Ask HN: What is your experience with third party recruiters? - <AUTHOR> The more I work with them the more they seem like used car salesmen: stupid and sleazy. I've honestly not much respect for them at this point. <comment><USER2> I've had some good luck with third-party recruiters. There are some truly excellent recruiters, often running their own boutique firms, but the quality definitely varies and frankly a good number of firms do feel like a used car shop. For me, the purpose of 3rd-party recruiters is to inform me of new opportunities within my salary range and to get me an interview (if you're into contract work, they can often help with that). When I use 3rd-party recruiters, I have a few guidelines in place that I use to ensure I have a successful experience. 1) If a recruiter asks that you take time off work and come in to their office then they better deliver multiple interviews or else the firm gets blacklisted (Goodbye Talener and Robert Half NYC), 2) If a firm is sending you completely unrelated jobs outside your region they get blacklisted (bye CyberCoders), 3) If a recruiting company ghosts you they get blacklisted (Goodbye appcoresolutions). Firms that are blacklisted, I won't work with EVER. 4) Recruiters are there to get you the interview with companies that fit your requirements. I'm ok with the used car salesmen schtick as long as you get me interviews with companies.

Some things that I take to be a good sign that I should work with a recruiter: they want to discuss what you want AND then actually use those notes. One of my first jobs came about because a recruiter called me, talked about what I wanted and then called me back 3 months later when he had an open req that fit my profile. Those I value.

<comment><USER2> If you're doing the hiring, then what you're looking for in a 3rd-party recruiter is really one thing: can they provide qualified candidates to you without you needing to do much work or hand holding. They should be doing basic filtering for skill level, relevant skills and location. Preference is given to companies that can find people quickly, that can recruit diverse candidates, or that can do a good quality tech screen (Triplebyte)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> i weed them out by asking the following:

what is the name and location of the company? is the position permanent, contract or remote? what is the salary / hourly rate? what are the benefits (if any)?

if they are not willing to answer those simple questions, then they aren't worth your time.

these companies are a dime a dozen. you can also find the same opportunity advertised by 10 different companies so don't think that by not entertaining one of these companies you will be missing out on the opportunity. I think that is why candidates waste their time with the scrupulous ones... they fear that if they don't bow to these companies, they won't get the job... not true at all.

</comment><comment><USER4> They have a lot of work. They play the numbers game. They tend to drop the ball a lot.

Honestly, they're also as useful as used car salesmen as well. It's a dirty job. I seriously considered doing it before, but couldn't really cope with the environment.

</comment><comment><USER5> I just landed a great job via a third party recruiter. She was professional, courteous, and most of all, very good at her job. An extremely positive experience overall. Don't give up!</comment>


XING founder Lars Hinrichs launches HackFwd, a product-oriented incubator - <AUTHOR> http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/06/08/xing-founder-lars-hinrichs-launches-hackfwd-a-product-oriented-incubator/ <comment><USER2> Dupe: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1413243>

</comment><comment><USER3> I want this in the US.</comment>


Everybody is faking it. - <AUTHOR> http://thatgraph.com/961 <comment><USER2> _Bill Gates managed to walk into IBM, tell them that Microsoft had an operating system to sell, retained ownership and received royalties on said software, yet didn't once give away that he had nothing. That's right, he didn't have a single line of code to offer up on the chopping block. This feat lead to one of the greatest wealths in history._

This is totally wrong. This is the part taken from "Pirates of Silicon Valley", that movie was a work of fiction. IBM always knew Gates was buying QDOS from Tim Patterson of Seattle Computers. It is just that IBM couldn't strike a deal with Tim Patterson for QDOS or Gary Kildall for CP/M. Gates comes into picture, assures IBM that he would buy the OS from Seattle Computers, improve it and license it to IBM for a low fees. IBM didn't have any problems with that, as they never saw software as an integral part of a computer (They were all hardware companies).

<comment><USER3> Thank you.

When people come to absurd conclusions based upon urban myths, it's nice when someone bothers to set the record straight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were faking it? If all you needed to excel at anything were some gumption and a ready lie?

Instead, in the real world, the good people have dedication, have put in the hard work, and have been blessed with abilities and the right environment. Education and experience are a part of that. Some people know what they're talking about and others don't, and at times it's very obvious who is who (especially in highly technical fields).

<comment><USER5> His example applies, as does yours I think I agree about some degrees; computer science is something you will need and use as a founder or Cto but does anyone really need a "business managment" degree when you get that job; you'll get more than enough on job training

<comment><USER6> Most web startups don't do much with computer science, and a computer science degree generally doesn't prepare you to build a web startup.

It always smacks of an inferiority complex when a group a people who largely thus-far haven't actually been successful in business snipe at people who studied business and suggest that all of their skills are meaningless.

<comment><USER7> Excellent points.

This is perhaps why so many solopreneurs can't make it: startups need the symbiotic, complementary talents of code people and business people to build products from ideas that have time-relevance -- as in "this is what is needed NOW". Otherwise, a person wanting to build startup is forced to be a fast learner.

Even though I had a business degree, I knew I wanted to work in tech. I had an MBA, but kept teaching (was already in the process of doing so) myself to code; and now, I consider myself both a code person and a business person with a successful (I do consider zentu.net successful) startup.

It was just a lot harder and it took a lot longer to build with one person. Also, even though I was self-taught, I seem to know a lot more and have a bit more, um, demonstrated competence, than some CS people I've met.

I sometimes get the idea that high-level theory in CS is probably a lot like the high-level (economic) theory in business: it's great and fun to talk about and muse upon, but at the end of the day, it doesn't always help you accomplish anything specific.

<comment><USER8> Keep in mind that a team of hybrid code/business people would destroy a team of pure coders and pure business people any day.

It's fine to specialize, but a startup requires all of those skills collected in as few people as possible so that decisions can be made quickly and there's no miscommunication because less communication is necessary.

<comment><USER7> So why do you think that I am having such a hard finding gainful employment myself as a hybrid business/code person?

BTW, when I said I consider zentu.net to be "successful," I just meant that it works, has decent Alexa rank, I get lots of thank you emails, it produces slightly more income than cost of running, etc (we're talking strict hosting costs here, assuming I've been working for "free" for myself on it). It's not like I actually attempted to get actual VC or anything like that.

<comment><USER9> Because in a larger team (anywhere that is hiring, as opposed to two people in a garage) comparative advantage starts to kick in.

Even if there are only two of us, and I am slight better at A while you are slightly better at B, the most efficient distribution of labour is that I do A and you do B, despite the fact that we can both do either.

This gets more true the larger the team, because as the team (and the work) grows it is more likely that you have enough work to keep a specialist busy.

A startup needs perhaps 1.5 coders and 0.5 business people, so two hybrids is more efficient than the specialist minimum of 2 coders and a business guy. But a larger business might need 5 coders and 2 business guys, so you are better off with 5 pure coders and 2 pure business guys because they will be more experienced in their specialty (and therefore probably better) than 7 hybrid types.

<comment><USER8> This is a great explanation of why it's hard to find a _job_ as a hybrid jack of all trades. Founders/owners don't really want hybrids because they're harder to manage, and often have a harder time proving to the world that they're better than the pure hacker or the pure business guy.

So find smaller, earlier-stage startups and you'll find people who are clamoring for what you offer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _In fact, if you were to ask a handful of the most successful people in this world what their secret was they would unanimously say, in one form or another, that they learned to play the system (read: fake it)._

Unverified. Why should I believe that random-guy-from-Internet has any credibility or perspective on what the world's most successful people would reveal as their "secret to success"?

<comment><USER11> To his credit, he is putting his money where his mouth is. Bill Gates didn't have an operating system, and this guy has no peer-reviewed success study.

Would you prefer he said "I've done 10 years of research at Harvard and Oxford, and concluded that everybody is just faking it. Do not listen to important-sounding studies from impressive-sounding universities!"? :-)

</comment></comment><comment> barry-cotter That is one lousy article. It's too short, and doesn't come with enough provisos. I agree with the spirit of what he's saying, but for crying out loud, people are expensive to train, and lots of them turn out useless anyway. I'm sure there are many, many fields where Trojan work and a determination not to give up will get you very far if you get a little luck and grab it for all it's worth, but you have to be up to hammering your head at that wall until it breaks, and in some fields the wall ain't breaking (mostly due to licenture issues)

A friend took three years to get into video games programming after building a substantial portfolio, getting business experience and doing a Masters that's stupidly competitive to get into, after getting his CS/IT degree. If you're that bloody minded, sure you can make it, but don't put down the people who turn you down when you're an unknown quantity. Look at your situation with cold eyes, not fake optimism and opinions of your worth and capability.

</comment><comment><USER12> Faking: I don't really think so. It took me a while to flesh out the "stories" about my past jobs to the liking of employers, but even though, I don't think I am faking it. Rather, it means to realize that one has indeed done the one or other thing that was interesting, even if at the time it was just a job. And also, in the sense of "faking", to realize that even not so special things are not so bad after all, because all other things are not so special, either.

As for hiring people without degrees, I must admit that I also have a certain sympathy for people who might be thinking to themselves "I toiled through years of university and startup hardships to get to the position where I am now, and now I am supposed to just hand the same thing to this hotshot on a plate?". Maybe it sucks a little, or employers miss out that way, on the other hand, a certain test of determination might be helpful at times, too.

<comment><USER13> "Rather, it means to realize that one has indeed done the one or other thing that was interesting, even if at the time it was just a job."

This is exactly my experience, too. It's hard to "play up" what I've done, because once I've done it, it seems like anyone could pick it up right away; things I've done are obvious to me, so it's hard to figure out what to say about them. Actually, the same thing applies to commenting and documentation: once you know enough to write comments, it can be hard to figure out what to write to speed understanding when you or someone else next looks at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> " _You ought to go to a boy's school sometimes. Try it sometime," I said. "It's full of phonies, and all you do is study so that you can learn enough to be smart enough to be able to buy a goddam Cadillac some day, and you have to keep making believe you give a damn if the football team loses, and all you do is talk about girls and liquor and sex all day, and everybody sticks together in these dirty little goddam cliques. The guys that are on the basketball team stick together, the goddam intellectuals stick together, the guys that play bridge stick together. Even the guys that belong to the goddam Book-of-the- Month Club stick together._ "

\--Holden Caulfield

</comment><comment><USER15> Only one question to the author, which I left on his blog:

 _So, going by your argument, would you like to be treated by a doctor who got in via option 2?_

<comment><USER16> Why not? If he has a good, or even exceptional, track-record, are you going to refuse to visit his office because he lacks a degree?

<comment><USER15> Definitely. A doctor without credentials is not a doctor, he's a witch doctor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wide brush generalization supported by an anecdote and a hypothetical situation... pass.

<comment><USER18> No, fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> So that's what people who are terrible at their jobs tell themselves: that everybody else is a fraud too. I've always wondered how they got through the day...

</comment><comment><USER20> I thought this blog post sucked until I came across the phrase "If you take a play from P Diddy's biography..."

<comment><USER21> Also: I recall reading another book where the author wrote that he offered to work for free, and was turned down. And it was a huge blow to his ego.

Not every company wants to deal with unpaid interns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> to be successful one has to work hard and think. the trick is that anyone can do it.

XYZ always seemed complex and unmakable to me. After making XYZ it seemed like the simplest thing in the world. After a while more and more things were makable.

The courage to get on the 'success' path of working and doing oftens means getting over the "but i'm just a faker" mind-block. If it helps you to think that "everyone is faking it", fine. Just get on with it :-)

</comment><comment><USER23> He is talking about commercial success. And "lie, cheat and steal" was best strategy for ages...

</comment><comment><USER24> It seems almost ironic that an author who sees no value in education beyond securing credentials that get you a good position is only offering anecdotes to back his position.

<comment><USER25> In many fields, there is a growing mismatch (in terms of time, effort, and expense) between securing credentials and securing an education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Madoff could have written that.

</comment><comment><USER27> More emphasis on training, and less on education per ce, would be more helpful for economic growth. So, instead of various loans and so on to help people get a four year degree in say, ancient Sumerian languages, offer loans for people to get tech certifications in things like networking and so on, things, in other words, that actually benefit the economy. If the United States wants to compete in technology and engineering, a greater emphasis on tech training and certifications is needed. Higher education still applies as a need in things like chemistry, medicine, and physics, and so on, but in the engineering fields, tech certifications could fill a void.

We have two problems: a lack of prowess in sciences and maths, and a lack of prowess in engineering. More opportunities for tech training by way of trade schools, certification programs and the like, can fill a void in engineering. However quality degree programs are still needed to fill the gap in producing people skilled at the maths and sciences. Basically, the chief scientist of your company still benefits I would say from having a Ph.D, but your average Joe-hacker probably only needs a few training courses in whatever language he is working on. So there is some truth to the "faking it" idea, but not complete truth I think.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to detect whether a road is jammed? - <AUTHOR> I have a webcam looking at a particular narrow bottleneck of road near my house. It's usually either free flowing, or completely jammed for ages, most often due to two wide cars not being able to get past each other leading them to have to reverse and do some weird manoeuvres.<p>I want to build a system which will output whether it's jammed or not. What would be the best path to go down for this? <comment><USER2> If the camera is stationary, as a naive approach you can sample the amount of black road area that is visible over a sample time

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion :) The is kind of semi dirt and blends with its surroundings though. I will keep this in mind as an augmentation maybe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can use OpenCV to detect motion/objects and then calculate their speed/flow.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I'm going to definitely try this route.</comment></comment>


Hackers Can Slip Invisible Malware into 'Bare Metal' Cloud Computers - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/dark-metal-cloud-computers-invisible-malware/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if we will ever get to a point where security will be so high that hackers won't exist anymore.

<comment><USER3> It's always easier to attack than to defend.</comment></comment>


Why I love darcs  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nabble.com/a-newbies-confusion-with-repositories---darcs-or-git-p22271697.html <comment><USER2> > _Instead darcs knows with 100% certainty where the right place to apply your > patch is._

> _Being able to apply and unapply patches precisely means that we can merge > changes all we want -- we know that darcs will always preserve user > intent..._

As brought up in the discussion of Git, how can the software perfectly 100% of merge cases, and how does it always know exact user intent? Do es it really know exactly what the right action is when you try to merge a patch with a renamed and modified file with a patch deleting that same file? I'd seriously like to know how they handle those sorts of conflicts, and how the computer "guessing" on an ambiguous merge is better than letting me handle it explicitly; yes, I know it's not really "guessing" because it has a notion of patch theory, but can it possibly understand my exact intent in every possible case?

> _There used to be conflicts issues, but they are mostly solved. There are > performance problems, but they only affect large repositories and they are > getting better._

So, while Git has arguably the best performance of any major VCS available, and has deterministic merges (it asks you for anything ambiguous) without any exponential blowup, I should _really_ choose Darcs because it uses patch theory?

I can understand it being a great project to work on when developing Haskell skills/experience/kudos, but I don't see how it can compare to Git as a stable, fast, and reliable DVCS...</comment>


Chinese Entities with Rights Abuses in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region - <AUTHOR> https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/05/commerce-department-add-nine-chinese-entities-related-human-rights <comment><AUTHOR> Related:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23278712](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23278712)

Original title was too long. It was:

Commerce Department to Add Nine Chinese Entities Related to Human Rights Abuses in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to the Entity List</comment>


Decades of Being Wrong About China Should Teach Us Something - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/30-years-after-tiananmen-us-doesnt-get-china/591310/ <comment><USER2> "Should Teach Us Something", but doesn't appear to say much about what that something is.

</comment><comment><USER3> China has been waging a trade war for several years and winning big time. Mounting a defense against that at this time is going to be hard, but necessary.</comment>


Show HN: Cheapest multicity flight finder - <AUTHOR> http://airx.mikface.com <comment><USER2> The information that this is a multi-city flight finder you could put on the website directly. I opened several tabs from HN at once, then going through them and looking at this one - like what is this for?

It took me a while to see that the airport is the departing airport. Why is Vienna missing (when you have other smaller airports in the list)? And nothing has been found for MUC on 29Nov17 :(

Perhaps you could shed some light on how this works and where you source the information from.

I worked for 1A, perhaps I can help.

If you want feedback from more people, you can try [https://usability.testing.exchange](https://usability.testing.exchange) (disclaimer: I am associated with it).

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you and sorry for late reply. It did not provide any MUC route because I had only one route from MUC in my database and it would need at least two for unique multicity :) You worked for what airport if I can ask? :)

<comment><USER2> Fair enough. I worked for Amadeus (airline IT service provider).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very cool, tho only Europe support no support for North America :/

<comment><AUTHOR> Will work on NA soon :)</comment></comment>


Obama's lost army - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine <comment><USER2> Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan was all smoke and mirrors and was pretty much meaningless because he never fully explained what those meant to him. In an absence of a concrete definition, people just assumed that 'change' was whatever their pet cause was and Obama's team never corrected anyone. It was truly a stroke of genius.

Unfortunately, he had no chance of making any meaningful change when Wall Street picked his whole cabinet for him [0]. It was just impossible to make changes that the society wanted because he was owned by the people who didn't want any change.

[0] [https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important- wikileaks-r...](https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks- revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton)

<comment><USER3> Having read obamas book audacity of hope (highly recommended), I strongly disagree. I presume that what he describes in his book was what he was referring to as change: ending bi-partisanship in Washington and constructively making things better by bridging the gap between republicans and democrats.

In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. Though potus 45 seems to be following his example in that regard..

<comment> aaron-lebo It's been said that Obama was a better campaigner than a politician (not to say he was a bad politician), and I think that holds up decently well. Keep in mind the book you cite is partially a campaign/marketing piece.

I mean the Democrats had control of government prior to 2010 and the ACA was still a compromise with lots of infighting between Democrats. Obama of course didn't help the divide by making pointed insults (clinging to their guns and religion). I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not.

He may have had the best intentions, but his difficulties were a little bit of obstructionism and a little bit of his own personality traits.

edit:

This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief- history-of-president-obama-not-having-any-friends/378761/)

[http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama- fatherhoo...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhood/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is- frustra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating- his-own-party.html)

<comment><USER4> The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming these cross party relationships is because he was white.

<comment> aaron-lebo Bill Clinton is incredibly personable; I don't think that has anything to do with race.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The grassroots discontent that Obama had harnessed so skillfully in 2008 > would soon belong to the right.

It could have belonged to the left as well. Has anyone seen Sanders' rallies, the enthusiasm and energy there? A relatively unknown, old, white male somehow got college kids, minorities and many other groups to follow him.

People like to say that the primaries weren't rigged and he lost fair and square. Ok, maybe. The problem is how close he was to winning. He got so close despite a media blackout, despite the DNC being against him, despite POTUS rooting for Hillary, despite Saudi Arabian and Wall Street money. DNC should have really stopped and paid attention to what had happened.

At the very least, Hillary should have quickly moved to embrace those supporters. Maybe make Sanders Vice-President, issue apologies for all the back-dealing and talking against him, adopt his policies and so on. (Well and not go and setup private email servers years before, but that's another story).

<comment><USER6> Amy Goodman pointed out that the cable news channels broadcast more minutes of empty podium before Trump's speeches than they showed of Bernie's speeches total.

Bernie started out with virtually no name recognition, no money, no organization, no establishment support, a nearly complete media blackout on his campaign and went on to win 22 states and receive more votes than Trump received in the primary, against the most well-funded presidential campaign in history.

It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?

<comment><USER7> > It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was > happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was > "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?

Look, I am a Bernie supporter, but, no, Democratic primary voters, for the most part, chose Clinton because of a combination of preference for her policy positions and trust for her to execute and, frankly, expectation that she'd end up being the stronger general election candidate (yes, polls showed Sanders polling better against Trump so that he had a better starting position, but it's not like one couldn't honestly believe that his negatives would gonip faster on a general election campaign), not because it was "her turn".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A lot of us former (and some current) federal government employees working in various technology aspects under POTUS 44 (Obama) are continuing to work in various ways to bring meaningful change to the people (across private and public sectors). We call ourselves Digital44.

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of the group or its agenda.

<comment><USER9> I'm curious, what is the agenda of this group? Bringing meaningful change is rather vague

<comment><USER8> Honestly, I can't represent it well.

Let's just say that we are all good human beings committed to making things better for all of us. Very politically active individuals with deep government experience and connections.

<comment><USER10> How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ?

The DNC also seems almost in a stalemate due to this cancer - under the survival pressure they evolved into a fundraising outfit beholden to big money, and they have not rallied at all post election defeat.

They don't seem to understand they can represent Dems and get funded in $27 increments... and win over large swathes of young supporters if they just change their mindset.

I think at this point the only hope to replace the old-timers with less- infected newcomers but that will take us to 2018, when we need a strong and vibrant and well organised opposition, urgently.

<comment><USER11> > How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ?

Don't take this negatively, but you lost your argument when you said "get funded in $27 increments." You are already going back to money.

Crowdfunding / crowd donation works really well when people are running for major elections like the Presidential election or the governor race. When it comes to your own district's representative, you can't find hundreds to fund them through crowd funding. You just can't for every representative. Maybe for NYC, but what about that rural area in Maine? You need to rely on big donators and getting money from your party. Where does your party money come from? Membership and donations. You don't actually need to go to the big corps because the people who are the most likely to donate to you are the locals, business owners who held prestige roles and titles in the community/district. They won't donate 1M but they will donate 10K, 20K by getting their uncles and aunts to send you checks.

Actually, little do some people know, Dem and GOP each has a building in D.C. where Congressmen and Congresswomen would sit in a designated cubicle cold calling voters. That's the worst kind of job one can get.

Also, don't ignore the older folks. Not every non-20-ish years old men and women voters voted Trump, there were plenty sided with Bernie Sanders, just to be fair and respectful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What's stopping this from happening again? Why can't a non-partisan Movement 2.0 (or 3.0) be started now that can spur greater grassroot involvement in the political process?

Sure, we're seeing elements of it in the Women's March and other recent protests being organised on Facebook, but it would be better if the people could debate about issues and organise themselves locally to effect change that they want to see.

Top-down politics has got us to where we are now. As Obama said, politics needs to move in the direction of being more bottom-up.

</comment><comment><USER13> Funny how much people over think a lot of this stuff.

Most of it fails the test of Occam's razor. Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term.

<comment><USER14> > Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after > an 8 year presidential term.

Evidence? That's a bold claim, and not true at all if you look at the length of time political parties have continuously held the White house. There's plenty of examples to the contrary, and nothing statistically significant about the number of 8 year terms followed by a different party that would indicate "impossibility": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time#Full_Congress_and_White_House_Control_by_Party_Past_100_Years)

However, a plausible explanation for why there is a bit lower chance (roughly 1/3) of re-electing your party after 8 years is that roughly 2/3rds of our two term presidents have failed to deliver on promises (or failed in other ways) to the American people, and Obama happens to fit that explanation very well.

<comment> aaron-lebo It's not that controversial.

Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances.

The following were all oddities:

* Nixon -> Ford

* JFK -> Johnson

* FDR -> Truman

It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be a pattern. In fact, one of the few presidents to have a proper "successor" was Roosevelt with Taft and that didn't turn out so well...

<comment><USER15> I don't understand why this is being downvoted - its all true.

Reagan to GW Bush was the anomaly really. Even with Obamas popularity its not surprising there was a party changeover - unfortunately the candidate from the other side was trump.

<comment><USER13> And even that is an anomaly, because people forget that Reagan was shot during his first term which upped his favorability out of sympathy. Much like GWB's approval rating after 9/11.

He had the largest landslide victory of any two term president.

He basically won every state. And that goodwill carried over to George HW Bush's campaign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> angry-hacker For hackers and technology minded people, he has to be the worst president of all times. Of course technology as we know is still young so I'm sure there will be worse, but how much worse can it get if you think it's ok to wiretap the whole world? If there was even half of outcry and protest compared to Trump.

</comment><comment><USER16> >Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation.

And yet somehow these improved regulations did nothing when 95% of income gained fell right back into the hands of the top 1% of earners. Under Obama's watch.

<comment><USER17> I don't think that is the point of Wall Street regulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I naievly assumed that Clinton would use this because it had been so effective For Obama.

Anyhoo ...</comment>


The Knot Book: Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Knots (1994) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/books/adams/knot_book/knot_book.pdf <comment><USER2> This is the book that inspired me to create a WebGL knot gallery ([https://prideout.net/knotgl/](https://prideout.net/knotgl/)) which I eventually rewrote using Filament ([https://prideout.net/knotess/](https://prideout.net/knotess/)).

<comment><USER3> 1: That's pretty cool.

2: Would be nice if I could pause/slow down the rotation. Can't get the Borromean rings to look like the Ballantine logo. (three interlocking perfect circles.)

[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BorromeanRings.html](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BorromeanRings.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I worked from this book extensively during my undergraduate thesis, and it was an absolute joy to read and learn from. Compared to Lickorish ("An Introduction To Knot Theory"), the explanations were easy even if you hadn't had 3 semesters of graduate abstract algebra.

If you want a fun application of where knot theory can be used "in the real world" there are some interesting applications to DNA untangling and the function of DNA Topoisomerase - e.g.:

[https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/untangling-dna-with- kno...](https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/untangling-dna-with-knot-theory)

[http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/bcp/bcp42/bcp4216.pdf](http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/bcp/bcp42/bcp4216.pdf)

<comment><USER5> I found this book a bit too informal. A very easy introduction to Knot Theory, that is still mathematically rigorous is Cromwell's, one of the few books written explicitly for undergraduates. After you are about 1/3 of the way through, you can start using Lickorish. Combined they make the best introduction, by far.

<comment><USER4> After 15 years of doing math, I've decided that, for myself, the best introduction isn't the one that's "rigorous" or "in-depth", it's the one the leaves you wanting to learn more. For me, that was Colin's book. I wish more topics in math had entry-level books that explicitly helped contextualize _why_ certain questions were being asked, rather than defining undergraduate simply by what material is covered/how things are proved (of course, I ended up as an applied mathematician, so it could just be me).

<comment><USER6> I had a class with Adams while at Williams (multivariable Calculus, never got to take his Knot Theory class). He was a great teacher, and excellent about teaching students why they should care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow - I took introductory topology with Colin just a few years ago. He wove in a few examples from OP's book and I had several friends who took his knot course - excellent resource for anyone interested and he is an amazing person/mathematician.

Readers here might appreciate one of my favorite homework "problems" from his topology course- it's a simple but counter-intuitive mathematical result that's easy to replicate even for young children. Rip a sheet of paper (8.5x11 will do) in two long strips. Take the strips and tape them so that one is a ring and the other is a Moebius strip.

Here's where the magic happens: make a guess about what happens when you cut each object long-ways, then cut both objects with a pair of scissors. Won't give any spoilers but the result may surprise you :)

EDIT: also forgot to mention the knot book and his topology book are great at highlighting open/outstanding problems that precocious undergrads could tackle. I definitely wish more authors of math texts went out of their way to point out avenues for exploration like this.

<comment><USER8> I will get two entangled moebius strips, right!?

<comment><USER7> Only one way to find out!

<comment><USER9> I am not a skilled person. I attempted this a bunch of times and all I have are weird strips of paper.

Can someone please share pics if you got something other than weirdly shaped strips of paper?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A non-mathematical, but much more practical resource, is the Ashley Book of Knots (fondly known as "ABOK"). Clifford Ashley was a sailor who collected knots, and an accomplished painter and writer. If you find yourself in New Bedford, MA, you can see some of his work in the whaling museum (which I highly recommend).

I took a knot theory class as an undergrad, and I don't remember which book we used. It ended up being a pretty superficial introduction to the subject, which is both disappointing, and probably also how I got my first "A" in a math class since 11th grade (which, I would argue, was wholly undeserved)

Several key takeaways:

1\. The figure 8 knot is the only 4 crossing knot. If you climb, and use it as your tie-in, you can check that you've tied it correctly by checking that you have 5 pairs of strands in the knot.

2\. The figure 8 knot is amphichiral. There appear to be two variants (like the left and right-handed trefoil knot), but they are transformable into each other via the "pretzel" configuration, which seems to be the canonical representation in math.

3\. If you coil rope with only overhand or underhand loops and pull it out, you put a lot of twist into it. If you alternate overhand and underhand loops, it pulls out untwisted. This is most easily seen with ribbon, which has two distinct sides.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a really nice introductory video (imo) on the topic by Up and Atom as a guest on Tom Scott's channel.

Link to Video: [https://youtu.be/-eVd2Ugk9BU](https://youtu.be/-eVd2Ugk9BU)

Link to Up and Atom: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSIvk78tK2TiviLQn4fSHaw/](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSIvk78tK2TiviLQn4fSHaw/)

</comment><comment><USER12> For knot fans - there's also a code golf problem on Stack Exchange that only has one solution so far - Knot or Not? [https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/30292](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/30292)

<comment><USER13> The spectacular knot homology theories such as Khovanov Homology and Heegaard Floer Homology can detect the unknot 'on the blackboard' as well. Wow!!! Actually it can detect the genus of the knot: that's an amazing theorem! I wish I understood how it worked :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I got this book as a part of some math prize in high school. It's supposed to give the reader a sense of appreciation of how knots can be modeled, and in turn can even model other patterns. But when I learned sailing, I realized that trying to read this book as a 14-year old contributed to an irrational fear when learning to tie real knots.

</comment><comment><USER15> Puts me in mind also of _The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie_ [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_85_Ways_to_Tie_a_Tie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_85_Ways_to_Tie_a_Tie)].

</comment><comment><USER16> No joke, I've been wanting an introductory book on this.

<comment><USER17> Why Knot? [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IF3UOQ4/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IF3UOQ4/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What are the n most useful knots for sailors? Other outdoorspeople? Eagle scouts? All-round handy problem-solver types?

</comment><comment><USER19> Very cool to see knot theory on HN! I studied it in undergrad and wrote a paper about it as a class project.

</comment><comment><USER20> I remember my highschool math teacher bought me this book.</comment>


Ask HN: Tech trade show (OSCON) advice? - <AUTHOR>

I've always been told that trade shows are a poor use of funds for an early stage startup, and I believe that advice.  The reasons trade shows are a bad idea include: hard to measure, costly, time-consuming, distracting, and very rarely well-targeted.  But...
We got a really good deal on a booth at OSCON in July, and I couldn't pass it up.  It is pretty well-targeted for us, we believe we can track the effectiveness by giving away some software to interested parties, and with the discounted rate we got for the booth the cost is well-within our marketing budget for one month (we disabled AdWords and AdBrite, and we'll take a month off of using those kinds of ads in order to fund the trade show experiment).
This will be our first trade show...and I've only ever even attended a couple of trade shows.  I'm sure a lot of you folks have been to trade shows, and you've probably seen good and bad examples of folks trying to get your attention.
How does a small company make an impact, and make it a worthwhile use of our time and investment, without spending a huge amount of money?  Me and the primary developer will have to take two whole days off to attend, and I'll be spending a few hours each week in preparation.  So, we want to make it really worthwhile.
What can we give away that people will want and remember?  We're planning to get a few hundred nice T-shirts printed, but I don't think we can justify spending enough to be sure we don't run out.
What's the most memorable small company you've ever met at a trade show, and what'd they do to get your attention? <comment><USER2> I've done many tradeshows (as an exhibitor) with various budgets.

People are going to walk around and surveil your booth from a distance before moving in to talk. Spend the money to get some decent size displays. Have some demo loops or videos with VERY BRIEF text that deftly articulates what you do, and your value prop.

Put together a 5-10 demonstration. Rehearse the hell out of it. Find a presentation style that works for YOU and go with it. Rent chairs for people to sit on and watch your demo. They're walking around all day, a comfortable place to sit is welcome.

Don't be afraid to have a little confidence or swagger. People are taking their time to see you, so they have a presumption that what you are offering has value to them. If you are timid, or too overly grateful for their time, you will look bad.

Everyone will be giving away T Shirts. I don't think they're worth much. Have CDs with your docs and info and demos on them. That is, IME, what the "serious" attendees are after. Bottled water (just generic water) is a better give away. A case of water is $5.00, and the exhibit hall will be charging $4/bottle. Don't worry about the water with your logo on it.

Stand in/near the aisles and directly engage people. Don't be overly stalkerish about it, but don't let people just walk idly by either. Make sure you scan badges or whatever and collect contact info. You may have to practically demand it in some cases, but that is OK.

Don't eat or drink in the booth. Be clean and happy and appear approachable. Don't play iPhone games, or get all hunched over your laptop checking email or passing time.

Budget ALL DAY to set up and debug your demo. Even if it's just 3 slides on a laptop.

Go to the local Wal Mart, buy some plants to add a little character to the booth. Return them at the end of the show :) (done this more than once myself ;) )

Everything you buy or rent there is 2x more expensive than normal. Find out where the local retailers are so you can get last minute items in a hurry. Ship down whatever you can. Contact local exhibit company and see if they can cut you a really good last minute deal on some basic booth furniture demo pods/etc.

I personally think that tradeshows can be very effective if managed well.

If I think of anything else, I'll add it in later. If you need more help, my contact info is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent. Exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

Another factor in selecting this as our first trade show is that it is being held nearby in San Jose. So, we're already familiar with the area, will have a car (or a rental truck), and can easily pickup all the stuff we need from local vendors without sweating over whether it will be delivered on time and without breakage, etc. And, we won't be groggy or jet lagged while talking to folks.

Unfortunately the terms and conditions of the show prohibit distribution of food or drinks, so bottled water is out. I was thinking along those lines, as well, until learning of that restriction.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Harpia – an easy to use Gist client for OS X - <AUTHOR> http://dmarby.se/harpia/

<comment><USER2> Nice work! this looks very useful</comment>


Old Moon Rover Beams Surprising Laser Flashes to Earth - <AUTHOR> http://spacefellowship.com/news/art20673/old-moon-rover-beams-surprising-laser-flashes-to-earth.html

<comment><USER2> Looks like a B-movie robot</comment>


Does this common math misunderstanding have a name? - <AUTHOR> Not getting a 33 percent discount is the same as paying about 50 percent more.
A 33 percent discount on a 100 dollar item makes the price 67 dollars.  Not getting the discount makes the price go from 67 to 100, an increase of 33 dollars, which is a 49.25 percent increase.
While we're at it, is there a name for when people tell you meaningless things like, "I doubled my sales", only to discover the sales went from 1 unit to 2.  It's an error so common that I imagine it must be named by now. <comment><USER2> "While we're at it, is there a name for when people tell you meaningless things like, "I doubled my sales", only to discover the sales went from 1 unit to 2. It's an error so common that I imagine it must be named by now."

Don't know if it has a word but it has its own xkcd comic.

[https://xkcd.com/1102/](https://xkcd.com/1102/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but one way that fractions (and by extension, ratios) are tricky is that a larger denominator gives a smaller value. Five is greater than three but a fifth is smaller then a third. I've seen my children struggling with this.

 _" It's an error so common that I imagine it must be named by now."_

Not really an error so much as an attempt to mislead.

<comment><USER2> A logical fallacy perhaps.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This list is rather daunting to check for a match against this example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) It's either in this list, or we should describe this bias as new?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If we don't discover a name, I guess we could call the first one the "Small discount, large increase equivalence?" sounds pretty bad. Anything with the word numerator or denominator in it would be far worse.

On the second one, "unqualified percentages?"

</comment><comment><USER4> A good example of "I doubled my sales" would be "My risk of getting cnacer has doubled" \- this might mean my risk has gone from 1 in 100,000 people to 2 in 100,000 people.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I found the answer. It is called the Framing effect. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_\(psychology\))

I would posit that there could be benefit in naming the more specific form of discount/increase, as its hard to derive benefit from the knowledge of a general "framing effect" as framing is more often non numerical.</comment>


Post-Spectre Threat Model Re-Think - <AUTHOR> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/security/side-channel-threat-model.md <comment><USER2> > We don't believe it's possible to eliminate, coarsen, or jitter all explicit > and implicit clocks in the Open Web Platform (OWP) in a way that is > sufficient to fully resolve Spectre.

I'm not sure, but I think they are giving up on the best strategy here. The holy grail is for untrusted code to be totally deterministic, so that it cannot exploit Spectre or any other side channel attack.

Browser Javascript, which is historically single-threaded and event driven, is much closer to this than native code ecosystems where there are decades of investment in shared memory multithreading (which is very hard to make deterministic!) I don't think it would be impossible to make a JS engine where any given Javascript event handler and all the synchronous APIs it can call are deterministic, so that all interaction with the nondeterministic outside world is through events (and the "outgoing" side of these interactions would be delayed until the event handler stops running). Then I think you could make it so that the runtime of JS isn't measurable, or at least is only extremely coarsely measurable, via these events.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand fully what it means for a language or piece of code to be "totally deterministic", but it reminds me of a couple topics that arise in discussions about JavaScript: about an advantage of TypeScript, that a _strongly typed_ language allows more strict error checking at compile time, because the compiler can map the behaviors of functions (which sounds "deterministic"?); and an advantage of _functional programming_ , that each function should be "pure", without side effects or dependency on global state - which, if I remember right, is sometimes called "deterministic". I wonder if these topics are related to what you mean by "untrusted code to be totally deterministic, so that it cannot exploit Spectre or any other side channel attack".

This is an intriguing idea: "a JS engine where any given Javascript event handler and all the synchronous APIs it can call are deterministic, so that all interaction with the nondeterministic outside world is through events".

It seems like that would be a significant re-think/re-organizing at a fundamental architectural level, that it would almost be a new language. Maybe Web Assembly could achieve this?

<comment><USER2> Determinism is related to purity ("functional programming"), but is a weaker notion. For example, this function

        var c = 0
        function deterministic_not_pure() {
            return c++
        }

is not pure, and you can't reason over it equationally. But it is deterministic: if I make a series of calls to this function in my browser, and you make the same series of calls in your browser, and someone else emulates the code using a Turing machine made of rocks in the desert [1] we will all see the same results. (And consequently, there is nothing that such code can do to learn about its environment!)

As far as I know everything in Javascript-the-language has this property! [2] (Equally, so does WebAssembly). And most of the browser's APIs do as well, though the sheer size of that surface means that any attempt to fix the rare cracks will still be daunting. The vast majority of information that browser JS gets is either through events (i.e. function arguments) and I think most of the rest could be safely forced to be deterministic during the execution of a JS function.

It's still obviously possible for these _events_ to leak timing information about the execution of JS, but I think that can be fought. For example, you could delay the delivery of every event by the number of nanoseconds that JS has executed on the page so far, though of course that naive approach will gradually degrade in performance. But I think for example doing that until you have 10ms of delay and then resetting would probably make timing attacks totally impractical.

All of this needs way more thought, and I'm not at all suggesting that it's easy. But browser JS is closer to an actually-securable-against-side-channels state than almost any other widely deployed platform, and I think it's sad for the people that control the platform (which is, let's face it, basically the Chrome team) to throw it away because they love performance.now() and SharedArrayBuffer.

[1] [https://xkcd.com/505/](https://xkcd.com/505/)

[2] Well, ECMAScript probably doesn't specify a random number generator, for example. But it _could_.

<comment><USER3> Thank you, I was hoping to learn something by posting a comment, and was richly rewarded by your reply. Hadn't seen the "computer of rocks", brilliant.

Yes, I'm starting to see the difference between pure and deterministic. It seems like the latter is a description of a particular type of predictable/repeatable "program flow".

I found a related Wikipedia topic [1], "What makes algorithms non- deterministic?" Quote:

\- If it uses external state other than the input, such as user input, a global variable, a hardware timer value, a random value, or stored disk data.

\- If it operates in a way that is timing-sensitive, for example if it has multiple processors writing to the same data at the same time. In this case, the precise order in which each processor writes its data will affect the result.

\- If a hardware error causes its state to change in an unexpected way.

Although real programs are rarely purely deterministic, it is easier for humans as well as other programs to reason about programs that are. For this reason, most programming languages and especially functional programming languages make an effort to prevent the above events from happening except under controlled conditions.

The prevalence of multi-core processors has resulted in a surge of interest in determinism in parallel programming.

\---

The above includes a number of topics you raised, about events and timing information, and the possibility of making a language deterministic with some exceptions "under controlled conditions".

This part feels relevant too: "easier for humans as well as other programs to reason about".

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm#What_m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm#What_makes_algorithms_non- deterministic)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > for example ensuring that password and credit card info are not > speculatively loaded into a renderer process without user consent

Great that they're thinking about this, but I can't help but think many users will happily just copy-paste their CC details into random sites protected with a password of "password".

There's obviously strength in depth for security, and I applaud the developers for caring so much when users will attempt to subvert all security measures.

<comment><USER5> _> Great that they're thinking about this, but I can't help but think many users will happily just copy-paste their CC details into random sites protected with a password of "password"._

To be honest, we're pretty much incentivised to by the fraud insurance structure. Any fraud is automatically covered through chargebacks. Eventually it's the merchants that end up paying for this, big time, so they have the incentive to fix it. But since they are so far removed from the actual CC handling, usually (through PSPs, and the place a CC is stolen from is very far from the merchant who eventually is abused by it), there is very little they can actually do.

I don't care two pence about where my CC ends up, to be honest. Beyond perhaps the very minimum I need to, to avoid being held liable for the chargebacks through neglect. Which is essentially never.

It's not healthy for the overall system, but I pay for the privilege (through indirect fees), so I might as well use the comfort :/ tragedy of the commons.

CC fraud incentives are a tricky beast.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Affordable LIDAR-Sensors? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> $90: [https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13167](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13167)

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe not quite what you are looking for, but may still be of some use: [http://www.conti-online.com/www/industrial_sensors_de_en/](http://www.conti- online.com/www/industrial_sensors_de_en/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Neato robot vacuums go on sale for ~$120 pretty regularly, have a spinning LIDAR on top, and a USB port that can feed you the sensor data.

<comment><USER2> There's a small company that sells spinning, inexpensive lidars: [http://rplidar.robopeak.com/](http://rplidar.robopeak.com/)

You can purchase it from seeed: [http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/RPLIDAR-360-degree-Laser- Sc...](http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/RPLIDAR-360-degree-Laser-Scanner- Development-Kit-p-1823.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can get a Kinect pretty cheap. Microsoft sells them, and even provides some software libraries.

</comment><comment><USER6> what is "affordable" to you?

what range, wavelength (or: visible/invisible), opening angle, moving/stationary, indoor/outdoor, sunlight resistant, what target materials etc.

provide some context if you want a good answer</comment>


Forced Tech Transfers Are on the Rise in China, European Firms Say - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/forced-tech-transfers-are-on-the-rise-in-china-european-firms-say-11558344240 <comment><USER2> Framing detector is on. I have an issue with the word "forced". Nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head. Don't want to be "forced" \- don't go do business in China.

<comment><USER3> Ironically, there are aircraft carriers moving around the oceans forcing some countries regarding some agenda.

<comment><USER4> > Ironically, there are aircraft carriers moving around the oceans forcing > some countries regarding some agenda.

What irony are you referencing specifically? The United States' usage of carriers to threaten the PRC? The PRC's usage of carriers to threaten the ROC? Some other countries?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Epitome of lemming syndrome: OMG we have to setup shop in China so we can produce goods more cheaply. But if we do we're forced to give up the tech. Can we just not do that? But all our competitors are going to do it.

Maybe invest in another nation or continent.

<comment><USER4> If by "lemming syndrome" you mean "tragedy of the commons", you're entirely right. This is exactly why either a concerted US government push-back is needed (as is occurring now) or an acceptance of the tech transference (as occurred before).

<comment><USER5> No not tragedy of the commons, it's that businesses are so focused on growing short term profits they'll enter into efforts that yield profits in the three year timeframe that are long term losers (giving up IP) in the medium to long term. It's madness.

<comment><USER4> > No not tragedy of the commons, it's that businesses are so focused on > growing short term profits they'll enter into efforts that yield profits in > the three year timeframe that are long term losers (giving up IP) in the > medium to long term. It's madness.

Okay sure it's a combination of searching for short-term profits and tragedy of the commons. Individuals acting in their own self-interest against an overall greater good.

<comment><USER5> IMHO, government has little real power to pragmatically curtail this as a formal trade issue. If it's legally not allowed, it's not like employees in China can't walk away with the tech anyway. The question is where you want to build your technology base and where short term greed drives you to build.

Private IP of companies isn't any sort of public commons. By deciding to build stuff in China, they've already left the only arguable commons part of that - the common labor knowledge base that forms naturally where you put your actual build operations.

<comment><USER4> Well the US could for example put up trade barriers that are costly enough for China to change. Of course it might not work due to lack of US political will, or strong Chinese political will, or any number of reasons, but it's not like nothing is possible. I'm not necessarily saying this is a good idea, but it's not like this is some magically impossible problem to solve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remind you, developed WTO member countries are obliged to facilitate technology transfers to lesser developed countries by WTO charter.

It might be a surprise to most HN readers, but that clause was put in WTO charter by... USA

<comment><USER7> I think a unique problem with China (and India too in the future) is that it is so big that the consequences of transfer materialize faster and and in bigger ways. Unlike smaller developing nations, China seems to be pretty good at learning and implementing, either as a matter of policy or through the sheer size of its markets and burgeoning professional class. Siemens and Kawasaki probably didn't expect China to internalize their high speed rail tech in a few short years, and proceed to compete internationally against them. Where do you draw the line from acceptable transfer? Is stealing a retroactively-applied term when someone exceeds the teacher or can the terms of transfer be done better upfront?

In other words, I wonder if there's a way to adjust tech transfers to developing countries based on not just the level of development, but also how 'dynamic' the developing country is? Is it fair to punish a country having a population and policies in place that focus on learning and development?

<comment><USER8> What is it about China that allowed them to so quickly internalize that high speed rail tech so they could compete with Siemens or Kawasaki?

Meanwhile, in the US, our government is on the verge of shutdown every year because we have to raise some artificial debt ceiling to keep the federal government operating.

Why are the Chinese so much more efficient? Americans, even progressive Americans, often think of government being large, inefficient, and bloated. What's the disconnect?

<comment><USER5> I think that greed is easier to manage when expanding into underserved & undercapitalized markets - in that environment most capital increase becomes an easily spread general improvement in life quality.

When trying to balance inequality in well-capitalized, mature markets, you fundamentally have to trade one set of ownership against another on a much more frequent basis. To replace one set of capital investments with another (even when the new investments are an improvement), requires displacement of the old owners and old industry; see fossil fuels and climate crisis as a major example. Government becomes a battleground between the capital interests and is often where progress is neutralized.

<comment><USER8> So it's like a new greenfield project vs dealing with legacy systems?

<comment><USER5> Yes, but instead of code and past technical decisions fighting against advancement, it's people with capital and interests in the status quo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Had a conversation recently about all that.

People ask if the industry will wrap up and move from China.

I ask them in response: where would they run away to? Vietnam?

Vietnam's entire light industry output is like of one Dongguan's district.

India has a lot of workforce, tons of it, but the entire light industry ecosystem has to be built from scratch, or brought along with you.

They can't run away.

<comment><USER9> If negative pressure is sustained long enough, alternatives will be developed. How long has China held a dominant position in electronics assembly? Less than 20 years...and that would be generous.

So things can change, definitely not overnight, but in a few years.

<comment> the-rc Well, before China, it was Japan. They dominated the 80s and a good chunk of the 90s. They still have a lead in markets such as cameras and are fairly competitive for technologies like Flash, which they actually invented. Samsung passed Toshiba a decade ago or so.

<comment><USER9> Don't forget Taiwan and Korea.

<comment> the-rc Yeah, those have been displacing Japan along with China. I mentioned Samsung, but was mostly focusing on Japan as an example of a country whose star can and did dim, as a potential parallel for future China. It has taken longer than the few years the parent poster cited.

It's also worth noting that China still has a long way to go when you look at particular markets such as semiconductors, where export controls have slowed them down.

<comment><USER9> Japan was displaced by them significantly in the 90s, then China displaced everyone mid 2000-2010.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's kind of fascinating to me is that it's the WSJ and FT reporting on this. Whereas if I go and browse a German paper, I get this:

[https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/handelsstreit-...](https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/handelsstreit- zwischen-usa-und-china-auch-eu-firmen-leiden-a-1268302.html)

<comment><USER11> Isn't IP transfer abundantly mentioned at the end of the article?

<comment><USER10> As a counterpoint, and instead of a point of fear.

I would almost offer a way to easily counter these "forced tech transfers," but with the tone taken here and elsewhere, I just sit back in disgust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I frequently think that the China is not actually the bad guy here. To me, tech transfer sounds like a good business practice. If I were going to spend billions of dollars buying something, I would seriously consider demanding the IP and know-how to make more of it myself in the future. That way I would have some assurance that my purchase wouldn't become unsupported and this worthless and that I won't get price-gauged once I'm locked in. Cough, Oracle, cough. And having one's major purchases translate to economic growth seems entirely reasonable.

It seems to me that people mostly have problems with tech transfer because it appears to be the government mandating it. Maybe the right solution is for everyone else to start doing tech transfer, too.

Tech transfer to a limited extent for drugs in particular sound like a pretty good idea.

<comment><USER13> It removes much of the incentive to build new tech if you have to turn it over and let someone steal it.

I wouldn't go into China with any proprietary tech as a foreigner.

<comment><USER14> There's a happy middle ground here. Patents expire after 20 years and that's a form of tech transfer. Maybe China's 1 year is too short and the US' 20 years is too long?

<comment><USER15> I don't understand the parallel being drawn. The US doesn't require you to file for a patent if you'd rather keep your technology secret.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Improve writing through a scrum style retrospective - <AUTHOR> http://blog.therightmargin.com/2016/12/improve-writing-retrospective/ <comment><USER2> Has anyone else applied product or agile techniques to creative endeavors? Thinking about retro made me wonder whether doing a regular standup with my writing could lead to new insights, akin to freewriting or journaling.</comment>


Cracking Open the SharePoint Fortress - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2558

<comment><USER2> I'm trying to figure out why this is news.

Does Google's API allow you to get data out of Sharepoint that you couldn't get using the Sharepoint Web Services?

</comment><comment><USER3> dupe</comment>


Ask HN: What's the most ambitious project you know of? - <AUTHOR> <comment> jerome-jh Anything that relates to automatic code generation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Program synthesis.</comment></comment>


The Dr. Strange of the American Revolution - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/the-dr-strange-of-the-american-revolution <comment><USER2> On the other side of the American revolution there is the interesting case of Benjamin Thompson, aka Count Rumford ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Thompson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Thompson)) after he became a nobleman in later life. Born in Massachusetts in 1753, he became a Loyalist who opposed the American Revolution, and later moved to Britain, and then to what is now Germany. But he was one of the earliest scientists born in what is now the United States, and contributed a lot to the early study of thermodynamics. But being on the "wrong side" of history he doesn't get the recognition he deserves in America.

<comment><USER3> A lot of people had to leave during the American Revolution. It saddens me how American school textbooks and pop-history for adults depict the revolution as a simple case of freedom-yearning colonists against the oppressive mother country. The American Revolution was a true civil war: a substantial part of the population wanted to remain under England, but the revolutionaries won their cause by burning down loyalists' houses, tarring and feathering them, and forcing them to flee to Canada or the Caribbean.

<comment><USER4> > the revolutionaries won their cause by burning down loyalists' houses, > tarring and feathering them, and forcing them to flee to Canada or the > Caribbean

They hardly needed help. The British and Hessians accomplished much of that all on their own, as they brutally raped women and pillaged all across the colonies wherever they went.

<comment><USER5> > and Hessians

This is an important point and I wanted to give more context. Hessians were German (admittedly pre-german unification) mercenaries employed by Britain to control the territories.

They were famously involved in numerous human rights problems. One of the original colonists greivences was the use of, "large armies of foreign mercenaries".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I get it that this guy needs to sell books, but the reason why Benjamin Rush isn't as well known as other founding fathers, is that he wasn't terribly important.

As Surgeon General to the Continental Army, he undermined Washington and was dismissed. (And after the war recanted.)

As a physician, he went to his grave favoring bloodletting and mercury tablets as treatments.</comment>


Men Have a Biological Clock Too - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-men-have-biological-clocks

<comment><USER2> It reminds me of a quote from Alec Baldwin's character in 30 Rock:

"I'm 50. To put it in perspective, that's like 32 for ladies."

These numbers make it seem like this is pretty accurate. Men reach their expiry date _way_ after women do, mostly because the male contribution to the event is a whole lot less physically taxing than the female contribution.

</comment><comment><USER3> 2008, just for those who recall a previous round of stories on the topic.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nooo, not coffee :-(</comment>


Richard Stallman on the Anonymous WikiLeaks Protests - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/anonymous-wikileaks-protest-amazon-mastercard/print

<comment><USER2> I guess you could compare this with the 1960s sit-ins at the whites-only establishments.</comment>


You need communication redundancy at work - <AUTHOR> https://www.fridayfeedback.com/communication-redundancy <comment><USER2> Communication table is helpful.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're curious to learn more, here's an interesting research paper that goes into more detail: [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~illah/CLASSDOCS/Clark91.pdf](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~illah/CLASSDOCS/Clark91.pdf)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Help me improve my Rails 3 Environment. Please. - <AUTHOR>

I am new to ruby, played with Sinatra now want to try Rails 3. I am setting up my environment and came up with a checklist.
How would you improve it?
Here is what I have installed
Rake .9.2 Compass 0.11.5
Rails 3.0.7 Passenger 3.0.7 + a host of dependencies. My goal is to create an environment with Compass Framework, Passenger and jQuery.
Here are my steps -- Thanks for the feedback!
Create Rails App, Database & Server Instance
(1) Run rails new prjName --using blueprint (2) Is httpd.conf file pointing to right file?
(3) Delete /public/index.html.erb (4) Update Rakefile if using Rake 0.9.2
module ::applicationName
  class Application
    include Rake::DSL
  end
end
module ::RakeFileUtils
  extend Rake::FileUtilsExt
end
(5) Run rake db:create:all (optional)
(6) Run rails g scaffold modelName attr:DataType..
(7) Add to route.rb root :to => 'resource#action'
(8) Run rake db:migrate
(9) Go to migrate folder and confirm contents of date_create_resource.rb
(10) Add gem "rake", "~> 0.9.2" to Gemfile
Set up jQuery, Compass and Finish Up
(11) Run compass init rails add generated statement to Gemfile
(12)
Add gem "jquery-rails", "~> 1.0.12" to Gemfile (13)
Run rails generate jquery:install --ui (14)
Run compass init rails (to generate a sass folder)? I should not have to do this? Any Compass Users please help me understand why this is the case...
(15) Place js references in ERB file <%= javascript_include_tag"javascripts/jquery.min.js"%>
<%= javascript_include_tag "javascripts/jquery-ui.min.js"%>
<%= javascript_include_tag "javascripts/jquery-ui.min.js"%>
(16) Review, update Gemfile (jQuery,rake, compass)
(17) Update the compass.rb file
(18) Run bundle install
(19) Restart the server sudo apachectl graceful <comment><USER2> You can do 95% of this (excluding Apache configuration) automatically with Rails templates.

My example is here [https://github.com/prognostikos/rails_templates/blob/master/...](https://github.com/prognostikos/rails_templates/blob/master/basic.rb) and if you search github you can find many more.

Use with 'rails new yourapp --template=path/to/template'

<comment><AUTHOR> @prognostikos - thanks man. I saw your template and came across a few others. I came across this gem (<https://github.com/kfaustino/rails-templater>) I might give it a go. I understand about 85% of your script so I am definitely going to try and create my own from all this inspiration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> no need to restart the server. if you're using passenger, just `$ touch tmp/restart.txt` (in your rails app). That will restart just that app in passenger (and lots of other servers too)

<comment><AUTHOR> @lenary thank you very much for your feedback. I recall reading about the restart.txt - what contents should be in this file or is it generated?</comment></comment>


Dotphiles: A More Sensible System for Dotfile Management - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dotphiles/dotphiles

<comment><USER2> Well, was going to post about this but looks like someone beat me to it :)

Basically my dotfiles, as a starter repo so you can fork, edit and use.

Also using my 'dotsync' script that can push/pull changes around multiple machines.

Has setups for zsh, vim and a number of other utils.</comment>


Three things about Marco Arment… - <AUTHOR> http://www.kungfugrippe.com/post/243861520/marco

<comment><USER2> I was a long-time resistor of Instapaper because I had my "to_read" tag in del.icio.us. But I would only very rarely return to that tag and go through items I had bookmarked. Plus I'd feel the need to come up with tags for an article I hadn't even read yet, based on what I thought it was about.

I finally started using Instapaper with my iPhone, and can't say how many times I've been stuck somewhere for a few minutes that let me read a longer- form article when I'd have been distracted by 5 other open browser tabs were I on my laptop.

Being able to click the Instapaper bookmarklet and not have to think about anything — not even be taken away from the page — has removed all friction from the process. I love it. I didn't even realize you could get a digest sent to your Kindle. I'm going to have to go set that up right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm continually surprised by the number of people who haven't figured out the recipe for a well-spent life only has two ingredients: passion and hard work.

</comment><comment><USER4> > And, that all happened because I clicked one button. If that's not blowing > your mind right now, go read all that again. Because that shit is sick.

It's also sick that it took 54.66s for this page to load (over 1.065MB). I went and got some hot chocolate while I was waiting.

Time - <http://imgur.com/ttZgU.png>

Size - <http://imgur.com/C7yXj.png>

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm addicted to the Give Me Something to Read feed:

<http://givemesomethingtoread.com/>

This is probably hand-curated...

<comment><USER6> Indeed it is! By this man: <http://tumblr.quisby.net/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Marco's response: <http://www.marco.org/244246945>

Equally as well written, IMO.</comment>


Bye bye Pocketpedia (another casualty of Amazon's change in TOS) - <AUTHOR> http://bruji.com/articles/2009/07/17/bye-bye-pocketpedia/

<comment><USER2> This is a shame for Bruji. That said, the clause prohibiting mobile apps did indeed exist when they launched last June. I remember seeing it in there in the early months of 2008, when I was looking into it.

I hate to say it, but it's hard to feel sorry for a company that charges money for a product which violates another company's TOS. Especially when they blame it on the other company when they get called out on it. They claim to have not known, but even a skim though the TOS should have made it clear that mobile apps are not allowed without explicit permission.

<comment><USER3> If it existed that early we did miss it, especially on the syncing data to a mobile device clause. It would be nice to know the different changes, if anybody knows a place that has a history of the changes that would be interesting to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a general question about this.

Say, a company releases an API which is used by a lot of other developers to make third party apps based on a TOS. An year down the line, the company decides to change the TOS such that all the apps become illegal, is their a legal recourse for the third party developers which can help them to be still able to sell their apps, of course legally?

<comment><USER5> There might be if most TOS didn't say, _"we reserve the right to change these terms at any point in time, yada, yada, yada..."_

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> See also : [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/amazon-killing- mobile-a...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/07/amazon-killing-mobile-apps- that-use-its-data/)

(excuse TechCrunch link)</comment>


JavaScript Genetic Algorithm Visualization - <AUTHOR> http://wedusc.com/ga/

<comment><AUTHOR> I just updated this with a small set of predefined fitness functions that can be selected via a dropdown list in the "edit" view. I'm particularly fond of the "Growing Culture" function, as by simulating reducing fitness over the age of the gene, it makes the genes much more volatile, yet patterns still emerge!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As a quick fiddle, dramatic results can be had with just changing the line: if((i%4)===1)

A "1" means it favors green, obviously "0" would favor red and "2" would favor blue. There is a 4th component for alpha channel, but I personally haven't gotten too far into the fitness function finangling to decide if it is useful.

This was motivated by the ludicrously over-complicated genetic algorithm example in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5904182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5904182)

While they do require finesse in their configuration, genetic algorithms do not have to be terribly complex in code.</comment>


BCPL, a predecessor of 'C' - <AUTHOR> http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/clive-on-bcpl.html

<comment><USER2> Oh dear gods no.

 _I first encountered BCPL when I was at Cambridge University, the home of the language and its designer, Martin Richards._

Same. I was taught this during my undergrad (in the ancient times of 2002-3ish). A course on "Comparative Programming Languages" ended up as 7 lectures on BCPL and 1 on everything else (Lisp, Smalltalk, stuff like that. I think.) It was terrible.

I now have an in-built knee-jerk reaction to hate BCPL. Especially since he (Martin Richards, who should never be allowed to lecture, ever) spent at least one lecture teaching us how to implement types in BCPL.

Yeah. Typed BCPL. Last time I checked, that was called "C".

<comment><USER3> I liked BCPL, and still prefer it to C, but I taught it to myself, and never took lectures from Martin Richards.

Most of the computing done for my PhD was done in BCPL. I still have the code somewhere, but I can't convert it to C because it uses co-routines.

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.dekorte.com/projects/opensource/libcoroutine/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Kaz took a stab at it recently and found a few surprising features that didn't remain in C:

[http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/...](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/6530fc83a74a8a7e?pli=1)

In Summary:

 _I didn't say BCPL is better than its successors. Only that not everything in its successors is strictly an improvement over its BCPL counterpart._

<comment><USER5> BCPL's predecessor, CPL, had even more features: things like type inference, closures, polymorphism. It was never completely implemented. The machines at the time were too small - 4kwords being a typical size. It would probably be fairly easy nowadays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting that BCPL included both one-line and multi-line comments, but C did not.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used the BBC micro version by Acornsoft in the gray past, it made the transition to C a lot easier when I finally got my hands on a C compiler (on a PDP 11 bought for scrap...).

<comment><USER7> Yes Acorn/Acornsoft did do for some "off the track" languages.... I recall they did COMAL as well.

<comment><USER8> There was a LISP as well.

[My school, suddenly in possession of a gifted CS centre full of Beebs, wound up giving charge of the syllabus after two years to someone who promptly decided to teach COMAL to everyone in place of (the very sophisticated, for its time, and structural) BBC Basic. Fortunately I missed out there but they must have turned out the better part of a thousand basic-level COMAL coders for no good reason. Apparently these days the same guy's got all the 14-year- olds passing tests in, but almost certainly not understanding, Smalltalk instead.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Don't see any mention of O-code in that article?

O-Code Machine, a predecessor of JVM:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-code_machine

<comment><AUTHOR> Doesn't the JVM go all the way back to UCSD p-code and Forth ?

<comment><USER7> And O-code looks like it also precedes them.</comment></comment></comment>


DARPA's next Grand Challenge to focus on humanoid robots - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/darpas-next-grand-challenge-to-focus-on-humanoid-robots/

<comment><USER2> Hey spathak... I'm the author of the original source over at Hizook.com (which was referenced in the Engadget article):

[http://www.hizook.com/blog/2012/04/03/new-darpa-grand- challe...](http://www.hizook.com/blog/2012/04/03/new-darpa-grand-challenge- humanoid-robots-preliminary-unofficial-details)

We work very hard to put together these top-notch articles, and it sucks to have other media sites get all the attention.

EDIT: I had already made a HN submission for Hizook, here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3806243> but I suppose this post already has a lot of comments, so it should (obviously) remain. However... if you're interested in this type of robotics news, be sure to check us out.

<comment><USER3> Not to be a downer but if you want to be taken seriously for reporting your url probably shouldn't be [silly sounding domain]/blog. It doesn't lend to credibility and I'm sure I'm not the only one that given two similar titles but one has (hizook.com) next to it will click the one with the more serious sounding domain.

<comment><USER2> Hizook is no more "silly sounding" than many other household-name web domains that you probably use on a daily basis (and it has special meaning to me). The _reason_ the articles are at /blog is because I'm developing hardware products for the site. (I'm not a "journalist", I'm a hardware hacker with a PhD in robotics.)

As to credibility... Hizook blows Engadget out of the water. We're already well-known by most academic and professional roboticists, and the discussions on the site do not revolve around "robot overlords." We've been called "one of the top robotics blogs" by IEEE Spectrum, where I'm also a contributing author. Oh, and the HN guidelines specifically state to: "cite the original sources."

Respectfully, your feedback is trite. I suggest checking out our site's articles, and if you'd like to continue this discourse, then please feel free to email me (see HN profile).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The New York Times original article on Google X placed a lot of emphasis on the lab's work in robotics. I have a feeling Google will be very interested in this challenge. Keep in mind that Google's self driving car project largely grew out of the 2005 Grand Challenge.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x- a-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x-a-top-secret- lab-dreaming-up-the-future.html?pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER5> Yes actually Google hired those that won the 2005 Challenge.

<comment><USER6> My understanding is that they hired a mix of people who were involved in the challenge, not just the winners.

Part of the Stanley team is there, some of the Red team, and I believe even the guy who attempted to make an autonomous motorcycle is working there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The mechanism pictured in the linked article -- take that homunculus, fit it with lots of strain gauges, and attach it to a full body haptic feedback harness mounted on a gimbal. Create a mechanism that keeps the pilot's head and body in the same orientation as the homunculus head and body. This enables the pilot's own inner ear to be the stabilization gyros.

Voilà: an animated tethered "Terminator" robot that has eerie human-like balance and motion. The entertainment possibilities for this are awesome. For bonus points, scale it up by a factor of 3 or more. (Anime mecha giant robots, anyone?)

The tech has actually been around for decades.

[http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/businesses/gis/strat...](http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/businesses/gis/strategic_solutions/robotics/bigarm/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Navigate rough terrain? Drive vehicles? We've been working on this for a while with RoboCup, and walking on felt carpet is challenging. This is exciting, but I hope they don't set the date any sooner than, say, 2018.

</comment><comment><USER9> No mention of Boston Dynamics in the article?

<comment><USER5> I think the picture at the top of the article might be from Petman

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> this... this is not good.

DARPA's increasing funding to their massive tactical decision-making computer (skynet) and only a week later they're putting it to us to build humanoid mechanical soldiers (T-100 series)...

Needless to say, I'm a little worried.

</comment><comment><USER11> Those images of a humanoid form with arms outstretched are eery especially on Good Friday.

</comment><comment><USER12> Man, any dutch corps or universities going to participate? I want to work on this!

</comment><comment><USER13> how about investing LESS money into military research?

<comment><USER14> I'm all for it once you get someone to pay for the research _before_ you spend less on military research. It's really great to want world peace and to be idealistic, but until you can offer real solutions to problems, you're just creating noise by making such comments. The Internet was started by DARPA funding. That's why we're here today.

So, AFTER you've convinced the American tax payer to directly fund this kind of research, or you create an X-Prize crowded funded site, I think we should be thankful that the military is willing to "invest in the future" rather than just build bullets and bombs, which have no positive side effects.

Having a military is a necessary evil in the world in which we live. Find ways to turn some of it into a positive force.

eg. [http://www.npr.org/2012/02/17/147047543/desert-military- base...](http://www.npr.org/2012/02/17/147047543/desert-military-bases-could- be-boon-to-solar)

<comment><USER13> The military spending has been long gone out of control. Funding of actually useful civilian projects lacks money. Instead DARPA invests into more weapons. We have already enough weapons.

<comment><USER14> Once again, "military bad" doesn't lead to any sort of useful discussion. Furthermore, complaining about it won't change anything. This is HN and I'd like to think people here solve problems rather they go off on political rants.

Consider that the US economy is $15 trillion. The US handbag market is bigger than DARPA's budget.

[http://www.prweb.com/releases/handbags/leather_handbags/prwe...](http://www.prweb.com/releases/handbags/leather_handbags/prweb4264634.htm)

How can we get more people to invest in science and engineering research? Hopefully, KickStarter and Petridish will eventualy lead to a boom in consumer funded science research.

<http://www.petridish.org/>

<http://www.kickstarter.com/></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ApeJS, a tiny server-side JavaScript framework for App Engine - <AUTHOR> http://lmatteis.github.com/apejs/

<comment><USER2> Looks nice. What would make it even more awesome would be if you built your web framework on top of the CommonJS JSGI spec. That would allow it to run on other platforms like Common Node (<http://olegp.github.com/common-node/>) & by extension Node.js (without the data store part of course). This should be fairly straightforward to do and will not require that you support other CommonJS specs.

Btw, your statement "ApeJS is not compliant with CommonJS simply because all the stuff that CommonJS comes with will not work on Google App Engine where no I/O operations" is open to misinterpretation. You are able to do I/O on AppEngine by making HTTP requests to third party servers and accepting them from browsers.

<comment><USER3> Check out <http://ringojs.org>

<comment><USER2> I have.

<http://www.slideshare.net/olegp/ringo-js-talk>

<https://github.com/ringo/ringojs/commits/master?author=olegp>

<comment><USER3> Thanks. That is very good slides. You should email hanns, to have this slide to be featured on the ringojs page. I just did a site in Rails, thinking of migrating it o RingoJS though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like it. It is quite similar to my unfinished sandro-js project (<http://code.google.com/p/sandrojs/>).

Kudos for having a working version with a cute documentation.

</comment><comment><USER5> Any connection to Project Ape? <http://www.ape-project.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Not at all. Just an unfortunate semi-match of names... hopefully it won't confuse users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just a nitpick: JSON doesn't have functions and implies serialization. I'd just call it a javascript object.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, that's why it states that it's "as easy as writing JSON".

<comment><USER7> BUT using the _":"_ semicolon may induce the reader to infer that the code succeeding it is JSON.

It is implied…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> and this Screen Cast on deploying it on Google App <http://vimeo.com/10063607>

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a screen cast of RingoJS. For an ApeJS screen cast you can watch this: <http://vimeo.com/30195942></comment></comment>


What is going to happen in 2038? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/17/is-the-year-2038-problem-the-new-y2k-bug <comment><USER2> don't worry ntp will fail before, in 2036 ;-)</comment>


Ask HN: Does your government provide digital public services? - <AUTHOR>

Many governmental administration agencies have started to think about or to implement digital services for their citizens: Voting in regional elections, registering companies, delivering tax information.
How does your local administration use technology to improve its services?
I think this is a field underrepresented on HN, but with quite significant effects, e.g. for entrepreneurs that have to deal with bureaucracy. <comment><AUTHOR> To get this started: In Germany, many local agencies have developed online processes to obtain birth certificates. In some places, i just need to fill an online form and payment and identitiy verification is handled by the postal service. However, these are island solutions, that are often poorly executed. If I live in Hamburg, was born in Berlin, and want to marry in Munich I will have to communicate with all three registration offices regarding my birth certificate, with no automatic information transfer at all.</comment>