Why Did L.A. Noire Take Seven Years to Make? - <AUTHOR> http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/117/1179020p1.html

<comment><USER2> _"Eleven agreed to speak on the record, under the condition of anonymity"_

Minor nitpick as a former journalist - being on the record means not being anonymous, and being anonymous means being 'off the record' (the 'record' refers to your name, not your comments).

If you're really interested, there are kind of four loosely defined categories of sources: On the record (quote and name me), Off the record (quote me, but don't name me), Background (Don't quote me, but use this information to verify other research) and Deep Background (this will point you in the right direction, but you'll need to verify with multiple other sources). As I said - loosely defined, but on/off the record is pretty clear.

<comment><AUTHOR> That doesn't match my understanding, and Wikipedia[1] agrees with what I thought (and this article implies):

"Unattributable" (aka anonymous): what is said can be reported but not attributed.

"Off-the-record": the information is provided to inform a decision or provide a confidential explanation, not for publication.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_sourcing#.22Speaking...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_sourcing#.22Speaking_terms.22)

<comment><USER3> This was my understanding as well; "on the record" meant it could be reported while "off the record" meant it could not. But then I'd have to say that what Jacob says makes more sense.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, "loosely defined" is probably an understatement - key rule if you are ever interviewed and want some level of control is to ensure you and the journalist know the definition not just the phrase.

Another one that I discovered in my brief time in journalism was that the medical reports (stable, critical etc) you hear most often have no medical basis - they're used by the media, and many healthcare professionals (at least, in Aus 10 years ago) didn't much like them because of their vagueness.

If you want my working definition of those, you basically have two scales: condition (fine, minor, serious, critical, dead) and change (improving, stable, deteriorating). Combine the two and you have an excellent soundbite - "The driver is in a critical but stable condition".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is why I never, ever recommend a job in the games industry, especially for programmers, and will actively work to change people's minds who do want to make games professionally.

This isn't an exception, this type of horrendous behaviour is the norm. For an industry who's product _is_ software, they're the worst at doing it in a sustainable and repeatedly successful way.

Find a non-games programming job, and do game development on your free time. Indy games is the way to go (just look at Minecraft), anything else is a souless meat grinder.

<comment><USER5> Well, unfortunately conditions like these are not confined to the games industry. Psycopaths in leadership positions can most likely be found in every industry. Perhaps it's more common in the games industry, though. Or perhaps it just gets more attention, I don't know.

Seems to be a lot of horror stories about the games industry. Doesn't anyone have any more pleasant stories to share?

<comment><USER6> I liked a portion of my time in the games industry, but I don't really have much good to say about the studio where I worked: It was horribly dysfunctional like most other games studios. The positive aspects are mostly rooted in that your coworkers tend to be really driven, creative individuals.

I know of a few particular studios with a reputation for having good work environments, but in general, the nature of the industry causes bad managers and directors to rise to the top because it's impossible to reliably connect bad results with bad decisions.

On the other hand, I know lots of people who still like their industry jobs. I think for them, putting up with dysfunctional management is okay because they get enough out of the job otherwise to make it a fair trade. It's also possible to diminish the destructive effects of the job if you're strong- willed and productive - crunch is a good example. It's possible to work in the industry without working crunch more than a few weeks in your entire career.

<comment><USER7> _I know of a few particular studios with a reputation for having good work environments,_ Are you willing to share? It would be nice to have a list of non assholes to buy games from. Enough of these articles have come out about Rockstar that I have decided not to buy from them anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I actually worked at Rockstar Games briefly during this period, although I wasn't involved with L.A. Noire. I would discuss with others why the games industry was run this way and what could be done about it. One friend's opinion was "look at successful games, they're all made that way, so 'bad' management must work better than 'good' management."

Thinking about it later, I figured that bad management just increased costs & time to market, and made the games buggier, but didn't fundamentally change who successful a game is. And video games are a very hit-or-miss business, where successes are such run away money makers, that a popular game can gross so much money as to cover a really inefficient development process. As long as the lead game designers had a really good sense for what a good game was.

<comment><USER3> "look at successful games, they're all made that way, so 'bad' management must work better than 'good' management."

That's silly logic, might as well as admit that since sweat shops make money then all companies should be run as sweat shops.

In my experience bad management succeeds despite itself, usually because of the workers who put up with it and push to succeed for their own reasons. In those cases the bad management does everything they can to take the credit for the success but blames everyone for the failures.

This is far more common in multiple industries than it should be. The main reason this happens, in my opinion, is most of the people you would want as managers (because they would be good) don't want to move into that position. They want to stay where they are since they like what they're doing. For example, moving a developer into a management position often means no more development for that person.

Not to say all management is bad, there are companies out there that do seem to get it. Valve seems to be the model we all should have in mind based on some recent stories I've read.

<comment><USER9> > _In my experience bad management succeeds despite itself, usually because of > the workers who put up with it and push to succeed for their own reasons_

I sincerely wish, more managers would understand this instead of knocking each other on the shoulder.

Just because you manage to get something out of the door after all does not mean you are a good manager and it does NOT mean you are _NOT_ a bad manager.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What I don't understand is why employees working in such conditions don't unionise. I've asked around my circle of game development friends, some of whom had worked at Team Bondi, and none were able to give a coherent answer. It's as if they refuse to recognise joining a union as a viable choice. And we Australians are supposed to be a pretty union-friendly bunch.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is an interesting moral debate - LA Noire was both a critical and monetary success AFAIK. Was this worth it? If you produce great art, do you have to worry about the "how"?

<comment><USER12> But if they had nurtured their talent so that they didn't have to re-train testers, programmers and designers every 12 months, they might have finished it in three-quarters of the time.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. It would also have made more profit if it had similar sales during the earlier release schedule.

Plus nurturing the talent means they can easily roll into the next project with little or no downtime, which makes that project cheaper to complete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _ex-employees we spoke to, was McNamara's need to exert total control over what goes on in the studio. When asked whether that was true, he chuckled and asked "And is that a bad thing? I make video games. They're personal statements for me. I write 'em, I direct 'em, I put the technology together to make them. I go out to the world and say, 'Will you fund them?' So if you think that's obsessive: absolutely."_

With over a hundred employees doing most or all of the work, you really have to love the massive ego that takes all of the credit.

</comment><comment><USER13> This McNamara individual is trying to steal the "massive douchebag" achievement from Bobby Kotick. I'd say he's on the right track.</comment>


OS X 10.10.3 seems to have done something bad to wifi drivers - <AUTHOR> http://garrett.damore.org/2015/05/macos-x-10103-update-is-toxic.html <comment><USER2> Isn't the whole idea of a _massive_ company producing software for a very small restricted set of hardware that this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen? Random bullshit like this is expected with systems like Windows that aim to support a whole mess of possible hardware configurations, that's not really the case here.

What went wrong? Have they grown complacent? Cutting corners on QA?

<comment><USER3> Totally subjective opinion, but it seems like since ~10.8 the reliability of OSX has gone down substantially. I remember 10.5 and 10.6 being rock-solid on a hackintosh, and now I have wifi / bluetooth issues all the time, sometimes the graphics go all 16-colors-only, consisting of bright red + black-only or a weird mix of like green, purple, orange (it's kind of trippy, but it requires a reboot to fix).

Display mirroring / resolution switches goof up my jazz sometimes, unlocking can take up to ~ a minute (from just the lid shut state), browsers eat RAM like it's their job, etc etc.

If this is the best we can do in a $2800 (late 2014 15" rMBP maxed out) computer where the company produces the hardware and software, color me unimpressed.

<comment><USER4> > hackintosh

I get the sentiment of what you're saying and I agree with it, but I have to disagree with you - You can't blame the stability of your 'hackintosh', running the OS on a completely unsupported configuration.

<comment><USER5> That was OP's point... It _was_ stable on even a hackintosh. And now is struggling on a rMBP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wi-fi trouble in OS X 10.10.x is very hardware dependent, brand new MacBook Pro 2015 is just fine for example. But have heard so many users with nonstop wireless problems from 10.10, to 10.10.1, 10.10.2, 10.10.3, perhaps 10.10.4 as well, we'll find out soon enough.

The enormous ping post 10.10.3 update can also be from iCloud Photo Library from Photos app, which if you let it, attempts to upload every single picture from iPhoto and your Mac to iCloud, and download thumbnails from your iPhone / iPad to the Mac. This is frequently many GB, I have a 64GB iPhone for example, with 45GB of Photos. So, do you want that to upload from iPhone to iCloud and download thumbs to the Mac at the same time? No not really but thats what it tries to do, making the network very slow much like you describe. The send/recv network congestion from that alone will easily send your ping to 10 seconds.

It's hard to imagine such low quality software could be coming out of Apple lately. I hope they figure this out, maybe hire a larger Mac QA team if needed. And the OS X Public Beta program is kind of a joke, all bug reports go ignored. Not a single bug report I have filed has been addressed.

<comment><USER7> The ironic thing about all this is that the (largely) Apple mentality of hiding everything away makes it even more difficult to troubleshoot when something does go wrong, like this. Most users won't narrow down the problem so easily to their own machine if they only see the slowness described in the article... but what they _will_ notice is a WiFi activity light that's blinking almost all the time, even when they aren't doing anything, when it used to not do that.

<comment><USER8> No idea why they didn't put these in Utilities but:

/System/Library/CoreServices/Applications

There is an application there called Wireless Diagnostics.

<comment><USER9> Option-click the wifi menubar item. "Open Wireless Diagnostics…" is an option there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=mac+os+x+update+breaks+wi...](https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=mac+os+x+update+breaks+wifi)

Super irritating how often updates have broken wireless on Mac. You'd think someone at Apple could focus on that since it happens so frequently.

<comment><USER11> I'm not defending Apple, but ...

[https://www.google.com.mx/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=JaBFVd6SBoKO8QfbqoHQ...](https://www.google.com.mx/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=JaBFVd6SBoKO8QfbqoHQCg#safe=off&q=windows+update+breaks+wifi)

[https://www.google.com.mx/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=JaBFVd6SBoKO8QfbqoHQ...](https://www.google.com.mx/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=JaBFVd6SBoKO8QfbqoHQCg#safe=off&q=android+update+breaks+wifi)

<comment><USER12> As Apple has full control over their hardware and the selection is limited, I expect better QA from them. I dealt with spotty WiFi driver issues with them in the past and it took months to get a fix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yosemite has been a massive mess since the day it was released - easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. It is a stark contrast to the solid reliability and performance of 10.8/10.9 and every update seems to make things worse.

It's as if Apple is no longer spending as much time on stability and performance and a lot more on flashy bells and whistles.

<comment><USER14> >Yosemite has been a massive mess since the day it was released

That's pretty unfair to say without giving examples.

<comment><USER15> Disable UI transparency, the volume change overlay still has black corners.

[http://i.imgur.com/pRNO7Oc.png](http://i.imgur.com/pRNO7Oc.png)

It doesn't for iTunes, just for volume and screen brightness changes.

<comment><USER8> Not an issue for me (Late 2012 Mac Mini).

Given that disabling UI transparency is for accessibility purposes and is only for certain graphics cards I wouldn't use this as an example of a major bug.

<comment><USER15> I can replicate on a 2014 Retina MacBook and a 2012 MacBook Pro. Lots of people disable the transparency, not just for accessibility. I'm not a fan of burning up my whole battery doing Gaussian blurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Mythical man-months" aside, Apple really has no excuse for putting out such low quality software, considering their resources.

<comment><USER4> Mythical man-month isn't even an excuse - Apple software isn't running late. Well at least, the cycle is well known and it should be easy to add more people from the beginning before it gets too late.

<comment><USER17> Actually, this raises an interesting issue.

You truly can't speed up software dev by adding more people (beyond a certain point)---it's not just on late projects that it is true.

But you can do that on testing. If you want to run 1,000 tests 10 times each, to drive down the possible rate of errors to near zero, you just need to have 10,000 people run one test each.

So basically, you can make the entire process take only as long as the longest single test.

<comment><USER18> Ah, but you still need to design the tests, which requires knowing the exact design and behavior of the software, which is subject to late change due to tester feedback. So there is a lot of critical path forming at the end of a software dev cycle which more people cannot pull you out of.

The mythical man month reminds us that 9 women can't make a baby in one month. Adding people to a project bound by a critical path can only make it later. And the more you care about design and UX in your initial release, the more you will see that sort of thing.

<comment><USER17> That's true. However, it doesn't really negate my point, it complements it.

In this case, Apple could have a "test" that is: install the new OS under test on a machine, and see if performance degrades on other machines on the same network.

You could have 10 people test it with 10 different networks. It's expensive, but Apple could heat their HQ by burning cash if they wanted.

Admittedly, some things will still get through due to tests that you would only think to do in hindsight. But once you have the test, they won't get through again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have not experienced this in the slightest. In fact, my OS X (always on the latest, and am now on 10.10.4) is completely stable. There might be an app or two crashing now and then, but that's not on OS X's shoulders, rather the apps themselves. I think the only issue I had was that one of my universities WiFi's became unstable, but more factors might play in since they use a lot of custom configurations for security on that one.

I'm rather interested in what might be causing what OP describes? Since it doesn't just affect the owners PC, it must be transmitting something over the network. Could this perhaps be from an application instead, that might have been affected by internal changes due to the update (someone mentioned the Photo app)?

</comment><comment><USER20> My early 2011 Macbook Pro isn't suffering from/causing anything related to this issue as far as I can tell. Is it possible it's only happening with certain wireless chipsets?

<comment><USER21> Not observed on my late-2009 iMac, either. It has an older bluetooth card that doesn't work with airdrop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is probably a baseless notion, but having nursed along a mid-2010 Macbook Pro alongside a Linux/Windows Desktop, I find myself thinking that the Linux WiFi situation is now the easiest of the three (on Ubuntu, at least). Of course, there's a huge caveat about hardware selection, but I am always careful to buy something that I know to have decent driver support.

Strange times.

<comment><USER23> Why do you say strange? Linux has thousands, maybe tens of thousands of developers working on the kernel. The pace of progress is absolutely monumental.

This isn't strange, this is inevitability. OSX and Windows simply cannot compete, Im rather shocked that they are still trying.

<comment><USER24> Just under 5k contributors in total[0] – There's likely a lot less than that working on it actively, and the number working on the Linux kernel full-time will be much lower than that also.

[0] [https://github.com/torvalds/linux/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/torvalds/linux/graphs/contributors)

Both Microsoft and Apple can compete.

<comment><USER25> This is likely not an accurate representation of who is actually working on the kernel. Whole teams of people might work on a patch which gets bundled up into a single commit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> so, probably uncool to not be an Apple-basher now, but I am on 10.010.3 and run 100% WiFi and Bt at home from my 2012 Mini to an Apple Airport 802.11ac base as well as a 2012 MBP and do not see this level of _TOXICITY_.

We have approx. 15 Macs in the office, all on Yosemite, mostly Retina MBPs with a couple of older laptops and have been seeing occasional WiFi dropouts on machines, although the situation seems to be resolved if the affected machine is restarted.

I'm not disputing that people may be getting a _TOXIC_ ride on Yosemite, but the hyperbole seems a little extreme.

</comment><comment><USER27> 10.10.3 is not the worst; the transition from 10.6.8 to 10.7 was the worst migration Apple ever made. I routinely got kernel panics from three or four different causes, poor wifi connectivity, etc....

A number of commenters are saying good things about 10.8 - I've been on 10.8.5 for several months - and, for the first time in a couple years, I actually have to deliberately power cycle My MBAir to put in Security Patches; 10.8.5 is just that stable. I'm constantly amazed to check and see the uptime has been good for several months. The Beachball of death is (mostly) gone. The random freezes (with the exception of the Notification Tray Bug, which Apple hasn't bothered to fix, but they have somehow reduced) are almost completely gone. And, best of all - I haven't had a Kernel panic in 6+ months.

It's going to be a long, long time before I move off of 10.8.5 - life is to short to be screwing around with unreliable operating systems.

What I _don 't_ understand - is given that Apple controls the Hardware and the Software and the Drivers - why do they keep releasing such crappy operating systems for 6-9 months every year? Why can't they slow down their tempo, and release a new operating system every other year, but actually release a quality operating system, the way they release quality hardware?

Marco is absolutely right in [http://www.marco.org/2015/01/04/apple-lost- functional-high-g...](http://www.marco.org/2015/01/04/apple-lost-functional- high-ground) \- Apple is seemingly taking pride in releasing shoddy software on a rapid pace, which is the antithesis of what you would think they would want to do to maintain their "quality" brand.

Another problem with Apple - is that the operating system that I would like to put my friends and family on, 10.8.5, is hard to do. At least with Windows, you can buy them a Windows 7 CD for $45, and give them a stable place to start.

</comment><comment><USER28> So glad I don't have to deal with this kinda bullshit anymore. Clear skies on Windows 8.1.

<comment><USER29> I'm loving it on my Ubuntu laptop. Linux used to be a pain in the old days, but now just about everything works.

<comment><USER30> Do you have Ubuntu on a Mac?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> You could just plug into the ethernet.... oh wait... you can't do that with a few of their models.

</comment><comment><USER32> So this is why my wifi absolutely sucks after I switched to my Macbook Air.

How do I fix this? I need my Macbook for work, but I also don't want my internet experience to suffer for it.

<comment><USER33> Download an older OS. Like 10.10.2. Link: [https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1786?locale=en_US](https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1786?locale=en_US)

<comment><USER6> If the Mac supports it, OS X 10.9.5 (Mavericks) is the most stable release out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I had to turn off my Bluetooth to get my wifi working normally. That resolved the majority of the issues but strangely it was only on my older laptop. Macbook Pro Mid 2012

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm using iStat Menus5 and Little Snitch, and am not experiencing the same issues. My MacBook Pro is the penultimate 17", and although I still lose Wifi randomly (under Yosemite and Mavericks) my machine's running acceptably, although the stable seems to have steadily degraded since Snow Leopard, which has been my favourite iteration of OSX so far.

Really not impressed with Apple as of late.

</comment><comment><USER36> Not quite compatible with a recently released vulnerability affecting 10.10.2-. Like a choice between eating and being eaten.

[https://truesecdev.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/hidden- backdoor-...](https://truesecdev.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/hidden-backdoor-api- to-root-privileges-in-apple-os-x/)

<comment><USER7> IMHO local privilege escalation on a supposedly personal and single-user computer isn't quite as bad in comparison to DoS'ing the network.

There's also claims that 10.10.3 doesn't fix the vulnerability either:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/04/19/apple-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/04/19/apple- fails-to-patch-rootpipe/)

[http://9to5mac.com/2015/04/21/os-x-rootpipe-vulnerability- se...](http://9to5mac.com/2015/04/21/os-x-rootpipe-vulnerability-security/)

Waiting for 10.10.4 might be the best choice for now...

<comment><USER36> Good point!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Luckily I haven't experienced any of the WiFi issues people have with 10.10.*, but the last update was still toxic, for a different reason: I had to disable all third party kexts or I would get kernel panics every 10 minutes or so. Incredibly frustrating.

PSA: If you use VPN software, Smoothmouse, or Hamachi, consider not updating to 10.10.3.

<comment><USER38> That's not really Apple's doing though.

Hamachi has always been a buggy thing. I would get kernel panics in 10.8.x with it. I stopped using it because of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Ubuntu called - 15.04 just came out, they replaced the whole init system, pretty flawless. 14.04 still great. Pick your flavor, KDE is amazing now. And Canonical is doing the same thing Apple is, ignoring the desktop to focus on mobile! But at least it just stays reliable rather than getting worse every release...

</comment><comment><USER40> I have had huge issues with WiFi on my rMBP 15" late-2013 on Yosemite. Mavericks had no problems. At home it's fine, but at work (with a huge amount of access points/repeaters), I can only connect to the WiFi 1/10 times.

Have tried creating a new location and delete all access points and re- connect. Nothing works..

10.6 were the best Mac OS of all times. Super stable, no nonsens release. Since then, it's just gotten buggy, unreliable and slow. Really hope that Apple steps up the game with 10.11. I don't need new features. Make a release like 10.6 where you polish everything and make it rock stable.

</comment><comment><USER41> Check if Photos is uploading to iCloud. Users have reporting this completely saturating their Internet connection. I doubt it's related to wifi drivers at all, just lack of upload throttling.

</comment><comment><USER42> i've been on the 10.10.4 beta and its been much better.

<comment><USER43> Where can the 10.10.4 beta be fetched from?

<comment><USER44> [https://appleseed.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/](https://appleseed.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/)

<comment><USER43> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Have you tried using Apple's Network Link Conditioner (See [http://nshipster.com/network-link-conditioner/](http://nshipster.com/network- link-conditioner/)) to limit bandwidth use by the rogue machine? After turning on iCloud Photo Library, my network was hammered for days until I used this utility to limit bandwidth usage to a fraction of what was available.

</comment><comment><USER46> I have 10.10.3 on my MBP and have been experiencing eratic WIFI for the last few weeks too. However, I don't use Photos and I never enabled iCloud backup (on either my iPad or my MBP).

So it seems like the OP may be onto something re: the actual update.

Updating to 10.10.4 shortly, hopefully that makes things better.

</comment><comment><USER47> And what's with the kernel_task that's suddenly taking up most of the RAM on older Macbook Airs?

</comment><comment><USER44> I have already downgraded to mavericks 3 days ago because of the countless problems 10.10 has currently.

</comment><comment> X-Istence I've got a MacBook Pro Retina 15" late 2013, no issues. I also have an early 2012 Mac Mini, also no issues.

Every time people complain about wifi issues on OS X, I've either been very lucky, or just don't have right combination of wireless devices to cause the issue.

</comment><comment><USER48> QA has noticeably dropped, but it is a difficult job. WiFi is notorious, lots of buggy implementations of the same standard both on the access point and the laptop. And many times the work place WiFi won't update to the latest firmware that fixes the problem.

</comment><comment><USER49> We've seen something similar with a 10 - 25 MacBooks connected at once on an Airport Extreme, and I wonder if it's related – as it all worked fine before, for months.

Is the solution to downgrade everyone to 10.10.2 or upgrade everyone to 10.10.3?

</comment><comment><USER50> I've got the problem of OSX filling up gigabytes of space with no rhyme or reason. One minute I'll have 10gb fee then I'll have 900mb free. Then it'll free up again.

<comment><USER51> You're running out of memory and OS X is swapping to disk.

<comment><USER52> I'm having this - OP check the Memory Pressure section in Activity Monitor. The annoying thing is all I've got running are Spotify, Skype, Chrome (with a couple of tabs) and iTerm. I guess 4GB isn't enough anymore...

<comment><USER53> I've got 16GB and the same thing happens to me. It will expand to take up all the RAM and disk space available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Ack! That explains it. Had to root around for a 25-ft. cable...

</comment><comment><USER55> Anyone want to take the plunge and post a PCAP afterwards?

</comment><comment><USER17> > Its absolutely criminal that applying a recommended update with security > critical fixes in it should turn my computer into a DoS device for my local > network.

Let's be careful. Extremely irresponsible and horrible? Yes. Criminal? No.

We don't want to give the EU any more ideas about who to bully next. It could be me or you (in effect if not literally).

If you've signed a contract with Apple that there will not be breakage, then it's a matter for _civil_ (not criminal) court.

</comment><comment><USER56> My take is that it is photos uploading. I experienced the same issue and had to pause the photos upload when at home.

</comment><comment><USER57> MacOSX is the WindowsME of unix.

</comment><comment><USER58> So much for the promise of the new macbook that does everything wirelessly…

</comment><comment><USER59> Quick fixing is not Apple.</comment>


Show HN: Monetize Your Blog Without Ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.quickpublisher.online <comment><USER2> How does the monetization work? Didn't catch it from a 30kft read of the page!

EDIT: Looks like it integrates [https://microscriptions.com/](https://microscriptions.com/) neat idea

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes Exactly. Hopefully you'll give it a spin sometime</comment></comment>


Ask Reddit: what's the "hello world" program for multicores? : programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7yk8m/ask_reddit_whats_the_hello_world_program_for/ <comment><USER2> How about each one of n threads prints out "hello world".

</comment><comment><USER3> I've seen Monte Carle estimation of pi done, in Halloway's Clojure reference.

The problem with the concept of a "Hello World" for concurrency is that there's no intuitive way of illustrating decent parallelism (try explaining livelock or race conditions to a CS 1 class) whereas the success or failure of a "Hello World" program is obvious: does it print?

<comment><USER4> How about the dining philosophers? If none dies, your program probably works.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anti-virus software increase or worsen security? - <AUTHOR> Since quite a while I'm asking myself whether one is better off using an anti-virus software or not. The recently uncovered events concerning Kaspersky seem to support that one might be better off without an anti-virus software installed.
While I feel a bit naked without even a basic scanner installed, I also must admit that I feel uncomfortable with today's bloated "everything solutions" that obviously come with a huge attack surface from a security point of view.
How do HN readers deal with this situation? <comment><USER2> The only way to be certain is the same as with encryption software: Only use publicly audited, i.e. open source, software.

So, in case of anti-virus software use ClamAV.

</comment><comment><USER3> On Windows I use the tool provided by Microsoft for free. I have since it first became available about ten years ago.

On the other hand, I assume if a state level actor wants to hack my computer it will happen regardless of what I do.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Win 10 bulit-in AW and firewall are good enough for me as far as always-on protection is concerned. Occasionally I will run a manual Malwarebytes scan.

Browser security feels more important these days.</comment>


This email may be worth millions of dollars in sales - <AUTHOR> http://josephwalla.com/this-email-may-be-worth-millions-of-dollars-in-sales/

<comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8357207](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8357207) (219 points, 5 days ago, 73 comments)

</comment><comment><USER3> Quote: "Our product, Acme, is different. We're designed to help improve your'e [sic] company's performance ..."

What? This is the winning email, written by a borderline illiterate? But maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong -- maybe people who don't cringe at this level of literacy are the target audience.</comment>


NSA Sentry Eagle placed spies in private companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/14/nsa_sentry_eagle_placed_spies_in_private_companies/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8441055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8441055)

</comment><comment><USER3> Crickets.</comment>


Silicon Valley Has Officially Run Out of Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/12/techcrunch_disrupt_sf_butler_app_alfred_club_wins_best_startup_of_2014.html# <comment><USER2> I'm tempted to _not_ upvote this just due to the snarky nature, but there is the kernel of an interesting discussion here, so...

Has "Silicon Valley run out of ideas" in any literal sense? Of course not. All this article really points out is that one particular conference (TechCrunch Disrupt) chose a "winner" that seems, at first blush, a somewhat frivolous and non-disruptive app. Whether or not that is the case is a question I'll leave to the philosophers.

OTOH, you could argue that this is just one more echo of the kind of argument Peter Thiel was making when he talked about being "promised flying cars and getting 140 characters" or whatever. And it remains an interesting question whether or not the boom in SoLoMoGeoCatPicGroupMsgDailyDealRideSharing apps actually means anything in terms of the emergence (or lack thereof) of new companies based on more fundamental innovations.

My own feeling is that there are plenty of companies doing "really interesting stuff" and the frothy wake around the silly apps is just a superficial aspect of the way things are reported on, and a reflection of what's trendy. The negative to this, if it exists, would be if the cat-picture startups are actually drawing away investment and resources that could otherwise be going to fund fusion research or something. I don't actually know if that's the case or not, but something analyzing that aspect is a story I would find interesting.

<comment><USER3> Most ideas, like most anything, are derivative and mediocre. We tend to get a bit too excited about the prospect of game-changing ideas. It leads us to over-praise the merely interesting in embarrassing ways.

Personally, I think we would do well to lower our sights a bit. No golfer specializes in holes-in-one; no baseball player only trains to hit home runs. Similarly, we might do well to focus less on the disruptive big ideas (which too often turn out to be merely over-hyped mediocre ideas), and more on building useful, elegant, cost-effective systems. This will let us do well with merely decent opportunities, and sets us up to _really_ deliver when by chance or talent we come upon one of the great ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Firstly, luckily for everyone, Silicon Valley is not equal to TC, and best startups in SV != startups that got the most votes from TC Disrupt judges.

Secondly I strongly support the POV that throughout decades of SV history the biggest successes weren't (and aren't) usually the ones with the most hype, the most money, or the most hyped TC publications behind them!

</comment><comment><USER5> This sort of thing always reminds me of the description of the wright brothers and their mainstream competitor: Samuel Pierpont Langely from Simin Sinek's TED talk: [http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspi...](http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en) . We've hit a tipping point in SV culture where we mostly just hear about the modern Langelys, but there are plenty of Wrights out there, toiling away in obscurity, driven only by the promise of solving a real problem.

</comment><comment><USER6> Long after the contraian-chic journalists are gone, we will still be here, making a difference. They'll run out of wannabe headlines, same old, same old.

</comment><comment><USER7> Techcrunch Disrupt is not "Silicon Valley", it is a small part of it.</comment>


Measuring the weight of an electron - <AUTHOR> https://deftly.net/posts/2017-06-01-measuring-the-weight-of-an-electron.html <comment><USER2> This is absolutely excellent. It's the kind of article I always want to write when I dig into Ubuntu's dark underbelly.

Arguably it might deserve a more descriptive title?</comment>


The Most Desirable Passports On Earth Don't Include America's - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/the-most-desirable-passports-on-earth-don-t-include-america <comment><USER2> Their freedom score doesn't really make sense (in the pdf [https://s3-eu- west-1.amazonaws.com/nomadcapitalist/Nomad-Pas...](https://s3-eu- west-1.amazonaws.com/nomadcapitalist/Nomad-Passport-Index-2017.pdf)).

For example, they give Malaysia 50, the highest score while giving 30 to France. Don't get me wrong, I love that country but it has rigged elections, no real freedom of press (Malaysia Kini an opposition website was censored during some of the elections by blocking their DNS), politicians from the opposition are imprisoned on spurious charges (Anwar for example) and corruption is endemic.

Japan which also has 50 is not a shining example of Press freedom, it's a country where innocent until proven guilty doesn't really hold (more than 99% conviction rate) and where police can detain someone for 3 weeks without charges being filled.

That said, I agree that France doesn't deserve the top score either due to new surveillance laws following terrorist attacks and due to the state of their prisons compared to the rest of EU but they shouldn't be ranked lower in Freedom than Japan and Malaysia.

Here's the text of how they describe how they calculate the Freedom Index they use for their ranking:

      The ability of citizens to live freely is responsible for 10% of each country's total
      ranking. We believe that freedom of speech and of the press is a good thing, and
      imposing laws on non-resident citizens is generally a bad idea. This index relied on
      data regarding mandatory military service, government spying programs,
      incarceration rate, and laws targeting non-resident citizens (such as the United
      States' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), as well as the World Press Freedom Index
      and Economic Freedom Index to determine how free citizens of each country are,
      particularly non-resident citizens. Each country was assigned a score from 10 to 50
      based on our proprietary blend of these factors, with 10 being the least free and 50
      being the most free.

<comment><USER3> I thought this particular freedom index only related to travel, e.g whether coming and going is easy, whether you are taxed for income earned abroad and so on?

<comment><USER2> From their PDF, [https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nomadcapitalist/Nomad- Pas...](https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nomadcapitalist/Nomad-Passport- Index-2017.pdf)

They have multiple factor in their ranking. One of them is the freedom index which is described as:

      The ability of citizens to live freely is responsible for 10% of each country's total
      ranking. We believe that freedom of speech and of the press is a good thing, and
      imposing laws on non-resident citizens is generally a bad idea. This index relied on
      data regarding mandatory military service, government spying programs,
      incarceration rate, and laws targeting non-resident citizens (such as the United
      States' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), as well as the World Press Freedom Index
      and Economic Freedom Index to determine how free citizens of each country are,
      particularly non-resident citizens. Each country was assigned a score from 10 to 50
      based on our proprietary blend of these factors, with 10 being the least free and 50
      being the most free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The U.S., by comparison, taxes citizens' income no matter where it's earned."

This is a common statement I see pretty often on the internet, often in the context of bashing the US. However, there's a big asterisk there if you look the rules up. If you're not making over 6 figures, you still have to file I believe, but you don't pay taxes. So the vast majority of Americans abroad are not paying taxes back to the US ($100800 / year is the cut off by the looks of it)[1].

I'm not saying it isn't annoying still to file with the IRS or there aren't people who are over the threshold getting burned, I just feel it's often a glossed over detail that puts the US in an unnecessarily harsh light, considering, again, most people won't be penalized financially here.

[1] [https://time.com/money/4298634/expat-expatriate-taxes-us- myt...](https://time.com/money/4298634/expat-expatriate-taxes-us-myths/)

<comment><USER5> Foreign banks tend to not deal with customers with US tax residence though due to FATCA requirements.

So it might be a burden even if you are under the threshold.

<comment><USER6> This hasn't been my experience at all in three countries (Singapore, Vietnam, and Australia)

<comment><USER7> FATCA is relatively new, effective 2010, so if you opened your bank account before then, you may well be grandfathered in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Naturally European countries will be the most open; the point of the EU is to provide a federalized government and reduce divisions.

It's not unlike the federalized state created by the American colonies in the 18th century: no taxes on inter-state trade, no inter-state immigration restrictions, standard docs, etc.

</comment><comment><USER9> The values in the original PDF don't really add up [1]. It doesn't really change much, but it's still weird. If you apply the formula in the PDF to the listed values, they're all 1-5 points off:

        Each country's value in each category is given the indicated
        weighting to achieve a country's total score using the formula
        ((Visa Free Travel x 0.5) +
         (Taxation x 0.3) +
         (Perception x 0.1) +
         (Dual Citizenship x 0.1) +
         (Overall Freedom x 0.1)).

[1]: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vXSsukPDoqSwXPbR- FKt...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vXSsukPDoqSwXPbR- FKtmRkZoiwHKZ1i7D_QFKhWvAk/edit?usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER10> Canada #2 among countries not physically located in Europe, not bad. Guess I don't have to trade in my passport anytime soon.

A US passport would likely be more valuable if the IRS didn't demand so much of non-resident citizens.

</comment><comment><USER11> What's the "most desirable passport" depends on how many want to get citizenship to the country issuing it (which for the US is quite a lot), not on how other countries receive it's owners.

<comment><USER12> > _how many want to get citizenship to the country issuing it (which for the > US is quite a lot)_

You're right that for the US it's a lot, though in my experience that's just because Hollywood is the best marketing agency on the planet, not because people make a well-reasoned decision on where to live.

I spent two years all over Latin America, and have now been in West Africa for 6 months. I meet people every single day that say they want to live in America. When I ask why, they say "because life is perfect there. Everyone has lots of money. Life is easy. There is no disease. There is no poverty. Everyone has lots of food. Everyone has a huge house with a beach view." etc.

When I explain that there are homeless people, people that lose their jobs, and people who struggle to make ends meet while working huge hours, people are completely disbelieving. They think I'm lying, because the TV told them otherwise, and of course people believe the TV more than some random guy.

When I suggest there are tons of other great countries (Australia, Canada, Scandinavian countries, etc.) they could live, they just shrug and say "I want America".

Hollywood has done a very good job of marketing America, but like all marketing, a lot of it is smoke and mirrors.

<comment><USER13> I remember when the now wife (from a South American country) came to visit the UK when I was living in a city in the north. She was shocked "wow, you have poor areas and poor people too".

She literally had the idea, the UK was all quaint little villages with roads made of gold populated by Hugh Grant types.

<comment><USER12> I just had this discussion with a local.

I was saying there are homeless people in London, and he refused to believe me. After a lot of talking around, he said.. "oh, yeah, but they're black, aren't they".

He refused to believe there are white homeless people in London.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Traveling in Vietnam, I met a woman with three passports. She sounded English, considered herself Dutch, but traveled on her US passport. Why? Because when you get into trouble in a foreign country, the US consulates like to flex their muscle, whereas most others, UK included, tend to just say "well, that was stupid of you".

They don't seem to have taken that kind of thing into account in their rankings.

<comment><USER15> I travel a lot and 'only' have two passports (Dutch/American.) I usually travel on my Dutch one because of visa restrictions, and I doubt using my Dutch one would at all prevent the US consulates from helping me.

That said, I get your point - it can be nice to know "if I get into serious trouble, the US will probably work hard to get me home safe". That's not to say the Netherlands won't, and I admire the foreign policy positions of the Netherlands, but ultimately "annoy the US" is a lot scarier than "annoy the Netherlands", and it's something valuable to keep in mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interestingly, Portugal (13 on the list) would jump to number 1 (with a score of 115) if they factored in the NHR scheme which gives new residents a 10 year tax break on foreign source income (though admittedly there are some strings attached to this - more info here: [http://info.portaldasfinancas.gov.pt/NR/rdonlyres/D0C80C76-3...](http://info.portaldasfinancas.gov.pt/NR/rdonlyres/D0C80C76-3DA8-4B90-A1E4-FF53BD34EF95/0/IRS_RNH_EN.pdf)).

</comment><comment><USER17> It should weigh each visa by the number of people who want to travel to that destination - it's not the same to get a visa to US and Ukraine.

</comment><comment><USER18> They don't seem to have taken into account the propensity of certain governments (mostly the US and UK) to undertake extreme measures to get their citizens out of trouble in foreign countries, up to and including mass evacuations and clandestine military operations. That's a feature Luxembourg doesn't offer.

<comment><USER11> > _the propensity of certain governments (mostly the US and UK) to undertake > extreme measures to get their citizens out of trouble in foreign countries_

In Hollywood movies. In real life, from a lot of accounts I've read over the years, the local embassies/consulate/etc are not much help and not very eager to help either...

<comment><USER14> Military actions are the extreme end of it. Consulates can help in all sorts of ways, and the US is well-financed.

<comment><USER19> And you don't think that other countries have consulates and embassies that are willing to help their citizens?

<comment><USER14> Consular effort is not binary, but a continuum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> To the title: not so, and not because I disagree with the sentiment, but because desirable has neither a comparative nor a superlative. So I parse it as not desirable at all, which the article sure won't claim. (but I aint gonna read it; too busy arguing semantics)

</comment><comment><USER21> Only 10 points for dual citizenship for the Netherlands? Okay, it is not allowed by law, with exceptions, but when about 10% of your population holds dual passports, you could say it isn't enforced.

<comment><USER15> Ten percent of the Netherlands holds dual passports? That sounded high to me (dual Dutch-American citizen) so I looked it up, figured I'd post the stats I found:

The Dutch population is 17.1MM, there are 1.3MM people with dual Dutch nationality [0]. The majority are Moroccan (321k) and Turkish (312k) people who acquired both Dutch and Turkish/Moroccan citizenship upon birth. Another 270k or so are EU citizens, plus a handful of Asians. Depending on the country, between 30-70% of people will have a passport, so my estimate is that 60% of dual citizens in this case will have two passports (may be lower as Turkish citizens can enter Turkey on another passport.)

If 80% of dual citizens have both passports, then 6% of Dutch citizens own two passports; if 60% of dual citizens have both passports then 4% of Dutch citizens own two passports.

Also worth noting there can be some very strange situations here - for example I (a Dutch/US citizen) moved from the US and lived in the Netherlands for almost a year before acquiring a Dutch passport.

[0] [http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=...](http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70798NED&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0-6,21,30,51,116,187&D4=a&HD=150728-1318&HDR=T,G1,G3&STB=G2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder how far down the table Brexit will take us.

<comment><USER23> The main downside of Brexit, practically speaking, is that you can no longer randomly move to an EU country and get a job (I'm very much pro-remain). The ranking seems to only weight visa-free _travel_ , which will almost certainly remain after we leave the EU. We would probably lose out in the perception score, but I suspect that's more "Are lots of terrorists from your country?" than "Boo, you left the EU".

Currently we can access 175 countries visa-free, that's unlikely to change much. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_British_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_British_citizens)

The exceptions that people are most likely to encounter are Russia and China. The remaining countries are largely in unstable parts of Africa and the Middle East. The differences between the top countries is mostly statistical noise. Oddly enough you can travel to Mongolia without a visa if you're a German citizen, but not if you're British. Germany also gets visa-free access to Iran, which the UK doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The title is wrong as it includes a piece of the abstract. The original title is "The Most Desirable Passports On Earth Don't Include America's."

Please someone remove the "visa" at the end as it makes no sense

<comment><USER25> Thanks! A moderator updated the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The title should be "The Most Desirable Passports on Earth Don't Include America's", or if you must "The Most Desirable Passports on Earth Don't Include America's _Passport_ ". Visa doesn't make sense here.

<comment><USER27> Agreed; I thought this article would be about countries who treat you unfavourably if you've gotten a visa to visit the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I know many people in tech from non-US countries who went through a lot of trouble to get hired on H1B visas. The power of the US passport (for engineers) is the ability to work legally in the US.

<comment><USER19> Mostly India and China?</comment></comment>


Concerns for global spread of Zika mean Rio de Janeiro Olympics must not proceed - <AUTHOR> http://harvardpublichealthreview.org/off-the-podium-why-rios-2016-olympic-games-must-not-proceed/ <comment><USER2> This article is idiotic if the main reason for cancelling the game is actually some "global spread" of Zika.

Rio is not some city in the middle of nowhere from which no flights are coming in and out of, and now suddenly this massive international influx of visitors will come in -- it is a world-class city, a financial hub of the largest country in the continent.

If we take London 2012 as a benchmark, estimates there are that the olympics yielded a 13% increase in foreign visitors from the previous summer. And that is London, a place where access from other destinations is cheaper, the infrastructure better, and a lot more appealing to U.S. visitors (due to some of the things cited above). It is completely reasonable to expect that the delta in Rio should be roughly the same, if not smaller.

The fact is that the"impact" on travel due to the Olympics will be negligible in a city like Rio -- and the economic impact is CERTAINLY negative, unless you are drinking the Kool-Aid of organizers.

I'm fine with cancelling the games, but claiming that not doing so will lead to a much riskier global health situation than the one we are already living is hogwash.

<comment><USER3> Yes, Rio sees many visitors regularly. What Rio does not see is an influx of visitors from nearly every country on earth. It's that spread that is the problem. The financial impact on hosting the games is already negative for host cities. That's no longer debatable without ignoring fact. Your argument that all the experts studying the Zika epidemic and drawing the ever more cemented conclusion that this is a very serious problem are wrong is what is hogwash.

<comment><USER4> Actually RJ does have an influx of visitors from nearly every country on earth.

source (see page 97): [http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/d...](http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/dadosefatos/anuario/downloads_anuario/Anuario_Estatistico_de_Turismo_2016_Ano_base_2015_Excel.pdf)

<comment><USER5> So sending an even larger influx into an outbreak is good... why exactly?

Its like arguing that some subset of people drive drunk right now, therefore it would be a great idea if more people would drive drunk this summer.

<comment><USER6> No, it's like arguing that some people get into car accidents, so more people driving is a bad idea.

<comment><USER7> Devil's advocate: I think the argument is that the damage of the disease is disproportional to the people exposed, because the increased _pairs_ of interactions are what can make it spread fast.

So doubling the number of people congregated in Rio won't just double the danger, but quadruple it. If car accidents obeyed a similar dynamic -- where they increase (much) more than proportionally to the number of vehicle-miles driven, we should be similarly more cautious about additional drivers.

<comment><USER8> Aren't those pairs composed of a foreigner and a contaminated native? One of those populations is staying constant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Brazilian here, Ive been in Rio a couple of times (living in Sao Paulo right now, who also has problems w/Aedes Aegypti):

Come to Brazil if you wish, but take care. The Aedes Aegypti mosquito is all around and can spread not only Zika, but Chikungunya (kindly named "chico cunha") and Dengue.

Make good use of insect repellent, watch your stuff when walking on beaches (don't forget robbers and thieves) and think twice about trusting someone.

As someone said before, every city in the world has its problems and brazilian cities have them also.

Personally, I will not go to Olympics just because hotel prices on Rio skyrocketed and are almost impractical.

<comment><USER10> > every city in the world has its problems and brazilian cities have them > also.

At the same magnitude?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It should be considered, dont know if it makes sense but the pros and cons should be weighed and respected international health organizations should weigh in.

Overall though, think given the fact the facilities have not been fully constructed, the Brazilian government is on the verge of collapse, and the risks of being a major disease vector is plausible...

Should definitely consider delay or moving

<comment><USER12> I've thought this too. They pick some of the weirdest places to try to host this stuff. I guess they're trying to bring the areas up or something but if the place can't handle daily life what makes anyone think they can handle a big event like this?

<comment><USER13> How is Rio a "weird place"? They're in a bad situation right now, as any city with an outbreak of a virus and with a political crisis would be, but it's major world metropolis of 12M people with plenty of international business visitors and a GDP of 200 billion USD. They accommodate 900k tourists during Carnival alone.

<comment><USER14> I presume that the parent is referring to the locations of the Olympic venues around Rio, which are scattered around the outskirts of the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ever since the news of Zika causing microcephaly came up I have been wondering whether it's a net benefit to humanity/homeostasis if we were to exterminate Aedis Aegypti. Can Zika spread among humans already? It would seem like a huge risk to the future of humanity if this infectious disease interferes with reproduction.

What's the worst-case scenario for letting Aedis Aegypti live? Is it better than the worst-case scenario for exterminating the species?

<comment><USER16> Zika is a big threat to fetuses that are gestating while the mother is infected. After a woman gains immunity, there is little threat to any babies she might carry.

So it is a very serious concern at the moment, but it is not any sort of existential problem. It will likely not even be a medium term problem (there is early research towards vaccines).

<comment><USER17> > After a woman gains immunity, there is little threat to any babies she might > carry.

It is way too early to make that claim.

You're also ignoring the Guillain–Barré cases that are suspected to have been caused by Zika.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was wondering about whether this would happen. I am not enough of an expert to make a call on this either way of course, but if experts decided this was the right call would it even be possible to cancel/reschedule the Olympics? Imagine the financial impact on Rio.

<comment><USER3> It's pretty well known and well documented at this point that the host cities for olympic games see no financial benefit at all, and in fact they lose money. Most recently, look at the Sochi games, which cost $50+bn. There is a 0% chance that the games brought in that much money. The entities making money are the IOC and the broadcast companies, NBC being the primary. It would be sad if the games were cancelled, but at the risk of a global pandemic it's hard to see how people can argue in favor anymore.

<comment><USER19> Agreed that the Olympic games do not have financially benefit the host city. But, Rio has probably _already spent_ a lot of money on the games. Not hosting them would probably hurt, financially, even more.

Please note I am not arguing that the Olympics should continue in Rio. We should do what is best for world health, even if that negatively impacts Rio financially.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if the medical community is also working with the state department, airlines and travel agencies to make sure people get a stern warning before they buy plane tickets to Brazil and an even sterner warning when they get back.

Considering the political forces that need to be involved in moving (or not) the games it seems foolish to not have a safety net if "please move the games" doesn't work.

<comment><USER21> The Ministry of Health in Brazil has been getting a new head of department every few months, depending on the backstage deals the president has had to make in order to keep her government in place. So no, I wouldn't count on any coordinated actions being spearheaded by the government. They are pretty busy running around like headless chickens, which means insisting in inneficient methods to eliminate the mosquito (e.g. fuming).

Some airlines have been allowing passengers to refund tickets to areas affected by Zika [1].

I think every decent travel agency should worry its customers that traveling to Brazil at this time is not a good idea.

Besides the health issues, Brazil is ousting its president today and most leftist parties and unions have vouched to stop the country with strikes, blockades and protests. You may get stuck in a 2-hour traffic jam on your way to the games.

1 - [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/zika- virus-m...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/zika-virus-major- airlines-refunding-tickets-to-south-america-a6839151.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Zika is already in Houston, Dallas and other Texas cities. I dont know if it is tourism that brought it here or not, but it has enough transmission vectors that its only a matter of time before its everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER23> What will prevent the outbreak is the weather in Rio. The Zika mosquito takes 3 to 4 weeks to reproduce [http://www.denguevirusnet.com/life-cycle-of-aedes- aegypti.ht...](http://www.denguevirusnet.com/life-cycle-of-aedes-aegypti.html) and it loves hot and wet weather.

The autumn in Rio is the coldest and driest in a long time [http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2016/03/outono- no...](http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2016/03/outono-no-rio-sera- mais-frio-e-tera-menos-chuvas-esse-ano.html) When the Olympics arrive, the mosquito will be in their lowest population count.

If you consider that the Olympics tourists are rich ones, that will spend most of their times in air conditioned environments, the risk is really very low.

</comment><comment><USER24> Serious question: Has anyone seen an article or study about the microcephaly effects on pregnancy where the main population studied was not in brazil?

I have yet to see a study that links it to microcephaly for anyone who has not been in brazil for a long time. I realize the mosquito isn't common, but brazil also does things like: "secretly spray tons and tons of pesticide on their populus", etc.

Given these are all correlative studies, i'd love to see something from a country where there aren't a _ton_ of possible other variables.

(especially given zika has been around and even common _forever_ and it's only now that this seems to be an issue)

You know, before the tourism economies of all of these other countries are completely destroyed.

<comment><USER25> Yes, microcephaly from Zika has been detected in many south american countries. CDC supports the link, as does scientific consensus: [http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika- microcepha...](http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika- microcephaly.html)

It's the fat cats who don't want to move/postpone the Olympics most. They have the most to lose.

<comment><USER26> The evidence is not compelling: [https://twitter.com/WLTSchirano/status/728917519457787904](https://twitter.com/WLTSchirano/status/728917519457787904)

Why are there hardly any cases in Colombia?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> What? Are they planning a culling, on which they will blame Zika and the Olympics? Otherwise, this make zero sense.

Despite all the hype, Zika is not the end of the world. Most people who get it hardly notice and get over it in rather short order just as one gets over a cold.

<comment><USER28> What about the microcephalic babies born to people infected with Zika? That's not exactly a hardly noticeable side effect...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So does "fold" just mean "times"? I always thought it meant 2^x times.

<comment><USER30> Yep, N-fold = N times

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenfold](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/tenfold)

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twofold](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/twofold)

<comment><USER29> I guess I got confused since it seems to be used for emphasis, as though tenfold really meant _more_ than 10x. Anyway, glad to get that straight.

<comment><USER31> That's cute, haha!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> That's not going to happen -- not when their economy is in a nosedive and they are embroiled in impeachment proceedings.

At most they'll spray and fumigate the skeeters for the few weeks the activities take place and then go back to "normal".

</comment><comment><USER33> Could people accidentally bring back live mosquitoes in their luggage and such that are carriers?

If so, could spread the world at lightning speed.

I think there is also concern for the athletes in that the water is absolutely filthy there.

<comment><USER8> The mosquito already lives in every place the climate does not kill it.

It's the spread of the virus that's scaring everybody.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Come to Rio - watch the Olympians swim in the very dirty water they promised to clean but didn't! Catch zika, then fill out the police and insurance forms after you get robbed! Seriously though, Rio is a very very dangerous place to visit even for brasileros, let alone tourists, and the zika and chinkungya virus outbreaks are not helping either.

Watch it on TV, from far away.

<comment><USER35> As a middle-income tourist who has had multiple holidays in Rio, the closest I've come to being robbed was by a taxi driver that wanted $200 to travel from Corcovado to Pao de Acucar.

Seriously, it's like any other city in the world. If you walk around a dodgy area talking on an iPhone, by yourself, especially late at night, then you're asking for trouble. Be sensible and cautious, and Rio is a lovely place to go on holiday.

EDIT: I guess I'm attracted to cities with higher crime rates.

<comment><USER36> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if6GLohPq8k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if6GLohPq8k)

Not that incidents like this don't occur in other cities in the world, but it shows that avoiding dodgy areas at night might not be enough.

<comment><USER37> That video is pretty bad. One, it looks like the same kids over and over so the cops clearly do not care. Two, I was wondering what the gun laws were there until some guy chased them with a hand gun. If someone is looking to go have some fun fighting it seems like walking around with a cardboard iPhone might be the ticket. I'm only sort of kidding. I know if some kid grabbed my wife while we were walking down the street there would be a fight.

The only other place I have seen it like the above is the gypsy kids in Rome. Even then though they were more slight of hand pick pockets than the blatant assault in the video.

<comment><USER35> My colleague had his phone stolen as he was talking on it by two guys on a moped - that was in Bond Street, London.

<comment><USER38> Lol indeed. I witnessed a lady with huge shopping bags in Bloomsbury getting her iPhone stolen from a _bicycle_. The guy acted like it was the most normal thing in the world, just snatched the phone while speeding down a cycle lane. Tons of other cyclists around, going as fast as this guy, and nobody cared.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's kind of a shame that there is probably a solution to Zika sitting there waiting for regulatory approval in Oxitec's GM mosquitoes which were first successfully trialed in 2009. Maybe after another one or two million people have caught Zika they'll get around to using it.

</comment><comment><USER40> I am mixed about this whole episode, at one level there is bias against developing countries. On the other end, Brazil did not do any favors for itself, with zika, political turmoil etc. But they did pull of a FIFA world cup, so I am a bit more optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER41> Good luck on that. People in dissonance don't want to hear about it.

</comment><comment><USER42> Thanks to this article I am now aware of a man named Dick Pound.

</comment><comment><USER43> The show must go on.

</comment><comment><USER44> Just wanted to reply to all and say: If you are afraid of Zika, Dengue or whatever the mosquitos transmits, don't get out of your houses! I will go after those bastards!

Best to all, Signed: The mosquito killer! :p</comment>


Predictions as a Substitute for Reviews - <AUTHOR> https://acesounderglass.com/2020/08/06/predictions-as-a-substitute-for-reviews/ <comment><USER2> > Introduction

> There is a lot of praise for weekly reviews. [...]

What are you talking about? Reviews of what? Predictions for what?

I finished reading the "Introduction" completely clueless what this article is about. I continued "Benefits", still not having a clue what the article is about. After another paragraph I closed the tab.

Sorry, this article seems to be targeted at some niche audience, and I'm not in it. It would be great to have some actual introduction to indicate what you are talking about.

<comment><USER3> I didn't close the tab outright, but I agree that the author should be more forthcoming about what exactly they are talking about.

The whole "weekly review" thing just absolutely lacks context. Like, are they talking about the "weekly review" in the GTD methodology? Or in something like Scrum? Or something else entirely?

<comment><USER3> So I left a comment on that blog and the author replied that the "weekly review" is the one in GTD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This feels like the sort of thing economists would latch on to: when in doubt, either create an auction to find out more about preferences, or make it a betting market to get a decent estimation.

It's also something I've read about recently, that we frequently make decisions implicitly based on probabilities and expected values, only we very rarely make these numbers explicit. If we did, we might act more rationally.

I like the idea of this a lot. I have trouble seeing how I would "get better" at predicting stuff solely through this, but perhaps forcing myself to think it through would be sufficient.

<comment><USER5> > It's also something I've read about recently, that we frequently make > decisions implicitly based on probabilities and expected values, only we > very rarely make these numbers explicit. If we did, we might act more > rationally.

Do you recall where? I'd be interested in reading it

<comment><USER4> Most recently in _The Undercover Economist_ by Tim Harford.

I can't give a full recommendation because it's recent enough that I'm still only about halfway through it, but overall it has been worth a read so far. (I found some chapters dull -- in particular the bits about the 2008 financial crisis have just not interested me -- but I have high hopes it will regain my interest again in the rest of the chapters.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you decide against action because of your prediction, how can you evaluate your decision/prediction?

<comment><USER7> You can't.

I use something similar to fix( work in progress ) my problem of having hard time saying no to people and things.

So by having predictions you can cut down on your choices. Just seeing the list with chances you have attributed to them it's sometimes enough to clarify what will be best value for your time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Skip to the example section then read back up top. I couldn't get anything till I skipped to it

</comment><comment><USER9> On seeing the title my mind immediately jumped to _prediction_ markets as a tool that should replace scientific papers' _reviews_. Which is a bad idea because of tiny amount of specialists in any scientific field and resulting minuscule size of potential prediction market.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is an advertisement fluff piece that links to some "prediction book" URL.

<comment><USER11> The prediction book site mentioned in the article is free to sign up for (with no unusual info requested), and its code is open source (published on GitHub). The article explains how the author uses said website within his productivity-/time management habits.

What about it made you classify it as advertisement fluff?

<comment><USER12> You can just as well do it on paper or virtually anywhere. No point using such a service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The value proposition of isn't easily found or understood.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is some real insight. The website is a bit unwieldy.

Would be keen on an app</comment>


19 year old from Florida commits suicide on Justin.tv - <AUTHOR> http://newteevee.com/2008/11/20/19-year-old-commits-suicide-on-justintv/ Dude, a kid just offed himself on your service, and BOILERPLATE is the best you can do? <comment><AUTHOR> A kid broadcasts his death on your service, allegedly egged on by your community, and your CEO statement falls back on cut-and-paste boilerplate?

Do better. Fast.

<comment><USER2> >> your CEO statement falls back on cut-and-paste boilerplate? >>

You HAVE to fall on boilerplate or you will be crucified, by your lawyer if no one else. You just have to pick the right boilerplate:

If what you say has happened, that is a terrible tragedy. We will be conducting an internal investigation of the matter. Justin.tv in no way condones comments of the nature you have described. If we find that someone has breached our acceptable comment policies, we will deal with it as harshly as allowed to by law.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's entirely possible, and should be second nature for any CEO, to draft a statement that's both legally prudent AND shows a modicum of empathy. What they _shouldn't_ do is try to throw their own role into question until the facts are on the table.

Try this:

"Everyone at Justin.tv is deeply shocked and saddened by this news. In the upcoming days, we will conduct a thorough investigation of the events surrounding this incident, and will cooperate fully with local police and federal authorities. Once all the facts have been gathered and analyzed, we will release an additional statement. Until that time, we will refrain from further comment, except to say that our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Biggs's family and friends as they come to grips with a sudden, tragic loss."

<comment><USER3> I respect what you're trying to say here, but seriously: stop.

It's easy to be a critical asshat on the internet. How much different is your criticism from that of the forum members involved in this incident?

You can tell these guys all about how to respond when it's your business on the stump. Maybe they can't show empathy because it weakens their legal position. I just don't know.

It's natural to mourn, to be empathetic, and for some people it's natural to be assholes. Let's try to keep cool heads in this community and show support for both the family of Abraham K. Biggs, and for the startup involved. They will learn something from this. I hope we all do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://blog.justin.tv/2008/11/moment-of-silence.html>

_Justin.tv staff would like to take a moment to recognize and reflect upon the tragedy that occurred within our community today. We respect the privacy of the broadcaster and his family during this challenging time.

Michael Seibel CEO, Justin.tv_

</comment><comment><USER5> Protip: This is not Justin.TV's fault.

This is no ones fault but the adult's (he was over 18). It really is that simple - though you wouldn't know it from the media.

America: where self-entitlement lives on and accountability goes to die.

<comment><USER6> That is true, but regardless, egging someone on who appears to be on the edge of suicide is simply inhuman.

<comment><USER7> Stuff like this is bound to happen on a live broadcast site. There's six billion people out there. Every conceivable behavior will be broadcast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A similar thing happened on a site that I co-founded: [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-01-rampage- messa...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-01-rampage- messages_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

It was pretty horrific. We spent about a week being interviewed by the media and trying to limit the damage both to the site and to the perception of AS.

<comment><USER9> Just curious - did you contemplate not even responding to the media? Or were you pretty much forced to? What sort of long-term impact did it have on your site?

<comment><USER8> The problem was that the Will Freund incident, and the exposure it received, threatened to cast all people with Aspergers as deranged homicidal maniacs.

A few media outlets were sensitive towards the issues involved and wrote thoughtfully. Others, however, were sensationalist and did the opposite of what we hoped (e.g. Geraldo's show on FOX).

<comment><USER10> You know that actually is pretty sad. I've heard a lot of rumors about Aspergers and violence being linked, but a cursory internet search seems to show that there's little or no evidence.

As if sufferers didn't have enough problems to deal with.

<comment><USER11> From what I've seen, any link between Aspergers and violence is largely irrelevant. When people who are already socially isolated are mocked and ridiculed by 'normal' people throughout their lives, then it isn't a case of Aspergers being linked to violence it's a case of victims getting revenge and if human history tells us anything it's that victims often go for revenge.

If I was repeatedly mocked and ridiculed, it would only be a matter of time before I went on a killing spree.

<comment><USER10> Well, a lot of people are mocked and ridiculed all their lives and don't go on a killing spree, but I get your point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm sorry to the family and friends of the kid, suicide is the only kind of death that never makes sense no matter how much time passes...

As for justin.tv this could cut both ways. The family could sue, their traffic could go nuclear or both could happen. I don't think justin.tv did anything wrong but if you can sue McDonalds for making coffee too hot you definitely have a shot at this. This could also make national news and justin.tv will attract millions of viewers. I think that they need to be really careful to play down any real or perceived financial benefit that comes from this. They got a lot of attention when the cops banged down his door and this will be a much bigger deal. Being "the place to go" for shocking live videos is a double edged sword. Maybe they should donate to charity in the kid's name?

While a confused teenager's suicide is a tragedy, j.tv is also a victim here. The kid unwittingly put a bunch of other young guys he's never met who are just trying to make a startup in the middle of what may become a major witch hunt.

Good luck with this...

</comment><comment><USER13> This is one of those critical moments that may well define how people think about this company in the future. As mentioned before, the CEO needs to do better, right away.

Just to clarify, I am referring to the response, not to the actual event.

<comment><USER14> This also might be a critical moment when people have to decide what rights and responsibilities a site has to the content it distributes, whether that be HD-DVD keys or a video stream of one's suicide.

<comment><USER15> I'd never bet my company on a political shift happening exactly when I need it to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow, check this out: [http://dl- client.getdropbox.com/u/315/random_pics/bad_move_m...](http://dl- client.getdropbox.com/u/315/random_pics/bad_move_moderator.jpg) ... The image shows two messages on the bodybuilder.com forums.

"A poster has said he was going to OD on JTV in the link here: <http://www.justin.tv/feels_like_ecstacy>. It seems like he is not breathing by the looks of the stream. Please track his IP and alert someone."

And in response, a bodybuilder.com forum moderator said:

"he's an attention whore, you should see all the threads he starts, then deletes"

This might've all turned out differently had the moderators acted on the information available. I'm not saying that it should be illegal for the moderators to not care, just that I personally would have at least _looked_ at the information the poster provided before dismissing it as "just another attempt at attention whoring".

If you wanted to get to know the kid a little bit, or if you wanted to know the mentality of someone on the brink of suicide, here's a link to Bigg's blog: [http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll...](http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=206599326)

</comment><comment><USER17> Life's hard. I don't know if that many of us here on HN have had suicidal thoughts, but i have. I wasn't serious though, i was more like an attention whore. There is this thing that keeps us going, and that thing is very deeep, and is older that our species, and when that thing conflicts with our modern brain, we get confused. What is the meaning of life? Why should i go on? The answer to these questions can't be "our instincts tell us to", it doesn't make sense, but it does, actually life is worth just for the living, and we should just go on, because our instincts tell us, they know better, they had billions(not millions) of years to evolve and refine them selfs, our minds have been around for only a few million years, which one should you trust? I have more to live for than what my instincts tell me, but many don't, and they have the power to ignore them, and we have no right to judge them, they overcame the most important of all our instincts with their minds, that takes will, even if its a stupid decision, its a valid one(not always of course).

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm holding back tears.

We must find a way to make the internet a nicer place. Such astonishing cruelty breeds here. Why?

<comment><USER19> I think for a lot of people there's a huge disconnect between internet and reality. On the internet it's often just words on a page, with no association to real people.

Also, there's so much shocking material and people joking around on the Internet sometimes it's hard to realize what's "real" and what's not. People like guy who pranked Zed Shaw a couple weeks ago certainly don't help: <http://zedshaw.com/blog/2008-10-30.html>

<comment><USER20> Having a vile, boisterous, abusive, and slanderous alter ego for your blog personality probably doesn't help too much either.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, let's all be really nice and talk about how much we like flowers.

Seriously though, Zed's personality may suck, but it makes for great reading. As a blog reader, that's all I really care about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is horrible.

Hopefully it gives the Justin.tv community a reality check. They were egging him on?!? As someone who volunteers on a suicide helpline, I'm amazed that people won't condemn that kind of behavior _before_ it causes real harm.

<comment><USER23> I understand your sentiment, but if you think that this wouldn't occur in many communities that have a large base of users, you are off base. I don't just mean places like 4chan- have you ever read comments on Youtube videos?

<comment><USER24> To be frank I often surprise myself with the tastelessness of my own comments on Youtube, when I bother to make one there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This has happened before and will happen again. The first internet-based 'televised' event I know of is the 'ripper' event on IRC channel #shroomery. Logs are stilla vailable online, one instance at <http://b00mb0x.org/blog/pic/chattrans.html>

</comment><comment><USER9> God the media is going to try to blame Justin.tv for this. While the CEO's statement was bad, he was probably caught off guard and didn't know what to say. At least I hope that's what happened.

<comment><USER26> The only thing worse than media bandwagoning issues is people attempting to predict how that process.

<comment><USER9> I'm just going off what happened last time and the time before that. Why's predicting the media so bad again?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It is a tragedy and I feel sorry for him. This is, I think, the only appropriate comment.

<comment><USER28> There are many other appropriate comments. Perhaps it's the only appropriate comment you can think of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Reason number 245 why Justin.tv won't be able to sell advertising.

<comment><USER30> Honestly. Justin.tv is not doing well. The service is shoddy, every channel is riddled with pedophiles and now this.

<comment><USER31> "every channel is riddled with pedophiles"

Seriously? Do you have proof of this?

<comment><USER21> I think the statement is probably technically true. Some percentage of the population is a pedophile, some percentage of the population uses justin.tv. It is likely that there is an overlap.

I'm sure Slashdot, news.yc, and Reddit are all "riddled with pedophiles" also. Who cares?

<comment><USER29> Slashdot, news.yc, and Reddit don't involve kids broadcasting video out of the bedroom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> My heart and my prayers go out to this guy's family and to all families who have similarly suffered.

</comment><comment><USER33> Sad story. I'm sure they'll get a new statement out.

Also see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Vedas>

</comment><comment><USER28> Idiots: also available on justin.tv.

</comment><comment><USER34> Sad for his family and friends. Nothing to add about the legal/corporate aspects, as you have already addressed those. Human tragedy. Here's a helpful resource for the prevention of teen suicide you can share if you wish...

<http://www.SpeakUpSaveLives.org>

</comment><comment><USER35> You know, people would do this less often if they generated less public attention. Ultimately, it's up to the person to save themselves, and if they choose not to, that's their choice.

Plus, we should start calling suicide for what it is: cowardice and selfishness, instead of fawning over the poor souls who didn't receive enough love and attention.

</comment><comment><USER36> > The contention that filming and uploading (and even hosting video of) a > crime is a crime as well might not be valid, but given the very nature of > live broadcasts, the issue becomes more complicated.

Is suicide a crime?

<comment><USER37> No. But in the US you can be held civilly liable for all sorts of things, crime or not.

I think that's what justin.tv is more concerned with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Please remove this.

</comment><comment><USER39> Which begs the question of justin.tv's whole raison d'etre:

How the f--- does facilitating self-perpetuated voyeurism (to this particular degree) add value to society?

</comment><comment><USER40> This is sad, really sad.

</comment><comment><USER41> Crazy stuff. Poor kid. Just show's you can't take what you're told online seriously.

</comment><comment><USER35> www.nonhackernews.com

</comment><comment><USER42> Reminds me of that James Woods film, "Videodrome", an existential musing on reality, specifically, television being more "real" than real life. While dated, one could update the "Videodrome" movie concept for the internet age. Obviously, Justin.tv did nothing wrong, in terms of the fact one cannot edit live video. It does bring up questions about the need for sensationalism, that somehow there is a collective need for it, almost like an archtype.

</comment><comment><USER43> Question: how do I downvote people.

<comment><USER16> You need a certain (small) amount of karma before you can downvote people. At that point, you'll see a downarrow below each comment uparrow.

That was done to prevent people from creating new accounts for the purpose of repeatedly downvoting someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> he told u he was hardcore

<comment><USER44> I downvoted this comment, thinking it was just a silly remark, but now I realize that it's a reference to the Brandon Vedas death:

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

<comment><USER37> Which doesn't make it any less disrespectful.

<comment><USER28> So what? Disrespect is at the heart of much great humour.

<comment><USER37> Feel free to crack jokes at the next funeral you attend then. I'm sure the other attendees will be highly amused.

More to the heart of much great humour is timing.

<comment><USER28> Is HackerNews a funeral now?

Or are you suggesting that this thread is that hapless teenager's virtual burial place?

<comment><USER37> I'm suggesting that joking about a person's death needs to be considered against the nature of that death and the current environment.

It's very likely that the family of that kid will happen upon this forum and that post in the next little while, and I think as a community it would be nice if they weren't met with the same idiotic comments that they'll find on the bodybuilding site.

It's the same thing as making jokes about 9/11 victims on 9/12, but there's no hard and fast rule. Such is the case with pretty much every social nicety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Pills? If you're going to live broadcast your own death, make it more interesting than watching paint dry. Sheesh.

<comment><USER45> Seriously people? I didn't expect this to be taken well by most here (in fact it was an experiment to see if there was a limit to down-voting), but some of you seem to be on a war path now.

It doesn't really matter what the Justin.tv CEO said. He pasted some boiler plate because there's nothing more to be said; the deed had been done. What do you want? An apology for not finding the video? For not policing the Internet? Prosecution of anybody "egging him on?" Come on.

Someone broadcast their suicide. That fact doesn't make it any more tragic than any other suicide. It also doesn't mean anybody more than usual was responsible. There's really no story here which is why I chose to make a comment that didn't acknowledge there was.

You may return to being irrationally sanctimonious now.

<comment><USER46> This reminds me of something that happened to me after 9/11. In my teenage immaturity, I made a comment insinuating that America got what was coming to it. I'm not sure why I did that (the mind is good at rationalizing behavior after the fact, so I can't trust my own memories on the matter), but I think it was a reaction to the complete unanimous sorrow going on in the forum. Everybody thought that the attacks were a horrible thing, that the deaths were such a tragedy. It _might_ have been that I was struck by the complete irrationality of their reactions -- people don't feel so angered about annual traffic accident fatality numbers. After their angered reactions, I apologized and gave an excuse somewhat like the parent comment.

Having been in this situation, I'd say that tdavis probably posted that under the same state of mind as I did. And now that I look back, I can't help but conclude that taking that state of mind is the right thing to do. After events like these, certain ideas become treated like "correct viewpoints" that good- thinking people have to have. Such as that America is the good guys, or that this event here was so tragic and that you should be mournful. And now that somebody has come along with a different attitude on the matter, we get to witness a hailstorm of people who don't simply disagree on the matter, but who hate him because his reactions are different to theirs.

<comment><USER47> And is it similarly irrational to mourn your Father's death more than the death of some random guy in a hospital you never knew?

<comment><USER46> My comment was not about the question of which views are correct or rational or make sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


This router hack is injecting ads and porn into random websites - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/25/8290277/router-hack-adware-porn-security-ara-labs

<comment><USER2> The malware uses basic router exploits and/or guesses default credentials to get into the routers. From there DNS hijacking is easy as pie, as long as the target does not do DNSSEC.

This is not technically attacking websites, only connections served by hijacked routers should be affected. Besides, since the malware intercepts Google Analytics tags to inject ads, any website not using that tracking engine should not be affected.

Source: the Ara Labs report linked in the article, at [http://aralabs.com/blog/2015/03/25/ad-fraud-malware- hijacks-...](http://aralabs.com/blog/2015/03/25/ad-fraud-malware-hijacks- router-dns-injects-ads-via-google-analytics/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This guy who did this is from Russia. Last week he attacked only Russian routers and hijack DNS records to google-analytics and yandex.metrika (popular Russian analytics). We found him and shut down his servers, and even had a talk with him. He swore he won't do this again.

[http://tjournal.ru/paper/antisanctions-safari-yandex- browser](http://tjournal.ru/paper/antisanctions-safari-yandex-browser) [https://gist.github.com/ValdikSS/2706f643bbfa0bb5158f](https://gist.github.com/ValdikSS/2706f643bbfa0bb5158f)</comment>


The Marginalia Manifesto - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fogus.me/2011/01/05/the-marginalia-manifesto/ <comment><USER2> Beautiful work, Fogus -- I hope it spurs a culture of Literate Clojure.

One little point I'd like to make is that there's still a fairly strong difference between _documentation_ and _literate programming_ : Documentation is the material for users of the library, and literate programming is the material for readers of the code. Both are important, and neither should be left to chance.

<comment><USER3> Care to give a tl;dr on literate programming?

<comment><USER4>
        imagine if code and comments were inverted

        # def this_will work
        #   42
        # end

\</comment></comment></comment><comment>----

That's a tl;dr, but you really should Google. Short explanations about things that amount to "write longer and better explanations" bothers me in some meta way.

<comment><USER5> Inform 7 is a language (and IDE) for writing interactive fiction / text adventure games. Code actually _is_ an English description of the game world and instructions to the runtime about behavior. The syntax is pretty limited of course, but it's completely readable for humans and computers. Check out this screenshot of a simple example game written in Inform 7: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inform_7_code_and_skein.pn...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inform_7_code_and_skein.png)

<comment><USER4> I'm a big fan of inform 7; muds and Adventure were the reasons I'm a programmer today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it bad I read this as The Mangina Manifesto ?</comment>