Rovio lays off 110 people as Angry Birds hype fades - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-12/04/rovio-110-redundancies <comment><USER2> I've been hearing from friends who have worked close at Rovio that the real talent has been fleeing from there for some time now already, and they have been attracting people who are attracted to money, which is never a good sign for sustaining business, as the creativity might be killed in the process.

Not sure if this true, would love to hear some more insight into this from insiders or people who know more.

Might the same kind of hubris that Nokia had when they become #1 and they just couldn't innovate anymore as the diversion between the paycheck of the leaders and the normal workers became too big, and the thought process was "Were number one, why try harder, our product is best!". The same thing can be seen with Rovio, pushing the same shit down throats of people in new packages.

Seems this model of creating success is not just working in the long run, maybe we should be thinking about building sustainable businesses and not just rewarding those running the company in a huge way, creating feeling of envy, hate and other stuff that can be also seen in the whole 99% vs 1% thing going on.

<comment><USER3> > they have been attracting people who are attracted to money, which is never > a good sign for sustaining business,

More accurately, it's not a good sign for a business to attract people not driven by it's primary product. Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, not money-driven people. On the other hand, investment banks have been working quite successfully for decades by attracting money-driven people, but then, their main business is money, so...

<comment><USER4> > Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, > not money-driven people

Ugh. This sounds like the excuse a boss at EA would give when forcing his employees to work eighty hour weeks. In the real world Silicon Valley companies have been very successful hiring good employees in part by offering massive amounts of compensation. And then there is the other half of Silicon Valley, which feeds off the overworked and undercompensated twentysomethigs following their "passion".

<comment><USER5> I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You don't want "money-driven people" in the sense that all they care about is doing the least amount of work required to get paid. You want people that are "games-driven" in the sense that they care about putting out a quality product and making a fun game; because of that, they will work harder and __should be paid accordingly. __

You are absolutely correct in that using the "passion" excuse to force 80-hour weeks and/or underpay workers is BS. An employee being passionate makes them __more __valuable, not less.

<comment><USER6> How do you find the passionate employees and separate them from those driven by money? If you advertise a high salary and a 40 hour week you will get applications from both types of people and they will both say at the interview that they are "passionate" because they know that will get them the job.

So perhaps the paradox is that you get better employees by offering a lower salary?

<comment><USER7> Its a hard problem, to be sure. You will never know what their motivations are unless you work with them. The best that once can do seems to be looking at their work experience, at the kind of stuff and places they've worked on before and then... taking a leap of faith in thinking that the person will do well.

Passion is highly overrated, I think, and a lot of people define it differently. For some, it means staying at the office for 12 hours everyday including saturday. For others, it means keeping regular hours and contributing good quality work everyday, yet recognizing that one might need to work more (without overtime) when the job demands it. And the manager should know not to make these kind of situations a regular thing and reward the employees accordingly.

As to the question of attracting the right kind of people, although it can be faked, the curios ones are usually the best. If the person you're looking at is always asking questions, or making suggestions, not to impress you but to get a genuine understanding of what you do and what you want her to do, that is the best sign of a passionate employee.

<comment><USER6> How do you tell if the person was motivated by passion or by money in their previous jobs? You could look for people who previously worked for low pay and offer them higher pay, but if they worked for low pay in the past then they are probably willing to work for low pay again.

In the games industry is that if you work a 40 hour week then your game will be delayed or have less content or more bugs than your competitors game who's programmers worked for 60 hours and when your programmers burn out they are easily replaced because so many people want to work in games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some people here are saying the company made big mistakes with their strategy, growing the company too fast, etc.

They pulled in 400M+ of revenue out of a game where you launch birds at piggies using a slingshot. I think they did some things right.

The lifetime of a company has been getting shorter and shorter for centuries.

Mobile applications, games especially, are the new extreme in that development. These companies have a very limited lifetime.

It is only natural that companies in this industry expand rapidly, face the limits of their growth, and then start shrinking.

The idea of lifetime employment is long gone. After Rovio dies, theres a Supercell or a Mahjong spewing up somewhere else.

<comment><USER9> > The lifetime of a company has been getting shorter and shorter for > centuries.

Really? Because Apple was founded in 1976 and I'm guessing they aren't going anywhere. Google was founded in 1998 and I don't think they're going anywhere.

Your assertion is really flimsy, and I think based on seeing a large number of mismanaged companies that flare up and die quickly and then concluding this is normal or even unavoidable. While it may be common, that doesn't mean it's what has to happen.

Rovio took their success and drove it into the ground. They absolutely saturated the market, coming out with new Angry Birds games and tie ins almost constantly and flooding store shelves with very low quality (and in my area, often dingy) plush animals, further lowering public perception of their brand.

I'd argue that if Rovio had been more judicious with their successful IP, that public interest in it wouldn't have disappeared so completely.

You seem to be arguing that the fade was unavoidable since Angry Birds is just a game where you launch birds at pigs with a sling shot. But that doesn't mean the follow up games needed to be. Super Mario Bros was just a game where a guy jumps on things. Now I'm not really saying that Angry Birds was necessarily an IP with as much legs as Mario, but I think they burned it down.

Rovio chose the short term, maximum immediate profit path, and now we're seeing the result of that. Zynga did the same thing. When you go all in immediately, and don't think about what is best for your long term, you burn out public interest in whatever you have to offer. When you don't take the time to make what you're putting out compelling, people will start to conclude everything you have to offer is just going to be more of the same. And they'll be sick of it.

This is not the only path available, and asserting that it is just the way things are now is ridiculous.

<comment><USER10> > This is not the only path available, and asserting that it is just the way > things are now is ridiculous.

Really? What other paths are available for game companies? Any examples?

<comment><USER11> Blizzard (WoW, SC, Diablo), Microsoft (Halo), Nintendo (Mario), Pocketwatch Games (Monaco), the makers of Towerfall, DoubleFine. That's just off the top of my head as somebody who isn't very current with the game scene. I've included a mix of big companies, medium ones and smaller indie ones. There are other paths.

<comment><USER10> Blizzard has milked the WoW cow for all it's worth. And all three series you've listed were created in the 1990's, so not exactly a beacon of innovation.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure how your point relates to the topic being discussed.

Blizzard has kept WoW going strong for a decade, releasing expansions (not sequels) every two years. Diablo is on it's third iteration since debuting in 1996.

These are examples are a game developer taking a different path than releasing as many titles as possible as fast as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Rovio still plans to release an animated Angry Birds film in 2016"

I really fail to see what they are trying to do with this. That game has hardly any "story" behind it and the characters are not really that interesting. I know they're trying to push a brand but all this random stuff they're making around it comes across as bland.

<comment><USER14> I thought the same thing when I first heard of the Lego movie. I'm not nearly as much of an angry birds fan as I am a lego fan, but from that experience I learned to reserve judgement before I see it.

<comment><USER15> The difference is that the Lego movie was dreamed up by someone outside Lego (Dan Lin) who then got the Lego company on board, not an exec at Lego deciding that they "need to capture the film adjacency in 2014."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it just me or do these companies tend towards having a single massive hit, growing too quickly on the hype and then getting into trouble? Rovio, King, Zynga...

Wasn't Angry Birds Rovio's 54th game or something like that? Suggests that it's almost impossible to predict/curate a huge hit game...

I was really tempted to short KING when they floated.

<comment><USER17> I don't know why they all make the same mistake of hiring literally a thousand people after their one big hit. Only Mojang seems to have kept small enough to sustain themselves in the long term.

<comment><USER18> I guess it's not a mistake if you are a highly paid CEO with shares that grow exponentially in value as your firm does. Exit quick or at least sell off some of those shares before it goes to hell and then move on to your next job having "been at the helm of a company with thousands of employees".

Maybe I'm too cynical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> And just three years ago people wrote things like this: [http://scobleizer.com/?p=7382](http://scobleizer.com/?p=7382)

"It isn't hard to see how they would become the coolest social network within a month or two. Even cooler than Quora. Heheh. After all, a lot more people identify with Angry Birds than identify with other services online (the same exec told me they can't keep Angry Birds merchandise in stock). "

</comment><comment><USER20> I remember paying for Angry Birds to remove the ads, then one day sitting down to play only to find that the ads had returned. Hit game or not, too many moves like that point to cultural problems not easily fixed with money alone.

<comment><USER21> My first guess would be a bug.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am surprised they employed that many people! What did they all do? They can't all be working on pig noises, bird noises and basic physics simulations can they????

<comment><USER23> If you have the money, you can hire people that are extremely specialized in specific areas, for example you may have a team of 5 people that is specialized on constantly analyzing and optimizing landing pages, or another one that studies only app usage in the first 3 hours after install, etc. These are not generally teams you would want assemble for a startup, but people who have years of expertise in very specific fields tend to be better at it than generalists for obvious reasons. You _can_ do successful mobile apps wth 3 people, but if you can afford it and if politics/bureaucracy doesn't get much in the way, it can be worthwhile to have a larger team of specialists.

<comment><USER24> Sounds like a waste of money. If you are making lots of money then it may seem like no big deal. Rovio, can no longer afford it of course. I'd rather hire 5 more developers to work on a new game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Rovio are one hit wonders. Not trying to be cynical or hate upon them, that's just how it worked out. They got lucky with Angry Birds, but failing to produce any new IP was their downfall. It's like a movie studio releasing the same movie over and over again expecting it to break box office records and be profitable. Sure people might go and see the first two sequels, but eventually people will grow tired and stop caring. This is what happened with Angry Birds. They had some great licencing deals, one of those being Star Wars and made a heap of money off of merchandise.

This is the problem with most app companies these days. They build a successful app, it is popular for a few months and then people stop caring. Draw Something, Words With Friends, Flappy Bird, the list goes on. People have short attention spans.

Would Nintendo still be around today if they kept on making sequels to Super Mario? Probably not. Rovio tried to squeeze Angry Birds too hard and lost. All they did was continually rebrand the same game with the same mechanics and changed a few of the game assets.

<comment><USER26> Except Nintendo DOES keep making sequels to Mario, and they keep selling. The difference is they release every few years, and fill in the gaps with other stuff. Not a new angry birds clone with new graphics every 3 months.

<comment><USER25> Maybe I worded too loosely. What I meant was, Nintendo are not simply making the same sequel to a game like Mario, even though some of the original game mechanic is there, they have always in my opinion made each Mario game better than the last (like they have for Zelda and other games). They add in new features and other innovative gameplay mechanics that make it feel like more than just another Mario or Zelda game.

The issue with Rovio is exactly how you described it, a new Angry Birds game with new graphics but the same mechanics, the same storyline and basically nothing new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I just hope that they release a sequel to Bad Piggies. It's a very different style of game from Angry Birds, and is quite fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER28> The gaming market is pretty dynamic and it is very hard to keep up with your competitors. People do play games but I don't know many people who keep playing the same game every day. Angry Birds came up with different versions of the game but the game dynamics never changed. You were still shooting pigs with birds, be in space or on mother earth. Some how these game companies have lots of loyal followers. I visited NASA (Cape Canaveral) last month and there they have a separate section in the NASA facility to attract kids with Angry Birds (Space version). Pat on the back (pun intended) for people investing so heavily in these gaming companies, when everyone knew that there is going to be another game coming out soon which will rock for few years before dying.

</comment><comment><USER29> It always surprises me when layoffs are this large. I would have thought the business would slowly scale down to keep up with business cessation. Guess it would be more awkward to fire people one by one for redundancy purposes.

<comment><USER30> As someone who went through a process of constant threat of redundancy over many years - it is far better for employee morale to just do a bulk redundancy process, rather than dribs and drabs. Living with the prospect of every day not knowing if this was the day you lose your job, when so many friends had already lost theirs, is highly stressful and demoralizing.

<comment><USER31> If you give people the idea that more firings are coming, you'll also see many of your best performers leave first, because they have the easiest way out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The bottom line is that a single previous success is not indicative of likely future success when creating new things. If you create something like Facebook, that's fine, because you can monetize the core product indefinitely. But when you create a game or a movie or a hit song that has a limited lifespan, there's very little indication that you can do it again. Once you churn out a long sequence of hits like Disney, you can claim to understand the process, but until then you might have just done the right thing at the right time.

</comment><comment><USER32> Rovio was one of the few big mobile gaming companies that favored the cheap, not free pricing model for games. When that model collapsed, they got hurt by it.

Still, i'm very impressed that they were able to take a hit that could have evaporated in a few months, and turn it into a pretty solid IP. Angry Birds might not be as big as a Disney brand or something, but it's still doing good and can support movies and merchandising. In the long run, those characters and creative IP could far outlive the game itself.

</comment><comment><USER33> One has to take into consideration that Rovio isn't today just a game company, half or even more of their income comes from franchise products like e.g. angry Birds soda and clothes. I have a friend who works as their soda manager dealing with worldwide agreements with softdrink companies to produce Angry Birds soft drinks, not exactly a job you would find in most game studios.

<comment><USER34> That's just milking a popular novelty for what it's worth while you can.

Duff Beer could have some staying power from its Simpsons connection, but Angry Birds soda is just not compelling.

<comment><USER35> To you maybe, but what about fans that see it in the stores?

Don't underestimate the imagination and enthousiasm of the younger generation, when it comes to Angry Birds, Minecraft, modern Lego, and franchises like that.

Dismissing a successful business because you're not into it is just a bit shallow-minded (or elitist).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _Rovio still plans to release an animated Angry Birds film in 2016._

We might be over-milking this one as a society at that point. I would put my money on... something else, specifically just not more Angry Birds.

</comment><comment><USER37> I would still play Angry Birds if it did not continually pester me for in-app purchases. I'm probably not alone in dropping it for that reason.

</comment><comment><USER38> My dog's Angry Bird squeaky toy I picked up in the bargain bin is the only one she hasn't tried to tear apart.

</comment><comment><USER39> > hype fades

You mean like other over valued IPOs like Twitter and Facebook, that in time will also fade away?</comment>


Chess champion feels chess will outlast League of Legends, eSports - <AUTHOR> http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/27/5247834/chess-champion-feels-chess-will-outlast-league-of-legends-esports

<comment><USER2> The title seems to imply that Kasparov said chess would outlast 'eSports' as a whole, when he only appears to have said that it will outlast every individual video game – and judging from history, that appears to be trivially true.</comment>


Dismantling the calculus pyramid - <AUTHOR> http://wildaboutmath.com/2009/10/27/dismantling-the-calculus-pyramid/ <comment><USER2> Professor John Stillwell writes, in the preface to his book Numbers and Geometry (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1998):

"What should every aspiring mathematician know? The answer for most of the 20th century has been: calculus. . . . Mathematics today is . . . much more than calculus; and the calculus now taught is, sadly, much less than it used to be. Little by little, calculus has been deprived of the algebra, geometry, and logic it needs to sustain it, until many institutions have had to put it on high-tech life-support systems. A subject struggling to survive is hardly a good introduction to the vigor of real mathematics.

". . . . In the current situation, we need to revive not only calculus, but also algebra, geometry, and the whole idea that mathematics is a rigorous, cumulative discipline in which each mathematician stands on the shoulders of giants.

"The best way to teach real mathematics, I believe, is to start deeper down, with the elementary ideas of number and space. Everyone concedes that these are fundamental, but they have been scandalously neglected, perhaps in the naive belief that anyone learning calculus has outgrown them. In fact, arithmetic, algebra, and geometry can never be outgrown, and the most rewarding path to higher mathematics sustains their development alongside the 'advanced' branches such as calculus. Also, by maintaining ties between these disciplines, it is possible to present a more unified view of mathematics, yet at the same time to include more spice and variety."

Stillwell demonstrates what he means about the interconnectedness and depth of "elementary" topics in the rest of his book, which is a delight to read and full of thought-provoking problems.

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387982892/>

See also

<http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~mustopa/thurston_edu.pdf>

with comments on mathematics education for breadth rather than for speed through the standard curriculum, by a Fields medalist.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would second that, and add a recommendation for "Chapter Zero" which is a book targetted at the high school/early college level which provides an introduction to those fundamentals that are often skipped in the rush towards calculus.

<comment><USER2> This Chapter Zero,

[http://www.amazon.com/Chapter-Zero-Fundamental-Abstract- Math...](http://www.amazon.com/Chapter-Zero-Fundamental-Abstract- Mathematics/dp/0201437244)

right? I have not read this particular book, but in general most students who desire to study math should take a look at a "transitions course" textbook or two, to fill in the gaps left by studying only in the fast lane to calculus.

<http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Proof/lm/R3LUNI80ZOUYK4/>

[http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-logic-and- foundations/lm/...](http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-logic-and- foundations/lm/3L9OBW0IXF414/)

[http://www.amazon.com/How-solve-prove-books- useful/lm/31B4QV...](http://www.amazon.com/How-solve-prove-books- useful/lm/31B4QV24TPSZ/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I agree agree that probability and statistics are much more important in life than just calculus. That is why in college I am studying Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning - these are all math and probabilities.

Yet, I think Arthur Benjamin is right but for the wrong reasons:

1\. _People should know statistics instead of Calculus._

To know probability well you need to have mastered calculus. All the distributions, all the formulas build on things like sequences, and integrals.

2\. _If everybody knew statistics we wouldn't be in the economic mess._

Plain speculation. The majority people who have important part in the management of banks know statistics.

3\. _from continuous mathematics to discrete mathematics..._

Probability and statistics involves tons of continuous mathematics and Analysis. Is a Gaussian distribution discrete? Is the Central Limit Theorem discrete?

The reason probabilities and statistics is important is because it lets people better understand why stuff around them happens and lets them reason about uncertain processes. Life is behavior under uncertainty.

<comment><USER4> I believe it is important to remember that Arthur Benjamin is referring to _High School Mathematics_.

 _To know probability well you need to have mastered calculus._

I won't argue that point itself. However, given that the audience for this mathematics education is _High School Students_ , we won't have to go that far. Regression lines, standard deviations, and Simpson's paradox can be understood without Calculus. Personally, more time should be focused on the analysis and application (again, at a _High School Level_ ).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would go further and not only teaching probability and statistics, but also teach basic calculus with simple polynomials, programming, Monti Carlo simulations, sines and cosines, computer simulations, all starting around age 13.

Advance algebra, geometry, and full trigonometry are not required for any of that.

Why make students wait until senior year or college to experience the fun stuff?

</comment><comment><USER6> Bad idea. Some consequences:

* People would stop voting.

* Crime would probably increase.

* People would be less friendly/helpful to strangers in large cities.

* People would be less willing to drive (causing chaos in cities without sufficient public transportation).

* People would no longer care about environmental issues.

* Entrepreneurship would decrease.

* Stock trading would decrease.

<comment><USER7> The rational reason to vote is not because your vote actually has an effect on the election's outcome. Rather, it is because if nearly no one voted, then politicians would have no incentive to take care of the needs of the people. The reason why representative democracy works (when it does work) is because the people have the power to remove politicians from office (or prevent their reelection).

Of course, it is unwise to limit your involvement in government to merely voting, but that is a separate topic.

<comment><USER6> This is a question about how much influence an individual has on others in terms of networking effects.

Moreover, it may be sufficient to have a positive attitude toward voting without actually ever voting.

<comment><USER7> > Moreover, it may be sufficient to have a positive attitude toward voting > without actually ever voting.

Nice. Sort of like an election typhoid mary.

> This is a question about how much influence an individual has on others in > terms of networking effects.

I agree that the influence an individual has on his social contacts is relevant here. However, I still insist that the individual's decision to vote is itself important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hmm,

Oh where to begin?

The guy's rhetoric is pretty divorced from the sad state of actual math education today. The way that the standard math curriculum today heads up to a point in a pyramid is a problem in itself since a lot of the topics are made dull in themselves ("This is just something you need to learn for calculus" is a terrible answer for "why should I learn this?" but substituting "Statistics" wouldn't change things much). It doesn't really matter what the _point_ of the pyramid is when most people never get there.

Just as much, the latest economic meltdown was engineered and _believed in_ by _statistics experts_. For every Mandlebrot debunking the events, there were ten Myron Scholes basking in the glory of validating Wall Street's delusions with some mathematical magic. _Statistics doesn't protect from wishful thinking outside of controlled, experimental situations_.

And statistics in daily life? One might use some basic probability but the only other use it would have would sorting the pseudo-statistical rhetoric used by the media. A simple course in mathematical literacy with an emphasis on fallacies would be best for sorting this stuff. BUT again, no course can protect from _wishful thinking_ , can protect people from the fallacies that let them ignore possible later dangers for immediate apparent gain. Further, a non-calculus-based statistics or mathematically literacy course isn't a basis for further scientific study the way calculus is, and believe-it-or-not some students still become physicists, chemists and engineers where calculus is indeed the foundation.

I could narcisistically say that my favorite, evolutionary game theory, would make a much better "point" for the curriculum pyramid but really, what is needed is to make every math class interesting in and of itself. With TV-dazed kids and math-apathetic teachers, I don't know if any curriculum could change things BUT I would want to have the curriculum of every class interesting and mentally challenging - taught axiomatically, Algebra and Geometry ARE interesting in and of themselves and a student needs no background at all for them. Math should be rigorous, conceptually challenge and _optional_ past the basics. It seems like we'd need a different world for this but small steps are being made.

<comment><USER9> Firstly, Art is actually a math professor, and dealing with the low standards of incoming students is a major concern. I don't think he is "divorced from the sad state of actual math education today."

But even more, you say:

        > ... taught axiomatically, Algebra and Geometry
        > ARE interesting in and of themselves

Perhaps to you, but I deal with students for whom this is absolutely not interesting. They're not interested in puzzles, they're not interested in challenges, they're not interested in anything except texting their friends and talking about films, TV, clothes, football, etc. They don't want to be challenged.

I think we all agree that classes in general should be stimulating and interesting, andshould be better tailored to suit the needs of the individuals, but that's the problem. For a given child we don't know what they'll need, and we don't know what they'll like, and every answer will be different.

The problem is "one class fits all" and that's not going to change simply by re-writing the curriculum.

<comment><USER8> _Perhaps to you, but I deal with students for whom this is absolutely not interesting. They're not interested in puzzles, they're not interested in challenges, they're not interested in anything except texting their friends and talking about films, TV, clothes, football, etc. They don't want to be challenged._

Uh, yeah I've dealt with those students. Notice the last part I add - _optional_. The thing that kills math interest utterly is those "required" classes which teach nothing to the uninterested.

Modern schooling drags the uninterested through a process of making motions towards understanding - we all know its a waste of time. It really would be better to give up until the students are interested. A motivated student can learn more in a day than the bored learn in the semesters of basic math. That might put you out of a job but those jobs just shouldn't exist. Sorry.

<comment><USER9> Won't put me out of a job - you've jumped to an incorrect conclusion. I'm not a teacher. I run two companies, and I go out to schools to give talks on why math is fun, interesting, useful, and occasionally exciting. Most of the students I deal with are motivated and interested, but even then, some don't like puzzles, and don't like starting from the ground up axiomatically.

This Saturday I'm talking about the Banach-Tarski theorem, and I'm starting from the result, then wroking backwards, deciding what we need to know as we peel it back. I've found that working backwards from a surprising result can create motivation to understand, but sometimes it causes the students to dismiss the whole thing as useless, pointless and irrelevant.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Reply if you're interested, ignore me if not.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like fun, I'm happy to hear about it...

I shouldn't be dogmatic about asking for an axiomatic development.

At the same time, it seems like the social attitude towards mathematics has reached the point where it would be useful for schools to ask students to put aside some of their initial attitude towards math.

The best teachers I've had often demanded more than I was initially capable of accomplishing. It's true that such teachers risked losing some of their audience. But if we don't have such teachers we risk even more.

<comment><USER9> As an aside, your profile says you're interested in contract work, but gives no way to contact you. Is that deliberate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Best advice of this century in it's class.

I don't know why we are still wasting our time with calculus while I see a lot of people suffering in their daily life because of their lack of understanding in probability theories and statistics.

Statistics is easier and even more fun to learn than calculus.

<comment><USER11> Sadly, calculus is a pre-requisite for anything more than very basic probability and statistics.

<comment><USER12> I think this is directed mostly at the people who will never take another math class after they leave high school. Speaking from a canadian perspective, I had Grade 11 Math, Grade 12 Math, and Calculus classes. about half of the work in grade 12 was directly preparatory for the calc class. Students persuing a trade/vocational school or no post secondary education would only have taken 11 and 12 math. if the half of the math class that was 'wasted' calc prep was replaced with 'probability in the real world' type material, you'd still be in the basic precalc stats area, but possibly giving something more useful to the kind of people that are not well represented at a site like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> See also:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=680063>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=701367>

<comment><USER13> Why? There are no discussions there.

<comment><USER9> Hmm. Maybe what I really meant was: this has been submitted at least twice before, three and four months ago or so, and in neither case did it generate any discussion.

I hope it does this time, because it's been shown to be interesting enough to be "discovered" by more than one participant.

And I do. I've never understood the US schools emphasis on calculus, and building it up to be such a huge deal. I first did calculus aged 16 in Year 10, and it was just another part of the syllabus. One more step to understanding the way stuff works.

Replacing it by another "BIG IDEA" seems not necessarily to be a Good Thing(tm). Perhaps there should be more of a plain, and less of a pyramid.

I agree that more elementary stats done earlier would be a really Good Thing(tm), but replacing one pyramid with another does not seem to me to be so.

<comment><USER14> First there is the recognition that there is no pyramid. Since math is so highly interrelated, learning about one area almost always helps understanding in a different area. Granted some areas require a certain prerequisites, hence you will encounter peaks, but I agree aiming for only one peak does not make all that much sense since calculus is only useful in certain situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe it's built in "pyramid" like this because: 1\. Knowledge is hierarchical 2\. Calculus has a longer list of skills that needs to be mastered before learning the subject. 3\. Historically, calculus came around first (am I right?). This might not be a coincidence.

<comment><USER16> Understanding (the path to knowledge) might be hierarchical but knowledge in general isn't. Organizing knowledge in hierarchies is a conventional teaching technique, and that has some self-fulfilling qualities: if you teach people in hierarchies, they'll see the world that way.</comment></comment>


Lockheed Martin offers $250K prize for first AI drone to beat human pilot - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/lockheed-offers-250k-prize-for-first-ai-drone-to-beat-human-pilot/ <comment><USER2> That's _all_ they're offering !?!? Saving themselves several million in research money and that's the best they can come up with?

<comment><USER3> Did you read the article?

"The grand prize winner will get $1 million. The first team to beat a drone piloted by a human in a race will win $250,000. More than $2 million in total prizes will be awarded to top participants,"</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone remember article about funny Windows compatibility workaround? - <AUTHOR>

I have this vague memory of reading a humorous blog post by some Windows developer about a workaround he implemented because some Adobe Photoshop program used an API method incorrectly or something.
This API was rewritten and Photoshop no longer worked. He had to write some code in the API specific for Photoshop in order for it to work. All I can remember is that it involved Photoshop, and something to do with font rendering.
Does anyone remember this article? It would be nice to see if this developer is still writing. I think he also wrote something about the reason why some Pinball game didn't get ported to Windows 64-bit. <comment><USER2> The Pinball story is explained in Raymond Chen's "The Old New Thing" as mooism2 recalls (well, before he edited with the results of his googling...): [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/12/18/10378...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/12/18/10378851.aspx)

I can't find the specific Photoshop compatibility issue you're thinking of, but there are numerous similar stories in the archives of The Old New Thing that might be of interest. He's very much still writing.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't remember the specific article, but it was probably written by Raymond Chen on his "The Old New Thing" blog.

Edit:

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/)

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/12/18/10378...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/12/18/10378851.aspx) — pinball

I can't find the Photoshop article with only a minute's googling, sorry.</comment>


A visualization of Kickstarter using a video game engine (Unity 3D) - <AUTHOR> http://www.4firstnames.com/2013/07/08/kickstarter-data-project/

<comment><USER2> That is a great visualization. Interesting and yet really just confirms the distribution that I would assume.

On the visualization itself, I think the color choices could be optimized a bit. The gold on black is difficult. If you could make the contrast better, it'd be easier to read.

The guitar playing is gimmicky, but these guys obviously have some skill. Nice work.

<comment><USER3> I kind of liked the guitar schtick. Better than a laser pointer or pp slides, IMO.

The overall data spread is about what you'd expect, but I think the real value of something like this comes at analyzing how the bigger successful outliers are different from the mean average project as well as those that weren't successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> not being familiar with python or django, i'm curious why writing a scraper would require an mvc framework.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's complete overkill. I didn't find an Active Record library for python, and figured knowing django better wouldn't be bad.</comment></comment>


Readable code is not for maintenance only - <AUTHOR> http://giorgiosironi.blogspot.com/2009/10/readable-code-is-not-for-maintenance.html <comment><USER2> I pity people with memory like this.

Unlike the author, I don't forget the code I wrote yesterday and can still explain and understand it. It takes several months for the meaning of my normal code to slip my mind. Maybe I'm just different ... but I even find that going back and relearning my code easy too.

(Not that I write particularly obtuse code, or never comment upon anything.)

<comment><USER3> I agree. Even when I had just started Pascal after early childhood years of ZX-Spectrum basic, even when I wrote a game that consisted of one huge block of code and the only reason I had to split it in 2 procedures called Dog1 and Dog2 is because Pascal compiler started to complain about main code block being to large - even then I was never puzzled by my own code.

Sadly I have lost the source now. I'm sure it's an epic and hilarious mess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >> "Even your code, after six months, becomes a stranger to you. Especially if you have improved your coding skills meanwhile, the implementation will be very hard to grasp at a glance."

Maybe this is true when you're just starting out programming. In the early days when you're still discovering big things.

But once you've been doing it for years you're likely to change less, and have settled on styles that work for you.</comment>


Home Industries Health Care Many diabetics won't be able to get insulin by 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/many-diabetics-wont-be-able-to-get-insulin-by-2030-unless-big-changes-happen-2018-11-21 <comment><USER2> Annoyingly doesn't say WHY.</comment>


Android Tool for Mac - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mortenjust/androidtool-mac

<comment><USER2> It would be great if you could port it to linux ! It is great tool to have for link-ing you pc and smartphone

<comment><USER3> I was about to suggest that it might be possible to port most/all of it as-is with GNUStep, but then I realized that the whole codebase is written entirely in Swift.

<comment><USER4> The shell scripts are portable, though, so it's more or less a UI job</comment></comment></comment>


Someone Needs to Make a Better Keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://mobileiteration.com/post/25819083002

<comment><USER2> They should make all-metal keyboards

</comment><comment><USER3> maybe a new kickstarter project?</comment>


Mint founder on branding: Keep it simple - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10457870-36.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Webware&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+webware+%28Webware.com%29&utm_content=Bloglines <comment><USER2> As an Online Marketing Account Manager for an agency, I'm constantly explaining to clients why building the site for his new shiny widget at shinywidgetworldonline.net instead of ponying up the cash for shinywidget.com is a terrible idea.

We do a lot of branding and brand-shepherding and it always amazes me how little people care about things like names and logos. They'll budget <$500 for something that's going to be the first thing every single one of their customers associates with their business.

Obviously, if a company has a monopoly (Craigslist) or some other _truly unreproducible_ competitive advantage, than these sort of blunders can be nullified. But I've never worked with one in the 5 years I've been doing this; I've worked with plenty who thought they did.

<comment><USER3> I think Craigslist and news.ycombinator.com both have a well executed strategy targeting a specific market. It's not the generic "slick" approach, but most users view it as "ugly enough to be useful" not just "ugly."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"Choose something with meaning, even if it's expensive and difficult to acquire, rather based on domain name availability, because otherwise, you're going to kill word-of-mouth."_

Absent _any_ indication of how to acquire a domain like mint.com, this is irritating advice. Moreover, there are tons of counterexamples. I'd guess that most brand gurus would counsel against such nonsensical domain names as weebly.com or wufoo.com, but both of those companies are kicking ass. I also find it telling that 37signals has been able to build several highly successful (and essentially non-viral) web apps with such unlikely domain names as backpackit.com, basecamphq.com, and campfirenow.com. Come to think of it, 37signals.com is also an unlikely domain name for a runaway success.

</comment><comment><USER5> So how much did the name "mint" really matter? Versus the fact that the CEO seems like a very hard worker and created an awesome product.

<comment><USER6> Names do matter. You just have to weight its importance appropriately.

Put it this way: a name might not help your product but you definitely don't want it to hurt your product/brand.</comment></comment>


Help me build a Top 10 Facebook App - <AUTHOR>

I'm pretty sure this app will have many millions of users. It incorporates video-game-like elements and involves strategic competition which will keep users coming back.
I will take care of the front-end design and securing advertising.
Willing to split equity 50-50.
Email me if you're interested. <comment><USER2> <http://humanitieslab.stanford.edu/HumanAndMachine/224>

The poster does not know how to resize pictures--so what? To say that only programmers can design successful facebook apps is a bit arrogant. I'd say a lot of social users would be able to help come up with an app and make it popular, if they knew how.

However, almost always, you need a programmer to write something like this, as well as keep it constantly improving, since one can't just create something in a one-shot deal and think they're done.

If you are sure your idea is as good as you say it is, it will be worth it to learn enough programming to make a facebook app yourself, get it popular like you said you will, and when it hits big you'll be able to find tons of developers.

There are some business (or art) people who have dabbled in programming and made some contributions, but it is almost always 'hackers' who do.

I think the problem people have with this isn't just that the programmer might end up doing more work for a program that might not go anywhere, but that the "opportunity cost" (some business lingo) to work on this delays completion of something else the hacker is already working on (with more equity and closer to fruition.)

Finally, hackers would probably rather team up with another hacker (same culture, understanding of computers) than a business guy at our young age.

</comment><comment><USER3> This sounds a lot like "I have this great idea, please build it and split the result with me 50/50". That doesn't work, sorry.

<comment><USER4> No kidding, when will people learn ideas are a dime a dozen and mostly worthless, it's execution of an idea that's valuable. Startups need do'ers, not idea people.

<comment><USER5> I find those "idea guys" as annoying anyone but I think you guys are being overly critical here. He's saying he'll handle part of the technical work and part of the business end. He wants to carry his weight. Sounds like doing to me.

<comment><USER3> I have to respectfully disagree. He's saying he'll help with the front-end design and advertising. That's only the business part of it.

If you don't have technical ability, you really have to put your entire idea out there in detail to get help.

<comment><USER5> Front-end design = HTML/Javascript/CSS/graphics = business?

<comment><USER6> "Front-end design = HTML/Javascript/CSS/graphics"

I'm guessing his idea of "front-end design" is actually more like "I'll mock it up in MS Paint and tell the developer what the explosions ought to sound like by making sounds with my mouth". That's usually what self-appointed business guys bring to the table, in my experience (and I've met lots of them).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone used Airtime (the new video chat platform)? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I've used it, and it worked well, but I don't really have a need for social video chat in my life that Google Hangouts doesn't already solve.

We use Hangouts for work meetings and such, and while I don't use it for much of anything else, I just didn't see that Airtime offered anything above and beyond, except Facebook integration.

That isn't to disparage Airtime, it's really quite slick, honestly, and looks like a good acquisition for FB if they're trying to get into video.</comment>


Is anyone using Google Drive? What's the take? - <AUTHOR>

It seems the buzz over Google Drive have disappeared. What is the take on it over Dropbox? I have yet to install the client to check what its all about. <comment><USER2> I am actively using Google Drive and I like it so far. It's faster than Dropbox. The only issue Drive will face is that it's a bit late in the party. Dropbox has the lion's share right now.

But Drive is amazingly fast (Web and Android) and allows editing and live publishing etc. Best part is it's total integration with Google Docs.

I, by far, am very impressed with Google Drive and will continue to use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have several Google accounts with documents spread out. So I have been hesitating to start using the local client because I can't decide which account to use (assuming Google doesn't allow multiple accounts sync up with the locally installed client?)</comment></comment>


Microsoft buying RIM: Bad idea, or worst idea ever? - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/176789/microsoft-buy-rim-epic-fiasco-making

<comment><USER2> Patents.

Now that Microsoft has no longer the antitrust ghost to haunt them, they are free to do a lot of nasty things.

<comment><USER3> RIM's market cap is $15 billion, so buying them just for the patents would be like burning $100 bills. As a comparison, Nortel's 6000 patents are apparently getting sold for less than one billion. Does RIM have a portfolio anywhere near that size or quality?

<comment><USER2> To be fair, buying Nokia will be much cheaper. Phase one of the plan is complete and now phase 2 is under way. In a few years, Nokia will be so dependent on Microsoft an acquisition will be unavoidable.

OTOH, RIM's market cap won't last long. Eventually, they will be a bargain.</comment></comment></comment>


Archaea: The 'Dark Matter' of the Microbial World - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/archaea-sequencing-challenges/518535/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Is it known why there are no evolutionary intermediates between archea and eubacteria?

Nick Lane's book _The Vital Questions_ has been highly recommended by the HN commentariat, and I think it more or less deserves its esteem. Lane gives an extensive theoretical analysis of the sequence of events wherein a eubacterium was engulfed by an archea, and the resulting endosymbiosis that was the beginning of complex (eukaryotic) life.

Apparently, the genomic evidence is strong that the original host was an archaeon an the original invader (later to become mitochondria) was a eubacterium. However, I don't think he discusses the origin of this divergence of eubacteria and archea, and why it persists so cleanly.

<comment><USER3> That's something I've always wondered about evolution in general. Why isn't there a continuum of species? For example, why are there chimpanzees and humans walking around as discrete species with nothing "in between". Seems unlikely that a few chimpanzees gave birth to human babies (or I guess some ancient human ancestor) one day, and then we just branched off and evolved separately leaving the rest of the chimpanzees behind. Why didn't the "better" DNA get fed back into the chimpanzee gene pool and the whole species evolve?

Obviously I know nothing about biology, but I'd love a high level explanation. It's the one thing that's always bothered me about evolution, because nobody ever explains it, and it seems like magic.

<comment><USER4> In general, geographic separation leads to speciation. It can be rivers (IIRC for example bonobos and chimpanzees live on different sides of the Congo river).

Another interesting example is I think seagulls along the arctic circle that are split in many species spread along an east-west axis. Most species can interbreed with their immediate neighbour, but not the neighbour of their neighbour (except at one point where the extreme populations meet and the immediate neighbours are not compatible either).

<comment><USER5> If anyone else is curious, this is called a ring species, and there are only four known examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)

<comment><USER6> >non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region

This reminds me of the Riemann surface associated with the complex logarithm:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithm#The_associat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithm#The_associated_Riemann_surface)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love reading about these advances. Not my field, so it is all new to me in a pop-science way.

And it reaffirms my belief that humans (and all the other species, but I'm biased) are vastly weirder assemblages than it seems.

</comment><comment><USER8> Where do the virus and the prion fit into this taxonomy?

<comment><USER9> They aren't. They're viewed as really weird molecules.</comment></comment>


Megaupload Is Back, Without a Domain Name - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/megaupload-is-back/

<comment><USER2> Is this just an unofficial fan-created thing or is MegaUpload actually returning? I didn't see any nasty scripts on the page so it's probably not malicious.</comment>


A First Look at the New Finder in MacOS Mojave - <AUTHOR> https://thesweetsetup.com/a-first-look-at-the-new-finder-in-macos-mojave/ <comment><USER2> Most of these features available in any 10+ years old Linux distribution. _sigh_</comment>


New AI Search Engine - Trying to beat Google, Wolfram Alpha, DuckDuckGo - <AUTHOR>

It returns an answer much faster than Google. Try typing things like: "im not ugly but i cant get girls" "im an it guy but cant get girls" "im rich and cant get girls"
http://www.thehansonso.com
Trying to beat duckduckgo, wolframalpha, and google, all in one go - help give input.  Thanks <comment><USER2> Impressive answer: What is the largest city in California? [http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=what+is+the+largest+...](http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=what+is+the+largest+city+in+california%3F)

Confusing answer: [http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=What+is+the+second+l...](http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=What+is+the+second+largest+city+in+california%3F)

Terrible answer: [http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=What+is+the+largest+...](http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=What+is+the+largest+city+in+california+not+including+los+angeles%3F) (Don't tell _me_ to try ;-)

On the whole, it seems like a cool project. You have a few improvements to be making, though...

<comment><USER3> Another terrible: [http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=what+is+3+plus+4+min...](http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=what+is+3+plus+4+minus+5)

works on wolfram alpha

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems to depend on the exact phrase being asked on one of the source websites, with the quality and literacy of the answer varying by source. If you want to compete with the likes of WolframAlpha and Google an important next step will be to help it do simple maths and "what time is it in..." lookups.

On the other hand, it me gives literate and considered answers for questions like "how can get better abs", "how can i get a bigger penis". It also advises me I'm only 12 when I ask it if my breasts are too small but nevertheless offers very sound advice on attracting a rich man.

When I turn to politics it advises me that Barack Obama isn't a Muslim "but desperate people will say yes, so watch out for it", cautions that North Korea isn't evil "only its leader..." and doesn't want me to vote Republican

It doesn't seem to approve of smartphones, advising me to wait until later versions of Android are released, buy an iPod instead of an iPhone.

I'd be intrigued to know how you're sorting out duplicates for common questions.

Best answer is a toss up between:

>can you fly?

red bull

>i get too many girls

wake up

</comment><comment><USER5> " Question: wtf

yeah... i knοw what u mean.... that is upsetting that we're getting a new sausage. i have nοthing against the mexican sausage.. lοl it's just that i like the οriginal 4 better cuz klement's sausages made thοse 4 fοr a really lοng time."

WTF indeed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Where is Mexico?

"I hate that f _cking stadium. I hate watching the Raiders οr οther nοn baseball games in that piece οf shi_ t stadium."

<http://www.thehansonso.com/search.php?q=where+is+mexico%3F>

</comment><comment><USER7> My favorite question/answer so far:

Question: this search engine sucks

Answer: Agreed. It dοes less, nοt mοre, than the οld οne.

Edited to add I like the concept, I was just playing around with searches. Not trying to be negative.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's pretty impressive for the few queries I tried, especially for "why" question types which usually are the trickiest to answer.

The answer for this question was amusing though: "who created android?" :D

</comment><comment><USER9> Make the results clickable when they include a website. i searched for ncaa results and got:

ncaa.cοm, yοu can fοllοw all ncaa spοrts οn it.

but it's not clickable.

</comment><comment><USER10> Error: Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING, expecting ',' or ';' in /home/thehanso/public_html/index.php on line 24

</comment><comment><USER11> Try "why I hate my job ?" ... 'Im mοre relaxed and happy and starting my οwn business. Yοu shοuld tοο.'</comment>


The Real Current State of Web Design - <AUTHOR> http://bradleyjoyce.tumblr.com/post/572598960/the-real-current-state-of-web-design

<comment><USER3> I've always heard people suggesting that one should disable Adblock on sites that you like to support them. But I'd think most people who can will still block ads (I do; they're distracting). Trying to support the site by disabling ads seems to just encourage the site to continue using what will eventually be an ineffective way of making money.

Couldn't you make the argument that by disabling ads you're "voting with your wallet" and forcing them to find a more sustainable source of income?

<comment><USER4> I work in publishing for a niche trade title and I hear this a lot. In fact, I loathe ads too. In the days of print, trade titles had a limited circulation. It was easier for them to get advertisers because the title was guaranteed to hit the desk of the CEO or CIO, which was the target for that particular advertiser. Now it's all about traffic and the competition online is far more intense. Sadly AdBlock will not revolutionise the entire publishing industry. Instead it will hurt it. It is only going to put more pressure on sales guys to hit their targets which means more ads at vastly reduced prices. It will also cause online publishers to close, and put people out of work. The rest will resort to sensationalist journalism tactics and those terrible list type stories: "10 best diets for a flat tummy". It's either that or a paywall system like Murdoch is putting in place. What is a 'more sustainable source of income' for online publishing?

<comment><USER5> I regularly read (quality) content online and think "I'd tip for that". But there's no way of doing it. I could click the adverts, but I don't want to deal with lots of popups and I have no interesting in buying whatever they're advertising.

<comment><USER6> That would be an interesting addition to Facebook's like button. The site gets a dime and you get the option of having your generosity show up on your online social record. People often like having their generosity very visible to others.

<comment><USER7> Interestingly, Facebook are the ones who have the technology and critical mass to make micro-payments available. But I bet they wouldn't let you pay for stuff you like in private without announcing it to the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Somehow, Smashing Magazine is broke. Their content is incredible but they can't pay the bills.

"I dumb down for my audience and double my dollars / they criticize me for it; but they all yell 'holla!'"

Smashing, your move.

<comment><USER9> How do you know they are broke? I'm interested to know where you're reading this...

<comment><USER9> found this relevant link: [http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/22/smashing- magazine...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/22/smashing-magazine- needs-your-help/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am not so much against the adds on SM as I am against the content they use to create page views for those ads.

SM started out really nice and it's articles where actually interesting to begin with.

Now they are just diversifying out posts to cover anything of the slightest interest to webdesigners in order to get more advertising doh.

Nothing against that business model but I can find better ways to spend my time than to read about "10 trends/ways/free font/icons/to/ improve/help/make X"

Most of that is so simplistic and misleading it's not even funny.

<comment><USER11> Link baiting is the worse kind of traffic generation technique I know. Even though in short term it is effective and might drive people to your site, over time most likely the title/content will be irrelevant dilute the brands identity. I agree SM isn`t what it use to be, however I do still find good articles to keep myself up to date on current trends etc. and I don`t expect anything else from it really.

<comment><USER10> Yeah but I am starting to realize that keeping myself up to date is less about following hugely popular sites like SM and more about finding obscure but in depth peeps into the future.

If it's on SM it's normally past the trend phase IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In a perfect world, websites with 10s of millions of page views that pays for dozens of writers should have little to no ads. We don't live in a perfect world.

There are few sites where I disable my adblock+, SM is one of them.

The op probably don't have any experience running a big site like this.

<comment><USER13> I think it was justified in this case, as the ads actually _pushed the page content below the fold_. There was literally nothing other than the article's title visible in that screenshot. Ads are okay _if_ they don't impact the readability of the content; once the ads start making it harder to get what you came to the site to find, you'll find your ad sales figures dropping as users become confused and leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The bradley_outline.png background image on this page is 617KB in size. About ten times bigger than it needs to be. I wonder how much web bandwidth is wasted by poorly optimised images. Maybe there is a business opportunity in an automated tool to detect these ... just musing to myself.

<comment><USER15> Doesn't Opera's mobile browser do something like that? The requests go through an Opera proxy which optimizes images.

<comment><USER14> Yes, you are right, they are selling something based on providing a partial solution to a very small piece of the problem, and something like that ought to be able to produce stats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thank to HN, I've now got a bunch of design sites I visit several times a week. I've always been surprised by the number of ads they have as well as the annoying way they're done. Very odd to have design sites doing something so tasteless and obnoxious.

<comment><USER17> I don't actually see the ads. I think most people just tend to ignore them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It`s just funny how SM has a huuuge following and the main way they want to monetize the traffic is through Ads. Is that really the answer to making money on the internet these days? I`m really tired of seeing great sites and startups, fail at the basic principle = making money. There`s so many ways to develop a product or service for your audience that already enjoys your content and comes back for more, it`s not even funny.

btw. I think Smashing Magazine pumps out great content and is consistent in doing so.

<comment><USER18> What would you pay a month to have access to SM?

<comment><USER11> It think anywhere from 4$ to 7$ a month with deals on yearly subs.

With expectations of less link bait style articles and more hands on content.

<comment><USER19> I can't see how they could provide any value above anyone else in the market. The moment one site is willing to fund themselves purely on adverts is the moment that subs based sites all start to crumble.

As a developer I use sites like SM every so often when it's quicker for me to look something up than to figure it out myself (when time or cost are more important than my pride). I'd never ever consider paying directly for that info (time and cost then swing back under pride) unless someone smarter than me was available to live answer questions, which will never happen.

<comment><USER20> Your almost better off writing a book than running a subscriptions based service, easier for people to justify than a collection of articles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> i thinks this is exactly why an application like Instapaper is so successful.

</comment><comment><USER22> I laughed too.

A veritable SEA of ads like that is sadly not that uncommon these days...

</comment><comment><USER23> There's a fortune to be made in selling high-quality, in-depth content.

There's a dwindling few pennies left in the ad business.

Moreover, the more people try to "monetize" and grab those few pennies - <USER2> fewer pennies there are. The more advertising, the less effective.

On the other hand, the more people wise up and charge for great content, the more people will be used to paying.

The rule is this: Always do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. There will always be a backlash - and you want to catch it as it just starts.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sure, it is a sad story indeed, but does this story really belong on HN?

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html></comment>


Ryzen Threadripper Pro 3995WX Spotted - <AUTHOR> https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/spotted-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3995wx-processor-with-8-channel-ddr4,2.html <comment><USER2> I feel like 64 cores is getting rather close to a tipping point: What workloads are so massively parallel that they _can_ use 64 cores of x86 but _can't_ use the thousands of CUDA cores on a Quadro card? I'm sure right now there are workloads that just need particular x86 instructions, but that feels like a temporary problem.

Am I wrong about that being a temporary problem (that would feel frustrating)? Are these cores just that much faster than CUDA cores? What else am I missing here?

I often hear people talk about getting CPUs like this for deep learning research, but all the deep learning work I've done goes straight to CUDA and lands on my GPU.

<comment><USER3> > What workloads are so massively parallel that they can use 64 cores of x86 > but can't use the thousands of CUDA cores on a Quadro card?

Building software, for one. C compilers and python interpreters don't run on a GPU. Lots of stuff doesn't run on a GPU. In fact in practice the only things that run on a GPU are the tiny handful of known subproblems that the industry has collectively decided are "GPU problems".

Like it or not general purpose scalar software is, has always been, and will always remain the standard mechanism by which computing hardware is applied to new problems. Everything else is an optimization around the edges.

<comment><USER4> _Disclaimer: I am not a HW designer, I could very well be wrong._

It is true that there are tasks where threading matters, but still require a CPU rather than a GPU. I wonder however if these tasks do need full SSE/AVX etc. Couldn't these extensions be removed of the CPU cores and instead have the necessary work performed by the GPU?

It would be interesting to produce statistics on how much these extensions are used in these scenario. Imagine how much space and complexity could be saved on a CPU die by making stripped down versions. That space could in turn be used for more cores!

I read a little about the Xeon PHI cpus, which iirc, is a multicore CPU with a very small ISA, but I wonder why x86 makers aren't trying to go in that direction: isn't there plenty of dedicated workloads which would happily run on these (eg, web servers), or is this just a (too) simplistic view?

<comment><USER5> I think the opposite is where things need to go. Having a wide SIMD ALU quickly accessible from your CPU core is very useful, especially as it shares the same memory system and a much more flexible programming model that allows you to do everything in a single source.

<comment><USER4> The programming model is not very flexible at the lowest level: one has to create all the software infrastructure to communicate with the GPU (which boils down to sending commands and receiving response). There are languages (like futhark, julia, or even python), which handle all that boilerplate transparently.

The main problem is, afaik, that there is not enough control about where the code will run in these languages. At some point, one will want to describe all the algorithms using a single language, and somehow describe how the workload will have to be distributed across all the processors, or at least that's what I've been thinking about for a while. Once you have that level of control, the need for a versatile CPU is less clear. Note that nowadays people seems happy with hybrid solutions where the code is scattered across several languages (eg, one for the main program and one for the shaders, or for the client side UI), so my position is maybe not very strong.

HW-wise, is it possible that integrated GPUs are the first steps toward an architecture where CPU and GPU have better interconnections (ie, larger communication bandwidth and smaller latency) to the point where SIMD becomes moot? There is also the SWAR approach, where one doesn't rely on intrinsic SIMD instructions, but instead emulate them (though it's probably not very realistic for floating point computation).

Some other ideas:

\- Apple has this neural engine in their latest chips, which is basically dedicated HW for neural networks

\- In the wild, people are getting more and more interested in building their custom ASICs to cut software's middle-man cost: for them, the CPU solution is not good enough

\- Intel recently introduced a new matrix ops extension in their CPUs: maybe at some point they'll introduce full GPU capabilities directly baked in the CPU? I am a little worried about the resulting ISA.

Anyway, I am not an HW engineer, nor a very good software one. I only have a limited view of the difficulties in writing good, CPU or GPU efficient code. My first post was prompted by remembering the first "large scale" multicores CPUs 15 years ago (specifically the Ultrasparc T1) which wheren't SIMD heavy. The direction naturally shifted as progress was made on SIMD to try to compete with GPUs, when it seems to me that originally CPUs and GPUs were complementary.

I tend to support modular solutions, but I don't know how costly that would be in term of efficiency at the HW level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The big news is that the Asia website reported the 3995WX is an offering > 8-channel DDR4 memory interface, up to 2 TB of it

This indicates 3995WX supports not only 8ch but also RDIMM/LRDIMM that's not supported on current Threadripper. It should need a new Socket rather than current TRX40 (TRX80 was rumored a year ago). Threadripper gets closer to EPYC.

I expect PCIe lanes limitation still remains for make difference (It's many even limited).

<comment><USER7> That would be insane. I hope motherboard manufacturers take notice and release an IPMI board for it. We currently run a cluster that has some 3970X's in it and it's super awkward that we couldn't get remote management for them. Asrock has announced availability of one starting august, but it's a little too late for us.

<comment><USER8> What about the X399D8A-2T from AsRock Rack? It's available since October 2019.

<comment><USER7> Hm shit, now that you mention it, I didn't even consider X399. The only downside seems to be the lack of support for 3200mhz ddr. In our case that board specifically doesn't have room for the 4th GPU so it's not an option for us.

We've got a weird use case, we're using (black box) software that's sensitive to clock speed, scaling only to about 8 threads until it starts levelling off aggressively (to the point where a 3970X benchmarks as faster than a 3990X). So what we do is we run 4 instances, each with their own GPU and 8 cores assigned to it. I'd be surprised if this makes sense anywhere else (as EPYC has all sorts of other advantages in HPC).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of people question the usefulness of 64+ cores on a workstation CPU. It is true that audio/visual tools like Adobe After Effects stop benefiting from extra cores at around 32 cores. [1]

But if you want to simulate production workloads on your machine say with Apache Spark or Flink, you are in the prime. You couple that CPU with 256+ GB memory, and you can start exploring the bottlenecks in your batch algorithms using as many cores as you want.

[1] [https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects- CPU...](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CPU- performance-AMD-Threadripper-3990X-64-Core-1658/)

<comment><USER10> I think we will be contending with this sort of barrier for a while on desktop software. 32 cores used to be massively parallel 10 years ago, 15 years ago it was nuts to think that we'd have that in a get-it-from-Newegg offering.

Massively parallel operations take a different focus on your MPI/bus/queue architecture than we've ever needed for desktop software. BUT I think what we've already seen is that in general purpose computing there will always be someone ready to consume resources as they are available.

Both feet don't move at the same time, one takes a step and then the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how much the silicon quality differs on a single Threadripper Chip.

It would really be interesting to see if it's feasible to Overclock the best numa node to a degree that gives this a couple of high single thread performance cores comparable to the 3900X or 3950X while retaining stability overall.

<comment><USER12> > Overclock the best numa node to a degree

Do you mean the best ccx? Or best chiplet? There aren't any numa nodes here, and the cache & memory architecture are already the same as a 3900x.

Per-core & per-ccx overclocking does already exist on ryzen though, should work the same on threadripper.

<comment><USER11> Interesting, is it already feasible to pin tasks to such OCed cores?

It would be interesting to turn the 3990/3995 into a does-it-all chip with best in class single-core performance on certain cores and just lots of a tad slower cores in general.

<comment><USER12> That's essentially what it's supposed to do out of the box. The chip already communicates to the OS what its "best" and "good" cores are for single- and low-thread count workloads: [https://www.anandtech.com/show/15137/amd- clarifies-best-core...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/15137/amd-clarifies- best-cores-vs-preferred-cores)

These are the cores that can turbo the highest.

You can attempt to manually OC higher, but that by & large doesn't work without extreme cooling. Typically instead it's about achieving higher all- core frequencies than the built in all-core turbo, typically via higher voltages & power limits (and of course much better-than-stock cooling)

Indeed if you look at single-thread cinebench numbers you'll find the 3960x & 3970x right in the middle of the 3700x, 3800x, and 3900x pack: [https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper...](https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper_3960x_review,7.html)

They all hit around that same 4.5ghz single core turbo mark without any overclocking. And Zen2 by & large doesn't really go much beyond 4.5ghz anyway, so there's not all that much manual overclocking you can do without going sub- ambient cooling anyway.

The only real downside to Threadripper 3rd gen is the price. It's already a pretty killer jack-of-all-trades CPUs otherwise. It's a very competent gaming CPU without any tweaks at all right out of the box. It doesn't at all have the cons of the 1st & 2nd gen Threadrippers, which were actually NUMA and therefore came with huge gaming downsides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does that mean more than 256GB of RAM without having to go for an EPYC?

<comment><USER14> The article mentions support for up to 2 TB of RAM.

<comment><USER13> True, and 3990x supports more than 256, but not in practice (motherboards)

<comment><USER15> The (bit of) article mentioned 2T, but the thing that was interesting was the 8 channel memory. My current TR4 boards are doing quad, so 2 banks of 4 slots. Sounds like a single set of 8... so wonder if this is a potential BIOS update on the sTR4 or if there is a new chipset on route?

<comment><USER16> The traces are wired to CPU pins, there is no potential BIOS update to make it 8 channels from CPU pins for only 4 channels. You need different socket with double the number of pins for memory to double the number of channels.

Your 4 channels with 2 slots each have the 4 channels daisy chained to 2 slots, but they are just 4 channels. With 8 channels and 2 slots per channel you can have 16 slots, with 32 GB unbuffered (regular) DIMMs you are limited to 512 GB of RAM, for 2 TB you need registered or load reduced RAM.

<comment><USER15> Ah... that answers my real question then. sTR4 will likely be a short lived series.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's unclear to me what eight channel memory actually means, I'm not used to seeing that mentioned in casual architecture overviews. What's the benefit of that? Is that something that a programmer must explicitly take advantage of, or is that just an automatic part of the CPU?

<comment><USER12> Think RAID 0 but for RAM done by the CPU.

Nearly every consumer CPU for the last 20 years is dual channel, meaning "2 drive RAID 0". If you've seen things like recommendations to get paired DDR memory sticks, this is why. You only get this RAID-like benefit with multiple RAM sticks (just like RAID 0 of a single drive doesn't do anything). It's also why some consumer products have unexpectedly bad performance for the CPU specs - cheaper laptops may skimp here and just run a single stick of memory instead of 2. Which means half the memory bandwidth.

8 channel then means the CPU can do this up to 8 sticks for 8x the bandwidth instead of the more common 2x.

<comment><USER18> also notably this doesn't help with latency, which is more often the sticking point.

<comment><USER19> with 64 cores and 4 channels, throughput may often be a sticking point.

that is like have 32 cores on a normal 2 channel desktop, throughput would often be a limiter there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't wait to see how powerful Ryzen 4 desktop be.

</comment><comment><USER21> So TRX80/WRX80 were real after all...

</comment><comment><USER22> 64 cores? how much would that cost? around $1k or more? is this for the consumer line or server line of products?

<comment><USER23> The 64-core 3990x is MSRP $4000. I'd expect this new fangled 3995WX to be that much or more.

<comment><USER24> CPU and motherboard prices aren't really relevant since RAM is so expensive. And only real reason for getting this instead of 3990x is that you need e.g. 1 terabyte of RAM. [https://www.amazon.com/Tech-12x128GB-2933MHz- PC4-23400-288-P...](https://www.amazon.com/Tech-12x128GB-2933MHz- PC4-23400-288-Pin/dp/B07ZZMSWJX/ref=pd_lpo_147_t_0/135-5978031-6451344)

<comment><USER25> There might be some other cases for less ram. If the rumor that it supports rdimm or lrdimm modules is true then it could enable much easier ecc support since there are not a lot of ecc udimm options out there

<comment><USER26> Mostly ECC UDIMMs are limited in clock speed, but many can be comfortably overclocked. I presently have four 2666 MHz ECC UDIMMs overclocked to 3200 MHz in my TRX40 workstation (M391A2K43BB1-CTD if anyone is curious).

<comment><USER27> Do the RAM sticks require separate cooling?

<comment><USER26> No. For the most part heat spreaders on RAM are a gimmick (unless you're pushing really high OC, which this is not).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Guru3d seriously not update their website design in 20 years? Looks the same since the 2000s.

<comment><USER29> if it ain't broke..</comment></comment>