Why do profit-seeking companies keep making profitless Android phones? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/3/10894200/android-smartphone-oem-profit <comment><USER2> I've never understood why OEMs think there is value in altering Android. As far as I can tell, it just gives them higher costs in exchange for some vague perception of additional value in terms of the customer value. It would seem more logical to me for OEMs to say "screw it, let's just make the best hardware" and minimize their software development costs which they are paying to Google.

I would have thought another lesson from Windows is that bloatware is hated and doesn't improve anything - although in the Windows world, the PC makers likely made money by including the bloatware on their machines.

Of course, none of this would solve the update issue as far as I can tell because the carriers are always involved in checking updates. Obviously, Apple bypasses this issue - but my question is why does it still exist for other phones? Carriers always say they need to check the phones - but why? And if so, why don't they need to check iPhone updates? My cynical assumption is that carriers want control and they add actually zero value but do this to maintain control.

<comment><USER3> Much of the customization stem from fixing android's perceived shortcomings by the product-management at respective OEMs. Besides, you must realise that Google doesn't engage OEMs as much as it should when it decides what goes and what doesn't AFAIK, Google does it own prod-mgmt. Android isn't a standard. Which is a good thing, 'cause it can move fast and break things (which it often does).

For instance, Amazon saw that the WebView was tightly tied with Android and that was security concern (up until it was freed in Android L), and so Amazon made it OTA'able in its third iteration of Fire OS (Android K).

Also, in a crowded market, you need a differentiator. If every phone is going to look and do the same thing, why would anyone buy one device over another? Samsung needs to market things with its offering, it can't just do so with Hardware. It needs the stylus to justify the exorbitant price tag on its Galaxy Note line of products. It needs floating activities on its mega-screen and wants people to get hooked on to that feature, to an extent that they can no longer do without it, which makes sure they'd buy and recommend Samsung over other OEMs.

Secondly, hardware is just one part of the equation. Sometimes you require vast changes in Software to make sure the hardware is properly utilized... Or you just have a better Software solution up your sleeve than what Google gave you.

Thirdly, some of the Google Apps aren't stellar-- Photos is miserable, Camera is a-okay, Music Player is a-okay, Video Player is miserable, Launcher isn't smart, Lockscreen isn't smart. You need premium apps for your devices. Besides, why would you want Google to walk away with the cake (usage information generated using all those apps) from a customer you acquired with all those hours you spent marketing the phone, establishing your brand, figuring out the quirks of doing businesses globally, toiling endlessly to sort out the logistics, whilst also fighting patent battles, as if the existing technology arms-race weren't enough... among a host of other commitments?

You and I (and I take that most of the HN community) are purists... not everyone else is.

<comment><USER4> >> "Or you just have a better Software solution up your sleeve than what Google gave you."

Honest question, have you ever seen any OEM modification to Android that was a net improvement over stock?

Maybe someone has improved power management or some low level feature that I've never noticed.

<comment><USER3> I help mod Android for a living. From my experience, there is a tonne of things OEM want that improve either performance, stability, security, and usability (atleast until Google cleaned up their act with JB).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is going to continue and get worse. Margins are going to be under pressure even for Apple and Samsung. The technology in phones is leveling off. Chinese manufacturers that for a long time were making everyone else's phones are now making their own. This is a repeat of HDTVs march towards very low margins as technology converged, and Chinese brands took over.

Android provides an ecosystem for free*. Lately phone enhancements have been things like 0.2 ghz faster processor, larger screen, fingerprint reader. Reminds me a lot when HDTVs were offering higher refresh rates, gimmicks like 3D TV. Consumers decided they were not going to scrap their $2000 TV for another $2000 TV. Now those $2000 TVs are < $500.

So are consumers going to keep shelling out $600+ for a new phone every year or 2? Now in the USA they are more exposed to the price of the phone due to the elimination of contracts with phone subsidies. I suppose the fact that most phones are fragile causes them to break more and be replaced, but phones are commoditized now, and will continue to decrease in price and margin.

<comment><USER6> And when you say "get worse" you mean "get better"? Like, capitalism working vaguely like it's promised to and companies competing to provide maximum value at mininum price?

<comment><USER7> I think it's pretty clearly referring to the position of phone manufacturers.

But yes, it's working out well for all us consumers.

<comment><USER6> I dunno, I see a lot of weird comments that seems to suggest low profits is some kind of problem, rather than what the free market it supposed to ensure. I can't take it for granted that someone saying that profits falling due to competition will get "worse" actually thinks that's a good thing for consumers.

I regularly see the phrase "race to the bottom" used without understanding of the fact that theoretically it's a good thing when corporations race to the bottom (modulo lawbreaking and market externalities) for example.

<comment><USER8> >I regularly see the phrase "race to the bottom" used without understanding of the fact that theoretically it's a good thing when corporations race to the bottom

It's not always though. Typically, that race to the bottom means lower quality. Everyone loses there.

<comment><USER9> But the lower quality during the race to the bottom is way better than high quality before. Objectively, it is better because everything (including high quality components) gets cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Maybe they should try to be different, instead of being iPhone clones.

Every one I know have a super slim phone, then a case to prevent it to be broken and make the phone not slim anymore and then a second battery. So why not make a less slim phone with hardened chassis and a longer battery ? And market it as such (you want slim that last 8h and you can't plug your earphones, go Apple, you want solid that last 2 days and you can plug your earphones, buy Me)

And they also should embrace XDA community who work for free in advocating "a phone".

And they should also accept that a premium 4.5 /4.8 screen phone is also in demand, not just 5.5 and 6.0.

And give removable battery so we, paranoid, can really unplug the phone without having to put in the fridge.

<comment><USER11> There are such models, the One Plus One is an example.

<comment><USER12> I own one and the OnePlus One has its own set of problems. Maybe most annoyingly, the touch screen doesn't work in warm weather. It also took them months to fix very basic functionality (the touch screen had ghost touch issues for a great deal of people in the beginning). Support barely exists (I don't know if they managed to improve on that by now). Also CyanogenOS is getting more and more annoying, with tons of crapware being bundled (a weird dialler, Cortana) and even ads (the "open with" intent chooser has suggestions to install Microsoft apps for certain file types).

Oh and it frequently doesn't play well with Google Play Services. There's an awful lot of battery drain because Play Services doesn't seem to like some of the modifications they made. Currently mine loses some 30% of charge overnight in airplane mode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Stock Android is likely to be better than anything oems will modify it to be.

<comment><USER14> Stock Android would kill them. For decades, didn't matter who built your computer, as long as it came with Windows.

Something similar would happens to Android world if people came to recognize that all phones' software were equal. It would lead to a race to the bottom in price terms.

<comment><USER15> Instead they've created a world where I specifically avoid phones (Samsung for example) because their software is so awful and bloated (not to mention ugly).

<comment><USER16> Yep, this is why I will never buy a non-Nexus phone.

Also, good lord Samsung's UX is just plain ugly. Everything about it, including layouts, color schemes, etc., makes me feel queasy. Their design aesthetic is why I go out of my way to avoid everything they make.

<comment><USER17> Ask those TI users how much having a Nexus helped.

Google has no process in place how to support their customers if an OEM breaches contract.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Article gives 3 main reasons why companies such as Samsung, LG, Sony, and HTC continue to make smartphones (and lose money w/ the exception of Samsung):

1\. every new smartphone bearing the company's insignia serves as an engineering showcase for the various component businesses that comprise its vast conglomerate

2\. LG believes it needs a smartphone to connect to its growing ecosystem of smart home, TV, and in-car gadgets, plus phones provide free and ubiquitous advertising

3\. Others see smartphones as a conduit to generating profits elsewhere. Xiaomi is famous for selling phones at cost and then seeking to capitalize on a well-disposed user base by selling additional services and extras like luggage.

Of these 3, the only one that makes financial sense to me is 2. For companies that are so heavily invested in connected white goods and home automation, selling a smartphone that can control a home hub at cost is akin to giving away a free remote control for a TV. It helps bring users into the ecosystem and can help guide their fridge, TV, security network, etc. purchasing decisions.

</comment><comment><USER19> This article comes at a time when I'm looking for a new phone but nothing looks good to me. Not even the iPhone.

They don't want to make phones a small as I like and they refuse to make true standalone smartwatches that can make and receive calls/texts and use GPS by themselves.

<comment><USER20> I think it's an inherent usablity issue. The two functions I'd like from a smart phone (other than calls and SMS), is mapping and the odd web lookup. I've currently got a Blackberry as a hand me down with the old form factor: half screen, half keyboard. Personally the keyboard is too much of a nuisance for me, and most websites just don't work that well on it. To the point, I'll only use it, if I really have to. So most of the time, I have an oversized item in my pocket, that I don't really care for, that runs out of battery quickly, and makes me curse daily.

A classic old phone (small nokia form factor) with WAP style browsing would actually suit me more.

But actually I think it's more a matter of coming up with a user interface that can work with a small screen. Pure text isn't that bad.

<comment><USER21> Consider a Windows Phone maybe? It lacks a lot of apps but if all you are interested in is the basics (calls, messaging, GPS, etc.), then it's a pretty solid OS. And the Nokia Lumia lines of phones are outstanding when it comes to build quality and battery life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The mobile market is going to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Getting in on the ground floor and "breaking-even" whilst getting a foothold in the market and building customer loyalty doesn't seem like a bad idea.

<comment><USER23> How'd that work for pc makers? Their profit margins have shrunk from low to near-zero (>2.5%)[1] This is in contrast to Apple who has had healthy margins and have consistently improved market share nearly the last decade.[2]

In the electronics business, unless you are significantly differentiated there there isn't much customer loyalty to be had.

[1][http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/09/pc- value-t...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/09/pc-value-trap- windows-chrome-hp-dell-lenovo-asus-acer)

[2][http://recode.net/2014/11/06/mac-hits-market-share- milestone...](http://recode.net/2014/11/06/mac-hits-market-share-milestone-in- u-s-what-post-pc-era/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Its the Dell problem-they think if they cut the margins to the bleeding edge they'll make it up in volume. Just like Dell though they all find its a tricky edge to walk. Playing the volume game means you're one bad quarter from your phone division tanking.

</comment><comment><USER25> One of the things the article fails to mention is that both LG and Sony make damn fine devices (and superior to the Samsungs). Z compact series is the only small first class smartphone.

Why Apple succeeded? Because they did not allowed the carriers to interfere with their software and updates. Why all of those companies are in that position - because they did (honorable mention for WP7,7.5,8 and 10).

<comment><USER26> I fully agree, but I also doubt that Sony or LG are able to create a good enough OS for the consumer market. (I cringe when I think about the Smart TV OS they use on their TVs)

Apple can build, own and control every part of their hardware/software. Google could probably too, but they chose a different path to distribute their OS.

Edit: I don't mean to say that Sony or LG engineers are not great, it's just that you need to have experience with this type of product to build something that is really great.

Sony and LG always built their own software but not on that level as their focus was always more on the hardware side.

<comment><USER25> >I fully agree, but I also doubt that Sony or LG are able to create a good enough OS for the consumer market. (I cringe when I think about the Smart TV OS they use on their TVs)

They don't need to. Stock android is stellar since 4.2. Just make the hardware and get out of the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Check out what you get for $20 these days:

[http://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-LG-Prepaid- Destiny-L...](http://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-LG-Prepaid- Destiny-L21G-Smartphone/45822123)

(it constantly comes back into stock and sells out again)

quad-core cpu, 1GB of ram, 854x480 screen, Lollipop 5.1

[http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-L21G-destiny](http://www.lg.com/us/cell- phones/lg-L21G-destiny)

it's gsm but you'll never unlock a tracphone for other carriers

</comment><comment><USER28> The sunk cost fallacy, basically.

That or Stockholm syndrome.

</comment><comment><USER6> My question has always been: are the phones losing money, or the companies?

This is similar to the "Tesla loses X thousand on each car" thing. There's two ways to interpret that, 1) the more cars they sell the more money they lose, 2) as they sell more cars, they bring in more profit, and their total loss (from investments in factories etc.) divided across total sales will decrease, until it becomes positive.

So which is the case in Android land? I've never seen anything close to a thorough investigation of this point. Back in the early days of Android, the switch to Android seemed to bring companies back from making loses, into rough equilibrium, which always suggested to me that there was profit being made.

</comment><comment><USER26> Well, when I look at younger people (18-24) I often see a pattern of users that don't own a PC and most of the time don't even own a laptop.

They use smartphones and sometimes tablets for most tasks.

That might change once they get older, but maybe it wont. So I think it's a good idea for any company that was/is in the PC/laptop business to try and capture as much mobile computing marketshare as possible.

<comment><USER29> I use a tablet and a desktop computer besides my mobile phone and even for me, there is a noticeable gravitational pull towards "mobile computing". While a dedicated screen and keyboard are clearly ergonomically superior, I just love the fact that I can hook a Bluetooth keyboard to my squawk box and make it a mobile remote terminal. All that's missing is infrastructure to log into your "home" (whatever that is) securely and with your privacy intact.

<comment><USER30> can you elaborate on the "home" part of this? do you have a 24x7 box at home? then openvpn solves secure access part. or, did you mean the lack "needed but not existing yet home control hub for lights, heating, fridge, music, surveillance, etc."?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> How long has this post been in the draft? Samsung's position is no more as great as it suggests.

<comment><USER32> Also, no mention of Huawei, which is now in 3rd place in phones sold, and catching up with the two top dogs fast.

[http://fortune.com/2015/10/28/smartphones-huawei- idc/](http://fortune.com/2015/10/28/smartphones-huawei-idc/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Well, Google's making bank on it. $31 billion. It seems like OEMs are burdened with most of the work and the costs of support and liability and update distribution (even if a software bug is Google's doing), yet Google gets to rake in the cash.

<comment><USER34> OEM's update woes are their own doing. The further they get from AOSP the more painful it is to hack updates together.

<comment><USER33> That's kinda false on multiple fronts.

First and foremost: From everything I've heard Google doesn't go out of their way to support any hardware besides Nexus devices, so if you use any different chips, you have to do your own work to get it to work.

Also, Google often ships Android versions non-compliant with carrier requirements. I remember when the last Nexus 7 rolled out, it's radios were compatible with Verizon, but they couldn't meet Verizon's standards for certification until a later patch level of Android. OEMs often have to bear the burden of making Android actually work on a carrier.

And finally, the further they get from proprietary Google Android (it's not AOSP if it has Google Apps), the more likely they solve the 'lack of profit' problem. Google saps up all of the potential revenue streams for a manufacturer with it's various apps and services that OEMs are forced to install. Many of their own apps and customizations offer them additional potential for income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The Aquos Crystal X is the best-looking Android phone I have ever seen...and I can't seem to get it here in the U.S.

:(((

</comment><comment><USER36> Free or ultra-cheap phones with ads anyone?

<comment><USER27> You don't need ads when they can carrier lock like tracfone/net10/straightalk does (all same company).

But you now can get free service with ad supported networks like RingPlus

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Like nobody would pay someone money to put a tapping device into your pocket. ;)

</comment><comment><USER29> > _Android ... is a first-class mobile OS_

While I wouldn't deny that, as an app platform it doesn't hold a candle to iOS.

<comment><USER38> In what respect?

<comment><USER14> I think this used to be true because Android phones had worst hardware and Android versions market share were too fragmented.

We still have a majority of cheap android phones on the market (think outside the US), but Google is making a good advance in bringing new APIs to old versions.</comment></comment></comment>


Python 3: A Response to the Doubters - <AUTHOR> http://frompythonimportpodcast.com/2014/03/31/episode-017-the-one-about-python-3/

<comment><USER2> Note that this dates from the end of March. So it's not ancient history, but nor is it a response to recent discussions in this area.

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome podcast!!

There's still a major lack of communication happening.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just a reminder that some languages and implementations never make it to their next big version. Perl 6 never broke. hhvm has not made everyone forget about PHP 5. Sometimes a language peaks when you are still in the mediocre (or horrible) implementation days. Unfortunately it is probably safer to bet against Python 3 and Python in general in the long run. If anyone has misgivings you should switch to a different language entirely.

I would suggest the follow in order of interest to you and your pay grade:

Haskell: Runtime is great and fast. Great syntax (but alien to most). Many hard problems have been solved with fantastic libraries.

JavaScript: V8 and Node.js make a great runtime implementation. Sweet.js will let you fix all the warts of the language.

Lua: Fast runtime in either of the major implementations (Lua 5 or LuaJIT). Python is never going to beat it. Python is said to have nice syntax, but if you like to use ternary operators in Python or multi-expression lambdas (impossible) your Python code will be ugly anyway. So, if you care about syntax use Haskell or Sweet.js. If you are using Python you are actually in syntax hell and Lua will be a relief.

<comment><USER5> About 7 years ago I wrote my first line of Python and I loved it. Before that I had some experience with C and PHP and the clarity of code and the great documentation was mind blowing.

The slogan 'batteries included' was actually true. You could do so much stuff out of the box and I learned to love the language. The community back then was pretty small (at least the German-speaking one) and they welcomed new people.

In the last months it doesn't feel right anymore. The hate in the community discourages me. It doesn't feel like the Python I learned to love anymore.

And I'm sad about that development.

About 3 months ago I looked around for an other language. I wasn't up-to-date on the language development since Haskell became more popular (around 2008?) and quite a bit happened since then.

So I looked around, looked at some code, some new languages, read a few blog posts on each and finally settled on learning Clojure. I loved Lisps (more specifically Scheme) but the environment was – imho – a bit problematic.

I adopted a lot from functional languages into my Python coding over the years so the transition wasn't that hard. And I really love the language so far. The community seems to be quite active and is welcoming. :)</comment></comment>


The untold story of QF72: 'psycho' automation leaves pilots powerless - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170510-gw26ae.html <comment><USER2> Couple of clangers in the technical details.

> how can the plane stall and over-speed at the same time? The aircraft is > telling him it is flying at both maximum and minimum speeds.

Stalling is due to angle of attack, not speed, and it is possible to overspeed and stall at the same time. Though admittedly not while flying straight and level, in cruise, as they were here.

> In the Boeing 747 jumbo – the backbone of global aviation for almost five > decades – pilots' control sticks are connected by wires and pulleys to parts > of the plane such as the tail.

Pretty sure the 747 was all hydraulic.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The bottom line is that automation of the computer codes and the algorithms > are designed by people, which is what they are actually being designed to > protect against

If this can happen in a multi-million dollar airplane that has 3 computers, it is no far stretch to see it happening with self-driving vehicles that only have 1 - and much less R&D. The upside being you're not 35K feet in the air.

There is a phrase I like to murmur to myself that I think is applicable here: "Apple knows best". As of late, Apple has made numerous technology and software decisions that I find quite disagreeable. And many of these have, in fact, significant implications for myself, consumers, and their products overall. But "Apple knows best!" In their infinite wisdom, they call all the shots, good and bad. And if it's a bad one, which to me many are... you suffer with no recourse, because there is ONLY their way.

I feel this relevant because one of the main issues the pilots faced is that the computers are _above_ them in command. They are authoritative - and so don't reveal things to their underlings. In a computer system that is meant to have no single point of failure, they neglected to realize that the computer system itself is a single point of failure. This means the designers of the airplane, purposefully removed control from pilots and gave them no recourse or alternatives.

These are the lessons we need to learn from. While automation of flight has improved safety and reduced human error, it does not allow for humans to reduce automation error. In symbology, the two can work together to improve safety even more, as this article makes clear. With better communication from the computers to pilots, and better ability for pilots to seize control from systems that are misbehaving, there is a greater chance for success.

But I think this solution is in contrast of where the industry wants to go: to remove pilots entirely. And for the bottom line of airlines, that's pretty dreamy. But at what cost to potential lives saved? If QF72 was solely automated, this would have been a very different story.

<comment><USER4> > This means the designers of the airplane, purposefully removed control from > pilots and gave them no recourse or alternatives.

While I prefer Boeing's approach to Airbus's, the above statement isn't true. Airbus aircraft do have an Alternate Control Law (less flight envelope protection) and Direct Control Law (no flight envelope protection). These are in addition to the Normal Law (full protection), which is similar to what you describe, as well as a mechanical backup.

The aircraft is designed to automatically revert to more-manual control when sensors return unexpected values--and that's what happened to AF447. In that case, the computer recognized strange AoA readings, so it reverted from Normal Law to Alternate Law. The pilots, being insufficiently trained in the use of Alternate Law, stalled the plane into the ocean because they expected the plane to override them in the case of a stall.

Pilots also have to option to manually revert to Alternate, Direct, or mechanical control by pulling the appropriate circuit breakers in the cockpit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> smh.com.au is the Sydney Morning Herald. It has some of the best news in Sydney but I hate the website. When I follow a link like this one and the article is interesting, I invariably forget to check the ads. When I get started reading, there always seems to be a movie with audio that will start playing off the screen.

<comment><USER6> Someone needs to make a succcessful ad free service for news articles that can support good journalism.

<comment><USER7> News is a market of lemons - bad free pushes out good paid. I've come to raise that I want to pay for a good newspaper but it seems like each one is crap.</comment></comment></comment>


Rage for iPhone - n-named http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/12/carmack-blows-minds-with-id-softwares-rage-running-on-iphone-a/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is where Carmack excels, give him a constrained canvas and he blows the technology away. Heres hoping they've sorted out some game design this time around (or they licence the tech to others).

<comment><USER2> id's game design is generally good; they know how to really nail gameplay. The problems in id games come from the generic cliché stories and settings. Rage looks like yet another predominantly brown post-apocalyptic lone-silent- protagonist-versus-hideously-ugly-screaming-mutant-monsters game.

What licensees can bring to id's engine are interesting stories in novel settings. For example, I'm hoping someone at Activision realizes that this open-world car-combat + first-person shooter engine is the perfect vehicle for a reboot of the Interstate '76 franchise.

<comment><USER3> They have stated that they wont licence out this engine. Since they got acquired, it'll only be used for Zenimax games.

<comment><USER2> Dang, hadn't heard that. Well, at least the next Bethesda RPG will have a decent engine to build on...

<comment><USER4> I think that's the main reason Zenimax wanted them. They can use id as their internal engines team and get incredible tech for their other companies. Personally, I love that idea, being an old-school Bethsoft fan; they've always had incredible designers, but their engine tech has always been either a poor in-house engine, or a hacked apart version of an existing engine (e.g. NI, now Gamebryo).

I can't wait to see TES5, running on an id engine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> @ID_AA_Carmack: I'm going to regret having "ios" in all my type names when I port Rage Mobile to Android.

<comment><USER6> And a few tweets later: I am going to take a stab at bringing Rage up on Android soon, but we have NOT committed to a product. 9 days ago

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> carmack had always been a childhood hero of mine, having seen wolfenstein 3d as a kid showcased in the computer section of sears (yes sears). Carmack just entered steve jobs territory for me. This is going to change everything.

</comment><comment><USER8> More detailed reading:

[http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/10/29/john-carmack- discus...](http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/10/29/john-carmack-discusses- rage-on-iphoneipadipod-touch/)

Notable titbits for me:

\- Using fixed function (OpenGLES 1.1) rather than shaders (ES2).

\- Aiming for 700M size on iphone, 1.4G on ipad/iphone4. (Based on success of Myst at similar size)

</comment><comment><USER9> This isn't a "news." That article is dated aug 12th 2010.

<comment><USER10> Yep, somebody posted it (albeit the Gizmodo version) to HN at that time, which saw quite a lively discussion as well: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1599440></comment></comment>


Grumpy Gamer – SCUMM Notes from the C64 - <AUTHOR> http://grumpygamer.com/scumm_notes <comment><USER2> Grumpy Gamer is a fun site. Its basically Ron Gilbert's blog. He worked at Lucas Arts (Maniac Mansion and Monkey Island) making some inovative adventure games. is still making games and blogging about them.

I like the game dependency charts post.

[http://grumpygamer.com/puzzle_dependency_charts](http://grumpygamer.com/puzzle_dependency_charts)

As someone pointed out in another post, he has a kickstarter for a "old school" adventure game. (Not affiliated. But backing!.)

[http://grumpygamer.com/kickstarter](http://grumpygamer.com/kickstarter)

</comment><comment><USER3> Thank you. Not sure why it took me ten years to discover Ron Gilbert's website. I've been a Monkey Island fan since I was a kid, and just completed replaying MI1 on my newly acquired Tandy 1000. Really looking forward to Thimbleweed Park as well.

<comment><USER4> Oh, man. A Tandy 1000 was the first "real" computer I ever had, as a kid. (An _original_ 1000, with no hard drive, just two 5.25" 360K floppy drives. Two floppies! Luxury!) Brings back memories just thinking about it...

For those too young to have encountered one, the 1000 was probably the most popular of a wave of mid-'80s PCs that could be described as "kinda sorta nearly almost IBM-compatible." Meaning that they offered software compatibility with MS-DOS and the original IBM PC, but with some _slight_ differences, usually put in place in an attempt by the manufacturer to differentiate their product from IBM's.

In the case of the 1000, these features were mostly swiped from another IBM product, the ill-fated PCjr (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PCjr](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PCjr)). So unlike the IBM PC, the Tandy 1000 included joystick ports, 16-color graphics ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Graphics_Adapter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Graphics_Adapter)) and 3-voice sound.

This happened to make it an excellent machine to play PC games on for many years, as game developers who added Tandy support to their titles could offer a much enhanced presentation that wouldn't be matched by mainline IBM- compatible machines until EGA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Graphics_Adapter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Graphics_Adapter)) support became widespread.

My father bought the 1000 as a home business machine, but it didn't take long for me to discover its excellence as a game machine, and that in turn became the gateway drug that got me into programming. So I guess I owe Radio Shack something.

<comment><USER3> The funny thing about the 1000's lineage: Initially the PCjr compatibility was supposed to be a big selling point. However, when the PCjr tanked, it became a liability, so Radio Shack switched the advertising to play up its "MS-DOS compatibility" instead.

Getting back to adventure games (albeit of poorer quality than Ron Gilbert's): Apparently the Tandy's success saved Sierra from some serious trouble, as they had primarily targeted the PCjr platform for the King's Quest series.

<comment><USER5> Yeah but once VGA/SVGA and Adlib/SoundBlastaer cards came out, it broke the Tandy 1000 series.

Still early games like Bard's Tale 1 played better on the Tandy 1000 than an IBM PC Clone with Monochrome/CGA and the PC Speaker beeping.

I had a friend with an IBM PCJr, had to do some work to get it over 512K by modifying some expansion packs, and the PCJr also had a cartridge slot.

I think the PCJr was aimed at home use to fight Commodore and Atari, then Apple entered with the Apple //c to enter the home market. Eventually Atari and Commodore won the home computer wars with cheaper systems that got upgraded ala cart. When the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga came out both Commodore and Atari had switched management but lost to Microsoft and Windows on PC Clones with VGA/SVGA and Adlib/Soundblaster cards. Windows 95/98 was the final nail in the coffin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is fascinating! Last semester I made a clone of Maniac Mansion in Java for a game development class and it was probably the most fun I ever had making anything. Does anyone know what the doodle on the left is on the last picture? [http://images.grumpygamer.com/gg_scumm_docs11.jpg](http://images.grumpygamer.com/gg_scumm_docs11.jpg) Or is it just that (; a doodle)?</comment>


NY police used a virtual 'wanted poster' to help catch bombing suspect - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-20/mobile-alert-issued-to-new-york-resident-in-hunt-for-suspect/7860408 <comment><USER2> News anchors on TV appeared to have received the alert with a picture attached...</comment>


Ask HN: Facebook fake likes ans post generator - <AUTHOR> I was wondering if there is any mozilla/chrome extension that will do that so my FB activity will be masked some how; I think that breask FB rules but for educational puropose I was curious to ask if you knew anything like that.... <comment><USER2> There is [https://noiszy.com/](https://noiszy.com/) which isn't Facebook specific. Here's counter arguments why it won't work for privacy [https://lifehacker.com/generating-a-bunch-of-internet- noise-...](https://lifehacker.com/generating-a-bunch-of-internet-noise-isnt- going-to-hi-1793898833)

</comment><comment><USER3> Try learning English and then rephrasing your question.</comment>


Ask HN: Why are so many employees leaving Clarifai? - <AUTHOR> The company has lost a good fraction of its staff, it is not replacing them and most of the first employees have left. Does anyone know why? <comment><USER2> I cannot imagine they are getting much traction with the current product. It is not that good.

So far as I can tell, they take a frame out of the video every second or so, and perform something like the ImageNet task to tag individual frames. It does not try to put together a story about what happens across or between the frames.

More than 10 years ago there were video analysis competitions and they all used multifaceted approaches that would analyze audio, read closed captions if available, OCR text, put together a story across time, etc.

The image-at-a-time approach would have looked like science fiction 10 years ago but now it is a "fork it on GitHub" kind of thing.

The problem of useful video analysis is complex enough that you can't leave easy things like OCR text on the table. It is complex enough that you do have to take advantage of coherence in time.

One reason why the "commercialization valley of death" is so feared is often entrepreneurs have unrealistic plans like "commercialize a product that analyzes videos a frame at a time" that involve wishful thinking.

The real danger though is that this is the road to "AI Winter" and unfortunately failures of this type are discrediting to everyone in the intelligent systems field. People say "I tried IBM's Text Analysis API and it sucks" and that makes it much harder for people who have a realistic understanding of the problems to make sales.</comment>


Fixed My Brain. Twitter Dopamine Extension for Google Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/twitter-dopamine/ehpmhndlcdojkackampigpglhlnhgjhk <comment><USER2> nice, i'll give this a shot!

is there something like this for facebook?

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool! I think there is something called the feed eradicator for facebook, but dont know exactly how that work.</comment></comment>


The Smart Gun Doesn't Exist Because of New Jersey and the NRA - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-15/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-because-of-new-jersey-and-the-nra#nws=mcnewsletter <comment><USER2> It doesn't exist because the politicians decided (with the help of the person with the patent) to force it on the public by writing laws that said they all had to have this tech when it became viable.

In addition- just as with airplanes- when your life is on the line if a thing doesn't work, you're very conservative about change (oh please add a battery and electronics...)

Third- it doesn't solve a burning problem- if the market wanted it and without #1, it would be available.

</comment><comment><USER3> What issue is smart guns really going to solve? In a venn diagram where you have people that are irresponsible with firearms that cause accidents and people that would buy a smart gun I suspect the intersection between the two groups would be negligible.</comment>


Camelot, the Holy Grail, and Freeing the Human Spirit with Fast Agile - <AUTHOR> Founder of FAST Agile talks through how FAST Agile is beyond Scrum. Agile Thoughts is running a series with episodes 43, 44, 45, 46 and ongoing. Show archive: https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile-thoughts/ <comment><AUTHOR> Link to show archive: [https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile- thoughts/](https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile-thoughts/)</comment>


On Addictions - <AUTHOR> http://wickedchap.roon.io/on-addictions

<comment><USER2> "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. Genius!</comment></comment>


Show HN: A simple currency formatting library - <AUTHOR> https://osrec.github.io/currencyFormatter.js/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for the lib - have bookmarked it for a project I have in mind. Just wondering, where do you actually get the default currency formats from? Do you update your definitions if new currencies are launched etc?

<comment><USER3> Yes, we update these based on the CLDR by Unicode (more info available here: [http://cldr.unicode.org/](http://cldr.unicode.org/)). They can be a little slow to update recent currency changes, so we will often add in more recent changes if we are made aware of them (usually someone will just open an issue on github)</comment></comment>


Image manipulation using audio and vice-versa in realtime. - <AUTHOR> http://mrkrbrts.com/blog/ Sonify is a JACK plugin I hacked together that encodes images into audio and vice-versa, in realtime. This is my first project on GitHub.<p>https://github.com/markandrus/Sonify <comment><USER2> Cool stuff.

Straight link to code: <https://github.com/markandrus/Sonify>

You should not link to your blog's homepage unless the title is "Here is the blog of X". The current url/title combination won't make much sense after you write the next post.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks -- you are right -- I wish I could still edit the link</comment></comment>


What we really need to fear about China - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/what-we-really-need-to-fear-about-china/2011/09/14/gIQAPrMy0K_story.html

<comment><USER2> I certainly don't fear China becoming affluent and a center of innovation. I do fear their government being hijacked by a maniac or group of maniacs who try to finally annex Taiwan by force. I do fear what will happen to their social order if growth stagnates for a few years, or if their demographic powderkeg at last explodes, and what the effect of that on surrounding nations and globally might be.

But how could anyone fear Chinese making cool new shit and inventing useful things?</comment>


Tell HN: Fix climate change with your tech skills - <AUTHOR> More and more posts on HN relate to climate change. Time to tell how you can have an impact!
Join these tech communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive):
https://climateaction.tech/
https://techimpactmakers.com/
https://www.tmrow.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Links:

[https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

[https://techimpactmakers.com/](https://techimpactmakers.com/)

[https://www.tmrow.com/](https://www.tmrow.com/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Thanks, just what I was looking for!</comment>


Bitcoinference California: Women in Bitcoin, VCs, and the 'Unconference' - <AUTHOR> http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoinference-features-women-in-bitcoin-vcs-and-unconference-format/

<comment><USER2> Bitcoin is an interesting environment in which one might discuss the gender ratio.

On one hand, crypto-currency in general is a relatively new phenomenon -- it seems unlikely that there could be a well-established gender bias in the community, given its youth.

On the other hand, perhaps Bitcoin, etc. have inherited the apparent male- dominated attributes of the tech scene from which they emerged?

<comment><USER3> >On the other hand, perhaps Bitcoin, etc. have inherited the apparent male- dominated attributes of the tech scene from which they emerged?

It definitely has. At least in the NYC Bitcoin scene there is rarely a female presence at any of the meetups/events/etc...</comment></comment>


Airbnb prices during SXSW can go up to 10x - <AUTHOR> http://stay22.tumblr.com/post/128276357112/sxsw-before-and-after-accommodation-price <comment><USER2> This just in - Laws of Supply and Demand continues to function as expected.

</comment><comment><USER3> Blogspam. Original post: [http://stay22.tumblr.com/post/128276357112/sxsw- before-and-a...](http://stay22.tumblr.com/post/128276357112/sxsw-before-and- after-accommodation-price)

<comment><USER4> Thanks. Url changed to that from [http://thenextweb.com/us/2015/09/08/surge- pricing-insanity/](http://thenextweb.com/us/2015/09/08/surge-pricing- insanity/).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What IRC client do you use, with scripts  ? - <AUTHOR>

I use XChat for my IRC, but am running into problems automating it. which one do you use. how do you automate it ? <comment><USER2> irssi

what are you trying to automate?

<comment><USER3> Indeed, irssi seems to be the canonical solution to automating anything irc- related, unless you are writing a bot. If you ARE writing a bot, there's bot base packages for pretty much every language imaginable.

<comment><USER4> Could you give me few examples for bot base packages ?</comment></comment></comment>


Five Views of 2 World Trade Center - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/07/20/five-views-of-2-world-trade-center/

<comment><USER2> This was awesome.</comment>


There's a Relational Database in Your Unix CLI - <AUTHOR> https://spin.atomicobject.com/2019/06/16/unix-cli-relational-database/#.XQa5nMJWYag.hackernews <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv](https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv) is all you need here, not a mess of sort commands.

       xsv join enrollments.csv courses.csv | xsv table

Uses an index as well.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, xsv is great for one time tasks like this. If you're going to need to do a lot of queries, though, it's easier just to .mode csv .import in SQLite.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't this convert all data to strings? I think that makes some queries wonky.

Or does it search through each row and see that one element out of 1000 integers was a float, so the whole column should be floats?

<comment><USER3> The format is .import CSVFILE TABLENAME [0]. If TABLENAME already exists, it would use that schema. Otherwise it will all be TEXT data using the first row as column names. However, SQLite uses dynamic typing (they call it "type affinity") so it _kind of_ doesn't matter.

I like SQLite a lot, but one of the funniest things about it is how they try to sell you that type affinity is a great thing [1] when really it's not at all what you want in 99% of RDBMS situations. There's a reason that everybody from MySQL and PostgreSQL to MS SQL Server, Oracle, and DB2 use static typing.

[0]: [https://sqlite.org/cli.html#csv_import](https://sqlite.org/cli.html#csv_import)

[1]: [https://www.sqlite.org/datatype3.html](https://www.sqlite.org/datatype3.html)

<comment><USER4> Will doing a where clause (ex: where column_x > 3) actually work if column_x is now all strings? I recall my query executing and returning incorrect results. I figured out it would work if I explicitly caste the where clause as ( where float(column_x) > 3) or something like that (this was a few years ago).

Edit: I assume most databases like Oracle (it's SQL packages looked bizzare to me until I started learning Ada and figured out it has the same syntax) use static typing for performance, query optimization, and error checking? Note that although I use SQL almost daily, I am no expert on the innards. SQLite has a different use case. It seems to be for embedded and ad-hoc analysis where dynamic typing makes more sense. This is just a guess though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The mighty SQLite is well worth considering. [http://www.sqlitetutorial.net/sqlite-import- csv/](http://www.sqlitetutorial.net/sqlite-import-csv/)

</comment><comment><USER6> While that's cool, you can do it with way more functionality by loading comma or tab-separated data into sqlite.

<comment><USER7> It even will use the CSV headers to make the table schema for you [https://sqlite.org/cli.html#csv_import](https://sqlite.org/cli.html#csv_import)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's quite a bit more to a relational database than the equivalent of multiple tables that might share a "key", and some utility to join.

Further, if you're going to steer clear of easy options like SQLlite, there are more robust commands than "join". Awk, for example, can do much more than just join. Though if we're keeping this to what can be done via CLI, you still have tools like python. Between Pandas and, if you really must have SQL syntax, Pandasql, you can simulate an RDB even more simply.

</comment><comment><USER9> > Did you know that there's a relational database hiding in your Unix shell?

No I did not know this because there isn't.

There likely happens to be a 'join' program installed on your computer and like any program it can be invoked from your shell.

<comment><USER10> > There likely happens to be a 'join' program installed on your computer and > like any program it can be invoked from your shell.

'join' is a Linux coreutil, so though it might not always be there for strictly UNIX, it will be for Linux.

Calling a coreutil part of the shell does make sense in some contexts, and I'd suggest when talking about what you can do with a cli, this is one of those times.

<comment><USER11> there's also this list: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unix_commands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unix_commands) which includes join (and, importantly, awk), as you pointed out

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> IDK, what about indexes? what about atomic transactions which add/update/delete rows to/from/from multiple tables?

<comment><USER12> It's more accurate to say that you can implement the relational algebra via the Unix command line

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

<comment><USER11> ok. yeah. pursuing that, i'm wondering if there's a simple way to convince someone that this is true.

one idea I saw somewhere was that because awk is part of a Turing complete language, it can be used to implement the relational algebra. though I don't know how to prove that myself, except by actual construction: implementing each part of the relational algebra definition.

looking over the definition of relational algebra, at first I wondered: what about a theta join? it's not directly built into the CLI "join" command. but then the article points out that if you can obtain a Cartesian product of two tables then you can use a Select to filter out the rows that do not meet the criteria of your theta join.

and then there's division, which I can only guess would depend heavily on some careful awk scripting.

and so it goes. IDK. it seems a bit laborious to prove it all by construction.</comment></comment></comment>


(Why) NBC Bypasses Apple to Stream TV Shows to the iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nbc-bypasses-apple-to-stream-tv-shows-to-the-iphone/

<comment><USER2> What?! They went over my helmet?</comment>


On the Complexity of Crafting Crash-Consistent Applications (2014) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi14/osdi14-paper-pillai.pdf <comment><USER2> "Crash-consistent applications", not "Crashing applications". This is a great paper which illustrates how a developer's mental model of what a file system does may differ from the reality.

<comment><USER3> The submitted title was "File Systems Are Not Created Equal: Complexity of Crafting Crashing Applications [pdf]", which was a valiant attempt at squeezing the whole thing into 80 chars, but I don't think that's doable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was once responsible for designing mission critical embedded application that would be guaranteed to withstand power cycle or crash at any time and continue from the point it interrupted.

Wasn't very hard but it required rigorous design. The important pieces were state machines that were committed to a log based storage at significant points in operation.

Then there is detection and handling of repeating crashes which is where it really gets interesting.

<comment><USER5> It is not very well known but the Apollo Guidance Computer had this same capability! The famous program alarms (1202 and 1201) during the Apollo 11 descent were caused by low-priority jobs stealing processing power from the high priority ones. The operating system was designed to just restart the computer in those cases (this would kill the low priority jobs) and continue execution from where it left off:

> The software rebooted and reinitialized the computer, and then restarted > selected programs at a point in their execution flow near where they had > been when the restart occurred.

See [0] for more details.

[0] [https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-pa.html](https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-pa.html)

<comment><USER4> I began design and development with research on other projects with similar requirements and AGC was one of them, I remember.

The difference in my case was that I did not have simple non-volatile memory like AGC had, I had flash chip with no wear leveling. To protect the flash from premature death I had to design my own database to store data in form of deltas appended to the file. When it started it would scan from the beginning of the file until last complete record and start from there. When the data in the file reached preset size all live records would simply be rewritten to beginnig of another file.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Says 2014. Has anything been done with, say Git or SQLite since to make them more robust against filesystem fragility?

<comment><USER7> I'm fairly confident that SQLite deals well with filesystem crashes nowadays, see [https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html](https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html) and [https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html](https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html)</comment></comment>


Elaine Wherry: Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-wherry-why-i-now-believe-the-glass-ceiling-is-real/

<comment><USER2> There's no evidence at all that she hit a gender-related glass ceiling. The story strongly points to the problem being _her_ , not her gender. The only suggestion of discrimination on the part of the hire comes from a third party speculating about it. The glass ceiling may well be real, but this anecdote doesn't demonstrate it.

edit:

It's also a bit ridiculous that the author's "coach", who tells her this is a case of gender discrimination, does so (according to the author) using assumptions about the hire based on his gender, age and geographical origin. So the (unsupported) claim of discrimination is itself based on explicit discrimination.

<comment><USER3> It's an anecdote, not a court case. The author and her coach made their best guess based on their judgement of the situation. Obviously they are both privy to a lot of information that isn't in the article (and would be extremely hard to express). The author got to experience conversations with the person in question, and so probably had a lot of information that was expressed through manner and tone. The coach knew the author well, and knew the author's abilities and was in a position to make a qualified judgement over what the problem was. Also, of course, the coach was aware of cultural differences that are mentioned but not detailed (for obvious reasons) in the article.

The story does not strongly point to the problem being her not her gender. The guy in question did something extraordinary (pulling out of an accepted job offer) without being able to give much justification besides vaguely disliking her. If she was incompetent or had a poor personal manner then that is exactly something you would expect the man in question, her colleagues and her coach to bring up.

You can interpret this story in two ways:

a) The man had a non-sexist reason for disliking the author so much he backed out of an accepted job offer, but he was unable or unwilling to express that reason specifically, even though he was willing to tell her that she was the problem. The author is incompetent or unlikable, her colleagues are too incompetent to notice or say anything and the author's coach is so incompetent that she just spouts feminist paranoia instead of actually being helpful.

b) The author, the coach and the author's colleagues are all reasonably professional and competent, the man in question is from a culture where older men don't tend to like being under the authority of young women and this made him increasingly uncomfortable over time. He backed out of the job because of this feeling of discomfort, but was unwilling to give that as his reason because he knew it would be seen as unprofessional.

I believe that your choice of which of these to believe indicates that YOU are sexist.

<comment><USER2> It's not a court case, but she's trying to make a serious assertion (gender discrimination against her leading to serious career implications), and if that's to be taken seriously she needs to present the evidence to support it.

My choice of which to believe is based on the fact that the article presents some evidence that the first scenario is true:

1\. The hire actually gave the reason as not feeling comfortable with her competence. 2\. She claims to have been feeling unhappy with her own performance for a while and on shaky ground at the company. 3\. The rest of the team accepted her suggestion and reasoning that it was her and that someone else should try to get the guy back.

The only evidence presented for the second scenario is the guess that her coach makes.

<comment><USER3> The article isn't intended to name and shame a particular individual. It's meant to warn women about how gender discrimination can affect their career even if they are very careful to work in a meritocratic team of people who treat them fairly. The claim of the article isn't "this man was sexist" \- we have no idea who this man was, and we don't get anything close to the full story. The main point of the article is "this is a thing that happens". I don't think that claim requires extraordinary evidence. It's just an attempt to bring attention to a plausible mechanism by which gender discrimination can negatively affect women, which they might not have been aware of otherwise.

Given that, I don't think we are in a situation where we should bias in favour of innocent until proven guilty. We can just make our own best guess based on what we know.

Your evidence 2 and 3 are weak. Being in a high pressure job often means being in a position where you (and the company) can't afford a big disaster. Lots of people are hard on themselves, it doesn't mean she was on shaky ground because of her competence (her colleagues wanted her around for another year at least). She insisted on leaving to make this guy happy because his stated reason for rejecting the job was her. Her colleagues wanted the guy to join them and they didn't have any reason to refuse her resignation. That doesn't shed any light on why the man was unhappy with her in the first place.

The guy didn't give convincing examples or well thought out reasons, he seems to have just made a guess that she was incompetent. You think his guess is unbiased and the coach and the author's guesses are biased. Even though it is the coach's job to make objective judgements about these things. In this scenario the man, the author and the coach all make judgements given information we are not privy to. Each of them has their own biases, their own agendas. I think the man's inability to explain his dislike when pressed, and the fact that the coach is supposed to provide negative criticism indicates that the coach's judgement is most likely correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The author also posted the following follow up, also worth a read:

[http://www.ewherry.com/2013/10/follow- up/](http://www.ewherry.com/2013/10/follow-up/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Previous discussion --> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6536916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6536916)

</comment><comment><USER6> Is it just me or is there a gaping logical hole in this story.

The guy who supposedly refused to work for her because of her gender must have realized that she is a woman _long_ before signing the contract. Ie - if he really had problem reporting to _a woman_ , why go through the process if the information was readily available that it wasn't for him?

Occam's razor (as opposed to her coach) would posit that certain events changed his mind, as per his explanation to her.

However - the phenomenon that is real is her uncertainty as to whether her gender was a factor. Ie - it would not occur to a man to question that. Unfortunately that's life.

</comment><comment><USER7> The money quote: "The glass ceiling exists; it's just higher than I'd realized."

</comment><comment><USER8> So the premise is people from some cultures don't want to work for you and that limits your ability as a boss?

I have never heard of this before, though after reading the article I can see it having played out in the workplace.

As the boss you are still the one with the power, no?

<comment><USER9> > As the boss you are still the one with the power, no?

That depends on whether people want to work for you more than you want them to work for you.

<comment><USER8> Without being too trite, it would seem like the alternative to figuring out how to get pigs to work for you is to create an environment for people who don't like working with pigs.

I know life isn't always so simple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The coach is a bigot. Or she is just trying to make the author feel better about herself.

Either way this doesn't merit an article on sexism.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see how she concluded that gender was the issue from what actually happened.

<comment><USER3> Because her coach said that was the most likely explanation, and her coach represents an informed distanced opinion with expertise in the area.

<comment><USER2> The coach (according to the author) made that call based on her assumptions about the hire based on his gender, age and geographical origin. That's not informed personal opinion, it's exactly the kind of discrimination which the author is complaining about.

<comment><USER3> a) There is such a thing as cultural awareness. It is not the same as discrimination. If you travel a bit you find that there are actual differences between cultures. If you use those differences as justification to treat individuals unfairly then that is discrimination. (If you use false stereotypes as justification to treat individuals unfairly then that is also discrimination.) Discrimination is about how you treat individuals, not about being unaware of general trends. In this case, since the author's interaction with this individual is in the past, neither she nor her coach is discriminating.

b) The coach, according to the author, made that call after she recounted the story. Presumably in a lot of detail, and after numerous other coaching sessions in which her coach would have built up a detailed picture of how she worked and where her weaknesses lay.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The State of Cryptocurrency Mining - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sia.tech/the-state-of-cryptocurrency-mining-538004a37f9b <comment><USER2> I'm running a fairly large mining farm. This article is spot on.

Another point that isn't discussed is that the software solutions to manage large numbers of Pi/Beaglebone class machines is non-existent.

Because of the fast time to market, these machines are unstable... parts burn out all the time, they go offline randomly, a bad PSU can make a machine reboot every 10 minutes (making doing anything with it difficult), etc. Never mind, just keeping track of where an individual machine is in a data center (needle in a haystack).

There is a couple commercial and open source offerings, but the majority of them were built for when farms were only a handful of machines. Scaling to thousands of machines across different data centers has a lot of the same scaling issues I'd have running the same number of EC2 instances.

If you look on Github, you can see that most public development in the mining community stopped around 2014-2015 and hasn't picked up again. Even the largest pools have taken things closed source.

I find it amazing that literally billions of dollars is flowing through this stuff. If it wasn't for math being so factual, I'd really question it all because it is all barely held together with heat sink grease.

<comment><USER3> > Never mind, just keeping track of where an individual machine is in a data > center (needle in a haystack).

I have a friend who contracted to develop a custom DHCP server to allocate addresses based on Ethernet ports. This is superior to static IP configuration because you invariably make configuration mistakes.

Cisco provides this feature, but Cisco is expensive, hence a lucrative side job for my friend. There seems to be lots and lots of opportunities like this to provide custom softwares for mining farm.

<comment><USER2> Actually, no. DHCP is the common misconception in this industry.

The machines are originally come out of the box booting with DHCP and I immediately switch to static when we deploy them. This is based on experience running a large number of these machines originally with DHCP.

There is a few reasons:

1\. They are physical machines in a physical location. Every DC, Row, Rack, Shelf, Position is defined and set with an IP address before the machine is even installed. It is very important to track which machine is where for maintenance reasons (remote hands, etc). If I don't use IP address, I'm stuck using MAC addresses and now I'm keeping track of two pieces of information instead of one. Oh and MAC address isn't printed on the outside, sigh.

2\. DHCP can leave gaps in IP ranges. Unless you deploy your own custom server that is smart about always giving out the next IP, in practice, I see gaps form. You end up wasting private space and having machines cross subnets. I don't run the network in my DC, so if I want more IP space, I have to ask for it. One more thing to do, no thanks.

3\. These machines tend to reboot a lot since they are basically hastily made junk from China. Time is money. Every second they are down means lost revenue. DHCP takes a minimum of 5-30 seconds to assign an IP. It adds up when you have thousands of machines.

4\. More network load. 100mbit at best. Even updating software on them all can take hours.

5\. An extra dependency, what happens if my DHCP server dies? The fewer moving parts, the better.

6\. Speeds up the installation process, which uses DHCP to assign the initial IP range. Can't have two DHCP servers on the network conflicting with each other.

Installation is as follows:

1\. Set the DHCP server to the range I want to use.

2\. Unplug ethernet on all machines.

3\. Turn them all on and get them warmed up.

4\. Plug ethernet in one at a time, in order (to match their location) and watch the leases file.

5\. Run a script that bulk sets their IP address as static (same address).

When you're turning on 500 new machines and it is an all day ordeal, this is the fastest process I've found so far.

In the future, I'd like to have a custom DHCP server (there is a DHCP golang server that I'd like to use) that already knows the ranges necessary, allocates the IP and pings my management system to set the location of the machine. Right now, I just keep the data in a Google Sheet, which works well enough.

<comment><USER3> Eh... your conclusion is that you'd like to have a custom DHCP server. I mentioned such custom DHCP server. Why do you start with "Actually, no"? We seem to be in agreement.

<comment><USER2> The DHCP server is just to get the machines booted, not to assign IP's on an ongoing basis. I don't keep it turned on (reference to your 'superior to static IP configuration').

In other words, if I could have the machines come out of the box with the correct static IP address (flashed at the factory), I would go that route and not have a DHCP server at all. That would be the absolute optimal solution. We aren't there yet.

Some of our hardware has a serial usb port for TTL. For those, we can set the IP address before we even put it on the shelf.

<comment><USER3> I also mentioned why it is superior to static IP configuration. If you never make mistakes settings static IP addresses static IP is okay. But you will make mistakes.

<comment><USER2> I know exactly how many machines I have, where they are located and what IP address they should have. If a single machine isn't doing what I expect, it is immediately obvious in the pretty graphs that I have with Grafana/Prometheus. Any 'mistakes' are easily rectified, but so far, we haven't had a single issue along these lines. I've tried it both ways, the benefits of static IP, for the reasons I mentioned, far outweigh any negatives.

DHCP is great for a coffee shop, workplace or college campus, where you don't know anything about your clients or care to. In my case, I need to know exactly who is on my network at all times and exactly where they are located, without having to cross reference switch ports and MAC addresses. In one DC, I don't even have access to the switches.

<comment><USER3> Eh... the point of port-based DHCP is exactly not to cross referene switch ports... Cross referencing MAC addresses is stupid and unworkable. Full agreement there.

There is location and cabling, and static IP addresses. You seem to make sure they agree, going so far as "plug ethernet in one at a time", WTF. Port-based DHCP makes those two agree, automatically.

<comment><USER2> Like I said, I don't have access to the switches.

You're also assuming that someone in the DC doesn't mix up the cables. I've seen that happen multiple times.

Agreed, plugging one in at a time isn't the best, but it works and only happens once per machine. Short of writing a lot of code, it is not the end of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To achieve asic resistance, why not switch between a large pool of different algorithms sequentially, with their order and various parameters determined by the hash of the previous block?

<comment><USER5> Serious question. Why is ASIC resistance a good or desirable quality for crypto currencies to strive for?

<comment><USER6> One reason to stop it I guess is to prevent a small group of miners from carrying out a 51% attack.

<comment><USER7> Doesn't it achieve opposite effect? All smaller, non ASIC resistant currencies can be bullied by someone with a lot of (rented) PCs. Ignore 51% attack, just sudden changes in difficulty & time between blocks would introduce chaos.

<comment><USER8> ASICs are specialized equipment which usually costs a lot. That leads to centralization, which is not something you want for a cryptocoin. Just look at bitcoin with their four people controlling a majority of hashpower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> the most notable part of this for me is that instead of working on their main business, they are veering off in an unrelated direction just because it's potentially lucrative. Does it mean they've given up on storage as a business to go after?

<comment><USER10> Ha. I really hope we start seeing some truly useful and widely adopted decentralized apps, but everyone seems to get stuck in get-rich-quick schemes. I can't blame people for going where the money is. But this is starting to look bad for blockchain tech. Eventually the economy has to be about something other than buying in and hoping the next guy buys in for more or trying to make more and more effective mining hardware.

<comment><USER9> they sold a token. Right? so, people who bought this token can probably sue them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hopefully plain Bitcoin SHA-256 ASICs become more-or-less perfected and commoditized, leading to mining decentralization around local electricity deals.

<comment><USER12> > leading to mining decentralization around local electricity deals.

The amount of electricity it takes to secure the network is directly proportional to price. In order for BTC to replace traditional currency, it would require more electricity than the world currently produces each year.

<comment><USER13> Only if the expected return of mining is greater than the cost of the electricity. No one will spend $2 to get $1 worth of crypto.

<comment><USER14> Some people take the short-term risk, on the assumption that the crypto will be worth more in the future.

<comment><USER15> Even if they could buy twice as much at a exchange?

<comment><USER16> Yes, but it isn't rational and probably won't persist once the novelty of mining wears off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> From the, really well written, article:

> as ASICs continue to infiltrate every coin on the market

I think he means "every PoW coin", because PoS coins will change the game significantly (or am I missing something). In the comments at Medium we see several question being asked about this (at this point all unanswered).

<comment><USER18> You can still use an ASIC with a PoS coin, it just doesn't benefit you as much. PoS coins still perform work on a blockchain with cryptography, but there is no reward to be the fastest. An ASIC for a PoS would allow you to lower the power requirements(Wattage and compute) of the machine running the PoS coin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Good article with lots of epic photos that are not credited to anybody.

</comment><comment><USER20> Once proof of stake becomes the norm, this phenomenon will be an interesting exhibit in the Museum of Cryptocurrency

<comment><USER21> Why do you think PoS is workable in the long run? I'm hesitant about the implications of solely tying voting power to how much currency you hold.

Hash rate isn't much better, since it's the definition of a capital-intensive business, but there's still some possibility of getting better performance through clever innovations

<comment><USER22> Something I am interested in but haven't seen much on is the idea of creating a proof of stake system where the value of one's stake is directly related to how liquid it is. i.e. how much they actually use their funds. Think currency regularly moving in and out of their account, providing smart contract loans, etc.

I feel as if a proof of stake system that requires those staking to not only support the network but also be heavily involved in it as well would resolve some of the issues with current proof of stake systems.

<comment><USER21> How do you deal with spam tx? In other words pretending to use your stake but you're not actually?

The same issue as what i've encountered when trying to imagine a cryptocurrency that is slightly inflationary, like 1% yearly. There is no objective way to decide how much the money supply should grow, as far as I can tell, because there is no way to separate "real" from "fake" usage.

<comment><USER22> One aspect that wouldn't eliminate the issue of "useless" or fake tx would be to have the liquidity aspect be a modifier where stakes being il-liquid devalue but over some threshold, the stake modifier is at a constant 1x.

Another potential mitigation tool would be to have the protocol look for tight tx loops (i.e. Naive liquidity falsifying) and either negate or reduce their influence on the liquidity calculation. Whether this is actually possible I have absolutely no idea. If I was to have any real trust in this idea I would have to look for/develop either formal proofs or some real demonstrable examples of it working.

Beyond that I think it boils down to game theory and economics. If it could work, it would likely require careful calibration to minimise the benefit of gaming the system or otherwise being a bad actor.

<comment><USER21> My brain isn't working very well right now so I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying, but is what you're getting at similar to the metric of "coin days destroyed"? (ie if you send 5 BTC to address foo and those 5 BTC haven't been moved for 365 days then you've destroyed 365*5 coindays

<comment><USER22> More or less ya that is about right. Now that would still only be part of the overall calculation as I think that assets such as loans and smart contracts should be considered in the calculation. The money from loans and such is in use by people on the network but its owner should still be able to claim it for staking purposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not sure if this qualifies as proof of stake, proof of work, or neither - but I've just heard of SpaceMesh[0], which seems to be a well thought out alternative to Ethereum. If I understand correctly, it's "proof of space" (in the sense that scrypt requires space whereas bcrypt requires just work; spacemesh requires space, not just work).

Haven't had a chance to really look at the implementation though (its on github)

[0] [https://spacemesh.io/](https://spacemesh.io/)

</comment><comment><USER24> Is there a hashing algorithm whose sequence of operations is heavily determined by the input, so that an ASIC targeting it would need to be roughly as flexible as a standard CPU?

<comment><USER21> An interesting question.

One potential issue perhaps would be that it would presumably violate the memorylessness principle, which really changes the mining dynamics.

Is there a difference between what you're proposing and the more memory- intensive hash algos like Scrypt, etc?

<comment><USER24> I think so. I'm suggesting that small programs which use most CPU features be generated from the input, and used to transform parts of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Interesting no mention of Ravencoin?

<comment><USER26> Even by the standards of altcoins, it's sort of hard to take a project seriously when the homepage starts out by rambling about Game of Thrones.

<comment><USER24> I think he's probably referring to their PoW hashing algorithm: [https://ravencoin.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/X16R-Whitep...](https://ravencoin.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/X16R-Whitepaper.pdf)

<comment><USER26> and I'm referring to the hero spot on their homepage which literally starts with "In the fictional world of Westeros, ravens are used as the messengers who carry statements of truth"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The authors of the blog post make pretty liberal use of fantasy artwork. The art doesn't add any educational value for me. If I stretch my imagination I can see how the last image gives a connotation of "an impressive, highly skilled, well refined entity", but to be it's... cringey for a company to be doing this. Like, I see my high school self in this aesthetic.

Also, the authors would do well to credit the original sources / authors.

<comment><USER28> Lots of people have 'cringey' aesthetics in tech -- e.g., the anti-ego depletion 'own everything the same' uniform, the VC Patagonia+AllBirds, the 'free tshirts only' nerd outfit, etc. It's better to judge people on the merit of their ideas than their appearances or aesthetics. I support David choosing to present himself, and his work, as he pleases.

<comment><USER29> Haha, I used to work at a startup where I was the only one who didn't own a pair of Allbirds.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Together – Keep your kids and their grandparents connected - <AUTHOR> https://www.togethervideoapp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi fellow hackers!

For the past 18 months I've been building "Together", a new kind of app that allows children to play games and read stories with their grandparents in a video call. I originally developed it for my own daughters and their grandparents as a way for them to spend meaningful time together despite the distance.

Given the situation with COVID-19 and so many grandparents isolated and children potentially staying home I decided to make it completely free. Hopefully it becomes useful to some of you.

If you have a chance to try it please send me your feedback! Thanks and stay safe!</comment>


People eat so much chicken that it's changing the geological record - <AUTHOR> https://www.treehugger.com/animals/people-eat-so-much-chicken-it-will-affect-geological-record.html <comment><USER2> Those are not chickens. They are meat that happens to live for a while.

<comment><USER3> nailed it

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The way we treat animals is so repulsive and sad. As the article says, take a moment to think about how your meat, fish, mill, eggs are made and how much suffering and pollution they cause, then see if its worth re-evaluating your food choices.</comment>


China says new supersonic sub would reach San Francisco in 100 minutes - <AUTHOR> http://sploid.gizmodo.com/supersonic-submarine-will-travel-shanghai-san-francisco-1626454845/+barrett <comment><USER2> What if it encounters a dolphin a net or another sub?

<comment><USER3> bad things. This is much more practical for torpedoes. In fact you would almost call those missiles at that point. Yup, it appears that is already a thing: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercavitating_torpedo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercavitating_torpedoes)</comment></comment>


Surfboards and submarines: the secret escape of East Germans to Copenhagen - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/17/surfboards-and-submarines-the-secret-escape-of-east-germans-to-copenhagen

<comment><USER2> "...surfing boats with handmade sails." ??

I've read about this many times before. They were using windsurfers and were part of a local windsurfing club. Germans say "Windsurfbrett", literally wind- surf-board. I don't know where the author got the boats language. It's more than semantics. Boats are something you sit 'in' rather than 'on' a board and that makes a big difference in cold water.

Story + interviews (in german) + pics showing gear. [http://cdn2.surfertoday.com/windsurfing/11355-the- greatest-w...](http://cdn2.surfertoday.com/windsurfing/11355-the-greatest- windsurfing-escape-deckert-and-kluender-flee-east-germany)

Fyi. The big stealth advantage of a windsurfer is that, with the sail flat on the water, the entire craft is only a couple inches high. In any waves you cannot see them until you are right on top. Hard for search and rescue, but excellent if you want to hide until the cops move away. They have been used for smuggling.

</comment><comment><USER3> Swimming out of East Germany: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CWajaOx4E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CWajaOx4E)</comment>


FreeBSD the most distributed Linux in the World - <AUTHOR> http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/05/freebsd-the-most-used-linux-in-the-world.html

<comment><USER2> Did you RTFA? BSD isn't Linux.

I think the reason it's used in a lot of hardware and OS X is because of the licensing. They don't need to release the source code after they've used other people's work for their own product.

I suppose that's OK since the developer agreed to the license but the rapid explosion of Linux is in my opinion indicative that developers prefer the GPL even with its flaws.

<comment><USER3> _developers prefer the GPL_

Speaking as a FreeBSD developer: I prefer the BSD license. :-)

In all seriousness, while Apple hasn't set a great example for giving code back to FreeBSD, they have been very good at sending bug reports back -- and really, a report of "it looks like you're doing bazzle wrong on line 234 of foo.c" is often more useful than a patch which fixes the bug but doesn't explain why.

Looking at FreeBSD commit mail for the past 4 years, I see commits which were marked as "Sponsored by:" ActiveState, Apple, Chelsio, DARPA, Dell, Ensure Technology Ltd, Ethon Technologies, Google SoC, IronPort Systems, Isilon Systems, Juniper Networks, McAfee Research, Myricom, NetApp, nCircle Network Security, Nokia, Pair Networks, Sandvine, Seccuris, Secure Computing, Sippy Software, Soekris, Sophos, SPARTA, SPAWAR, Timing Solutions, and Yahoo (and I know committers don't always record who sponsored their work in commit messages, so there's certain to be more than just these companies) -- so the notion that the BSD license somehow means that companies don't "give back" to the community is quite ludicrous.

<comment><USER4> Take Apple out of the list. And, obviously, the Google SoC.

Now strike DARPA, SPAWAR, Secure Computing Corporation and McAfee Research as well --- that's TrustedBSD, a government-funded project that was required to give its code back (the "McAfee Research" there refers to TIS Labs).

Now strike Chelsio, Dell, Myricom, probably Pair Networks, and Timing Solutions, which is driver code.

Now strike Ethon Technologies, Ensure Technology, and Seccuris, companies nobody's ever heard of with no IP to donate to the project.

What do we have left? ActiveState, IronPort, Isilon, Juniper, NetApp, nCircle, Nokia, Sandvine, and Yahoo.

* What did ActiveState contribute?

* Did IronPort contribute back its custom filesystem and I/O scheduling code?

* Did Isilon contribute back its kernel filesystem clustering code?

* Did Juniper contribute back its networking code? Wait, I know the answer to that one.

* Did NetApp contribute back its WAFL filesystem?

* Does nCircle even have anything to contribute?

* What did Nokia contribute? I know their Checkpoint appliances run FreeBSD.

I sound snarkier than I really mean to here, but I think the list is a bit misleading. Of course, more companies contribute back to Linux than contribute back to FreeBSD; they're obligated to.

<comment><USER5> _Of course, more companies contribute back to Linux than contribute back to FreeBSD; they're obligated to._

I don't think it's as simple as that. The license has a major influence on the ecosystem around the project, and it is that ecosystem that determines the contributions that flow back to the open source code. The GPL encourages a certain type of ecosystem, and BSD another; that the GPL will automatically yield a healthier ecosystem than BSD is not at all obvious to me.

One of the major differences is that with the BSD license, companies are free to build proprietary products on top of the open source code, which opens up a lot of business models that aren't feasible with the GPL. Take Postgres, for example -- there are many companies that have used Postgres to build a proprietary database of some description. Some of these companies choose to contribute changes back, or to employ Postgres developers full-time, or to hire them as consultants -- mandating that all changes be contributed back would probably mean the companies wouldn't exist in the first place, or wouldn't be using Postgres, which would probably be a net loss for the project. And if a company chooses not to contribute code back? Well, personally that's fine with me, but I can understand why others might disagree.

<comment><USER4> I'll be glad if you don't make me take the time to do it, but I could argue that many, many more companies have built businesses on Linux than on BSD. A _huge_ number of products are built on Linux now. Linux is a more popular embedded BSP OS than BSD is.

<comment><USER5> Sure, in the case of Linux vs. FreeBSD, you're probably right (although there are certainly more factors involved than just licensing).

My point is that requiring code to be given back doesn't necessarily yield a healthier ecosystem, or even more code contributions, than a more laissez- faire attitude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not so sure about this guy's policework. For instance, NetApp ONTAP is decidedly not FreeBSD. Juniper uses FreeBSD as a control platform, but neither the core functions nor the user CLI are FreeBSD. I'm not sure why I care what IronPort uses.

From several years commercial reversing experience, my guess is that even if you lump NetBSD in with FreeBSD (NetBSD is the preferred BSD OS for non-X86 BSPs), you still see more Linux than BSD in embedded and appliance apps.

From several years shipping appliance products, I'll also suggest that while there may be apps that FreeBSD excels at (due to a better tuned filesystem and VM), for things where raw I/O and compute are the bottleneck, Linux tends to win.

<comment><USER6> > FreeBSD excels at (due to a better tuned filesystem and VM), for things > where raw I/O and compute are the bottleneck, Linux tends to win.

I've noticed that FreeBSD works more responsively in low memory environments. Perhaps that's the VM tuning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've stopped visiting milkingthegnu.org, as the inflammatory always outweighs the insightful...both are present, but I always have to fight my way through every post.

</comment><comment><USER8> OS X isn't even really FreeBSD, parts of it are based on FreeBSD (but the kernel isn't).

<comment><USER4> That's not exactly true. xnu/bsd/kern, the "Unix half" of the kernel, is FreeBSD. xnu/osfmk, the "Mach half", isn't.</comment></comment>


Tech billionaires who donate millions are just "bribing society at large." - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/22/18634612/anand-giridharadas-billionaires-philanthropy-zuckerberg-bezos-kara-swisher-decode-podcast-interview <comment><USER2> Are we surprised?

We are effectively in another gilded age. The wealthy are acting much like they did in the last one. Tech is an irrelevance here.

<comment><USER3> Tech is an enabler and a power multiplier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > but, he asked, why should they be treated as sagacious experts when they > come from a completely different arena

Because they have a history of getting impressive shit done. Not complained about, but actually done. And they have the will to get it done, and a bunch of capital to put behind that will, even if they were taxed at whatever ridiculously high rate Giridharadas wants them taxed at.

Giridharadas is welcome to disagree with successful people, but they've at this point proven their opinions do tend to matter when it comes to shaping the country whether we want to pay attention or not.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure everyone would be all ears if Zuckerberg were asked for advice on how to best violate people's privacy, or Bezos were asked how to abuse warehouse workers, but there's no reason why the opinions of those two regarding e.g. medicine would be worth more than those of actual specialists and experts.

Just because someone's successful it doesn't mean they're wise. Looking at Zuckerberg fumble from scandal to scandal certainly doesn't give one that impression. He's just another ruthless rich businessman.

<comment><USER4> Snarky comments aside, Zuckerberg built a massive ads business from scratch, not previously knowing anything about ads. He built a massive social network from scratch, not knowing anything previously about social.

Bezos built the biggest e-commerce business in the world, never having worked in e-commerce or retail before. And seems to be doing some impressive stuff at Blue Origin, not knowing anything about space travel.

That's all not to mention Musk, who goes from new industry to new industry, building successful businesses that fundamentally change those industries, without previously knowing anything about those industries.

These are incredibly impressive accomplishments. They've proven their bonafides for solving general problems in fields they weren't previously familiar with, probably more than just about anyone else in the world.

<comment><USER5> The fact that they have built those businesses doesn't mean that they can draw informed conclusions on whatever they want. I doubt that Bezos has his think- tank of domain experts giving him background on every question he gets asked during interviews. Sure, if Bezos shifted his attention to healthcare, a month after the announcement I would give his opinions weight, because he's proven adept at analyzing situations quickly, given motivation. What's the motivation to learn about X problem in the world at any given time?

<comment><USER4> This already happened on healthcare. He already has a healthcare initiative: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/dr-atul-gawande-to-lead- buff...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/dr-atul-gawande-to-lead-buffett- bezos-dimons-health-care-venture.html).

The thing to bear in mind with this is they're all constantly looking at a bunch of other initiatives before jumping in, so if one of these people had a comment to a reporter on just about anything it's probably not the first time they're thinking about that subject.

<comment><USER3> Great example. Your government prefers to spend money on bombs instead of people, but Bezos will magically fix it with his billions.

Richest country in the world can't offer health care to so many of its citizens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While inequality is not inherently a bad thing, we are starting to see the corrosive effects letting a few have too much.

I've gotten to the point where it feels like we need a Net Worth Limit. Cap it at $250 million let's say. The rich still get to enjoy a post-scarcity lifestyle, and the rest of society doesn't hang in the balance of whether our billionaire gods are benevolent or not. I doubt Jobs, Zuck and Gates would have said "Forget it" if they knew they only had the opportunity to acquire a quarter of a billion dollars. And if they did, they are probably not the sort you want to have more money than that anyway.

<comment><USER7> The concept that one has to contend with is the assumption is order to get $N in compensation one has to provide >$N value back to society. Ex: I make $100k as a engineer, I am actually building >$100k in software per year...

By restricting ultra productive people to a capped return we're effectively disincentivizing these people from providing additional value once they've hit their cap.

additionally you can forsee the fixed per capita cap will be gamed. $250M for me, and for my spouse, and each next of kin, and each parent / uncle aunt etc. Suddenly neopotism is all over the place.

<comment><USER8> > disincentivizing these people from providing additional value ...

but the question i have is whether these people who are ultra rich really did provide the value to society that their wealth suggests.

Did bezos or zuckerberg create value? Or did they just extracted the residual value from their employees?

May be instead of a wealth cap, the cap needs to be applied at income (and also make capital gains into income). Your wealth total is uncapped, but you as a person, could not possibly have created more value than $X per year. Where X is set can be debated, but i would expect it to be less than $10mil.

<comment><USER7> > Or did they just extracted the residual value from their employees?

It's really hard to know the alternate history w/o Zuck, but the theory goes that these employees would have been employed in less valuable ways w/o him. Thus there is some marginal value add he brought to the table of which he captures a portion of... Of course all of this is up for debate...

The rationale is that the entrepreneur/organization bringing the greatest value to market is able to subsequently pay employees the most as well and employees will naturally migrate to their greatest opportunity. Whether it's starting their own business, staying at their current job or changing employers/careers it is up to individuals to decide their own best path.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Canadian prime minister schools journalist in how quantum computing works - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439766/canadian-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-journalist-quantum-computers <comment><USER2> Just been reading about Justin Trudeau's background.

* BA in English literature from McGill University

* BEd from the University of British Columbia

* worked as a teacher in Vancouver

* studied engineering

* began a master's degree in environmental geography.

This might be why his cabinet is stuffed with people who actually know their jobs. He's altogether a more interesting person than the usual run-of-the-mill politician, who is more like a turtle on a fence-post:

        You know he didn't get up there
        by himself.  He doesn't belong
        there; he can't get anything done
        while he's up there; and you just
        want to help the poor, dumb thing
        down.

Yeah, that's not Trudeau.</comment>