How to hack your brain - Part I: Sleep - <AUTHOR> http://dustincurtis.com/sleep.html

<comment><USER2> Now, I'm certainly not an expert on sleep, but my current night reading just happens to be "The Promise of Sleep" by Willam Dement, founder of the Stanford sleep center and student of Kleitman, the discoverer of REM sleep. And this article contradicts what he writes in so many ways. Here's what I took away from the book:

Just as a start, the author got that thing about REM sleep being the only sleep that matters _exactly backwards_. Depriving people of REM sleep has not shown any effects on increasing sleep debt (ie feeling tired), it's the _non- REM_ sleep that you need to not feel tired. (Which makes sense because in REM sleep your brain is essentially awake.) What the purpose of REM sleep is, is not known.

Furthermore, the idea that you can "train" yourself to need less sleep has no basis in science. This does not mean there aren't a few people who have all kinds of strange sleep issues, but for the majority of people there seems to be no scientific evidence that this works at all.

About the "intrinsic 28-hour pattern", in _most_ cases (not all, there are probably people with real physiological disorders) this tendency to have a longer day than 24 hours is induced by artificial light in the evening. Electric lighting, and certainly staring into a bright LCD screen, is bright enough to register as daylight to your biological clock, and cause it to shift forward. In studies where people were isolated from artificial lights, people who normally would have a rhythm slightly longer reverted back to almost exactly 24 hours.

Rather than "hacking your brain", it would probably be more beneficial for the majority of people to just learn about how sleep works and of the importance of managing it properly.

<comment><USER3> I am trying to find a couple primary sources to back up your suggestion that I got the REM/other phases backwards. That would be quite embarrassing, but I am pretty sure I am correct. Does anyone know of any of any good studies done on REM deficit?

Polyphasic sleep does not train the body to "need less sleep" directly. But it appears the body adapts to use the naps more efficiently than it would use a longer chunk of sleep. To suggest there is "no basis in science" for this seems kind of a stretch. There is science that describes this process.

I'm aware that people claiming to have messed up biological clocks tend to have environmental or physiological factors that cause the problems. I have done pretty much everything sort of isolating myself from artificial light for a period of time longer than about a week, and my body is stuck on a 28-hour clock.

Also, you suggest that people deprived of artificial light snap into a "exactly" 24-hour schedule. This is actually not correct. Many studies have been done showing that the default schedule ends up being about 25 hours when you deprive people of clocks and light sources.

<comment><USER4> I did an uberman polyphasic schedule for a year and everyman for about 6 months. Stage N1 is likely an adjustment period where your body rhythms slow down and things get ready. Studies have shown that stage N2 and N3 (deep cycles) are essential for healing and muscle growth- they are also when HGH hormones are released. REM has shown to be essential for memory retention and some studies have linked lack of REM to schizophrenia and other psychosis.

When I was polyphasic, roughly 70% of my polynaps were REM and 30% were deep cycles. Interestingly, if I was sore from a workout or something, it would continue to be sore until I had a deep cycle.

Despite the vast, vast multitude of sleep studies (and departments, and journals) out there, I've only seen one study on polyphasic sleep and it was very exploratory. People who study sleep at all immediately associate it with sleep deprivation, which has been studied so much all they can do is spew forth the negatives (there are tons) associated with it. The premise of functional polyphasic sleep is that the body actually adjust so there is no sleep deprivation.

I didn't end up blogging about it, and I don't write about it much, because frankly, after doing it for a month or so- when I was really well adjusted- I ceased having something to prove. It kind of feels like talking about my bowel movements or something. I guess it could be vaguely interesting to someone, but it bores the crap out of me (forgive me).

So quickly: I would not recommend it. You can't exercise much, the adjustment period is very, very difficult (only 10 days, but that's 6 naps a day == like getting up way earlier than you wanted to 60 times in a row. Most people can't even get up earlier than they want to once in a row.) You need an environment where you can have all the lights on and make all the noise you want all night. You can't have other people imposing meetings or any kind of schedule on you. You can't do anything that takes longer than 4 hours. And here's the real kicker: you can't work for more than ~50 hours a week without getting burned out! Yeah, having more hours doesn't help that. And don't even think of starting it if you have something remotely stressful coming up or not enough to do. And don't think of starting it if you live somewhere where it's cold at night. Etc.

All the debate over the health effects are meaningless- it's people who haven't experienced it or frankly studied it. Sleep deprivation only applies in the first 10 days. After that it feels far less harmful then, say, caffeine. _shrug_

EDIT: Hypothesis (in case someone actually wants to _study_ it- I sure couldn't find any takers when I was doing it): The body seemed to eliminate N1 altogether- my heartrate and body temperature would drop within 30 seconds of lying down- for over a year. 2nd part of the hypothesis- the the first one or two REM cycles at night are essential and the rest is padding built in by evolution to keep you asleep until dawn. 3rd part- other body functions relying on the circadian rhythm adapt- especially digestion, which is _totally_ different when fully adjusted to polyphasic sleep. 4th- there is a reservoir of... something... built up for when you get injured or sick by having that extra sleep in monophasic sleep.

Also, I stopped because I got lazy.

Finally, if you get colds easy, don't even try. A single cold will wipe you out for a day or more.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for posting your experience.

What do you mean with you got lazy? Were you too busy (eg meetings) keeping the right sleep schedules? How hard is it to wake up at the right time if you are accustomed to it?

If you would have the possibility to do it again, would you do it again?

<comment><USER4> lazy- yes. We were moving from Maui back to the mainland and between logistics and the kids and everything my sleep schedule got totally chaotic. Then when we were here on the mainland I wasn't in a position where I could have lots of lights on, cook, and make noise during the night.

I stopped using an alarm clock after about a month- so for 17 months I didn't even need an alarm clock after I was accustomed to it.

Doing it again... yes, if the circumstances were just right. Looking back now I realize I was in a unique position with work, family, stress levels, weather, etc. It took a couple of weeks to adjust back to a monophasic schedule- and it was not fun. I'm not excited for the adjustment back to polyphasic sleep. But yeah, I might do it again after our move to Silicon Valley later in the year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I always wonder about these people who claim to have adjusted sleep cycles (i.e. 28 hours). Personally I find that I also drift to staying awake later and later if I'm not exercising during the week.

If I get in a solid hour workout daily (like I usually do), I'm out like a light in 5 minutes as soon as it's time for bed. Do enough physical work during the day and your body will have no problem passing out because it's simply exhausted.

I also love how he labels the 8-hour sleep "the waste". Any other athletes here will confirm that you can't possibly recover, build muscle, and have the energy for hard workouts with 20 minute naps during the day. Polyphasic sleep might allow one to just barely function, but it's hardly functioning at your best.

<comment><USER5> How do you know that your muscles only recover during night and not during day.

You could still lay on the coach and read a book and your muscles would recover as well, or not?

<comment><USER7> According to the NIH, _Sleep is one of the events that modify the timing of secretion for certain hormones. Many hormones are secreted into the blood during sleep. For example, scientists believe that the release of growth hormone is related in part to repair processes that occur during sleep._

[http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/sleep/guid...](http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/sleep/guide/info- sleep.htm)

<comment><USER8> Right, and what first came to mind for me was Melatonin. I was looking into sleep hacks a couple years back and studying up on Melatonin drove me away from trying out anything that would disturb a "normal" amount of time sleeping in the dark. I remember seeing a study that linked a lack of Melatonin production to some kinds of cancer. Can't seem to find it now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how this affects learning and memory.

anecdotes:

My wife and I are both very attuned to our learning processes, and we both notice immediate skill improvements after "sleeping on it". This applies to learning, retention, and even physical skills (sports and video games).

Because sleep affects cognition, being poorly rested can amplify all kinds of bad habits. When I'm fully rested, I'll think "let me sketch out a solution and plan my code changes". When I'm sleep deprived, I just jump in and flail. It's literally the difference between "oh, I know I should do X, but I'll just dive in 'cause that's fun" versus just doing X, and having fun anyway.

There were times in university where I would get up at 6 pm, and go to sleep at 6 am. I couldn't understand so-called "morning people".

Now, though, if I go to bed tired at 10:30 pm, I wake up rested at 6:30 am. It really is a matter of training. I rarely go to bed later than midnight now, after 20 years of rarely going to bed before midnight.

That feeling of being fully rested was a vivid surprise. My eyes open, and I realize I'm lying down, but I could just as well be standing up. There's no friction. There's no pain. I'm ready to go.

So, in summary ... be very careful about messing with your sleep patterns, and don't assume that you're somehow incompatible with the standard sleep schedule. i suspect that a lot of it is just plain old boring training, not sexy hacking.

<comment><USER10> _There were times in university where I would get up at 6 pm, and go to sleep at 6 am. I couldn't understand so-called "morning people".

Now, though, if I go to bed tired at 10:30 pm, I wake up rested at 6:30 am. It really is a matter of training. I rarely go to bed later than midnight now, after 20 years of rarely going to bed before midnight._

I actually had a very different experience. In college I spent a month trying to become a "morning person." After the initial adjusment period, it worked great for a little under two weeks - I'd go to sleep at 10:30, and hop out of bed at 7:00 feeling fresh and ready to go. But suddenly (perhaps once I finally caught up on my sleep debt) I stopped falling asleep at 11. Instead I'd lie in bed wide awake for two or three hours, and feel as grumpy as ever the next morning. After three consecutive days of that, I gave up on being a morning person and have yet to look back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've always wondered if the polyphasic sleep hackers have girlfriends or wives. It seems like you'd either have to be chaste, or else have a very odd relationship with your significant other. I can't imagine having sex, then taking a 20 minute nap, then getting right back to SEO strategy or whatever it is the polyphasic crowd needs all that extra time for.

The other thing is that I've never heard of a woman trying polyphasic sleep or even being mildly interested in trying it. It seems to be one of those things that only guys with blogs care about.

<comment><USER12> Steve Pavlina is married, and he describes the effect his sleep cycle had on his relationship to his wife. I can't remember if he discusses sex at all, but you may be interested in finding out for yourself:

<http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/10/polyphasic-sleep/>

<comment><USER13> Steve Pavlina also became polyamorous after trying (and quitting) polyphasic sleeping. Infer what you will about his marriage from that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sorry, Dustin. Your writing and sense of design (as always) are really wonderful. But your medical suggestions... not so much.

It's really not possible to "hack" your sleep schedule effectively for any length of time. True, some people, called "short sleepers" do function rather well on 3-4 hours of sleep a night. But, most people require an average of 7-9 hours of sleep, and when they deviate from that for any length of time, they eventually rebound to their required length of sleep.

When you do try to "hack" your natural sleep schedule, you end up tired, and functioning sub optimally. Scientific studies have shown that people who are chronically sleep deprived are as dangerous behind the wheel of a car as someone who is legally intoxicated. Why would you do that to yourself willingly?

There is a lot of good scientific research being done in the field of sleep medicine. There are physicians who specialize in sleep. I've been going to one for the past year. And, while sleep medicine is a young discipline, a sleep doctor can be quite helpful.

If you're tired all the time, may I suggest you see a physician who has studies and specialized in such things instead of trying to diagnose and treat yourself via the internet.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have several friends who have successfully gone on and off of the polyphasic sleep cycle. Just as with most things in life, you need to be open and willing and dedicated to make it work. This relates to forging your way with a startup, gaining muscle, adjusting sleep patterns, dating... everything.

It's fair to go from your own experiences, but I know polyphasic sleep is doable, reasonable, and even better for some people. My cup of tea? Definitely not.

<comment><USER15> > I have several friends who have successfully gone on and off of the > polyphasic sleep cycle.

The big question is do you know anyone who went on, and did _not_ go off.

<comment><USER16> From the reading I've done, people tend to go off it when external factors make it difficult to adhere to such a rigid nap schedule, e.g. every four hours on the dot, rain or shine. As with any habit that requires discipline, like being vegan or practicing the violin 6 hours a day, it's not necessarily a life-long thing.

But people commonly say things like "I did it for a year; best year of my life". Apparently you can literally go for a year getting a total of 2 hours of sleep in each 24-hour period. After a week of forcing it on yourself, if you're brave, determined, and a little lucky, a switch flips in your brain.

If that's a fact, in spite of the nay-sayers, then that's really something. I intend to find out for myself.

<comment><USER15> Yet many people are vegan for years, and practice violin for 6 hours a day for years. As far as I can tell, there is not one documented case where someone who has maintained polyphasic sleep for more than six months or so?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> OPEN SOURCE BED PROJECT?

We have the latest technologies when it comes to automobiles and other products, yet our bed is still using the same technology that's existed for thousands of years. Let's rethink our sleeping apparatus.

Here's my inventive thoughts on sleeping.

Why not use all the technology at our disposal to create the ultimate sleeping bed?

Here's the basic design:

1\. The bed has a lid that closes over top (think coffin but roomier inside).

2\. Bed has temperature control system to vent air and adjust to sleeping preferences.

3\. Bed mattress has cooling pipes to control mattress temperatures.

4\. Lot of control systems to monitor air temperature, mattress temperature and body temperature and keeps them all in check.

5\. Integrated lighting in the dome of the bed is used for waking and mood setting

6\. Bed sits on motorized incline to help with morning assist routines

The fun with this projects comes in setting up the control system for optimal sleep cycles. With the variable being temperature (air and mattress), light, sound, and bed angle.

Any takers?

Edit: additional note is this could be considered a "green" bed because it has a self contain heating/cooling system which is more efficient than heating/cooling your entire house. So at night, you can lower your overall energy requirements for hvac related bills.

<comment><USER18> Aside from claustrophobes, this might work alright. But it would require a lot of material, and it would have to look good, because people like beds that are made out of nice looking wood. And it's expensive building a roomy king-size coffin out of maple ;)

<comment><USER17> Well it wouldn't be claustrophobic assuming you make the dome with sufficient headroom. You could do some human factor studies and determine what size of enclosure people can lay down inside and still feel fine.

In terms of material, I'd prefer something more techie than wood - some sort of composite material to make the canopy light and moder looking. Maybe like a large oval shape.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, there's probably enough of a niche market for unconventional beds that making them out of conventional materials isn't the best solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's conspicuously missing from this article is the author mentioning which method he is using, and how long he has maintained it.

Without that, it reads like an article about what he wants to do, but has never managed to maintain. It's akin to taking diet advice from someone who has lost and gained weight many times in their lives and has never proven they can stop the cycling.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think there are two major problems with "hacking" one's sleeping patterns like this. First is physiological side effects that can go undetected for a very long time and cause permanent damage. Lack of sleep increases blood pressure, for instance.

Or the effectiveness of the thinking process itself (which is more difficult to measure) -- I was told at school that when I sleep my brain "processes and sorts information". Well if you reduce the amount of sleep four times perhaps you become more prone to make mistakes when working (and lose time fixing them).

<comment><USER20> The original article's claims, and your counter-claims, need to be proven/disproven by a study of individuals practicing poly-phasic sleep for e.g. 10-20 years. Until then, we're basically in anecdote territory.

<comment><USER21> Why hasn't that study been done?

I think it's because this is something that is very hard to stick with. After the physical adjustment, one has to be willing to organize one's life in a way consistent with this, and that is tough when everybody uses this other mode of sleep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Relevant discussion from the last time this came up: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=652747>

</comment><comment><USER23> Again, here is the link to my experience doing polyphasic sleep: [http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/category/polyphasi...](http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/category/polyphasic/)

I agree with Dustin - it works but you have to be strict on the schedule. My life didn't accommodate the schedule so I had to stop, but it did work for the short time I could schedule it.

<comment><USER22> No one's life accommodates that sleeping schedule - which is why we don't naturally sleep like that.

<comment><USER10> If the rest of the world wasn't so rigorously attached to monophasic, I don't see why it would be so difficult. It's not an inherently unworkable schedule, it's just that our work, commerce, and socializing all take forms that don't accommodate it.

Anyways, I'm intrigued by what he calls the "Everyman" schedules - they seem like a compromise between the rigid Uberman and the monophasic that the rest of the world uses.

<comment><USER22> It's difficult because our bodies did not evolve to sleep to that schedule. Every account I've read concludes with "It's great! I'm happy with how it turned out! Oh, by the way, I don't do it anymore because it's so hard to keep up."

Read the thread I linked to, which is now at the bottom of this discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just do heavy exercise, you will require more sleep and sleep deeper. I don't sleep well unless I'm doing 1.5 hours of exercise.

Doing mentally stimulating work before going to bed is the worst way to sleep well. I need almost 2 hours of mindless tv or something besides programming before going to bed to sleep properly. Otherwise I have programming dreams.

Perhaps Dustin exercises a lot, or maybe he's always been more into intellectual pursuits.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can appreciate how effective these methods are, but I personally don't like the idea of stripping one of the enjoyable things in my schedule down to how efficient it is. Working hard is great, but I think there is such thing as too much of it at the cost of an enjoyable life (for me).

<comment><USER25> I imagine that trying to do weird sleep patterns will exclude you from that other great evolutionary need : sex. Not many partners would put up with someone dropping everything and running off for a 20 minute nap. They'd likely classify you under 'freak' and go and find someone else to share genetic material with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> great submission. Thanks. I really like hearing about this kind of hacking vs using something like provigil.

My experience has been that I can function with less sleep (4-5 hours with 1/2 hour nap), but less optimally, eventually. The naps can often be very refreshing, and sustaining even, but eventually it's not enough. At least for me. I've done these sleep patterns for about 6 months at a time - with longer sleep once a week.

Exercise (more precisely, blood flow to the brain) makes a big difference for me. Staying vertical in a chair for 12 hours a day with no exercise or nap vs 16 hours a day with exercise break/nap feels comparable.

</comment><comment><USER27> Steve Pavlina has some extensive blogging on the subject, as well as his daily logs over at <http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/10/polyphasic-sleep/>

</comment><comment><USER5> So did anybody try to do directly the uberman's sleep schedule (6 times 20 minutes sleep)?

A friend tried passing to it through multiple core sleep phases, but failed miserably after one week.

</comment><comment><USER28> Until there's more research studying the long term effects of this, I really don't think it's a good idea.

Current research has identified that conventional sleeping helps memory, learning, creativity, and muscle repair/recovery (related to working out); not sleeping well can lead to stuff like high blood pressure and the hardening of heart arteries (which leads to heart attacks).

Then again if you don't have much of a choice if you have a hard deadline, this may be a useful tool to use now and again.

<comment><USER29> Polyphasic sleep != sleep deprivation unless it is not done correctly. Yes, not sleeping well (deprivation) can cause those things, but it does not mean that polyphasic sleep causes them. _if_ you have adapted and are on a consistent schedule, you should be more rested than before.

<comment><USER28> " not sleeping well (deprivation) can cause those things, but it does not mean that polyphasic sleep causes them. "

Until there's research conducted on the long term effects of polyphasic sleep, who's to say it doesn't cause those things?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's no clearly defined biological reason for it, and it is intuitively an evolutionary disadvantage.

Sleeping during the night was extremely important for human survival. We evolved to find food during the day. Any waking hours at night time instead of sleeping means a huge amount of extra energy expended to support being awake. Sleep pressure has a huge evolutionary advantage. It may be a disadvantage now.

</comment><comment><USER31> There's also biphasic -- 4 hours + 4 hours, but you could probably comfortably spread the two sessions out across 28 hours however you want

<comment><USER18> Humans are naturally biphasic, but more in the 6-7 hours + .5-1 hours range. Which is why some cultures have a midday siesta.

Famous people who actually slept biphasically include Winston Churchill, who was by all accounts energetic, hardworking, and did not sleep that much overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I just wish I remembered more of my dreams and perhaps even be able to control them to use as brainstorming sessions.

</comment><comment><USER33> Didn't Kramer try this and fail?

</comment><comment><USER34> You think military and some goverment agencies didn't spent millions and decades for it? =)</comment>


The self-epublishing bubble - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/30/self-e-publishing-bubble-ewan-morrison <comment><AUTHOR> Thought provoking piece. I don't think it's really a bubble - a lot of our customers at LiberWriter don't seem to be under any illusions of 'getting rich quick'. I think that more than anything, a lot of people just got a new creative outlet, and don't care if they're the next Amanda Hocking.</comment>


The Ad-Filled Vision Of Jeff Bezos - <AUTHOR> http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/the-ad-filled-vision-of-jeff-bezos/

<comment><USER2> Great article, but why all the bitterness towards the ad-based revenue? Ad- subsidized products are exactly that - products that are much cheaper than they would've been without ads. If thats a trade-off you're willing to accept, then buy one. It's a diversification of the product in a way - some people that wouldn't usually be able to buy products now can, at the cost of suffering through some ads.

The argument about the authors getting screwed over by serials is completely unfounded. Simply because amazon is selling serials for $1.99 does not imply that authors would suddenly get less money than they usually do. If anything, I'd wager they would get the amount they usually do for the whole book, and maybe a small commission off of the ads. Not that amazon won't take the bulk of the ad profits; they surely will, but on the whole theres no reason the authors should suddenly get shafted.

It's even better that Bezos is relatively upfront about his strategy (not that he would give it away too early, but presumably now that its too late for anyone to catch up) rather than pretending Amazon loves it customers for the wonderful and unique snowflakes they are. That said, they do have great customer service - its always been a straightforward, no-nonsense corp.

Also, I realize my post is largely based on general economic facts, so feel free to fire away on the things I missed.</comment>


Google gesture patent would let Glass wearers 'heart' real-world objects - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/15/google-gesture-patent-would-let-glass-wearers-heart-objects/ <comment><USER2> Maybe this should read "Glass wearer [singular]"?</comment>


Iosevka, Version 3.0.0 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/be5invis/Iosevka/releases <comment><USER2> Apparently Iosevka is a font.

Just in case, like me, you had no idea what the heck it was: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosevka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosevka)

<comment><USER3> > with an emphasis on compatibility with CJK characters.

It a bit funny that it does not support Korean, which K in CJK stands for. Still it supports the impressive number of asian languages though.

<comment><USER4> The same author has a sister font project, Sarasa Gothic

[https://github.com/be5invis/Sarasa- Gothic](https://github.com/be5invis/Sarasa-Gothic)

for CJK characters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've used Iosevka for several years since first reading about it on HN, and it quickly became my default font for terminal and graphical code editors. I've tried a few alternatives since, but nothing "clicks" for me in the same way. The main selling point in my case was slightly narrower characters, allowing more per line, while retaining legibility.

I assume font preference is a highly personal thing, so I won't wax poetic about Iosevka and try to sell anybody on it. I will, however, say this: if you haven't tried experimenting with other fonts, you really should spend a couple of hours sometime checking them out. You might find one you really appreciate!

<comment><USER6> It's definitely my current choice. Others I've played with: PT Mono, Fantasque, Pragmata Pro, Operator.

But Iosevka Slab on a HiRes display looks gorgeous to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tried it yesterday, and although there is now a "Curly" variant, I got used to using Fantasque Sans Mono [0] in my terminal & editors. Now these types of font look very bland.

It might feel a little odd at first, but I find it much more pleasant for long sessions.

[0] [https://github.com/belluzj/fantasque- sans](https://github.com/belluzj/fantasque-sans)

<comment><USER8> I also love Fantasque Sans, though if you like it you may also enjoy Recursive Casual Mono[0]

[0] [https://recursive.design/](https://recursive.design/)

<comment><USER7> This looks very interesting. Though the amount of options here and in Iosevka are overwhelming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not everybody's picky about fonts, and I get that. But lemme just say... do yourself and install Iosevka as a font and use it for editors/IDEs/terminals.

Iosevka is 1) more compact _and_ 2) more legible than a lot of standard mono space fonts. It's kind of a dream.

</comment><comment><USER10> In typical Hacker News fashion I have a couple of general comments unrelated to the release itself: is it just me that is bothered by how skinny the font is? Or the lack of an "e" on the README "pangram"?

<comment><USER11> I exclusively use Iosevka _precisely_ because how skinny it is. I have more space code vertical-split or for IDE's toolsbox this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Information overload on the demo page: [https://typeof.net/Iosevka/](https://typeof.net/Iosevka/). It seems that Iosevka is _very_ versatile. The developers have created variants to mimic the dotted/slashed zeros, ligatures, etc a dozen other popular fonts. Impressive, though I have no idea where to start!

<comment> 0-_-0 There seem to be many different thickness and obliqueness variants included, I wonder if it would be more efficient to have a parameterised font as specified in OpenType 1.8:

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

Demo page:

[https://v-fonts.com/](https://v-fonts.com/)

<comment><USER4> Are variable fonts supported in important text editors? Until they are, the GitHub issues for Iosevka are 90% feature wishlist.

<comment><USER13> Yes, here's a screenshot of Iosevka Aile in VSCode: [https://chris.printf.net/iosevka-aile.png](https://chris.printf.net/iosevka- aile.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Condensed fonts are really great for coding. It was one of my own personal revolutions when I swapped to one. It lets me put a lot more text on the screen without wrapping - and I find it much quicker to scan and read. I highly recommend trying a condensed font out. Iosevka is great to start with, but if you're willing to spend the money, PragmataPro is better in my opinion. [1]

[1] It looks better I think (slightly thicker glpyhs), and some of the font design is a work of art. Iosevka was largely based on PragmataPro. Where PragmataPro wins out especially is it _just works_ - fully working ligatures out of the box and better unicode coverage.

</comment><comment><USER15> I really like the condensed look of Iosevka on mobile devices. Like that I can see longer lines on the small screen without wrapping or scrolling.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there any example/tutorial about building custom variants? The tools are almost trivial to set up (afdko with Python, most with Node.js, a few other binaries), cherrypicking letter shapes and other options is easy with the demo page, but the example custom build script is discouragingly complex and very different from the main build script.

<comment><USER16> I was able to set this up pretty simply on WSL2 by installing the prerequisites then using the configuration here:

[https://gist.github.com/jdknezek/62895daf89219e94146825de3f5...](https://gist.github.com/jdknezek/62895daf89219e94146825de3f59f628)

The build process seems to build everything as per the standard release unless you decide to customize an aspect. In my case I'm only using the font for development so I didn't need the whole wide array of weights, oblique, etc. and condensed is a bit too condensed for me, so I instead made the expanded width the default.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Iosevka's great! I've been using the quasi-proportional version, Iosevka Aile, as a coding font. Never thought I'd end up using a proportional coding font!

Screenshot: [http://chris.printf.net/iosevka- aile.png](http://chris.printf.net/iosevka-aile.png)

</comment><comment><USER17> Please, update main news link to _`v3.0.0`_ release page.[0]

[0] [https://github.com/be5invis/Iosevka/releases/tag/v3.0.0](https://github.com/be5invis/Iosevka/releases/tag/v3.0.0)

</comment><comment><USER18> Iosevka works great on low dpi displays. But on hidpi displays it's just OK. I used to use it when I had a "normal" 1920x1080 display. Now with a 4K display I prefer other fonts.

</comment><comment><USER19> In the age of hidpi displays with tiny pixels, why are people still designing monospace blurry fonts? Wouldn't a well-designed bitmap font beat all of them in crispyness?

<comment><USER3> > Wouldn't a well-designed bitmap font beat all of them in crispyness?

Not necessary be blurry though. Some great fonts like Pragmata Pro [1] are designed for bitmap representations on the screen in mind. I don't know if Iosevka does it.

[1] [https://www.fsd.it/shop/fonts/pragmatapro/](https://www.fsd.it/shop/fonts/pragmatapro/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I use Isovenka in VS Code and have actually gotten multiple YouTube comments asking about my font and theme.

It's both horizontally compact and very readable!

</comment><comment><USER21> Iosevka is the only font that has ever edged out the classic "Terminus" for my eyes. Similar to the excellent, but paid, Pragmata Pro.

</comment><comment><USER22> What exactly is "Quasi-proportional" font? THere's a lot of variants of this font, kinda tricky to decide which to install.

</comment><comment><USER23> Congrats to the people behind it for the release. I personally would never use a narrow font (I find nearly every single modern font choice too small).</comment>


No Damned Computer Is Going to Tell Me What to Do - <AUTHOR> https://ethw.org/First-Hand:No_Damned_Computer_is_Going_to_Tell_Me_What_to_DO_-_The_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System,_NTDS <comment><AUTHOR> Noticed yesterday the NEETS modules were posted, and it seems there are a few of us old Navy techs on the board.

This is the story of the beginnings of Navy computing -- it's also indirectly a history of the Data Systems Technician and the Data Processing rates, those of us who worked on Navy computers from the 1970s on. As DS techs in the Navy, our main job was to keep operational the computers and display systems that processed radar data and track data, presented that picture to the people who had to make firing decisions, and passed their commands to the weapon systems.

This link is to a paper written by Captain David L. Boslaugh, it's been around for a number of years. I've linked each chapter below as the article is a bit hard to navigate through if you start reading with chapter 1.

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:The_Navy_Codebreakers_and_Their_...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:The_Navy_Codebreakers_and_Their_Digital_Computers_- _Chapter_2_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:McNally%27s_Challenge,_Conceptua...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:McNally%27s_Challenge,_Conceptualizing_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System_- _Chapter_3_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:Building_the_U.S._Navy%27s_First...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:Building_the_U.S._Navy%27s_First_Seagoing_Digital_System_- _Chapter_4_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:Testing_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:Testing_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System_- _Chapter_5_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:Moving_the_Firing_Key_to_NTDS_-_...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:Moving_the_Firing_Key_to_NTDS_- _Chapter_6_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:The_Naval_Tactical_Data_System_i...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:The_Naval_Tactical_Data_System_in_Combat_- _Chapter_7_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First- Hand:The_Marine_Tactical_Data_System_...](https://ethw.org/First- Hand:The_Marine_Tactical_Data_System_and_the_Airborne_Tactical_Data_System_- _Chapter_8_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)

[https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Legacy_of_NTDS_- _Chapter_9_of_th...](https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Legacy_of_NTDS_- _Chapter_9_of_the_Story_of_the_Naval_Tactical_Data_System)</comment>


Lichess Analysis Board with Stockfish 8 in Asm.js - <AUTHOR> https://lichess.org/analysis <comment><USER2> Lichess tries to use (in this order): PNaCl, WASM, asm.js.

PNaCl required almost no modifications to Stockfish ([https://github.com/niklasf/stockfish.pexe](https://github.com/niklasf/stockfish.pexe)), supports multithreading and is still the fastest.

WASM and asm.js require the same patches ([https://github.com/niklasf/stockfish.js](https://github.com/niklasf/stockfish.js)). Most notably WASM does not yet have multi-threading. In the original Stockfish one dedicated thread is listening for new commands. Instead now the main search thread (since it's the only thread) has to check for new commands from time to time, which costs a bit of performance.

</comment><comment><USER3> The repo for stockfish.js can be found here [https://github.com/niklasf/stockfish.js](https://github.com/niklasf/stockfish.js)

(maybe someone more familiar with the lichess architecture could go into a bit more depth here)

</comment><comment><USER4> Lichess also supports PNaCl Stockfish on Chrome for multithreaded analysis.

</comment><comment><USER5> WebAssembly is supported as well. It has become much faster a few months back when it supported WebAssembly. On my system and using forefox it was 340 knodes/s with asm.js. With WebAssembly it is 600+ knodes/s

<comment><AUTHOR> Weirdly enough, I was thinking webassembly but I wrote asm.js. I'm very surprised this happened, but apparently it did.

<comment><USER6> Actually 'WebAssembly' appeared in the title for few minutes, but then it was edited to 'Asm.js'

<comment><AUTHOR> I was suspecting so. I presume whoever did it followed the link, noticed the engine was using asm.js and not wasm, and thought I was mistaken. But truly what the engine uses depends on the browser and its configuration.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Art of Picking Intel Registers (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://www.swansontec.com/sregisters.html <comment><USER2> >"There are three major processor architectures: register, stack, and accumulator. In a register architecture, operations such as addition or subtraction can occur between any two arbitrary registers. In a stack architecture, operations occur between the top of the stack and other items on the stack. In an accumulator architecture, the processor has single calculation register called the accumulator."

I have only ever seen register and stack used to distinguish between a virtual machine implementation - i.e a "stack machine", example - the JVM , a "register machine", example - Dalvik. The author explains that the x86 is register based architecture but what are some examples of a stack based CPU architecture and an accumulator based CPU architecture?

<comment><USER3> For stack machine, RTX2010 comes to mind. It's a radiation-hardened processor used in various spaceships.

<comment><USER4> Neat, I didn't know about this chip. Is there anything particular about a stack architecture that makes it ideal for radhard applications, or is it just the one they selected because they wanted to use Forth?

<comment><USER5> It's mostly about convenience. Hubble uses a radiation hardened 486 instead of those.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another interesting trivia about the x86 registers: while most programmers think of their order as being EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, ESP, EBP, when you look at how the registers are numbered in the instruction set, you see that their true order is different: EAX, ECX, EDX, EBX, ESP, EBP, ESI, EDI.

<comment><USER7> What's the significance of this?

<comment><USER8> Next time you play trivia at your local bar and get asked, "what's the true order of x86 registers," you will get 5 points

<comment><USER7> Ha ha.... :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a great article. I used it to optimize the code for a code golf puzzle our hackerspace made: [http://codegolf.coredump.ch/challenges/asm- compass/](http://codegolf.coredump.ch/challenges/asm-compass/) If you want a challenge to reduce the binary size of a very simple program (= choosing instructions with smaller opcodes), give it a try :)

<comment><USER10> I've done a few challenges like that[1] but seeing that the smallest so far is over 300 bytes makes me think most of those 300 bytes are not actual code but program header overhead, because it should be doable in much fewer bytes of actual code. Once you've done these challenges a few times, you can easily estimate a rough size:

The template is 48 bytes. Add 16 bytes for an [offset,char] table. Maybe another 30 bytes (let's be generous and round that up to 32) for code to pull the commandline parameter, do the indexing and template modification, write the output, and exit. 96 bytes of code. Add 64 bytes of minimal ELF headers[2] and you're still well below 200 bytes.

I don't have an environment at the moment that doesn't do ELF files, so I just tried it with 16-bit DOS and ended up at... 95 bytes:

[https://pastebin.com/C7vDfFbR](https://pastebin.com/C7vDfFbR)

I wasn't trying very hard so someone will probably find an even smaller version, and it was just for fun since it doesn't meet the rules anyway.

[1] [http://www.hugi.scene.org/compo/compoold.htm](http://www.hugi.scene.org/compo/compoold.htm)

[2] [http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.htm...](http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the links! Most of the submitted approaches don't even mess with the ELF binary structure. But even if you don't do that, there's a lot you can learn by optimizing (sometimes doing something with more instructions instructions actually result in a smaller binary because of shorter opcodes).

It was the first time I really messed around with x86 assembly and I learned a lot during the progress :)

Edit: Wording

Edit2: Also note that for this challenge you need to submit NASM assembly, and not the resulting binary. So you can't resort to hex editing the binary itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't get any ideas though. Whilst these instructions might make the output code smaller, it will probably make the program slower (1). Processors are optimised to run code generated by compilers fast, and compilers stopped outputting these a long time ago.

1/ There are edge cases like when the code is very big then less code might fit in the cache better or perhaps dispatch better .. but probably not many.

<comment><USER10> In my experience, cache matters a lot and compilers aren't smart enough to figure out what parts of the code are time-critical and what parts aren't, so they just use the fastest (and sometimes significantly bigger) instruction sequences everywhere. Optimising non-critical-path code by making it smaller even if it's somewhat slower can actually make the program as a whole faster, since the cache misses decrease.</comment></comment>


The Use of the Apostrophe in the English Language - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/apostrophe/

<comment><USER2> Lame, didn't even cover the clusterf*k that is the apostrophe and year ranges.

1990s vs. 1990's vs 90s vs 90's vs '90s vs '90's

or the could've, could have, could of corrupted homophone disaster.

Like most things in English, apostrophes kind of have a standard, basic, rule concept (used before an s when making a possessive), then the rest is common exceptions (contractions, plural form possessives) and options (decade ranges) which are only options to certain people and necessary to others, except for the very specific exceptions (plural single letters, quoted plurals, quoted possessives, possessive and plural, words naturally ending in s, glottal stops, un-lettered syllable accents, clicks, silent but looks cool), which nobody remembers correctly except those being pedantic and never seem to really muss up anybody's understanding of the meaning.

Anybody who thinks they know all the apostrophe rules most likely doesn't. Even <http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe> which captures some of the complexity mises a bunch of these cases and inserts one I've never seen -- the quoted single letter plural.

The only rule you have to remember is this, "what are the grammar rules that your readers will be assuming are the rules, follow those for comprehension."

<comment><USER3> To paraphrase Spaceballs: Bad grammar will always win because readers are dumb!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _In the decade since, Slashdot has provided a bottomless well of bad writing, couldn't-care-less editing, and profound ignorance of virtually every aspect of the real world. It has set the standard for moronic prose, and deserves being remembered as we try to meet and exceed the abysmal benchmark it has made_

Ironically, it is considered a bastion of knowledge by many today. Most of that is due to the depths to which the net has sunk in general. That said, it is a source of real knowledge and insight. When something egregious enough is posted, a real expert is often driven to post an informative reply from their personal experience.

</comment><comment><USER4> No problem with rules 1 (its, it's) and 4 (pronouns never use apostrophe). Re rule 2, most contractions can be confused with other words, and look very wrong, if the apostrophe is omitted, but a few (e.g. youre, mustnt) still look OK. Re rule 3, some plural possessive nouns look OK without the apostrophe (e.g. "horses hooves" for "horses' hooves"). I'd never skip the apostrophe for a singular noun though (e.g. horse's hooves). Re rule 5 (Plurals never use apostrophe), when the word is an acronym or capitalized, I'd put an apostrophe in (e.g. the four B52's, I've received 7 RSVP's so far).

</comment><comment><USER5> Still my favourite commentary on the abused apostrophe:

<http://www.reddit.com/comments/65hz7/>

</comment><comment><USER6> The oatmeal has it with nice graphics.

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe>

But is it just me or the possession example doesn't match with the recap?

<comment><USER7> Bob the Angry Flower holds forth as well - <http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is a lot of confusion about the possessive form of singular proper nouns that end in "s". I've seen it both ways and have never found a consistent pattern in American English. Historical figures usually just get an apostrophe, and normal people get an apostrophe and an "s". Example: "Jesus' desciples" vs "Chris's bicycle". There are exceptions to even this rule, however, such as "Zeus's infidelity". For regular nouns, it seems more consistent ("for goodness' sake" but never "for goodness's sake"). Does anyone know a concrete rule for this?

<comment><USER9> It's a stylistic choice, so opinions vary, but the simplest guide I've found is to simply check the intended pronunciation. If you would pronounce the 's as its own syllable, include it (e.g., "Chris's"); it not, don't (e.g., "Mephistopheles'").

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like a typo in Rule 3. Should say, "Possessive nouns never use an apostrophe." This point is alluded to in the body of the rule.

</comment><comment><USER11> I personally never had problems with the rules. They are quite clear to me, apart from that one common pitfall: its vs. it's, which is probably the most common pitfall people never memorize. I still don't want to put blame on the English language, but rather on lack of attention from the student - there is just no excuse for ignorance.

<comment><USER12> I never got what the confusion is over the possessive form of "it". I mean, nobody ever writes "hi's" or "her's"; why would they want to do so with "it"?

One rule he alluded to but didn't make explicit is over the possessive form of words already ending in "s". We know that one does _not_ add an "s" if the word is a plural form that already ends with that letter.

What he doesn't directly address is _singular_ words that end in "s". For example, my first name is "Chris". I've seen many people refer to "Chris' stuff", but I believe this is incorrect. Because my terminal "s" was not the result of pluralization, I'm still entitled to a possessive "s": "Chris's stuff".

<comment><USER11> That's actually the correct way - at least so say all of the old (and most new) books on English grammar. If the word ends with a written S, you don't add another one after the "possessive apostrophe".

Some teachers go the extra mile by saying that this rule also goes if the word ends with any consonant pronounced with an S sound; "Alix' room"; but not if it ends with a pronounced S sound followed by a silent vowel; "Belize's beaches". I personally follow this rule.

<comment><USER13> That's the rule (not sure about the X thing, that just looks wrong). Where I really get confused is the correct pronunciation for that. If it was "Chris' stuff" I'd probably put in an extra "es" sylalble at the end of "Chris" just to make it clear. On the other hand if you're talking about, say, "Jesus' stuff" then saying "Jesuses" sounds silly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


MSX History: The Platform Microsoft Forgot - <AUTHOR> https://tedium.co/2019/01/29/microsoft-msx-history/ <comment><USER3> I had a Toshiba MSX (in the UK) as my first computer. My parents bought me that, convinced by the salesman's hype, when everyone else was buying Spectrums and Commodores. At the time it was a pain because not all the good games came out on MSX, but I loved that thing. It taught me BASIC, got me interested in computer-based music (BASIC programmes with endless PLAY statements) and got me into _computing_ rather than just using a computer. I'll always have a soft spot for MSX.

<comment><USER4> Pretty much same story here. I got Spectravideo SVI-738 with integrated disk drive. Being able to run CP/M on it didn't really do much when everyone else were having C64s and playing Pirates. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The most obscure part of Microsoft's history." That's a pretty high bar.

Here are a couple other candidates (restricted to stuff that actually shipped as products):

* QuickPascal - Microsoft's low end Pascal competitor to Turbo Pascal. (The full MS Pascal might be a reasonable candidate too.)

* MS Access, the communications package. (Predates the database of the same name.)

* Softcard - Z80 coprocessor board for the Apple ][. (The Mach 10 and Mach 20 PC accelerator oards arn't bad choices either. The Mach 20 was a plug in board for PC's that itself had expansion slots.)

* Multiplan - the spreadsheet precursor to Excel.

* The runtime-only version of MS Windows. (Bundled with Excel to let people that didn't have Windows run Excel.)

* Visual BASIC _for DOS_ - Exactly what it sounds like, but running in text mode DOS.

<comment><USER6> MS Bob?

<comment><USER5> I think that omission is mainly my own bias, which stems from my age... I had been paying attention to the industry then and at the time it got a bunch of press. Bob's also interesting in that Melinda Gates was involved in marketing that project, and she considers it her biggest flop:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/the-lesson-melinda-gates- lea...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/the-lesson-melinda-gates-learned-from- screwing-up-a-microsoft-project.html)

MS Xenix is another one that might ought to be on that list. So much of Microsoft's image is built around Windows that the notion of a Microsoft without Windows and selling a 'Unix' has got to be startling to the vast majority of folks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> MSX was a hit in Brazil largely because of our closed market at the time, where importing computers was always very expensive and often illegal. A computer had to be a "national" product, even if that meant just a clone of foreign machines built with mostly imported parts (and very often violating copyright, e.g. I had a ZX Spectrum clone which manufacturer was sued by Sinclair, unsuccessfully, despite copying even the ROM code). In that environment the MSX was a great solution, local companies could join the party of selling a computer/peripherals/SW that benefited from a (hoped) worldwide market, without the costs of licensing or the hurdles of straight piracy.

</comment><comment><USER8> Another MSX computer from Japan that you could find in a music store? The Roland S samplers from the mid to late 80s to early 90s. The S10, S50, and S330/550 are at their heart MSX standard computers. The basically impossible to find mouse was a standard MSX mouse, and its possible to use a PS2 mouse with an adapter widely available on Ebay. These samplers were 12 bit with a choice of a 15 or 30khz sample rate. Great for digital aliasing noises a'la Sp-1200. They had the additional benefit of a really good digital filter that was available before the Akai S-950. I had and used an S-550 for years, but it really is a pain in the butt to use, even with the mouse or the programmer. Other gear surpassed it in popularity for a pretty good reason, but that sampler was still a pretty amazing piece of gear...

</comment><comment><USER9> For me here in Sweden, it was a Spectravideo 728. Truly the reason I got into computers. It never was a big platform here so never saw many big games. And a couple of years later I switched to an Amiga.

There are quite a few emulators available:

\- fMSX is multiplatform: [https://fms.komkon.org/fMSX/](https://fms.komkon.org/fMSX/)

\- RuMSX: [http://www.lexlechz.at/en/software/RuMSX.html](http://www.lexlechz.at/en/software/RuMSX.html)

It's been a few years since I used any of them so can't vouch for quality.

<comment><USER10> I like [http://webmsx.org/](http://webmsx.org/) a lot. Works right inside your browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wrote a lot of code for Yamaha MSX systems back in the day. It was truly a delight to be able to see ones programs running on different machines with .. mostly .. ease.

For me, the thing that made MSX fail was over-standardisation - it was very difficult for manufacturers to stand out from the pack. Often, the machines all felt the same, so consumers would buy the machines on the basis of style - and there were some truly atrociously ugly MSX machines being designed in those days. (In some ways, its quite similar to the situation with, say, Android today.)

And then, there were the places where standardisation hadn't quite worked. Subtle differences between systems often mean that developers had to have a fleet of MSX machines to test on, to be sure. (Again: Android)

And in the midst of all of this, along comes IBM and the rest is history .. but for a while, MSX (and MSX2) were really intriguing technologies. Working on MSX in Japan led me to becoming an ITRON adherent, which led to me becoming a systems/OS developer.

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

.. which put me in the right place, at the right time, to become an early Linux adopter ..

<comment><USER12> Your comment reminded me of some amazing photos of a Sony MSX machine: [https://mobile.twitter.com/AttractMode/status/11038522081924...](https://mobile.twitter.com/AttractMode/status/1103852208192409600)

I wish PC makers today would branch out from their "copy Apple" sterility.

<comment><USER13> Sony had probably the most stylish designs among MSX manufacturers. They were not afraid of using curves compared to e.g. Philips' boxier style.

There was some other interesting stuff in the 80s, like the systems from Apricot (formerly ACT). There was the Portable

[http://s11.photobucket.com/user/ballsandy/media/Computer%20r...](http://s11.photobucket.com/user/ballsandy/media/Computer%20related/Apricot/100_2162.jpg.html) (uncropped at [https://cs9.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2016/10/15/5/147651790013...](https://cs9.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2016/10/15/5/1476517900137950723.png) )

which also had voice recognition, or the Xen

[http://www.1000bit.it/lista/a/act/apricot_xen-i.jpg](http://www.1000bit.it/lista/a/act/apricot_xen-i.jpg)

which had programmable keys and LCD screen on the keyboard.

<comment><USER11> Goodness, those Apricot machines are absolutely delightful. I wish there were manufacturers with the balls to try such things again ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> During the mid-late eighties I had a Yamaha CX5 MII MSX computer which I used as a FM synthesizer along with other instruments. I loved it, but although it was vastly superior in just about everything compared to my old C=64, it ended up being used exclusively as a music making machine as I was anyway in the process of migrating from the C=64 to the Amiga. Still the CX5 was a godsend for music: old FM synths were harder to program compared to old school subtractive synths and being able to edit patches on a computer screen rather on a small display made the process a lot easier than on similarly capable synths or expanders.

<comment><USER15> Did the Msx have midi ports as standard, or am I remembering incorrectly.

<comment><USER16> MIDI was added later to the MSX standard, and came after the CX5M, which added them along with the FM module (which was iirc 5 FM operators - the DX7 synth was 7 FM operators) which was the cheaper flavour of FM.

<comment><USER17> The DX7 was 6 operators, and the module in the CX5M (I had one) was 4 operators, like the DX21. It used the YM2151 sound chip, which was also present in a number of video games.

This was an awesome computer, very fun to play with.

<comment><USER16> Aha, thank you for jogging me grey matter, I had one as well (got one with a couple of friends and formed a band - one gig wonder). Had a TR707 as well, fun times and great intro into music. Did enjoy the CX5M immensely, though went out of my way to avoid any preset sound. Once you've owned a synth, you just recognise all the presets in all the songs, but was easier back then unlike todays sample world.

I did prefer the bass sounds on the Casio Phase Distortion synths though over the FM options as sounded richer (at least for me).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The MSX was the sole reason why I am on IT today.

Picture a 8 year old boy unwrapping his first computer back in 1988. It would boot up right into MSX Basic (until later on when I added a floppy drive). One could play around with commands and have stuff happen. "screen 2" would take you to a graphics mode, where amazed me would get simple programs drawing stuff on the screen. I didn't know that I was 'programming' anything, only that I would type stuff and run and things would happen. I didn't understand what the 'for' instruction did, among others.

My first 'assignment' came from my father. He repaired TVs as a hobby(mostly, he did fix a few for money). One thing he couldn't do was to adjust the alignment on said TVs. There were pattern generator devices which cost quite a lot of money, money we didn't have (even the computer was second-hand).

So young me had set out to draw a greed. Easy - screen 2, then a bunch of 'line' instructions, one per grid line. Lots and lots of typing. Since the computer connected to TVs already (through a RF box), all my father needed to do was load the program (from a K7 tape) and hook up to TVs. That was great.

Revisiting the program a couple of months later (he wanted the grid spacing changed) and dreading to do that work, I was flipping over the manuals, when it suddently clicked: I could use a variable for the 'line' instructions, and change with this 'for' instruction, which so far had eluded me. A few 'pages' worth of code got translated into 4 lines.

I was hooked. Never stopped coding since then.

Another thing I tried to do. So PCs came around, with nice graphics (nicer than what I had, and it took a while but then they got nicer graphics than even MSX 2.0 or the Turbo-R). Then Windows 3.1 came around.

I tried to replicate Windows 3.1 based on magazine printouts - PCs were still hard to come by, PCs with enough specs to run 3.1 even harder still. At that time, I had switched from Basic to Turbo Pascal (3.0). The MSX port was lacking a few units. Most notably, the * graphics * unit (massive omission if you ask me).

So I set out to implement the drawing functions myself. Only I wasn't at the university yet, and didn't know how to draw lines (or god forbid, circles). A quick google search today will give you Bresenham's. Back then, information like that was hard to come by.

So I did some thinking. Even though I was booting up to DOS at this time – which meant that all pages were mapped to RAM – MSX Basic was still there in ROM. How did it do it? The functions must be there somewhere.

I got hold of the "MSX Red Book". That book described all ROM functions, even undocumented ones, with the memory address, input and output registers. Jackpot! Only problem was, as previously mentioned, all memory banks were switched to RAM. I would have to flip two banks to ROM, run the functions, and then switch back.

Then I found a function that did just that, CLPRIM I think it was called. In short order, I had ASM wrappers for most basic drawing functions, and I could draw my "windows".

Two problems remained: text, and the "mouse" (I had no mouse, I was faking with cursor keys).

Drawing text in graphical mode was far beyond my capabilities – specially since I wanted to squeeze 64 columns (ordinarily that computer would do 40 per line, in text mode, and the character patterns were designed for that). Then I remembered that I had WordStar. WordStar managed to get 64 columns. How?

After some digging I found that it would load a program into RAM before running the editor (PC-based DOS users would call these TSR's). So I 'stole' it. Before running my 'windows', I would load it too. Yay windows with titles! (Lots of work done afterward to ensure they would horizontally match and not overflow).

Good, now all that's left was the mouse. So I wrote a 'TSR' of my own, which would draw and move a hardware "sprite". The only thing the turbo pascal program would have to listen would be for the space bar, and then retrieve the 'mouse' position from a pre-arranged memory location. The asssembly code took a while to write - it was easy to lock the machine up - no memory protection or multi-processes meant that these were "hard" lock ups, which required a reset. Still, I eventually got it done.

Last major problem: both the wordstar TSR and mine required some of the same hooks. hooks were pre-determined memory locations. A 'call' – CD 21 – instruction would be issued to these locations whenever the event happened. Usually, they would contain 'C9' (RET). However, there was just enough space for, lets say, a (JMP) instruction (C3) plus memory address. This way, you could run your own code and then (RET) when done. So we both used the same hooks.

The way I got around this was: load the Wordstar one first, then load mine. If I found that there was anything there other than C9, that meant that the hook was in use. So I would save it, put my own in place. When finished, I would transfer control to the code that I had saved before.

Finally I had a working system. A few tweaks here and there – I had to save the current state of the graphics processor (VDP) ports whenever my 'mouse' program activated, otherwise it would corrupt the screen. But then it worked flawlessly, if a bit slow (ROM was much slower to access, something I did not know at the time).

12 year old me used this fancy and overengineered system... mostly as a menu to run games, icons and all. Very little 'serious' work was done.

It's too bad that there was no version control and almost none of the code survived (I may still have some of the 'TSR' code printed out, an earlier version). It would have made for a nice blog post.

I do miss some of that. There were very few abstraction layers between your program and the system, so you really understood what you were doing.

The downside is that I now have a few neurons which are forever locked to store now useless MSX trivia.

poke &HF346,1

call system

<comment><USER19> > Revisiting the program a couple of months later (he wanted the grid spacing > changed) and dreading to do that work, I was flipping over the manuals, when > it suddently clicked: I could use a variable for the 'line' instructions, > and change with this 'for' instruction, which so far had eluded me. A few > 'pages' worth of code got translated into 4 lines.

This exact same eureka moment happened to me as a kid when I picked up BASIC in first or second grade.

I was comparing two numbers to figure out which one is the larger one. I put my if statement, and the condition, but then turned out I had another number I had to compare to the larger of the first two. Once I wrote that, I realized I needed another one, and then another one. It struck me that I didn't even know how many numbers I was going to need to compare and it was clear to me that I cannot continue doing it this way.

I started to think what can I do, what if I compared the first one with the numbers after it in the list... Oh what happens on the last number? Do I wrap, no that doesn't make sense, because I did that comparison already.

I know what to do, I should compare each number with all the numbers after it, and pick the largest one from each iteration and place it elsewhere.

This is how I came up with my O(N^2) sorting implementation. Probably the first "general purpose" algorithm I've ever come up with or implemented but I remember the exact feeling of "wow, this changes things".

That realization that I could execute the same subroutine while changing the parameters it is operating on was literally an eye opener at that age and it was so satisfying having come up with it on my own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm from Istanbul, my father bought me when he retired. Just I want a computer for playing game because my friends have c64 and everyday playing game. When I learned there is limited game option my programming journey started. Yes I'm programmer and 43 year old. I don't have any regret. It is my dream to be a programmer. And MSX was my first friend. It is already working. All hail to my MSX friends.

<comment><USER21> Same for me, same age, same story about programming because there were very few games, unlike for the C64 which my friends had.

<comment><USER20> Then my friend enjoy music of knightmare /watch?v=hF0HQYSwcuw

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I started on an MSX-1 and then MSX-2 in the early 80s; programming I learned before that in GW-Basic on a luggable [0] and because my parents wanted me to continue (I was just 8), they got an MSX-1 and a year after that an MSX-2. By then I was writing games and wordprocessors (I had some obsession with them at the time) in rancid combinations of MSX-Basic and Z80 asm. It was so fast to iterate that way (provided you were careful with the asm). I wrote enormous monsters of programs in that combi for the MSX-2 and it was always a miracle how they actually worked in the end. Shame I do not have backups. I found a demo of mine on an old MSX-2 BBS backup on a second hand machine I bought, but that was the 'protected' one (Basic source obfuscated and 'hidden' and assembly as bload blob); I have not had the time to figure out what I did there.

After that I moved to programming BBS software in Pascal and C and more games and it slowed down the progress a lot; so slow that compiling process.

It improved a while later with Delphi but after that (C++, Java, C# etc, Haskell, etc) it all went down again; everything is still not really as accessible and fast to iterate as that Basic and Delphi experience. I think it was mainly because they both were a) very fast (interpreted and with Delphi, a very fast, almost instant compiler) and b) for me, closed loop; I had almost no access to other devs (only via BBS's) and that meant I had "The Book" for my environment and that was all there was to learn. So no code completion or spelonking 1000s of libs was needed, just use what you have and you could make anything. Ofcourse you theoretically could make anything; practically you were slow because you had to basically write a lot yourself that you can just pull from the internet now.

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

</comment><comment><USER23> Cliff notes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX)

<comment><USER24> Risky click: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX_Video_access_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX_Video_access_method) (NSFW)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> POKE -1,170

Edit: apparently this is done to change the subslot to make sure RAM will be mapped into 0000-7fff. All those words wouldn't have meant much to 12-year-old me, but I certainly knew I had to do that before loading games on my Mitsubishi ML-FX2.

<comment><USER26> Same on a Philips VG-8020. POKE -1,170 was the magic trick back then :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I worked for Logo Computer Systems in Montreal from 84 to 94, we did quite a bit of development (of Logo versions) for MSX computers. We had many different models, made for the Japanese market mostly. One day we accidentally static- damaged about ten of them (they weren't made apparently for low-humidity environments). We had to have a bunch of the custom chips airlifted in. I spent a week with my boss and a scope trying to get them working. We managed to fix about six of them. I learned a lot about hardware that week. Fun times.

</comment><comment><USER28> Guys, this is a presentation from Paulo Peccin (WebMSX creator) - in pt_BR but you can turn on subtitles auto-translation . I was there, it was great =)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVFL05xsdhk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVFL05xsdhk) \- part 1 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISPb1sL72EQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISPb1sL72EQ) \- part 2

</comment><comment><USER29> I had one, and out of nostalgia I created a virtual disk drive using an arduino ([http://codinglab.blogspot.com/2013/01/virtual-msx-disk- drive...](http://codinglab.blogspot.com/2013/01/virtual-msx-disk-drive.html)) All my friends had disk drives and I was stuck with the frustrating tape, so creating a virtual disk drive kind of made for it. The games though sucked.

</comment><comment><USER30> I still hold my MSX dear, protected in a box for future generations. That's how I learned to program, fiddle with memory addresses, and weld broken circuits. 3.5MHz could do a lot, well, sort of, games were pretty cool :-)

</comment><comment><USER31> Past the mid eighties, any personal computer platform not using the 68000 family of processor was just doomed.

In hindsight, x86 (which was a shittier ISA) survived, but it shouldn't have been.

<comment><USER32> So did ARM

<comment><USER31> Meant to restrict that to CISC ISAs.

If we include RISC ISAs, what's surprising is that we're still dealing with CISC today. I'm hoping RISC-V will change that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As someone who is personally obsessed about 1960s and onwards computing I found this to be a great a well researched article. I always considered MSX and CP/M to be the real parents of the Windows monopoly. I view MSX as the learning process for Microsoft, and CP/M as the building blocks, since the first version of Windows (called DOS at the time) was API compatible with CP/M

<comment><USER34> How is DOS the first version of windows? Just because it was made by the same company? It would be less inaccurate (but still wrong) to say the Mac OS was the first version of windows :/

<comment><USER35> I quite like the idea of DOS being the first version of Windows. In the beginning, there was just a command line. Then Windows was added as a graphical interface. Then the graphical interface became pre-eminent and the command line became an obscure feature to most users. Windows code was originally tied to DOS but over time first completely incorporated it, then recast it as Windows changed from the child to the parent in the relationship.

<comment><USER33> Yes, this is what I meant, you said it better than I did. As graphical features were added to DOS then it was rebranded as Windows by Microsoft. I guess at some point Microsoft realised that they had to have two distinct sets of code and that they needed to be different products for branding and legal reasons related to OS/2 and IBM. I guess it could have ended up being called DOS Windows or DOS Gui or something, but Windows was a much better name...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The MSX was also my first computer. I wrote my first lines of code in Basic copying small games from magazines as a 6 year old kid in the 80s.

We had a HIT BIT Sony MSX.

<comment><USER37> Same here. Mine had 16k of memory (12k usable).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Completely derailed my career. Wrote a ZX-Spectrum game and refused to port it to MSX. The pay for the ZX game was a compiler so I doubt much would have come of it anyway.

<comment><USER29> nice! which game did you write? And also why did you refused to port it to the MSX?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think we also forget about how common Microsoft BASIC was.

In the late 1970's the hobby market existed with machines then being many and diverse. Almost all of them licensed Microsoft Basic. Only later with the home market and the likes of Commodore, Sinclair et al. did home computers come with their own versions of BASIC.

We all know that BASIC is a load of rubbish. But the MicroSoft BASIC on those hobby machines set the mood for what home computers would have, even if it was not MicroSoft's BASIC.

Early home computers did have custom ROMs for all kinds of exciting languages, on the BBC Micro you could get BCPL (C, early version), Forth and probably Pascal. Same on the Sinclair machines, there was even a ZX81 clone - <USER2> Jupiter Ace - that ran Forth.

Despite this plethora of languages we ended up with BASIC. Boring BASIC. There were no resource excuses, Microsoft had just set the tone of what the home computer market was to be.

Same problem happened with Windows. Instead of networked UNIX style computers with some security worked out with things like 'user space' there were this ugly DOS and Windows things and it was 'personal computing' with people carrying disks from one PC in the office to another. Although I liked Windows at the time it really was the second time round that Microsoft had stunted computing, first with BASIC and second time with Windows/DOS.

Coming from a BBC Micro background where the BASIC was awesome and the disk filing system was okayish I was massively underwhelmed when I first had to use DOS. I felt 'is this all there is' as I experienced the kludginess of it.

MSX made precisely zero impact in the UK other than giving the likes of Personal Computer World something to waste dead tree and ink about. From what I remember it was not that hacker friendly as back then you needed to write code that was familiar with the hardware, not abstracted out through some convenient operating system. With a BBC micro you knew that you could write something performant - as in arcade machine grade - with the built in assembler and a lot of work with the A/Y/X registers of the 6502. MSX on a 16 register Z80 with some mystery meat video interface made that possibility unattainable.

All considered I think MSX hampered the computer cause, promising something that was never delivered. It was also off in that blind alley of BASIC that MicroSoft foisted on the hobby market a decade earlier.

<comment><USER40> > We all know that BASIC is a load of rubbish.

I don't think this is right - BASIC was quite well designed considering these machines' capabilities and projected use. The model of a BASIC-powered home computer was essentially that of a programmable calculator with "computer" features tacked on. You could start by PRINT-ing math expressions at the REPL, and these would give you the sort of result you would expect, using software floats. Then you could make more complex programs, using simple line numbers, variables, and a handful of reserved words like PRINT/?, INPUT, IF, GOTO, FOR. You also had PEEK, POKE, SYS and/or USR to access the hardware directly. Sure, in theory FORTH might have been more elegant, but its RPN-like approach was far from intuitive.

<comment><USER39> The debate existed then, I quote Dijkstra:

"It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."

I never got to own a Jupiter Ace or to have a go at FORTH. I don't think the options were 'BASIC or FORTH', neither do I think that computers had to have 4K of ROM and 1K of RAM by the time the 8 bit microprocessors came along in the hobby era. Sure 8K of anything cost more than a paltry 4K but were those machines with 4K ROM of BASIC and 1K of RAM useful for anything whatsoever?

The ZX81 with 1K just mentally mutilated programmers, other than that you learned that you needed more memory.

Your first programming language constrains how you think, I was deeply wedded to the 'GOTO' concept and could not understand how a program could work without line numbers. BASIC took me a long way off the object-oriented paradigm!

Anyway, thanks for grumbling about my sweeping statement - that I still stand by - I have now found some Dijkstra that is totally relevant to today and how web development has gone:

[https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd04xx/EWD498.PDF](https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd04xx/EWD498.PDF)

<comment><USER41> The first programming language I learned was Microsoft BASIC on an MSX. I then moved on to learn Z80 assembler, Pascal, X86 assembler, C, Scheme, Java, Python, Haskell, Standard ML, Objective C, Rust, and whatnot. I believe I'm a pretty good programmer.

Claiming that learning BASIC as the first language somehow permanently broke they way I think about programming is bullshit.

<comment><USER42> In the UK an entire generation of professional developers started with BASIC on toy machines like the Spectrum, before moving on to professional languages, often after a degree.

Calling it bullshit is actually being far too polite about it.

<comment><USER43> Not to be negative but I would mention "a bad workman blames their tools ".

<comment><USER44> To be fair, all good craftsmen care a lot about their tools. But gatekeeping other people based on the tools they use rather then the results they achieve is just snobbishness.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to sell my startup? - <AUTHOR>

Just wanted to ask the HN community for some advice on how to sell a start-up. We launched http://www.dingadeal.com just over a year ago and feel like we can't bring it any further. It has a lot of potential, but unfortunately due to other commitments, me and my two co-founders feel we don't have the time to bring it any further.
Below is information about the website, any ideas how I could go about selling it and how much it is worth? I have tried flippa, but haven't had much luck.
What it does? Dingadeal.com is aimed at groups of 8 people or more, we take the hassle away from your group trip by giving you a platform where hotels can tender for your group. Tell us some details about your trip and we will contact all the applicable hotels on your behalf ensuring that you get the best deal possible!
What it is has? - Microsoft stack - asp.net/c# mvc, ms sql, azure. Html 5, javascript, jquery is also used in parts - High quality design.
- Inventory of hotels who are actively engaged in the site from the UK and Ireland.
- Ranks high for certain keywords such as "hen party in Killarney" and "group golfing in killarney".
- An SEO strategy that works and can be replicated worldwide.
- 497 followers on Twitter - 512 likes on Facebook - Google+,Linkedin, youtube channel.
- Good relationship with developers to continue development work.
- In built room management and group payment functionality.
- Explanation video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1j3ylK00SU
What it needs?
The current revenue model doesn't work. We rely on the group to complete the payment online when they usually need direct contact with the hotel before payment is completed.
The ideal revenue model would be a mix between getting paid when a group completes a payment and offering hotels the option of being a "partner hotels". This would give them higher ranking on the results and maybe further information about the group such as the lead group members telephone number. You could also sell auxiliary services around the group trip. e.g. if a group planned on going to Killarney you could put them in touch with hotels, golf clubs etc in Killarney. These could be your "partner golf club" in this area. These services would pay a monthly fee for being included in the Dingadeal mails.
A number of websites with a similar idea have implemented revenue models that work.
http://www.hotelplanner.com http://www.iknow-uk.com http://www.meetingsbooker.com
Who would it suit?
Someone already in the hospitality sector, ideally if they were selling into this space they could add this as an add on to their existing product. No reason why someone who is not in this space,but with technical expertise could also make it a success.
If interested contact email@example.com <comment><USER2> I collect best of resources about startups. Here in Financial solutions --> Acquisition you can find best of answers about selling your startup. <http://vusal.me/handbook/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that, will check this out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It seems like an interesting idea. I don't have experience selling websites like this, but I know that ebay have a websites for sale section. It might be worth trying to sell it there??

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I had not heard of ebay as a place to sell a website. Will give it a try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a good idea, seems too big for Flippa if you ask me. Have you asked any of the sites mentioned above if they're interested? Or a largely offline company?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have tried approaching one of the above mentioned. Chasing the other 2 is definitely on my to do list. if you know of any other similar sites please let me know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Flippa.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Flippa seems like it deals in small wordpress style sites focused on niches. I think we are trying to sell a business. We have put it up on Flippa, but haven't had much traction so far. Do you know of any other sites like Flippa, but more for bigger sites?

<comment><USER6> In what way is this a business?

And how is this bigger than the stuff sold on Flippa?

This is a site with virtually zero traffic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Who said anything about it having virtually zero traffic? It has a lot of traffic actually.

The stuff sold in flippa in my experience are small niche websites,whereas this is a big opportunity for the right team. Maybe I havent spent enough time on flippa!

<comment><USER7> Flippa's moved $95 million in site sales just a few years. Six-figure deals are not unusual. I sold one for $90,000 there myself with no issues.

<https://flippa.com/buy-high-end>

I couldn't find your site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for that. I hadn't seen the high end section. Any ideas how much Dingadeal would be worth?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Howto: Build and scale a Cassandra cluster in five minutes - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/08/howto-build-and-scale-cassandra-cluster.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Part of a series:

memcached - [http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/07/how-to- build-10-core...](http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/07/how-to- build-10-core-memcached-cluster.html)

Hadoop - [http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/07/howto-build- hadoop-c...](http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/07/howto-build-hadoop- cluster-in-five.html)

An early take on Hudson / Continuous Integration - [http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/07/elastic-build- system...](http://blog.gridcentriclabs.com/2010/07/elastic-build-systems.html)

As always, we'd love any feedback the HN community might have!

</comment><comment><USER2> This is MILES better than when I attempted to create a virtualized Oracle RAC 10g cluster. Never before have I cursed a company's name so much.

This looks downright pleasant to configure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! The low-effort VM clone (essentially fork() for Xen VMs, and only takes 1-2 seconds even for dozens of clones) makes deploying a bunch of almost-identical machines extremely easy.

We've also toyed around with other cluster-scale platforms (see my earlier post) and have a MySQL Cluster HOWTO in the works, but the clustered SQL databases are decidedly more heavyweight - MySQL Cluster doesn't even allow removal of cluster nodes once they're added (without dropping all the clustered tables). Not sure if Oracle RAC has that capability - if so, we might be able to put together a fun demo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> hfdghf hgfghfgh</comment>