.

Many people, me included, have seen ads after talking about a topic for the first time. My mates got Bitcoin ads just after I've spent most of an evening explaining what it was to them for the first time.

It might be the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon in play, or someone's actually listening. It's definitely something we need to explore.

EDIT: how has this dropped from the front page so quickly?

<comment><USER4> >My mates got Bitcoin ads just after I've spent most of an evening explaining what it was to them for the first time.

1\. You most likely have had thousands of cases when you talked to people about something and they didn't get an ad for the topic afterwards. One care hardly proves anything.

2\. In Bitcoin's case, it's even more likely that this would happen coincidentally, since it was a temporary fad that got popular over a short period of time, during which time you had an increased likelihood of explaining Bitcoin to your friends, and your friends had an increased likelihood of being served Bitcoin ads, even independent from each other.</comment></comment></comment>


Object Oriented Programming has Failed Us - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dmbcllc.com/2008/05/13/object-oriented-programming-has-failed-us/ <comment><USER2> Object Orientation failed because it's too hard to understand? I blinked in incredulity. Object Orientation hasn't failed, but we're coming to appreciate its short comings as a sole design paradigm. For C programmers, C++ gave them access to variable execution via polymorphism (without ugly function pointers) and more flexible scoping via classes. In languages that provide first class and anonymous functions polymorphism is a lot less useful and closures provide better scoping flexibility than classes. Languages that have these features make it obvious how restrictive C++ is in binding this functionality in with the type system. In languages like ruby, python, javascript, lisp and smalltalk object orientation serves in its proper place as a type definition system and people use it appropriately. It's only C++ that has failed us.

<comment><USER3> _"closures provide better scoping flexibility than classes. Languages that have these features make it obvious how restrictive C++ is in binding this functionality in with the type system."_

C++ can/does do anonymous functions (for example, see boost lambda), and can even give you most of what you want from first-class functions and closures (using functors). The parts that you don't get are due mostly to the fact that C++ doesn't have built-in garbage collection. It's a speed limitation, not a type-safety limitation.

Now for my rant: there seems to be a backlash against type safety in this forum that I don't understand. Granted, if all you ever do is develop dinky webapps with your best friends, permissive languages allow for rapid development (mostly because they let you get away with murder). However, once you have more than a few developers and a few tens of thousand lines of code, the benefits of strict typing become rapidly apparent. The chaotic, free-for- all mentality of languages like Ruby is great for rapid prototyping, but it kinda sucks for developing in more formal scenarios.

It may be "harder" to develop with strongly typed languages, but that's _usually_ an indication that you're having to think a bit before you act. That's rarely a bad thing!

<comment><USER4> "there seems to be a backlash against type safety in this forum"

You've said what I've been thinking for many months now.

We've also got a strong contingent of anti-MS ranters.

As to the merits of the article -- there are none. Oddly enough, I can't make a case against his argument because he doesn't have one, save his ultimate realization that it was the language itself. "It came to me in a dream" is a very difficult thing to take issue with.

<comment><USER5> _We've also got a strong contingent of anti-MS ranters._

I've been having to work in MFC recently for a client, and boy...

If you ever needed a reminder why some people dislike C++ so much, just work with MFC. It's one of the worst bastardizations of C++ I've ever seen (of course, to be fair, one has to admit that much of the really sucky stuff in MFC was done before the C++ standards were very good, and long before the compilers caught up).

Writing C++ using std:: and boost:: and other libraries written in "Modern C++" is pure bliss compared to doing it the "Microsoft Way".

<comment><USER4> I mean MS in terms of the entire corporation, ie, all that comes from MS is bad.

Last time I wrote in MFC was about five years ago. As I recall, I got up to speed by reading a couple books which went over basic application design stuff in Win32.

Didn't seem too bad to me -- I even did some COM stuff and some hooks and such. But like I said, that was a while ago. I wasn't a crazy fan or anything, but the tools did the work I wanted to do.

<comment><USER5> My latest woes were in trying to take a program written in a Modern/Standard C++ style and build in some existing sources that were written for MFC.

Talk about a black hole of tool-chain hell...

<comment><USER4> Ya -- mixing complex hierarchical OO libraries and programming metaphors in one project? It does sound like a trip through the underworld.

<comment><USER5> But see, that's the point - C++ is intended to be multi-paradigm, and MS made it one-dimensional. Stdlib and Boost both take advantage of multiple paradigms while the MFC is a framework prison whence there is no escape.

<comment><USER4> But it's not OOP's fault, and to the degree that Microsoft had to release something early (in order to support their Win32 framework) and keep supporting it -- it's not their fault either.

You can go with a lightweight (?!?!) framework around your API, a la MFC, or more of a true framework, like OWL. But in either case, comparing a what? 12-year old framework system with something more recent isn't exactly apples and apples.

I'm not trying to make excuses but heck, the whole reason we grow new frameworks is because old ones get too bloated and brittle.

Rock on with Boost, but don't compare apples and oranges. Maybe it's me, but professionals are supposed to know the hard-to-use crap and should be able to swim around in that stuff like a fish in water.

Hey -- just my two cents. No matter how you cut it, C++ is a killer language when it comes to complexity -- and that's without the freaking frameworks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hacker News Is Failing Us.

This link is currently in the #2 position on the front page. I wonder if the people who up voted it actually read it or just agreed with the thesis?

<comment><USER7> Or, we are failing ourselves, but otherwise you are completely right. There is nothing in the article explaining why author thinks that "Object Oriented Programming has Failed Us".

Anyway, this is a good way to trick Hacker News:

1\. Write curious title with some programming term in it. 2\. Write some random thoughts in the article body mentioning the term. 3\. Submit to HN 4\. Traffic!

<comment><USER8> Actually, the article says that OOP has failed us by not being a good fit to the way most programmers' minds work.

<comment><USER9> I say that the cause of global warming is the decrease in number of pirates on the planet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      I really hate to say this, as much as I like object
      oriented programming but, I really think we might be better
      off if we went back to procedural programming for the bulk
      of the applications that we write and left the object
      oriented stuff to people who really understand it and for
      problems that can not be solved any other way.

      Meanwhile, back at the lab, we need to come up with a
      programming environment that most people understand
      naturally.  We need to do usability studies on the
      languages we develop just like we test applications we
      develop for users.  Instead of trying to simplify what we
      are already doing, which continues to provide solutions
      that only programmers understand, we need to provide
      solutions that are no longer programmer centric.

Isn't this what we used to call Visual Basic?

<comment><USER10> It seems to be natural to do GUI-centric programming as in Visual Basic. People like attaching ideas to things that they can see. I think that the real problem is that there is an Impedance Mismatch between current GUIs and the domain. Once we have solved this, then the natural way to program won't conflict so drastically with good Object Oriented practices.

I'm not sure if we can get there before we reach the level of GUIs in Minority Report, but I think we won't need quite _all_ of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't get passed the spelling and grammer mistakes personally

<comment><USER12> "I can't get passed the spelling and grammer mistakes personally"

*grammar

<comment><USER13> *past

<comment><USER14> Now that is ironic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Meanwhile, back at the lab, we need to come up with a programming environment that most people understand naturally. We need to do usability studies on the languages we develop just like we test applications we develop for users._

Isn't that how Vista was designed? Wouldn't it be a better idea to have a really curious and imaginative person (an artist, if you will) work on the language that will last 100 years?

On the other hand, I think this article borders on a good criticism of Arc: could it be that PG's focus on writing a _language_ is misguided? Maybe it would be a better idea to focus on something more abstract: in particular, on inventing better fundamental representations for our programs (as Alan Kay did, when he thought about OOP)? I'd imagine Paul's response would be that macros -the "blurring of the line" between interpreter and interpreted- is the mind-opening change in representation. Does the problem lie in helping people cross this line?

<comment><USER16> It's also how Mac OS X, Windows XP, Windows 95, and most of their precursors were designed. There's just been an acceptance amongst OS designers that testing with real humans is the only way to know if things are actually easy.

Programming languages are unique, however, in that the people building them are often also the users (and the more this is true, the better the language tends to be). C was designed to build UNIX, while ADA was designed for a customer...and we know which one survived.

But, I also simply can't buy the "people understand naturally" logic. People understand very little "naturally"...and even if you include pre-existing knowledge (like English, or spatial skills) in this "natural" knowledge you still end up with a pretty horrendous and limited programming language. Explaining an algorithm in English almost always takes a lot more "code" than writing it in a decent high level language.

<comment><USER15> _testing with real humans is the only way to know if things are actually easy_

Yes, yes, of course, sorry for being unclear - I just meant that we shouldn't rely on design-by-focus-groups or design-by-committee exclusively, that imaginative solutions require creativity, and for that you need someone with taste.

 _People understand very little "naturally"..._

Well, OOP utilizes our spacial skills, at least in the form of all those pretty UML graphs? There is certainly a lot of thinking left to do about _how_ exactly we understand programming languages, both on macro and micro levels - what metaphors we use to understand scope, objects, functional concepts, etc. It's from this thinking that new language designs will arise.

<comment><USER10> CRC cards on 3x5" card-stock are better than UML. Otherwise, I agree. Until GUIs for applications are as natural as passing 3x5 cards around, there's going to be an impedance mismatch between the GUI and the domain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find it very hard to agree with thesis when there is absolutely no backing information about how OO programming is "hard". What are the difficulties people are having with OO? How can I take this article seriously when it's nothing more than a statement followed by some fluff followed by a few half- thought suggestions. Who are these 'people these people who 'really understand' OO programming?

Am I one of them?

Are you?

How are we to know with no example of HOW OO is hard? What exactly is so hard about it? Class Apple extends Fruit. apple = new Apple(). apple.eat(). Makes sense to me. How are people using it wrong? Is the real issue that people don't understand when to use it?

Here's a similar article:

Playing poker is hard. A lot of people really don't understand how to play poker. People that play poker should stop, and start playing go fish. They should leave poker to the professionals that understand poker. All poker books should now become go fish books.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't think this article is particularly well-written. However, I do agree with the conclusion. For web-based programming, object oriented programming is simply ridiculous in all but a small number of cases. That's why the Lampshade framework I wrote is purely procedural, and why I'm able to write software on top of it so quickly. Client-side GUI programming is a different story, in my opinion.

In general, just because you're capable of understanding complex, abstract concepts doesn't mean that it's always best to use them.

<comment><USER15> _For web-based programming, object oriented programming is simply ridiculous in all but a small number of cases._

Agreed. Functional programming seems to make a lot more sense. Fundamentally, isn't a web server just a function f: url -> html? Sure, databases and sessions complicate things, but even in these cases, functional structures seem a lot more elegant (in a mathematical sense) than OOP ones.

<comment><USER19> For any programming, OOP brings some advantages. What you might be decrying is over-the-top abuse of OOP patterns. Certainly, for most programming, abuse of design patterns is unwarranted.

However, taking, as an example, Ruby, which is both a functional and OOP language, the OOP features make the language a lot nicer.

Anyway, that article is completely daft. And I refuse to take any advice about programming from someone who spells "linear" as "linier". Shame there's no down-mod button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "...and left the object oriented stuff to people who really understand it and for problems that can not be solved any other way."

And an example of such a problem would be...?

The single biggest problem with "language war" threads like this is that people actually believe this is the "only way". "Better way"? Maybe. "Only way"? Hardly.

Anything you can do in your language (object oriented or not), I can do in mine. Maybe not as slick, but it _can_ be done.</comment>


Ask HN: Want to change in-app notifications without re-submitting? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for feedback on a tool that lets you add and change in-app notifications and local notifications.
For example: "Congratulations, you've now played more than 10 levels!" when an user completes their tenth game.
You can change and add new notifications without redeploying and submitting, and the notifications will still work when the users is offline.
I'd love to know what HN thinks of this idea, and if this is a real problem people have faced. <comment><USER2> I'd like this but it needs a good interface and it needs to be super reliable

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Alex! Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee for a service like this? Assuming you found the UI good enough, and we could show you high reliability in existing apps?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Non lethal weapons for law enforcement - <AUTHOR> If we take guns and tasers away from the equation, what remains:
1. Paint guns that 'mark' the criminals.
2. Snap a bracelet or ankle restraint that tracks them even if they escape instead of handcuffing
3. Some kind of frisbee like or boomerang like device that can latch on to criminals instead of handcuffs.
4. Handcuffing with a diff design of cuffs rather than one that stresses the body.
5. Robots that can be sent forth instead of cops armed with guns and tasers.
6. Blob like net material that captures criminals
7. A removable/dissolvable chip for various crimes from felony to DUI to burglary. No arrests.
8. Built in breathalyzer in automobiles/vehicles. <comment><USER2> Number 2 exists today and is common for those under court ordered house arrest.

Number 4 would be difficult to achieve because if the body is not stressed then it likely doesn't function as an adequate restraint or it wouldn't be one that could be put on someone uncooperative. Even cuffs today are not always sufficient restraint.

Number 7, these exist today. There must be an arrest and a conviction in court because police judges do not exist yet and so people are innocent until proven guilty.

Number 8 exists today and can be court ordered.

The remaining entries would be less that lethal and not non lethal. There's a very big distinction. Bean bag guns are non lethal when used optimally but circumstances of a police action dictate that optimal conditions do not exist in the real world.

The problem with policing isn't the physical tools that they have it's the mental tools they have. They have a difficult job in difficult circumstances under constant "arm chair quarterbacking". That does not excuse bad behavior in any way but we as a society have construed a set of polices to guide officers in what they are allowed to do and what they are not. These policies give officers the benefit of the doubt that their actions are always correct and justified for the circumstances. There's also the police culture of protecting each other instead of doing what's right.

What needs to change is the polices that govern an officers acceptable actions. This is achieved through of the local city governments who appoint the chief of police and enact the polices that are followed. The sheriff is an elected office as well. These are local community changes that can be made quite quickly if the community desires. Policies need to no longer assume that the officer is always taking a justified action. De-escalation and non arrest, if warranted, should be a primary focus instead of the current bully tactics.

Additionally the culture of the police officers must change. Individually they should evaluate if their actions are correct and the actions they see other officers perform. The blue gang mindset needs to disappear. If officers behavior in both their personal and professional life was conducted in an irreproachable manor much of the us vs them attitude would vanish.

<comment><AUTHOR> All good points.

But I honestly think it's all about lethality of weapons. In the latest horrifying Atlanta video, it would have ended differently if there were no guns or tasers around.

The police were polite. There was no indication of racism. Everything was according to protocol.

Until 'weapons' became accessible to both parties. That's what we need to focus on...how to create non lethal forms of restraint.

Maybe an aikido robot. Have you ever hugged someone tight? It can paralyze them. Taking cues from the animal kingdom..lets say..the ball python. First they restrain, incapacitate and then kill. No animal kills before it weakens the prey.

But lethal weapons ..due to the implicit deadly force and threat..changes the rules of the game completely! We need non lethal tools and weapons to restrain.

Now the police need training in deciding who needs restraining in the first place.

Whatever we have right now is not working. I don't see what the Atlanta cops could have done differently in terms of behaviour. It's the guns. It's weapons. They have to go and be replaced by less or non lethal weapons or tools of restraint.

At some point, we will have to revisit the second amendment. It won't be an easy conversation.</comment></comment>


Here's What Happens When We Allow Facial Recognition Technology in Our Schools - <AUTHOR> https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/heres-what-happens-when-we-allow-facial <comment><USER2> Great points. My biggest worry is that it normalizes the idea of constantly being monitored to children, who are then less likely to care if it continues to happen as an adult.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Instead, we need to re-imagine what kind of society we want our children to inherit and what our schools must provide in order to create such a society."

I work in k-12 and let me stop you right there. If you want to change a society then you better start with the parents and not rely on the school to raise your child.</comment>


The Coronavirus Called America's Bluff - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-showed-america-wasnt-task/608023/ <comment><USER2> Did anyone really think the US healthcare system is even remotely equipped to handle a large scale, national emergency? They're highly optimized to treat chronic conditions and not much more. Hell, most doctors don't even use email and insist on faxing over documents.</comment>


Netflix Sucks-Loses ENTIRE queue--one of the 15% - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagonow.com/bon-bini/2012/09/new-netflix-sucks/

<comment><USER2> Please don't submit this to hacker news... this is far from quality material & it is the same "I want attention" bullshit that needs to stay away from hacker news.</comment>


Why You Really Can't Learn Programming, And It's Not Even Your Fault - <AUTHOR> http://crossplatform.net/why-you-really-cant-learn-programming-and-its-not-even-your-fault/

<comment><USER2> wow, this is so shockingly wrong, I am not sure if you are really trolling. Programming is immeasurably easier then the quantum mechanics classes I took. One can spend time and eventually write the code, you can't simply poor time into the other fields you described.</comment>


What Will It Take to Make People Stop Using '12345' and 'Password' as Passwords? - <AUTHOR> http://news.dice.com/2015/01/21/the-most-popular-bad-passwords-of-2014/

<comment><USER2> You'll never stop people doing that. People like systems that are easy, and refuse to use systems that are difficult. 2 factor auth is a good compromise - it's secure, and you can save the second authentication factor until the user tries to do something important - eg Amazon lets you view your previous transactions with just a cookie, but if you want to add a new address you need to reenter your password. Or online banking that frequently lets you log in with just a password but requires a securekey authentication to add a new payment recipient.

Also, systems ought to mitigate the harm from a compromised account as easily as possible too. I should be able to rollback updates to my account, delete content posted from my account, and so on, _very_ easily. Tricky to do in massively distributed databases like Twitter or Facebook but definitely possible.</comment>


Heartbroken Microsoft Employee on Xbox One Policy Changes - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2 <comment><USER2> What I got out of this is that their plans are even worse that I thought. Family sharing was limited to 15-45 minute demos, and only for those your family members choose to share? There's no reason not to enable that for every game. The disc-based sharing experience is a lot better than that.

He keeps talking about movie-like experiences. It's just too bad that blockbuster games only offer action movie-like experiences. That stuff really does get tiring after a while.

</comment><comment><USER3> That wasn't very convincing.

Basically, 'family sharing' is nothing but letting someone use a demo, hurray.

Whenever I buy a used game I wouldn't even consider buying at full retail. So there is no market share being lost in my case.

</comment><comment><USER4> Publishers can kiss my ass since they don't fund the creation of anything original anymore.

Here are some general guidelines if you want to see your schlocky video game in my household:

1) Everything is a spin-off, sequel or re-imagining/reboot. Give us something original. EA style cookie cutter crap is not desired.

2) Stop trying to control every possible use of the DVD/CD. If your game sucks, it will likely go back to the store or the vendor will get a chargeback and there is nothing you can do.

3) Give us interesting online game play without having to deal with the 14 YO k0olD0ods.

4) Hire some shills that know how to read and write the English language. That last article was nearly unbearable.

5) The last 2 truly original games I can think of were Tetris and Sim City... ~20 years ago.

6) If you just cannot find it in yourself to be original, learn some lessons from the genius that is Shigeru Miyamoto. Or maybe Dani Bunten or Sid Meier. Rehashes of the same old shit have generally not been purchased in this household since the end of the RPG versions of Might and Magic.

7) (EA I'm looking at you here) Don't treat your employees like shit. I will not buy anything from you if you do.

Things to shoot for:

Legend Of Zelda: One of the best games ever. Kept me interested and engaged for a long time

Metroid: See above

SSI Gold Box Games: Pools of Radiance. Curse of the Azure Bonds. Crappy graphics, good stories, good game play.

Diablo 1: Well above mediocre but not near as good as Miyamoto

Ultima 1 through 5 (Including the NES port): If Garriot had been a better programmer, these games would have been masterpieces. The design was outstanding.

Now that that's off my chest... Off to complain about Windows. :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> May be the same person that wrote this, or maybe not: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876761](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876761)

</comment><comment><USER5> Cry me a river. They wanted to kill the used game market because publishers didn't like it, and the resultant consumer revolt caused them to back down.</comment>


Another Startup Growth Calculator made with R and Shiny App - <AUTHOR> https://ivylee.shinyapps.io/growth-cal/

<comment><USER2> > _For Revenue and Expense, we assume an exponential growth model with > constant growth rate._

That's not a safe assumption for startups. :P

<comment><AUTHOR> what would be a safe assumption?</comment></comment>