Co-Founder Of Snapchat Admits He's Never Owned A Physical Server - <AUTHOR> http://www.technews24h.com/2014/01/co-founder-of-snapchat-admits-hes-never.html <comment><USER2> He may as well "admit" he's never owned a horse-drawn carriage. He just exists in a time where there are better options available.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't see what the big deal is. I've never owned a server either. But as a Googler working on Google's cloud platform, I do like the positive press.

</comment><comment><USER4> The majority of < 3 yr. old companies don't own a physical server.

</comment><comment><USER5> if you own a smartphone, tablet, set top box, recent tv, smart watch, recent car, NAS drive, desktop, or laptop, you own a physical server.

<comment><USER6> Touche

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So... what?

<comment><USER8> so a writer can get a paycheck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the article's point is that their CTO doesn't have the required experience to do job. We could debate that back and forth; only time will tell based on further data leaks.

<comment><USER10> I'll bet that most Ferrari mechanics have never owned a Ferrari, but they are qualified to work on them. Ownership doesn't give you experience...time under the hood does. I have spun up thousands of servers on Rackspace, GoGrid, and Amazon, and I've learned a ton because of it. I don't need to own the physical hardware to get that experience. If he had owned a fully-managed box (where someone else sets it up and maintains it), would that make him more qualified? I think not

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> why should he or anyone?

</comment><comment><USER12> I have been unemployed for 3 years and I own a physical server.</comment>


450 Page Google Docs Presentation - <AUTHOR> http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/2010/12/16/450-page-google-docs-presentation/ <comment><USER2> I frequently use Google Docs for presentations I prepare for conferences. I do miss some of the features of PowerPoint and I do go crazy with some of the current quirks (font size craziness, bullets on bullets that won't reformat well, line spacing gone wild) but in the end it is still a better platform for the one reason this highlights -- the collaboration capabilities. It is so much easier for me to share drafts and get direct edits from people than it is emailing something back and forth and then trying to merge changes. It reminds me of applying patches to source code via email + uuencode + diff versus DVCS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Using office suites for non-work intrigues me:

Video games:

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

Art:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/excel-art- danielle-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/excel-art-danielle- aubert_n_504739.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Direct link to slideshow: [https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0Ad5oWim5dM7AZG1xNzZ...](https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0Ad5oWim5dM7AZG1xNzZ4aF8wcjgzN3BqZ3I&hl=en&pli=1)

</comment><comment><USER4> 12 days ago already on HN first pages: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2010767></comment>


Ask HN: How do time, karma, etc., affect position of comments and posts? - <AUTHOR>

I could look at the source, but anybody care to explain? Might be of interest to others too... <comment><USER2> You could look at the source, but chances are these elements are part of the 'secret sauce' and the exact parameters in service on the site may be different from those in the source.

The only person that can answer this is PG, but the ingredients are apparently average score in the previous 'x' comments by the same poster, points on the comment, age of the comment.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe it has come on a bit but..

[http://www.seomoz.org/blog/reddit-stumbleupon-delicious- and-...](http://www.seomoz.org/blog/reddit-stumbleupon-delicious-and-hacker- news-algorithms-exposed)

More interesting than this would be to have data for every vote given. There'd be some great data mining projects in there. What time of day do certain topics work better, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html></comment>


Harvard just moved to end frats, sororities, and final clubs entirely - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1027873/harvard-just-moved-to-end-frats-sororities-and-final-clubs-entirely/ <comment><USER2> This makes me sad. The urge to gather in social groups will not dismiss by doing away with fraternities, etc. organizations will just become unstructured and secret. I think the ripple effects of such a move, if instituted, could be far reaching.

<comment><USER2> Will not diminish, sorry fingers were faster than my brain.</comment></comment>


Web App Hacker's Handbook 2nd Edition - Preview - <AUTHOR> http://blog.portswigger.net/2011/05/web-app-hackers-handbook-2nd-edition.html <comment><USER2> The title was misleading. I assumed a "Web App Hacker" was someone who creates web apps, not someone who breaks into web apps ("Web App Cracker"). AFAIK, hacker news is not a news site for people who break into web apps.

<comment><USER3> Someone who creates web apps should be intimately familiar with the techniques used by people who break into web apps.

Dafydd Stuttard (book author) / PortSwigger created the Burp Suite web application security testing program, which I've found invaluable in performing security analysis of web apps during development.

<comment><USER2> My previous comment is a little tongue in cheek, but it would be cool if they weren't perpetuating the media stereotype that hacker == cracker. A bunch of other sticklers on "Hacker News" bring it up when people misuse the term.

<http://searchyc.com/cracker+hacker>

<comment><USER4> As described in the article link, it is hacking.

Kevin Mitnick was not a cracker, he was a hacker.

Hacking has multiple definitions.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. For instance someone who breaks into web apps but doesn't use this skill to sell user data or steal from users is not a cracker IMO, but a hacker (he could do this to satisfy its curiosity, for fun, or to tell the webmasters how to secure their web app better).

Hacker is a word with many _valid_ definitions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I bought the first one and it was brilliant. I've known Daf (the author) for a few years now, he's also the author of the amazing Burp Suite[1] - if you're a developer do try the free version then consider getting the pro suite, which has a stupid volume of features for a relatively small amount of money.

WAHH should be standard reading for anyone that wants to learn about Web Application attacks. I'd also highly recommend the Shellcoder's Handbook (although that could do with an update too).

I will definitely be buying both the 2nd edition of WAHH and the try it bits too when it comes out.

[1] - <http://www.portswigger.net/>

</comment><comment><USER7> So pumped for the Try It sections! This book is fantastic and Try It is a wonderful addition.

</comment><comment><USER8> Well I was interested until I read that it won't be available until October. It'd be nice if they had a preorder of some kind...

<comment><USER9> I think this is where you can pre-order?

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118026470?ie=UTF8&tag=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118026470?ie=UTF8&tag=portswinet-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118026470)

By the way, does anyone know similar books?

<comment><USER10> What's with sneaking in an affiliate tag to the Amazon link (portswinet-20)?

<comment><USER11> It's the same link as posted on the book author's buy page ( <http://portswigger.net/wahh/buy.html>) so I'd imagine the parent just copy/pasted it here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Remember The Memristor - <AUTHOR> http://bit-player.org/2012/remember-the-memristor <comment><USER2> "A heat-induced phase transition sounds like an unlikely mechanism for a modern computing element."

A heat-induced phase transition is exactly how phase change memory works [1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-change_memory></comment>


"Greater Choice" - <AUTHOR> http://parislemon.com/post/12859599499/greater-choice

<comment><USER4> Whats the major problem with logging the location of a Wifi access point?

I understand Google screwed up in this area before, when they captured network traffic. (Even then, it seems they captured that data due to oversight, not some nefarious scheme.)

There are lots of huge privacy issues in the world; I don't think a database of approximate wifi locations ranks particularly highly. I don't care if Google map my hotspot, and I'm happy to have my phone locate quickly, when I'm out and about.

And they are now providing a way to opt-out, for the people that feel strongly about it; its not trivial to implement, but I can't think of a way of making it easier.

It seems a lot less complicated for an end-user than robots.txt is in the related scenario of web scraping.

That blog post is full of vitriol; I don't think its adding much constructive discussion, or insight; I think its just blowing things out of proportion.

<comment><USER5> 1\. End users don't configure web servers 2\. Since when is "it's too hard" an acceptable solution for HN or Google?

Have you ever tried to tell someone nontechnical how to reboot their router over the phone?

"Just unplug it and plug it back in" "Unplug what?" "The router - the thing with the network cables in it" "The one with the tv cable?" etc.

Now try to tell them how to reconfigure their SSID, and then reconfigure all their connected devices to match.

<comment><USER4> So, Google could be forced to not gather this information at all.

Whether its in the public interest is a tradeoff between the utility provided vs the privacy loss. I think its a net utility gain - I like my phone to resolve quickly, and see little downside - so I have no general objection.

Some people might object strenuously to this information being gathered; they now have a mechanism - albeit kludgey - to opt-out.

Could the opt-out be implemented better?

You say you don't accept 'its too hard' as an excuse. But sometimes there's a limit to how well a problem can be solved, given its importance and the set of people who care about it. You could build a physical switch on the router (perhaps even one that appends '_nomap' to the SSID). But we don't expect Google to ship everyone a new router, right?

If there's ever sufficient consumer demand, router manufacturers could add this feature. But there probably isn't going to be.

We live in a world where Telcos track and log our locations, to a resolution of the nearest cell, or nearer, all the time. They typically have our identity and demographic information. They know who we call and message, and for how long. I'm studying social network analysis, and you can infer an awful lot from data like this.

So, how do I turn my phone on 'do not track' mode?

I think its pretty decent of Google to enable this feature; yes, the solution is inelegant, but the people that care enough about this can probably figure out how to enable it.

I think anger about privacy violations should be directed at worse offenders.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it would be better to have people who don't mind it opt-in rather than expecting people to opt-out of something they might not even know they're in.

"...anger about privacy violations should be directed at worse offenders."

No, it should be directed at every offender.

<comment><USER7> > Maybe it would be better to have people who don't mind it opt-in rather than > expecting people to opt-out of something they might not even know they're > in.

No, because it will render this service useless, as almost no one will know or care about it. Sad truth, but you can't have 'opt-in' for everything if you actually want to accomplish something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yeah, but the problem was a bigger joke.

There are many serious threats to privacy in our increasingly networked world. Cataloging the location of public WiFi hotspots is not one of them.

(Also, I can't think of any other practical way for them to work an opt-out system? Mailing in your WAN MAC address?)

<comment><USER9> _There are many serious threats to privacy in our increasingly networked world. Cataloging the location of public WiFi hotspots is not one of them._

That wasn't the problem. Google sniffed and stored _data packets_ , not just the location of the APs. And of course, a decent proportion of them were completely unencrypted.

See their own blog: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data- collection-...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection- update.html)

Of course, whether should people have to encrypt their Wifi networks is debatable, but the EU authorities weren't pleased, so now Google is trying to play "extra nice" to calm them down.

<comment><USER8> It was an accident. Google doesn't want your data packets.

But if you're concerned about bad guys stealing your wireless data, then it doesn't matter what Google does or opts you out of -- you need to use encryption.

<comment><USER9> I'm not concerned: the EU privacy watchdogs are.

Personally, I used wired, since my router is so shitty it can't even hold 10mbps over Wifi (not even unencrypted).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> " Apple does the same thing. So does Skyhook (which is suing Google for ditching their location database to build their own). So do others. It's a good idea. And it makes locations services much better."

versus

"The solution is a joke."

Then he rants about how opt-out is bad and opt-in doesn't work. So what is it?

If someone cares enough to opt-out then he'll be able to change his SSID. Be happy that Google doesn't let you register your access point with Google and opt-in/out there (and while doing that mapping your identity to your accesspoint and location).

I don't see an easier way of opt-out. And i understand that opt-in is not feasible.

By the way, you have to explicitly enable this data gathering while setting up your phone (on android), so part of the data gathering is to blame for the user that enabled it, i guess. ;)

</comment><comment><USER11> What should Google do? Yes, the solution they propose is horrible and hardly anyone will be able to understand it. The important question is whether people really should be able to not have their access points mapped.

SSIDs are public, just like house fronts. I think the European data protection hounds should calm down a little.

I think talking about data protection as a failed ideology is much more interesting than talking about the last convulsions of the same.

<comment><USER12> > SSIDs are public, just like house fronts.

Yet, they allow you to pixelate your house front in Europe. That's the cultural standard of privacy there, so it shouldn't be surprising that SSIDs matter to them.

<comment><USER13> That's correct. They offer an opt-out mechanism.

Same here.

<comment><USER12> That's not really the point of this thread. The point was the next two sentences about "data protection hounds" and a failed ideology. European standards of privacy are not less legitimate just because they are different from American standards. His argument apparently was that since we allow house fronts to be photographed (in America), we should have no problem with SSIDs being captured. I was explaining why they would matter in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great; so what is the alternative solution? I've been mulling it over and there simply doesn't seem to be a way.

Google did indeed make a massive cock up over collecting the Wifi data - <USER2> taking them to task on that is a good thing.

Demanding a magic opt-out of public data seems to be a case of privacy gone mad.

First we had PC. Now we have privacy. What is it about these things that always get taken to the extreme. _sigh_

<comment><USER15> Two alternative that don't require users rename their entire networks. One, opt-out via MAC address. Or two, opt-out via geofencing: let me pick my house off a map and type my SSID. Both of these solutions could be automated by a little program that ran once in the user's network. I'm sure the clever engineers at Google could come up with even better solutions if they actually cared about a usable opt-out solution.

<comment><USER16> So to stop Google recording our location and SSID we should give them our location and SSID?

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure what you're complaining about exactly. You object to giving them information they already have so they can remove it?

<comment><USER16> It depends on why you want the information removed. If it's because you don't want it publicly available then fine, but you may not want Google to store that information at all. In that case opting out is giving them even more information about you; as you'll be potentially linking your IP, Google cookie and account to your SSID when you complete the opt-out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm almost convinced that the Google solution is a demonstration of intent to overcome legal hurdles in places like Germany. It's not at all a real solution that real people will use.

</comment><comment><USER19> Where is the outrage over the multiple wifi access point databases which already exist and _don't_ give anyone the ability to opt out? (skyhook, navizon, etc)

<comment><USER9> The outrage was over the data packets Google collected. Now they're being forced to implement this as a punishment, it seems, more than because of any actual problem with SSID location recording.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The fact that certain people think they're entitled to privacy while broadcasting an access point name over a shared wireless frequency is a joke.

</comment><comment><USER21> Thought experiment: Imagine the same product, determining the location of a mobile device, through a different mechanism. How about we replace SSID with paint color of a building, and the mobile device's wifi antenna with the same device's camera. From there, the service works more or less the same. The sensor (camera) sends google a snapshot of its current surroundings. Google compares this pattern of colors to a map it has created by cataloging building colors around the world and makes a best effort to find a match and provide a location based on that.

Assuming you are ok with google street view (if you're not, I assume they same reasons would apply to SSID mapping), what then is the difference between the color of your house and your SSID?

And to head off one possible reply, the data collection issue is orthogonal to the mapping of SSIDs. I don't think anyone is saying that it was ok to capture data packets, but for the purpose of this thought experiment, let's pretend that google had properly performed the SSID mapping and stored only SSID and location of their collection vehicle.

</comment><comment><USER22> This opt-in/opt-out is a false dichotomy in my opinion, because probably 90% of the population don't know this issue at all. So it doesn't seem to matter much, how difficult the opt-out mechanism is. Likewise, if you use an opt-in mechanism, practically nobody will opt-in, although if everybody could weigh the cost/benefits the result might be different.

Which is fine, it would be a huge price on society if everybody had to educate themselves on these small issues all the time. This is an area where regulation is the best choice. As long as there is no law against it, I can't see how it google is in the wrong here?

</comment><comment><USER23> My mother would fail to be able to do this. Not just because it's a technical challenge, but also because her ISP sends out routers which are preconfigured with a SSID to make setup _easier_, you just plug and play. No admin console, no telnet (TBH: I didn't look to hard for either).

Perhaps GOOG feel privacy is only the concern of people that have enough nouce to setup a wifi router? 100% of the routers at residential buildings I connected to wifi at on my recent trip to the UK were this type.

<comment><USER24> If you feel that strongly about this, you can learn how to configure a router or you can find someone to do it for you. If you don't want to do either, it doesn't seem like this is terribly high on your list of priorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> 1\. So, how does this "solution" affect networks they've already mapped? It seems odd this would be proposed after the fact.

2\. Why should I have to change my name to not be mapped? From a rights perspective, if you're doing something with my info, shouldn't the onus of changing primarily be on you?

</comment><comment><USER26> Huh.

I never thought I'd live to see arch Apple loyalist Matt Siegler post something negative about Google.

I honestly can't remember the last time one of these well-known Apple loyalists lashed out at Google...

It's extremely noteworthy.

</comment><comment><USER27> When the wireless router broadcasts the SSID, is that all it broadcasts or does it also broadcast its MAC address, etc? How can you tell the difference between one "linksys" router and another one, also broadcasting "linksys"?

<comment><USER28> My understanding is that the wireless router broadcasts a packet and that packet contains the SSID and MAC address.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> That's a horrible solution, but I really don't know what the problem is. Yes, they inadvertently collected extra packets - _and they stopped_. Why no outrage against Apple or Skyhook?

</comment><comment><USER30> Serious question: why is MG Siegler taken seriously at all? So far as I know he has no credentials, is incapable of actual analysis, and takes forever to get to the point. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER31> He is a good writer, great analyst and knows how to get to the point. You just feel offended when someone is right and you can't cope with it.

<comment><USER32> Great analyst? He's basically an apple PR personnel. Most of his posts van be summed up into Apple can do no wrong. Anyone opposing apple is wrong and stupid. There is no logic. It's blatant and it's almost like he does it for page views

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If the solution is not ideal it's only because the problem is imaginary.

Why are we pretending that logging locations of public WiFi hotspots is even an issue?

<comment><USER34> The outrage isn't about about public hotspots. It also logs your home SSID, even if the network is encrypted. That's what people are mad about - <USER3> their home routers on a Google map.

<comment><USER35> I don't get it - when I click on available wireless networks I see all of my neighbors SSID names, should I not read them? These are not private, the default setting of a router is actually to _broadcast_ this name.

So, perhaps we should advocate router manufacturers to change the default SSID broadcast?

<comment><USER34> Yes and anyone can see my license plate # as I drive by. That doesn't mean I'd be comfortable having my car tracked.

<comment><USER36> Unfortunately, your car is already being tracked. A lot parking garages, and toll roads are doing exactly this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> There's a bigger joke here. They are asking people WHO ARE ALREADY NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO ADD A WIFI ENCRYPTION to change their network SSID. I think .01% of the population will benefit.

Naturally opt-in < opt-out.

<comment><USER38> Encryption has nothing to do with it.

If your SSID is broadcast, without opting out they are adding the hotspot to their database.

In my neighbourhood about 95% of the AP's that broadcast SSID are encrypted, so this is a much wider group than just the open hotspots.

<comment> robert-boehnke The people that he refers to are the ones who had their data inadvertently collected by Google due to a lack of Wifi encryption.

This is what got the whole process of adding _nomap started.

<comment><USER38> I don't think so. While the data collecting was one snafu that hit a smaller set of people with WIFI routers, the bigger story unveiled was that Google created a huge database of (SSID, Router MAC, location) regardless of wifi encryption.

That's why it's _nomap and not _nosniff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't understand why so many people are defending Google here. The reality is that the vast majority of these so called "public" access points are going to be unassuming users that have unwittingly been added to Google's public wifi grid that basically invites people to use their wifi as a public service.

Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong. This feels like an incredible invasion of privacy. It's one thing for a user to ignorantly leave their wifi unprotected and have a few people take advantage, but it's another to look at it as an untapped resource and build a business model around it.

<comment><USER40> The mapping is not done so people can find your WiFi and connect to it. It has nothing to do with whether your access point uses encryption or not. It's just a way to do triangulation using known anchor points.

Suppose there's 3 access point advertising their existence around you (most access points do by default). If you know their coordinates on earth and their relative signal strengths, you can pinpoint a pretty accurate position of yourself. Kinda like GPS.

Google screwed up by collecting more data than they should, and now they are doing a little dance to appease the lawyers.

The solution is indeed a joke, because there's no problem. It makes no sense to not want people to pinpoint an access point on a map, when it's actively advertising itself. The way I see it, there's no privacy breach whatsoever.

The real problem (Google collecting too much personal data) has already been fixed.</comment></comment>


A Secret Society of 30 Million - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/opinion/22tue4.html

<comment><USER2> I don't know about most others, but I plan get-togethers with friends, look up photos of moments I didn't get to experience with friends, communicate with business associates, and generally discover things I may have never noticed without using Facebook. That's the extent of my social-network gene: the rest of my time on the computer I'm working.</comment>


The Onion Futures Act - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act

<comment><USER2> Sadly, our government is still reactive with a put-a-bandaid-on-it mentality. It's a lot easier than dealing with the underlying flaws allowing anyone to corner any market and manipulate prices, and you don't have to fight against your donors.

The Onion Futures Act has a lot in common with Dodd-Frank - the act passed after the housing bubble. Both go to extremes in one area, but fail to address the underlying problem.

Do we need rules that run deeper, or do we just need more practical wisdom? ([http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_using_our_practical_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_using_our_practical_wisdom.html)) I'm honestly not sure.</comment>


Companies would benefit from helping introverts to thrive - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21706490-organisations-have-too-long-been-oriented-towards-extroverts-companies-should-help?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2016098n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/E/n <comment><USER3> Training courses seem to be a place that they've increasingly made terrible in this way.

I'm fine with useful training where they teach you some stuff, and let you have a go at it, and are available for questions.

But no... these days they have to make it all "interactive". Instead of teaching stuff they have to stand there picking on people asking "what do you know about X", and then after a few hours of "teaching" you are "rewarded" by being forced to join a group of people for a group activity. No, it's not a reward, it's a few hours of hell.

ugh, this is why I tend to avoid so called training these days. Why can't we just be given actual teaching and notes and not be forced to do awful group activities.

<comment><USER4> I've been part of a technical training program at a Fortune 100 company. I've done technical training for new hires at a Fortune 500 company. I've also volunteer taught high school kids how to code. I consider myself an introvert with a extrovert mode that gets turned on when needed.

Couple thoughts:

* As an instructor, I hate standing in front of the class and talking. That asymmetric form of teaching is pointless and I'd argue, outdated.

* Interactivity is important in a training setting because you're learning _along_ with others. That initial path you create in your brain is dotted with waypoints that everyone in class travels together. This is powerful when learning because more likely than not, you will be able to pull each other way from common pitfalls and also connect concepts that you know about already.

* I see your point on group activity. It depends on the nature of the training. If it's a highly technical topic like a new programming language, it probably makes sense to have individual practice before any group project.

<comment><USER5> "I consider myself an introvert with a extrovert mode that gets turned on when needed."

Then please understand that unlike you many others aren't introverts by choice. They can't simply "turn it off".

<comment><USER6> I think there's a misunderstanding of what introversion is... it's not just "being shy" versus "being outgoing", but rather (as the article and lots of other commenters have pointed out) about what recharges your mental energy.

So it's kind of like saying "make sure you spend some time each day doing that strenuous activity so you get more used to it". Just like someone would say "go to the gym and work out a few times a week". Just because one person isn't as physically fit as another, doesn't mean the less-fit person shouldn't get any exercise at all.

<comment><USER7> I entirely fail to relate to this analogy. Boring/not-boring matters so much more than "is this an extroverted or introverted activity?" as far as draining my mental energy that the latter doesn't even register. I would never think: "doing some boring solo work will totally recharge my batteries after that equally-boring meeting I just got out of". Is it truly common to operate that way?

<comment><USER6> You are probably then close to the middle of being an introvert vs. an extrovert. If you ask someone who very much considers themselves an introvert (like myself), the answer would be "I would _SO_ much rather do boring solo work than sit in a boring meeting", and actually doing boring solo work would probably be the thing I most look forward to after a boring meeting.

If you ask someone who strongly identifies as being an extrovert, I think they'd answer the other way: after some boring solo work they're probably craving some human interaction, even if it's in the context of a boring meeting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just got off a call discussing the problems of technical teams where introverts get thrown into the deep end by being promoted to team leads etc. often without _any_ kind of support.

I suffered through being in that position myself early in my career, and people under me suffered as a result, and I had no follow up or help whatsoever in terms of obtaining the skills to deal with it. It took a lot of time to recognise the problem and "fix it".

It still saps me of energy to spend time actively reaching out to people, but I've learned strategies to work around it (e.g. setting appointments to talk to people so I can't get out of it without being rude prevents me from just indefinitely postponing it), and "compensate" by ensuring I allocate "quiet time" to recharge.

There were also a lot of little things I had to learn. E.g. I eventually learned that simply walking around the office now and again and asking people how they were doing got people to report far higher satisfaction with my level of engagement, even if I spent _less_ time actually responding to issues.

My managers never engaged with me that way when I started leading teams (I once had a manager that didn't actually talk to me for about two years - <USER2> passed on status reports once a week and that was pretty much it), so I didn't either for a long time. It turned out to be a very "low touch" method of showing interest that didn't wear me down but gave very positive results.

A lot of teams struggle with bad to non-existent training of people who get promoted into management positions, and that problem gets far worse with people whose "default" is to not spend a lot of time talking to people, and it puts a strain both on the team and the person put into that position that could be reduced very quickly with some basic training and some coaching.

I actually occasionally take on contracts to do coaching for technology managers because I love helping people shortcut all the time I wasted on it when I first started managing teams.

<comment><USER9> Tech people still have a (accurate IME) stereotype of being anti-social, awkward, and poor communicators. Yet the career path is still set to go through management.

A few of my bosses have been "upset" when I've declined management opportunities. I don't have those skills, nor do I want them! It's the finest example of the Peter Principle I can think of.

<comment><USER10> There are actually a fair number of companies that have a tech ladder. I think the big 4 tech companies all do for starters.

The problem is mostly with non-tech companies and their "IT" departments that largely don't get it. It would be great for employees and for labor efficiency, but how do you even start trying to get buyin when the leadership's head is in such a different place?

<comment><USER11> My company has a tech ladder but it's incredibly difficult to climb the tech ladder. An engineer who wants to make the same money as a manager has to be a superstar whereas managers of the same salary level can be mediocre.

<comment><USER12> yeah, but we have an ice cream shop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Meanwhile in tech being an introvert is lumped together with "poor social skills" and frowned upon in the name of diversity.

I've actually heard conference speakers call out behaviours as toxic that are basically the defining character traits of introverts (not to mention people in the autism spectrum).

Note that I'm not even talking about the shouty-sweary-abrasive behaviour people like Torvalds are being derided for but simply preferring to work alone rather than in a team.

<comment><USER14> Being an introvert doesn't mean you don't have to have social skills. It just means that it's harder, more exhausting and basically you need time to recharge via some "me time".

Of course, it's just my personal opinion and experience. As an introvert, i dislike crowds, big events, dancing and singing; It's challenging, but very beneficial to invest some of my energy into "being social". If you can learn ${lang}, you can learn to identify your own feelings. Once you know your own feelings, you can learn empathy. Once you learn empathy, social skills is a breeze.

<comment><USER15> > If you can learn ${lang}, you can learn to identify your own feelings. Once > you know your own feelings, you can learn empathy. Once you learn empathy, > social skills is a breeze.

Believe me: I think I know my feelings pretty well. But I also claim that they are often so much different from the feelings other people have that this does not help me to empathize. Just to give one example: How is the feeling called that you feel when you read and understand beautiful mathematical proofs? I have not found a name for this feeling in any psychology book that I have read. On the other hand grief (in the sense of the feeling that people feel when someone near dies; I hope this is the intended translation of the German word "Trauer" \- I'm no English native speaker) is a feeling that I only know from literature and watching people - I can confidently say that I never felt such a feeling myself.

Back to topic: I believe the step from "knowing your own feelings" to "empathy" assumes that your feelings are somehow related to the feelings other people feel. I think this bold assumption does not hold very strongly for me. Believe me: If I act on this assumption, chaos will happen. On the other hand if I apply, say, some maximum-likelihood estimation (to use a word from statistics, don't interpret the word "maximum-likelihood" too literally) on how another person might feel (which is often quite the opposite to how I feel and completely against my instincts and I would never like to be treated this way), at least less chaos will happen.

<comment><USER16> I think that the feelings are probably almost the same, but they are caused by different stimuli.

I would describe a feeling when you read and understand beautiful mathematical proofs as bliss or relief (when it was hard before everything unfolds). Dopamine kick? It is just that most people don't get satisfaction from such things.

<comment><USER15> It might be nitpicking (and I'm not a native English speaker so in English the words might have some connotations that I'm not aware of), but here is my view why the suggested words in my opinion don't fit the feeling.

> bliss

It's not about happiness - the world is still bad - but about deep understanding.

>awe

It's not that I'm intimidated by it - it's just the feeling of having understood something really deep

> epiphany

it comes near, but epiphany is (as far as I understand it) the feeling of the sudden realization (which is different), but I talk the feeling that you have afterwards. While in panel 2 of

> [https://xkcd.com/230/](https://xkcd.com/230/)

the feeling is clearly "epiphany" the later panels transport a different feeling (a much less "striking" one) - the latter is the feeling I mean.

> It is just that most people don't get satisfaction from such things.

But they might get the same feeling from other stimuli.

The "elegant math proof" feeling was just the description of a feeling that at leas some HN readers seem to be able to empathize with - I also had much stranger feelings under meditation (that I never had in "ordinary" life) that are even much harder to describe (and I only had them one or two times - so my descriptions might even not be very accurate).

<comment><USER17> I had never considered it, but it's true. I don't have a word for that. I agree that those words aren't adequate, either.

Instead, I'd just say that I love it, and wouldn't even attempt to express my actual feeling.

I would only have used "epiphany" to express the feeling of figuring something out on my own, suddenly, but never the feeling of figuring out something that was clearly designed to explain something to me. Still, it's the closest word in this list, in my opinion. But not adequate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > ...the best way to encourage creativity is to knock down office walls and to > hold incessant meetings.

Being part of office layout team in a Fortune 10 company I'm now aware that most of the time the motivation is cost. It is way cheaper by many order of magnitude to have an open plan office. Other cost related reasons are easy to manage space -can be expanded and scaled down in jiffy- cheaper HVAC installation and maintenance etc.

<comment><USER19> That's what I've been saying too (open offices are cheaper), but on the other hand, software developers aren't cheap, are in high demand, etc. Which makes me wonder: How come developers don't stand on their stripes more? Vote with their feet? And why aren't companies doing more like offering perks like private offices to top talents? I'd argue that giving a developer a few m2 more space is a lot cheaper than the developer's wage

<comment><USER20> I did. Until every single possible job opportunity was in an open office floor plan.

If it hasn't become 100% like that where you are now it will be soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Claude Mongeau, the former CEO of Canadian National Railway, for example, > set himself the goal of acting like an extrovert five times a day. In any > case, the majority of people are on a spectrum of introversion to > extroversion.

Probably my comparison is too extreme, but as an introvert myself I can see this as telling gay person to be straight five times a day.

<comment><USER22> I agree with your characterization. You will rarely, if ever, hear it worded the other way around: "As an extravert, I try and go find a quiet corner to think and avoid others five times a day." It seems to always be the introverts that must put aside who they are in favor of others.

<comment><USER23> This actually sounds an awful lot like the "mindfulness" trend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Very true. I'm an introvert but I have to force myself to act like an extrovert in order to move forward in my career... But I feel somewhat insincere doing that and it takes a lot of effort emotionally.

I think this behaviour is necessary because the corporate environment cultivates a culture of insincerity and sometimes downright hypocrisy.

We all want to feel good about ourselves - So we either:

\- Lie to ourselves or;

\- Accept the reality and only pretend to believe the lies (that's where the public façade comes in handy).

<comment><USER25> I think society is geared to rewarding the extroverts: You have to sell yourself, and BS you way to the top of the corporation or whatever group you're in.

Marketing is more important than technology.

Few groups actually reward introverts, who may be doing most of the real work.

<comment> yoz-y The problem, I think, is that extroverts collaborate more easily and this makes particular problems easier and/or faster to solve.

> Marketing is more important than technology.

I assume you meant this as a jab (if not I apologise), however with proliferation of affordable and reproductible technology this is very true. Marketing is not only advertising, it is also knowing what problems your technology should solve and how to do it differently than myriads of your competitors.

<comment><USER11> "The problem, I think, is that extroverts collaborate more easily and this makes particular problems easier and/or faster to solve."

In my company there are a lot of extroverts that only do work in group meetings. They are insecure working alone. So six people have to go over a document for two hours which the person that has called the meeting could have written alone and sent to others by email for review. There is no real collaboration going on in those meetings.

<comment> yoz-y For me that is more of a problem of bureaucracy and middle management insecurity than extroverts.

<comment><USER11> It's about being extrovert. I would never voluntarily go into a meeting with tons of people where it's all talk and nothing gets decided. I find it exhausting but other people find those meetings invigorating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember seeing many posts of /r/introvert who were just people complaining about introverts and introversion in general.

I also remember some school director warning me about my behavior and telling me that humans are a social species.

The Susan McCain book really opened my eyes, in the end, to me it really seems to be a matter of values.

It's crazy because this issue makes me pretty angry. I failed 2 degrees because the score coefficients in teamwork projects were pretty high, not to mention being targeted and harassed in school because you're calm and silent most of the time.

Also I listened to some NPR podcast who talked about personality being a myth.

Basically we moved from recognizing that race and gender are bad biases, but we have new ones now.

<comment><USER27> I skipped the McCain book out of apprehension that it would basically be a festival of self-congratulation for introverts. _Introverts are smarter, handsomer, cooler, and just all around better, don 't you think my introverted reader?_

Was it better than that?

<comment><USER28> I have the same apprehension. It is particularly annoying to see all of the bs scotsman debates on introverts. Seems everyone I meet nowdays thinks they are "really an introvert."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think there are a greater percentage of introverts in the software development world than in the general population, and attempting to put developers into the same environments as many other corporate jobs just doesn't work very well. I work with some talented guys remotely, all who work from home and I'd casually judge them to all be more introverts than extroverts. The key I believe is to respect someone's ability to get work done without a lot of social interaction and judge them on how they meet deadlines on their own, the quality of the work, and let it go at that. If they can do this, leave them alone and let them thrive. If they can't, then it is possibly not a good fit for your company to have them onboard.

<comment><USER30> Why do you think that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wrote about the "Care and feeding of your introvert engineering leader" not too long ago [0]

tl;dr Extroverted leadership teams always seem to try and set goal's for introverts that aims to help get them "out of their shell" or fake being an extrovert. But you need to stop trying to get me to fake being an extrovert and leverage my actual skill's instead. "Traditional" Org's like that still have a really hard time leveraging introverted leaders effectively. Its super frustrating.

[0] [https://medium.com/@pandemicsyn/on-care-feeding-of-your- intr...](https://medium.com/@pandemicsyn/on-care-feeding-of-your-introvert- leader-1f406c3c5064#.kfxd95w7x)

</comment><comment><USER32> In multiple companies, I was repeatedly cited and complimented for solving problems and carrying workloads that others couldn't.

I also was no wallflower, networking -- on my own initiative and maintenance -- with people throughout these large organizations spanning multiple countries.

In those same workplaces, I was met with a bureacratic, political, and not infrequently _personal_ wall of rejection when I requested a quieter workplace.

I was raised to "pay my dues." My advice to the current generation: There's no such thing, particularly with respect to introversion and/or environmental differences. If they are not already respecting you, get out.

Take it from Mr. Burnout, here.

P.S. The current "introvert" business press is just the latest round of "mind the gap" cargo cult management. If organizations were really on board with understanding and practicing some of what's being written -- well, too late for me, but at least "hurrah" for future generations.

But... I severely doubt it. Same old bullies, new clothes. (And who is going to be the first to get those performance enhancing offices, do you thing?)

So, I repeat myself: If they are not already doing it, and you identify with the described population, GET OUT!

</comment><comment><USER33> I feel like this issue is not introversion. I am an extreme introvert. Socializing is extremely tiring for me. I used to be extremely anti-social and had social phobias. I was bad at socializing and frankly still not great at it.

The issue could be boiled down to a lack of self confidence. There are lots of other things that were part of it, but mostly explained by self confidence.

I worked (and am still working) through this and I am tremendously better than I was. My coworkers argued that I wasn't introverted when I described myself as such once.

I say all this to make the point: the real issue is that some people are poor leaders and have poor social awareness. Leadership is less natural for introverts but the nature of leadership isn't any different for them because of that introversion.

Introverts need to be able to take charge of their own lives and their own success as a leader. Employers shouldn't need to provide quiet spaces for them. They should make their own quiet space. If you're unable to do that at your job for whatever reason (it's as simple as sitting in your car for a 15 minute break) then you need to move to a different environment if you have the expectation of being a successful leader.

<comment><USER34> I can appreciate a lot of what you're saying. Self-advocacy (aka being assertive, etc) is hands down the best way to get anything out of life. However, a lot of what people are talking about here is not just the absence of provided quiet places or any other thing. It's the active resistance to building a workspace that can facilitate a variety of workers, instead of the assumed extrovert everyone wants you to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I feel like the focus on any particular personality trait is a little facile.

Really, companies should be gaining understanding and helping all of their employees to do their best work regardless of which specific traits you're talking about.

</comment><comment><USER36> This whole "spectrum" thing is nonsense. Classifying people in such a grossly simplified way is like dividing the brain into "left" and "right" which was only some eye-grabbing stunt which totally misses the essence of the issue. What matters in constructive work is the ability to present one's ideas clearly, coherently and convincingly, not the habit of hanging out with people and keeping your mouth open all day. I think somehow a lot of concepts get these two things mixed together. A lot of people are absolutely fantastic in communicating their ideas, engaging in conversations and contributing their unique insight in a manner that makes everybody else get what she's trying to convey in no time. However such people might not be the type who parties all day long outside of work, and might instead enjoy reading or creating something on her own while idle. I don't see the least bit of problem in that and I think those people will well succeed in business settings, in fact they can well achieve greater success than those who only talk and don't reflect. I'd even argue that every person who has achieved something must have spent a lot of time on her own, learning and reflecting upon various things, instead of wasting her time in trivial social activities all day long.

Now, what we usually call "introverts" are people who can't express their thoughts well, who sometimes can't even pronounce words cleanly, loudly and with confidence when ideas are needed. They tend to be quiet at formal group settings and say nothing at all even though they might have already thought of something. That's really just a _lack of ability (totally acquirable)_ instead of "personality trait" or whatsoever. The type of person I mentioned in the previous paragraph also don't necessarily enjoy talking all day long, but they make a hell of a talker when the time is right. So, differentiating people based on whether they "enjoy being together with others all the time" is just such a totally laughable and nonsensical concept. And to say people should "act like" an "extrovert" is just some other oversimplification BS. Act like a pro who can present ideas expertly, not a brat who only knows to party all day and crack irrelevant "jokes".

What those real "introverts" need is indeed some help in getting themselves at least able to express their thoughts with clarity and communicate with others in a group setting. However, to say that successful CEOs etc. are such "introverts" is really a gross mischaracterization and something totally missing the core of the issue.

<comment><USER37> > Now, what we usually call "introverts" are people who can't express their > thoughts well, who sometimes can't even pronounce words cleanly, loudly and > with confidence when ideas are needed.

I don't know what _you_ usually call "introverts", but, no, that's not what either I call -- nor what anyone I've ever encountered seems to call -- "introverts". In fact, the people I've seen described as introverts are usually _quite good_ at expressing their thoughts well. OTOH, they range from being emotionally drained by to being psychologically incapable of engaging in many of the extended low-information-content schmoozing activities that are common team-building, networking, or obligatory (by social expectation if not outright mandate) team/company social events.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> so yeah because of my supposedly flawed personality i will have 0 chances at promotion beyond just being a developer. and developers are not rewarded very well where i live. the logical conclusion is that i will have to become their competitor as soon as i can. which sadly benefits nobody as i could potentially do better with big-company resources behind me and the companies would do better without upstarts trying to take their profits.

<comment><USER19> The trick there is to become invaluable; to be a specialist in a certain area (like security, database management, native mobile development, data science, AI, etc) and make yourself in demand. If you keep talking yourself down by saying "Yeah I know such-and-such but it doesn't matter because muh personality", then you will keep having no chance at promotion.

Actually in the IT world, it's better to switch jobs than wait (or ask) for promotion.

TL;DR: Be confident, know what you know, know what an employer needs, sell that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Working in investment banking here. I sincerely hope that tech companies will continue to thrive -- the reasoning being that at some point IB will be so much short of talents that it will have to adjust to working practices/policies more suitable for introverts.

<comment><USER40> Wouldn't you expect, if tech kept draining employees out of banking, that it would disproportionately drain introverts away and leave banking more extraverted than before?

To hear a lot of people tell it, the work of banking is largely in having and maintaining social relationships with your clients.

<comment><USER39> > Wouldn't you expect, if tech kept draining employees out of banking, that it > would disproportionately drain introverts away and leave banking more > extraverted than before?

Sure, in fact my additional hope is that this being over-extroverted will have a negative impact on business.

> To hear a lot of people tell it, the work of banking is largely in having > and maintaining social relationships with your clients.

Not only that, at least in IB case. It is also a lot about tech (see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12443678&goto=news](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12443678&goto=news) for example) and mathematical/statistical modelling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> But if your work helps you get past being so introvert, which ultimately can make you difficult for others to work with in a team. Isn't that a good thing?

<comment><USER42> Should I have to get past being an introvert? It isn't a disorder that needs to be cured.

Also I'm not difficult to work with in a group, I simply prefer to work alone.

Introverts lose 'energy' in a group and gain it back when they are by themselves. Extroverts gain 'energy' in a group.

That says nothing about how well you do in a group. I know plenty of extroverts who have toxic personalities and kill productivity in groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I would re-title the article, _Generalization, generalization and more generalizations_. Why, this is a typical space-filler article typical of consumer publications, most visible in the Daily Mail, to provoke criticism, rage, agreement but not much else. People don't always fit in the neat boxes so don't waste time reading such common and regurgitated content.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think it seams quite crazy to group everyone like that introvert vs extrovert.

<comment><USER44> In the article, it mentions "In any case, the majority of people are on a spectrum of introversion to extroversion.".</comment></comment>


Entrepreneurship Flowers Far Away from Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2012/07/17/entrepreneurship-flowers-far-away-from-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER3> There's just a _little_ bit of entrepreneurship going on in North Carolina as well.[1][2][3]

Despite the (mostly invalid, out-of-date, and or plain wrong) stereotypes about the South, the RTP area is becoming quite a little hotbed of entrepreneurial activity. With 3 significant research universities (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke) located within a few miles of each other, and a workforce augmented by people who moved here to work for IBM, Cisco, EMC, GlaxoSmithKline, etc., etc., there is some serious talent available here.

Historically, what was missing here was the "entrepreneurial culture" and convenient access to seed stage capital. The first of those two factors has been changing rapidly in the past couple of years, and the second - <USER2> still a problem - has been somewhat mitigated by the emergence of Triangle Startup Factory[4] and at least one new angel group in the area. And David and Jason from Southern Capitol Ventures are always working to help entrepreneurs in this area in connecting with other investors, including ones from outside of NC. They're doing a seed stage funding related event[5] at the end of this month, for example.

So, yeah, definitely add NC to the list of "not silicon valley" places where entrepreneurship is blooming.

[1]: [http://www.downtowndurhamstartups.com/content/startup+direct...](http://www.downtowndurhamstartups.com/content/startup+directory/8880)

[2]: <http://www.triangltechtalk.com>

[3]: [http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/opinion/blogpost/...](http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/opinion/blogpost/11300999/)

[4]: <http://www.trianglestartupfactory.com>

[5]: <http://eseriesjuly.eventbrite.com/></comment>


Can anyone here draw? - <AUTHOR>

I need some anime/kid like characters drawn for my site. <comment><USER2> My cousin is a caricature artist and can draw up anything you imagine. noasart.net

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Thanks.</comment></comment>


RFC 6214 - Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6 - <AUTHOR> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6214

<comment><USER2> The best one I've seen was SIPv4:

<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-sip-four-oh-00.txt>

It's probably only funny if you're familiar with SIP, but it takes such great jabs at the protocol and the IETF. It sorta captures how SIP commonly [mis]implemented, instead of just being a complete gag.

Referring to SIP URIs: "In the real world that's highly unlikely, and in fact Alice would have pressed buttons for a phone number, and simply set the domain portion to her service provider. But this is not the real world, this is the IETF."

On NAT: "And we don't mean this as a knock on SIP, because the entire IETF refused to admit NATs exist."

And on removing some headers: "Subject - this ain't email. "

</comment><comment><USER3> Aside: Does anybody know what the source format of these documents is?

<comment><USER4> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html>

[http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc- editor/instructions2authors.tx...](http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc- editor/instructions2authors.txt)

<comment><USER5> Have god have mercy on the poor souls that shall use WORD to format their RFCs ;-) That sounds like a truly horrible idea.</comment></comment></comment>


Mathematical Intuition Behind Bezier Curves - <AUTHOR> https://buildingvts.com/mathematical-intuition-behind-bezier-curves-2ea4e9645681 <comment><USER2> The geometric intuition is important but missing. Calculus and algebra is not everything.

Short version:

Imagine a line connecting A to B. Now imagine a point sliding across that line, starting at A and going to B.

Now consider a line A to B and a second line B to C. A point slides across each line: one from A to B, another from B to C. Now draw a line connecting these two points, and imagine a point sliding across that line.

This moving line starts as A to B, ends as B to C, so the point sliding along it goes from A to C along a curved path. This is a quadratic Bézier curve.

Add another layer and you get cubic.

<comment><USER3> The crucial insight I drew from the OP was that Bézier curves are essentially a _weighted average_ of the endpoints and control points, with the weights shifting an a parametric way. Somehow that had never clicked before. Your comment gives a nice way to elabourate on how the parameterisation works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For anyone with enough formal mathematics background to follow the argument, Lyle Ramshaw's monograph, _On multiplying points: the paired algebras of forms and sites_ , supplies the clearest formalism for understanding and working with Bézier curves and various CAGD surface primitives. [http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/SRC- RR-169.html](http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/SRC-RR-169.html) (Note: ~150 page math book, takes some work to follow.)

Also check out the pomax bezier curve primer, which is filled with interactive diagrams and nice explanations of algorithms for doing anything you might like with Bézier curves, [http://pomax.github.io/bezierinfo/](http://pomax.github.io/bezierinfo/) (previous discussions, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11402656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11402656) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8804691](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8804691))

<comment><USER5> Yes, this (Lyle Ramshaw's paper). My impression is that his work succeeds in finding the simplest human-comprehensible way of defining these objects. It's very much not the pragmatic "local hacker" approach to graphics, which can be forbidding.

I also enjoyed this interview with Tony DeRose: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX0NB9IyYpU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX0NB9IyYpU)

It can be so discouraging for people to encounter this stuff (geometric modelling primitives) as a mysterious incantation, essentially as raw algebraic code. I think there's probably more scope to humanize it, as Ramshaw and DeRose's demonstrations suggest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jason Davies has a really great interactive demo of Bezier curves: [https://www.jasondavies.com/animated- bezier/](https://www.jasondavies.com/animated-bezier/)

<comment><USER7> \+ Bezier surfaces: [http://acko.net/blog/making- mathbox/](http://acko.net/blog/making-mathbox/)

Talk: [https://youtu.be/Zkx1aKv2z8o?t=15m54s](https://youtu.be/Zkx1aKv2z8o?t=15m54s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> To complement, here's a particularly lucid explanation of how bezier curves are constructed that appeals to geometric intuition: [https://vimeo.com/106757336](https://vimeo.com/106757336)

</comment><comment><USER9> Bezier curves are really cool and fun to learn. I actually had built an Impact.js bezier tool plugin for a shmup I was working on a while ago: [https://github.com/dclowd9901/impactjsBezier](https://github.com/dclowd9901/impactjsBezier)

I did different things like toy with caching movement on the curve, having constant speed on the path, etc. There's even a bit of calculus in there, in estimating the length of the curve.

</comment><comment><USER10> I only really found out how easy and fast Bezier curves are recently when I was adding some smoothing pathing to a game. They're really impressively useful.

<comment><USER11> You probably want a Catmull-Rom or similar interpolating (instead of approximating) spline. It's much easier to control animation or other paths when you know it'll precisely go through the points you specify.

<comment><USER12> You also need to care about velocity when using splines as trajectories. In general, if you sample a spline at a constant _delta-t_ , your speed through the world won't be constant.

<comment><USER10> This is especially true if you've got large smooth curves with small "sharp" curves that you want to keep a constant speed over. You can mostly just ignore it if all of your curves have a fairly constant curvature, but obviously test first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't think this does a great job of building up an intuition of how these curves are derived. Instead, I'd recommend starting with quadratic (and noticing the constraints on the tangents) and then realize how the cubic is built up from that. Like all (later discovered) splines it's a really elegant and simple thing!

</comment><comment><USER13> Fascinating article!</comment>


How to Static Blog in 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@don_hein/hugo-tranquilpeak-gitlab-33ed2929757f <comment><USER2> [https://blog.hein.ninja/2020/03/hugo-tranquilpeak- gitlab/](https://blog.hein.ninja/2020/03/hugo-tranquilpeak-gitlab/) is the proper URL. Avoid medium clones.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply. i thought it was better to post a medium link and created it therefore.</comment></comment>