Ask HN: I need to built a site.I am a beginner web developer. PLEASE HELP ME - <AUTHOR> Hey i am beginner web developer. And i am a CS undergraduate. For a long time i have been thinking about writing blog.
But i just couldn't start anywhere. Now i have been learning Web Development and i have reached upto an average level in Front-End. I have knowledge about : HTML , CSS JS JQuery (JSON, AJAX)<p>So the blog idea has started ticking again. And this time i want to make it in form of a site. So that i can use my skills and test them on a real world scenario. But i have no knowledge of where to start and what extra skills to acquire so that i can work on it. Please someone suggest me anything advice, article, blog.
I don't want to use wordpress or anything. I want to make a site on my own. With the help of technology and skills. So please guide me about the technologies that i have to use plus all the skills that i have to acquire. My aim is to become a full stack developer and i think there is no better way to learn rather than to do that thing. <comment><USER2> You could use OpenShift of Redhat or a similar product.

But the simplest idea is to host your own Web server on your own computer. Install a Bitnami Lamp server and observe how it works, before making any modifications. You will access your local Web server with any browser at [http://localhost](http://localhost)

Bitnami lamp is a cool product: [https://bitnami.com/stack/lamp](https://bitnami.com/stack/lamp)

</comment><comment><USER3> You'll need a backend of some sort - a database to store the entries, and some kind of server to serve up your initial HTML / css / javascript files. If you're a big javascript person, node.js might be a good choice. There are TONS of options here though, including probably multiple choices each, for every programming language you can name. But some obvious ones, to me, would be Ruby on Rails, or Grails, or maybe Play. For a database, either Postgres or MySQL would be a fine choice.

Once you have chosen a backend, you'll have to decide how much, if any, "server side rendering" you'll want to do, or if you want to make a pure SPA that does everything via ajax calls to the backend.

This might be of use to you:

[http://blog.hexican.com/2010/04/building-a-blog- using-7-simp...](http://blog.hexican.com/2010/04/building-a-blog- using-7-simple-steps-in-grails/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks a lot. Can you please let me explain little further about "Server side rendering" and "Pure SPA" can you tell me which would be optimum as in order to learn and apply. And a bit extra knowledge about this process.

<comment><USER3> Server-side rendering just means generating the HTML that will be displayed by the browser, entirely on the server, and then returning it in response to some request. This is as opposed to the model where your initial request returns a minimal bit of HTML and a big load of Javascript, and from there on the Javascript dynamically re-renders the HTML based on the response from AJAX calls. This is generally described as having a "single page application" or SPA.

In reality, apps can be a blend of both approaches. Which model you use is up to you. And I'm not an expert on the front-end stuff, so I wouldn't feel comfortable making a recommendation, to be honest. All I'll say is that, to me, server-side rendering is more intuitive and straighforward to implement and it's what I usually do since I'm not primarily a front-end specialist.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I have choosen Node.js for Back-End and Express as the frame work because i am aiming for MEAN stack web application. Can you please guide me for the tools and tutorials from where i can be prepared for the Back End Stuff. And yeah i will go with Server-side rendering. Thanks in advance! You made my day !

<comment><USER4> Okay, well you can use Angular or Angular 2 (I would recommend sticking with Angular1) and let's see..

MongoDB, Angular 1, Node.js, Maybe some templating language for your css?

Anyway, you can run node on your own machine. Are you using mac or linux or win? Did you mention? It's pretty straightforward no matter which platform now, which is nice. So you make a javascript file that node can run, you run it from the command-line, and on your computer you have the "server" running. It's got a port, so when you go to localhost:3000 or whatever you set it to be via browser you'll see your site.

The next step after you make your site with Node is to get some webspace to run it. Basically you want a remote box that you can SSH into (securely command line access another box) and then clone your project (over github) or just upload it yourself. Then you run it, you make sure you have a web-server running (like apache2 or nginx) and you serve your website over the internet.

If you want to add a domain, purchase a domain on namecheap.com and go to the DNS settings. Set an A Record to the IP address of your box.

Viola, you've made an internets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> some spiffy templates here --> [https://html5up.net/](https://html5up.net/)

in regards to > Please someone suggest me anything advice, article, blog

write something you are passionate and enthusastic about, otherwise it will likely not be a fun experience for you. for example, if you really enjoy hiking write about all steps of planning a long hiking trip. there are many examples of others doing something similar... in any case I would start with something I enjoy and like talking about as charisma is contagious</comment>


SARS-CoV-2 Point of Entry into Cells Captured by Cryo-EM - <AUTHOR> https://www.genengnews.com/news/sars-cov-2-point-of-entry-into-cells-captured-by-cryo-em/ <comment><USER2> This is what I see when I click the above link

[https://imgur.com/a/NPKYdBR](https://imgur.com/a/NPKYdBR)

The web had been well and truly ruined

<comment><USER3> The relevant paper: [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/03/scie...](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/03/science.abb2762/tab- pdf)

Note:

Official names have been announced for the virus responsible for COVID-19 (previously known as "2019 novel coronavirus") and the disease it causes. The official names are:

Disease

coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Virus

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

[https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel- coronavirus-2...](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel- coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus- disease-\(covid-2019\)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it)

<comment><USER4> The artwork on this Science PDF looks excellent.

However, on the Linux I am using, the text color on the images is not fully consistent with the art, nor is its description below the figures.

This can get more confusing with the superimposed structures in Figure 5.</comment></comment></comment>


The 3D-Printed Gun Isn't Coming. It's Already Here - <AUTHOR> https://gen.medium.com/the-3d-printed-gun-isnt-coming-it-s-already-here-6855fd394a47 <comment><USER2> The reaction to the possibility of 3D printed firearms reminds me of back when polymer frames pistols were a new scary thing.

[https://reason.com/2018/08/07/the-1986-plastic-gun- panic/](https://reason.com/2018/08/07/the-1986-plastic-gun-panic/)

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://archive.is/29LLq](http://archive.is/29LLq)</comment>


Largest destroyer built for Navy headed to sea for testing - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/largest-destroyer-built-navy-headed-sea-testing-144549669.html <comment><USER2> Wow, that's the same 15kT displacement as the USN's first nuclear cruiser, Long Beach, on a hull that is 100 feet shorter and 10 feet wider. That can't be good for the fineness ratio, a bit like pushing a barrel through the waves instead of a cone.

Presumably that's why it's classified a ( fast-sprinting ) destroyer rather than a ( long-distance ) cruiser. I wonder what its endurance at '30+ knots' actually is...

<comment><AUTHOR> They did say they have a lot of work that went into the hull to get something that would be efficient.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "the ship's skipper, Navy Capt. James Kirk"

You gotta think that guy has taken some crud for his name.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> here's some video: [https://gcaptain.com/video-first-footage-of-future-uss- zumwa...](https://gcaptain.com/video-first-footage-of-future-uss-zumwalt- ddg-1000-underway/)

Wish they had got footage from another ship since that tends to show how quite ships are.</comment>


Show HN: Asteroids Artificial Player in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://rrhvella.github.io/js-asteroids-artificial-player/

<comment><USER2> My only concern is that the ship doesn't prefer to shot the smaller asteroids. (I try to not break the big asteroids until all the debris of the previous asteroid are cleaned.)

<comment><AUTHOR> True, this would make things a lot easier for the ship.</comment></comment>


Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets - <AUTHOR> https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/enforcement-tm-statement-potentially-unlawful-online-platforms-trading <comment><USER2> This is going to put a dent into the classic Bitcoin exchange business models of "claim we were hacked", "front run the customers", and "speculate with the funds on deposit".

<comment><USER3> Yup, we'll probably be stuck with only 2-4 exchanges that are able to afford the regulatory burden and then the regulators will claim a victory for "helping the little guy."

<comment><USER4> As a "little guy" who lost a lot of USD and Bitcoin in the MtGox fiasco (luckily, nothing I couldn't afford to lose, though with the price BTC is trading at now it would be really nice to still have those BTC), and any possible partial payout through the bankruptcy process is tied up in potential litigation, I'm a fan of more heavily regulated exchanges that I can actually trust.

Since the MtGox fiasco, I've never bothered trying to liquidate any more of my Bitcoin, and instead just occasionally use it to pay for things which accept direct Bitcoin payment.

I'd be a lot happier with a trustworthy, audited exchange.

If there are smaller exchanges that couldn't deal with the regulation, they probably also can't deal with security, keeping enough secure reserves to be able to pay out in the case of losses, auditing both their security and finances to ensure that they stay healthy and liquidate gracefully if they ever run into financial trouble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So if some anonymous person invents cryptocurrencies, at what point are you supposed to be considered securities? If the first exchange had gone to SEC to register as a securities exchange, would the SEC not have laughed in their face? The headline itself really captures the ambiguity and uncertainty of all of this: "potentially unlawful".

<comment><USER6> The reason why many cryptocurrencies are considered securities is because there's a certain group of people promoting them as in investment. They are claiming that their cryptocurrencies will rise in value.

If you study the definition of money, and what makes a good currency, there's no kind of money that rises in value merely because you own it. Money is meant to be spent or invested, not hoarded. (Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" gives a much better explanation in the first few chapters than I can.)

So, the point that you have to register as a security is the point that you start convincing people to own your cryptocurrency as in investment. At that point, your cryptocurrency isn't money; because money is meant to be spent.

How do you keep the SEC out of your cryptocurrency? Invent a cryptocurrency that functions as money. You will need to figure out how to keep the value stable on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis. That means that the supply needs to expand and contract quickly based on demand. "Mining" based cryptocurrencies can not do this.

<comment><USER7> Very interesting idea. Have you heard about Basecoin and Seigniorage shares? They are trying to do exactly that: [http://www.getbasecoin.com/](http://www.getbasecoin.com/) Are these coins securities in your opinion?

<comment><USER8> Stablecoins are effectively digital money laundering tools.

See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve#Criminal_inves...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve#Criminal_investigation_and_charges)

Why bother using a convoluted blockchain stablecoin rube goldberg machine where you need to jump though several hoops just to use it, when you could use a service like venmo, square, stripe, etc? What use case would justify the need for a stable coin if not for evading the law?

<comment><USER9> Cross-border payments is one. BTC was a cheaper and more convenient alternative to Western Union before the tx fees skyrocketed.

<comment><USER10> and still is now that the fees are low again and spam attacks pushed off

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm flabbergasted by how much disinformation is infecting this threat. If you look at the list of legal actions the SEC has pursued at the bottom of the article, they are all flagrant violations of securities law and clearly unethical practices.

For example, in "SEC v. Jon E. Montroll and Bitfunder", the individual in question was accepting "investments" in his exchange that were clearly securities (probably fitting the definition of a public offering). He also failed to report a massive theft of Bitcoin and misappropriated customer funds.

This guidance does not claim that Bitcoin or Ethereum are securities.

This is the birth of a new industry. It's unregulated, messy, and the massive amounts of money involved have invited all manner of fraudsters and scam artists - just like the stock market did 100 years ago. There will be a regulatory shakeout and we can all hopefully get back to the business of building a useful ecosystem.

<comment><USER12> This comment is written as if it says something important, but really doesn't say anything at all.

It would be monumentally newsworthy if there was clear guidance that Bitcoin and Ethereum "weren't securities" (more generally: that businesses that simply deal in Bitcoin were generally outside the purview of securities regulation). But we do not in fact know that right now.

No expert believes that you can look at the list of current enforcement actions and reliably predict the SEC's next actions. They could keep taking out scammers for the next several years, getting practice by picking out the low-hanging fruit. Or, they could _at literally any moment_ come down like a ton of bricks on the industry's most mainstream participants. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that "coin-mediated" finance is enabling thousands of people to launch investment-driven businesses who would previously not have been able to do that before, not because of a lack of technical ability but because the laws made it prohibitively expensive. _Those laws have not been repealed_. A lot of reasonable people are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

<comment><USER11> I'm personally very keen on "coin-mediated" finance. However, that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to believe I can flout securities law without consequences. A public offering is still a public offering when you couch it behind a token, no matter how cleverly constructed your whitepaper.

If the SEC was going to come down like a ton of bricks they would have done so already. I could be wrong, but their actions seem to demonstrate that they're taking a very measured, careful approach to coming up with a regulatory framework.

My comment was a reaction to other comments, not the statement from the SEC - which actually doesn't say much either.

<comment><USER12> I think reasonable people can disagree about the likelihood of upcoming enforcement actions. The only place where I feel entitled to get shouty about things is when people suggest that it's clear what the SEC is going to do next. I think it's easy to make a case that it's anything but clear.

I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable proclaiming with any certainty that Bitcoin or Ethereum or even ICOs were definitely _going_ to fall afoul of the SEC. My understand is that the SEC is generally a lot smaller than "we" think it is and it's sort of a random function. Cryptocurrency is super important to HN, but the SEC's definition of "systemically important" is different than ours.

<comment><USER13> > My understand is that the SEC is generally a lot smaller than "we" think it > is and it's sort of a random function. Cryptocurrency is super important to > HN, but the SEC's definition of "systemically important" is different than > ours.

Their mandate is to protect unsophisticated investors. That's why they weren't particularly interested in Madoff, and why the rules are so much laxer if you target "accredited investors."

Given that mandate, I think it's highly unlikely that they're going to go after romping, runaway successes. They'll focus on blatant pig-in-a-pokes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It looks like they are going after the exchanges, see this choice quote:

> A platform that trades securities and operates as an "exchange," as defined > by the federal securities laws, must register as a national securities > exchange or operate under an exemption from registration, such as the > exemption provided for ATSs under SEC Regulation ATS.

And it says that online wallets may qualify if they facilitate trading:

> Some online trading platforms may not meet the definition of an exchange > under the federal securities laws, but directly or indirectly offer trading > or other services related to digital assets that are securities. For > example, some platforms offer digital wallet services (to hold or store > digital assets) or transact in digital assets that are securities. These and > other services offered by platforms may trigger other registration > requirements under the federal securities laws, including broker-dealer, > transfer agent, or clearing agency registration, among other things. In > addition, a platform that offers digital assets that are securities may be > participating in the unregistered offer and sale of securities if those > securities are not registered or exempt from registration.

<comment><USER15> This will not scale, being that many of the modern cryptocurrencies make it really easy to implement token exchange mechanisms. Fully de-centralized exchanges are coming too, how are they ever going to regulate that?

<comment><USER16> Possibly like pretty much everything else: by writing or clarifying regulations that make such things a violation and then painstakingly going after the most extreme violators and punishing them severely enough that it changes the risk calculation for everyone. Very few things (I can't think of an example) are regulated to the point of impossibility, they are just regulated to the point of implausibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I didn't see any cryptocurrency exchanges in their list of approved exchanges. How does one find out whether a cryptocurrency exchange is registered properly with the SEC?

<comment><USER18> It's very simple. The SEC will prosecute one of the big boy "exchanges" and bring that company to a screeching halt. All of the rest will have to meet stringent regulatory requirements in order to service American customers.

<comment><USER19> This only works for US-based exchanges though.

<comment><USER20> Tell that to the poker companies. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does this mean that Coinbase isn't registered but should be? Wonder how this will play out.

<comment><USER22> Coinbase has been extremely conservative in which digital assets it supports (viz., only Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and Bitcoin Cash). None of these are securities.

<comment><USER23> Eth used an ICO.

<comment><USER24> Still not a security as it's not intended as stake in a business

<comment><USER25> When Ethereum ICO'ed it definitely met the Howey test for securities criteria. The SEC even stated that.

<comment><USER26> Where did it say that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From my untrained perspective it seems like they are warning against "the appearance of a regulated market". Therefore, all these markets should do is have a big banner at the top stating:

"We are not regulated by the SEC and any activity here is not protected by any rules and regulations which might apply to a SEC registered company. Please be careful"

Or am i crazy?

<comment><USER28> They explicitly note that the law requires anything that is an exchange for trading things that meet the legal definition of a security must either (1) meet the requirements for and register as a national securities exchange or, (2) qualify for and secure an exemption under one of the existing legal exemptions from the registration requirement.

They note that they are particularly concerned about customers mistaking something for having the features of a regulated exchange when it does not, but the legal risk and basis for enforcement is not limited to that kind of confusion. So, no, simply announcing that you are an exchange which doesn't comply with the registration requirements won't help, and might hurt.

<comment><USER29> (3) operate outside of the US.

<comment><USER30> (3a) Not allowing US customers (3b) Hopefully in a country that does not have any extradition treaties with the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What will the SEC do when 0x decentralized exchanges pop up?

There are already a dozen in development... pure p2p trading from a hardware wallet...

[https://0xproject.com/](https://0xproject.com/)

<comment><USER32> You have to convert USD to some cryptocurrency at some point, and vice-versa, so that's what they'll regulate.

<comment><USER11> Yup. It's really quite simple - focus on the USD on-ramps and off-ramps.

<comment><USER19> It's effectively the only way to do it but the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country, one that is OK with crypto along with non-US based exchanges.

<comment><USER33> > _the way around it is fairly simple: use a bank account on another country_

Willful money laundering isn't a "simple" risk-reward decision.

<comment><USER19> I wasn't describing that with the intent of laundering money, I mean simply having money in a different jurisdiction and using it locally. I can use my cards from different countries (I've lived in a bunch of different places) pretty much anywhere around the world, the money I have there in those currencies is subject first and foremost to local laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> There doesn't appear to be any new information here, and this quote sums it up pretty well:

 _The SEC staff has concerns that many online trading platforms appear to investors as SEC-registered and regulated marketplaces when they are not._

The SEC has already made its view clear that many ICOs fall under SEC regulatory jurisdiction. For example:

[https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/testimony-virtual- currenc...](https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/testimony-virtual-currencies- oversight-role-us-securities-and-exchange-commission)

<comment><USER13> You could argue that there was no new information in the DAO guidance, too, but it did sharpen the public perception of the SEC's position. I think this warning is doing the same.

Also, ICOs and exchanges are different beasts, both subject to SEC jurisdiction. This is about regulation of and enforcement against exchanges, not ICOs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can anyone tell me if Valve's Steam Marketplace would constitute a "securities" platform. What is the diffrence between Valve facilitating the buying/selling some ingame currency for arbitrary amounts of real dollars between users and facilitating the buying/selling of a cryptocurrency?

<comment><USER36> No. The difference here is 99% of people holding crypto assets are doing so as (and literally calling them "Investments"). People putting money into steam are knowingly doing so for the purpose of playing games.

The former represents a significant threat to the stability of American households when a large portion of the population thinks they are "investing" in something that is also not required to follow the safeguards in place for investments. In case you didn't realize it, there are many many people putting much more money into crypto than they can afford to lose. See credit card purchases on Coinbase for more info.

I'd just assume let stupid people be stupid people, however, when millions of those stupid people collectively lose their money together...it creates huge societal problems and strain on government services which you and I have to pay for...with _US dollars_ of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> A lot of people on this thread are conflating Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for what the SEC is talking about in this statement: tokens that are acting as securities. They do not mean Bitcoin and similar tokens (ETH, LTC, ADA, NEO, etc). If you've been following the SEC's other statements, testimonies, and senate committee hearings, you would know that they do not have a problem with digital currencies per se. That is outside of their mandate (those fall under the CFTC's purview). What the SEC is concerned with is _companies_ that issue digital tokens which act as securities. That is to say, the reason people buy the tokens is the expectation that the work of the company that issued the tokens will cause the value of the tokens to increase, and that is the motivation for people to buy them.

This differs from Bitcoin, which is not issued by any company and has no central organization that does any work or promotion of the token.

The response from American cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex expresses the distinction between securities and other types of tokens:

"As a U.S.-based digital currency exchange, Bittrex is committed to incubating new blockchain technology projects and offering innovative, compliant digital tokens to our customers. Bittrex uses a robust digital token review process to ensure the tokens listed on the exchange are compliant with U.S. law and are not considered securities. Bittrex is committed to helping advance the United States' global leadership in this emerging industry, and we look forward to continuing our proactive dialogue with the SEC and other regulators on how to build a secure, fully-regulated environment for blockchain that encourages innovation and economic growth."

[https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en- us/articles/360001525152-B...](https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en- us/articles/360001525152-Bittrex-statement-on-the-SEC-s-online-trading- platforms-announcement-)

They seem to be prepared to meet the SEC in court to argue that the assets they facilitate trading for are not securities.

</comment><comment><USER38> Regulated exchanges have in place a lot of measures to ensure transparency and protection of traders/investors including survailance systems which closely look at potential market manipulation. Currently no crypto exchange has such systems in place - even their matching engines are in question, as mentioned by the SEC.

Given the amount of money that is traded every day at crypto exchanges the statement from SEC was expected, but they seem to think that the crypto markets are too important (too large) to go the Chinese way - to shut down crypto exchanges that do not comply with basic rules that all exchanges should follow. But maybe this is just a warning and they will do it later, who knows...

</comment><comment><USER39> Please consider your words.. I see many posts using "money" interchangeably with "investment"; and misunderstanding the financial definition of "exchange" (eg trying to argue eBay is the same as Coinbase). Maybe that's the disconnect, the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Like using webapp, app and program interchangeably "well they all run on computers right?"

</comment><comment><USER40> There's a lot of misinformation here about US-based laws. Here are the facts:

1\. All US based exchanges require FinCen registration

2\. Most states require a money transmission license

Before choosing an exchange, ask to see their FinCen and state licenses. Coinbase's licenses, for example, are posted publicly:

[https://www.coinbase.com/legal/licenses](https://www.coinbase.com/legal/licenses)

</comment><comment><USER41> nice instant BTC drop from $10700 to $9400 following this news...

<comment><USER42> May be more likely due to the Binance "hack." [http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-p...](http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin- price-is-plummeting-as-rumors-of-a-binance-hack-swirl-2018-3-1018289038)

Edited for clarity.

<comment><USER43> We don't know Binance was hacked. Relatively few people use API keys to trade and every reported account had API keys on it. It's likely some malware that looks for API keys in config / python files laying around.

<comment><USER44> Perhaps. A SQL injection hole could potentially expose API keys, or there could be a vulnerability that lets an attacker _add_ an API key.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Come to Iowa. Our State legislature made a haven for exchanges that is virtually immune from fraud.

[https://twitter.com/leerood/status/971445822524190729](https://twitter.com/leerood/status/971445822524190729)

</comment><comment><USER46> Everyone knows that orders are executed fairly on SEC regulated exchanges, right? Ehhh, not really.

It's important to look back on Flash Boys and recognize the reality of regulated exchanges. Ultimately consumer demands will drive the ethical operation of any exchange.

</comment><comment><USER47> Does this apply to digital game item trading/markets at all?

</comment><comment><USER48> makes me think about the circle and poloniex deal that just happened. Polo seems very unlawful to me considering all the shitcoins that are listed.

<comment><USER49> Polo / Circle discussed with the SEC before the purchase. SEC provided an exemption from prosecution provided Polo registered as a fully licensed exchange.

[https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper/status/96820257071911731...](https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper/status/968202570719117313)

<comment><USER50> Is there any actual evidence for this claim though?

<comment><USER49> I don't know more than that tweet, but I would say Nathaniel Popper is a reasonably reliable source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I wonder how they will claim jurisdiction. If it is a foreign ( non US ) located platform, this will be harder to enforce.

</comment><comment><USER52> Is this the beginning of exchanges getting shutdown?

Does anyone have a list of exchanges that are registered?

</comment><comment><USER53> LOL. I feel like they should be able to distinguish between ICOs and exchanges.

</comment><comment><USER54> The whole regulatory framework behind cryptocurrency is a mess. IRS classifies cryptocurrencies as a property, while SEC classifies some as a security. Which only makes it harder to regulate. Problems like these need to be solve in order to help the ecosystem mature in a sustainable way.

</comment><comment><USER55> "I'm not going to live by their rules anymore."

\-- Phil Connors, Groundhog Day

</comment><comment><USER56> This won't age well with the rise of decentralized exchanges like 0x

<comment><USER30> Unless the decentralized exchanges get a licence, they'll still be illegal, right?

I could imagine jail time for the developers for knowingly supporting illegal activity would seriously dampen enthusiasm from the open source community. Also, depending on how decentralized such an exchange is, this would expose its customers to the same type of consequences (or possibly "just" large fines). It would not be too difficult to pass a law prohibiting consumers to knowingly trade on non-registered exchanges I'd think. (Possibly this is already illegal in your particular jurisdiction, IANAL)

<comment><USER57> I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for writing open source code.

It would be a direct affront to the First Amendment, and it would be remarkable if the US government ever did this to anyone residing in the US, let alone someone residing in other countries where different laws apply.

I could maybe see the Chinese government taking such action, but it has much less influence globally than the US, and a relatively small portion of open source contributors reside in Mainland China.

>>It would not be too difficult to pass a law prohibiting consumers to knowingly trade on non-registered exchanges I'd think.

Such a law would be widely ignored. Just look at illegal filesharing.

Ultimately digital currency will force the US to decide whether it's a free society, or whether it mandates that people transact through centralized gatekeepers. Hopefully it will choose the former.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> even if SEC comes raining down hell on exchanges, it will not bring any value on the long term. Decentralized exchanges are popping up like flies, each new one being more close to the "fully decentralized" concept (see idex, etherdelta, radarrelay, anything 0x related, etc).

It is very clear to me that SEC has no idea how any of this works under the hood and does not understand in which way the crypto ecosystem is headed. I feel like they ought to work more tightly with the industry's thinkers in order to create some more meaningful guidelines.

</comment><comment><USER59> bitcoin just needs to achieve a closed loop economy, and this won't sound as bad

</comment><comment><USER60> Finally, a sense of reason. These scams should be put to an end! Regulation is an invention of progress, not the opposite!

</comment><comment><USER61> Thank you

<comment><USER61> (life insurance good to go)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> sweet, I was looking for a good entry point. Thanks, SEC!

<comment><USER63> Smart

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> This is a press release - nothing more. A CYA from the SEC in case something blows up tomorrow. It's not a cease and desist letter to the exchange operators - so on balance, this is good news for them. I think the SEC is not confident that the courts will support their position, and so the next best option is.... a press release.

<comment><USER65> That's not how any of this works.

What you're looking at is not a press release, it is what's called "administrative guidance" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_guidance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_guidance)) -- a regulatory agency laying out its interpretation of how existing laws and regulations apply to a given situation. Regulators do this to remove ambiguity, so regulated parties know what the agency expects them to do in order to stay on the right side of the law.

In this specific case, the SEC is advising crypto-based operations calling themselves "exchanges" that this is a word that has a special legal meaning, and that therefore if they want to _continue_ calling themselves "exchanges" they either need to comply with the same licensing requirements that apply to other "national securities exchanges," or demonstrate a good reason why those requirements don't apply to them. (And not just to crypto in general, to their specific operation in particular.)

The reason this matters is because, now that the SEC has officially gone on the record with this statement, crypto exchanges can't say they weren't warned if they continue using the term and the SEC comes after them later. This statement is their warning that they need to either get licensed or stop calling themselves exchanges. If they choose to do nothing and just keep on calling themselves exchanges, and the SEC takes them to court over it, they won't be able to argue that they didn't know what they were required to do to use that term. The SEC has just told them what they need to do. The ambiguity has been removed.

<comment><USER66> > In this specific case, the SEC is advising crypto-based operations calling > themselves "exchanges" that this is a word that has a special legal meaning,

Really? I didn't get that reading at all. The discussion of the use of the word "exchange" is under the guidance for investors, not the guidance for trading platforms.

The guidance for trading platforms specifically talks about which assets are being traded and how determining what type of registration is required (national security exchange, ATS, broker-dealer, transfer agent, etc...)

"A number of these platforms provide a mechanism for trading assets that meet the definition of a "security" under the federal securities laws. If a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an "exchange," as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration. "

<comment><USER65> It's possible I'm misreading the specific requirements -- I am not a securities lawyer, my HN comments are not legal advice, etc. If you are operating one of these platforms, the issuance of this document is a good reason to have a chat with a qualified attorney to figure out exactly how it affects your business.

But that just underlines my main point, which was that this document is a lot more than just a press release.

<comment><USER66> I definitely agree with your main point, (and I am also not a lawyer)

<comment><USER67> Off topic but can we drop the "I am not a lawyer" thing in forums?

It is not necessary. Do you really think your random internet comment will be considered legal advice?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you want to be remembered?  - <AUTHOR>

I've been pondering this after being repeatedly asked for biographies for press releases or whatever.<p>How do you want to be remembered? <comment><USER2> "We were better for having known him, and he was better for having shared his life with us."

The rest is detail.

</comment><comment><USER3> Being remembered is irrelevant to me. Death is a pretty macro-scale occurrence and humanity is pretty much nothing but a blip in that eternity. Having said that, I do want my kids and loved ones to be happy and healthy.

</comment><comment><USER4> Everyone should work on a simulation of themselves that would be used after they die to remember them.

In this way, people could influence how others remember them in a more direct way.

This is why it is important for everyone to learn programming -- so that everyone could create such a simulation of themselves.

<comment><USER5> Writing a simulation of yourself would not be even remotely practical for most people.

A tool to allow people to create such a simulation could be an intresting idea for a start-up.

<comment><USER6> You could always seed a Markov chain system with a corpus of your collected emails, IM logs, and writings. Then you'll just seem to be afflicted with posthumous dementia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Hey! That bastard owes me a lot of money!" :)

</comment><comment><USER8> He gave more to this world than he took.

</comment><comment><USER9> As the guy who invented artificial intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER10> The guy that did the thing.

</comment><comment><USER11> Bad Motherfucker

<comment><USER12> err - Bad Ass Mother Fucker (BAMF)

<comment><USER11> Nope. I wrote it the way I want it. ref: [http://www.sportsocracy.org/imgs/BadAssMotherFuckerWallet.JP...](http://www.sportsocracy.org/imgs/BadAssMotherFuckerWallet.JPG)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good question.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Aw, darn."

</comment><comment><USER15> Crazy Uncle electronslave.

Also, the guy who invented that thing. You know, that replaced razors? (I remember this as being my favorite sci-fi trope, next to "name all the presidents from 1965 onwards.")

Like this dude: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wan_Hu>

In all seriousness, I think anyone who aspires to legacy isn't focusing on the shape that their life is currently in. Legacy's for dying loaded fogies to worry about, not people young enough to be writing their own bios for press releases.

</comment><comment><USER16> Most of us are destined to be forgotten by all but our dear ones. Grow up. There's only one von Neumann born per millenium. The bright side is that not being von Neumann does not mean one can't do meaningful work.</comment>


Planning a Morrowind all-faction speedrun with simulated annealing, part 2 - <AUTHOR> https://kimonote.com/@mildbyte/travelling-murderer-problem-planning-a-morrowind-all-faction-speedrun-with-simulated-annealing-part-2-43269/ <comment><USER2> This was a blast to read! I enjoyed both parts, and I'm really looking forward to the next.

Reflecting on the pieces, the author is pretty talented at communicating effectively—I found the material interesting, the writing style lively enough to enjoy, and the presentation to have just the right balance of explanation and example. It's so well done I didn't think of any of these things as I read.

The author's bio is also a standout piece of writing to me: [http://mildbyte.xyz/about.html](http://mildbyte.xyz/about.html)

<comment><USER3> This guy can write. Another good one: [https://kimonote.com/@mildbyte/starving-children-or-the- fall...](https://kimonote.com/@mildbyte/starving-children-or-the-fallacy-of- relative-privation-32827/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 10 minutes for Dijkstra on a graph with only 6500 vertices and 16000 edges sounds fishy - I'd expect that to take way less than a second.

<comment><USER5> > 16000 teleportation edges [...] doesn't include physical travel edges > between the vertices

<comment><USER6> Even with 6500 vertices, you have a total max of 6500^2 edges (after filtering for minimum distance per edge, which is very fast). Using a performant language such as C++ and a priority queue there is no way that you would reach even 10s for a single djikstras.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What kind of software do speedrunners normally use for route planning? It seems like an underserved niche to me.

<comment><USER8> I think a lot of speed run games are much more linear than this.

<comment><USER9> correct, but also this person gave themself a hard goal of beating 9 storylines, not one. this is essentially a traveling salesman problem where the salesman has to talk to 9 sets of ordered lists of 3-10 people, and can work on them simultaneously, along with a couple other things. the author quickly realized that brute force wouldn't work and chose a genetic algorithm instead.

the normal unpatched speed run of morrowind basically involves gaining the ability to run at hundreds of miles per hour, getting two items, getting to the final boss and killing him in one hit. takes about 5 minutes. hilariously the item is called the "boots of blinding speed" and let's you run incredibly fast but turns your screen black while equipped

<comment><USER10> The Boots of Blinding Speed are not used in Morrowind speedruns. The high speed is achieved with a weapon swap glitch(only present in the 1.0 version of the game) where swapping between two weapons quickly will apply all of their buffs permanently to your character. This is done with two story related artifacts that happen to buff all sorts of useful stats, including movement speed.

<comment><USER11> That sounds like a deeply boring speedrun. What's the time on a patched Morrowind?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Now do it with blockchain.

</comment><comment><USER13> > marksman, mysticism and sneak secondary

stealth archers best build confirmed empirically [https://imgur.com/gallery/4xAA7](https://imgur.com/gallery/4xAA7)

<comment><USER14> This is Morrowind, not Skyrim. Stealth archers are not a thing here. In fact I'd say magic-based characters are much, much better than combat or stealth- based ones.

<comment><USER15> Morrowind is sufficiently broken, in the best possible and most fun way, that any character can become a god. Abusing alchemy, 1pt levitate spears, doors, the teleportation shrine in Vivec, or infinite potions can be done by any class.

It's incredibly impressive that a game can have hundreds of hours of content, yet be speedran in 7 minutes.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't call it broken. It's by design. Proof is that most of the "exploits" were carried over Oblivion and then Skyrim. For example, creating very very overpowered potions is possible in all games. It's your choice if you want to spoil the fun or not.

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't call it "spoiling the fun", half the fun of Elder Scrolls games is that you can become transcendent.

In Arena, you start humbly, but rise high enough that you destroy Jagar Tharn, one of the most powerful mages in the whole of the history of the Elder Scrolls games.

In Daggerfall, you're the right-hand man of the Emperor, and seek out a world- ending superweapon, and may just take it for yourself.

In Morrowind, you are a god, or very close to. The reincarnation of the Nevarine. That you can become overpowered makes sense. Bandits should fear you. Ordinary people should.

In Oblivion, you're the right-hand man of someone who ascends. You walk into literal Hell and fight demons. The bare mysteries of the world are laid clear by you. You steal the book of spells of immortal characters.

In Skyrim, you're descendant from a man who became a god. You have a gift that can shatter the heavens, and break open portals between worlds. You kill the son of Akatosh.

You're right, it is design, because it makes sense.

<comment><USER17> _The bare mysteries of the world are laid clear by you._

What does this mean?

<comment><USER16> A reference to the contested ownership of Tamriel between Akatosh and Mehrunes Dagon.

<comment><USER17> What are bare mysteries? Bear mysteries?

<comment><USER16> Bare mysteries.

Bare as in raw, foundational, etc.

<comment><USER17> I think you might be confused with something like 'mysteries laid bare'. Bare doesn't mean foundational and if mysteries were already bare, what kind of mysteries would they be?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Would you broadcast your OS process list live?  Would you like to see other people's process lists? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> To be honest, this doesn't interest me in the least. It fills me with deep unmoving apathy. I don't think that the information gathered would be useful outside of an initial voyeuristic kick. Overall statistics might be neat as well, but not on a continuing basis. I'd much rather have an actual discussion about tool usage and work flow.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Unlike broadcasting your computer display say, there is less of a privacy issue with process lists. And maybe people can learn something from each other's process list broadcasts.

For example, you can get some idea as to what your friends are up to all day, what sorts of tools they use, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, this might encourage open source developers as they would know when others are using their software.

Imagine for example something like <http://twittervision.com/> that one can monitor with respect to certain apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You'll find tons of process lists on virus support forums. Some people would be helped if they could check their processes against a clean list if it could help them discover problems and have an easy way to fix them.

</comment><comment><USER4> From /etc/services:

netstat 15/tcp

Now I feel like an old guy - I remember when you would occasionally find people leaving that open.

</comment><comment><USER5> my process list looks something like this:

1) firefox 2) top 3) a hundred processes owned by root. boring.

<comment><AUTHOR> A mining algorithm could be used to identify interesting events/trends in your computer usage.

In fact, it would be fun if the service were to make predictions about what you will do next. People could then watch live to see if those predictions come true.</comment></comment>


Android apps found on Google Play download spyware - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/05/11/android-apps-found-on-google-play-download-spyware-to-monitor-your-text-messages-call-logs-and-location/ <comment><USER2> They download it, they can't install it</comment>


100 growth hacks in 100 days: Day 1 - <AUTHOR> http://timothy.userapp.io/post/66678739796/100-growth-hacks-in-100-days-day-1

<comment><USER2> This is an incredibly smart move. My entire company is focused on solving the gap between signup and integration. You have no idea how many people just abandon ship because they feel overwhelmed and confused. Even something as simple as a help button can do wonders for retention. Good on you! This is a great first step.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your support :) Will be interesting to see the final results after 100 days.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Any tips and feedback is appreciated! :)

<comment><USER3> they all thought us one valuable thing they all taught us one valuable thing

Good other than that. Be sure to keep us updated with the results of each day's action.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, thanks man! Yes, will keep you updated. The results will probably be published after a week or so, after each post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone know why I just dropped several points? :(

<comment><USER4> Welcome to HN :)</comment></comment>


The race for autonomous cars is over. Silicon Valley lost - <AUTHOR> http://www.autoblog.com/2017/02/21/race-for-autonomous-cars-is-over-mcelroy-autoline-opinion/ <comment><USER2> _One billion people get in and out of a car every single day. They go to work, they go home, they shop, they play, they do a billion different things. Knowing where they 're going and what they're doing can be very valuable. And then it can be sold to anyone._

It will be a sad day if and when real innovation loses to the sale of personal information for the purpose of surveillance and advertising.

<comment><USER3> It was a sad decade. Seems like smartphones accomplished this and more for a signifigantly lower price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Funny that an article that claims the Silicon Valley lost uses a quote by Elon Musk to argue its point. And using some of the Apple rumors as another indicator. I would not declare the race for the autonomous car over, until there exists one street legal autonomous car. And currently, Tesla is at least among the possible candidates for this achievement.

</comment><comment><USER5> Of all the car companies (including Tesla), General Motors is the only one that appears to really have it's shit together, though this is liable to change.

I agree that the OEM's in general have done a better job of responding to the threat from the valley than the valley has done of adapting to the challenge of manufacturing things made of atoms.

But the race. It hasn't even begun. We aren't even clear about what the starting positions are.

</comment><comment><USER6> Having a look at the history of autonomous cars [1] may be illustrative, the summary reads as follows.

 _Experiments have been conducted on automating cars since at least the 1920s; promising trials took place in the 1950s and work has proceeded since then. The first self-sufficient and truly autonomous cars appeared in the 1980s, with Carnegie Mellon University 's Navlab and ALV projects in 1984 and Mercedes-Benz and Bundeswehr University Munich's Eureka Prometheus Project in 1987._

Autonomous cars are far from a new idea and companies and institutions spend serious amounts of time and money on this. The technology did not make it into production because it was not quite good enough, to expensive or the required computing power took up to much room. But if you started looking into the subject in the late 2000s or even later, then you are certainly late to the party and established car manufacturers and suppliers might have quite a head start for you to catch up.

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

</comment><comment><USER7> So said the phone companies about cellphones in 2005.

</comment><comment><USER8> Teslas "autonomous" tech is pretty much on par with the tech used by the classic OEMs. The difference is mainly in (sometimes misleading) marketing and the fact that Tesla is willing to accept higher risks. This might be good in terms of "pushing the envelope" but it can bite you badly if your immature systems are responsible for a growing number of accidents.

</comment><comment><USER9> _Last year in the U.S. market alone Chevrolet collected 4,220 terabytes of data from customer 's cars. McKinsey forecasts that this could grow into a $450 to 750 billion market by 2030_

Is there _any_ data these big companies will not collect?

</comment><comment><USER10> disclaimer : i am not an american

Except they did not. US == technology, innovation, risk, success / failure. Europe == traditional engineering, lack of innovation, fear.

For the sake of argument the automakers are incapable of making an infotainment that would not suck. I do not quiet understand how can people think that traditional automakers while good at making cars, logistics and selling would better and more competitive in TECHNOLOGY than people from Silicon Valley. Also SV is not trying to make money and compete with automakers at this point. They are in it to win in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER11> Tesla is technically from Silicon Valley. And it's the leader of the pack on this.

I think Apple under Steve Jobs would've pulled it off as well, especially if Steve decided to go "thermonuclear war" on Musk for "stealing" his employees. But with Tim Cook the chances were much smaller. Tim Cook still hasn't started moving Macs to ARM, and Steve Jobs would've probably done it like 2 years ago. Windows is actually going to do that first, even though it's significantly harder for Microsoft to pull it off than it is for Apple. Microsoft tends to support legacy stuff a lot longer, and it has a lot more to support.

<comment><USER12> Tesla's autonomous stuff is the most prominent in the media. It's not at all obvious that this translates into any sort of technical advantage.

<comment><USER5> I'm surprised at how little attention Tesla has given to the idea of robotaxis. At the time they decided getting Mobileye's chips into every Tesla would be a good idea they should have started a dedicated L4 development program, with the big spinning lidars and everything else.

The idea of taking an incremental approach has been abandoned by every serious player _except_ Tesla. Musk is more interested in sizzle than steak. Selling cars and keeping investors excited near term seems a bigger priority than being ready for the day L4 becomes a real thing.

Properly validating a fully autonomous car isn't a sprint, it's a marathon. Tesla is acting like a hare, but I'm betting on the tortoises.

<comment><USER4> Tesla has robotaxis clearly in mind with their technology. They made several statements about a possible taxi like service based on their cars. They think they can achieve complete autonomy with their current tech package. They also hinted that your tesla could drive itself to service appointments. I don't know whether they actually manage to pull this off, but they clearly intend to.

<comment><USER13> Having the car drive itself away is in my mind one of the most important features to get increase 100% electric market. You can have the car drive to a charger and automatically drive back once full, mitigating a shortage of charging stations as people leave their cars there long after they are charged 100%.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I know my software is working for my clients? - <AUTHOR> I'm the sole developer of a piece of software that solves a niche problem. People like it, and it's continually being used by old and new users alike.
Every time I release an update, I get complaints about various new features not working as expected, which is normal.
I try my best to address these issues with software updates, but since the software is growing more and more complex, this approach is getting less and less successful.
My way to deal with software updates is to listen to as many reports as possible, figure out common problems and try to address the biggest problem with a successive update.
However, I'm starting to realize that people only reach out and complain if they're actually having a problem (why send an error report if the software is working correctly?) Because the user-base is growing bigger, the chance that a person is experiencing a one-off problem -- a problem specific to their setup, environment or handling -- increases, while the chance that theirs is a common problem decreases.
So I know that _some_ users are experiencing a bug, but I don't know if it's a common bug, a rare bug, a design error or if the feature is even working for anyone at all!
I'm unsure about what to do here. The error reports I get are vague because of my closed-source "if you have a problem, it is the developer's problem" business model/mentality, client-side log files up to this point haven't been detailed enough, although I am working hard to improve that part a lot.
Is collecting anonymized user-data the answer to a problem like this?
TL;DR As my software grows more complex and the user-base increases, I start having more uncertainties about dealing with updates, stability, vague bug reports and "fixes".
Have any of you had similar problems? Do you know of any good resources dealing with software stability? Or does this sound like a clear indication of <insert common mistake>? <comment><USER2> I'm in the same predicament as you it seems :)

I once built a logging system into the app that the user could turn on/off if they were having issues and it would at least record what they were doing at the time and they could send it to me for review. It captured usage and exception info so I could narrow it down pretty quickly but getting them to use it was impossible unless they called and I asked them to do it. I'm not sure I'd like to be bombarded with user data from all my users though.

I now think a better system would be to build in a bug/feature reporting tool and put it front and centre on the menu or toolbar etc to encourage them to use it. Create the form with as many default values for fields as you can to make the report as specific as possible with just one area to describe the bug.

There's not much you can do about updates/patches, I just issue an email and flag them as normal or very important which at least gives the user a choice of when to install them.

For new features, I'm working on building in an interpreter for Clojure (I'm using C# as the main app language but using say Lua or building a simple Lisp interpreter isn't too hard). I want these new features to be 'plug-ins' rather than issue new releases all the time. It will also give the end user a chance to automate what they need specifically if they are inclined and able, saves me some work for little reward :) It also keeps the main 'engine' code smaller and maintainable, once you have the engine a majority of features are just automation anyway.</comment>


Bosch's electric drive turbo-boosts new electric vehicle startups - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bosch-electric-drive-enables-proliferation-of-ev-start-ups/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0g&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5970410704d30166bcf2c77a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter <comment><AUTHOR> One hope is that batteries and electric engines open up and make economical varying kinds of vehicles, especially because gas-powered engines have tended to favor cars.</comment>


De-risking custom technology projects: 18F technology budgeting guide - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/18F/technology-budgeting/blob/master/handbook.md <comment><USER3> I just went through this process on the other side as an 18F client.

Overall, I was happy with our experience, but the key (and in my opinion highest risk/resource investment) of their process was the identification and participation of the right product owner on the client side.

If you use 18F you are buying talent and a process. Besides money, you are also commiting a major personnel resource as well.

The key stakeholder is expected to spend a significant amount of time on the project on a daily basis. They also need to be someone senior enough to have decision making authority, ideally a historical perspective of how the organization works, and hopefully someone who had a moderate degree of technical knowledge.

Thankfully we had that person, and we were able to reassign a portion of his portfolio to someone else for the duration of the project. If we didn't have a person that checked those boxes, the project would have been much more unlikely to succeed.

The checklist itself is a fine starting point, but it's not going to be universally applicable in all cases. Again, this is why it's good to have that right key stakeholder.

I understand that agile may be a useful process for software development, but software is a tool/means to an end, not a goal.

I also think it's useful for folks in the software industry in general to have an honest understanding of the tradeoffs being made between different management processes. It's not a simple as waterfall bad, agile good. I'm curious how many people in this industry have real cross cutting (non software) engineering management experience. I get the feeling it's not a lot, which is too bad because those are the people you are designing tools for.

</comment><comment><USER4> My quick bullet points.

* Show me some software I can click around in (no animated videos about how XXX will solve ABCD).

* Tech does not solve authority / responsibility or other process / org issues.

* Let people solve their own problems - look at what's happening in shadow IT and support vs crush it.

* Limit "requirements" ruthlessly. Even as basic as why do you need your own logins (can you use a google suites or azure / microsoft oauth login)

* Be crystal clear on what you want to have happen for everything (sketch the input screens / reports etc).

* Value future "extensiblity / framework blah blah" near zero

* Value speed and responsiveness of software highly.

Programmers CAN implement reasonably against an absolutely buttoned up spec, and training / implementation are MUCH easier when something makes folks lives easier by being focused.

Govt in particular is terrible here - EVERYTHING is a requirement (5 different race / ethnicity / origin dimensions that overlap but are different? Yes - <USER2> absolute requirement! No - no one but the experts in diversity stats will ever be able to code anything properly against these so the data will be mostly junk), every tough decision is punted by including everything as a requirement, they constantly get sold based on powerpoint pitch decks / frameworks / platforms etc.

</comment><comment><USER5> I just came to say, I love 18F. I worked there from 2016-2018 and it's an incredible organization. If you are looking for a place to contribute to the federal government and make a difference with your technical skills, take a serious look at doing a tour of service.

<comment><USER6> Does 18F offer competitive salary or remote work? If not, what about pension?

I've never worked for the public sector, so I'm not entirely clear how it all works. How do you get promotions or raises?

Are these "civilian" jobs? Do they require security clearance?

Is there a risk of the office being defunded under the Trump administration?

<comment><USER7> I found the answers to most of your questions within 5 seconds of a Google query.

18F hiring page[1]

Civilian. Remote possible. No Security Clearance for most of their projects (not sure about all). 2 year temporary positions (with possible extensions) so probably doesn't lead to a federal pension, but there is a government version of a 401k[2].

There is always a non-zero risk of any office being defunded by any administration. Honestly speaking Obama's admin cut more public sector jobs than Trump did (but in 2009 due to lack of revenue, and in the 2011-203 budget sequestration). Trump and Kushner have both said good things about "high tech modernization projects", but like financial investment companies always warn "past performance is no guarantee of future results".

There are a number of current/former DSA / 18F / Code For America employees that rave about it. I think Matt Cutts[3] (of Google Search fame, recent US Digital Service Administrator) is one of the more recent ones in my mind.

[1] [https://18f.gsa.gov/join/](https://18f.gsa.gov/join/)

[2] [https://join.tts.gsa.gov/compensation-and- benefits/](https://join.tts.gsa.gov/compensation-and-benefits/)

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

<comment><USER6> > I found the answers to most of your questions within 5 seconds of a Google > query.

Thanks, but you don't have to tell me to "lmgtfy" because I wasn't actually looking for that kind of answer. Though I didn't explicitly state it, I wanted someone that worked at 18F to weigh in.

The value in HN is in getting commentary from people with interesting context. In that sense, I think you've subtracted something from the conversation.

Please don't do that. The rest of your comment was useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Happy to help answer questions about this (or direct them to the authors!)

</comment><comment><USER9> I think a lot of this advice does not apply widely outside of the federal government. For example, I sell COTS software to school districts. There are 15,000 jurisdictions in the US that operate autonomously, but to achieve very similar goals and with very similar operation. While there are differences in state law that can be important, there's far more in common across school districts than not.

To pick on one part of the bureaucracy, if you're the Department of Health and Human Services in the US, there may only be one of you, with pretty unique requirements that change when the law or regulations change. If you're a state agency who largely implements federal programs, there may only be 50 of you. Yeah, that's a market, but a pretty small one and more likely to have meaningful quirks. But a lot of the US is not like this-- school districts, municipal and county government, etc would do pretty poorly to follow some parts of these guidelines, and quite well served to follow others.

With a document like this, I feel like it's important to state the audience and some assumptions up front. They try to do this with some basic definitions, but I've too often seen someone take a document like this to justify maintaining a custom built municipal accounting system on an AS400 that three people in their sixties know how to maintain, as though there isn't a very robust COTS accounting system market for municipalities.

<comment><USER8> > But a lot of the US is not like this-- school districts, municipal and > county government, etc would do pretty poorly to follow some parts of these > guidelines, and quite well served to follow others.

True - I think the playbook is specifically oriented to state government folks - not as much municipal or county.

> I've too often seen someone take a document like this to justify maintaining > a custom built municipal accounting system

Please feel free to submit a PR to help make that clearer! I would only say that some COTS solutions can also end up in a "no one knows how to maintain this" after enough custom code has been added.

<comment><USER10> Worse, nobody knows how to maintain it and the vendor is gone and took the source with them.

<comment><USER8> This happens. I've also seen cases where the vendor, by contract, does not permit government staff outside of 1-2 people from viewing the source code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for sharing this; I've only skimmed it but it seems to hit some of the common issues right on the nail. Definitely a useful subject matter. Now we just gotta make the management read it ;-) I like the checklists and the questions to ask sections. The appendix also seems to ask relevant questions and provide proper guidance. I'd be interested to hear from a non-technical person to see what they think of it. Cheers

</comment><comment><USER12> So valuable.

Currently working on bringing product management as a concept into public services (non-US), and using 18F's ideas as a model.

The key aspect is product ownership, as not only is there a notion of product, but also introducing the notion of an individual with ownership, as management and ownership are orthogonal concepts.

The idea of metrics as we understand them in the tech/startup world is also different, as in tech we orient toward revenue and user growth, where public sector projects are largely funded in phases with a fixed budget. The whole economics of public sector projects is you have expensive development up front, and then you amortize that cost over a decade or more by transitioning it to cheaper/sunk-cost operations staff to manage it over its lifecycle. The other piece is that if you launch a public service that meets the needs on an 80:20 basis, you are a government who has left out %20 of people, which becomes untenable quickly.

Adding product management (e.g. something like aha.io, let alone Jira or Azure Devops) is a cultural change. Government has only just adapted to the notion of "client/server," which was a fundamental culture change driven by technology. Agile, devops, microservices, and the fact that most people under 25 today code, is going to be another revolution in public sector culture, and one not without bumps.

Agile presumes growth, it was designed to create products that grow revenue, whereas backfitting it to a fixed cost model takes some gymnastics on multiple levels.

The technology changes of the last decade were almost as large as introduction of the internet, and they are going to drive cultural change, but it is worth recognizing that this itself is the key challange. 18F's approach is the future, and I would love to replicate aspects of it, as how to effect change in the culture of public services is the greatest challenge of all.

</comment><comment><USER13> >State IT projects, in particular, are often challenged because states lack basic knowledge about modern software development, relying on outdated procurement processes.

Which is part of the outcome of outsourcing everything and being afraid or otherwise idealogically against doing much of anything in-house

<comment><USER8> In order to outsource effectively, though, you need the ability to judge which vendors are strongest. I think there's been a pattern of thinking technical talent isn't needed when outsourcing when the opposite is true.

<comment><USER3> This is why many technical tenders have both a price evaluation criteria and a technical feasibility assessment. Best practice would be for folks conducting both assessments to be subject matter expert in those areas.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, but when the talent isn't there, its easy for "helped supervise a contract to deliver X" to get equated with "expertise in X." Expertise is also needed to know what are big problems in a RFQ response, vs small problems. There's a tendency sometimes without that expertise to make a list and whichever team has the most +'s and least -'s to win out.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Although, sometimes difficult in practice. Evaluation committee selection itself is as much of an art as a science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The same applies also to big companies. One thing I always notice is that management wants to sign off on something and then be done with it. They don't want to engage with the details and understand them. But all the advice in the doc seems to revolve about constant interaction with the project and deep understanding of what's supposed to be done. the common trend I see in IT departments (and I have heard in governments) that more and more gets outsourced and in-house capability is reduced so they can't really oversee a project in a meaningful manner.</comment>


Ask HN: What to do when personal information stolen? - <AUTHOR>

I was just informed by my insurance company that they had a security breach, and my information was compromised.  This included social security, address, phone, and employer. Fortunately no credit card info.<p>What steps would you recommend I take to protect my identity? <comment><USER2> Generally when this happens, the company which had the breach will provide free credit monitoring service to the affected customers. You should ask them about that. If they're not doing it yet, you should. Chances are nothing will happen, but if someone does use your social security number to sign up for a credit card, loan or other service that impacts your credit rating, a credit monitoring service would notify you of that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - yes, the insurance company did offer a free year of this service. I will be signing up for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Contact the major credit bureaus and request they put you on fraud alert

</comment><comment><USER4> Take a deep breathe and do not panic. It probably was not _stolen_. The federal government requires them to send you a letter if, say, your check went to the wrong address because you have the same name as some other policyholder. Also, if it was serious, they may be required to pay for credit monitoring for a year. (So you can call and ask if they are providing that.) If it wasn't that serious, you probably have nothing to worry about.

I used to process insurance claims for a living. I have written a few letters informing customers of a privacy breach. The vast majority of the time, the customer really had nothing to worry about. Most customers who get a check or letter that wasn't intended for them are not career criminals waiting with baited breathe to get your info. In fact, I have had to write privacy breach letters when we sent the info to the guy's father by the same name or mother whom they still lived with (or twin brother with a near identical name). Federal law compels the insurance company to inform you. But unless you see weird charges or something, you probably have nothing to be worried about.</comment>


Ask HN: My appendix ruptured, and I don't want to get rusty - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I'm currently in the hospital following an extremely bad ruptured appendix, I've had about nine days off work already and I'm starting to feel rusty. My employer is happy for me to work from home when I get out of hospital for a short while until I'm up and driving and can come back into work without exacerbating my condition.
I'd like to keep on top and do so something to keep my mind sharp (considering I'm on some powerful painkillers and antibiotics, this has been difficult) and was wondering if anyone could give me a few tips to keep my development muscles stretched whilst I'm recovering.
Thanks in advance,
Robin <comment><USER2> Take a pad of paper and sketch out plans for developing: flowcharts, pseudo code, wish lists, ideas for new methods, re-factors, etc. When you get back on your feet (or keyboard at least) you might have a pretty good idea of exactly what to do next.

This is your opportunity to plan, when you are back to busy you will appreciate what you have worked up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I think planning is one of those things that I'm not really good at to begin with, so working on that will be good :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hey, that sucks. I had appendicitis in Nov but caught it before it burst. Still put me out commission for at least a week.

You really shouldn't be worrying about your job performance or career development while still in the hospital. Just rest and recover. On the other hand, if you're bored get someone to bring you a laptop and code up a side project or learn some new tool.</comment>


Traces of Old Egyptian in Eurasian languages? - <AUTHOR> https://pannous.github.io/hieros/ <comment><USER2> Some of this is mistaking just how much we know of Egyptian phonology, which is actually very little. For some proper names, we have more context into how they may have actually sounded based on transscriptions into Greek and Latin. But for every other word, we flat out have _no_ idea on vowel sounds, because they were not written. Because of this, a couple sounds known as semivowels are sometimes transcribed as if they were vowels. For instance, in _mother_ , the second glyph of a chick (𓅱) is marked as a _U_ , but would be more appropriately be _W_. Same with the reeds (𓇋), which are sometimes marked as _I_ but are rather _Y_. (And, in this article, apparently also _FE_...)

I think it's also interesting that they are using _mother_ and _father_ , considering that those words have commonalities in sound across large swathes of human language. Unless the author is also ready to argue Egyptian influence on Chinese, evidence should extend to other words.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa)

EDIT:

Every dictionary I can find lists father as _it_ , which alone would need explanation for how the article arrives at _feathav_ using the same signs. I'll just link the most comprehensive one:

[https://www.scribd.com/doc/10929802/Dictionary-of-Middle- Egy...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/10929802/Dictionary-of-Middle-Egyptian)

When you search, the relevant entry is the "plants 12" result.

<comment><USER3> I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the phonetics would be one if not the most important feature. The article points out: "Here we investigate how deeply the roots go and how the system, its cosmology and language are intertwined with our own:".

The symbolism is important and the table presented in TFA is amazing at that.

> I think it's also interesting that they are using mother and father, > considering that those words have commonalities in sound across large > swathes of human language.

The t/d in * m?t- is more significant than that, whereas the p in pt is less significant across world wide languages.

I'm just missing a node to Proto-Afro-Asiatic.

> Unless the author is also ready to argue Egyptian influence on Chinese, > evidence should extend to other words.

Please compare Punic [zayin] (Phoenician letter 工 = S - weapon) and Chinese [工] ("gon" etc., whence mandarin 工具 - tool). Obviously both are related to metal tools, perhaps a spade stuck in the ground symbolizing mining for ore, craft, and metal tools all in one sign, and in a different interpretation the outflow of molten metal from a primitive furnace. Once you have horses, trade is a matter of weeks or months. Metal working spread slowly, and with it the words. I don't know if asia discovered smelting independently, though, I'm just hypothesizing.

The difference is that "mother" is a _much older_ idea and the m- in principle a reference to the sound of suckling.

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

[工]: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B7%A5](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B7%A5).

PS:

> EDIT: Every dictionary I can find lists father as _it_ , which alone would > need explanation

Well, it is rather close to pt (stone), which in turn is close to Pth as in the name of the god. So there is an element of veneration (stone old anyone?) that isn't present in good ol' papa (just as some languages use different personal pronouns in different registers of speech). This link is strong as pater is still used in a religious sense. or comparing as/at: turkic "ata" (father) and "at" (horse, perhaps also venerated), which is the metaphorical head (cf. capital, cattle, aleph as god and head of the alphabet, A being a top-side-down bull head symbol). I Norse as "As" is a god again (whence "asgard"). As is also a singular unit in Latin for either a single dot on a dice (whence poker ace; we also still speak of faces of a die), or prominently as the nomination of roman pennies, which incidentally have the head of a god on its observe side which is hence colloquially called heads. Oh and isn't head somewhat rhyming with _" it"_? Egyptian [hr] seems to exhibits the same dualism, even if the different etymologies aren't clear ( _xal is mentioned, but not_ ħər - _chief, free, noble_ [2]). The language as a whole over time is highly self modifying, and the result is like gene code really really tightly compressed from a really small seed expanding with exponential growth. There's certainly more to this, computational methods are gaining ground with time but archeology is a game against the time. There's a baseline to human language in most of it's dimensions. So while I don't know if the concept of parenthood was fundamental to evolution (I mean I guess so, but in what time frame), but one thing is clear if modern apes reveal any clue, the first phoneme was a skreek: "Ah Ah Ahh" (or "it it it" or something) -- cf. <[https://esolangs.org/wiki/Ook](https://esolangs.org/wiki/Ook)!

[hr]: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%B8%A5r#Egyptian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%B8%A5r#Egyptian) [2]: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Afro- Asi...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Afro- Asiatic/%C4%A7%C9%99r)

PPS: At that I find funny how Morse-code, as in mono-phonetic strictly rhythm based speech, is comparable to language, and how by extension of the concept, many concepts rely on ordering and a representation in numbers. So I'm curious how important maths skills were to the development of language. Basically, human speech uses a highly variable non linear numeral system to code messages. The idea of an assembly language as intermediate to spoken language reminds me of Chomsky's universal grammar. The foundations of logic must be "univalent" simply because the brain structure has to adhere to it, geometrically, combinatorially, categorically, etc. p. p. Basically [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule)

<comment><USER4> There's an enormous difference between aesthetic features of writing and actual language relation. The original hypothesis that this inadvertently plagiarizes from is a 1912 William Flinders Petrie monogram. Wow... when I first started looking into this stuff 8 or 9 years ago, archive didn't have this/exist in this form:

[https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr](https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr)

Petrie's tables are better... but they're still at best interesting and inconclusive.

(Also, although people cited /it/ above, Thesuarus Linguae Aegyptiae transliterates it /jtj/ (yty - long vowels rather than glottals); and claiming that's similar to pit is pretty ridiculous... If there's a genetic intra- Afroasiatic relation with that root (which I'm not sure there is...) it'd make a lot more sense to connect it with Ugaritic 'ad... Which I don't think it makes sense to do... And in support of that... not even the out-there Starling database makes that connection ([http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi- bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen...](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi- bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fafaset&text_number=++22&root=config) // [http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi- bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen...](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi- bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fafaset&text_number=1916&root=config) )).

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry, you keep throwing the word ridiculous around as if it was a jocular matter and I'm completely fine with that, but I don't welcome being mocked without a proper argument. Yes, jt>pit is a loose thread made without much information. But not because I am too lazy to meticulously collect evidence, but because it is downright impossible for me to study this at a day job level. Rather, I assumed this would be an obvious connection to already have been investigated and would hope for corrections or confirmation. And baring any evidence in my comment I would have thought it was obvious to be taken with a heap of salt for what it's worth.

So it was a bit dry, and you were amused anyway. That leaves me confused.

<comment><USER4> I can't think of any other concordances between Egyptian /j/ and /p/ in other languages. To be honest I've never seen the word jtj before today. There's a longstanding and known relation broadly with /p/ or /b/ and father and /m/ and mother. And as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on the meaning of that relation. But jtj isn't the root related to those; and Egyptian doesn't seem to have a strong example of /b/ ([http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi- bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen...](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi- bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fegyet&text_number=+++1&root=config) ).

<comment><USER3> I was suggesting that _pit_ was an extension of _it_.

I think the j in jt is a remnant of jw (true), jw-?t, (biological father), but only because jw is the only egyptian j- lexeme I know so far, because I like to connect it to IO and Jo- and the jedi knights. For p- I'm not so sure, but something like grand-father or god-father would fit the theme, or less familiar for us distant from the Neolithicum, the stone-father (grey/old, hard/strong, inanimate/false vs true, crafty/fundamental).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't understand what this article is. There appears to be no cogent hypothesis or evidence. In the end it seems to be suggesting not (any) linguistic influence on Eurasian languages but rather aesthetic influence of hieroglyphs. That's well established given that the alphabet evolved from a single source and that it's well-established that that source was at least partly* influenced by hieroglyphs; and the earliest evidence for it is at Serabit el-Khadem in Sinai interspersed with hieroglyphic inscriptions (including a bilingual inscription on a sphinx [Sinai 345]).

As I look back I do see a like half-paragraph ridiculous suggestion of apparently genetic connection between Egyptian and European. Before it was commonly known that Egyptian is an Afroasiatic language, there were attempts (usually with racial undertones) attempting to link the glorious and regal Egyptian with Eurasian languages. It's a worthless hypothesis.

It also looks like people may have been looking for and having trouble finding solid Egyptian lexicons: aaew.bbaw.de/tla/

(The one that really bothered me was the (obviously incoherent) "Hathor = hut+hor Hüter of Herds"... Hathor means "House/Estate/Temple of Horus"). The whole thing is just ridiculous.)

*There's at least secondary cuneiform influence by Wadi el-Hol (which I think was more likely 15th or 14th century).

<comment><USER3> > rather aesthetic influence of hieroglyphs

rather, the hieroglyphic influence on the aesthetics of the (written) language.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand (?).

<comment><USER3> There is no difference, really. I just tried to point out that aesthetics can have a influence on language, because you were basically saying the writing system wasn't linguistic, which is really painful to read.

<comment><USER4> It's also painfully correct. The Egyptian hieroglyph pr, also monosyllabic /h/, was adapted for /b/ in the Semitic creation of the alphabet. The scribe took the common Semitic word for house be(y)t and used it to supplant the original linguistic meaning attached to the grapheme. Thus the linguistic content was destroyed while the aesthetic content was essentially unchanged (and remains so today, most notably in Cyrillic, I think).

<comment><USER3> So you have pt (sky), pr (house) and bt (house), and you are suggesting that there can be no obvious link? pt~bt perhaps? I don't know what's up with the /h/. It doesn't really matter because drawn glyphs pass the test of time better than phonemes by virtue of being homoiconic. Certainly, written language is a linguistic matter, not just merely aesthetic.

If you look at the pt hieroglyph, the lower form might be a roof I think. Of course, my confusion of pt and pr in the previous post shows an aptitude to jump to conclusions. But when Peter<Petrus<??? has no certain etymology, leaps of faith are inevitable. And while I understand that research is always careful to be skeptical, so am I when you say the hypothesis couldn't be. I'm not necessarily defending the theory from the featured article, because a common ancestor can come through a variety of origins. Anyway, the Egyptians are famous anyway, so they are the first go to for a theory.

Also, your claim is evidently wrong. The Bet glyph looks very different to the pr glyph.

I was initially trying to formulate a thought about writing, because it can show patterns of language on a deeper level or at least from a different perspective. After all, verbal communication involves more than phonetics. There are definitely words that have been read incorrectly and proliferated -- e.g. reading gamma for ypsilon, omega for digamma; although I have no evidence at hand this shouldn't be hard to believe.

This was constructive for me, as I hadn't made the connection from pr to beta, before. Thank you.

<comment><USER4> Correct. There can be no obvious link. Particularly in that Old Kingdom /r/ would reflect a Semitic /'/, if memory serves. So /pr/ would be the equivalent of /p'/ which would mean "mouth."

I likely compounded your confusion by referring to the grapheme as pr; whereas it is in fact Gardiner's O4, the monosyllabic /h/ ([http://msheflin.blogspot.com/search/label/Early%20Alphabet](http://msheflin.blogspot.com/search/label/Early%20Alphabet) \- take the chart beyond /b/ with a grain of salt; I haven't updated it in years). This isn't my theory... this is basically the only consensus view on Proto-Sinaitic. Please stop wading into a crazy complex and insular, highly esoteric academic subject and then getting mad at me when you misunderstand my comments and attempt to construct a new orthodoxy around them...

The only connection between pr and b(y)t is semantic. Once you move from pure ideograms to logograms or abjads that wholly breaks down.

<comment><USER3> I don't want to start a circular argument talking past each other. Wiktionary has for pr: " _(Old Egyptian) IPA /paːruw/[1]_". That's just one reconstruction but Its source is 20 years old so it could be outdated for all I know. Given your comments, I just see the glottal stop as another datapoint. Whether that also means "mouth" or not doesn't lead to confusion.

[1]: Hoch, James (1997) Middle Egyptian Grammar, Mississauga: Benben Publications, ISBN 0920168124, page 15

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is so bad that I don't even know where to begin. It's incoherent, completely ignores any accepted method of linguistic analysis, makes absolutely no explanation as to how conclusions are being made and it doesn't even attempt to support them in an way.

It's literally just gibberish.

</comment><comment><USER6> Most languages have common utterances for mother/father and other family members. This is because these are easy, early sounds a baby can make. Some variation of da, ma, pa, na occurs fairly universally.

There's a pretty good episode of Lexicon Valley on this topic (see cavebabies say 'mama')

[http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley.html)

<comment><USER3> > This is because these are easy, early sounds a baby can make

Indeed, but while plosives are impossible in the uterus, humming is possible ("hummmmmmmm...") though it's likely not audible, it might resonate at deeper frequencies. After all they cry right when they come out and must have trained well for such vigorous performance.

Otherwise, hums are surely linked to pleasant and primitive, familiar emotions. A simple ADSR envelope around a hum gives quite a lot of expressiveness, too ("ha?" "aha!" "haha" "ahhh" "a ha ha" only with m, i.e. "hm?").

Also the ma syllable is linked to the sound of suckling (hence breasts is mama in Latin). Also, we say mother-tongue probably for a reason: Mothers are much more involved in early child rising and hence in teaching language. I guess that is evident in bilingual families if not taken special care of?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This started off interesting and very smoothly transitioned to being fully incoherent to me.

Do the random italics and French-style quotes mean something that I just don't understand, or was the whole thing actually just kind of insane.

</comment><comment><USER8> I agree with every comments posted so far (not convincing examples, incoherent writing, lack indications about the languages used, lack of formal method) but the worst offender is probably the lack of references. Even if the post is bad in itself it could leads to interesting papers and authors but it didn't. Only one authors is referenced in the text. This is not enough.

</comment><comment><USER9> The etymology for most of those "cognates" seems quite strained when you consider that even reconstructions of Proto-Germanic roots can be controversial. Especially when you only have a single sound to match, it is very easy to come up with bullshit "correspondences" that are mere coincidence.

</comment><comment><USER10> See also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129463)

</comment><comment><USER11> The information density of that map is pretty amazing

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't see most of the glyphs neither on debian nor on android 6.

</comment><comment><USER12> Columbia pop-linguist McWhorter suggests strong verbs in Germanic languages may have been a Semitic influence.

<comment><USER2> That seems quite a stretch, when proto-Indo-European ablaut explains the exact same phenomenon. Also, Germanic strong verbs tend to be relatively primitive vocabulary -- go, sleep, drink, sing... So it's also explainable that these forms could develop prior to more standardized forms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Origin_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Origin_and_development)</comment></comment>


Google's Chromebooks are big sellers - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestreet.com/story/11176692/googles-laptops-are-big-sellers.html

<comment><USER2> I have come close to pulling the trigger on a Chromebook myself several times but could not close the deal due to no hands on opportunity before the buy and the negative reviews. I am surprised they are charting at all on Amazon. Newness factor perhaps?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> They may be selling well, but the reviews are quite harsh. A common sentiment: "your phone is likely more powerful than this piece of garbage."</comment>


When a VC funded biz shuts down are the VCs responsible to the remaining staff? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/vanedge-capital-investment-in-torontos-blue-noodle-getting-the-wrong-type-of-press-2011-08-23

<comment><USER2> When a company goes bankrupt, aren't employees the last in-line when the debts get settled?

Employees should be aware of this, but more important, a good CEO should take he precautions to make his employees aware of these situations.

There was a start-up I know of that every weekly meeting would lay out the numbers for ALL the employees. How much was in the bank, how much was expected to be coming in, and how much was expected to go out.

The employees new 2 weeks out when the company was unable to pay its bills. The employees were told that unless something changed with x amount of time, their wouldn't be enough money for payroll at week 'y'.

Knowing what was expected to be coming in over the following 'z' months, a few employees (mostly upper management I believe) offered to be owed payroll until the company could pay.

The company made it through that rough patch and was acquired a few years later.

The point is, that VC's aren't responsible for payroll, the business is. Employees should be aware of the environment in which they are working, and the CEO should make sure his employees are taken care of to the best of their ability.</comment>


Ask HN: Can anyone explain what incentivizes handcuffware? - <AUTHOR> "Is your agency using WordPress to build a website?
That's like carving a chicken, with a handsaw."
From a recent advertisement.
I'm wondering, is WordPress just complicated or is it full of bugs? Why are WordPress and other handcuffware (like B2B, BI software, or B2G systems), designed like they are? <comment><USER2> I don't know why the term "handcuffware"could be applied to WordPress. I deploy several WP sites, I find it neither complicated nor particularly buggy.</comment>


MySpace plans to launch a global redesign next week - <AUTHOR> http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3125738.cms

<comment><USER2> I really like myspace, it's all the people I can't stand. What? Social network? Oh..hurm.</comment>