Captain Beefheart Radar Station - <AUTHOR> http://www.beefheart.com/ <comment><USER2> A lot of people listen to about 30 seconds of Trout Mask Replica and then immediately write off Van Vliet's music as unlistenable twaddle, just weird for the sake of being weird. And it certainly is weird music--but when you really start listening to the album you start to discover a twisted inner logic to every atonal guitar shreik and weird drum beat. It all comes together to create something pretty unique in the world of music. Captain Beefheart wasn't making rock music--he was reinventing what music could be. There are few artists today who would dare to release something so blatantly off-kilter. Love it or hate it you can't deny it's in a league of its own on the creativity scale.

For some more traditional blues jams I love his Mirror Man Sessions. Not quite as revolutionary, but it shows a different, more listenable, side of Captain Beefheart that might be a gentler introduction to his work.

<comment><USER3> You know, I've found Frank Zappa's music to have a very similar property. Namely that there's a deep creative structure that winds through Zappa's music, especially across entire his longer compositions. For example, in "Willie The Pimp", there's a massive guitar solo towards last half of the song, that gets continually teased and played with earlier in the track. There have been other examples where I've caught "teases" to guitar solos on a track early in an album, that doesn't actually show up in full maturity until later inthe album.

I can only imagine that what I recognize as a singular theme is in reality much more broad (in so much as we can even define it), given Zappa's composition ability and musical prowess. There's so much to discover that lies under the surface of result of his creative process. I think Zappa gets a lot of credit because in general his music is more approachable (but still has plenty of weirdness across his almost 100 album discography).

Anyway, where I'm going with this is that Zappa and Captain Beefheart went in together on Zappa's "Willie the Pimp", on the "Hot Rats" album which is one of my favorite albums of all time. Interestingly enough it's the only song on the entire album that features vocals, which is noteworthy on its own. The vocals are provided by none other than Captain Beefheart himself. The vocals are kind of strange and certainly provide a unique component to the track.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr256gta2Qw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr256gta2Qw) (Willie The Pimp) -- if you listen to that guitar work, there's so much to unpack just in that one track. It's self referential on many levels, and I'm sure I'm missing most of it.

<comment><USER4> Well, it's fun to notice and appreciate those kinds of things, and to the analytical mind of a rational optimist, that wants to believe everything as carefully planned and premeditated, and released as profound craftsmanship and perfected design, to uncover something like that is probably profoundly enthralling.

There's an alternative reality, known to anyone who has made art for art's sake though, and especially if you've spent years making purposeless art with no consequence in the outcome of whether a work declared as "finished" actually needs to be "good."

When you sit around all day, pouring and extruding your unfiltered stream of consciousness into realized tangible forms that you can pick up and hold, or record and play back, you're left with this huge backlog of scrap left on the cutting room floor. Taken out of context, some of it is artful, and "good enough" to stand on it's own, but doesn't belong in the "finished" piece.

But when you find a couple of rhyming chunks, you can take that leftover flotsam and fold it into a subsequent piece, recycling throwaway outtakes as part of some other whole, to enrich it.

In that sense, those kinds of matching details aren't actually planned. It's just opportunistic reuse of leftovers to enrich and go along with something that _was_ planned.

Example: sometimes you're forced to produce "things," and so due to external expectations you make a bunch of "stuff" but because you weren't motivated, 90% of it is trash. But you don't throw it away, because it still possesses recognizable style. So you throw it in a box and let it collect dust. Then weeks or months or years later, when you need filler, you dig some matching trash out of the dustbin, and cobble together some cruft to patch some holes and gaps, where the daylight is peaking through on your finished piece. Now, that illusory facade enriches your intended work all the more.

This is a technique common in "art" that impresses people who've never had a chance to make a thing for it's own sake, without said thing having to require practical utility or actually "work" in any appreciable way.

It's the art student's corollary to the academic version having to write 1000 words for a grade, and 900 of those words are rambling drivel, or having to publish N research papers a year, so you throw together a backlog of p-value hacks that _seem_ interesting but prove nothing and indulge in pointless, speculative editorialization as science.

At the core of all the work, you either like the sum total of everything, or you don't, and in general, you're picking up what that guy is putting down overall.

But as with all disciplines, in every field, people have to make frankenstein monsters out of filler bunny all the time. Any artist worth their salt is always trying to operate from the space where they can unspool as much of their style as possible, with total freedom and unlimited resources, because they know that even on the days when they aren't hot, some of the junk they make, can still serve as decorative paper mache fodder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don Van Vliet and his bands were unique talents. Some of the music is challenging, some is surprisingly accessible. Some might even evoke the response "what's all the fuss about" \- because it entered the consciousness of so many other musicians, and they reinterpreted it, and made it part of "normal". There is bluesy Beefheart, soulful Beeheart, and jazz-inspire weird Beefheart.

"Clear-Spot" and "The SpotLight Kid" are a good starting point. In the UK they can be found packaged together as a single CD.

Enjoy!

</comment><comment><USER6> There is a documentary floating around about Captain Beefheart. These guys and their contemporaries (just look at the list of band members and collaborators) ended up being some of the most respected folks in music.

My parents loved the music, so I got a lot of exposure as a kid. I kind of liken it to listening to a new language: some of the ideas are that different. It can be jarring, but I think anyone who loves music should just give all the albums a few listens.

</comment><comment><USER7> Type Beefheart into youtube and you'll typically get TMR and Safe as Milk at the top (depending on your location and profile). There's 0.75 of one good track on Safe as Milk and TMR is merely a sketchbook compared to the masterpieces to come.

Let's go:

* Shiny Beast

* Lick My Decals Off, Baby

* Doc at the Radar Station

* Ice Cream For Crow

These are, unconditionally, guaranteed, the best Beefheart albums

<comment><USER8> I have a real soft spot for Autumn's Child, and I also really like Call on Me and I'm Glad; plus, you get some awesome Ry Cooder moments on Safe as Milk.

But, you've nailed my favorite Beefheart period (Shiny Beast-Ice Cream for Crow), and Shiny Beast stands apart as my favorite (The Floppy Boot Stomp, Tropical Hot Dog Night, Bat Chain Puller, Apes-Ma, etc.). During this period, his work had a balance and maturity - without sacrificing much of his quirkiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> From 2013 at the latest. Is something new here? Or.. should I just go home, and do my washing.. (got those Smithsonian institute blues, those Smithsonian institute blues)

<comment><USER10> Probably nothing new here, but giving some attention to what has been for many years the best Beefheart resource online seems fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I used to listen to Beefheart on The John Peel Show.

<comment><USER9> Me too. I phoned in a request for China pig. He played it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Observatory Crest is underrated.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why is this a radar station?

<comment><USER14> It's a reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_at_the_Radar_Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_at_the_Radar_Station).

<comment><USER15> The site sort of reads (to me at least) like it's a classification of the type of site it is, like "XYZ Pod Cast".

<comment><USER14> No doubt that's why they put it that way, but it's not literal and doesn't need to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> frank zappa for the win

</comment><comment><USER17> My fave Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band listens are:

 _Safe As Milk_ (features a young Ry Cooder on guitar)

 _Trout Mask Replica_

 _Shiny Beast (Bat Chain Puller)_

 _Lick My Decals Off, Baby_

 _Clear Spot_

<comment><USER8> I believe it was in the liner notes for Safe as Milk that I read John Lennon had something like seven copies and that it was his favorite new album at the time of its release.

Cooder has some interesting stories about why he parted ways with Vilet.

<comment><USER17> One of the reasons Lennon had seven copies (besides liking the album a lot) was that I think it included stickers:

[http://www.beefheart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/john- len...](http://www.beefheart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/john-lennon-sam- sticker.jpg)</comment></comment></comment>


Can we reverse the ageing process by putting young blood into older people? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/04/can-we-reverse-ageing-process-young-blood-older-people

<comment></comment>


Functional Geometry - <AUTHOR> http://www.frank-buss.de/lisp/functional.html

<comment><USER2> I usually use the 'image' library to experiment with 2D algorithms. It's fast loading and renders to gif, without having to worry about the mechanics of interactive screen update, etc.

I know it's bad-form to document other people's code, but I took the liberty to generate an ediman from the well documented sources and wrote an example:

<http://mahmud.arablug.org/image-docs/>

<comment><USER3> Are you familiar with Vecto? I used it to draw <http://xach.com/moviecharts/2010.html>

<comment><USER2> IMAGE is a wrapper for Skippy, and I somehow thought it was just a bitmaped version of Vecto with convenience utils.

Now i see all three are adequate for my uses: experimenting with 2D collision detection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Racket's 2htdp/image module is arguably more fully-featured implementation of the same thing (though it should be fairly simple to add colors to Frank's code)</comment>


Tazpic.com: Facebook photo tagging comes to Twitter using Annotations API - <AUTHOR>

What do you think of the app we made (@tlg and @xdamman) at the twitter annotations api hackfest? Would love to hear your feedback. Thanks! Http://tazpic.com <comment><USER2> good app mentioned here: [http://arabcrunch.com/2010/06/facebook-photo- tagging-comes-t...](http://arabcrunch.com/2010/06/facebook-photo-tagging- comes-to-twitter-with-tazpic.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Allow clicking on a tagged person without signing in.

<comment><USER4> It would be nice, but as we show the person twitter timeline we can't do that without you being logged in otherwise we can be out of quota (2000req/hour)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, good idea!

@tlg we could display an unlogged profile page without hitting twitter api (only based on our database).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> awesome! facebook style tagging on twitter.</comment>


Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college? - <AUTHOR>

I saw an interesting comment in the thread for the post for "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education" (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645000) that prompted me to flip the bit and ask this question. <comment><USER2> It never ends. Even at a "Name Brand" school you're still looking up at Harvard-Princeton-Yale. If you're there, you're looking up at the Rhodes scholars, valedictorians, and the "stars" of each department.

You have to remember that once you go to some top-rated school, you're suddenly in an environment where _everyone_ goes to that school, and it stops being special.

Set goals that will get you to a place where you can do the kind of work that you really want to be doing. If you can achieve that, you're better off than most Ivy grads. A top school brings a few advantages, sure, but nothing that a little success can't cure, and _certainly_ not happiness.

<comment><USER3> This is very true. I'm at a top "name brand" school for CS, and, honestly, when I look at myself next to someone from a good but less-well-known university (say, UW) who has done really interesting research, I feel inferior in a way. I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department.

What I'm trying to get at is that while being from MIT or Stanford makes a good first impression, personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process (consider this: I am a CS grad student at Stanford, and I was rejected from UMD and UMass Amherst for grad school).

<comment><USER4> _I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department._

UW _is_ a top name brand grad school for CS.

 _personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process_

Grad school decisions at all the universities you mentioned are made by professors themselves, and they typically look for candidates who are interested in getting a PhD. Stanford's three year Master's program is career oriented.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Indeed I do. MIT grads are automatically understood as smart. I can often convince people after a few minutes of conversation, but I do not always get those minutes.

<comment><USER6> I feel that, but I see the issue is not being as connected.

People who went to elite colleges built a valuable network, many of their friends and class mates are in big business or startups. None of my class mates are anywhere near the valley or startups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It doesn't matter at all where you went to college, or even if you went to college.

Sure, graduating from Harvard offers some short-term advantages, but if you're motivated you can take the lead.

Consider how much time in college is wasted studying minutia for a competitive exam that has no impact on learning.

Consider how much of college is often spent stressing about stupid deadlines that really don't matter or fawning over prestigious faculty who did something noteworthy 30 years ago and have coasted since.

My advice: Do something that really matters, and take the initiative to teach yourself as you go. You are (and should be) your own harshest critic. Make it your responsibility to find others to join you in your quest (if necessary). A college campus might be a good place for you to recruit.

But certainly don't hang your head!

note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in a cutthroat name brand atmosphere.

<comment><AUTHOR> "note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in a cutthroat name brand atmosphere."

i think it depends on the department. some smaller departments at top schools are fairly elitist in their admissions, mostly since they're based so heavily on recommendation letters. if you didn't go to a top undergrad institution, chances are they don't know who your letter writers are and might not give as much weight to your letters or application. just speculation, tho :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I saw both threads and I think that you're probably wasting useful energy by dwelling on this (true or not - I don't spend much time analyzing it).

At the minimum, if you feel inferior because of something like this, try to find a way to turn it into a challenge to succeed at whatever you want to do in spite of it. There are many successful people out there with non-name brand college degrees.

</comment><comment><USER9> Well, it may be a little different in the UK due to our many-tiered higher education system (Oxbridge, redbricks, ex-polytechnics and a moderate spectrum in between), but I'll chip in my two copper pence either way.

Actually, this is a question I've thought about a little too much, I'd wager, because, as a prospective undergraduate, I actually turned down an offer to read mathematics at Cambridge and decided to study at the University of Bristol instead. The latter is in itself a well-regarded institute, no doubt, but it cannot be said to have anything near the Oxbridge 'name-weight' (for want of a better term).

Do I regret my choice? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The decision was very much informed by my particularly working class background - I did not believe I would have 'fit in' to the predominantly upper-middle-class culture of either the university or the city that surrounds it. In hindsight, my opinion hasn't changed at all. Bristol suffers many of the same problems as a university, but as a city it is as colourful as they come.

I believe that forgoing the 'top tier' university worked such wonders for my social development (and, hence, my subsequent happiness) that I cannot bring myself to regret it wholesale. However, I can't help but feel there's an undeniable magic that happens when a highly selective and competitive institution brings a bunch of smart, young people together to explore their interests.

Being a part of that could, as the "Disadvantages of an Elite Education" article suggests, have ended up insulating me from the 'regular world', but there is the odd occasion where I cant help but wonder what could have been if I'd chosen to experience it. Maybe that's what it takes, you know? I try not to dwell on it for long, though - I've left that to my folks!

I've not planned to become a high-ranking politician or appear on BBC Radio 4 (yet), so a non-Oxbridge education hasn't hindered me much _so_ far... Either way, though, I'm still (relatively) young and it will be a good few years before I can evaluate these decisions with any great degree of accuracy.

We'll see, I guess.

<comment><USER10> Having lived in both the US and the UK, I'd observe that the prestige of one's university counts for MUCH more in the UK. To an American it is unbelieveable how much Brits focus on where they went to school (at all levels) rather than their abilities--and they are correct to do so, because other Brits use schools and universities as vital credentials. It's an aspect of the class system in the UK which doesn't exist in the same way in the US (note also the discussion of "working class background" versus "upper middle class culture"-- not at all the same in the US). Someone from the UK might well obsess about a degree from an elite university, but in the US any good degree gets you over the threshold and able to compete on equal terms.

<comment><USER11> Yes, Brits may put more focus on which university you go to, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In the UK, getting into Oxbridge is nowhere near as difficult as getting into Harvard, Yale, Princeton. There are 24,000 undergraduate spots at Oxbridge for 60 million Brits, compared to 17,000 spots at HYP for 300 million Americans.

Also, the application criteria at Oxbridge is far simpler. It is based entirely on academic potential. British universities are uninterested in extracurricular activities and "well-roundedness". In the US, very smart students with perfect grades are rejected from Harvard because they weren't editor of the school newspaper, because they got a D in History in 9th grade, or because they couldn't write a good essay about "If you were going to sing a song in a talent show, what would you sing and why?" That doesn't happen in the UK. If you are smart, work hard in school and get good grades, you'll get into Oxbridge. The same can't be said for getting into HYP.

All of the British universities are public, so there doesn't exist the situation where students may choose to go to Berkeley instead of UPenn because they want to save money, or because they were offered a scholarship.

Which university you attend in the UK tends to be a better indicator of intelligence and academic success than where you study in the US.

<comment><USER12> Wow, I genuinely never knew that about the UK. It's strange how the flood of information on US universities drowns out everything else.

From what your saying, that makes Oxbridge rather attractive for many people on this site, who were never interested in being "well-rounded" just for the sake of university admission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I go to a "name brand" college (Carnegie Mellon, you can disagree if you'd like) and there are LOTS of CS majors who don't know anything. Likewise I've worked with people from state schools who know exactly what they're doing. Anyone who associates eliteness with where an undergrad degree was obtained is wrong.

The only plus side to name-brand colleges is well known professors, but most of learning is self-motivation anyway.

<comment><USER14> > I go to a "name brand" college (Carnegie Mellon, you can disagree if you'd > like) and there are LOTS of CS majors who don't know anything.

That was my impression of ECE at Purdue University (a top 10 graduate school at the time, unsure of undergrad ranking). Most undergrads were incapable of functioning as engineers. I taught two different senior-level courses while I was there. The top students were excellent, as you would expect. The rest hobbled along. I had seniors who couldn't approximate the gain of an op-amp or make a common-emitter amplifier. Not one of the senior design students bothered to simulate their circuits before building them (and frying them). They had no idea how to test a circuit once they built it.

I actually credit the undergrads' ineptitude to the curriculum. Purdue has lots of classroom instruction but very few labs. I had approximately double the number of labs as an undergrad at the University of Arkansas. Even the worst students were capable of building and testing a circuit, whereas the Purdue students would expect the TA to do their testing for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I only feel inferior when I haven't done enough to maximize my potential.

<comment><AUTHOR> that's probably the most healthy attitude ;)

i suppose it's harder when you are around people from name-brand colleges, no?

if nobody around you went to a name-brand college, then of course there's no point of reference

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> No, but I have felt inferior for not going to college. For a variety of mostly personal reasons, it didn't seem like a life-enhancing decision at the time (~25 years ago, in Ireland).

<comment><USER17> It's never too late! I went back to college and got a degree in Computer Science when I was 35.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I've seen a few people in their 30s or 40s doing CS degrees, and I always respect them for it. Don't let your age stop you if it's something you want to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I invented ___ is way more compelling than I went to ____.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was recently re-reading the "regrets" pamphlet by _n+1_ magazine (link at bottom) where the premise was to get a round-table discussion of some "intellectuals" and ask them what they regret about their education in order to provide a guide for current students in ideas of "literature, philosophy, and thought."

Some of the participants went to the Ivy League, but all of them went to highly respectable schools. There were a few points that I'd like to share.

Quite a few of the participants had a feeling like they screwed up big time in choices in their education. Not necessarily about the choice of school, but in, for example, choosing the English department instead of Literature and end up studying Theory rather than readings and after a few years they found out they missed out on _Anna Karenina_ in favor of Foucault. This was to the extent that some of them claimed to go to masters school to make up for what they didn't do as an undergraduate, and regretted that too.

Another idea that they quickly agreed on is that the very nature of a regret is to notice what choices you _should_ have made, and clearly it is too late to do anything about it. Yet, some of the participants were reluctant to even call them regrets. How can you call your life a regret? This is a group of people where there was no question that reading the right book at the right time would (and did) change their life, and it really wasn't a question of "for better or worse", but they would learn their lessons and are the better for it.

I suppose I'm talking about making decisions, reflecting on those decisions over time (sometimes it takes years, decades even), and then gaining a modicum of wisdom.

Feeling inferior would seem to me a common sentiment. Hasn't everyone had this feeling before? You feel like you missed out on something you may have not known existed until you had the years to figure out it was even there. Yet, I don't think you should deny yourself the line of thought that this would take you down, and it may take a long time, but I think you need to turn these feelings around to find a genuine calling/relaxedness of what you are here to do.

No affiliation with the publishers, but I highly recommend the $9 "What We Should Have Known: Two Discussions" (aka regrets) pamphlet: <http://www.nplusonemag.com/pamphlet-two>. It is well worth the money, especially if you are in the situation where you think you might be ready to hear their advice.

</comment><comment><USER20> I feel inferior reading this article instead of coding.

<comment><USER21> Upmod, but you should feel inferior for not thinking, not for not coding. You are not a code monkey, but a thinking problem solver, whatever your label is (engineer, scientist, technician, CEO, whatever).

That remembers me Sir Popper wrote a book "All of Life is Problem Solving." Got to read it some time...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Here is the comment you're referring to: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645316>

I want to add that even if you personally don't feel inferior about it, you'll probably still feel something when you know someone else is judging you for it.

And of course, sometimes it doesn't even matter how you feel. You are at a disadvantage regardless.

As I said in the other thread, college degrees today are titles of nobility by definition, thanks to state support. Titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished.

<comment><AUTHOR> what do you mean by "thanks to state support"? please clarify, thanks.

<comment><USER22> The state confers special privileges on degree holders that are denied to everyone else. It also regulates, funds, and grants degrees itself.

Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility.

Of course, there are also the more "unofficial" effects of these policies. Credentialism is widespread in society thanks in no small part to the massive, state-funded school system.

<comment><USER23> That doesn't make it a title of nobility, especially since the government also grants things like military commissions, presidential medals of freedom, and appointments to high positions all the time, all of which are more similar to titles of nobility than university degrees.

Either you're speaking metaphorically or you're pushing some crank theory, I can't tell which.

<comment><USER22> Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition:

"A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people."

If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.

<comment><USER23> Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by any means.

Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.

<comment><USER22> You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you.

I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama:

"To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142."

Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.

<comment><USER23> The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional.

Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.

<comment><USER22> I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense).

As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.

<comment><USER23> <http://xkcd.com/169/>

Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.

Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place.

If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.)

There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.

<comment><USER22> philwelch, I tried to talk with you here but it seems like you insult me at every turn, and now you're trying to blame me for your invalid, US-centric assumptions.

This seems to be a habit of yours, because even in this post, twice you claim that I'm "undoubtedly" about to respond in a certain way. Perhaps if you read what I write without jumping to conclusions about what must be in my head, this would be more productive.

 _"our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery."_

You appear to continue with your US-centric perspective here. And even with that perspective, so what? The fact that it had slavery sounds like a good reason not to take what was "meant" as gospel.

As for legal egalitarianism being impossible, that's certainly not true. I'm not sure why you believe that.

<comment><USER23> I tried to talk to you, but it turns out you consistently mean something different from what you say. For once, I'd like you to clearly and literally state, just once, what you're on about instead of going in circles.

In particular, the onus is on you to clearly define what "legal egalitarianism" means, why college degrees violate that principle, and why we should care. That's an honest discussion. Trying to cleverly redefine terms like "nobility" isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have stopped to. Thought I don't get excellent facilities, or a good geek crowd as name-brand colleges have here in India, I've started to believe in myself... ever since I did some freelance web design last year, and got myself into computer security related intern this summer, I've been more confident over my belief that "brand name doesn't matter, if I have skills and confidence over what I know, I can surely find the best for myself"

Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college? - Yes, in the beginning of my college days, when people would ask me which college are you from? I would tell, and they would go... hmm haven't heard the name... okay.. whtever.

Do you feel inferior for not being... ? NO way, I wish to be a grand brand myself, why the heck attach branding n stuff to college, be the name, influence, etc yourself :)

</comment><comment><USER25> I barely went to college at all. I wonder if I feel _better_ about my situation than does someone who went to Grand Valley State instead of UMich CS.

<comment><USER7> didn't cmdrtaco go to gvsu?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I usually try not to compare myself to others too much (too many variables in life experiences make such comparisons difficult anyway). But if anything, I feel superior for having accomplished what I have with graduating from a "no- name-brand" school.

<comment><USER14> > But if anything, I feel superior for having accomplished what I have with > graduating from a "no-name-brand" school.

I am motivated to try harder at work because I feel like I'm fighting for all smaller school graduates in a company full of Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Illinois, Harvard, CMU, and Michigan grads. I also ensure that everybody knows where I came from with a huge Razorback flag on my wall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I feel superior for not following the system and even going to college to rack up debt to get a piece of paper.

People rarely ask what college you went to. A name-brand degree is just a pissing match that doesn't matter.

4 years of outdated assignments won't much of a difference further out in your life. The value of the paper you went into debt to get is going down every day.

<comment><USER28> Every time I apply for a job, my engineering degree cuts out two or three annoying questions (which they might not even bother to ask before throwing my CV away).

I'm thinking about moving to Hong Kong. A masters degree makes immigration trivial.

Sometimes I find that an interesting problem is related to something I studied in college and so I know where to start.

When I meet the parents of the girls I date I start with a few extra points of reputation in hand.

Each time I sit more professional exams the whole process is well within my comfort zone so I can concentrate on the material rather than stress about the outcome.

Not a bad investment if you ask me - although no one has asked me where I went to school in years either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> A more important question than whether you _feel_ inferior is whether you _are_ inferior. The answer to that one is "no".

If you feel inferior, but aren't inferior, then the problem is your feelings. Change them.

</comment><comment><USER30> I compliment colleagues and friends who have CS degrees, and deprecate myself about it out loud, but I secretly don't feel the least bit inferior. In fact, I kind of enjoy the drop-out hacker makes good story.

</comment><comment><USER31> No, and I'm not even from a non-name-brand college. I am confident in my abilities and seem to be adequately respected among my peers who know me. That's good enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER32> I hardly goto an inferior college(UNC-Chapel Hill). But I am studying what is considered an _inferior major_ (communications).

I love it! When I tell my friend of my major, they roll their eyes in disbelief. But then I tell them of all my classes with the basketball players and they are quickly envying me:) That aside, I am studying rhetorical studies and truly enjoy it!

<comment><USER33> You have class with Psycho T?!

<comment><USER32> Hell yeah! My first debate in speech/debate was against Tyler and Bobby. Of course I won but damn they were pretty good:)

[http://zaid.posterous.com/tyler-hansborough-is- talllllllllll...](http://zaid.posterous.com/tyler-hansborough-is- tallllllllllllllllll)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Well, I choose public rather then Ivy, but it's not far behind. I generally feel better because I choose to get a similar education without going massively into debt. I figured I'd be going for a masters, at which point it wouldn't matter.

At some point in time, I'm still thinking about getting a masters ... but Penn State would be a lot easier to get a company to pay for.

<comment><USER3> For what it's worth, I have a friend at Lockheed right now and they are paying for her master's at UPenn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wouldn't say I've felt inferior. I've occasionally felt significant regret over my collegiate decision. But then I remember that most such people wind up paying $200k more than I did to go to college. Going to an MIT or Harvard might have gotten me somewhat better connections and opportunities, but it is difficult to see those as adding up to that large of a difference.

<comment><USER36> Rarely do most people who go to top schools pay full price. Only those from extremely wealthy families do.

All (yes, all) the top schools are need-blind, meaning they don't look at your financial situation when deciding whether to accept you. A few of them (Stanford, Harvard I think) are offering completely free tuition if your parents make less than $100k. For other situations, you typically would get around 75% of your tuition free even if your parents make over $100k a year.

The difference in first year average salary for an MIT grad vs. a state school grad is enough to make up that difference.

<comment><USER35> Most of these pro-rated tuition policies are very, very new; until very recently, even students at top schools were expected to take out loans to cover some medium-sized fraction of the tuition costs. By comparison, going to a rather good state school, I got paid a net of around $8k per year to go to college.

The financial equation is different for every person, but the value add of a name-brand school over a state school is typically a hard sell--for a motivated student a decent education is available everywhere.

<comment><USER37> About financial aid: the previous year my parents had made at least 80k, and that's generally how people judge your need. The year I picked schools one of them had lost their job and my family was at below sustainability levels.

That being said, I got an excellent scholarship for the college I went to. But I still regret not going to a "name-brand" school independent of the educational quality of the college. The kind of people you're around and the contacts you make are really different. That can be useful on an ongoing basis, not just right after you graduate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> As somebody who has never regretted dropping out in high school I find this whole conversation pretty amusing.

</comment><comment><USER39> Never.

I don't know what doors were never open to me because of my college.

I do know that for every door I did enter, it was only a matter of time before the only thing that really mattered was demonstrated performance.

If more people would just forget about B.S. like "pedigree" and focus on delivering value to their customers, we'd all be better off.

</comment><comment><USER40> What do people find when they Google your name?

</comment><comment><USER41> Sometimes I feel inferior to those that went to school at all. But then it passes and I realize I have no loans to pay back.

</comment><comment><USER42> No.

</comment><comment><USER43> No. Do you think math is different at Yale or something?</comment>


How to get over the fear and start your own business - <AUTHOR> http://www.16thletter.com/2008/02/12/how-to-get-over-the-fear-and-start-your-own-business/

<comment><USER2> make a win-win situation, save enough and leave your current company gracefully enough to come back. Think about the cost then multiply 3x to get what you need to save, then head out and give it a shot..

</comment><comment><USER3> the piece here reminds me of an article about entrepreneurship and overconfidence. (see <http://icf.som.yale.edu/pdf/overconfidence.pdf>, i think). the paper writes that the most common trait among entrepreneurs is overconfidence under a kind of evolutionary understanding. paul graham writes similarly but from a different perspective when he writes about the power of the marginal (eponymous article, i think). outsiders have the naivate to understand why something novel will work, where as insiders are well-versed in the rationalizations for the status quo. i think it's the same naivate that gives outsiders that overconfidence to pursue ventures that insiders "know" will fail.

</comment><comment><USER4> Fear is not to be feared Conquer Fear and Fear is not your foe Fear is your friend

My favourite phrase is _"sine metū"_ or "no fear" ~ <http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=596798> Most of what you find with Fear is really the fear of failure or unknowns. You can also use fear to your advantage by tempering your (over) confidence.

</comment><comment><USER5> "I am pretty sure that starting a business involves some level of desperation."

I agree. People do have to be pushed up against a wall to some extent and feel they are left with few options, otherwise, it is too easy to convince yourself not to startup.

</comment><comment><USER6> "You realize that the only way to do what you want to do is to start your own thing."

I never heard it said quite this way. It perfectly describes my situation.

Thank you, Melissa!</comment>


Thoughts on MVP Business Concept - <AUTHOR> http://www.fontstory.com A flash sale business model for designer fonts.
What are your thoughts?
http://www.fontstory.com <comment><USER2> I don't get it, the MVP of this site is a landing page? I have clicked "Like", but was not presented with any beta access. Is this just a thought at this point? I like the idea, I want to see some 'beef'.</comment>


Copyright law hides work like Zora Neale Hurston's newly published first book - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/07/how-copyright-law-hides-work-like-zora-neale-hurstons-new-book-from-the-public <comment><USER2> This is to say nothing of the fundamental legal abhorrence of the idea of retroactive copyright extensions.

Copyright exists as an incentive to create works; in return for creating them, the creator gains exclusive right to monetise the work for a period of time, before that work passes into the public domain and becomes part of shared culture.

If I've already been incentivised by copyright to create something, and have in fact created it, how can a retroactive extension of copyright further incentivise me to create the thing I've already created?

If I paid someone to build a house, and they built it, it would be absurd to go back to them after the house is built and pay them more money to make sure they build the house that they've already built.

<comment><USER3> Note that I am personally anti-copyright at this point. But the idea that retroactive copyright extension cannot incentivize creativity is a bad argument.

Retroactive extension _sabotages_ the public domain. Without the public domain, there is more incentive for new work.

If we DESTROYED all books written more than 10 years ago, I guarantee there'd be an increase in sales of newer books.

This is obviously not in the public interest. It's the broken-window fallacy at best.

Yes, copyright extension is like paying the builder of your house extra for no reason. But it's also like charging extra fees for the ways older houses aren't up to the latest codes as a shitty way to further reduce their value in the market in order to give new construction a better competitive edge. Not that it's good to build new houses as an end in itself if there's good older houses available — but if you're focused on the interests of home-builders instead of the public interest…

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Honest question: Why isn't copyright something you simply pay to renew at some exponentially growing rate? You get X free years now and then year X + N costs 2^kN, for some X and k. That way you internalize the negative externality of locking up interesting works. Disney is happy and estates who choose to renew copyright need to be sure they're doing something with it

<comment><USER5> Some have proposed even a token renewal fee to fund a registry, or even a postcard registry, which would eliminate the orphaned works problem while limiting the impact on publishers.

Mostly this doesn't work because of the Berne Convention, which made assumptions about how copyrights should work, then enshrined them in a multilateral treaty, which in turn is implemented in a framework of laws among various signatories, making it all now incredibly difficult to unwind.

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

<comment><USER6> I have to study that in more detail, but is there something in Berne convention that prohibits taxation of intellectual property? I mean, I have thought that a country could say that, yes, we do recognize the intellectual property, but if the intellectual property holder is not recognizing and respecting _our_ (tax) laws, we are for sure not going to use a dime to actually enforce that IP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wait, what I want to ask is: Why doesn't anyone perform Sci-Hub-like vigilantism to save these works, i.e. scan the books and put them on line? Without big-pocketed companies like Elsevier (or music labels in the days of Naspter) to fight against it, such a site would have few natural enemies.

EDIT: The more I think about this the more I get riled up about the current state of affairs in orphan books. I'm willing to start a project like this or contribute it to it in any way, please ping me if you have such a project or just feel the same way.

<comment><USER8> See also: Google v. aap re: orphan books.

<comment><USER7> I think a site similar to Sci-Hub to host, say, 10k orphan works is not equivalent to Google's planned scanning of very large number of books and potentially profiting from them (if not from selling them at least from using the text as input to their various ML systems). If you provide the works freely you undermine many of the arguments that AAP had.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is the third article I've seen in a week about how terrible copyright law is.

Is there some copyright related event coming up soon?

<comment><USER10> Yes - the most recent extension to copyright in the US expires on Dec 31, 2018. Unless Congress passes another extension, a whole selection of older works will pass into the public domain for the first time in decades on Jan 1, 2019.

In the past, Disney has been successful in lobbying Congress to extend it to prevent Steamboat Willie (the cartoon where Mickey Mouse first appeared) from entering the public domain, but it appears that they aren't actually making a push to do so this time - fingers crossed, this might actually happen.

<comment><USER11> What would this mean for usage of the Mickey Mouse character? Would people be free to use images from the older cartoons in new work? What about more recent updates to the character's design?

<comment><USER12> It's super interesting -- you end up in a situation where the bare character can be used, but subsequent developments of the character remain under copyright. This actually makes it extremely difficult to use characters since you wind up in a situation where the modern character _as you understand it_ is inaccessible.

Sherlock Holmes is a famous example of this -- good overview of the extended legal situation here: [https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...](https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1164&context=ckjip)

<comment><USER11> That was an interesting read. After reading both that and the other comments the only solid conclusion I can come to is that literary and visual intellectual property are handled differently, as evidenced by thid quote from the paper:

Judge Castillo stated that "[b]ecause the Seventh Circuit's incremental expression case law focuses on images rather than literature, it is difficult to apply its precedent seamlessly."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Watch an idea gain traction in 3 minutes - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/ff

<comment><USER2> Much discussion from when it was submitted two years ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=644796>

Actually this is slightly different, but not that much. You might think otherwise.</comment>


RemedyBG: Replacing the Visual Studio Debugger - <AUTHOR> https://remedybg.handmade.network <comment><USER2> It would be nice to make it talk the VS debug adapter protocol. Then you could ironically use it in VS and VS Code, and non-ironically, in any editor that chooses to support that. Given how quickly LSP took off, I would expect there to be a few eventually.

[https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter- protocol/](https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter-protocol/)

<comment><USER3> GDB can be driven remotely since a long time.

Emacs and Eclipse both integrate GDB via the MI interface. LLDB supports it as well. [https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/GDB_002fMI...](https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/GDB_002fMI.html)

What is the advantage of the debug adapter protocol against the existing debugger--editor integration protocols?

<comment><USER2> Mainly that DAP was designed as such from the get go, with multiple implementations for many very different languages being one of the driving assumptions behind its design.

MI, on the other hand, was originally just an API to use gdb programmatically, and was later repurposed by others simply because it was already implemented by other tooling, dealing with its gdb-specific idiosyncrasies being the path of least resistance.

[https://kichwacoders.com/2017/08/02/gdbs-mi-is-not-a- debug-p...](https://kichwacoders.com/2017/08/02/gdbs-mi-is-not-a-debug- protocol/)

As a consequence, DAP is much easier to work with from the IDE side, and it's easier to implement an adapter, as well. Looking at this table - even ignoring all the Microsoft-made ones - how many of the languages listed have a MI debugger implementation?

[https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter- protocol/implement...](https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter- protocol/implementors/adapters/)

On the tooling side, Emacs and Eclipse are both covered:

[https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter- protocol/implement...](https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter- protocol/implementors/tools/)

Still, for native debugging specifically, it's a good point that on the IDE side, MI is currently better supported. So implementing that first would make more sense in terms of lighting up more IDEs, at the price of a somewhat more complex implementation. DAP can be implemented on top of MI - this is exactly what the VSCode C++ debug adapter does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why would you want to avoid the Visual Studio debugger? Can anyone enlighten me? I personally haven't encountered a better debugger yet, so I'm puzzled.

<comment><USER5> Just because everything else is worse, doesn't mean visual studio couldn't be better.

I've been watching the development of this, here's their main points:

It's slow. Stepping through code and updating watches can take a few seconds. Which really does slow you down when you're doing a lot of work with it. It's ginormous, you shouldn't need a huge program with tons of dependencies to debug things. And finally, it's primitive. It usually works for what it does but it would be nice for a debugger to be more flexible and allow things like: Displaying blocks of memory as images, allowing custom display visualization, and navigation of your own data structures, or charting how a value changes over time. Debugger functionality has been pretty stagnant for at least a decade. Also plugging in project specific debugging tools like serialization and custom tools would be neat.

<comment><USER6> _It's slow._

Do you use ReSharper?

It's been a while since I used either ReSharper or Visual Studio, but I remember ReSharper being like lashing a half-ton Snap On tool chest to your car.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I had to turn ReSharper off despite liking some of its features as it brings my monster development PC to its knees and is basically unusable due to its abysmal performance. It makes vanilla Visual Studio seem svelte and responsive by comparison.

<comment><USER4> How big is the project you are working on? Resharper qas a net productivity gain for me on moderately complex projects (the lag was more than compensated by the speed gained from the mode powerful editing and refactoring, let alone the lower barrier to start otherwise tedious refactoring jobs)

<comment><USER7> It's not huge. It's a Unity project and it's a couple of years of development with a team that has grown from just me to 4 programmers in that time so it's a decent size but there are much bigger Unity projects out there I'm sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> RemedyBG is still very young but I'm impressed by the consistent progress. I don't think it will be replacing other debuggers for my needs quite yet but I'm happy to sponsor work like this. If you're on windows and work with native executables, consider giving it a shot.

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems like it's using Dear IMGUI

<comment><USER10> This is confirmed by the author:

> Also, for the user interface, I am using Dear ImGui which has been a joy to > use.</comment></comment>


Is Copyright Only For the Big Guys? - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/is-copyright-only-for-the-big-guys-110828/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29 <comment><USER2> Ah, a person advocating a position I agree with, but using terrible+inconsistent arguments. :(

For instance: it was always perfectly clear that the BBC's "outrageous statement" was the result of contacting someone within the BBC who didn't know what they were talking about. There was never the slightest indication that it was an official position. Quoting it does nothing to further the actual, real point that can be made about the problems a "little guy" faces when attempting to enforce their copyright.

<comment><USER3> Anyone in a position of responding directly to the public should either know enough to give a reasonable answer or know enough to consult an expert before answering.

<comment><USER2> Maybe, but that has nothing to do with copyright law or even the BBC's polices regarding it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My gawd, that page took all my CPU. Bailed.

<comment><USER5> OK, that's it. There's a sporadic JavaScript alert on that page that asks for confirmation before closing the page, there's a sporadic refresh on load to some advertiser's page (which has a self-starting video ad on it), and now excessive CPU?

They are making a strong case for a spot on my "automatically flag on sight" list.

<comment><USER6> NoScript FTW.

<comment><USER7> Exactly. Javascript, in my opinion, is like Flash: it should be used when needed but not anymore than that.

And NoScript is awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Two quotes come immediately to mind:

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission" (both emotionally and in terms of effort/bureaucracy) and

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

</comment><comment><USER9> Print isn't dying like everyone thought. Like music, there is always going to be a place for pay 2 play services.</comment>


Group fights 'anti-science' rhetoric by getting scientists to run for office - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/17/this-group-wants-to-fight-anti-science-rhetoric-by-getting-scientists-to-run-for-office/ <comment><AUTHOR> Apologies for the slight editing of the title because of character limit. Original title is "This group wants to fight 'anti-science' rhetoric by getting scientists to run for office".</comment>


Show HN: Tiger Boss - I Kick Your Ass & Make You Achieve Your Goals Faster - <AUTHOR> https://tigerboss.co/ <comment><USER2> If there is no free tier to try, I think it is not a good example of a ShowNH, because we can't try it and give feedback.

Also, all-caps in the title will get this flagged. (Even if only a part is in all-caps.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your suggestion! A free tier is just added!

<comment><USER3> I signed up for the free trial and just got a popup saying "We'll be in touch soon". Here are the Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I emailed you but it failed to deliver. Did you enter the correct email address?

<comment><USER3> Ah, it should have got to me, but I'll try another one.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Game Cheating Tutorial (Part 2): Pokemon Strings Adventures - <AUTHOR> http://www.garin.io/game-cheating-tutorial-02 <comment><AUTHOR> Part 2 of my last post about cheating Pokemon Fire Red.

You're more than welcome to ask me any questions here :)</comment>


Docker Madness - <AUTHOR> https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Flinuxfr.org%2Fnews%2Fla-folie-docker&edit-text=&act=url

<comment><AUTHOR> > LinuxFR: Why Go?

> Jérôme Petazzoni [co-founder of Docker Inc.]: On the non-technical terms, Go > is a little Switzerland of modern languages. If we chose Python, Ruby > community would growled. If we chose Ruby, Python community would growl (and > we probably would have gone for fools, because at the beginning of the > project, the majority of the team was more comfortable in Python in Ruby). > If you chose Java, everyone would have bitched!

 _" Go is a little Switzerland of modern languages"_ is my new favorite expression.</comment>


Upgrading to Java 8 at Scale - <AUTHOR> http://product.hubspot.com/blog/upgrading-to-java-8-at-scale

<comment><USER2> Following on to Step 7: profit, modernizer-maven-plugin can help detect uses of older library classes like Guava Optional and recommend using the newer Java 8 Optional:

[https://github.com/andrewgaul/modernizer-maven- plugin](https://github.com/andrewgaul/modernizer-maven-plugin)

</comment><comment><USER3> Streams! Welcome to the future.</comment>