Ask HN: Could Python be reborn in the image of Go? - <AUTHOR> (Disclaimer: I'm not a CS major and I'm generally a novice at software engineering, so I have no idea if what I'm proposing is crazy or not)
I've been noticing the increase in projects using Go seemingly to replace other existing projects written in Python. Go seems to have a strong following now due to a couple of useful features, but it's still a new language, whereas Python is an established language that many people enjoy writing code in. The question is, could Python be updated to include the kinds of core features that make Go attractive, while still retaining its Pythonisms?
Go's strengths seem to be in its static types, concurrency features, static analysis tools, lack of generics, and compiled binaries. I could be wrong, but it seems like all of these (save maybe the improved concurrency) could be added to Python and be a strong competitor to Go. Most of the language could remain the same, but it could then be adopted in places that Go is gaining a foothold. The main purpose would be to increase the utility of the existing body of knowledge around Python, and increase its usefulness.
Am I crazy? <comment><USER2> python already forked the language once for py2 --> py3. it has taken a long time in many places for py3 to be adopted. i worked professionally with python for about 8 years and never once wrote a python 3 program for a client. the last enterprise i was working at that had python code would have had something like 1 million lines of custom python 2 code last year, and was showing no signs of slowing down, or thinking about porting to python 3. it is arguably not a winning move to make another backwards incompatible change to the language. a lot of the value is in the ecosystem of existing useful libraries.

one of the things i like about go - ease of deployment - is more irritating with python. but: once you have set up a pipeline for deploying your python code, then you're good. it's not really like the python language needs to be reengineered to compile into a single statically linked binary to make it possible to ship. these days there are containers and so forth, and historically a number of bundling and packaging tools for python apps have been available.

i would still pick python over go any day for prototyping algorithmic or numeric code -- it is a terser and more expressive language for computing things, and python's dynamic typing + duck typing lets you write syntactically generic code.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, but mainly because you have identified the wrong differences.

Go is fast, because it is statically typed and compiled. But this requires a good understanding of programming or your program will simply not run. Learning Go as a first language is hard.

Python is slow, because it is dynamically typed and interpreted. This makes Python easier and more forgiving to beginners. Learning Python as a first language is much easier.

One is Meccano, the other is Duplo.

What you've said doesn't make sense as they have different aims and target markets as languages.

What happened with Python is the it got adopted by academics, amateur programmers, who a decade or two ago needed an easy language as they first started experimenting using programming in their fields. So Python ended up with a huge number of specialist libraries.

Now they are experienced, a lot of academics want a fast one and Go fits that niche better than C/C++ (hard, easy to make very bad mistakes) or Java/C# (complicated, need compilation and deployment).

</comment><comment><USER4> Possibly unrelated but [https://nim-lang.org/](https://nim-lang.org/) has a syntax somewhat similar to python (and pascal), and has a static type system (plus generics). It compiles to multiple languages like C, C++ and JS and can produce native binaries.

</comment><comment><USER5> No, it's a completely different design with completely different priorities and objectives. Copying good approaches to tools (e.g. the dependency management found in Cargo instead of the current need for manually managed Python virtual environments and related inconveniences) is a good idea in principle, but compromising what you correctly call "core features" would alienate users who like Python for what it is without attracting new ones.

</comment><comment><USER6> Please no. I love both languages but they are a different for a reason

</comment><comment><USER7> They are complete opposites in many aspects of their design. It would not make sense.</comment>


How to Drop Out - <AUTHOR> http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html <comment><USER3> He falls into a number of fundamental paradoxes in his reasoning.

He asserts that profit is evil, which is essentially saying that time spent procuring resources is not a cost that can be recuperated through monetary compensation. He almost even comes out and says time isn't a cost when he says he'd think it evil to sell something he found while dumpster diving, "how can you sell something you get for free?". He didn't get it for free, he got it through the time effort of dumpster diving, a recurring cost that has a random (though apparently positive) payoff. Yet his entire motivation for "dropping out" is to use his time as he sees fit, because it is the most precious thing to him.

He asserts that trade requires someone to be "the sucker", yet he justifies his couch surfing by offering his friends services instead of money. Trade fundamentally requires that both parties agree that the trade action is advantageous to both of them; total value increases for both parties, separately and combined.

He is absolutely engaged in a purely capitalistic system of free trade, completely unfettered by the dead-weight loss of tax systems, and does nothing but deride the one economic system that dragged the human race out of abject poverty.

<comment><USER4> I think he's deluding himself. The way he lives off of thrown-out food, secondhand clothes, and couch-surfing his friends and family means he's just as dependent on the system he despises as any "wage slave". He's not living free from the influence of money; he's just found ways to use other people's money to his advantage.

I would love to see his reaction to a society that had collapsed in the way he predicts. What would he do without "wage slaves" around to throw away food, give away clothes, and let bums sleep in their houses?

<comment><USER5> He has ten acres in Eastern Washington that he has an orchard on and is planning on building a cabin on. If/when the society collapses, there won't be any shortage of clothes, he could always just walk into a department store and take some, because no one owns them anymore.

<comment><USER4> Subsistence farming is a totally different lifestyle than dumpster diving and couch surfing, and I doubt he's much more prepared for it than your average "wage slave".

Raiding deserted department stores is fine for a few years, but that's not a long-term strategy. When the department store building collapses because nobody's maintaining it, and when the clothes run out and the factories aren't making any more, what then? Same with bicycles and any other technology he likes to use.

<comment><USER6> You should really read his other stuff before You comment; He has specifically addressed most of these issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I remember staring at the computer screen--light green letters on dark--then at the clock, and finally at my outstretched fingers held a foot in front of my face. And then it dawned on me: selling the hours of my life was no different from selling my fingers one by one. We've only so many hours, so many fingers; when they're gone, they're gone for good. - Derrick Jensen

</comment><comment><USER8> I rather liked this bit:

"If you require a motivational writer or speaker to live differently, then as soon as that external energy shot wears off, you will fizzle and burn out. But if everyone is trying to discourage you from doing something, and you do it anyway, then you have the internal motivation to persist and succeed."

This probably applies to start ups too. Starting up on my own has been 1% partying at cool start up events and 99% quietly getting on with stuff that needs to be done. This is not exactly how it is sold to people - one great idea, 15 minutes of hacking to a suitably cool soundtrack, then off to the nightclub to flagrantly spend the IPO money. Possibly you might have to suffer a back alley chase or two with agents dispatched from the Yamicroogle offices to steal your technology, but that's about the extent of the sacrifice.

The 1% is fun! But if you aren't the kind of person who also enjoys the other 99% I don't know how you would cope.

<comment><USER9> Can you break down how you spend the other 99% please? Into percentage brackets, please? Thank you so much, it would be very insightful.

<comment><USER8> <http://theplanis.com/blog/preview/10/> might be of interest.

The technical work is about 50% working on new features and 50% tracking down customer issues.

The non-technical stuff is a mix of blogging, twitter, going to events, public speaking, e-mailing prospects, calling people, customer support and enterprise sales ground work. The percentages vary wildly depending on what is going on at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think this is super-interesting, not because I have any real desire to couch surf (or squat in an abandoned building), but because it gives more perspective on the scope of what's possible. Personally, I'm working 60hrs/week at a job that pays very well but the commute and hours suck up all of my energy and is filled with people that suck even more. I don't see myself becoming a dumpster-diver, but what I really want is employment that occupies a limited space in my life -- and still pays the bills. So this piece is inspiring in that it shows that you can create the life you want, if you're willing to do things differently and take risks.

</comment><comment><USER11> I find stuff like this interesting to read but also a bit sad. Rebelling by doing the "opposite" of something is a poor substitute for real choice because you are still defined by the thing you reject. Generally speaking, I prefer pursuing "the third option" (<http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption>).

I do currently live without a car and I'm happier this way. But, having spent many years as a homemaker, I don't think there is some inherent virtue in not having money of one's own or an income. I did get to live for many years in a way that taught me inherent value over "price". Lots of people these days seem to equate placing a dollar amount on something with real value, but it's not the same thing. Perhaps that is a mental model this individual was struggling with when the original essay was written. He does indicate he has since bought land. Presumably his thinking has evolved over time and he might not say the same things now that he said when this was written. Maybe he has found his own third option now, one where his idea of "freedom" involves more real choice rather than reactionary rejection of money.

</comment><comment><USER12> Having read Ran for many years, I can tell you that he is definitely "giving back" by sharing with his readers and the world his thoughts and himself in a most honest and kind way while living according to his principles.

Yes his ideas are provocative, and I wish more of us were able to critique our own thinking, our own group-think, and our own society as he does. He reminds us constantly how our willingness and need to identify--our allegances--become an easy way for us to stop thinking for ourselves. It takes real work to maintain a remove from the propoganda around us, to be able to see it for what it is, and act against it by helping others to open their minds a little (or a lot).

A couple of you have noticed his "Land Blog." See how he uses his land project as a laboratory for his own thinking, and to test the concepts that so many people are only talking about yet seem to have such strong opinions on while never having actually DONE anything like that.

It might also interest some of you to know that he used to accept donations, but lately due to having come into a small amount of money, discourages them. Though he has manners and will accept a gift graciously.

It is clear that so many of the commenters here work quite dilligently to defend their own closely held beliefs and ways of living, while trying to find faults with alternative ideas that are not THAT far removed from your own. What is the threat you perceive? That maybe some of the life choices you have made and the belief systems you have invested in may have been a wrong turn, a dead-end, or at least not the ones that create joy and happiness? Rigidity of thinking is widespread, and some of the most rigid minds I've encountered are those that consider themselves far-left new-agers! (though I don't mean to suggest that describes the posters here).

</comment><comment><USER13> ...For very young people there are also two universes. Squatting over a tub of warm water is a much cheaper and healthier way to give birth than lying on your back in a harsh hospital room where the high priest will take the infant away from the mother to teach it alienation...

Arghhh. Having children is _not easy_. There's a reason we still say "Mom and baby are healthy and happy." For a long time we lost one or both pretty regularly. I don't agree with all aspects of western society, but clean hospitals and infant intensive care units are most of the reason infant mortality has dropped.

<comment><USER14> Childbirth is not _easy_, but it's certainly a normal part of life, and treating it like a sickness, requiring hospitalization, is perverse.

We had the last 4 of our 8 at home, with, yes, one close call, but with a competent midwife, that's par for the course.

<comment><USER15> Childbirth isn't done in hospitals because it's a sickness, it's done in hospitals in case an emergency happens. I couldn't have been born at home--my mother would have to have been whisked away to a hospital for a c-section anyway. The fact that she was already in the hospital and attended to by an obstetrician made that process considerably safer and more reliable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I didn't read the whole thing, so correct this if it's wrong but...

He hasn't dropped out at all - he's just found a way to live within the system such that he can take from it without giving back. He benefits enormously from the very system he denigrates. If anything that's a statement of how amazing our society is, that it's successful enough that people can live largely off its freebies and its waste products.

I'm sure for some peope society is awful and living away from it really is the very best option. But society wasn't foisted on us without our consent. At one point we were ALL living off the land - and we didn't like it. So we built civilization.

<comment><USER17> _But society wasn't foisted on us without our consent._

I don't recall having any say in it. Where's the opt-out clause?

At one point it might have been America (if you were European). Supposedly, the colonists had a lot of trouble with their indentured servants going native, thus the early colonial emphasis on freedom and natural rights as a mitigating measure.

Later, it might have been the West.

But today? How do you opt out now? Where's the release valve?

<comment><USER18> There's plenty of uninhabited land. I also don't see how the Europeans who fled to America were escaping society... they formed "normal" civilizations after coming over to the 'New World'.

<comment><USER5> The uninhabited land is all called for, residing in a country/under a government with its laws, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is actually quite salient advice. There's so many blogs that just say, "OMG do it!". You need to be rational and have a plan.

</comment><comment><USER20> His advice makes sense, but only if you believe what he believes, namely that it's ok to mooch off others, and call that "dropping out".

Now, the article explicitly bashes self-sufficiency, so I guess it's just a matter of which viewpoint you subscribe to.

<comment><USER21> So long as you can fit into the economic order without stealing or vandalizing or otherwise being a nuisance, you are not a "mooch" in my book.

I think that any viable theory of "dropping out" will take market forces into account. I find that this article does some of that, though it seems to me that it doesn't go far enough. (In particular, he notes that trying to do what you love resulting in doing what you no longer love. Market forces can explain this one quite handily!)

<comment><USER20> I'd argue that saying "I'm free" and then continuing with "I've been doing lots of house-sitting" and "find a partner who will support you" isn't exactly something to be proud of.

<comment><USER21> I had a friend who did a lot of house sitting before moving to Atlanta to make her living off of Bellydance instruction/performance. (And in contradiction to the article, she is doing her dream job, without compromise to her art. In fact, stylistic purity is one of the hallmarks of her "brand.")

Also, "find a partner who will support you," is exactly what my mom did. Being a homemaker and mother _is_ a legitimate full time job, one which our society should highly prize. Anyone who says otherwise is inattentive or hasn't really thought things through.

<comment><USER22> _Being a homemaker and mother is a legitimate full time job_

...and therefore not "dropping out", right?

<comment><USER21> It's not "working for the man" in the way it's usually meant. (In particular "man" means something different in that context!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> personally, I disagree with point 5. I think is is possible to separate the bullshit surrounding work for your love of creating the things you create. I spent five years pouring all the money I got from being a SysAdmin into my hosting business. The business is ramen profitable now, and growing quickly.

Key, I think, is to separate yourself from the company you work for. think of it as being a contractor. "I'm giving you the best advice I can. If you don't take it, well, I've still done my job" and "I will work for you as long as the money is worth my time. I understand that the opposite also applies, and I don't take it personally if an employer feels they can do better."

(then, you also need to deal with personal failure, but that is true even after you become independent. Though, personally, I find it is easier to say "oh, you didn't like my services? here's a full refund" now that I'm a product company and the things I'm selling are not as limited as my hours. Not giving people refunds when I personally fucked up was one of the things I liked least about selling my hours. But it is just very difficult to do so.)

</comment><comment><USER24> > Get the most low-stress source of income that you can find, and then do > exactly what you love for free.

That's what I do.

<comment><USER25> The thought occurred to me at times, but I must admit, I would also feel a bit bad about it. It was OK when I was a student, and I wish I had taken on more cool jobs (if only to work as a waiter and get to know people). But know I feel bad for the people who don't have the education I have. I have the possibility to get a high paying IT job - they don't, and rely on the "normal" jobs. I don't want to take it away from them.

Though I admit I am undecided, sometimes I feel like whatever, just do what I need.

<comment><USER26> You can't take away jobs (in the big picture and long run).

<comment><USER25> Why not? Unless you assume an infinite supply of skilled IT workers - <USER2> granted why not. But if there is a shortage of IT workers, but not of waiters, and I choose to work as a waiter instead of in IT, another waiter is out of luck?

<comment><USER26> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From the article's "criticism and response" page :

Q:What you're suggesting is parasitism.

A:Industrial civilization is parasitic, because it takes more from its environment than it gives back, and if we remove ourselves from roles that feed that behavior, we are anti-parasites.

That does not make sense. If he is parasiting a parasite, he is still a parasite. He's not causing sufficient harm to destroy society, but still he profits from it, by diving into dumpsters.

<comment><USER28> Parasitism causes a reduction in fitness to the host, if anything most of these strategies would be better defined as commensal, i.e. beneficial to the fitness of the symbiont but having no positive or negative effect on the host.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> One one hand it is still part of the system he dislikes. He takes what he can and doesn't "give" anything back. Some might call him a moocher. The idea of profit as inherently evil seems like saying atomic power is also such.

On the other, I can understand that one shouldn't feel grateful towards a system that feels unfair or is somehow harmful. I'm at work today and as I watch this cluster flux-up in progress I sometimes wonder what am I doing with myself? Are all jobs like this? Do they at least start out not like this? It's an insult to me and my co workers (we need to write less bugs, people) and even some of my managers but this is the way the project is put together by outside forces. It'll probably fail anyways but has a higher chance of doing so if we rush rush rush. And I'll get laid off anyways, no matter how much or little I work at it.

<comment><USER30> Get another job if you can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> "Here's a test: when Thoreau was living at Walden Pond, he would often go into town for dinners with his family."

As an aside, its amusing how many people come to Concord and are stunned to learn that Walden Pond is only a little over a mile from the center of town - not exactly the middle of nowhere.

<comment><USER32> I think anywhere can be the middle of nowhere, if you put your mind to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> _shrugs_

Call me old-fashioned, but I see work as the ultimate form of decency.

<comment><USER34> _Call me old-fashioned, but I see work as the ultimate form of decency._

Why ?

<comment><USER35> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic>

<comment><USER36> That does explain a lot. I had a coworker at my last job who was appalled that I could quit and not have other work lined up (I just went and bummed around Zurich for the summer).

This guy was in his late 30's, single, had a low-level IT job and plainly said that the only reason he gets out of bed in the morning is to come to work (a job which he bitched about endlessly).

I could never understand the psychology of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> How Not to Drop Out: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=917395>

<comment><USER38> I did something like this. Living as a homeless person is probably the biggest perception change you can have without drugs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'd prefer the term "simplist" rather than "dropout". I think it further emphasises that it's a gradual, not a radical, change of dependance on the world.

</comment><comment><USER40> I honestly an unable to take this author very seriously, in spite of a few insightful nuggets he has within his article.

The minimalistic approach he takes is one I follow to a degree myself, but for radically different reasons than he does. I've found that having extraneous things don't make me any happier. Actively rejecting them as part of a radical lifestyle doesn't make me happier either. I am happy because I don't notice them missing, because I don't need them and don't have anyone around reminding me that I should or shouldn't.

The reason I define his lifestyle as radical is because of this.

"I hate civilization as much as anyone, but in these last few years before it crashes, we should appreciate and use what it offers."

Civilization is _not_ going to fail any more than every time prior where it was purportedly on the brink. If you are using this as an excuse for anything, please stop now. You are actively contributing to problems that, if civilization could fail, might cause it to do so. As romantic of a notion as this might be, it will suck beyond belief if it actually happens.

The other notion, that somehow our economy must either be Utopian or negatively-amortizing itself into oblivion, is stated as truth with nothing more than sneering toward idiots, elites, and robber barons as the perpetrators. I normally try to be more cool-headed than this, but this claim is _bullshit_. There _are_ other options, and given incentives and perspective, people _will_ pursue them. And the incentives are there, for them and everyone else, if people would knock off all of these various scorched earth policies.

The perspective this author offers will keep them from pursuing those options, if people listen to him. I want to liken him to a reader of tea leaves, who's motives may not be less than wholesome; is the tasseographer offering a vision into your future, or are they merely attempting to influence your frame of mind for their own benefit?

It is that frame of mind which determines whether or not you think doing hard work that you love for money is possible or desirable. I think it is possible; I've seen people do it. The author would like me to believe these people are living a lie, and are probably depressed and putting on an fake image for me. I wonder if he believes any of the depressed people are faking it?

As to whether it is desirable, this depends on one's frame of mind. Do you believe that a difficult problem you solve today will matter tomorrow? Do you believe that, if someone pays you to solve that difficult problem, it will matter less than one you solved for free? Do you believe that your work will benefit both yourself and society in some tangible and sustainable way? Do you believe that some impending catastrophe will render all of your work irrelevant? How much of this is passive believe, and how much of what you believe dictates your actions and the influence you have over the eventual outcome?

This really comes down to frame of mind, which seem more and more like matters of faith. You might think civilization sucks; you might think money sucks; you might think doing anything but the bare minimum amount of work to survive another day sucks. I would disagree with all of these claims, but how would I have a reasonable discussion about this? How do you change someone's frame of mind when the validation they've been seeking for years might finally come to pass tomorrow? In a way, I think the first step is realizing that our frames of mind are not without consequence.

</comment><comment><USER41> Ugh, this nonsense again?

<comment><USER42> Better criticism (or link thereto) please.

<comment><USER43> ugh, this stick-it-to-the-man, non-conformist, I'm-special, anti-progress, touchy-feely, the-whole-world-is-wrong nonsense again?

<comment><USER42> Upmodded despite disagreeing with you. At least now we get some idea about what your problem with the article is.

<comment><USER44> Are you assuming that talkingtiki agrees with tjpick?

<comment><USER42> Whoops, you're right, I missed the username change while monitoring via the 'threads' link.

<comment><USER25> To be fair, their usernames look vaguely similar :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> _A "dirty" environment strengthens the immune system, and if I were a toddler again, I'd much rather live in a cool abandoned house or junkyard or shack in the woods than in a sterile room with a television where I wasn't allowed to touch anything._

Douche.

<comment><USER21> _I'd much rather live in a cool abandoned house or junkyard or shack in the woods than in a sterile room with a television where I wasn't allowed to touch anything._

Shack in the woods: I've heard that Amish children are quite happy. Not sure about older adolescents.

Growing up in a sterile suburban setting has serious downsides. My sister and I both grew feeling not "real" somehow. Thank goodness we both somehow escaped the flypaper of 80's Rap!

<comment><USER45> I've got no problem with the Amish. I have a huge problem with someone who deliberately raises children as crypto-homeless "dropouts".

<comment><USER46> Which is all well and good, except that the author doesn't. He explicitly states that he wouldn't try to raise a kid while in a dropout/simplist lifestyle.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Case for Getting Rid of Borders - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/get-rid-borders-completely/409501/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> > No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights > than people born in the right place at the right time.

In roughly the same way that no defensible moral framework says that you should feed your own child rather than every other child in the world. Or the same way that no defensible moral framework says you have more of a right to live in your own house than anyone else has to live in your house. Or in the same way that no moral framework says that you should take and keep the money which The Atlantic pays you for writing this article and spend it on yourself, instead of giving it to some random stranger in the street.

Perhaps you could argue that any sensible kind of morality requires you to believe that your own interests are entirely equivalent to everyone else's, so you should never serve to protect your own interests. But I don't think anyone on the entire planet believes this, on a practical level. And if you invent a moral system that nobody is actually going to follow, it's a bad moral system, because the point of a moral system is that people should actually be able to follow it.

Instead, I choose to believe that yes, we have the right to serve our own interests and protect the privileges we were born with. In my case, that includes the privilege of being born in a rich first-world country that my ancestors built, as well as the individual privilege of living in this nice house which I bought. It's very sad for those people born without these sorts of privileges (ie closer to our species' natural state) but I'm not about to give up what I have so that billions of others can... well, not have it too, because in an unlimited immigration world there _would_ be no rich countries, just a series of war-riven shanty towns... but so they can have the satisfaction of bringing me down.

Instead of letting the whole world onto our little life raft 'til it sinks, how about we start giving them useful advice on how to inflate their own life rafts?</comment>


Sunday Startup: Don't Believe the Recession Hype - <AUTHOR> http://www.bretterrill.com/2008/10/sunday-startup-dont-believe-recession.html <comment><USER2> two responses:

"But there's still a crapload of money, billions in fact, in funds that HAS to be invested in new startups because its part of those fund's charter."

Disagree with this slightly. Yes, they will always invest in startups, but if they're feeling really skittish, you can bet that they'll hang onto the cash a bit longer than anticipated and be much more selective about what they invest in which translates to fewer deals. Sure, they still have the money, but if they're nervous about spending it, then that, from a startup's perspective, is no different than if their funds were miniscule. Obviously stand-out startups will receive money, but the requirements for what constitutes a stand-out startup are changing daily.

"While it's entirely reasonable to fund fewer startups because times are bad. It does not follow that a company that is worth funding should receive a lower valuation because of a bad economy."

I don't think that's true. If, collectively, the VC industry resets the valuation equation, startups will receive a lower valuation in the same way that, during boom times, startups receive higher valuations. If they can go up, they can certainly go down.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is definitely good advice.

We went to several VC's and received fairly unpractical offers (well not unpractical: but it felt like they were trying it on for as much %age as they could get).

Trouble is if you play hard ball with them they seem to lose interest fast (I guess it's easier to go with other people who'll just take the cash as it's offered).

In the end we went with private investment - and I;d advise others to do the same. Yeh there is a lot less money in that area BUT if you get a few people invested then it cuts the individual percentage any one investor might have (always useful) and also means (with the right investors) you'll have a more personal relationship with your "money"

:D

</comment><comment><USER4> I have to disagree with the OP. I think that valuations are going to decline with the bad economy.

1\. Most pre-funding startup founders and employees are working for deferred cash and equity, which means that they need to subsist on savings or parental generosity for living expenses, health insurance, etc. Those sources are likely to dry up for some people, which increases the urgency of the funding problem.

2\. It's going to get harder for a lot of startups to become "ramen profitable", to use Paul Graham's terminology.

Valuations will decline because VCs have more leverage, and therefore can get away with weaker offers.</comment>


Ask HN: Favorite programming language with lesser need of documentation - <AUTHOR> For example, there are lots of methods in Java while working on a larger project. You may be dependent on the IDE for code hints, completions, etc.<p>What is your favorite language where you feel comfortable coding straight in a notepad editor without the need of such helpful tools. <comment><USER2> C, LISP, Python</comment>


General Motors Salvages Ride-Hailing Company Sidecar for Parts - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/general-motors-salvages-ride-hailing-company-sidecar-for-parts <comment><USER2> Not sure why this was buried at end of the article: "The person familiar with the deal added that as part of the transaction, GM will also get a license to a patent that was granted to Sidecar CEO Paul in 2002: "System and method for determining an efficient transportation route."

Sidecar executives believed the patent covered the essential intellectual property behind ride-sharing, though Uber and Lyft never responded to Sidecar's repeated attempts to enforce the patent, this person said."

This seems a story by itself.

<comment><USER3> A good illustration of how patents are often not that useful to startups - Sidecar may have gotten more money from GM for it, but it did them no good against Uber and Lyft.

<comment><USER4> Why did they not file a patent infringement lawsuit?

<comment><USER5> It would also take years to resolve and wouldn't impact their business operations in the meantime (look at Apple vs Samsung lawsuits circa 2011)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like a great opportunity for 20 employees of sidecar.</comment>


The information capacity of a single photon (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1427 <comment><USER2> Tl;dr by using the photon's color (wavelength), we get more bandwidth than the current qubit encoding, which is based on polarization.

This would be loosely similar to using multiple voltage levels to build trinary, quaternary, etc. digital circuits or CPUs. (Which has been done in the past and some people still speculate will come back into fashion.)

It's also somewhat similar to the idea of FM radio, where the signal is encoded in the frequency differences.

It looks like they dropped the polarization encoding to use wavelength only. If I'm reading it right, then I'd guess there an extra easy +1 bit (at least) by using both wavelength and polarization.

</comment><comment><USER3> The answer from the paper:

Theoretically infinite, but in their more realistic model they came up with 5 bits.

<comment><USER4> The gap between 5 and infinite bits seems a bit on the large side.

<comment><USER5> In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Arbitrarily tunable orbital angular momentum of photons (2016) [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29212](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29212)

</comment><comment><USER7> If the holographic principle is true there are a lot less degrees of freedom than would otherwise seem available

<comment><USER8> You have to hit black-hole-level information densities for it to matter, don't you?

<comment><USER7> yes, but that entails an upper-bound... finite.

<comment><USER8> When it comes to a single particle, I wouldn't have thought an infinite number of degrees of freedom "seem available" in the first place.

<comment><USER7> That is exactly what the article posits as a hypothesis.

<comment><USER8> Maybe? I would have said they're using _one_ degree of freedom, the frequency.

<comment><USER7> As far as our model is concerned it's a distiction without a difference because were talking about all the bits of entropy, i.e. the information. If it's a represtanble state, it counts as a bit of information.

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


We paid over $500M for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404 - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/#ixzz2hKq2BK1a

<comment><USER2> Serious question... where does all that money go? Are a few people personally making many millions off this deal? Or are there really hundreds or thousands of employees working on it? Or is it getting subcontracted out many times with each layer taking a slice?

<comment><USER3> I'd imagine it's a gravy train gig all around. The payoff can be very large, but the government makes you jump through all manner of hoops at every stage of the way. I've actually done government work at the state level (ironically working on healthcare systems) and it's crazy how difficult it is to get anything accomplished.

To start with the proposal process is extremely intense and only a small number of companies have the resources to even apply for a project like this. The system I worked on was more simple than this and our proposal documentation was hundreds of pages.

With this being such a hot political issue, I can't even imagine the politics going on behind the scenes on top of any technical challenges. The number of meetings and reviews was probably astronomical.

I have no doubt that some principles at CGI are making huge profits off of projects like these, but it's not totally free money as it might seem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Of course it's over budget. Once you get past the $100 million mark for a web app, your estimation skills start breaking down a bit. But it's good when you have a client who can print money and the private players in the DOD as inspiration. Why not go over budget? You aren't doing a government contract right unless you are going way over budget.

I would love to send out an invoice for over $100 million. Even better would be to pick up the phone and tell the government that you are burning through the cash and you will need another $100 million to keep going. Who is their senior developer? Kobe Bryant? Their development team? The L.A. Lakers? "Sorry, Kobe is refusing to write another line of code until we renew his contract."

</comment><comment><USER5> RTFA everyone.

The website cost $93.7m. The rest of the money went to infrastructure, call centre, collection services and building out the state based exchanges.

<comment><USER6> Now to be fair... $93.7m at $170 per hour is 551,176 billable hours. Now, it's certainly not a one man job--maybe a team of 20 ought to do it? That leaves 27,558 hours per person. Divide that by 40 and it looks like you're going to be running a team of 20 for 688 weeks at 40 hours per week of billable hours. 688 weeks is 13 years.

So that amount will get you a team of 20 working for 13 years straight. Bump it up to a team of 40 and you get 6.5 years.

Regardless, I'm in the wrong business...

<comment><USER3> The calculations also work out for a team of 30 working for $50/hour and 5 guys with really large yachts

<comment><USER7> This tracks with other government contracts I've heard about. Although it's usually 2-3 guys with a couple yachts.

And I'm not kidding about the yachts. Actual confirmed yacht purchases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This very same article was on the front page all day today.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6526761](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6526761)

HealthCare.gov cost $93.7 million, which is still outrageous.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like they adjusted the figure - earlier it was at $634 million from what I saw but now it looks like it's closer to $500 million. Regardless, it's still a ridiculous amount...

<comment><USER9> The cost of the Iraq War was over $800 billion. Over a ten year period, I would expect the cost of national healthcare to be on the order of ~1 trillion dollars.

$500 million is 0.05% of $1 trillion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I went to CGI's website. It says offshoring. The javascript on healthcare.gov looks like they hired someone on Odesk.

<comment><USER11> Yea I don't think the programmers got the cash. Though I'll bet some executives from CGI are probably are taking a pretty nice holiday right about now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "the bulk of which ($88 million) went to CGI Federal, the company awarded a $93.7 million contract to build Healthcare.gov and other technology portions of the FFEs"

What are the "other technology portions".

If part of the other technology is building the infrastructure to allow hundreds of insurance companies to access very sensitive data from millions of customers, then that number seems a lot more reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER13> That's a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the 1.4 trillion spent funding the ~12 year war on terror.

What I'm saying is I'd much rather see the money spent on healthcare.

<comment><USER14> It may have escaped your attention but currently web dev is not considered a medical profession. I suppose one could say that they would rather see the money spent on healthcare bureaucracy, but that's a bit of a weaker statement I guess.

<comment><USER13> Of course this notion never cross my mind. What I was eluding to was money spent facilitating healthcare is money well spent, even if they overspent. After all, we are talking about the U.S. Government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's a 5,534 line file (dummyData.js) and a 6000+ line (register.js) file, un-minified, with with global functions currently on the site. I would be fired for putting this sort of thing into production. For the $, there's no excuse for this.

[https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/js/ee/du...](https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/js/ee/dummyData.js) [https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registra...](https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js)

</comment><comment><USER16> Think of the company you could build - build one federal website for all of your seed, A, B, and C rounds of funding in one bundle, with no equity loss.

</comment><comment><USER17> $500 million and it still has scheduled maintenance:

[https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registra...](https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration)

</comment><comment><USER18> [http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/10/08/230424...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/10/08/230424841/health- exchange-tech-problems-point-to-a-thornier-issue)

</comment><comment><USER19> The irony is the CTO of the US Todd Park founded two Health IT companies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Park](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Park)

</comment><comment><USER20> A bit too meta maybe, but that's a great headline.

Because who the hell is getting that commission? Where are the people making this magical money?</comment>


Why I'm Still Against SASS and LESS - <AUTHOR> http://www.amberweinberg.com/why-im-still-against-sass-less

<comment><USER2> I too come from a background of "before CSS" and hand-coding HTML. But I differ completely as to why we should use SASS/Less.

So addressing her misgivings in order:

1\. Code bloat happens—whether hand-crafted or automatic bloat. A good designer will always fight bloat, and a preprocessor helps reduce bloat. Mixins can introduce bloat, and decrease bloat.

2\. Clients should never edit the CSS. We've had folks claim that if we'd come up with the design, or even the template, and they'd use it. More often than not, they can't. They just don't know how to do it. The designs they want are just to complicated for them to edit the CSS to them.

3\. Preprocessors do not introduce logic into the CSS, they introduce logic in how the CSS is created. By and large a normal site does not need _any_ if/else/for-loop logic to the stylesheet.

The problems that inspired jQuery, SASS, Less are all based upon inconsistent implementations. If the browsers would all just play along and implement all the standards we'd just be okay, right? But obviously you need compatibility layers to handle all the inconsistencies... and so you get frameworks, preprocessors, etc.

<comment><USER3> Web pages are getting more complicated.

The tone of the article made it seem that the author is resistant to this added complexity, and is blaming the tools that have been developed for managing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I guess the mixins and nesting are nice, but who the hell wants to compile their CSS before it goes live. Good font end devs know how to organize their own stylesheets and reduce duplication. Some things don't need the engineering/CS treatment. Some times it's ok to have to declare #fff more than once...

<comment><USER2> When using a preprocessor you don't have to minify your source for production. You can compile it minified with all @import rules processed. Some preprocessors contain helpers for CSS spriting, some let you directly inline the image in a data-uri.

A good tool like SASS/Less is not something to sneeze at without researching fully.

<comment><USER4> No, I don't mean minify--I mean the SASS has to be run through a preprocessor before you have usable CSS. If I write the CSS, I instantly have usable CSS. I like using minimal tools for web design--browser and text editor. I don't want things I have to compile before I can see them in the browser.

I also think the mixins and nesting are overstated in terms of increasing the efficiency of designing sites with CSS. I am not typically declaring colors 20 times, or doing nesting so deep that it becomes confusing.

The benefits don't outweigh downsides of dealing with SASS files and preprocessors.</comment></comment></comment>


The effects of Portal 2 and Lumosity on cognitive and noncognitive skills - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131514001869 <comment><USER2> Valve playtests the shit out of their games. A lot of _Portal_ 's theming is based on their extensive testing culture and the ways they've developed to manipulate the player through testing. For example, the Weighted Companion Cube came about because they wanted a level where you solve puzzles while carrying an object. But the playtesters kept leaving the damn object behind. So Valve's solution was to tell them it was a "character" they had to care for.

<comment><USER3> Maybe this used to be true (I am not making a claim one way or the other) but it seems unlikely they would have that approach and end up with their latest offering - Artifact. I realize not every game is going to be a hit but that game doesn't seem to be liked by just about anybody.

<comment><USER4> It's not a game that I, a long time Valve fan would have any interest in, but I've been told by friends who are into card games that the actual game was fun, it was the awful pricing that killed it.

<comment><USER5> I played Artifact, it was fun until it died, but a very tough set of lessons for Valve to swallow:

1) Their reputation really has been damaged over no HL3/Dota 2 money grabs.

2) That they can't just publish anything onto Steam anymore with little to no upfront communication.

3) Not all monetisation models are viable - especially with the recent loot- box fiascos. If they wanted a card economy the game should've been free with random cards, with the _option_ to purchase cards to have your own collection.

The past few months they've definitely started to change over the response to Artifact. Dota Underlords was shipped in only 5 months, so it just shows what they're capable of with a little pressure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish they did this test with people who played the Quake series (Quake / Quake II / Quake 3 / Quake Live). They were arguably one of the most popular non-realism based FPS games of their time (they spanned ~25 years).

The big difference between Portal is, Quake is a multiplayer game where you're playing against a human in real time and there's no backup plan of being able to Google an answer if you get stuck. You either practice and get better or get utterly destroyed. It's really a good case for overcoming challenges and persistence.

There's 1v1 matches where you need to memorize maps to such a degree that you can almost navigate them blind folded. You're also dealing with timing multiple items down to the second, predicting where a human opponent will go, mastering each weapon in every scenario to maximize damage output while minimizing damage input and also generally having a high level overview of how the match is going to figure out when it's worth taking risks or play it safe.

That's just the mental side of it too. Then there's needing very good reaction times and dexterity to aim quickly and precisely and each weapon has its own style of aiming (flick shots, precise tracking, projectile prediction, instant hit scan weapons, etc.).

And then there's other variants of the game like 4v4 TDM or capture the flag that share similar challenges as above but now it's amplified because you're playing with a lot of people and you need to make very interesting decisions with powerups.

All of this happens within seconds and becomes second nature once you've played long enough. It's actually almost unbelievable that a human brain can react so quickly and become so well adjusted to navigating a high speed virtual world under pressure. A lot of these Quake games were played at live events with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line before e-sports became as huge as it is today.

<comment><USER7> Team Fortress 2 is (as you may know) the sequel to one of the most popular Quake (as in Quake 1) mods, and very much a Quake mod itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I still maintain Portal 2 has the greatest narrative in all of video games - it's expressed purely in gameplay, it's funny as hell, and has a surprisingly deep emotional core.

<comment> seph-reed It's not my favorite game, nor the favorite of anyone I know, but I'd be willing to guess it's worth top 3 (or at least 5) for almost everyone. Which is to say, in a first-past-the-post scenario it wouldn't win, but in a run- off-vote scenario it may very well be the best game ever made.

<comment><USER9> It's really not useful to make top n lists. As soon as there disagreement, distinctions and catagories evolve. Its probably sufficient to simple state you enjoyed the game, and to highlite some aspects you enjoyed.

<comment> seph-reed Top N lists are just another tool for organizing thought. You're right that they aren't a silver bullet of truth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So carefully selected video games are the real brain training. Who would have thought..

The following finding also continues to be interesting: "More remarkably, we found that playing an action video game can virtually eliminate this gender difference in spatial attention and simultaneously decrease the gender disparity in mental rotation ability, a higher-level process in spatial cognition." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17894600/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17894600/)

<comment><USER11> Some of this stuff is common sense—it's amazing what length people go researching certain subjects. For instance, if your brain does a particular type of action (like tracking fast moving objects) it gets better at doing that in general. Same thing with studying math, people get better at solving problems.

Now, if those problems being solved in games or otherwise are limited in scope, well so are the gains achievable.

So, the question then is, how to APPLY that to a general set of problems. Not how it affects the brain doing a particular task. For instance, teach a man to fish salmon then ask him to take that knowledge and figure out how to catch whales or even plastic pellets in the ocean?

Or how about if one study math how can it increase ones art ability or vice- versa? It changes perceptions etc. Seems common sense to me I dunno.

<comment><USER12> It's not obvious that it could eliminate the gender gap. If men start higher, why couldn't they stay in the lead as both sexes improved? That's why you have to do the research.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if any researchers controlled for video game playing time when doing these spatial rotation studies between genders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anecdotal, but I completely agree that Portal supercharges your brain, and I've believed this for years. Back around 2011 when portal 2 came out we had a family reunion. I had been playing a lot of Portal at the time. One of my uncles broke out one of those brain teaser type metal ring puzzles where you have to pull the rings apart.

It made it's way around the room as we talked and no one could figure it out. As soon as it came to me, I saw clearly exactly what needed to happen to solve it, and within seconds it was solved. I still think it must have been all the Portal 2 I had been playing.

</comment><comment><USER15> So to make _real_ genius kids, throw away those Baby Einstein videos, ditch the "brain training" apps, and just _play_.

What would the play curriculum be?

      Minecraft
      Portal 1 & 2
      The Talos Principle
      Infinifactory

What else? I'm thinking something that involves a fourth spatial dimension or causality manipulation would also be good. I'd recommend Spellbreaker if I thought kids would tolerate text-only games these days.

<comment><USER16> Maybe I'm just salty that I didn't figure out you could pick up laser redirectors without breaking the connection until after beating the game, but The Talos Principle always seems out of place in these lists. I've always seen it as a game focused on its story, which by necessity involves puzzle-based gameplay; but I've never thought that the puzzles were that good. In particular, it feels like the game actively discourages you from using 3D spatial reasoning, in favor of the puzzles being about using the tools you have to collect more tools. Most of the puzzles could have just been a 2D top- down perspective.

<comment><USER15> The puzzles needed for the low-effort ending are all like that, but some of the puzzles required for the 100%-completion ending are literally outside the box, requiring you to use tools from multiple discrete puzzle zones together, or to liberate tools from their zones to use in a portion of the level outside the puzzle fences.

Additionally, there are multiple Easter eggs peppering the game that take some amount of subversive reasoning to see or touch.

There's a "solve the puzzle as presented" level of reasoning, and there's a "break the puzzle" level of reasoning. Some puzzles have a "get the tetromino" solution, a "get the star" solution, and a "get somewhere I shouldn't be able to reach" solution.

For instance, have you found the Space Core, from Portal 2, in The Talos Principle?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A neuroscientist friend of mine says Lumosity is not just junk science, but junk implementation of junk science. I would imagine just about any real puzzle solving task would have a greater impact on cognitive ability than the specific case of Lumosity.

<comment><USER18> And Portal certainly is more fun than any Lumosity game.

Educators don't usually consider fun to be important for learning.

<comment><USER19> > _Educators don 't usually consider fun to be important for learning. _

That's quite unfortunate. I think fun is absolutely crucial to truly learn something.

<comment><USER15> I think my only hope for learning Spanish at this point would be a game that starts out in a Texaslike setting, with the storyline missions sending the player into progressively more Spanish-speaking situations, with more Hispanic-specific cultural elements, until complete immersion occurs.

Start out ordering tacos for lunch. End by smuggling someone out of Venezuela via the Orinoco in a narco-submarine, with paramilitary groups ready to execute you if you mistranslate something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not surprised by this as Portals puzzles combine so many different abilities like abstract reasoning, planning, dexterity and reflexes. Now, the question is of course if other 3D video games (e.g. DOOM) have similar health benefits. I'd say Portal is a pretty "intellectual" game compared to most shooters, so I'd expect the overall effect to vary. Navigation in three-dimensional environments seems to be quite a complex task in itself though, so maybe that's already where most of the effect is coming from?

<comment><USER21> Agreed. Wish there were more games out there like Portal, but it seems to be entirely unique in the industry.

<comment><USER22> Oh, there are more. Out of my mind, I can cite The Talos Principle, Qube and Antichamber.

Maybe in slightly different categories: Fez (~2D), Mirror's edge (parkour), infinifactory. The Stanley Parable as well, perhaps?

Then there are numerous 2D ones, and I'm pretty sure I am forgetting some that I have in my library. Portal isn't unique, but it has one of the most dynamic and entertaining narratives. It also spearheaded a whole lot of "portal clones", which was nice to see, as I quite like those puzzle games.

<comment><USER23> From your first three I've only seen Antichamber. I agree that it's a cognitive challenge like portal, but I also think it doesn't involve the same kind of spatial reasoning portal does. Well, at least not in the (otherwise ubiquitous) 3D space.

<comment><USER22> Well, the most difficult part of Antichamber is that the 3D space is a non- euclidian one, so you have to adjust the way you think space. But I still think that the main game element is how to find your way from point A to point B in that space. And pathfinding isn't a trivial exercise in euclidian space, already, which is the point of the article.

I recommend the Talos Principle, even though I haven't finished it yet. Some challenges are quite hard, and it has even more spatial reasoning than portal. Here also, enigmas revolve around getting you from point A to point B, but you usually have to carry along some tools to help you. This often ends up being a variant of the Hanoi tower, or the wolf, goat and cabbage, but in a space with more than one dimension, unlike those classic riddles. And there is some lore hidden in the game world that can be quite interesting to puzzle together.

Now, if you want more portal, the game modding community is quite profusive around Valve's IP. You have Portal stories: Mel, Aperture tag, Portal: prelude. The quality is often worse than complete games, but the puzzles can be quite challenging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't know any of those but could it be that Lumosity is just harder on your brain making you more tired and mentally exhausted? I mean, if a group relaxes for 8 hours and other group does lumosity for 8 hrs, why should the second group do better after exhausting their brains for so long?

<comment><USER25> Good question, I think there was a break between the training and the posttest, but it isn't quite clear from the description in the paper:

"Each participant spent 10 h in the study, which spanned four separate sessions in the on-campus laboratory of the university, across 1-2 weeks. Each of the first three sessions lasted 3 h. Session 4 lasted one hour - solely for administering the posttest battery. At the beginning of the first session, subjects in both conditions were asked to read and sign the consent form. After signing the form, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. All subjects were then administered an online set of pretests. Once they finished the pretests, they logged in to play their assigned game for the rest of the first session. They continued to play their assigned game for the entire second and third session (for a total of 8 h of gameplay). During the last session, they completed the online set of posttests."

"Before and after 8 h of gameplay, subjects completed an online pretest and posttest battery of tests measuring our focal constructs and their relevant facets."

<comment><USER26> Sounds like the post-test was done separately to me.

Session 1 is probably about 2 hours of "training", with the rest of the time eaten up by the pretest and consent paperwork. Sessions 2 and 3 would be be almost entirely training (3 hrs each), which gets you to 8 hours of training in 3 sessions, leaving the last one for just the post-test.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The tests for problem solving used were:

Raven's progressive matrices, Insight Test, Remote Association Test

Spatial cognition:

Mental rotation test, Spatial Orientation Test, Virtual spatial navigation assessment

</comment><comment><USER28> Could it be that Portal players felt they were more successful in their games than Lumosity players felt?

I know that successfully completing a task(s) just before a test will result in better performance on tests, and failing will result in poorer performance.

<comment><USER29> They aren't asking how a player felt about Portal or Luminosity. It looks like they did some standardized tests after they played the respective games.

<comment><USER30> Yes, but parent is arguing that the feeling _could_ be what is affecting the test results more than any cognitive abilities or enhancements as a result of playing the game. I.e. if you "won" the Lumosity games (which normally get harder until you fail) and "lost" at Portal, is the effect the same or is it reversed?

A very valid question indeed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> All the marketing for Lumosity reeks of unclaimed benefits/snake oil. At least Portal 2 is objectively fun and rewarding narratively to play.

<comment><USER32> It increases your "hours spent listening to J.K. Simmons rant" count, and that's way more important than poorly sourced "neuroplasticity" training.

<comment><USER33> Ok, HN seems to frown on tomfoolery, but amen: JK Simmons was absolutely the best part of the Portal 2 story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> A study of only 8 hours isn't much of a study at all.

<comment><USER35> Most studies probably use much less than 8 hours of a respondent's time, I believe. The greater issue is the use of only 77 test subjects to begin with.

<comment><USER36> Read the paper, the authors did a power analysis to arrive at their participant sample size. ( [http://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/pdf/portal1.pdf](http://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/pdf/portal1.pdf) )

> We needed at least 34 participants per condition to estimate moderate effect > sizes in our analyses, with a power of .90.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wonder if any of this boost, or even a significant portion, comes from just being happier and relaxing after playing a game for 8 hours. Rather than some perceived brain training.

</comment><comment><USER38> People who have played a funny, pretty looking and relaxing puzzle game prior to solving skill based questions perform well. What have we learned? Was it the puzzles or GlaDOS?

<comment><USER39> Maybe all GlaDOS' subtle (and not so subtle) digs at humanity encourages humans to do their best.

Or maybe the humorous absurdity of a testing-obsessed "abusive mom" computer makes people relax more in actual testing situations. I suspect these sorts of aptitude tests get a lot of their power from the intimidation factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> But how long does that benefit last?

</comment><comment><USER41> Wait is everyone here commenting just from reading the abstract? I couldn't get access to the pdf (elsevier paywall)...

</comment><comment><USER42> The idea of rounding up a bunch of test subjects and having them play Portal to collect data on them is hilarious to me.

 _Hello and welcome to the Aperture Science computer-aided enrichment center._

I wonder if there was cake at the end.

<comment><USER43> I wonder if they were promised cake upfront :)

<comment><USER44> If they were, it was most likely a lie.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I would kill for Portal 3...

sigh...

<comment><USER46> I would peacefully protest for HL3

<comment><USER47> I would self-immolate for a game that simultaneously served as the sequel to both HL2 _and_ Portal 2 (i.e. Gordon Freeman has both a gravity gun and a portal gun)

<comment><USER48> No you wouldn't.

<comment><USER49> At least give him a chance.

<comment><USER40> It would rather defeat the purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> sample size please - how is this even publishable?

<comment><USER51> From the article:

> In this study, we tested 77 undergraduates who were randomly assigned to > play either a popular video game (Portal 2) or a popular brain training game > (Lumosity) for 8 h.

<comment><USER50> Sorry my comment should have been clearer. I wasn't actually asking for the sample size - i was making a statement that the sample size was ridiculously small as to be irrelevant. It was more like an eye roll. Thank you for responding to my literal comment snd reminding me to be clearer in my messages :)

<comment><USER51> 77 is a large enough sample size to produce statistically significant results in a lot of cases, depending on the problem. For example, using 77 men and women, you could easily see a statistically significant difference in height between genders.

This paper is pretty simple, it's just a straight-forward before-and-after test. They are holding a lot of factors constant and not doing an observational study, so 77 is actually a fine sample size for something like this.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Debian in Space on ISS computers - <AUTHOR> http://rollingdebian.com/debian-in-space-on-iss-computers/

<comment><USER2> Nice. I'm working on an experiment that'll fly on the ISS next year, using 4 ARM processors. It will also be running debian:

      Linux stick1 2.6.39 #1 Mon Aug 15 19:04:09 PDT 2011 armv7l GNU/Linux

And:

      root@stick1:/usr/share# cat /etc/issue.net
      Debian GNU/Linux 7.0

Should be interesting. :-)

<comment><USER3> What experiment? And is it flying on Dragon out of curiosity?

<comment><USER2> It's going to be testing 4 Gumstix modules on the external NanoRack platform. Here's the grant announcement:

[http://www.iss- casis.org/NewsEvents/PressReleases/tabid/111/...](http://www.iss- casis.org/NewsEvents/PressReleases/tabid/111/ArticleID/61/ArtMID/586/CASIS- Announces-Grant-Awards-for-Materials-Science.aspx)

And, yes, I believe it'll be flying on Dragon.

<comment><USER3> Cool! We'll do our best to get it there safely. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article says 'Gnu Debian Linux 6 (Stable)'. However Debian 6 is "oldstable" since May 6th (the article was written after the release).

The new stable release is Debian 7 or 'Wheezy'.

I wonder why NASA didn't pick Wheezy though. Then again, at the time of the decision the prospect of wheezy being released as stable was probably still a wet dream.

<comment><USER5> Wheezy was released May 4. Given the cycle with which many major corporations upgrade their computers (e.g., Win XP -> Win 7), I would have been surprised if NASA had chosen Wheezy. I'm sure they have their own software to test, and they can always upgrade to Wheezy at their leisure and upgrade some time between now and May 2014 (when Squeeze support ends).

<comment><AUTHOR> So it is may 2014 the end of Squeeze... Personally I wasn't aware of this...</comment></comment></comment>


State of the Planet : Who is buying what? - <AUTHOR> http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/014/014-buying-whos-buying-what.html

<comment><USER2> Why don't they have %'s in the graphic?</comment>


Language Importance for DevOps Engineers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hypergeometric.com/2012/02/05/language-importance-for-devops-engineers/

<comment><USER2> Your mileage will vary. In my life working for "the man" as a sysadmin or developer type in Mountain View, it broke out like this:

Shell scripts: a little bit here and there. Mostly for my own shortcuts to save time doing repetitive stuff.

Perl, PHP, Ruby, Chef/Puppet, Haskell: Zero.

Javascript: Only if cargo-culting a "make this table sortable" thing into a web page counts.

Java: Just that one time, to help out some folks who were on vacation when their service broke.

SQL: Unfortunately, more than I like to admit. Almost always used in conjunction with...

Python: Far more than I liked. One service was nothing but Python code written with a typical scripter mentality. Pain.

C: Rarely, like a one-afternoon tool we used just once.

C++: Constantly. So many things were and are written in it.

I must say that lumping C and C++ together is worrisome. Odds are, you're not going to use them the same way.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article is very biased opinion indeed. PHP, JavaScript, SQL, Java and Perl? Wow. Party like it's 1999. Honestly, I don't see DevOps doing JavaScript. I am no aware of any DevOps tools based on JavaScript and server- side JavaScript movement is only beginning. PHP, Perl, SQL, Java are a dead waste of time. Major DevOps tools such as Chef, Capistrano, Fog, Puppet, are based on Ruby. Systems are written in C and system control utilities are all Shell. A DevOps guy needs to know Ruby or Python (pick one), Shell and C. Erlang and JavaScript would probably be next on the list.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't need to know chef, its a simple DSL that is quite wasteful resource- wise.

I'd pick ruby over python, but thats just me. I'd still choose perl over either, but thats because things like threading and the low memory footprint are appealing.

DevOps is about running the stack. If you don't understand the stack your, you're not doing devops.

<comment><USER3> You are confusing DevOps with full-stack engineering. These are two different things.

DevOps is about continuous deployment, continuous integration, automation, infrastructure as code. Your choses to do infrastructure as code are Chef (Ruby), Puppet (Ruby), CFEngine (C), and BCFG2 (Python). You will not get very far with DSL-only knowledge of Chef of Puppet only. The case is the same with CFEngine and BCFG2. All infrastructure as code frameworks assume you are going to customize.

As for the resources, the most valuable resource these days is engineering time. Chef specifically and Ruby toolchain overall are hyper-efficient when it comes to engineering time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I disagree.

Infrastructure as code can be implemented any way you want. The DSL portion of chef should get you very far, if it doesn't you should just be writing ruby, C, or python code to meet you needs.

Automation is really what devops is about; infrastructure as code, continuous integration, continuous deployment are all just synonyms for automation. I think again, what ever get the job done the most reliably, and quickest.

<comment><USER3> I don't see the disagreement.

I'll give you a Chef example of why DSL is not going to get you far.

Let's say you are running a LAMP stack. Let's say your engineers are good enough to implement a Service Oriented Architecture. SOA means your infrastructure needs to be capable of running a variety of disjoint components. As a DevOps Engineer you need to be able to automate infrastructure and deployment to support rapid releases of application services.

From the infrastructure perspective, application services needs are similar. An application service will probably require a set of Hosts/VMs with specific roles, Vhost configuration, DNS provisioning, Load Balancer config, Logging configuration, User configuration, etc.

If you are writing just in DSL you will end up for a unique Chef recipe for every application service. These recipes are going to be 90% similar, and your Chef repo will become very difficult to maintain because many changes will require edits of multiple recipes (copy-pastes mostly).

Now, if you move beyond Chef's DSL, you will be able to extend Chef's DSL with your own definitions.

My Chef's recipe for a new LAMP application service is php_app "name" do ... that sets up DNS, Vhosts, logging, users and everything required in one command. The code is also very maintainable. To change the way logging is done for all application services, I need to edit only several lines of code in the Chef definition.

DevOps movement started as idea to adapt developer practices in systems administration. One of the principles developers use is DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself). In order to DRY you need to know more than basic Chef DSL.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where do you get your high quality stickers printed? - <AUTHOR>

The last batch of stickers I had printed up for GitHub were low cost but low quality. The image rubbed off of the paper backing (that is, if you could even get the thing off of the backing).
I'm going to be printing up a new batch and I want to get some high quality removable stickers made (so they can be put on laptops for instance). Does anybody have a provider that they like? <comment><USER2> These companies are all really good, just make sure to select vinyl printing inks and not paper based stickers otherwise you may get some of the same issues. These companies are all fairly small so you will get really good service if you ask any questions:

<http://contagiousgraphics.com/Stickers/stickers.html> <http://stickerrobot.com/> <http://vgkids.com/stickers.php>

</comment><comment><USER3> A friend of mine is a designer who started a business doing stickers, business cards, magnets, etc.

I've had one of his stickers on my Dell laptop for... probably about 2-3 years. I did not treat that laptop daintily, and his sticker still looks nearly pristine; so he can certainly get you what you need.

His email is chris at trifectaagencies dot com.

</comment><comment><USER4> we did an order from www.printingblue.com/ and where happy with the cost and quality, lead time was a bit long - 10 days - but overall satisfied.

</comment><comment><USER5> moo.com</comment>


Learning the k-means Clustering Algorithm in Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://burakkanber.com/blog/machine-learning-k-means-clustering-in-javascript-part-1/

<comment><USER2> Great tutorial, I look forward to part 2. I have been thinking of the best way to identify the torso (potentially the largest cluster in k-means?) from a silhouette image of a person, and reviewing k-means has been on my list of refreshers.</comment>