Interesting Swift Features - <AUTHOR> https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2014-06-20-interesting-swift-features.html

<comment><USER2> Explicit optionals are great. But I feel some of the other convenience features like type inference, trailing closures, different copy behavior of arrays, and _operator overloading_ have the potential of being abused to produce cryptic code. What's your opinion?

<comment><USER3> Operator overloading can potentially be abused because in Swift you are not limited to standard operators like in C++.

[https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/AdvancedOperators.html)

According to the documentation you can declare an operator composed by an arbitrary list of this characters "/ = - + * % < > ! & | ^ . ~". You can recreate C++ stream operators (<<, >>), Ruby combined comparison (<=>), and so on.

<comment><USER4> I don't know whether this is reassuring or worrying, but Haskell has long (always?) pursued this strategy of allowing even more flexible operator names. From [http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/lexemes.html](http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/lexemes.html):

> Operator symbols are formed from one or more symbol characters, as defined > above …

where 'above' is:

        symbol 	-> 	ascSymbol | uniSymbol<special | _ | : | " | '>
        ascSymbol 	-> 	! | # | $ | % | & | * | + | . | / | < | = | > | ? | @
    	| 	\ | ^ | | | - | ~
        uniSymbol 	-> 	any Unicode symbol or punctuation

<comment><USER5> They go so far that the operator name can even be prefixed by the lexeme (?) for single-line comments (--) :)

> (--|) = (+)

<comment><USER6> My problem with most overloaded operators is that they too often have no sensible name.

When I talk to myself while coding, I have no name to say out loud.

I have nothing but a picture, when I try to remember the operator.

<comment><USER4> While the names may or may not work for you, this has been considered:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7746894/are-there- pronoun...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7746894/are-there- pronounceable-names-for-common-haskell-operators)

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3242361/haskell-how-is- pr...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3242361/haskell-how-is-pronounced)

I got to this by Googling for the 'fish' operator, to which I vaguely remembered seeing a reference:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/c262b/the_fish_oper...](http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/c262b/the_fish_operator)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Google cache because the site is down: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z3RhU-_...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z3RhU- _bgzkJ:https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2014-06-20-interesting-swift- features.html&client=firefox-a&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for posting that. I don't know if it was the HN Hug of Death or a coincidence or what, but the VPS spiked to 100% CPU and became completely unresponsive, even in the console accessed through the host's web panel. A reboot has fixed it... for now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Don't know whether it's just because a lot of the library code hasn't been fully moved to this model yet, but I'm still finding most (possibly all) of the iOS API code to use the same error:&error) approach that Objective C uses.

<comment><USER10> Approximately none of the iOS APIs have been adjusted for Swift yet.

Also, at least for Swift 1.0, they won't be. Swift does not guarantee a stable ABI right now or for 1.0. They guarantee binary compatibility with the OS, and ABI compatibility with any application frameworks that are compiled alongside the application (because, well, those can't change), but no compatibility between frameworks and applications. The only way to get that compatibility is to stick to Obj-C APIs (or, well, pure C APIs, but that's no better).

What this means is system frameworks will not be able to take advantage of things like generics or multiple return types until sometime in the future, past Swift 1.0. Of course, they couldn't justify doing that today anyway, because they need to maintain Obj-C compatibility for all of the Obj-C code that still exists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a small thing but I think let/var deserved a mention too (my C code is littered with const everywhere).

<comment><USER12> He did say he was going to write a series of articles about Swift. Give him time. :-)

The main "aha" point of this article for me was the way optional values eliminate a whole class of programming errors that are pervasive in the "C family" of languages, and does so in a rather elegant way. (Apparently Scala has a similar capability, but I'm not familiar with Scala.)

<comment><USER13> People are probably most familiar with them, I think, in the form of Haskell's Maybe monad. (Though that has the extra feature of black-holing computations that try to operate on Nothing.)

<comment><USER14> Swift has the "black-holing" as well in the form of either explicitly calling Optional's map method, or the syntactic sugar: myTypeTOpt?.methodOnTypeT()</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Exponential time complexity in the Swift type checker - <AUTHOR> https://www.cocoawithlove.com/blog/2016/07/12/type-checker-issues.html <comment><USER4> Why does Swift use this weird constraint-based type resolution anyway? To me it seems like it, whenever it manages to found a non-trivial solution, would be one that is unexpected to the programmer and leads to unintended consequences. Anyone have a motivating example of when it would be useful?

What's wrong with a type resolver that resolves (or not, with an error!) greedily in order of precedence?

Here's how I would solve

       let a: Animal = 1 + -(2)

Ok, 2 is an int. If that gives problems down the line, too bad. -(2) is an int, if that gives problems, too bad. 1+-(2) is int+int so result should be an int. a is an Animal, try to convert int to Animal. Fail. Error!

One thing in particular that scares me with the constraint approach is that it seems to me (though I may be wrong) that whether overflow occurs or not is not immediately obvious.

        let a: Double = -(INT_MAX) + - (INT_MAX)

whats to say those INT_MAXes wont somehow be interpreted as Doubles and a will be -2 INT_MAX ?

<comment><USER5> Swift is not unique in using constraint solving to provide bidirectional type inference. Scala and Haskell provide the same level of flexibility; although not with the same compile-time problems. In the case of Haskell, this is ultimately because the language is intentionally simpler in some ways.

Swift brings together three features that can be hard on type inference:

* Overloaded literals. When overloaded literals like maps can themselves contain literals, there are actually quite a few possible overloadings to choose from.

* Subtyping. We infer not types but type bounds (ranges).

* Overloading.

Haskell has notably no overloading at all and no subtyping. Somehow Scala manages to combine all these things and a quite astonishing conversions system, too.

<comment><USER6> Haskell does have overloaded literals: integer literals have type `Num a => a`, and floating-point literals have type `Fractional a => a`. And GHC has an extension OverloadedStrings to make string literals have type `IsString a => a` (which makes it easier to work with ByteString and other different string- like types).

<comment><USER7> AFAIK, Haskell doesn't really have overloading in the sense that other languages use it. "Num a => a" is just one type. Contrast with Java, where a class can have two methods named "foo" with completely different arguments and return types.

<comment><USER8> "Overloaded literals" only has one meaning as far as I know, and what Haskell has is it: a literal whose type isn't solely determined by its contents.

<comment><USER9> Essentially the parent commenters are talking about too different things, one is talking about the first bullet point and the other is talking about the third.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Swift is highly inspired by Standard ML. If you look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML), you can see the similarities:

        fun dist ((x0, y0), (x1, y1)) = let
          val dx = x1 - <USER2>
          val dy = y1 - <USER3>
          in
            Math.sqrt (dx * dx + dy * dy)
          end

Because of that, it also has its exponential time complexity (see for example [http://spacemanaki.com/blog/2014/08/04/Just-LOOK-at-the- humo...](http://spacemanaki.com/blog/2014/08/04/Just-LOOK-at-the-humongous- type/))

What makes things especially bad for Swift seems to be that it has function overloading and uses lots of it in its standard library, as that increases the constants in the exponentiation (for example, with 6 choices to make and 10 vs 2 possible overloads per decision point you get 10^6 = a million versus 2^6 = 64 options to consider)

<comment><USER11> I had thought about that, but I am pretty sure the reason Hindley-Milner is exponential has to do with the generalization for let-polymorphism. I'm not familiar with all the details of Swift, but I do not recall seeing that it will infer polymorphic types for you.

That doesn't mean there isn't a good reason that Swift's inference is exponential – I just think HM's exponential time behavior is a red herring.

<comment><USER12> The article focusses on function overloads, which are not a part of Hindley- Milner (so yes, a red herring in this case) and not necessarily exponential. The fact that Swift is exponential here is an implementation shortcoming and little more.

Swift's type checker does also have an exponential path for protocol constrained generic parameters which is functionally equivalent to the exponential path for classical Hindley-Milner. However, there are "pseudo" linear optimizations for this too that Swift should also consider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't believe something like this makes it into "production". How could anybody value such an asinine type inference system over _compile time_?

If your compiler needs a constraints solver to determine the type of an expression, it belongs in a science exhibit, not into a real-world toolchain.

Don't try to be clever! Give me a compiler that's _predictable_ , _reliable_ and _fast_. If that means I have to add some type information here and there, that's just fine!

<comment><USER14> A very large percentage of compilers for statically typed languages include algorithms with worst-case exponential time. For instance, the celebrated Hindley Milner type inference algorithm, which is "almost linear" in practice, has worst-case exponential time (the reason it rarely comes up is that programs rarely have deeply-left-nested let bindings). Anyway, type checkers that employ constraint solving can be a lot easier to reason about and extend than alternatives (and give way better error messages, which is probably the second-most-important thing a type checker does).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15>
        The following line will give an error if you try to compile it in Swift 3:

        let a: Double = -(1 + 2) + -(3 + 4) + 5

Reminds me when Golang said you should avoid using numbers greater than about 20k in your program to avoid GC problems. I.e. farcical.

<comment><USER16> > _Golang said you should avoid using numbers greater than about 20k in your > program to avoid GC problems_

Isn't this unavoidable with conservative garbage collectors? The GC looks at your fields and believes your integer is a pointer… It cannot know better.

Swift doesn't have that issue, but reference counting has its own risks of memory leaks through mishandled weak references, and a performance overhead.

<comment><USER5> Scanning the heap looking for values that "look like pointers" in some indefinite way is a fairly unusual strategy. There are many GC'd languages -- Haskell and O'Caml come to mind -- without this limitation. Haskell used "pointer tagging" where every value had two bits reserved at the top end and thus Ints were limited to 30 bits. The two bits were used to tell the GC what it was looking at. Later developments side-stepped this limitation but I'm not sure how.

Does ARC have an overhead relative to GC? If if it does, it at least prevents latency spikes.

<comment><USER10> _" Does ARC have an overhead relative to GC? If if it does, it at least prevents latency spikes"_

It doesn't prevent latency spikes. As an extreme example, create a linked list or tree with a billion nodes, and let its root go out of scope. That will call _free_ a billion times.

<comment><USER5> Do that every request, and it will be the same each time.

With GC, you can see a latency spike when every request creates such a list and they aren't freed until, due to memory pressure, many are freed all at once. Some of the requests will get stuck waiting for a linked list node and have very high latency relative to the other ones.

The strength of ARC for interactive applications is its consistency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Considering how likely it is that developers are running into this particular set of compiler bugs and are scratching their head figuring out what is wrong it should be fixed soon. Swift can not afford to be called unpredictable from a developer perspective.

<comment><USER18> Apple has demonstrated again and again that developers will put up with just about anything. As long as Apple has control of the platform with the most valuable customers, it will stay that way.

<comment><USER9> Except the last time something like this happened[1] it was fixed within a day[2].

[1]: [https://spin.atomicobject.com/2016/04/26/swift-long- compile-...](https://spin.atomicobject.com/2016/04/26/swift-long-compile- time/)

[2]: [https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/2cdd7d64e1e2add7bcfd54...](https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/2cdd7d64e1e2add7bcfd5452d36e7f5fc6c86a03)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I first, somehow, misread the title, and changed "Swift type" for "Swype". Made me wonder how an Android keyboard would be affected by an exponential time complexity algorithm and why would it be a big deal.

Everything makes much more sense now.</comment>


Show HN: Takeaways from Nonfiction Books - <AUTHOR> https://sipreads.com/ <comment><USER2> Co-maker here, ask us anything :)

<comment><USER3> how do you choose the books?

<comment><AUTHOR> Till this point we were choosing based on our interests. What we like to read naturally. But now we have many suggestions from people!</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Chrome extension – Keyword search volume for Google analytics and GWT - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/keywords-everywhere/hbapdpeemoojbophdfndmlgdhppljgmp <comment><USER2> Every time you search on Google a request is made to [https://keywordkeg.com/service/1/getKeywordData.php](https://keywordkeg.com/service/1/getKeywordData.php) to grab pricing/volume data. This means keywordkeg is aware of all your google searches. A privacy-aware solution could have been to make direct requests to Google API without proxying via keywordkeg middleware.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can go to the options page and simply disable any of the supported websites.

Additionally, if you see the source code, you can see that there is no tracking information sent to the API - only the keyword.

There is also no way to send requests to the Google API to get keyword data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Pure genius... provide some value to marketers and then steal all their best performing keywords and campaign data to the toolbar :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You could simply generate a large amount of noise and send it to the API to foil any such evil plan.

The API url used is right there in the chrome JavaScript code, as mentioned by someone else on this thread. Very easy to write a simple script to send random words to the API.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is nice. Where are you pulling the data from? How do we know it's accurate?

<comment><USER2> Looking into source code of chrome ext and [https://keywordkeg.com](https://keywordkeg.com) it appears they are using Google AdWords, MOZ and other APIs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about adding tutorial on how to use this plugin? This is big problem with chrome extension devs. No tutorial anywhere!

</comment><comment><USER6> I bit and added it, please don't slow down my chrome to a crawl, thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> You shouldn't see any slowdown. The code uses minimal resources - reads the table data, calls a webservice and injects the keyword volume and cpc numbers.

<comment><USER7> I can see the usefullness of this tool but it's not clear how to use it. I installed it but nothing changed (i.e. there's no button in the toolbar). I tried restarting Chrome hoping to see some changes, nothing. I went to the extensions settings page but all I see are checkboxes for different see screenshot: [http://imgur.com/rOBCMmj](http://imgur.com/rOBCMmj)

It would be extremely helpful to have even a basic tutorial page/link pop up after installation (you can add this hook in the manifest.json).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point. Will add a tutorial in the next version.

There is no setup to be done. Once the extension is enabled, you simply visit any supported website and the keyword metrics will show up automatically. Just google for a keyword and the keyword data should be seen under the search box. Visit Google Search Console or Analytics, and keyword columns automatically appear inside the table.

If you are having any issues with this, please do email me at firstname.lastname@example.com and I'll be happy to figure out why its not working for you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Woman Who Harvested a Two-Acre Wheat Field Off Wall Street (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/t-magazine/agnes-denes-art.html <comment><USER2> Today there is an educational organic farm about 1,500 ft away from where the wheat was grown: The Urban Farm in Battery Park [http://thebattery.org/destinations/urban- farm/](http://thebattery.org/destinations/urban-farm/)

And there are hundreds of community gardens across the city that are maintained by neighbors and supported by the Parks Department.

Bonus: A time capsule was also part of the piece, set to be opened in the year 2979 [http://www.agnesdenesstudio.com/works7.html](http://www.agnesdenesstudio.com/works7.html)

<comment><USER3> Is this stuff edible? Being in a city sounds like it would be near a lot of pollution? Does it not affect the plants?

<comment><USER2> The garden is overseen by professionals, so it has likely had soil testing done, especially since they are growing produce.

Manhattan is mostly an island of bedrock, and there is no manufacturing or industrial areas in Lower Manhattan that would contaminate the soil. The only concern would be protecting the garden from water running off the streets bordering the park, but those all have drainage and curbs installed.

<comment><USER4> Air quality is also an issue!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ironically, there is little confrontation between a skyscraper and a wheat field, in the sense that they are both extremely artificial and totally man made.

<comment><USER6> There's a huge confrontation.

One is a agrarian and the other urban.

Two types of completely different civilizations clashing.

<comment><USER7> I assure you the wheat field will survive without the skyscraper, the other way around not so much. Cities may believe that they are independent of agrarian and rural society but the reality is that modern cities consume an incredible amount of raw resources and by necessity require the resources that an agrarian society produces. While it may sting and be sub optimal an agrarian society doesn't per say need an urban one to survive.

<comment> crooked-v "Agrarian society" doesn't really exist anymore in the first world, given the overwhelming centralized corporatization of farming.

<comment><USER8> The Amish might count atleast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I plant a small field at the end of my parking lot in grain; wheat, oats, or barley. It started as a way to replace the weeds the previous owner let be, but over the years it has become its own challenge.

The progress from bare soil to green shoots, tallish grass, grain heads and then the dried straw color before harvest ties the viewer to the seasons.

It's a small field. 1/20th of an acre (1/50th of a hectare if you go that way), but since I do all the work by hand it keeps it from being a burden. The down side of being the only grain field for miles around is that wildlife can wipe me out. A large flock of birds before harvest can do serious damage. Lately I lose most of the crop to sleeping deer which mash it down before harvest.

On a good year I make more seed than I plant.

<comment><USER3> Is it edible? Since it's near cars and their exhausts I imagine that some of it is going to seep into the plants.

<comment><USER10> Some modern farm equipment literally injects diesel exhaust into the soil, the claim being that the increased carbon and nitrogen levels augment or replace fertilizer. And no I am not kidding, see Bio-Agtive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was hoping it was going to be about a loophole in wheat futures that let you claim ownership of the wheat field.

</comment><comment><USER12> There was a very similar art installation in downtown Los Angeles in 2005:

[https://www.kcet.org/shows/earth-focus/field-of-dreams- the-c...](https://www.kcet.org/shows/earth-focus/field-of-dreams-the- cornfield-throughout-los-angeles-history)

</comment><comment><USER13> I wish you could put produce farms into transparent tethered ballons- then they could provide shade for the buildings reducing ac-cost, while producing produce like a greenhouse.

Idiotic dream i guess, but a nice one.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is about art, not farming and it is great!

</comment><comment><USER15> > "a two-acre wheat field that was planted in May 1982 on the landfill that > would eventually become Battery Park City"

I would not eat wheat grown from a New York landfill.

<comment><USER16> By "landfill", they mean land that was created by filling in the Hudson River, not a landfill where refuse is buried. But still, I would eat anything made from that wheat.

<comment><USER17> To add context, that river is polluted with things like PCBs and mercury to the extent that official guidance is to not eat fish you catch there.

<comment><USER18> All seafood is contaminated with mercury from coal mining/burning

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From the headline I assumed some "average Jane" had discovered a way to rip off the big banks via wheat derivatives, or futures or some such financial non-sense. Of course the headline for this article seems to reflect the post- modern bullshit that everyone from Wall Street banks to emerging artists (and yes, SV startups) seem to be participating in today. Since post-modernism seems to be preoccupied on the banality of the present I will leave no further words.

<comment><USER20> What does "post-modern" mean in this context?

This isn't a leading question - I really don't know what you mean here.</comment></comment>


Want to make college more affordable? Reform the accreditation system - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/27/opinions/student-debt-reform-accreditation-system-sheffield-opinion/index.html <comment><USER2> It's difficult to follow the line of argument, but it seems to go like this: accreditation is de facto mandatory and creates an artificial shortage of colleges, keeping tuition high. By getting rid of accreditation new players will enter the education market and competition will reduce prices.

It's at odds with reality. Accreditation has been around since the 1900s, whereas tuition began to rise disproportionately in the mid-1980s. Also, bootcamps are very lightly regulated, and we are seeing that market collapse.

Why not try what works in most European countries: fund colleges adequately and shift the burden of the cost from the individual to society as a whole?

<comment><USER3> > accreditation is de facto mandatory and creates an artificial shortage of > colleges, keeping tuition high.

More specifically, it creates an artificial shortage of _affordable_ colleges, i.e., those which offer federally assisted financial aid programs.

> Why not try what works in most European countries: fund colleges adequately > and shift the burden of the cost from the individual to society as a whole?

This article seems to offer a solution in line with some European countries --- most notably, Germany, which famously has a dual education system [1]. Not everyone needs to go to college, and I think there's a high likelihood that not everyone _should_ , given the success rates of vocational high schools and equivalent colleges.

I also don't think that free or reduced college costs make sense or are a net- positive for society in general. For one, college is essentially an investment which increases your earnings potential over time. Subsidizing college is approximately like society giving 17/18 year olds free money (to the order of >$100,000) to invest. I don't think society giving away money on the order of 6 figures is a good idea, not to mention that you would run to severe problems such as misaligned incentives/principal agent.

Furthermore, free or heavily subsidized college seems to disproportionately benefit the class of U.S. citizens who most likely go to college, i.e. upper- middle-class families, which I don't think need the most help right now.

(I've heard rumors that college-as-an-investment might not be the best analogy; please correct me if that's true/I'm wrong.)

[1] [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dual_education_system](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dual_education_system)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Timetracking CLI tool for freelancers - <AUTHOR> https://soloflow.io/cli/ <comment><AUTHOR> You can use 'HACKERNEWS18' for a free 'Almost all-in' membership until 1th January 2019!</comment>


Launch: Pitching Hacks, The Book - <AUTHOR> http://venturehacks.com/articles/launch-pitching-hacks <comment><USER2> I read the samples it and seems decent... although heavily spaced with large nicely formatted quotes. I feel like I'd blow through the whole 83 pages on a lunch break. But of course, this might be a good thing... often times the best advice is succinct.

I'm on the verge of buying it, but I probably won't for two reasons. One: many VC's and entrepreneurs have done such a great job at disseminating this information that it's basically free. I don't mind having to do some digging around to put the bits together.

Two: I want to help out. If I save my $20 for myself to continue working on my hack, then at some point I can pitch to these guys and eventually make them more than $20 richer... so it really is to their own benefit.

<comment><USER3> $19 is the cost of lunch and a couple of lattes. While I don't need the book to learn how to pitch, the humor/entertainment value by itself makes it worth skipping lunch to buy. (Note: this is an unsolicited advertisement. Nivi, if you see this, perhaps you can set up the equivalent of an Amazon affiliate code so I can make 4% off each copy.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good practical advice--also useful for bootstrappers--boiled down to 83 pages.

</comment><comment><USER5> I bought it. It's okay. Most of this is on their (very awesome) website, I think.

Its a bit _too_ heavily spaced in general.

</comment><comment><USER6> When you buy it (I just did) you get a message with a $5 discount code in it ("for your friends"). I'd share it here (aren't we all friends here?) but I'm not sure if that's OK with the authors.

Is it OK?

<comment><USER7> Please share it. But only with me, of course.

<comment><USER5> the code is _PITCHINGROCKS_</comment></comment></comment>


Firms That Bossed Agriculture for a Century Face New Threat: Farmers - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/firms-that-bossed-agriculture-for-a-century-face-new-threat-farmers-1534347514 <comment><USER2> I worked for a company that has been in the tech side of this space since 2004 until acquisition last year. You'll notice that the discussion in this article (which seems to be submarine PR for Cargill) talks about Cargill and ADM's relationship with the farmers. There are a lot of smaller elevators and coops out there that are working to help farmers capitalize on the increased flow of information while maintaining their ability to stay open against corporate competition from the ABC giants (ADM, Bunge, Cargill).

The big thing in the overall space is that the software side of ag lags behind profitability in the industry. The company I worked for was 6 people (fte 3 devs), and we were running on a .NET WebForms platform originally written in 2005 that we didn't have the time or resources to bring nearly 250kloc to something more modern. (That includes web, backend processes, api, our mobile app platform was another 40kloc)

Hopefully, modern web/big data/etc tech allows small farmers to move past occasional profitability to thriving growth, not just allows big companies to capture more profits.

<comment><USER3> I'm the founder of a company called Harvest Profit. We build a suite of profitability and risk management tools, trying to help farmers better manage their operations.

Farming is a unique business where the average farm generates $1+ million of revenue and is self-managed.

I agree with this article. More farmers are taking on the duties of merchandising their commodities and we help them with that. It's a fun challenge.

As an aside, selling intangible goods like software to farmers (who love equipment) is not for the faint of heart!

<comment><USER2> I've actually seen your product, as the Myriad, the company that acquired my previous employer is based in the same city as you. I think your product looks great, and I hope you do well. I'm all for products that help local farmers make good profits!

<comment><USER3> Thanks Russ! Hopefully we will get the opportunity to collaborate!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a huge margin out there for both farmers and suppliers if they can bypass the middleman. Did you know that grain shipped overseas contains up to 5% foreign matter? That farmers are docked if they bring in grain with over 0.5% foreign matter?

I held out the idea that the blockchain would be useful as a tool to let suppliers in Europe or China deal with large farms or groups of farms but it hasn't happened so far.

<comment><USER5> What services do the middlemen provide? Are those services truly unneeded or will the farmer have to develop those skills and/or outsource to a different company? It seems like there is an opportunity here when viewed through traditional product distribution eyes but can a farmer ship direct to customer, organize bonds and insurance, navigate the futures markets?

<comment><USER6> Perhaps a co-operative owned by the farmers themselves would be the best approach</comment></comment></comment>


How We Eat: Analyzing 1/2 a Million Meals - Massive Health - <AUTHOR> http://data.massivehealth.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> And their official blog post: [http://blog.massivehealth.com/post/21377192742/how-we-eat- an...](http://blog.massivehealth.com/post/21377192742/how-we-eat-analyzing- half-a-million-meals)

</comment><comment><USER2> That is crazy....amazing infographics too</comment>


Open Semantic Search - <AUTHOR> http://www.opensemanticsearch.org/ <comment><USER2> There's a lot of claims on the front page, but digging into the docs I'm not seeing much beyond Solr?

The textmining page[1] talks about how to search (?) and generate word clouds (ie, words with counts - core Solr faceted search functionality).

But it links to a page on Named Entities[2] which sounds promising! But in that case it turns out you have to setup the named entities yourself (ie, no NLP tools to find them) and then you get.. Solr facets.

I think there are some promising ideas here, but right now I think it makes the easy things in Solr slightly more complex and doesn't help with the hard things.

[1] [http://www.opensemanticsearch.org/doc/analyze/textmining](http://www.opensemanticsearch.org/doc/analyze/textmining)

[2] [http://www.opensemanticsearch.org/doc/analyze/textmining](http://www.opensemanticsearch.org/doc/analyze/textmining)

<comment><USER3> You might be right, I have only taken a quick look. Still useful if the implementation is easy to hack. There so many NER (named entity recognition) libraries, including Apache OpenNLP that I am surprised that NER was rolled in by default. I have my own NER as part of kbsportal.com

<comment><USER2> Yes, it seemed like something of a no-brainer to build a NLP enrichment pipeline before ingestion into Solr.

I assumed that was what it was and was interested because it something I suspect a lot of people have built a lot of times (I've built it at least twice).

<comment><USER4> Lucidworks' Fusion is such a product. It has a lot of goodness built into it to enrich the Solr indexing and querying experiences. For example query pipelines, connectors for importing from almost all imaginable datasources, indexing pipelines that enrich the documents, including NER/NLP etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That website could use some structured data itself. I feel lost in a vaguely text-mining associated word cloud.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is great, now I can convert my OSX DevonThink archive with an open source solution and run it on linux/bsd.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is based on Apache Solr, which is awesome!

<comment><USER7> Elasticsearch is aligning itself with the logging/analytic crowd. Not much focus on search itself. Many doing NLP are using Solr.

There really is no difference at the Lucene level.</comment></comment>


Extract digits from series of images - <AUTHOR> https://bountify.co/1I <comment><USER2> Huh, I'm more interested in the website itself (bountify). Posting little coding challenges for a payment is an awesome idea. My concern is that the payments offered on most of these projects is way too low. You could make more money serving fries for the same amount of time.

But I think the idea has a lot of potential.

<comment><USER3> Also, it's about the challenge. Maybe specifying the problem a bit more: a reward value divided by the number of pixels required to identify each digit

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone somewhere is probably trying to invert the blurring algorithm used on the check.

Blanking it out is far superior to blurring. If you know the kernel, partial deconvolution isn't impossible.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4679801>

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't mean to be trite, but it would seem like the $5 is the part that's for the lulz.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is. I just happened to be one of the earlies adopters, provided some feedback and received 5$ voucher... I know this task is much more sophisticated but just for I just post it to let is off my head, to resonate :)

<there is also £10 cheque for the most hardcore hacker>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is more background on the guy who posted this challenge. <http://www.iamthespecialist.com/>

[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JiJWn0hVMYm8X9a_oVvJ...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JiJWn0hVMYm8X9a_oVvJzq2ML5M77WviuW9l3Ef0G6c/edit)

Slide 11

<comment><USER7> The guy can only offer $5 for the challenge?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In my todo list there is a line for building one of those for the guys I just started working for. It will sms the number to the phone of the developer requestiong it. I will probably be using an old netbook, though.

<comment><USER9> I hope you're not assuming sms is "secure"?

[http://www.itnews.com.au/News/322194,telcos-declare-sms- unsa...](http://www.itnews.com.au/News/322194,telcos-declare-sms-unsafe-for- bank-transactions.aspx)

<comment><USER8> As secure as the current system, which involves someone reading the number out loud over the phone. As each code is only valid for a one minute window, and our profile is not that high, I'd say sms will do.</comment></comment></comment>


Alphabet's Sidewalk Labs Eyes Toronto for Its Digital City - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-08/alphabet-s-sidewalk-labs-eyes-toronto-for-its-digital-city <comment><USER2> "People thought it was crazy when Google decided to connect all the world's information"

I'd love to see a citation for this. I sort of doubt, at the moment, that anyone seriously said "Google is crazy for trying to connect the world's information." The implication is that I find the comparison to be a bit silly.

The self driving car comparison is more accurate but much less informative: we still don't know how it will turn out.

<comment><USER3> Maybe it's poor phrasing, and the incredulity was about Google's ability to accomplish such a goal?

<comment><USER4> It's actually just dumb. It's not like Google ever pioneered any endeavour. They've merely done what Altavista and Yahoo did, only better.

Equally, they don't actually connect all the world's information. Just sections of it where it's profitable to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't help but notice right now that Toronto's name has been increasingly pushed as some sort of "next tech centre" (well, many cities in the world want to be something like that). Can someone who's actually there fill me in on what's happening there? How does Toronto's scene compare to say, New York or Seattle?

<comment><USER6> The University of Toronto is home to Geoffrey Hinton and his research lab. Hinton was the first to use backpropagation for machine learning and a lot of the techniques used today were pioneered by his lab. He is also manages the Google Brain team in Toronto.

Yann LeCun, the director of AI at Facebook, also did a postdoc at Toronto.

[0] [http://learning.cs.toronto.edu:40292/people#Faculty](http://learning.cs.toronto.edu:40292/people#Faculty)

[1] [http://yann.lecun.com/](http://yann.lecun.com/)

<comment><USER7> Also, Hinton (and others) are launching a giant AI labs. Lots of government and partner funding (Google, Nvidia, etc).

[http://vectorinstitute.ai/](http://vectorinstitute.ai/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm really excited for all the great stuff finally getting done on the waterfront in Toronto. Even before I left a few years ago you could comfortably walk from around the airport up to Sherbourne almost entirely along the water edge. This will push that to Parliament and link up the Distillery district. I don't imagine the storage lot next to Cherry st will last long after that.

A far cry from my younger years where it was basically mud parking lots and heavy equipment east of redpath.

</comment><comment><USER9> Out of curiousity and so we can all concretely imagine how Sidewalk Labs plans to transform cities, can someone explain what are the speicific changes and associated benefits in this new kind of city? It mentions, autonomous transit, ride sharing, cheaper housing (how?). Can someone paint a fuller picture of what will be new and how it will be beneficial.

I'm not skeptical at all, in fact I'm very hopeful. I just want to be able to picture the new kind of city more concretely.

<comment><USER10> Personally I'm interested in seeing the privacy impact assessment if there is an actual proposal. This isn't Google doing it out of some utopian goodness of their heart. Everything in those 12 blocks will be logged, analyzed, and sold to advertisers.

<comment><USER11> Yeah I mean I get why people in Toronto are excited, but not a single person is thinking of privacy implications. It grosses me out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> C'mon Alphabet, bring this to Halifax!

The land will be much cheaper, we've got a huge problem with students fleeing for greener pastures, and we have one of the best connected cities in the country.

<comment><USER12> Best connected in what way?

<comment><USER3> Internet services. We had one of the first ADSL deployments in North America, and while we are still stuck with two real providers, speeds and prices are pretty good, and they have mostly given up on caps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Toronto is certainly booming today, hiring is hard, houses are getting expensive and everyone is talking about joining in on the fun...meanwhile I live here and love it, please take your shoes off at the door.

I'm a touch worried this will end up like the World Fair and we'll end up with a collection of derelict and unwanted "high tech" artefacts left for the original inhabitants to cleanup. I just don't trust Alphabet to act in a responsible way when it comes to respecting cities that real people live in.

</comment><comment><USER14> > He's also hinted at tech's ability to overhaul zoning rules and control > housing costs, a particular interest of Alphabet's Page.

Yeah, right. Toronto is one of the most retrograde cities on housing intensification (it still hasn't intensified around the Bloor-Danforth subway that was built a generation ago)[1]. In fact many neighbourhoods are losing population as the region grows due to extremely restrictive zoning rules.[2] A bit of Google money isn't going to change the electoral calculus of the local politicians that control that stuff.

The most likely scenario is Google convinces the government to sell/give them land in Toronto's Port Lands at below market value, and they make a killing on developing it with some technological window-dressing like free ad-supported wi-fi which AFAIK is the only thing Sidewalk has launched to date.

[1] [http://brandondonnelly.com/post/152616141303/the- yellowbelt](http://brandondonnelly.com/post/152616141303/the-yellowbelt) [2] [http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/02/2016-census-mapping- toro...](http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/02/2016-census-mapping-torontos- population-growth)

<comment><USER15> And how would they control housing costs? Not going to stop speculators from China and Russia desperately trying to move money out of their home countries to stop the government getting its hands on it

<comment><USER16> Build more housing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I assume this high tech city will be covered in cameras, microphones, and sensors of various types constantly reporting back to Alphabet (in order to "improve your user experience")?

"Good morning, Steve. Our 'smart sidewalk' noticed that you've gained several pounds and reduced the pace of your daily run over the past month" (insert personal trainer ad)

</comment><comment><USER18> Singapore did that for their Jurong Lake District in 2015, according to Wired. How did that work out?

</comment><comment><USER19> Again, watch house and rental prices soar through the roof... Can't a poor student in Toronto get a break?

<comment><USER8> When that student wants property in the most prime space in the region probably not. Toronto already allows tons of new units(like this project) what more are you expecting from the city?

<comment><USER20> The problem is that U of T spans some of the best real estate in the city, and obviously students want to live near there.

<comment><USER8> So the uni should relocate or build more extensive student housing? Not sure how that is a problem for the city itself. Not everyone gets to live in prime areas.

<comment><USER21> If Toronto was building everywhere they would.

<comment><USER8> Toronto is building everywhere around there. That's why every conversation about development in Toronto goes back and forth between 'too many condos!' and 'too expensive housing'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't have a source but I remember a panel discussion when Page came up with the idea to build a floating city in international waters. This way they could overcome the governmental regulations that slow down innovation, taxes etc. I can't help but think about Toronto as a testing ground for that. Add facebooks flying internet drones plus some space X space infrastructure. Sounds pretty cool to me.

<comment><USER23> How do taxes slow down innovation–considering all R&D costs can be deducted, and taxes only apply to profits?

And which regulations, specifically, are holding back innovation at Google? Would their floating city allow me (to use one of your examples) to conduct rocket launches in my backyard?

<comment><USER22> I'm not from the US and the discussion was mostly about regulations from the states but what I got from it was: \- foreign skilled workforce is from their perspective still to hard to employ (and the Muslim Ban could be an good example for that) \- think about the massive amount of money that Apple has offshore because it's to expensive to bring it back to the US! Put that investment into R&D and the effect would be tremendous. \- I don't know how high the cost for using the public infrastructure is in the US but building it from ground up and managing it by yourself might be cheaper (I assume thats what the Toronto project is all about). \- do some research on costs for positions like "Governmental Relations Manager". google made some bad experiences in China with that

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's Kansas City 2.0!

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this because of tightening immigration in the US?

</comment><comment><USER26> _" Sidewalk Labs has discussed creating an entire micro-city or district that could showcase the company's ideas for urban planning...."_

all great, until Google decides to stop funding /working on the project.

<comment><USER8> Wouldn't almost all the cost be front loaded making their ongoing involvement nice but not required?

<comment><USER26> They can't just flip a switch and make it happen. If I were Toronto I'd make them put a decent amount of money in an escrow account so the project is finished no matter what.

But then this is Google's tech, so if they leave not sure how it works.

<comment><USER8> So your concern isn't the ongoing operation but that they start working with waterfront TO on these 12 blocks and leave before their ideas are implemented?

Why would the city require more of them than any other developer? Any development has a chance of falling before completion.

<comment><USER26> I don't have a "concern," I merely stated what most people think of anything Google. I don't know enough about this project (the article didn't either) and I don't have a dog in this race. However, I do remember my grandma saying to never put _any_ eggs in Google's baskets. She always said that she heard that from her grandma.

Google will look after it's own interests, all the time. That's every quarter.

<comment><USER8> Every developer will look after their own interests every quarter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Crazy. People on Hacker News are still upset at Google for shutting down Reader.

<comment><USER18> And their fiber-optic to the home ISP. That's quite relevant here.

<comment><USER28> Google Wi-Fi mesh network in Mountain View hasn't worked in a long time. Toronto may well get similar service decline.

Also, Starbucks Google Wi-Fi rarely uses Google Fibre, IME, and instead uses commercial providers like AT&T and Comcast. Plus, Starbucks hasn't deployed much SGWF in Silicon Valley so it's still basically vaporware. (There's a Starbucks in Santa Clara with non-Google Wi-Fi as slow as dial-up.) They'd be wise to cancel the Google partnership and go with an outsourcer whom has access to a couple of big providers to maximize cheapest/fastest/coverage and handles all the deployment, support and security.

<comment><USER8> Toronto already has a city wide wi-fi that has never worked!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A bit sad that no US city was chosen for this project

<comment><USER30> Why?</comment></comment>


IPython 1.0 released - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ipython/ipython/releases/tag/rel-1.0.0

<comment><USER2> You could have linked to real announcement :

[http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/ipython- dev/2013-August/0121...](http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/ipython- dev/2013-August/012137.html)</comment>


Member of The European Union - <AUTHOR> https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/6172/ <comment><USER3> By this logic, wouldn't the most logical thing be for the EU members to all petition to join the United States of America as states (USAE - United States of America and Europe)?

After all, would this group not have much more influence than even the EU? In addition, there is a strong tradition of subsidiarity in the United States (see states rights).

I think most Europeans would be horrified of joining the United States. Why? Because there is not enough shared identity.

The United States works because the shared American identity is very strong. Even if I live in Iowa, my identity is more strongly American than Iowan. This American identity was forged through centuries of migration and assimilation (i.e. the Westward expansion where people would leave their state to go out West but would still be American) and in fighting and dying together alongside fellow Americans in the various wars over the years.

While the elite of Europe may have a stronger European identity than that of their country of citizenship, what you are seeing with the recent polls and movements in Europe is that for many of the common people, their national identity is stronger than their European identity. This is to be expected as for many of these countries, the national identity was forged over hundreds of years, while the modern European identity is only a few decades old.

Thus, for many people, they see the European identity as seeking to assert primacy over their national identity and they are wanting out.

<comment><USER4> > the national identity was forged over hundreds of years

While that is true for some European countries, for a very substantial part of Europe the "national identity" was invented out of nothing during the romantic nationalism period [1] inspired by Rousseau and Hegel, starting in the late 1700's, but which came to its head in Europe in the late 1800's, coinciding with the creation of several of the modern European nations.

For many others, their modern day European nations are much younger than even that.

You are probably right that most Europeans identify mostly with their nation, but for large parts of Europe that identity was invented by an intellectual and economical elite in the same way that the idea of a united Europe is being woven together strand by strand now. Whether not it succeeds will remain to be seen, but the very existence of most modern European states is the evidence of how this same state-building exercise has worked in Europe once before.

<comment><USER3> Correct. However, the context for this decision was in regards to Brexit. British and more specifically English identity is probably the strongest national identity in Europe ( French and Swiss identity would be the only other ones that are similar in strength). These ones I mentioned are also some of the oldest identities in Europe

British since 1600s James I, English Since at least the Tudors in the 1500s, French Since the Hundred Years' War in the 1400s, Swiss also since the 1300-1400s

These counties have around 500+ years of shares identity.

<comment><USER4> British identity is extremely weak - even in England, there's been a decades long decline in the number of people who consider themselves British first and foremost. As it stands, a tiny minority in the UK - England included see themselves as only British, and I believe a minority now see British as the most important part of their identity.

The only thing "saving" the British identity, is the weakness of the English national identity.

That English is one of the _oldest_ established national identities in Europe, I'll buy, but in the last twenty years there's been a lot of agonising in England over how weak the English identity is in many respects.

E.g. England does not have an official national anthem (God Save the Queen is the anthem of the UK), or really any day where people celebrate being English. The flag is amongst many English people seen as a bit of an embarrassment hijacked by far right groups and football fans. Unlike the other home nations, England does not have a parliament of its own, and so on.

A lot of the rest is tied to a UK identity that has steadily faded after the collapse of the British Empire.

In a way the English national identity is in crisis because England let itself become the UK in a way that Scotland and Wales did not, and as a result both identities have been watered down.

It's clear that there is still some sort of a cultural identity in England, and wider in the UK, but it is an identity that in most respect appears to be in decline.

In a sense I would be more inclined to buy that this perception of the decline is feeding into the fear of the EU in some groups. Few people in most other European nations would be likely to fear the disappearance of their national identity, but the UK has seen the slow slide towards the disintegration of the country itself, and have to face a shared identity that has been steadily weakening for decades, all the while at least in England there is little to take its place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >Many people think that a country is better off if its workers are decently paid, do not work excessively long hours, and work in a safe environment. (If you are sufficiently right wing, then you may disagree, but that just means that you will need other examples to illustrate the abstract principle.)

Would it be possible to resist stabs at the "other side" of politics, if you are trying to explain something? People in the other side will be distracted by this, and think less of the author, or (like me) think it's a misguided or untrue example.

<comment><USER6> I don't think this is misguided at all. I've heard right-wing people say work hours should be an employee-employer agreement that shouldn't concern the government. The author argues, quite civically in my opinion, that one can disagree with this particular example but that shouldn't interfere with the main point.

<comment><USER7> I think what OP is getting at is that you can drop the "if you are [side of the political spectrum]-leaning, then..." clause and lose nothing substantive from the argument. It's there exclusively to poke at the opposition while adding nothing of value.

<comment><USER8> It also doesn't help that he sets the tone of the article by patting himself on the back about how modern and sophisticated he is, with a bilingual family of academics that are citizens of the world.

<comment><USER9> It's only back-patting if you take it that way. Is he supposed to deny his own personal circumstances, or the notion that they'll have an effect on his outlook? Of course things like that shape the way you're likely to view the world, and surely it's best to be upfront about it. To my ears, it didn't come across as boastful at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Gower's thesis ignores the rent-seeking, grabbing hand of government. Yes, many government policies are defensible, if not desirable, when framed for the common good, common ideals, common values, etc.

But we know that many policies only advance the interests of those in government, their friends and those who hold power of politicians. The grabbing hand of government engages in rent-seeking at the local level, federal level, and the common body level; and at each step the citizen in Leeds or London is further removed from the policy-maker.

Against all the arguments to remain in the Euro-zone, there is this argument... Its not enough for capital, people and ideas to be free to travel physical borders. There must be sufficient sovereign diversity that they can travel to countries where there is less institutional resistance to a status quo that keeps them from flourishing.

Even better if they do not have to travel anywhere to flourish because the people chose to exit a restrictive, occasionally repressive federation.

<comment><USER11> Can you please give examples of these reprehensible policies?

<comment><USER12> See any recent article about Venezuela.

<comment><USER11> When did they join the EU?

<comment><USER12> What did the OP say that was genuinely specific to the EU?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It feels a little like there should be a simple, rational argument from politics and economics for retaining the EU as a single unit.

"The world markets are dominated by a few forces. One is a country with the bulk of the world's population; its population is about sixteen times the population of the most populous European country. Another is a single country with territory approximately fifteen times the square mileage of the largest single European nation. Unifying the voices of all people in Europe under one political entity doesn't zero out the playing field, but it may very well decrease the absurd order-of-magnitude scales of difference between political entities as these two juggernauts stomp inexorably towards their desired world order while the individual nations of Europe debate their own individual selfish interests."

But people aren't often rational about national ties.

<comment><USER14> Poor Switzerland. It's small, has relatively low population, and not in a union with any other country. Moreover, everyone has guns. And yet, it's one of the most (if not the most) prosperous countries in Europe.

<comment><USER15> Switzerland is my example of the best case scenario for the UK if they leave.

A haven for corporations/money, a good government that cares about the people, still open borders, still free trade with the EU, no say in anything they do.

But that's if the UK manages it well - I don't see that happening, corps will just jump over to Ireland, NHS is under heavy pressure, tariffs are still high (not because of the EU, but in spite, just look at food prices), wages rather low...

It will do alright, but not better I think...

<comment><USER16> Open borders is why the Brexit people want to leave in the first place.

They're not going to want to leave just to do a EFTA/EEA type deal. Which means opening borders to the EU, adopting EU regulation, paying the EU and having no say within the EU all to get access to the single market.

<comment><USER4> I agree they'll be bitterly disappointed if they end up with an EEA type deal, but despite that they keep using Norway a an example of how you can manage well outside the EU. Ignoring that Norway is almost as integrated as the UK is - in some ways more (part of Schengen).

In the case of Brexit, I predict a rush from the pro-EU contingent in parliament to get an EEA style deal in place before the next elections.

<comment><USER16> The pro-EU contingent would certainly push for that but then the UK would be basically in the same situation they're in now. It's one thing not to have a voice within the EU in your imagination, it's a different thing really not to have one.

I think that what's really going to happen is that this will goes the same way all these independence movements go, they'll vote to remain in the end. It's one thing to imagine yourself as independent and I can see how it might be appealing but taking a step over the edge into the realm of uncertainty is not a comfortable or very human thing to do.

<comment><USER4> > The pro-EU contingent would certainly push for that but then the UK would be > basically in the same situation they're in now.

And that's exactly why it is likely to push for it. And given that there's a solid pro-EU majority in parliament, it's likely that getting a deal as comprehensive as possible with the EU will be high priority, similar to how it was for Norway after the no vote in the referendum, where the EEA was used as a "consolation price" by the pro-EU parties.

They will argue that they have a strong mandate to do so, given that the Leave campaign have kept bringing up Norway as an example of how the UK can do fine outside the EU...

I do hope the UK votes to remain - I'm Norwegian, living in the UK. Though it won't affect me personally that much, as I qualify for leave to remain under at least three different categories. I agree with you that a good chunk of voters will end up voting remain even if they may be thinking of leaving now. The question is just if it will be enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I thought this was going to be about set theory.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Similarly, a little while ago I heard a fisherman talking about how his > livelihood suffered as a result of EU fishing quotas, and how he hoped that > Britain would leave the EU and let him fish more. He didn't put it quite > that crudely, but that was basically what he was saying. And yet without > quotas, the fishing stock would rapidly decline and that very same > fisherman's livelihood would vanish completely.

The problem wouldn't just be the fishing stock disappearing. The UK fisherman could start a pricing war with EU fishermen, and that would be followed by an import tariffs war, which would for sure expand to other sectors. The end result? Not good for the EU, but even worse for the UK.

</comment><comment> UK-AL So you want the EU to intentionally cripple the UK's competitiveness in order to work towards your own moral values which maybe right or wrong? Though in these particular cases my values are aligned with yours. However there are many cases where peoples values differ. You are using the supremacy EU laws to force your values on to them.

If these values are truly universal there is nothing stopping you getting some form of treaty between all these countries anyway outside of the eu. Leaving other things more open.

It's a very simple individuals/small groups vs large groups issue. There are two ways to resolve it. Allow each individual to make their own decision about it, or take a side and force your values on to everyone.

Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. There's always a way around government regulation, so it's not really effective. There's always loop hole. So why do companies offer workers good conditions? Because they are forced to by competition. You solve the issues of companies treating workers badly by developing a surging economy not by laws.

These 3rd world countries with sweatshops have actually gotten better standards then what came before. As spare capacity decreases companies are forced to offer better conditions. You can see this now, where in china companies are going elsewhere because workers demanding a lot more.

Tax argument only works if you think government is more efficient with money in the first place.

<comment><USER19> > Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not > because the government forces their hand.

There is nothing keeping them from colluding to keep wages down then. Apart from the government, that is...

<comment><USER20> Not only keeping wages down, but imposing long work hours and poor work conditions: unsafe, unhealthful. Not to mention employing children who ought to be in school. It's legislation which prevents such abuses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The problem with supra-nations is that, as bigger monopolies on government, they are much harder to vote against with your feet. You know, in case they become captured by special interests and impose burdensome taxes, oppressive laws, and smothering regulations.

</comment><comment><USER22> If we had algorithmic laws that would adapt to situation at any given time, then having a non-profit organization managing them could be beneficial. But when the bureaucracy in Brussels is strikingly similar to the one in Moscow during its "glory" days, I am not so sure we really need that. What we have now is that all politicians the member states wanted to get rid of due to their incompetence and other vices, end up in Brussels. You can gauge the quality of representatives from this.

As for potential Brexit, what would happen is that GB would enter TTIP earlier than other EU countries and get a deeper integration with US much earlier. So in a way it could give UK an edge (if TTIP proves in any way beneficial to UK and not only to US). The main industry is anyway financial; once TTIP is signed between EU and USA there won't be much in the way of UK either.

<comment><USER23> Obama explicitly called out that if the UK leaves the EU, that it would be at the "back of the queue" for trade deals. There's much less incentive for the US to work on a treaty with a smaller country like the UK as opposed to the entire EU.

<comment><USER24> The UK is the world's 5th largest economy, in reality it wouldn't be in either party's interests to send it to the back of the queue. Add on to that that the UK would have a much more flexible negotiating position outside the EU, as well as a powerful political mandate to quickly sort out new deals post Brexit.

<comment><USER4> It's not going to be the world's 5th largest for long. Growth is anaemic, while a long list of fast growing countries is coming up behind it.

My expectation is that the UK government after a Brexit would rush to try to get an EEA style deal in place, and end up having to give up more to get that than to remain in the UK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'd like to see more mathematicians / scientists stick their neck out like this. Too often these people hide behind castle walls, because they have been taught to stay in their own speciality. Yes, it is quite likely that they will make a rookie mistake, but they will also learn at a fantastic rate.

</comment><comment><USER26> One problem I have with this argument is that personal freedom isn't taken into account. Every time a decision is moved up one subsidiarity level, members at lower levels sacrifice a little bit of freedom.

For example, suppose the EU recognizes that gas-consuming vehicles contribute to climate change. From a utilitarian standpoint, it makes sense to ban all cars unless the economic advantage from driving outweighs the ecological damage from climate change. So perhaps the EU should ban all cars by default, but allow citizens to fill out a petition every time they need to drive. Except this is ridiculous, because we shouldn't need permission to drive. This is an assumed basic liberty (of course drivers should still pass a driver's test to get a license, but this only needs to be done once).

I think the utilitarian argument can still hold, but only if personal freedom is taken into account. It should be weighed like everything else, and recognized as a tradeoff. The United States allows freedom of speech, in exchange for giving people the right to post hateful comments online. The utilitarian might argue this is a bad thing, since society might be better off if hateful speech was removed from the internet. But in this case, I personally believe the benefits of freedom outweigh the drawbacks of offensive speech.

Every time a higher authority recognizes a prisoner's dilemma and enforces a rule, they are forbidding the players from playing the game themselves. Even if the societal benefits outweigh the drawbacks, there are hidden costs associated with sacrificing freedom.

</comment><comment><USER27> The EU is protectionist, weakens democracy, removes decision making from the populace, is barely accountable, is mysterious (most citizens don't even know who their MEPs are, let alone how the EU government works) and is a paradise for lobbyists.

It pretends (at least to the anti-federalist British) to be a big family of European nations, protecting human rights and stronger together than apart. This is the fantasy we are sold by our politicians.

In reality the EU is a project to create a single European state. This is not hidden in France, Belgium or Germany, only in the UK.

Also, the EU has created circumstances very friendly to big companies. The remoteness of the lawmaking process from the people makes it easy for lobbyists to have considerable influence over it. And the free movement of labour allows the mass movement of cheap labour from poor countries to rich countries, causing problems in the source and destination problems.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am a Dutch person and I've lived abroad for about half of my adult life in places like Japan and USA. I identify myself as both a Dutchman and a European. Just two weeks ago I shared a beer with an unknown Frenchman while watching the Eurocup in an Irish Pub while rooting for his country (Netherlands did not qualify). I am European and I love Europe. The things I miss most about home are my friends in Amsterdam (many of which have different nationalities) and I miss European food (the seasonal stuff you find in small villages in Southern Europe).

Even though I have these strong feelings towards Europe, I am against the EU as a super-state. I have been a "Euro Skeptic" ever since I started reading about liberty and became a libertarian. Unfortunately, being a Euro Skeptic and/or believing in smaller governments gets you cast into the "Right-wing Nutbag" camp in Europe (even by my own parents).

A lot of "Remainians" have strong personal feelings towards Europe just like me. They've benefited from some EU initiative at a university, or perhaps they married a fellow European person. Also, they enjoy the benefits of the Schengen treaty, being able to travel and settle freely - without spending years of legal fees and stress on immigration like me. All of these things can be accomplished by treaties and standards without a monolithic EU super nation. Trade and treaties (like Shengen) are great, and they are perfectly achievable without an EU super state).

There are countless of arguments around the democracy and economics of the EU, but at the end of the day the EU is an idealistic construct. It was created with noble intensions to create peace on a warn-torn continent - <USER2> quickly after the fall of the Berlin Wall (to address a strong and unified Germany).

Yet once again, the idealism of Europe (and in my opinion the disregard for the fundamentals of liberty) is creating a new cycle of instability on the continent. Whether there's going to be a Brexit or Bremain, a storm is coming.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think the supranational organisations argument is a bad argument to make given that throughout the world everyone else is devolving, and splitting into smaller countries or presently trying to split off.

Off the top of my head, countries/peoples recently or actively trying to split or setting up a new regional government, several that are actually in the EU:

        Czechoslovakia
        Yugoslavia
        Catalan
        Scotland
        Wales
        N. Ireland
        The Kurds

I'm sure there are many more as I really don't keep up with African or South American politics.

So why is everywhere else in the world seemingly moving to devolution, apart from Europe which is trying to create a super-state out of very, very different peoples.

And I _know_ that they're very different. I'm half-dutch, half-english, my Dad lives in France, I've been to Belgium, Spain, Italy and Germany. Each of these peoples have very different outlooks. And the Germans, quite alarmingly as one of the key leaders of this change, still consider themselves more German than global citizens[1] compared to other countries. And don't misinterpret this, nothing to do with Nazis, everything to do in that they're obviously not doing it out of a love for the EU.

So why the need for the super state? Look at what happened to poor old Spain and Greece being forced into what is now a very disparate economic relationship with Germany, the Germans have even effectively rescinded Greece's national economic decision making.

There don't seem to be any rational arguments coming out of either camp, and of all the arguments, the "supranational organisation" one has got to be the most ridiculous. To make it a quasi-mathematical one is even more absurd as our countries have much better labor laws than America which is bound by exactly that sort of organisation, and we had the bulk of them before the EU was involved. The Social Democracies of the EU came way before the EU even existed, before the EC, before the EEC. Before the EU we certainly didn't have zero-hour contracts, so there's clear evidence his quasi-mathematical arguments don't hold water.

And I say this all as a pro-remain. Posts like this honestly don't help because they are partisan bullshit dressed up as 'logic' with little in the way of facts.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904)

<comment><USER30> Very few groups in N. Ireland are trying to set up their own N. Ireland state/government. People either want in with one country or the other.

<comment><USER29> I didn't quite mean that in their case, they've devolved powers from a national level to a regional level, the opposite of what the EU is doing:

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

I appreciate it's sensitive and in reality it's a compromise.

The Welsh & Scots have have both devolved too though.

[http://gov.wales/](http://gov.wales/)

[http://www.parliament.scot/](http://www.parliament.scot/)

There's even talk of devolution for the North of England.

EDIT: I think this highlights the ridiculous nature of the argument, these countries want to vote on their own future, have self-determination. They're not voting remain for the maastricht treaty's removal of national power, they're all doing exactly the opposite of that at the moment. The main reason the Welsh, Scots + Irish are voting stay is because the EU gives them a lot more money than the London-centric Westminster (and I certainly don't blame them for that!). It's incredibly inconsistent and yet totally understandable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> _In the abstract, the case for supranational organizations is almost too obvious to be worth making: just as it often benefits individual people to form groups and agree to restrict their behaviour in certain ways, so it can benefit nations to join groups and agree to restrict their behaviour in certain ways._

But nations aren't anything more than collections of people. Nations, like societies and governments, cannot _do_ anything. Rather, the people within are the ones taking action.

Supernational organizations that constrain member states without the consent of the citizens of those states are just another form of tyranny.

You don't need giant bureaucracies to have free trade or free movement of people (or prosperity, for that matter).

</comment><comment><USER32> Personally my biggest beef with the EU seems to be the lack of optional participation.

Some rules just work better if applied to the entire EU, but it's not essential for a lot of rules. Example the vacuum cleaners: do we seriously need these things enforced from the EU?

There are of course rules that would require everyone to participate to work.

Also IMO a country should be able select which parts of the EU they wish to participate in: monetary, military, schengen zone, product safety rules (and thus easy in and export...), ...

<comment><USER33> If I would build vacuum cleaners, I would rather build one type and sell it in 28 different nations then producing 28 different models.

When I want to buy a vacuum cleaner, I want a good choice between different models and good prices.

So whats wrong with the EU regulating vacuum cleaners in a common market?

<comment><USER32> The only thing wrong with is the enforcement, at which point do you value sovereignty over common market ?

(Everyone should still implement this of course.)

But having the ability to say no is still nice.

About the models, well normally most countries will apply the rule anyway, as such the vacuum cleaners you will be able to get will conform anyway.

(And the vacuum cleaners was an example.)

Bus as stated it's mainly about sovereignty versus unity. Also I am not sure if optional parts would help keep the EU together: on one side you feel less forced, and more invested. On the other side it diminishes to effectiveness of it.

And I think I mainly fear the EU becoming the the USA. I do not think many people in the EU are keen on seeing that happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> read David Ellis for sound and clear counter-arguments

[https://davidellis2.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/reflections- on-...](https://davidellis2.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/reflections-on-latex-in/)

</comment><comment><USER35> I agree with the ideas this post tries to perpetuate, but it's written as if the author lives in a different reality. Post 2008, the EU has been the mother of all evil for PIIGS and non-PIIGS too.

> In the abstract, the case for supranational organizations is almost too > obvious to be worth making: […]

Most Euro-sceptics, myself included, do not see the EU as a "supranational organisation" that is for my best interest. What I see is a body of non- elected puppets, taking important decisions about my life, mishandling crisis after crisis (debt crisis, Ukraine, Syria, etc.), the French sitting quietly while Germany abuses everyone.

The EU is deeply, deeply undemocratic. There are no published discussions of the Eurogroup. So basically a finance minister goes there, comes back with new laws but there's nothing published on paper or broadcasted about who said what and why.

Every time an anti-popular law is passed, it's because of "the EU" as if the EU was something abstract (exactly as this post describes) in which we, the people, have no say. So if we really have no say, why on earth would be support that? Because the opposite is worst? Sorry but this ain't gonna cut it.

The EU have not solved the basic macro-economic problems that every union or federal country has like surplus recycling: You can't have Germany with huge surplus without having Greece with a huge pile of debt! You just can't! It's macro 0101.

Why do you think that every time a referendum has been to called in relation to the EU (France, Netherlands, Greece and now the UK) the anti-EU choice has dominated. I mean the EU is turning unpopular even in Germany which is the country who profited most because of the single currency. That was expected because it's the biggest exporting power in Europe, so it has a surplus vis-a- vis with EVERY state that can't devalue.

There is something fundamentally broken within the EU. The Germans are clearly unfit to lead while the French are too weak to react when it matters the most and others simply don't count. The whole is going to blow up for sure.

Would you rather have 50 EUR and be able to decide what to do with 'em or 500 EUR but another country telling what to do with them?

Now Prof. Varoufakis, which I admire deeply, believes that what comes after a break-up is an even greater depression and possibly war. I don't like this narrative, not a bit, but I don't see how we can avoid it by staying within the EU.

The fact that we have neo-nazis in the Greek parliament, extreme right wing rising in Austria, France and Hungary is not pure chance. It's the result of EU policies promoting unemployment, stagnation and hatred.

So until the EU starts resembling more like a union and less like a bullying squad, there's no chance.

[1] That was the exact words Scheuble used to explain Varoufakis that Greece should continue with austerity "as is" although it was clearly visible that everything in the Greek program was wrong.

</comment><comment><USER36> Now try to explain that to the average voter :)

</comment><comment><USER37> I upvoted this on accident, a one letter title requires extreme clicking precision. I think HN should force a min title length.

<comment><USER38> First World Problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Could the title of this article be any less informative?

<comment><USER40> I like the dual reference to Euro and set membership

<comment><USER41> And the E in the CE marking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking)

The Euro sign has one more dash €. Maybe the author intentionally left some ambiguity in the title.

<comment><USER38> Speaking as a math major, I didn't see any ambiguity at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> People are generally selfish and lazy. We act in immediately efficient ways even if those ways have high long-term costs—balloon payments and so forth. We do this individually and we do it when we band together in companies and nations.

At the extremes, there are two ways to deal with selfishness and laziness. You can let it go, allowing people to make their own choices and face their own consequences, hoping they'll have enough foresight to avoid ballooning dangers. In economics and government this is generally associated with "conservative" politics. Or you can control people through rule-making and enforcement, preventing them from making choices they should know will end up bad and forcing them to take the right actions. This is associated with—somewhat unexpectedly—the "liberal" approach.

It's pretty clear that either extreme is a bad choice. Pure conservatism allows the wealthy and powerful few to exploit the oppressed many, the large corporation to crush the individual, the effective short-term competitor to ignore long-term costs to self and others. Pure liberalism crushes individual choice, presumes the wise choice of those who rule, sustains complex legal and enforcement systems, and adds the profound inefficiency of government to the many expenses a society must bear.

Yet anything in between the two extremes is difficult. Ambiguity abounds. No single choice for a conservative or liberal approach—in health care, for example, or gun control, or airport security, or child rearing—is clearly correct and without serious downsides. People are difficult. Living together is hard.

If there is a clear error, therefore, it is an over-enthusiasm for one extreme or the other, an over-pessimism for the other side of the aisle.

What's more, one's own self-bias is all but impossible to see. This article begins with pretensions of objectivity that the author compares, if vaguely, to mathematics, yet the bias of the author shines through unmistakable. He searches for objective premises from which to argue, yet even the way he frames the questions, even the premises he chooses to expound all but guarantee his conclusions.

And so here we are: difficult people, trying to live together, discussing—or pretending to—how best to do so, yet choked full of our own biases and unwilling (because we are selfish and lazy) to really hear the other side. And that's too bad, because the right answer is surely a blend, a case-by-case blend, of freedom and legislation.

When you compare the laws of the EU to nations contemporary and historical, I think it's pretty clear that it skews liberal and that there is a great deal of legislation: legislation "for their own good." It's possible that the EU has good legislation, a good _amount_ of legislation, and that it is effective in enforcing that legislation such that the member nations have done, are doing, and will do better than they would without the union. (Not just economically better but morally, ecologically, etc.—whatever values we ought to care about. Though that's not clear.) But it also reasonable to wonder whether the EU is incorrectly skewed toward too much legislation, or of the wrong kind, or with bad enforcement, so that the member nations, or perhaps a single member nation, would do "better" (by some sound standard) removing itself from these laws. It helps in making these speculations that the EU, after all, is quite new in historical terms; Britons can look back even in their own memories and know what life without the EU might look like. There's no going back really, of course, but there is some historical basis for speculation. They can also look at their own values and culture and look for broad compatibilities or incompatibilities that might bode well or ill for the ongoing relationship.

It seems to me that the choice comes down to those kinds of questions. Were Britons better off before the EU, and if so, do they have a reasonable chance of returning, post-EU, to a similar or better situation? Is the rule of the EU over the UK, considered historically, abnormally invasive, complex, or incompetent, or is it on the other hand effective in legislation and enforcement?

So I think it's a historical, not mathematical or even—quite—logical question.</comment>


Ask HN: What was the "value" of your shares when you joined your startup? - <AUTHOR>

I wanted to create a poll but my karma is not high enough, so I'll have to stick to an Ask HN.
I read so many articles about first startup employees getting screwed from a financial point of view, and usually the rule of thumb is "unless you're very lucky and your company will sell/go public BIG, your economic reward will not be substantial".
So, fully aware of the literature around and of the basic math that can be done to confirm the previous sentence, my question for HN is: at the time you were hired as one of the first employees (non-(co)founder) in your startup (let's say for the sake of it < 10 employees), what was the post-money evaluation absolute value of your shares? For the poll, I'd calculate it this way:
value = percentage_granted * post_money_valuation
I am really simplifying this, so let's just say I'm not interested in how much the salary cut was and what was the state of the investing or the specific risk of failure. I really just want to know the percentage you were given relative to the value of the company decided by the investor(s) at the time you were hired.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Remember that "post money valuation" is for preferred shares and options are usually granted on common shares.

409a valuations usually value common shares at a fraction of preferred shares, and for good reason.</comment>


Facebook labelled 'digital gangsters' by report on fake news - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/facebook-fake-news-investigation-report-regulation-privacy-law-dcms <comment><USER2> What happens to a generation raised in a world where misinformation is criminalized? Does critical thinking lapse? Do people just assume all published works are authoritative by definition? Not an experiment i'd care to see played out.

The current fake news tug-o-war might actually make citizens more scrutinizing of their news, not less.

<comment> Const-me Critical thinking doesn't scale.

I can only apply critical thinking to my area of expertise, software development, and a few others I happen to have experience outside work. When I read stuff about unrelated matters like art, medicine, psychology, or politics, I only have some heuristics to detect obvious BS or bad actors, but they are very inaccurate because I'm not an expert.

<comment><USER3> More to the point, you can't apply "critical thinking" to a statement in isolation. You can only apply it using the context of things that you already know, or other sources you can get at. If trust in those is destroyed, it becomes genuinely impossible to know things.

(If you want a not too controversial example of this, look at popular nutritional science, which is a battleground of constantly shifting ideas and discredited experiments)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The actual report by the UK Parliament is here:

[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcu...](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/1791.pdf)

The "list or conclusions and recommendations" on pages 89-98 are worth studying though, see:

[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcu...](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/179112.htm#_idTextAnchor082)

Now provided we agree that regulation is the correct way to solve this, why not regulate instead AdTech? This seems to address the root of the problem, rather than trusting AI will fix it (as is the promise by the big players) and forcing everyone else (whoever is left on the free web ... and running on old stacks like phpforum for a fringe community ... OR those who aren't convinced that AI is a solution) to burden them with _what looks like_ a "Ministry of Truth" type of regulatory body. These might as well just take down the community/service (because it never made money anyway and now it's just too much of a burden).

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm more concerned about government intervention into speech and policing what is appropriate than I am fake news, which a recent study showed wasn't even that widespread.

<comment><USER6> Can you link the study? As far as I'm aware, even a relatively small proportion of misleading news, if it hits the right political nerves, could cause real damage to a society, so I'm interested in how the study defines "not that widespread", and what the implications of that are.

<comment><USER5> [http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586.full](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586.full)

Funny enough the headline the media took from this study was that older people shared fake news more...you probably saw that part everywhere. What they didn't share is that the study says it is actually pretty rare in every age group.</comment></comment></comment>