It's Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do - <AUTHOR> https://theamericanscholar.org/its-complicated/#.WUgzS1LMzv0 <comment><USER2> This is true even at a personal level. If you think you know why you act the way you do but you have never done an experiment to validate it you have a pretty good chance of being wrong. Even for simple things, like how fast you drive, is it the speedometer and you are looking at it, or is it how your engine sounds, and if turn up your music do you drive faster and is that because you are more aroused/excited, or is it because you can't actually hear how loud your engine is? Or maybe it is something else entirely.

<comment><USER3> Everyone is living in fairytale narratives that we spend decades crafting for ourselves. And doing so has some great benefits! But it is also can be very problematic at times.

I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. It's a bit tricky... As with many things, I think basic awareness of the phenomenon is the first productive step.

<comment> ux-app >I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative.

sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic?

<comment><USER4> 5 dried grams of magic mushrooms. Or listen to 40+ hours of lectures from Alan Watts.

<comment><USER5> 5??????

<comment><USER6> You're right, 7 will work much better.

On a more serious note, look into 4-AcO-DMT. Essentially mushrooms without the unpleasantness of actually having to eat mushrooms.

<comment><USER7> How does one even get access to this?

<comment><USER6> Perhaps easier than the mushrooms, various "chemical supply companies" will sell it to you for "research" and not ask many question. There's a list of such companies on the "RCSources" subreddit wiki.

It's definitely a good idea to get any chemicals tested before consuming them. I doubt they'd intentionally send you the wrong chemical, but I guess shipping mixups could happen. Energy control runs an excellent testing service [https://energycontrol-international.org/drug-testing- service...](https://energycontrol-international.org/drug-testing- service/submitting-a-sample/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you haven't seen the lecture from Robert Sapolsky (author of the book the article is summarizing) on Depression, do yourself a favor and see it now! He's wonderfully eloquent and approachable even to the laymen in giving the neurobiological underpinnings of what is a terrible illness.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc)

<comment><USER9> Thanks indeed. It clarifies a lot. We are lucky to live in a period when sufficient knowledge on the subject has accumulated and has been put together for us to have some understanding of how it works. Going from here to finding fixes is a long way since there are a lot of variables, but at least we have an idea of how the leverage points in the system interact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for > you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that > mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum.

I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions.

This "Science disproves free will" thing has the epistemological hierarchy reversed: one of the surest things I know is my own will. Before Descartes could proclaim "I think, therefore I am" he had to _choose_ to make that proclamation.

The argument that free will can't exist because it involves infinite regress is not particularly convincing: if anything, we should _expect_ that our agency springs from something as bizarre as a causal singularity. Consciousness is weird as hell, and I expect the true nature of consciousness will turn out to be weirder than we can imagine.

<comment><USER11> So your belief in free will comes from "It's going to turn out to come from something really weird"? That's not convincing either.

I don't believe in free will, but I believe that there will always be the illusion because the computing needed to know anything before it happens is far too much, and if you knew, it would add another layer of things you'd need to compute, meaning you still wouldn't know your choice ahead of time.

I agree that the infinite regress argument is not convincing - it proves nothing. I would point to science, physics, etc, which is much more factually supportive of it. Of course you can point out quarks, quantum computing, etc, but my argument is that the "randomness" is simply a system we have yet to understand.

More importantly, you highlight something else - choice is not the same as free will. Yes, we all have choices we make every day. They seem to be our will because we don't understand how they were made down to the particles. Whether or not there is free will, there is always choice. So the question is, when is the lack of free will actually relevant? I find that a lot of people apply it in ways that don't make sense when it actually does offer insight in certain interesting areas such as ethics.

<comment><USER10> How is free will not the same as choice? A lack of free will is an inability to exert agency through choosing. Determinism removes the possibility of choosing.

If you have no free will, you can't express yourself... nothing you do will be the product of your desires. Weren't you free to choose the words you wrote in your reply?

<comment><USER12> You're being quite naive, not understanding what the issue is.

Of course everything you do will be a product of what "you" "decide" to do. In that, completely naive & day-to-day, sense of the phrase, "you" do have "free will".

But how did that "decision" come to be? Was there a cause for it to happen? If so, what caused it? If it was caused by deterministic laws of physics, then that doesn't sound much like "free will". If it was random, it doesn't sound like "free will" either. What is "free will" and how does it start electrochemical reactions in your brain which will result in a movement of your hand? What is "you", which posseses "free will"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does nobody else find this to be time-wasting drivel? We do what we do because we're apes with hats.

Any thing that acts does so with a system. The system determines the actions. This is true for the laws of nature as much as a football game. Even if someone cheats, they're cheating because of the system of the game.

> "Sapolsky concludes that World War II really was the worst thing humanity > ever did to itself."

Really? Really now? Thousands of years of slavery, war, discrimination, class struggle, superstition, genocide, and at least a few centuries having to wear really stuffy clothes in the summer, and six years of war was the worst thing that happened? I didn't read the book, but this is a farcical idea that requires aggressively downplaying all of both the atrocity and perpetual minor trauma of recorded history.

The worst thing humanity ever did to itself was religion, but second to that was politics, so WWII can take the silver medal. Ironically, the best thing humanity ever did to itself was war, as it necessitated the development of technology to maintain hegemonic dominance.

</comment><comment> J-dawg I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the analogy to taking away an epileptic's driving licence.

 _People who regularly suffer epileptic seizures are not allowed to drive, for example, but we don't think of this ban as "punishing" them for their affliction._

 _"We've successfully banished the notion of punishment in that realm. It may take centuries, but we can do the same in all our current arenas of punishment."_

I've long thought that one of the cruelest things about our justice system is that it barely takes into account the terrible circumstances that someone might have been through before they become a criminal.

Is the epileptic analogy really the right one, though? By that analogy, we would pre-emptively remove freedoms from people who've had a bad upbringing, or a genetic predisposition to violence. That sounds like precrime, and a very dangerous road to go down.

I would love to see a more compassionate and rehabilitation-based justice system, but I really don't think he has chosen the right analogy.

</comment><comment><USER14> The schism between our science and politics is finally getting airtime. Liberal western politics are based on individual liberty and free will. However, mainstream science maintains that we're neither individuals nor have free will. Do we try to reconcile both views? Or do we drop one in favor of the other?

This, by the way, is also the subject of Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by the same author behind Sapiens.

<comment><USER15> If we assume that free will doesn't exist (which I don't agree with, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it doesn't), one might still expect people to make choices that maximize their own well-being and it isn't too much of a stretch to suppose that such choices are more often than not good for society, or at least more so than a planned society where most choices are made for you by some authority.

One can argue for democracy, free speech, and other modern liberal ideas on the basis that they produce a more stable, prosperous society.

This assumes that we've already decided that stability and prosperity are attributes that society should have.

I think science is a great tool for figuring out what the consequences of a particular action are likely to be, but it's not a tool that will tell us which of several outcomes we should prefer.

<comment><USER16> Optimism and Hume notwithstanding the outcomes regarding prosperity and stability may be bestowed upon the society as a whole without the choices by individuals having individually assisted their own life outcomes.

<comment><USER17> Societies where the choices are made by the government, not the individuals, have not bestowed prosperity and stability on the whole.

<comment><USER18> China seems to be a counter example to that (and the largest example in the history of mankind, with 600 million people having a prosperous life thanks to, arguably, the government making decisions on their behalf, not to mention it has been the most stable civilization on Earth despite a few periods of instability), though on the whole, you might be right. I just wouldn't claim that with nearly as much confidence as you do.

<comment><USER17> China has free'd up quite a bit from the old centralized planning system, and the material well-being has improved quite a bit since they did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What would be a good book to read before this book? Or is it friendly enough for someone new to behavioral science?

<comment><USER20> I would highly recommend [P.M.S. Hacker's "Human Nature: The Categorical Framework]([https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-Categorial-Framework- Hac...](https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-Categorial-Framework- Hacker/dp/1444332481/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1444332481&pd_rd_r=TKX5RASJ63XYHS9H1K7D&pd_rd_w=lz7UT&pd_rd_wg=vLoFR&psc=1&refRID=TKX5RASJ63XYHS9H1K7D)).

Hacker is an excellent philosopher and a very clear writer. He starts from broad categories to look at human nature and what it makes sense to say of the nature of sentient animals, insentient animals, and inanimate things.

The main relevant chapters are:

1\. "Agents and Actors", 2\. "Teleological Explanation", and 3\. "Reasons and Explanation of Human Action".

His main point is that many "unanswerable" questions in neuroscience and behavioral science are simply nonsensical because they play with conceptual confusions.

I would also highly recommend his sequel book "The Intellectual Powers: A Study of Human Nature".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The human brain's electro-chemical makeup and its response to stimulus, both from the other organs and through the external sensory organs, are the reasons we act the way we do. Like the Human Genome project before it, this mystery can be solved with large amounts of personnel, money and time. Do not complain that it's complex (it is, we know, the sooner we commit the appropriate resources the sooner we'll be finished). [And yes, I am doing something about it - I'm a returned to school STEM-neuro student]

<comment><USER22> No. Do not do that. The second that the cause/effect relationship is understood down to a neuron level like that, advertisers will abuse that to make things even more effective.

<comment><USER23> This is truly peak HN. No matter how philosophical or universal the topic of conversation, someone is still so mind-killed that their reaction is "how will this affect advertising".

<comment><USER22> Not mind killed. Just a realist. You and I both know that's what would happen.

<comment><USER23> Dude, way to _still_ not get the point. Whether or not you're correct has literally nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My complaint wasn't about you being wrong, it was that your small-minded enough that even in a conversation about the very nature of the human mind, your contribution is about advertising.

It's just a more niche version of those people who manage to turn literally every conversation into "yea and if the fucking _republicans_/_democrats_ get their way blah blah". Whether or not they're correct in any given instance is entirely besides the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Learning about Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and the rest of the Cluster B disorders (and their comorbidity) helped me understand ALOT about certain types of behavioral patterns that I previously found completely mind-boggling.

</comment><comment><USER25> Call it anyway you want, lizard brain, flyers (Castaneda), Yaldabaoth (agnostics), this force that pushes evolution on earth at great speed through predatorial behavior like competition and flight or fight.

We humans are the most intelligent species and still can't overcome it, as a civilization whatever political system or religion we tried no matter how hard we try we can't seem to overcome it, we still have wars and violence.

When few succeed to inspire people to overcome it and fight without violence like Mahatma Gandhi did they inspire humanity and are called saints by their nation.

When an individual can control his own feelings to such an extent that violence or anger feelings can no longer touch him we call him enlightened.

Maybe this force is not only trying to help us evolve but wants to teach us something marvelous if we overcome it.

<comment><USER26> I call it scarcity of resources. You won't see wars and what not when you have humanity with abundance of resources.

<comment><USER27> a) The problem is more distribution more than abundance.

b) I bet that we'll have wars even if everyone has all they need. I'd like to be wrong.

<comment><USER26> a) World gdp per capita is less than $18.000, hardly what i would call abundance. We are still a few good decades away from abundance.

b) I bet that rich countries, where people have all they need, will not provoke wars or engage on unprovoked wars (unless for humanitarian reasons).

<comment><USER27> The richest country in the world has been at war overseas almost constantly since the end of WWII.

<comment><USER26> And it went to war for the following reasons:

a) scarcity of resource (oil) / humanitarian reasons (whichever you prefer to believe)

b) was provoked into it (because of cold war or terrorists)

<comment><USER28> This is demonstrably false. You need only look at the actions of our government (e.g. The CIA) to discern that the United States has gone to war (or "military conflicts" or whatever they call them these days) for reasons such as A) financial gain for private persons and companies B) financial gain for politicians C) financial gain for the country D) political gain for individuals E) extending a miltary based hegemony F) moral agendas (e.g the War on Drugs) etc, etc. The United States is by no means some perfect rational actor which engages in war solely for economic reasons or for "self-defense".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's at least as complicated as all of mathematics, in the worst case.

</comment><comment> real-hacker Maybe the core of so-called 'free will' or 'soul' is just a random-number generator. Other than that, we are just many layers of deep neural networks.

<comment><USER30> Then the question becomes: can there be a really random number generator ?

<comment> real-hacker Perhaps a pseudo random number generator, with the solar radiation level and the moon phase as seeds. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So I wonder now, how many murders are simply solved because it was I the monument vs. solved for cases that were planned with cold hearted logic?

</comment><comment><USER32> TL;DR: watching the movie "Taxi Driver" you'll learn more about about human behavior than reading that article.

<comment><USER33> Such as?

<comment><USER32> How volatile human behavior can be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Per Deep Thought, the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.

It's a very deep thought, if you go past the literal interpretation.

EDIT:

Before you down vote, read what I meant, since it is obvious that if you are considering a down vote then you're not getting what I'm referring to, and probably think I'm talking about numerology.

What I'm referring to is his choice of a number to represent the answer to life, universe and everything. Not a magical number, but just A NUMBER. It shows how futile it is to try and answer some questions in a mechanical/mathematical way. Some questions are not computable, and there is more meaning to life beyond the rational.

<comment><USER35> I've heard that its intended to be the ASCII code for "*" which represents a wildcard (i.e., anything).

Is that what you had in mind or do you have different interpretations?

<comment><USER36> > The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an > ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, > base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, > stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of > story.

<comment><USER34> You obviously did not go past the literal interpretation and he was talking about the literal interpretation. What I'm referring to is his choice of a number to represent the answer to life, universe and everything. Not a magical number, but just A NUMBER. It shows how futile it is to try and answer some questions in a mechanical/mathematical way. Some questions are not computable, and there is more meaning to life beyond the rational.

<comment><USER37> I interpret it to be that the answer is whatever we make of it. Your interpretation tells me more about your mindset than about any actual truth. Taken that way, meaning is what we project on it. You project a number as futility; a numerology-leaning individual could project a different meaning.

You are both correct. It's a Rorschach test of philosophy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Easy State: simplified state management for React (learn in a minute) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/solkimicreb/react-easy-state <comment><USER2> To me it seems that this offers only syntactic sugar over this.setState. No other advantage. And the cost is high: injecting a lot of magic from [https://nx-framework.com/](https://nx-framework.com/) in your components.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually think that simpler syntax is a big win. See the key features section for the other advantages (no async issues, optimal shouldComponentUpdate).

About the cost: see the performance section for a third party benchmark. I think you might mean hidden complexity by cost. In that case why would this be more magic than React's own state management? Both are just JS code in the end, and I can assure you I did nothing very hackish under the hood.

<comment><USER2> You're right. React's own state management is something I would replace for anything else.

But in my opinion the other comparisons and benchmarks don't apply, because easy-state is not a framework, just a replacement for this.setState, right? MobX, for example, does that too, in its own way, but it does a lot more than that.

Maybe if you just want to write a small React app and you were going to use React's own state management, easy-state will make your life better and your components clearer, but if you're going to write something big and let some external library manage your state, then easy-state doesn't apply, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand why you might feel like this, but don't judge too quickly (; Easy State can do (pretty much) anything MobX does. It just does it in the background without the extra explicit syntax (observable, action, observble modifiers, etc). You can easily use it like MobX (with an external store) if you do something like this: [https://github.com/solkimicreb/react-easy- state/tree/master/...](https://github.com/solkimicreb/react-easy- state/tree/master/examples/todoMVC).

If you are interested in a MobX vs nx-observe (the library behind Easy State) comparison check this (rather old) article: [https://nx- framework.com/blog/public/mobx-vs-nx/](https://nx- framework.com/blog/public/mobx-vs-nx/). Let me know if you think that it lacks some important features.

Thx for the response!

Edit: it would take a rather small modification to make Easy State work like MobX, but I think that it is not the best way. In the future I could add a @store export for making MobX like stores though.

<comment><USER2> I will read it.

What do you think is the best way?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is my personal opinion.

Structure wise: Having a singleton app store and separate component states together is the best pattern. Hidden details of a component's functionality should go into its own state. App level data (like the current user) should go into the single app state. Also the minimal set of state that defines the other part of the app state (typically state props from user input) should be two-way reflected in the URL or local storage - depending if its a shareable state detail or user preference.

Timing wise: Synchronous view updates (MobX approach) cost too much performance wise. It is often also not in align with the natural expectation of the developer. (Even MobX has actions, which is just async execution with a bit more granularity). React's approach is a bit too lazy for my taste. Updating the state asynchronously leads to confusion and has no benefit in my opinion. Synchronous state update has practically zero performance cost compared to view updates. Updating the state synchronously and the view asynchronously - but always before the next paint - seems to be the best approach for me. You will never extract existing state from your view and from the user's perspective the only important thing is to have it updated before it is rendered.

Data management wise: I think it is super important for a reactivity library to do not save or alter any of your state. It should just save reactions paired with data mutation/access points. Saving data can cause staleness and mutating your data behind your back is just a mess. I was super careful to leave you objects untouched (opposed to array hacks, hidden getters/setters and memoizing your own getters/setters (computed values)).

In the end Easy State is most similar to MobX. It just saves reactions (renders), which it triggers on state/store mutations. The biggest difference is in its timing (async vs sync), minimal syntax and (in my opinion) fewer edge cases. The difference between using the state vs an external store is pretty much a one line change. They are both normal observable objects, they are just in different locations with different names.

Sorry for the long answer. No worries if you don't have time to read it (:

Edit: I also dislike 3rd party injection libraries (like the MobX @inject decorator). Simple ES6 imports should be enough for injecting the single app state and props should be enough to pass down a component's own state. Angular is a prime example of how more complex injection systems can go wrong. This is just my opinion though and it even might change in the future (:

<comment><USER2> I haven't actually have seem anything about nx-js before this thread, and I liked a lot the whole approach and the explanation/argument you gave here.

I'm working on something that will use xstream reactive streams and @nx- js/observer-util (previously I tried to do my own MobX-like take on observables, then I jumped into using MobX itself). I'll hope you notice it somewhere someday and give me some feedback.,

<comment><AUTHOR> Great, I would be happy to check you library! Just send a link here or pm me on twitter (@solkimicreb1) when you can share it.

PS: your argument about MobX got me thinking. I decided to add a new function to v2, that creates MobX like external stores for handling global app state more elegantly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Brief summary (from the repo):

Easy State aims to make React's state management simpler without adding new syntax. To achieve this it makes the following modifications.

It replaces React's setState() with plain native JavaScript. It auto binds your component's methods.

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't get it. Does it use ES6 Proxies? Aren't these not polyfillable?

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. It does use ES6 Proxies and they are not polyfillable. IE and React native is not yet supported because of this (it's mentioned in the platform support section).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Small Websites - <AUTHOR> https://bananatron.github.io/small-websites/<p>The modern web needs a diet - I'm trying to start a list of web sites/services that deliver a small payload (HN being a good example). Any submissions would be helpful! <comment><USER2> Would blogs such as Donald Knuth's be acceptable? I know his is probably way less than 100K but it looks like all the websites listed are services and news publications rather than actual personal websites.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've wondered about personal websites.

A lot of them would come in under 500kb, but the list would be huge? I'm still trying to figure out how to best to categorize and think about this list so any suggestions would be appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Slashdot with JS off is perfect, but yeah..

<comment><AUTHOR> Is this a different URL that restricts/ignores JS? I'm seeing slashdot.org come in at about 1MB.

Like many websites, if they didn't have ad/tracking scripts, it'd be smaller (slashdot seems to have quite a few).

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's indeed the case with many websites. I didn't even bother to check slashdot with JS enabled :).</comment></comment></comment>


Code review: you've been caught on CCCV - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/artemave/cccv

<comment><USER2> I've been in a team where similar tools were used to prevent people from intentionally writing bad code. If this happens, the problem is in the team itself (or bad company culture) and no tool will ever solve it.

Of course it's ok to use such reports as an aid in detecting accidental errors or as a helpful resource in discussions.</comment>


The X Attitude - <AUTHOR> http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/thexattitude

<comment><USER2> Is it bad that half the time I was reading I thought this was a sarcastic post and that eventually the author was going to make the opposite point of the one he actually did end up making?

Then I saw he was from NC State, my Alma mater. And everything made sense again.

<comment><USER3> Yep, I was expecting a Unix-hater rant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You call it the X Attitude, I call it taking six thousand milliseconds to draw a five megabyte graphical email interface in order to read a five kilobyte email.

You say your computer is "fast enough"? Imagine how little power your phone's processor would draw if it only needed the performance of, say, a PXA270 from 2005. What does your phone do that a seven year old PDA doesn't have the horsepower for? High def video and flash video, and that's about it. Software bloat is a pox upon computing technology. Something is very wrong when it takes a hundred times the computation to read the same email ten years later.

</comment><comment><USER5> This was written 20 years ago! (Byte 7/91) And even truer now than then. We run ad hoc queries against transactional relational databases on our cellphones.

<comment><USER6> It was written when Moore's Law was in full effect. You cannot continue to expect the hardware to catch up - and certainly not in a nice predictable curve requiring no rethought of your software paradigms.

<comment><USER7> The pace at which more transistors are squeezed into the same amount of silicon has slowed down a bit, but the real difference between today and 20 years ago is that we've crossed the "good enough" threshold, and now we are optimizing other dimensions, like cost and portability. A good computer for web browsing and reading mail in 2006 is still a good computer for those tasks today. Back in the 90's, a videogame company that didn't release a new console generation after 3 or 4 years was dead; how long has it been since the Xbox360 and the PS3 were released? And nobody is clamoring for more polygons, so instead Sony is releasing a new PSP with roughly the same power as the PS3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For more in the same vein, see "the UNIX Handbook" on "the X Windows disaster": <http://simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf>.

Of course, X works fine for me.

</comment><comment><USER9> I remember (!) when XWindows was released. I was shocked, disappointed, agog. That they didn't put ANYTHING in the client in the way of stored procedures, macros, advanced primitives e.g. motion rectangles, polygon draw etc. It was not even as advanced as printer protocols of the time.

But... what? It works? It is a standard?

</comment><comment><USER10> > The primary advantage of the X attitude is this: It is incredibly freeing > from a creativity standpoint. No longer are designs constrained by today's > realities.

Creativity thrives on constraints. Removing constraints does not usually help creativity, it hinders it.</comment>


Google Maps Billing API Down, Breaking Website Relying on Their API - <AUTHOR> Sigh. Looks like when Google's internal API-billing is broken, they'd rather break apps that rely on the API than allow them to continue using the API while they fix their billing problem.
Poor design choice by Google IMO.
Maps suddenly missing from one of our web apps, Chrome developer console says "You have exceeded your request quota for this API." Log into the account to make sure card on file is OK, and am greeted with the message "The server has timed out while trying to process your request" and the API console won't display billing history. <comment><USER2> There is multiple issues going on [https://status.cloud.google.com/](https://status.cloud.google.com/) I am not able to access my cloud console / login to any of my machines on GCP from cloud shell

<comment><AUTHOR> Pity the geniuses at Google couldn't/wouldn't design their heavily replied upon APIs to keep functioning if their BILLING is broken.

<comment><USER3> You have no proof that the billing API is the underlying cause. It seems like the root issue is from something else which is effecting multiple systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That is tricky. What stops a developer creating a service worker that catches all the requests to the billing API and purposely fails them?

<comment><USER5> I strongly doubt this API is external.</comment></comment>


The Hard Truth About Boiled Eggs (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/the-secrets-to-peeling-hard-boiled-eggs.html <comment><USER2> Tangentially, I recently bought Kenji's new book [1], and my friends and I have been having tremendous fun reading through and trying out the recipes therein. Kenji's empirical approach and attention to the science behind cooking (not to mention sassy writing) really appeals to our inner geeks.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Food-Lab-Cooking- Through/dp/039308...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Food-Lab-Cooking- Through/dp/0393081087)

<comment><USER3> I really hope that the book uses metric units. I recently read "The Science of Good Cooking", which was interesting but unfortunately used US units throughout, which makes it quite unscientific in my opinion.

"On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee is another great book about the chemistry of cooking, and I especially like it since it doesn't try hard to be hip or cool as opposed to some other books about cooking chemistry I could name.

<comment><USER3> Since this is getting downvoted a lot by "imperialists":

I do not say that one cannot work scientifically using non-metric units, I'm just saying that it has a non-scientific appeal since even in the US scientific publications normally use SI units (kg, m, s) since they are well defined and easy to calculate with.

Imperial units, on the contrary, are based on the length of body parts and sticks or the volume of some arbitrary measurement cup. Granted, the meter is a bit arbitrary as well (but at least based on the geometry of the planet), but the nice thing about metric units is that they can be converted easily: 100 cm = 1 m, 1000 m = 1 km. 1000 g = 1 kg. Try that with inches, feet, yards and miles.

So I really stay with my assessment that working in non-metric/SI units is contradictory to professional scientific work.

<comment><USER2> Good thing he's a professional american cook, not a professional scientist.

<comment><USER3> Again, I'm not trying to devalue the work of the author here, I just say that his choice of units is non-scientific.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Be careful with statistics: In this experiment, 3000 eggs were boiled, showing a difference of 10% versus 12% cracked eggs with/without pricking before cooking.

Statistically, this does not have _any significance_ at all, though: [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.wdr.de%2Ffernsehen%2Fwissen%2Fquarks%2Fsendungen%2Fei132.html&edit- text=&act=url) (Sorry, that translation is hilarious).

<comment><USER5> From the article: "Here's the truth: there is no 100% fool-proof method, and anybody who tells you different is selling something. And I do believe I've tried them all, many, many times over. The number of eggs I've boiled over the last several years in carefully controlled circumstances numbers well into the thousands, but despite that, the best boiled egg I cooked this year is no better than the best boiled egg I cooked twelve years ago in that Beacon Hill kitchen."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> II am a big fan of soft-boiled eggs and I've always thought this was common knowledge since my mom taught me how to prepare them when I was young.

My recipe:

1\. Boil water 2\. Place eggs in boiling water 3\. Cook eggs for 5 minutes 4\. Place pot with eggs in the sink and let cold water run to replace the hot water, don't let the water get warm in the pot. 5\. Wait for eggs to cool for a few minutes 6\. Peel eggs easily now.

Total time: about 15 minutes

<comment><USER7> > _Cook eggs for 5 minutes_

Thing is, it's difficult to apply a _time_ to the process. Different stoves, different water starting temperature, different pots..these these will all affect how quickly you can cook the eggs.

I think it's a matter of having some idea, some "recipe", and tweaking it. Currently I warm my eggs by running them under tap water, then put them in the water on the stove, set a time for 14 minutes, bring the water to a boil, turn it down to medium, remove from stove when timer elapses.

It works for me. Judging by the article, and the comments, almost no two people do the same thing.

<comment><USER8> > Different stoves, different water starting temperature, different > pots..these these will all affect how quickly you can cook the eggs.

No matter what model of stove or pot or starting temperature you have, water boils at 100C* . If the water is supposed to be boiling the whole time, the 5-minute cook time is completely repeatable.

You understand that it is physically impossible to have liquid water above 100C without applying pressure, yes?

* Depending on atmospheric pressure.

<comment><USER7> > _No matter what model of stove or pot or starting temperature you have, > water boils at 100C_

And? Does water boil instantly, or are there factors that can affect how long it takes to get water to boil? Things like, say, your stove, pot and starting water temperature.

> _You understand that it is physically impossible to have liquid water above > 100C without applying pressure, yes?_

Wow, thanks for the physics lesson.

I was referring to the OP stating "the process" takes X minutes from start to finish. Well, different stoves are going to heat water at different rates. Colder water from the tap will take longer to heat that warmer water from the tap. When I'm the one cooking my eggs, these things matter. Time-from-boil isn't relevant to me when I'm getting ready in the morning.

Learn to tame your nerd-rage and give people the benefit of the doubt that they aren't as stupid as you think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Kenji is awesome, and probably the best reason to read seriouseats. But for anyone who enjoys food science, you really have to start with Harold McGee's classic "On Food and Cooking":

[http://smile.amazon.com/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore- Kitchen/dp...](http://smile.amazon.com/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore- Kitchen/dp/0684800012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446716055&sr=8-1&keywords=on+food+and+cooking)

(Sorry for the enormous URL.)

Also, I binge-listen to Dave Arnold's podcast, "Cooking Issues" on Heritage Radio network. A treasure trove of food science facts, going well beyond eggs: sous vide meat, hydrocolloids, liquid nitrogen cocktails, etc.

[http://heritageradionetwork.org/series/cooking- issues/](http://heritageradionetwork.org/series/cooking-issues/)

(You really have to give the show a chance, though -- it's very conversational, and less... polished than your typical show.)

Also, anyone interested in food science should really consider an iSi whipper for booze infusion and other experimentation. No really, please do it, your life will be better (or at least boozier):

[http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=4463.html](http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=4463.html)

(Arnold has progressed the technique a lot since then, but this primer is pretty good nonetheless. The FCI blog is basically dead; the podcast and Twitter are his current outlets.)

But yeah, I screw around in the kitchen a lot (though cook less _useful_ food than my wife does). Pressure cooker, weird enzymes, hydrocolloids... but the iSi whipper booze-infusion technique is my all-time favorite kitchen hack. You can drink toasted hazelnut bourbon in a Manhattan like, six minutes from now! (I hope it's nighttime when you read this.) Four minutes to microwave toast the nuts, plus two minutes to nitrous-infuse them. You might want to chop them in between and filter through a coffee filter after.

Sorry, my nerd is showing. I hate eggs, especially boiled eggs, but this post hit a fun nerve for me.

<comment><USER10> _On Food and Cooking_ is a great book (and so much cheaper than Myhrvold's _Modernist Cuisine_ \-- although there's a "light" version of this which is quite good).

Never heard about the iSi infusion technique before now, but am going to try it straight away! Thanks! ;-)

<comment><USER11> If you're just primarily interested in quick and helpful cooking tips and less interested in the background history, anthropology and science that On Food and Cooking covers, you really should take a look at McGee's other book Keys to Good Cooking. It is a collection of useful techniques and tips broken down by ingredient.

Or to put it in HN terms. If On Food and Cooking as comprehensive guide to the fundamentals of computer science, then Keys to Good Cooking is Javascript: The Good Parts

<comment><USER12> And which would be an analogue to The Javascript Cookbook?

(I'll show myself out)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is one method he didn't mention. Put the egg in a pot. Cover with cold water. Bring to a boil. Turn off the heat and cover. Wait 10 minutes. Shock cool immediately under running water.

I only boil eggs now and again, but I have a 100% success rate on peeling with this method. I also don't do anything special while peeling. Just crack the shell any old way and peel it. Never once had a marred surface. Never once had dimples in the eggs (probably the shock cooling, as he suggested).

Some variables: Gas stove on medium high heat. At sea level (well, technically 4 meters above sea level...). Very fresh eggs (probably only 2-3 days on average). Eggs started at room temperature (although exactly once I started with a cold egg with no perceived difference).

I'd be interested to see if anyone else has used this technique.

<comment><USER14> This is the best egg toaster, I have this and love it:

[http://www.amazon.com/West-Bend-TEM500W-Muffin- Toaster/dp/B0...](http://www.amazon.com/West-Bend-TEM500W-Muffin- Toaster/dp/B008YNFB3Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446747309&sr=8-1&keywords=toast+and+egg+toaster)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I own a hard boil egg maker. Takes less than 20 minutes to make 7 perfect hard boiled eggs. If I am patient enough to wait another 20 minutes after that the eggs peel perfectly and are still warm and delicious.

[http://www.amazon.com/KRUPS-F23070-Cooker-Indicator- capacity...](http://www.amazon.com/KRUPS-F23070-Cooker-Indicator- capacity/dp/B00005KIRS)

<comment><USER16> Contraptions that are single-purpose and do their job well are defensible, IMHO, yet I still dislike the space and specialized cleaning requirements of devices like this.

<comment><USER17> My household hard-cooks all of our eggs in a rice cooker with a steamer tray insert (Zojirushi NHS-10). The cooking time is set by the amount of water you add. We mainly err on the side of overcooked (more water), because nobody likes soft yolks.

The rice cooker and convection/toaster oven have been the two most universally useful appliances in our kitchen, and they are both still operational after an average of 15 years in service. Other gadgets have come and gone, and they remain. They have even outlasted four microwave ovens, three slow-cookers, and one full-sized range-top oven.

A rice cooker is useful enough in every home kitchen that I consider it a dire omission that they didn't even get a mention in the article. Ours can cook a dozen eggs in 15 minutes, most of that time can be spent doing something else, and there's no boiling water to pour out.

<comment><USER18> Just to add, Zojirushi are top of the line rice cookers and I would expect that they outlast most other appliances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I once did a day cooking class with Herve This (the Godfather of Molecular Gastronomy) and he talked of cooking eggs in a 'boiled style' in an oven on low heat.

His comment was that the oven style at low heat allowed a restaurant to cook a large quantity of eggs and have a consistent product which would be good over the course of a few hours.

</comment><comment><USER20> I eat a lot of boiled eggs, and this is what I've been using for the past 6 months:

Nordic Ware Microwave Egg Boiler [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007M2BN0](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007M2BN0)

Works surprisingly well, consistent, etc. it basically steams them.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have a Betty Crocker cookbook from the sixties that gives exactly the same cooking advice, right down to time, boiling start, and shocking in ice water.

</comment><comment><USER22> If the pressure cooker is inferior to boiling water, I wonder if that means the optimal temperature is actually below boiling. Perhaps a sous vide setup could be even better. Be a fun experiment for someone to run.

It also occurs to me that there is significant evidence of numerous "cooking myths" that lasted for decades or centuries before falling to the first person to finally put them to the test. Seems like fertile ground for some interesting high school science projects that could get some interesting results.

<comment><USER23> Optimum temperature from TFA:

Egg white:

* At 180 degrees: The main protein in egg whites—ovalbumen—will cross-link and solidify, giving you a totally firm egg white (see the whites of the 7 and 9 minute eggs).

Egg yolks, on the other hand, follow a different set of temperatures:

* At 145 degrees: They begin to thicken and set up.

* At 158 degrees: They become totally firm, but are still bright orange and shiny.

\----

A sous vide setup might work, but it probably isn't worth the effort for eggs. You would want to set the temperature to 145..158 degrees, depending on your desired yoke consistency and then drop the egg in boiling water to finish the whites to 180 degrees.

TBD is whether the 145 degree sous vide temperature hurts peel-ability (likely) and how long to cook the egg to finish the whites properly without overcooking the yoke.

<comment><USER22> "You would want to set the temperature to 145..158 degrees, depending on your desired yoke consistency and then drop the egg in boiling water to finish the whites to 180 degrees."

I was unclear about what I was thinking. I was thinking using the sous vide hardware to prep water at 200F or 190F and try boiling in that, since trying to maintain that temperature by hand is very hard, or at least, very labor intensive. But my failure to communicate that well produced another interesting strategy from you.

And I have to admit I'm more searching for perfection in the abstract sense than interested in changing how I cook them. If perfect turns out to be "individually microwave the egg for 6 seconds, then cook in sous vide bath at 185F for six minutes, then boil for 3 more, then dump in ice bath immediately"... yeah, I'm not going to do that. But I'm intellectually curious.

<comment><USER23> The basis of sous vide is to cook the meat to the desired level of "doneness" (directly related to temperature of the inside of the steak) and then sear the outside. Searing the outside is mostly decoupled from the inside cooking because it happens fast and thus only on the very outside layer of the meat.

I mapped this strategy directly to eggs, but it probably would work poorly. With a steak, "sear the outside to your preference" is easy. With an egg, "cook the whites without overcooking the yoke" is likely to be difficult.

Your suggested method of using the bath to maintain the water temperature would probably work well and probably result in less "rubbery" whites, but probably is overkill compared to maintaining the water temperature at 212 degrees (trivial) and control cooking via time per the article (and tradition). Plus you would have to boil 3,000 eggs to scientifically establish the new cook times. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm lazy to a fault, and I cook eggs by cracking them into a bowl of water and nuking it in the microwave until done. No peeling, no cleaning up the pot, much less waiting.

</comment><comment><USER25> Strange. Maybe I don't do it that often, but I don't recall having much trouble peeling hard boiled eggs. My method is to boil them for desired time, run cold water over them for a bit, then drop them gently on the bench probably 3-5 times per egg so that the shell is consistently shattered, then peel. Maybe the problem is that I can't get fresh eggs.

<comment><USER25> On the other hand, getting a perfect soft boiled egg so that the whites are cooked but the yolk is completely runny is something I struggle with. I probably get about 1 in 3 perfect. I use a timer of course, but then the size of the egg seems matter and goodness knows what else.

<comment><USER26> I've found that steaming them makes this much more consistent: [https://www.americastestkitchen.com/recipes/7279-soft- cooked...](https://www.americastestkitchen.com/recipes/7279-soft-cooked-eggs)

Sorry for the paywall (I hate that!), there's an official youtube video you can watch for free, but I can't find it now. (Youtube history doesn't have search!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> What he says about the age of the egg is contrary to my experience. I usually get fresh eggs from the farmers market and they peel easier than the store bought eggs which aren't as fresh. Maybe it's the fact that the eggs here aren't washed - they can be kept at room temperature quite a long time, no refrigeration needed.

<comment><USER28> The washing is an important and fascinating distinction.

I'm in Australia, and as I understand it the unwashed egg is the default in most parts of the world (certainly here and in the UK, and I think in most of the EU). In the US the default is a washed product.

But (!) this is why the default in the US is to have eggs refrigerated from soon after they leave the farm - and they need to remain refrigerated. IIRC this is because eggs that come from ~3C back to room temperature (~21C) will condense, and on washed eggs this massively increases the risk of pathogens penetrating the eggs.

On non-washed eggs, this is less of a concern - but here we still recommend to not relocate eggs from the fridge to room temperature unless we're about to eat them. The membrane, though, will prevent spoilage of eggs that haven't been washed (or refrigerated) for weeks, if not months, if kept at a reasonable room temperature. (I qualify reasonable as here in AU room temperature in summer can often reach 35C.)

<comment><USER27> I am originally from the U.S. and when I came to Thailand I was initially taken aback by the sight of eggs being left out for days or weeks at a time. But they don't spoil. I later learned about the washing affect. Also, it's predominately brown eggs over here. Not sure if that makes a difference. At least as far as appearances go, unwashed brown eggs don't look as dirty as unwashed white eggs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Actually, the easiest way to peel eggs is with a spoon. I use this method on new eggs, old eggs, cold eggs, hot eggs, soft-boiled, medium-boiled and hard- boiled. As long as you push the spoon against the inside of the shell only and move slowly, you can get the whole thing in about 30-60 seconds.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9ytMg_fi4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV9ytMg_fi4)

</comment><comment><USER30> Of all the egg tutorials, none of them address the amount of water they used in boiling the egg. It is hardly convincing that the amount of boiling water won't affect the final product. The temperature of water might change once the egg is dropped in depending how large the pool is. Would love to see a comparison of using different pool size

<comment><USER31> That, and the temperature of the egg itself. Did it come from the refrigerator or is it at room temperature? Furthermore, not every egg has the same size or weight.

<comment><USER32> the temperature has been addressed in that article.

<comment><USER31> True but I am European and therefore, as mentioned in the article, often store my eggs at room temperature. The hardness of a cooked egg is a function of the size and/or weight of the egg, the cooking time _and_ the temperature of the egg.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've been using this method [1] successfully for several months now. Instead of cracking the shell and then peeling under water, you take both steps at the same time by cracking the shell _in_ the water!

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkWISKfgqZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkWISKfgqZ0)

</comment><comment><USER34> Very funny and useful.

Seems that the scientific method can and should be applied to nearly everything successfully :o).

<comment><USER35> You would very much enjoy the book, "The Science of Good Cooking" by the same folks who do the show "Americas Test Kitchen"

</comment></comment><comment> bash-j Big fan of Kenji's food lab work. I like his trial and error methods of finding the facts. From him I've learned to steam my eggs, bash and brine my chicken, and the right way to cook a steak, not that I eat much red meat anymore - too expensive!.

</comment><comment><USER36> I would just say that for people that love eating eggs, if you have the space get a couple of chickens. They are about as hard to look after as rabbits, and once you have proper, fresh eggs you won't go back to store-bought.

<comment><USER37> > once you have proper, fresh eggs you won't go back to store-bought.

Placebo

[http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/08/what-are-the-best-eggs- ca...](http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/08/what-are-the-best-eggs-cage-free- organic-omega-3s-grocery-store-brand-the-food-lab.html)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060100792.html)

<comment><USER38> Not really. Cage free vs. caged or organic corn vs. non-organic corn is a feel good thing.

It all depends on what they eat. Both articles actually say this, but bury it for some reason.

Hens in a barnyard eating high quality feed supplemented by insects, etc have a different flavor and texture than hens just fed feed. "Eggland's best" taste different because they are supplemented with flax.

Similar phenomena exists with beef and pork. Grass fed beef tastes different due to more Omega-3 in grass. Danish pork tastes a little different because the pigs eat fish.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> >As you can see, not one of them is a perfect hard-cooked egg: the eggs go directly from having slightly translucent centers to having rubbery whites.

This happens when you cut them in half when they're still hot. The trick is to let them sit in the water until it cools down after cooking, or at least don't cut them until they cool down considerably.

</comment><comment><USER40> >But of course, there's still a lot of eggsplaining to do.

Upvoting this share just because of this pun!

</comment><comment><USER41> Damn, I read this article a couple of weeks ago when making my own eggs. Little did I know there was so much delicious HN karma to be had. I'll just submit every site I visit in future.</comment>


Phenomenon: a fast 2kB low-level WebGL API - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/vaneenige/phenomenon <comment><USER2> If anyone is curious, here's the output of the demo: [https://newswim.github.io/phenomenon_webgl_demo](https://newswim.github.io/phenomenon_webgl_demo)</comment>


Sytes is the PHP of Common Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://lisperator.net/sytes/

<comment><USER2> Lisp inside HTML looks prettier than I have expected. a HAML templating for LISP would make things better maybe.</comment>


LTE Base Station Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.bellard.org/lte/

<comment><USER2> This is a duplicate of <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4469424> (already >= 120 comments).</comment>


The $20 Theory of the Universe - <AUTHOR> http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0303-MAR_20DOLLARS

<comment><USER2> I've had luck saying "is there _anything_ I could _possibly pay_ to make this better for me?" For instance, I got my car sprung from a Chicago city impound, where it would have sat over a weekend racking up fees (they wouldn't release it until I got a licensing thing worked out, but the impound lot tow guys would tow the car out of the lot for me for a couple bucks).

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you say "Tip people $20 and they will sometimes give you what you want." in 2000 words or more?

<comment><USER4> There's a fine line between good writing and verbose writing.

I'm taking a writing class right now, and they really stress that real-world examples explain your argument better and make the writing more interesting, and I think that's actually true.

That said, giving too many examples makes it too long to be worth people's time and/or bores them with too many examples that are too similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is quite interesting when you take into consideration what the author was doing: haggling. It's usually a mute point, as many don't talk about how/where/why they haggle as the action is under the radar - particularly here in the US.

Certain cultures outside of the States embrace haggling as a predominant means of exchange, i.e. in China via tuangou: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuangou>

</comment><comment><USER6> I realize it was an experiment, but some of the examples are sort of silly.

$20 for some corporate meeting's catered buffet? Why not just buy a nice lunch with the $20?

<comment><USER7> In New York you'd never get two plates and two beers for $20.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, maybe this works with politicians too?

</comment><comment><USER9> yuck.

</comment><comment><USER10> Usually I consider TL;DR to be the sign of a dull-minded loser, but...

well, I can't say TL;DR. If it were more interesting, I would have read it to the end. TB;DR.</comment>


My wife's horrible experience with Groupon - <AUTHOR> http://thefreshpalate.blogspot.com/2011/06/catch-22-of-groupon.html

<comment><USER2> On one hand he was pissed that Groupon didn't make changes so it would get a bigger audience, but then they could barely handle the sales they made?

<comment><USER3> One of the aspects of Groupon is not everyone that will view it will purchase, but they will at least be aware of their company. What's the point if they don't think you're a service they could use, regardless of a discount?</comment></comment>


PHP: \ as namespace separator. What were they thinking? - <AUTHOR> http://ninh.nl/blog/2008/10/25/a-word-on-phps-upcoming-namespace-seperator/

<comment><USER2> If past PHP trends are any indication..

PHP 6: "\" is an awesome new feature that makes web development more approachable.

PHP 7: "\" is an awful idea, avoided by the clueful and widely denounced. You can disable it in php.ini, but that's not the default. 80% of practicing developers know none of this.

PHP 8: The php.ini default changes. Gang wars erupt in the shared hosting ghetto. You can force it on or off at the code level, and a comment thread in the PHP manual contains 23 different slightly-broken copy-and-paste snippets.

PHP 9: "\" doesn't exist anymore. Everyone ignores PHP 9 until three weeks before PHP 8 is EOL'd.

<comment><USER3> Magic quotes... [shudder]

<comment><USER4> register_globals... [shudder x 2]

<comment><USER5> safe_mode... [shudder x 3]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This decision, and all the crap surrounding it - the decision making process, the reasons given for deciding on '\', etc - sum up very well why I do not like working with PHP.

It's not that I can't get stuff done with it. It's that it is designed and maintained by people who _don't know very much about language design_ , coupled with the fact that PHP is in position to have some people that _are_ experienced with such things come in and re-do it.

I mean, I'm far from being versed in the ways of writing programming languages, but I can write a parser that can handle one token being used for different things if I need to. I would think that it's a pretty common thing (and is probably in the class of things where you'd rarely be writing one from scratch, but I digress).

Every time I use it, I end up feeling like I'm beating my face against the language. That's not quite accurate - I end up feeling like I'm beating my face against _years_ of poorly thought out design decisions with little to no effort made to remove them.

Perhaps I'm missing out on some things that make this a lot harder for PHP, especially considering that I'm not part of the PHP community (and considering that I avoid it when possible) - but it really seems to me that most of PHPs problems, from a language perspective, are _solved_ problems.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More links:

\- <http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceseparator>

\- <http://news.php.net/php.internals/41374>

\- [http://loveandtheft.org/2008/10/26/set-sail-for-fail-php- nam...](http://loveandtheft.org/2008/10/26/set-sail-for-fail-php-namespaces/)

<comment><AUTHOR> One more: [http://scriptnode.com/article/php-to-use-backslash-as- namesp...](http://scriptnode.com/article/php-to-use-backslash-as-namespace- separator/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They should have stuck with Paamayim Nekudotayim for the namespace and either 1) returned an error for ambiguities or 2) used some prefix for namespaces like !Foo::bar().

1) is less desirable because unlike C++ PHP is not compiled. I could imagine some random included file that you disabled for testing causing an ambiguity error.

2) could work if you choose a representation that is human readable and easily parsable. The exclamation point seems to fit that description.

<comment><USER8> Lets say bar() returns false. Are the following two lines the same?

        true == !false
        true == !Foo::bar()

Paamayim Nekudotayim is the best option, you could even use it as a prefix in case of ambiguity:

        true == ::Foo::bar()

<comment><USER9> Easily solved by using '!!' instead of '!'. But it doesn't matter to me. I like to complain about PHP while using it, and I get a lot of stuff done in PHP, but I don't really care about it.

<comment><USER8> You can chain !, so "true == !! true" is true.

<comment><USER9> You can, but I can't think of any reason to do so, which is why I mentioned it.

<comment><USER8> Which of these would be the same?

       !(!(true))
       ! ! true
       !!true

Having !! not be the same as ! ! would probably be the first case in PHP of significant whitespace.

<comment><USER9> I would assume that the first would be different than the second two, in the case that !! was some other operator. It's not clear to me whether other cases in which there are double-character operators tolerate having whitespace between them. Is "$name++" the same as "$name+ +", or is the latter an error, or neither? I can't be bothered to check right now. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What php does now make me have no confidence in its future. Already started a transformation for exist website from php to python. Like what Paamayim Nekudotayim said, these guys who develop php interpreter have limited vision from the global language development. Thus, it time to leave php behind.

</comment><comment><USER11> Who cares? They explained why this was the least-bad option, and the provided rationale make sense. Yes, if they had not made so many bad choices over the years, they wouldn't be here, but they did, so they are.

You shouldn't be using PHP anyway, it's a toy for kids.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also really still like Lego, so well, that's not an argument :P</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Kindle vs 2nd monitor - <AUTHOR>

Recently, it was indirectly suggested to me on HN to buy an ebook reader.
However, if 90% of the planned use would be for reading ebooks while at a computer, would it be better to get a second monitor instead - I could then have the ebook open on the second screen and I would still have spare space.
If you own any ebook reader, please let me know your thoughts <comment><USER2> If you're actually reading real books like novels or creative-nonfiction Malcolm Gladwell or something, then get an ebook reader and flip through it on your sofa, in bed, on a bus, at the beach, and don't worry about reading every email as soon as it arrives, or keeping up on your twitter feed or whatever.

If you're flipping through API documentation, or scanning tech books on Safari, second monitor is probably better.

</comment><comment><USER3> Currently on my desk: iPad (I'm writing this reply on it), desktop with dual 20" monitors, and a Dell 15" laptop. I'd get the second monitor before I got an e reader. It has the biggest positive impact on productivity.

I'd recommend an iPad over a black and white e reader as well, especially if you'll be reading books with diagrams or code samples, because the color screen comes in handy.

</comment><comment><USER4> Kindle - best screen for reading many ebooks, the display goes easy on your eyes.

iPad - best device for everything other than just ebooks (news, games, multimedia etc.)

2nd monitor - best increase in productivity (YMMV). Put code, docs, chat, music, and more open at once. Your eyes move faster than Alt-tab.

Personally, I would go with a 2nd monitor since I don't read many ebooks.</comment>