How much faster is Redis at storing a blob of JSON compared to Postgres? - <AUTHOR> https://www.peterbe.com/plog/redis-vs-postgres-blob-of-json <comment><USER3> Alas, there's not enough context or code here to even really know what's going on (or maybe I just don't know Django well enough to guess at what isn't said). It sounds like the author is comparing storing and retrieving a record with a JSON field in a PostgreSQL table versus storing and retrieving a raw string (the raw JSON) in Redis?

So it's no surprise that the Redis solution is faster. Besides parsing and indexing the data, PostgreSQL will also prioritize reliability and won't confirm your transaction until it's actually persisted to disk. Whereas Redis is prioritizing speed, and working straight to RAM--the disk serialization is an asynchronous process. If anything, I'm surprised that the Redis solution is _only_ 16-20x faster than PostgreSQL given what appears to be happening.

So, for this use case--storing a cache of Amazon API results for mostly-static data--the Redis solution is a no-brainer: durability of the data is not a serious concern; there's no real risk of data corruption because there's only one schema and no interrelations; you don't need the data store to know anything about the data; you don't need indexing beyond straight key-value. For other use cases, Redis might be entirely unsuitable because of durability or data integrity reasons, in which case the speed benefits wouldn't even matter.

Now, all that said, in the real world there are lots of other considerations: Are you using either of these databases already for some other purpose in the same app? Which data store is easier to set up? Which is easier to code against? Do you even care how fast it is if the slower speed is 11ms on a single-user system?

<comment><USER4> A reasonably configured Postgres is easily sub-millisecond for reads and writes on a small dataset like this. I suspect that the author is doing something quite wrong.

People generally reach for Redis too quickly, IMO. Postgres is about as fast, has better tooling, and will slow down gracefully as the dataset increases, rather than evicting records as the limit is hit.

That said, I guess if you're relatively junior, it's hard to grossly misconfigure Redis, so that's a point in its favor. Somewhat like Java vs Node.js--you can write higher performance network services in Java, but it's a lot easier to make mistakes.

<comment><USER5> > _That said, I guess if you 're relatively junior, it's hard to grossly > misconfigure Redis, so that's a point in its favor._

Redis persistence (or possibly lack-thereof) is probably quite complicated for a junior developer to understand. I'd actually expect a better outcome with PSQL.

<comment><USER6> Not sure what you are getting at here.

Redis is one of the simplest data stores around to use and its persistence is solid.

<comment><USER7> > _Redis is one of the simplest data stores around to use and its persistence > is solid._

I've lost countless amount of data in production systems running Redis. Haven't ever lost anything in Postgres. (I still run both.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Its faster, but then, thats the point of it.

Its like saying that memcache is faster than postgres.

they do different things for different purposes.

I still wouldn't trust redis for anything other than ephemeral storage. Most of the use cases where we use redis assume that the data will at some point go away. The places where we use postgres assume that data is permanent.

Infact, we use both together, and it works really well, best of both worlds.

<comment><USER9> Couchbase really is the best of both worlds, in one product. Store in memory first (memcached) and disk later, on 0 or more cluster nodes. From the calling API, you can choose whether to block or not for the disk commit.

Edit: typos

<comment><USER10> This is what I found in my experience as well. I founded a startup in 2013 (and ran it for 3 years) and used Couchbase as our primary data store (a saas that integrates with web sites as customers that received tens of millions DAU). With no dev ops person, running it was easy, and we've never had performance or outage issues. I know you can't compare a document store/kv store with a relational DB like PG or Mysql, but I have wondered why couchbase is not as popular as say Mongo.

<comment><USER11> I can give you one hint. I don't really work with databases, so I'm not well- versed on them, but I can easily name all the major RDBMSes (PG, MySQL, Oracle, etc.), and some of the NoSQL ones. I've done a little work at home playing with Postgres, but that's about it.

I've certainly heard about MongoDB many, many times. I've heard of Redis some. I've heard of CouchDB. But this is the very first time I've ever heard of "Couchbase".

<comment><USER12> It was popular briefly on HN back in 2015, so it had a late start compared to Mongo which was maybe 2012? And the commercialization of memcached was perhaps noticed most by PHP devs, as memcached is common enough with Wordpress and Drupal, though Redis might have overtaken it some. I always thought couchbase was a very interesting idea but never had the chance to seriously suggest it at work. These endorsements actually help me consider it, but at the time it seemed like they didn't do a great job explaining who was using it and why/how it made a difference. I've heard more, recently, about using DocumentDB or CockroachDB than it, actually. And most places I work at are still riding the Postgres/Oracle/SQL traditional database shop, where it's easier to introduce Redis or Memcached than to switch where all the data is stored. Using it for a new project would require buy in, but might be viable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> First off:

1\. if you are claiming to compare PostgreSQL to Redis, do NOT test with django or SQLAlchemy or whatever, use the raw DBAPI driver, most likely psycopg2, but you might get much faster results with a more optimized driver like asyncpg.

2\. Use the Python profiler to generate profiles and to actually see how much time is spent waiting on the network to get the value.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for this! I did not know about asyncpg, which is purportedly an average of 3x faster than psycopg2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Something is very wrong for the median read of what should be a moderate sized blob with an indexed lookup to be 8ms.

The article doesn't give enough details to really understand what is that is happening here, but I would recommend everyone to take this 14/16x report and not expect that to be the general case.

<comment><USER16> I think the author suggested that the cause of some of the latency might be the processing in Python as data goes through the ORM. I like the Django ORM but it does not prioritize speed. It's possible that Python time plus the ORM doing something stupid (perhaps multiple round trips to the DB, reconnects, or weird instrumentation in the DB router or manager) could account for those extra milliseconds.

<comment><USER17> It's also in a json type in Postgres rather than a blob or varchar, while it's just raw data in redis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> By default Django closes PostgreSQL connections after handling each web request. I'm not certain but what we're probably seeing here in latency is mostly the substantial overhead in setting up a PG connection. Redis will still be faster but I'd guess the gap would be significantly tighter with persistent connections enabled.

<comment><USER19> Really? It doesn't use a connection pool?

<comment><USER20> [https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/ref/settings/#std:sett...](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/ref/settings/#std:setting- CONN_MAX_AGE) pooling is available, but off by default. I suspect most new projects turn it on, but I have no data to support that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Memory is faster than disk, more at 11"

<comment><USER22> yeah and in normal operation the OS/PG will have all your data in memory (or all your indexes if very, very much data or under spec'd db server).

Disk is for writes.

<comment><USER21> There is one disk operation that is guaranteed to happen when pushing data into a database like PostgreSQL. It will write data to an append-only binary log.

In Postgres this is called "write-ahead-log" or WAL. On MySQL/MariaDB it is called Binlog.

For a long time the only persistence redis even had was an append only binary log-style system.

Additionally you could tune redis to a maximum persistence threshold which emulated the absolute minimum persistence threshold of a system like Postgres or MySQL.

There is no comparison between these systems. One is designed to treat your data very safely by default and the other is designed for speed.

They both achieve those goals.

I don't even want to go into the fact that vfs access isn't still slower than direct memory access (for, I hope, many obvious reasons).

The topic of this thread is the equivalent of judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A few problems:

\- A comparison of Redis and Postgres for in-memory storage without use of TEMP or UNLOGGED[0] tables?

\- SQL for table creation and queries not shown

\- Using an ORM on one side and a more direct client on the other

While some data is better than none, the quality of this analysis is in question.

[0]: [https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql- createtable.html](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql- createtable.html)

<comment><USER20> The redis cache client in Django is effectively an ORM - but a much lighter one. The cache client is also doing compression and uses msgpack for serialization.

I think the comparison, in the context of a regular Django developer, is apt.

<comment><USER23> > The redis cache client in Django is effectively an ORM

If you're implying that the redis cache client in Django is comparably stunted, I don't agree. Postgres is a lot more tunable than Redis, and the more complex the underlying machinery the leakier/less powerful the abstraction ORMs can provide without taking on the same complexity. An abstraction layer on top of Redis != an abstraction layer on top of Postgres.

Let me put this in context -- you could _literally_ write a custom Postgres access method[0] (see talk on it[1][2][3]) which did nothing but take data and write it to /dev/null, or put it in a bounded space in memory. Of course, you _wouldn 't_ want to do that, but there's no way redis is going to be able to compete with that speed -- and from there you can imagine implementing a subset of Redis which is faster than redis can be (while throwing away a lot of course). This is the kind of complexity an ORM has no business replicating most of the time (I don't know which ORMs support the USING in CREATE TABLE yet), but it's part of what _could_ be out there.

> The cache client is also doing compression and uses msgpack for > serialization.

Great for performance but bad for testing -- this skews the results of the analysis, they're not doing the same work.

> I think the comparison, in the context of a regular Django developer, is > apt.

I don't disagree, because this is what I'd expect a regular Django/Rails developer to do and call it a day -- but for those who want more serious analysis, this isn't it. It's a great start (good analysis is hard), but people shouldn't be thinking this is a _good_ analysis with reasonable options explored -- UNLOGGED & TEMP tables are pretty low hanging fruit that isn't even mentioned. Initial settings of the Postgres cluster aren't mentioned/tweaked.

This is a pretty naive case and Postgres is near an order of magnitude, while being capable of doing _a lot_ of other things. That's pretty amazing.

[0]: [https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/tableam.html](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/tableam.html)

[1]: [https://www.pgcon.org/2019/schedule/events/1374.en.html](https://www.pgcon.org/2019/schedule/events/1374.en.html)

[2]: [https://anarazel.de/talks/2019-05-30-pgcon-pluggable- table-s...](https://anarazel.de/talks/2019-05-30-pgcon-pluggable-table- storage/pluggable.pdf)

[3]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RCkZl5HNiQ&list=PLuJmmKtsV1...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RCkZl5HNiQ&list=PLuJmmKtsV1dOTmlImlD9U5j1P1rLxS2V8&index=13&t=0s)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> No index, not the same size of datastore, queries in a loop the same entry, no cache config on the db side, only one hydrates an ORM... Don't get confused, it's not because data comes from a database that it comes from the disk when you query it.

I'm pretty sure we can go to a x3 max for the db.

</comment><comment><USER25> I use PostgreSQL regularly and pull (and even search) JSON blobs. We have something like 150 million JSON blobs (dataset is 500Gb) that are searched almost every query, response time is maybe 150-200ms... That's on an AWS t3.medium RDS instance.

I don't really know what the hell is going on with this, but something isn't correct.

<comment><USER26> If its mostly on disk, you're paying ms for block io; get more iops.

If the index used are sensitive to low key diversity, fix that, and maybe shard.

You might prefer a vm type with nvme.

If u can divide the data into more small ones, more indexes and cache fits in ram.

Also, cluster data by what works, time, region, userclass, etc.

Only decompress the blobs at point of use.

Design your app to need only small fast data which cant be cached.

Etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bad benchmark with not enough information to draw any relevant conclusion.

My bet: Connection pooling is not enabled for PostgreSQL (Django default value for CONN_MAX_AGE is 0). A new connection is established for each request, which probably explained most of the overhead. Moreover, the connections are are probably TLS secured by default, which increases the handshake time a lot.

</comment><comment><USER28> The problem of redis isn't speed of single object storage and retrieval.

We know for a fact that redis stores shit fast. And a blob of json is perfect.

The problem is multi-fold. Now you have a schema-on-read. You may spend a lot more processing time querying and accessing the data rather than getting exactly what you want from a sql query. Concurrency and locking. Constraints dbs offer.

So it is important to evaluate on more than JUST read/write speed.

I worked on a team that used nosql for their db needs. The performance was so terribly slow, not because of read/write speeds, but because of everything I listed above. They had to basically manually write a query optimizer vs sql. They quickly swapped to postgres and had somewhere along the lines of 10-100x performance (depending on what parts) improvements with only a week of work.

</comment><comment><USER29> Everyone should read [https://redis.io/topics/persistence](https://redis.io/topics/persistence) where it explains postgresql vs redis depending on fsyncness.

</comment><comment><USER30> My team built a heavy duty load testing simulator in preparation for a upcoming launch. We kept dialing the simulated clients up until we finally saw timeouts talking to Redis (we used RedisLabs). The cause? We had saturated the 1 gig Ethernet link our AWS C4 instances had. Upgrading to the next tier of NICs solved the problem and Redis kept up the pace.

That said, Redis is hugely expensive for any meaningfully sized data set. Thankfully our use case allowed us to keep our data size bounded over time, or else I would've traded latency for drastically reduced cost (eg use Postgres).

</comment><comment><USER31> Hey, Original blog post author here.

What a lot of people don't understand is that you want it both. The resilience of Postgres and the speed of fetching from Redis.

You have data stored. You want to retrieve it as painlessly (shorter time, less CPU usage, less complexity, etc.) as possible. What are the options? How much faster is Redis? How much RAM is that going to eat up? Different tools have different properties. Run some tests to answer some of those questions. Don't just guess. Sure Redis is going to save some time, but how much? Do you know by heart?

<comment><USER32> "Do you know by heart?" is very much the wrong question though. :-)

Benchmarking is surprisingly hard. After some digging, you might discover that you're actually measuring how long it takes to bring up a TCP connection, or how long it takes PostgreSQL to serialise the JSON from its stored form. It could be differences in the driver layer Django is using. Coming up with the corrct experiment can be the toughest part of doing the science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> So reading from RAM in a single-threaded key/value store with a lightweight text protocol, is faster than reading from disk in a multi-threaded relational database with SQL parsing and ACID semantics. As measured by a heavy web framework running in a slow interpreted language that overshadows the speed differential so much that it's only 16x at the end.

This article is obvious in its conclusion, inaccurate in measurement, and useless for any discussion.

</comment><comment><USER34> Thou shall edit thy postgresql.conf file. Better yet, use PGTune [https://pgtune.leopard.in.ua](https://pgtune.leopard.in.ua)

</comment><comment><USER35> I saw something similar recently when reading JSON data from postgres via Rails, which was unbelievably slow. I found the reason to be that Rails would automatically parse the JSON value into a in-memory ruby object. Since this was for a API-like backend, the solution was simple: just read the column as a string ("SELECT payload::varchar..")

I don't know if dkango is doing the same, but using an ORM might just do that to you.

</comment><comment><USER36> Seems a really bad study, since it doesn't mention the exact methodology (caching, exact queries, size of the JSON data, etc.), nor does it attempt to figure out why PostgreSQL is taking 8 ms to do something that should take much less and why reads and writes take the same time, or why Redis is taking 0.5 ms (i.e. millions of CPU cycles) for something that should essentially just do a memcpy.

</comment><comment><USER37> A good read, but wouldn't count these results as anywhere near valid - <USER2> you're using an ORM, you're just perf testing the ORM.

<comment><USER38> > anywhere near valid

Yeah they're laughably naïve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> These sort of benchmarks are both useful and useless, depending on what you want. The architectures of the two are very different and so speed depends very much on what you are trying to do.

Access patterns in Redis are very simple and it is a well optimized single threaded event loop. It is very fast but cannot scale up to multiple cores etc. So in this case, yes, storing and retrieving data will be fast, but uses will be narrower _and_ if you need a high degree of concurrency, Redis will pose some issues for you.

At least in my experience, Redis's key problem is that while it is well optimized it is still a single threaded event loop and therefore with complex use comes a lot of headache. For simple things however, it is really hard to beat.

</comment><comment><USER40> Curiosity strikes: I have to wonder how much these benchmarks would change on an actual Linux kernel? I don't know if the PostgreSQL team is necessarily tuning their project for macOS/Darwin. I'm sure Redis would still be faster (because memory vs disk), but I wonder by how much.

</comment><comment><USER41> Cached version: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BBB9Vi...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BBB9VioZ0tkJ:https://www.peterbe.com/plog/redis- vs-postgres-blob-of-json)

</comment><comment><USER42> For a couple similar use-cases (write rarely, read many times, JSON data) I ended up using actual JSON files, on disk. Time to read and parse them is very small compared to asking Redis or PG for it, and this benefits from the Linux disk cache, which makes reading from those most-unchanged files almost the same as reading it from memory.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is meaningless without knowing the schema.

</comment><comment><USER44> Why can't Postgres implement a transparent caching layer similar to Redis?

<comment><USER45> How would you cache a write?

<comment><USER46> You can't cache it, but if you don't care about durability as in this case you can acknowledge it before it is fsync'd.

<comment><USER47> A write is really fast if you don't do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> FWIW there is an update to this article at - [https://www.peterbe.com/plog/update-to-speed-comparison- for-...](https://www.peterbe.com/plog/update-to-speed-comparison-for-redis-vs- postgresql-storing-blobs-of-json)

TLDR; this update is not about redis vs postgresql but about caching!

<comment><USER17> If it were about caching, he wouldn't have used an ORM and a json Postgres type. And there would have been more detail about the query cache, backing store, and wal+fsync settings for Postgres.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Is this really that surprising?

Postgres is a RDMS, with transactional support and everything. While Redis is powerful, it is much simpler and focused, not nearly as comprehensive as Postgres.

TL;DR Postgres is doing a lot more heavy-lifting than Redis, it feels slow because that much of work is not necessary for simple kv lookup

</comment><comment><USER50> postgresql does TOAST compression of large jsonb blocks. You might be incurring the cost of compression/decompression by postgresql

<comment><USER38> Uh...TOAST is a system for storing data off page. It doesn't have anything to do with compression? Reading a TOAST actually requires reading two pages, so you're correct that there is read and write overhead. But it isn't CPU bound a la compressing the data.

<comment><USER50> postgres does TOAST compression of larger jsonb.

I dont have any direct link to the docs, but here's a bug report when such behavior was NOT happening.

[https://www.postgresql.org/message- id/20140801182102.2696.87...](https://www.postgresql.org/message- id/20140801182102.2696.87926%40wrigleys.postgresql.org)

if possible, this benchmark should be run again with a largish TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET

<comment><USER38> [https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TOAST](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TOAST)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is cute.

</comment><comment><USER51> Quote:"My current implementation uses PostgreSQL (via the Django ORM) to store this stuff."

At ORM the credibility of the author was all lost on me. I mean you went from cloud to local cache as a performance improvement and then you chose to do it via ORM? Why not make your own custom solution if you went this road anyway? It's like changing your alarms in your house from using the ones provided by a security company with making your own because you're an electronics engineer and then you build them using electronic kits from commerce and complain that using a different kit is better. It's your house dude, make them all custom for maximum efficiency if you went this way.</comment>


We're a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized - <AUTHOR> http://cshl.nautil.us/article/593/why-were-a-lot-better-at-fighting-cancer-than-we-realized <comment><USER2> From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe.

As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a relative-to-the-rest- of-US good insurance company that's still already allowed $40,000 of in- network medical bills to hit us in just 5 weeks since diagnosis all after hitting the supposed out-of-pocket max?

From a cancer that had been misdiagnosed as an infection, an iron deficiency, and a benign tumor for four months prior, to give it a massive head start?

That headline can fuck right and completely off. We might be good at finding new drugs that can fight cancer, but societally we're absolutely shit at fighting this disease.

<comment><USER3> > a cancer that had been misdiagnosed as an infection, an iron deficiency, and > a benign tumor for four months prior

It's absolutely maddening that this is not even uncommon. Doctors think they know best, definitely _better than you_ , and will stand by their sometimes quite obviously idiotic conclusions, leaving you helpless. And in some countries with universal healthcare, it's a lot harder to just go find a better doctor. Screw the whole system. I've got more words to say, but I'll stop here.

I am sorry for what you're going through and wish you all the best.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean? I'm from a country with universal healthcare, and you can just go see another doctor.

<comment><USER5> It's not that simple. Sometimes you go to two or even three doctors and they don't take your symptoms seriously. "A mild cough is nothing to worry about, lots of people have mild asthma and don't realise it, have an inhaler", "Everybody gets headaches, it's not abnormal", "Your blood results are perfect", "The X-Ray came up clear". You end up feeling like a hypochondriac. Most of the time the doctors are right. Twice in my life I was convinced that something was very wrong (and thankfully it wasn't)

Of course, sometimes the doctors are wrong.

In the last year I lost my sister and our dog to cancer. In both situations, cancer want diagnosed at first. In the case of my sister, the doctor assumed "women's problems" \- irregular bleeding, bloating, cramping etc. But the diagnosis came pretty quickly afterwards because it was a very aggressive cancer that soon triggered blood clots, fluid on the lungs and a bunch of other stuff. They could do nothing for her, and catching it earlier wouldn't have helped. It ate through her in about 6 months. The oncologist was up to date on the latest treatments and was discussing her case with the world's best (because she was only 44 and had just had a kid, they did everything they could).

With our dog, there wasn't a diagnosis for weeks, while he gradually deteriorated. We have an amazing vet, but nothing showed up in tests (blood work, x-rays, physical exams). The only hunch we had was that pain killers seemed to ease his breathing issues - so we took him to get an MRI and found it. We choose to spare him from the pain (he had a very happy 10 years, and wasn't the type that could handle chemo and operations - it would have been incredibly selfish to put him through it for... What, maybe 12 months of health before it comes back?)

Thing about cancer: sometimes it's treatable and sometimes it's not. I have a whole new respect (read: "fear of") cancer since last year.

<comment><USER6> > Your blood results are perfect

This is if you can even get prophylactic blood tests done, which is not a guarantee in some European countries

I had an awful experience with Sweden's health care system when I lived there ~6 years ago, and didn't get actual help until I went to a private doctor via private insurance.

Since then, while I still support access to universal healthcare, I personally have stuck entirely to private healthcare instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was forced to dive headlong into understanding cancer therapy 2 1/2 years ago. It was obvious at the time that this was the correct direction to head, developing an entire therapeutic ecosystem to give the body every possible advantage and assail the disease with every possible disadvantage in order to get the desired outcome.

However, what I saw was a rather bizarre and disturbing fetish in the pharmaceutical and medical communities for 'monotherapies'. I believe I understand the allure, if you find one thing that works, the proverbial silver bullet, that's the best case scenario for treatment. It's also quite obviously the best case for shareholders and investors, but let's set that aside for now.

For the sake of future patients, I do hope that medicine and regulators deprioritize the search for monotherapies and receive the type of analysis represented in this article with open arms. In particular, I hope that the 'standard of care' is given some flexibility so that doctors are able to adopt low risk adjunct therapies in order to improve outcomes and the amount of data available for continued research and improvement of treatment plans.

<comment><USER8> I've been impressed by the "therapudic ecosystem" developed for coronavirus in the absence of a 'monotherapy'. The MATH+ treatment is an effective combination of available drugs and vitamins. I hope any future COVID drug is used alongside these options, instead of a "here's an expensive drug, now go home!" Approach that some treatments take.

<comment><USER9> MATH+ seems to me like throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the disease, which screams "we don't really know what we're doing." I haven't seen replication efforts, and the doctor who's peddling it once claimed to cure sepsis with IV vitamin C, an effort that failed to do much when replicated. It doesn't look like a serious approach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As far as I know, Each cancer in a patient is mostly unique. Not all skin cancers or cancer tumor cases are same. they may have same underlying cause of it but not same cancer case. Mostly what treatment do is remove the affected tumor,tissues, if its related to blood plasma or bone-marrow transplant donor blood and bone marrow. Use chemo to weaken all cells of body regardless of its normal functioning or part of cancer. wait for human body to revive on its own immune system and repeat above task if needed.

so, to fight the cancer first we must find a way to affordably find the type of cancer with cause case-by-case basis and develop a procedure for custom treatment and drug-delivery to affected part without disturbing whole body functions. From my perspective we are still way behind but in better position then yesterday or decade ago.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely true. There are many cancers where the only recourse is disfigurement, dangerous irridation, butchery, poison or death.

No blame on current doctors and nurses, but our current understanding is brutal. Any real advances are crazy welcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So if I summarize correctly they re-evaluated already "FDA passed" but abandoned substances for anti-cancer workings using new techniques (CRISPR) and got 50 hits. That's amazing! Would this work in other fields as well?

<comment><USER13> That's a good summary but it's missing the context that these kinds of "hits" will most likely fail clinical trials. Many drugs look good at this stage in preclinical development and almost none of them show both safety (ph1 trial) and efficacy (ph3 trial).

There aren't actually that many low hanging therapeutic fruit out there, mostly we have to actually do the work to discover new mechanisms and make new compounds to target them.

<comment><USER12> It read like that would be different here, using the new method, wouldn't it? Or did I misunderstand that?

<comment><USER13> The genes essential for cancer cells to grow in vitro could easily be quite different from those required to establish the tumor micro-environment, invade new tissues and fight off the immune system. They'll have many false negatives from the mismatch in context. Simultaneously, they might have false positives from e.g. differences in layout and density of tumor cells (2D/uniform vs. 3D heterogeneous tumor).

And even if they get the right targets, finding drugs with an effective therapeutic index is hard.

This might be a useful screening technique...but it's not the first high throughput screening method. They might have some successes, only trials will tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Drug repurposing for cancer is a neat and vaguely plausible idea that's been eating up attention and grant funding for a decade now, without any successes in clinical trials.

<comment><USER14> Precisely. The title is frankly appalling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cancer is the most difficult health problem humans face. It will still be there long after we conquer neurodegeneration, atherosclerosis and diabetes. It is a major failure mode of all multicellular life. Dinosaurs got cancer. Every animal from mice to elephants gets cancer. It is startlingly common in humans. The cellular pathways altered in cancer existed before animals existed. It is an inescapable hangover from our evolutionary origins as unicellular organisms.

The only way to beat cancer is to upgrade the human organism to design out anachronistic evolutionary trade offs and prevent cancer development. The way we treat cancer now - the slash, burn, poison, hunt paradigm - is inhumane, expensive, and of limited effectiveness.

</comment><comment><USER11> Fair enough, but cancer is a broad term. There are still many cancers where the only treatment is basically poison, irridation and/or butchery/mutilation. Hopefully that improves soon.

I'm guessing future history will reflect on how dark all of this was.

</comment><comment><USER14> Frankly, the title is absolutely idiotic. This article describes a way of studying drugs that have already been approved by the FDA for other indications as potential cancer drugs. A vast majority of these drugs will fail or do no better than current treatments which involve butchery and poison. The article is basically worthless and I have no idea why it has even a single upvote from this community. None of this has been shown to do _anything_ for patients.

<comment><USER16> > The article is basically worthless and I have no idea why it has even a > single upvote from this community.

People often upvote if the discussion is good. The discussion on this page was very good, I thought, very much worth reading - informative and touching. Thanks all, and good luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is a firewall that exists between doctors and billing. Or maybe it's blissful ignorance. I have noticed doctors often have no idea what their tests and procedures will cost the patient.

Moreover, a doctor's vocal tone often changes when discussing cost. The tone changes from friendly/caring to annoyed/defensive.

I don't think the firewall can last forever.

<comment><USER18> > I have noticed doctors often have no idea what their tests and procedures > will cost the patient.

Maybe they don't know the amounts, but they are forced to know a lot about how the billing process works. For example, my company develops a product that helps doctors create documentation in a way that makes it more likely they will get reimbursed by insurance companies with the least amount of hassle and push back.

Also, they probably have no idea what it will cost you until the insurance company and hospital fight it out over the price.

> The tone changes from friendly/caring to annoyed/defensive.

Every doctor is triggered by having to deal with bureaucratic insurance and billing processes that consume their time and keep them from spending more time on treating patients. You are sensing their barely controlled rage at the system.

(This is all for the US system, probably not true in most other countries.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My wife is getting FLOT chemotherapy. She also does:

\- cannabis

\- bromelain and acetylcysteine

\- the next two times longevity fasting mimicking during four days around a chemotherapy administration

Cannabis is well known for its medical traits. Bromelain is a meat-digesting enzyme, and a study suggest to combine it with acetylcysteine to reduce the adenocarcinoma. Another study suggests that acetylcysteine protects from neuropathy, a chemotherapy side effect. Fasting is said to switch the body into an energy-saving mode, protecting from chemotherapy, too; something which the tumor cannot so that it experiences the full brunt of the chemotherapy. Longevity fasting mimicking is not fasting but a diet having the same effects as fasting, but I think this is still dangerous. I hope that my wife compensates by eating more when she does not have chemotherapy.

Perhaps this is useful to others. Take care!

</comment><comment><USER20> Yet there is no visible shift in cause of death distribution. Cancer is still up there, successfully competing with cardiovascular diseases for #1 spot.

<comment><USER21> I don't think that's necessarily a knock against cancer treatments. In the end we all have to die of something and late-life cancer is probably always going to be a leader. I think a better stat would be the average age of those who die of cancer and the survival rates of child cancers.

<comment><USER22> Yeah I wish people would account for this when making statements. What is the incidence of cancer death in 50-year-olds then vs now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Fenbendazole, active ingredient in dog deworming medication, has shown some anti-cancer properties.

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30158-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30158-6)

</comment><comment> the-dude I am instantly reminded of Lou Reed's "Magic and Loss".

Not easy to listen to the first few times. Learned to appreciate.

Much later on I lost a loved one to acute leukemia. At least there was no months long struggle.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm sorry but re-purposing existing drugs does not sound promising at all.

Having computers that can fold the proteins and understand how molecules bind sounds like a much better shot. Figuring out how to do this with quantum computers to really really speed it up would be wonderful.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is a tendency to fight our way out of every problem. But what we truly need is to accept the problem, take responsibility and look for the root cause.

That is true "fighting". But most try to destroy the symptoms so they can continue their path and usually continue the root cause.

Of course finding the root cause is not easy and it takes one to study oneself

I highly recommend the following book to everyone (including the "healthy")

The 12 Stages of Healing: A Network Approach to Wholeness Book by Donald M. Epstein and Nathaniel Altman

<comment><USER26> while I'd be the last to say root approach should be discounted (diet, lack of exercise, smokes, and bad sleep contributing more to bad outcomes that just about anything else), I worry that the thinking in this post can be used to judge people who have cancer for their actions when unfortunately the true root cause for many people is actions taken long before they're born because of environmental exposure. So while yes most everyone could benefit from more self study some cancerous situations require vigorous assault on the symptoms, like death.

<comment><USER12> Agreed, and even then, doesn't cancer "just happen"? There's a BRCA2 gene defect in my family (that I'm lucky enough not to have inherited) and that increases the likelyhood of developing breast cancer to 80% for women and prostate cancer to ~20% for men. But to the best of my knowledge, everyone has an innate %, just by virtue of being alive.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook's Stock Options - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/facebooks-stock-options/ <comment><USER2> Brin "We really started to grow (Google) during the bust of the dot com bubble," he said. "Their timing may be somewhat inverted." Google, he said, benefited from the discipline imposed on it by the bust. "I think that's an extra challenge that they face," he added"

it's obvious he is considering Facebook overvalued

</comment><comment><USER3> Can anyone confirm that the stock options offered from now on _must_ be based on the valuation of the company from the most recent round of funding? I have a hunch Facebook's internal valuation's a ton short of $15 billion.

<comment><USER4> Common stock is generally given a lower valuation than preferred, but this will nevertheless cause that number to increase dramatically (probably 10x what it was a few months ago).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Deploy multiple containers to AWS with CI/CD - <AUTHOR> I have an API service and an ngnix server in separate containers and (a database for dev) in another container. These three are packaged in a docker-compose.yml file.
Now, how would you deploy this to AWS? Would I create one cluster and use the docker-compose.yml file to somehow deploy it on AWS ECS? Or create a cluster for each container and deploy it separately?
The API service is written in PHP and the nginx server connects to php-fpm to process php files.
What I don't understand is also how tests work. When I commit to a specified branch, will it just run the tests? Or will every commit trigger a build of the image (and the tests are specified as a RUN command in the dockerfile)?
All of this is so confusing, how would you do it? <comment><USER2> >Now, how would you deploy this to AWS?

Personally, on AWS I'd provision RDS for the database instead of running the DB in the cluster. YMMV but I'll happily pay for the simplified backups and ops.

If you're mainly just using nginx as an application server here instead of as a load balancer, I'd probably put it in the same docker container as the php code.

Then you can leave the actual load balancing and health checks to AWS's ALB so that when an ECS task stops responding, ECS will bring up a new one and get things stable again.

You've two options when it comes to your cluster, EC2, in which you provision some machines yourself for the cluster, and Fargate, in which you don't. If you fancy managing everything tightly and tweaking until you find the right balance, EC2 clusters can be cheaper.

Fargate gets you up and running quicker but can be more expensive.

>What I don't understand is also how tests work. When I commit to a specified branch, will it just run the tests? Or will every commit trigger a build of the image (and the tests are specified as a RUN command in the dockerfile)?

How you do that very much depends on the CI system you use. For example, I use travis in work, and I can set it up so that: \- each commit runs a shell script, and in that shell script I can run tests, and if those tests pass, and if I'm on the main branch, a deploy will happen. \- or, I can split the tests and deploy up into different 'stages' and the configuration file for travis allows me to specify which branches (or pull requests) each stage can run on.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, Docker has recently released Compose for ECS support in beta [https://docs.docker.com/engine/context/ecs- integration/](https://docs.docker.com/engine/context/ecs-integration/)</comment>


Should businesses be transparent and honest, even when it might hurt them? - <AUTHOR> http://www.carsonified.com/business/blogging-tips-for-downturn-20 <comment><USER2> This is a take on a rather classic business ethics question.

In the case of Carsonified, I don't think it was necessary to post that much detail about the decision to lay people off, or even to post that he was doing so at all.

On the other hand, of course, when failing to inform potential customers of things you know might lead to a worse experience, or may result in the customer losing money, it's usually better to be honest about it up front.

</comment><comment><USER3> He's mentioned before that he's blabbed too much, back when he was trying to sell DropSend. So maybe that's just his thing, that he doesn't know when to hush it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Dishonesty and deception are attempts at short-term safety.

Honesty and transparency are long-term investments in the trust and good-will of your public.

<comment><USER5> I wish your statement was applicable. Unfortunately customers could care less about honesty, they're mostly motivated by cost and convenience.

While you're out there being honest and open and making a solid living, they're people lying and being sneaky all the while making a killing.

Which brings up the question, is it better to lie now and make your money so you can be open and honest later in life? Or should you be honest now and wish/hope that your customers notice and reward you in the future?</comment></comment>


Web developer wants to learn statically typed language - <AUTHOR> I've been writing in Ruby and Javascript so basically I know only dynamic OO languages.
I'm interested in trying out sth different only like a hobby. I'm not necessarily wanting to switch to functional style.
There are too many options. I've tried swift many months ago but lots of folk like Go/Haskell etc<p>What are your suggestions? <comment><USER2> I would recommend elm for a hobbyist and as a first exposure to functional programming that is a lot of fun. Your code will only run on browsers (as of now).

Scala is better for heavy duty work, and works on backend, frontend, simple android apps if you must, data science applications. It gives a lot more power and requires more effort to master.

</comment><comment><USER3> I recommend [http://elm-lang.org](http://elm-lang.org) which is statically typed and designed for web development.

</comment><comment><USER4> Scala</comment>


Ask HN: How would you monetize a dubious website (e.g. 4chan)? - <AUTHOR>

Greetings to everyone. It is a fact that for infamous websites, such as 4chan or encyclopediadramatica, it is pretty hard to turn page views into money. So the question is, how would YOU personally go about doing that? <comment><USER2> 4chan likely makes much more money than is reported.. with moot putting forward this broke-kid image, I would think he becomes a much smaller target for the various entities, laws, and copyrights they trample on.

It's sort of like how the IFPI used the "profitable" motive in it's arguments against the Pirate Bay.

Poor people make poor lawsuit targets.

<comment><USER3> Arguable, poor people make _great_ targets because they're less likely to be able to defend themselves.

<comment><USER4> Those people are "judgment proof" because even if you get a judgment that says they owe you a billion dollars, you'll never collect a dime.

<comment><USER3> That's step 1.

Step 2 is using the billion dollar judgement as a precedent when suing people with a little bit of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ads. But sites like 4chan is more of a community-focus site and they don't really focus on making money. Here is a post about 4chan's revenue:

[http://www.homethinking.com/brontemedia/2009/02/22/4chanorg-...](http://www.homethinking.com/brontemedia/2009/02/22/4chanorg-300m-page- viewsmo-about-6k-in-revenue/)

The revenue is enough to cover the hosting plus maybe a few hundreds extra. That's all.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I actually meant to ask is not how do they make money, if they make money, or even if it is their goal to make money but if you were in moot's shoes and you wanted to turn page views into money, what would you do?

<comment><USER2> Invent <http://icanhascheezburger.com/>? ;)

But seriously, not being commercially driven is what gives the chans their credibility. Commercializing that crowd is a million dollar question. Now that moot has taken VC, it will be interesting to see how his new project will monetize.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> SomethingAwful's solution: membership & service fees. Sell badges. Sell archive-power, e.g. for US$0.10, you can prevent this thread from being pruned for ten minutes.

<comment><USER7> SA is pretty brilliant in how they charge $5 for changing your avatar image, something which 99% of other popular forums let you do for free. For $10, you can change _another_ user's title. If you get in a flame war with a guy with ten bucks to spare, he can buy you an embarrassing title/image. You have to either live with that or cough up the $5 to change it back.

<comment><USER8> This idea is actually very clever. This is the basic concept to make money from free, 1st you solve a problem and generate plenty of traffic, 2nd you indirectly or directly create a secondary problem for your users. This is the part you monitise. According to the variables and the ticks you use to create the secondary pain, will adjust the revenues you make.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mega Upload built their own advertising platform - <http://www.megaclick.com>

</comment><comment><USER10> Sell them what they want.</comment>


Brittany Murphy Death & Google's Real Time Search Results - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/brittany-murphy-death-googles-real-time-search-results-32247

<comment><USER2> Personally I think that the real time results are horrible. I haven't seen anything in them of value, and it has mostly been useless drivel.

It's making me really not like searching on google. They need to let me turn this off, or they're going to lose a lot of branch loyalty by having useless results on the top of their search pages.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, for me you just hit the nail on the head: real time information is almost always drivel. There will always be the exception here or there that justifies the existence of the technology, but for 99% of cases RT information is simply noise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From MTV.com: "Brittany Murphy... died at 10:04 a.m. PT" (= 1:04pm ET)

Byline of the OP: "Dec 20, 2009 at 3:53pm ET by Danny Sullivan" (less than three hours later)

He then updates his post in response to (well deserved) criticism:

"First, this post wasn't rushed out. It took me about an hour to compile."

So assuming he heard about it the _instant_ it happened, he started writing the post TWO HOURS after she passed away.

Then he writes: "Murphy's death is a tragedy. She was a popular actress, and I was as saddened as anyone to hear about it. My reaction, as I suspect for many, was "Oh, no" and disbelief."

Color me unconvinced.

</comment><comment><USER5> A very thoughtful breakdown. It is obvious that Danny spent a good deal of time searching and watching the realtime results.

I also had to love Danny's response to the commentors who accused him of using Brittany Murphy's death to get traffic.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think Google's target market for this service might consist of people who would be willing pay a newspaper company to read this kind of information hours later on the newspapers website. Seems Google might be trying to slay the dragon in their own unique techy way.

This might catch on with a certain target demographic. I wonder if this thing will iterate.

</comment><comment><USER7> I thought Chris Henry's fatal accident was the first test, but anyway...</comment>


Million Song Dataset Challenge - <AUTHOR> http://www.kaggle.com/c/msdchallenge

<comment><USER2> Kaggle is awesome! If you like this challenge, you should browse through other current and past Kaggle challenges at <http://www.kaggle.com/competitions>

There are a whole lot of fun challenges ranging from predicting if a patient will be admitted to a hospital, what will be the trading price of a bond, will a student answer a test question correctly, to if a car purchased at an auction is a bad buy!

<comment><USER3> I agree that Kaggle is awesome... though I've also been wondering how Kaggle gets so much attention and TopCoder seems to get so much less (and TunedIt.org appears totally inactive).

Mainly, I want to know because I suspect there is a good marketing lesson to be learned from Kaggle's success compared to seemingly similar sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, this is the problem I was looking to solve in my own music application. I am so going to try and win this. Thanks for the link.</comment>


Passengers Who Call Uber Instead of an Ambulance Put Drivers at Risk - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/taking-uber-lyft-emergency-room-legal-liabilities <comment><USER2> Ambulance ride can be extremely expensive I've heard. Even if you have insurance, I'm not sure I'd trust the insurance company not to deny the claim.

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/1/29/16906558/a...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/1/29/16906558/anthem-emergency-room-coverage-denials- inappropriate)</comment>


Ask HN: If I cant code, what else can I do in a startup as a recent grad? - <AUTHOR> Hello all, I cant code but I wanna get into startups that are 10+ people big. Sales Development Representative roles are incredibly demotivating. Are there any other roles that a worthwhile? <comment><USER3> Why is sales demotivating? If the product and market are right, it should be exciting. I love sales because it's like talking to fans.

Designers are often needed very early. Pay might be a little low early on.

Product is also vital but often management/founder tier that early on.

Testers are often vital in the early stage, sometimes second or third employee. It's not all bashing buttons. Testers often follow the sales team and act as customer service. It's important to understand UX/customer flow and can be an entry point to Product.

<comment><USER4> +1 - if the SDR role is demotivating, it just might not be the right fit for you, or the product isn't compelling

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would say the general areas are sales, marketing, product, engineering, design, customer support, and people ops. The thing is these areas entire areas are usually covered by a single person in small startups, so there aren't many entry level positions available. I think you should be aiming for 40+ people startups where there are more entry level positions available.

</comment><comment><USER6> Learning html css and js was the best decision I ever made for enjoying projects, life, and my career.

Download notepad++, open google chrome and w3 schools, and learn how to display text on a page.

Shortly thereafter you will be qualified for web dev positions if you are motivated and practice self-learning techniques :)

</comment><comment><USER7> High energy high quality generalists are always in demand. Maybe get your foot in the door, like SDR or Tech Writing, and then work hard to break out of that into something more interesting. That happens all the time where I work.

</comment><comment><USER8> Product Management. On some level, _everyone_ at the company is involved with product. It's at the intersection of virtually every department (engineering, sales, design, research, etc), but is incredibly demanding :)

</comment><comment><USER9> In my early days I used to sit out behind the office and burn cash in a barrel where the Japanese business men took seemingly constant smoke breaks - <USER2> was before I asked my boss for a bizdev position

</comment><comment><USER4> To better refine the answer - why do you want to join an early-stage startup?

</comment><comment><USER10> Founder

</comment><comment><USER11> recent grad of what?

</comment><comment><USER12> digital marketing (SEO, paid search)</comment>


Co-founder myth - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/26/co-founders-optional/ <comment><USER2> I don't have a co-founder. I did have one once but there was constant conflict about the product vision.

I can do everything myself and I don't want to run an empire so why give half the company away because someone else says I need a co-founder?

</comment><comment><USER3> Appears to exhibit selection bias - what if there is a disproportionately large number of single-founder companies, which fail at a much higher rate than those with 2 or more?

The numbers are interesting, but very misleading. It still doesn't answer whether it's statistically wise to invest in a single-founder company, or help a founder decide how many cofounders they should try to get onboard.

If the strongest conclusion possible here is "Hey there's still hope" then we didn't need all these charts for that sentiment.

</comment><comment><USER4> The myth is: you can't build a startup with one founder. But who started this myth?

What PG said was: a single founder is a major reason for startup failure. So it is not recommended.

What this article concludes is: plenty of successful startups are single- founder. They don't provide any evidence on whether it is a major cause of failure.

YC does fund single-founder startups. But they will recommend you get a co- founder.</comment>


Recession rips at US marriages, expands income gap - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/us_census_recession_s_impact

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting thing about this article is the stats are from 2009 census and show just how badly the recession hit American's. Covers income gap (increasing), poorest poor (increasing), commuting (descreasing - less people working) and lots of other fascinating and scary stats.</comment>


State of UK Salaries Report – Hired [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://get.hired.com/rs/348-IPO-044/images/Hired-State-of-Salaries-UK.pdf <comment><USER2> Disappointed that this 'UK' salary report focuses entirely on London. There's a lot more to the UK than the overpopulated, overpriced, and overpoluted capital of England</comment>


Does writing Good code take time or I am just slow? - <AUTHOR> I am a beginner, I've been programming for last one and a half year I can pretty much make my code what I want it to. I have not worked with any other programmer yet, So If I have to I do the frontend designing to the processing code to the server maintenance. So I was writing the processing code a while ago, It will be around 700-800lines long splitted files(with comments). It takes me quite a white (hours) thinking about how I will solve the problem, there are quick solution that I can run into but I think for a better one ( that too what my institution tell me )  I have not done any algorithm analysis or anything. I will start on that soon.<p>But does writing good code take time and thinking or I am just slow? <comment><USER2> It is hard to tell based on what you wrote if you are slow or not. But not working with others can also make it hard to tell and many times will the lack of people to bounce ideas off of makes you slower, especially when you are newer.

In general, writing solid, production level code takes time. I have had developers throw up code that mostly works and can't understand why when I go to make it production ready it can take 10x longer to do it correctly. But even if you have lots of experience you will underestimate some tasks and they take you 3-4x longer then you expected.

Overall, the more time you spend in design the less time you are writing code. And the more tests you write (in general) the less you'll revisit code. Also, the smaller each chunk of work is, the better. I try to use the rule a function/method has to fit on a laptop screen view. Doing this means you keep each function/method doing only one thing and believe it or not will speed up your development not slow you down. There are those exceptions when the function is uber simple but maybe has lots of if/else for state transitions or something similar where with whitespace and comments etc the method is 2-3 pages.

</comment><comment><USER3> Over time you will learn ways to write code much faster. It's the thinking part that you can't speed up too much. This will tempt you to write lots of code before thinking, because it'll make you feel like you're more productive. The downside of the "code before thinking" approach is that you'll spend a lot of time debugging due to a poorly thought out program, and everyone knows that debugging is no fun.

The best programmers I've worked with design their programs to minimize potential bugs, and so they spend more time designing (of course) which is fun, and implementing a good design, which is also fun. They do end up with some bugs of course, but not nearly as many as with a poorly designed program.

</comment><comment><USER4> I find it can be relatively quick to write a prototype that does 90% of what you need with a few critical bugs but to get it finished, mostly bug free and with high quality concise code can take a lot of time. It can take a while to understand the problem fully and understand the common patterns in the code that lets you find the right abstraction that will simplify it all.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you have no trouble with typing, because you care too much for your code quality, it makes you slow. However, you are doing good thing for other people - who will work on your project and for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yes and yes

<comment><USER6> Good code takes time but if you want to make a real product your going to have to make compromises.</comment></comment>


Meteor 0.5.5: Devshop code and community contributions - <AUTHOR> http://meteor.com/blog/2013/02/14/meteor-055-devshop-code-and-community-contributions

<comment><USER2> Has anybody here using Meteor for something serious? I am aware that tmeasday is writing a book about it here <http://themeteorbook.com/> and it was discussed on HN <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5179828>, but would like to know if Meteor is being used for something real at the moment.

There is also Derby, which I am also looking into.

I am starting a new real-time project, and I need to decide what framework to use :)

<comment><USER3> I don't know if I'd call it serious since it's a demonstration project and not a business, but have you seen <http://telesc.pe> ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can you guys tell us more about your hosting backend when someone runs `meteor deploy`? Is that code open source?

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm also very confused about going with meteor or derby (or angular maybe plus py/flask backend)? any advice?</comment>


Hunch Hasn't a Clue About My Intentions - <AUTHOR> http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=189349

<comment><USER2> To me hunch is not a recommendation system. To me it seems to be more of a data collector. I have a strong feeling they are just collecting the data generated by us and re-selling it, but pretending at the same time to 'recommend' something. A con job is all I can think.

</comment><comment><USER3> On the one hand, he has a good point buried in there: Hunch doesn't collect enough useful information, and it doesn't do a great job with it. Fair enough.

However, his basic hostility to the idea of recommendations coming from a machine seems misplaced. Presumably he's not out there railing against Amazon and NetFlix recommending books and movies to all of us... And they actually do a pretty good job.

Overall, a very poorly written article. Yes, yes, you'd like several semi- elite celebrities of Silicon Valley to do a better job with $12 million. And I'd like a pony.

<comment><USER4> Fundamentally bayesian antispam, netflix, and amazon all win because they generate recommendations as a side effect of user actions (ideally "what they buy/watch", but even just marking things with stars or tags). Hunch is a failure because it tries to get users to explicitly generate recommendations.

Humans are unreliable self-reporters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> it's amusing how he calls Hunch the "la crème de la creme of Silicon Valley" despite them being in New York. Heh :)</comment>


Why students using laptops learn less in class even when really taking notes - <AUTHOR> http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/28/why-students-using-laptops-learn-less-in-class-even-when-they-really-are-taking-notes/ <comment><USER2> I actually learn better by NOT taking any notes. I found it hard for me to take note and understand the lecture at the same time. So I stopped taking notes. I think their study should included another control group of no note taking.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sample size is a little anemic on this one

<comment><USER4> I disagree with this in terms of their main claim. Statistical power depends not only on sample size, but effect size as well. The effect sizes are strong (often Cohen's d is greater than or near 1). This would mean that on average, participants in one group are 1 standard deviation above the other. Pretty easy to detect. I'm on my phone and can't run the analyses, but I'd imagine the type 1 and type 2 power would come out quite high, especially for the second study, which had over 125 participants.

(other effects they may have looked at may be underpowered, though)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Exipe.com - Check out our news/listings voting startup - <AUTHOR>

We've just opened up our public beta and are trying to iterate as fast as possible.
We often found that it was too difficult to find good local news, deals and listings.  Major news outlets seem to be focusing on stuff not within the city.  Posts on craigslist are too hard to wade through to figure out what the good stuff is.  We want to fix that.
Any questions and feedback are very welcome, thanks. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: <http://www.exipe.com></comment>


Making a 1970's camera digital - <AUTHOR> http://frankencamera.wordpress.com/

<comment><USER2> The very first digital SLRs were made the same way: by replacing the film transport of a traditional camera with a digital back. Kodak did this with many camera models from Nikon and later Canon, all of them branded Kodak DCS [1]. The DCS 420 seems to me the most iconic, with a digital capture device exactly the same size as the original film body, bolted right on.

It took a decade for DSLRs to become truly integrated, no longer plausibly convertible back to film. During this time compact digital cameras were born, but not as conversions of 35mm compact cameras. Nikon went straight for the crazy with the Coolpix 900 (OK, they had an even weirder 100 model that no one bought); Sony had the Digital Mavica writing to floppy disks (!), and Canon went ultra-compact with the S10. All this back when Digital Photography Review was a tiny independent site with reviews written by one guy (yet always the biggest site of its kind).

We've come back around a bit, with Fuji's X10 bringing back not a true film camera but at least the aesthetic. Olympus, who made unconventional film cameras in the 70's and 80's, didn't miss a beat of their alternate drummer. Konica as used in this article merged with Minolta and then sold the camera business to Sony, so it's entirely fitting that a Konica film body be merged with Sony electronics.

And Kodak, well, RIP.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS)

<comment><USER3> I believe most digital medium format cameras are still modular. There are a few which have integrated sensors, but most do not. I guess this is due to the legacy of interchangeable film backs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8277020](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8277020)</comment>


Threatpost Podcast w/ Nate Lawson on Side Channels, EM, Smart Cards, Web Crypto - <AUTHOR> http://threatpost.com/blogs/nate-lawson-crypto-flaws-web-application-security-and-selling-hardware-bugs

<comment><AUTHOR> Money point:

One of the problems with cryptography is, you have timing channel vectors that are so minute and hard to measure that they don't look exploitable; the measurements you'd need to take are drowned by latency and jitter. But someone can come up with a novel application of signal processing --- an advance in a totally different discipline from crypto --- and suddenly an attack that was impractical can be modeled and made practical.

This stuff is just awesome to think about.</comment>


How the U.S. Could Lose a War with China - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/china-us-war/594793/ <comment><USER2> As an amateur military historian (specializing in WW2 in the Pacific), the salient things are:

\- WW2 was a contest to the death of ideologies that happened after the USA became isolationist and weak (Dr. Hansen)

\- today, the USA is not overtly isolationist, however their loyalty to Taiwan, HK, etc. is suspect. The USA is weak on aircraft inventory - the F-22 fleet rounds off to zero, same with the F-35. Way to go, military procurement officers!

\- The CCP is brittle - they may go nuclear if facing a loss since they never back down or take no for an answer

\- Taiwan could plan to defend itself. It already has enough F-16s (unless surprise-striked), it just needs to give every citizen a MANPAD and a rifle.

\- Although CCP is building a navy to rival the USA, the USA is ready today and could blockade China and overwhlem the 9-dash islands with cruise missiles or ICBMs.

\- the one advantage of a war with China is that the USA would have a free pass to rain missiles on North Korea

Interesting times!

<comment><USER3> While the U.S. may have been able to completely dominate another country in WW2, I don't see how that could happen today. Even assuming the U.S., with their military might, could take control of the Chinese government, I don't believe it would last. When the U.S. beat Japan, they were able to control the messaging and media for years, effectively training the newer generation that this was all in their best interest. With the internet and the pourus information walls, rebels could easily organize and be a never-ending challenge to any lasting dominance.

<comment><USER4> >>When the U.S. beat Japan, they were able to control the messaging and media for years

"Look at what happened after the war. Douglas MacArthur ordered the divine emperor to quit being God, and he did, making a speech saying he was just an ordinary person. So after 1946 he wasn't God anymore." \- Haruki Murakami, in Kafka on the Shore

</comment></comment></comment><comment> naval-gazer The US and Taiwan don't have military alliance. The Taiwan Relations Act is carefully worded to avoid any commitment and maintain strategic ambiguity and keep both sides in check. The strategic interest of the US is limited in terms of the cost of defending Taiwan.

The article and many articles like it fail to explain the big picture. The US has indirect way to counter Chinese aggression. Sea blockade from distance where the US has military advantage would cut almost all sea traffic to China and isolate it from the world economy. Chinese are well aware of their position as a logistic cul-de-sac. The Belt and Road Initiative can be seen as long term strategic plan to go around this problem. It loses money but Chinese need it to work so they do it anyway.

<comment><USER5> No doubt the US could blockade China. But given a big percentage of their trade is with the US, it involves a lot of pain and certain recession for the US as a consequence. It would hurt the US just about as much as China. A Pyric victory?

<comment><USER6> Blockading a country on the 'world-island' is a pointless task.

The US is a sea-power, China is a land-power. As a land-power already situated on the 'world-island' China has no need of a huge SEA-going Navy. All it needs is a bunch of anti-ship missiles.

Meanwhile, the US that lives on the peripheral 'americas-island' is powerless without a means to reach the 'world-island' where all the action is.

See Mackinder and GeoPolitics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is such a wacky headline. How on earth could the U.S. successfully dominate China? Even if we threaten them with tons of nukes, kill millions, and dominate them for a short time, there's no way that is sustainable. If small groups of rebels in Afghanistan can successfully resist U.S. dominance, it's almost ridiculous to believe that we could do so in China.</comment>


Stephen Hawking, modern cosmology's brightest star, dies aged 76 - mark-ruwt https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/stephen-hawking-professor-dies-aged-76 <comment><AUTHOR> Discussion at earlier post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16582136](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16582136)</comment>


Depression - <AUTHOR> How to treat recursive depression? <comment><USER2> As a psychologist, I would say if you are experiencing recurring depression, meeting with a professional is the best next step. Here's a short guide on how to find a therapist if you're not sure how to begin.

[https://azimuthpsych.com/articles-and-ebooks/how-to-find- a-t...](https://azimuthpsych.com/articles-and-ebooks/how-to-find-a-therapist)

NAMI [https://www.nami.org/](https://www.nami.org/) also has a lot of great resources both online and local to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/](https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/)

[https://www.columbusrecoverycenter.com/depression- resource-g...](https://www.columbusrecoverycenter.com/depression-resource- guide/)

[https://nndc.org/resource-links/](https://nndc.org/resource-links/)

[https://www.everydayhealth.com/depression/guide/resources/](https://www.everydayhealth.com/depression/guide/resources/)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.brokenbrain.com/](https://www.brokenbrain.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> In a clinical setting. A good starting point is talking with a licensed clinical therapist and working from there.</comment>


Great Lawyers Are Worth More Than $5,000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.ventureblog.com/2011/03/great-lawyers-are-worth-more-than-5000.html

<comment><USER2> I found this utterly unconvincing, because I fail to see how many of the examples he cited have anything at all to do with drawing up the actual agreement!

More importantly to me, the author completely fails to address the impact of the lawyer cost, which I thought was the biggest point of the original article. That extra $10k in lawyer fees can make or break a young company.

</comment><comment><USER3> The fundamental problem with anyone providing professional services is that most people are not able to tell the good, competent, up to date people from the well intentioned but not totally with it people.

This goes across the legal, financial, computer, medical, engineering and all other technical professions.

I'm sure some lawyers are worth $5k or even far far more. The problem is telling if the one you've got one that worth it, or you're working with the wrong person.

Thus why PG's focus is on people, not on ideas, when picking for Y Combinator. Finding good people is hard.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't care how much a great lawyer is worth.

I care how much it costs to get the legal services that I need.</comment>


Apple's Cash Hoard Exceeds GDP of 126 Countries - <AUTHOR> http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apples_cash_hoard_exceeds_gdp_of_126_countries/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if this is still true, but I recall reading something about Apple not participating in any philanthropic ventures? With so much money (and aside from the point that they invest a lot in their products), it's a wonder why they don't work on innovating products to help struggling nations. Granted, there's no rule that says a company needs to do these sorts of things, but I think it would be a cool move.

<comment><USER3> I've had very bad experiences with these types of organizations. I once visited an institute for blind people and I had the chance to see them using the computer lab. I was moved by the scene: all these eager young people hungry for learning, and yet they didn't have internet. Their Braille library was 20 books.

So I made a huge effort and found someone who could donate a router, took $500 in savings (which, as a student in Mexico, was quite a sum) and asked friend to match my donation. So my donation was in essence two years of internet.

Some time went by and when I followed up, the router was stowed in a closet and my donation had gone to "administrative purposes" because they were having trouble making ends meet.

This is a huge problem in charitable organizations, most of the money doesn't go to the people who need it, it goes towards maintaining the organization and generating more money through bothersome print and phone campaigns.

I've met a couple of people who have worked in these organizations, and they become jaded once they catch the mechanics. There are certainly exceptions: The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the Turner Foundation function on the funds provided by their founders.

I still believe in charity, but in a more peer-to-peer fashion, not necessarily involving money but mentoring that builds long-standing roads to success.

<comment><USER4> I had similar experiences, the administration on charity organizations are often less efficient than government institutions. I was at the Red Cross in Germany and at 14 o'clock nobody was at work anymore. They were out because the weather was so nice told me the apprentice browsing on Facebook, there was nobody else there and she couldn't help me with my problem.

This makes me angry, there is no competition in this area so nobody controls if their administration is efficient. All this money is gone for the people who really need it.

<comment><USER5> There is competition - they're competing with other charities for funds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This kind of comparison is ridiculous. Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. [Wikipedia] It would have units of [money]/[time]. Apple's cash hoard is just a lump sum reserve; it has units of [money]. To compare the two is meaningless.

A similarly meaningless comparison would be between distance and speed or countless others. Simple dimensional analysis shows how inane this whole comparison is.

<comment><USER7> It is not a meaningless comparison. It means that Apple could (theoretically) buy the entire output of any one of these countries for an entire year.

How much that matters is certainly unclear, but it's interesting to think about for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let's compare Apple's cash hoard against countries' cash hoards rather than their GDP. Assuming the source data at:

[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html)

is correct then Apple slots in at position #4 (!), slightly ahead of Russia and quite a bit behind Germany.

<comment><USER9> That's current accounts for the country (i.e. inflows less outflows), not "cash hoards". There's no easy way to measure a country's "cash hoard", as it were. GDP goes up with the number of transactions, even if there is no value added in each transaction. Money is just a way of making value liquid, fungible and transferrable etc.; the amount of it specifically is relatively meaningless, as banks etc. can multiply it based on reserve ratios.

<comment><USER10> I think every country in the world has a negative cash hoard, except perhaps Norway?

<comment><USER11> The amount of cash in your bank account has nothing to do with the amount of debt you have. In many cases the more debt you have the more cash you have because when you raise that debt through a bond issuance corporations receive the cash before spending it. It isn't like it is in the consumer world where you typically only acquire debt as loan for an asset (car, home, etc).

<comment><USER10> I was talking net.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This may seem an unfair and ridiculously large amount of money to hoard, but there's one reason it isn't. When Bush came in his admin just took Microsoft off the hook. The US is so capitalist that it's quite happy for monopolies to subvert the whole point of capitalism - competition. So Apple, and every company, including Microsoft, must hoard as much paranoia money as it can, because the US government's willingness to be corrupted is obvious to everyone, especially if you're Apple, or say, Netscape. They got away with destroying it, didn't they. They wish we were _all_ still using IE6. When the government is on the side of your competition, no amount will make you safe. They will crush you, while paying their friends soft money to look the other way.

</comment><comment><USER13> Two great examples of where graphs fail compared to a simple table of data.

</comment><comment><USER14> A fascinating thing here is that despite all of Apple's current products, all the rising sales numbers, all the hype, popularity and air of coolness surrounding them and all the generally good news about them and all that... up to the launch of Lion, the share price has hardly moved and if anything it went down - just because Steve Jobs announced he would retire.

<comment><USER15> 'cause the popular belief is that once Jobs retires, Apple will enjoy a free fall in _everything_.

Fascinating.

<comment><USER14> I understand this bit very well, thankyouverymuch. What I find fascinating is how one-dimensional and downright stupid and emotion-filled the stock market actually is and the Apple stocks are one of many good examples for that in this case.

<comment><USER16> When saw that Quora question on "why is Apple's stock so low" and didn't agree with a single one of the answers I moved half my parents investments into Apple. It is crazy to think that he hasn't imbued them with a lasting sense of design. I still think the company is undervalued.

<comment><USER17> That sounds like a terribly risky move for any investor, much less folks who are probably in or nearing retirement. Diversify!

<comment><USER16> I bought put options to cover the (extreme) downside. We were up about 30% YoY, so I wasn't too concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how "world's top 100 wealthiest entities" comes out as.</comment>


Google Talk for Developers - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/apis/talk/index.html

<comment><USER2> When I saw this headline I thought maybe they'd introduced automatic code formatting / syntax highlighting into the IM client. That would be huge.

(I guess someone could write that pretty easily)...

</comment><comment><USER3> This happened in late 2005.

<comment><USER4> Also, notice that they have not updated libjingle in over 2 years. They should include some sort of statement about the status of the project. It's my understanding that it won't even compile without work but I could be wrong there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is such a old news. When i read the heading, was really very curious. Anyway nothing new here. Its been such a long time since i played around with libjingle and xmpp.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've been able to get at gchat with XMPP for ages. Where's the news?

<comment><USER7> Video chat through their xmpp extension

<comment><USER8> Yes but not quite; they somewhat sidestepped Jingle standardisation process and extended then-current standard to suit their use case. They also primarily use(d) H.264/SVC which doesn't have readily usable free/open implementations. (more at my rant & google/xmpp dev comments here: [http://senko.net/gmail- videochat-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ug...](http://senko.net/gmail-videochat- the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/))

The good news is that since that announcement Google have been working with 3rd party devs to enable interoperability.

So (AFAIK) nowadays H.264/AVC should be working and there are implementations (Telepathy/Farsight that I know of, possibly others) that have experimental video interop with GTalk.

EDIT: the original "NIHd Jingle" comment is a bit too harsh (as the drafts of Jingle spec were changing very rapidly at the time), edited for clarity.

<comment><USER3> Their implementation of all things Jingle came in advance of any specification, so it's not fair to call it NIH. See this comment for more info: [http://senko.net/gmail-videochat-the-good-the-bad-and-the- ug...](http://senko.net/gmail-videochat-the-good-the-bad-and-the- ugly/#comment-840)

<comment><USER9> Considering that Google basically reinvented SIP using Jabber, I think calling it NIH syndrome is more then fair.

Google needed a robust and open IM protocol, which SIP wasn't in 2004/5. So they picked Jabber/XMPP and then bolted media signaling onto it (which is patterned after SIP).

They should really support SIP by now. But it's pretty clear at this point, that they are not a player in the telco space.

<comment><USER10> So as someone mooting the idea of writing a toy IM/comms server for me and my friends, would you recommend going with SIP over, say, XMPP?

Since you seem to know what you're talking about, unlike myself : D

<comment><USER4> For IM, XMPP would be a wise choice. SIP could be be used as part of your voice/video solution but they are different things and as such you wouldn't choose one over the other unless you were choosing IM over voice/video.

Google chose XMPP and developed Jingle as an extension to allow for voice/video.

You could just build your setup on Google's services and take advantage of Google Apps for your domain.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the reply. I'd want to offer both voice and IM - I actually didn't know SIP could do IM but a comment above made me realise it does.

Guess I'll have to check them both out more. I'd actually started a bit with XMPP but honestly I really don't like it, so was kind of hoping SIP could fit the bill .. more research needed : D

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure if you'll read this, since it's been so long, but here goes.

Depending on what you plan to do, if you want to be 'standards compliant', I'd look into SIP, and it's IM extension called SIMPLE.

What's interesting here is, that the 3GPP body - defining the telco standards of the future - has chosen SIP as it's signalling protocol for media sessions (voice + video), but also for IM. In addition there is a 'network address book' (= server side contact list) standard based on XCAP.

All of the above are part of what's called IMS, the IP based communications infrastructure for future telco networks.

A good library for SIP client development is PJSIP.

If you are just in need of a good IM infrastructure, XMPP/Jabber seems to be better suited.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google CEO: Twitter a "poor man's email system" - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ceo-twitter-a-poor-mans-email-system-2009-3

<comment><USER2> I assume he realizes that anything of the form "poor man's x" is extremely dangerous. Microcomputers were once the poor man's computer, video the poor man's film, etc.

<comment><USER3> On some level Google was, for me, a poor man's internet. My initial use of it for months was for the cached pages which would actually load on my terrible Packard Bell with dial-up in 2000.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think he's being disparaging, but it was definitely an interesting choice of words

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From a technological point of view, I think he's spot on. However, from a technological point of view I don't think any of what we've seen in the last ten years is really groundbreaking. Facebook doesn't really bring anything new to the table outside of maybe scaling; it ties together all the social connectivity that the Web can offer and makes it available to the common person. We're seeing services package up the technology and provide it to the average person, who now has access to the Internet. Twitter absolutely could have been done ten or twenty years ago (given a platform, of course), but no one had the idea and few could use it easily. That's the key.

</comment><comment><USER5> That makes no sense. A: Email is free already so who needs a 'poor mans' email? And B: Twitter is nothing like email in terms of it's function and use.

</comment><comment><USER6> It'll do in a pinch, though -- e.g., when Gmail is down.</comment>


Kasparov, Karpov set for chess clash in Spain - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/21/international/i085217D80.DTL&tsp=1 <comment><USER2> Total respect to both these guys, but it's hard to get excited about this match when Crafty could beat either of them....

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Computer_Chess_Championsh...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Computer_Chess_Championship)

It looks like rybka is the current World Computer Chess Champion.

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


Xbox 360 Teams Up With Entertainment Leaders to Transform TV - <AUTHOR> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/oct11/10-05XBTVPR.mspx <comment><USER2> This is cool, but it's certainly not a game changer. If you didn't need an Xfinity or Verizon account to get all this content then it would be a lot more interesting.

If I were willing to pay $80/mo for cable, I wouldn't be on Xbox streaming it.

<comment><USER3> Assume for a second you're right you still need a cable subscription to view this (you are).

What if the viewing experience on the Xbox is better? Easier access to related clips and content, more interactive features like social interactions or group viewing? An easier to use guide (get rid of your remote and use hand gestures and voice commands to control your viewing). More HD content? (Cable Ops are quickly running out of shared bandwidth for more broadcast channels, this would allow for more HD offerings)

These are the features that the Xbox will offer to enhance the experience over what you'd get viewing on your cable box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ill be more then willing to pay per view for HBO content as well as other providers on the list. But if it follows the same model as it HBOGO, then i guess I will keep getting my HBO content via torrents for free and stream them on the very same xbox360.

I am not alone in this, I am willing to pay this provider, I am not willing to pay for the idiotic bundle inflated priced plans the cable provider offers that include hundreds of channels i never ever watch.

<comment><USER5> I'm on the fence of this one; Xbox/MS has the potential to provide a la carte tv that many people long for and go head to head against cable providers/telcos such as Comcast or Verizon. I want to be able to select 10-15 channels I like and only pay for those. However, I suspect they don't want to be in the media game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It will be interesting to see details on this. I expect that it will be disappointing and you will be forced to have the cable channels to get the online content. This is already something that is making its way into other XBox content like espn 360.

</comment><comment><USER7> So with this your xbox360 becomes a cable set top box you own, yet still have to pay a monthly fee to have service on.

Not too revolutionary as you still have to deal with the cable company and continue feeding their deep pockets.

<comment><USER8> Not to mention the monthly fee for the XBL Gold membership.

If you do need that. I'd imagine that you would, given the situation with Netflix, HULU and ESPN. But I didn't see confirmation either way in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It feels strange that in the light of all these great streaming services that have popped up over the years... (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) ISPs have begun to punish people using these services via bandwidth caps and throttling.

<comment><USER10> What is strange about that? ISPs sold you service with a certain usage model in mind( light usage, web browsing and email.) As soon as a different heavier usage model they hadn't planed for became popular(streaming video) they had to react. They reacted in the way that provided them the most profit. Certainly understandable if somewhat disappointing.

It is like everyone with a gym membership started showing up at the same time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> From what I read elsewhere, it may require either a Verizon FiOS or Comcast account to access it as well as a Xbox Live Gold membership.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, they are asking ISPs permission to launch an IPTV service. Bad precedent.

<comment><USER3> No, thats not what they're doing. They're extending a cable operator initiative called "TV Everywhere" ESPN 360 and HBO Go are the two main services using this.

The basic idea is that if you can prove you're already a cable subscriber then they're willing to stream you content via IP to certain devices, within a strict set of parameters. For example if you're connected to the internet through your Comcast provided cable modem you can stream to your tablet device, or perhaps in this case the Xbox.

MS is not doing anything here without the cable operators permission they're working very closely with them to fit within the parameters they set. Its the only way they're able to launch this service. (Compare the lack of success GoogleTV has had which tried to go completely around the cable operators)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sigh, this is just another lost opportunity for a la carte television.

The first company to finally drive that initiative home will become filthy, filthy rich overnight.

<comment><USER14> I'm not so sure. How many folks would be willing to pay _extra_ for a la carte television? It is my understanding that in the current "bundled" packages the "channels you like" are subsidized by the "channels you don't like". A la carte would increase the overall bill.

<comment><USER15> It would increase the per-channel bill, but if you selected fewer channels, it could potentially be cheaper overall.

<comment><USER14> It certainly would be an interesting experiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Depending on exactly what they get from Comcast and Verizon, this could be big in the US. Is there any video showing the feature set?

</comment><comment><USER17> Or <http://thepiratebay.org/></comment>


What Happens Now That China Won't Take US Recycling - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/ <comment><AUTHOR> "America generated 262.4 million tons of waste, up … 60 percent from 1985. That amounts to nearly five pounds per person a day."</comment>


Discrete Differential Geometry: Helping Machines/People Think Clearly Abt. Shape - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcal5Cy7r4E <comment><USER2> Excellent.</comment>


Naming the 'iPhone SE 2' - <AUTHOR> https://512pixels.net/2019/10/naming-the-iphone-se-2/ <comment><USER2> I think they should go with iPhone SE/30.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30)

<comment><USER3> II -> IIx

SE -> SEx

...naming it the SE/30 was blatantly because they couldn't be consistent and add an x.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's the point if it doesn't have an SE form factor? The price is alright I guess but by that time you can probably get a nice refurbished 8 for the same price.

<comment><USER5> It's going to be a real letdown if it's iPhone 8 size; we're so lacking in high-end (or even midrange) phones in a small form factor now. There's nothing on Android either - even Sony's Xperia Compact line is now much bigger than an SE.

You could fit a 5" screen on the SE form factor if it was edge-to-edge like the iPhone X, or you could keep the old SE 4" screen, make _that_ edge-to- edge, and make the phone itself even smaller.

Illustrated: [https://i.imgur.com/OKZiWrN.png](https://i.imgur.com/OKZiWrN.png)

<comment><USER6> There's the Palm phone running Android with a 3.3" screen

[https://palm.com/pages/product](https://palm.com/pages/product)

<comment><USER7> Wow, I'd love to see an iDevice with those dimentions!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't even get what made iPhone 8 more powerful than a hypothetical 7S. Seems like that was another naming skip that Apple snuck in alongside the X.

</comment><comment><USER9> No matter what they call it, it will still be orders of magnitude less confusing than the camera lineups of Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

e.g.: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nikon_DSLR_camer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nikon_DSLR_cameras)

</comment><comment><USER10> "iPhone 11 Max Pro SEA Sports, It's a Phone" \- jackfilms - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnnK6CIzPzU&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnnK6CIzPzU&feature=youtu.be&t=78)

</comment><comment><USER11> yup on "iphone 9" naming [0]. it just makes a lot of sense based on its positioning as the iphone 8 successor (rather than SE 2).

apple really doesn't want to walk itself back on pricing, so this is its strategy to maintain premium market position while acquiescing to all of us who've so far balked at paying $1k+ for a phone. premium brands often end up going downmarket in search of revenue growth as the premium segment saturates. it doesn't always go well (brand deterioration—>loss of pricing power) but apple has been relatively successful in other product categories (e.g., laptops).

[0] said as much here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21244783](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21244783)

</comment><comment><USER12> Does SE stand for Stingy Edition? "Special" Edition? any ideas?

<comment><USER13> Special Edition, Phil Schiller said so in an interview.

</comment></comment><comment> why-oh-why Why would they name a new phone with a number that sounds 2 generations old? At least 8 and 10 were released together.

It would make to call it iPhone 11 Lite or something alone those lines (iPhone 11T?)

<comment><USER14> Because Apple has already established a tradition of continuing older generation as their butget lines. People buy new old iPhones all the time. So why not make up new new old iPhones? Apparently "this used to be top of the line just n years ago" is part of the appeal and a made up former latest iPhone (like from an alternative history where nine was not skipped) comes much closer to that than a dedicated lesser version of the current generation. And if they get the processing guts of the current generation, just not the novelty gimmicks, they will actually be better than a real former flagship.

As an Android user I have nothing but envy for the (occasional) availability of internally updated older chassis. If I had the choice I would probably be writing this on a fourth reissue Moto Defy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't see how it could be a 9 because camera-wise it will be a downgrade from the 8 right? Surely for 400 you don't get a zoom lens. Will it have night mode? I suspect not.

</comment><comment><USER16> iPhone 9 is a terrible name.

It is not part of the standard line-up, so why would you recommend naming it as if it was released 2 years ago?

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone here know where I can get a new, original SE these days? I want to have a backup when this one breaks.

</comment><comment><USER18> It should be named IPhone 6ssss

</comment><comment><USER19> Personally, I'd vote for iPhone SEX.

</comment><comment><USER20> iPhone 11 Air

</comment><comment><USER21> iPhone 9X</comment>