Research indicates that only about half of perceived friendships are mutual - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/do-your-friends-actually-like-you.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article <comment><USER2> I learned this the hard way not too long ago when someone informed me that a number of people I'd worked with who I'd thought of as friends just really disliked me. It hit hard at first because I thought of them as friends- 'work friends' at the very least, and made me start questioning other people that I thought of as friends.

After letting my mind spin in a tight loop about it for a while I decided that really it doesn't matter that much, because I'm happier liking people, and I can like someone and be friendly even irrespective of if they like me or not. Of course I'm not going to push my company on people who are clear that they don't want it, but it doesn't really do any good to second guess who actually cares for me and who is being polite.

<comment><USER3> I think maybe you had just one non-friend - the one that told you that caustic lie. Just a thought.

<comment><USER4> But what if it's a caustic truth?

Seriously, the world isn't all fluffy fuzzy happiness. Sometimes people honestly dislike and even despise one another, but they can still produce good work together. Gilbert & Sullivan are a good example.

<comment><USER5> Whether it's a caustic lie or a caustic truth, it's still caustic. Either way, what good do you see coming of its revelation in this context?

<comment><USER6> Put yourself in OP's position: would you rather _not_ know?

<comment><USER5> Yes.

Edited to expand: I already sandbox my personal and work lives thoroughly, so it's not going to cost me anything of significance beyond the job if I lose the job - not that that's not significant, but it's not my whole life, either. If, to a good first approximation, everyone where I work hates me, then I'm already going to lose the job, because with that many people looking to put a knife in my back, someone is going to succeed.

The odds that knowing this is true will make it possible for me to _change_ it are effectively negligible; on the one hand, if everyone where I work hates me because of my own behavior, I'm not equipped to change anyone's mind, and on the other, if everyone where I work hates me because of something that isn't actually under my control, everyone where I work _still hates me_ and I'm literally the last person in the world who's going to be able to do anything about that. Either way, I'm screwed in a way that foreknowledge isn't going to do anything to help; the best that'll happen if I find out ahead of time is nothing, and the worst is that I'll make my situation even worse. So where's the benefit in being told?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article cites a study from a business management class of 84 people.

That seems like quite a small sample, and I wouldn't expect business management students to be representative of the population as a whole.

It might still be true, but it's probably a bit early to write off all of your perceived friends as shallow fakes.

<comment><USER8> This definitely seems like another edition of "researcher generalizes from handful of white college students to entire country".

If you asked me to name a group with the largest percentage of fake friendships, "college business management class" would be right up there with "popular clique in high school". So the _topic_ is worth talking about, but I'll bet the _number_ is skewed way to the high end.

<comment><USER9> It's important to note that your biases certainly don't lend your conclusions any more credence than you're willing to give the article

<comment><USER8> No, but I'm not actually objecting to the business management class in particular (that's just a guess).

I'm objecting to yet another popular article that treats a narrow study of a non-standard sample like it's ground truth. Generalizing from classmates to friend groups (which are more elective and full of closure/network effects) is totally unsupported, and while that doesn't invalidate the study it certainly cripples the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "There is a limited amount of time and emotional capital we can distribute, > so we only have five slots for the most intense type of relationship," Mr. > Dunbar said. "People may say they have more than five but you can be pretty > sure they are not high-quality friendships."

This was the part I found most interesting. They describe people you're in touch with daily or weekly as being in the "close friends" category.

Personally, I'm fortunate to have deep, meaningful, long-term friendships with my wife and one other friend, and a few other friends and family members I consider close even if we talk something more like "every couple months" \- when we do, it's about important stuff. We freely say that we love each other, we hug, and I feel more relaxed and happy around them.

I'm tempted by stuff like being liked on social media, but when I think about it, it's pretty meaningless compared to these few relationships. Given X hours for maintaining friendships, I'd rather have fewer and better.

<comment><USER11> You can be good friends with more than five people - I wonder if they ever heard of the concept of "quality time"..

The problem to me seems to be Facebook's pervasive "friend" lingo (certainly not true in most cases) and a heavy cultural bias in that article.

<comment><USER8> I think the issue may be that "good friends" and "most intense friendship" are very different entities.

I'm sure I don't have more than five of the "most intense" sort of friends, but there are a lot more people than that who I care deeply about. Relationships that are very close when 'active' are presumably a different category - I think most of us have old friends and family who we feel strong connections to, but don't actually talk to on a daily or weekly basis.

Time places hard limits on how many people we see frequently and at length, but frequency and quality are fairly independent axes. I'm assuming "most intense" requires a high score on both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article refers to Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in conjunction with "strategic and propagandist" friendships. The book is often referenced in this manner but it's important to note that Carnegie emphasizes one's approach to friendship must be genuine -- anything less rings hollow and is easily spotted as fraud.

<comment><USER13> Having read Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" recently, long after I had heard of people recommending it left, right and centre I came to the conclusion that the book says more about the person who reads it and finds it revelatory than it does about society itself. If you believe the world works as the book lays out, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

<comment><USER14> > "How to Win Friends and Influence People" recently, long after I had heard > of people recommending it left, right and centre I came to the conclusion > that the book says more about the person who reads it

Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I have never read the book mainly because I remember one time in high school, I saw the guy sitting next to me in math class flipping through it.

We had just started the class and we were still trying to figure each other out and befriend each other at the time.

I sort of lost respect for him after seeing him flipping through the book. The title always suggested to me that it was filled with manipulative tactics to get people to do what you want.

No thanks.

<comment><USER15> You lost respect for someone you didn't know because you saw them reading a book you had not read. You judged a book by its cover in both senses of the phrase.

<comment><USER16> This 10x.

Also...what if someone just wants more friends in their life, because they're lonely, and don't really know how to be more personable? A book on winning people over seems like a really useful book to have, if you want to, you know, develop relationships with people and aren't very good at it yet.

<comment><USER17> It's the same problem with coding as it is with socializing. I find reading books _about_ things instead of doing ultimately leads to nothing but anxiety and a warped sense of whatever you're exploring. If you stay in those sorts of books too much it will begin to warp your mind. Taken to the extreme you get communities like 4chan r9k and reddits theredpill that try to boil every interaction down into a transaction.

You have to be well equipped mentally and somewhat socially to not let things like this bend your head.

<comment><USER16> Sure, you gotta go out and do it, but books are great ways to get at least some sense of what you're doing.

Like sales, in a past life I was selling stuff. I did sales for about 9 months before cracking open a sales book. I recognized that I'd learned to do, through blundering around, about 1/5th of what the book was telling me. Reading about that other 4/5ths really opened my eyes. It gave me stuff to think about and work on. It didn't replace experience, but guided it.

Same with a book about making friends, I think, especially for people who didn't make a lot of friends as a kid, but want more in adulthood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As I get older I find I care less and less about whether or not others like me.

Now, respect is another matter. If I had to choose, I'd rather be respected than loved.

<comment><USER19> > As I get older I find I care less and less about whether or not others like > me.

I came to that conclusion around 13 or 14. It's been a very pleasant and if I had to put it one way or the other, I'd say most people do like me.

> Now, respect is another matter. If I had to choose, I'd rather be respected > than loved.

Love is good, respect is great, but fear is the one that gets results!

<comment><USER20> It's amazing to me the people that openly express sociopathic tendencies on HN.

<comment><USER19> > It's amazing to me the people that openly express sociopathic tendencies on > HN.

It's more amazing that the majority of people, both online and in meatspace, prefer to sweep reality under the rug.

What's sociopathic about being able to recognize and deal with these types of situations as they come up in your life?

<comment><USER20> Caring more about getting things from people more than the actual people in your life (ie, using fear to get what you want) is the very definition of a sociopath.

What amazes me is that you are open about it. Most sociopaths try to hide that fact, because once people realize they are being manipulated you lose control.

<comment><USER19> > Caring more about getting things from people more than the actual people in > your life (ie, using fear to get what you want) is the very definition of a > sociopath.

> What amazes me is that you are open about it. Most sociopaths try to hide > that fact, because once people realize they are being manipulated you lose > control.

Ha! Who said I'm like that?

I'm talking abstractly. When your circle of friends intersects with a friends circle, you get to see a lot of interesting dynamics. One of those is fear and, speaking frankly, it's pretty disgusting. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > The study analyzed friendship ties among 84 subjects (ages 23 to 38) in a > business management class

I guess we had better draw some general conclusions from such a robust sample then, shall we?

</comment><comment><USER22> The article dances around, but doesn't really say that people define friendship differently and segment their lives differently.

I have professional colleagues whom I consider good friends where we've established level of mutual trust, but our "closeness" is defined by what/where we're going things -- we have a level of trust that is very meaningful, but we mutually "pop" up/down to a higher/lower levels of friendship.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well according to this article, now that I've moved, all my friends will inevitably become acquaintances. Of course making new true friends is much harder when you're older. Wow, depressing.

<comment><USER24> It's at least true for me. For example, I had someone that was probably my best friend that I hung out with at least once a week when he lived near me, and after he moved away, I'd like his Facebook posts but almost never reach out to talk to him. Except when he comes back into town, then I make a point to be available and we catch up. I also might go visit him next year sometime. But yeah, I haven't spoken to him in at least six months.

And now I have other friends nearby that I care about more and make an effort to hang out with on a regular basis.

And for that reason (amongst others), I am very hesitant to move away from this place, even though there are better job opportunities elsewhere in the country. I'm friends with quite a few people here, and I know I won't maintain those friendships hardly at all once I move away.

<comment><USER25> It is true. When you move, you will lose all your friendships and life will be difficult for a while.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. You can always make new friends, and if you put in the effort, you will.

The whole nonsense about true friends is kind of silly. Friendship is 95% proximity and 5% compatibility. You can get that anywhere and the history of your friendships really doesn't add value.

This is a classic case of the sunk cost fallacy that a lot of people fall into. You've got to do what's best for yourself in the long run, excluding your sunk costs (in this case, time building relationships). Imagine how silly you'll feel if all your friends move away and you waited around for nothing.

<comment><USER24> I'm pretty introverted by nature, and it took a concerted effort of me going to pretty much every meetup I could in the area over a period of two years to build up the social network I have in the area.

Could I do it from scratch again? Sure, and perhaps I will in a year or two, especially now that I've found a significant other that fits into my life so well.

But I really like the geography of where I live, the people where I live, the culture in close proximity to where I live, and I have job with a good dev culture that pays a respectable amount for the region and looks good on a resume, so I'm not exactly in a hurry to leave quite yet.

I'm not waiting for my friends. The pasture is pretty green where I'm at, and I'm not entirely convinced the pasture is just as green on the other side of the fence, even if it might pay more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This all finally makes sense.

So many times I've heard that you're the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with, but then if you suck and go hang out with 5 awesome people all the time, don't you bring down their average?

Unless there's some kind of friendship time ponzi scheme where you can spend little time but still be top 5...

<comment><USER27> "Suck" isn't a single dimension. Usually in groups of friends, you end up sucking in a dimension that those friends don't care about, while bringing something to the group that they do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I usually have the opposite problem: I'll consider myself a friend of a person, but that person thinks I _don 't_ like them. A common side effect of being factual/honest, unfortunately.

<comment><USER29> I bet that's not the reason people think you don't like them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm old enough now to know what I do to annoy other people. I actively work on those things, so people who _are_ around me at least do not want to run away :)

I'm also old enough not to care if someone does not like me. Life is too short to be fake friendly, and some people just do not get along. I'm okay with that.

</comment><comment><USER31> Perhaps social networking has changed how we define "friend", and some are adopting the new definition faster than others?

I have many connections, but very few real friends. I'm totally fulfilled by that though, and can't imagine having enough time (or the desire) to nurture more friendships. But when everyone has 500+ "friends" on Facebook, does 5 no longer seem like a large enough number to tell a researcher?

I also don't have any social networking accounts (besides LinkedIn), neither do my "real" friends. This could be because our anti-social(-network) temperaments are a part of what draws us together, but it could also mean that social(-network) butterflies are spreading themselves too thin to keep up with their expanded group of acquaintances.

Eh, anecdata, take it for what it is.

</comment><comment><USER32> Do I Actually Care If My Friends Like Me?

I mean, there's plenty about my friends I actively dislike but we have more binding us together than tearing us apart.

</comment><comment><USER33> "By his definition, friends are people you take the time to understand and allow to understand you."

TIL I literally have no friends.

<comment><USER34> Maybe it's a cliché, but it really seems to me rarely somebody does. Not "mature and adult" people anyway. Except for spouse, maybe. Maybe.

Why? Well, understanding implies there is something to understand, that implies feelings, generally. Big thoughts, sincere troubles. And "mature and adult" people are not about feelings, they are about business. They don't show their feelings and don't put their nose into others'. Especially in western, "civilized" countries: you are supposed to smile, you are supposed to be happy…ish. Everybody knows that "we don't need toxic people in our company", right? If you don't sport bright fake smile that's already "gloom", maybe impolitely so.

And now, with facebook and stuff everybody you need to speak occasionally to is a "friend". And I don't really mean it in a bad way (well, maybe a little I do): "friend" is just a word, it means what people mean by it, not what some psychologist (or even a dictionary) defines it to be.

So maybe you just need to use another word to suit this definition. I mean, if you say you don't have a "soulmate" it doesn't sound as surprising, right? Maybe sad, but not surprising, really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Reposted from a different thread on this article:

Ugh, this headline asks a question that's not very fun to ponder. Especially considering Betteridge's law [1].

When it comes to male friends, I think part of the problem is that men—especially straight men—are bad at/afraid of expressing intimacy in platonic contexts, probably because of social conditioning and subconscious homophobia.

When I thought about the answer to the headline's question for my friends, the only "I don't know"s were men. My female friends have made it clear that they value my friendship; most of my male friends haven't, and I think I'm bad at expressing that to anyone of any gender. Of course, maybe I'm just overgeneralizing my own experiences and/or my female friends are just better friends than my male friends.

Either way, good article. A lot of the not-news NYT stuff that gets posted on HN is crap, to be honest. This one really got me thinking and got me to churn out something _wayyy_ more personal than I'd normally ever post here.

> Others point to a misunderstanding of the very notion of friendship in an > age when "friend" is used as a verb, and social inclusion and exclusion are > as easy as a swipe or a tap on a smartphone screen.

I realize it's just fluff for the intro of the article, but this is typical kids-today-and-their-loud-music-get-off-my-lawn garbage. Social media does in general make people more aware of more people's lives, but I doubt anyone actually believes that every single one of their Facebook friends is actually their friend.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

</comment><comment><USER36> Anyone I know, I usually refer to them as a "friend" in conversation, whether they are or not. The word "friend" does not mean much to me, considering I'm invariably stabbed in the back if someone becomes "good friends."

<comment><USER37> What do you mean by "stabbed in the back"? Just out of curiosity... How could it have happened so many times?

<comment><USER38> I think that tells you a lot more about _helthanatos_ than about his 'back- stabbing' 'friends'.

<comment><USER36> Well, it could... It could also tell you about environment and people in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Nothing so fortifies a friendship as a belief on the part of one friend that he is superior to the other.

Honoré de Balzac

</comment><comment><USER40> The size of the layers described in the article seems correct. The contact frequency as a measure of said friendship is not. My closest friend lives 1800 km away, we are in touch 5 times a year at most and still enjoy it very much, always looking forward to it.

</comment><comment><USER41> Take a guess at romantic relationships by type. Higher? Lower? About the same?

</comment><comment><USER42> Reworded study findings: half of all people are assholes.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is a generalization. In Europe, people seem to try harder at friendships. They consider it almost duty to be a good friend to someone. In the US, people are more likely to consider only the "fun" aspect of friendship. If someone is having a tough time, they commensurately go down in the esteem meter.

<comment><USER44> This comment is a generalization

<comment><USER45> I usually find that comments in which the author explains how things are "in Europe" are full of generalisations.

<comment><USER46> Are you generalizing comments about Europe generalizing how things are there?

<comment><USER45> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I thought you said your friend liked you?

that.. is not.. my friend!

</comment><comment><USER48> Great, yet another thing to be anxious about on this fine monday morning.

</comment><comment><USER49> Sounds like what actually happened was that you friend-zoned them. They loved you, but you didn't reciprocate. Then they hated you. Discovering that, they hurt you. However, you, in turn, just friend-zoned them even more. Savage.

<comment><USER5> Sounds like somebody needs to spend less time on r/redpill, maybe.

<comment><USER49> The author and the reader chose divergent tones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Why is this on HN?

<comment><USER51> Navigating social environments has been one of the hardest "problems" I've faced, in life. Tech is easy, by comparison.

A big part of that problem was not being taught, and demonstrated, as a child, how such things work. My family was very disfunctional.

I suspect I'm not the only one, here...

And, it has direct bearing on my intellectual and technical performance. When I'm not happy, and not social, I'm not much of anything... including in those spheres.

YMMV

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Friends ?

</comment><comment><USER53> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243680](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243680) posted it last night, good to see it caught some traction.

<comment><USER54> I was there before you: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12241212](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12241212) , but no need to brag. Happy to see it discussed anyway.</comment></comment>


C++14 - <AUTHOR> http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/c14

<comment><USER3> _"digit separators to make for instance binary literals readable 0b1_0010_0010_0000_1000"_

Nice. I first saw this in Rust, and it seemed like such an obviously good idea (allowing underscores in numeric literals) that I've wondered why more languages don't do it. Now I'm curious where it originated.

<comment><USER4> I am a big fan of adding digit separators where ever possible. I'm tired of staring at ls listings of terabyte filesystems and trying to figure out what order of magnitude the numbers are. And yes, I know about ls -lh.

I would like to see a universal format agreed on by everyone, so that numbers with separators (call them punctuated numbers) output by one program could be used as input for another, as is often done in Unix pipelines.

The languages that I know of that have punctuated numbers all use underscores. However, having thought about it a lot, I don't think this is a good choice. First, the underscore is often used, as in C, as an additional character in identifiers, but the semantics are different. An underscore in an identifier is significant, in a number it is not:

1_234_567 == 1234567, but

my_long_identifier != mylongidentifier

Also, the underscore is too "big". In a fixed width font, this is irrelevant, but in a variable width font, I think it makes numbers look ugly. The separator should be narrow. In some locales, the apostrophe is used:

1'234'567

I like the thinner character. I have at least one calculator that uses this convention in the display. Alas, this is probably unworkable in computers, since the apostrophe is used commonly for quoting. One option that might work is the back quote:

1`234`567

The back quote isn't used as much as the apostrophe, but it still might cause problems. On US keyboards, it's conveniently located right next to the 1.

Finally, I'd like to see both period and comma accepted as the decimal separator

1`234`567.89 == 1`234`567,89

but there are some obvious problems with that.

My bottom line is that, before C++, or any other language, adds underscores as thousands separators because that's what everyone else did, we should think more deeply about what's needed in a universal format for punctuated numbers.

<comment><USER5> Far better to use a character that's supposed to be part of an identifier like _ than a character that could have some other syntactical use in various languages. The fact that a number begins with a numeric character lets you distinguish it from other identifiers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> GCC 4.8 already adds support for return type deduction in normal functions.

> G++ now supports a -std=c++1y option for experimentation with features > proposed for the next revision of the standard, expected around 2017. > Currently the only difference from -std=c++11 is support for return type > deduction in normal functions, as proposed in N3386.

<http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> " _There is now (thanks to CERN's presence :-) a working group on reflection in C++._ "

A few years ago I built an entire framework for automatic reflection in C++ - it worked by querying the export table of the executable or library. Eventually I lost interest and let the project slide, but I think this approach would be a good one to build on.

</comment><comment><USER8> How much can be added to a programming language until it collapses?

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder whether the hexadecimal floating-point syntax 0x1.23p45 referred to in <http://stackoverflow.com/a/11840637/139746> will qualify as "bug fixes and usability improvements". This notation is very useful for the tiny fraction of programmers who need it.

</comment><comment><USER10> One can only guess how the programming languages area will look like in 5 years, but C++ will get "runtime sized arrays" and "generic lambdas" in 2017 (add a year or two until it gets to mainstream compilers)? Makes you think that the criticism the language gets is a little justified.

<comment><USER11> There is no real need for runtime sized arrays, as one could already use vectors (which are more comfortable to use than C-style arrays anyway) and allocate them on the stack (that's one of the template parameters of std::vector, its allocator). If one were to be a masochist, one could also alloca and then use placement new, with all the shortcomings of alloca.

Granted, it's syntactically shorter to say int x[n], but it's the same behavior as above, and one would need to see what changes have to be made to the runtimes and the standard to allow for this, and how to report errors such as "There is no more space on the stack" (which is going to be much more frequent than running out of heap space).

As for "generic lambdas", I don't find that typing the type of your parameter is too annoying at the moment, though I haven't used the feature much. Perhaps this is a baby step in a move to make C++ a bit more Haskell-like: Strong typing, but also powerful type inference mechanism.

Other languages have more features, that's true. But C++ is still trying to advocate a blazingly fast speed, and pay-for-what-you-use mentality. That the language can still be the fastest, one of the most powerful, and achieve feature parity with current dynamic languages, I think reflects well on the language, not the opposite.

<comment><USER12> > There is no real need for runtime sized arrays, as one could already use > vectors [...] and allocate them on the stack

And how exactly would you do that? _alloca()_ aside, there is no such thing as a stack allocator.

<comment><USER11> There's several projects that have seen the need to allocate variable length things on the stack, Chromium was one[1]. A quick googling sends me to [2] as well.

I haven't ever found myself in a situation where I _needed_ my stuff to be stack allocated, but then again I've never done really low level programming or embedded code, and I guess it could happen there.

[1] [http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/stack_c...](http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/stack_container.h)

[2] <http://home.roadrunner.com/~hinnant/stack_alloc.html>

<comment><USER12> These just allocate a fixed-sized stack buffer and overflow to the heap - <USER2> variable-length stack allocation happens.

<comment><USER11> Right, because alloca is the only thing (as far as I know) that can resize the stack. There is not going to be anything else that does the same thing. The best one can do is those stack allocators which overflow to heap, or an alloca-based stack allocator.

There's an interesting discussion[1] at comp.std.c++ about implementing VLAs in C++0x, and the issues with dynamic stack resizing.

[1] [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.std...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.std.c++/K_4lgA1JYeg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really would like a 'real' dependencies system.

But not until at least 2017 ... :(

</comment><comment><USER14> > Is there anything else you want to know?

Why are you doing this? C++ has no future, only past.

<comment><USER15> If only there were alternatives which give similar control.

<comment><USER16> There's not. We are stuck in a C/C++ world for the time being. I had hopes for something like Oberon or D a couple of decades ago, but no one wants to go tilting at the windmills.

<comment><USER17> Shameless plug, but Rust is intended to be that. There's also Clay, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


To kill a frozen OpenSSH session, type "⏎ ~ ." – aka Enter, Tilde, Period - <AUTHOR> http://blog.infertux.com/2012/12/20/properly-close-a-frozen-ssh-session/ <comment><AUTHOR> ...Or in British English, "Full-Stop."

Type "⏎ ~ ?" for a tiny options menu!

Credit where credit is most definitely due: [https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4hlsmn/til_how_to_pr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4hlsmn/til_how_to_properly_close_a_frozen_ssh_session/)

As one of the commenters in that thread noted, "Open command line" in the aforementioned options menu lets you manipulate the port forwarding table in an open session; type 'h' for further help.

And as another commenter said, I guess I should have properly gone through the manpage for SSH at some point (along with many other manpages)...

I'm very interested to know where this feature does/does not work on the various variants of UNIX and BSD that are out there. I expect this is a standard OpenSSH feature, but when was it introduced, and how widely is it supported?

\---

Also, as a semi-rant aside: the usage of the Enter key is an incredibly, incredibly poor choice - what about the scenario where the connection has died badly enough that update packets are being dropped, but your keystrokes are getting through, and the remote system gets into a state where you would NOT want to send a carriage return?

I've had VNC freeze up on me once or twice where I reconnect and find that my typing input got through, but that the display updates just couldn't make it back. Granted, VNC is a bit heftier than SSH, but if in certain situations I don't think I'd feel too bad about chickening out and resorting to `kill` (or ^B X, as the author writes).

Also, I don't think I need to add "(2012)" to the end of this.

<comment><USER2> It dates back to the rlogin command from 4.2BSD in 1983.

Technically, the return key isn't part of the sequence. An _escape sequence_ in rlogin is defined as a line where a tilde, or (more properly) the _escape character_ (since it can be changed with a command-line option), is the first character that is typed at the start of a line.

* [https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19683-01/816-0210/6m6nb7mjg/inde...](https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19683-01/816-0210/6m6nb7mjg/index.html)

* [http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/manual/html_node/rlogi...](http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/manual/html_node/rlogin-invocation.html)

rlogin wasn't the only command where a line starting with an _escape character_ was special. When Berkeley Mail was in compose mode, one could do various things with such lines.

* [https://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/07.mail/paper.pdf](https://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/07.mail/paper.pdf)</comment></comment>


Python list comprehensions and the with keyword - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@theclarkatron/python-list-comprehensions-and-the-with-keyword-3618acb2d01

<comment><USER2> Why write a blog post about it? [http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#submitting-a- pep](http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#submitting-a-pep)</comment>


'Music is as good as gold or oil': A man spending billions on old hits - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/08/music-hits-elton-john-beyonce-merck-mercuriadis <comment><USER2> Previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22019925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22019925)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not what copyright is for.

<comment><USER4> The internet was "for" military communications and academic research sharing, not cat videos or ecommerce. A great many things are used for things other than what they were intended for.

<comment><USER3> A meaningless argument. The Internet is for communication, which is still its primary purpose.

<comment><USER5> It wasn't for communication in general though, it was for millitary communications - a specific thing.

And even if the argument if flawed, the concept underlying it is solid: what something was "originally meant for" is not the same as what something was actually usef for, or found eventually useful for....

<comment><USER6> im a bit surprised by this thread tbh! the original comment's pragmatics (in the linguistic sense) are pretty clearly _" i believe this is an abuse of the copyright mechanism"_. discussing the system's original purpose or whatever seems besides the point...

<comment><USER5> But it's only an abuse of the copyright mechanism based on the "original purpose" (to promote art etc).

It's not an abuse based on its actual, de facto, purpose: to sustain profitable back catalogue sales and aid the entertainment industry.

So whether the "original purpose" is important is the whole point in determining abuse or not...

<comment><USER7> It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology.

I'm sure that, if you are serious about the discussion, we can easily agree that both are not equivalent or comparable.

<comment><USER5> > _It seems you 're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the > law with an initial usecase of a technology._

Not exactly. When the grandparent (metalliqaz) wrote "This is not what copyright is for", I felt like they were the one confusing/conflating the "spirit of the law"(about copyright) with what copyright is actually used for, and intented to be used for, by the parties passing copyright laws and benefiting from them.

Copyright might not have been "for this", in some original "spirit of the law" sense, but it very much is for this in the de facto, 70 years plus running, sense.

So, I'm saying that there's an expressed spirit of the law and an operating (de facto) spirit of the law. Or, if you will, what the law hypocritically pays lip service to, and what the law is actually drafted and passed to achieve.

Those laws might have started back in the day with the intention (spirit) to promote the arts and protect creators etc, but for nearly a century they have been extended with the intention of making the entertainment business more profitable and protecting a multi-trillion US industry.

That's the actual spirit those laws are drafted, proposed, passed, and enforced for 70+ years now...

Few (if any) in the lawmaking and in the industry cares for the original "spirit of the law", the original wording is just left there as a historical artifact, to justify a different (and even opposing) application of the copyright law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is why copyright should only last for 20 years or so. Possibly extendable one time and one time only. As an absolute maximum.

<comment><USER9> Longer copyright times would incentivize more investment in artists.

For example, you would see "YC for budding young novelists" if copyright were more long-term and secure.

You can pay the living expenses of a whole lot of would-be-starving-artists- but-actually-baristas, for an enormous number of years, if you can collect investment revenue from the one who turned out to be Stephen King.

This idea is an extension of what copyright is for, which it to allow creators to make money, thus incentivizing them.

I support unlimited-duration copyright.

<comment><USER10> > You can pay the living expenses of a whole lot of would-be-starving-artists- > but-actually-baristas, for an enormous number of years, if you can collect > investment revenue from the one who turned out to be Stephen King.

even with unlimited-length copyright, who would do that? if I'm the investor, I would just find a bunch of aspiring artists and offer to pay their living expenses for a year in exchange for ownership of the copyright. I'd ditch the ones that didn't make money and offer better terms to the successful ones for their next work. with unlimited-length copyright, I might be willing to give more people a one-year shot, but the end result would still be that most of them go back to their barista job.

<comment><USER11> This is pretty much how the music industry operates already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> With AI-generated vocals and music, I think we're about to see an explosion in works created. I don't know that it's wise to invest in copyright catalogues right now. We're going to be able to create nearly unlimited music with famous vocalists (and entirely generated ones!)

Check out the Tupac Shakur voice on [https://vo.codes](https://vo.codes)

It's kind of broken, but it took zero effort. And that's the direction we're headed.

r9y9 on Github has amazing results synthesizing lyrics. Better than vocaloid at this point.

Look what people are making:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/VocalSynthesis/comments/i3egph/even...](https://www.reddit.com/r/VocalSynthesis/comments/i3egph/even_stronger/)

[https://youtu.be/3qR8I5zlMHs](https://youtu.be/3qR8I5zlMHs)

[https://youtu.be/2X3Rqo6JVmg](https://youtu.be/2X3Rqo6JVmg)

[https://youtu.be/noJHHN39ZCw](https://youtu.be/noJHHN39ZCw)

[https://m.soundcloud.com/r9y9/sets/dnn-based-singing- voice](https://m.soundcloud.com/r9y9/sets/dnn-based-singing-voice)

My prediction is that in ten years, music copyright is going to be very different than it is today. We'll still have live artists putting on performances, but we'll also have entirely virtual artists like Gorillaz (with neural-backed lyrics) and recreations of Tupac, MJ, Elvis, and so on.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, it's only a matter of time before everyone has an AI composer on their phone continually creating works they are likely to enjoy. I wonder if it will feel formulaic.

<comment><USER12> > creating works they are likely to enjoy

This! This is the future I want to live in and help create.

People are going to have all sorts of media tweaked to their interests. The system will have to be smart enough to introduce novel changes in interest so that it never gets boring, or so that people's interests can be expanded.

If we're careful, we can characterize and destroy the filter bubble while we're at it.

<comment><USER14> I have to say, this sounds awful to me. Living in a tiny bubble world surrounded by only things I like honestly sounds horrible.

How can you appreciate the things you like if you never have to experience things you don't like?

Life isn't supposed to be a constant pursuit of cutting out any unwanted or negative things. It's about experiencing things in general.

A world like you describe sounds pretty bland and lifeless to me.

<comment><USER12> > I have to say, this sounds awful to me. Living in a tiny bubble world > surrounded by only things I like honestly sounds horrible.

This sounds like the anti-rock and roll argument wearing a different cloak.

> How can you appreciate the things you like if you never have to experience > things you don't like?

I doubt this would remove all displeasure and pain from life. We're a long way away from dopamine drips and AI overloads.

> Life isn't supposed to be a constant pursuit of cutting out any unwanted or > negative things.

Life isn't supposed to be about anything. We're apes on a mote of dust in an infinite void.

> It's about experiencing things in general.

This increases diversity of experience. It's something new. People aren't going to stop making music because it got easier. That strikes me as a Luddite argument.

> A world like you describe sounds pretty bland and lifeless to me.

The world gets better every year. These arguments are, frankly, a nostalgia for youth.

Times change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This only works well if if people still care about the artists and culture long after the hits are released. Catalogs from the 50s, 60s, and 70s were dirt cheap in the 80s and early 90s because few anticipated the huge nostalgic demand by boomers to relive their youth in the 2000s and later. Will today's consumers of pop music feel the same nostalgic attachment as boomers to today? hard to know. But I think not, due to fragmentation. A top-selling Arina Grande song will probably be all but forgotten in 50 years.

<comment><USER16> People will always listen to the music of their youth. The 90s pop hits are still popular among my 30+ year old friends because that was the music they grew up listening to

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> An interesting thought experiment: what if shares in songs could be traded on a public exchange? Which would be in the S&P 500?

</comment><comment><USER18> I do wonder why this guy thinks that the rights to a successful song are an "uncorrelated" asset. Wouldn't strong economic growth mean that people are far more likely to spend money on these things? Especially for 'sync' rights which mostly come up for things like ads, or derivative mass-marketed media (e.g. successful song X ends up in the soundtrack of movie Y)? Just seemed like a weird claim to me.

<comment><USER15> Because even in recessions, studios and ad agencies still shell out big bucks for songs, even if the stock market is down a lot. The royalty rates for Beatles songs did not fall in 2000-2003 despite the S&P 500 falling 50%. There is very low correlation with other asset classes.</comment></comment>


New Health-Focused Startup Accelerator Rock Health Debuts Inaugural Batch - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/18/new-health-focused-startup-accelerator-rock-health-debuts-inaugural-batch/

<comment><USER2> Very exciting to see more start-ups focusing on health and wellness!</comment>


EC2 US-East is down - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/#!/search/ec2

<comment><USER2> And yet the Amazon status page says everything is fine.....<http://status.aws.amazon.com/>

Maybe Amazon could redirect people to twitter instead of its status page for info on whether it is up or down.

</comment><comment><USER3> Management console says all my instances are still running. But can't ping or ssh to them and can't ping amazon.com either.

</comment><comment><USER3> And it's back up for us, at least.</comment>


WhatsApp Co-Founder Donates $1M to FreeBSD Foundation - <AUTHOR> http://freebsdfoundation.blogspot.com/2014/11/freebsd-foundation-announces-generous.html?HN <comment><USER2> From the announcement:

>>"This marks the largest single donation to the Foundation since its inception almost 15 years ago"

First, I'm extremely excited to see this announcement. FreeBSD is fantastic and extremely underrated.

Secondly though, isn't it sad to hear that in FreeBSD existence - this is the largest donation ever ... given that Yahoo use to run it's entire company on it, OS X is based on it, Juniper is based on it, Netflix deploys on it, NetApp, EMC, etc.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER3> OSX is not based on it in the typical use of the word. Darwin is a hybrid that incorporates a lot from *BSD courtesy of its NeXtStep lineage. It doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel and it has a lot of Apple specific enhancements.

It's more like a sibling of FreeBSD.

<comment><USER4> I think there's more to the relationship than you give credit for. Even FreeBSD's web pages list OSX as a descendant [https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html](https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html) and several man pages in osx list freebsd as origin for various facilities.

<comment><USER3> From what you posted:

"Apple's Mac OS X is based in part on FreeBSD and includes a rich UNIX® foundation in addition to the proprietary Apple user interface"

And I am in no way dismissing the relationship. I am just pointing out that Darwin was based on NeXtStep but incorporates a LOT of *BSD technologies. I used OSX Beta 1 and it was pretty far from a FreeBSD based OS.

Lineage: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#media...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_\(operating_system\)#mediaviewer/File:Unix_timeline.en.svg)

<comment><USER4> Agreed for sure! But it does look like additional FreeBSD stuff was added as nextstep turned into darwin/osx.

I found a couple of other articles, I didn't know Linus turned down the job offer from Steve Jobs before they hired that famous FreeBSD developer. It's funny to think how things might have turned out in an alternate reality :) [http://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan- hubbard/](http://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/)

It's also fascinating to try old versions of nextstep and rhapsody in virtual machines, you can really tell how osx traces straight back. Even the installer is so similar still, comparing nextstep 3 and yosemite (if you bring up the console window during its progress)

<comment><USER5> There is some attempt to draw the relations in [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history- simple.p...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.png)

FreeBSD is the main current source of stuff, but NextStep is much older.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While donations from corporations is great, my hope is that developers will jump on the micro-payment bandwagon. If every developer who uses FreeBSD in one capacity or another donated $1 per month, the FreeBSD Foundation would likely never need to ask for donations again.

I currently do quarterly donations to FreeBSD Foundation and Apache Foundation, and some hand-picked developers in the technologies I use regularly, whom I would consider indispensable in the open source community. While it's not $1M, if everyone were doing it, none of those groups would depend on corporate donations.

I have even thought of a project that I may bring to life one day, if enough interest exists. Find the most indispensable members of the open source community and put crowdfunding efforts together to buy them out. In other words, put enough money on the table that they won't need to work for 1,2,3 years at a time. Working tirelessly on open source projects is something these people have already proven they love to do, and will almost certainly continue if suddenly they came across a windfall like this.

My guess is these kinds of things have been attempted, but for one reason or another have never really gained the support they would need.

<comment><USER7> Given that the freeBSD foundation receives approx. $400,00-500,000 in donations from less than 20 corps/individuals... I think rather a lot of developers would have to donate :) Are there 42,000 FreeBSD developers willing to contribute?

<comment><USER8> $1 per month is an incredibly trivial number. Less trivial is how difficult it is to set up payment in this fashion. If getting payment was as simple as convincing developers that it was worth $1 per month, I'm sure you could get to $1m per year (many would do much better than $1 per month).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice move. I think it is awesome when folks do that.

Has anyone thought what an 'opensource' endowment might look like? I'm thinking an endowment manager and a policy for distributing 2% of the endowment annually to folks who contribute and against costs (like hosting repos and mailing lists etc.) The thought being you end up with some "project" with a $100M - $250M endowment and it operates 'in perpetuity' on a budget of $2 - $5M annually.

<comment><USER10> just remember though that interest rates are currently 0%, even the 10y treasury bond is only marginally above 2%, so giving away 2% a year at least for the near to medium term assumes capital growth in riskier forms (equities, more donations) well above distribution levels. This is why explicit payments on a recurring basis are more important than ever, even more so than the (certainly still brilliant) 1m donation. Endownments that have been used to payout ratios of the order you mention have relied for most of the past 50 years on long term treasury yields (30y) well above 5%. We're now nudging 3% for the first time since the dawn of the computer era. Tough times.

<comment><USER11> I don't know about the US, but Canadian universities spend 3.5-4% of their endowments annually and expect this to preserve the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the endowments. So they're expecting between 5.6% and 6.1% nominal annual return over the long term.

Nobody ever invests an entire endowment in bonds; even aside from the lower rate of return, the inflation risk is much too dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's always intriguing to me how critical the BSDs and BSD programmers are to the Linux ecosystem, even though their user base is fairly small.

<comment><USER13> >It's always intriguing to me how critical the BSDs and BSD programmers are to the Linux ecosystem, even though their user base is fairly small.

Edit: "critical _to_ ". My mistake.

Why? Do you think popularity reflects quality?

It is immediately evident to me that the popular BSDs (or at least FreeBSD and OpenBSD) are of vastly superior quality (both in terms of design and code) to Linux. I understand why people use Linux instead (it's generally for the same reasons corporate environments use Windows: legacy, large userbase, and familiarity), but it is definitely the case that by all my metrics, the BSD programmers have every right to be critical.

<comment><USER5> Any reason to omit NetBSD from that list? It might not be as popular, but the code is good too..

<comment><USER13> I just haven't read much NetBSD code. Can't speak to it personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Find out more about Jan's reasons for donating here. > [https://www.facebook.com/jan.koum?fref=nf&pnref=story](https://www.facebook.com/jan.koum?fref=nf&pnref=story)

That page is inaccessible to me, does somebody have a mirror?

<comment><USER15> "Last week, I donated one million dollars to the FreeBSD Foundation, which supports the open source operating system that has helped millions of programmers pursue their passions and bring their ideas to life. I'm actually one of those people. I started using FreeBSD in the late 90s, when I didn't have much money and was living in government housing. In a way, FreeBSD helped lift me out of poverty – one of the main reasons I got a job at Yahoo! is because they were using FreeBSD, and it was my operating system of choice. Years later, when Brian and I set out to build WhatsApp, we used FreeBSD to keep our servers running. We still do. I'm announcing this donation to shine a light on the good work being done by the FreeBSD Foundation, with the hope that others will also help move this project forward. We'll all benefit if FreeBSD can continue to give people the same opportunity it gave me – if it can lift more immigrant kids out of poverty, and help more startups build something successful, and even transformative."

<comment><USER16> A true rags to riches story. Which, going by the majority of posts here on HN when it comes to that subject, doesn't actually happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A great example to others who have success because of open source. It should be a common thing that once you find the coveted golden parachute in the sprawling game of life, you give a percentage back to OSS as a tradition to others on the adventure.

<comment><USER18> Isn't the expression "golden parachute" typically reserved for excessive payouts when an employee gets fired/made redundant/laid off/etc? As far as I know Jan Koum still works as CEO for WhatsApp, so this isn't from a "golden parachute" payment.

<comment><USER17> Yes it is but it is also used for acquisitions where the money is so big that the person suddenly never has to worry about anything ever again related to money, a golden parachute. Typically though most acquisitions founders/co- founders will leave after their couple years of vesting as with new money they have more opportunities, doesn't always happen but usually. The recent Facebook buys of Oculus and WhatsApp may be different and more like Amazon's Zappos and Twitch acquisitions.

Here I was using it more as a game item that you get so much money from a successful product that you don't really have to worry about anything again. I usually hear it with technology acquisitions and founders leaving later after the money than with termination as there are only golden parachutes for failure in the financial industry.

I should have said funding or freedom, as the funding from WhatsApp sale now gives Jan Koum the freedom to work on many ideas and support important projects like BSD.

<comment><USER19> I hate to be pedantic, but I think the phrase you're looking for is "golden handcuffs"

<comment><USER20> It's not even pedantic.

Golden parachute: you're forced out (by a lay-off or takeover) but they're obligated to give you a pile of money.

Golden handcuffs: you volunteer for corporate servitude (by being acquired) in exchange for a big pile of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Good grief, that's a statement. And bravo.

(However, what can they really do with that money? Operating systems aren't the sexiest of free software projects to work on, so I would be tempted to think that manpower is FreeBSDs biggest limiter.)

<comment><USER22> The Foundation's financials are open, so you can see how the money has been used in the past. The short version is that our 2014 budget was on track to spend about half that amount (i.e., approaching half a million) on funded project development, through permanent staff and development contracts. The other portion goes into supporting conferences, hardware purchases for the FreeBSD cluster, and staff time to support the FreeBSD project.

Keep in mind that this donation won't be spent in one year; we'll be able to find qualified uses for this money.

<comment><USER21> > funded project development, through permanent staff and development > contracts

Somewhat of an aside, how do you guys manage the relationship between volunteers and paid work? Mixing the two has a historically poor track record in the open source community (eg. Dunc Tank, etc. etc.)

<comment><USER11> emaste may be able to give an "official foundation answer" for this question, but from what I've seen the Foundation employees do the work which everybody agrees is important but nobody wants to do -- like haswell video acceleration and release engineering.

<comment><USER23> Who would be crazy enough to _want_ to work on release engineering?

:-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Companies like Facebook, Google should give 100$ to each employee to donate, will be petty cash for them, but will reach many project the company is really benefiting from.

</comment><comment><USER25> Looks like the mantle has passed from Yahoo! being FreeBSD's biggest advocate and sponsor (not in direct cash donations, but employing their maintainers) to WhatsApp. Nice to see the Y! alumni are keeping the tradition alive.

<comment><USER26> It's good to see any large company remembering the important software their company is built on. I don't know if companies like Yahoo or Google could have ever been started without free and open source software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> >> "This marks the largest single donation to the Foundation since its inception almost 15 years ago"

Al though it is awesome that they have received this donation but it is such a shame it took 15 years to get a $1M donation for such a great work they are doing.. and on the other side silly small apps get millions of funding which go in total waste and those apps might be using FreeBSD for their production servers or development

Its nice to see FreeBSD getting appreciated

</comment><comment><USER28> This inspires me to give FreeBSD another shot. I haven't used it in a few years in favor of CentOS.

There was a point I had my laptop running FreeBSD as my main OS.

</comment><comment><USER29> Why don't other large companies also contribute to FreeBSD? I know Netflix is a large consumer. It seems they would want to contribute more.

<comment><USER30> Netflix does contribute, in addition to money paid to the foundation, they also have quite a few developers working on FreeBSD almost full time. You can see lots of commits with 'Sponsored by: Netflix'. nginx and Yandex also do a lot of commits.

[http://freshbsd.org/search?q=netflix](http://freshbsd.org/search?q=netflix)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting that he got more value out of FreeBSD (Job at Yahoo!) than Erlang.

</comment><comment><USER32> There are lots of comments on how sad it is that nobody donates to the FreeBSD foundation.

Part of the blame lies with the foundation itself - they don't know how to ask! Fundraising is a full time, yet unsexy job...and very few people do it well. The key thing is to be top of mind by asking frequently and nicely.

Personally, when the time comes, I default towards Wikipedia because Jimmy Wales does a great job of asking. This is a problem not just with FreeBSD, but many others like OpenSSL,etc. If nothing else, I wish these guys just run a yearly kickstarter just for outreach.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is great news.

People bashing other companies, keep in mind some of them employ people that work near full-time on FreeBSD.

But, some deserve the bashing.

</comment><comment><USER34> What will they do with that huge amount of much money?

 _Personally: I hope they make an UI to FreeBSD on par with OS X, because it already seems to be so stable that no change except security fixes is neccessary in my naïve eyes_ ☺

 _Sorry, if this was asked before._

</comment><comment><USER35> I wonder how much money a million dollar for this guy would be for me.. I'm thinking it should probably be in the neighborhood of $.10

Either way, brilliant business plan from this whatsapp co-founder :P

<comment><USER36> .005% of your approximate net worth (1m/19b)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm really excited to see the community gain more traction, especially financially right now.

</comment><comment><USER37> Congratulations to FreeBSD; _mad_ props to WhatsApp's founder.

</comment><comment><USER38> Neat.

</comment><comment><USER39> "With this donation, and the generosity of all those who have donated this year, we have shattered our 2014, million dollar fundraising goal! But this does not mean we can stop our fundraising efforts. Only by increasing the size and diversity of our donor pool can we ensure a stable and consistent funding stream to support the FreeBSD project."

Is this very, very dry humor?

edit:

So nobody thinks that there's anything funny about reaching a million dollar fundraising goal, but noting that they might want to expand the size and diversity of the donor pool in future after getting a _million dollar donation from a single person_.

Of course they reached the goal, and of course they might want to raise the size of the donor pool it took to reach the goal [one person] and the diversity [the donors that put them over the top all have the same Social Security number.]

Feel free to interpret the comment as "why donate to them, they just got a million dollars" or whatever bizarre impression people are getting, but if I meant that, I would have just said that.

<comment><USER40> Not unless the fact that organizations have recurring annual funding requirements is funny.

<comment><USER39> If I make a joke about soldiers, am I saying that war is funny?</comment></comment></comment>


Find the Panda – web based game - <AUTHOR> http://adam2d.com/findmrpanda <comment><USER2> I think this might make a good "Show HN" if there was an explanation about how to play.</comment>


Generating inspirational quotes with Markov chains - <AUTHOR> http://www.ramtin.xyz/post/4 <comment><USER2> In a similar vein, this is one of the most amusing use of Markov chains IMO: It is trained on the King James Bible and several Computer science textbooks:

[http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/](http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/)

So you get some gold like:

"And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more like a controlled use of shared memory."

<comment><USER3> My favorite is this twitter account of titles for imaginary articles constructed from titles submitted to Hacker News.

[https://twitter.com/HNTitles](https://twitter.com/HNTitles)

<comment><USER4> I wonder if it knocks out exact matches to previous HN titles or if it could generate one eventually

<comment><USER5> I built a few generative Twitter bots with character level language models[1] (@steam_gaems for instance) and one problem is that they spit out phrases from the source text relatively frequently. So I included a function to re-generate the output if it matched any input phrases. Brute-force but effective.

[1] [http://karpathy.github.io/2015/05/21/rnn- effectiveness/](http://karpathy.github.io/2015/05/21/rnn-effectiveness/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a great article from a young person who is clearly learning by writing. Having good communication skills along with technical skills will make you invaluable in the workforce. We need this kind of popular science writing for computer science. Keep up the great work!

</comment><comment><USER7> In the same spirit, I find [http://inspirobot.me](http://inspirobot.me) to be quite funny. Click "generate ".

A collection: [https://www.instagram.com/inspirobotquotes/](https://www.instagram.com/inspirobotquotes/)

<comment><USER8> "All that is needed to start a movement is sexuality and a fiddle."

Sounds legit to me. :)

<comment><USER4> "Nobody can jeopardize heroes."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would like to introduce you to the world of computer generated content and commentary:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/)

<comment><USER10> This is pretty amazing, thanks for the share

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In our research group we mixed our PhD theses with Lovecraft fiction. While sometimes fun, it usually does not mix well, because Lovecraft writes in past tense and theses are in present tense.

Choose your sources wisely

</comment><comment><USER12> My biggest problem with Markov chain generated text is the amount of simply grammatically nonsense output. For example "Grew up your bliss and the world." as far as I can tell just doesn't parse

<comment><USER13> markov chain text generator + grammar checker = problem solved

<comment><USER14> Not necessarily true, for example: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is a slight issue with the provided code: if one sentence ends with a given word, then this word will always "terminate" any sentence, even if it is almost always inside a sentence.

Ex: "I like the letter i" will put "i" in the END dictionary, and as soon as this "word" gets picked up the sentence will be terminated, leading to incomplete / low-quality results :/

I like the trick of not using a weight or probability but just the number of occurrences of the world for in-sentences words (that don't scale well but are totally useful with small size training sets), maybe there is a way to reuse the same trick to not always terminate on such END words.

Good article :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Considering the inanity of inspirational quotes, a Markov chain is the perfect generator for them.

</comment><comment><USER17> We made something like this for a hackathon a year ago.

[http://quoteraptor.herokuapp.com/WICSApp/](http://quoteraptor.herokuapp.com/WICSApp/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Recently on a slow Friday we trained Markov chains with our Slack history. We generated a separate chain for each Slack member. It culminated with a Slack channel emulator generating full chat logs of what members would typically say.

The programming in Python was suprisingly quick and easy, but we ended up wasting more time then expected by amusing ourselves with the results.

So if anyone's thinking to try out Markov chains for text, I recommend taking Slack logs for training.

<comment><USER19> I actually made a slack bot to do this exact thing: [https://github.com/ridhoq/ditto](https://github.com/ridhoq/ditto). It was a quick side project to learn Elixir so it's a bit rough around the edge. I'm actually in the process of refactoring to use the new Events API. But it's been pretty hilarious to see the responses get better and better over time. If anybody is interested and wants to put it on their Slack, I may try to put it in the Slack App directory thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> These sorts of results are so easy to generate using simple ngrams. No machine learning necessary:

the best revenge is showing up.

hope is showing up with what you decide to plant.

live what you live

you cannot do what you miss when you are no one.

plant a journey not a worry

fill every beat with the edge.

the heartbeat of imagination makes us infinite

feel inferior without limits

the grass is a beginning

hope is a beginning. a fresh beginning. the best way. there. may you do

find your mind controls your mind controls your own sunshine

feel inferior without fear

conquer from within

go to bed with determination

turn your wounds into wisdom

the heartbeat of beautiful destinations

every day is always under construction

</comment><comment><USER21> would be nice to use it in combination with fortune or if I could use it as login greeting. Load it up with the best quotes from the stoics, psalms, jesus sirach, the gospels, pauls letters and ecclesiastes and all the existing library. Put a good RND in front of it and you have a real Oracle greeting you whenever you want!

</comment><comment><USER22> This is similar to my site [http://www.poemgenerator.com](http://www.poemgenerator.com). Not using markov chains but concept is similar.

</comment><comment><USER23> I didn't get Markov chains until now. Thanks OP!

</comment><comment><USER24> Link is auto-blocked by security software. Is this a known-misbehaving domain?

<comment><USER25> Probably the .xyz tld which a lot of software just straight up blocks

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The results are not very convincing.

<comment><USER27> Not all of them, but:

        Someone must try to live forever.
        What are you waiting for?

is a doozy!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Fast Rust BitTorrent Tracker - greatest-ape https://github.com/greatest-ape/aquatic <comment> greatest-ape Author here.

I wrote a BitTorrent tracker in Rust a few years ago. A while ago, I found out about the dashmap crate (providing a concurrent hashmap) and thought that I could use it for a new implementation, which could be both performant and simple. I tried using it, but due to blocking, I had a hard time reaching good performance. My realization was that since BitTorrent tracker requests are highly skewed towards popular torrents, even a map which only locks on accesses to the same key would not scale well when used like this.

I experimented and settled on a design with many threads each opening a socket with SO_REUSEPORT and using mio to wait for requests. The requests are read, parsed and sent through a crossbeam channel to request workers, which collect a number of them before locking the mutexes guarding shared state and doing work required to generate responses. These are sent back to the socket workers, which encode them and send them back over the network.

This solution is quite performant and during heavy load testing, I couldn't even get a lone request worker to reach full CPU utilization. (Adding more would likely not bring much improvement anyway since they would block each other most of the time). Results in terms of responses per second indicate that aquatic scales a lot better with more threads than the established project opentracker, being able to reach more than twice the throughout at best, at the price of using many more threads. (Benchmarks are available in the README file.)

I'd like to thank (in particular) the authors of mio, crossbeam, hashbrown and indexmap for making this fun project possible.</comment>


Spaced Repetition Learning - <AUTHOR> https://andrewtmckenzie.com/spaced_repetition/ <comment><USER2> Great article actually. I've been using Anki for years, And couldn't agree more. It's really cool that he has (or will have again) so many decks available to download.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I've been using Anki for years

Just curious, have you tried to use Anki for programming? If you have, has it been helpful? I've only used Anki for other subjects.

The author gave some R examples ([https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/609701403](https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/609701403)), but not really sure how good they are.</comment></comment>


Why It's No Longer Possible for Any Country to Win a War - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/4826856/russia-trump-north-korea-china-war/ <comment><USER2> The author of this article is both dishonest and hopelessly naive. He's redefined war to mean "conquest" and "winning" to mean "come out ahead financially", which isn't always or even usually the point of war.

And even if it was he's still wrong. Land itself has value, and with sufficient brutality you can still "win". The fact that we haven't seen a war like that since 1945 in the developed world doesn't mean it's not going to happen again. Hitler planned to basically kill everyone to the east of Germany and replace them with Germans. That would have been "winning" by any definition of the word.

<comment><USER3> It certainly didn't come across like that to me, because to me as if he was talking about the economic spoils of war, not the financial spoils of war. And mind you, these are different things. So long as a group is able to fulfill it's strategic objectives in a conflict while acting in consistence with well- behaved preferences, that's not merely a "victory" by some other arbitrary definition but is in fact an economic victory. Any action which leads an agent to a state closer to his preferred state is an economic victory.

If he meant only that war currently has no financial value, I don't see why he'd make references to Assyria or Rome. Because whatever value those peoples derived from conflict wasn't most likely in increased treasuries, but instead in the extension of land and in the number of subjects, which in itself can be very valuable things to warlike societies as it improves their ability to wage war, either by increasing the defensibility and depth of their borders or by making them able sustain larger armies.

I've might have read him more generally than he meant, though. But still, I don't see the need for such a specific reading.

<comment><USER2> >Any action which leads an agent to a state closer to his preferred state is an economic victory.

I find that construction odd. Are you trying to say all goals of war are ultimately economic? If so I think that's needlessly restrictive.

>Because whatever value those peoples derived from conflict wasn't most likely in increased treasuries, but instead in the extension of land and in the number of subjects...

I know next to nothing about Assyria, but the Roman treasury profited quite handsomely from conquest, to the point that in the Republic's most expansive period you only had to work two days a year as a Roman citizen to pay your taxes.

Because when the Romans conquered a people they took everything that wasn't nailed down, sold the land, sold the rights to collect taxes in that area, and then sold people themselves.

<comment><USER3> What I meant is that "economic" phenomena encompass a much wider range of phenomena you might be thinking of. It's the opposite of being restrictive: any problem at all where have something like an agent which has to choose something over something else might be considered an "economic" problem, at least from an economist's perspective. If anything like a ranking of choices can be defined as well as a set of possible choices, that's something an economist can work with.

About the Roman bit, the real issue would be how much of any direct monetary gain from conquest ended up in the hands of the Roman state rather than in the hands of private citizens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's a very dangerous line of thinking. Before WW1 the same argument was made because the world was supposed to be too connected by trade.

<comment><USER3> Don't remember hearing an argument along those lines, but the world being "too connected" in 1914 would be only partially true, since the Great Powers were in frequent commercial competition among themselves.

<comment><USER4> Here is an article along those lines: [http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole- kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...](http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole- kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One can say that nuclear weapons have been the biggest peacemaker known to man. It's hard to imagine another World War since the advent of such weapons. Furthermore, the nuclear weapons today wield a power that cannot even be compared to the ones that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I don't think any superpower today wants another global war knowing that it would spell total annihilation for all those involved.

We also shouldn't discount that the world today has so much more globalization. Just about every country has become interdependent on each other.

</comment><comment><USER6> Countries cannot profit by war perhaps but that won;t prevent wars. I don't think most wars are entered as the result of a cold economic calculation. They are caused by ancient programs written into our DNA before humans even evolved. So for the time being war is disincentivized by economics but I am confident we will eventually find reasons for a big war anyway

<comment><USER7> > _I don 't think most wars are entered as the result of a cold economic > calculation. They are caused by ancient programs written into our DNA before > humans even evolved._

There are credible arguments that the Second Red Scare (which started after WWII) was the result of ruling classes in capitalist countries becoming afraid that they would be the victims of a proletariat revolution. A revolution like Cuba's would have been their worst nightmare.

That's perhaps not a cold economic calculation, but almost certainly an economic one.

There are also many Middle Eastern conflicts that the US is only involved in because we're afraid of losing access to oil.

<comment><USER6> are we though? Our alliance with Saudi Arabia was a calculation of that nature back around WWII. Recently though did the revolution in Iran cause a problem for our oil supplies? Is there a scenario in which a middle east war or lack of such war affects our access to oil?

<comment><USER2> The "war for oil" thing is looking at the wrong end of the telescope. The problem in the middle east is oil gives the rulers of these countries a way to purchase security organizations and strong militaries they could never afford based on normal economies. It's not just the middle east, either - it's also places like Nigeria and Venezuela.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "For the first time ever, fewer people die today from human violence than from traffic accidents, obesity or even suicide."

I don't think many hunter gatherers died of traffic accidents or obesity.</comment>


Ask HN:Should I continue working at a (failing?) startup? - <AUTHOR>

I am an year old rails developer.Since I finished college an year ago,I have been working at a startup(Ruby on Rails Consultancy).Now I am thinking of a job change because of following reasons :
1)They pay me around 0.5x offered by other companies in the industry.
2)The technology side of company is weak.(Heck , I do not write tests and there is no one at company who does or can teach me.)
However ,the company says - "We will pay you better,and you are the one to bring in the standards and practices" Should I stay at the company(and take the risk)? or look around for better Rails companies?
I am posting this here because,i think my feelings are much related to the (wrong ?) startup environment I am working in.The whole story happens in India btw. <comment><USER2> If you think the startup is failing it is either because a.) the startup is actually failing or b.)you don't believe it can be a success and assume it is failing. Either way it doesn't sound like you are passionate enough about this startup anymore.

So the real question should be. Should you continue to work at a startup you have no passion for? The Answer is NO. Change jobs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am confused if other startups too would have these issues(Feeling of financial insecurity ,Lack of talent to mentor me).

I also feel ,if I work hard , build a strong technical team - the company then may prosper.But again,as you said,it comes to the same question - Am I passionate enough about the company to work hard and possibly risk my entire career(without working under a mentor).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is not about the pay when you work at a startup. You have to ask yourself if you believe in what they are doing and if it aligns with what you feel your time's worth is. The pay is always going to be lesser than what you get outside, but if you like them, they are honest/fair, and you believe in that idea...those can be your metrics. :) my 2c.

<comment><USER4> If you are an employee, it needs to be about the money. When the company gets purchased for millions of dollars (unless you have major equity), how much money are you going to get?

Many startups use this excuse so they can pay employees peanuts, when they are working 70-80 hour weeks to launch a product that will make the founders rich.

This is why I don't work at statups, unless I started it myself.</comment></comment>


EFF tries to block litigation strategy by which 14,000+ P2P users have been sued - <AUTHOR> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202459212707&Rights_Groups_Enter_Illegal_Downloading_Fight

<comment><AUTHOR> This is directly related to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397342> ("The RIAA? Amateurs. Here's how you sue 14,000+ P2P users").

In essence, the litigation strategy followed here targets those who illegally download films produced by indie filmmakers, sues them collectively as fictitious or "Doe" defendants, uses subpoenas to ISPs to compel disclosures of their true identities, and then sends demand letters telling those targeted to pay $1,500 or so to settle up or face litigation that is almost a sure losing proposition for them (I had discussed why I think this is so in a commend or two made in the link above).

It now turns out that Time Warner Cable, instead of simply complying with the subpoena it received, has moved to quash it and this has given EFF and other rights groups a venue in which to argue that a collective suing of "Doe" defendants in a remote forum with which the individuals being targeted have little or no connection allegedly violates the rights of those individuals.

In effect, the underlying litigation strategy being used here by those suing for copyright infringement "plays the numbers" and depends on mass processing for its effectiveness. As the article linked to above points out, the estimated recovery on these claims to date approximates $20 million and the strategy is obviously just beginning to gain traction, with many thousands more being and about to be sued in this manner.

What EFF and others are trying to do is block the ability of the plaintiffs in such cases to file in one convenient venue and use a single subpoena to gather the identifying information easily and quickly. The arguments they raise suggest that this violates due process rights belonging to the persons being fictitiously sued and, therefore, that the plaintiffs should instead filed individual suits against these people in the districts where they live.

It these arguments stick, it obviously would upend this whole strategy but, in my view, the decades-long use of the "Doe" procedure, coupled with the fact that it is obviously not possible to sue individuals in the districts in which they live when you don't yet know their identities, makes it unlikely that the court will go with this argument. It will be interesting to see how the court rules.</comment>


Medium is building a company with no managers - <AUTHOR> http://firstround.com/article/How-Medium-is-building-a-new-kind-of-company-with-no-managers#

<comment><USER2> Significant discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6167495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6167495)</comment>


Ask HN: What service does this? - <AUTHOR>

I'm buying a sailboat from someone who has a lot of boats around NYC.  I left him a voice mail earlier this evening, he just called back.
He left a message with me, and at the same time sent a txt message with his vm transcribed.
What service was he using?  This seems like a brilliant idea.  thoughts? <comment><USER2> Google Voice does VM-to-text synthesis, but I don't think it's behavior is along the exact lines of what you described.

</comment><comment><USER3> How close to 'same time' were the two received? Did the text have any errors or hints that it was sent by a human and not computer-generated?</comment>


Longevity Inc - <AUTHOR> http://foundersfund.com/2016/06/longevity-inc/ <comment><USER2> Second question in the interview: "There are a lot of people out there who actually don't want to live longer, even if given the chance. How could someone possibly be against living longer?"

I honestly can't wrap my head around this. The conversations I've tried to have with people who don't want to live longer never go anywhere, because they can't help but associate "old" (as in "high number of years") with sickness and reduced faculties, and I can't get through to them that I mean "really really old and really really healthy". Maybe it's as the article says, some people refuse to believe because they don't want to create what they see as false hope.

I myself hope to live as long as I can, ideally forever. There are so many things to do, there are so many things to learn, the universe is just too awesome for just one [current standard human] lifetime!

<comment><USER3> Unlocking immortality would be a fantastic scientific achievement, but I see the pursuit of immorality as being very self-centered. As Richard Muller implies in his response to this question [1], we need death to ensure a consistent advancement of civilization. As we age, we get more and more set in our ways. So we need the older generation to eventually die off so new ideas and ways of thinking can take hold and push humanity an inch forward. And the cycle goes on.

Other than the social/resource implications (eg: there not being enough food/water/etc to feed everyone) of everybody living forever, I also think chasing immortality is a way of dealing with the anxiety that the looming nature of death induces. Maybe it is the anxiety of not existing someday that drives people to make the most of their 75 years. If everyone had an infinite amount of time, would our society advance just as rapidly? I don't know. But it's a point worth thinking about.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Given-5-000-years-and-plenty-of- resour...](https://www.quora.com/Given-5-000-years-and-plenty-of-resources-do- you-think-science-will-be-able-to-grant-humans-immortality)

<comment><USER4> Reversal test: In a world where people didn't get old, would they decide to invent aging? I'm certain they wouldn't.

I totally agree that there are disadvantages to indefinite lifespans. It's just that those disadvantages are overwhelmed by the fact that aging kills 100,000 people _every day_. And it's not just that people die, it's that they spend decades becoming frail and less capable. They can't enjoy as many things as they used to. Their vision, hearing, and even their minds fail them.

If we lived in a world without aging, only a sadistic monster would want to inflict such suffering on others.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your point. Part of aging research is to reduce the rate of deterioration and maybe avoid it altogether. I just have a problem with the idea of living forever. Maybe add a cap on human lifespan?

<comment><USER5> Let's say we live in a world where human bodies don't age. How do you suggest enforcing that cap? Gas chambers?

<comment><USER3> I don't have an answer to your loaded question ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)).

Edit: link

<comment><USER6> The problem is that it's not really a loaded question, but a valid response to the idea of an age cap amidst indefinite life spans. How do you propose capping the life span of an adult without the use of a termination agent?

<comment><USER3> I am not proposing anything. I don't know how we can cap the lifespan of an adult. But I do know that if we have a cure for aging today, i.e. people stop dying from this day onwards, the population is only going to keep growing and that doesn't seem very sustainable. This is, of course, given that people continue to have children. Halting the production of new offspring could be interesting to witness from an evolutionary standpoint.

As far as the loaded question is concerned, I did sense an inflammatory tone in kobeya's response with the gas chambers question. Your response, on the other hand, is more discussion-oriented and open-minded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't resist: "I want to live one more day. Tomorrow I will still want to live one more day. Therefore I want to live forever, proof by induction on the positive integers." \- [http://hpmor.com/](http://hpmor.com/)

</comment><comment><USER8> An important point made in longevity research like SENS (cf., [http://www.sens.org/](http://www.sens.org/) ) is that it should also improve youthful characteristics. This is important, because we shouldn't want to live into our 200's and be as though we're in our 80's (feeble, weak, etc.). True longevity means longevity of youthful biology, including all the attendant benefits that come with youth. In other words, we should seek to reach a point where we reach full maturity (mid 20's or so given some variation) but do not begin deteriorating.

</comment><comment><USER9> There are 2 types of sexually transmitted herpes: herpes type 1 and herpes type 2. Both types cause painful cold sores.i have not met prophet suleman but have heard of his excellent work on people's life. i contacted prophet suleman and he started his work on me with his Root and herbs and right now i am cured. I was diagnosed with Herpes and after taking prophet suleman Herbal medicine i was cured. If you have any disease Contact him: ( email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER10> Deming's Longevity Fund was at its founding somewhat ahead of the times, as it should given that she put in time at the SENS Research Foundation and related groups back in the day.

The rest of the venture community is beginning to wake up now - if even I, with my limited connections, am aware of a couple of groups raising new venture funds to target the biotechnologies of longevity, then I'm sure there are a bunch more I don't know about.

Expect to see a crop of companies working with the biochemistry of aging over the next few years now that deep pockets like Google, Abbvie, and the Human Longevity backers have expressed their interest with dollars. That sets up all the right signals for acquirers and other liquidity events.

Sadly I imagine that most of these companies will be garbage - either a waste of everyone's time like Elysium or a clever way of getting for-profit investors to pay for fundamental research that goes nowhere other than knowledge generation, like Sirtris.

Still, there are gems in there for those who understand the science well enough to identify high expectation value lines of research. Oisin Biotechnologies, for example, and perhaps UNITY Biotech if they choose a good therapy. Both are aiming to clear senescent cells, which has a lot of backing as an approach.

</comment><comment><USER11> To me, it seems obvious that even if limited lifespans are good, aging is still bad, and the best route would be to cure aging and then euthanize older people Brave New World-style. I mean, which option sounds better: thirty years of life during which you get sicker and sicker, followed by a slow, painful death; or thirty years of healthy, active life, followed by an instant and painless death? I know which one I'd choose.</comment>


Mobile is What's Next (for me) - <AUTHOR> http://www.tonywright.com/2012/mobile-is-whats-next-for-me/ <comment><USER2> Tony, it was amusing and educational to see you and Montana brainstorm and evaluate various ideas. Your list of tests that a startup must pass, in order to have a shot at a big success, are definitely worth referencing for those of us, still figuring out the exact business model. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER3> so basically Triposo? <http://triposo.com/></comment>


Live Coding - <AUTHOR> https://hamza765.github.io/live-coding/ <comment><USER2> 1\. VERY clever

2\. I could watch this all day</comment>