Egypt's temples that had to be moved piece by piece - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180409-egypts-exquisite-temples-that-had-to-be-moved <comment><USER2> One of the project's great side-effects is the creation of the World Heritage Center. [http://whc.unesco.org/](http://whc.unesco.org/) It's online list of sites (created and nominated) by country is a resource and catalog of the cultural 'wonders of the world'. [http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/](http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This was a really interesting story, and I'm interested in hearing even more detail about how they cut the temple into pieces. What machinery did they use to do the cutting? How much material was lost by this method? How did they make sure the pieces fit back together again?

Is there a book that goes into this detail (or any books about similar projects)?

<comment><USER2> Here you go ... take your pick. (Worldcat does fast, easy searches. Has all the details you need to find something ... and will even tell you the nearest library you can borrow it from.)

[https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=abu+si...](https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=abu+simbel)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To me this was one of the most interesting things to visit in Egypt. The pyramids were older and less refined as this structure and the complexity of moving that temple was a breathtaking endeavour!</comment>


Windows executables names "engine.exe" run slower - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/masonremaley/status/1295448690891657219 <comment><USER2> _" The mystery has been solved: somehow my "NVIDIA Control Panel" got configured to always run executables named "engine.exe" on the discrete card, rather than defaulting to the integrated card, which has different performance characteristics"_

[https://twitter.com/masonremaley/status/1295483684561342464](https://twitter.com/masonremaley/status/1295483684561342464)</comment>


Hedge Funds Flip ICOs, Leaving Other Investors Holding the Bag - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/hedge-funds-flip-icos-leaving-other-investors-holding-the-bag <comment><USER4> > Startups often need access to capital to promote ICOs.

This should be a huge red flag. If a business is spending the majority of the money from early investors to find more investors, rather than actually developing and marketing their product, that's pretty much a text book pyramid scheme.

<comment><USER5> A huge proportion of the ICOs I investigate turn out to be pure facade. It's amazing to me just how quickly this con was honed and formalized, but I guess people have always been good at aping when it comes to get-rich-quick bandwagons.

The standard ICO consists solely of: 1) A slick website. 2) A well-produced video. 3) A whitepaper that discusses trivially standard blockchain features and goals. No differentiation necessary. 4) The appearance that prominent or well-credentialed people are working on the "technology".

That's all. The "product" is vapor. The real product is another pump & dump vehicle to satisfy the insatiable demand for pump & dump vehicles. This product is sold to the "investors" during the ICO. Said "investors" are even explicitly awarded more coins for shilling the pump everywhere by creating amateurish articles and YouTube videos.

<comment><USER6> What % of ICOs _are_ seemingly legitimate? I see advertisements for ICOs on reddit and other tech websites all the time, and I have yet to find one that doesn't look incredibly shady.

<comment><USER7> Not many of them! Even the ones that are sincere, often have terrible ideas. Or purely unworkable ideas or no business model.

It makes it hard for legit people like my startup. We're actually using tech for an end case, not building tech on top of tech for tech's sake.

<comment><USER8> The legitimate ones happened years ago and have survived, they wouldn't be called ico's anymore.

Invested in one that raised just over $1m, it was considered a huge amount at the time, they had a solid team, serious whitepaper and a rough alpha open sourced product that you could load up and use. A small team that struggled with limited funds and still going strong long down the track.

Today whitepapers have little scientific merit and are more brochures. These companies are raising 100's of millions with no product whatsoever.

Only time can tell legitimacy, and unless you have both the technical and economic ability to properly assess these offerings the best advice is to stay far away until a viable alpha product is created.

Anecdotal experience is that >95% of ico investors haven't even tried the product they have invested in. Seen people who spend hours a day on the forums spruiking yet can't even point to the binary download page when asked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You mean to tell me that investors don't actually want their digital Beanie Babies and are trying to pitch them to suckers after getting them cheap to make money? Colour me shocked.

It's like nobody learned anything from the early 2000s.

<comment><USER10> I don't think they forgot the lessons. Its just that the allure of quick money is just too great for many people. I think this might be why a lot of people get addicted to gambling, for instance.

In this case, I think most people are aware its a bubble/ponzi scheme and are trying to "beat it" by making the most profit and getting out ASAP before the bust.

<comment><USER9> It's a shame that cryptocurrency/tokens are being abused in this way - they're an interesting technology with a lot of good use cases, but after enough ICO instances where people get burned I'm concerned there's gonna be a huge aversion to them by the general public.

<comment><USER11> I keep hearing this. Can you give an example of a non-contrived use case that the world currently (1) needs and (2) lacks adequate solutions for as is?

<comment><USER12> Anonymous currencies. Dash, monero, zcash.

Feeless transactions. IOTA

Fog/Mist computing. SNM, Golem

Decentralized marketplaces. Many, syscoin is my favorite.

Identity tracking for IOT. Centralized solutions might exist, but WTC and the like are interesting.

Decentralized governance. DASH, Lisk, more

<comment><USER13> World computer - Ethereum, NEO, EOS, Waves, many more

Banking the unbankable - Airfox, VVToken, likely others

More efficient advertisement - BAT, AdEx

Paying content creators - <USER2>

Distributed file storage - FileCoin, MaidSafe, Storj

Uncensorable internet - <USER3>

BTC gets all the press for first mover advantage, but is really the worst of the bunch.

This is not investment advice. It is quite exciting, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The (significant) downside of limiting early investment to accredited investors is that the early investors are the ones who gain the most profits. They're also the ones who take the most risk of losing the most. People seem to want low-risk high-reward investments and that demanding the appropriate laws will give it to them.

The thing that ICOs seem to have not caught onto yet is that early investors are mostly in it for the flip, as evidenced by so many ICOs quickly dropping below ICO price. This is easily solved by restricting delivery of the tokens to a company-benefiting schedule. The difficult decision will be balancing the imposed illiquidity with attracting enough initial capital to be viewed as attractive to later investors.

</comment><comment><USER15> These ICO shenanigans remind me of that saying from poker, which is something like "if you're looking around the table and you don't know who the sucker is, it's you".

</comment><comment><USER16> I liquidated all of my ether today. While I appreciate the potential of the technology, in my own opinion it is just too susceptible to market manipulations currently and there is too much uncertainty. I could be wrong but I am comfortable with that.

I will reinvest the profits in a vanguard fund where at least I know the 1000 pound gorilla manipulating the market is on my side. Kind of...

To those staying in, I wish you nothing but success.

<comment><USER17> may I ask why you liquidated, especially with PoS approaching?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Warning: article plays audio on open, on mobile. I opened the link on my phone (in an office) and was startled by a loud man speaking.

Edit: The Kik coin makes me ask if coins are the new gift card. Instead of paying a business $50 to get a card worth $50 of merchandise in the future - are we just going to buy $50 worth of RetailerCoin?

</comment><comment><USER19> Hedge Funds exist for one reason and one reason alone, to make money. Of course, they like early investment in the ICO's. But what's frightening is that the retail investors don't see the very obvious thing.

You can't expect SEC to rally every time, individual investor education I guess is more important so people won't lose their hard earned money.

<comment><USER20> > You can't expect SEC to rally every time

Can you expect them to rally _any_ time, given 2008?

<comment><USER21> The SEC prosecutes a huge number of securities frauds.[1]

[1] [https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml](https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Haha. How is this different from last tech bubble high of 2000 where folks were "daytrading" quickly appreciating tech stocks or last real estate cycle high where "everyone" was in and out flipping homes. I say its not any different! Here you have hedgies using early access advantage to buy at a discount and quickly turn around and sell to the "bag holders". (aka retail "know-it-all" bag holders).

</comment><comment><USER23> This article gave no specific examples of a hedge fund actually flipping a position.

<comment><USER24> Although not a real hedge fund polychain flipped numeraire like nobody's business. (Check out the charts on that one)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Cryptocurrency is now to the point where Wall Street is noticing that it is a thing people are willing to assign a value to, despite it generally not having any obvious inherent value.

Be careful: Wall Street is _really good_ at extracting this value, and leaving everyone else involved with empty pockets.

How can a cryptocurrency defend against this? Should it? Should it embrace this instead, in hopes of riding these cycles long enough to look like a legitimate Store Of Value? Which one would be better for the theoretical long- term goal of replacing existing currencies with cryptocurrency?

(Not that I am saying every ICO is floated by angels with only the most perfect selfless interest in cryptocurrency; decide for yourself what percentage of the people doing this are running a scam.)

</comment><comment><USER26> Early retail investors in ICOs are not going to be very happy with returns down the line I don't think...meanwhile, hedge funds thrive anywhere there is volatility, and crypto is nothing but volatile.

<comment><USER7> I had one of our investors write us and say he was really counting on our success to pay some family bills. I told him he should back out, that no investment is a good idea for bills. Much less a startup! Much less an illegally operating startup that depends on cryptocurrency! I'm sure of our model, but damn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ok, raise your hand if you didn't see this one coming.

</comment><comment><USER28> Aren't they taking on _somewhat_ more risk by contributing large sums of money earlier on? I kind of think the discount is acceptable, but there should be stronger terms around the ability to flip it immediately.

<comment><USER29> You're right to some degree but not entirely, because of how early cryptoeconomics are in their stage.

When people pump money into a currency, they're not just "taking risks", but also using their authority in the community to generate hype, which brings in uneducated and uninformed people into the equation.

If you look around the Internet you quickly realize how "uneducated and uninformed" most of these investors are.

This is different from traditional family/friends => Angel => VC => public model because the public is protected from making any foolish investments until the org shows tangible traction.

So TLDR: they're taking risks, so at the same time they try to minimize their risks. This is why they exit very quickly. This isn't possible with traditional investment model where your money is locked in until an IPO or an M&A, which is why it is unfair to say these people are "taking risks". They have the ability to manipulate their risk and that makes a lot of difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In the same way, it would make perfect sense for Hedge Funds to invest early, or even start actual pyramid schemes, yet we've prevented that. Junk like this is not healthy for the market.

</comment><comment><USER31> Ironic. Crypto currency was supported to be the equalizer, not enabler of incumbents

</comment><comment><USER32> ICOs, cryptocurrencies, highly speculative assets are a high risk gamble, hard to tell which one will succeed, if it was easy we'll all be rich, only way to win is by using the information you have available and only invest what you can afford to lose

</comment><comment><USER33> A document describing the precise process used to acquire ICO shares, which I plan to automate [https://medium.com/@simonwintersf/the-worlds-most-simple- gui...](https://medium.com/@simonwintersf/the-worlds-most-simple-guide-how-to- participate-in-an-ico-ba41c2790f7a#der5f)

</comment><comment><USER34> It's all a lie. All a big lie.

 _catches head and laughs maniacally_

</comment><comment><USER35> This is hilarious; the hedge funds are scamming the scammers.</comment>


Molly wants to use your online presence to create an automated knowledge base - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/molly-wants-to-use-your-online-presence-to-create-an-automated-knowledge-base/ <comment><USER2> Hi there — cofounder from Molly here.

If you're interested interested in requesting early access to a molly.com profile, can sign up here: [https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/molly/surveys/177](https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/molly/surveys/177)

Thanks for taking a look!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> > Messina envisions a potential one-time permission-based system where you > could grant a friend access to Molly just for specific purposes and a set > period of time, like finding a restaurant for tonight.

Now that's a cool idea. I've always thought Foursquare would crack matchmaking two people with a dinner place they haven't tried before. It'd be interesting to see if Molly's solution will work in other verticals like... recommending books, exercise classes, or something like that.</comment>


Flask vs. Django - <AUTHOR> http://stackabuse.com/flask-vs-django/ <comment><USER2> Having used Flask on two large projects I would never want to use it again, it gives too much freedom and the community isn't as good as Django and the application context means applying logic from the app to other things is more convoluted. In the end you can come to a Django project and know how it works, often that isn't the case when inheriting Flask projects. Sqlalchemy is also very slow and complicated and I prefer Django's less complicated ORM.

After using something as simple, clear and elegant as Phoenix and Elixir I never want to go back.

<comment><USER3> Author here. Interesting to hear your perspective on this. I'm personally biased towards Flask, which I was trying to avoid when writing this article. Glad to see my thoughts on the two frameworks are reflected by other developers as well

<comment><USER2> There is definitely room for both opinionated and balanced thoughts on this. Do have a play with Elixir, Phoenix and Ecto though, it'll change the way you think about programming and mutable state forever.

<comment><USER4> Elixir is really awesome. All the things that I do not like in Python [0] and [1] (and many more) are gone in a functional programming language where you have functions that always return values. But I do miss the large community of Python and the excellent documentation and discussion groups.

\--- [0] mutable vs non-mutable (strings and tuples) data structures for instance. This leads to inconsistencies: text = "hey there", text.sort() is not possible, data=[5, 7, 3], data.sort() is possible.

[1] since not every method returns a value we can't do method chaining. Ruby and JavaScript would allow me to do things like this: data.split.sort.first(). I used to do things like that in Mathematica years ago by postfix notation: f[data] // g // h (meaning: h(g(f(data)))). And Elixir allows this as well with data |> f |> g |> h. Can't do things like that in Python, have to create temp variables to capture intermediate results.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. CEO to France: 'How Stupid Do You Think We Are?' - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/20/u-s-ceo-to-france-how-stupid-do-you-think-we-are/ <comment><USER2> Wow, what a total jerk. Regardless of the differences between US, Chinese, Indian and French work ethics the least you could do as a CEO is to learn how to write a polite refusal.

When you don't _have_ to insult someone it is probably better not to. Because those pesky French just might publish your less than elegant letters, your stockholders might read those letters and could very well think: "This guy runs the company I invest in? I'd better move my money out before his loud mouth causes him to lose business.".

Stockholders are fickle, and some stockholders actually care about more than just the numbers (of course, that is a minority).

Also, if you communicate you negative interest when a foreign representative has thought to offer you a chance at some deal you may want to think of the future. Effectively you are saying 'if you are so kind as to think of me I will repay you with trash'. That will likely not be repeated again and likely the effect will be much further spread than just this one country and just this one official.

That bulk deal for Tires for all the vehicles of the French armed forces (Michelin?), the police force or their connections with the ministry of labour and their counterparts in other countries. Piss off politicians in enough places and it will backfire.

Maybe there is some hidden upside but I don't see any.

Finally, you are also representing your country when you do business abroad. Every other American CEO lost a little bit of respect today by re-inforcing certain stereo types that we could all do without.

If you are ever in a position like this, please say 'no' with some grace.

<comment><USER3> I like people who tell it like they see it. Sure, he could tone it down a bit, but I would prefer he does not. When you guard your words and hold back how you really feel, you are not doing anyone any favors.

Saying nice, comforting things to them (while they fail and people lose their jobs) would be a greater injustice than being honest and frank. I bet no one else has ever spoken that directly about the matter. Sometimes, that's precisely what is needed.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but this is not in any way productive.

Another thing that bugs me is the hypocritical stance of suing Chinese tire manufacturers and then turning around and manufacturing in China.

If you do something like this - it's a pretty drastic departure from good form - there ought to be a reason for it, some kind of upside to balance the obvious downsides.

<comment><USER4> I think it is productive - a polite refusal would leave the minister with less information about the opinion of business leaders towards French policies. This way, he knows of a few specific issues that the CEO has with the idea of operating in France.

<comment><USER2> All he succeeded in communicating is that he thinks in stereotypes and is a jerk. Why do you think this letter is now on public display?

Workers in France work for three hours, eat for two and talk for another three? Really?

Producing in France is only expensive because of the labour costs? Or is there maybe also that pesky environmental controls issue?

<comment><USER5> French here. What I'm mostly concerned here is that the guy is basically saying : "we will produce tires in China for cheap and then sell them to you, because we can".

Europe has very low restrictions on imports, because it tries to implement free market as purely as possible. Many voices in France say we must be more aggressive on importation taxes, and that even US has a more protected market than us. After all, no west country can beat China in production costs.

Problem is, those voices are mostly from nationalist and xenophobic parties. Even current left wing french government would not touch total free market.

Now, there is the insult. Saying french workers work 3 hours a day is totally stupid. Normal work day is 8 hours for private sector, and 7 hours for public sector (but most public sector workers work 8 hours and then take a day off to compensate over worked days). The reason because average hours per day is low (see other comments) is because unemployment is high, so many people accept part time jobs and short term jobs.

Now, combine the cynical stance "we can produce cheap products in China and sell them to you with no penalties" and the insult, and you've got perfect food for nationalist parties. Once again.

<comment><USER6> > Saying French workers work 3 hours a day is totally stupid. Normal work day > is 8 hours for private sector, and 7 hours for public sector (but most > public sector workers work 8 hours and then take a day off to compensate > over worked days)

He didn't say workers came to the factory for 3 hours then left. What he said was that out of the 7 hours of a work day, 1 is lost in breaks and lunch, 3 are spent chatting instead of working and there's only 3 ours of actual work being done.

If you read the comments on the article the vast majority actually support what that CEO says and disapprove the actions of the CGT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Titan had to pay millions to Washington lawyers to sue the Chinese tire > companies because of their subsidizing. Titan won. The government collects > the duties. We don't get the duties, the government does.

This is how tariffs work. You don't tax imports to fork over free money to domestic companies. The point is to increase the cost of the imported good to compensate for illegal (from the WTO's point of view) Chinese subsidies.

I'm confused as to why he thinks those taxes should go to Titan.

<comment><USER8> _Maybe_ he meant to say: we were harmed financially, paid lawyers, sued, won and got jack in return.

<comment><USER9> they got their tariffs, and made life generally harder for their competitors. That's something.

<comment><USER8> Yeah but generally you should be compensated for the already done damage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's amusing about the letter is that it shows how even executives buy into cultural stereotypes to justify their activities.

The substance of the letter is this: we'd rather buy an Indian or Chinese tire company to get the government subsidies and take advantage of the low cost of labor.

The stuff about French workers only working three hours a day is fluff, and on top of that almost certainly exaggerated out of context and/or apocryphal.

See: <http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/work-life-balance/>

The French work on average 1,554 hours per year, about 10% lower than the OECD average of 1,749. Is that 10% breaking the backs of French tire manufacturing? Of course not. Consider that South Koreans work on average 2,193 hours per year, a staggering 25% higher than the OECD average. Why doesn't Titan manufacture tires in South Korea?

The answer is that relatively small differences in the number of hours people worked aren't driving the economics here. The French work somewhat less than say Americans, but also make somewhat less money than say Americans (last I checked, manufacturing jobs paid on an hourly basis). To be accurate, the letter could have said: "we won't manufacture tires in France because the French work 6.5 hours per day on average versus 7.5 per day for Americans." But that would have sounded stupid. Hence the need to exaggerate and say: "the French only work 3 hours per day!"

What's driving the economics is, as the letter points out, $1/hour wages in China or India, where people are happy to get so little money because those countries are poor and have low standards of living relative to western countries. The rest is just handwaving and fluff.

<comment><USER11> The "three hours a day" is obviously an impressionistic account, but he reports having visited that factory more than once and spoken with its workers. And, as someone who's managed similar factories in other jurisdictions, he'd have some insight about what 'tempo' of production is necessary for profitable operation.

So it's not fair to accuse him of imagining this based solely on cultural stereotypes. He has expertise beyond that, both in the industry and the specific factory; that's why the French government approached him.

Also, your OECD averages for France don't tell us anything about how a single troubled factory works. Many French businesses are doing fine, but they aren't looking for a foreign-buyer rescue. The Titan CEO is speaking of one, specific troubled factory, with a specific (likely unfireable) workforce. Its work environment might be among the worst France's traditions, unions, and political influences has to offer. As thin as the anecdote in the CEO's letter is, it's still stronger than an argument based on national averages that include healthy businesses.

<comment><USER10> The third paragraph is talking about that factory, but he's clearly generalizing to French workers. He uses the word "French" three times in four short sentences.

<comment><USER11> It can be stretched to read that way, but I believe the context makes it clear that he is primarily speaking about those he observed and spoke to in that factory.

For example, the last sentence phrase "I told this to the French union workers to their faces" is clearly referring to specific workers at a specific site, not all French workers (or even French union workers) everywhere.

He does emphasize the descriptor 'French', but that seems both to rub a little salt in the wound of the national official he's responding to, and perhaps to contrast those he's describing with non-French workers at the same factory, or with workers in similar tire factories outside France. It isn't evidence the author has the same judgement of all French workers, even though that expansive interpretation is an easier strawman to knock down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have an idea that the differences in work ethic across Europe may be partly to do with climate and partly to do with language.

In France, the verb 'work' is _travailler_. Traditionally this meant literally to toil, a chore, an obligation. In Germany, the word werken means to build, create, do. The German word more aligned with travailler is arbeit. This lack of correlation in the word work I believe may explain the differences in the approach and cultural views towards work that I see across Europe, particularly with latin root romance languages.

The second factor I've seen is climate. In the more productive northern European countries, it's generally colder. There's been a historical need for produce and for people to work (not endure or arbeit) to trade in order to get everything you need in terms of food and shelter.

South of the Olive line something strange happens. If you look at Spain you'll see that there's a long siesta during the day. This is because for a large part of the year Spain's too hot to work in during most of the afternoon. While we have air conditioning now, hundreds of years of cultural differences I feel may have led us with ingrained ideas about what work is and what it means, with those differences reinforced by climate.

For example, in Turkey there's no such thing as a siesta (there's no time in Istanbul for one anyway). Culturally it doesn't really exist, yet it's as hot as parts of Spain that do.

I could be completely wrong about this, but it's just something I've noticed. I do believe that the unions are crippling France's productivity, but France is as likely to change in the short term as the rest of Europe to France's view IMHO.

 __EDIT __: I'm not saying that Germans, Brits or whoever are harder working, or that the French, Spanish, Moomins are lazy, far from it. I'm pointing out some differences in how people perceive work (i.e. neutrally or with negative connotations) based on language and culture, based solely on my own experience. For what it's worth I've worked with lazy Brits and Germans and hard working French and Spanish people. The Moomins I've never worked with, sorry if you're a Moomin and my ignorance upset you.

raverbashing makes a good point here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5252446>

<comment><USER13> France is one of most productive countries in the world, when measured as GDP per hour-worked:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita_per_hour)

<comment><USER14> Right, but that is partly or wholly because French unemployment is higher than it is in the US with the result that the less productive workers do not have jobs and consequently are not included in the statistic. If we use a different statistic, namely, GDP per capita, France is significantly lower than the US.

<comment><USER15> GDP per capita doesn't track unemployment either. France isn't 'significantly' lower than the US either it is about where Germany is and Britain is far behind them both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't get why you'd ever send a letter like this (except anonymously, or if you were a politician). There is no upside beyond just "Sorry, we're not interested -- our new investments are focused on Asia, where demand for tires is growing 200%/yr. Sincerely, CEO." There is downside -- you might provoke some tariffs in EU/France, or disinvestment from the pension fund, or whatever.

<comment><USER17> While scathing, it is also very informative. "Not interested" and a vague "lookin' better elsewhere" doesn't get into the reality of "why?"

Methinks he did them a great service in being brutally honest. Those trying to solve the obvious problems will make much greater progress with such a letter in hand, rather than the usual apologetic tact. "Helpful are the wounds of a friend..." I'm sure he would, in fact, _like_ to buy a French tire factory, but ridiculous pay for minuscule work makes for an offer no less insulting than his reply.

<comment><USER16> Yes, but there is no percentage in it for him. It's like telling a random fat person on the bus that he's fat. Probably nothing happens, but there is a small chance he will fly into a rage, or will tell everyone that you called him fat (maybe blogging about it, with video!). There's a much smaller chance that he'll suddenly start to diet/exercise, but how does that benefit you? It's different if it's a friend/family member, or if you're hired as a trainer or doctor.

<comment><USER17> There _is_ a percentage in it for him: I'm sure he _would_ like to own a French tire factory IF they actually had competitive productivity. With a verbal kick in the pants, perhaps the situation will change and he'll get a viable opportunity there. That aside, he's giving someone fair warning they're engaging in self-destructive behavior - a kind act.

And no, it's not like telling a random fat person he's fat. He was approached with a request that he purchase the company. It's more like an obese slob applying for a serving-staff position at Hooters or Tilted Kilt.

<comment><USER18> France is not the greatest manufacturing country, it's still one of the most productive country in the world, by a lot of measures.

<comment><USER16> Somewhat ironically, it's also one of the best manufacturers for tires, the product specifically mentioned in the article. Michelin (for passenger car tires) is amazing, although their US-market tires (at least for everything but some specific race/customs) are all made in South Carolina.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Quite the flame, I share others surprise that he would be quite so flagrant in his discussion. It is something of an art, and perhaps a bit of fun, to tell people 'no freaking way' with language that reads nicely. Clearly the guys at Titan have no interest in that :-).

It would have been more effective perhaps if he had shared with the people of Amien the context of the discussion. Something along the lines of "this is what we can pay per worked hour if we want to sell tires to your neighbors. More than that, and they will buy them from Chinese factories." And let the unions be the ones who get to decide that the jobs go out of the country.

</comment><comment><USER20> > Insulting the French doesn't seem to be rewarded by the stock market, and > Titan is down about 1% so far today.

Journalists should be forced to say "correlation is not causation" ten times before writing each article.

<comment><USER21> Not sure where you live, but the national paper in New Zealand doesn't have journalists write its articles. Badly written advert/infotainment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One of Mr. Taylor's Titan commercials is pretty interesting <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exFF_2Eh9Ec>

</comment><comment><USER23> Talk about a financial blowout. Sounds like his intent is to waste Titan's time writing negative remarks and being disrespectful. I agree they shouldn't do business with France, but to be so rude is, well...rude.

<comment><USER24> Maybe he thinks you have to be rude to deal with the French? There is a stereotype there, right or wrong.

<comment><USER2> But do you have to be rude _not_ to deal with the French? What is the upside?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The CEO is Maurice Taylor, and he's used to say the same bullshit to US politicians.

That guy is pretty crazy.

<comment><USER26> I wonder if he's aware of how very FRENCH his first name is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is there somewhere already a translation of the French response?

[http://www.lesechos.fr/economie- politique/france/actu/020257...](http://www.lesechos.fr/economie- politique/france/actu/0202578488071-exclusif-goodyear-la-reponse-de- montebourg-a-titan-540536.php)

<comment><USER26> Here's my amateur translation...

Sir,

Your words, as extreme as they are insulting, pay witness to your complete ignorance of our country, France, and its solid assets, such as its world renowned power of attraction and its ties with the United States of America.

France is proud to host more than 20 000 foreign businesses, representing nearly 2 million jobs, a third of it's industrial exports, 20% of its private R&D and 25% of its industrial jobs. Every year, 700 foreign investors make a decision to localize job and value creating investments in France. And this strong attractivity is not waning, on the contrary, it is strengthening every year.

Amongst these foreign investments, the United States take the first place. 4200 subsidiaries of american businesses represent nearly 500 000 jobs. The presence of american businesses in France is not new: Haviland since 1842, IBM since 1914, Coca-Cola since 1933, General Electric since 1974, and so many others. These ties are renewed every year: in 2012, businesses like Massey- Fergueson, Mars Chocolat, or 3M chose to grow their presence in France.

What were the decisive factors in these decisions? Foreign businesses come to France for its quality infrastructure, its enviable living environment, one of the most competitive energy in Europe and an enviroment favoring research and innovation. But above all, in opposition to your ridiculous and disparaging remarks, the bulk of these businesses know and appreciate the quality and productivity of the french workforce, its engagement, its knowhow, its talents and the competence of french workers.

To strengthen this power of attraction, the french government has just taken 35 measures in the "National pact for growth, competitivity and work". Amongst them, a tax refund for competitivity and work lighten by 6% the salary load of businesses of between 1 and 2,5 SMIC. Social partners have also reached an agreement on job security, which illustrate the quality of the social dialogue in France and its importance to our government.

Might I remind you that Titan, the company you helm, is 20 times smaller than Michelin, our French technology leader with global reach, and 35 times less profitable? This demonstrate how much Titan could stand to learn and gain from implanting in France.

France is even prouder and happy to host american investments that our two countries are linked by an old and passionate friendship. Are you at least aware of what La Fayette did for the United States of America? And as for us, we will never forget the sacrifices young american soldiers made on the beaches of Normandy to free us from nazism in 1944. And since you chose to criticise your own country in the email you sent me, I must tell you how much the french government admires the policies put in place by President Obama. As our minister of industry, I am particularly impressed by his action favoring relocating industrial jobs in the United States and its radical innovation. There is a certain link between our current policy and the one inspired by your President.

You evoque your intention to use certain countries' workforce to flood our markets. I have a duty to inform you that this condamnable short-term thinking will one day face a justified reaction from States. Such is already the case for France and it's growing amount of allies within the European Union who are campaining for reciprocity of trading and are working against dumping. In the meantime, be assured that I will make certain that our competent governmental services will work twice as hard to inspect your imported tires. They will be especially mindful of the respect of the applicable standards in matters social, environmental and technical.

Please accept, sir, my greetings. ((That greeting is essentially untranslatable)).

Arnaud MONTEBOURG

<comment><USER28> Would have been a much more powerful response if he'd left out that last paragraph. In two sentences he reinforced every incorrect stereotype of France as a third-world chickenshit bureaucracy that any Americans might have held.

<comment><USER29> Agreed, he's basically demonstrated (as there were any doubt by now) that he's unfit for his position as minister.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Summary: "I'd rather pay slave wages."

Of course he would. Of course, the French union workers might be a bit too far on the other end of the spectrum.

</comment><comment><USER31> So he's going to buy a Chinese tire factory and pocket Chinese government subsidies? /s

</comment><comment><USER32> He makes some great points. People don't care where their good come from, they just want them to be cheap and high quality. # hour workday? Unbelievable.

<comment><USER33> Well, on the one hand people don't care where their goods come from when they buy them (or more to the point, they don't care under which conditions they were manufactured). But then, on the other hand, they don't want to have the standard of living of the people working in those factories. Short-term self- interest tends to make people ignore that in the long-term this model is not sustainable.

<comment><USER17> Exorbitant pay for 3 hours of labor* is much less sustainable. The euro-per- hour workers will (and do) work their way up to better conditions, while their overpaid slothful competition will just get shut down.

(* - we may also presume those 3 hours do not constitute "hard" work.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The letter should include a p.s.: "We don't have a public relations department and I am marginally literate."

<comment><USER35> He's marginally literate because...?

<comment><USER34> His letter shows the classic signs of someone uncomfortable expressing himself in words. Reading his letter is like watching someone ice skate for the first time -- all the expected motions are there, but without any familiarity or sense of style.

<comment><USER35> Interesting. It came off much more casual and dashed-off to me.

<comment><USER34> > It came off much more casual and dashed-off to me.

Yes, but both can be true at once. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The letter is a good example of the cognitive dissonance so prevalent amongst the privileged elite. In the same paragraph where he laments that the French government "does nothing" while the Chinese ship tires to France, he predicts French industrial degradation because "its government is more government." Which is it, is it too much government or not enough?

It's this deafness to the meaning of your own words that would allow a loudmouthed industrialist-type to shout "class warfare!" the moment new taxes are proposed on the wealthy. This letter is an unprovoked attack on French working people. And if French working people decide to non-violently retaliate against the company by petitioning for import restrictions, organizing a boycott, etc, it would be wholly justified.

</comment><comment><USER37> I find it somewhat odd that he rails against workers earning too much, when what they earn is but a fraction of his own salary. I doubt they work any less harder than him either.

<comment><USER6> > I doubt they work any less harder than him either.

Actually, his main gripe is that after visiting the factory, he realized workers only do 3 hours of actual work in a typical 7-hour day. When he brought that up to union reps, they bluntly replied that "it's the French way".

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I can't see how taunting government leaders ends well for a company. You may not agree with them, but what good comes from taunting? Will this really be productive to getting France to ease up on union laws?

</comment><comment><USER39> He could have got his point across in a more civil way.

I understand he felt the urge to vent his spleen at someone, but now they are going to be blackballed should they ever need anything from the French government.

</comment><comment><USER40> The best part is "best regards" at the very end of a fairly insulting letter. I long for the day when letters are signed honestly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Don't forget this a member of the GOP talking to a member of the Socialist Party. It might just be a posture.

</comment><comment><USER41> >>Alas, America isn't what it used to be: Insulting the French doesn't seem to be rewarded by the stock market, and Titan is down about 1% so far today.

As if. Correlation is not causation.

<comment><USER42> True. Also, the wsj article is dated today. Look at the market, EVERYTHING is down today. The letter was dated Feb 8. As if this news is just getting around to the big players today...</comment></comment>


The Clock in the Mountain - <AUTHOR> http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/06/the_clock_in_th.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kklifestream+%28KK+Lifestream%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> A much more interesting read than I was expecting. My first reaction after a few sentences was "What a waste of time and effort." Then just spending a few minutes thinking about what around me is more than a few years old kind of got to me. What around me is more than 100, 1000, 10000 years old? Where I live in Salt Lake there are hardly any human made structures older than 100 years, and none more than 160. The oldest building I've been to personally was in London, on the order of 1000 years old. It's humbling to think about how short of a span that is in human history. Almost disturbing to think about what I will do or make that will last 100, 1000, or 10000 years.

In 100 years I hope to have grandchildren who knew me still living.

In 1000 years it's a stretch that there will still be an accurate note of my existence.

In 10000 there may not even be a myth about the existence of any of us here.

<comment><USER3> 10,000 years from now, I'm going to remind you that you said that, and we'll both think it was pretty funny.

<comment><USER2> I hope so. What's really funny is I was reading through some of your articles on lessWrong just this morning and almost put in a caveat along the lines of "Assuming no singularity event".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I also recommend Stewart Brand's book about the (then-hypothetical) Clock: [http://www.amazon.com/Clock-Long-Now-Stewart- Brand/dp/produc...](http://www.amazon.com/Clock-Long-Now-Stewart- Brand/dp/product-description/046504512X)

In the book, Brand argues that: (1) it's very difficult to have a general conversation about the 10,000 year future without descending into vapid generalities; but (2) with a concrete engineering goal like building a clock, it's possible to have much more focused and interesting discussions.

The Long Now seminar series is also excellent: <http://longnow.org/seminars/>

<comment><USER4> There is also the connection between the Long Now project and Neal Stephenson's excellent novel _Anathem_ :

<http://blog.longnow.org/2008/07/21/anathem-and-long-now/>

<comment><USER5> Another similarity is to Asimov's The Foundation. A fictional organization with a very very long-term plan built on the imagined science of psychohistory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I went in search of "what happens if vandals try to destroy the thing?" and ended up reading Bruce Sterling from 2000 touching on that issue and many others.

[http://blog.longnow.org/2008/08/03/bruce-sterlings-sharp- war...](http://blog.longnow.org/2008/08/03/bruce-sterlings-sharp- warning-8-years-later/)

<comment><USER7> The clock is also geographically remote (by design). You have to drive hours to get there and then hike a little ways. This should dissuade casual vandals. The long approach was also designed to dissuade casual visitors, making a clock visit something like a pilgrimage.

<comment><USER6> Good point. However, "geographically remote" today and "geographically remote" within 10,000 years might not be the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Those interested should stop by the Long Now's offices in San Francisco's Fort Mason area. They have various pieces and prototypes there, as well as fun things from their other projects. It's first on my list of great places for nerds to visit in San Francisco:

[http://www.quora.com/Which-places-should-a-technophile- visit...](http://www.quora.com/Which-places-should-a-technophile-visit-on-a- trip-to-San-Francisco-and-Silicon-Valley/answer/William-Pietri)

</comment><comment><USER9> What an inspiring undertaking. I hope to visit the project when it is complete as it is only a few hours drive from where I live.

Favorite picture in the article: Stuart Brand standing in front of the 8-foot replica wearing what can only be described as a Tibetan Monk's robe / Snuggie hybrid. He looks like an old, very comfortable wizard.

<comment><USER10> BTW, that's a traditional Moroccan cloak, dyed with indigo ink :) It's mentioned he just got back from there.

<comment><USER11> It's called a Jalaba, I got one when I visited Morocco.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A related, but more poetic, clock was done by the artist Tim Hawkinson in the early 2000s. It's a 24-foot long series of gears, driven by a toy motor. The last wheel rotates once every ~100 years.

[http://fromthefloor.blogspot.com/2005/04/style-beyond- fashio...](http://fromthefloor.blogspot.com/2005/04/style-beyond-fashion.html)

This has been shown in several places, including in retrospectives at LACMA and the Whitney.

Tim's work has a homemade aesthetic.

To me, the piece is about the inspiration and the folly of engineering. We build these systems which have design elements that can last for 100 years. We plan for it as if it will really happen. But because we have such a tenuous understanding of made objects at such time scales, there's an element of hubris, folly, fore-ordained failure.

Another, quite different piece of Tim's is this minute bird sculpted from his own fingernail clippings:

[http://flyingoutofthisworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/tim- hawkins...](http://flyingoutofthisworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/tim-hawkinsons- bird-skeleton-made-from.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> This is beautiful, wonderful, hopeful, and sad all at once. Stuff like this, the voyager probes... I dont know, really get to me.

I was also reminded of reading Asimov's Foundation novels in middle school.

And how about that solar synchronization mechanism. I mean Jesus, how amazing.

</comment><comment><USER14> Consider what wild theories may be concocted when knowledge of it is lost then rediscovered (a la "aliens built the pyramids!").

<comment><USER15> It will definitely be a Stone Henge of our time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think it's fascinating that someone can construct something so long-lasting. It synchronizes itself to noon and powers itself using thermal energy. Amazing.

</comment><comment><USER17> A meta comment - this is unreadable on my mobile. The nav bar or something keeps insisting on overlaying itself on the page, and I'm screwed. Most annoying.

Web developers have known for a long time that they need to deal with a plethora of browsers, and now mobile as well. I don't underestimate the difficulty, but please keep the mobile user in mind, and if you screw them, at least be aware you're doing it.

<comment><USER18> Hmm... glad to hear that validation for a little project of mine to make this easy <https://github.com/kevinpet/bender>

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been following design and construction of the Clock for years now and it's great to see such progress being made. I can't find them now but there have been a number of very interesting articles through the years looking at finding 10Kyear-capable materials for the clock, the process of finding/creating things to put into the chambers the clock will live in, etc. It's been a great process to watch and I look forward to getting to go see the clock when it's complete.

</comment><comment><USER20> Anyone seeking an intelligent speculation of how such clocks might work in human society should read Stephenson's "Anathem". Outstanding, if challenging stuff.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was reminded of Doc from _The Power of One_. No spoilers- just a strong recommendation that you read this book.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is about as close to a universal notion of spiritualism as I can imagine... A very profound and moving project which has already touched me surprisingly deeply on the idea of what it is to be part of our society. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER23> Given the roughly 1 million year species lifetime of typical mammals, and the fact that our descendant species are also likely to be quite intelligent, ten thousand years may only be a short time. :D

</comment><comment><USER24> This clock is the most inspiring thing I've seen in a long time. I love it... Which I could be part of it.

I think this project is like the opposite of Lulzsec (short term and hedonistic) ;-)

</comment><comment><USER25> Reading the description of the visit I got some strange and vaguely familiar feeling and only later realized that was the feeling I got playing _Myst_ …

</comment><comment><USER26> I love the idea, and hope that Siera Diablo doesn't have too many earthquakes. With all of it's size and robustness, it still looks like a fragile thing.

</comment><comment><USER27> I would have preferred that money going to sens. let's beat death, not build monuments to it.

<comment><USER28> I agree, but not everyone would; <http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> _"How do you become one of those time-conscious beings who visit and wind the Clock? Jeff Bezos has just launched a public web site, 10000-year-clock, where interested folks can register their desire to visit the Clock in the Mountain when it is finished many years from now. Bezos has said he will give some kind of preference to current members of the Long Now Foundation because the purpose of the Clock is to promote what the Foundation promotes: long-term thinking."_

It's kind of sad that the clock is on private property and in the hands of some business man. It would be pretty pathetic if he tries making a profit from its operation, or tries to make it in to a theme park.</comment>


Show HN: WebLoop – PhantomJS for Go – Render static HTML of dynamic apps - <AUTHOR> https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/readme

<comment><AUTHOR> WebLoop is built on go-webkit2 ([https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/go- webkit2/re...](https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/go- webkit2/readme)) (recent HN post at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6644996](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6644996)) and exposes a more Go-idiomatic API for WebKit. The goal is for WebLoop to be a Go version of PhantomJS that can be used as a Go library or compiled to a smaller static binary with no external deps.

It includes an net/http.Handler StaticRenderer ([https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/symbo...](https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/symbols/go/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/StaticRenderer:type)) that you can use to transparently render static HTML from a dynamic app, for search engines, social previews, etc. There's an example application of this using an AngularJS app.

There's also an included static-reverse-proxy program ([https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/tree/...](https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/tree/master/cmd/static- reverse-proxy/static_reverse_proxy.go)) that reverse proxies a dynamic app, returning statically rendered HTML. See the README ([https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/readm...](https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/webloop/readme)) for usage info.

I'd love to get feedback on this library and get other folks involved!</comment>


WikiLeaks Docs Reveal How the CIA Targets Windows Users - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/wikileaks-cia-documents-microsoft-windows,34097.html <comment><USER2> Do the Wikileaks docs explain how exactly they place the malware on the victim's computer? That would be more interesting than the details listed in the article - CIA's malware doesn't seem fundamentally different from other tools of this kind.

<comment><USER3> Social engineering is the usual approach I think. If you can make a person believe that a request is coming from a trusted person or authority, most will not question it.

If you got an email from your boss with an attached document or link with a request to "please review" would you really give it much of a second thought?

<comment><USER4> An attachment would need to be an executable though, or use an RCE exploit in the email client or document viewer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      Don't worry, all the car makers with
      whom we spoke assured us that you
      probably won't be killed by hackers,
      and antivirus companies have patched
      up vulnerabilities revealed in the
      Vault 7 documents.

Sh-sure... th-thanks!

</comment><comment><USER6> Any WikiLeaks leak in that regard about the Russian government?

<comment><USER6> Any WikiLeaks leak in that regard about the Russian government? Anyone?</comment></comment>


Fidelity, in Reversal, Raises Value of Many Tech Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/fidelity-in-reversal-raises-value-of-many-tech-startups-1462041176 <comment><USER2> I feel like the ", in Reversal" is a bit of linkbait here. It's tantamount to saying "S&P 500, in Reversal, went up in March and April". All that's happening here is standard volatility around an incredibly noisy set of guesses on private company values.

Fidelity (and others) feel they have to (now have to?) publicly state what these holdings are worth. They don't get to just say "Well, the market decides" like their other holdings. Besides, even with public companies, many firms / analysts are tasked with guessing a price target.

<comment><USER3> I think the difference is they're supposed to mark-to-market to handle inflows and outflows from their accounts. Other financial firms (say Morgan Stanley or Barclays) provide price targets as a service to investors. (Whether or not they're accurate, or providing any real value with the "Service" is another story)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have been looking at their mark up/downs for past few months. And I am suspicious. It seems random. It's not like they have financials sent in by the companies every month. So in an effort to fit startup investing into the mutual fund world, they have to fit square peg in round hole and put finger in mouth and stick it up in the air to guesstimate. Even the lead VCs (the guys who understand the biz) don't mark it up/down every month, much less the portfolio manager sitting 3000 miles away behind a desk in a suit and tie and doesn't know a SAN from a NAS

</comment><comment><USER5> So...paper valuation is now negotiable not only between founders and VC's but also with later stage mutual fund investors?

</comment><comment><USER6> WSJ is now detecting my ad blocker, which is weird; I can't view the article anyway because it needs signing in.

Anyway, see [https://archive.is/2gdbf](https://archive.is/2gdbf)

<comment><USER7> TY. I hate all the paywall links I find on HN.

<comment><USER8> Click the 'web' button at the top of the page. It allowed me to read this article in full.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Monthly marks are pretty meaningless, especially as the companies being marked probably don't provide new information to Fidelity monthly.

<comment><USER2> That's unclear given that Fidelity is a major investor and would likely have information rights. If there are investor updates (and I assume there are), Fidelity likely gets them.

<comment><USER9> Information rights typically don't get you more than quarterly reports

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When mutual funds release valuation estimates of closely held companies do they view this as an impartial exercise in determining the value or do they use these estimates to influence the decisions of their shareholders and the closely held company they are estimating the value for? It seems likely that they are using the valuation estimates as a tool within reason.

<comment><USER6> [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-29/consultants...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-29/consultants- bankers-and-teens)

>"Fidelity's 'Unicorn' Valuations Were Just Proven To Be Bogus," writes Dan Primack, and while I sympathize with his annoyance, I disagree with him a little. Primack's main point is that one shouldn't take too seriously the private-company valuations in big mutual funds' monthly holdings reports, because those valuations are not market-derived but are instead set by valuation committees that may not have much in the way of financial information. Which is fair enough. But he also tells the story of drug unicorn Stemcentrx: Fidelity invested at a $5 billion valuation in August 2015 and had marked down its holdings by 37.75 percent as of this February, but then AbbVie agreed to buy the company for $5.8 billion plus billions more in potential earnouts. "If Fidelity was so wrong about Stemcentrx," asks Primack, "why would anyone trust its carrying value of Pinterest or Zenefits?"

>But that's not quite fair. Public company acquisitions normally come at a premium. Heck, the stock market values Yahoo's core business at negative $8 billion, and it might sell for positive $8 billion, a premium of double infinity. (There may be flaws in this math.) You shouldn't think of Stemcentrx as having some true permanent value that Fidelity got "wrong" and AbbVie got "right." Instead, Fidelity's monthly marks were a rough effort to approximate a public-market price for Stemcentrx. Sometimes those prices go up, sometimes they go down, and sometimes the company is bought at a big premium to the last price. It's all an effort to recreate the appearance of public markets in private stocks. It's more bogus than public pricing, sure, but it's a sliding scale; public markets don't always reflect true permanent value either.

See also [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-04/unicorns- ar...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-04/unicorns-aren-t-so- beloved-by-investors-anymore)

<comment><USER11> Matt Levine's column should be required reading for HNers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Could someone point me to the source of the reports by Fidelity?

I've tried searching the web but can't find anything but news articles from outside sources on this and previous reports about markdowns. I'm interested in learning more about what private companies Fidelity has holding in.

</comment><comment><USER13> Fidelity's accounting is sketchy as fuck.

Fidelity's grip on Silicon Valley perception is sketchy as fuck.

</comment><comment><USER14> The amusing thing is that when Fidelity marks down, it's huge news and a harbinger of doom, but when Fidelity marks up, everyone finds an excuse for why it's not important.

<comment><USER15> Doom and gloom sells. Sadly.</comment></comment>


Peer to Peer – Hone your skills by watching live coding videos - <AUTHOR> http://peertopeer.io/ <comment><USER2> Friendly and constructive criticism; I cannot bear to watch these because of the horrendously bad audio. Get someone who knows how to do proper audio recording to advise you guys!

:-)

</comment><comment><USER3> I personally love these style of videos, I can see myself being a regular consumer of them. I'd pony up for a subscription...

but at an 18$ price tag for each video, I feel like that any video I get from you would be only one video. I mean, how good of a programmer are you, really? Eaking out some of the best of youtube? Are you sure? If your value isn't there, where is it? Video quality? definitely not in audio... It doesn't feel more comprehensive then anything else out there.

It reminds me VERY much of the blender series. [http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product_info_n.php?products_...](http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product_info_n.php?products_id=134)

which is 32 bucks US, it's a pretty steep price, but there are a few things that help justify the price, huge numbers of art assets, obvious talent, innovative techniques on display, guides on setup, official support from blender, and part of that money goes to blender and its development, and blender deserves that money.

You see the contrast.

I'd be interested in a subscription if the plan is to keep making these, I'd be interested in buying the lot if it's not, but the lot costs 72$

yikes.

</comment><comment><USER4> The problem I have with this type of lesson, and similarly kata, is that they are always implementing some rather trivial toy example so they they can fit the whole process into some digestible time span. This is useful, but I think there would be a lot of value in watching a seasoned engineer at work in an established code base rather than full end-to-end toy examples.

</comment><comment><USER5> er, please don't reuse a well known term (peer to peer) to mean something completely different, notably a centralized company

</comment><comment><USER6> The pricing feels really high. $9 per 60 minutes of content is a similar price as watching to a $200 million dollar hollywood production, I know you can't compare the two but it gives some perspective.

I mean if you pay $100 an hour to two people to code for 2h, with the basic editing and setup these videos cost maybe $750. That means you can break even (read: get paid $100 per hour per person to have fun coding) after 40 people watch a particular video, and that just seems like such a small number. Realistically you'd probably get a few thousand sales per video.

So in terms of costs, it seems quite overpriced. And in terms of value? Well comparing it to university it's sort of cheap, but not by much. A typical resident tuition fee is about $10k per year, that's 24 semester credit hours at $420, which is typically about 15 hours of tuition which is a rate of $27 or so per hour, while here it's $9, about a third. But college tuition involves a lot of other extras outside of those contact hours, tends to be subsidized, has the added value of awarding the status of a degree beyond its educational value, and is generally regarded as really expensive to the extent that we can't speak of universal access to higher education.

Anyway all of these are just for apples/oranges comparisons for some perspective. The better comparison would be say Team Treehouse which has 2 weeks free, then $25 monthly for access to over 1.000 videos, a development environment, support etc... it just seems ridiculous to charge $18 PER video. It'd be cheap as hell if it was a masterclass by experts for PhDs doing niche Machine Learning. But I'm seeing basic projects like 'parse a calculator' or 'rank a poker hand'.

I'm sure there's a market for it. Plenty of not-so-poor people around looking to learn how to code. But the pricing at least to me feels really high. Undoubtedly Growing up in a free youtube / streaming / torrenting culture definitely has shaped this perception. But more realistically, alternative tech educational services like Treehouse that offer 100x more similarly professional content for the same price make this seem like a poor purchase.

Beyond the pricing, love the idea.

<comment><USER3> given how niech the market is for this, I think some of your numbers are overoptimistic.

<comment><USER6> I disagree, could you elaborate?

In terms of competition, I showed some numbers for an extremely similar service, Team Treehouse. They both operate in largely the same niche, and Team Treehouse is definitely the better product (better edited, well-thought out videos, review, examinations and a development environment, all for $25 monthly for 1.000+ videos, while this offers just a single video that's less thought-out, not edited as well and has no examination for $18).

The other numbers I posted were mostly regarding cost. And cost has no niche. Whether you produce for a broad audience, or a niche audience, if you're in a small conference room with an iphone-quality camera recording two dudes working through relatively elementary programming challenges, it doesn't matter whether that's a niche, or whether that's something extremely mainstream to watch. The cost is going to be low. i.e. you can pay a programmer $100 an hour, two of them, for a two-hour video ($400) plus very simple editing, for $750, hell make it $1k if you want.

Then compare that to their pricing, and you get to something like 50 people watching a video to break even.

In a world of online, digital education, with tons of great coding sessions on youtube for free, I just don't think pricing an elementary coding challenge like 'rank a poker hand' at $18 makes a lot of sense. Seems to me you're much better off charging a few bucks and trying to get thousands of people to watch the video instead, or price it at $18 for access to multiple videos for a month, much like their competition which operate in a similar niche with much, much cheaper prices for more professional content, imo. (I'm talking about an order of magnitude more content per dollar easily, even two orders of magnitude.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting however from the tasters seems to be quite bland and non- worthwhile material especially for that price. I do wonder if this will catch up and we might see the birth of "lets code" videos with developers streaming their work on twitch.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think that the price is not fair given provided information density.

I would consider actually buying these videos as the concept looks interesting but honestly, not for near price of 20. But fiver would certainly do.

</comment><comment><USER9> FWIW, I've only seen the first one (the one with Tom Stuart) a few months ago, but I enjoyed it.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do sites not direct non-mobile users from mobile site versions? - <AUTHOR>

Sites are smart enough to detect mobile users and redirect to the mobile version, but never seem smart enough to do the inverse. It's annoying and difficult to read if not on a mobile device. On one hand I think it's laziness of submitters, but it's also developer laziness.<p>Usually you can escape the mobile version prison by removing the "m." prefix from the host, but not always. <comment><USER2> How robust is the mobile detection? If using the user agent to determine a mobile browser results in many false negatives then not directing from the mobile site version is a good idea.

Edit: To be more clear. If you are on a mobile device and you are trying to access the mobile site but the server can't reliable determine that you are in fact on a mobile device it would be bad to auto-redirect. At the same time accessing the mobile site on desktop browser should still allow the site to be usable.</comment>


Reasons for not learning functional programming - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/118237818911466999581/posts/41cTMuZNHKK <comment><USER2> Well, if your goal is to play Devil's Advocate, then here's one: FP makes simple things hard. Instead of simple for-loops you have to use recursion, if you want to do something as primitive as assigning to a variable you have to learn about monads, instead of control flow operators you have to use functions-as-values, and the type system is based on a foundational mathematical topic called lambda calculus.

Just to be clear: I'm a fan of FP, and I don't think it makes simple things hard. I just think that debunking the above would be illuminating.

<comment><USER3> That's a good devil's advocate position, but it's easy to counter. For-loops are replaced with maps, folds, and filters more often than recursion, and assigning to a variable is only a primitive because we were brought up that way.

Rather than saying "simple to hard", I'd say "familiar to unfamiliar."

<comment><USER4> Do maps, folds and filters become as natural as for-loops in time? (If you have already been exposed to more traditional techniques). They strike me as similar to regular expressions, in the sense that however long I spend using them I will always have to think it through carefully when I encounter a new use.

By contrast, a for-loop is spelled out for me. They are certainly longer, but I guess they match my thought process more closely. I suppose the question is, do I think this way because of my prior exposure to for-loops, or would it be the same if I was exposed to functional programming first? I'm really not sure.

<comment><USER5> Yes, map, reduce and filter feel much more natural to me than explicit loops for their respective use cases. Let's try writing an example in English:

        Give me the items from the collection foo for which the function bar returns true.

        Create an empty collection baz and a counter i with a value of 0. Until i reaches the length of the collection foo, do the following, then increment i and repeat: call the function bar with the element of foo at position i. If bar returns true, append the element to baz. After the loop is complete, return baz.

The for loop is pretty awkward just to express in English, while the filter is straightforward enough that most non-programmers would have a pretty solid understanding of what they'll get.

<comment><USER4> Fascinating, thanks. I would have said that the for-loop is at least somewhat intuitive -- the step-by-step (lather, rinse, repeat) nature resembles the way most instruction sets are written. Not to mention flow charts, which most people have been exposed to at some stage.

Do you have any advice for languages and techniques for getting the necessary exposure to these concepts? I'm not in a position to use FP through work, so I'd need some easy intro and way to practice.

<comment><USER6> _Do you have any advice for languages and techniques for getting the necessary exposure to these concepts?_

Functional programming tends to emphasize data flow and leave control flow as an (often hidden) implementation detail. So, I find it's helpful to think of algorithms in terms of transformations of data rather than series of instructions.

For example, what values do I start with, and are they in (unordered) sets, (ordered) sequences, or something more intricate? Then, what do I want to end up with?

Now, how can I get from one to the other via a series of transformations or combinations of the data? Am I turning one set/sequence/whatever into another, operating on the individual elements? If so, that's probably some sort of map operation. Am I combining element of a sequence somehow? If I've already got a sequence, that's probably a reduce or something like it. But what if I've only got an unordered set? Then maybe I need to impose some ordering first. Can that order be arbitrary, or is there really some implicit order that gets me to working with a well-defined sequence? Maybe I need to combine multiple sequences somehow. If each element in one sequence corresponds to a single element in the other, that's probably some sort of zip operation. If it's a many-to-many matching, that might be some sort of nested recursive algorithm that walks each sequence one inside the other, or maybe I can generate an outer product so I've got a one-dimensional list of all possible pairs and then do something simpler with that.

After a while, you get to recognise basic underlying data structures like sets, sequences, and trees, and you get to recognise which common operations make sense for each type. You can map just about anything, but to reduce you need a sequence. You can make a sequence from a set by imposing an arbitrary order if necessary. You can make a sequence from a tree in several ways, for example by traversing it in depth-first or breadth-first. And so on.

Sometimes you'll need to do something that isn't a convenient, ready-made transformation like a filter or zip, and at that point you start thinking about using recursion to traverse the relevant data structure(s) "manually". Once you've done that a few times, you might start to see new kinds of recurring logic within your code, which you can abstract away into their own higher order functions to join the standard toolbox next to fold and friends.

You _can_ get into all kinds of fun and games with representing effects and controlling the interactions between them as well. However, I'd suggest that if you can start to think of simple problems in terms of things like transforming and combining structured data and then move on to implementing more advanced algorithms by combining the simpler building blocks, that's probably the best way to get your feet wet without getting out your depth in the early days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My biggest reason is that I have to weigh learning an entirely new paradigm versus bettering myself in a paradigm I already know that's currently making me money. In short, I need it to be _worth it_.

<comment><USER8> Getting a good handle on FP has been one of the best things I've done to better myself in the paradigm I get paid to write code in by day.

I haven't personally found a whole lot to warrant the "functional programming as universal panacea" meme that's been so popular lately. But most decent imperative languages have pretty good support for many features of functional programming nowadays, and spending some time working in a functional language will teach you to make better use of those features of your native one. To that extent, polishing my FP skills has led me to like my by-day language (C#) even better.

Even failing that, learning new ways to think about and code solutions for problems can only improve your ability to think about and code solutions for problems.

<comment><USER9> > "functional programming as universal panacea"

To me at least, the endgame for any complex system that you end up with a large number of modular decoupled components. This endgame looks more or less the same today in both functional and object oriented paradigms.

The difference is how you get there. In functional programming, you start with modular, decoupled components. With OOP, you make a mess and you 'refactor' into somewhat modular, somewhat decoupled components later.

<comment><USER8> In OOP I start with modular, decoupled components. And to answer the other popular complaint about OOP, the vast majority of my classes are not stateful. Just like for the preferred practice in functional programming, I try to only introduce state when practicality demands it.

Making a mess and then (maybe) refactoring later is a regrettably common practice among may object-oriented programmers. But it's not a fundamental or necessary approach. It's just a bad habit that refuses to die. Might die faster if people who've been taught better practice within the functional programming sphere would quit trying to suggest that everything outside the (supposed) ivory tower is irretrievably corrupt and barren.

And while we're at it, 'functional' and 'object-oriented' are orthogonal characteristics. There are a whole lot of object-oriented functional languages out there.

<comment><USER10> > And to answer the other popular complaint about OOP, the vast majority of my > classes are not stateful.

Do you mean that they don't have any mutable state? What's a stateless class in an OOP language except a bunch of namespaced functions?

<comment><USER8> Sorry, I should have said 'immutable' instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If it's intended as a rebuttal of common objections, I'd probably include something about efficiency (the runtime and/or memory variety).

</comment><comment><USER12> I think the divide between imperative and functional programming is largely an arbitrary one. If you write a for-loop where each iteration doesn't refer to another iteration, then the compiler should be able to swap between either notation on the fly.

So I'm frustrated that we haven't adopted a kind of "bridge" programming with immutable data, and dealing with the transformations that are being done. Basically everything would be a black box, like a series of small simple programs running in the same heap. Like a unix VM running inside the program, and just pipe data around.

Yes, functional programming makes easy things hard, and imperative programming makes strong things weak, but anymore I think of it as limitations in compiler and mindset more than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER13> In the spirit of the original article and its comments:

My wife is imperative. I wont be able to talk to her anymore.

</comment><comment><USER14> > Reasons for not learning functional programming

It's a fad, a hype* - already beyond the "Peak of Inflated Expectations", quickly moving towards the "Trough of Disillusionment".

*) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle>

<comment><USER15> A case can be made that that happened in the 80s (Lisp & AI Winter being the headline acts), and what we're actually seeing today is the climb up the ( _ahem_ , Gartner's term, not mine) "Slope of Enlightenment".

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Because you can't write pac-man using it. <http://prog21.dadgum.com/23.html>

</comment><comment><USER17> Job creation is one of the strong benefits of modern-day OO.

</comment><comment><USER18> didn't understand it was joke until I read the comments. unless it was never meant to be a joke...

<comment><USER19> You missed the intro

      I'm trying to write a blog post for O'Reilly publicising
      the tutorials at CUFP, and was going to structure it
      around "10 reasons for not learning functional
      programming" rebutting each of them. Here's my list of 11
      (so far) … any more ideas?</comment></comment>


PayPal Integration - <AUTHOR>

How long would it take to integrate PayPal into my ecommerce store?  How about an Authorize.net solution? <comment><USER2> It will take you a couple of hours to get paypal in.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> is that for express? isn't there a more advanced integration? i'm referring to the more detailed on.</comment>


State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/ <comment><USER2> > "The idea that it was just a totally natural occurrence is circumstantial. > The evidence it leaked from the lab is circumstantial. Right now, the ledger > on the side of it leaking from the lab is packed with bullet points and > there's almost nothing on the other side," the official said.

> As my colleague David Ignatius noted, the Chinese government's original > story — that the virus emerged from a seafood market in Wuhan — is shaky. > Research by Chinese experts published in the Lancet in January showed the > first known patient, identified on Dec. 1, had no connection to the market, > nor did more than one-third of the cases in the first large cluster. Also, > the market didn't sell bats.

Clearly that they didn't sell bats doesn't preclude intermediary species infected through bats, but the lab accident story is looking more plausible as time goes on.

<comment><USER3> The only thing that Occam Razors well at this point is a lab accident. Also see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22851693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22851693) for a list of reasons, with sources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm disappointed that this didn't end up getting more attention on HN. It seems like a rather important bit of news.</comment>