Show HN: Textnet.io – The Internet of Text - <AUTHOR> http://textnet.io <comment><USER2> I love the concept. But functionally - and especially because hyperlinks aren't clickable - you've recreated gopherspace. (Congrats - I love gopherspace).

Driving the world toward a simpler web is a good thing, no matter how you do it. In the meantime, I like to surf with lynx and links text browsers, which converts the entire rest of the WWW into a text-only experience. (And I'm not alone!)

</comment><comment><USER3> Back to the basics - I like it! Kind of ironic (?) that this feels so fresh and different from most of the web these days. It does inspire me to offer content in raw form like plain text, or at least bare HTML.

I wonder, it's probably not realistic to expect non-technical people to install browser extensions that render Markdown automatically. Without it, there are no links possible though..

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm all against useless styling, but a web without clickable hyperlinks is not a web at all.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, it's the "Internet of Text", not the "Web of Text".

But I agree, it's kind of dumb. They could meet all of their 'why's with plain unstyled HTML.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I'm the creator of textnet.io. I hope this will become a global movement against bloated websites and useless styling. Looking forward to your feedback and happy to answer all your questions!

<comment><USER6> How about clickable links? Like that the site is very hard to use mobile.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are several browser extensions available which activate the links. E.g. [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/text- link/ikfmghnm...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/text- link/ikfmghnmgeicocakijcebpkmbfljnogk)

Mobile is harder to solve. Haven't found a good solution yet. I guess we'll have to write an extra Textnet browser .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > <[https://feram.io>](https://feram.io>). A service which automatically finds > & fixes bugs in code.

Yay, text ads

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, at least they are not flashing around and popping up into the viewport. Someone's gotta keep the lights on, right? ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What about Mathjax/Latex?

<comment><AUTHOR> Works! Just updated the FAQ on how to enable LaTeX rendering.

Basically you need to use the browser extension [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/markdown- preview-p...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/markdown-preview- plus/febilkbfcbhebfnokafefeacimjdckgl) and open [http://textnet.io/readme.md](http://textnet.io/readme.md) instead of [http://textnet.io](http://textnet.io).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good idea.</comment>


Using International Students as Cash Cows Does No One Any Favours - <AUTHOR> https://newmatilda.com/2014/11/28/using-international-students-cash-cows-does-no-one-any-favours/ <comment><USER2> what's interesting for people with an non-xenophobic eye, is the contrast between the students, those whose parents or sponsor paid for everything and those who are really trying to turn their destiny around.

It really mimic the American side of thing with the prep schools, the legacy admission, the fraternities vs the first gen students or even the students born in a reservation.

<comment><USER3> Briefly attended one of these prep schools. There was as much contrast between people as anywhere else. Including contrast in affluence (being able to afford a five figure tuition doesn't automatically make one crazy rich).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> (2014), not that anything has changed.

The article is about Australia, but the content applies to pretty much anywhere that accepts international students for money -- grade inflation is very much a thing in the US too.

</comment><comment><USER5> It was interesting to see the breakdown of country of origin for students at my alma mater. The undergrad program was by and large Americans, the masters program mostly students from China and India, while the PhD program was roughly 50/50 students from China and the US. Sorting by price, the masters degree was by far the most expensive, undergrad was fairly pricey but with tons of financial aid available, while the Ph.D. students were all paid a stipend of 30K a year. At ~50K a year in tuition for the masters program, the CS department was making bank by inflating the size of masters cohort. Seemed kind of unfair to the masters students, from my perspective.

<comment><USER6> What's unfair? Admitting so many of them, or charging so much?

<comment><USER7> It's unfair because the school gets used to the far higher tuition charged for international students, and they don't allow domestic students in. Or they set aside a max % that can be foreign. The schools need the money. But foreign students take the place of domestic students, especially at selective institutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Look at its correlate locally: forcing everyone to have a degree even to work at Enterprise car rental.

<comment><USER9> Guaranteed student loans are at the heart of the issue.

<comment><USER10> No it isn't. It's an oversupply of labor vis a vis jobs.

In the late 90s, high school students and gardeners could get jobs in tech.

When there are too few jobs for the population, credentialitis happens. This is why government jobs are pretty much all about credentials.

When there are too many jobs for the population, they lower the bar when it comes to credentials.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am just about halfway through an MBA program at an Australian University. On average most of my essay assignments are 2000 words +-10%. I was writing 2000 word essays in high school 20 years ago, this is not what I expected at all.

Having said that I didn't do an undergraduate degree, and really want that piece of paper so I can open some new doors.

So many of the other students in my group work shouldn't be passing high school classes let along a postgraduate degree from a "world class" university.

One thing I want to make clear is this is not xenophobia, I speak (a little) Mandarin, Korean & Japanese. I love working in multicultural teams. I don't care where you are from or how hard it is to speak English any more than people in China, Korea & Japan care how badly I mangle their languages. I care if you don't try, don't practice and play the racism card when a lecturer fails you because you clearly don't understand the premise of the subject.

<comment><USER12> How did you get into an MBA program without an undergraduate degree?

<comment><USER13> If you have a lot of professional experience and high marks on the GMAT you'll be able to get into a surprising number of MBA programs at prestigious universities. I'm sure networking also helps.</comment></comment></comment>


I think I can be a software engineer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-can-believe-i-m-writing-this-publicly/i-think-i-can-be-a-software-engineer-bb0cb566b81d

<comment><USER2> > I think I can be a software engineer

I have no doubt in my mind that you can. Keep at it.

> ... not everything I have ever done has been a success

> ... algorithms are challenging

> ... new javaScript framework every week

> ... thousands of other men and women trying to get jobs

This may sound rude, but -- no one cares about any of this. All you need is more experience IMO and creating websites or writing software to scratch your own personal itch will be your best investment.

> ... willing to keep trying ... until I die

Okay, that's probably good. Don't give up.

> build using modern web technology ... Using tools like Grunt, Git, GitHub, > JIRA are second-nature

You mentioned github but don't include a link to your account or any repos on your resume. If you haven't published anything, take time to demonstrate some competence and create a public repo. It will serve as a portfolio that employers can review.

> Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

Wow -- BusAd? A university degree is so expensive these days. Why spend so much money getting a degree that intersects so little with your interests?

Well, regardless, it doesn't matter. For my degree, I learned about automata and all kinds of other stuff that I so rarely apply to work. Just get experience working on software and the career will follow.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback! Will follow up on it!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How long before you leave? - <AUTHOR>

If you recently started a new job but you are not enjoying it - how long would you stick with it until you leave?<p>(for sake of discussion - you have enough money to survive a year without working). <comment><USER2> Frankly, having a job one does not enjoy is the _vast majority_ case. So you should think of being able to change that as a gamble where the odds are generally against you.

My opinion is: you should not think of your current job as something terrible you must leave asap. Make some token efforts to change the working environment if you have the say in the management or try to fit yourself for a few months.

Trying to change job is good, but you should have a solid backup plan first because the odds are against you, you are more likely to fail than to succeed going by general statistics. So you need to plan for failure, you should not "all in" even if you have a year of saving to spare.

It's really possible to have a shitty job but a good and meaningful life. Job don't control you, I am the captain of my soul. However especially while we're young there is no reason to muster a good effort to get a good job. Basically if you have a shitty job, you can still do quality things with your life, there is much to one's life outside a job, unless you are at a slavery shitty job.

Our normal day jobs leave us plenty of room to define our lives in other ways - how we treat people, who we get to know, what we do in our spare time, what we see in life and our surroundings. Quality of life is more dependent on self than on external parameters. Irregardless of your peers and your product at work, you can believe in causes like FOSS and fight for it in your spare time, you can get involved in charity and community work, you can read and think and define your way of life, you can get to know people and treat them in different ways. The source of happiness to, variedly, helping other people, being part of something greater than yourself, feeling collective purpose, and other things in that ballpark and if we believe them, then all of those are possible in almost any kind of environment

Background: recently finished paying my university debt after 3.5 years. Started a new job 3 months ago, tried all what I said above but didn't work out but I made my efforts to change the working environment itself. Text above are distilled from all the conversations I had with my friends

<comment><USER3> While I'm all for making the most of your position, and not defining yourself by your job, I have to disagree that most jobs are bad and that you should just serve your time and go on with your life after 5pm. A good career is energizing, a bad job placement can be totally demoralizing, and _everyone_ deserves to find a career that vitalizes them.

Work/life balance is hard to achieve with a great job, let alone if your job is soul-crushing, mind-numbing, impossible, badly managed, poorly located, or in an industry you're incompatible with. So I always advise people to look around if they're unhappy with their position. Even in a down market, there are possibilities out there, and you will never know until you look. And with due diligence, research, networking, etc, you can have some decent assurances about a potential new job is a good match for you.

Now of course there are situations where it may be better to stay where you are for a while, to get experience/build your resume/pay off loans/etc. But life is too short to work in a place that makes you unhappy, and family is far too important to have a job that robs you of energy which you could devote to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd give it at least 3 months and really try to assess whether the discomfort was due to the job being a sucky situation or me being challenging/experiencing natural discomfort after a big change, i.e. getting the job, or even potentially due to some outside factor. I'd also definitely talk things over with friends to get some outside perspective.

After that, if I felt the same way, if I had enough money to survive a year without working I'd leave immediately, take time off, then prep for interviews and go for a better job. However this is very situation dependent, I am a single man with no (serious) responsibilities, ymmv.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd keep looking in my spare time. Why quit before you have something else lined up? I'd have to evaluate why it was bad, how bad it was, and how well I could mitigate the problem(s) when determining if I wanted to look for another job. It would have to be fairly bad for me not to give it at least a month - more than just me thinking it wasn't quite as cool as I thought it would be. I don't see how it would hurt your record if you found another job and left within a month - you could just leave that one job off your resume.

</comment><comment><USER6> I once began looking for a job about a week after I started a new one. I wasn't completely sold on the company when I accepted the offer - I had some misgivings about the culture - and later wished I had just declined. After a week I knew my gut was right and I needed to get out.

Of course it was more difficult to find a new job since I had just started one but I was honest in my interviews and after 90 days I left for something else.

Trust your instincts.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've found about 6 months to be the cut off point. I never set that time frame intentionally, and most of my jobs/contracts last much longer, if not for their full term and beyond. However, in bad situations, 6 months happened to be the longest I was able to stand all the negativity.

In one case I left after about 3 months, only b/c I knew right away that my place wasn't in that particular environment, or with that particular team.

If you're asking due to relevant circumstances, what don't you like about the job, and how long have you been there?

</comment><comment><USER8> Another data point to consider: recruiter fee

If you were hired through a recruiter, the company that hired you will pay 15% to 25% of your annual salary in fee. In most cases, if you leave within 30 to 60 days, the recruiter will find your replacement for free. If you 1 day after the guarantee period, then the company that hired you have to pay the full fee.

Moral of the story, once you know you want to leave, talk to your manager. Be a nice guy.

<comment><USER5> > Moral of the story, once you know you want to leave, talk to your manager. > Be a nice guy.

Before making sure you have something else lined up first?

<comment><USER8> I suppose every company or team is different. But almost everyone on my team told me they are moving on about the same time they started looking.

This is beneficial both ways:

* A smooth transition can be made. They get to wrap up their last project at the company and have enough time to do a proper knowledge transfer

* We get a head start on hiring a replacement. Typically the person leaving gets to help out during the interview process as well.

* I get to help the person leaving on picking out the right next opportunity and more often than not, help the person negotiate his next job offer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In the last case where I wasn't happy, it took me about 3mo to convince myself, it wasn't worth it and about a month to find something I liked. My tolerance for putting up with a crappy job at the time was pretty high. Even with the scenario you put forth, it would have probably taken 1/2 to 3/4 of the time.

These days, I'd probable be gone within a month of such a realization. Time to transition and move on.

</comment><comment><USER10> I bounced in my third month at a job that I really misjudged. Cut your losses and move on, the market is good enough right now.

</comment><comment><USER11> Personally, ASAP or at the latest, when I find a replacement job if I was in your position if thats what you're looking for.

</comment><comment><USER12> you don't specify the real reason why you dislike this job.

<comment><USER13> Agreed, it really depends on why I don't like the job. But I generally would try to stick around for few months more.

Although if I had enough money to live for a year why did I take the job? :)

<comment><USER14> Please note that potential employers don't like seeing resume gaps >6 months.

<comment><USER15> Never been a problem for me, and I have lots of resume gaps like this.

<comment><USER5> What interesting things are you doing during those gaps?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


If You Want to Be a Senior Developer, Stop Focusing on Syntax - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/better-programming/if-you-want-to-be-a-senior-developer-stop-focusing-on-syntax-d77b081cb10b <comment><USER2> I totally understand the message the author is trying to convey - but I don't think throwing syntax under the bus is the right approach. That would be like telling an aspiring writer to stop focusing on grammar and punctuation.

I think the real takeaway is something that has been echoed more and more recently: we only have so many cognitive cells in our battery and one must choose their battles wisely.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some engineers will _StackOverflow_ their way through the company until they're a senior engineer, then they don't even have to know the language.... A common mindset:

" _Why should I learn the language, syntax, ecosystem etc... When I can just Google my problem_ "

It's amazing we live in an age where anyone's programming problem can be solved through a simple query to the Google...

<comment><USER4> There is significant value in being able to understand what one needs to google to begin. Then from there it is not as trivial as it may seem to determine the most appropriate answer, and then to adjust that answer to work within your code base.

You seem to be speaking of this behaviour in a way that implies negativity. Of course it is bad is a Sr. Dev truly can't write any original code, but there's nothing wrong with the vast majority of ones codebase being snippets of solutions from the internet. As a matter of fact this method likely saves the company that employs the developer a good deal of time and therefore, money,

<comment><USER3> There's a lot of value in StackOverflow, but it basically teaches programmers _error-driven development_ where you stumble through a problem by mindlessly Googling errors until you've cobbled something together that works...

Even Joel Spolsky (creator of SO) has brought up some negative impacts of StackOverflow (on his old podcast at some point), saying nobody needs to learn anything anymore, just jump into the code and google the error messages.

I'm guilty of this too, I just think it's a shame that Googling is preferable over _learning_...

<comment><USER5> I'm curious if you programmed professionally before SO.

I feel the average junior developer's, or even senior developer's, for that matter, code was a lot worse than the average SO response, which has now become the baseline for all types of devs, so their code is at worst as bad.

<comment><USER6> I think the main reason is many developer lacks the skill of systematic learning. Never attempt to read the basic manual / document and understand the basic theory behind the technology</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: InterviewAt – mock interviews by a real exec with real feedback - <AUTHOR> https://www.interviewat.com/prep-service <comment><AUTHOR> We've all been there. You do the loop and the feedback you get from the recruiter/hiring manager is binary Yes || No. And when it's a No, you get one of the two types of feedback:

1) Sorry, you didn't get it 2) None

This has to stop, and I'm trying to solve this problem. I stood up InterviewAt at the beginning of the COVID pandemic as a way to help folks who were being displaced. The service is up and running, and I'm still doing the mock interview sessions free of charge.

I already knew that there is no great feedback mechanism and I wanted to improve on that, but I also discovered there is no great resource for learning from actual interviews for professional roles. How many of you have actually sat in on a VP Engineering interview? Or seen a great Sr PM interview? These are real interviews for people preparing for interviews for real roles.

I've also started a YouTube channel where I will be posting interview segments with analysis and assessment. I've been an exec at MSFT, AMZN, and ORCL, and have run my own startups with exits. I'm doing this as a new company I've started this year because I feel it's really important so that we can all learn and get better from the feedback that you wish you had received when you looped for a role.

Feedback is welcomed, but if you have an upcoming interview or what to get real, executive level feedback on how you show up in an interview, please give us a look.</comment>


The foolishness of crowds: Investors tend to chase the latest fad  - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18529721

<comment><USER2> _If you see a crowd outside a department store it is reasonable to assume that there is a sale. If you see a queue outside a bank there is a good chance that nervous depositors are trying to withdraw funds. In both cases the actions of other people send a signal that may be useful for others to follow.

But does the wisdom of crowds apply to investment?_

The 'wisdom of the crowds' concept is not applicable here. In the example of the cow auction, the core idea is that a crowd of people all voting anonymously _but without communicating with each other_ was better than any expert at the auction when averaged together.

Communication within the crowd _hinders_ the wisdom of the crowd. If people are allowed to see the votes of other people before they vote, then herd mentality dominates. To work best, each person must make their decision based on their own out-of-band information network, gut feeling, voodoo magic or whatever. If they can see what other people are doing, then they will short circuit their normal decision process and react to that.

This is the problem with a lot of implementations of "crowd intelligence" gathering software and rating systems. This is why many polls don't show you the totals until after you vote, and why exit polling is bad.

(as an aside, this is also why I've been a huge proponent of removing vote tallies on HN comments. I'm excited to see pg is playing around with it and to see if it helps.)

Edited to add:

The article states:

 _The wisdom of crowds only really applies when forecasts are genuinely independent, as when farmers are guessing the weight of a bull at a country fair. Once you know what others are thinking, their views lead you into error._

It's more than just that. It needs to be a diverse set of people to get a full range of opinions. A group that all pulls information from the same source will estimate incorrectly. For example, if CNBC were to become the sole source of information for the average investor, it wouldn't work.

There are also several cognitive biases that come into play and it's a lot more complex than just keeping people in the dark.

</comment><comment><USER3> All true, obviously. That's why there's real power in rebalancing your portfolio on a regular basis. It forces you to push money into sectors that have headed down and pull money (take profits) from sectors that are up.

<comment><USER4> And if a sector dies completely, regularly rebalancing your portfolio will ensure that you waste the maximum amount of money for that sector.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You call it as _latest fad_. Investors call it as _has potential_.

</comment><comment><USER6> The "value averaging" strategy provides an emotionless way to follow the advice to buy low and sell high while buying an index.

The idea is to fix a regular amount you want to increase your portfolio by, say monthly.

Let's say it's $100.

The first month, you buy $100 of shares. Total share value: $100.

The second month, your share value has fallen to $80, so you buy $120 of shares. Total share value: $200.

Third month. Shares have surged and are now worth $250. You buy $50 of shares. Total share value: $300.

Fourth month. Shares continue to surge. Your portfolio is now worth $420. You sell $20 of shares and place the cash in reserve. Total share value: $400.

Described in detail by Michael Edleson:

[http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment- Cl...](http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment- Classics/dp/0470049774/)

Probably the first "intelligent layperson" investment guide I've ever seen with instructions on how to perform monte carlo simulations.</comment>


World Models with a Reservoir Computing Twist - <AUTHOR> https://ctallec.github.io/world-models/ <comment><AUTHOR> Background information about Reservoir Computing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_computing)

World Models paper: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.10122.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.10122.pdf) [https://worldmodels.github.io](https://worldmodels.github.io)

Previous HN Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16860247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16860247) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16860247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16860247)</comment>


Ask HN: What is Malcolm Gladwell's best book? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> None of them are very good. He cherry-picks stories and research (sometimes misstating it) and his logic is filled with myriad fallacies.

One of his biggest is the "survivor fallacy", where he talks to five successful people, identifies a common component and announces "that's the reason they made it!" The task of looking at the entire universe (successes and failures) and seeing how often that component exists in both groups is a task Gladwell leaves to muggles.

If I have to pick a book, I'll pick "The Tipping Point", because it was his first big success, and he makes more effort to ground his thesis in reality. The more acclaim he gets, the more frothy and goofy the next book becomes.

In his latest book, he explains how a basketball team of 10-12 girls from "from Menlo Park and Redwood City, the heart of Silicon Valley... the daughters of computer programmers and people with graduate degrees... [who] worked on science projects, and read books, and went on ski vacations with their parents, and dreamed about growing up to be marine biologists" were the underdogs against teams from ghetto schools, whose players grew up in poverty, dealt with the impacts of gang violence and often didn't have enough to eat.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Outliers_</comment>


What happens if TV goes the way of music and newspapers? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/what-happens-if-tv-goes-the-way-of-music-and-newspapers/263895/ <comment><USER3> This is quite simply nonsense.

Will the cost of channels rise for some of the reasons he says, sure. But one of three things will happen:

a) total spend/investment (in aggregate of time and surplus attention arbitraged to ads) across ALL channels will rise - this will hit us all in the pockets, but also raise the overall budget for content production... this doesn't lead to his conclusions.

b) total spend and therefore the same amount will be available as is available now for content

c) total spend will go down. This might superficially appear to support his conclusions but it doesn't if you think about it. If ESPN rises but other things fall in price and I lose a few things I virtually never watch, and my overall bill is lower - which it will be on average if the total spend is down - then I don't CARE that ESPN is $20 per month instead of $5.

What will happen is called a market!

We'll have a marketplace for content. There will be a certain amount that people are prepared to spend on content, and how much surplus attention they're prepared to pay for ads which will subsidize content. The allocation of these resources will be made more efficient by a more efficient market dynamic. We'll invest more in things we value, less in things we don't. So the BBC and NFL Network will make money out of me for Dr. Who and the football season. But I'll no longer be squandering monthly bills in shit I never watch.

Plus as content moves to apps on TV the playing field is leveled for independent producers to rise up and the barriers to entry will be much lower than they are today for a show to garner - or KEEP - an audience and revenue stream large enough to sustain it.

Imagine if Firefly had been able to say: Fox has bailed on us, but if we can get a million of you to pay just $20 a year we can keep it on the air and send you a copy of the season on DVD after it's over... or something to that effect.

This article is garbage. It's amazing how much ink old media dedicates - <USER2> on their new media sites - to trying to argue against the inevitable changes ahead. Perversely it also highlights why old media doesn't have some natural right to survive and have us all protect it against this onslaught. Their content is often mediocre, like this. (And yes I know the Atlantic has a ton of great content, that's not the point.)

<comment><USER4> while i agree the article is fairly off the mark, i also do not agree with your assumption that a traditional market will emerge.

producing the _pilot_ of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever. in the efficient market scenario, we'll end up with a lot more reality TV and mediocre sitcoms/drama.

the reality check is - the current system ain't so bad, and while I want "independent content" as much as you, I think we have a lot more of it in the current system than you outline... Workaholics? Portlandia? etc.

<comment><USER5> "producing the pilot of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever"

Why is that? Isn't it just like any other kind of investment that regularly gets made in an efficient market?

<comment><USER3> Right. Plenty of market mechanisms exist for gauging risk, investing on it, and being rewarded for it. People invest in most things without being a bit. We're on a forum hosted by an institution whose very raison d'etre is investing in things before they know they'll be a hit.

<comment><USER4> but neither of you are taking the existing industry into account. you just want them to lay over and die and do it your way. they make FIVE HUNDRED BILLION dollars a year, and you guys think they should just change because you want them to.

market testing in TV and movies is exactly what produces mediocre crap.

if you'd like to spend some more time getting up to speed on how the industry works before deciding it sucks, i'm happy to oblige.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We mostly use Netflix and Youtube for things we watch. I don't remember last time I wanted to see something (a show, a move) and then followed through and watched something on TV. Of course I don't look for it and I don't know what is playing. And I don't know what is playing because I don't watch TV to begin with.

Also, Netflix has trained me to not be able to stand commercials. When I am at a relative's house or catch a glimpse of TV in the background, commercials stand out like a sore thumb and irritate the heck out of me.

<comment><USER7> I completely agree about the commercials. I watched all of the available seasons of breaking bad on netflix. When the new season started, I was super excited, and didn't want to wait the 24 it takes to show up online. So, I watched the first episode of the season at my girlfriends house on her TV, and... It was awful! I couldn't get past the interruptions -- and by the way, I thought they passed a law that required commercials to not be 105db louder than the tv shows, no? I digress..

It's an absolutely terrible way to watch a dramatic series. I could only stomach that first episode. For all the rest, I just waited till they popped up on amazon and paid the $2 so I could watch them without interruptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If only there existed some channels not subsidized by cable industry to give us a clearer picture of what's possible. If only those channels existed as for-profit enterprises in the US. If only they charged subscribers and covered the costs of productions through paid television and merchandise sales. If only their costs also included the cost of HD streaming, maybe they would name such venture with channel name + the word "Go" to drive a point that it's available to subscribers on the go.

But alas, outside of HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime and The Movie Channel none come to mind, so let's engage in theoretical discussions.

<comment><USER9> What about TYT [1] ? It's not exactly what you're describing, but it's close. They have a live Free broadcast every day, then put clips on YouTube and offer no-drm downloads of the video or just audio for a monthly subscription fee. They've been doing this for many years and I have recently been big enough to get a tv show too.

1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is it possible ESPN will just make less money? The article assumes ESPN will charge an individual subscription rate such that it will make the same revenue as it would via cable bundles. If TV is like music or newspapers, it's entirely possible ESPN or similar cable channels will just make less money.

<comment><USER8> You're spot on. What are ESPN's expenses? It's the royalties it shells out for the rights to broadcast specific events and leagues. They will have a better leverage now against NFLs and NBAs of the world, who would have to accept lower rates, passing the savings onto consumers.

<comment><USER11> For the NFL and NBA, ultimately the lower revenues will be passed on to the players in terms of lower salaries, and aside from potential labor disputes, things will continue largely as before. That's because the NFL and NBA are essentially cartels anyway. But soccer will take the hit even harder. Clubs like Manchester United, Real Madrid, and Barcelona depend upon TV revenues to fund themselves, while clubs like PSG and Manchester City have received massive investment with the hope that it'll be recouped in the long run. Without TV revenues, and without anything to replace them, we're likely to see a major impact, and more than a few clubs facing severe financial problems if not outright bankruptcy.

<comment><USER12> But TV revenues wouldn't disappear, just drop. Those clubs just have to cut on the massively inflated salaries. I expect smaller clubs to be hit much harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "If the universe changes and they [viewers] want us to bring the content directly to them, then we can."

What does he mean _if_ the universe changes?

I'm also not entirely sure that people would continue subscribing to "ESPN" in this new world. More likely, you'd subscribe to individual sports or sporting events. Similarly, I don't think you'd be subscribing to "CBS", you'd be subscribing The Big Bang Theory, or whatever individual show you're actually interested in.

To be honest, though, I don't think he really means what he says there. They're going to fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

<comment><USER14> I think they mean that the majority of their current audience wouldn't pay for the content in a per channel or per show way. Basically the same stuff that comes up with Game of Thrones, for HBO the traditional model is still bringing in more money than would be made adding the per show subscription model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out."

</comment><comment><USER16> "And that's before we get into paying the cost of delivering the video in high quality to your HDTV or iPad, since it's hardly cheap to house and stream hi- def to tens of millions of homes".

Except it IS cheap to distribute content on the Internet. Shows are already being distributed to millions of homes without costing the content owners a dime (It's just currently being done illegally using bit-torrent).

<comment><USER17> 1080p, 10hr limit per video, youtube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> His blog shows an image of shot from The Big Bang Theory. TBBT has done excellent job for on-demand content. The minute their weekly show ends, they post that video on their website (<http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/>) for week. I haven't watched a single episode on TV since they started doing this. It's currently free and supported by pre-roll video advertising. I don't mind ads as I'm getting content on-demand and free.

I don't buy that TV is going to be dead. I'd love to watch TV along with my family in our living room. However, I also want flexibility that on-demand offers. I'm sure TBBT is getting lot of money with this experiment.

The question about Netflix is complicated one and I hope author goes into unit economics in his future column. I also agree, at the current rates (for netflix subscription), it will be hard for Netflix to show latest on-demand content. I imagine we will have premium fees for such feature.

</comment><comment><USER19> Sites like Hulu and Netflix generate money from content that has already been created. The budget was found to create the initial content and publishing sites like these create residual income from targeted advertising. Great.

The content providers know the direction things are heading and probably know $20-30 a month for one channel from each subscriber is a tough pitch. So what's the ingenious model to offset the loss of big money cable television advertisements?

<comment><USER20> Why does it have to be a channel? For example, why can't I pay $30 for the next season of Game of Thrones, and get episodes as they come out? Sure, it's different from a monthly subscription, because I'm paying for 10 ~ 12 weeks of content (1 ep/week), but it seems like there's a model there somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Cheaper does not mean lower quality. [Insert snide comment about 24 or Downton Abbey here]

<comment><USER22> Maybe not I'm every instance, but I think it's easy to assume that lower overall budgets lead to lower overall quality.

<comment><USER17> Production quality and artistic quality are not the same things.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a low budget film, for example. It's budget was about 9% of the budget of Waterworld.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23>
       "So now, ESPN Watcher, the price you have to pay
       to watch the same network you love has to cover
       all those lost homes and all that lost advertising."

That's assuming no alternative revenue streams in the "TV is dead" world are worked out. Failure of imagination?

<comment><USER24> Exactly.. Ads could be much more tailored or personalized to the individual. When your blasting out the same commercial to 60 million homes, you have to be bland, and generic, and figure a large percentage won't be watching, or not in your target demographic.. If you can only show your commercial to people you are actively trying to target, you would pay much more per impression for that ability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This analysis completely ignores the fact that producing a TV show is (or should be) far, far cheaper than it used to be.

<comment><USER26> Once the monopoly over distribution is broken, I suspect the unions down the chain will be broken as well leading to lower overall cost. Marketing is usually a different story however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> file under: yet another piece about "the future of TV" as written by someone from the outside looking in. it's quite a different world from the other side...

</comment><comment><USER17> It's when not if.

This is the same old romantization of the status quo that always occurs. Is TV really so fantastic today? For every gem that manages to squeek its way through the byzantine television production system there are a thousand bombs. Most television is horrific. Badly written. Badly premised. Badly executed. Badly acted. Bad.

Being cut loose from a ready stream of massive advertising revenue will affect some of the production values of video content, certainly, but will that be such a bad thing? Modern television is a product of committee and bureaucracy. And it shows. Bowdlerization is commonplace. Mediocrity is the norm.

A more democritized, more guerilla, more individual "television" landscape offers the possibility of raising the medium to a true art form.

Movies have been around for over a century, television for half that, but both mediums still have trouble grappling with serious subjects. Consider the fundamental difference in gravitas between an emmy, an oscar, and a pulitzer or nobel prize in literature. Why is that? I would contend that it's because up until now creating a movie or a tv show has been inhibited by being beholden to commercial interests and established publishing powers. Perhaps the brave new world of more individualized video production will result in a revitalization of that medium.

</comment><comment><USER27> This article makes no sense.

I predict

1) TV will merge into the internet

2) Channels will go away, and there will be individual shows/event broadcasts that the viewers will choose to pay for.

3) There will be bundled packages of the best shows.

4) Most profits will go to the people who produce the shows, unlike now.

You can actually see it in action right now - look at the top Youtube channels (which should really be called "shows"), and multiply by $2 per 1000 video views.

<http://socialblade.com/youtube/top/500>

</comment><comment><USER28> The same content will be pretty much available on the web in some places. Take a look at the daily show.com, It's almost a carbon copy of the broadcast version complete with five minutes of commercials between sections. Networks will take advantage of the web audience when it's financially feasible. Comedy Central has a young audience so it makes sense for them to embrace the web earlier.</comment>


Ask HN: How to take personal care when you are in front of screen for 16 hours? - <AUTHOR>

I spend 16 hours in front of a laptop screen on a desk, what should I do in order to take care of my body and my eyes?<p>- I am a freelancer and a student, so opinions relating to time management and scheduling are appreciated as well.<p>- My eyes hurt!! <comment><USER3> What have you done to measure your productivity?

I used to do something similar to you - 12 hours coding every day, with a couple of hours of Counterstrike, for about 3 years. I thought I was being _very_ productive. But then I started to measure my effectiveness (purely out of interest rather than any belief I wasn't working well) - I measured my billable hours, lines of code, commits, issues fixed, etc. Over the course of about 3 months I found that I did less work when I was in front of the screen for 12 hours compared to 8 hours. Spending more time in front of my computer _reduced_ my effectiveness. I put the reasons down to the fact I could do exercise, sleep better, have a social life, etc - by being healthier I work better. That said, my Counterstrike skills completely disappeared, so there were downsides.

My suggestion would be to take a few hours to build something that tracks how well you work, and then vary the hours you put in for a while. See what happens.

Regarding your eyes, try to make your screen brightness match the ambient level of light in your environment, sit at a distance where you don't need to actively focus (use glasses if necessary), and pick a theme for your IDE that's quite dark. The less work your eyes have to do the better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, do you have anything to add for the time slot? Should it be a single sitting or divided? Should it be all night or all day?

<comment><USER3> It should be what works for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Had similar problem, now I can sustain 10 hours with no headaches. Here is what works for me.

\- get your eyes tested. I have small astigmatism, not enough for glasses, but it was causing headaches. I got glasses anyway.

\- Recheck your eyes every year. Eyes lens will flex once you wear glasses

\- Buy large sound isolating headphones, not in-year.

\- Play single song in loop

\- Get a bigger screen, even cheap 20" will do. Laptop has horrible ernomomy

\- Investigate ergonomic keyboards. Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 or Microsoft Sculpt are good starting choice.

\- Try inverted colors. Most editors have colors schemes, try Solarized, Dark Vim etc..

\- For browser most sites (github) can be styled black using Stylish browser plugin

\- All operating systems (even Android) supports inverted color accessibility settings. Control-Option-Command-8 key combination on Mac.

\- Reduce time spend in front of computer by improving your productivity. It is much less draining if you actually enjoy your work and see results fast.

<comment><USER5> How does playing a single song on a loop keep you focused on working and being productive. Doesn't the repetitiveness distract/annoy you?

<comment><USER6> In my case its the contrary; it's the changes in patterns that distract me; the brain can move repetitive sounds to the background.

I don't play the same song but play repetitive music, also I use mid-tempo and up so I don't get sleepy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The obvious answer is not to spend 16 hours in front of a laptop screen at your desk. Scedule an hour of daily exercise, eat healthy and do those other things that you ought to be doing like cleaning, cooking, washing and sleeping.

</comment><comment><USER8> Start weightlifting to increase serotonin levels.

My eyes started twitching - I needed glasses so watch out for this.

When you use a screen, you blink less. Actually try to blink more. Also look away and focus on far away objects - the usual tips.

The last tip I find that works is close your eyes gently while sitting down, and tense your whole body, as much as you can. Even your glutes, activate as many muscles as you can while keeping your eyes as un-flexed stressed as possible.

My eyes feel much better after doing this. I think I read this some time ago, and your body is using energy elsewhere - while relaxes the muscles not needed (around your eyes) and it feels amazing.

Good Luck!

</comment><comment><USER9> I use 1-hour-less principle. It is counter-intuitive but since I am not working for any company I can afford it.

Right before the work is about to finish, I realise that it will take me an hour to finish this - I call it a day.

The benefit apart from less stress is that tomorrow you are motivated for your next day's work, you know you can get something done right away without having to plan for anything.

And that 1 hour's work often takes only 30 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hey, I was feeling a lot of eye strain a few months ago while writing my dissertation. I went to an ophthalmologist, and he gave me a few tips that changed my life (no, serisouly):

\- DO NOT have the monitor at eye's level as some people suggest. Our muscles relax when the eye is looking down. 45 degrees down is fine. See for yourself: Put your finger at eye's level and keep looking at it for as long as you can. Then drop it down to chest's level and see how much better it is.

\- Get yourself a bigger monitor, in case you don't already have one, and stay further away from it. Also related to eye muscles strain: focusing up-close is really bad for you. Do this test: look at your finger really close to the eye, and then place it further away.

It puts a lot of strain on the eye's muscles to look up and focus up-close. Those were exactly my problems. Putting my chair a little bit higher and my monitors further back in my desk solved my problems.

edit: Make sure to use only your eyes to look down, and not your neck or back, otherwise you will replace one problem with another.

<comment><USER11> Having the top of the monitor at eye level allows you to look down at the entire screen (which is what I understood to mean having the monitor at eye level).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of the firsts apps I install is f.lux [1]

I put it on the "slow" setting, and it gradually adjusts my screen during the day. I stopped noticing it, however whenever I look at a co-workers screen, it feels like I am staring into the sun!

[1] [https://justgetflux.com/](https://justgetflux.com/)

</comment><comment><USER13> \- Get an external monitor if you can. Personally I can't use a laptop for an extended period of time because it really takes a toll on your body. I just use my laptop in clamshell mode with a large external monitor, and an external mechanical keyboard and mouse.

\- Get up and walk around. I usually get up and stay up for 15-30 mins about once every two to three hours. Mid afternoon (the longest work stretch of my day) I get up, go down 12 flights of stairs and take a walk around a few blocks just to keep the blood moving.

\- With regard to eyes use a dark background for everything. Bright light is what makes your eyes hurt. Alternatively make sure the difference between foreground and background isn't too great. A soft light behind your monitor can reduce the contrast between the blinding light coming out of it and the dark area behind. Also make sure to look away from the screen periodically. If there is a window nearby stand up every 15 mins or so, walk over to it, and look out at a distant object. This is good for both body and eyes.

</comment><comment><USER14> FWIW I do this: gym 1 hour per day (improves health, skin condition, confidence - just don't run every day and do get good running shoes); plan my goals with GTD (listen to the original audio CDs - they are golden - <USER2> guides are usually missing huge chunks --- use paper or a simple note-taking app like Zim); Final Version ([http://markforster.squarespace.com/final- version-faqs/](http://markforster.squarespace.com/final-version-faqs/)) in a cheap notebook with side markers for context; Pomodoro to split up the working day.

All this has taken years to work out - and it will not click you to start with - but you'll eventually find yourself feeling less stressed and more satisfied with your day.

Whether you like it or not it's not sustainable to be in front of a screen for 16 hours a day - so make one of your life goals to get out of that situation as soon as you can.

</comment><comment><USER15> For your eyes - I recommend installing a software that will remind you to give your eyes a bit of relax (years ago when I was on WinXP the software was called EyeCare, when I google for it now there is a plethora of projects so you will need to test what suits you best)

For productivity - what helped me a lot was to block myself on my home router from accessing all distractive web pages I used to pop in every now and then (i.e. playok.com for just one chess game, linkedin, facebook, ycombinator :-) ) - I found that my brain loves to be distracted and it is not that simple to keep focused, blocking distractors helped. Having that said I was also allowing emails in certain hours in the morning and in the evening (no emails during the day).

Also I completely cut on my favorite games (even during the weekend) like HalfLife, CS, starcraft... Was hard to make this decision but in the end appeared to be a great time saver.

</comment><comment><USER16> I read all the answers and they're very good. I'd just add something very important: keep track of how many days you go without doing exercise, eating healthy etc. All this advice is great, but it's very easy to have a 'bad period' where you just don't realize you're going back to your old patterns. Being more specific: implement some remainder in front of you that shows your progress over time. E.g.: a piece of paper showing you the dates you exercised in green, and the ones you didn't in red. Make it your first priority to complete that piece of paper. You can go fancier with web apps or even fit- bands, but the idea is the same: track yourself everyday. And be aware of when you stop doing what you need to be doing.

</comment><comment><USER17> First of all, take care of your eyes. Use the 20 20 20 rule as previously said, check your eyes to avoid headaches.

If you use a laptop, get a stand and a separate keyboard and mouse, it'll help your posture. If you have a desktop, it'll be easier to maintain a good posture and relieve neck pain by looking to what's in front of you, not down to a laptop on a table.

Walk. Get up every hour or every 45min. Do this religiously.

Drink lots of water or tea. Stay hidrated. Don't eat garbage.

To have better sleep, install flux on your computer.

If you have some spare money, buy a really comfortable office chair that's not too sofa-y and not too hard. Buy a table that has the right height to you.

</comment><comment><USER18> Olympic weightlifting, gymnastics, plyometrics, running, some powerlifting, and stretching/mobility work (all CrossFit stuff). Doing all this is preventative maintenance to sitting at a desk for hours at a time.

I do this six days a week, 2 hours a day starting at 6am. When I'm at the computer, because my body is strengthened and limber, I can sit a lot longer but I inherently like to move around a lot.

Also, having a good workstation is key. Proper height for chairs, monitor at eye level, elbows are slightly above parallel to the keyboard. Stand up stations are also awesome and cheap/easy to create.

</comment><comment><USER19> Take breaks away from your computer. Get up and walk around during said breaks.

There is no substitute for this, and it represents 80% of the "cure".

(numbers pulled out of my descending colon)

</comment><comment><USER20> I almost died 8 years ago from sitting at my desk too much. Without knowing it I developed a quiet form of deep vein thrombosis and then dropped with two pulmonary embolisms. I am fine now, but it was a close call.

My recommendation is to have a timer on your laptop to remind you to get up and walk around for at least a minute, every twenty minutes.

I also find it beneficial to do a few minutes of random Qi Gong exercises about once an hour.

</comment><comment><USER21> A pomodoro timer app [1] did it for me, although I have not bothered with the whole method/technique with all its bells and whistles, just the dedicated uninterrupted 25 minutes of work 'sprints' and short 5 and longer 15 minute breaks that I do not skip.

[1] [http://rinik.net/pomodoro/](http://rinik.net/pomodoro/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Follow 20 20 20 rule

After every 20 mins look at a point that is atleast 20 feet away from you for atleast 20 seconds for your eyes.

</comment><comment><USER23> Every 3-4 hours just go outside and walk around for ~20min.

</comment><comment><USER24> I go to crossfit.

<comment><USER18> CrossFit helps a lot!

I'm at CrossFit 760, where are you?</comment></comment>


Death by Redesign - <AUTHOR> https://www.alexkras.com/death-by-redesign/ <comment><USER2> Apple seems to love UI changes because...nobody knows. Examples of horrible and/or unnecessary UI changes over the years: GarageBand, Xcode, and iTunes. Especially iTunes. What I hate about modern UI design is when you have a situation where you can't or are not allowed to do something, i.e., sync a song, backup, copy media, etc. Instead of having a disabled button or displaying an error message actually explaining anything, modern UIs simply remove said control, causing the end-user to aimlessly search like a fool for the non-existant menu item, link, or button. Apple sems so focused on UI that they sideline UX. An even worse offender is Windows 10's awful desktop/tablet identity crisis, which forces strange UI compromises all over the place because it must adapt to all kinds of devices from phone to movie theater. Windows 7 knew for sure that it was a desktop OS, and to this day is the most useful Windows version ever. As a dev myself with a fair amount of UI/UX experience I can tell you this cones not from the devs or even the UI designers but from Product Owners and management who make these kinds of decisions and override sound judgment and wisdom. Either that or they hire "full stack" devs who are supposed to be everything from architect to tester.</comment>


Future Microsoft tablet to be 'no thicker than sheet of glass' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/personal-tech/controller-freak/a-chat-with-microsoft-principal-researcher-bill-buxton-part-iii/article1679362/

<comment><USER2> "A sheet of glass" can be pretty thick. What does that statement even mean? Anyway this sounds totally awesome if it ever becomes available and I would love for MS to push the industry in this direction. However, I doubt very much they'll deliver on this. Cool projects rarely make it out of MS Research, sadly.

Also, it seems like they're pretty far behind the times on this. Three years is a long time, and it seems likely that the industry will change significantly before then. Apple or HTC could easily come out with a similar device before MS hits the market.

<comment><USER3> These researchers seem very disconnected from the market. What hardware have they shipped that people want to buy?

They should take a queue from Apple and have small teams or individuals working on a 10-3-1 process - make 10 different prototypes where everyone can go wild, the 3 best of those are further developed, then a final polished iteration from those.

<comment><USER4> I think you've confused research with product development.

The person being interviewed is not a product developer. He is a computer scientist who did pioneering research in touch interfaces going back the to '70s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Show, don't tell.

(Sent from a real iPad)

<comment><USER6> No kidding! Right now, it's about as thick as a sheet of vapor.

<comment><USER7> It's glassware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Misleading headline. They are talking about the future Microsoft surface, or table computer.

</comment><comment><USER9> There have been many rumors (patent applications) that Apple intend to have their iMac line act as a tablet. With a large capacitive screen and iOS (In addition to OSX), which effectively would act as Microsoft surface, just with mature software.

My bet is that we will see an Apple surface before a Microsoft one.

</comment><comment><USER10> Of course you wouldn't be able to see the screen for all the stickers saying: "designed for windows glass", "windows home semi-starter- premium edition (bathroom only not kitchen edition)", "intel inside" etc ....

<comment><USER11> >all the stickers saying: "designed for windows glass", "windows home semi- starter- premium edition (bathroom only not kitchen edition)"

It'll have a fridge hum detector to make sure you don't try and use it in the kitchen ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Concept products are like essays, musings in 3D. They are incomplete promises. Shipping products, by contrast, are brutally honest deliveries. You get what's delivered. They live and die by their own design constraints. To the extent they are successful, they do advance the art and science of design and manufacturing by exposing the balance between fantasy and capability._

[http://counternotions.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/concept- produ...](http://counternotions.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/concept-products/)

</comment><comment><USER13> The Sun Starfire concept video from 1993 pretty much had the same idea:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJNxgZyVo0#t=2m9s>

The problem I see with putting sensors in the pixels is that you're going to need to light that pixel up to use the sensor. How do you sense touch or image in a black section of the screen?

<comment><USER14> The fourth subpixel would be infrared.

<comment><USER13> _"The best way to think about it is like a big LCD where there's a fourth pixel in every triad. So there's red, green, and blue pixels giving you light, and a fourth pixel which is a sensor that will capture stuff; go the other direction."_

So five sensors, really.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yeah, because Surface has been _so successful_ and doesn't mirror _anything_ the DIY crowd hasn't been doing for years and for thousands less, because the tech is so simple. That's a good reason to tech it up further, so you can crank the cost up further - that'll make it sell!

Not holding my breath on this one. Not even taking a deeper breath than normal.

<comment><USER4> "Yeah, because Surface has been so successful and doesn't mirror anything the DIY crowd hasn't been doing for years and for thousands less"

Cite?

<comment><USER15> $350: [http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/maximum_pc_builds_...](http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/maximum_pc_builds_a_multitouch_surface_computer)

Reactable has been around for a while: <http://www.reactable.com/> (if nothing else, the first page of results found youtube vids from 2006)

There's this one, plus many more, from Instructables: [http://www.instructables.com/id/Interactive-Multitouch- Displ...](http://www.instructables.com/id/Interactive-Multitouch-Display/) Many of the projects there come in well below $500 for _absolutely everything_ , and there are a few software libraries for detecting multitouch built specifically for devices like these (reflected IR light) because the technique is so cheap and simple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A sheet of glass!? They could install the device in windows, instead of installing windows on the device.

(sorry)

</comment><comment><USER17> I realize it's a different piece of hardware than the one he's describing, but it's still at least a little funny that the picture toward the top has him drawing on a device running Mac OS.

</comment><comment><USER18> In other news: Future Nike hoverboard to be 'powered by cold fusion'

</comment><comment><USER19> Well, seems that 'sheet of glass' it's the new 'football stadium' for small measures

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm sure some tablet from the future will be that thin.</comment>


Wolfram Alpha: An invention that could change the Internet forever - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/an-invention-that-could-change-the-internet-for-ever-1678109.html

<comment><USER2> >"Dr Wolfram said he expected that about 1,000 people would be needed to keep its databases updated with the latest discoveries and information."

I'm sure Wolfram could partner with Amazon to crowdsource some of this data gathering through Mechanical Turk. For example, collecting data on celebrities (e.g. height, birth date, family relations). Turk users would fill out forms and cite where they got the data from.

<comment><USER3> This is actually a really good idea and I wonder if Wolfram and Co. have considered this.

Additional note: I get super pumped when I read something on HN and I think to myself "Damn! That is a fine idea." It always makes me grin.

<comment><USER4> In the Q&A after his Harvard presentation last month Stephen said he would not crowdsource Wolfram Alpha. In short the reason he gave is that crowdsourcing is unreliable. Stephen used as an example the problems of Wikipedia where rogue interests and non-experts manipulate results. He only wants great curators of knowledge to sign off on the inputs. That way when you search for something on Wolfram Alpha you can expect near certainty in the results.

The ontology of Wolfram Alpha is involved. Those professional researchers in Champaign who understand how to talk to Wolfram Alpha are not getting their data from simple Google searches and then citing their sources. This is a complex process even for simple data points. If Wolfram Alpha has a need for Mechanical Turk it would be to catch mistakes or _maybe_ do information triage - but Stephen made clear he doesn't want quasi experts going anywhere near the research department.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A disturbingly tabloid headline. The article's premise is that it could change certain aspects of search, though I'm sceptical - others have tried human- curated 'knowledge databases' and we all still use Google and Wikipedia.

Plus, I think today's searchers - for the most part - speak search engine lingo, and have certain expectations. I don't _want_ my search results to play D# major if that's what I'm searching for, I probably want to see the notes. I won't type in "10 flips for four heads", I'll type in "coin tossing probability".

I can see kids doing homework projects having fun with this, but beyond? Dunno. I'm quite happy for it to be a wild success and prove me wrong, I'm just very sceptical this will happen.

<comment><USER6> If Alpha lives up to its hype, I think we'll find incredibly useful (yet non- obvious at the moment) applications for it, and one day we'll wonder how we ever lived without such a service.

<comment><USER7> _If Alpha lives up to its hype_

That is the tough issue here. The hype has been immense.

<comment><USER8> Agreed - it's been immense, and (unfortunately) I think I can predict what will happen upon launch - someone will find a witty "search" or question that WA should have no problem with (or they think it should have no problem with), and WA will spit out some nonsensical answer, and it will get posted to every site under the headline "Wolfram Alpha can't even answer this simple question, how is it going to take on Google?". It will become a joke, and only those who understand it will continue to use it, while the rest will dismiss it because they likely won't understand it. I'm hopeful, but not too hopeful.

<comment><USER9> You are kind of comparing apples and oranges here. I don't think Alpha would be really hurt if the majority of people found it useless.

All Wolfram has to do is to allow developers access to the API. I'm just not totally sure how he will allow access to the program right now.

Google's search engine isn't incredibly useful to the person who doesn't like using it. But Alpha has the possibility possibility of being useful to people who wouldn't even visit the site.

At the very minimum, it has a lot of potential for search aggregation. Let's say that someone wanted to create a site that aggregated travel information. It sounds like a developer could basically create mini-travel guides on demand for specific regions or towns. So you would quickly get info on crime, cost, food, weather, and tourist attractions. Or you could actually just rank travel places based on certain criteria. So if I wanted to find a cheap place that currently had warm weather, beaches, and low crime, I might be able to get a lot of useful information. I wouldn't need to use Alpha myself, somebody would have just had to develop a site to aggregate the results.

I have no idea what it's killer use will be, but this has the potential to be very useful to developers. So once developers start taking advantage of it, I believe it would be successful.

<comment><USER8> I agree - it's for sure an apples to oranges comparison, but unfortunately I have a feeling that most users (and main stream media outlets) will gloss that over and pronounce it the "non" Google killer. I also agree with you that the potential lies in something we may not be able to envision at this point, but if developers get turned on to the platform it might be really successful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like that bad joke... the punch line being "and so modest, too!"

<comment><USER11> Stephen Wolfram's not just modest - he's A _New Kind_ of Modest.

Seriously, though - I can't help but think that no matter how brilliant Wolfram Alpha might be, it will never end up being as good as he thinks it is. I hope I'm proved wrong, but that unpleasant feeling has definitely coloured my opinion thus far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> We keep hearing about, when is it going to be available (so we can see if all this hype is true or not)?

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/> still says "Launching May 2009" and it's now May 3rd.

<comment><USER13> Perhaps your first query to Alpha should be "how many days in May"?

<comment><USER10> I'd also be curious about "how many days _left_ in May"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This was the _front page_ of the print version of The Independent today (Sunday 3rd May) !</comment>


Oracle Buys Art Technology Group for $1 Billion - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/209518/oracle_buys_art_technology_group_for_1_billion.html?tk=rss_news

<comment><USER2> I'm an ATG architect, and used to work for ATG directly a decade ago. This is very unsettling news based on Oracle's history of handling mergers.</comment>


Microsoft seeks next big idea in Cambridge - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/06/30/microsoft_seeks_next_big_idea_in_cambridge/ <comment><USER2> I don't get it ... why does everyone doubt microsoft more than any other company? Clearly microsoft is taking the effort to recruit talent and realizes the need to be innovative ... this site seems to be full of fanboys

</comment><comment><USER3> 800 employees? Will those actually be able to do anything? A "Concept Development Center" they say. Interesting, but who thinks of the concepts? Steve Balmer? or is Microsoft just following the leaders in the industry trying to compete with ideas which are not its own? When was the last time we saw anything innovative in Microsoft? Yes, they might gain some good markets and stuff, but they will never be leaders in what they plan to do, they are just to fat to run that fast, the best they can do is stay on the track.

</comment><comment><USER4> _Another will address "e-mail overload," especially organizing and viewing less important messages._

Maybe MSFT will buy Xobni and ask them to move to Cambridge now...</comment>


London Review of Books: On Obama "The Impermanence of Importance" - <AUTHOR> https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n15/david-runciman/the-impermanence-of-importance <comment><AUTHOR> "...the ongoing contest between Obama's realism and the hopes of people like Rhodes that he would deliver lasting change. The tension between what is and what ought to be..."

Captures something that I observed in a number of people and it probably has much to do with the sense of disappointment expressed by many toward Obama's term.</comment>


The Space Problem of Time Travel - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/the-space-problem-of-time-travel-93b873264b98 <comment><USER2> Hand-wavy 'the machine follows the weighted average of the immediately adjacent matter, thru time"

<comment><USER3> Similarly a hand-wavey "the time portal is sparked through the physical quantum entanglement of the same particle through different points in time"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just finished reading All Our Wrong Todays by Elan Mastai, which deals with this 'Space Problem' as part of it's plot. There's also the issue of what happens if the space you end up in is already occupied... ouch.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would expect to find myself in empty space and prepare appropriately. A civilization that can produce a time machine could with less difficulty produce a space vessel with faster-than-or-near light speed travel.

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Machine)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is why the TARDIS from Doctor Who is called Time and Relative Dimensions In Space.

</comment><comment><USER8> All sci-fi movies involving time travel are now ruined. Er..more ruined. Ruined-er?

<comment><USER6> As Douglas Adams pointed out, the hardest part of time travel is correct grammar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> that's presuming you are traveling backward instantaneously, or very quickly. if you moved more gradually, like the way we the way we move through space, presumably you could stay pinned to earth ...</comment>


McClatchy upgrades CEO's housing stipend to $35K a month amid buyouts - <AUTHOR> https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/mcclatchy-upgrades-ceo-forman-housing-stipend-35k-month-buyouts.php <comment><USER2> This happens because the IRS has a $1 million limit on executive salaries for tax deduction purposes. All these other forms of payments just help get around that.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd like to see a spreadsheet of McClatchy's payroll to learn how many of its employees make less per year than the CEO gets in monthly expenses.

</comment><comment><USER4> Now he can almost afford to rent a 3 bedroom house in Los Altos Hills or Atherton... (Just kidding, there are no 3 bedroom houses for rent in either place.)

<comment><USER5> That is on purpose, limiting the quantity of 2 bedroom units built and clamping down on the permitting process for 3 and 4 bedroom apartments and condos is critical for cities and towns that want to keep middle income and poor families from moving in and burdening their schools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The CEO's compensation is set by the board of directors using public > consultants and comparable.

This may be true, but the Lake Wobegon effect is strong here, few companies want to hire a below-average CEO, and few companies want to offer a below- average CEO compensation package, so they just spiral up and up and up.

<comment><USER7> Why don't these two statements and the resulting effect apply to workers other than the CEO though?

<comment><USER8> Their salary & compensation isn't public, they have less information on what the market will bear for their skills. And that's how the company wants it to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _In his email on Friday, Forman attributed this latest reduction in staff to "the culmination of the enormous progress McClatchy has already made in our transition to a digital future,"_

Is there any industry where a reduction in headcount is considered "progress?"

If Google would have reduced its employees by 19k, instead of increasing it by 19k in its most recent results, would that have been spun as "progress?"

<comment><USER9> It would if they maintained the same revenue and innovation velocity.

The last one is really hard to judge though. Its quite common for a CEO to effectively cut R&D and be seen as a genious for reducing costs. The company dies a slow death resting on its goodwill for a decade or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Relevant book: The CEO Pay Machine [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31752824-the-ceo-pay- mac...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31752824-the-ceo-pay-machine)

</comment><comment><USER11> The title is aggressively misleading:

> According to Segal, this stipend will be used to pay for Forman's travel, > housing, office, and security expenses.

It is probably still a lot of money for that, but it goes beyond just housing.

<comment><USER12> But why are they paying him a cash stipend instead of expensing against receipts? Or is this meant to be more of a cap on how much he can spend on all that monthly?

<comment><USER11> Beats me. It seems like essentially they're paying him $2.4 million, just divided into 3 separate buckets.

<comment><USER13> $2.04M

<comment><USER14> $2.42M

$35k x 12 = $420k

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So weird (but welcome) to see the ugly mundane details of the journalism industry on HN. I used to work at a McClatchy paper long ago but I have trouble mustering outrage about its CEO because the excesses of other companies seem far more egregious. The Tribune Company/Tronc (which owned the Chicago Trib, the LAT until recently, and the Baltimore Sun, which caused David Simon to ragequit journalism) was by far the most scandalous IMO [A]. The previous McClatchy CEO (who was there when I was there) made several million a year, despite being the CEO responsible for making the deals that absolutely eviscerated McClatchy with debt [0].

The standard line is that without good pay packages, a news company would have no chance of attracting competent executives to helm the sinking ship. But what was most frustrating to me at the time was the inescapable cynical belief that not only would the CEOs fail to right the ship, but that they had no real skin in the game and would just move on to the next high-paying job once the time was right. The fantasy that a news CEO would sacrifice his salary to save some vital newsroom jobs, or fund a company-saving initiative, and join us in the trenches and fight till the bitter end to save the company or at least go down with the ship was never even a remotely believable fantasy.

Equally frustrating is there is also no possibility that the company could be saved by hardworking diligent faithful employees. The investigative stories of journalistic lore are virtually always loss-leaders. In recent years, winners of the Pulitzer had already left for other industries by the time they got their medals. Roger Ebert's brand and special site would not have been enough to save the Sun-Times (even if he hadn't died). Adrian Holovaty created Django while working at the Lawrence Journal World; Django is the backbone for tech companies as big as Instagram, but the LJW switched last year to WordPress [2], having lost the resources to innovate on or maintain its Django backend.

[A] [https://splinternews.com/tronc-executives-rewarded-for- incom...](https://splinternews.com/tronc-executives-rewarded-for-incompetence- and-miscondu-1825051977)

[0] [https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_aps_weak_coverage_of_...](https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_aps_weak_coverage_of_its_n.php)

[1] [https://apnews.com/dc312a7e503f4b7bb61a62013fea852d](https://apnews.com/dc312a7e503f4b7bb61a62013fea852d)

[2] [https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/8v0fpb/the_lawrence...](https://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/8v0fpb/the_lawrence_journalworld_where_django_was/)

</comment><comment><USER16> >> _To me local journalism is public service. I don't think we should expect that anyone profits._

Ok, I get it. But why should McClatchy, a for profit corp, shoulder all this?</comment>