Tesla Model S Service Contract: $600/Year, Or Warranty Voided - <AUTHOR> http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079637_tesla-model-s-service-contract-600-year-or-warranty-voided <comment><USER2> Article has Mercedes costs completely wrong. My S63 has around 50,000 miles on it but I've gone through four sets of brake pads. And mysteriously, the rotors are always "just under spec" and always need replacing too. That's $3000 per brake job, not to mention the myriad other issues they discover on every service. The base price for regular service doesnt begin to cover the costs. Luckily I didn't have to pay for the engine work once to fix a stuck lifter and again when it was spewing oil all over the road. Admittedly, I drive my car a little harder than most, but costs are costs.

I should get my Tesla model S around June and eagerly await the same performance with only $600 a year maintenance.

<comment><USER3> I had a CLK430 and it was like a race car. By that I mean it needed a pit stop every 100 miles. God I wasted so many billable hours in the shop.

Also, the brake dust would regularly turn the front wheels black. I was always told it was the "high performance" nature of the pads.

I drive a Prius now and I still drive faster than 95% of people on the road. I just look like a dork doing it.

<comment><USER4> Yes, high performance brake pads do make black dust.

<comment><USER5> Really high performance pads make white dust, and much less of it (ceramic, usually a $5-10k option)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my opinion, the whole thing can be explained in three words from Musk's reply: "concierge level service".

I have always been amazed (in a bad way) at the quality of the work done by service departments at luxury and high-end car dealerships. I'm not sure what kind of agreement these independently-owned dealerships have that they're allowed to use the manufacturer's corporate identity to promote their business, but it should be a whole lot stricter.

Conversely, I've never had my laptop receive a shoddy repair at an Apple store - after all, the repair facility is owned and being operated by the same company who built the machine in the first place, so they share common goals and incentives. If Tesla is trying to do for car dealerships and service centers what Apple did for high-tech retail, the privilege of participating would definitely be worth $600/yr to me.

Now, Apple does have a licensing program in place to certify independent repair facilities as "Apple Authorized Service Centers" where warranty work can be performed. I think Tesla would do well to create a similar program, and maybe they plan to! Who knows, it's early days yet.

<comment><USER7> There is a reason why you can take a car to a mechanic and end up with it worse off than before you took it in. Car mechanics are incentivized by the dealer to push out jobs quickly. This isn't because they are lazy, its because their ability to make money depends on it. That means real fixes are substituted for patchwork fixes.

I don't drive much, but when I do, I like to take my car to a mechanic that I can watch in person make the repairs.

<comment><USER6> I have always wondered what my recourse is when a mechanic does shoddy work. Can I sue them in small claims court for the cost of repairing damage that their workmanship caused?

In this case I'm thinking of the time just a few months ago when a hose clamp that was misplaced during a cooling system overhaul caused a head-gasket- damaging overheat... which cost $4800 to fix.

<comment><USER8> (Ex-ASE-certified mechanic here, but IANAL.) Your typical recourse is to return to the shop and have them do the job again. Yes, the faster a shop turns out a job the more they make per hour. But if a car comes back, the money made on fast turnover gets lost quickly. So contrary to popular belief there is an incentive to do the job right. If the car comes back, they should work on it until it's right.

Now what if the shop said, in your example, "too bad, we're not fixing the head gasket"? I'll start with saying that court is probably your next option. But I have two other things to add. First, a decent shop would replace the head gasket if they screwed up. Once in a while a shop just has to eat a big job due to a screw up.

Second, though, is that it's sometimes hard to properly place blame. I don't know the details of your situation, so forgive me for assumptions, but head gaskets don't just blow the instant the overheat light comes on. Yeah, the shop may have screwed up, but that doesn't absolve the driver from pulling over when the light comes on. So who do we blame? Well, that's why you call a lawyer. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Parsing Tesla's $600 fee, let's allocate $100 for the wiper blades, roadside assistance, monitoring, and software update features._

What about the brake pads mentioned in the previous paragraph? Replacement pads plus labour for fitting would run to $200 easily. I'll take most opportunities to bash Tesla but $600 a year is relatively cheap in my opinion.

<comment><USER8> What about the brake pads? With regenerative braking, I expect the pads on my Nissan Leaf to last almost as long as the car.

Whether the $600/year is a good price is irrelevant. The matter at hand is "pay us $600/year or we void your warranty". It's shady, for one, and of questionable legality given Magnuson-Moss.

<comment><USER10> Was going to say what your parent said, but now I realize I might be missing key info about regenerative braking.

Do these types of cars use the engine for most braking, even when the pedal is pressed?

<comment><USER8> With the regenerative braking on the Nissan Leaf (what I own and can speak to with some authority), pressing the brake pedal does not mean the pads touch disk. What happens most of the time, and for most of the braking right up until the car comes to a stop, is that the electric motor is turned into an electric generator. I can watch the meter on the dashboard switch from sucking-juice-from-battery to dumping-juice-in when I hit the brakes. I also assume there are some large capacitors involved, as I can't imagine any battery likes having 30kW being dumped into it.

As far as I can tell the only time pads touch disk are 1) emergency stops when the generator can't cause enough load to safely stop the vehicle 2) below about 10mph (not much load from the generator) and 3) the battery is fully charged and has no room for additional electrons. The transition from generator to pad-and-disk can be felt if one is looking for it.

In summary, the vast majority of the braking on the Nissan Leaf appears to be done _without_ the conventional brakes. I assume the Tesla works in a similar manner, hence my comment.

EDIT: added a third reason for conventional brake use.

<comment><USER9> The Nissan Leaf is designed for short trips and city driving primarily. In those conditions a significant amount of braking is done under 10 miles an hour.

Also, in almost all 2 wheel drive cars, regenerative braking only applies to the wheels being driven and standard, dynamic braking is applied to the non- powered wheels.

I would sincerely be amazed if your brake pads lasted you even half the lifetime of the car and I will willingly hold my hands up and admit defeat if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER11> IANA Automotive Engineer, but I notice that while much breaking happens below 10mph (everytime you come to a stop from any speed, you're doing some breaking under 10mph, right?) break pads are likely to get worn far more at higher speeds - kinetic energy depends on the _square_ of the speed, right? So decelerating from 35mph to 10mph, the break pads need to absorb (for some k) k * 35^2 - k * 10^2 units of energy, while decelerating from 10mph to 0mph is k * 10^2. The difference is more than an order of magnitude, and it only gets bigger as the speed increases. This doesn't even take into account all the times we slow from 35mph to 25mph, which is about 6 times as much energy as slowing from 10mph to a stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Moreover, any visit to a non-Tesla shop--even for something as simple as tire rotation--will also void the warranty. Period."

That might get them into trouble, there are laws protecting independent service shops. This is a fought battle and the manufacture lost.

</comment><comment><USER13> Not unusual for a high end car. In fact when I had a MB I remember very clearly having to pay for scheduled maintenance that iirc certainly approached $600 per year to maintain the warranty. BMW as others have pointed out includes all maintenance. This is essentially an economic decision on the part of the manufacturer. They could of course increase the price of the vehicle and give you free maintenance but then they would sell fewer cars. Although in general BMW cars actually are priced comparably to MB they have decided that they can sell more cars by including "free maintenance" than lowering the price of the vehicle (at least in the market that I am in it may be priced differently elsewhere).

[http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/service_and_parts/maintenance/...](http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/service_and_parts/maintenance/src-4050)

Cars today are very complex. It is not unreasonable for the manufacturer who is extending a warranty of 4 or 5 years to require you to do certain things to maintain that warranty.

Edit: And to require this to be done at authorized dealerships not the corner mechanic.

</comment><comment><USER14> Sounds like he has never owned a luxury car and can't afford a Tesla... (neither can I) If you can can't afford the maintenance, you can't afford the purchase.

Did anyone else have a laugh at "the Volt is among the most complex cars on the road today--far more complicated than the Tesla"?!

Reminds me of my friend who saved up for many years and finally got that Porsche, only to discover that fixing a small dent in the bumper was $2k+. "I don't have that kind of money." Car-poor.

Several years later he bought a house, then got a leak in the basement and the water heater needed replacing... "I don't have that kind of money." House- poor.

<comment><USER15> The Model S is extremely simply from a drivetrain perspective. AC motor <-> energy transfer management <-> energy storage

Chevy Volt: AC motor <-> energy storage <-> onboard generator

So I can keep my Model S reservation and shell out $600/year on top of the $50K+ purchase, or I can purchase a Volt and have a generous warranty I don't need to pay extra for.

Hard choice for the practical among us.

<comment><USER16> The Volt is even more complex; IIRC in some scenarios (such as when driving at high speed with a low battery) the internal combustion engine can also provide power to the drive train through mechanical means.

<comment><USER14> I was not implying that it was less complex. I chuckled about the suggestion that because the Volt was more complex, Tesla maintenance should be cheaper. Once does not imply the other.

Do note that the additional 'complexity' of a combustion engine actually makes several things much easier, not in the least the fact that running dry is far less likely, power to all systems is pretty much guaranteed, etc.

Of note and relevant: [http://www.complex.com/rides/2012/09/general-motors-is- losin...](http://www.complex.com/rides/2012/09/general-motors-is-losing-up- to-49000-per-chevy-volt-but-is-stealing-toyotas-prius-customers)

<comment><USER16> Oh, I was just noting that the Volt's system for getting power to the wheels is more complex than the "series hybrid" it is widely believed to be. I.E., the engine is not merely just a generator, as it is the case of the Fisker Karma. (It was late, and I wasn't actually making a comment on the cost justification of the maintenance program.)

But I agree that the pricing of the maintenance program should be independent of the complexity of the vehicle architecture. One is an engineering decision, the other is largely marketing & customer relations (not to the exclusion of financials, of course).

As far as Tesla's choice to price their program at $600 a year, it seems in poor form for a luxury priced vehicle. To me, the hallmark of a true "concierge" level of service (which is what Musk indicated as their goal) would be that it's included in the vehicle price, at least for the first few years, a la BMW. Beyond that, perhaps they should just take a page from Apple's book, and offer an extended "Tesla Care" warranty program to continue the service.

$600 a year seems like petty nickle and diming your customer if you're already charging them 80 to 100K for the car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not terrible considering the infancy of the technology and the value these services will provide Tesla. If you can afford a $60K+ car meant for early adopters, you can afford an extra $600/year.

<comment><USER18> It doesn't seem far out of line at all.

I just checked, I'm paying just over $300/year for dealer service and inspections on my Ford Transit Connect which sells for about 1/3 of a Tesla S.

I'm not getting roadside assistance (of a revision 1 vehicle), monitoring, or wiper blades. Heck, they usually neglect to reprogram the tire pressure monitor when they rotate the tires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is required if Tesla wants to survive as a car company. It reads like a way to distribute the impact of the large problems that are going to crop up early on (battery failure, recall for some part going wonky, Etc)

<comment><USER12> Well, if it is required for them to survive, they are going to have issues. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and some state laws keep auto dealers and manufactures from pulling the "service with us or lose warranty". There are generally exceptions for freely provided services, but this isn't it.

Car modders and local services shops have been down this road before. Honestly expecting every service to occur at the dealers is foolish.

<comment><USER20> Whil ou are completely correct, it will be many years before I would trust having my Tesla (if I was getting one...) serviced[1] anywhere that doesn't have Elon's personal seal of approval. While the warrantee can't be voided for taking the car somewhere else, it can be voided if Tesla can show damage is a direct result if work done.

If I blow my engine after I put a NOS kit on it, I will likely have voided my warrantee. If I do it after putting a cold-air intake on it, I probably haven't voided it.

1\. The tire-rotation thing seems silly, but perhaps doing it incorrectly will damage the regenerative baking system. If that's the case, don't ever get a flat tire in the middle of southern Utah.

<comment><USER12> If a tire rotation damages the regenerative breaking then someone designed something horribly wrong.

Your decisions are your own. Which is a great thing. Forcing a decision in an industry with so much law history is not a good move.

<comment><USER20> I'm merely hypothesizing ways in which it is possible for Tesla to be in a situation where 3rd party service could legally void the warrantee. Tesla can't just void the warrantee because they say they void the warrantee.

And, for the record, I agree with you about the tire rotation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The way they're going about it might not be the right way, but having worked at and run car dealerships, $600/year is not out of line (granted this is based on conventional engine vehicles). The first year of the vehicle you probably won't get your money's worth, but after that it becomes much more valuable. At a traditional car dealership, a 15k mile service is pretty basic, oil change and tire rotation, but they will try to upsell you on numerous other items (special additives to improve engine life/gas mileage, air filter change, wipers, etc...) that will easily hit $250-$300 for that visit. These items can all be done in ~10 minutes at home for ~$50. For a 30k mile service, you're looking at well over $400. To be able to take your car in, not have to deal with the hassle of someone trying to hustle/upsell you, get everything on the car done, road side service, and (hopefully) better service than you'd get at a traditional car dealership? Doesn't seem to me like the price is way out of line.

Not only that, but think about the last time you went to a dealership to buy a car, remember when you went in the finance office to sign the paperwork? More than likely the finance manager was trying to sell you a service contract from a 3rd party that was more expensive and covered less items.

In the end though it's hard to judge the value of these things without having the service contract in front of me, knowing you specific driving habits and exactly what services the contract covers and what services it doesn't (if any). Having said that, I would be highly surprised if 12% of Tesla pre-orders get canceled because of the service contract (as mentioned in the article).

</comment><comment><USER22> That's less than 'standard' maintenance on my 28k Acura TSX. It was a real eye opener to see a 1k bill for standard maintenance on a 2 year old car with 12k miles on it.

<comment><USER23> That does seem a bit high, especially when you consider that the TSX is what Honda sells as the "Accord" outside of North America. It'd be interesting to see if owners of said "Accord Euro" across the pond see similar maintenance costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Let's look at this from a branding perspective: Say in the next year you sell X cars, built on a new technology about which there is some conventional/popular consumer discomfort or doubt.

Is it worth spending 600X dollars of company money for your customers to be able to say, "I just bought a Tesla and I don't have to worry about any maintenance costs _at all_ for the next four years"? For ten thousand cars, that would be six million dollars out of about 800 million in revenue, or three quarters of a percent. Seems like that would be money well spent on developing consumer confidence in the technology and customer loyalty for the brand.

My prediction is that Tesla will change course on there current maintenance program. It's much better PR to offer free maintenance for the first four years, a la BMW, and then offer an extended "Tesla Care" warranty program that continues the coverage, similar to Apple.

Because a true "concierge" level maintenance program wouldn't nickel and dime the customer.

</comment><comment><USER24> So let me get this straight, you bought an $80,000(ish) car with a full warranty, and you're mad enough about a $600/year add-on in which the company does slightly under $600 worth of work and picks your car up to do so that you write a blog post about it?

</comment><comment><USER3> Tesla is not Ford. The numbers are completely different which necessitates a subscription model or higher prices in general. Early adopters shouldn't be surprised when their toys costs more, it's always been that way.

</comment><comment><USER25> Isn't it illegal to void the warranty on a car for work done, just because the work is done at a third-party shop? I seem to recall this tactic being taken a while bag and it being struck down.

</comment><comment><USER26> Looks like the service contract isn't necessary but you still need to bring it to tesla mechanics for repairs / maintenance and annual inspection to keep the warranty. If I have a warranty to keep my car free from problems, I'm going to use it at the place that issued it. Otehrwise how would I get free warranted repairs?

</comment><comment><USER27> Let me get this straight, people considering the purchase of a vehicle that _starts_ at US$57,400 are balking at a implicit service contract that runs about 50% the cost of their annual Starbucks budget?

These must be the same people that complain about the cost of a 99 cent app for their >=US$200 smartphone.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's a very acceptable fee for such a high-tech piece of engineering. Most warrantied commercial equipment has mandatory service contract requirements, so it's no surprise that we're seeing that in the consumer arena as well.

<comment><USER29> No surprise, except for the whole 'illegal' bit.

15 USC 2302(c)

(c) No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name [... except that some exceptions can be granted if they are in the public interest.]

<comment><USER28> This isn't about brand, trade, or corporate name. It is about the nature of the service being performed and the fact that very few people are going to have the ability to actually service these vehicles properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Rich people problems (sigh)

<comment><USER31> I would hardly call this "rich people problems". I know many who make roughly 60-80K a year, and I would certainly not call them rich, and they still purchase cars with a sticker price of 50K.

Is it a wise decision to make such a purchase? No. Is it commonplace? Yes.

Also, it's an early adopter price. It'll decrease a bit with time. This is a luxury car.

Also, this isn't Reddit. Contribute something of value to the conversation.

<comment><USER7> You are describing the type of consumer who has a problem with a $600 a year fee -- the ones who can't really afford the product or service in the first place.

This is a wide spread business marketing issue. You have different classes of consumers, and often the loudest complainers are the one who are on low level or free versions. Do they complain loudly because they are the only ones who have time to? May be its just their personality and why they don't have any money? I don't know.

From a business owner standpoint it is pretty easy to see how irrational the original article author's position is. However, it presents a dilemma between choosing to pacify this type of customer vs just ignoring them. Each has its share of downsides.

<comment><USER32> With due respect, a 'high level' customer can buy just another car if he has problem with it, he can afford to, while 'low level' customers have to speak out loud because that is all what they have, it is a heavy and rare investment for them.

The 'issue' is not morally acceptable. First of all there shouldn't be any distinction between customers, it is the company's responsibility to offer the best product, whoever the customer is. How can you be ignorant to a customer who invests a big chunk of his earnings to buy your product.

<comment><USER33> Offering what's best for the customer is a balancing act with what's best for the company. If only 2% of your customers are likely to have issues with a given item, it may not be worth raising the price 10% for everyone just to appease those 2%. (disclaimer, I'm picking random numbers here, no relation to the item in question)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A driver of a roadster says when repairs are needed, they come get the car, so it sounds like a way to pay for that service.

</comment><comment><USER34> Interesting. When I talked with a Tesla sales rep I was told that maintenance is annual and would cost me $1 per mile from the dealership. She didn't mention a $600/yr contract.

I'm cautiously skeptical of the 'no tire rotation at other shops' claim. They seems not only like a flagrant violation of Magnuson-Moss, it also seems pointlessly customer hostile. Is there confirmation that this is actually the policy?

<comment><USER35> Ive never purchased a new car, so could be thinking about this in the wrong way, but isnt $1/mile way way more expensive than $600/yr? $1/mile seems crazy expensive, so I must be understanding that wrong

<comment><USER36> Unless your dealership is hundreds of miles away...</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any EC2 reboot experiences? (related to massive? EC2 reboot underway) - <AUTHOR>

Any EC2 reboot experiences to share? Been watching:
http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/ec2%20reboot
http://cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/aws-rebooting-100s-or-1000s-of-ec2-instances-for-security-update <comment><USER2> We've got 160 instances affected, which is obviously going to require a pretty massive amount of work. I'd estimate we'll be spending about 30 hours on this project over the next week. Yes it sucks, but asking you to reboot your servers once a year isn't exactly a _huge_ hardship.

It's easy to forget that the cloud is powered by real physical infrastructure, and that cloud vendors have maintenance needs too. AWS gave us a fair amount of notice about the reboots, and they've been understanding and helpful along the way. I'm willing to be understanding toward them too.</comment>


Charter staff told to report to offices despite positive coronavirus tests - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/charter-coronavirus-offices/ <comment><USER2> _"This will all come back to bite them in the ass eventually," the employee said."_

Considering they are pretty much a monopoly, I doubt it. Unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER3> How many employees will this policy kill?

<comment><USER4> And, given exponential increase in cases, how many other people completely unrelated to the company will it kill?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Previous discussion from when their policy was first publicised, but before there was an active case: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22600314](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22600314)

</comment><comment><USER6> Long as upper management works in the same space as everyone else, right?

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe Charter doesn't have the technology and/or resources for call center staff to work from home. Is that possible?

<comment><USER8> Then their business should be impacted, and if it comes to it, go under... We wont have an economy to try to build back if the former workers are no longer alive</comment></comment>


Neural vs. Computer Networks in Digital Art - <AUTHOR> http://www.artbrain.org/neural-networks-vs-computer-networked-environments-cognition-and-communication-in-digital-art/ <comment><AUTHOR> The TL;DR seems to be: social networks, computer networks, neural networks, and patterns of language all exhibit a "small world" architecture - an organic in-between of randomness and order, the unique mesh structure that lets any two nodes connect in only a few hops (the "six degrees of separation" concept) and retains stability/function as arbitrary nodes are inserted/removed. This universal structure has evolutionary purpose - the interplay between what we are, what we create, and what we experience isn't coincidental.

The article references several art projects that deal with these topics, especially applications in AI. The website is dedicated to "neuroaesthetics" - which is apparently a field that studies the neurological basis for creating and consuming art.</comment>


Pattern - Web Mining Python lib - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/clips/pattern More info here: http://www.clips.ua.ac.be/pages/pattern <comment><USER2> Really cool library. I'm excited to take it for a spin! I liked that there was some work done already for Wikipedia. But as a note to people who want to work with Wikipedia data, it's not very hard to abstract your stuff to work with most wikis based on the MediaWiki platform. I've added a pull request to this project that also supports using the hundreds of thousands of wikis on Wikia. ( <https://github.com/clips/pattern/pull/17> )

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More info <http://www.clips.ua.ac.be/pages/pattern>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a big fan of data mining so I'll make sure to take it out for spin :) And from fellow belgian people, nice!

</comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome! Any plans to add other sites, like amazon, yelp, tripadvisor, etc!

<comment><USER5> NB: screen-scraping Yelp is against the TOS and you'll get shut down pretty fast if you try it.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. Screen scrape Google search results instead, I've heard that works great. Bet your business model on it, I've heard. ;-)

<comment><USER7> Well, Google "screen scrapes" millions of websites. They bet their business on it and they seem to be doing OK.

If you upload something to an http server connected to the public internet on tcp/80, and you don't exclude the path to it in robots.txt, then should anyone be surprised if it is copied? HTTP clients don't read TOS.

If Google had to read and interpret every every website's TOS, I doubt they could easily, if at all, produce an index the size of the one they have. It seems by ignoring a "fear of scraping" they managed to produce something valuable that the courts seem to side with in spite of offended copyright holders.

Moreover there's no requirement for them to make their "cache" publicly accessible. But they do. And again this has held up in court quite well. I doubt anyone would be surprised that people are using it. Or "scraping" it if you want to play word games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks pretty interesting, I will give it a go</comment>


Veil: Private Browsing Semantics Without Browser-Side Assistance [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://frankwang.org/files/papers/wang-veil.pdf <comment><USER2> James Mickens is very profilic in information security related research. I particularly like his essay titled - "The Slow Winter". Changed my thinking a lot. Prof Igor Markov also had substantional effect on my thinking, just like Prof Mickens did.</comment>


JavaScript needs macros - <AUTHOR> http://meta2.tumblr.com/post/787368639/javascript-needs-macros <comment><USER2> First let me say that as a long time Schemer, and one who did his graduate work on the semantics of macros, I am quite positively disposed towards macros. In theory, I think it'd be great for JavaScript to develop a macro system.

That said, macros are much harder to design, and much less well understood, than modules. Worse, macros in the context of a dynamically loaded global scope (e.g., JavaScript's global object) are a complete mess. The Scheme community is actually quite divided over this issue. Some portions of the Scheme community favor a much more dynamic semantics for macros, more in the Lisp tradition; others favor building macros on top of a more compilation- friendly semantics -- often, not coincidentally, built on top of a static module system. As an example, I'd recommend looking into the Racket programming language (formerly known as PLT Scheme), which has a built-in module system fairly similar to the one we've designed for Harmony -- and which leverages this module system to support one of the most powerful macro systems in the history of programming languages.

Next, one of the central aims of the module system design is to correct some of the past mistakes in JavaScript's scoping semantics. These are things that can't just be desugared away by simple macros. They require actual changes to the way whole JS programs are compiled and executed.

Finally, I'll add that it's easy to write a few code snippets on your blog and pretend it's a design, but it's nowhere near what is required to see a design all the way through. It's not even enough for the _introductory text_ of a proposal. But if you have serious proposals to make, I'd encourage you to join es-discuss and make positive, substantive contributions to the conversation. However, I should warn you that well-designed macro systems are still very much the stuff of research.

<comment><USER3> _Some portions of the Scheme community favor a much more dynamic semantics for macros, more in the Lisp tradition; others favor building macros on top of a more compilation-friendly semantics_

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't Lisp's semantics _very_ compilation-friendly? Doesn't macro expansion happen at read-time?

EDIT: I think that's the case for _Common_ Lisp. By "the Lisp tradition" did you mean prior dialects?

<comment><USER4> you still can have dynamic semantics at read-time -- eg, does the macro-expand in reading the first form load new macros that affect the next form? Eg, in (progn (M) (M)), is it ever the case that the second M will dispatch to a different macro definition than the first M?

In the world of Common Lisp, yes. In the world of R6RS's more static semantics, no.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I cannot disagree enough.

There are plenty of JavaScript compilers that each have their own incompatible module systems. Adding another will only exacerbate what is already a major problem. JavaScript needs modules in the language to prevent fragmentation into what are effectively different source languages.

</comment><comment><USER6> "And there are your modules, compatible with every browser instantaneously, without having to wait for IE12 to implement any JS dialects."

Maybe I misunderstood your point but.. IE12 needs to implement macro for this to work.. no?

<comment><AUTHOR> _IE12 needs to implement macro for this to work.. no?_

No, the macros could be expanded into plain old JS by a pre-processor (maybe by your IDE on-save). Browsers only see the expanded code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's already pretty easy to do metaprogramming in JavaScript (as in use code to modify/create code) and it already supports both apply form and (the uglier) eval form so I don't really see what this brings to the table.

Been looking a little at clojure lately, both defmacro and the homoiconicity part of lisp is really powerful, but not very simple, compared to how you do metaprogramming in JavaScript.

So interesting post, but I don't think JavaScript needs more obscurity or the complexity of macros.

</comment><comment><USER8> Types in Javascript? Blasphemy! :)

Jokes aside, you could easily write a preprocessor to do that. If the syntax you want is along the lines of

      keyword identifier { body }
      keyword identifier

it's just a matter of matching tokens, counting brackets and then replacing forms.

With that being said, the examples sounds like making busy-work for yourself. The "module" would still suffer from monkeypatching-related collisions (e.g. think document.getElementsByClassName in old versions of Prototype.js).

Also, javascript has both statements and expressions, so hypothetical macro- enhanced code like this

      var a = module A {}

would break depending on what "module" expands to.

<comment><AUTHOR> _The "module" would still suffer from monkeypatching-related collisions (e.g. think document.getElementsByClassName in old versions of Prototype.js)._

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm thinking you would annotate the beginning of foo.xjs (extended JavaScript) with

       /*macros: modules.jsm*/

Then run the preprocessor, which will generate foo.js - a plain old JavaScript file.

The `s' in `defs' stands for "statement", so your example would throw the same error as "var a = if (x==4) ..."

        var a = module A {}
                ^

error: expected expression

<comment><USER8> >> The "module" would still suffer from monkeypatching-related collisions

I mean that the module implementation will be a leaky abstraction because I can still do something like "Object.prototype.boom = true" inside a module and cause widespread brokenness. This encapsulation/robustness problem isn't something a simple macro can fix very easily, unfortunately, so both the module proposal that you linked to and your macro proposal sound like using a hammer as a screwdriver for that particular problem.

>> The `s' in `defs' stands for "statement"

Ah, that clears things up. I'd prefer something like a "defexpression" though, which would allow

      var a = module A {}

On a side note, var a = if (blah) would be cool to see too (well actually, I'd be more interested in var a = for(blah) ).

<comment><AUTHOR> _Ah, that clears things up. I'd prefer something like a "defexpression" though, which would allow_

defexpression makes sense, too (but I'd call it `defe' - the more often you use something, the shorter it should be). For some reason, I had the intuition that it would be easier to add statements than expressions, but I don't see why it can't be as simple, as long as they start with some kind of unique token that can be considered a reserved keyword when parsing.

<comment><USER8> >> but I'd call it `defe' - the more often you use something, the shorter it should be

I was going to write that, but I got the feeling you'd wonder what the "e" stood for :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Frankly I think this is s stupid idea, macros are evil. I don't think we need them, the language is just fine without them.

But look at those examples.... they do nothing useful, they don't make the DOM behave, they don't enhance the language.

Use functions for recurring code!

</comment><comment><USER10> I think using a pre-processor is MUCH better:

CoffeeScript: <http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/>

</comment><comment><USER11> You are going to get it, but not the way you think.

Google is working on native client, which is x86 code that executes inside the browser in a safe way (no idea how they pulled this of, but they did), much like Java script does today - chicken scheme, being a scheme, has macros and can compile to native code.

Vola - scheme, and macros, for client side programs.

</comment><comment><USER12> macros cannot implement the whole proposal. but still some kind of macro system _may_ be a worthwhile addition to, say, the closure compiler

</comment><comment><USER13> Are people forgetting Knuth's earthshaking announcement about the next tex, called iTeX (jingle), that is going to make macros obsolete?</comment>


HN: Help me pick a logo - <AUTHOR>

Hey all,
I've been working on creating a crowd-sourced freelance translation site for the past few months.  It's now time for me to choose a logo!
Could you help me out?
Contest:
http://99designs.com/contests/35426
My favorites:
http://99designs.com/contests/35426/entries/44
http://99designs.com/contests/35426/entries/47 <comment><USER2> Against what most have suggested here so far, I actually like #47 significantly more. Here's why: When I hear 'translator', I immediately think of someone furiously typing on a computer or transcribing something on paper - nerd-like behavior, which the glasses really do emphasize. Also, with #47, the face of the caterpillar is the main point of focus, with the rest of the body relatively undemanding of attention. That sort of emphasis and meaning isn't in #44, imo. And the type in #44 is too styled. You want something effortlessly readable.

</comment><comment><USER3> Logo 47 seems more memorable to me. Meaning if I surfed off your site and 1 month later seen #47 somewhere else I would be more likely to remember it is associated with your company.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. It is also much more communicative about the site's job, possibly because of the reading glasses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you go with logo 44, the 'i' (and thus all the text) should probably have a different font face, or should not be capitalized. I say this because:

(a) There is ambiguity between that capital i and the lowercase l. Although the rest of the text is capitalized, it is not worth the risk potentially confusing your customers.

(b) Caterpi and Caterpl are both reasonable ways to shorten Caterpillar, so which adds to the confusion if there is typographical ambiguity.

Cheers!

<comment><AUTHOR> Great suggestion, Thanks!

<comment><USER6> From the displayed logos I like #44, the caterpillar is very cute. I also agree with the suggestion to change the typography to something that is not capitalized.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but the BW version needs a touch-up. It looks like it has a sad face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like #47 more, not doubt about it. It fits the brief better, and leaves a stronger brand impression IMO. However, I agree with matt1 that having the character looking directly _at_ you may be an issue. I think it's okay... I'm trying to remember another logo where that's the case. To be on the safe side I'd probably pick #44 though, if unsure, as it's certainly nice enough.

</comment><comment><USER9> These are both very good but I'd go with 44 for the simple fact that the caterpillar in 47 is looking _at_ you, which is awkward.

I recently asked HN to help with a submission for my upcoming project (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1059075>). I used CrowdSpring and paid $200+$30 for the contest. I got a lot more submissions than you did with 99designs for $150, but it looks like your submissions were in general a lot better quality than the ones I received on CrowdSpring. If I need to get a logo designed in the future, 99designs seems like a good alternative.

<comment><AUTHOR> Personally I also prefer #44, although one of my friends mentioned it looked like a pokemon :S

I did see your previous submission, which is where I got the idea to ask HN (thanks!). CrowdSpring was another option, but the really smooth transition from learning about how 99designs works, to ordering a project really impressed me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think #47 is more unique and therefore recognizable with minimal context. If I saw #44 in a favicon cropped to just the head I'm not sure I'd be able to tell what it was, but I'd definitely recognize #47.

</comment><comment><USER11> I like #47. For some reason, I feel that 44 is more suited to a site for children. When I look at #47, I think of a book worm, and it is easy to associate it to what your site actually does.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Site: <http://www.caterpi.com>

Contest: <http://99designs.com/contests/35426>

My favorites:

<http://99designs.com/contests/35426/entries/44>

<http://99designs.com/contests/35426/entries/47>

<comment><USER7> The machine-translated Russian version is pretty bad :) I can help you with a proper translation if you want.

<comment><USER12> Same for the German one. Better version:

1) Caterpi verbindet freiberufliche Übersetzer mit ihren Kunden. Wir werden im Frühjahr 2010 starten.

2) Translators => Übersetzer

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Sujan, I've made the changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If I may: Suggestions for the site itself, not the logo...

I love the one-stop "what do you want to translate" on the homepage... but you should definitely add an "advanced" section w/ bulk rates, translation by "guaranteed professionals", upload forms, etc.

Nice idea though! Definitely would use it to translate some software.

You may want to consider a lowest-bid approach too for the future.

</comment><comment><USER14> I prefer #47, it's been made with quite a bit more attention to detail.

The glasses suggest intelligence which is good for a translation service and it does better in greyscale suggesting that the contrast has a lot of information and is memorable. The font is a little broken though, particularly the "a" and how the ".com" doesn't align with the baseline.

</comment><comment><USER15> try <http://pickfu.com/>, it's what we've used before

</comment><comment><USER16> I wouldn't choose any of them really

</comment><comment><USER17> Go with #44, but change the type.</comment>


Ask HN: How legal is recording sessions? - <AUTHOR> Is it legal to record identified sessions, and then playback internally for marketing or sales purposes without recording form inputs but only the way user scrolls? <comment><USER2> Seems to be legal because HotJar, FullStory, etc offer it as a service. Maybe ask their customer service.

<comment><AUTHOR> they claim they do unidentified, what if the session is identified ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Ask your lawyer if taking legal advice from random strangers on the Internet is right for you."

</comment><comment><USER4> Consult an attorney.</comment>


Lyft gaining on Uber as it spends big on growth - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-gaining-on-Uber-as-it-spends-big-on-growth-7251625.php <comment><USER2> There's one area where Lyft is ahead of Uber, the whole "we are nicer" thing discounted: investment from an auto company (Lyft took money from GM).

If you take a truly long-term view, the marketplace for on-demand drivers will become obsolete once autonomous driving becomes good enough to be adopted everywhere. At that point, Uber's biggest edge -financing and supply-side field logistics- will erode very quickly against companies that own vehicle production (auto giants) and AI (autonomous driving)

Uber knows this, and that's why they have been investing a lot of money on robotics and AI around their partnership with CMU. However, they still do not get the kind of data Google can get from their Maps and Waze (It's interesting to note that Lyft and Waze partnered) to enable their AI researchers.

Uber is still going to be a very successful company in the next few years: For technical and legal reasons, self-driving, on-demand vehicle services will be at least a decade out. But I'm not as sure about Uber's survival in, say, 20 years.

<comment><USER3> > legal reasons

Keep in mind that AARP is excited about driverless cars because for millions of seniors, losing their ability to drive means losing their independence. Also, by age 50, everyone knows somebody killed by a human-driven car. AARP's members vote at very high rates even in non-presidential elections, so they are a very powerful lobby.

[http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal- technology/info-201...](http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal- technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html)

<comment><USER4> Not clear to me how a driverless car has any advantage for a senior vs. Uber or Lyft with a driver. In fact it seems less desirable, as the human driver could help the elderly passenger in and out of the vehicle, help with walkers or wheelchairs, etc.

<comment><USER5> The hope is that autonomous cars will be much cheaper once you take out the human element; when a taxi costs $30 for a routine trip, and Uber/Lyft still have to pay their drivers >minimum-wage, you cannot cater to the elder niche of doing groceries and making regular doctor trips, not to mention the useful aspect of 24/7 coverage.

There's also the psychological issues: elderly people don't want to be a 'burden' or rely on strangers, and autonomous cars neatly solve both issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've used Lyft a few times recently. I'm a little suspicious Uber is using surge fair tactics on users that have agreed to the pricing in the past when there is in fact no surge occurring.

When traveling for work I often use Uber and recently there was consistent surge pricing. The first day it made sense since it was raining. But then the next few times I used it there was surge pricing - not much, like 1.1x or 1.3x. I agreed because it wasn't too much more and I needed to get to my meetings and it can be expensed. I mentioned to my Uber driver there was a surge and he said it didn't come up as a surge for him. The next trip later that day the surge was 2.2x

But then when I got back home I noticed every time I've brought the Uber app up there is a "surge". Even during fine weather and non-traditional surge times. I look outside and there are taxis available (NYC) and I opened Lyft and there were plenty of options without any surge.

It was probably bad luck (I don't really think they'd get that greedy that quickly) but it made me try Lyft and I had the exact same experience as Uber.

I suppose this is the market at work.

<comment><USER7> I strongly suspect that Uber has (or will, depending on a particular market's maturity) smooth the curve on surge pricing.

I think most customers are initially averse to ever paying more than 1x, but once you've gotten used to paying 1.1x or 1.2x, you realize it's still typically much cheaper than a taxi. It's ultimately in everyone's interests for prices to adjust quickly and smoothly to demand.

<comment><USER8> Its also in uber's best interests to charge more money if possible.

<comment><USER7> Well yeah, by "everyone" I meant to include both Uber and the drivers, along with their customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In Boston at least I've had a far better experience with Lyft than Uber. I know the driver pool is very similar so it's probably the result of a small sample size on my part, but Lyft drivers have just been better, happier, and more conversational.

I've heard Lyft pays them slightly better, so perhaps that's part of it.

<comment><USER10> It's weird because in a way they should be the same company because they share the driver pool. But the experience is different I think it's a positive feedback loop because drivers expect a happier and more engaging customer with Lyft. And Lyft offers in app tips.

<comment><USER11> I avoid using Lyft specifically because it has tips. Lack of tips is one of the best things about Uber.

<comment><USER10> Drivers aren't aware of the tip until the next day and only have a time reference for it, so there's no pressure to tip

<comment><USER11> Didn't know that; thank you for pointing it out. If you have to have tips, that's a good way to handle it.

Nonetheless I prefer doing away with tips for other reasons:

* It's just one more thing I have to decide, and I'm tired of doing it. I don't even do a good job. I often tip people based on completely irrelevant things.

* Tips don't lead to better/friendlier service. Taxi drivers regularly get well over 20% tips but I've had very few good experiences in a taxi. Rather, they just expect a tip and get quite made if you leave a small one.

* Tipping is gamed by service workers who learn what to do to get bigger tips and then focus on those things. Other aspects of service are often neglected.

* In Japan service is far superior to America in all the ways I care about, but tipping is virtually nonexistent. Having spent time there, I just can't get behind tipping.

<comment><USER12> I think Gett (a Black Cab app I use in London) improves upon tipping somewhat as well - your choices are 0%, 5%, 10%, or 12%. That's it. No giving a 20% tip (or a 100% tip because you were drunk-typing or whatever).

I've always just set it to the maximum tip amount, because I figured (a) It's not that much, and (b) it would result in me getting better ratings, though after what GP said, maybe they have no idea how much I tipped :-/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I often ask drivers whether they prefer Uber or Lyft. I've never heard anyone say they prefer Uber, and I've heard lots of stories about how driving for Uber is a ripoff. Neither one is a very good deal for the driver, but I'll continue to prefer Lyft as long as I keep hearing the same opinions. I still think drivers barely break even once you account for vehicle purchase and maintenance costs.

<comment><USER14> > I still think drivers barely break even once you account for vehicle > purchase and maintenance costs.

This is the case in most cities for brokered taxis with or without Uber/Lyft. It takes working long hours and good luck that your car doesn't break down to make a decent wage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Uber has been a lifesaver, but main gripe with UberX as of recently is that they don't seem to screen cars very well, at least in the Bay Area. Dirty seats, older cars, noxious air fresheners, etc. all seem to be the norm. Yes, I do try to leave feedback but wishing the baseline was a notch higher.

<comment><USER16> Lyft requires drivers to go to a mentorship process but with Uber all you do is sending pictures of your driver license and car to become a driver.

Lyft also sends training videos and material to drivers. Because of the possibility of the tip drivers are trying their best.

It's a good idea to tip to drivers that do a good job. They are low income people and deserve that extra $1 more than your bartender that usually earns a good chunk of money each night.

<comment><USER17> With Uber I had to get a vehicle inspection and medical certificate which required a visit to the driver center. I believe the medical certificate is legal requirement in my state.

Lyft's mentorship process wasn't much of a process in my experience. I met a guy at his house, we talked for about 45 minutes, it was kind of helpful but I felt like Uber's onboarding was more organized.

Uber also has a number of training videos and I think they do a better job than Lyft at providing information to drivers.

I agree that the tipping thing is huge. When I drive, I get out of the car and open the door for the passengers, that kind of thing. I also make a point of keeping the car clean; at least vacuuming before I work a shift. I keep Armor All wipes in the car too so I can give a quick shine to the dashboard and the door frame (it gets scuffed up from people getting in and out and shows dirt quickly).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "From everything I'm looking at, we're gaining share in all top 20 markets, which is where 80 percent to 90 percent of rides happen," 80% of your ridership, not uber's.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm looking forward to hailing a self-driving Tesla directly with no middle man. All the money Uber, Lyft etc are throwing at building a network will be for nothing.

<comment><USER20> Wrong, Uber and Lyft will be the operators. You think Google really wants to get into fleet management?

<comment><USER21> why not, if it's a profitable activity?

<comment><USER22> They'll try to automate it to an even greater extent than their other endeavors. The only way to ever reach a human will be through lawsuits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Alternative headline: Despite big spending Lyft struggling to keep up with Uber

<comment><USER24> That headline doesn't work since they were never head to head to begin with.

<comment><USER25> Struggling to keep up doesn't imply you were ever head to head does it? You could struggle to keep up with someone for an entire race and always be behind them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This part of the article is particularly interesting:

"Meanwhile, Uber has been working to fulfill a promise to shareholders and employees that it would achieve profitability in North America by the second quarter of 2016, a milestone it says it has now reached in the U.S. and Canada."

The effects of this are being felt in engineering, there is a freeze on any new hardware purchases at the moment. You need a new server? Too bad, make do with what you've got. They've also reduced perks for new hires, and new hires are being stiffed in terms of compensation compared to what employees were getting just a few months ago, both in terms of stock and base salary and Uber credits.

</comment><comment><USER27> I just hate tips....

</comment><comment><USER28> This is a race to the bottom.

The real survival struggle is against Apple, Tesla and Google.

</comment><comment><USER29> Uber has no moat.</comment>


Beat This: Android Tablet in $ 220 - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238371/indian_mobile_operators_turn_to_lowcost_android_tablets.html

<comment><USER2> Done, if you don't mind refurbished: [http://stores.ebay.com/barnesandnoblestore?_trksid=p3286.c0....](http://stores.ebay.com/barnesandnoblestore?_trksid=p3286.c0.m567)

<comment><USER3> I found this in the UK... <http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5072954.htm> for GPB 70 (USD 115) new

But the Indian tablet has 3G and a "bundled data plan" (whatever that might be) as well as WiFi, so it's hard to find proper competition.

Other than that, tohugh, there's nothing remarkable about the Indian tablet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> $170 is the sweet spot: [http://www.buy.com/prod/nook-color-by-barnes-noble- wifi-erea...](http://www.buy.com/prod/nook-color-by-barnes-noble-wifi- ereader/q/loc/111/listingid/140072914/221376447.html) Nook Color. [http://android-sale.com/haipad-m8-8-inch-1-3ghz-processor- an...](http://android-sale.com/haipad-m8-8-inch-1-3ghz-processor-android- tablet.html) Haipad M8 ( _really_ impressive hardware specs, 720p screen, Gingerbread, official Market etc)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a very good thing for Android.

The BRIC nations have a faster growth rate, a burgeoning middle class that can't yet afford Apple IPADs or other premium tablets. They would definitely buy these low cost and yet highly functional devices. More people will use it , be familiar with its interface and when they have the money, they will upgrade to better Tablets running Android.

</comment><comment><USER6> Its stuff like this that devalues the Android brand. For that money it cannot be comparable in performance to a galaxy tab or an ipad. Not a net positive for android in the long run against iOS but it will surely not help webOS and windows brands.

<comment><USER7> It says that "the device will be bundled with a data plan" so this is probably a subsidised price, regardless of the quality of the device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How's the performance, though? I think we all knew it was -possible- to build a tablet that cheap... It's just that it wouldn't be much fun to use.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sure I can beat your $220 Android tablet - how about a $499 iPad that you will still enjoy using in a month's time?

</comment><comment><USER10> I see your 220$ Tablet and raise you a Cray XK6 supercompter let's see which has more flop's per $ or watt. ;-0</comment>


Segway Inventor Turns Mind to the Poor - <AUTHOR> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/inventor-aims-to-aid-poorest-billions/ <comment><USER2> Make sure to watch the video at the end of the article (about 8 minutes).

</comment><comment><USER3> "How can I make something impractical and expensive, yet very tantalizing for the poor this time, instead of geeks?"</comment>


Thoughts of a sysadmin starting to get old ... - <AUTHOR> http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/5785-Thoughts-of-an-admin-starting-to-get-old-....html

<comment><USER2> I kept reading wanting this to be interesting, but it's the same tired Unix incompatibility rant we've all been reading for 20 years now. First it was Sun needlessly extending Unix to the point where good software assumed 68k and wouldn't run on a VAX. Then it was AT&T needlessly reimplementing stuff like STREAMS instead of just using BSD sockets like everyone else did. Then it was Sun unbundling the compiler and forcing everyone to use proprietary/incompatible development environments. The list goes on and on.

Eventually everyone decided to sit down and write POSIX and X/Open and SUS, which was good. But development didn't stop when the standards were finished, and people again wanted to use tools and features on their platforms that weren't "standard" (GNU Make being a really good example from the article here -- no one who knows what they're talking about would serious consider using anything else. Even Sun ships it, for crying out loud). And history moved on, and platforms that didn't evolve in the direction the market wanted started to have trouble. OSF/1 (Digital Unix) and IRIX are dead now. HP/UX is on life support. AIX lives on as IBM's internal toy for tuning benchmarks on their big POWER6 boxes, but doesn't actually sell much.

So anyway, now the crisis du jour is Linux folks assuming they're building on Linux using the GNU tools instead of Solaris. Cry me a river. Sun is (well, was) as bad an offender in this space as anyone else. To the extent they supported anything "standard", it was because they wrote the standards around their own products post-hoc. But now they're a legacy platform, and their fans need to get used to living like the rest of us did for decades.

<comment><AUTHOR> I released some software as open source. I'd developed it on OpenBSD. People quite reasonably wanted to run it on Linux.

Trouble is, running on Linux turned out to be more than just a port to "Linux". It ended up being a port to an annoying amount of distributions.

You can't even rely on Linux being compatible with Linux. :-(

<comment><USER2> Well, yeah. It's not like Sun ever released a completely incompatible OS "upgrade" based on an entirely different codebase and standard set, right? :)

My point wasn't to defend linux, it was that this whole genre of platform flame is boring and useless. This stuff happens. It even happens for some really good reasons, like "improvements" and "features". It's been happening since the dawn of computing (at least), and it's even been happening in _precicely this form_ since the Unix wars began in the mid 80's.

Just deal with it. Or don't. But stop complaining, because you won't fix anything.

<comment><USER3> At least in Solaris the kernel interfaces doesn't change from minor to minor release rendering existent binary drivers useless ;)

But that aside: At the end the text is not about Linux, about Solaris or AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. It's about portability. Either we have to accept that there is a lock-in to Linux for many opensource development and stop all this portability stuff.

The article is about saying: Hey, use gmake if you want ... but keep into consideration, that the target system may be something else than Debian Lenny.

The next thing: I would like to see a standard way to install software on Linux. 17 distinct packages for Linux, just one of Mac OS X and 2 for (Open)Solaris. A standard would be nice here ... really.

And you have to take the following into consideration: Outside of the enthusiasts group something like binary compatibility guarantees something important for the admins. Improvements are good, features are good. But not at the price of breaking every bridge behind. At the end this hurts the Unix franchise, as the Microsoft franchise is simply a much larger market. We can't afford to fragmentize the Unix business by being to GNU/Linux centric. Deal with it. Solaris won't disappear, the *BSD won't disappear. But we should be able to ensure, that all can participate from open source development. And one factor is further development of the Unix standards to keep them current with the technological development, and not just cooking it's own soup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's an argument in there somewhere, behind the repetition of anecdotes, but I'm damned if I can figure out what it is. The idea that somehow people developing on laptops is bad because now the server has to support that development environment is absurd on its face, particularly given the amount of sheer crap that comes in a modern e.g. NetBeans install so that you can simulate the Java environment on your J2EE box on your workstation.

He rants about GNU make a lot, but there's a very simple reason why I, for example, write GNU makefiles and not standardized ones; GNU make is more _useful_.

<comment><USER5> I had this problem too. It sounded like he was upset that software written for Linux and assuming Linux tools doesn't run on his pristine server. It sounded like he wanted everything to compile on his old Digital Tru64 Unix Alpha box. I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure that the world has continued to move on and evolve. Yes, people will start using libraries you don't have. Yes, people will stop writing workaround for old technologies. Yes, people will tend to write for their own environment first. No, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

It sounds like a guy who doesn't want to change, and I have a lot of trouble mustering sympathy for that. Oh, and I think he wants a pony too.

<comment><USER3> No ... i don't want a pony ;) I just want to be able to to compile code on Solaris, Linux, one of the BSD without having to make vast adaptions (or hope that someone else made it). It isn't even about libraries. Of course, you need libraries. It's about compliance to standards, and that Linux shouldn't invent it's own standard and instead work with the established standard bodies. Linux isn't the centre of the universe.

Obviously you didn't understand the point of the article. It's not about hating Linux or GNU ... it's just about the ability to use open source software outside the Linux Community without ending to throw out all this Linuxisms and GNUisms

At the end you can see it as the plea, that portability isn't just an afterthought ... and given the state of some makefiles and hard coded things in some open source developments you get the impression that it's a not- thought-about it at all.

PS: I'm from the Opensolaris side of the unix universe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I gave up after a couple of paragraphs. Maybe I have a short attention span, or maybe this is just the same tired old argument.

During the Unix wars nobody gave a crap for standards, and these only came to be when Unix was starting to get some serious competition from non-unix operating systems.

The problem is, relying too much on standards leads to stagnation, and it is Linux that has prevented unix from standardizing itself into irrelevance.

I'm mostly a Linux guy, I admit, but I have worked, and still do, with other unixes (the ones spelled with all caps) every day and I must say that although they are unix (and I like the unix way of doing things), they are also a pain to work with and not "standard" at all (just put AIX, Solaris and IRIX side by side, and try creating users, managing ACLs, and so forth). The only standard thing about them is the lack of the small features that Linux admins take for granted and that make one's job so much easier (the so called GNUisms). Keeping your tools in the 1980's just because they are "standard" doesn't mean they are any good.

Don't get me wrong, once you have an AIX box humming along, it works just great. But so does a Linux one with added flexibility and "niceness".

</comment><comment><USER7> There is a problem with maintaining standards. No matter how advanced your application, you have to rely on a tool over 30 years old (make). I think it would be insane to believe that the efforts of a single individual 30 years ago produced the best possible build system for modern software.

</comment><comment><USER8> Some friends and I are going to start an old programmers' home. Rocking chairs on the porch, (real) Unix in the hall closet. We'll save space for you.

<comment><USER9> The critical part is the lawn with kids to shout at.

<comment><USER10> Gonna tell them script kiddies to get off my lawn!

<comment><USER5> Yell at them script kiddies to get off my public interfaces!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> 1\. The problem is a different one: You develop for a 1-2 core machine and afterwards this stuff is destined to work on real servers. I can´t count how often i found massive scaling problems in systems you wasn´t able to find on a notebook, but was pretty obvious on larger system. Sometimes i was able to remove the problem, but often we replicated the development plattform by using 1-2 socket servers.

2\. Obviously GNU make has advantages. I don´t have anything against GNU make. I just hate this Linux centric view. But from my perspective it would be more feasible to extend the standards (for example SUSv5 ;) ) to keep programs more portable between all Unixes and derivates. Free Software should be operating system agnostic.

3\. I have to correct you: HPUX and OSF/1 is mainly on life life-support because of HP ill-fated decisions with PA-RISC and Alpha in favour of Itanic. AIX isn´t a toy for testing ... in the real world there are many systems running those operating sytems like Solaris and AIX. You just have too look at the market data: Sun and IBM still sell systems worth billions of $.

4\. Yes gmake is in Solaris ... because of the dependence of many build procceses. But i´m still thinking it would be better to define unixwide standards that include GNU make. At the moment the behaviour is similar to Microsoft. We have our LSB .. that´s a standard ... the bad thing ... it´s a _extended_ version of POSIX, SUS and so on. I think people should ask, why there is the need for a extended own standard instead of extending the existing standards.

<comment><USER11>
      why there is the need for a extended own standard instead
      of extending the existing standards.

Because standards bodies move too slowly?

<comment><USER3> So instead to help to make them faster, just ignore them?

<comment><USER11> At the risk of being a bit gnomic: the standard is here to serve _me_ , I am not here to serve the standard. Apparently the Linux community has more of a taste for writing code than worrying about bureaucratic processes. I can't say that I blame them.

<comment><USER3> When everybody thinks like that, only bureaucrats define standards. Lack of standards let to many problem: I´m just thinking about the amount of power supplies i have to carry. A power supply for the company mobile, a power supply for the iPhone (or at least the USB cable), a power supply for the notebook. I have three small switches from three vendors needing three separate voltages (a standard would be nice here, for example for a central power supply feeding all this stuff). My USB hard drives have their own power supply. The 1.5 TB Maxtor from the special offer have a different one than the 2 1TB Fujitsu-Siemens drives. Standards are bureaucratic, but they help ... but we have to work on them, to enable them to serve us. And at the end it´s the same at power supplies as with Unix standards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I see one legitimate point in here: There's a lot of faux portability going on these days. The software uses autoconf/automake and it's full of ifdefs so it _should_ just configure/make on any platform, but actually it only runs on Linux/x86. IMO the solution is for such software to stop pretending to be portable (as a bonus, removing all those ifdefs should make the code more readable), but that won't help the grumpy old Solaris users.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm lost, all I see is rambling. What is his point, what is his problem?</comment>


Miiverse archive recovers 17TB of social mirth after Nintendo's shutdown - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/01/missing-nintendos-miiverse-network-check-out-this-17tb-online-archive/ <comment><USER2> Could data become part of UNESCO's world heritage? Nowadays alot of culture happens in the digital space and it's always a tragedy when huge amounts of cultural creations just vanish into nothing. Web archives are perhaps not enough, lots of content are inside walled gardens, convincing a company to release all that information is a different question of course :)

<comment><USER3> No. World heritage sites are of archeological interest, whereas marking and preserving only some internet properties perhaps less than a decade old, would only play into the hands of sycophants bent on gaming the UNESCO system for personal gain.

The reality is that an UNESCO site is something that warring factions should agree to avoid destroying with bombs and guns, even while they eviscerate each other amid very real bloodshed.

You can't make such a promise that destroying a certain server in a data center may or may not cost the world something valuable. Furthermore, there are not warring factions in the equation, to threaten precious data centers housing your precious data.

You would waste UN resources on... bought and sold consumer products? Why not a clutch of warez d00dz cracked proprietary software? Who decides what world heritage is?

The wrong kind of war might seek to destroy your precious garbage, if there's no obvious reason it's special.

<comment><USER4> > You can't make such a promise that destroying a certain server in a data > center may or may not cost the world something valuable.

Think on a different level of abstraction. Cyberwar is a thing; cyberweapons are a thing. You could totally have rules about what online services state- sponsored malware shouldn't try to attack. It would make just as much sense to protect Archive.org as it would to protect the Library of Congress.

<comment><USER5> Except political motives exist to preserve the powers that be, and their culture.

There's less skin in the game, when the preserved items are thousand year old buildings in ruins, of intrinsic interest to tourists from all walks of life.

Compare examples of physical architecture to bar fliers advertising happy hour and ladies night. Video game profiles rank closer to bar fliers, even if the architecture in ruins is the bar itself.

<comment><USER4> This discussion isn't about profiles per se; Miiverse was essentially a game- visible [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oekaki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oekaki) forum. It's the drawings that are worth preserving, being actual acts of artistic creation.

I mean, you could still compare this to things posted up in a bar—but it'd be the doodles people have made on their placemats. Some of those placemat doodles are genuine works of art, you know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why?

Communities die, people die, and more importantly, they change. While it used to be that if you wrote something stupid on a wall or carved it into a tree, with a natural expectation that it will get erased or destroyed over time, now even when behemoth social networks shut down, there are apparently enthusiasts which want to conserve every creepy pasta and highdea everywhere. Just because it can be done.

At best, the users should have been given the chance to download whatever they want for private use, and the rest should rightly get obliterated.

Many people would object less to Facebook if it probably deleted all content not marked "important" after a year, rather than creepily storing everything ever.

<comment><USER7> One of the most exciting archeological pieces we have from the Roman empire, is graffiti spouting the same mundane things people scrawl on bathroom walls today.

> At best, the users should have been given the chance to download whatever > they want for private use, and the rest should rightly get obliterated.

This is a hard one. The right to be forgotten is probably something the average person should have.

But equally, human history can be understood and shaped by some of the most mundane things, and our descendants have a right to review that. To understand it.

I don't have a solution to it.

> Many people would object less to Facebook if it probably deleted all content > not marked "important" after a year, rather than creepily storing everything > ever.

It is not their storage of data I find creepy. It is the fact that this permanent storage is actively used, sold and traded. A deleted profile shouldn't be able to follow you around the web, and continue to build upon itself.

<comment><USER8> The "The right to be forgotten" applies to private information made public against a person's will, such as revenge porn or showing up in search engine listings. It does not apply to content willing contributed to a public community, like HN, reddit or Miiverse. What facebook does still applies, though, because a lot of the data they use, sell and trade is data their users think is private.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > The entire Archiverse archives are posted under an open source license, free > for mirroring or even personal download if you want to perform a deep, > offline analysis. I hope you've got a 17TB hard drive lying around...

I'm curious about the legality of offering these under an open source license, since I'd assume that the original content isn't in the public domain yet? Unless Nintendo's TOS had placed these under that license itself?

<comment><USER10> Is it really a grey area? Surely it's just plain old copyright infringement?

If facebook shuts down it doesn't mean all multimedia content that was ever hosted there suddenly gets dumped into the public domain. At most you gave the company that run the site an irrevocable, international license to that content (depending on their TOS), it doesn't apply to everyone else and it didn't get put into the public domain or under some other open source license.

Nintendo is sending all users their post history so they can personally archive it if they wish. If anyone else archives it, it's just copyright infringement...

Personally, I respect the work that the Internet Archive and other archivers do, so this is definitely not a hill I'm willing to die on.

<comment><USER11> Indeed, they've run afoul of this before when mirroring sites, often niche ones that notice the uptick in traffic and whose users are attentive to their content rights.

It's an interesting conflict -- there is a benefit to saving things in case of site failure, but simultaneously it is a problem on a copyright basis, particularly for written works where the author themselves feels small next to the Internet Archive. They've walked a fine, fine line with various items like DOS abandonware games where the owners are potentially in more of a position to "lawyer up."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand why Nintendo has shut it down in the first place, in spite of its popularity. These community features can enhance user experience, especially when implemented right in the game. Why wouldn't they even continue Miiverse on later consoles like the Switch?

<comment><USER13> It's hard to be sure, but it seems like it could be a cultural shift more than anything else. The Wii, Wii U and 3DS had tons of little extra services and channels and what not that didn't directly relate to the games, and often felt like they were going for the 'toy' feel more than anything else. Meanwhile, the Switch seems to be designed like a simple games console with the games being the first and only priority and the extraneous stuff being cut out altogether.

Kind of like they wanted to go back to basics after the Wii U underperformed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This was the shit.</comment>


Ask HN: Focus on projects vs. competitive coding to land a job as a fresher? - <AUTHOR> I have mostly been focussing on building real-world software projects, contributing to OSS and doing internships as a CS student. But I have come to notice that all the companies that are recruiting students from my college tend to attribute more importance to competitive coding questions (DS and algorithms) and aptitude tests (English, Math and trick questions).
I have also seen stuff on the internet like https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768?lang=en
How important are the roles of OSS projects and competitive coding when it comes to landing a job as a fresher? <comment><USER2> Focus on competitive coding/problem solving. They do not expect college graduates to have projects. Also, in general it is difficult to judge someone based on the project unless the project is already a hit but in that case why do you really want a job.

Puzzle/problem solving type questions are easy to help them "filter" people. It doesn't mean anything -- do not read too much into it. Its just an easy way to select few from some people.

So, prepare those puzzles, and you are good to go. Almost all of them will ask those.

</comment><comment><USER3> Focus on internships, for the sake of getting a job it helps more than coding competition/side project</comment>


Peter Thiel - You are Not a Lottery Ticket [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29931127 <comment><USER2> Says the guy who won the lottery. I'm frankly more interested in the guy who blew up during the dot com boom and who is currently some random employee at some random company, with a past filled with mistakes - frankly you'd learn more from his actual failures, than from Thiel's failure masking success.

<comment><USER3> Why learn from the guy who made the mistakes when you can learn from the guy who didn't?

<comment><USER4> It's not either/or. You generally need to learn from both.

The problem is social stratification. If you're a normal person, you end up mostly around people who didn't succeed and get only half the story. If you have a break-out success (or just luck) you end up in a world where everyone _has_ , and there's a lot of self-congratulatory just-worlding. Either way, you get a biased account.

I think it's most adaptive to learn from both sides while playing the _attitude_ of the successful, to make yourself seem like a high-status person. You always want to _seem_ (except to true friends whom you'd actually like to help, with accurate information) like you've had an unbroken chain of successes and can't imagine anything else; you just don't want that to bleed into self-deception. Maybe the reason why psychopaths do so well in life is that they're most resistant against cognitive dissonance. It's easy for them to maintain a successful front without falling into self-deception or delusion. For everyone else, there's nonzero cognitive load in doing that.

<comment><USER5> > psychopaths do so well in life

Do they?

<comment><USER6> I don't know if there's been a lot of rigorous academic research on the topic or not, but there have been a handful of articles in the pop business press, talking about the connection between being "CEO material" and displaying the traits of a psychopath. For example:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why- som...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some- psychopaths-make-great-ceos/)

<comment><USER4> Psychopaths are genetically built to be extreme r-strategists (see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-strategist> ). What seem like stupid social behaviors are actually practice so that, when they are in a high-stakes social situation, they can win it. Most people find the psychopaths around them to be petty and stupid and think, "How could that guy ever succeed?" Well, the psychopath has decided that you're not of primary importance to the game he is trying to play, so he's using you for practice.

By the time they're adults, psychopaths have a wealth of social experience and knowledge, often gained from high-pressure social situations _they created_ at a rate exceeding what most people would ever encounter. When they want something, they're very good at playing to win.

The prehistoric context was that developing an outsized social ability enabled someone to have an above-normal number of sexual encounters. The lack of emotional attachment and compassion, likewise, keeps them from pair-bonding and slows down their proliferation.

In the work context, organizations are also r- or K-selective (quantity vs. quality) in how they replicate process. Get-big-or-die companies are r-strategists, while "lifestyle businesses" tend to be K-strategic. As the business world becomes increasingly r-strategic, so does the character of people running it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just watched this talk.. absolutely great material. I wish he was a slightly better/more confident speaker, but I got over it.

For someone who is the farthest thing from libertarian, is there any more literature on the idea of big planning, deterministic optimism, etc in a libertarian framework? His examples of the US as optimistic and deterministic were all "centrally planned", and done through government, not individuals or groups of individuals (corps, ngos, etc). Or at least that's how I perceived it.

<comment><USER8> Maybe look at Mises on entrepreneurship or John Mackey (of Whole Foods) in Conscious Capitalism for deterministic optimism in libertarian framework.

Perhaps "Atlas Shrugged" contrasts both indeterminite pessimism (the failing state and despair-filled question "Who's John Galt?") and the determinite optimism of engineers/makers and Galt's Gultch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm usually not a fan of Peter Thiel's ideas—always seemed quite a bit on the extreme side of the spectrum to me—but this talk is fantastic. I have a new respect for his viewpoints, and a renewed zeal to work harder.

I still think he discounts the effect that random chance has in your ability to succeed, on many counts, but he at least seems to understand it extremely well and speaks about it in a way which seems to indicate he respects the complexities involved. Quite good and thought-provoking to watch regardless of how you think of success.

<comment><USER10> luck favors the prepared.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This organizes a lot of thoughts I've had regarding the economic history of the 20th century. It seemed that something really changed in patterns of invention and investment somewhere in the late 70s, whereby - as Peter notes - big ideas and making plans became considerably less fashionable.

I hadn't made the connection to the surge of effort in law and finance, but it's a convincing argument.

The real question, then, is: Can we return the western economies to an optimistic-deterministic point of view? It would require really reframing a lot of public debate - or perhaps taking discourse elsewhere from regulated airwaves where the established players seem to worship an utterly indeterminate world view, as evidenced by continuous coverage of uncontrollable events.

</comment><comment><USER12> Lecture notes from his CS183 Startup class was about similar subjects. If you found the talk interesting you'll like the notes as well.

<http://blakemasters.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup>

</comment><comment><USER13> One reason the western world is appearing more indeterminate and becoming less optimistic is because of the diminishing returns of progress. That's the main problem in Europe. A hundred years ago, most people had difficult lives and technical progress offered a clear path to better lives. Now most people there have a pretty good life and understandably don't want it to change.

</comment><comment><USER14> The OP's link didn't work for me. Here's one with sound only, no video, no slides, no transcript. <http://schedule.sxsw.com/2013/events/event_IAP15892>

<comment><USER15> Thanks for that, original link was blocked for me as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> According to the Googles, you can grab the .mp3 of the talk here: [http://mp3yeah.com/download.php?id=83442458&t=Peter%20Th...](http://mp3yeah.com/download.php?id=83442458&t=Peter%20Thiel:%20You%20Are%20Not%20A%20Lottery%20Ticket%20-%20SXSW%20Interactive%202013)

</comment><comment><USER17> transcript?

<comment><USER18> Looks like the same talk as was transcribed here: [http://blakemasters.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels- cs183-...](http://blakemasters.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels- cs183-startup-class-13-notes-essay)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> All of a sudden this video is password protected. Anyone has the password?</comment>