The Failed Dream of the Easy Commute - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/failed-dream-easy-commute

<comment><USER2> _" only two of the nation's eighteen state or local railways, Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road, operate on a third-rail system powered by overhead lines"_

For anybody else who was confused by this: the author is (I think) trying to say that Metro-North has some lines equipped with _both_ third rail and overhead wires. Although the accident occurred because of a crash at a level crossing, and had nothing to do with electrification per se.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro- North_Railroad#Electric_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro- North_Railroad#Electric_Multiple_Units)

<comment><USER3> It did relate to electrification. Metro-North uses a third rail system where the pickup runs on the underside of the third rail, rather than the top. That style of third rail isn't as solidly mounted as ones where the pickup runs on top. In this accident, the third rail broke loose and penetrated the first car of the train, with the power still on.

There's a solution available to prevent railroad crossing accidents, but it requires blocking the highway for much longer.[1] This is a fully interlocked grade crossing. There are gates on both sides of the tracks, vehicle detectors for cars on the tracks, and interlocking with the railroad signals. As a train approaches, first the bells and lights come on. Then the entrance side gates go down. The control system checks that there are no vehicles on the crossing; there are traffic detectors and radars for this. Only then do the exit side gates go down. When all gates are fully down, and the crossing is clear of vehicles, the train gets a clear signal. If there's an obstruction or a damaged gate, the train will slow and stop if necessary.

This requires that the gates go down about a minute before the train arrives, because the stopping distance for trains is so large. Drivers hate that. Railroads aren't too happy with it either, because they're going to have to stop trains when someone is still on the crossing a minute before the train gets there. Current FRA rules are that such a setup will be required for grade crossings with trains operating above 110 MPH. Only the Northeast Corridor has such speeds.

There's been one accident at the US at a fully interlocked gate. A car went through a lowered gate into the path of an Acela high speed train.[2] Barrier gates capable of stopping a truck are being considered.

[1] [http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/sites/ansaldosts.message- asp.com/...](http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/sites/ansaldosts.message- asp.com/files/manuali-ansaldo/CatalogCutSheets/RSE-5A3_Quad-Gate%20Sys.pdf)

[2] [[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/nyregion/30acela.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/nyregion/30acela.html)]

<comment><USER4> This would be a lot of engineering for an issue that shouldn't need it. In the case described in the parent article, the gates, lights, and signal bells worked as designed. The driver had warning and ample time to react -- even enough time to react poorly and recover. The driver did not react or recover. An elegant engineering solution is not appropriate in this scenario.

<comment><USER5> Surely an elegant engineering solution would have saved lives in this instance? I think you mean one is not required for all the times that people don't die. Then it's just redundant.

<comment><USER4> What engineering solution would have prevented this driver's death? She knew a train was coming from the bells, flashing lights, and closing gates. She had at least 30 seconds to react.

If you mean a more elegant solution -- a different 3rd rail design, e.g. -- would have saved the lives of the people aboard the train, that's possible. In the event of a mutli-ton train at 60MPH hitting a multi-ton truck sitting on the tracks, we should not presume that's the case.

The better scenario is to heed the bells, flashing lights, and protective gates and get off the tracks. It's a difficult engineering task to ensure people heed clear warnings.

<comment><USER5> A solution like the one mentioned higher up - which physically blocks entrance (though allows exit) a longer time ahead, and also automatically warns train drivers that there is something blocking the line and prompting them to slow down a reasonable distance ahead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Metro-North's signaling equipment is a nightmare. There was a scheduled upgrade that was supposed to have been in play by January 1st of this year, and the project is still not yet done. Proper monitoring of crossing combined with automatic breaking could have prevented this accident. But Metro-North has neither.

</comment><comment><USER7> Our transportation infrastructure is being pushed to its limits. If you are a a business owner, please let employees telecommute. I know it's difficult to transition from working in an office to having a fully or partially remote workforce. But the cost savings, benefits to the environment, and impact on employee's morale are worth it. Plus, less chance of dying in a traffic accident.</comment>


jQRangeSlider - Slider For Selecting Value Ranges, Supporting Dates & More - <AUTHOR> http://ghusse.github.com/jQRangeSlider/index.html

<comment><USER2> The slider on the homepage is just a static image. Why not make that a working slider?

<comment><USER3> This confused me for a minute. Such a weird thing to do for a landing page!

<comment><USER4> +1, I thought my browser was somehow incompetent for a second ;-)

The sliders are extremely nice by the way!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks really nice. Especially I like how it handles situations were handles collide or go over each other. For example <http://jqueryui.com/slider/#range> just places both handles on top of each other and refuses to move the other, which can be really confusing. Awesome.

</comment><comment><USER6> Pretty cool. From first glance, this is a jQuery plugin that actually deserves its spot on the front page.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> from: [http://functionn.blogspot.com/2012/12/jqrangeslider- jquery-s...](http://functionn.blogspot.com/2012/12/jqrangeslider-jquery- slider-plugin-for.html)

jQRangeSlider is a jQuery plugin to create a powerful slider for selecting value ranges, supporting dates and more.

FEATURES

\- Touch Devices - jQRangeSlider supports touch devices: tested with iOS and Android. User can select a range simply by touching and swaping on his tablet or phone.

\- Steps - jQRangeSlider supports steps for both numerical and date values. Select values 5 by 5 or month by month, simply by changing an option.

\- Adapt To Your Style - jQRangeSlider comes by default with two themes to demonstrate its ability to be restyled. You can customize it as you want: nothing is hard coded..

\- Real Time Refresh - jQRangeSlider exposes events you can use for refreshing your UI. You can also interact with it through javascript methods.

\- GPL + MIT - jQRangeSlider is open source published under dual license GPL and MIT. You can use it in both open source and commercial software.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hi guys,

I'm the author of this plugin, and first of all : thanks for your comments!

About the static image, I preferred a faster homepage to load. But according to your comments, I will at least create a link to the demo with this image.

This way, clicking on it will redirect you to the demo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great job on the plugin - one of the rare jQuery plugins to make the frontpage! Should tell you that you've created something awesome :)

re. the demo on the frontpage - even I was left trying to manipulate the image of the range slider on the homepage. Having a simple demo on the homepage would be nice!

Having said that, what prompted you to create this plugin? The concept of the range slider? Which purpose do you see it best serve?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Love it. Will definitely be adding this to one of my side projects as soon as I get a chance. I haven't looked at the code yet, but I wonder if anybody as looked at using this for normal sliders as well, so as to get the same look and feel for all the sliders on a page irregardless of their type.

</comment><comment><USER9> Touch performance is pretty weak on iPhone 4S. Though that could be due to webkit, I think it might make more sense to increase the touch region (at this point, it seems to only respond when you touch the text.

</comment><comment><USER10> Will examine tomorrow or laptop, but all examples are badly broken on nexus 7. Drop me an email if you want screen grabs and more feedback. Love the idea, thought.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great work. I had to build one of these a few months ago. This would have saved me a lot of time. Only addition I would want is multiple stops on the same slider.

</comment><comment><USER12> Labelled extremes will definitely make this plugin better.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is wonderful. I especially like the display range of dates. Is there any plan to add date editing via calendar selection as well?

</comment><comment><USER14> Great plugin, I'll be replacing some datepickers in a project I am currently involved with these</comment>


Show HN: Padopto, recurring to do list, reuse the shopping list - <AUTHOR> https://padopto.com <comment><AUTHOR> It's a shame I didn't find this feature in the tons of todo apps that exist. Had to build it myself. Hope you guys enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER2> A bit rough, interesting idea</comment>


Show HN: I Made a Minimalist Customer Support App - <AUTHOR> https://sparrw.surge.sh/ <comment><AUTHOR> While building my main project (stackkup.com), I was looking for a Help Center solution get answers to customers' questions when I wasn't immediately available.

There are customer chatbot solutions out there but I feel overwhelmed by the effort to set up dialogue logic. Thus Sparrw's idea formed and I'm seeing if anyone thinks this is useful for them!</comment>


California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration - <AUTHOR> http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=hootsuite <comment><USER2> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations stifle the economic well being of it's inhabitants. It's sad to see people having to leave behind their friends and families, for all this. Not only are people leaving, but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression: [http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln- birth-rate-...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-birth- rate-20161220-story.html)

<comment><USER3> a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things. it needs our attention and support.

UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal municipalities to the state level. it could unlock 3m housing units in a state building <100k a year. that's 30 years of pent-up supply, and it could actually affect market prices.

<comment><USER4> Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to about a 100 miles inland and it's all city. Unless you are going to tear down existing housing and rebuild with more high density housing which is just cost prohibitive. I figure at some point availability of water will become the limiting factor.

<comment><USER5> Since agriculture uses the bulk of water, it is a matter of allocation and proper pricing.

California's is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops?

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

<comment><USER6> There is the small issue of those productive people needing to eat...

<comment><USER5> California exports a lot of food, including to other countries. It does not need to have excess food supply given its economic structure.

<comment><USER6> California exporting a lot of food is a great thing. How about instead of destroying a major source of food, people simply move away from California?

<comment><USER5> The world has an excessive amount of food production capacity. That is why all the subsidies many governments give to prop up their farmers.

I thought a key American ideal is freedom. Why would you want to restrict people's freedom and only give the privilege only to the few who just happen to be born early enough to get property there? (Even some California native sons and daughters cannot afford to buy a home in their own home city.)

By the way, flippant answers are not appreciated. Consider reading more about the topics before giving thoughtful answers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> this is related to an article i just submitted: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780)

it costs too much to live here because of zoning. zoning is largely driven by local governments, dominated by homeowners who benefit when prices rise.

but california might fix it with sb-827, which would prevent local governments from banning density near transit hubs. california builds <100k units per year. McKinsey did a deep dive that shows that sb-827 could unlock 3 million units—this would be transformational.

[https://standupcalifornia.com](https://standupcalifornia.com) (this is my site supporting sb-827)

 _please, if you care about california, learn about these issues and support sb-827!!!_

<comment><USER7> It'd _help_ fix it, but California's dug itself into such a deep hole that it'll take a while to fix it even with good measures like that one.

The statistic that always amazes me is how Tokyo built more housing than the _entire state_ of California in 2014.

[https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco- housing-...](https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing- costs-tokyo)

If you (as in the generic you, not the comment I'm responding to) live in CA, and care about this stuff, you should get involved with the YIMBY folks there. They're doing great work, and achieving real results.

<comment><USER8> Tokyo is huge though, it's population is about 1/3 that of the whole of California. So we are talking about a ratio of only 3+ in housing built per capita. Significant for sure, but hardly bizzare.

<comment><USER3> i got so deep here, i went and looked at US Census Building Permit data for MSAs: [https://standupcalifornia.com/peers](https://standupcalifornia.com/peers)

This is all primary research. The most shocking piece was that cities like Sacramento are permitting half as much housing per capita as peer cities like Seattle. Land is not the issue—this is a policy failure.

But, we can fix it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This chart of U-Haul prices in/out of San Jose (in one form or another) made the news recently. [http://www.aei.org/publication/san-francisco-bay-area- experi...](http://www.aei.org/publication/san-francisco-bay-area-experiences- mass-exodus-of-residents-reflected-in-one-way-u-haul-truck-rental-rates/)

<comment><USER10> I vacated California for New Mexico 14 years ago (No regrets). The price of a U-Haul was so high that I was able to buy a used, good condition 12 foot cargo trailer for about 20% more than the price of a same sized rental. I still have it and use it as a big storage locker. When prices get that lopsided it's time to go shopping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Native Texan here. I and many other Texans I know welcome newcomers with open arms.

We all just have one message though: Please do not turn Texas into the places y'all are leaving. There's a reason y'all are leaving after all.

EDIT: Newcomers: We generally don't care what anyone does or thinks, we only care when people try to force us to conform to their beliefs, including what to do with our money, eg) raising taxes.

Wow, the back-and-forth on upvotes/downvotes is crazy. Sorry, didn't mean for this to be controverisal.

<comment><USER12> I suspect Texas will wish it had California's problems in a decade. California is experiencing a brain gain [1] as the best and the brightest relocate to the state en mass. Texas is meanwhile experiencing a brain drain by experting college educated and college-seeking citizens en masse. A quick look at industries in decline (oil, coal, meat) and industries on the rise (automotive, tech, healthcare) does not suggest that Texas is the place to be or that these people leaving for Texas are doing so voluntarily.

[1] [http://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-brain- gain/](http://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-brain-gain/)

<comment><USER13> Texas is growing, lots of large companies leaving other states to move there. So to say their is a large brain drain is disingenuous. All of those companies you listed as "on the rise" are relocating to Texas, a few examples: State Farm, Toyota, and soon Amazon HQ2(Amazon hates taxes). This is a small sampling, there are many more companies moving to Texas all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >Families with kids and those with only a high school education predominate among those moving from California to its top destination states (Texas, Arizona, and Nevada). College-educated 18 to 35 year olds led the way among those moving to California from its top feeder states (New York, Illinois, and New Jersey).

<comment><USER15> I am loving that. Take all the people who don't have college educations and send them off to Texas, California can take the educated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting data, but:

 _" The graph below shows data from the Internal Revenue Service on the movement of income tax filers in and out of California since 1990. (Data on tax filers does not cover the entire population because some people do not earn enough income to necessitate filing taxes.)"_

It also doesn't cover populations who don't _pay_ taxes, and who get paid under the table.

<comment><USER17> The _graph_ introduced with that paragraph comes from IRS data, the total population estimate (and the other material that is not that graph) is derived from the American Community Survey (which is not restricted to tax filers.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> California is also losing residents by discouraging migration via high taxes. For example, I had two job offers: one in California and one in Washington. Since this was a $200k+ job, that income tax in CA would have cost me $40 grand per year. Suffice it to say I now live in Washington.

<comment><USER19> CA State income tax on $200k is around $15k - not sure where the other $25k went unless you mean cost of living.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Its funny that people fixate on tax when discussing this issue yet if you look at the numbers its high earners who move _into_ the state.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's no wonder that high-earning individuals are moving into California. A few numbers I ran across on the web:

\- Bay Area economy is growing 3X (!!!) faster than average in US.

\- Santa Clara region has an income average of $98,000, top 5 amonst the nation

\- Average salary for Software Engineers for San Francisco is $210,000

This of course doesn't bode well for mid to lower income citizens, who now have to move out as far as antioch or stockton to afford a home. Bad for a family of 4, still doable for singles that can room with roommates near work. We really do need to have more housing in regions that are underdeveloped and soon will be served by the BART extension, google's building foray in downtown san jose, buildout in the caltrain stops between Redwood City and South San Francisco, etc.

<comment><USER22> > \- Average salary for Software Engineers for San Francisco is $210,000

Curious where you got that? I looked at the Hired salary info yesterday, and it was far shy of that.

<comment><USER21> I saw it here: [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-starting-salary- fo...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-starting-salary-for-a- software-engineer-with-a-BS-degree-in-San-Francisco-Bay-Area)

On second thought, this might not be accurate as there's no direct references.

Indeed says senior software engineers is around $187,000 [https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Computer+Programmer- Salaries...](https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Computer+Programmer- Salaries,-San+Francisco+Bay+Area%2C+CA)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I appreciate the effort that went into making this, but I get really annoyed with analyses like this that show heatmaps comparing highly heterogeneous groups (in this case, states, income groups, age groups, and education groups) that use an absolute scale. Of course absolute migration looks extreme in NY and Texas compared to, say Missouri or Iowa. This would be a much more interesting story if they used a lift metric that controlled for state/group size and/or state/group migration volume.

</comment><comment><USER24> San Diego is bleeding people to Austin.

I wish San Diego would just make it's own state, adopt Texas' taxes and it'd be hands-down the best place to be in the US.

<comment><USER25> You want 2% property taxes at San Diego property values? Without Prop 13?

<comment><USER26> Is there a place where owners of $1MM properties expect to pay less than $20K in property tax?

<comment><USER27> San Diego? If you bought you house 20 years ago and it is worth $1M now, you probably pay $2k to $3k in taxes.

<comment><USER15> I don't think this is true. My parents own a house near a $1M and they much more than $3K an year in taxes.

<comment><USER27> Depends on how long they owned they house. For example: [https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/2443-Curlew- St-92101/hom...](https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/2443-Curlew- St-92101/home/5748778#public-records)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm sure there is a $$$ number that would convince me to move to California, but I'm not sure there are many companies willing to pay it and I would be super worried the entire time I was there about possible unemployment.

I feel like there is going to be a blood bath in the Bay Area if we're actually in a bubble and it bursts. The next five to ten years should be an interesting ride.

<comment><USER29> Let's say we're in a bubble and it bursts. How would it be different from The Great Recession?

<comment><USER30> From a near-miss in my own life: A bubble that bursts may look a lot like The Great Recession. A bubble that bursts just after you move to a new city, where you don't have any professional track record? That's worse. A bubble that bursts harder in the new city than in the one you came from? I'd think _hard_ before I signed up for that...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> A cursory read of the graphics indicates that people with graduate degrees and higher-paying jobs are forcing the people with less money and less education out, and they are moving to states with lower costs of living.

<comment><USER32> I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. What's wrong with having a higher educated, higher income populace?

<comment><USER12> Yeah the people who think this is a bad thing are pretty confused. The real story here is that everybody in California is becoming very highly educated [1]. California is experiencing a remarkable _brain gain_ as the best and the brighest _in the world_ relocate to the state. This may drive out lesser educated Americans but the idea that this is a disaster or a bad thing is mistaken. California's future is very bright (even if too much value gets captured by real estate speculators.)

[1] [http://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-brain- gain/](http://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-brain-gain/)

<comment><USER33> A bad thing for whom? California or its (former) citizens?

<comment><USER32> Either? Former citizens presumably get an increase in quality of life in a lower cost of living area, and California has a richer (newly imported) middle class.

The ones that have it hard are the ones who can't afford to stay and can't/won't leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Democratic states moving into California and Californians mostly leaving for conservative states. Interesting.

There are multiple ways to interpret though.

<comment><USER35> The data's pretty mixed on that. For outflow states:

Texas (#1): Solid R

Arizona (#2): R

Nevada (#3): Lean D

Oregon, Washington (#4, #5): Solid D

Colorado (#6): D

Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma (#7, #8, #9): Solid R

Georgia (#10): R

That's 6 R, 4 D.

<comment><USER36> Oregon is interesting in that it's D because of Portland. The state is mostly conservative small cities or rural and yet the population of the Portland metro area leans so far left and has such a large population relative to the other parts of the state that it changes the entire state. Remove Portland voters from the polls and Oregon would be R.[0]

[0][http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/212726-70134-how- liberal-i...](http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/212726-70134-how-liberal-is- portland)

<comment><USER35> You could say the same thing about lots of blue states.

<comment><USER36> Any examples? I don't know of any other state that has 1 city with such an impact on the entire state as to turn it blue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's also noteworthy that a lot of people from Illinois are moving to California even though California income taxes are higher. It seems to me that the California outmigration is mostly from economically depressed parts of California, not from LA or Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER38> It would be really interesting to see the difference in trends between the Bay Area, LA, and the more rural areas. Seems the housing price issue is much more of a problem in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER39> According to Trulia's market trend reports, both LA and Sacramento's median housing prices have increased faster in the last five years than San Jose's: LA went from $400K to $779K, a 94% increase, while Sacramento went from $143K to $305K, a 113% increase. San Jose went from $490K to $865K, a "mere" 77% increase. Stockton also more than doubled in the same period.

Obviously one could argue San Jose was already overpriced, but in terms of _trends,_ California's housing prices are kind of on fire -- you don't have to be in the SF Bay area for costs to be rising much faster than the national trend. (Which is still higher than I would have guessed: the median price over that five-year period across the entire country rose from $154K to $205K.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Interesting that three of the top five destination states (Texas, Nevada and Washington) have no state income tax.

</comment><comment><USER41> Doesn't the chart in TFA directly directly contradict the point of TFA?

From TFA: [http://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/957](http://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/957)

Net out migration is at a fairly low level compared to other times since 1990.

<comment><USER17> > Doesn't the chart in TFA directly directly contradict the point of TFA?

No.

Though it might contradict an incorrect inference about the point, which is not "this effect is getting worse" but "this effect exists, and here is a detailed breakdown".

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Texas and Oregon are starting to look pretty nice. Too bad about the cannabis laws in Texas, though. As soon as I persuade the court to terminate my probation I'll consider selling a few properties and getting out of here, too.

<comment><USER43> Oregon sucks. Don't move here, I mean there. But, Texas is very nice.

<comment><USER11> Texan here. We welcome y'all with open arms, just please don't turn Texas into the places that you left.

<comment><USER44> That depends on how you figure. Do you mean socially? Legally? Business-wise? There are a lot of complex forces at play to make Silicon Valley the way it is (including history). I don't think it's fair to tell any group not to "make" some city like their previous one. Furthermore, one nice thing about the American melting pot is everyone gets a voice. If enough people move to Texas and change its culture, that's just something you have to deal with (or move, I suppose).

<comment><USER45> _> If enough people move to Texas and change its culture, that's just something you have to deal with (or move, I suppose)_

We have learned nothing.

<comment><USER44> It's unfair and unrealistic to expect everyone to assimilate, if for no other reason than people bring the entirety of their experiences with them wherever they go. There will always a bit of a Californian in transplants to Texas, just like there will always be a bit of a Texan in transplants to Pennsylvania or Florida or Germany or wherever. I think this adds to the richness of life, but I suppose not everyone feels that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Portland Uber drivers complained about this phenomenon when I visited a while ago. Bay area transplants were buying into Portland through new high rise developments that locals detest.

<comment><USER47> This has been the attitude for years in Oregon. It's not just in the cities through new high rise developments; in the rural areas, they buy out the properties for cash -- generally above asking price -- which jacks up the prices out of reach for the locals.

Frankly, it happens everywhere that the cost of living is lower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Seattle is full and the weather is dreadful. It rains 364 days a year and the other day of the year is full of smoke from forest fires. Please consider Portland instead.

<comment><USER49> Seattle has plenty of room, and the weather is beautiful during the spring and summer. We had one smoky period last year due to a freak fire in BC. It's a great place to raise a family, and make a killing in tech.

 _(I 'm not currently selling real estate.)_

<comment><USER48> Seattle is a hell on earth of rain, Amazon, heroin addicts and smoked salmon. Be quiet or the californians will hear you!

<comment><USER50> Some people quite like a rainy climate, and Amazon creates a whole tech scene of its own around it.

<comment><USER48> I'm guessing sarcasm doesn't translate well into text. Should have added more hyperbole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Like brexit and the over 70 crowd, how many Californians are voting for laws that they will not be around to see the results of?

</comment><comment><USER17> Far less than it was between 1990-2006, as the source notes; the geographic and income distribution is interesting.

</comment><comment><USER52> Unfortunate reality of CA is that or every resident that's moving out there are two people going to take their place.

<comment><USER17> > Unfortunate reality of CA is that or every resident that's moving out there > are two people going to take their place.

Actually, for every 6 moving out, 5 are going to take their place, per the article. But I suspect that a lot of the out migration isn't from the urban economic powerhouses and most of the in migration goes to them, so that for _urban_ California, your statement may be closer to true, though exaggerated.

<comment><USER53> The article seems to ignore a big group: California nets about 100K or more immigrants from outside the US each year, which would cover the gap in recent year.

[http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in- california/](http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/)

<comment><USER17> > The article seems to ignore a big group: California nets about 100K or more > immigrants from outside the US each year, which would cover the gap in > recent year.

Yes, the article specifically about _internal_ migration doesn't address _external_ migration.

> California nets about 100K or more immigrants from outside the US each year, > which would cover the gap in recent year.

Sure, but it doesn't change it from near balance to anything but even nearer balance; it's nothing like 2 in for 1 out on a statewide basis.

<comment><USER53> The article's clear, but the headline is misleading, since it's not actually true that "California is losing residents" as an broad statement - it's more narrowly true that CA is seeing more people move to other US states than from other states, but I guess that's less compelling as a headline.

California's population has grown every year since at least 1960, but the headline and article would make you think otherwise.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


If you have to learn just one programming language - <AUTHOR> http://blog.srinivasan.biz/software/if-you-have-to-learn-just-one-programming-language <comment><USER2> If you have to learn just one language, and you're forbidden from learning another, you'll mentally hobbled, a technical cripple, like someone who's been forced to express their thoughts using only 5'000 randomly selected words of the English language.

The premise is completely flawed. No single language is enough to "be a programmer". You need other languages, if only to understand what your language does. And you need them because no language is the best tool for every job. Should a plumber choose "just one tool" to do their job with?

 _if you want to devote all your energies to becoming a proficient and productive programmer and want to learn one powerful, freely available, high level general-purpose language (not domain specific)_

If you want to devote all your energies to becoming a proficient and productive programmers, you will need to:

1) Learn at least half a dozen different languages over the course of a few years or more (and by "learn" I mean learn them well enough to do something productive in them).

2) From this, arrive at a set of preferences for which languages you feel most productive in for the tasks which you tend to do.

3) Then, hone those few languages (there's gonna be more than one) to a sharp point.

4) Keep monitoring new language developments and get ready to jump ship if a better language comes along, which replaces one of your current languages favourably.

A one-language programmer is like a one-legged stool.

<comment><USER3> "The premise is completely flawed. "

Sure,(and I think your "algorithm" is better than the author's for choosing which langauge to "deep dive" into), but the whole point of a Thought Experiment is to work off a "crazy" (by whatever logic) hypothesis to see what kind of thinking results. "If I were to hitch a ride on a light wave what would I see? ". "If I knew I was going to die exactly a year from now what would I choose to do?" etc. The crazy hypothesis is taken as an artificial focus to spur thinking.

That said, the author seems a bit clueless (and I am not defending him or his logic). I just wouldn't dismiss the idea of a thought experiment so easily. So yes, if you _could_ learn only one langauge which one would you learn? ;-)

(HN generally has better commentary than the article under discussion. This effect is particularly marked when theit is about some dumb submission that for some reason sparks great discussion.

My answer (fwiw) - C or Haskell. My biggest (programming) fear is working with dumb people on dumb projects. In the days of Java and scripting languages like Python or Ruby, either would be used (by and large) only for very unusual/interesting projects. Most of my work today is in converting Machine Learning research into workable code. The language used is is irrelevanmt to my clients, so eithr would work.Side projects would tend to be more interesting with either of these.

C would give me more job opportunities and many nice Open Source projects to jump into than Haskell I guess, but Haskell might be more mindbending (and fun). And it has a great community of very bright _and nice_ people.)

<comment><USER4> Well, let's not forget that the pay-off for that particular thought experiment was relativity. :)

I (and possibly others) would probably be a little less cranky about the whole article if he'd followed his steps rigorously and arrived at something interesting. And I don't mean it has to be revolutionary like relativity, but something better than just highlighting his new favorite language.

<comment><USER3> "Well, let's not forget that the pay-off for that particular thought experiment was relativity. :)"

I agree :-) . But even Einstein didn't know what he would end up with _before_ the thought experiment.

"I (and possibly others) would probably be a little less cranky about the whole article if he'd followed his steps rigorously and arrived at something interesting."

I agree that the article is completely tangled and confused and not worth the time spent reading it. I was just using the question posed (and ignoring the source and the accompanying article) to do some thinking to see if anything interesting results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        if (you_have_to_learn_one_language) {
          make_highly_subjective_claims();
          eliminate_good_candidates_for_specious_reasons();
          arrive_at_questionable_conclusion();
        } else {
          broaden_your_understanding_of_programming();
          be_able_to_evaluate_multiple_solutions_for_problem();
        }

The underlying premise is flawed. No one has to learn just one language and anyone who stops at one is limiting themselves to being a journeyman programmer for the rest of their career. At that point they should be asking "do I really like programming?" and if not, move along to something else.

A much better question is "If you have to start with just one programming language...".

<comment><USER5>
      (if (you-have-to-learn-one-language)
          (begin
              (make-highly-subjective-claims)
              (eliminate-good-candidates-for-specious-reasons)
              (arive-at-questionable-conclusion))
          (begin
              (broaden-your-understanding-of-programming)
              (be-able-to-evaluate-multiple-solutions-for-problem)))

<comment><USER6> Ouch, so many side-effects. My scheme instincts are wincing.

<comment><USER7>
        ; Perhaps you would prefer monadic clojure?
        ; We wouldn't want to make it look too alien ;)
        (with-monad state-m
          (defn m-advice [your-brain spurious-advice?]
            (if spurious-advice?
              (m-chain (make-highly-subjective-claims
                       eliminate-good-candidates-for-specious-reasons
                       arive-at-questionable-conclusion) your-brain)
              (m-chain ((m-understanding-broadener :programming)
                       be-able-to-evaluate-multiple-solutions-for-problem) your-brain))))

<comment><USER6> Oddly enough, that _did_ make me feel better. It's strange how encapsulating the side-effects in a state monad can be so soothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> He lost me when he started talking about JavaScript and implied it is obsoleted by GWT.

<comment><USER9> He lost me a bit earlier:

"I will eliminate Lua for the same reason [is not a general purpose language], though it has found a niche in the gaming community."

wat?

And then on a comment he says: "I should have written more about Prolog, Lua"

And proceeds not to write more about Lua, only Prolog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd pick Javascript.

Code and reach is all I need to be rich.

<comment><USER11> You know what language is pretty good that no one would ever pick? Actionscript. It's like javascript but it has strong types (if you want them) and a decent toolset. Of course, everyone hates flash now...

<comment><USER10> I've worked with it, I hate it. I hate strong typing, after ten years in the corporate life I learned to hate java, c#, etc.

Thanks, but I am more than happy with JS as it is.

And node.js is coming along sweet on the server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm learning C# so I've got a little bias but the author says that C# never really took off? He doesn't even list it as failing one of his criteria. He says in the comments later he bases it off of it's listing here [http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....](http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). Baloney I say.

<comment><USER13> I'm not a big fan of C# but I have to agree. Even in the TIOBE index it may only have ~4% but that still makes it the _7th most popular language_.

He ends up with Scala, which according to TIOBE is 27th with 0.433%.

Interesting read, but clearly this is making the solution fit the data more than the other way around on the original author's part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I didn't understand his reasons for eliminating Haskell and OCaml. It's not even that his reasons were subjective like with a lot of the other languages — he just didn't offer any. He names a bunch of things Scala can do that they can also do and then goes, "So I'm eliminating Haskell and OCaml." Like, does he not realize those languages can do monads and XML processing?

</comment><comment><USER15> Wow, that dude is going to get flamed. Maybe he'll win a prize for pissing off the most advocates of different languages in one go?

</comment><comment><USER16> He eliminates Smalltalk because of speed but leaves in Ruby? Ummmmmmm. What?

<comment><USER17> No, he does eventually get around to eliminating Ruby on those grounds: "So I am eliminating Python and Ruby, primarily for #2". I don't quite understand why you have to read so far into the article to get to that conclusion, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Follow this author's advice unless you need a job.

<comment><USER19> Yeah really... Haskell and Scala? Unless your job is posting on Reddit all day about these languages, good luck...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> _I will eliminate Lua [because it is not a general purpose language]_

Umm... what? It's really hard to take anything from this article seriously after reading that. Other gems include ruling out Clojure purely on the basis of syntax, Objective C because "it is mainly used in Mac OSX and iphone software" and Javascript "mainly for the same reason we don't program in assembly any more — availability of highly optimizing compilers".

</comment><comment><USER21> If I had to learn 1 language, I would go to Monster, Dice, whatever job site and search- On Monster.com looks like java is the big winner in Houston Tx, followed by C++, C#, VB, and javascript. Lua and scala are pretty much a great way to be unemployed in this city.

Job Search Sorry there are 0 scala jobs

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next 85 c# jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 12345 Next 120 java jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 Next 6 objective c jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next 90 C++ jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 2 Next 30 php jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 2 3 Next 73 VB jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 Next 1 Lua jobs in Houston, TX

Job SearchPer page Previous 1 2 3 Next 65 javascript jobs in Houston, TX

Either way, why would you want to limit yourself to just one- even if its just for the sake of argument?

</comment><comment><USER22> I like to think of programming languages as tools. You should always pick the right tool for the job. Otherwise, someday you will pick up your hammer and realize not everything is a nail.

Language design is all about trade-offs. Some languages are better at string processing, some make it easy to write quick scripts, some have good framework support, some have high speed, none has it all.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think that programming languages are tools which aid the development of programs, but the program itself is really independent of the programming lanauge. I know that I write the same program no matter what the compiler (or assembler).

</comment><comment><USER24> ... then learn the one that everyone around you uses. This often extends to entire fields (genetics, etc).

Of course, it's never true that you have to learn just one language, and you're handicapping yourself if you arbitrarily do.</comment>


Doris Lessing: A hunger for books - <AUTHOR> http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2223780,00.html Far more interesting than the Techcrunch article about it currently on the front page in my opinion. <comment><USER2> Seems like a false idealization. When people are poor enough they will welcome a box of used clothes with quite a bit of enthusiasm, and this:

 _The young man had taken each one out, reverently, and wrapped them in plastic. "But," we say, "these books were sent to be read, surely?" "No," he replies, "they will get dirty, and where will I get any more?"_

...tends to suggest a respect for hard assets more than for readin' and writin'.</comment>


Fitbit Has a Problem – And It Isn't Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/05/07/fitbit-has-a-problem-and-it-isnt-apple/

<comment><USER2> Another issue is they have a bad attitude about quality.

Try to return a Fitbit product that is malfunctioning and you will talk to somebody who is very motivated to deny or delay an RMA as long as possible.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I know of at least 5 people who have had issues and attempted to get support/RMA. After failing there, they just buy a new one. The price is low enough for most people that it's become a throw-away device.

It's unfortunate for customers, but it works out well for Fitbit.

<comment><USER2> In the short term yes, in the long term no.

I bought an ebook from O'Reilly for about $10, complained about it on their website, and heard from a customer service rep that offered me a refund. I was told if I wasn't happy with a book they would refund it no questions asked.

Consider now that GEICO spends $3 per capita per year to persuade people in the US to change their car insurance, they've spent something like $30 on me on the last decade without me defecting from my insurance agent. It is very cheap marketing for O'Reilly to let go of $10 on a book because it cements the idea that O'Reilly is a class act.

Brands that have built up equity over a long time often go downhill when they stop "doing the right thing". Kraft Mac and Cheese advertises more than ever, particularly with the message that it is a comfort food from your childhood, but it is not the same product. Kraft MC switched to milk protein concentrate sourced from China about ten years ago -- a product originally intended to make glue, not for human consumption. It increased their profits in the short term, but it makes the product disgusting so no wonder why sales are in the toilet despite a huge spend on ads.</comment></comment></comment>


A $149 ARM laptop that looks like a MacBook Air (and runs Android) - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/07/thd-n2-kirf-macbook-air-ics/

<comment><USER2> Note that the quoted price is wholesale, in units of 500.

It's a 1.2GHz single-core Cortex A8 (not A9) with 1GB of RAM and a 1366x768 display. The article states 8G of "SSD" storage, but at that size and given the feature sets of these SoCs it's much more likely to be a SD/eMMC device. Frankly this is going to be a very poor laptop replacement, but as a browsing/messaging box it might make sense.

And of course it looks exactly like a Macbook Air.

</comment><comment><USER3> _the device's build quality certainly isn't up to Apple's standards_

That sounds like a huge understatement. A good phone is $500, so I'd expect an ARM laptop to have a similar price. For $150 they must be cutting a lot of corners.

<comment><USER4> I briefly read what you typed as something like you would cut yourself on the corners, which also may well be true!

<comment><USER3> In Chinese Air clone, corners cut you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If it ran Linux, I'd be all over it, but with Android, I'd much rather just use a smartphone or a tablet. It's essentially a tablet without a touchscreen as-is.

<comment><USER4> A great deal of the Linux userland is available. On my Arm based phone, I can vnc into an X windows session on the same device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Impressive, though some of the machining around the various ports looks a little naff.

</comment><comment><USER7> $149? That's cheap. You get what you pay for: According to the article, this thing has 8 GB of storage.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is that a mag connector for the power? I didn't think anyone but apple could use that.

<comment><USER9> Ripping off the MagSafe or not doesn't even matter. They clearly didn't ask Apple for permission for any of this as this has illegal written all over it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >looks like a macbook air

Oh the Apple lawyers will be pissed about that.

</comment><comment><USER11> How long until someone installs OS X on this?

I've been running 10.5 on my Dell Mini 9 for almost 3 years without a single problem. I'd love the bigger screen.

<comment><USER3> OS X doesn't run on random ARM SoCs.

<comment><USER12> OS X doesn't run on ARM at all. iOS might, with a ton of hacking, but as far as I'm aware that hasn't been demonstrated by anyone yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How is this - or is it - legal?

<comment><USER14> Your question is confusing. Are you under the impression that Apple has somehow gained legal protection for all aluminum clamshell laptops of a certain colour scheme?

It's a laptop. Why wouldn't it be legal?

On a vaguely related note, the plaintiff lost in both Apple v. Microsoft (35 F.3d 1435) and Lotus v. Borland (516 U.S. 233). It would appear that you can neither patent nor copyright Look and Feel.

<comment><USER15> It's not the clamshell design that's the problem, I think. I think it's other parts, like the charging apparatus.

The magsafe-like charging connector is pretty much identical in appearance to Apple's design. I would be surprised if Apple doesn't have an industrial design patent on that.

The keyboard is similar, but I don't think there's a problem, considering all the other Chiclets-style keyboards out there.

<comment><USER16> There is significant prior art around larger-than-Apple-magsafe magnetic- attach power connectors - if you ever used a Japanese-made domestic deep fryer in the 80s or 90s, you'll have noticed the same concept. Design IP is a different matter of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why, why, why? Why do people want Android on a non-mobile/tablet device? It's not designed for a mouse, arguably not even for a keyboard...

Ubuntu would rock on that thing. Okay, maybe not Ubuntu, maybe something a bit better tuned for 1GB of RAM, but still, this would be fun to have for $150.

Also, are those ports empty? ha, Or at least, what is the port that is analogous to the MBA's Thunderbolt port? I don't recognize it.

 _edit_ Actually, I'd definitely get down with Chrome OS on this. Is there a usable ARM port of Chrome OS?

<comment><USER18> Android from Honeycomb on is quite nice with a mouse/keyboard combination, particularly if the "mouse" is really a multitouch touchpad.

I use my ASUS Transformer in that configuration more than I use it in tablet form, and I find that both the hardward keyboard and the touchpad work perfectly fine. The real downside isn't the OS support, but the app selection. There are still far too few apps built assuming that some percentage of the userbase will be using richer-than-touchscreen-only input methods, but this is beginning to slowly change as more full-featured office apps and IDEs are starting to appear.</comment></comment>


Rust vs C Pitfalls - <AUTHOR> http://www.garin.io/rust-vs-c-pitfalls <comment><USER2> If you're fighting, you've lost. The way to convert everyone to Rust you need to be better the the competition. Not just better as in "look at my features that will make your code safer". People may see the value but think "I get on just fine without the borrow checker so it isn't _too_ important". You need to be far better then the replacement by providing the following:

       * Great Tooling ( IDEs )
       * Great Libraries ( Everything and a kitchen sink )
       * Better Documentation

Anything that can be done easily in C or C++ will need to be easier in Rust for everyone to move. No amount of language features will pull people who are doing well at their job, currently building everything they need to, and who maintain low level systems. You have to be able to entierly replace the old systems in a completely feature-complete way that's also easy to migrate to.

Blog posts wont pull me away from C, tooling and docs will.

<comment><USER3> On similar note, why Rust over Go?

If I look at everything I used to write in C, I'd say 80% is well suited for Go and the rest I would fallthrough to Rust for. For the stuff where having a GC and slightly less control is OK, I don't see why I would want to use Rust. Rust is just much more complex and I prefer to keep it simple stupid (KISS).

Basically, Go is good for 90% of what I used to use Java for and 80% of what I used to use C for... trying to understand where it makes sense for Rust to fit in.

<comment><USER4> >On similar note, why Rust over Go?

I was going to say that rust has performance advantages over Go (due to GC), but look at benchmarks:

[http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lan...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=go&lang2=rust)

Go wins some and looses some, but it's all in the ballpark (except Binary trees [1] which it loses even to Java(!)).

It's true that rust is a new language, but so is Go.

[1]: I assume it's because it's a test of GC, but Go loses to Java (which, like Go, is a GC language)

<comment><USER5> This is only because the Rust implementations are using particularly slow code paths, either because SIMD/AVX optimizations requires a nightly compiler, some optimizations would require unsafe code, or that other languages are using particularly hacky code that would never fly in real world software.

For example, many of the Java/C/C++ benchmarks are using custom optimizations that should be illegal for the benchmarking. Case in point, some are featuring custom hash maps that feature hashing algorithms that, while fast, would never be useful as they provide no protection against collisions. You'll see a hashing algorithm in a C preprocessor, for example, that just fakes having an actual algorithm whereas Rust examples are sticking to the tried and tested production-grade algorithms shipping in the standard library.

<comment><USER6> > Case in point, some are featuring custom hash maps that feature hashing > algorithms that, while fast, would never be useful as they provide no > protection against collisions.

They are useful in this case, aren't they? Custom hash map implementation can be also useful in other scenarios. This is feature of the language that allow you to do that so it's not "illegal" to use it. If Rust doesn't allow you to do something while other language does, it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I don't see any tricks in Go and it's faster than Rust and more memory efficient in almost half of the benchmarks. So what's your excuse for those cases ?

<comment><USER7> Rust can do custom hashes as well, to be clear. There's been some arguments over what hashes are allowed in the game in the past.

<comment><USER8> If it compiles and run it is allowed. There is no rule to benchmark other than having the same end result with best performance.

I still can't get all the moral over this.

The best thing here for Rust would be to achieve the best performance on this game and nothing else.

To me this game is important and winning on it is more yet. So, if Rust don't have better result by "morals" this is so wrong that hurts. But each time I read these responses I ask myself if there is not a real problem there.

I like Rust, but performance is decisive. It is really sad to see that Rust keeps going down on this game and that makes me question myself when trying to invest time on Rust.

<comment><USER9> It isn't a "moral" issue. It is about the usefulness of the benchmarks. If you're using them to make a recommendation about which programming language to choose, it is important to have a sense for how well the results generalize to the kind of programs you will be writing. Using unrealistic hacks targeted specifically to each benchmark is contra that goal.

If, on the other hand, you're just treating the benchmarks as a fun competition akin to code golf, then by all means, hacks ahoy!

<comment><USER8> Benchmark GAME :)

<comment><USER10> [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/sometimes-people- jus...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/sometimes-people-just-make-up- stuff.html#name-game)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > "Safe" code is guaranteed to be 100% safe. Not statistically safe. Not safe > when the compiler feels like it. As long as your code compiles, it will be > safe in terms of memory safety and data-race freedom.

As far as I am aware, the Rust compiler has not been proved correct. So whether or not your code is correct still depends on the correctness of the compiler. Of course this is probably correct, but still not 100% guaranteed.

Edit: Relevant discussion - [https://github.com/rust- lang/rust/issues/9883](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/9883)

<comment><USER12> I can make your code as safe as you like, if you only let me define what "safe" means!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The kind of safety guarantees Rust provides are, in my opinion, insufficient justification for experienced developers to move from C or C++. Rust has other features that make it generally superior in certain (many) contexts. The safety is a nice "add-on" effect, I suppose, but my view is that constantly hyping safety as the biggest selling point is missing a mark.

<comment><USER14> I completely agree. The biggest reason I haven't seriously tried Rust yet is because, despite all the vocal pro-Rust opinions we've all been inundated lately, I struggle to name a single interesting thing about the language apart from "safety". I wish the Rust evangelists would come to terms with the fact that to many developers memory safety is not a particularly important concern (for many different and often very good reasons) and talk more about other aspects of their language.

The tooling seems nice, but far from unique (D, Go and other languages are quite competitive there). It would be far more interesting to hear more about, say, traits (can it compete with C++ in compile time polymorphism?) and other technical aspects that make Rust stand apart from its competitors.

<comment><USER5> You're only going to anger people by referring to another group as 'evangelists' when you yourself have already made note that you don't know enough about Rust to see why they are promoting it. There's much more to Rust than safety. You should actually spend a few months with it, and then give your opinion.

<comment><USER15> > ...you don't know enough about Rust to see why they are promoting it.

If you have to know a lot about Rust to find out why you're using it in the first place, you certainly do have a chicken-or-the-egg problem. And, if the promotion doesn't leave you with a clear idea of why you might want to use Rust, that promotion couldn't have been very successful.

<comment><USER5> The same is true of any technology. One cannot give an informed opinion without first being informed about the technology in the first place. Technology moves forward because there are many whom are willing to leave the comfort of their boxes into the unknown to try things without being required to be convinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> We are having new languages every year. Instead of debating which language is the best, why can't we invent a way to let components implemented in different languages talk with each other easily? We have pipes, sockets and message queues, but it's never simple enough to glue everything together.

<comment><USER17> This is an interesting idea that has been explored before in VMS, an old operating system I believe competed with UNIX.

VMS had a feature called CLE (Common Language Enviornment) [1] which defined calling conventions for computing primitives (functions, registers, stacks...you get it) independent of any language. You could call bits of code from all sorts of languages like COBAL, FORTRAN, C, and some others I'm not really familiar with. Because the calling conventions were specifically designed for language interopperability in mind, VMS was implemented in several different languages. Different components were coded in whatever language best expressed them. This directly contrasts with Unix, which we all know champions C.

I'm not too familiar with Unix calling convention specifics, but as I understand, it revolves around C and its memory model. I believe this is what gives some languages difficulty "talking" with each other; if a language doesn't have a memory or execution model close to C's, it needs to translate through a FFI (Foreign Function Interface) [2] before exchanging execution routines efficiently.

[1]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS#Common_Language_Enviro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS#Common_Language_Environment))

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

<comment><USER16> I think Unix's pipes are better examples that how components could communicate. It's a pity that due to terminal limits, the best we can do about connecting components in Unix is to pipe things through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A more interesting question for me is: is there any reason why would I want to use Rust over Haskell on any task where Haskell is "fast enough"?

<comment><USER19> Rust seems to be more lightweight and portable in general. I think the compiler uses far less memory (and IIRC has better cross-compilation support too). The binaries are much smaller and the runtime is simpler. Cargo is amazing and I have much more confidence in it to not give me build trouble. In particular, you get a test framework including doc tests for free; I know Haskell tools offer similar functionality but in practice the setup cost is far higher. Haddock is not bad, but it uses its own weird syntax; Rust's documentation system uses Markdown IIRC.

Also, some things are just easier to write in an imperative language. I expect that the performance and memory use of Rust programs is also easier to predict and understand, though generally I think Haskell gets a lot of unfair criticism in that department.

I haven't used Haskell in a while so some of the things I mentioned may have been improved upon since then. In particular, Stack may have grown up a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Stroustrup has proposed a way to add safety to C++. It's called "C++ Core Guidelines", and "GSL".

[https://isocpp.org/blog/2015/09/bjarne-stroustrup- announces-...](https://isocpp.org/blog/2015/09/bjarne-stroustrup-announces- cpp-core-guidelines)

[https://github.com/Microsoft/GSL](https://github.com/Microsoft/GSL)

I watched his talk -- wondering if anyone is using it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OEu9C51K2A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OEu9C51K2A)

Using GSL gives adds some safety to pointers and memory allocation -- while providing the bare-metal performance that C is known for. (It still feels very low-level.)

</comment><comment><USER21> To play the devil's advocate a bit, most of these are features you already get with C++, especially if you turn on all relevant warnings and treat them as errors. I can see the advantage of having things (sorta, given "unsafe") statically guaranteed for a shared codebase, but what are some compelling reasons to switch for personal projects?

<comment><USER22> Manishearth's response [1] plus Cargo [2] hits on a lot of great things about Rust.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13268955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13268955)

[2]: [http://doc.crates.io/](http://doc.crates.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Author forgets some inconvenients of Rust: massive bloat, multi-platform issues, etc.

<comment><USER24> What are you talking about? I don't get people making these posts without any detail whatsoever as to what they're talking about.

I have a fully static binary that includes futures, nix, tokio, uuid, and more. Even statically compiled with Muslims it's less than three megs.

And if I didn't use the nix package for a setsockopt call, it would be perfectly capable of running on Windows (and I could easily make it cross platform if I wanted to invest the effort in adding Windows support). Further, there are an abundance of great resources out there for extremely painless cross compilation.

So far I've not heard of problems with multiplat or bloat so I'm hoping you'll elaborate.

<comment><USER23> There are more systems than POSIX and Windows. Also, even in popular Linux systems Rust is not even installable in a straightforward way (e.g. Ubuntu 15.10, my system), so go figure. Regarding Rust bloat, I don't know if has got any better recently, but it was crazy bloated in comparison to C.

<comment><USER25> The bloat issues are (a) a constant overhead and (b) a matter of defaults.

See [https://lifthrasiir.github.io/rustlog/why-is-a-rust- executab...](https://lifthrasiir.github.io/rustlog/why-is-a-rust-executable- large.html#takeaway)

Rust statically links to libstd by default because it's not there as a dynamic lib on most platforms. On top of that, it links in jemalloc. This makes small Rust binaries look larger than they need to be. The overhead dwindles as you start looking at larger Rust programs. If you actually need to get rid of that overhead, the option is there, it's just not default.

Addition to popular package managers is being worked on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Since this is a "vs" can i assume that rust is better in all regards to C ? As in that rust is flawless ? Or should it be "Rust vs C's Pitfalls" ?

</comment><comment><USER8> You're so wrong that is laughably.

That laughably hashing functions are highly specialized implementations for a proposed problem. There is NO MORAL there.

I code C for living and if we can use "laughably hashing functions" to gain performance we WILL DO.

<comment><USER27> > _You 're so wrong that is laughably._

This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. Please express your point substantively. If someone else is wrong, show them (and the rest of us readers) how. Then we all learn something. Also, please don't use uppercase for emphasis—that's in the site guidelines too.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13269145](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13269145) and marked it off-topic.</comment></comment>


Data Confirm Semiautomatic Rifles Linked to More Deaths, Injuries - <AUTHOR> http://scientificamerican.com/article/data-confirm-semiautomatic-rifles-linked-to-more-deaths-injuries <comment><USER2> The data confirm nothing of the kind. The Las Vegas shooting alone completely skews the data. Adjusting for that, it boils down to "rifles are more lethal than handguns and less so than shotguns" which, given the muzzle velocity differences, is obvious.

Meanwhile, thus statement was utterly false: "A 1994 federal assault weapons ban prohibited manufacturing, transferring or possessing certain semiautomatic firearms for civilian use.". In fact, it had no effect _at all_ on possession. It also had no effect on fully automatic weapons.</comment>


Remember "This is your brain on drugs"?: Teaching teenagers about texting harassment - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/media/27adco.html?ref=technology <comment><USER2> The Ad Council is my least favorite government agency. It takes billions of dollars from the public. In exchange it produces such necessary propaganda as "if you smoke pot, you'll kill babies on accident".

Meanwhile, no Ad Council advertisement has ever been shown to make a quantitative difference in the social dynamic it was meant to address.

Every time I see an AdCoucil ad, I can't help but thinking that they could have refunded a few thousand people their tax money instead of providing me with this "public service".

<comment><USER3> I agree, but I actually liked this campaign.

The only thing I would point out is that adults do this texting shit too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can sleep better at night now that teens are safe from mean spirited text messages. There's so much evil in this world.

</comment><comment><USER5> Although the issue at hand is not exactly hacker-news, the solution (thatsnotcool.com) and the way they are reaching out to their target market is very similar to a web startup.

This article also suggests some new trends that we'll see in the next generation that's quite scary - sometimes we think that as the tech trendsetters we're on the cutting edge of micro-blogging, twitter, and connectivity. I suspect that in the next generation these ideas are already mainstream.

Social taboos are also being redefined in the next generation as well, which can be important if you're looking to build a website for next-gen users.

<comment><USER6> It's like a startup, except they have huge resources and the impact they have won't be measured in any way (while the market is brutally honest with startups).</comment></comment>


A Patently Risky Business - <AUTHOR> http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2008/08/a-patently-risk.html <comment><USER2> I recall reading somewhere that only 2-3% of patents make enough money to even pay back the application fee.</comment>


After Pentagon Ends Contract, Top-Secret Scientists Group Vows To Carry On - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/717225118/after-pentagon-ends-contract-top-secret-scientists-group-vows-to-carry-on <comment><USER2> Headline should read "after funding cut, scientists look for new funding". Not quite as clickbaity though...

ETA: I used to work at a government lab. I've _never_ heard a contractor say "they made the right choice. My work is obsolete/irrelevant/a waste of money." At the end of the day, people have livelihoods to maintain. Their work is always "needed now more than ever". Some of it actually is. Some of it isn't.

<comment><USER3> _> I used to work at a government lab._

Most JASON scientists haven't worked at a government lab for decades. How is this relevant?

 _> ...I've never heard a contractor..._

These aren't contractors, they are scientists. And not just any scientists. In most cases, they aren't even the scientists employed by a national lab. They're scientists employed by all manner of institutions, including universities who will pay their paychecks regardless of whether this funding comes in. Usually senior and well-respected.

Many of those scientists have, if not "fuck you money", at least "fuck you reputations" that translate into "fuck you money". E.g., the current chairperson is fucking _Russell Hemley_... he's not putting up with federal background checks because he needs the extra pennies...

JASON members work on JASON projects because they think those projects are important. Nobel laureates and other top scientists don't work on grant funded projects for the money... if all they cared about was feeding their families, they would just retire. And if all they cared about was money, they would pimp their reputations to private industry labs.

<comment><USER4> I don't know about these specific scientists but often professors only get paid for the school terms and must rely on externally funded research grants for the rest of the year.

<comment><USER5> If you don't bring in grant money, you'll end up with a lab roughly the size and utility of a shoebox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems shortsighted... they'll probably find more funding, but what a bunch of nonsense to have to deal with in the interim. This bit of the article makes it seem like it could be as petty as a clash of personalities:

> "The department remains committed to seeking independent technical advice > and review," Pentagon spokesperson Heather Babb said. But Aftergood sees > another reason for the end of the relationship. He says that the Jasons are > a blunt bunch. If they think an idea is dumb or won't work, they aren't > afraid to say so.

> "They were offering the opposite of cheerleading," he says. "And DOD decided > that maybe they didn't want to pay for that any longer."

An interesting bit of trivia from the wiki page shows they lost funding before in 2002 for something perhaps just as petty, them not relenting on having exclusive control over who they let join:

> In 2002, DARPA decided to cut its ties with JASON. DARPA had not only been > one of JASON's primary sponsors, it was also the channel through which JASON > received funding from other sponsors. DARPA's decision came after JASON's > refusal to allow DARPA to select three new JASON members. Since JASON's > inception, new members have always been selected by its existing members. > After much negotiation and letter-writing—including a letter by Congressman > Rush Holt of New Jersey[26]—funding was subsequently secured from an office > higher in the defense hierarchy, the office of the Director, Defense > Research & Engineering, name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense > (Research & Engineering) (ASD (R&E)) in 2011.[27]

I'm hesitant to blindly take the scientists' side however. I'm reminded of a remark from a Feynman interview ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg)):

> Honors, and from that day to this, always bothered me. I had trouble when I > became a member of the National Academy of Science, and I had ultimately to > resign. Because there was another organization, most of whose time was spent > in choosing who was illustrious enough to be allowed to join us in our > organization. Including such questions as: 'we physicists have to stick > together because there's a very good chemist that they're trying to get in > and we haven't got enough room…'. What's the matter with chemists? The whole > thing was rotten. Because the purpose was mostly to decide who could have > this honor. OK? I don't like honors.

<comment><USER7> The remark from Feynman may have been fair at the time, but JASON has nominated and has been joined by scientists who aren't physicists for quite some time: certainly predating the dust-up with DARPA.

I know it probably wasn't intended, but the proximity of those two things 1) DARPA issues and 2) Feynman on honors could be uncharitably read that DARPA wanted a broader set of disciplines that JASON refused. That's not true.

I would trust membership of JASON to themselves vs DARPA, but that may just be my own prejudices: I think of the current DARPA as a shadow of its former (great) self without the expertise to pick JASON members without succumbing to various political pressures.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, my prior is also weighted towards thinking JASON itself is going to be a better group than the NAS was when Feynman made his comment and is able to make fair membership decisions. I didn't intend to accuse just to bring it up as one of several reasons why I have meta-uncertainty about my prior since reading about those interesting bits (and another quip of membership being "predominated by theoretical physicists") reminded me of Feynman's story, and also I like sharing Feynman stories. :)

I would agree too that DARPA is a shadow of its former self, though on the other hand that position adds its own uncertainties for me since I hold at minimum the strong possibility of the same being true for the likes of JASON, the NSA's crypto groups, NASA, Lockheed's Skunk Works, or any other US- government-intertwined entities that nevertheless had or still have great respect. Decline is everywhere if you look for it.

<comment><USER8> You see evidence of decline everywhere, but I'm curious where you might see evidence of ascent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_\(advisory_group\))

</comment><comment><USER10> On a tangent, the group is part of Mitre Corp which maintains the CVE: [https://cve.mitre.org/](https://cve.mitre.org/) amongst many other security related publications.

Their SEG is a must read for anyone who wants to dive in or understand a systematic approach to System Engineering. [https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/se- gu...](https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/se-guide-book- interactive.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER11> The United States military-industrial complex is the world's largest jobs program. Paying sixty scientists for research means five hundred fewer people in a congressional district building tanks we don't need and can't use.

<comment><USER12> I agree with everything you say here. But I can't tell whether this is an argument for, or against, funding The Jasons.

<comment><USER11> I don't know whether the Jasons are necessary. I would wager they're a better use of money than half of the stuff the pentagon does spend money on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A good book about the history of the Jasons (and everything in and around DARPA) is The Pentagon's Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA (2016) by Annie Jacobsen. Recommended read!

[https://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-Brain-Uncensored- Americas-T...](https://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-Brain-Uncensored-Americas-Top- Secret/dp/0316371661)

[https://www.npr.org/2015/09/25/443334499/pulling-back-the- cu...](https://www.npr.org/2015/09/25/443334499/pulling-back-the-curtain-on- darpa-the-pentagons-brain)

</comment><comment><USER14> So much for that "top secret".

</comment><comment><USER15> Which mathematicians or CS are (were) members of this group after 2000?

</comment><comment><USER16> Do you want supervillains? Because this is how you create supervillains.

</comment><comment><USER17> > The Jasons' solution was to develop a system of remote sensors that could be > airdropped into the jungle and provide intelligence on the enemy. The > program, like much to do with Vietnam, was controversial and didn't work > perfectly

LOL so a bunch of ivory tower academics who have never left the cushy confines of campus let alone entered a battlefield come up with impractical and useless inventions that got dumped within a day. What's the bet men on the ground hated them! And the real solution came from some comms officer who knows a bit about soldering and sensors (and the reality of jungle warfare) probably.

Im surprised the DOD put up with them for so long.

<comment><USER18> Who do you think designs aircraft, ground vehicles, radar, and weapons systems? The vast majority of that work is done by people who have never seen combat, and that includes technology that the troops on the ground do love.</comment></comment>


Argentine ISPs Use Bazooka to Kill Fly - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/argentina-isps-ip-overblocking

<comment><USER2> Isn't this about cost? It's cheaper to have a router filter out an IP address than it is to have the router inspect the traffic and filter it based on URL.

</comment><comment><USER3> What other way is there to block a website that can't be circumvented by changing DNS servers?

<comment><USER4> Deep packet inspection. More specifically, either block DNS requests for those domains or the actual HTTP requests.

<comment><USER5> Right, so if an ISP doesn't have the capability to do that kind of blocking then the only way to comply with the court order is to null route blogspot.com

<comment><USER6> Or, more accurately, the IP address it resolves to. The ISP is primarily in the business of moving IP packets; domain names do not appear at the IP layer.

(they also provide DNS services; they could disable resolution of blogspot.com, is that what you meant?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems like a poor way to censor the Internet. Can't Google trivially change what address hosts Blogger in about 5 seconds?

(Also, the site in question seems pretty interesting. A wikileaks-alike?)

<comment><USER8> There is another tragicomic story about McDonald's Argentina removing the Big Mac (from the list) because the Government wants to hide the inflation index that will be revealed comparing to the Big Mac Index.

See:

\- The Big Mac Index: Case of the Mysterious Disappearing Big Mac in Buenos Aires [http://localbuenosaires.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/the-big- mac...](http://localbuenosaires.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/the-big-mac-index- case-of-the-mysterious-disappearing-big-mac-in-buenos-aires/) (read the comments)

\- <http://www.economist.com/node/18587317>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One more reason to have your own IP addresses.

<comment><USER10> It's harder to administer a blog yourself than to host it on Blogger. Can you host a blogger.com blog from your own IP?

<comment><USER11> You could redirect (at the IP level or proxy) all traffic from your IP to the real blogger IP.

In fact maybe someone with bandwidth could do that for Argentina to help them out ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So my website is banned in Argentina? Cool!</comment>


Top 7 algorithms for scientific computing, data analysis and machine learning - <AUTHOR> https://itbook.store/books/9781789806076 <comment><USER2> Every submit for this site is just a daily ad for Amazon affiliate linked books (tag=itbook.store-20)

New ads are submitted most days.

There is no "store". Even the descriptions are ripped from other retailers' pages.</comment>


Show HN: CloudXLS – Painless Excel reports and exports - <AUTHOR> https://cloudxls.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Happy to answer any questions. The idea originated from a client project where we replaced a legacy rails app with a 20mbyte Excel report that was updated with a script every x hours. Since then I can't get enough of Excel.</comment>