Why I Write Books Even Though I've Lost Money on Every Book I've Written - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/02/why-i-write-books-even-though-ive-lost-money-on-every-book-ive-written/

<comment><USER2> > He called me back one time. We had known each other forever but had never > had an issue where someone didn't want one of my books. So now I saw what > happened when someone didn't want one of my books. "If you are going to tell > me how to do my job," he said, "this relationship is over." I mumbled an > apology and he hung up.

When I first read this, it seemed to me that the agent is at fault. If every editor rejected the proposal, _shouldn't he find out why?_

> So I wrote an email to Hollis and explained why the book would be good for > her. She agreed to meet me. She said to me, "this proposal seems like it was > written by wikipedia. You need to give us a real methodology for what to do > when the end of the world hits."

So our author had to do the agent's work for him?

<comment><USER3> Yeah -- that moment and the moment at the very end where he found his happy ending were the only two moments in the whole thing where I felt any sympathy for the author at all.

The rest of the time, where he wrote crappy books he knew were crappy, alienated editors, and contemplated insurance fraud plus suicide in one swell foop, all whilst capitalizing on others' credulity to sell them financial advice when his own finances have run like a yo-yo, he came off like a complete ass.

Congratulations to Altucher for writing in such an engaging, and hypnotically, brutally honest style that I felt compelled to read all the way through, despite the fact he induced me to distantly hate him through about 98% of the tale.

<comment><USER4> Some people on HN are dicks sometimes. You weren't asked to judge him, I don't even think he wanted your sympathy. Read and enjoy, take what you need to take from it, and leave the rest.

One of my key takeaways was that he's since come a long way, are your feelings aimed at him 10 years ago? Doesn't read like that. I for one enjoyed it, and look forwards to the next installment landing in my inbox.

Genuinely, I don't understand how or why someone would read that post, and think to write the words you wrote. Full-circle: you came off like an ass.

<comment><USER3> When did I say that he wanted my sympathy? I explained something, from my point of view, about the character of the tale -- which is pretty much what _everyone_ else here is doing, when not just asking questions. Are you such a fan of the man that you cannot accept that? Am I not allowed to engage in discussion here just because my opinion of how he came off in the story differs from yours?

> Full-circle: you came off like an ass.

Fair enough. Maybe it looks that way to you. Too bad for me.

Your "sit down and shut up" routine makes you look a bit worse than merely abrasive judgment of his self-portrayal, though -- at least in my opinion.

<comment><USER4> My routine isn't sit down shut up (Did you just assume that?)

I just think you said something that didn't need to be said. The second piece, "how he came off in the story" is almost my exact point: I don't really see how your opinion on how he came off is valuable, unless your really going to delve into some psychological reasoning, use an anecdote or note a similar example - which you didn't. HN is for intelligent discussion i.e. value, not how you thought the guy came off.

Maybe if you'd have made a REAL comment, i.e. "hey, seems like a bumpy ride but it sure does seem like persistence prevails. [enter your comment here]" then it would have been fine.

But as it was, you just attacked him personally based on what you read in that post. Maybe its just a lesson in looking at things from other peoples perspectives, I'm sure I wasn't the only one who thought what I thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get it. He was spending $40,000/month on his living expenses while being afraid that he wouldn't be able to afford diapers and food for his baby? How was this guy running his life so wrong? Did it somehow cost him that much to maintain his unsellable house in the financial district of New York? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for him?

<comment><USER6> EDIT: I've deleted my comment and my other replies to this discussion. As irrational as it is, my silly e-psyche recognizes it's easy to hit the delete button rather than watch my opinion down-arrowed.

<comment><USER3> Maybe he should. I write for a publisher whose offices are more than a thousand miles away from me. We have this nifty thing called the Internet now, and postal mail works even when you don't live in the same city anyway (postal mail being how most book proposals and manuscripts are delivered when they are not sent digitally). Even if you have to fly halfway across the country twice a year for meetings, which is more often than many people would have to actually meet face-to-face with editors at publishers (judging by my limited experience at least), it costs less than sweet digs in the financial district of one of the most expensive cities in the world.

<comment><USER6> "We have this nifty thing called the Internet now"

I accept your criticism of my comment (in support of living in areas beyond your means), but that's unnecessarily snarky, sir.

<comment><USER3> Nothing personal. It was meant to be merely "flippant", and not so much "snarky".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Make sure you read that article until the very last paragraph. It has a heart- warming ending. I awwww'ed. :)

<comment><USER8> Better still read the last paragraph first .... you may save yourself five minutes of reading.

I'm at a complete loss as to why this artice is on the front page - to say that I didn't learn much from it is an understatement of some magnitude.

<comment><USER9> > Better still read the last paragraph first .... you may save yourself five > minutes of reading.

Started reading, realized it wasn't worth my bacon, check the comments, found yours and read the only meaningful thing I could deduce from the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just an observation on the first bit:

Wow, kind of concerning how money centric some people are. He would rather kill himself to leave his family money, than try to raise his family poor? I don't have kids so I don't know. Is this a realistic thought for any of you? Would you commit suicide in lieu of being a failure, to try and leave something for your kids? Is that making the best out of a bad situation?

</comment><comment><USER11> Writing a book (my O'Reilly book) was the hardest thing I've ever done. It took me a year and I can't count the number of days I just sat in front of a blank screen just willing myself to write something (and usually failing).

All that was worth it when I first got to walk into a bookstore and see my book on the bookshelves. :)

<comment><USER3> On that subject . . .

Have you worked with any competing platforms, or is Azure pretty much the platform you know? I'm just curious about your thoughts on Azure from a comparative, rather than strictly technical in-a-vacuum, perspective.

<comment><USER11> It is impossible to be good at any technical niche if you don't know the nitty gritties of every other option out there. I just happen to talk about Windows Azure a lot because that's what I work on :).

<comment><USER3> Would you mind giving me a quick, thousand-foot view of your thoughts on the various options, relative to each other, then? I must admit to knowing little more about Azure than the simple fact of its existence (in part by having seen your book on the shelf at Barnes & Noble), and I am afflicted by idle curiosity.

<comment><USER11> That really depends on what your application is, what your constraints and priorities are and what your appetite for risk is. The discussion I have with a large NY financial services company is very different from the one I have with a 2 person YC startup. There are many, many ways to slice up your options.

I'll be happy to help (my email address is in my profile) but remember that I'm not unbiased - I work on one of those options :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you're _losing_ money on your books you're doing it wrong. With self- publishing companies like lulu.com and the negligible costs of selling e-books on the Nook there's no reason to have negative costs

... unless you're so caught up in image that you're willing pay money for the fake "prestige" of having a "real" publisher.

<comment><USER3> As a throw-away statement, he referred to the fact that losing money on his books factors in the time he spent (and, presumably, the money he could have made doing other things). I'm not sure I buy that means of estimation, given the way he also informed his readers of his tendency to get himself into crushing debt and nigh-homelessness even when he wasn't writing, but if you accept his premise that his time could have been more (directly) lucratively spent, he does in fact kinda-sorta "lose" money through the writing process itself, regardless of what it costs to publish.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but opportunity cost is not a line item on a budget.

<comment><USER3> I didn't say it was. I said that was his point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As James is participating on this thread, I will simply ask this question rather than speculate: How many good things have come as a result of the credibility being a "published author" has given you?

<comment><USER15> Great question. There's definitely been some good thats come of it. Let me think for a bit and respond. Probably in a blog post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You know, I started investing heavily in the stock market around the time that "Forever Portfolio" came out in late 2008. By not being frightened about the current economic turmoil and actually investing with a long-term outlook, I'm sitting pretty damn good now 2.5 years later.

</comment><comment><USER17> "...I eeked out my $40,000 a month..."

OH NOOOOOOOOO

(I write insightful comments so that I may also write cathartic ones like this. Vote however you like.)

Edit: This comment was ill-conceived in every way possible.

<comment><USER18> I'm probably going to get downvoted for saying this, but putting "vote however you like" or "I expect downvotes for this" or "I know this isn't going to get upvotes" in a comment almost guarantees your comment lots of upvotes. It's almost as if when you say you expect people to downvote you their instinctive reaction is "Don't tell me what to think!" and they do the opposite.

EDIT: Apparently implying a parent comment is pandering for karma is an equally rapid way to get it downvoted. Please don't downvote the parent comment because of this one- I actually found it quite witty.

<comment><USER17> This comes up almost every time someone does what I just did. You're right about the Voting-Based Social Media Site Psychology of it, but I think we've covered it enough that it doesn't need to be said.

I do regret adding that to the end. I really didn't mean to influence the votes. Now, of course, I can't remove it without eliminating the context for our discussion.

Edit for more meta: Apparently I am now That Guy In The Thread Whose Comments Are All Downvoted Regardless of Contribution to the Discussion. I am also That Guy Who Left A Stupid Reddit-Style Comment, That Guy Who Is Spending To Much Time in the Thread, and That Guy Who Thinks Hacker News is Going Downhill. Time for a sandwich.

<comment><USER18> I don't mean to come across as criticizing you for that comment in any way! Seriously, I think it's a fine and well placed comment! (Plus HN is always more mellow on Sundays).

I'm just incredibly interested in crowd psychology and mass control, and pointing this out as an effective tactic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm not surprised noone bought his books. Trade Like a Hedge Fund is $35.08 on Kindle. People will always opt for the $9 book (even if they think the book that's $25 more expensive will make them more money)

<comment><USER15> You know, thats just not true for finance books. Trade Like a hedge fund was $70 when it first came out and sold more than all of my other books combined.

<comment><USER19> Oh really? Look at the best-selling investing books on Amazon. [http://www.amazon.com/Investing-Business- Books/b/ref=bw_ab_3...](http://www.amazon.com/Investing-Business- Books/b/ref=bw_ab_3_8?ie=UTF8&node=2665&pf_rd_p=236877501&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=3&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1DKJKB467RJ1VZGDPART)

<comment><USER15> I'm just telling you the facts on my books. My most expensive one was the one that sold the best. For high-end finance books price-point doesn't matter as much (one successful trade makes up for it, 100x).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> the new book seems likely to be another case of bad timing... the apocalypse seems to be over, at least on wall street.

</comment><comment><USER21> I feel like you could've made yourself sound a lot more sympathetic than you actually did. You come across as an asshole?

<comment><USER17> I think you mean "worthy of sympathy." And while I agree with you, I wish you would provide examples to back up your assertion.

I came to my opinion by observing that he spent most of the article cataloguing his unsuccessful writing career, and then brings in a one- paragraph love story out of absolutely nowhere.

<comment><USER3> Contemplating suicide plus insurance fraud in a single act without talking about the background for why he would have thought this was a good idea is not well-calculated to induce sympathy.

Foisting books he thought sucked onto editors while scamming them for ever- larger advances by bushwhacking them with out-of-nowhere agents is not well- calculated to induce sympathy.

Talking about how he lies to people about his career -- especially when casting the reader directly in the hypothetical role of wronged target of these lies -- is not well-calculated to induce sympathy.

Writing a book about how to claw your way to riches as a means to make money off credulous readers to forestall your own bankruptcy (and/or suicide) is not well-calculated to induce sympathy.

Acts of desperation redolent of co-dependent personal issues, such as writing strident appeals to the most vulnerable people on the insides of one's books in the hopes of essentially tricking people into buying them, is not well- calculated to induce sympathy.

He paints himself as an asshole and a fuck-up who lucked out despite his best efforts to make a lot of money (off and on) and uses that to get people to listen to him. It's certainly not the most sympathetic picture he could have painted of himself.

Also . . . whether the previous person meant "sympathetic" or "worthy of sympathy", it is entirely reasonable -- and in the context of literary criticism (formal or otherwise), quite common -- to refer to a "sympathetic character", which is exactly what Altucher is _not_ by his own presentation other than once probably by accident, and another time at the end quite surprisingly. This is because "sympathy" is not the same thing as "empathy", though many think it is.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, third definition of "sympathetic":

> Agreeably suited to one's disposition or mood; congenial: sympathetic > surroundings.

Other definitions hint at the idea as well. That idea is, simply put, that there is a sense of connection and sameness between subject and object. Even those who are not much different from Altucher in all the myriad ways he presents himself poorly are likely to feel his is an unsympathetic character, if only because they would not want to admit to themselves the same depths two which they have descended. If it were not for the engaging style with which he beats the crap out of his own image, I suspect almost nobody would read all the way through such a painful litany of character flaws as he presents.

It helps that he ended it when he did. If it went on for another half-dozen paragraphs, I might have gotten sick of it, engaging style or otherwise.

<comment><USER15> \- never contemplated insurance fraud. not sure where in story you got that. \- i never foisted a book i thought sucked onto editors. i liked all my books and the only one i dont like right now is Supercash. \- i never lied to anyone about my career. not sure where you got that. \- i never needed to write a book to forestall bankruptcy. i was already well-recovered. please read the story.

I dont think you really read the article. but maybe i did paint myself as a "fuck-up".

<comment><USER22> You explicitly talked about contemplating ways to make your suicide look accidental as to allow your family to collect the insurance benefits. i.e. insurance fraud.

<comment><USER15> no , i did not. most insurance policies actually allow for suicide after a year. The real reason for making it look accidental is for effect on daughters. its an insane way to look at it (any discussion of suicide is insane but this was 10 years ago) but thats the way it was.

<comment><USER23> Normally I would not reply to anything in this whole thread because people are saying a lot of rather harsh things to you. But it may help to know that your perspective on how you wrote the text is clouding how the text actually reads to someone who is not in your own skull.

I don't know a single person who actually has a life insurance policy, but movies have taught us (rightly or wrongly) that people who buy life insurance policies and then talk about killing themselves to make it look like an accident, these people are trying to do so specifically because, in movie- plot-reality, and who knows, maybe in some actual contracts, suicide would not be covered.

The appropriate response here is to say "gosh I didn't think of that, you're right, people are likely to get the wrong idea since I didn't say WHY I was thinking about making it look like an accident." Simply saying "no no you're wrong, I never said anything like that" is fighting with the reality that what you think about what you say has little bearing on the most natural way that other people are going to perceive what you say.

<comment><USER3> . . . and while I do not currently have a life insurance policy, I did at one time -- and the exception for suicide never went away on that policy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


11-year-old college grad: I'm no genius - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31128101/?gt1=43001

<comment><AUTHOR> Other than the obvious "child prodigy" angle, nothing particularly interesting about this article. I'm actually more curious about the long term careers of such prodigies, especially such extreme cases. I know of a couple in law - Kiwi Camara graduated from Harvard Law at 20(?) and now runs his own firm. Eugene Volokh graduated from UCLA undergrad at 15 and now is a law professor.

On the same note, I'm also interested in hearing thoughts about hacking education by reducing the number of years we spend in school. I'm a proponent of the belief that we inevitably fill up the amount of time we've allocated to a project, even if it doesn't end up resulting in an improved product (Can't remember, does this come from the 4-day work week?). I don't have the numbers, but I recall seeing the stats somewhere that American students have significantly more vacation time and therefore less school days than their counterparts in Europe and Asia.

<comment><USER2> I'm 14 and in highschool and I believe we spend way too much time on things that have no affect on increasing our knowledge. The textbooks are also surrounded by bureaucracy and they sound like they were written by robots. Every emotion, opinion, or different view of an event is thrown out. Math textbooks just give you a proof and some examples. Most of the time they don't give you why or how you would use it, nor the underlying proofs that were used to come to theorem or proof.

<comment><USER3> _The textbooks are also surrounded by bureaucracy and they sound like they were written by robots. Every emotion, opinion, or different view of an event is thrown out._

It's a good thing you've figured this out already, but boy is school going to be painful from now on. Everybody else is probably going to tell you otherwise, but perhaps you should consider a radical change in your education plans, especially if things just get worse. Maybe leaving in a couple of years and doing something more worthwhile, even if that just means going to college early. I know it sounds risky, and others reading this might even think I'm being irresponsible in telling you this. But I'd at least keep your options open.

<comment><USER4> I know I certainly wish I found a community like Hacker News in high school. Or even earlier in college. It is advice like this which others are afraid to tell you. Even if it is crappy advice, at least it is a unique perspective compared to the brainwashed masses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "I feel it's a waste of time playing video games because it's not helping humanity in any way"

Looks like he still has some things to learn

</comment><comment><USER6> Moshe spawned this essay the first time he appeared on HN; maybe it still has some relevance. I wish him the best. [http://daniellefong.com/2008/05/15/advice-to-the-bright- and-...](http://daniellefong.com/2008/05/15/advice-to-the-bright-and-young/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great post Danielle, really enjoyed the read. I've been 2 years ahead since grade school, and a lot of your points hit home.</comment></comment>


Cuphead will use 15,000 hand drawn frames of animation - <AUTHOR> http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331758042492/cuphead-xbox-one-interview <comment><USER2> This account seems like it was created to post redbull.com stories, and the HN title doesn't match the title of the article.. however, the 15,000 frames is a core part of the article's focus and I think hackers would find this interesting.

<comment><USER3> In my opinion this post is suited to HN, but not the other (mods for fallout 4). HN isn't a general-interest gaming forum, but I have to say this article was pretty interesting. It went into depth on the creators, what aesthetic they're trying to achieve and how they're going about it, and enough background about the genre, video game pastiches of 1930s cartoons. From the previews it looks like they've achieved a surprisingly authentic look.

Regarding the art, the blur and out-of-focus effects go too far. I never saw 1930s cartoons with as much text going in and out of frame as the text in that demo video. It's a step beyond charming. I hope they scale it back for release.

<comment><USER2> You should mention this to the developers! I remember 1930s cartoons having less disruptive visuals as that, too. That said this is an impressive undertaking and the animation does look incredibly fluid. Hoping they make a great game and do well.

<comment><USER3> I don't know the best way to get in touch with them. Besides, hopefully they've gotten this feedback already. If Microsoft execs are reviewing the game, they will certainly get feedback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm ridiculously excited about this game and don't really mind the astroturfing. The animation is just crazy awesome.

</comment><comment><USER5> Okay, so at 30 frames per second, 500 seconds of animation, so... less than 10 minutes?

<comment><USER6> Well, an important element of old style animation was the heavy reuse of frames and poses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Won't the extreme similarity to Disney cause problems?</comment>


An Expensive Month. Adventures in an Ad-Free Internet - <AUTHOR> http://tabletopaudio.com/blog/2016/10/05/expensive-month/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is really sad. I love and use TableTop Audio weekly for my D&D sessions. I'm also a Patreon subscriber, and If you can, you should become one too. It's a great site; I would hate to see it go.</comment>


Ask HN: How much can a really good front-end developer make? - <AUTHOR> I'm at a cross roads in my career and I'm wondering if being a REALLY good front-end dev is a good position to be in. Is it practical to bill myself out at $500/hr at some point being a front-end dev? Are good front-end devs actually hard to find or are they kind of a dime a dozen? <comment><USER2> > Is it practical to bill myself out at $500/hr at some point being a front- > end dev?

I doubt it. Maybe if you are a rockstar dev in a highly specialized field with highly specialized domain knowledge and the employer is time constrained and desperate for a hire.

The median front-end dev salary is around $75K. Generally contractors can bill 1.5 to 2X what the salaried folks make. But I guess it varies with location. Also, keep in mind that unless you have contacts, you will have to go through recruiters who will take a portion of billing rate.</comment>


Aphex Twin Releases Firmware Update for Bass Station II - <AUTHOR> https://ask.audio/articles/novations-new-bass-station-ii-firmware-adds-afx-mode-by-aphex-twin <comment><AUTHOR> I've had a BS II for a while and I was fairly happy with it - cool for an entry level analogue synth. I took the manual's suggestion and added a Moog Delay pedal which improved the tone, it's still no minimoog.

Then Novation released paraphonic mode for this 21 year old synth which really blew my hair back. And now Aphex has provided a firmware update that enables microtunings similar to the early Selected Ambient works. Forget planned obsolesce, this is what great hardware customer support looks like.</comment>


Anchor – Available on Android - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/anchor/anchor-for-android-is-available-now-789b38fed823#.ejc7eg4t6 <comment><AUTHOR> Anchor - Radio for the People

Excellent iOS audio sharing app now available for Android. Excellent UX and design has been carried over as well.

Radio stations have been using the app for months, so it's great to see on Android. It feels like an excellent new way to connect with an audience.</comment>


Puerto Rican Hospitals Battle Life and Death Daily - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555796327/following-disaster-teams-in-puerto-rico <comment><USER2> Sadly, we can expect to see more of this into the future.

[http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/puerto-rico- fa...](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/puerto-rico-faces-weeks- electricity-maria-50020984).

> The territory's $73 billion debt crisis has left agencies like the state > power company broke. It abandoned most basic maintenance in recent years, > leaving the island subject to regular blackouts.

The Federal government can provide disaster relief (and should have done a better job here), but it's job isn't to rebuild local infrastructure (especially infrastructure that was already marginal due to decades of neglect). In that sense, Puerto Rico isn't different from Illinois, Detroit, Flint, or numerous other places where decades of mismanagement have hollowed out the resources of the local government. If a major disaster hit Detroit, I think you'd be surprised at how long it would take to recover.

<comment><USER3> Point taken, but the article wasn't talking about "rebuilding local infrastructure", or long-term recovery. It was specifically talking about people dying, and in danger of dying, _right now_ \- for the lack of easily deployable (in the timespan since the hurricane - being as this is, you know, the richest country in the world) replacement "infrastructure" like air conditioners and gas-powered generators.

While their country's Executive Branch not only shows no signs of taking their plight seriously, but goes out of its way to make spiteful comments about it.

<comment><USER4> It's weird that when I read the article I form a picture of an immense response of very determined, brave, well funded, well trained, responsive professionals out there _saving_ lives in a post-apocalyptic environment.

But your takeaway was that this "shows no signs of taking their plight seriously"? I honestly do not get it. Did we read the same article?

Did you read about Dr. Melissa Stein leading the DMAT team? About Commander Thorp responding to the false report of a disaster at a nearby hospital? About the conditions they are working in?

 _" In telling team members coming here we tell them it's going to be an extremely austere environment," she says.

No power, no air conditioning, no local water, no local food, no Internet and very limited communication. Hurricane Maria falls somewhere between Hurricane Harvey in Houston — where teams stayed in a hotel — and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, where they created a field hospital in Port-au-Prince and slept outside._

This is a island with 3.4 million people which won't have power restored for 4-6 _months_. From what I'm reading we have seen an overwhelming Federal response starts days _before_ landfall.

 _No signs of taking their plight seriously...._

<comment><USER5> There is a robust federal response. It's also not enough to meet the challenge. Both things can be true.

Apparently the response in Haiti was faster and larger [1] And yet, people forget that the response in Haiti was screwed up too.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us- responded-t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-responded-to- haiti-quake-more-forcefully-than-to-puerto-rico- disaster/2017/09/28/74fe9c02-a465-11e7-8cfe-d5b912fabc99_story.html?utm_term=.0fe9e6d435f0)

<comment><USER4> We are spending $200 million per day. NYT reports that 19 people died during the storm and 14 people have died since "indirectly" from the storm.

You claim what we are doing is "not enough to meet the challenge". By what metric? It was a "catastrophic event" which will take months to rebuild. It's been about two weeks, and a dozen people have died. It seems like the immediate challenge has been well and fully met. The long term challenge is already shaping up with Trump statements like "wipe out the debt".

By comparison deaths in Haiti were about 200,000. Please let that sink in when MSM tries to make the comparison.

One of the things we learned from Haiti is the _deploy everything now_ mentality is counter-productive. You get a baseline then you assess, assess, assess and then figure out how to send the _right_ resources that are actually needed on the ground.

<comment><USER2> Source for $200 million per day?

<comment><USER4> [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/trump- hurr...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/trump-hurricane- relief-request-flood-insurance.html?referer=https://www.google.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FWIW, the full title of this article is: _112 Degrees With No Water: Puerto Rican Hospitals Battle Life And Death Daily_

i think it's important to emphasize the temperature difference here because _almost every hospital anywhere_ battles life and death daily

<comment><AUTHOR> I had intended to use the full title, and only just now realized that I messed it up.

<comment><USER7> Big time, mind you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In regards to people questioning why the US Navy and friends haven't swooped in yet, it is a question of logistics. Contrary to cinematic portrayal, an endeavour of this magnitude requires a ton of planning and legal acrobatics, not to mention hiring and deploying contractors. A worthy read on this subject is Shield and Sword, an account of the US Navy in Gulf War I.

</comment><comment><USER9> It is truly shocking how slow the recovery is.

<comment><USER4> FEMA is used to dropping massive quantities of supplies "at the doorstep" and relies on local infrastructure to distribute it.

Apparently there are 10,000 containers in port but no way to distribute the goods. No drivers, no gas for trucks, and no passable roads to drive on.

You can't rebuilt the islands electrical grid in a couple weeks, when first you have to rebuild the roads, which you can't build because there's no one there to build them because there's no food or water.

I'd say the devastation is truly shocking. It's not particularly shocking that the recovery is just getting started and that they are facing absolutely enourmous logistical problems compounded by the pre-existing state and very poor readiness for this level of event.

<comment><USER10> Solar energy could be a good temporal solution for this kind of disasters:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-puertorico- solar/how-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-puertorico-solar/how- solar-energy-saved-a-puerto-rican-farm-from-hurricane-maria-idUSKCN1C90CG)

The military probably have a lot of experience deploying solar energy infrastructure in places with complex accessibility.

<comment><USER11> Afghanistan was a testbed for this technology because remote bases were often extremely expensive to maintain if running off of generator power. The cost of fuel was astronomical since it had to be ferried in by helicopter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Don't all hospitals? It's a place to treat and care for sick people. Obviously some are going to die.

</comment><comment><USER13> What's with the "force protection" with assault weapons? What exactly are they protecting from?

<comment><USER14> There's always a big looter/violence problem during disasters like this, and it's difficult for police/security to do their jobs at normal efficiency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Don't they all? Not criticizing the article, just the title.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Great anger" -Trump, commenting on the divisiveness he sowed using his supporters & the subject of the NFL protests, while ignoring Puerto Rico.</comment>


Ask HN: Why doesn't Google docs utilize link shortening? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Because they don't want to pollute [http://goo.gl](http://goo.gl) with every document made, ever? Every document has a link, even unshared ones; that's a lot of docs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just do it yourself at [http://goo.gl/](http://goo.gl/)</comment>


Mathematicians solve 60-year-old problem - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-03-mathematicians-year-old-problem.html <comment><USER2> [http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1603](http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1603), version of the paper not behind a paywall.

The phys.org summary is light on mathematical details. The actual paper is very readable & if you have a math or physics background more understandable, e.g. the paper says six-wave interactions are responsible for "effective irreversible transfer of energy" but the phys.org summary leaves out "effective" (making the phys.org summary confusing IMO).

<comment><USER3> The described phenomenon remembered me of giant waves called rogue waves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave).

<comment><USER4> remembered → reminded.

Are you French?

<comment><USER5> This is something that could happen in Dutch, as we have one word for both.

<comment><USER6> Same in German: "sich erinnern"

<comment><USER7> as far as i'm concerned, _remember (sth)_ is active and reflexive whereas _remind sb (of sth)_ is passive, so it's not easily confused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Visualization and background of the FPU problem: [http://stemblab.github.io/fermi-pasta-ulam/](http://stemblab.github.io/fermi- pasta-ulam/)

<comment><USER9> All I get is a blank page in both Firefox and Chrome.

<comment><USER10> Did you try disabling Adblock Plus? I have ABP and the page was blank for me until I disabled it.

<comment><USER9> Tried that; did not work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> After reading the solution presented, what strikes me is that there is very little new math in it. Before you jump down my throat let me explain as this is quite an impressive effort.

Equation 7 bears a striking resemblance to what you would get if you started with a Liouville vonNeumann equation and tried to solve it in time. Infact all of the equations seem to follow this path.

See for example the books: 1) Charge and energy transfer dynamics in Molecular systems by Volkhard May and Oliver Kuhn (chapter 2)

2) Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases by Abraham NItzan.

I find it a bit surprising to not see these in the reference material. Everything in this paper screams Liouville von-Neuman equation.

<comment><USER12> Is the generalization between one, two and three spatial dimensions straightforward?</comment></comment>


Article 1 section 2 paragraph 3 of the US Constitution (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://fcsuper.blogspot.com/2014/06/article-1-section-2-paragraph-3-of-us.html <comment><USER2> > There would be so many representatives, that votes would have to be made > based on what the person feels is right for their 30,000 voters, rather than > how much money they can collect from lobbyist for their next campaign.

I feel like the author pulls this conclusion out of thin air.

<comment><USER3> pretty well supported by the idea that

>9400 Representatives would make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the will of our elected officials.

because a ~20x increase in the number of representatives would probably mean a roughly proportional increase in lobbying resources

<comment><USER4> When the cost of something goes up 20x, one rarely sees demand unchanged at the new price point. I don't believe influence to be so price inelastic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here in Canada we have 100,000 constituents per mp, and things are not better. Their political footprint is so small that their party affiliation is all that matters. This means they all do exactly what their party says for fear of losing that party affiliation and becoming unelectable.

Compare vs the blue dog Democrats that held up healthcare reform. That kind of party infighting is unheard-of in Canada.

<comment><USER6> Not familiar with Canadian elections, do you vote for a party or an individual?

<comment><USER7> As a whole, we vote for a party. The person on the ballet is that of your riding. They are a Member of Parliament (MP) for your area, and they are affiliated with one of the many parties.

The party the receives the most elected MP's across Canada wins, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister. The party votes for their leader, so Canadiens have little say there.

Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put little thought who is running their riding.

<comment><USER8> _Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put little thought who is running their riding._

This is entirely rational, though. The local MP has two primary functions - one is to vote on legislation, and the other is to support a particular set of MPs to form the executive government (personified by the Prime Minister, because the PM usually gets most of the say in who makes up the remainder of the executive).

Both of these are important, but the choice of executive normally has far more effect on the day-to-day running of the country (and the executive mostly gets to set the legislative agenda anyway), so it's no mystery why people tend to focus on the choice of executive when deciding which local MP to vote for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to think our 3 'powers' \- legislative, judiciary, and executive -- were sufficient. But I no longer believe that the legislative is up to the task of oversight of the executive.

If the foundational debates were happening today, I would argue for a 4th branch of government: _operational_.

A modern system should avail itself of available technology. An 'open source' operational branch of the constitutinal state would be afforded the power of _runtime_ oversight of the _executive_ , and ideally be crowd sourced. The issue of 'state secrets' is somewhat legitimate, but imo a healthy system would strive to minimize such requirements, and worst case it can refer such matter to the much more compact legislative body.

<comment><USER10> So an auditory branch of government [0]? It's not that uncommon outside the Anglosphere.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_branches)

<comment><USER9> That's interesting. Civil monitors would engage in activity that includes more immediate attention beyond the _post facto_ review and redress (which is the sense I got from your linked content).

[p.s. For example, detach from the _deliberative_ legislative body functions such as United States House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.]

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure moving committees, such as that one, to anther branch of government would achieve much. In the end, these committees are intended to allow the legislature to make better decisions - moving their functions away from the legislature doesn't help.

Then again, the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century.

<comment><USER9> Investigations and information sharing would be principle functions of this branch. I do not see the problem. They'll publish findings, and legislature may then _deliberate_ on these findings to alter laws or enact new laws. If the operational branch discovers violations, it can then forward their findings

Decoupling the leadership of the oversight of the executive from the dominant party in the legislative would be benefitial. This is already possible in context of executive and judiciary. As it is now, these committees are subject to partisan games.

Further, the legislative permits _lobbying_ whereas there is no room for lobbyist pressure on this body. None.

> the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century.

I am drawing a blank imagining which existing system today would fit that bill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The US has 1.7 representatives in parliament per citizen. Compared to countries in Europe, that's very low [1], but even in Europe there's a clear trend for larger countries to have proportionally less seats, e.g. compare Estonia (1.3 million people, 76 seats per million citizens) to Germany (80 million people, 8 seats per million).

Looking at larger democratic bodies, the US doesn't seem that underrepresented compared to the European Union (1.4 per million) and India (0.6 per million!)

Having nearly ten thousand MPs seems very complicated, although I think it could be a good application of modern technology. However, how could this every be implemented? Even the most ardent supporters wouldn't be able to deny that it would be quite an experiment, and can you really do experiments on a nation state with hundreds of millions of people? We could try in a smaller country first, but using actual countries as "guinea pigs" sounds totally ludicrous.

1: [https://jakubmarian.com/number-of-seats-in-the-national- parl...](https://jakubmarian.com/number-of-seats-in-the-national-parliament- by-country-in-europe-total-per-capita-map/)

<comment><USER12> >The US has 1.7 representatives in parliament per citizen.

Either I'm reading this wrong (what do you mean by "parliament"?), or this can't possibly be correct.

<comment><USER13> I believe the intent was "1.7 representative per million citizens" as that was the unit used in all the comparisons.

<comment><USER14> For reference, the actual numbers are 535 congressmen (435 representatives and 100 senators) for about 324 million people for a ratio of about 1.65/Million.

This ratio is likely only going to get lower. The number of senators is equal to (2 x number of states)[0]. The number of representatives is set by law at 435, and has not changed since 1911[1].

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Composition.3B_Election_of_Senators)

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911)

<comment><USER15> Note that the United States had 512 658 elected state and local officials in 1992 [1], or 2,060 state and local elected officials per million people.

[1] [http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gov/gc/gc92_1_2.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gov/gc/gc92_1_2.pdf) _see page 19_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It would be pretty interesting to look at a map of the large cities. A new waterfront development near me was slated to add somewhere around 15k new residents so you would probably hit the 30k mark after maybe 4-5 city blocks. There's a 2 block stretch nearby with 5 ~500 unit count towers, so they'd probably hit it. That would essentially make the government representatives akin to the building HOA Boards.

</comment><comment><USER17> >> "The one problem with a number of Representatives being so large is that bill introduction may become a bit unmanageable. ... We can even use 21st Century technology to make such bills easier to process."

An "issue tracker", if you will.

<comment><USER18> Is there any project where there are 4000 "real" decisionmakers?

Though I suppose elections are kind of like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Imho, the correct solution to corruption is to fund the election process. People work for the one who pays them. If there is no money provided for elections, then candidates will be paid by private funders, and work for them.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a valuable line of thinking. We could probably convince ourselves "it would never work" but instead, I'd be more interested to hear what other possibilities this would open up.

<comment><USER20> > I'd be more interested to hear what other possibilities this would open up.

Not sure if this is what you meant by "possibilities," but I see a couple of major issues with this:

\- The cost of buying off a politician (oh sorry I meant "lobbying") dramatically decreases. It's a lot cheaper to campaign to 30,000 people than it is to campaign for several million.

\- The sheer number of representatives (~10600) presents a problem: it grants much much more significance to the senate, because deliberating on bill in the house would be impossible (and introduces effective filibuster since a 40% coalition could use 5 minute speaking slots to take up 2 weeks of time on the floor)

\- Gerrymandering would become much, much worse as the size of districts decreased and number of representatives increased, just because the number of options you have to split up your state dramatically increase. Potentially minority districts would have 90% minority support while majority districts could be much more competitive (allowing for far more of them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a solution to the excessive power concentrated in Washington, D. C. Dilution to more people. I think better would be not concentrating the power there in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER22> Having a US representative for every 30k residents would, in many cases, result in congressional districts that are smaller than currently existing State legislative districts.

<comment><USER23> > Having a US representative for every 30k residents would, in many cases, > result in congressional districts that are smaller than currently existing > State legislative districts.

That's something of an understatement...Los Angeles (just the city proper, not the metro area) would have more members of the House of Representatives than there the _total_ members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate combined. (133 vs. 120).

<comment><USER22> The other extreme would be New Hampshire, where we have just over 3000 residents per representative, and thus the third-largest legislature in the English-speaking world. Possibly one of the lowest-paid legislatures, as well - $100/year, plus gas money...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't understand the conceptual leap at all from more representatives to smaller bills. Large bills are the result of political negotiation. You want X, I want Y, let's talk... That results in a bill with both X and Y. That's not going to go away with more people involved. In fact, it will probably get worse as everyone wants their own piece of pork in the barrel.

</comment><comment><USER23> > 9400 Representatives would make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the > will of our elected officials.

Rather, it would be _easier_ ; the larger a body is, the less the body actually works in a flat egalitarian manner, and the more the work of the body gets done through formal or informal power structures created within the body; this is already a substantial difference between the Senate and the House when the latter has a bit over 4 times the size of the former, at 94 times the size it would be even a bigger distinction.

Lobbyists are _experts_ at understanding and leveraging both the formal and informal power structures in governing bodies to focus efforts at influence.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is this([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment)) still outstanding. It has passed the house and the senate so it just need 27 more states to be put into law.

It would seem getting this through 27 states would a lower barrier than a lot of other options.

Add in term limits and repeal of the 17th amendment is a better formula then amending the constitution to overturn Citizen United.

<comment><AUTHOR> That failed Amendment didn't seem important enough to the founders, but nowadays, it makes good sense. At the very least, it would have forced consideration of this issue throughout our history, rather than being able to forget about it since 1911.

As for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, I'm not favor of that, as this is the only hedge we currently have against gerrymandering that keeps our House in the hands of the two parties. There's a reason that there is commonly a party mismatch between the House and Senate. Once gerrymandering is removed from our system, then maybe the Senate itself is redundant in any form, and it can be removed completely.

I also agree with you regrading Citizens United, but it really shouldn't need an amendment since the idea of a corporation existing on its own is a modern day fabrication in the first place. However, since the courts went a bit sideways on this issue, it seems like an amendment will be necessary.

<comment><USER26> > Once gerrymandering is removed from our system, then maybe the Senate itself > is redundant in any form, and it can be removed completely.

The Senate is only redundant because it is popularly-elected, just like the House.

What it _ought_ to be is the voice of the states. The state legislatures and governors should select senators (I'd like to leave the exact mechanism up to each state, but the key is that the senators should represent the state; honestly, I'd like to make them responsible to the legislature & governor as well).

Our federal system was gravely damaged by the 17th Amendment; the states have become not much more than glorified local governments, rather than the sovereign states they ought to be (and, legally, still are).

<comment><USER24> Also, the loophole found by the Federal government involving withholding funds from states if their will isn't met. They can't tell the states to, say, set a maximum speed limit [0] or force annual standardized testing [1]. But they can withhold highway and education funds if the states don't. I feel like this has pretty dramatically increased the intended power of the federal government over the states, but no one ever talks about it.

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

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interesting proposal, but what is the justification for maintaining a geographical orientation in a system with a larger number of representatives? What if I'm more interested in advocating for an issue that in bringing money into my district. What if I'm ideologically disconnected from my neighbors. Can I put my vote towards a representative in Silicon Valley even if I live in Ohio?

If we are looking at modernizing the system, could we stop tying ourselves to a time when communcation was by horseback?

<comment><USER28> That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The intent of this system is to protect regional interests, many of which are still with us (natural resources, garbage disposal, and employment are three obvious examples to me).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> In the past one might reasonably expect to meet your representative at the local pub, tea and coffee house. You'd say, "Hey Sally, we should really do something about patent reform" and she'd say "Bob, I agree. There are two bills that are being ..."

Right now, it is nothing like that. My representative lives in another town, and I have never even seen her face in person except at a rally.

This should be unconstitutional.

<comment><USER10> That sort of situation has never existed at the national level (except maybe back when only white male property owners voted).

Even with almost 10k representatives in Congress, representatives would still have 30k constituents each to deal with. It would be almost impossible to meet 30k people in a year, let alone give each of them time to discuss issues and fit in actually being a legislator.

<comment><USER28> > That sort of situation has never existed at the national level (except maybe > back when only white male property owners voted).

At that time (ending in 1856), travel was also arduous and slow; nobody was going back home for the weekend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The point of the Senate is to represent States, and the House, the People. We've screwed both up, and each does neither.

</comment><comment><USER30> The more I look at parliament, the more it seems like a really crummy version of Git, at least with regard to how it proposes and amends legislation.

Modern technology could make very large parliaments feasible, and make them more visible and accountable to the public.

</comment><comment> aaron-lebo > Can you imagine a House of Representatives with 9400 members? How would > business get done? Well, maybe that's the point. There would be so many > representatives, that votes would have to be made based on what the person > feels is right for their 30,000 voters, rather than how much money they can > collect from lobbyist for their next campaign. 9400 Representatives would > make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the will of our elected officials. > It would make pork barrel projects almost nonexistent because districts > would be too small to gather enough support for the most silly of funding > requests. It's a lot harder to buy off 9400 people than it is 435. > Particularly if each of those 9400 people have to go back to talk directly > to just 30,000 people several times a year. Representatives' support would > really have to come from the local grassroots level. They might even vote > per their constituents desires! Imagine that!

This seems like common sense, but there are a number of things in the social sciences that don't work out as common sense would.

Voting is, after all, largely irrational.

The other possibility is that corruption would be reduced in scope as to make it difficult to detect and and root out. Do you know 10 of the 435 representatives? The average person doesn't. Have you seen a corrupt city council? Now imagine every 9400 of those people representing 30k and imagine the possibilities for corruption.

> The one problem with a number of Representatives being so large is that bill > introduction may become a bit unmanageable. If we keep to the current system > of making huge bills with tons and tons of legal code, things would be > unmanageable. However, that doesn't necessarily need to be a roadblock. > Maybe we shouldn't keep the current system of bill introduction! Maybe our > Representatives should really just submit succinct laws that apply to very > specific things. We would still need a huge bill from time to time to > address social and other national issues, and the national budget, but we > would pretty much end riders that plague the current system. We can even use > 21st Century technology to make such bills easier to process. (Anyone hear > of this Wonder called The Internet?)

Ok, so now the author is suggesting not just reforming law but reforming voting behavior. Good luck? What the author seems to be complaining about is an individual's access to their representative. This is fair, but reducing the number of constituents in no way guarantee that. The same dynamics discussed by Mayhew would still be in play. [1]

Access can be increased via modern technologies, but that's a seprate argument.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress:_The_Electoral_Connec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress:_The_Electoral_Connection)

<comment><USER31> > The other possibility is that corruption would be reduced in scope as to > make it difficult to detect and and root out. Do you know 10 of the 435 > representatives? The average person doesn't. Have you seen a corrupt city > council? Now imagine every 9400 of those people representing 30k and imagine > the possibilities for corruption.

To me it seems like you have a lot higher chance of personally knowing someone who represents 30k people instead of the current figure. Finding a bad apple among a lot more apples sounds harder, but each 'apple' will have a closer relationship with the people they represent.

<comment><USER32> But personal relationships aren't what fight corruption. If anything, they contribute to it when you get people thinking "I have a history with this guy, he'll help me out".

What fights corruption is overall social trust, which is a wash because changing the size of the legislature won't change it, official policies, and oversight by regulators, courts, and journalists. And increasing the number of representatives would be bad for that oversight--more people to keep track of.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Newseon - Gives Market Insights as audio in 30 secs - <AUTHOR> https://newseon.io/ <comment><USER2> Used this app and it looks great, love the idea of short headlines which saves me a lot of time while traveling.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was frustrated with good quality but very long articles that give insights on tech, markets, the economy from NY Times, Bloomberg etc. I wanted a 30 second TLDR just like Reddit. So I built a service to deliver this as an audio playlist format (30 secs max).

Here's an example playlist on "In Bear Market" \- [https://newseonbackend.xyz/db/tracks/5e72bd6dc9409e0d5c0af05...](https://newseonbackend.xyz/db/tracks/5e72bd6dc9409e0d5c0af05a). Here's a quick screenshot - [https://newseon.io/images/render8.png](https://newseon.io/images/render8.png) I think it has some potential. What do you guys think?</comment>


Developer-driven development - <AUTHOR> http://schacon.github.com/ddd

<comment><USER2> I'll probably write a blog post laying this out a bit more clearly, but responding to a few of the comments here:

* I don't think 'rock star' programmers is important. I think that most programmers got into the game because they love programming, not because it's what they _have_ to do. There are exceptions, but I believe that more programmers love doing it then have to do it. The point is to setup an environment where you as an employer can get the most out of people of a range of talent simply by setting up an environment that motivates in the best way possible - through autonomy, mastery and purpose. I think people that don't seem passionate will become more passionate if given the freedom.

* to be clear, i said every 'developer' makes the same. or, better said, every role makes the same - there are roles that make different amounts, but it's still pretty flat and people are not individually offered different salaries by some subjective determination of their merit, but rather equally by the general role they are hired to do. it so happens that most of our employees are either developers or designers and they're all paid the same out of simplicity. the main point is that salary is less important than environment.

* finally, i'm not saying that the way that github does it is the way that you should do it - we have the difference of the C-suite being open source developers, so it's easier for us. the point is that even this somewhat radical example works surprisingly well, and that if you try to optimize for autonomy and purpose in the lives and working environment of your developers that it will most likely result in a much more productive output.

again, i'll try to do a more comprehensive post on what i specifically was talking about, rather then just the slides out of context, but i wanted to quickly address some of the comments. thanks! also, it was a blast doing the keynote, so thanks to everyone that attended and argued about it after.

<comment><USER3> I suspect that you talk from experience when you make the claim that 'Most programmers got into the game because they love programming.' I currently work in india, and my experience here is that most folks who enter programming do so because of better pay, more glamour, and more international travel. I don't have any studies to back up my observation, just my personal experiences in the last few years.

I also believe that their training/exposure to CS in college is not uniformly good, and that they are put into an environment where they are already expected to know stuff which they have not been exposed to. Good organizations spend quite some time on training, but many do not.

I personally believe that before a programmer is given autonomy, it is vitally important to have people with good, attitudes who are willing to admit to mistakes and learn constantly, who have some measure of comfort with the fundamentals of programming ( which works across languages ), and who are mentored properly ( by which they have people to turn to whenever they get struck and need to figure out how to proceed further ). Most middle managers have no clue as to what programming is and hide behind a layer of techno-talk and they really are often unable to provide a sense of direction or purpose to the programmer.

While i agree with your role for management in creating a good environment for your emplyees, giving them a lot of autonomy, allowing them to master their tools, and having a sense of shared purpose, i believe that these require a few fundamentals to be met before the above environment is productive.

I admit that these observations are biased and not based on any scientific studies, so take them with a pinch of salt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was at this talk (given at CodeMash a few days ago). It spurred a lot of discussion/opposition over the fact that it revolves so heavily around only hiring passionate, rock star quality developers that care about the product you're developing.

Small companies and startups often have a product that you can recruit people who are passionate enough about the idea that stuff like this can work out. The problem for discussion is more based on which (if any) of these ideas can be applied to a large corporation where the developers are working on insurance or financial software etc.

Some things that are lost for those only reading slides:

\- His main reasons behind this "DDD" policy is that it's the open source model. Developers work on things they care about, when they feel like working and then every hour they spend "working" is a valuable hour of work. Any policy that forces or even simply guilts people into a set schedule or number of hours causes unproductive time and a loss of developer happiness/autonomy.

\- He strongly advocates removing money as a motivator. At github apparently every employee makes the same salary.

\- The "no vacations" comment comes from him not believing you should track vacations. Employees should but trusted and able to take the time off they deem appropriate.

\- At github, the Google "20% policy" is taken to an extreme. People can work on whatever they want on "company time".

<comment><USER5> I'd be curipous to see how the "No vacations" rule plays out..

In Australia most employees would deem 4 weeks vacation as appropriate. In France it's probably higher. In the US -- maybe it's 2 or 3 weeks.

<comment><USER6> Stop tracking what days people are working & what days they aren't and you'll realize you've missed the whole point of "no vacations"

We don't have vacations because we judge people by what they _do_ — not how often they're working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't help but think this requires that only 'rock star' programmers be on the team. 1 bad apple would start to throw everything off, and a few could derail it.

It also requires that everyone have the same vision, or you end up with a very fragmented product, see as how you allow each developer to decide what to work on.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to work at a company that is succeeding at this... I just can't imagine how to keep it succeeding.

Seeing as how it requires the developers to act like they have a stake in the company, perhaps a better title would have been: Driven Developer-Driven Development

<comment><USER6> I dunno about 'rock star' (although I'm a pretty amazing drummmer…) but yes, the talk centers around hiring the most driven people possible. I don't think any of us act like we have a stake in the company — we do.

I'd highly suggest reading Drive by Daniel Pink. The entire book is about how people are motivated. It would definitely answer almost all the points listed.

<comment><USER8> > I'd highly suggest reading Drive by Daniel Pink.

This video shows Daniel Pink delivering an 18-minute presentation at TED on the same topic: <http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ah, it's a slideshow without mouse controls. Felt stupid for a good five minutes while testing in various browsers, just trying to get /something/ to work. Not a great experience.

<comment><USER10> Not to mention that using the left and right arrow keys pushes the current page onto your browser history which is unnecessary. It's far easier to go back/forward with the arrow keys you're already using, plus it'd be nice to be able to click the browser's back button to return to the site that linked to the presentation.

<comment><USER11> The hash tags let you link to specific slides.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "keep your devs [...] always working on something they want"

this seems to be the uber-rule for everyone who employs a developer. If you can guarantee that one (granted, it's huge) requirement, you should not get into trouble with your engineering workforce. All other things might not automatically fall into place, but once you got your people motivated through their work, a big part is in good care.

</comment><comment><USER13> The reason why there are so many startups is because most people want to work on ideas that they conceive. People love to create something of their own.

If a company allows their workers to choose the features they work on, programmers will automatically take ownership and immerse themselves in the product. Most developers I know are bored out of their mind when working on someone else's idea, although there are a few exceptions.

There's really not much more to be said on this topic imo.

</comment><comment><USER14> Slides are nice, but a video or a transcript of the talk would be a lot more useful. Does anyone know where this talk was given? The title is too generic for my Google skills.

<comment><USER15> This was a lunch keynote at codemash.org on January 14th, 2011, although it may not have been the first time it was given.

For any HN'ers in the midwest, CodeMash is an awesome polygot conference that takes place January every year in Sandusky, Ohio. I've never been at any other conference where you meet experts in Python, Ruby, Haskel, and other languages in the same session.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a cool model, but I worry it only works because software engineers are both the producers and the consumers of the github product.

The real take-away for me was less their means than how much freedom/less process you can get when the engineers completely understand the goals of your users.

Getting to that point feels like the hard part. Github is lucky to produce a tool central to their developers existing lives.

</comment><comment><USER17> Thinking about self-motivation goes back to the 1960s:

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Theory_X_and_...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y)

</comment><comment><USER18> Developing products for the mass market requires a lot of grunt work, and even with a totally dedicated technical team, still needs somebody or -bodies to compel them to do some of the boring things, fix the unfixable bugs that actually affect non-technical users, etc.

So, while I guess I can imagine this working (and me loving) for products geared toward a highly technical, somewhat forgiving customer base, I don't see this as a workable for anything truly consumer-focused.

<comment><USER19> I think you're missing the point. He's not saying that developers want to be thrilled to death every minute of their careers. He's saying that developers want autonomy and the ability to make something cool. The problem is that all but the very best managers seem to assume that management letting up on the reins means people going crazy and wreaking havoc.

The best managers understand that management is mostly a two-step process:

1\. Give someone a task. 2\. Let them accomplish that task.

Granted, you can't always work that way. But you might be surprised at what proper motivation can do. People will do boring work if it means accomplishing something great.

<comment><USER18> Which slide was THAT on?

I'm reacting to slides like: "individuals choose what they want to work on" which is all fine & well, except that sometimes, if we want to ship in time for Christmas, people might have to work on what they wouldn't naturally choose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> All very nice but based on my 5 year of project management, I'm fairly confident to say that organizing work like this will only be successful with a lot of luck. Every project or every product that gets developed has a moment where "things go wrong"(tm) and having external constraints (like deadlines, backlogs, ...) reduces the risk of failure ... a lot. I'd only try the approach from the presentation if your team is made up out of very disciplined, skilled people with the full benefits and responsibilities of the outcome.

<comment><USER21> I'm fairly certain their team (or any team like this) has little or no need for a project manager so I doubt they would need to worry about whether or not you would try it.

I realize this comes across a bit snarky but I honestly couldn't think of a better way to say this. I often find people in project management who have little or no trust in the people who actually do the work and that seems to guide their decisions about how the team should be 'managed' or how the work should be planned.

I also find that while deadlines and backlogs seem like something intuitive, in the end the belief that they really have a tangible effect on outcomes seems to be largely anecdotal. Sure it's often a necessary requirement to work with many organizations, but I rarely see any of those organizations actually backing up their process with measurable results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder how designers fit into this development process. Most open source projects lack UI polish, yet GitHub looks like it's crafted by a professional.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think that all the arguments against it assume that management automatically has a better vision for the product than dev. I think dev also recognizes their falliability in choosing which features to develop so hopefully they'd do it according to A/B testing or other more scientifically sound methods for feature selection.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's no surprise that developers can self-manage the development of a source code tool. However this model is unlikely to work in any other space since the product requirements will not be in the domain expertise of the engineers. Github employees use the product all day in the process of developing it - this is true for hardly any products. Imagine engineers trying to self-manage the development of an ERP system - the resulting product would be unlikely to solve real customer problems.

Other than that, it sounds like fun.

<comment><USER21> Lots of great products are made by teams of only developers and designers all the time.

I think the real question is why do such low quality products get produced by business when building LOB apps to solve "real" customer problems. In my opinion it is too much interference in the communication chain between the customer and the devs designers and that is usually a management problem.</comment></comment>


Briox using BootStrapToday for complex Project Management - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bootstraptoday.com/2012/06/15/hero-of-the-month-briox-ltd/

<comment><AUTHOR> Based in Tel Aviv, Israel, Briox is developing an application platform, Riversip that is used to deploy many different mobile applications. They are successfully using BootStrapToday for Project Management in a way that is commendable and which makes us worthy of a pat on the back.</comment>


Pushing WebGL to its limits - <AUTHOR> http://rainbowhunt.club/ <comment><AUTHOR> A bit of code to relax...</comment>


The Librarian Who Guarded the Manhattan Project's Secrets - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/manhattan-project-library-charlotte-serber-oppenheimer-fbi <comment><USER2> I don't know why I found this so surprising:

> at one point, when Santa Fe residents began speculating about what the > masses of scientists and military personnel on the Hill could be up to, > Oppenheimer enlisted the Serbers to trek down to Santa Fe and personally > spread false information.

Being at a DoD lab, I'm trying imagine a situation where I'd be told to do that, and how I'd respond.

<comment><USER3> I liked the part where they discarded them all after using them to build the most deadly weapon ever.

 _Accusations of communism and disloyalty continued to dog the couple, especially with the dawn of the Cold War. Oppenheimer himself battled similar rumors, largely because his wife had at one point joined the Communist Party; in 1954, despite swearing loyalty to the U.S., his security clearance was revoked.

Charlotte Serber likewise struggled to obtain another high-profile librarian job. Her application to work in the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory was rejected because she couldn't get clearance, probably because of her political background._

Let that be a lesson for all the IT guys who work for the NSA/CIA/DoD.

<comment><USER4> Let that be a lesson for anyone that wants to work for or with the us government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favorite story about the Manhattan Project librarian is the gold sphere. One research experiment required a 6 inch gold sphere and another a 10 inch platinum disk. Since the library vault was the more secure place, these packages were sent to the library. Charlotte (the librarian) amused herself by asking people if they could move the little packages for her. The would-be assistant was surprised that he couldn't move the packages: the gold sphere weighed 80 pounds and the platinum disk 60.

(From the Los Alamos Primer, page 30)

</comment><comment><USER6> There's a section in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" about the Los Alamos library. Feynman was into safecracking as a hobby, but didn't get anywhere on the library's vault.

<comment><USER7> Presumably that's the same one that's described in the article as "an "ancient" safe that functioned so poorly, it opened only if Serber kicked it at a particular point while typing in the lock combination."

That's also sourced back to a book about the Manhattan Project: [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ys0N4rFgt6UC&pg=PA160&l...](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ys0N4rFgt6UC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=%22charlotte+serber%22&source=bl&ots=Kr49bI5Jat&sig=s6RCnAtwrzDRmbuTy5w3RBD_uY4&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22charlotte%20serber%22&f=false)</comment></comment>


Desktop PC for programming – big budget - <AUTHOR> I'm a freelance developer doing lot of work, and want to loose as little as possible time on:
* system loading (Windows)
 * apps loading (mainly visual studio from the bigger ones)
 * compiling
 * starting of my apps
 * running virtual machines for testing apps and doing development on Linux when needed
 * backups, source control
My current setup is:
* Intel i7-6700K
 * 32 GB Ram
 * AMD Radeon F9 Fury Series
 * Asus - Z170I PRO GAMING Mini ITX LGA1151 Motherboard
 * NVMe Samsung SSD 950 Pro 512 GB - for system and apps
 * SATA Samsung 850 EVO 512 GB - for virtual machines
 * Some WD 1TB - for before-NAS backups and some stuff
So now I'm thinking, if I can get something faster.
My budget is maybe not unlimited, but if I can gain some speed, I can afford it, it's my job, I don't want to do savings on it. Obviously if an i9 for over $1000 gives me less than 10% advantage to an $500 worth i7 I may consider the cheaper one.
My current options:
1) i7-7820X with X299 chipset
 2) i7-7740X with X299 chipset
 3) Wait for i7-8700K, bigger i9 or Ryzen Threadripper?
 4) Some AMD Ryzen?
In either case I would like to have two NVMe SSD drives in RAID and 4-channel RAM
What of above options would be a reasonable starting point? Is considering my current build and requirements a good time to build a new PC, or better wait what brings 2018? <comment><USER2> My advice, a Dell Precision workstation. Slap in a pair of 22 core Xeons, a terabyte of RAM, a couple of high end graphics cards, and half a dozen of whatever drive you want and there's some serious desktop compute.

Even less expensive options (ie. less than $60k) are going to perform well...and Dell offers new out of box Linux on Precision workstations and driver support for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> As you're compiling I'd look at the threadripper, the extra cores should pay dividends</comment>


Windows forced me to adopt Ubuntu, finally - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sdiq77/windows-forced-me-to-adopt-ubuntu-5b5cc2895357#.t87zzn1ns <comment><USER2> Welcome aboard. For me, Vista was the last drop to realize that "but Windows _is_ the easy way" was untrue. This Windows Nein seems like an experiment "how far away can we push the users before they snap?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

Incidentally, even though I have been using computers for many years before that, the first laptop I ever owned came with Vista. Anyway, as it is now, I seem to already love Linux. I would also need to re-familiarize myself with the command line. Interestingly, when I first came across computers, we were taught MS DOS, Word Perfect, Lotus 123 and DBase. This was in the late 90s and Windows was already available. It is just too bad that I didn't continue studying computers then and have to teach myself programming in my very late 30s, now.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you using or considering alternative container runtimes? - <AUTHOR> Those of you who are using containerization, are you using or considering container runtimes that aren't Docker?<p>I'm particularly curious their usage with Kubernetes. <comment><USER2> Intel Clear Container runtime was something I had used before to no avail</comment>


Load.js: A small script to lazily load js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/chriso/load.js

<comment><USER2> If I understand this correctly you have to figure out the correct order for the dependencies to be loaded yourself.

This does not scale. A better solution for larger applications is for individual files to declare their dependencies, then determine the order to load them implicitly.

CommonJS modules are the de-facto standard for doing this on the server, and they're starting to be used in the browser as well.

<comment><USER3> That sounds like a pretty silly drawback.

A much cleaner solution would be using window.onload to load _all_ javascript and then only starting execution on document.ready.

That way you pretty successfully get around the issue of ordered dependancies because at execution time everything is already loaded. If load.js doesn't do it this way I am profoundly interested as to what the reasoning behind this might be ... perhaps all browser don't differ between window.load and document.ready? (or maybe I'm being stupid in some way or another)

<comment><USER4> What you are describing is not lazy-loading. The purpose of lazy loading is to avoid the overhead of having to load all your javascript immediately at the cost of more server requests later on as needed.

The benefits of speed gained from lazy-loading can be huge in large applications with little to no browser refresh.

The problem with lazy loading javascript in the browser is you have no good way innate to javascript to automatically tell if a script has really been loaded, and the problem you must solve is finding out when you are allowed to execute commands that have dependencies in the lazy loaded scripts.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the explanation, was almost certain I was thinking about it wrong :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks nice, but what does it offer that RequireJS and LABjs don't?

<comment><USER6> I'd use RequireJS or LABjs before this, however it's based on a "microframework" called chain.js which looks pretty cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Lab.js is also worth checking for script loading.

</comment><comment><USER8> JS to load other JS never made sense to me.

<comment><USER5> First off, you shouldn't be down-voted for your opinion. If you agree or the comment adds to a discussion, up-vote. If you disagree, do nothing. If the comment is off-topic, asinine, or detracts from the discussion, only then down-vote. Come on HN, you should know better.

There's a lot of reasons to load Javascript from Javascript. One of the main ones that crop up is when you're building large single-page web applications that involve a lot of files that may or may not be dependent on one another. This allows you to start executing some of your page-specific Javascript as soon as the libraries it depends on become available, before the rest of your bulky resources finish loading.</comment></comment>


Bitcoin is killing the planet: Fact or Fiction? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@petershin45/bitcoin-is-killing-the-planet-fact-or-fiction-2df23a933f34 <comment><USER2> Of the things killing the planet, I don't think Bitcoin is high on the list. Overall, I think block chain is a fascinating and useful technology that certainly has application in the world of finance.

However, I strongly question the need to perform the mining operation inherent in nearly all cryptocurrencies. Money needs to certainly needs to fulfill its roles as a medium of exchange and store of value, but there are potentially more efficient and effective ways to do so.

The most compelling proposal I've seen is Bob Blain's Hour Money model (hourmoney.org). Developing a time-based block chain that equates global labor time to an international unit of measure that would serve as our money seems like a better direction.</comment>


20 Years in the Industry working at one of the big 4 should I finish my degree - <AUTHOR> I got a co-op 20 years ago and ran with it.  Somehow I have ended up at one of the big 4 as SR. Engineer.  Is there any reason I should go back to school. <comment><USER2> only if you want to, if not just lie and say you got your degree back then. Realistically it is just a perceptions thing. Maybe look at doing something very specific in your field. Most masters are paid for and won't really look at your undergrad if you are paying.</comment>


My HN Dinner Party #1 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/hacker-news-dinner-party-1/

<comment><USER2> Huh. Anyone stops by the Venice/Padova area of Italy is welcome to a good dinner with plenty of meat: homemade ragu` (not that crappy brand of sickly tomato sauce sold in the US) with egg pasta, grilled meat, plenty of red wine.

I guess I could come up with something vegetarian under extreme duress;-)

<comment><USER3> If on an impulse I would fly from Finland, you'll cook for me? Who else is coming! Or if anyone wants to come here, I can offer reindeer meat with lingonberries and mashed potatos, complete with Finnish vodka.

<comment><USER2> Sure. We don't get many visitors these days, what with having a baby and not as much social life as in the past. And my wife and I both enjoy meeting people from various places a great deal (indeed, this is something that I think we would sorely miss were we to move back to the west coast of the US).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looking at pictures of the first two dishes made me realize how important lighting is for food photos to look appetizing.

<comment><USER5> Yep. I recently saw the lighting setup of one of my favorite cooking websites, FXcuisine.com:

[http://fxcuisine.com/zoom- image.asp?image=http://images.fxcu...](http://fxcuisine.com/zoom- image.asp?image=http://images.fxcuisine.com/blogimages/italian-cuisine/ragu- bolognese/ragu-bolognese-33-1000.jpg&t=)

It's amazing how professional it looks, but then again, the pictures always look delicious.

<comment><USER6> White balance is super important as well as a shadows to give you good depth and texture to the dish. Leaving those out is like leaving the chicken out of chicken noodle soup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks awesome. I'm anxious for the Sunnyvale edition! :)

</comment><comment><USER8> I only just saw this via the link to Party #2, but actually found myself reading a cooking related post which is unusual. I enjoyed your writing style.</comment>


NY Times Front Page Lists All 100k US Covid Victims - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/opinion/letters/coronavirus-100000-deaths.html <comment><USER2> Will they publish the names of the people who died at wars and bombings that the NY Times supported, tacitly approved and was complicit with?

[https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-new-york-times-role-in- pr...](https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-new-york-times-role-in-promoting- war-on-iraq-20040323-gdilbl.html)

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Also NY times:

[https://www.nytimes.com./2020/02/18/world/europe/coronavirus...](https://www.nytimes.com./2020/02/18/world/europe/coronavirus- stigma-europe.html)</comment>


Since 1980, Dividend Yields have fallen 78% while the S&P 500 has risen 685% - <AUTHOR> http://getthecrypt.com/monthly-sp-500-price-vs-dividend-yield/ <comment><USER2> Completely meaningless. The interest rates in 1980 varied between 8.5% and 20%. Comparing the dividend yield from that environment to today where we have around 2.5% is stupid.</comment>


Creating a Mass Audience - <AUTHOR> https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/63377.html <comment><AUTHOR> "Today marks the 99th anniversary of the first radio broadcast heard by a very large number of people: the Dempsey vs Carpentier boxing match."

[https://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/dempsey-vs- carpentier-1...](https://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/dempsey-vs- carpentier-1921/)</comment>


Aaronson Reviews Princeton Companion to Mathematics - <AUTHOR> http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=384

<comment><USER2> I love this book. The best thing about dispelling some of my ignorance has been taking some of those absurd half formed, completely misinterpreted ideas I had and replacing them with actual understanding. God knows what I thought Rings, Fields and Groups were before I read this book, but now I at least have a basic understanding.

A friend of a friend found a pre-print copy in a torrent.

</comment><comment><USER3> See also <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=406885>

There is a _much_ longer discussion there dating from over a month ago.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have this book in my amazon wishlist: <http://tinyurl.com/ag2gog> :)</comment>


Ask HN: Need advise on re-negotiating contract rate - <AUTHOR> A bit of background:
I was hired on a contract position for 3 months, last fall. The team was strugling, so they asked to extend my contract by 6 months, which I agreed to. This is now coming to an end and I've been asked to extend it further 6 months. My initial goal was to stay for 3-6 months and then move on. I'm relatively new to contracting, so I want to try different things. I am quite senior and have good network - getting jobs seems to be very easy.
I am currently charging a fair, probably slightly high rate (judging from what I hear when speaking to other contractors). The project is a very important project for the client, a major stock-listed company. Management are clueless and have not been able to hire skilled developers. In fact, they have lost several over the last couple of months. I have managed to stay clear of all politics and eveyone loves me (developers and management alike). I'm not misserable, but it's also a slightly depressing place to work, so my thoughts were to move on at the end of the contract. I have an offer for a new contract at another place, which sounds like much more fun.
My dilemma now is that I am certain that it would be a near disaster for the project if I don't agree to prolong my stay. I know money are aplenty. So naturally I'm considering to offer to stay, but at a higher rate. To make it worthwhile for me, this would have to be substantial. But how much is reasonable? Is double rate crazy? I don't want to be unprofessional, OTOH I never offered to stay and the mismanagement isn't my fault. <comment><USER2> Note that you don't owe the company any loyalty (apart from what could be reasonably expected from a professional), so if the project fails without you, it's not (and shouldn't be) your problem. If it succeeds, they won't share profits from it with you. Also, you already sort of want to go elsewhere, and you even have an offer you want to take, so you have quite solid plans.

What I would do is to explain to the current company your plans and the fact that you would consider staying, but for a substantial raise, and then let the company decide whether to try to keep you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is it a disaster if you leave? Is your code difficult to learn and/or maintain?

<comment><AUTHOR> They are severely understaffed. I am the most (only, really) senior developer on the team, and they have hard deadlines approaching. Even if they hired a rock star today, it would still take several months to get to know all the ins and outs. This is a complex business-system.

<comment><USER3> If you're satisfied that you responsibly wrote code that was easy to pass off, then you have nothing to feel guilty about. Leaving them in the lurch, drastically increasing your fee -- anything is on the table.

Of course, there are pros and cons to any approach. You may make enemies if you leave or boost the price too much. In my experience, having as many friends as possible is a good thing.</comment></comment></comment>


Predictions of the Future From the 1960s - <AUTHOR> http://www.singularityhub.com/2011/07/19/hilarious-and-surprising-predictions-of-the-future-from-the-1960s-video/

<comment><USER2> There was a short story written in 1968 that I read when I was a kid, and even though the world described in it was utterly alien, its details stuck in my memory. As time went on, whenever a new technology was introduced into every day life, I would get the strangest sense of recognition. In any case, this discussion has triggered my memory, and I was able to find the original story online. Rereading it 20 years since, I recognize the underlying premise as pretty naive and laughable, but I still marvel at how many details the author was able to get right writing this piece 45 years ago:

[http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10....](http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000.SciFi.and.Fantasy.Ebooks/Mack%20Reynolds/Mack%20Reynolds%20-%20Criminal%20In%20Utopia.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> The democratization of technology has rapidly brought it to the masses in the past two decades. Information is much more easily available and for the most part free. I couldn't imagine trying to predict what is going to happen in the next 50 let alone 10 years. Just like the iPhone several years ago surely the next disruptive technology will come out of left field.

<comment><USER4> Is the iPhone really an amazing new discovery that came out of nowhere?

I see it more as the result of inevitable cost reductions in recent technology (fast/low power CPUs, capacitive screens, better LCDs, higher density batteries/flash/RAM)...combined with a willingness to tell the phone carriers to suck it and do a phone the way Apple wanted to do it.

<comment><USER5> Ever since the first Palm PDA came out, it was obvious that the iPhone was going to happen. I was drooling for something like it back in '98 ... '99, or whenever it was that I bought my first Palm. I was like, "okay, now let's combine this with a cell phone, and add more CPU, and more memory, and a color screen, and..."

Alas, it was not to be, yet. But then it did happen.

<comment><USER4> Well, you can go back farther to Alan Kay's Dynabook (1968) to predict the iPhone. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook>)

Even Jobs has wanted to make a Dynabook from the early days (<http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Pirate_Flag.txt>).

There was also the crew from UIUC that won Apple's "Design the Computer of the Year 2000" back in 1987. Their design? A tablet.

<comment><USER5> > the crew from UIUC that won Apple's "Design the Computer of the Year 2000" > back in 1987. Their design? A tablet.

Star Trek TNG also featured imagined tablets, and they started out roughly around the same time. The design just makes sense, it's natural.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if the global cooling predictions of the 1960s and 1970s should be mentioned.

<comment><USER7> I see no evidence that we're any better now at predicting the climate long term. There are still people saying we're on the cusp of another ice age, and others saying we're in out-of-control warming.</comment></comment>


Delta Innovation Class - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_-1LPRMD_4

<comment><AUTHOR> This video shows it in action: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCj8q0gxmBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCj8q0gxmBQ)

</comment><comment><USER2> More Info here: [http://www.deltainnovationclass.com/](http://www.deltainnovationclass.com/)</comment>


A/A Testing: How I increased conversions 300% by doing absolutely nothing - <AUTHOR> http://kadavy.net/blog/posts/aa-testing/

<comment><USER2> With 56 tests and looking at 2 dimensions, having ~6 false ideas certainly isn't surprising even if you calculate to 95% CI..

But despite our focus on the null hypothesis, it is actually just the cost break even to make false conclusions when two variants are equally effective. So you are even less likely to make a mistake in a real A/B test the larger that mistake is going to be and cost.

Emulating statistical theories poorly is the essence of many methods of AI that despite occasionally ridiculous results are quite powerful.

If you instead simply measure your conversion rate of each campaign, you can not tell if you are negatively trending in terms of the content because there will be outside factors of user engagement especially if you lack an adequate source of new subscribers. Only the most engaged humans will pull the signal out of that noise enough to get better over years without an external system. (If I were not going to A/B test, I would at least first estimate conversion rates and then track my Brier Scores over time.)

I don't have any experience with email campaigns, but what I see with web ones is that most organisations are fairly delusional when it comes to understanding their actual audience and communally they are rarely open to accepting corrections from people with less domain knowledge, (but domain knowledge is primarily a fancy form of bias.)

For example, if your product caries risk, many of the customers who contact you will be the most risk averse looking for security, but 95% of your customers will probably be risk tolerant. I've repeatedly corrected some via an A/B test where the B versions conversion rate continued to apply long after it became the only version, but their staff will implement A style changes whenever given an opportunity to do changes without testing. I'd guess that customers they deal with give them a false impression and our repeated demonstrations that there are significantly more customers with a different view is not an adequate correction.

Not using outsiders it is harder to get such a full corrections to your biases, but you can at least get a new employee's (or spouses or critical customer's) idea tried out in a way where they are much more likely to quantitatively show promise in way that demands acceptance rather than being chalked up to noise using the human emotional system.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think what this is really saying, or at least what this should be saying, is all tests should have a control.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control)</comment>