A 220b spreadsheet app in HTML/JS - <AUTHOR> http://xem.github.io/sheet/ <comment><USER2> Hello World,

I'm xem, author of this mini app, but standing on the shoulders of giants:

it's inspired by [http://aem1k.com/sheet/](http://aem1k.com/sheet/)

which was inspired by [http://jsfiddle.net/ondras/hYfN3/](http://jsfiddle.net/ondras/hYfN3/)

Cheers to all the JS codegolf team who teached me this noble art and continue to learn new tricks everyday with me!

You can find a list of all our mini apps here: [https://gist.github.com/xem/206db44adbdd09bac424](https://gist.github.com/xem/206db44adbdd09bac424)

<comment><USER2> NB: as mentioned in the "AMA" page, the whole team also helped a lot to reduce the size of this app after I got into the game, it's not just golfed by me.

Cheers

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Initially, I wa puzzled by how the grid could be showing placeholders (the grey "A1", "A2", etc.) when there's no placeholder attribute defined in the source code. Then I discovered that the code running in the demo is not actually the showcased 220-byte source code at all. The code is still impressively small, but you should fix this — it's misleading as is.

<comment><USER4> I think that's probably just because it's been revised and the placeholders were added after.

To be fair, it only adds an extra 18 chars, taking it up to 238-byte in size.

EDIT Here it is once you add the extra property:

        (o=b=>{for(j in a)for(i in a)y=a[i]+-~j,b?document.write([["<p>"][i]]+"<input onfocus=value=[o[id]] onblur=o[id]=value;o() id="+y+" placeholder="+y+">"):eval(y+(".value"+o[y]).replace(/[A-Z]\d/g," +$&.value"))})(a="ABCD")

<comment><USER5> I'm more concerned with the use of the symbol `b` to denote bytes instead of `B` :)

<comment><USER6> Yeah. A 220 bit spreadsheet would be impressive. Particularly the achievement of the source length not being a whole number of bytes.

<comment><USER7> If you include start and stop bits it works out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a nice comment from the author in an AMA about how this project contained one of his best coding moments: [https://github.com/xem/ama/issues/14#issuecomment-123275496](https://github.com/xem/ama/issues/14#issuecomment-123275496)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for mentioning/enjoying it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Judging by some of the comments one can regularly find on HN about the size of apps, this may be considered a pinnacle internet technology to be standardized mainstream

Tongue in cheek aside, very creative code. Thank you for sharing

<comment><USER10> There's intrinsic value in doing more with less, especially when it comes to the malleability of code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If we're using ES2015, why not save a byte?

      <script>(o=b=>{for(j in a)for(i in a)y=a[i]+-~j,b?document.write([["<p>"][i]]+`<input onfocus=value=[o[id]] onblur=o[id]=value;o() id=${y}>`):eval(y+(".value"+o[y]).replace(/[A-Z]\d/g," +$&.value"))})(a="ABCD")</script>

<comment><USER2> of course! Thanks, I'm adding this enhancement on github!

<comment><USER12> Here's another char off:

        (o=b=>{for(j in a)for(i in a)y=a[i]+j,b?document.write(`<${i*j?'input':'p'} onfocus=value=[o[id]] onblur=o[id]=value;o() id=${y}>`):eval(y+(".value"+o[y]).replace(/[A-Z]\d/g," +$&.value"))})(a="_ABCD")

<comment><USER2> awesome! (oh noes, it gets rid of the +-~j trick! :D)

<comment><USER12> [https://github.com/xem/sheet/pull/7](https://github.com/xem/sheet/pull/7) :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If, like me, you're trying to figure out how this works, I've expanded it here to make it more readable:

[https://pastebin.com/1c72BYK1](https://pastebin.com/1c72BYK1)

<comment><USER2> Hey, thanks! Would you like me to write a commented version of that code? A lot of black magic is still hidden in every line :)

<comment><USER14> That would be awesome!

<comment><USER2> Okay :) We're still removing a few bytes but when it's done I'll make a commented version.

<comment><USER2> Hey, the new version and its updated code are live! [http://xem.github.io/sheet/](http://xem.github.io/sheet/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Awesome Job. Looks like it was an iterative effort

[https://github.com/xem/ama/issues/14](https://github.com/xem/ama/issues/14)

</comment><comment><USER16> Yesterday I was blown away by both tetris and snake golfed out to this degree and now this. I feel like this is the modern reincarnation of obfuscated c.

Can somebody explain to me how: "a[i]+-~j" is the same as "a[i]+(j+1)" ?

<comment><USER17> >Can somebody explain to me how: "a[i]+-~j" is the same as "a[i]+(j+1)" ?

-(~j) = Twos complement of the ones complement of j

Twos complement = ones complement + 1

So twos complement of (ones complement of j) = ones complement of (ones complement of j) + 1 = j + 1

<comment><USER18> Am I missing something or isn't the "+" unnecessary? i.e. a[i]+-~j = a[i]-~j

<comment><USER2> Sure, i explained it here earlier today: [https://github.com/xem/sheet/issues/4](https://github.com/xem/sheet/issues/4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I hate to say that, but I just seem to have broken it. Here's how: I put 0.1 in A1, 0.2 in A2 and =A1+A2 in B1. Now B1 displays "=A1+A2" instead of the result.

<comment><USER20> Looks like any decimal place breaks it. Whole numbers only. But hey, whaddaya want for 220 bytes?!?

<comment><USER21> Weirdly enough, it works if the first number is an integer even if the second isn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> =1;alert("Hi")

<comment><USER23> You don't need that, just `=alert('Hi')` is enough.

<comment><USER24> =alert(A1) is more "useful" though.

The cool thing is you could code some extra features or an entire SPA inside the spreadsheet. Better than XL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Fits in a tweet!

<comment><USER26> .. and hence can be deploy on Twitter :)

</comment></comment><comment> 52-6F-62 I was wondering and wondering why it wasn't working for me. Colons break the script. I tried to write "TOTAL:" in a cell and none of the equations would resolve. I wanted in on the fun and I didn't get it until I relented and checked the console. :P

Pretty fun, though

</comment><comment><USER27> Reminds me of an IOCCC entry.

[http://www0.us.ioccc.org/years.html#2000_jarijyrki](http://www0.us.ioccc.org/years.html#2000_jarijyrki)

</comment><comment><USER28> Super impressive and I love code-golfing but the title is slighlty misleading since the HTML part of the app, the cells, seem not to be included in the 220b. Still great.

<comment><USER2> I think I see what you're meaning, but this code actually generates all the cells (<input onfocus=... onblur=... id=...>). You can execute it in a JS console and it'll work fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> And you didn't need a dozen node.js modules!! Amazing!!

</comment><comment><USER30> This is awesome, are you planning to add more features like complex functions that are minimally sized?

<comment><USER2> Well, it's a 3 years old app, and we like it in this "minimal" form. We've made a lot of other mini apps, tools and games though, you can find the link on top of xem.github.io/sheet

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The bad part of eval: insert `;alert("test")` in a used cell by a formula.

</comment><comment><USER32> Didn't know minimizers were _this_ good today ;)

Well done!

<comment><USER33> Human minimizers are the best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Reminds me of the HTML-only MTG life counter I made:

[http://zichy.de/public/counter.html](http://zichy.de/public/counter.html) (437b)

</comment><comment><USER35> aint nobody wana write caps tho

</comment><comment><USER36> I learned the neat trick of -~

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER37> Great app!

</comment><comment><USER38> Doesn't work with decimals.

<comment><USER15> You're right. I'm re-installing Excel and giving this a negative review on the app store!

<comment><USER39> Please. It won't even pass Apple's strict standards. Everyone knows your app has to be 50MB in size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm concerned about the lack of type annotations. What about XSS prevention? Maintainability? An API? How are people supposed to use this code in future projects? Your variable names don't conform to Code Complete. This code smells funny. Haven't you read clean code? And I don't think it's general enough. What if people want to add columns, but preserve formulas? What made you think you shouldn't use React for this? At least Vue, come on.

 _ah, if only we could all code just what we needed, instead of over- engineering solutions to problems we wished we had_

<comment><USER41> XSS prevention, maintainability, code reuse, good variable names, good- smelling code, readability, and using popular libraries are not "over- engineering". They are 95% of what makes someone a good employee instead of a shitty one.

With modern languages and tooling, you can have the benefits of most of these things at little-to-no additional cost. If any of these require something complicated and "over-engineered", I'd instead describe it as "bad engineering".

<comment><USER42> No.

Rule one is making code that works correctly and quickly, in a short about of time. This is 100% of the job.

If you think that "maintainability" and "readability" and "popular" libraries, and "code reuse" and "good variable names" and code that "smells good" to you, help someone do that, then great: That's an argument we can have just by pointing to anyone who gets rule one without those things.

However.

There's another kind of person - and there's a lot of them - who thinks those things are important _by themselves_ , and that putting those things ahead of what I think are rule one is _ever_ acceptable.

The number of times I've heard some "experienced" programmer say with all earnestness that we should ask for another 1/4 million dollars of tin so that he can use his "clean" (but slow) algorithm makes _me_ wary of anyone who uses those words you just used in seriousness.

 _That 's_ the person the parent comment is mocking.

<comment><USER40> > There's another kind of person - and there's a lot of them - who thinks > those things are important by _themselves_ , and that putting those things > ahead of what I think are rule one is ever acceptable.

I think you totally understood my humor. Thanks!

I saw a good blog in 2011 about how it is a waste of time to overbuild things since mostly you are only ever going to use that code for the specific purpose you are writing it, and you'll likely never need to generalize and you'll probably chuck it out anyway and start from scratch.

Obviously there are a bunch of caveats to that and it's not always true that's the case but I think it's a very useful counterpoint to the profession's current best-practice obsession. If you keep it in mind, alongside all the best practices, and you make a choice about approach in any given situation based on appropriateness, rather than just robotically applying best practices or giving into that common Engineer's temptation to overbuild, this counterpoint can help you build quickly just what's needed, which is effective, exactly like you said.

<comment><USER42> No problem. And I agree almost completely:

I _don 't_ think those caveats are _obvious_ to a junior (or otherwise inexperienced) developer. Maybe some of them are obvious, but I don't think anyone runs into these enough daily that programming by dogma actually helps.

And yet I _do_ see value if there are rules! Why should we think about having "good variable names" or not if _most of the time_ "good variable names" don't cause much harm, and most of the time not having them does?

It's just that I don't think this is a real problem; I don't believe anyone actually makes _that_ choice.

I think if something doesn't have "good variable names" (as an example), then it's possible someone was programming who couldn't think of good ones (to which the rule wouldn't help anyway), and it's possible that these _are_ good variable names, and that it's our opinion that is wrong (perhaps because we don't yet understand what we're looking at). NB) I'm not saying both are equally likely.

To put it another way, how can one recommend programming by brute force, "as long as you've got "readability" and "popular" libraries, and "code reuse" and "good variable names" and so on... What can we possibly add to that list that will be even a _good_ substitute for a few decades of experience successfully delivering software?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> wow. thats what I was looking for

</comment><comment><USER44> Why

<comment><USER45> If it is like many other such projects, just to say they did it.

Why climb Everest? Why play a video game on the hardest setting? Why learn to write Hello World in the top 100 programming languages?

I can't say I wrote a spreadsheet in 220b. They can.

Maybe the question is, "Why not?" It is _Hacker_ News, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Yet our browsers blow the page up to 100 or 1000 times that.

<comment><USER47> Probably you should first consider that our browsers contain a fully capable programming system which this golfed program abuses as an expression evaluator. :-) By comparison, this C program [1] (hints are at [2]) is a stripped down spreadsheet program for X, and it only has an RPN evaluator (probably to make a room for graphing features?).

[1] [http://www.ioccc.org/2000/jarijyrki.c](http://www.ioccc.org/2000/jarijyrki.c)

[2] [http://www.ioccc.org/2000/jarijyrki.hint](http://www.ioccc.org/2000/jarijyrki.hint)

<comment><USER48> Hilariously Chrome offers to pass the c code through Google Translate (with predictably useless results)

<comment><USER49> Language detection works on language trigrams, and are trained on human language. I bet punctuation is stripped during preprocessing. So it's not surprising that code will have false positives.

<comment><USER48> Not surprising, but still funny when applied to obfuscated code.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Clustering Elixir nodes on Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://substance.brpx.com/clustering-elixir-nodes-on-kubernetes-e85d0c26b0cf#.f8lv2hmhu <comment><USER2> These guys are doing some pretty great stuff. See also [https://github.com/edevil/kubernetes- deployment](https://github.com/edevil/kubernetes-deployment) for their K8s deployment scripts.</comment>


Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/why-people-keep-trying-to-erase-the-hollywood-sign-from-1658084644 <comment><USER3> Similar issue in Sausalito above the Bridge. Wolfback Ridge Rd is a publicly maintained road yet they have a gate and sign that says otherwise. It is strictly enforced by Sausalito Police on behalf of residents. There's some great short hikes up there that offer excellent views of the Golden Gate Bridge and headlands.

Even google didn't dare go up there: [https://email@example.com,-122.4911711,3a,75y,...](https://email@example.com,-122.4911711,3a,75y,263.37h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8AcNzesT4PvEUxpLMGA0DA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Granted you can hike up Sunrise trail from the next exit but it's a tough hill for the elderly. Friend of mine got one of those hard to remove stickers put on their car for taking her mother up there.

If you ask the city they'll spin crap but confirm that it's open to public when pushed for an answer. If you drive up there guaranteed someone will confront you and the police will show up soon after.

Taxpayer funded gated community for the politically connected.

<comment><USER4> I was really curious about that, as I live in southern Marin and have wanted to go up that road before. Are you sure it's a public road though?

I found this: [http://sausalito.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_...](http://sausalito.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=190&meta_id=22327)

On page 2, there's a line that says, "Wolfback Ridge Road is a private road maintained by the Wolfback Ridge Association, a neighborhood homeowner's association (see Exhibit R for Association information)"

I can't find exhibit R, but the person who sent it appears to be a resident of Wolfback Ridge, leading me to wonder how legit the info is.

<comment><USER3> I have emails from the city saying otherwise, I'll try and dig them up. I believe it's publicly maintained as it was resurfaced along with the rest of the town a couple years back when we lived there.

I also doubt the Wolfback Ridge Association paid for the bridge over highway 101 that's exclusive to them. There are radio towers (SFO?) up there but you can access along the fire roads from Tennessee Valley.

Edit:

Found it, response from Director of Public Works:

 _Not as simple a question as you might think… Short answer is that a portion of Wolfback Ridge Road is publically-maintained. For purposes of hiking, you and anyone else can probably access from the State of California right-of-way (at US 101) to the trails at the top of the pass anytime and not have an issue. Vehicular access is restricted at certain times of the year by Sausalito PD – Fleet Week and the Fourth of July based on lack of parking, lack of adequate circulation and inadequate turn-around. If you want more legal details, let me know – I'm researching the area for a development application anyway…it may take awhile though._

They have a point regarding events but if you park where he suggests you'll run into issues.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I'd love to see those emails if you can dig them up, thank you! If I'm confident that it's a public street, I'm going to go hang out on that street.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The attempt to turn public property into the property of the locals reminds me of a similar, non-tech-related case, also in LA - Malibu beaches.

According to the law of the state of California, all beaches are public property. Of course, this gets a bit complicated when an individual owns the land in front of the beach. The people who buy houses in Malibu would, of course, prefer to have a private beach section. So they put up gates and hire security guards (illegally), block public parking spots (either physically or by putting up counterfeit "no parking" signs), etc. They've historically gotten away with it because the enforcement agency is underfunded and the enforcement process is expensive (a separate civil lawsuit for each offender). That may change soon though:

[http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal- penalties-20140...](http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal- penalties-20140630-story.html)

<comment><USER6> I found an interesting here in Scotland not far from Edinburgh - there are some really nice beaches and a large estate with golf courses and high end housing immediately inland from the beaches. Between the beaches and the houses there is a very large green metal fence which stops all access from the properties to the beaches.

My initial reaction was how unreasonable it was for the developers to build such a fence to keep people out of their development. Then I noticed that there are no gaps in the fence and, on doing some research, found out that the fence is there to keep the house owners off of the beach!

I'd be a bit annoyed if I spent £1M on a house overlooking a lovely beach only to find that I'd have to walk/drive 8km or so to the other side of the fence...

<comment><USER7> But what would be the reasoning for not having gates in this fence?

<comment><USER6> The coast there is part of a protected "Site of Special Scientific Interest" (SSSI) and the beaches in question are sufficiently far from normal access points that they are remarkably quiet. A condition of the developer being allowed to build houses was apparently that this didn't improve access to the coastline - hence the fence. You can see it here:

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102036](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102036)

Edit: Keeping up my secret work for Visit Scotland - I can recommend the walk to the beaches from Dirleton:

[http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lothian/dirleton- fidra.shtml](http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lothian/dirleton-fidra.shtml)

<comment><USER8> I would guess that at least a few of the home buyers fully intended to "alter the deal (pray I do not alter it further)" after the developer sold off the last parcel and exited.

<comment><USER6> I'd expect there to be conditions in the sale that would enforce this - <USER2> the landowner in this case would be appear to be the business that runs the surrounding golf courses and hotel, so they're probably not going anywhere:

[http://www.archerfieldhouse.com/](http://www.archerfieldhouse.com/)

I would also expect the relevant government agency (possibly Scottish National Heritage) to take a rather dim view of anyone breaking the conditions of planning permission.

Edit: I'd expect the people who buy houses directly from the developer to be told about this. However, I can imagine years from now someone buying one of the houses overlooking the beach (NB they are lovely houses) and getting a nasty surprise when they ask about where the gate is in the fence.

<comment><USER8> Or they don't ask, and buy semi-permanent sea access for the bargain price of one angle grinder, some unassuming hinges, a latch, and a can of matching green paint. I'm assuming that most of the home-buyers would be Scots, after all.

The folks on the other side of the fence are certainly Scots with an interest in public access to Archerfield Woods from the coastal walking trail.

I very much doubt that such a fence would be patrolled or otherwise monitored well enough to prevent rogue gate installation from happening.

If this was in the U.S., the same people cutting holes in the fence would simultaneously be posting signs saying "no public beach access" and blaming the holes on outsiders bent on ruining both beach and neighborhood. The zoning and development board would quietly be enjoying their kickbacks from the developer, and winking every time the fence got mentioned.

They know that fence isn't going to last. It's only there so that no one starts a protest until after it's too late to be effective.

<comment><USER6> Actually, as far as I can tell one part of the planning agreement was for the developers to fund a ranger to help monitor the area - probably one of this lot:

[https://www.facebook.com/East-Lothian-Countryside-Ranger- Ser...](https://www.facebook.com/East-Lothian-Countryside-Ranger- Service-139367542929212/)

<comment><USER8> The captions on these photos tell a bit more of the story:

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35182](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35182)

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1247442](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1247442)

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102054](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102054)

There's also a wiki entry ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archerfield_Estate_and_Links](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archerfield_Estate_and_Links)).

So on further examination, It looks increasingly like this is an American- style gated community for the wealthy, and that the new home-owners probably wouldn't even know what an angle grinder is, much less which end was safe to hold. And on further examination of the fence, one pair of bolt cutters and enough time to make 20 unmolested snips would be sufficient to restore the previous state of the locals' Allemansratten ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)).

There's also this amusing article: [http://www.scotsman.com/news/pub-tycoon- hit-by-new-fences-ba...](http://www.scotsman.com/news/pub-tycoon-hit-by-new- fences-ban-1-974763#axzz3r1R4LXrZ)

And this: [https://www.scotways.com/court-cases/181-archerfield- access-...](https://www.scotways.com/court-cases/181-archerfield-access-case- update)

<comment><USER6> Pretty sure that court case is for a different fence - the one in the Geograph pics is new and completely isolates the Archerfield estate from the sea. Even when the estate/hotel has properties right on the coast there is this fence (without a single gate) between them and the coast - along which there is a public path from which you can get a good view of the fence....

NB It's not really a gated community in that access to it from the landward side is easy - you just walk or drive in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> OpenStreetMap, of course, has correct and accurate directions on how to drive or walk to the Hollywood sign.

e.g. [https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_...](https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=34.1067%2C-118.3307%3B34.1341%2C-118.3216#map=14/34.1208/-118.3220)

<comment><USER10> I'm behind a very stupid and extremely annoying corporate wall (McAfee Web Gateway) that blocks OpenStreetMap, but not Google Maps...

<comment><USER11> Im also behind McAfee Web Gateway and have access to OpenStreetMap, its up to whoever maintains it in your corp to unblock

<comment><USER10> Yeah I'm sure someone could unblock it, but I doubt they blocked it in the first place on purpose: OSM must be in some default list when McAfee Web Gateway is first installed, and that's probably the root of the problem...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Misleading the public doesn't solve the issue. I live inside the medieval walls of a historic French town and we are 'overrun' with tourists. However, despite some of them being rather inconvienient, it isn't like I have the right to shut down the street in front of my house to prevent the intrusive traffic that makes it difficult to even exit my garage. I knew about this 'issue' when I bought the house. And, even if I didn't, I don't own the city. It's a shared resource. It's the reason we elect local governments -- to prevent special interests from dominating an issue. Government isn't always effective, but in cases like these, it exactly the purpose of government.

So instead of blocking a tourist 'trail,' folks on my little goat-path of a street appealed to the city to assist with enforcement of existing parking regulations. They even erected some barriers to prevent blocking my garage. However the tourists still have the freedom of access while still making it workable enough for residents.

But blocking the street, breaking GPS or any other vigilante response wouldn't be appropriate because there are more interests in this town than just my own.

The key is to work together to balance interests in a way that is reasonably harmonious.

These Hollywood residents, blaming stuff such as a dog being squashed by a car on tourists are being a bit ridiculous. The dog was in the street. The fact that it was (allegedly) a tourist car that did it is irrelevant and is really just a cheap propaganda play. If the cars prevent fire trucks from access, that is something that could be handled at a city planning level and not by some residents that seem to think they are traffic engineers.

<comment><USER13> Hello, anyone caring to explain why this post is being downvoted?

<comment><USER14> The downvoting here has been ridiculous for a while now... I think posts with lots of upvotes and downvotes should be marked as interesting rather than bad.

Or are we aiming for blandness here?

<comment><USER15> Yeah right, people will downvote without comment for having a different opinion. I've been told this was intended behaviour, but not exactly why. Happens to everyone, I suppose.

I've recently been voted into the lighter shades for calling out questionable ideology in an article. Even though it was not even a popular news item, I got at least eight or nine downvotes, and still ended up at +2 after waiting a day. That's because other people who read my comment decided to upvote (or at least anti-downvote), as I am wont to do when I see this kind of thing going on.

I also think, you as viewer should at least be able to choose if you want to order by "goodness" (upvotes-downvotes) or by "controversiality"/"interest" (upvotes+downvotes).

<comment><USER16> There's no such thing as a perfect comment moderation system, and I've seen worse than this one. That said, I've seen far, far better as well. Ultimately this forum exists to serve the interests of the Y Combinator founders, and as long as they don't see anything wrong with perfectly coherent, intelligent, and on point comments being downmodded into oblivion in every single topic, well...what can you do?

Thankfully there are a handful of us here who will upvote to counter the "for the lulz" type downvotes even if we don't always agree with the point of view of the comment itself, but I've noticed this forum (like all Internet forums eventually do) is slowly succumbing to the lowest common denominator crowd.

<comment><USER14> You got downvoted for this originally! Ironic downvoters, I applaud you :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So I have a story about this.

Back in 2007, my friends and I were at a 4 month co-op internship at Qualcomm. One weekend, we decided to drive up to LA from San Diego.

We drove as close as we could to the Hollywood sign, and got to a cul de sac where we saw a few cars parked, and a few families hiking down a hill from the sign.

We parked, and walked up the hill, noticing a sign that said it was illegal to hike to the sign. We questioned whether it was a good idea to ignore the sign, but seeing as whole families were ignoring it, we thought it would be fine.

We hiked for a few minutes, and then saw a security guard pull up in a car near our cars. I wasn't sure how legally I was parked, so we went back to avoid a ticket.

The guard ignores all the families, and targets us, asking us what we were doing hiking up there. We said we just wanted a picture, and he yelled at us about the sign. We said we didn't see it, and he called us idiots. He asked to see our IDs, at which point, my friend started talking back, saying no way. Being that we were Canadian, and on work visas, I didn't want to push my luck, being a minority too. I knew that if this guard called the cops, I'd be in a bit more trouble, and I thought I'd be in jeopardy of getting shipped back to Canada. It didn't help that the friend mouthing back wasn't a minority; I don't think he realized how scared we are in general of cops.

My friend kept mouthing off, saying that the guard had no right to talk to us like that, and we were going to leave. At this point, the guard says he's calling the cops, and that we have to deal with them.

At this point, I jumped in, asked the guard to calm down, and that I'll talk to him privately. He told me to tell my friend to watch his tone, and I pleaded with him to let us go, since I really didn't want to deal with the cops over something minor on account of us not being American. He copied down my info from my license, gave us a warning, and let us go.

Now, I did know my "rights", and I knew he had no grounds to detain us. But I didn't know those signs were fake, so I really thought we might be in trouble. Also, I didn't know if those rights applied to us as non-Americans. My friends said I was an idiot for giving my ID, and I agreed, but I just wanted to get out of there. I was 22 at the time too, so I probably was a bit more naive.

Reading this article brought back this memory, and now makes me realize how we were bamboozled. Live and learn I suppose.

</comment><comment> adam-a I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world.

It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.

<comment><USER18> Exactly, they could turn this into a beautiful destination with parking etc. Charge a small fee to pay for maintenance, close after 6pm. Everybody is happy.

<comment><USER19> Except people who want to visit at night. You know that'll happen.

<comment><USER20> Then allow them to go at night and put some street lights up the trail. Also not impossible.

<comment><USER21> The problem is not providing better access. That's what the populace might want. The residents, who are already happily interfering and obstructing, illegally at times, don't want that, and certainly don't want the idea of 'night access'.

<comment><USER20> The problem is providing better access without limiting access for the police or fire men.

So you need to provide a parking lot and a dedicated trail to make sure people can reach their goal (seeing the sign in person) without going through the neighborhood itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A large corporation accedes to the wishes of a rich elite, and helps them deny access to a _public_ park? Say it ain't so...

I wish there was some company around which had a motto of "Don't be evil". I'm sure _that_ company would have done the right thing.

<comment><USER23> Generally, the relationship between a map company and the local government isn't adversarial. If the government tells the map company "the speed limit of this road is x" or "this bridge has a height limit of y" or "this road is access-only for heavy trucks" then the map company will just take that as true.

After all, if you can't trust the posted signs because of residents putting up fake signs, what is the canonical source of information on what's legal?

If the local residents have got the local government to change the legal status of the roads, which is what the article makes it sound like, you can hardly blame Google for doing what the government tells them to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Everybody hates tourists and it's hilarious.

You live in a place that exists because of and is sustained by tourism and yet you hate all the people who come there and spend money.

Here's an idea: move to a place that tourists don't like.

<comment><USER25> I'm pretty sure the Hollywood Hills aren't leaning real hard on the tourism industry.

<comment><USER21> I'd expect that a not-insubstantial portion of the residents of the Hollywood Hills have made their living/fortune directly or indirectly from the movie industry.

That's neither here nor there. People want to see an attraction. It's on public parkland. The residents, whatever their motivation, do not have a right to prevent that. They could petition the city for better access (hell no, they won't do that), or policy change. Instead, they use connections and money to do things like:

\- illegally threaten tourists with the use of fake signs threatening civil or criminal sanctions \- personally harass visitors \- hire security guards who have been told to threaten people with trespass and arrest, illegally

Just like David Geffen's famous 'fake driveway'. Amazing how everyone in Malibu knows that it's not a real driveway. That he had no right to paint the curb red or yellow indicating fire lanes, etc. The police know it. The towing companies know it. Yet, every week, they book, ticket, and tow someone who also knows it (there have been cases where people have parked there with a print-out of the whole saga pinned to their window, to prevent the usual story, which is "well, we know it's not real, but you didn't and you parked there, so you were ignoring the law").

My sympathies are ... lacking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Reminds me of lombard street [1]. It can be pretty tiring for the residents to see a constant barrage of tourists, stopping their vehicles on the street to take pictures. Imagine leaving or returning home at "peak tourist hours", how difficult it would be to drive your car near your home. I guess the burden is on a home owner to figure out what they are walking into when they buy a house near a popular tourist attraction.

Oh, and there's also the Martins Beach case [2].

[1] : [https://email@example.com,...](https://email@example.com,-122.418144,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s442916!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2F_PY35bVZAGkyxeYY0BCF72LKnMgUBhpgBZda3pCd4PICkqvKXkYAk5Z707p0m9vza18L01loByAfO2sCNiXDDIVoAevnR-I%3Dw114-h86!7i2048!8i1536!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x10d3ce0ac1ec1299!6m1!1e1)

[2] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must- allow...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must-allow-public- to-access-Martins-5778533.php)

<comment><USER27> During one portion of the year, my neighborhood has small hordes of visitors due to a large wildflower field across the street. Mostly I find it charming, and my worst confrontation involved telling a guy "Hey, please don't park on my lawn", and him replying "oh, sorry, I'll move immediately".

I don't see why seeing people taking pictures of a landmark in your neighborhood should be tiring.

<comment><USER28> Usually it's because it has some impact on you. Like blocking your driveway, taking up all the parking, or leaving trash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> On the one hand I can kinda feel the pain of the homeowners. When my neighbor recently had a yard sale, I basically had to sit in my driveway telling people to not block it in case I had to get out. Some would actually try and argue with me. So, I know how selfish and stupid people can be sometimes.

But, selfish and stupid works both ways. The homeowners near there can't deny people right of way on public streets. They can't put up fake signs/paint. This isn't right either. The best you can do is just try and keep the idiots off your own property.

<comment><USER29> You couldn't just ask them to move if/when you did actually have to get out?

People don't spend usually more than a few minutes at yard sales and it sounds to me like you were just being unreasonable.

If you were so worried you might need to leave at an absolute moments notice (doctor on call or something?) why not just park in the street yourself?

<comment><USER19> Seriously? Look, it is plain rude to park directly in front of someone's drive. There's no two ways about that. I should not have to be go and park my car somewhere else because people can't be bothered to not be rude.

I have plenty of property in front of my house that they could have parked (it's 25 extra feet they would have had to walk). That's what plenty of other people were doing. There's plenty of open space on the other side of the street as well.

<comment><USER30> You are being unreasonable. The grandparent is correct. Any parker would've left in less than 5 minutes. You would not have even known they were there. If they did not leave and you needed out, you could have simply asked them to leave.

Property rights in this strange absolutist never-to-be-violated interpretation would make a hell of a world. Dropped your wallet? WELL, I CAN'T PICK IT UP FOR YOU BECAUSE THAT'S THEFT OF YOUR PROPERTY.

<comment><USER19> Actually, not picking up the wallet would be considered rude.

This isn't about property. It's about manners. I'm sorry the sequence of events that has led up to your life at this moment prevent you from differentiating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have to wonder why more residents aren't trying to milk money out of the tourists. Isn't that what is supposed to happen around every tourist attraction?

If I lived there, I might just pave a few extra parking spaces into my property and charge $5 for first 30 minutes and $5 each additional 60 minutes thereafter. Buy lemonade, hiking maps, souvenir magnets, and postcards from the kiosk. 10%-off coupons for checking in on social media. Hey! Hey! Hey mister; hey lady! You wanna buy Hollywood Sign t-shirt? Hollywood Sign keychain fob? How about shopped photo with your name in place of the real sign? Don't just take selfies! Everybody takes selfies! Buy something no one else has; buy this volume-printed diorama of the sign and surrounding park, signed by the artist! Limited edition!

Whenever I have been a tourist, the single best way to make me want to leave and never return is to subject me to a continuous barrage of sales pitches for useless attraction-related crap. Example: every square centimeter of Disney World. That's like the ultimate goal of merchandising, when it all sort of collapses into this state where everything becomes an advertisement for itself, and everything you buy subtly encourages you to buy more, or maybe just put all your cash in a paper envelope and deposit it into a slot under the Walt and Mickey statue.

That's how you ruin an attraction. You don't just make it secret and exclusive; that only makes people want it more. Instead, you relentlessly try to squeeze every last drop of money out of it. If you really want the people to stop coming, your Holy Grail is the online review that says, "Not worth the $10 parking space in some guy's front yard. Locals aggressively sell touristy crap, and the sign itself seems kind of cheap and pathetic from up close."

Of course, the downside is that unless you have some sort of "identify friend or foe" system in place, you get a dozen sales pitches every time you walk from your own driveway to your own house.

<comment><USER31> The people that own those houses have enough money that it isn't worth the time investment to make a little extra cash, even if the side benefit it ruining the experience. That's a hell of a time commitment.

<comment><USER8> Your Poe's Law handheld disambiguator device should have read about 75% insincere on my ancestor post.

I am fully aware that a NIMBY neighborhood, such as the one near the sign, would actually tar-and-feather the first person who tried to treat the invading tourists as anything other than vermin to be eliminated.

I was simply making a _modest proposal_ , to contrast against the actual efforts of the local homeowners to discourage tourist traffic.

For instance, a while ago, I agreed to go with my family to Grand Canyon national park. I had but one condition: under no circumstances would I be asked to buy anything at any gift shop filled with touristy crap, nor even be requested to enter one. _And guess what happened._ We still spent over three consecutive hours in a thrice-cursed gift shop, wherein I was asked repeatedly to buy junk of the lowest quality. That was more time than was spent looking at the actual canyon, for which there was no additional charge beyond the cost of park admission.

That kindled a great fight, which everybody lost.

More recently, we visited New Orleans. My sole condition of the pre-trip planning was "No French Quarter." _And guess what happened._ My matrifornicating in-laws wanted to eat dinner at Hard Rock Cafe. On deity- despised Bourbon Street.

So I find that the single most effective way to make me passionately hate your locale and avoid it like an Ebola-infected bat roost forevermore is to make it into a _tourist trap_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _" Because our mapping services are now subject to the whims of angry, powerful residents, we have to rely on other sources to give us accurate directions. In a way, the post on my blog is almost like passing out hand- drawn paper cartography from person to person, a map to buried treasure that hangs in plain sight."_

Samizdat internet ... even literally, according to Britannica: _' (from Russian sam, "self," and izdatelstvo, "publishing")'_

<comment><USER33> Hmm, I always just thought it was a corruption of "same as that". I guess your way makes more sense. And yeah, I could have looked at wikipedia a long time ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have a lot of sympathy for people when some new things moves into their neighborhood and causes a disruption. On the other hand, I have about as much respect for these people, since the sign predates them, as I do for people who move next to farms and try to shut them down because of the smell. I think there is a special place in hell for people who alter data on public spaces.

</comment><comment><USER35> Reminds me of a recent video I watched about the copyright issues associated with the sign: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdQ7gxU6Rg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdQ7gxU6Rg)

</comment><comment><USER36> > then—in something I've never seen before, anywhere on Google Maps—a dashed > gray line arcs from Griffith Observatory, over Mt. Lee

Uhm, Google Maps do this all the time if there is no route to the place you selected. I'd say I see it every time I use the routing feature by hand or by entering GPS coordinates, i.e. not when I write an address down.

<comment><USER37> Another example would be great!

<comment><USER38> [https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Liberty,+NY/Rocky+Mountain,+...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Liberty,+NY/Rocky+Mountain,+Shandaken,+NY/)

Of course unlike the Hollywood sign, this is a place you wont be able to get to without a good map and some back-country navigation skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat?

Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." \- which is what he was implying in his email

<comment><USER40> > Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is > not considered the same as a violent threat?

Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as, e.g., extortion. [1]

[1] [http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...](http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101.pdf)

<comment><USER41> Every law is backed by violence. A threat of legal action is a threat of violence, even if it is delayed.

So instead of breaking knee caps, it is more like threatening to get a person who may charge them $500 and if they don't pay, then break their knee caps. There is a chance they won't do anything, but it is still a threat of violence.

<comment><USER39> Yes this is exactly what i was getting at. If you take the stance that every law is backed by violence essentially.. AND you now say you are going to use the law to get someone to stop doing something that is perfectly legal and OK such as posting a helpful blog on the internet...

Then to me these people are no different from the types of people that threaten to harm you to get you to do what they want.

<comment><USER41> >AND you now say you are going to use the law to get someone to stop doing something that is perfectly legal

Why does it matter if it is legal? Illegal only means that the group in control at the time thinks violence is acceptable to stop the given illegal action.

For some actions there will be mass agreement, such as making murder illegal. For others, there often is far less agreement and maybe even mass disagreement, such as sodomy, which was illegal even into the beginning of the 21st century, or pot.

That the action is legal or not doesn't have much bearing on the underlying issue.

And just to be clear, anarchy isn't a solution because there will always be those wanting to use violence to enforce their will. So banding together and creating a stronger entity that has a monopoly on violence is the best option even if not a good one. Especially when you are a significant enough minority that the group doesn't care about your input or when the monopoly becomes corrupt and no longer follows the will of the group.

It is kinda like a predator out in nature. They have to kill to survive. Either their prey dies or they die. There is no solution where both can live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I visited a few years ago and found the whole state of California was like this. "Shoo shoo dirty tourist, move along!". Locals upset and frustrated at tourists. Paris is like this too. I moved out of downtown Toronto for this reason; people coming and going with no respect for the locals who call it their home.

</comment><comment><USER43> And they can't rent bikes, create a locally-staffed concession area, sell tchotkes, and pull some $$$ out of the tourists? Tourists gonna tourist, and might as well beat them at their own game, and put the money back into trail infrastructure, and then take the cream off the top for local services.

</comment><comment><USER44> I live in Beachwood Canyon and I honestly don't mind the visitors, I think we forget we are a NYC stroll away from the hollywood strip and this is all part of being in a major city. The setting (quiet, tall trees and lush gardens and winding hilly roads and the absence of cell service) makes it easy to forget but we are still in the city and not some gated suburb.

</comment><comment><USER45> The recommendation to go to Lake Hollywood for a view of the sign instead is an odd one. The access road to the reservoir is even _more_ twisty and narrow than Beachwood Canyon.

</comment><comment><USER46> How about they just create an official parking lot that has a good view of the sign for the tourists, to funnel them all there.

</comment><comment><USER47> What does Apple Maps do?

<comment><USER48> It gives you directions to Hollywood, Worcestershire (UK).

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> does anybody know what's the current situation of this? I'm going to LA in a few weeks and I would like to know if I can get to see the sign.

<comment><USER50> I drove to the address 3204 Canyon Lake Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068 mentioned in the article about 2 months ago. That's a really good spot I can recommend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I've never been to LA, but now I know.</comment>


Tesla's "World System" in 1900 mirrors our Wireless nG Obsession in 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://avantlive.wordpress.com/2019/08/29/teslas-wireless-obsession-and-his-proposed-world-system-in-1900/ <comment><USER2> No it does not..

different frequency,

different mode of energy transfer,

different number of required transmitters,

nG is only for communication not power</comment>


Type 1 diabetes cure enters human trials - <AUTHOR> http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/03/14/diabetes-of-mice-and-men.aspx <comment><AUTHOR> Another source:

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080313125344.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080313125344.htm)</comment>


Waud.js: Web audio library - <AUTHOR> http://www.waudjs.com/ <comment><USER2> Nice library. The landing page needs some more work. The "features" section contains just keywords that are not explained. I'd like a sentence explaining each feature: what it does and when/why it is useful. For example, at first I didn't understand what "Auto Mute" meant. That was until I played a sound while I switched to another tab, which made the sound stop. When would one want to use auto mute? To me it felt unnatural/unwanted, almost like a bug. Explain why Web Audio API is used when available. What will not work (if applicable) when using the HTML5 Audio fallback? In what kind of web applications would I want to use Waud.js? Games?

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the feedback. Will try and improve the home page. Auto mute can be helpful in cases like watching a video in one tab and if you don't want audio from another tab interfering, on devices when you press home button or when you receive a call, playing 2 games in 2 tabs, etc. Just there if you need it. Everything will work exactly the same way whether the browser supports web audio api or not. That's the aim anyway and if it doesn't its a bug. Definitely useful for games and any web apps that needs audio playback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> API docs link is a 404. But I'm looking to try this. Have you worked around with any of the audio playback changes (onlick vs. ontouchend vs onmouseup) in iOS 9/10? I'm curious what "audio unlock" on iOS means.

<comment><USER3> Fixed API link. Audio playback changes in iOS 9/10 are handled in the library. Tested on various devices including iOS 6 and iOS 10 beta. If you notice any issues please report.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> strikingly similar to WAD - [https://github.com/rserota/wad](https://github.com/rserota/wad)

</comment><comment><USER6> I just wish this would work on mobile.

<comment><USER3> It was tested on all major mobile devices. If you have any issues on mobile, please report it.

<comment><USER6> Even recording audio?

<comment><USER7> Web Audio API is all about playback. The media capture API can tackle recording, and it works on mobile: [http://simpl.info/mediacapture/](http://simpl.info/mediacapture/)

<comment><USER8> I thought that only works for video? Wouldn't you want navigator.getUserMedia for audio only?

<comment><USER6> Right, and on iOS, it just leaves the browser and opens the video recording app.

Unless something has changed, getUserMedia still doesn't work on Chrome/Android or iOS/Safari yet.

<comment><USER8> I believe you're correct - the state of audio recording on the web via browser is still awful. We are just finishing an investigation at work on my team, and find that we cannot avoid the use of Flash to record for IE/Edge/Safari...our only saving grace is that this app is mainly intended for desktop use.

I wish mobile browser vendors didn't avoid this problem - I get that they're all prioriizing different things, but the state of audio/video recording & playback is abysmal.

<comment><USER9> Have you checked SoundCloud's implementation?

[https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/sdks#recording](https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/sdks#recording) [https://github.com/soundcloud/soundcloud- javascript](https://github.com/soundcloud/soundcloud-javascript)

I'm not sure if they solve the problem you face but I know they support Audio recording via their Javascript SDK and I thought it might be useful to you.

<comment><USER6> The documentation cautions you to "make sure to check if the user's browser supports all of it (1, 2, 3) before you start recording." All of it being "getUserMedia, Web Workers and the Web Audio API."

Surprisingly, it DOES look like getUserMedia is supported by Android browser and Android Chrome now (with some weird namespace prefix/object).

[http://caniuse.com/#feat=stream](http://caniuse.com/#feat=stream)

Still doesn't work on anything iOS though (until Apple puts it in Safari).

So no dice for HTML5 on mobile still (I've been waiting since 2012 for some way to support in-browser web-based audio recording, sigh). :|

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My only complaint is it is written in Haxe instead of ES6. It would make sense to code it in Haxe if it were to be ported to PHP, C++ and the likes but it appears to be strictly for web audio

<comment><USER11> I don't want to derail this whole submission talking about haxe, but this is the first time I've really ever looked at it.

It's not like haxe is some kind of crazy offshoot language, it looks pretty damn close to typescript and flow (But to me this looks closer to "regular javascript" than most typescript and flow does).

With the exception of the `@:expose` and `@:keep` stuff, there isn't anything i've seen yet just browsing through the source that I don't understand (as a javascript developer), and i've never seen the language before in my life.

<comment><USER12> I'm guessing you've already looked into those keywords, but @:expose and @:keep are Haxe compiler metadata. These are tags that are used to provide additional information to the compiler. A full list is here: [https://haxe.org/manual/cr-metadata.html](https://haxe.org/manual/cr- metadata.html)

In many cases, compiler metadata is specific to a given target. E.g., they can be quite common on extern definitions. This allows the Haxe language to stay small, while providing flexibility for better target interoperability.

In this case, @:expose will expose certain methods to the global namespace, and @:keep will prevent the compiler from removing code with its dead code elimination functionality. Both of these are very useful for creating and maintaining js libraries, regardless of whether or not the library is also cross-platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What is going on, why on earth are we now encoding audio in base64?

It's gone beyond getting angry, now I'm just sad for the state of this whole schlamassel.

<comment><USER3> The only reason for encoding audio in base64 is to reduce the number of requests which in turn reduces the loading time. It's an alternative to audio sprites. Useful when you have a lot of audio files to load.

<comment><USER14> Hey Adi the link to API Docs seems broken.

[http://www.waudjs.com/docs/](http://www.waudjs.com/docs/)

<comment><USER2> Working link: [http://www.waudjs.com/api/](http://www.waudjs.com/api/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wikipedia: List of Long-Term Abusers - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/List <comment><AUTHOR> > Inserts random images of ceiling fans into any articles, and even links to > videos of them. He also has a tendency to randomly thank certain Wikipedia > users. At the same time, while on Commons, he will load a ventilator/ceiling > fan image over any medium or high use image that he targets.

or:

> Prolific sockpuppeter with over 500 socks which inserts hoaxes about lions > existing in Montana.</comment>


Show HN: Frankenstormtrooper.com - Turning Buzz to Bills  - <AUTHOR> http://www.frankenstormtrooper.com

<comment><USER2> Except if a bunch of people get killed, then you'll just look like a profiteering dick.

</comment><comment><USER3> Brilliant validation tool!</comment>


Apple Watch Is Smart, but It Can't Replace Your Doctor - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/upshot/apple-watch-atrial-fibrillation.html <comment><USER2> Can we not have links to articles behind paywalls, even if there are websites that can extract the text. In a side note statistically the best thing you can do for your health is have one primary care physician for as long as possible and do many checkups. This will give the best increase to life expectancy.</comment>


Apple rejecting apps that require user registration first? - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/08/22/apple-rejecting-apps-that-require-user-registration-first/ <comment><USER2> I love an Apple pile-on as much as the next guy, but this really isn't that controversial. Apple doesn't want you needlessly gathering info (including tracking info, which _is_ personal info, so "just" a username and password would count). The only things you can put behind a user/pass wall are things that require account-based tracking. Apple's letter was pretty clear about this.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know how much data this app needed to be input before operation. But I understand Apple's concern. Requiring a registration with lots of data before an app can be evaluated is annoying. Also the app can be easily be changed to get accepted.

</comment><comment><USER4> This does indeed seem odd. I've never heard of any other cases were an app has gotten rejected because of this. At least, not in a case where it was publicized. Hopefully more info will arise on this issue.</comment>


Google Nexus Q: The social streaming media player - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_q

<comment><USER3> I'm not quite sure why it's $300. Apple sells their Apple TV for $100 and it's nearly the same device. The Nexus Q comes with a 25-watt amplifier with traditional audio ports (rather than just optical) and a mute button, but that seems to be the large difference. Oh, and it has color-shifting LEDs that coordinate with the music. Apple TV even has a similar "let your guests vote on the music at a party" app.

The direct connection for speakers is nice, but I guess I feel like it could have been accomplished for under $200 - considering that I can order a 100-watt receiver for under $100.

Granted, Google has put in 1GB of RAM (vs 512MB in the Apple TV) and a dual- core processor (vs. the single-core Apple TV), but does that translate into anything? The Apple TV handles 1080p video (including high profile H.264).

I guess I'm just left wondering why it's costing so much - <USER2> considering that the Nexus 7 has a quad-core processor, 1GB of RAM, a battery, and a screen for $100 less.

<comment><USER4> While the Apple TV has one processor, it has two GPUs and each GPU is more powerful than the one Google chose (Apple TV uses the SGX543MP2). My guess is that the chip in this and the Apple TV are very similar prices.

The amp has to be a bit of the price, but I don't really get that addition. Like a lot of people, I have a receiver and speakers in my family room. Is this device aimed at people in dorm rooms and studio apartments that don't have dedicated sound systems? That's all I can think of.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't even support Netflix, MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, Hulu or other streaming services that $99 and less devices do (although none support all of those).

For the price of this, a person could buy an iPhone 4S and an Apple TV.

<comment><USER5> The integrated 25 watt Class D amplifier wouldn't account for more than $20 of the parts cost. That's about how much it costs to buy one wholesale -- including a case and power supply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get what the point of this product is. Why would I want to have my "good speakers" only connected to one source device? Why would I want it to be connected to a 12.5W/channel amplifier? [0]

It's too expensive as a source device (ala Apple TV), it's too expensive as streaming audio device (ala third party AirPlay speakers) and I can't imagine there'd be a lot of customers who'd want to use it as both.

\--

[0] I own a similar spec Tripath amp, and while 12.5W isn't nothing, it's not party music.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's a $299 market competitor to the $99 Apple TV.

It's round with several thick cables sticking out of the back with an array of ports -- an odd industrial design to me. The LEDs are really, really cool though.

<comment><USER5> The biggest selling point of the Apple TV is what it looks like: almost nothing. It's easy to disappear the thing behind your TV or above your cable box.

The Nexus Q looks like a cable squid.

<comment><USER4> I have mine underneath my TV stand/media cabinet. It cannot be seen from the couch or really anywhere in the living room.

The Apple TV's ability to just disappear really is it's biggest selling point.

<comment><USER5> And its second-biggest selling point is its remote control. Best. Remote control. Ever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good product. Terrible price. I think it would be successful at $99 but $299 just kills it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Its made in the US with parts from US suppliers. Be interesting to see if US consumers will pay premium for that over other devices like the AppleTV.

</comment><comment><USER9>
      "Designed and Manufactured in the U.S.A."

Thats a first!?

</comment><comment><USER10> It looks really cool. Pausing and resuming across devices is awesome. I just... 300. $300 is a lot. The tablet has a display, and it's less expensive.

That amp must be really expensive.

<comment><USER11> That's what I thought when I saw it. How does a tablet have a screen, a battery, and more flash cost less than a 25w amp with some plugs on it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can we appreciate for a moment that this is a product that is _manufactured in the United States_. I hope this is a step forward in the manufacturing of our consumer electronics, and by doing this, it makes it so doing manufacturing in the United States becomes more of a possibility to more of our companies.

I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws.

<comment><USER13> >I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws.

Maybe for a laptop, $200 makes sense but three times the cost? That's way too much. Anyway, I have a HTPC hooked up(a 6 year old Dell with Windows 8) so I am not in the market for such a device. but a 200% price increase is just too much for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> $299 kills it dead. A complete flub in an otherwise great keynote event.

For that steep a price it had better hover in the air like a magic orb.

</comment><comment><USER15> It has a built in amplifier so it eliminates the need for other audio hardware. Apple TV looks too small to have an amp. As someone who hates audio hi-fi hardware and all the related nonsense, I think I'm sold. For example, it can power a small pair of bookshelf speakers. There's a pair of speakers in the Google Play store.

<comment><USER5> Or you could just buy one of the many AirPlay speakers on the market?

Have you had a chance to hear the Audyssey Audio Dock Air? That thing kicks some serious musical reproduction butt, and doesn't require any cables other than for electricity.

<comment><USER15> thanks but i wouldn't go that route for several reasons. i like the idea of simple, normal, default speakers. they are not tied to any standard like airplay and they just do one thing well - make sound. a wireless audio signal may suffer from interference in some situations. i don't like apple itunes at all, but that is just my personal preference. i've always avoided itunes and have used foobar2000, songbird, anything but itunes. i have a lot of classical music in FLAC files and just don't want to deal with Apple and their rule of the month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's what looks like the design inspiration for the Nexus Q (and for its promo video): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU>

</comment><comment><USER17> this is google's answer to the $99 apple tv??

the problem is, even if it is a great steamer, how many of your friends would have android phones or tablets?

<comment><USER18> According to the market share figures from last November (the most recent I've seen), the majority of them will have Android phones. Your point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet."

Same will probably apply to most of the features for android/play introduced today.

</comment><comment><USER20> I may be one of the few on HN, but I think this was a great move from Google. If this device is open, you can write games for it (or pull existing games from play) stream music, videos, and other content from your google drive. Its a push to make other Google products more valuable.

I think the HN crowd quickly forgets that not everyone can build themselves an entertainment PC.

</comment><comment> old-gregg Hearing all your groanings regarding price, is easy to understand why we "can't have nice things". To make you happy, everything needs to be disposable, lightweight, made in China using the cheapest components available, wrapped in cheap squeaky plastic which smells like my dog's feet. That, or supported by ads or a giant media/appstore sales like AppleTV or Kindle.

<comment><USER4> It's the built in amp. It's a risky move to be sure. There will be a market for this for sure, but $299 is a lot. It also has more wireless technology than your average media streaming device. Being made in America is not adding a lot to this price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can play all the music from my google play account? What about my iTunes account , spotify account or the random MP3s I have on my system?

Oh , so I can't play any music then?

<comment><USER3> To be fair, Google will sync your (un-DRM'd) iTunes music (and whatever other music). It takes a while to upload and there's a limit on the number of songs (20,000?), but it does have that utility.

<comment><USER22> 20,000 is a ton. I synced my entire library into it and it was a couple hundred gigs. It also takes higher quality than Apple I believe (320 kbps mp3) and converts down FLAC, OGG, etc.

<comment><USER23> Aye now, 320kbps MP3 >! 256 kbps AAC. Aurally they are almost imperceptible.

<comment><USER22> Interesting, I didn't realize that I can't downvote replies to my comments. Not that I was going to here, but I did notice the lack of a down arrow.

<comment><USER23> It was taken away (I think a few months ago) because some users were using it as retribution. The order of things was useful or inciteful comments should rise to the top and everything will drift down. Now if they integrate a threshold filter ala Slashdot that would be useful. But yeah, the lack of the down arrow doesn't really do anything except to the root comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> woah, first it's the learning machine, now cable squid, lemme guess they're big fans of the Matrix movies :-D. Can't wait to see the exoskeletons...

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this a DLNA playback device? If not, Google is really, really betting on Play.

Also, why is no one asking the obvious question? How does this intersect and/or overlap with Google TV? Is this a Google TV device? And if not, why not?

<comment><USER26> For the same reason no-one asks after Chrome OS much anymore: Google doesn't seem to know why they're making it or where it fits. Until they figure that out for themselves, they're not going to have any useful answers to give us.

<comment><USER25> I guess?! With the power and OS in the Q, it seems obvious that they would simply make it a Google TV device. If it were cheaper, I could see it as a way of pushing Google Play services, but honestly, I doubt there are enough people heavily enough invested in Google Play services to warrant _investing_ in a $300 standalone device.

I'm using a Raspberry PI now as a DLNA media receiver. I can use a phone or a tablet to stream media from my server to my TV for an extremely tiny cost compared to this.

I don't understand the value proposition. I know people like to act like Google does things willy-nilly, and I don't normally agree, but I do _not_ understand the proposed positioning for this device.

<comment><USER26> You already recognized the positioning: it's all about Google Play.

Google TV exists/existed because Google wants to be in the living room. But they can't get TV makers on board. They can't get content owners on board. They can't get ISPs on board. They got some OEMs on board and tried to let developers 'solve' the content problem as it was solved for iOS and Android, but that bombed spectacularly.

So now what? Now they've got a fledgling content service in want of players. And now they're going to try to use _that_ to get consumers to put Google devices in their living rooms and dorm rooms.

And maybe, just maybe, they'll flip GoogleTV back into the game as/if it picks up steam an developers start begging for access. (the specs are certainly overkill for a streaming set-top box)

But who really knows? If these things sell without Android apps, and Apple doesn't push the issue by allowing apps on the Apple TV, why wouldn't they carve direct deals that give them veto power as Apple has done?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Anyone else think it's stupid that they've released a supplemental piece of hardware at $299 when the Nexus7 itself is selling at $199?</comment>


Green card applicant banned from ever coming to USA because of a checkmark - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chasing-american-dream-anton-kravchenko/ <comment><USER3> I know this from my own experience, HR departments in most smaller companies in the US are unfamiliar with US immigration laws and are sometimes cavalier about the forms. When a mistake is made they think that it's just an oopsy and it'll work itself out. They have to fill out I-9s all the time even for American employees. It would be easy for someone to just fill it out by rote not realizing the horrible consequence. Also speaking from experience, even specialist lawyers make mistakes so getting an immigration specialist does not inoculate you from a game over situation. The decisions are often arbitrary and not consistent. This is even more an issue when directly dealing with a border agent who has infinite power, is not a lawyer, yet has to deal with nuances of immigration law. You can't appeal (unless perhaps you go the congress route but I've am not familiar with that option). All the people here who bravely sit in their high tower and pronounce judgement about this consequential error have either never had to face the same situation but I'm sure they've all had bad speeding tickets and other bureaucratic errors go against them. I'm sure they feel much different then even when the consequences are not as severe. And if you really just think tough luck you deserved it then you are just a bad person.

</comment><comment><USER4> This might help; it might not:

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

Excerpt:

"Members of the United States Congress serve as federal-level ombudsmen in their oversight capacity over federal agencies, and employ staff specifically dedicated to legal compliance enforcement and investigations of maladministration on behalf of constituents."

So, maybe write to some of the members of United States Congress, and/or the people that work in their offices (staffers)...

Also see:

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

Opinion: The U.S. could use more Ombudsmen, specifically at Federal, State, Local, and Agency levels...

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

"Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches of government to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent of separation of powers is to _prevent the concentration of unchecked power by providing for checks and balances_."

Not saying I'm right... those are just one man's opinions...

Anyway, good luck with your case!

</comment><comment><USER5> The morale of the story: don't sign incomplete forms.

As for the GC case, I believe he can still make it work if he makes enough noise to get noticed by governor-level politicians. As a backup plan, he can immigrate to Canada: about the same culture, with only a few minor differences.

Whether he really needs to make it work is another question. As I get older, from time to time I entertain the idea of eventually retiring to a cheaper country, as the likely alternative is be robbed by the cruel healthcare system in my 50s or 60s.

I agree that America is the best place for ambitious smart single dudes without health problems, but as those dudes get older, they quickly realize that their exceptionally well paying job doesn't buy them a house near their workplace (especially in SF!), that all the family related things are ludicrously expensive and that any moderately severe health issues will empty their nice 500k savings accounts real quick.

<comment><USER6> How can you avoid signing 'an incomplete form' when so much problems can be caused by marking a checkbox? How can you avoid someone doing that after the fact?

<comment><USER7> I think he should have checked the fourth box. [IANAIL]

If someone else completed this, the problem is that to check the fourth box you must add some "Alien or Admission number" that the other person didn't know. It's easier to check the first box that doesn't ask more questions.

Edit: I like the explanation in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21932422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21932422)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The only real way to get something like this fixed is (if you live in SF proper) to contact Rep Nancy Pelosi's office, or Sen Feinstein or Harris' offices.

I know someone who had their GC application indefinitely postponed by USCIS until Pelosi's office started asking questions. Then it was magically approved.

<comment><USER9> My mother had to do the same with her Congresscritter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Although it is possible this kind of insanity could be legally reversed, the personal strain and financial cost would be huge. Purely pragmatically and not because it's right, I would get on with my life in some other country and try to put this behind me.

What a stupid situation

</comment><comment><USER11> > When taking the job, I signed an incomplete I-9 application, which later was > completed by the employer stating that I was a U.S. citizen.

This seems real shady on the employer's part. I wonder if that is something they encouraged.

</comment><comment><USER12> Remind me of a UK national I know who used to work for one of the biggest US corporation in the 90s. He was based in the US and had to come to a trade show in Europe at the time of his work permit renewal. For some reason that's still unclear, it was denied. As he had a rather high level position, the company set their best lawyers on the case. The CEO was even involved and phoned his connections. Still no dice.

He ended up working for one of their European offices. The weird part is that he could still travel freely to the US without visa, so it was not even some security agency interference (and it was before 9/11 anyway.)

</comment><comment><USER13> This guy (immigration lawyer) is good at resolving these kinds on SNAFUs.

[https://www.kuver.com/](https://www.kuver.com/)

</comment><comment><USER14> US immigration law is so draconian with so many gotchas, it's impossible for any person to keep track of all the actions they need to take.

This linkedin post is an example of one of those gotchas.

Does anyone know that employers need to reverify I-9 docs for visa hires everytime they get a new ead card or a new I-797? Does anyone know that drivers license needs to be renewed every single time? Whoch means taking an appointment, standing there for a day and showing the same shit documents all over again? Only to receive the drivers license after 2 months by snail mail?

Does anyone know that this has to be done even if they change jobs?

Does anyone know that if they move from one location to another they not only have to refile paperwork with USCIS, they also have to update every change in their address?

Oh btw, god forbid the USCIS cannot process documents in time (six months). They will then straggle along for 180 days or 240 days or god knows what number of days apply to what cases. What happens to I-9 in these cases? What happens to drivers license in these cases? Is the employee supposed to continue working or what?

What happens if the employer forgets a step? What happens if a lawyer makes a tiny mistake? What happens if the arrogant jerk of border control makes a mistake during reentry in the US? Why does the US consulate need to have everyone give an appointment with ALL documents again and again just to stamp a visa? What happens when they delay the process?

And I haven't even started talking about green card yet. Imagine doing all of the above for 10 years, 20 years and then being trapped for a gotcha in some paperwork somewhere? A mistake by a lawyer, by some employer. Wtf!!! Are they supposed to abandon their family, kids, friends and leave the country for this gotcha?

Are they saying that USCIS never makes mistakes?

I could go on and on. The process is incredibly bureaucratic and nightmarish. People lose their mental and physical health dealing with this shit. Families get separated routinely because of bureaucratic anarchy.

And this is all for EDUCATED workers and immigrants. This does not even scratch it for refugees, daca and others.

My serious advice to anyone who likes their life is to not come to the US. If you are already in the US, exit now. Take your job and projects with you. Go to another country where you can focus on your family, kids and maybe a business.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is an unpopular position, but nevertheless it is the truth: No one has the right to emigrate to the United States. No one. No other country is criticized so heavily for having stringent immigration policies, this despite the fact that the US immigration policies are some of the loosest in the world.

<comment><USER16> I don't think that this was being argued. Being denied a Green card is fine, but doing so on the basis of an obviously tampered form doesn't seem fair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This story doesn't pass the smell test. Author claims their employer did the necessary and expensive legwork to get them a US work visa, then author signed an incomplete I9 and their employer filled it out incorrectly without double checking the necessary documents, then the people responsible move and the company folds. I guess stranger things have happened but seems likely to me this was visa fraud.

<comment><USER18> If he didn't overstay and had nothing to gain from the wrong checkbox being marked, that doesn't make much sense.

<comment><USER17> I think it does if you are skeptical of the author's account. I think it makes sense that someone not authorized to work in the US would lie on their paperwork after previously expressing frustration at the immigration process

<comment><USER18> For OPT, the employer (apparently) doesn't take part in the process of getting the visa. I think the best skeptical take would be that maybe he didn't tell his employer he had OPT status, so maybe he avoided filling out that part of the form, signed it, and hoped for the best.

<comment><USER19> He could not have OPT in 2012 (it requires a year of study), when this form had been faxed. He states as much, mentioning that his life was different "During the first year in the U.S." right before telling about this job.

So the best skeptical take is that he went to work illegally, was given I-9 and did not fill it because there was no box for his status at the time "alien, not authorized to work". Then the employer, who is hiring illegals and is not exactly straight edge either, filled it for him. This does not make much sense, though, since it would not matter for the employer without the section 2 of the form, which lists documents proving the eligibility for work.

He still broke the law but, maybe, not to the degree where he earned a ban from the U.S. This depends on how long he worked illegally.

<comment><USER18> Maybe. It's one "academic year." If he was on the F-1 learning English before that, does that count towards the one academic year of study?

<comment><USER19> It might if he had been in English classes, accredited to issue OPT. Seeing that OPT is available only for bachelor and master degree level of education and he states that he started with the elementary level of English it does not seem very likely even ignoring the fact that he also writes he only spent 6 months studying before passing TOEFL and applying to a business school in CA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >Obviously, it was a genuine human error

i'm not sure what about that is obvious.

And even if we accept that this was human error, when the form you're signing says in big print multiple times that you can go to jail for filling it out wrong, maybe don't just skip that section? I understand that this is a hard situation for this guy, but simplifying this as "one checkmark" is pretty silly. His argument that he didn't check that box is beside the point - <USER2> signed his name to an inaccurate form, which still puts him in the situation of misrepresenting his identity.

The guy wasn't some refugee fleeing a country under exceptional circumstances, he was a well-off professional moving for work. there's no excuse for not hiring an immigration lawyer to make sure all the paperwork is absolutely perfect in addition to taking a huge amount of care and double checking everything.

<comment><USER21> > there's no excuse for not hiring an immigration lawyer

1) You're quite the zero-tolerance guy, aren't you?

Except it's not that simple. Form I-9 page 1 is to be filled out by the worker within one day of starting a new job, and page 2 afterward by the employer within 2-3 days.

So you don't have time to have your immigration lawyer actually look at it, unless you got some pre-filled form, which doesn't normally happen. In fact, you fill in page one and return it to the employer for the next step.

2) Having said that, I appreciate the original blog post bringing this to my attention, and plan to be more careful with this form than the last dozen times I've signed it.

I'm pretty sharp with US employment, tax and passport forms, yet that's the first time that I've heard somebody being banned for an I-9 mistake.

<comment><USER22> something seems off though. IIRC with an I-9 you need to also provide artifacts supporting your ability to work in the US. it's curious that the article doesn't mention what documents he used and if they were appropriate for a different category.

since he didn't have a green card at that point nor US passport obviously, what documents were used to supply that evidence? e.g. "i used X and Y, which US immigration should plainly see does not support a claim of being a US citizen"

<comment><USER19> Indeed.

1\. The form has been faxed in March of 2012 judging by the text on top.

2\. According to his linkedin profile he was going to a business school in 2012 and 2013.

3\. His article states that he has taken OPT to work for a year after graduation and at the end he got job offer at MuleSoft, which was in 2014.

So what was his work authorization in or before March 2012? It could not be OPT since he just started his degree in 2012 and OPT requires a year of study ( [https://www.uscis.gov/opt](https://www.uscis.gov/opt) ). He does not seem to have any work authorization other than OPT in 2014, when he has taken the job in MuleSoft so he has not started his GC application at the time (otherwise he'd had an EAD and would not need to go to Argentina for a year to get an L1 visa in the first place). So, given only the information from Linkedin I cannot see how he could possibly be authorized to work at the time. The fact he has not filled I-9 correctly just corroborates this.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


3 of the 4 highest voted HN posts feature Apple - <AUTHOR> https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story <comment><USER2> Makes sense - Apple's impact on a lot of stuff we do in the industry is significant.</comment>


Ask HN: Will a Linux certification make a difference to my career? - <AUTHOR>

All the talk about getting a security certification got me wondering.  Is getting a Linux certification worth the effort?  I bet a lot of the same arguments for and against apply.  Discuss. <comment><USER2> For better or worse, there are employers and fields where obtaining a certification is an important signalling mechanism.

Carefully consider whether or not a Linux administration gig is one of those - I personally don't know. I know in a search for a senior Linux sysadmin at my workplace, certification has not been mentioned at all.

In other areas, particularly high-end customer support gigs in network hardware (e.g., supporting Cisco and/or Juniper gear), certifications like the CCIE are a de-facto requirement for many. Oracle work used to be this way, especially for consultants, but I don't know if that is still true.

In a more general sense, self-study and the time investment in getting certifications has intrinsic worth. Just don't think magically adding a cert tag to your resume will result in a magic increase in professional opportunities and pay.

Work on building your experience portfolio. If you want to use a certification as part of that, I don't think anyone should tell you not to.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't feel that certifications in general help much. They can be useful to an employer that's looking for them, but in general if you know what you're doing and you can communicate that to the people who are hiring, you will have a bigger advantage than someone who has certificate x. Granted there are some places that require certifications x, y, and z, but generally those places have issues hiring great people.

<comment><AUTHOR> When I look at it, the whole certification process seems so flawed when used as a repalcement for great work experience.

<comment><USER4> It depends.

A crap Linux cert will be crap. There are some good ones though, like RHCE. You can be Linux admin for years and still not pass without heavy studying. That's because there's a lab component to it.

Is it worth it? Maybe, if you're trying to sell your services, either in the form of a HR bypass filter ("Look, he's certified in Linux!") or as a consultant ("You should trust our team because we're all certified"). I know only 2 people with certs, and they fall into the latter category.

Most of the time though, I think it's not going to be worth it. If your current work will pay for it and you're willing to put in the work I can't see any negative aspects to having it, but I don't necessarily see the return on investment.

<comment><USER5> The prerequisite for RHCE, the RHCSA is also a great certification. You still have to complete a fairly challenging 4-hour lab, which means that those who pass should have a decent amount of experience with Red Hat Linux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the discussion! These are all great points to consider.</comment>