Why China doesn't dominate soccer - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/06/18/why-china-doesnt-dominate-soccer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cedd45e3e104 <comment><USER2> There is a better explanation.

Being talented individual is not enough. They have to play against other equally talented individuals in the highest level professional leagues from the age of 18 to develop tactically and technically. China needs a professional soccer league with top level foreigners or they need to send their best to European leagues. They can do it but it can take several generations.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and has most professional athletes by far. Best individuals from all over the world go to play in best professional teams, mostly in Europe and they continue to grow with better opponents and teammates. Talented Brazilians playing in top leagues all over the world a bring all that with them to their national team. Iceland (population little over 300,000) has professional players playing in England, Russia, Sweden, Netherlands ...

<comment><USER3> Iceland's success is probably not reproducible in a larger nation. Due to their numerous indoor fields, which draw on the plentiful/cheap electricity from geothermal power to keep the lights heated and grass growing, and their plethora of coaches (I heard 500 per capita) for their 300k population, it's really not feasible in China.

<comment><USER4> Here in Uruguay we don´t have cheap energy but we do have a ridiculous number of both professional and amateur leagues and coaches (and a lot of grassland to convert into soccer fields)

For a population of 3 million:

\- Pro league with 30 pro teams (each with a youth system with 7-8 teams) + 80 semi-amateur teams (with promotion to the pro leagues)

That's between 10.000 and 20.000 players in the pro system. 100 (or more) each year are sold overseas.

\- Very serious amateur league with 8.000 players every weekend in the capital city, Montevideo (any of those 8.000 players could be a pro in a weak national league) plus 2.000 players in the league for smaller cities.

\- Teenagers play leagues much like Americans might play high school and college sports, there are probably 30.000 teenagers playing in leagues

\- 140.000 players in all the leagues across all the smaller cities.

So that's about 200.000 active players for a population of 3 million - I was one until a few years ago :)

If China or India could achieve that much sports penetration (imagine 200.000.000 Chinese playing competitive soccer every weekend!), I don't doubt they'd be one of the top ranked teams in the world.

[https://www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/futbol/mundo- futbolistas.h...](https://www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/futbol/mundo- futbolistas.html)

[https://www.referi.uy/tierra- fertil-2017-emigraron-107-jugad...](https://www.referi.uy/tierra- fertil-2017-emigraron-107-jugadores-casi-10-equipos-n1155154)

<comment><USER5> India has the penetration with cricket. Football has been growing, but I don't see any significant improvement happening before at least a decade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems pretty weak and unsupported.

It can be summed up as "China doesn't excel at soccer because of authoritarianism and because the sport is not well understood by anyone and central planning doesn't help".

Ok, if you say so. Where's the evidence?

<comment> sjm-lbm Totally agree. Just to pick a specific example and add on a bit: Germany reorganized their nationwide soccer development system in the mid-2000s to be much more centralized, and that's widely considered to be one of the reasons they have risen in prominence recently (they are the current reigning World Cup champions, for instance).

<comment><USER7> > one of the reasons they have risen in prominence recently

Hmmmm....

From TFA: "West Germany ... won the World Cup in 1954, 1974 and 1990, and reached the final in 1966, 1982 and 1986."

<comment> sjm-lbm Well, there was a really bad period in between then and now.

They finished last in their group in Euro 2000, and did quite badly in 2004 (though I don't remember specifics), and those were the results that motivated several changes (or, at least, moved some already-in-progress moves towards centralization forward).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I think things like vision, communication and teamwork, spatial awareness and improvisational ability are critically important and can't be taught (though they can be learned through lots of play), this article definitely shortchanges the amount of physical and technical skills required for soccer / football that can be taught and developed through practice

Good stamina is a prerequisite for being good at soccer / football. Players run 5-10 miles per game and a lot of that is intense bursts of speed with lots of changes of direction and agile footwork -- which is incredibly tiring. A team gets a limited number of substitutions and there are no timeouts / breaks other than halftime. So you have to be in good shape, and that's definitely a skill that comes with practice

Technique / "touch" is also critical and can be developed. The most immediately striking easily observable difference btw pros and less skilled players is that pros touch is just impeccable -- the ball just goes exactly where they want it. It's like a part of their body. That comes with drills and repetition.

If you are in good shape and have a good touch, you'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level (you can also be good at this level sacrificing touch for intelligence / game sense, speed, or another attribute). But beyond that you need to either have freakish skills / athleticism and good game sense or just really good game sense

<comment><USER9> So if you look at a distribution of folks possessing the attributes required of a footballer, you can be fairly competitive amongst the general population with one or two, but the long tail of elite players requires all seven of the attributes you mention.

 _you 'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level_

If you really love the game, this sounds like a fairly satisfying career peak. A reasonably healthy player should take comfort in knowing it's achievable through effort alone.

<comment><USER8> I think that's true. I had friends I played with in high school who played D3 who were just fast and decently skilled, some who played D1 who were just very skilled and athletic but didnt have the best game sense, and some who walked on to D1 teams who werent that athletic but just disciplined, safe players -- usually central mid / defenders who could control the ball and pass quickly

As I've gotten older I've found that having decent ball control and stamina makes up for me being slower and less agile, and helps me enjoy casual pickup games with younger players. Instead of jogging I'll do dribbling exercises for a cardio workout. I love playing soccer but its harder to play as I get older, and these exercises enable me to keep playing casual pickup games

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is like asking why Brazil (pop 208M) and Nigeria (pop 191m) don't field competitive cricket teams.

Interestingly enough, China does have a fairly decent women's soccer team (~17th in the world), so they must be doing something right.

<comment><USER11> Cricket is not the most popular sport of those countries. Football is.

<comment><USER12> I think you may have misinterpreted zhdc1's point. I think they mean to say that if Brazilians and Nigerians have a cultural preference for football, why attempt to force cricket onto them?

<comment><USER11> I didn't misinterpret it, but even in the article it's mentioned that China's most popular sport is Football. So it's the same as in Brazil in that respect.

<comment><USER12> That's because they don't count martial arts.

They claim it's an "amateur" sport in china. Which is just this side of ridiculous.

Even basketball is growing faster than football in China. This despite the government propping football up. Which is not an indictment of the Chinese, just pointing out that the people there, left to their own devices, would just as soon do something other than play football.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The reasons why presented in the article aren't right as most of the commenters have pointed out.

My counter point to this is Hockey and the USSR. Hockey is also a free flowing game that relies on team discipline and individual creativity. The USSR was an amazing hockey machine.

It comes down to cultural reasons. USSR's people liked hockey and the USSR supported hockey monetarily. The USSR finds success in hockey. Brazil's people like soccer and Brazil+Brazil's private teams supported soccer monetarily. Brazil finds success in soccer. China's people don't know what they like yet. The people have just started to have have free time because of the recent economical liberalization. China has only started to support soccer monetarily. So it's reasonable to expect that China doesn't play soccer well. They could be better in the future as long as they have the time and culture change it needs.

Side note: I don't know why England sucks. The people love it, god awful amounts of money are spent on soccer/football. But thank god they haven't figured it because the world would not hear the end of it...

<comment><USER14> > _Side note: I don 't know why England sucks. The people love it, god awful > amounts of money are spent on soccer/football. But thank god they haven't > figured it because the world would not hear the end of it..._

I wonder if it just comes down to how they practise it and the level of dedication - similar to how this feature alludes in the case of cricket: [http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/653673.ht...](http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/653673.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find it hard to believe coaches of any professional Soccer/Football team abide by non-compliance of the team.

The people called out in this story are all super stars, and have more power in a sense than the coaches of their teams. Much like Lebron James is in basketball.

But if you look at other teams, like Spain, in which there is less dependence on a single player, and more on the team play, my guess is that part of that is due to the coach pushing for more passing, more calm control of the ball. Not to say they don't have individually great players on the team, but they clearly play as a team, and not individuals.

The article might be right that to excel in Soccer one needs to be more free in expression and experimentation. My theory on why Brazil excels, is that socially the sport is played almost all the time by everyone... and it's a great sport for low income areas, ball, field, game. In the US, we rarely did pickup games of soccer, even though many of us played in the neighborhood, because most of the other kids wanted to play American Football...

</comment><comment><USER16> The social structure in many cities does not enable sports. If you have a city of millions but heavy pollution, factory jobs with long hours, expensive real estate so no pitches

</comment><comment><USER17> Why United States doesn't dominate soccer?

<comment><USER18> For the US it is more about the quality of athletes and interest in the sport. The best athletes don't play soccer. They go to football, basketball, and to some extent baseball. On my son's club basketball team they regularly get some of the best soccer players in the city joining, and dropping soccer. The inverse (great basketball players joining soccer and leaving basketball) rarely/never happens.

<comment><USER19> When I was in school, we played soccer to get in shape for basketball season (we were too small to field a football team). People tried really hard to push soccer, and we were actually better at soccer than basketball, but soccer just never had the same kind of excitement. You need too many people and too much space to actually play soccer, compared to a little bit of driveway and a ubiquitous hoop for basketball - you don't even need another person, you can spend hours blissfully shooting by yourself.

<comment><USER20> Three kids, one ball, not very much space. One goes in goal (if needs be a jumper or coat on each side), the other two compete to put the ball past them x times, then rotate the goalkeeper. Continue ad nauseam.

Or go to a park and practice ball skills, solo. Ex-England captain Wayne Rooney was famous for having done that for hours at a time as a kid.

I'm not actually a particular soccer fan and quite enjoy basketball, but it's definitely not true that soccer has higher kit, space or numbers requirements to get in a game as a kid.

<comment><USER21> >Continue ad nauseam.

This is what we did. A great way to spend summer when you are teen.

As for practicing ball skills, the very nickname Pele was from the sound of the can Pele played instead of ball - his family was too poor to have soccer ball.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is a really good BBC podcast about it. There are full soccer academy's now. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066783g](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066783g) . They delve in some cultural stuff and how they need creativity and individualism in their game and should get over their players having tattoos (they make them cover them up).

</comment><comment><USER23> Is there a reason for the recent china bashing? Seemingly every article about china is finding some new way to criticise it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Having an elite soccer team requires talented players, one of the most important talents is elite running speed.

To have elite running speed you need to have a higher torso/leg ratio, basically long legs and a high center of gravity.

There are regional differences around the world with torso/leg ratios. China is on the lower end, much of Africa is on the high end.

<comment><USER25> ugh. explain Mexico then. Not a quality post here.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, this is not a good explanation at all, bordering on racist honestly. No data cited for claims, and plenty of counterexamples to disprove the point easily.

<comment><USER26> What, exactly, about the post is racist? The parent cited specific biological characteristics. Generalizations are not racist. Nobody claims it's racist to say that Kenyans tend to be good runners because of genes. In fact, The Atlantic made that claim [1]. The parent poster is making similar types of claims as The Atlantic article.

Poor post, ok. Racist, no.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why- kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Parallel to the article's argument, I'd argue football (soccer) unpredictability are due to size and diversity in almost all it's aspects: most number of fans/aspiring players, also inherently (culturally) most diverse set of potential players/strategies and leagues organization.

At the regional scale, those also tend to be the most competitive and popular leagues, enabling breeding grounds of diverse playing styles. There's diversity even in how those leagues are managed and organized.

Compared to popular US sports franchises, which according to the article and my understanding (non-american), football(soccer) leagues around the world are much less centralized.

I don't know about China now, but growing up in Asia in 90s I'd say it is hard to foster the type of rivalry/diversity/competition needed to adapt to football(soccer).

</comment><comment><USER28> China plays the US for the gold medal in Olympic BEACH VOLLEYBALL. They can dominate anything they want, they just haven't invested the effort and money into soccer yet. There are more popular sports in China like basketball which they will go after first.

<comment><USER29> Basketball? Yeah, I'm all for chasing and achieving goals...dreams in this case. But China ain't going nowhere in Basketball any time in my lifetime..or two lifetimes at that.

<comment><USER30> Average Division III teams used to beat pro chinese teams, but this was back in the 90s. They probably are better now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think that so far a weak professional league it's one of the main factors. Yes they're being able to hire some good players and coaches, but they go there because of the money and don't are at the top of their game. For example, Andre Villas Boas left the chinese club he was coaching in order to participate in Dakar rally. That would never happen if he was coaching a european club.

Investing in youth academies will be the best path to achieve a comparative level to some european leagues.

It would be interesting if they are already doing this and for how long, because we don't see any significant results yet.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is not specific to China but many larger countries who are good at other sports but they don't do well at soccer. Australia is very good at Rugby, Cricket but their soccer team is average and they make it to world cups only because of limited competition in their confederation (OFC). Domestic soccer leagues are just picking up in China. They mostly comprise to Chinese players and/or end up with retirees of European clubs (Retired Andre Iniesta of Barcelona/Spain moving to some club in China).

<comment><USER32> Nitpick: Australia is in the Asian confederation, not Oceana. Still, Asia as a whole is a weak confederation.

<comment><USER33> That's not even a minor nitpick - the AFC is much more competitive. Not quite the level of UEFA or CONMEBOL but the latter stages have plenty of potential banana skins and qualification is by no means guaranteed. Indeed Australia were narrowly edged by France a few days back and today drew with Denmark - both well regarded UEFA nations. They're genuinely a decent side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Its simple really, chinese ppl in general dont care about sports let alone hockey, most of my friends have never been to a hockey game, or baseball or a soccer match. Chinese people would rather work and have other hobbies outside of sports. Sports isnt the end all be all. its actually not very important at all in the big scheme, you can get excerise in many other ways and be successful in many different professions.

</comment><comment><USER35> Dynamic coordination among a group of people. Top down approach does not work best under this. It's not reactive enough. There are just so many to talk about regarding this. But I think that's one of the very core dimensions of this game. And there are so many other national teams do not reach their potentials. China is a nice key word for clickbait. And it worked well.

</comment><comment><USER36> Wrong tittle, should be: why China doesn't dominate soccer yet.

They are investing heavily, buying loads of European youth football trainers, scouting their own youth at great rate and building their league up pretty fast.

You heard it here first: they will host the World Cup football in 2030 or 34 and will be contesting for the highest rank.

</comment><comment><USER37> Wasn't china good in the early 2000's? I think they made it to the finals or something, what happened?

</comment><comment><USER38> Soccer is slow. Soccer takes too long to fail. Expend energy running across the field to take one shot.

</comment><comment><USER39> What sports to Chinese kids play?

<comment><USER40> Ping Pong, Basketball, and e-sports..

<comment><USER41> How does basketball get popular amongst a shorter population for widespread playing - according to this chart [http://www.wecare4eyes.com/averageemployeeheights.htm](http://www.wecare4eyes.com/averageemployeeheights.htm) average height in PRC is one of the bottom few.

I'm above average in UK but playing basketball or volleyball my height was always a major disadvantage. I realise you can improve your jump game (plyometrics ftw!) but still ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There are articles online that claim the opposite. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

</comment><comment><USER43> read: Why India doesn't dominate soccer

</comment><comment><USER44> paywall

</comment><comment><USER45> > American mainstream sports tend to rely heavily on the authoritarian figure > of the coach, who draws up plays for obedient players to execute.

Which sports is the author referring to other than American Football? I played volleyball, and the coach had little control over the way a serve would play out other than which players were on the court.

<comment><USER46> > Which sports is the author referring to other than American Football?

I mean this pretty clearly refers to Baseball as well.

<comment><USER39> Almost the only play planning in baseball is the catcher calling pitches. Everything else is reaction to where the ball goes. The coach does staffing.

<comment><USER47> The manager (the head of a baseball team is the manager, not the coach, for whatever reason) is also responsible for putting on the shift, telling the batter to bunt, calling for stolen base attempts, and other strategic things along those lines.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Mimetype – Golang library for file type identification - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gabriel-vasile/mimetype <comment><USER2> Awesome, i will definitely use this in my project.

I've been looking for this, thank you for sharing!</comment>


Halifax Caught Coping Monzo's Brand - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/t_blom/status/1116664454521999360 <comment><USER2> This kind of thing is disgraceful. I enjoy it when social media shines a spotlight on this kind of half-assed design theft.</comment>


Trigger.io - mobile platform for web developers - <AUTHOR> https://trigger.io/ <comment><USER2> Too bad there's no trial.</comment>


Famous logos redesigned with the new Microsoft Style - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/a/M57Yk#7

<comment><USER2> The London 2012 logo is better than the one they used, I think.

<comment><USER3> Agreed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> what is the font?</comment>


'Don't vape. Don't use Juul': Juul CEO issues stark warning to non-smokers - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-ceo-dont-vape-long-term-effects-unknown-2019-8 <comment><USER2> They went to schools to tell kids "You should not use our product, our product is for adults. OBTW our product is very safe!" Even teenagers saw through the smokescreen: this wasn't an anti-vaping message, this was a sales pitch.

Also, they design their products to be usable while hidden within your palm. Some adults might like this but this is clearly intended for teenagers to be able to get access to nicotine discreetly while still in school.

<comment><USER3> I think it's a stretch to say that just because the item fits easily within your palm it's, "clearly intended for teenagers to be able to get access to nicotine discreetly while still in school."

<comment><USER4> I don't think so at all. If I put myself in the shoes of marketing or R&D, it's totally obvious that "easily hidden in the palm" would have _probably_ come from a brainstorming session where one of the items was was some version of "teens want to avoid getting caught". It's not necessarily what happened, but it's miles from unrealistically cynical.

<comment><USER5> Why would they want to sell to teens? Like, the market is huge enough to sell to over 18, selling to 12-17 year olds is only going to get you in trouble.

<comment><USER6> They're not directly selling to teens, but they are indirectly selling them... and the entire big tobacco industry has been doing so for decades. You get them hooked early in life so you have a lifetime customer... that's been their tactic

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me a bit of a certain futurama episode where Bender tried to warn people away from eating Popplers.

[https://theinfosphere.org/Transcript:The_Problem_with_Popple...](https://theinfosphere.org/Transcript:The_Problem_with_Popplers)

Bender: Hear me, hear me! Stop eating Popplers! Stop eating them with honey mustard sauce. Stop eating them with tangy sweet-and-sour sauce. Stop eating the new fiesta Poppler salad. Stop taking advantage of the money-saving 12-pack.

</comment><comment><USER8> Remember that in certain age groups they actually want to do something they shouldn't be doing.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm not so familiar with this company, so I searched for "juul ad" images. The people in the ads look awfully young. Twentysomethings.

<comment><USER10> What's your point? Plenty of twentysomethings smoke

<comment><USER11> And they're way less uncool than 40+ people from a teenager's perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> bad publicity is still publicity. This is a non-story. Kindly go bust please

<comment><USER13> Would you prefer a Chinese corporation corner the market instead?

<comment><USER12> No, I wouldn't.

A chinese company cannot do business _in_ the USA, they need to register locally at which point they become an American company, technically, to be held accountable under US law.

The concern of nationhood or nationality might be a matter of degree, as well as the details and beaurocratic workarounds, however of fleeting interest because a potentially worse morallity of the Chinese is not indicated. If you note that leaving profits up for grabs to a competing economy, whether the profit was ethicallly dignified or not ... then the moral of the story still sucks?

If you hold equivalently that making profit and not smoking were imperative, then we could have an argument that applies to competition in general. The argument is interesting, if it implies, that non-smoking were a profit, and that profiting from idiots were imperative. Then we could have an argument about obsession and compulsion, that is, addiction and dependence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this what it looks like when a corporation has a morality, rather than just maximizing shareholder value?

<comment><USER15> The company's "mission" has always been that of "we provide a healthy alternative to smoking cigarettes". I remember reading that was the internal koolaid that got people to work there - they weren't creating new smokers, they were converting cigarette smokers to a healthy vaping option.

Whether that is true in reality is dubious, but I'm not surprised their CEO would come out publicly and say something like that.

<comment><USER16> It's false, at least insofar as teen smoking goes. E-cigarettes have more or less completely erased any gains in getting teens to stop smoking over the past couple decades. [https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jun/12/t...](https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jun/12/tim- kaine/has-vaping-wiped-out-progress-reducing-youth-smoki/)

<comment><USER5> No! Read the article. Teens are vaping more but smoking less. The article is equivocal about the health effects of vaping and smoking but that is ridiculous. Smoking is a known cause of early death. Suggesting that "we don't know" about vaping is just silly. Replacing a known killer with something that probably doesn't kill is good.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you a mobile dev looking for a challenge? - <AUTHOR>

For our startup www.pinkelstar.com we are looking for experienced Android / iPhone developers. We're based in Amsterdam but do not have an issue with remote working from other locations. We offer long working hours, an inspiring and challenging environment and a possibility to become part of a great team of smart and experienced devs in a startup that aims to offer extremely useful and cool mobile services to mobile developers<p>If interested respond in the comments or send us a mail at firstname.lastname@example.com <comment><USER2> I'm not a developer, but i think you have a interesting product but i am struggling to understand how is pinkelstar going to make money?

Are you going to sell the library? or Be a consultancy service for other mobile developers? Just trying to understand the business model.

Sorry, if i take this post in another direction

<comment><AUTHOR> For now we are trying to build a platform that mobile developers will care about and want to integrate into their apps. We are focussing on the developer's ease of use and added value. We know what to do with the business model, but that isn't something I am willing to discuss here at this time. However, when we are ready for it I will definitely write a post about it and explain what our model will be about

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _We offer long working hours_

How is that a good thing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Its a startup, better get used to it now then discover it later. Don't get me started on the pay ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> long working hours? Are you looking for an employee or a cofounder?

<comment><AUTHOR> team member, friend, employee</comment></comment>


People Chose Bing Over Google Nearly 2:1 in Blind Comparison Tests – Really? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/thedetails/archive/2012/08/06/bingchallenge.aspx

<comment><USER3> As interesting as this may seem - take it with a grain of salt. One very effective way of biasing these surveys are to run them a number of times - <USER2> there is any significant variance in the results - you can always ignore the studies that didn't work out well, and publicize the one that does.

Far better for a third-party to commission these studies and do them once, and see what the results are.

<comment><USER4> yes, I would love to see third party replication for this result.

Another thing to keep in mind with this study is it tests users in an abstracted environment. E.g., things you might find useful when comparing two sets of ten results may not be the things you find useful when you're looking for a hotel in new york.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Actually this wouldn't surprise me for some searches. When searching for say "new york hotels" I often find Google's attempts at "trying to help" to be annoying.

I don't want to see the main search results dedicated to showing an arbitrary selection of local new york hotels. I just want the links to sites like Expedia etc who will show me ALL the hotels.</comment>


Orbital Sciences Launching 1st Cygnus Spacecraft to ISS on Sept. 18 10:50AM EDT - <AUTHOR> http://www.space.com/22841-private-cygnus-spacecraft-launch-test-webcast.html

<comment><USER2> Now 16:58 CEST/14:58 GMT

[https://twitter.com/esa/status/380323691227123712](https://twitter.com/esa/status/380323691227123712)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Live: [http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv](http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv)</comment>


Is there the equivalent of "pre-martial counseling" for a potential cofounder? - <AUTHOR> I've watched what I could find on YC's take on this - I have a potential cofounder who :
- Has deep domain experience - Balances the startup's roles: He sales/marketing/networking vs me as technical/designer
- Both share same profession & passion to solving this problem.
I'm fine with giving equal or near-equal equity (though I'm still looking at the 1 year cliff/4 year vesting concepts).
Mainly, what I have is a fear of commitment.  I've been working on this solo for so long and that has been a mistake of mine.  However, I can't make one mistake push me into making another and choose a bad co-founder.
Are there any other resources you recommend me check out? Risk redundancy and share with me something that might have slipped through the cracks. <comment><USER2> A couple recommendations...

1\. Get References: ask for references for previous employers/managers and coworkers. You'll want to focus those conversations around the potential co- founder's skills, work ethic, style, motivations and attitude.

2\. Fear Setting: if you're not familiar, lookup "Tim Ferris Fear Setting." It's a good exercise to get all your fears and doubts and worst case scenarios down on paper so you can work through addressing them.

3\. Operating Agreement: define and document a clear set of operating agreements outlining roles, expectations, separations procedures, etc. Hash it all out now so there's no confusion or guessing if things do fall apart.

4\. Temp to Perm/Sweat Equity: if this person's truly motivated to be a cofounder with you, consider a short term trial period that's unpaid and non- equity with a clear set of tasks and goals. If they agree to it, and complete it successfully, they may have proven worthy to join.</comment>


Metaprogramming for madmen - <AUTHOR> http://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/metaprogramming-for-madmen/ <comment><USER2> This is an amazing insight into how demos are written. Farbrausch stuff has always been inspirational to me.

It's very interesting is the sort of extreme version of the idea that data model and code are inherently tied: Especially in functional programming circles it's a maxim that you design your data models first, specifically for your task, and then the rest of the code is pretty much pattern-matching around that. This takes that coupling and makes it even tighter, to serve a higher purpose. I almost feel like given enough time, this could be a JIT: an executable that adaptively strips code and self-minifies over time as you run it. :)

Also check out: \- kkrieger (windows only 96kb 3D FPS, video here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG- sKFaB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG-sKFaB0)) \- the previous post ([http://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/debris-opening- the-b...](http://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/debris-opening-the-box/))

<comment><AUTHOR> > an executable that adaptively strips code and self-minifies over time as you > run it

i wonder if a lot of the dead code paths are already eliminated at runtime by the branch predictors in modern CPUs/GPUs. of course it would make no difference for size on disk (which can be argued is mainly useful for code golf and edu these days), but it would be cool to get that feedback in some format without needing to exert any additional effort.

<comment><USER3> Do you know much about branch prediction? It seems pretty darn interesting. I'm just curious as to how something like that would work with a path that potentially has side-effects. I don't really know how things work very well at that level, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

<comment><AUTHOR> i dont know any more than the wiki entry, which is not difficult to digest :)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fun read. I didn't realize this was from 2012, but it helps explain that jarring click into the first link for .kkrieger, lol [http://www.theprodukkt.com/](http://www.theprodukkt.com/).

More info on it here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger) & makmanalp posted a youtube video.

</comment><comment><USER5> This brings back fond memories of trying to get a 4k under the magic 4096 bytes. You get really good at reusing data.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is how Go's test coverage tool works, except in the Go case it was easy to do because there are libraries for reading and writing Go source code in the standard library.

Details: [http://blog.golang.org/cover](http://blog.golang.org/cover)

<comment><USER7> GCC can do it as well, compile your code with --coverage and `gcov -c` will tell you how often each branch was taken.</comment></comment>


Research advance leads to production of more than 250k chips embedded in fibers - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2019/fabrics-new-software-0522 <comment><USER2> Wait, this is talking about actual physical fabrics ... woven textiles.

See this is why I hate figurative terms like "data fabrics" all over the place. It makes for terrific confusion when the real thing comes along.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this dryer compatible with Microsoft Silk and Apple iMesh? hmmm.</comment>


Web platform primitives for foldable devices - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/master/Foldables/explainer.md <comment><USER2> The continual expansion of web standards for one off devices and use cases only ensures that only Google can afford to build a browser.

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft, please don't expand the standard on your own. Don't add yet another <blink> tag

<comment><USER4> It's a proposal. And if it gets built will be in Chromium.

The usual lifecycle for these things now is propose, implement, gather data from usage experiments, refine, and standardize.

There will also be statements for or against from the other browser vendors and interested parties.

<comment><USER3> I don't need a "standard" that will only work on a gimmick Microsoft device. So, everyone, please help us bury it.

<comment><USER5> This is meant to work with other android devices too. It explicitly says so in the introduction.

Microsoft has actually contributed quite a lot to web standards over the years.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Name.com Mail is a nightmare - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@appsonify/name-com-mail-is-a-nightmare-ec1b774aafd

<comment><USER2> Support on their "RapidPress" Wordpress Hosting is terrible as well.</comment>


Ask HN: Where are the Chicago tech geeks? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a student in Chicago and I've had a hard time finding a tech scene here, at least one that I fit into. Wondering if there are many of you on here and what your thoughts on being a tech geek in Chicago are [compared to the bay area and NYC, specifically]. <comment><USER2> There's ChiSec for security people. Also, IIRC, tptacek is organizing a 'security for pentesters class'</comment>


Australian women are having fewer children, later in life - <AUTHOR> http://painauchoripan.blogspot.com/2012/09/faceboomers.html <comment><USER2> The demographic transition began in the developed nations around 1850:

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

My great-grandmother (mom's mom's mom) had 16 children. My mom had 4. My mom's 4 children are done having children, and my mom currently has 3 grandchildren.

Life expectancy at birth has increased 6 hours every day since 1850. That trend has been surprisingly steady, despite a few World Wars and depressions. 6 hours every day. That works out to 2.5 years per decade, and over 16 decades, that works out to 40 years. Thus the average lifespan has moved from around the age of 40 to around the age of 80.

Occasionally I read an article with a sensational headline such as "A new baby boom!" because fertility has moved from some small number to some slightly larger, but still small, number. Or other times the sensational headline goes the other way: "Baby Bust! Is your retirement fund in peril?"

Against all such minor variations in the medium-term trend, it is worth remembering that the the long-term trend has been down. In 16 decades, the only really serious, world-wide break from the trend was 1945 to 1953, and that was clearly a response to the war.

The most interesting break from the trend was the so-called English-speaking Baby Boom, which occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and the USA. It started in the late 1930s, then stopped due to the war, then started again in 1945, and the birth rate climbed until 1958, and it remained high till the mid 1960s.

Outside of that one major deviation, the trend has been down for a very long time.

Meanwhile, the Earth's overall population has had its biggest run ever. The last time the human population of the Earth fell is thought to have been the Great Plague of 1347 to 1350, but the boom since 1800 has no precedent. There were 1 billion humans alive in 1800, 2 billion in 1900, 3 billion in 1950, 4 billion in the 1970s.

There are roughly 7 billion people alive today.

Try to keep all that in mind when you read about variations in the birth trend.

<comment><USER3> [https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f...](https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sh_dyn_mort&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_c=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_c=lin&ind_c=false&idim=country:USA:AUS&ifdim=country&tunit=Y&pit=1385733600000&ind=false&icfg)

This shows what you are talking about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Most of the western world has had falling fertility rates, it would also help explain the push for immigration in those countries, politicians are quietly worried about the stability of their population growth / consumption economies.

[https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f...](https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:AUS:USA:CAN:FRA:GBR)

EDIT: why downvote? I am not saying immigration is wrong. I was saying its the only way western countries will maintain their growth rates. If you think immigration is wrong or right is irrelevant to what I am saying.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not a surprise.

Trends show that women in the U.S. and Canada are also having fewer children than in generations past and trending towards having children at a later age.

Canada

[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.ht...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm)

U.S.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/03/birth- rates-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/03/birth-rates-hit- record-low-for-those-under-25-still-on-the-rise-for-those-40/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Ugh. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w)

<comment><USER6> [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wj38qTtFU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wj38qTtFU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> (not serious) First thing I remembered just after reading the title:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM)

<comment><USER8> Me too, except I'm serious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In a developed economy, having kids is financially stupid. _Deeply_ stupid. It costs individuals a ton, but the benefits accrue to society. Classic tragedy of the commons.

If we want people to have more kids, say, up to the replacement rate, then that means subsidies. Cheaper childcare seems to be the main thing that encourages more kids: [http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-...](http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people- rich-countries-can-be-coaxed-having-more-children-lazy-husbands-and)

<comment><USER10> Or we could just increase skilled immigration to maintain the population. Costs us nothing.

<comment><USER11> Or we could just have fewer people living in the country. The population of Australia has expanded massively in my lifetime (it has about doubled) yet the infrastructure to support this higher population has not been built. Twice as many people trying to live using the same infrastructure does not make for a fun time.

<comment><USER12> A lot of naive observers suggest this, without having thought through the demographical consequences.

Go look at Japan to see what happens when you reduce both births and immigration.

An aging population, combined with falling fertility rates and no immigration is a disaster waiting to happen.

You need fresh blood to keep an economy going - they form the backbone of the workforce (read: taxes) - and in general, they're not scared of trying new things.

<comment><USER11> Japan is doing ok. What matters is per capita GDP not gross GDP.

<comment><USER13> Neither of those things could help Japan. Ultimately old people are going to need nurses and other people to provide services for them. If there are not enough young people willing to do those jobs, then all the money in the world is useless.

<comment><USER10> Nothing stopping them from importing nurses from abroad when and if they get to that desperate stage.

<comment><USER13> The parent, parent, parent comment (by victorhooi) is stating that Japan's problems stem from its reluctance both to have children and to allow immigration. Your answer -- that they should change their attitude toward immigration -- doesn't refute him or me, it agrees with us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> fewer, not less

<comment><USER15> This is actually a pointless distinction to make, as evidenced by the fact that (1) nobody is actually confused by one's meaning if they use 'less' where they were supposed to use 'fewer', and (2) there is no equivalent for 'more'.

Probably one of the best examples of a rule that should be dropped from the English language, imo.

<comment><USER16> If we're going down that route we'd might as well eliminate the letters c and x, use phonetic spelling and reverse the meanings of driveway and parkway.

Until the language is remade to conform to logic though, I think it's best to learn countable and uncountable distinctions. At the very least it's an advantage not to have others underestimate you based on grammar issues in your writing.

<comment><USER17> From the wiki page on this topic: "However, descriptive grammarians (who describe language as actually used) point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770:

<comment><USER18> I'm sure fewer people every year care whether you write "fewer" or "less". By now, many people could care less.

But quite a few will still notice and wonder why you didn't say "fewer", even if it's less of an issue than it used to be.

I think it's still worth it to get this "right", if only because fewer people will think less of your writing.

Watch out for that wiki page, if we're looking at the same one:

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

This page seems rather biased; it's easily earned its "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag with crazy stuff like this:

> even most prescriptivists accept the _most common_ usage "there are less > cups of flour in this canister" [emphasis added]

Instead of worrying about the opinions of "prescriptivists" and "descriptivists", just listen to the people you know, hear, and read: would _most_ of them really say "there are less cups of flour in this canister"? And does that sound fine, or a bit off, to your ear?

Of course, no one I know would say "there are _fewer_ cups of flour in this canister" either - they would simply say "there's less flour in this canister". What do cups have to do with it?

Language does change, and usage that was once "wrong" becomes right. A good example is "because of" and "due to". There was a terribly confusing rule about which to use, but these days fewer and fewer people will care if you simply use "due to" in every context. "Due to" has won, and it's nice to have one less rule to worry about.

Alas, I don't think "fewer" and "less" are quite there yet.

<comment><USER19> > By now, many people could care less.

This should be "couldn't care less."

<comment><USER18> Nope, but you get an upvote for noticing, thanks! :-)

I used "could care less" deliberately, in keeping with the cheeky spirit of my comment:

[http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care- less....](http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-less.html)

[http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa- ico1.htm](http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm)

[https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven- pi...](https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pinker- language-william-safire) (scroll down)

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct- tr...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct-tribu-words- work-care-less-20130313_1_care-harry-styles-idioms)

<comment><USER19> I knew that you used it on purpose; just tossing you a softball, that's all.

<comment><USER18> Ha! I should have known you were up to something, my friend.

Well played. And I mean that _not_ in the sarcastic sense! :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seized Phone Offers Clues to Bin Laden's Pakistani Links - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/world/asia/24pakistan.html?_r=1&hp

<comment><USER2> Non paywall link: <http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2739198/posts></comment>


YC looks to help more of its companies lock down Series A funding - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/yc-looks-to-help-more-of-its-companies-lock-down-series-a-funding/amp/ <comment><AUTHOR> "You're seeing rounds being led by firms that aren't the top-tier Silicon Valley names but smaller, newer funds, including funds abroad that invest internationally. I think it just reflects the increasingly global nature of VC now that more capital is looking for yield, whether from sovereign wealth funds or pension funds or other outlets. But founders have no idea how to access those sources of capital. So we'll have an application for investors to learn which companies are raising Series A rounds. We're building software around that information to better match founders with the right investors."

\- Aaron Harris

Seems pretty big to me - I wonder what form that software will take. If there really are a lot of untraditional investment funds seeking series A opportunities, could it take the form of maybe wealthfront or vanguard? Makes me wonder if series a, b, c investing could ever be massively dispersed like common stock investing is. Little benefit for the startup in that case I guess because they miss out on the guidance from their investors, unless it can in some way be combined?</comment>


Publication of Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (speech) - <AUTHOR> https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-publication-of-draft-investigatory-powers-bill <comment><AUTHOR> Full draft bill: [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf)

      The home secretary revealed for the first time in her
      statement that successive governments since 1994 have
      issued secret directions to internet and phone companies
      to hand over the communications data of British citizens
      in bulk to the security services.

      She said these secret "directions" had allowed the
      security services to thwart a number of attacks in
      Britain, including the plot to attack the London Stock
      Exchange in 2010.

      May said the use of these powers – which show that GCHQ
      was also engaged in mass surveillance programmes on
      British citizens using their communications data – under
      the 1984 Telecommunications Act will be put on a more
      explicit footing in the new legislation and be subject to
      the same safeguards as other bulk powers.

Source: [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/04/su...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/04/surveillance- internet-snoopers-charter-may-plans-politics-live)</comment>


SpaceX is launching an inflatable space habitat - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/29/spacex-is-launching-an-inflatable-space-habitat/ <comment><USER2> This is kinda a dick headline. The real credit should be to Bigelow for building the BEAM. Its a very impressive solution and I believe the first full scale habitat inflatable in space. I guess the SEO people at techcrunch know words like 'SpaceX' gets results, but this article is like saying "American Airlines sends Obama to Chicago." Instead of "Obama visits Chicago." The transportation isn't the story here. The cargo is.

Some details and photos of the BEAM here:

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

[http://bigelowaerospace.com/beam/](http://bigelowaerospace.com/beam/)

Kudos to the team at Bigelow for making it this far. Let's hope for a successful deployment. Inflatables have often been assumed to be how we'll build habits off planet. They're light but durable and could soon be deployed on the moon with our current technology to act as a semi-permanent base. Imagine a dozen of these tied together. The lift cost would be a fraction of what a 'hard' habitat would cost.

Or from less ambitious perspective, one of these acting as a commercial space hotel. Space tourism works better with a destination.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm super passionate of space habitats and have done extensive reading about them. This is not a _habitat_ in the real sense of the word. It provides a more spacious environment for the ISS. Therefore, it's just an extension to the already existing science _laboratory_ (not habitat).

For humans, a habitat should replicate earth's environment. Gravity is the first thing that comes to mind, but there are other things it should provide.

I hope in the near future we work on actually building/sending habitats in space with the goal of actually living there, and not only for scientific research.

<comment><USER4> What are your top recommendations for readings/lectures/challenges for those interested in the topic?

<comment><USER5> Probably not what you had in mind, but I found Neal Stephenson's novel Seveneves to be very thought provoking on the subject. I had never thought of inflatables before I read that.

<comment><USER6> Agreed - I very much enjoyed the exploration of what it would take to support a major colony in orbit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ohhh, the soft walls, the lack of windows, and a lockable door between it and the rest of the space station? What is not to like? Might as well try out some of those "hotel room" features to help Bigelow design a better room for space tourists.

I was really excited to see Bigelow's ideas here, and have enjoyed seeing stories of their test modules floating around in orbit. It seems to make a lot of sense if you want something that transports small, and grows big when it is deployed (no joke intended). I remember thinking it was like one of those "pop up" tent trailers you see at the campground. Easy to transport but very spacious and useful once set up.

<comment><USER8> I'd like to see one designed that could be manufactured in orbit, or on the moon. That could jumpstart space manufacturing and expansion like nothing else.

<comment><USER9> How is sending up raw materials better than sending up completed parts? At best, the total weight is the same, but if you're doing manufacturing in space, you also have to send up tools.

<comment><USER8> No! The raw materials are already on the moon (bauxite). Just send up tools, then make unlimited modules.

<comment><USER9> OP talked about manufacturing both on the moon _and_ "in orbit", making no distinction between the two...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It should be noted that this is for NASA to the ISS, and not for human use. They'll check it out occasionally and maybe use it for storage after a while.

Still, it seems like the way of the future for human living spaces. I visited the Air and Space Museum in DC and the Skylab was amazingly roomy compared to ISS modules.

</comment><comment><USER11> I hope everything works out with this test. B330, the larger variant, could be launched on a Falcon Heavy and add 35% to the volume of the ISS in one go.

</comment><comment><USER12> A little related discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11374655](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11374655)

</comment><comment><USER13> Spittle Bug.

Expanding: Space craft and stations should be modelled on the spittle bug's nest, a cluster of bubbles.

These metal cans are a conceptual hold-over.

</comment><comment><USER14> That robot-arm is a miracle, it can attach-crawl from docking station to docking station across the whole station.

Standing ovations for NASA!

<comment><USER15> It's from Canada eh.

<comment><USER16> Shots of maple syrup for everyone!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've always thought that Mars missions should 'drag a bag' behind an atomic rocket. The best shielding is the inverse-square law. Put the habitable part of the mission vehicle several miles from the fissionables! At the end of a tether.

<comment><USER17> But directly behind the rocket is where most of the energy goes.

I'd also be curious how the tether would avoid getting cooked by the rocket exhaust. I think a long mast, putting the riders in front of a large mass of fuel, would be much simpler.

But you're right, it is a lot easier to design an ultra-light, super-strong tether than a giant mast.

<comment><USER18> Unless you put in two exhausts, jutting out at an angle, adding up to forward thrust.

<comment><USER19> That is extremely wasteful, in an environment where every drop of rocket fuel is precious.

<comment><USER8> Its possible that the exhaust could be made to disperse without losing much thrust - like a defocussed electron beam. Just so long as its cool enough when it hits the habitat. Which could have an aluminum-foil shield or some such...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If they don't call it a moon bounce I will be really mad.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your Twitter handle? - <AUTHOR>

Alternately: Who do you follow and why? <comment><USER2> [https://twitter.com/Therapy4Change](https://twitter.com/Therapy4Change)

On HN, I'm gw666, and I have a low but meaningful karma score of 209.

I tweet occasionally, mostly with worthwhile links on subjects like self- improvement, brain research, productivity hacks, etc.

Please check out the link above and follow me if you like what I've posted so far. Thanks!

\--Gregg Williams (my Twitter summary is below)

Marriage & Family Therapist, formerly of Apple and BYTE magazine. Very interested in the brain, psychosomatic illness, how people change, technology.

</comment><comment><USER3> Personal: [https://twitter.com/mindcrime](https://twitter.com/mindcrime)

Startup: [https://twitter.com/fogbeamlabs](https://twitter.com/fogbeamlabs)

Who do I follow? Wow, that's a long list. Too many to post here.

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://twitter.com/flavmartins](http://twitter.com/flavmartins)

I pretty much follow everyone with a real account back. I don't surf the general timeline but follow hashtags and keywords for conversations taking place online.

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://twitter.com/Jeremy1026](https://twitter.com/Jeremy1026)

My following habits vary greatly, the three main demographics I follow are 1) Chivers #KCCO, 2) Hockey Fans, 3) Programmers

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://twitter.com/acangiano](https://twitter.com/acangiano)

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://twitter.com/makerop](https://twitter.com/makerop)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To try to get things rolling: Mine is @DorintheFlora.

</comment><comment><USER8> @gallic_c</comment>


Chernobyl and the Cost of Lies (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://origins.osu.edu/connecting-history/HBO-chernobyl-disaster-nuclear-soviet-union <comment><USER2> "The series ends with an epilogue noting that, while the official death toll remains 31, other estimates have ranged from 4,000 to 93,000, with some estimates climbing even higher."

This was the worst moment in the series. The otherwise pretty solid description of the event was tainted by that. I screamed at the screen. The correct statement would be closer to:

"60 deaths have been directly attributed to Chernobyl, and large careful consortia of hundreds of scientists concluded in the 2000s that "up to 4000" early deaths may occur from the accident across the decades, though they later revised the statement to say they do not recommend multiplying small doses by large populations to get large death values. Meanwhile, a few fringe groups and Greenpeace said 93,000 and Helen Caldicott says millions just because she feels that it must be that high. By the way, burning fossil fuel kills 4 million people every year by air pollution. That's a Chernobyl every 2.5 days, day after day. So even though Chernobyl was horrible, the dispassionate numbers show that nuclear energy is still extraordinarily safe compared to other major forms of energy production. Plus it is very nearly carbon free, which matters more than ever today."

The UNSCEAR group with the 4000 number is analogous to the IPCC. The 93,000 and beyond people are analogous to the anti-vaxxers. The HBO series gave them equal weight.

Look it up! It is truly shocking.

<comment><USER3> I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but reading the related wikipedia page [1], and in particular the section about liquidator mortality, leaves me skeptic about the <100 numbers. And there are also deaths which are more loosely related, but still related. See for example the abortions: "an estimated excess of about 150,000 elective abortions may have been performed on otherwise healthy pregnancies out of fears of radiation from Chernobyl" [3]. Even if you consider most if not all of these ill-advised, these are nonetheless lives lost due to the disaster.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Liquidator_mortality) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Abortions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Abortions)

<comment><USER2> I personally continue to use 4000 deaths total (acute and latent), which is what the UNSCEAR folks said up until 2006 or so. Some colleagues yell at me and tell me that there's no basis for a number this high given what we now know about radiation dose response and about what's happened monitoring people for decades. But I use it just in case.

Fear of radiation kills thousands of people. At Fukushima, the only nuclear- related (non-tsunami) deaths were from the evacuation. (Up to 1 person did die from radiation, they say now). That's why I fight to make people understand it more and be less afraid.

We can all agree that unduly panicking people about radiation is bad.

[https://aeon.co/ideas/fear-of-radiation-is-more-dangerous- th...](https://aeon.co/ideas/fear-of-radiation-is-more-dangerous-than- radiation-itself)

<comment><USER4> I think it's worth noting that the UNSCEAR report also said 5000 more deaths among less exposed people (so 9000 in total), it's all rather arbitrary.

<comment><USER2> That was in 2006. They changed their policy and stopped multiplying small dose rates by large populations to get large numbers after that because the linear- no-threshold assumption has not been shown to be applicable at very low doses. Their later reports do not give any large numbers like this.

<comment><USER4> But that's just even more arbitrary, right? It just means nobody knows how many deaths it caused, and there is an uncertainty of an order of magnitude based on how the effects of very low doses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The show's writer has been pretty clear that he sees this story as a cautionary tale about our current governments ideological refusal to accept climate science and the politically driven lies that dominate all public discussion.

And when the ruling party has taken that same anti-science attitude when dismantling our pandemic response (as well as all other areas where the US has strong science), we now end up with massive loss of life, and massive economic losses, that would have been completely unnecessary with just a small amount of scientific leadership.

And I don't think any of us realized how quickly our science and leadership had been dismantled. There were cautionary stories telling us this in 2018 when it happened, but with all the other distraction and lying going on, it was completely lost.

Other countries hadn't realized just how far we had fallen either, and our lack of throwing up a warning signal probably made other countries think that SARS-CoV-2 wasn't as threatening as it was, because we were all used to competent pandemic response being helpers by the US. For example, during our prior president's term, we helped a lot with Ebola, which our current president criticized heavily, yet when given a chance to respond, did not manage it any better than Italy or Spain, and in fact quite a bit worse than those governments.

The cost of lies are massive. A few people in tech, including some prominent investors, think that politics is a realm where reality can be manufactured. And to some degree it can, particularly with economics. But when it comes to the physical world, such attitudes are disasters waiting to happen.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Chernobyl is ultimately a deeply frightening story about the danger of > refusing to accept reality in favor of political ideology. The Soviet Union > provided many examples of this danger, but such refusal is not only a Soviet > phenomenon. Chernobyl is a reminder that lies have a cost and, eventually, > reality will catch up with you.

As a thought experiment, substitute climate change for Chernobyl and US for Soviet Union.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, the US is not the only country going through this ideological denialism. Most countries in the world are.

Some (e.g.: Brazil), are even worse than the US.

<comment><USER8> Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it OK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> At various points in the series, the motives of different characters are shown to be driven by external incentives: \- the chief scientist wants to pass this test and get promoted \- the manager guy received a medal for completing the reactor construction early. he also had to maintain output to meet quota for the month \- the local council decided to not evacuate because the would get some recognition.

There are many characters that are so caught up with their own rat race that they are oblivious to reality.

I find this somewhat analogous to large corps and middle management. (a recent example is Well Fargo and the multiple accounts scandal).

It's interesting how these types of structures (i guess i'd call it bureaucracy) are independent of political and financial systems.

<comment><USER10> They are not independent of political systems. When you have an independent party check the work and incentives that align with doing the right thing, the right thing gets done.

In general, the most authoritarian the political system, the less you have both of those conditions.

<comment><USER9> > When you have an independent party check the work

I'm not sure what you mean, like an outside auditor?

> In general, the most authoritarian the political system, the less you have > both of those conditions.

I agree with this statement, but I don't necessarily believe the opposite is true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The irony here is that the miniseries was itself propaganda denouncing lies. The underlying point rings true, but I kept seeing people watch it and feel somehow superior to those backwards soviets whilst seeing such a stacked narrative. As someone who used to work with radiation this really annoyed me.

The other thing I will add is that the miniseries drew heavily from Svetlana Alexievich's master work 'Voices of Chernobyl', which I cannot recommend enough. Perhaps what really annoyed me is that the miniseries did a second rate job retelling people's stories, while the book was so rich.

<comment><USER5> > but I kept seeing people watch it and feel somehow superior to those > backwards soviets

Wow, that is _not_ the message that I got _at all_ and I didn't hear anybody else say that either.

It seems to be quite the opposite, we see lots of extremely skilled, brave people in the face of disaster and an oppressive social structure. If anything, it seemed to make explicit parallels between the current US people and our current political battles.

For example. the scene with the Ukrainian babushka milking the cow. Holy crap that was touching and felt so human. Made me feel so connected to a people on the other side of the world.

<comment><USER11> >> For example. the scene with the Ukrainian babushka milking the cow. Holy crap that was touching and felt so human. Made me feel so connected to a people on the other side of the world.

In that case I would highly recommend reading 'Voices of Chernobyl' \- that scene (an several others) is lifted from it, and in my opinion Svetlana Alexievich is simply more talented and qualified to tell these people's stories.

<comment><USER12> > in my opinion Svetlana Alexievich is simply more talented

or simply it is just the matter of difference between textbook and screenplay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > such refusal [of reality] is not only a Soviet phenomenon

Indeed. A few recent US lies that caused many deaths and made millions of people suffer in the Middle East :

\- Saddam Hussein had mass destruction weapons. (Iraq)

\- The USA want a new relation will the Muslim people of Middle East, not with their dictators. (Egypt, Yemen)

\- Chemical attacks would cross the red line. (Syria)

\- Libya was about to massively kill rebels, so some countries will bring airplane protection.

\- Iran is a terrorist country.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth... sooner or later, that debt is paid."

</comment><comment><USER15> The series is just a bunch of propagandist BS in a very nice package. The amazing number of factual errors given that not only documents but documentary footage are available along with internationally verified reports.

<comment><USER16> Can you outline a few for us?

<comment><USER15> Presented in random order: \- Helicopter fell after entangling the rotor blades 6 months after the events;

\- Scuba divers knew the layout of the station, there were ankle high of water and 2 of them are still alive, third died of unrelated causes;

\- Legasov was talking to Scherbina about failures of evacuation during [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) and not about how reactor works as it was common knowledge and Scherbina was experienced engineer who supervised energy sector in USSR;

\- there were no forced labor neither for miner nor soldiers;

\- miners knew and well respected Schadov, who was a miner himself. Needless to mention that he never came to any of the mines - there was a broadcast message that called for volonteers.

\- Miners were enthusiastic and well compensated - they competed to go to the shaft. And they used proper tools. Documentary video exists.

\- Vodka drinking in the middle of the harshest prohibition in Russian history. People could not get ANY alcohol for weddings still series shows vodka drinking on a high security object;

\- Cherenkov radiation couldn't be visible in that situation;

\- evacuation was swift and well organized;

\- Legasov was not doing all the calculations alone he was a head of a whole institute;

\- In helicopter scene Scherbina not only knew how reactor works but could not threaten Legasov as a) he can't order soldiers because chain of command b) Legasov has roughly the same political standing in USSR. Not to mention that Scherbina was quite nice person and was focussed on a problem at hand.

I can continue...

<comment><USER17> > 2 of them are still alive, third died of unrelated causes;

I've seen a number of different ends (continuations?) posited for these 3 guys. I tried to research and found about as much evidence that they lived happily ever after as they died immediately (i.e it's a black hole of conjecture based on the particular writer's feelings towards the Soviet Union).

Can you point me towards evidence?

<comment><USER18> Here's an inteview with one of them from 2019 [1], which would be pretty hard if he immediately died. I have never found any piece of evidence that they immediately died; most sources that say this seem to draw it from the HBO series as if it were a documentary.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqOo3Rp7rCE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqOo3Rp7rCE)

<comment><USER19> > most sources that say this seem to draw it from the HBO series as if it were > a documentary

That would be strange, because the series didn't show them die. And one of the epilogue screens said: "It has been widely reported that the three divers who drained the bubbler tanks died as a result of their heroic actions. In fact, all three survived after hospitalization. Two are still alive today."

<comment><USER18> The show itself makes a big deal of the 'suicide mission' nature of the task. I'm not sure many viewers bothered watching the epilogue.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Statistical and Discrete Methods for Scientific Computing (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://wpressutexas.net/coursewiki/index.php?title=Main_Page <comment><USER2> They refer to the learning cone a.k.a. the learning pyramid. That model needs to die.

See [https://www.worklearning.com/2006/05/01/people_remember/](https://www.worklearning.com/2006/05/01/people_remember/)

</comment><comment><USER3> There are several classes online for statistics.

[https://github.com/melling/MathAndScienceNotes/blob/master/s...](https://github.com/melling/MathAndScienceNotes/blob/master/statistics/README.md)

</comment><comment><USER4> Noice.</comment>


TC: Former Rothenberg employees allege mistreatment and cash management problems - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/24/former-rothenberg-employees-allege-mistreatment-and-cash-management-problems/ <comment><AUTHOR> Latest in a series as TC digs into the backstory.</comment>


Best Practices for Node.js Error-Handling - <AUTHOR> https://www.toptal.com/nodejs/node-js-error-handling <comment><USER2> Looks roughly like how we do it as well with one exception - we don't crash on "programmer errors" because we don't maintain any local state in the node process. If all state lives in your DB, Redis, etc. it's perfectly ok to have a catch all error handler that logs errors, sends it to Sentry, etc.</comment>


Wall Street Whiz Finds Niche Selling Books on the Internet (1996) - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB832204437381952500 <comment><USER2> "Mr. Bezos dreams about turning Amazon into a billion-dollar company." Great reporting.</comment>


NEW YORKERS AREN'T RUDE. YOU ARE. - <AUTHOR> http://www.johnskylar.com/post/59499652245/new-yorkers-arent-rude-you-are

<comment><USER2> I lived in NYC for two years and agree with this assessment. Too many tourists stopping in the middle of the street, not knowing how lines works, and generally being oblivious were what set people off the most.

I did find natives to actually be very nice if you weren't being stupid. In fact it is probably the nicest city in the country. People are more then willing to talk to you, point you in the right direction, offer suggestions, invite you along for drinks with their friends.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've lived and worked on both costs and in the midwest and New Yorkers are some of the nicest folks I've come across.

I think it's more then just tourist getting yelled at that confuses the outsiders but also the tendency of new yorkers to chew the fat and joke around with one another, or be straight forward. Something which would be fairly alien to most people from the west coast.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you handle divorce as a startup owner? - <AUTHOR> Without making this a "woe is me" tear jerker, the short story is that my over-a-decade marriage is ending, in the state of Massachusetts.
I have a successful company I started almost 10 years ago with a partner and have a very good salary.  MA's divorce and alimony laws are pretty straight forward (if arguably unfair in many circumstances...), and I will end up paying ~32.5% of the delta of our incomes for ~8 years as alimony.  In addition to that, we split all current assets 50/50.
That includes my shares of the company.  We have a recent valuation done which indicates some significant value.  If I got another valuation done for this divorce i could probably present data that would push that down, however she could also get her own done and I'm sure push the value up, so we've agreed to the existing valuation (for now).  MA doesn't allow for the normal "discounts" for divorce (lack of control, and lack of marketability) so in theory I owe her 50% of the theoretical value of my shares.  I don't have that kind of money, and I have no way to actually turn my shares into cash.  So it seems like I'm going to end up owing her a large amount of money.
If she "lets" me pay that amount off, interest free, over the term of the alimony (8 years), then I will be working my usual high stress 50-60 hours/week keeping my company going, and my wife will end up with approximately 2x the money I do, for the next 8 years.  I would also be legally prohibited from just quitting and working as a mechanic (or some other lower stress lower paying job).
I don't think I can do that (mentally/emotionally/morally).
Has anyone been through anything similar or have any advice?  My (very highly respected and expensive) attorney unfortunately feels that the MA law is super simple and I'm basically just screwed.  Looking for alternatives that aren't awful.
Help? <comment><USER2> My uncle went through a similar situation. He owned a company and got divorced, he had to pay her out the valuation of the company, just like he had a mortgage. What's worse, she went to some stupid get all your money in one lump sum place and instantly lost like 60% of the value. So in addition to losing money to interest he had to live with knowing that his kids only got 40% of what he was paying.

It taught me that it's important to have a prenup. There are things that should be communal assets, a company is not one of those things.

Any way to just close the company down and then re-found it with your partners? Or structure it so that they "fire you" or buy you out for a fraction of the value and then give you equity bonus on rehire? I don't know if any of these things are legal, but after seeing how miserable my uncle was, I would go to extreme lengths to avoid being in a situation where I had to buy my own company back from my ex-wife.

<comment><USER3> It's not about the value the day you file for a divorce. It's about the value he had during the marriage period. Selling shares right now won't change much.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> To be clear, I'm perfectly happy(?) to help give her a solid foundation to start the new life she feels she needs. I want her to be able to be successful and feel fulfilled, etc... However, I'm losing almost everything I've built up as my "life" (house, marriage, dog, 1/2 our friends, my best friend/wife, will likely have to move somewhere with a much lower cost of living, etc...), and it feels like I'm also losing my freedom or ability to build a new life for the next 8 years (unable to quit, working 60 hours a week and taking home a fraction of what I'm earning, etc...).

<comment><USER3> It seems odd that you owe the actual cash money. Are you %100 sure about that? 50/50 is not related to the value of the shares but the shares themselves.

In this case (you don't owe any cash), even splitting your shares in half might end up in a big pile of cash if your company is really successful.

That sucks though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > My (very highly respected and expensive) attorney unfortunately feels that > the MA law is super simple and I'm basically just screwed.

It may be worthwhile getting the legal equivalent of a 2nd opinion. Consulting another lawyer could be a smart play. They may confirm your attorney's advice or suggest some alternate suggestions. Also, mediated divorce settlements may be an option to explore. Here's a list in Massachusetts > [http://www.mediate.com/Massachusetts/](http://www.mediate.com/Massachusetts/)

<comment><AUTHOR> We are in mediation (trying to avoid a contesting filing), however she's unwilling to give up any money she/her attorney believes she can get under MA law. The law appears to be solidly on her side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> With this much on the line I would get a few second opinions from other lawyers.

I would look at doing a 50% profit sharing of your current and future earnings from your company with her and 50% of profits from any sale in the future, she might make more in the long run but you aren't paying 50% of the current value over 8 years.

Talk to more lawyers to make sure you get the best setup possible.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, you're in a negotiation.

Either you buy your wife out of her share of the business based on current valuations or you can transfer half of your share holding in the business to her, if the latter is even possible. Or something in between. No easy answers unfortunately.

Do you think you can grow the business? How recent is the "recent valuation"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Recent = last year. We're bigger now, but our market has changed dramatically and we'll need to pivot/diversify successfully in order to avoid fading away in 2-3 years. So 8 years down the road seems like a total guess... We could be doing great or we could have been out of business for 5 years...

I am exploring transferring 1/2 my shares to her, which is less than ideal for a lot of reasons, but I suspect she and her attorney will fight to reject that (as it doesn't give her any cash). Not sure if it's possible or not. Downside of course is that then I'm in business with my ex-wife. As is my partner. Not ideal. But perhaps better than the alternative of paying her out over 8 years on top of the alimony...

<comment><USER6> _We 're bigger now, but our market has changed dramatically and we'll need to pivot/diversify successfully in order to avoid fading away in 2-3 years._

So effectively you're asking whether you would invest a big share of your income over the next 8 years to buy more of this company as it is now, with a high risk profile. That's a tough choice.

Any likelihood of raising capital in the near future to fund expansion / pivot? An ideal outcome would probably be to sell them your wife's shares as part of the deal & buy her out that way. Would be tricky to get everything to line up though.

 _I am exploring transferring 1 /2 my shares to her, which is less than ideal for a lot of reasons, but I suspect she and her attorney will fight to reject that (as it doesn't give her any cash). Not sure if it's possible or not. Downside of course is that then I'm in business with my ex-wife. As is my partner. Not ideal. But perhaps better than the alternative of paying her out over 8 years on top of the alimony..._

You don't know until you make the offer!

Something to watch out for: you'll be paying off her share of the company out of taxed income. Make sure the numbers work for you: worst case, she earns nothing & that 32% + the fixed payment exceeds your income after tax + necessary expenses. This would be a bad outcome...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm so sorry for what you're going through. I can't offer any legal advice other than consulting another lawyer. Alimony is state-enforced theft and often ruins (male) lives, so you have every right to feel upset. Whatever the outcome, please keep us updated: we care about your well-being.

</comment><comment><USER8> you can sell the business.

or maybe your partner is interested in owning more of the business?

At the end of the day your buying out a partner over 8 years. At which time the company will probably be growing and become worth more.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sounds like you have a bad lawyer. Surely and agreement can be made that doesn't require you to give her cash upfront for your stake in the company.

</comment><comment><USER10> So, I was the wife/homemaker and he did not have a startup. We had an amicable divorce, in part because I wanted to keep lawyers out of it and I have had a college class on _Negotiation and Conflict Management._ Given that we did not have much money, I did not want the lawyers bleeding us for money we could not remotely afford. So I did a lot of steering that to make it as painless as possible for all parties. He was cooperative, but I at times agreed to things that were a convenience for him because I understood that screwing him over was absolutely not in my best interest.

But if you are negotiating with an idiot who does not understand that bleeding you is a bad negotiating tactic, you need to get better at a) negotiating tactics and b) communicating to them why this is not in THEIR best interest. Don't talk about what you need/want/feel. Talk about how this is likely to impact her, and not in a positive way.

Make absolutely sure you are not making _threats._ You need to make it clear this will cost her and you need to do so in a way that cannot be construed by the court system as bad faith or threatening behavior and that cannot be construed by her as hot air or empty talk that you won't really follow through on. This is not a scare tactic. The point is to educate this fool.

For example, it might help to get figures on what a nasty, long drawn out divorce litigation costs in both time and money. (I knew we were saving like $40k or more -- money we absolutely did not have -- to divorce without lawyers. That left lots more on the table for us to split, so I didn't quibble about small things.)

Let me also recommend that you pick up "Getting to Yes" and "The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator". They are both research based and were both required texts for my college class on negotiating and conflict management. The first is a quick read. You should be able to get it through in a weekend. The second is much meatier, but I strongly suggest you do your best to find/make time for it as it contains lots of good info.

If you just cannot come up with the money, you may need to do all in your power to insist she accept stocks to cover the part of the business she is "owed."

If you can get a copy of the movie _Our House_ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_House_(2006_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_House_\(2006_film\)) and also _Kingdom of Heaven_ , both contain good lessons in effective hardball negotiating.

Please get your feelings out of the way. You need to be goal-oriented here. This is not about the fact that she is breaking your heart or doesn't love you anymore or a thousand other personal pains involved in the end of most marriages. Keep a journal or do therapy or something, but find a way to get your feelings out of your way when negotiating this settlement.

This is business, not personal. There is enormous money on the table. You must treat it like business -- and never mind that she probably won't. You need to do all you can to avoid getting dragged into her emotional crap or provoking her. Be diplomatic and sensitive to her hurt feelings, but do so in a way that sidesteps the issue as much as possible. Don't pick at old wounds. Don't throw things in her face. Stuff like that will cost you money.

This is advice rooted in having been through a divorce and managing to not screw over either party in the process.

Best of luck.</comment>


Apple intern's thesis leaks secret project to port Mac OS X to ARM processors - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/07/apple_intern_thesis_leaks_secret_project_to_port_mac_os_x_to_arm_processors.html

<comment><USER2> Apple has had Darwin on ARM processors for quite some time. It's called iOS. The cited project was porting Darwin to a certain ARMv5 chip. I don't know a lot about the ARM architecture, but from what I understand the original iPhone was already run by an ARMv6 and ARMv5 is pretty obsolete. So this can hardly be interpreted as part of a serious effort to port OS X to ARM.

<comment><USER3> it was a false flag/fake project..to see if the engineer was trust-worthy..do think the thesis would have been published outside if Apple was serious about the project? Its secretive Apple after all..

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's an open secret Apple keeps its options open. I just 'knew' they would have such a project after I read they bought P.A. Semi years ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2258693>

Soon. :)

<comment><USER5> > Soon. :)

I'd still expect you to be wrong, iOS apps are unworkable on OSX and ARM processors, being significantly less powerful (though more efficient) than x86, would have a hard time translating x86 instructions to ARMv7 (à la Rosetta) with any kind of acceptable performances. ARMv7 also has very little support for 64b, which Lion mandates (dropped support for x86 and requires x86-64 instead) and ARMv8 is nowhere near ready for production chains.

There would be very little to be gained from putting an ARM chip in an Air, and pretty much everything to be lost. Asking for that feels like pointless wankery.

<comment><USER6> I'd expect that any such machine would be released as an extended iPad line, with OS X running a compat layer for iOS apps. Apps could theoretically ship as fat binaries (/again/) to work on both, but that much seems like quite a jump --- people can buy laptops now, with great battery life. It's the simplicity of iOS that drives its appeal.

<comment><AUTHOR> In fact, the iOS Simulator used by developers today is pretty much just that, with the iOS app itself + the Cocoa Touch frameworks running within a OS X process. The only difference is that simulator app builds are specially compiled for X86 instead of ARM (thus, it's not a "emulator" in the strictest sense of the word).

With ARM, it'd be conceivably possible for the same iOS binary to run on both the device and the desktop simulator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> iOS is a pretty big chunk of OS X running on ARM already I understand.

I think this is very unsurprising.

</comment><comment><USER8> Given the switch from PowerPC to Intel its unsurprising that Apple is keeping itself options open. I suspect that if Intel doesn't deliver the power consumption/performance ratio that Apple needs they would happily switch to a processor that does.

Given that at one point NeXTStep supported 4 different processor architectures (Motorola, Intel, Sparc, HP) the underlying system is probably one of the "easier" operating systems to port to new processor architectures.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a lot less of a "secret project leak" than someone discussing the ideal/advanced fast track to _really_ learning how to kick ass in his new job.

Q:"This new kid is bright; what should we give him to cut his teeth on the weird stuff?"

A:"Break it at a low level and let him fix it."

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if Apple is considering switching the AirPort/Time Capsule family to OS X; they're based on Marvell processors AFAIK.

</comment><comment><USER11> I wasn't aware this was a secret. I thought Apple were planning an ARM build of OS X for a while, or had at least been discussing it.

And what with iOS evolving as it is, they probably think a full port of OS X to ARM is kind of pointless now.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is the beginning of the end for Intel. It would've been anyway, but Apple has such a strong influence in the tech industry (considering everyone wants to copy them), that now every manufacturer will start gradually preferring the ARM architecture over x86 for "ultrathin" laptops with very long battery life and "good enough" performance, that are also less expensive than the Intel ones.

<comment><USER13> It's going to be a long time before desktop OS's running on ARM are as accepted as they are on x86, simply because of software compatibility. Apple's probably in better shape on that front (having already moved architectures once, and so having more of a system to include a compatibility layer), but users are going to be questioning why 95% of their software doesn't run, or runs very slowly, on their new and expensive laptop.

The middle ground is something like a Chromebook, which gets around the problem by not running any legacy apps. However, despite what Google thinks there's a lot of utility in a laptop outside of the browser, and people who have software that they need to run will not be moving over to ARM for a long time.

<comment><USER12> If people were willing to buy netbooks, they will be willing to buy something like this, too, which should even work better than Windows 7 on a single core Atom.

I agree that Chromebook should've done this a long time ago. But I wonder if they think Cortex A9 was subpar, and they're just waiting for Cortex A15 to do it. A $200 Tegra 3 Chromebook would've still been more appealing than a dual core Atom $400 one.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Microsoft Is Ruling the Cloud, IBM Matching Amazon, Google Is $15B Behind - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobevans1/2018/02/05/why-microsoft-is-ruling-the-cloud-ibm-is-matching-amazon-and-google-is-15-billion-behind/#6047661c1dc1 <comment><USER2> This is a Forbes "contributor" article, meaning it's got no more vetting by Forbes editors than my post here. Basically Forbes contributors are people who like making up clickbait.

I'm surprised he didn't include Apple's services revenues as "cloud computing" (after all, it includes iCloud!), so he could declare it the winner!

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't looked at the numbers released by Microsoft, but I'd bet that the MS numbers include software licensing revenue and since Amazon just provides infrastructure, they have no software revenue... So when you launch a SQL/Server instance in AWS, that's "cloud revenue" for Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER4> These are total BS numbers, speaking as someone in the business. IBM is guilty of a lot of financial engineering (far more than any of the technological sort) grouping a diverse pool of unrelated "income" as "cloud".

Cloudwashing is not the same as market share.

P.S. It wouldn't surprise me if the author/PR flack was/is retained by IBM.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am an Azure user and love it, but these articles are comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft, IBM or Oracle include cloud software such as Office 365 or enterprise software such as their ERP systems. Amazon doesn't really even sell comparable software.

</comment><comment><USER6> Have been using azure for last couple of years and am pretty impressed with the uptime as well the ease of use. The only drawback is that I never got to use aws and am one of the few developers who have no idea of aws and the stack

</comment><comment><USER7> I guess throwing all those Azure credits at everyone with a Microsoft EA is paying off, at least on paper.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the article is potentially misleading. Just because a large number of traditional enterprise customers switched their on-prem exchange/office licenses for cloud licenses, doesn't mean that MS is leading the way. Cannibalising your own market is meaningless.

<comment><USER9> Last time MS tried not to cannibalize their own market, they failed to show up for the Internet in the 1990s Netscape/Google era. If they are cannibalizing their own market now, it means they have learned how to stay afloat as times change.

That's important, especially if you assume that Cloud is where future growth lies, and on-prem installed software/hardware is not.

In all this, "Revenue" is a silly word, since in the Cloud world, you've got comingled hardware rentals and software licensing, which have very different profit margins.

<comment><USER8> I agree, but trying to say that you're a market leader when really you've just exchanged tit for tat is highly misleading. Claiming that you are beating Amazon at cloud when all you've done is move exchange licenses to a hosted solution is hardly amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The narrative—and it is dead wrong—repeated relentlessly and tirelessly by > many in the media and amplified by some analysts that Amazon is the runaway > winner in the cloud is baseless, sloppy and terribly misleading

I honestly would have guessed Amazon was leading.

<comment><USER11> This appears to be an interesting comparison. Microsoft Cloud includes Office 365 subscriptions.. Which can have some 'cloud' components, but also gets installed on your PC. Likewise, I have never heard of someone running a startup out of salesforce.com, or Oracle.com. I would guess they are cloud based offerings of their software stacks.

I guess 'cloud' can be said about all of them, but as a tech, I would consider true 'cloud' to be full Infrastructure as a Service.. not just applications as a service.

<comment><USER12> I completely agree.

Microsoft and this article try very hard to fuzz the meaning of "cloud computing" to make their numbers look prettier. If we start counting Office 365, than Gmail should also be counted, as is Amazon Prime related products (Cloud Drive, for example). Why stop there? Isn't the whole Google search on "the cloud"? Isn't the whole Amazon retail shopping on "the cloud"?

Counting only AWS and GCP against "Microsoft cloud" and salesforce is more financial marketing than anything else.</comment></comment></comment>