The Geopolitics of the United States - <AUTHOR> http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire <comment><USER2> The CEO of Stratfor wrote a book called "The Coming War with Japan" in 1991:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman>

After I told him this a few months ago when we were talking about this article, my dad read it a little more critically and found at least one blatant factual error. So take it with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER3> I read publications by Stratfor and similar organizations on a semi-frequent basis (although I have not read the book in question), and "with a grain of salt" is an assumed prerequisite.

The authors do not intend to deceive or have lazy fact checkers. Instead the writings are intentionally speculative and many of the sources are often speaking off the record or sometimes trying to promote a specific political agenda (i.e. a Chinese official could have been the source for your stated fact).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a very interesting read (both part 1 and 2), but I disagree with some points. For example, the absorption of Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina by Brazil, having a different culture and language seems very unlikely. What is much more likely is their alliance through a coalition (that is starting to take shape with Venezuela becoming full member of Mercosur this week).

Another thing that seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100 years (I think that was in part 2).

China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America given their mutual symbiosis nowadays.

And a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible eventually if China starts to have it too hard to access the natural resources they need.

Probably the saddest thing here is the fact that America seems to be condemned to fight wars all around the world, because of it's own growing interests are generating more and more dependence in foreign affairs, and thus, creating a vicious cycle.

<comment><USER5> >" _[it] seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100 years_ "

Mexico isn't likely to be a threat to the United States in our lifetimes _per se_. But it's not inconceivable to see a future Mexico infuriated over some political stance in the United States allying with another power. Deutschland's plans in the World Wars for the United States alternated between allying with Mexico against the US to inciting war between the two to bog down the US [1].

>" _China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America_ "

Given that geopolitical power is relative and China is the most likely regional power with the potential to become a great power one cannot discard the position that America would be strengthened with a tamer China (similar to the situation in the 1990s). That said, the world would be worse off (barring the possibility of a Chinese-American conflict in Asia-Pacific).

>" _a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible_ "

A Sino-Russian alliance would be unstable, similar to the Hitler-Stalin alliance in World War II. They both compete for resources in Russian- influenced Central Asia and in Northeast Asia. Given Russia's history of using its energy dominance with Europe as leverage it seems unwise for China to accede too much control with regards to critical resources to it. Further, Russia's demographic situation doesn't portend well for it as a great power in the coming decades.

>" _America seems to be condemned to fight wars all around the world_ "

The United States isn't _condemned_ to fighting wars around the world. Similar to the UK in times past and Turkey as its emerging today, the US is, as a geopolitical "island" (a great power amongst no other current or potential great powers in its region) free to pursue its interests overseas. Take for example Iraq: the biggest downside to the US is economic and diplomatic. The Middle East, on the other hand, was set to experience significant geopolitical volatility regardless of the endeavour's outcome.

I'm not agreeing with the Monograph (nor disagreeing with you) wholeheartedly, but there is a valid debate to be had on each of these points.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram>

<comment><USER6> A strong China would be the best thing to happen to America in decades. What America has lacked, really since the Soviets of the 1960s, is a strong competitor (another super power).

America would be greatly strengthened by a stronger China. The longer we go without a super competitor, the weaker we will get.

With a stronger China we might just stop being such a lazy, take-it-all-for- granted nation, and get back to doing what it takes to make sure the next generation lives better than the last. It'd be nice just to have a functional government again, focused on real progress for its people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reads to me as a bunch of wild speculation trying to make itself sound serious by filling itself out with a bunch of random encyclopaedia facts (not to mention pictures). Not convincing.

<comment><USER5> My qualm with Stratfor is they assume the reader has a theoretical foundation in geopolitics, economics, and military strategy and history. The core they're running on here is best summarised by John Mearsheimer in _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_ [1]. Much of the rest arises from macroeconomics, game theory, and military strategy.

If nothing else this is valuable in that it follows closely the mindset of the US intelligence community (and many others, most precisely Russia's and Eastern Europe's).

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition- Norto...](http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition- Norton/dp/0393978397)

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra It is a refreshing point of view. We, the generation of city-dwellers, no longer understand the foundation upon which our city wealth rests. For us, the farmland is "an unimportant middle of nowhere" and we see the ultimate worth in some cities that, if looked from the article's POV, can be easily discarded without any change in the world power/wealth balance.

It seems that grain meant the same in 19 century that oil means today. And for grain, you need a lot of territory with population and transportation and security. With oil it's different, you have to be lucky and here it is: population isn't that important anymore, neither is territory per se.

<comment><USER8> If oil is so important, then why is there no Middle Eastern superpower?

<comment> guard-of-terra Oil is important but it does not make you powerful per se.

Oil plus security might. But Middle Eastern countries have no security.

<comment><USER8> Oil and resources in general are only useful to societies that know how to use them properly. To many countries, oil is a curse: [http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of- oil...](http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil- wealth.html)

It's like chess, checkers, risk, go, Starcraft, etc.

You can put a crappy player in a great position on the board, giving them great "resources". But a significantly better player will often still be able to win.

Compare North Korea to South Korea. Same culture, same geography, same genetic pool -- but as a society the North Koreans went horribly horribly wrong. North Koreans went with a political and economic philosophy (communism) that was and is far inferior to capitalism.

That's my fundamental disagreement with this article. Human intellect driven by forces in the culture and society have a great more to do with a country's "importance" on the geopolitical stage than resources.

<comment> guard-of-terra Even if you know how to use them properly you might be limited in your ability to do so due to the weakness of your geopolitical shape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> " So like the Turks, the Americans are not important because of who they are, but because of where they live."

To make a sweeping generalization like that in the article, you'd have to ignore the timeline of the founding of America and the massive influx of people who wanted to be here before anyone even knew about our great resources or how to use them in a modern sense.

America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and a bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty under the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then again there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have had tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it (oil in the Middle East), or had very little resources and dominated the economic or geopolitical landscape at one time or another (Japan, Hong Kong, Great Britain, etc.)

If anything, there is a lot of evidence that resources are actually not helpful or even counter-productive to progress in a society [http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of- oil...](http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil- wealth.html).

Look at the historical dominance of societies that were farther away from the equator vs the most lush areas of the world closer toward it.

The necessary traits for survival when you have a winter (planning for a shortage of crops, living in close quarters with others by following rules, reduced tolerance for corruption) combined with the unique (at the time) notion that individual liberty and free enterprise trumped the tyranny of a central government played a far greater role in the importance of America than acreage of contiguous croplands.

Fear not, those of you who think that America's success was all resources and geography, not discipline and philosophy... America is being brought low quickly enough. As we've pretty much thrown away most of the restraints on the Federal Government spelled out in the Constitution, America will be the next century's counter-example of a nation with great resources but little importance on the geopolitical stage as we destroy Liberty and the Free Enterprise system that was the true engine that originally brought America to power.

<comment><USER9> > America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and > a bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty > under the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then > again there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have > had tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it

The article specifically mentions the Mississippi River, and compares the cost of transport by sea, road, and rail. Control of waterways has always been key to great power status. Controlling the world's oceans, especially chokepoints like Panama, Singapore, and Hormuz, lets the US project maritime power. Controlling the Altantic slave trade gave England, France, and Spain the upper hand at various times, and big wars were fought for the prize. Joining the Yellow and Yangtze rivers into one via the Grand Canal around 600ad by the Sui/Tang dynastry is what propelled China to become the world's greatest power for a thousand years. The Romans took over the entire Mediterranean, settling the entire coastline, after smashing Hannibal. And of course, control of the Nile, Euphrates/Tigris, Indus, and Yellow river basins is what made agriculture viable in the first place.

It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's been.

<comment><USER8> > It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about > liberty.

The funny thing is that you even quoted the part of my post that shows that what you're saying isn't supported by the facts of the timeline according to a written historical record.

The first settlers who left Europe mostly left for Liberty -- religious and otherwise. These were people concerned about Liberty before there even were colonies. There was no great farmland available. There was no Mississippi. There weren't even any slaves to leverage as resources. Yet, if you read the historical records, those early settlers wanted mostly to get away from the oppressive States of Europe. Freedom was their issue and it was tightly ingrained in the American culture from the beginning.

Fast-forward to the American Revolution (all about Liberty, read the writings of the Revolutionaries), and you'll see that these people were fanatics about restraining the central government long before it even had any interest in anything outside of the 13 colonies.

> An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black > 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's > been.

Slavery was horrible and really the poison that was allowed into the US founding that led to the destruction of the notion of States' Rights when we fought over the issue during the Civil War. That original sin has pretty much cost us our Liberty, since after the Federal government forced its supremacy it broke the ability of States to protect themselves. It shifted the American power structure from being bottom-up to top-down.

Amerindians were killing and DISPLACING each other over primitive tribal issues long before we arrived. Unfortunately for them, the European technological advantage was so great. That said, I like to think that we've learned a lot as a society as we proved after World War I and beyond where we never tried to keep by force any land where we fought battles for some cause.

You bring up an unintentionally interesting point: If American resources and geography were such a societal advantage, then why isn't the Amerindian culture the most dominant in the world now? They had numbers, access to the same resources, geographic isolation to protect them from other countries for centuries, etc. But they never progressed and became "important" as a society. Even after Europeans showed up and allowed them access to our technology, they used some of it pragmatically (horses and guns), but they never embraced the cultural underpinnings that would have allowed them to challenge us.

<comment><USER9> The importance of liberty in American society _today_ is greatly overstated. You seem to acknowledge that in comments like "we've pretty much thrown away most of the restraints on the Federal Government spelled out in the Constitution" regarding the present day, and "That original sin has pretty much cost us our Liberty" regarding slavery until 150 yrs ago. But perhaps the original Mayflower and other migrations, and even the constitution, are not very different from other cultures also.

> Yet, if you read the historical records, those early settlers wanted mostly > to get away from the oppressive States of Europe

This has happened throughout history many times, from the ancient Greek diaspora around the Mediterranean to the modern-day Chinese diaspora around the Pacific rim.

> There was no great farmland available

People from various European states went to Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which were fertile.

Where there's land to settle, people go there. The southern Europeans migrated to South America in large numbers. The Russians migrated across the steppe. The Polynesians rowed to New Zealand. The coast of North America was no different, just a lot smaller scale than the Mississippi, which came later.

> after World War I and beyond where we never tried to keep by force any land > where we fought battles for some cause

why bother keeping any land when you control the world's oceans?

> why isn't the Amerindian culture the most dominant in the world now?

for the same reason humans didn't become dominant anywhere until they discovered agriculture.

<comment><USER8> > But perhaps the original Mayflower and other migrations, and even the > constitution, are not very different from other cultures also.

To argue that, you'd really have to ignore thousands of documents written by the Founding Fathers as well as the Declaration, the Constitution, and the very actions the Founding Fathers. They could have granted themselves and their families royalty status. George Washington literally turned down the offer to be King of the new nation as well as the chance to reign as a perpetual President.

We have their words to read and their historical deeds to examine to show that they were nothing like the Greek Diaspora who folded themselves into the cultures they moved to. They were nothing like the Chinese Diaspora who had no culture, history, or even writings that I could Google that expressed even the remotest philosophy of Democracy or Individual Sovereignty.

> for the same reason humans didn't become dominant anywhere until they > discovered agriculture.

But agriculture is just an idea. The main thesis of the article is that resources made America important. That's not true. The resources were here before the Euro-American settlers were. It was the ideas and the culture to use them that made the resources anything more than "worthless" empty fields.

<comment><USER9> > George Washington literally turned down the offer to be King

as did Mao Zedong, who could've turned China into a defacto Emperorship like North Korea.

Some countries/peoples talk about "Freedom" with religious fervor, others talk about "The People" with religious fervor, but it's all just a narrative constructed to unite a people.

<comment><USER8> >> George Washington literally turned down the offer to be King

>as did Mao Zedong

Okay, that's downright disingenuous trolling. Mao ruled for over 30 years and then handed over power to his hand-picked successor. Mao killed over 50 MILLION of his own people in order to hold on to his power.

Equating George Washington's action in turning down power to Mao's while ignoring the historical record of both of their actions has got to be intentional.

<comment><USER9> This tit-for-tat has gotten far away from what the article says. I stand by my previous claim that...

"The article specifically mentions the Mississippi River, and compares the cost of transport by sea, road, and rail. Control of waterways has always been key to great power status. Controlling the world's oceans, especially chokepoints like Panama, Singapore, and Hormuz, lets the US project maritime power. Controlling the Altantic slave trade gave England, France, and Spain the upper hand at various times, and big wars were fought for the prize. Joining the Yellow and Yangtze rivers into one via the Grand Canal around 600ad by the Sui/Tang dynastry is what propelled China to become the world's greatest power for a thousand years. The Romans took over the entire Mediterranean, settling the entire coastline, after smashing Hannibal. And of course, control of the Nile, Euphrates/Tigris, Indus, and Yellow river basins is what made agriculture viable in the first place. It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the liberty and rule of law there's been."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A much more interesting (and less political) article than I expected from the headline. I grew up in and am best traveled in precisely the region that is featured in the article, the "Greater Mississippi Basin." My home town straddles the border between the original Treaty of Paris territory of the United States and the Louisiana Purchase territory. So the article's argument that where rivers flow and which rivers connect to which other rivers has much to do with the prosperity and the strategic aims of the United States is very interesting. Those of you joining in this discussion may find it particularly interesting to read the special section on London in the June 30th-July 6th issue of The Economist, with its discussion of the rise and fall and rise again of London as a prosperous, world-leading city. The article submitted here mentions mostly geographical factors as an influence on national strength and prosperity, while the section in this week's The Economist focuses on the legal and cultural framework of a country making a huge difference in the country's development, even when geography stays the same.

The discussion of United States history since the founding of the United States in the article brings to mind often forgotten facts. The territorial expansion of the United States as a unified political grouping had to take advantage of the Mississippi River basin as a matter of first importance. The article mentions building paved roads (the Cumberland Road) and neglects the history of canal projects in the United States while mentioning canals in other places. Of course the cost advantage of water transport via natural watercourses continues to this day, and has been very influential in world history. Thomas Sowell points out that Africa has exceptionally few rivers that are navigable all the way to a harbor on a seacoast compared to other continents, and very few rivers that are navigable at all. That constrained the development of trade networks in Africa and the development of many other learned cultural attributes of what countries with navigable rivers call "civilization." China developed early along navigable rivers that lead to the sea, and when the United States was settled by seafaring Europeans from trading cultures, its course of development was largely set.

The legal and cultural factors shaping national development should not be underestimated. In the 1770s, as the United States was breaking away from Britain, the world's greatest political scientists mostly wrote in English and lived in Britain or America. At the same time, the world's greatest mathematician (Leonhard Euler) was living in Russia, teaching the first of many generations of great Russian mathematicians. The United States, messy as its system is, has long benefited from the draw that freedom and democracy give the country to bring in talented people from around the world. More than half of all Americans are descended from ancestors who arrived in North America not speaking English (as is true of more than half of my ancestors), but day by day freedom with opportunity for voting and public expression of opinions on issues and an economy based largely on Adam Smith's principle of free trade joined together disparate groups of immigrants into a unified national population.

For the future, I don't think that the United States has any need to encourage fission or strife among countries on the Eurasian land mass, contrary to what the submitted article suggests. Rather, the United States can go on promoting what really has done the most to contribute to its national strength: democracy, civil liberties, free trade, and the rule of law. Those disruptive ideas do much to bring peace and stability to other countries and to remove the threat of war. "American identity" is an identity based on shared ideas, and as Abraham Lincoln noted in the Gettysburg address, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is an idea that can spread around the world far beyond the borders of the United States. Whatever the geographic conditions, everyone lives better where they can express dissent without fear of a government death squad and vote in new leaders from time to time.

<comment><USER6> "Can go on promoting," should be changed to: "get back to living by."

Our government is currently busy abusing and or destroying all of the things that made it a great country.

We don't need to shovel those ideas on other people as much as we need to stand for them again. Leading by example is radically more powerful than trying to tell people to do what I say but not what I do.

<comment><USER11> I don't think the current level of abuse and hypocrisy is greater than in the past hundred years. The us has always preached freedom and democracy while conducting secret wars, openly supporting utterly horrific dictatorships etc etc

I remain to be convinced it is a lot worse than previously, and most of the world still tends to believe Churchill's maxim - democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others

Tl dr - keep insisting on an end to torture sure, but don't say it was better in the old days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Future wars (all out wars, like WW I and WW II) won't be fought conventionally. US _is still_ the _only superpower_ , but, the listed advantages are not all that beneficial currently. US will win because it leads in the non conventional weapons tech but not due to the geography. But I agree it was geography which brought it so far.

<comment><USER5> This logic holds because geography is presently immutable. Imagine a future with a hypothetical weapon that changes an area's geography (yes, it's a leap, but we need it to disentangle geography and weapons capabilities). Suddenly the United States is left with Sub-Saharan African deserts or Anatolian mountains. The economic productivity of the nation would plummet leading to a decreased ability to maintain a military advantage.

The thought experiment could be tamed a bit by substituting climate change as the geographical change agent.

<comment><USER13> Just two thoughts that might be related to that idea:

(1) I would argue that these changes are rarely absolute but always in a comparative context. For example if such a weapon would come into existence, it wouldn't exist very long in a proprietary form but other nations would reproduce it. But if we are talking about such substantial climate change, I would suspect that the negative consequences are going to impact many nations at the same time, i.e. an overall downward spiral would set in. Or just very specific regions (i.e. coastal lines).

(2) If we are talking about "just" specific regions, or "just" an American desert, the example of Israel demonstrates that with enough resources and willpower it is possible to survive even in an almost desert based environment. Sure, Israel gets quite a few subsidies and support by other nations, but never the less they put them to excellent use and demonstrated that it is possible to "run" a successful economy despite substantial natural challenges.

<comment><USER5> Interesting points. My argument was that geography plays as massive a role in geopolitics today as as ever - we just don't see it because it doesn't vary as much in our lifetimes as the more minor components, e.g. cultural factors. Sort of like how stock analysts tend to over-attribute company management for effects of macroeconomic forces.

Given the diversity in geographies and a bounded "sweet spot" for productivity (by presently known means) I would argue that a global event would not have uniform effects on all nations. For example, global warming would devastate the Chinese and Indian breadbaskets while opening up Siberia and Greenland to agriculture.

My usage of a weapon, which being technology would be replicated by others over time, was flawed. Oops =P.

Regarding Israel, I don't think the conclusion from geopolitics is that geography is a limiting factor in a nation's potential. Israel has exploited its human capital expertly. That said, given its present borders it will tend to be a client state of an outside power; its geopolitical situation is highly leveraged in that the loss of American military and economic backing would spell existential chaos for it. Singapore, Taiwan, Luxembourg, et al do very well by this model. But their sovereignty is, at the end of the day, subordinated to an outsider's. Further, not everyone in the world can follow this strategy (it would be too easy for one to start shooting and upset the illusion of stability).

<comment><USER14> >global warming would devastate the Chinese and Indian breadbaskets while opening up Siberia and Greenland to agriculture.

There's a great deal of land in the Far North, but I think most of its topsoil has been scraped off by glaciers.

<comment><AUTHOR> In Greenland possibly, but not in Canada or Siberia.

<comment> bjelkeman-again "most of the topsoil" is relative on this context. In Canada and Scandinavia there is nearly no topsoil left compared to regions which haven't gone through repeated glaciations. However what is there is sufficient to grow food. Yes, I am a geologist.

<comment><USER14> What about northern Siberia? Is there more topsoil there than at similar latitudes in Canada and Scandinavia?

ADDED. I have a tentative answer to my own question: glaciers probably cannot push topsoil over mountains, which is probably why there is farming in Alberta, Canada, at latitudes where there is no farming in Quebec. (The Rockies take a big zap westward there.) Since there are lots of mountains running east-to-west in western Siberia, there are probably regions rich in topsoil north of those mountains, but not in eastern Siberia, and not in the high latitudes of European Russia.

Unless in the regions north of those west-east mountains, the presence of the mountains caused the glaciers to flow from south to north. hmm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Dominance requires sound economics - and this is what will determine the future course of history. Lookout for China, it is not falling aprt - but will be the economic superpower of the world by 2018. And beware of India, which will relegate the US to third spot by 2030. And let us talk then!

<comment><USER6> The law of big numbers is harder to climb than the projectors would ever like to admit. Which is why the Japanese and German 'miracle' economies of the mid 1960s-1980s didn't lead to either of them becoming super powers.

China and India will have a much harder road than most are willing to admit. India is already displaying massive political paralysis, with an economy that has stopped growing properly. China is taking on very large amounts of debt domestically, with national growth that has slowed considerably (and some would say dramatically, as numbers are being lied about at a local level to falsify growth according to a recent NY Times article). If you run what may in fact be 4% to 5% national growth against their inflation rate, the Chinese economy has all but stopped growing (which explains the massive sitting hoards of commodities at their distribution points that are going unused and the collapse in electricity usage). China had to instigate a huge real estate bubble to keep their economy going, using substantial stimulus to generate 'growth.' As those imbalances in their economy adjust, growth will be harder and harder to come by. Studies have shown that for each dollar of investment that China makes, they're getting radically less growth out of it than they were 10 or 15 years ago.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Tply – a simple typewriter effect for your websites - <AUTHOR> https://ichub.github.io/tply/ <comment><USER2> Link to the actual repository with documentation: [https://github.com/ichub/tply](https://github.com/ichub/tply)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it possible to type the sentence, then delete the last words and retype different words? Also show the blinking caret/cursor when typing or deleting characters.

I.e. something like here: [https://www.particle.io/](https://www.particle.io/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you can delete previously typed sentences, see example #3 on the site: use a <delete> element.

If you want a caret, there's two options: * put your tply source into a span, then after the span create and style your own caret. * contribute to the repo and add an easier way to have a caret (:

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This would make a nice Eager app, like [https://eager.io/app/typist](https://eager.io/app/typist)

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't know about Eager, thanks for letting me know about it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How do you do these special HTML elements?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're wondering about how you would go about using this in your own website, check out the documentation in the github repo here: [https://github.com/ichub/tply](https://github.com/ichub/tply)

If you're wondering how these actually work, browsers just interpret the custom elements as unstyled inline elements, basically as `span`s, which I am free to do with as I wish.

<comment><USER4> Is that standardized? So why doesn't all those libraries (mostly jQuery libraries) that perform DOM transformation use custom elements, instead of a lot of nested divs with custom classes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly, I'm not sure. If it was really an issue, it'd be trivial to change the script to render things as nested divs and spans. The appeal of custom elements, at least to me, is that it makes everything more concise and readable. I prefer reading <type>whatever</type> to
whatever
.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, any reason why this doesn't work in Safari (Version 9.0.3 (11601.4.4)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like Safari doesn't support `let` syntax yet. I fixed it, should work now. Thanks for letting me know (:</comment></comment>


Ask HN: If you can change one thing in the educational system, what would it be? - <AUTHOR>

I see education as one of the primary influencing factor (beside parenting & culture) in shaping people. Unfortunately its one of the hardest thing to disrupt or change.<p>So, lets not talk about constraints and feasibility and just get on with it. What is the single most potent nugget of change that will improve a nation's educational system? <comment><USER2> \- Get rid of standardized testing and change the culture of teaching for the purpose of passing these tests. On the subject of just regular in-class exams: they are a necessary evil in many cases but only should be used for a mid-term or final exam. Teachers need to challenge students so that they have to work together to solve complex problems.

\- Increase teacher salaries and promote the hiring of teachers with advanced degrees.

\- Let people fail. Stop holding hands as much. On that note, stop catering to the lower end of the curve and holding back the smarter students. Set the standards high if not impossibly high so we can raise the definition of average.

\- This one is a pipe dream: more specialized science and math schools. There are about a dozen or more sprinkled through the nation. I attended one for high school and it happened to be residential (and totally state funded). Seriously life changing.

<comment><USER3> Testing should be done at the start of the term.

Teaching would then adapt to the shortcomings found in testing.

<comment><USER4> Some school districts do this for courses, called "Pre Tests". Of course, most students don't take them seriously so I'm not sure how good of an indicator they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Make it where people want to grow up to be teachers. The only idea I have for changing that is to pay teachers A LOT of money. Not just decent money. I'm talking about medical doctor money or more. Make it where teachers are not only respected for what they do, but for how much money they make. Maybe doing so would cause more great-minded people to teach instead of being tempted to other things because of money or status.

Think of the people who have inspired you. Surely if you have had a great teacher, that person would be in your list!

<comment><USER6> This would also have a supply and demand benefit for the people that become teachers. At the moment, a 'C+' average in high school will get you in to most teaching courses in my state. More money means more attractive means more applicants means only the better applicants get in - this means better teachers and a better system.

(And I appreciate that smarter != better, even in this case, but if teachers rarely got 'A's in their schooling life how can we expect them to challenge and inspire those who do?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think that Cs should go back to being average. Even at the college level at MOST schools the average grade is a B. C is the middle grade on a 4.0 a scale so that is what most people should receive. It is a shame that a 3.5 in non engineering and science majors is considered "ok" or "good". If a student has under a 3.0 in business they might as well drop out because they aren't going to get a job. Grade inflation is a facade though. It is doesn't make it easier to get a job with your higher GPA because everyone is thrown into the upper bracket of the GPA scale. It is much harder to differentiate yourself when everyone either gets an "A" or "B".

To fix this I believe that grades should be given based on your points earned divided by total points. I think that grades should simply be giving to where you finish in a class. For example in a 10 person class the top 2 students get As, the next 3 get Bs, the next 3 get Cs, and the last 2 get Ds. I do think that Fs should be reserved for those that don't try and or show up for class or tests in a system over time. Obviously, you would do better in some classes than others and if you were truly exemplary or truly average you would get the according grade.

</comment><comment><USER8> Education is hard to disrupt or change because it is labor intensive. I really don't see any way to substitute technology or other capital improvements for skilled labor there. Nor do I think you can easily disentangle parenting and culture from education. Kids from educated households can endure really awful teachers for large proportions of their primary and secondary education, and go on to do fairly well. Kids from worse-off households have a much harder time.

Here it might be well for you to say how you wish to shape people. To be solid citizens? Great coders? High earners?

<comment><AUTHOR> solid citizens i guess or well-rounded people. I wonder what was lost in the guild / mentorship / apprenticeship system of old where it produced people like Da Vinci and michelangelo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Competition.

Destroy the public school monopoly with vouchers so that the same forces of creative destruction that power the tech industry can modernize and make more productive the education industry.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd add greater financial literacy for all students. Not just economics (which was an elective I never took), but real world stuff on how taxes are calculated, and the wonder of compound interest.

Incidentally, I had the opportunity to speak to a group of high school students recently - and I'm looking for feedback - any would be appreciated. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1573711>

</comment><comment><USER10> Teacher training.

Teaching is a teachable skill.[0]

Most schools of education do a horrible job.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER11> Ged rid of the ideal of a "well-rounded" student. We've been stuck with this since the middle ages (see the Seven Liberal Arts), and it has been a major source of compulsion in education ever since.

<comment><USER12> I'd go the opposite direction, personally. I wanted to take more humanities classes as a CS major, but was compelled to take a bunch of specialized/unnecessary CS classes in sub-areas I don't care about (or could've read about on my own) instead. I tend to see majors and disciplines as the major source of compulsion in education--- they all have ideas about "required cores" that everyone must take, often motivated more by politics than anything else.

<comment><USER11> What I'm saying works just fine. If you want humanities courses, get a humanities degree; If you want chemistry, get a chemistry degree. If you want both, get both degrees. Lots of people double major, or get more. One of my friends completed five non-trivial, non-overlapping majors in college! This would work so much better if the majors were pure and no general requirements interfered.

It works both ways. I wanted less humanities and more science, but there are plenty of people that don't want to take a single math or science class in college if they can avoid it. Why force people?

<comment><USER12> Well, my observation is that schools where the general requirements have been reduced have allowed the majors to fill the space by upping their own requirements, whereas schools with more general requirements have fewer per- major requirements, so it seems to be a tradeoff. I personally greatly prefer the 2nd approach, e.g. Harvey Mudd has 1/3 general science/engineering core, 1/3 humanities/social-sciences, 1/3 your major. Contrast with many engineering schools, where your major takes up >2/3 of your courses, which I think is a rather oppressive way to do things.

It's possible there could be a school with fewer of _both_ kinds of requirements, where students get a build-your-own-major sort of deal. But if we're going to choose between more general requirements or more per-major requirements, I greatly prefer the first: to me, the 2nd ("all CS majors must take systems, theory, databases, and 2 of the following 4 classes") is a lot more compulsive, and generally results in useless specialist classes being added based on who's politically powerful within the department.

<comment><USER11> > to fill the space

This is another deep problem with education. When people are forced to become "educated", school devolves into a holding pen. Why is it that we all went to college for four (or more) years, other than tradition?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Too much math in engineering education and not enough art.

</comment><comment><USER14> close the feedback loop between the obstacles of the teachers and the policies of the pencil pushers.

</comment><comment><USER15> i dont know about your question but they say that the only purpose of education is to get the child out of the house for the major part of the day so that the mother can get a breather</comment>


Why Java is still relevant - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/da3b2c180e9c <comment><USER2> Also a lot of the de-facto Big Data/NoSQL/Distributed Computing stack is Java(/Scala). Hadoop, HBase, Cassandra, Neo4j, Storm, its actually pretty interesting to note that most of the popular nosql solutions are in Java. On top of that its the number 3 language on Github.

I'm not a huge fan of Java but I'd be pretty surprised if someone was saying Java wasn't relevant. Don't quote me on this, but its also the fastest language you are going to get without pulling out C/C++. When the author made the claim that Java was as fast as Go, I was a bit surprised. I wasn't aware Go had caught up to Java.

<comment><USER3> > When the author made the claim that Java was as fast as Go, I was a bit > surprised. I wasn't aware Go had caught up to Java.

As a Go "fan": it hasn't. It's close in some things, faster in a few, but the JVM has years (and years) of performance tuning in it, and Go won't unequivocally beat Java for some time (if ever).

(This WiFi connection is failing me right now, but there's a good number of Go vs. Java benchmarks out there, for whatever benchmarks are worth)

<comment><USER2> That was my reaction as well. We are using Go in production here and I'm very much a Go fan, but I'd be surprised if Go caught up to Java in so little time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was referring to this benchmark: [http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/](http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/)

<comment><USER4> That benchmark makes it clear Go has not caught up to Java in performance.

Out of the 10 tests that have both Java and Go results, Java is faster than Go in 9 tests while Go is faster than Java in 1 test (by 0.2%, so not significant).

<comment><AUTHOR> I counted go lead on 3 of the tests, but I agree with your point, will fix the article accordingly, thanks!

<comment><USER4> Only 1 of those 3 tests (the very 1st one) also contains Java results. The other 2 are Windows tests that don't contain any Java results.

Hence I said that out of the 10 tests that contain __both __Go and Java results Go only beats Java (by a statistically insignificant 0.2%) in 1 test while Java beats Go in the other 9 tests.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are so right, bad attention to details day for me. corrected the article in any case. thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is one of my first posts, and English is not my native language, so comments not just on the content but also on the language are more than welcome.

<comment><USER5> Speaking for myself in the U.S., the need to learn a new language other than English has become such an edge case that I always marvel when non-native English speakers put their work out for us to judge. Your writing is clear...more importantly, you have a great grasp of how to visually partition your essay, a skill that many writers, native English or not, could improve on. Great submission, even if I'd like Java to be less prominent :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like java as a language. It's consistent, has less warts than many languages and the jvm is pretty darn awesome.

What I don't like is the java ecosystem. Guice? I've nothing but bad experiences with it. Just about every framework out there that I've used in java has gotten in my way more frequently than it's been helpful. Java Api's (excluding much of the stdlib) almost all seem to be made to annoy me.

Java's great. If only it's ecosystem matched.

<comment><USER7> I work on a large application that uses Guice, and it doesn't seem so bad, so YMMV.

Mind you, this may just be because there are other things in the application that are so much worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like Java, really. Learning it might be a good idea as the article suggests, you might find you like it too. It's solid, fast, tons of libraries, it's efficient for programming IMO.

</comment><comment><USER9> Java and the JVM seem like fantastic foundations to have for a language like Clojure. You can develop in a fun language and still use the immense amount of libraries that have been created over the years by the community. You can interop with pretty much anything, and you didn't have to make it yourself or wait for your language to catch up to it, because it's been there all along thanks to Java.

Don't look at Java like the starting point, look at it as the big furnace for what's leveraging it.

<comment><USER10> I have always found it rather unfortunate that the JVM is the best platform for Clojure, and unfortunate that interop with Java is so important. All of the blemishes on the language seem to be a consequence of those two things.

<comment><USER9> I think the idea is to have Clojure support as many runtimes as possible, or whichever runtime is best for the task. The JVM was the start and at this point has the biggest momentum, but there's not much stopping people from porting the language to a different runtime.

<comment><USER11> I really truly love Clojure the language. To me the vector, map, etc syntax is a perfect amount of syntactic sugar--it institutionalizes idiomatic use of these structures.

But... sometimes the JVM feels awfully heavy-weight and far from the metal. I have to wonder what a Clojure on SBCL or Racket would look like. Ignoring for a moment the benefits of the epic number of JVM libraries, I can't help but think that the foundations of those languages would be a pretty low impedance mismatch for Clojure The Language. Hey, Clojure-on-CL or Clojure-on-Racket could even support real tail recursion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've given up any hope of Java ever being considered a sexy language. Its philosophy has been the polar opposite of 'move fast and break things' at least in terms of how the language has evolved. That's been mostly a good thing, though frustrating. The language features are catching up now with the 'sexy' languages and it's pretty exciting.

Still one of the biggest problems with Java I think is the plethora of options you have when building a web stack. And integrating everything is a huge pain. There are options like dropwizard or play, but those bake in too much of their own assumptions for my taste. If anyone is interested in seeing what a modern Java web stack looks like, check out my attempt at it here: [https://github.com/depsypher/flapjack](https://github.com/depsypher/flapjack)

</comment><comment><USER13> Java will wane in relevance as Oracle turns it into a way to squeeze support contracts out of users (see the recent timezone-update kerfuffle).

<comment><USER14> Actually, Oracle have proved a LOT more committed than Sun to improving the language. They put one of the smartest guys in charge of Java 8, charged him with turning the ship around and have given him a lot of resources to work on it. Even Java 7, while including few language features, did include a lot of JVM improvements.

The timezone-update tool, on the other hand, really is a minor issue. So some people will have to use IBM's tool instead. Yeah, it's lame, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Every time articles about a language "still being relevant" pop up, my first thought is "oh, it's down to that stage already". Not sure what this article is trying to accomplish.

</comment><comment><USER16> Java runs the world and runs on several devices from Raspberry Pi, embedded robots (java me) to Mobile Devices (Android) to Enterprise Software (Java EE) to Data Servers crunching Big Data (Hadoop).

</comment><comment><USER17> Amen.

I'm a bit tired of people just dismissing Java based on its hipness factor.

<comment><USER18> I dismissed Java a lot more back when it was hip. Now that it is not hip, it is no longer necessary to dismiss Java, since I can simply ignore it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why learn Java? Sure, there's lots of jobs out there for it, but there's also lots of Rails jobs too. Rails is more fun than Java, so if you're looking to expand your career opportunities, you're probably better off learning a tech stack that won't bore you to death.

<comment><USER20> > _Why learn Java? Sure, there 's lots of jobs out there for it, but there's > also lots of Rails jobs too._

Far far less than Java jobs.

> _Rails is more fun than Java, so if you 're looking to expand your career > opportunities, you're probably better off learning a tech stack that won't > bore you to death._

Rails and CRUD web apps bore most hackers to tears.

At least with Java you can work from web apps, to Android, to web services, create powerful servers like Cassandra or powerful stuff like Solr and Lucene, use embedded Java, and a lot more.

<comment><USER19> > Far far less than Java jobs.

And far far far far less than .NET jobs. Which is still more fun than Java.

> Rails and CRUD web apps bore most hackers to tears.

They don't bore me to tears. Between the brand new Javascript frameworks like Angular and CSS frameworks like Bootstrap, it's possible to develop great looking, simple apps that have a great deal of functionality in extremely short amounts of time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would be curious what PG thinks about this. Relating in opinions described in his book. And is it just me or "banking startup" sounds like oxymoron.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion. Still think learning GO could be a better idea, at least for me.

</comment><comment><USER22> A great irony about the use of Java as a language for interactive systems is that it only took off when deeply enmeshing a Java-ish runtime with Android freed Java from the constraints of "write once run anywhere."

It turns out that OSs have diverse interactive frameworks with different capabilities, and OSs compete on the basis of those differences. In Android, this divergence from other OSs includes the ability to install aftermarket middleware in Android's userland.

</comment><comment><USER23> Java is the new COBOL. Everyone is going to be wondering when Java will die for the next thirty years. Java will still be running the enterprise decades after RoR is gone.

The more interesting question is which will die first: Java or COBOL?

</comment><comment><USER24> Java is still relevant because of how much code is written in Java.

<comment><USER25> Just like Cobol?

As expected, the article was that, a "Java is fast" that can only be said if you don't compare it with anything made to be fast, and "Android uses Java". All the other reasons are excuses for drawbacks of the language.

The one thing that made Java relevant - that one can create a ruleset that constrain bad coders and avoid them destroying all your codebase - didn't go away. And the context where companies just don't know how to hire developers didn't change either, thus still only projects that protect themselves against bad developers are ever successful within them. But it seems that the more productive languages are so much more advanced than Java nowadays that it become better to protect a project by hiring less developers than by making them less powerfull... Or, at least, I can think of no other reason for people to care to anounce that Java is not dead yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Lucene (and projects built on Lucene like Elasticsearch and Solr) make Java relevant, even ignoring everything else built in Java.

</comment><comment><USER27> Of course, who says it is not? Java sucks allright, but is still a big player in the industry.

</comment><comment><USER8> >> Stream.of(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) .map(x -> x * x).filter(x -> x % 2 == 0) .reduce(0, (sum, x) -> sum + x);

If I catch anyone writing Java code that I will have to work on writing Lambda expression crap like the above I will hit the ceiling. How can you debug junk like that?

<comment><USER28> I write code like that with LINQ and such in .NET all the time and have no problem debugging it.

<comment><USER29> Is there actually a way to properly debug LINQ expressions? I haven't figured out how to get Visual Studio to step through lambdas or break halfway through the chain (eg break after the filter call has completed and before reduce runs in the above example).

But I'm not sure if I'm missing some blindingly obvious.

<comment><USER28> I don't know, but it just hasn't been a problem. If something's that wrong with the expression chain I can just break it up temporarily.

<comment><USER8> Thing is though, now you've changed the recipe from what you intend to run in PROD. You linearized it to gain a debugging advantage that you lose when you re-lambdaize it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Video from the surface of comet 67P (Rosetta photos post-processing) - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/landru79/status/988490703075463168 <comment><AUTHOR> Link is to the tweet from the person who originally performed the post- processing.

In English: [https://twitter.com/coreyspowell/status/988579545988124673](https://twitter.com/coreyspowell/status/988579545988124673)

Started to be picked up by news outlets, e.g., [https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/world/eerie- footage...](https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/world/eerie-footage- shows-what-life-is-like-on-a-comet-more-than-300-million-miles-from-earth/)</comment>


Software Development is not Typing - <AUTHOR> http://codingfearlessly.com/2014/02/04/software-development-is-not-typing/

<comment><USER2> This is a very bad idea: "Maybe you can suggest a solution that would have 20% of the cost and get 80% there?"

It's definitely right to think about the fast and cheap way to get there, but the point of a _minimum_ viable product is that you do 100% of what needs to be done, not 80%.

The best case outcome above is that somebody who's a much better programmer than you takes over, does the last "20%" in "80%" of the time, gets bitched out for being slow, and gets burned out.

<comment><AUTHOR> I clearly didn't express myself adequately.

I only meant situations where "80% there" (of the original plan) is enough and I certainly did not have in mind "fast and cheap" or "shortcut taking".

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!</comment></comment>


NodeConfig: IntelliJ-plugin - <AUTHOR> https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/10381-nodeconfig <comment><AUTHOR> Here you go! May your productivity increase!</comment>


Expecting more from Yelp - <AUTHOR> http://notes.mrjon.es/2011/12/expecting-more-from-yelp.html

<comment><USER3> And that's only half the problem. As a developer, trying to use Yelp's API for anything by shop details is a waste of time. The search results are either completely random or do full-text search on the full review sets for each place.

We got some useless (albeit hilarious) results when using expletives such as 'f*face' and 'bullshit' as search terms. I guess the listed merchants wouldn't find it half as funny.

</comment><comment><USER4> I never used Yelp until I moved to Los Angeles. It has saved me many times and helped me learn more about the city very quickly. I've also faced some of the problems the author has faced, though, and hope the Yelp team can keep improving their product.

</comment><comment><USER5> My beef is Yelp's lack of data portability. No way to export my reviews.

In a way, this is a problem with the API, as if I could get (say) a WordPress plugin that would automatically post to both Yelp and my blog at the same time, I would write regular reviews. That's what really surprises me - <USER2> API has no write access!

Closest thing I've seen to that is Urban Spoon with it's blog integration. That's nice, but just I wish it had the active audience and content that Yelp has (which is perhaps because it goes beyond restaurants). I do like Urban Spoon's thumb's up/down rating option, which makes lightweight participation easier.

</comment><comment><USER6> So I take it you've never tried Ness (<http://www.likeness.com/>)?

* Ratings don't need reviews

* Personalizes like Netflix

* Shiny mobile app

(Disclaimer: The CEO is a good friend of mine)

<comment><USER7> Wow! Looks cool! Why no Android app? Nowadays its cheaper to develop for all platforms and a mobile web site than just iPhone...

<comment><USER8> What do you mean cheaper to do more? It's obviously cheaper to just develop for one platform, and maybe to do a mobile website, vs. crossplatform.

It might be worth the extra users/revenue to be crossplatform, but it is definitely easier to focus on a single platform and do it well.

<comment><USER6> Precisely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Shopping needs to be more social -- deals info needs to be delivered in real- time; buyers need to connect with each other, and even with sellers; search needs to be structured and location based.

And the shameless plug goes to...

<comment><USER10> Me! It goes to me! I'm doing it as we speak! 3 months in but no, I won't give a URL or name. I feel dirty and spammy if I did, first off, and it's just not ready for public usage.

But in any case you're right about people being connected. There's really little reason to use Yelp when Google is serving its function. What I'm doing involved connecting people like you said but then adding a loyalty aspect where people get to feel like they're part of a special club of patrons to a particular place and are rewarded for it only after proving that loyalty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Perfect summary of how I feel about Yelp. Some of the best content in the history of the web, saddled with one of the saddest examples of product stagnation.

What a waste – they can be so much more.

<comment><USER12> yelp.com/maptastic is a cool feature

*edit nevermind, they killed that :(</comment></comment>


Congratulations GitHub on the acquisition by Microsoft - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/03/microsoft-acquires-github/ <comment><USER2> Yikes. How untasteful. Nothing official yet but they're hurrying up writing some completely bullshit post to let people know that Github is being acquired by "M$" and hopefully migrate to them. The last paragraph says it all, "look at how we're different".

Frankly, why not just be honest and make this point directly. No need for the "we congratulate Github - Git is so important" oohs and aahs. We're not morons.

</comment><comment><USER3> That read was pretty distasteful. The acquisition isn't even officially announced yet they go ahead and talk about "big bad" Microsoft's surreptitious reasons and tactics for GitHub and developers.

</comment><comment><USER4> What a lame post. Considering Microsoft's history, I would have expected something less generic, more opinionated, and stronger in statement about its own future.

I did like Gitlab and its features, but THIS post makes me reconsider and makes me want to switch to alternatives with an actual community that cares, like Gitea.

<comment><USER5> It is lame because it serves nothing other than opportunistic advertising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is in very bad taste.

We do not know who the acquirer officially is yet. They are also assuming that MS has already ruined GitHub.

Based on what we have seen in the last few years from Microsoft, they are very serious about not messing up when it comes to developer tools and the ecosystem.

They are also showing a huge capacity for working across platforms and being supportive of the community as a whole. I don't know where the pieces fall, but this was in poor taste.

Not good GitLab.

</comment><comment><USER7> Can someone (who isn't projecting their own opinions of Microsoft) explain in simple terms what makes this so "trashy"?

So far the only legitimate complaints I've seen are:

1) The acquisition hasn't been announced yet (OK, what makes that "trashy"?)

2) This is opportunistic advertising (OK, what makes that "trashy"?)

<comment><USER3> The post acts like Microsoft will mess up GitHub and has specific plans for Github already, which they likely do, but Gitlab isn't in the know. The post is just saying things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Thank you for making the market and setting the price for our eventual acquisition by Google" is what I read between the lines.

<comment><USER9> Google just shut down a code hosting service, what would they want with GitLab?

<comment><USER10> Microsoft shut down their own too.

<comment><USER11> VSTS is still alive and well.

<comment><USER10> I'm talking about CodePlex.

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

I have to link to Wikipedia cause the original domain now showcases a security warning from Firefox...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Pretty tasteless to publish an article like this without any concrete sources or even confirmations from the Microsoft/Github teams themselves.

"GitHub has earned mindshare within the developer community, and Microsoft's acquisition is certainly an attempt to garner and cultivate that mindshare. However, the long term strategic implication seems to be that Microsoft wants to use GitHub as a means to drive Azure adoption."

Might be reading too much into this, but the above line in-particular drove me up the wall.

</comment><comment><USER13> Before Microsoft's / Github's PR team releases a piece Gitlab does one which is nothing but what People wouldn't want at any time. Gitlab is supposed to develop trust among the community rather than bitching about something that hasn't even happened just for the namesake user acquisition.

Perhaps, the team thought Make Hay while the sunshines - but Sun might set for them!

</comment><comment><USER14> Meanwhile, their (questionable) strategy seems to work, as a pike in project import is happening

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17223116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17223116)

Good ? Bad ? I don't know neither judging. Just saying.

<comment><USER15> I would suggest the majority of the spike are just playing, will settle down to a small bump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is what we call a backhanded compliment.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wouldn't wanna be with such service provider. Very trashy behavior,I have switched to bitbucket and have been happy. This post just confirms my choice of not going for gitlab ever.

</comment><comment><USER18> If anything this post is going to push people away from using Gitlab. It's one thing to try and capitalize on it but this is just eww

</comment><comment><USER19> "We applaud GitHub on its accomplishments and congratulate Microsoft on its acquisition. While we admire what's been done, our strategy differs in two key areas. First, instead of integrating multiple tools together, we believe a single application, built from the ground up to support the entire DevOps lifecycle is a better experience leading to a faster cycle time."

^ That's how you end up with a shitty product. Just use right tool for the right job..

</comment><comment><USER20> Is the acquisition official yet?

<comment><USER21> you have to get the PR in the oven while it's still hot

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> trashy

</comment><comment><USER23> The only reason I can think of for how many comments here are simply trying to call the post 'trashy' is that they were written by MS devs...

<comment><USER15> Why? As the worlds leading contributor to open source and 40 years experience building development tools it is probably the best acquirer. Would you rather Oracle?</comment></comment>


Guy Who Invented Annoying Password Rules Now Regrets Wasting Your Time (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who-invented-those-annoying-password-rules-now-1797643987 <comment><USER2> In theory, the idea is correct, but making it a metric falls prey to Goodhart's Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Using a wide range of characters is good, but when you make that a rule for users who don't grok that the point of that is to create more entropy, they use those characters in ways that create less entropy, like l33tSp3@k, incrementing a number at the end, name and birthday to get numbers, etc.

Still, just letting users set their password to "password" isn't acceptable. We have a responsibility to protect our users from hacking, even if they don't know how to select a good password. Minimum password lengths might be a start, but leaves room for a lot of issues.

My feel is that users don't know how to select passwords, so in 2019 we should be selecting secure passwords for users. My ISP does this: our wireless router came with a randomly generated password. They allow you to change the password (and you can change it to something insecure like "password") but most users, I suspect, won't change the password if the existing one is something easy to remember (in the style of "correct horse battery staple"). One could lock this down further by generating new passwords on password reset, instead of allowing users to set a password.

This is a bit heavy-handed, but it prevents all the common attacks against passwords that I can think of.

<comment><USER3> >My ISP does this: our wireless router came with a randomly generated password.

yeah, about that [https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot15/woot15...](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot15/woot15-paper- lorente.pdf)

"With no exceptions, all WPA2 default key generating algorithms that were recovered during our experiments use either the router's MAC address or serial number, or both, as input."

<comment><USER2> That's true, but the solution is simple: don't do that. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > He certainly wasn't a security expert.

Yep - when the government performs a function, you get whatever GS 12 or 13 employee is in that seat making decisions with little or no accountability. Good, bad, or indifferent - mostly indifferent.

</comment><comment><USER5> > Inevitably, you have to wonder if Bill not only feels regretful but also a > little embarrassed.

I can't avoid imagining Bill reading this sentence, implying that he should feel embarrassed too. There's no reason to say that. It's a completely redundant sentence. It only seems to serve to put him down.</comment>


Show HN: Bananalert - <AUTHOR> http://18.104.22.168:4567/ <comment><USER2> I would find an avocado alert more useful but sub-second accuracy for short time before they are over ripe might prove difficult to implement.

<comment><USER3> I thought the same thing. I love avacodos, but I've given up purchasing them because I'm _so_ bad at finding the millisecond they are ready to eat before they turn to mush.

<comment><USER4> I've started buying them when they're very hard (Costco sells them by the bag) and then waiting for them to ripen at home. This keeps them from getting bruised by other shoppers. So far, I've had good luck with them being ripe and good for about 3 days.

<comment><USER5> Yes, this is absolutely the secret to awesome avocados. Buy the unripe ones-- the ones shoppers aren't squeezing to death--and let them ripen over a few days. Then, a few days before you run out, go grab the next batch.

<comment><USER6> Adding more agreement to this, grab them hard and green then store in a dark (room temp) place. 4-5 days and should be good to go

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice! I went bananas when I saw the page. Started to monkey around with the settings. And I went baboom when I saw that it would text me.

/* Engage HN filter _/

How do you plan to monetize this? This is clearly ripe for disrupting the fuits/supermarket economy. Like an Uber but for fruits.

I think you should email, tweet, instagram, like, share, deck and meet Paul Graham in order to get into Y combinator. This will be bigger than AirBnB.

Ryan from Product Hunt will be contacting you in shortly!

/_ Filter off */

<comment><USER8> This could be of so much help when MarsOne guys stranded on Mars will need to know if they can eat their bananas! For once there will be some science in their project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Add photo interpretation (heck, do it manually at first as MVP) and you might get quite a few "colorblind" users. Fruit ripeness is a huge problem for many and bananas are usually the example.

</comment><comment><USER10> You need a 226262 short code. Text a photo of your banana to BANANA and we'll send you back a text when it's ready to eat!

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea! except i feel like there might be some bananas that get sent in that weren't grown on a tree, jah feel?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Includes [http://assets.absolutdrinks.com/api/addb-0.5.2.js](http://assets.absolutdrinks.com/api/addb-0.5.2.js)

From Absolut Drinks in the source. And it's collecting phone numbers? ...

Not sure this is the purest of intentions. Not sure it's not though.

[Edit - Looks legit and unaffiliated :) ]

</comment><comment><USER12> What's missing here is that old animated gif of the dancing banana.

<comment><USER13> [http://www.sherv.net/banana-emoticons.html](http://www.sherv.net/banana- emoticons.html)

<comment><USER14> Thanks. Now I have that song stuck in my head. I didn't even need to hear it -- the visuals were enough of a trigger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's your exit strategy?

<comment><USER16> Probably something along the lines of "I'll drive away from the building in my new Bugatti..."

<comment><USER17> "Here in my GARAGE, just bought this new Bugatti"

<comment><USER18> Bugatti in the Garage, let me get OpenSesame. ( Right now Front page HN ) [http://samy.pl/opensesame/](http://samy.pl/opensesame/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This appears to be running on port 4567, just FYI many firewalls won't allow nonstandard ports. Perhaps port forwarding or a DNAT rule could help you reach a larger audience?

<comment><USER20> Yeah I don't get these corporate firewalls, as a cyber security student I've yet to see a single occasion where blocking a port has helped block an attack rather than annoy powerusers (or normal users also, occasionally).

So that's why I use [https://torproject.org/download](https://torproject.org/download) the whole day and never have any trouble with blocked sites (e.g. Pastebin; Slideshare) or blocked ports (e.g. :8080 was used today by some random site in XHR).

<comment><USER21> If you're studying security and you think TOR will work to get you past corporate firewalls... good luck out there. Keep studying.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for the snarky remark, but I posted that post via Tor from inside the corporate firewall. In fact I mentioned that I use it the whole day. If that doesn't prove it works, I don't know what should.

The whole point of the Tor network is that anyone can access the Internet through it uncensored, regardless of countries' or corporate firewalls.

<comment><USER21> That's true. You probably _can_ get out. Until the security team catches you, which they really, really can do. Trust me, I do it for a living. And then you're in trouble for violating the terms of your employment, and then HR gets involved, and then you are fired.

Like I said, if you're going to work in security, you're going to have to consider a lot more than _can_ it be done. Corporate security is more closely tied to HR and the business than it is IT. You can't break the rules just because it's technically possible. It would be your job to find the people who are doing exactly that and report them to HR.

<comment><USER20> > Until the security team catches you, which they really, really can do. Trust > me, I do it for a living.

True, I don't doubt they can if they wanted to, simply look for connections to known Tor nodes (of which there is a list). So long as I don't bother using a bridge node of course.

As for being fired, I don't think it's that strict. The company policy is aimed at blocking people from posting the company's slides on Slideshare, using icons from icon sites without a license (some icon site is also blocked) or pasting sensitive data on Pastebin by accident. As long as I don't do these things, I am not violating corporate policy, while I do need some of these sites to do my work.

If they make shitty policies that apply to the people who don't know what they are doing as well as to the people who do know what they are doing (or even need some of those sites), they can expect people to work around it. Rules are to be followed within reason. And if people are that strict, I don't _want_ to stay in that company. Even as a student I'm asked to do work enough times that I don't doubt I could switch jobs in a matter of weeks.

<comment><USER21> >Even as a student I'm asked to do work enough times that I don't doubt I could switch jobs in a matter of weeks.

That's true, no one should ever be unemployed if they have infosec on their resume.

Do everything you can to learn how to bypass anything. Hack as much as you get your hands on. Break everything. Code all the things. It's really good for you and good for your career.

But I've had enough interns come work with me and then the company gets a letter from HBO because the intern thought no one was watching him torrent off our 2Gbps pipe. I've had college hires who spent the day browsing porn in incognito mode thinking the company couldn't see it. I've seen people using VPNs to mask the fact that they're getting paid to watch Netflix. And every single one of them wonder how in the hell we knew what they were doing.

Companies spend literally millions of dollars in security products to know exactly how their employees are misuing company property and company time. If you think there isn't a security tool that shows people using Tor, I think you're wrong.

I'm not telling you to stop. I'm not your manager. I just like helping people in infosec keep from making rookie mistakes. I've seen it way too often.

<comment><USER22> Ssh proxy to my private server. Squid proxy behind Tor. You might know I'm doing something, but what exactly I'm doing. No way. (Taking reasonable precautions to prevent DNS leakage, etc)

<comment><USER21> At that point though, it doesn't matter. If company policy says you can't use anonymizing proxies or can't SSH out or can't mask your traffic in any way, you're hosed right there. And most enterprises would have an employee handbook that says that. Immediately you're in breech of guidelines and misusing company resources.

So many people in this thread are trying to argue ways to hide your traffic. All I'm saying is, no matter how clever you get to hide what you're doing, you're in breech of your terms of employment from the very first step. No matter how clever you get, I've seen people fired based on my report that they were using SSH to get to their private server. Doesn't matter if they were checking their email or if they were hiring a hitman on Silk Road.

Enterprises don't care what you're doing, they care what you're _not_ doing, and what you're _not_ doing is the job they paid you to do under the terms you agreed to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You should add email notifications too. I'm in Canada so my carrier isn't listed, but I want to know when to eat my bananas. Last time I was at the grocery store they only had extremely green bananas so now I'm playing the waiting game.

</comment><comment><USER24> Here I am developing a BLE ethylene monitoring device. Arg, your implementation is so simple. My kickstarter is doomed to failure.

</comment><comment><USER25> Missing the doctype. Some people who would like to use this site would be on some outdated browsers that would break without a doctype :(

</comment><comment><USER26> Add an 'upload a photo' option to automatically set the current banana color. And then I'll have a photo history of all the bananas I've ever eaten as well!

</comment><comment><USER27> Here is the github repo : [https://github.com/singerbj/bananalert](https://github.com/singerbj/bananalert)

<comment><AUTHOR> noooo dont look at the code its really crappyyyyy

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Absolutely brilliant. Now you just need to release this for every fruit. Appleapp. PineapplePulse. Instant billion dollar unicorn company.

</comment><comment><USER29> Thinking of a drunk scenario, where I could end up setting bad alerts for me and eating a lot of green bananas; it would be wise to add a drunk check such as simple math sums.

</comment><comment><USER30> Very Big Dada of you, wonderful. Thanks.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you choose a color of brown, but a preference of greener, you'll get the notification right away ;)

</comment><comment><USER31> I won't be happy until the banana can wirelessly notify my Apple Watch that it is now ripe.

<comment><USER32> I would not be surprised at all if the little Chaquita stickers will someday contain chemical sensors and a mote computer, and will do just that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> You're missing green/brown which is what half of the bananas at my grocery store are.

<comment><USER34> The hospital here does a roaring trade in distressed looking bananas with random grey skuff marks...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Where's the kickstarter

</comment><comment><USER36> It's dead here, all I see is "ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED"

<comment><AUTHOR> try again, just had to update analytics code

<comment><USER20> Do you mean analytics or do you mean Analytics®?

Edit: You mean Analytics ... so here's yet another site where $SomeBigCorp tracks what I do :/

<comment><USER9> I guess Bananalytics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Since HTTP is deprecated, and you can't get TLS certificates for IP addresses, that means pages hosted like this will be at a disadvantage from now on right?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Public VM crashed, no different ip. RIP Bananalert...

<comment><USER38> Hey! I'd be willing to host Bananalert for free on AWS, as I have lots of credits!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Really could use a checkbox for the 'Bag and Apple' users out there. Faster ripening times but still could use a reminder.

<comment><USER40> Yup - ripening in a mixed fruit bowl, hanging on a banana hanger, or in a bag with ethylene producing fruit (like an apple) will dramatically impact the timing - several days difference...

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> "Error, please check all parts of the form are filled" \- didn't work on iOS mobile. My alerts! NOooooooooooooooooo!!

</comment><comment><USER21> Alltel? Do they even exist anymore?

</comment><comment><USER42> Nope. No. No no no no no. I don't know what the hell you want with my number.

</comment><comment><USER29> Hey! I got it! You build it to get ads from "Despicable Me".

</comment><comment><USER43> Love the idea! Strongly recommend a domain name though :)

</comment><comment><USER44> var bananalife = 5 * 24;

Bananas live 5 days?

<comment><AUTHOR> based on a google search. this is more of a joke project than anything lol

<comment><USER45> You can always tune this by gradient walking to the minimum of HN complaints.</comment></comment></comment>


JOURNALIST ORDERED TO REPAIR $2-MILLION PORSCHE 917 REPLICA - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/you-break-it-you-bought-it-journalist-ordered-to-repair-2-million-porsche/

<comment><USER2> NO NEED TO SHOUT.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I just copied from the article title (which happens to be in caps)

<comment><USER2> Actually, the title, which displays in uppercase, copies in mixed-case. Try it. It seems you typed your title, you didn't copy it from the page.

Here's the text copied directly from the page title: "You break it, you bought it: Journalist ordered to repair $2-million Porsche 917 replica"

The reason? The page uses an all-caps font (or a CSS trick) to force uppercase on what is actually a mixed-case title. The evidence? View the page source and try to find an all-caps title in the HTML code. Not there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using chrome Version 24.0.1312.57 on OSX and it is copying-pasting in all- caps.

Testing again:

        $ pbpaste
        JOURNALIST ORDERED TO REPAIR $2-MILLION PORSCHE 917 REPLICA

What OS/Browser are you using?

EDIT: both safari and firefox do the right thing (pbpaste below) but chrome keeps the all-caps version

        $ pbpaste
        Journalist ordered to repair $2-million Porsche 917 replica

        Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/you-break-it-you-bought-it-journalist-ordered-to-repair-2-million-porsche/#ixzz2LIstn2Jl
        Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

<comment><USER2> > What OS/Browser are you using?

Fedora Linux, and Chrome 24.0.1312.69.

At first I didn't believe my own result so I looked at the page source -- no caps. Oh, well, it's a mystery. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> hmm ubuntu 12.04 + chromium 24.0.1312.56 (fresh install from ISO, apt-get install chromium-version, running within vmware fusion) shows the same result.

Try <http://jsfiddle.net/KD87G/></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Saudi Arabia becomes first country to grant a robot citizenship - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-robot-citizenship-more-rights-than-women-people-angry-a8024851.html <comment><USER2> "Sophia, the first robot to be granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia, has more rights than the human women there. Strike anyone else as odd?" - odd indeed!</comment>


Ask HN: Can anyone explain how DWave was able to scale to 1,800 qubits? - <AUTHOR> I have a bunch of questions about the recent Nature article and about the underlying simulation itself.
1) how are the individual qubits arranged/"built"
2) what is specifically meant by the topological phenomenon observed, and how does this relate to the quantum simulator accurately predicting what the classical model said what occur?
3) what is the interplay between "performing a computation" and running a quantum simulator? not really seeing the immediate connection there
4) last, not sure how far DWave had come previously to achieving such a large-scale computation with this approach, but it does seem like a pretty huge number of interacting qubits compared to other highly-entangled systems
Thanks
Link to Nature article in question:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0410-x <comment><USER2> Even though I work in quantum information, this stuff is a little far from what I do (quantum optics), but I will do my best.

1\. The qubits are superconducting in nature. Each qubit is a superconducting loop, in which the current can flow clockwise or anti-clockwise, which can be called 0 and 1 respectively. There is superposition possible in the direction of current flow, so you have qubits. They arrange the 1800 qubits into a lattice. There are also current carrying wires near groups of qubits, which allows them to change the state of these qubits by changing the magnetic field experienced by these qubits.

2\. What they are doing is simulating some particular types of physical systems, called Ising models. These systems consist of a lattice of particles which interact with each other. If you change either the shape of the lattice or the interaction between the particles, the equilibrium state of the system changes. Usually we are interested in finding out various properties of the system when at equilibrium. Doing this usually requires simulating the Ising model in some way. Some of these Ising models - at least - can be efficiently simulated classically and these guys have tried to simulate some of these systems using their quantum simulator. They do so successfully, showing that their very complicated machine's answers agree with those of a classical computer. So they haven't shown a new phenomena or done something which hasn't been done by classical computers. They have just shown that their machine gives the right answers.

3\. I am not sure where you are getting these quotes from. But its a simulation in the sense that it tells you various properties of some system. You can call simulations just a particular type of computation.

4\. Their is no discussion of speed in the above, which is central to the race towards quantum computers, and for good reason. Dwave's machine is not a quantum computer i.e.\ cannot simulate BQP problems efficiently. Their machines can't address individual qubits, or do arbitrary quantum gates on these qubits, hence can't get the promised speedup of quantum computers. Therefore, they are going a different route. They essentially want to make the equivalent of Lisp machines for physical systems. Lisp machines were designed to run one language really fast. Dwave want to make these machines that can simulate some physical systems polynomially faster than classical computers.

When you see Dwave news in the future, unless you see otherwise, just assume that they have these fancy classical computers, not quantum computers and you are good.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. So silly laymen question here, but I assume the 1800 qubits are not all entangled together. Are any of them entangled at all?

<comment><USER2> Most definitely not. I haven't looked too closely at the paper but I think 1800 are divided into groups of 4, where they can do some entangling operations amongst each group, and weaker entangling operations between pairs of groups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would like to add more questions to authorcolle's:

How many qubits are for error correction, and how many usable qubits would you get?

Is it commercially viable to buy one of these machines, or are you better off just using Google cloud or similar to get the equivalent amount of computational power to solve problems that are appropriate for quantum computing?

<comment><USER2> See my answer here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17844341](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17844341) They are not doing any sort of error correction. For the foreseeable future, it is indeed much cheaper (by orders of magnitude) to buy commercial cloud computing.</comment></comment>


Startups: Hold on for one more day - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/trotzke/startups-in-the-downturn-ignite-bloomington

<comment><USER2> In case it's not already playing in your head:

Wilson Phillips: Hold On

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDwcDYth6gg>

(tee hee)

<comment><USER3> Better video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2L9IKVe9LA&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2L9IKVe9LA&feature=related)

And you ever notice how hard the camera tries to avoid taking neck-down shots of Carnie Wilson? Marketing counts, apparently, and being slim counts a lot for marketing. This despite her being IMHO the best singer in the group.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> My presentation from Ignite Bloomington. Thought some struggling startups might enjoy.

<comment><USER4> What does SproutBox actually do -- fund ideas and use SproutBox employees to help build them? I ask because a friend applied for a position there last year and another friend (who lives in Btown) had some relation. So it seems like it is kind of a big deal coming out of a "small town." (JCM)

<comment><USER5> I believe this is accurate - I spoke w/ Mike in Miami recently and this is how he described it to me:

You (and your friend) have this awesome idea & have a pretty good idea of how you're going to do it - but you don't have UI experts, you don't have scaling experts, you don't have marketing experts, etc etc - Sproutbox gives you some ramen money & a kick ass team - to take your business to profitability.

Doesn't sound bad to me! My only real q is - How much equity are we giving up for that?!

<comment><USER4> Ah, ok. I told a business exec I knew I was doing a startup and he recommended a company in the Pittsburgh area which would "grow your idea" for 51% (i.e. control of the company). When some suits are in control, it would seem that it is no longer any fun and more like working for someone else.

I like SproutBox's site, and the couple of sites produced already (found via their Twitter).

<comment><USER6> Hey, I'm pretty sure I know what company you are talking about and I have never heard good things about them. For a long time they did not have a single success, now they do have one company that's done pretty well, but it's still a rather miserable rate. I would only consider dealing with them as a convertible debt round, which they do sometimes offer.

Send me an email, there are HN meetups in Pittsburgh very occasionally, usually at the Church Brew Works, and I can let you know about upcoming meets.

<comment><USER4> What do you do at these meetups?

<comment><USER6> Talk to each other. Food and beer are optional.

<comment><USER4> I'd prefer to code and maybe chat during breaks. That being said, I usually hang out at one of the many coffee shops in the city. Often Jitters in the afternoon and take your pick in the evening or night (though usually Shadyside or Squirrel Hill, occassionally the South Side).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


College Consultant's Algorithm Guarantees Ivy League Slot for $600,000 Fee - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-03/college-consultant-thinktank-guarantees-admission-for-hefty-price

<comment><USER2> This is as fascinating as it is disturbing. Props to Ma for tapping into an excellent market.

I knew someone in high school (Asian) that was the product her parents' obsession with a prestigious education. It was extremely difficult on her. Perfect grades and ACT, yet was rejected from MIT. Ended up at Princeton (gasp!). Her parents were incredibly disappointed. From what I've heard, she seems to be doing well on her own.

My dad (2nd generation Korean) had the same sort of childhood. He always told me I was lucky to spend my summers at camp because he spent his summers as a kid working through the next year's math textbook.

Alternatively, my group of friends in high school all picked good colleges based on personal fit, rather than prestige, despite having exceptional grades and test scores and extracurriculars to boot. Most of us didn't even consider Ivys and didn't have much external pressure from parents in terms of grades or college decisions. I do not envy those that did. I feel that those whose motivation to succeed comes from external pressure rather than internal drive are bound to have a life-crisis one day when they realize that they spent their life working to please others rather than pursue their own dreams.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you use more email vs. Instant Messaging? - <AUTHOR>

What is the main difference in experience? Is the difference in the generation of users? Or is it separate by domain, work, personal, form of conversation? <comment><USER2> Instant Messaging. I can't really remember the last time I used email to really talk to someone.

<comment><AUTHOR> which use cases could potentially drive you to move the conversation to another form?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The latter. Everything work/internet related -> email. Family / friends -> IM.

<comment><AUTHOR> So the differentiation is based on target recipient?

<comment><USER4> Yup same with me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I refuse to use instant messaging at work.</comment>


Instagram engineer delves into emoji madness - <AUTHOR> http://www.macworld.com/article/2919792/instagram-engineer-delves-into-emoji-madness.html

<comment><USER2> "In the IT world, regular expressions searches justifiably have gained a reputation for being fiendishly complicated. Instagram's regular expressions for finding emojis may be the most complicated yet."

This stack overflow post [1] and Perl module [2] both come mind.

[0] [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match- open-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags- except-xhtml-self-contained-tags/1732454#1732454) [1] [http://www.ex- parrot.com/pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html](http://www.ex-parrot.com/pdw/Mail- RFC822-Address.html)</comment>


Crawling BitTorrent DHTs for Fun and Profit (2010) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dht-woot10.pdf

<comment><USER2> Hi, I co-wrote this paper. Did not expect to see renewed interest!

FWIW, ClearView, the crawler used in the paper, almost certainly would not work unmodified today. The Vuze folks implemented Sybil attack defenses after our predecessor to this paper, "Defeating Vanish with low-cost Sybil attacks against large DHTs", was released. You can now only insert a finite number of nodes into the DHT per /24 you have (and a couple other flavors of subnet as well, probably /16 but I haven't checked the Vuze code in years). The last time I looked, IPv6 Sybils were still a possibility because it was unclear how much of the IPv6 space everyone would get.

</comment><comment><USER3> Really cool idea.

Using this paper and the referenced one at [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3681.pdf%3Forigin%3Dpublication_de...](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3681.pdf%3Forigin%3Dpublication_detail) I was able to make a proof-of-concept passive DHT crawler in a few hours.

<comment><USER4> link or it didnt happen

<comment><USER3> It's not in a releasable state yet.

You can do it yourself after reading the papers, though. I used node with the bittorrent-swarm, dht, ut_metadata and parse-torrent to build it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems to be down.

Github mirror: [https://github.com/ntoll/p4p2p/blob/master/papers/dht- woot10...](https://github.com/ntoll/p4p2p/blob/master/papers/dht- woot10.pdf?raw=true)

From the project: [https://github.com/ntoll/p4p2p/](https://github.com/ntoll/p4p2p/)

<comment><USER2> AFAIK, p4p2p is unrelated to the source code from this paper. A _very_ quick skim of its github seems to confirm this.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I meant the link was from that project - not that they are related.</comment></comment></comment>


EmailForJustice.Today - <AUTHOR> https://emailforjustice.today/ <comment><AUTHOR> Small tool to enable non tech savvy users to email some templates, or to build their own mailto: links for sharing on social media.

Inspired by the current social movements, and enables ease of use for end users

<comment><USER2> Don't get me wrong, I like the tool but if all you do is train people to copy paste to show their support for whatever is trending at the moment, people _will_ not stop being compliant with whatever wrong is happening in the world on their own. That is a fundamental problem with a working democracy. I think people should be responsible and motivated enough at least write an email instead of using a template.

While having an email template is good for many (not all) use cases, I know almost all will just use the template.

Thanks for the work though!</comment></comment>


Anyone having success charging for something on Facebook? - <AUTHOR>

Also are there any numbers on how much money Facebook makes off the 'gifts' they sell?
I'm trying to decide right now between the prospect of charging a minimal fee for something and necessarily limiting my audience vs offering the service for free and attempting to make money off a large(r) audience with ads. I guess it is a question that most startups end up asking.
Does it seem like Facebook users are willing to spend money? <comment><USER2> Micropayments may be an option; makes it feel like it costs almost nothing, yet is many times more profitable than ads. Kinda like they get you to impulse buy a candy bar at the supermarket checkout line.

</comment><comment><USER3> What about selling it and letting the buyer worry about how to make money?

<comment><AUTHOR> That isn't always an option (truth be told it isn't an option many people have).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> just try it - and see what happens. Best way to answer the question.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course. Although if someone has rejected your application/service once due to cost, it can be difficult to get a second chance, even if it is free at that point.</comment></comment>