NetBSD 5.0 Released  - <AUTHOR> http://www.netbsd.org/releases/formal-5/NetBSD-5.0.html

<comment><USER2> I only ask this question because newsnews mentioned that they released new "anti-flamewar" features recently:

I am generally familiar with CentOS / RHEL, and mostly like the way of doing things on there. I am particularly grateful for the package manager, and being able to add repositories to lots of software as needed, including cutting-edge up to date stuff.

How does NetBSD compare to something like CentOS? I realize they are different kernels, but that's about where my understanding seems to end. Why would I want to use one or the other?

<comment><USER3> They're about as drastically different as major free Unices can be.

The BSDs are the reference standard for add-on package management. In the RedHat 5 days (a decade before RHEL 5, mind you) the BSDs had a huge third party software library available using either the ports tree to compile from source or using "pkg" files precompiled from the same source base and available for download from the distribution FTP sites.

The BSD package management platform doesn't really address OS upgrades, which has been a weakness for me when considering it for business use. The preferred method of upgrading for a long time was to check the code base out and recompile it periodically. FWIW this doesn't have the Gentoo stigma -- it's not done for the optimizations, it was simply the most pragmatic way to distribute updates to large systems over the small network links of the time (you can easily maintain an up to date system over a dialup modem if you've installed it some other way).

NetBSD specifically has a focus on running on as many architectures as possible. This isn't a big win for you perhaps, but it makes the OS suitable for installation on embedded devices. The NetBSD distribution tends to be fairly small, which also plays well into running on modest devices.

 _Why would I want to use one or the other?_

I would suggest selecting one and giving it an honest assessment for six or so months, trying to use it daily for the same things you use Linux for. Linux has overwhelming developer and industrial inertia behind it, so you may well find that you prefer CentOS, but it will broaden your horizons, particularly around the edges -- firewalls, RAID, kernels, package management, and so on.

You might also do the same thing for Solaris 10 (particularly not OpenSolaris first). It's a really interesting mix of some legacy stuff (a miserable default shell) and some advanced new features (dtrace, zfs, smf).

<comment><USER2> This is a fantastic answer, and why I love HN. Thank you for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems to be BSD week -- NetBSD 5.0 is released on Wednesday, OpenBSD 4.5 is released on Friday, and FreeBSD 7.2 is released next Monday.

<comment><USER5> viva *bsd. and the linux kernel is progressing nicely as well. its a great time for free OSs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really like that they're supporting the posix realtime scheduling extensions, and async IO.

Very nice. Even if to know such things are available on more platforms now.</comment>


Ruby in 2D: Create 2D graphics applications in Ruby using R2D - <AUTHOR> http://www.ruby2d.com/

<comment><USER2> I love how the text just turns into Lorem Ipsum half way down.

<comment><USER3> Cripes, and I was just in the middle of updating the thing. Check now: [http://www.ruby2d.com](http://www.ruby2d.com)</comment></comment>


Why Is Smalltalk Dead - <AUTHOR> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyIsSmalltalkDead

<comment><USER2> You really should look at Squeak as well. [http://squeak.org/](http://squeak.org/)

Pharo is a great implementation of Smalltalk, but Squeak has moved the Smalltalk ideas forward into new territory.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting tour back in time. I had a loaner Smalltalk license in the early 1980s for my Xerox Lisp Machine.

As one commenter in the article mentioned, there is Pharo. Pharo is open source and very good.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you are really interested, have a look at Pharo. If not, yes, it is dead.

A warning though. Smalltalk is seriously mind-bending for those who come from more routine languages/environments.</comment>


What were the creepiest declassified documents of the last decade? - <AUTHOR> https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ehhftl/serious_what_were_the_creepiest_declassified <comment><USER2> The Panama Papers are a good nomination, the "creepy" part being how quickly it all blew over. The story was squashed by the rich and powerful, especially in China where it was wiped off the Chinese internet. Business continued as usual with top politicians and their families worldwide evading the laws of their own nations.

<comment><USER3> I think the Panama Papers have my vote too.

an aside, I once recently wrote an email to Noam Chomsky. One of my questions was something like "do you think the relationship betweeen state and corporate entities has changed recently in comparison to the Vietnam era?".

The answer I received back was (something like) "Corporations have more power than ever. Read through the Panama Paper leaks and the surrounding news."

It was eye-opening just how far reaching that stuff goes, and for as little outrage as it generated. I totally agree with you.

I chaulk it up to the publics' 'outrage-fatigue' at the time. Or at least I hope that's why it got so little attention.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure the Panama Papers are a particularly strong example of the thesis. Well into the 1950s, some corporations had the power to get small governments overthrown. If the worst thing a modern corporation can do is construct weird offshore entities to confuse tax collectors, we're doing pretty well.

<comment><USER5> The TPP had provisions that would have let tobacco companies sue countries that did anything to hurt their profits. The TPP had all sorts of insane pro corporate agreements that would have given them more power over smaller countries sovereign decisions.

<comment><USER4> The idea of companies suing countries isn't some new thing introduced by the TPP. Most countries allow it and it's generally seen as a good thing. The alternative would be that you can't sue the country; that is, that the people in power can make whatever unfair decisions they like and nobody can stop them.

<comment><USER5> Did you stop reading half way through the first sentence?

It is about suing countries because they do something that effects the profits of a company. An example is mandating graphic pictures on cigarette packaging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Mars remote viewing is honestly hilarious.

> CIA: Hey Mr. Seer, please look into Mars a million years back in this > coordinates.

> Seer: Oh, I see a pyramid and aliens and shit.

> CIA: Awesome. Here is a check for your services.

Edit: The actual transcript here [https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA- RDP96-00788...](https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA- RDP96-00788R001900760001-9.pdf)

<comment><USER7> wow, that was a fascinating read. Thanks for the link.

Almost guaranteed they're still doing experiments like this.

<comment><USER8> Stargate Project was closed in 1995 [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Closure_(1995...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Closure_\(1995\))

<comment><USER9> And you don't think they've replaced it with a similar program?

I personally think telling the public the program was shut down and didn't have great results could easily be a red herring.

Truth be told - if there was a lot of success from Psyops programs, and you were the US military, would you want a lot of people to know?

<comment><USER8> Doesn't matter what I think; only thing which matters is if there is proof of such, or clues which lead to a hypothesis that such exists. Feel free to share such.

The way it went in history is that the US started with it to bait the USSR into spending money into a worthless project (which succeeded). Then, the US replied to that with "what if it is real?" There was still a lot of belief in "the paranormal" back then; nowadays we know much more about the techniques behind paranormal scam artists.

I've seen various documentaries on these programs (including about remote viewing and Ingo Swann [1], a scientologist), and from my memory the results of these programs were lackluster. Sure, there were some hits, as there are hits with cold reading and guessing.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Afghanistan Papers[0] were published a few weeks ago and didn't get nearly as much traction as I hoped they would. A stunning documentation of the incompetence of America's strategy in the Middle East over the past two decades.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan- papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/)

<comment><USER11> This was a frankly heartbreaking read. It feels like everyone missed it too.

<comment><USER12> Well, not everyone. There were protests throughout the length of the war. A lot of people looked at the history of US intervention, of foreign intervention in Afghanistan, and at the motivations of the people calling the shots, and said, from Day 1, "This is not going to work out." Aaron McGruder famously had their number, and reached out daily to Americans whose newspapers hadn't canceled publication of his strip ([https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2016/12/13](https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2016/12/13)).

They were right, most Americans were wrong, and I don't know if we'll ever fully reckon with that fact.

On that note, I hope people are listening to Sarah Kendzior's work these days.

<comment><USER13> I was reviled for pointing out why the Afghanistan war was wrong and why it would fail. The American Military Enthusiast Complex was alive and well then and it's alive and well today, the day (s) after these revelations have come to pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The CIA putting implants into dog's brains to remotely control them was pretty creepy. [https://www.newsweek.com/cia-mkultra-documents-files- remote-...](https://www.newsweek.com/cia-mkultra-documents-files-remote- control-dogs-1250519)

<comment><USER15> > "Such a system depends for its effectiveness on two properties of electrical > stimulation delivered to certain deep lying structures of the dog brain: the > well-known reward effect, and a tendency for such stimulation to initiate > and maintain locomotion in a direction which is accompanied by the continued > delivery of stimulation.

> "Behavioral control was limited to distances of 100 to 200 yards, at most," > they write in the letter

> The letter writer characterizes the work with remote-controlling dogs as a > success, describing "a demonstrated procedure for controlling the free-field > behaviors of an unrestrained dog."

That is pretty creepy. That is 1960s, and assuming CIA hasn't evolved a moral compass since, I imagine they might not have completely given up on the idea and it's interesting to think what it might look like today with all nano and wireless technology.

<comment><USER9> >> I imagine they might not have completely given up on the idea

I also imagine if they would, they wouldn't exactly want that to be public knowledge.

It's important to remember the military is years ahead of the rest of us, tech-wise.

I can't imagine, really, the amount of crazy shit we're not supposed to see.

<comment><USER16> Military tech is not ahead of civilian tech except for a handful of things that are either useless (stealth aircraft) or illegal (weapons systems) for civilians. And even in those cases, most of the constituent parts of those systems are extremely obsolete by civilian standards.

The idea that the military has a vast arsenal of high tech gadgets and sci-fi weapons is a myth created by Hollywood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Afghanistan papers recently released are pretty damning. It was pretty obvious that we were bumbling around with no real plan or end goal in sight, but having the depths of that purposelessness laid out in stark relief is... wow.

<comment><USER18> What's more apparent is that the goals of the war in Afghanistan kept changing and became increasingly ill defined. Which is comical in like the cosmic sense, since American military doctrine has always held that the most important part of military strategy is to have a well defined, primary objective. As well, our greatest political thinkers like Kissinger have repeated ad nauseam that military force is a political tool to achieve political goals.

The irony is that Afghanistan is the biggest proof by example of our own foreign policy doctrine, by way of ignoring it entirely.

<comment><USER19> "our greatest political thinkers like Kissinger"

You lost me. There are gulfs of differing understanding that are just hard to cross and I just can't see across that one. War criminal. Can you see back? As weird from either side, I'm sure.

<comment><USER18> "Great" as in "prolific and influential" not as in "good."

Kissinger engineered our foreign policy for three decades, either directly, through mentorship, or through his writing and teaching. His voice is a powerful one, and if you are interested in contemporary geopolitics you should read his books and listen to his speeches. _World Order_ is a fantastic text.

You don't have to agree with him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> FBI unclassified documents on "the finders" from 1984: [https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders](https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders)

Includes the stuff of nightmares. Child abuse, satanic rituals. A "school" with underground tunnels. Fire alarm switch in classrooms for alerting other rooms.

> _unsure if children had been kidnapped_

> _children were extremely hungry and urinated and defecated on the floor > during questioning_

> _states they were under the control of the "Game Caller" in DC [name > classified]_

> _each classroom has on /off fire alarm switch that was used to alert other > classrooms._

> _45 foot tunnel under school connecting school with nearby triplex_

You can't make this stuff up. And that's not even all of the disturbing things. Excuse the name in the link[1] but it's a good break down.

And the worst part about all of this? The whole thing was closed down as it was "stepping on the CIA's toes" — that's right. Where are the children???

[https://mobile.twitter.com/davenyviii/status/118786556347911...](https://mobile.twitter.com/davenyviii/status/1187865563479117825?lang=en)

<comment><USER21> > You can't make this stuff up.

As far as anyone can tell, a lot of people did make up allegations strikingly similar to these [1], and the evidence that people can make stuff up without realizing it is fairly compelling [2] [3].

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

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

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered- memory_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy)

<comment><USER22> The other thing to bear in mind with stuff like this, the FBI investigates stuff all the time and it turns out there was nothing there. One of the more interesting examples is their investigation into the song Louie Louie:

[https://groovyhistory.com/louie-louie-kingsmen-fbi- investiga...](https://groovyhistory.com/louie-louie-kingsmen-fbi- investigation)

This was the height of the Satanic Panic. Without the CIA papers it's hard to tell if this was another example of the FBI investigating what was ultimately nothing, some facts planted on purpose by the CIA, or what.

<comment><USER20> > _Without the CIA papers it 's hard to tell if this was another example of > the FBI investigating what was ultimately nothing_

I can't personally come to the same conclusion. This is a documented, declassified event of a pretty dark and unsettling case that was closed directly because it was a CIA operation. That's in the signed documents by the FBI, it's not a theory.

What types of CIA operation scenarios can happen here that make this less unsettling? A benevolent daycare operation for employees? What does the CIA do?

<comment><USER22> My impression is that they found out the CIA was already involved _in some way_ and the FBI just closed the book to get out of their way.

The CIA's involvement could have been anything. Could have been an international cult they were looking into, an experiment to try and get kids to summon The Horned God, or a brainwashing experiment, or they could have been involved because some diplomat's kid was there and they wanted to influence them. My point is that without the CIA docs there's no way to tell what was really going on or how nefarious this really was.

<comment><USER23> When I see the CIA discussed in these terms, where people make all kinds of lawless and insane behavior out to be a routine matter of course, my first thought is "we should probably abolish the CIA, just to be safe."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Daniel Ellsberg's _The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner_ certainly gave me a few nights of troubled sleep.

<comment><USER25> His _Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers_ is the one of the best books about politics and war I've ever read

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The OPCW leak about how evidence of a chemical attack in Syria was fabricated. Maybe the most creepy part is the media blackout.

</comment><comment><USER27> Probably the "China Cables". The manual used to run the Xinjiang concentration camps. Leaked just a few month ago.

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

Wiki: The China Cables are a small cache of secret Chinese government documents contained in a telegram, 4 bulletins and one court document from 2017. The cables were leaked by exiled Uighurs to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and published on November 24, 2019. The telegram details the first known operations manual for running the 1,300 to 1,400 mass internment camps of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang, which China denied until 2018 and since calls re-education camps.

<comment><USER28> I wonder how they get into the camps? Very strict laws targeting them? The Uighurs did commit terrorist attacks but I don't think millions of people were involved?

<comment><USER27> AFAIR: The cables have a few partial answers to your question: There is a centralized system that can give detainment orders. (supposedly a Blackbox to the People at least who follow its orders with boots on the ground)

One day apparently it spat out 24k names. They managed to imprison about 9k the following day.

Naturally the government know quite a few things about what you're up to and this is a factor.

Going to the mosque is a supposedly the easy way in. Not sure in what xinjiang city the mosques are still accessible. All I could find was locked down ones with all kinds of barricades and monitoring devices.. I would be surprised if there was in Xinjiang unlike eat china anyone left who would dare to go to a mosque.

Some of the detainees are used by the state as force labor and leased out to companies. It's speculated that this demand also can causes mass detainment.

<comment><USER28> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Page 155 of that Hitler psychological analysis performed by the OSS in 1943:

> "8\. Hitler might commit suicide. This is the most plausible outcome. Not > only has he frequently threatened to commit suicide, but from what we know > of his psychology it is the most likely possibility. It is probably true > that he has an inordinate fear of death, but being an hysteric he could > undoubtedly screw himself up into the super-man character and perform the > deed. In all probability, however, it would not be a simple suicide. He has > much too much of the dramatic for that and since immortality is one of his > dominant motives we can imagine that he would stage the most dramatic and > effective death scene he could possibly think of..."

<comment><USER8> > [...] This is the most plausible outcome.

I'd like to know how they got to that conclusion.

Apart from that, the way he committed suicide actually wasn't dramatic:

"The will was a short document stating that they had chosen death over capitulation, and that they were to be cremated [..]" [1] which is how it happened.

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

<comment><USER29> Their operating premise was to assume that Germany would suffer successive defeats. They theorized specifically about what might happen to Hitler as the war unfolded and Germany shrank, to prepare counter-propaganda efforts. The list is a mixed bag.

1\. Dies of natural causes - "remote possibility." Best outcome if he died of a common disease to break 'the myth of his super-natural origins.'

2\. Seeks asylum - "extremely unlikely." They suspected he'd restrain himself from escaping.

3\. Killed in battle - "real possibility."

4\. Assassinated - "undesirable" because of martyrdom.

5\. Goes insane - "has many characteristics which border on the schizophrenic."

6\. Seized in revolt - "unlikely"

7\. Captured - "most unlikely possibility of all."

8\. Commits suicide - "most plausible."

Some smart people there, but they're not fortune tellers and didn't claim to be.

The PDF: [https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA- RDP78-02646...](https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA- RDP78-02646R000600240001-5.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Project 1794 basically confirming the government tried to build UFOs. Also, dark side of the moon stuff: [https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2019/jul/16/cia- moon-...](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2019/jul/16/cia-moon-fouo/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Not a 'declassification', but an insane investigative documentary.

Cold Case Hammarskjöld [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9352780/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9352780/)

It talks about how CIA/MI5 killed UN Secretary General in the 60s, but uncovers/interviews people involved with 'SAIMR' a secretive institution rumored to be under the UK, which was using HIV as a means for achieving white-supremacy in apartheid South Africa by maliciously infecting the black population.

The reviews often dismiss this as 'satirical fiction', but quite frankly I don't buy that. It's just insane how little we know about the evil forces that the state wrests... and even the though of an organized racial genocide so many years after WWII is just insane.</comment>


Illegal drugs: The wars don't work - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650112-one-war-drugs-ends-another-starting-it-will-be-failure-too-wars-dont-work?fsrc=nlw|hig|30-04-2015|NA <comment><USER2> It's not often that I have the opportunity to feel proud of the legislators in my home country, but Portugal has been on the leading edge of drug prevention and rehabilitation since we moved from a "war on drugs" to a program of health risk prevention and removed the weight of criminal charges and proceedings from the equation.

Some interesting articles below:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/portugal-drug- decri...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/portugal-drug- decriminalization_n_6606056.html)

[http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation- portugal-...](http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal- setting-record-straight)

<comment><USER3> This is my fear. The "War on Drug" really is a health issue, but most people I know that are against the war basically want to smoke more and more pot and/or Libertarians and the reply to stop the war is not and we can help more people.

<comment><USER4> This is essentially the stereotype of legalization activists, but it's not really true. I don't smoke pot, but have long been an advocate of legalization. It's so strange to me when people assume I do smoke because of this advocacy... I'm also a straight supporter of equal marriage, and a male supporter of pro-choice policies, &c., &c.

People who want to use drugs are already using drugs.

Marijuana legalization would never have passed the ballot box in the western states if the reason people supported legalizing it was just to smoke more instead of on the policy merits.

<comment><USER5> Please define "equal marriage".

Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their daughter?

Do you support marriage involving polygamous relationships? Can three or four people can be married?

<comment><USER6> The parent comment to yours refers to same-sex marriage between two people. Please don't be disingenuous. There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. You knew full well before you typed your comment what the person was talking about.

<comment><USER5> > There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the > other situations you mentioned.

So you want to dismiss the ideas above because they belong to a minority and are not supported by the majority? Wow, you sound like a bigot.

Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of people advocating for... same-sex marriage.

<comment><USER7> It's not germane to this discussion. The previous poster only brought it up to draw parallels between a straight person being for allowing gay marriage and a non-smoker being for legalization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war against drugs (actualy, a drug) - prohibition. Exactly the same scenario played out then as is, hopefully, coming to it's inevitable conclusion now in the 'western hemisphere'. If the same thing is starting up again in the East, it's going to be a bloody and chaotic few decades to come before the same lesson gets learned the third time over.

Fortunately we do have a largely successful, bloodless war on a drug to learn from. Tobacco abuse is less than half what it was back in the early 70s in the US, and similar declines are seen in many European countries. Advertising campaigns, usage restrictions in public places and high taxes have been very effective, and also meant that the medical costs of treating the effects of tobacco abuse have been more than covered by tax revenues from it's sale in many countries.

While campaigns against alcohol abuse have not been as successful, mainly because they have not been as focused on reducing all usage, tax revenues have been high. Normalisation of low levels of use in appropriate circumstances and ammounts have also limited the harmful effects on most abusers and those around them.

<comment><USER9> I don't understand why the campaigns against alcohol have been so unsuccessful. It is amazing that so many people have no issue with losing control mentally under the influence of alcohol and those same people think it is scary that I would like to try LSD.

<comment><USER10> Normal alcohol dosage doesn't lead to massive loss of control

<comment> saiya-jin Alcohol is drug like any other. I guess everybody seen some people get aggressive even on moderate alcohol high. Tobacco is probably the worst drug ever consumed by man, considering amount of death and suffering it causes...

None of drugs are a blessing to mankind, but to consider A OK and even promote it, and destroy people's lives and promote drug cartels for B, where many times B is not more harmful then A is... stupid. And we as society want to evolve and get better, right?

<comment><USER11> > I guess everybody seen some people get aggressive on alcohol

I'm French and when I moved to Australia, I was surprised that people were violent under alcohol. The very broad generalization for me was that for some reason, anglosaxon people were violent under the effect of alcohol: Was it because boys were told that alcohol made them violent? According to the linked study, there is indeed a large difference of alcohol-related patterns per country. Hence, violence is partly cultural.

        Findings from survey research further suggest that alcohol's contributing role
        may be at least partly attributable to the perpetrator's drinking pattern and
        expectations about the effects of alcohol.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170096/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170096/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anyone interested in the topic should read the LSE report on the Economics of Drug Policy. The facts are staggering, especially on the human and fiscal cost of internal displacement. I bet not many know that Colombia just a few years ago was only beat by Sudan in terms of internal refugees, and it's all due to the drug war.

It also gives some perspective to the Western debate – we talk about decriminalisation and healthcare. That is a good step, but it won't help the atrocities committed in the rest of the world. We need to talk about legalisation.

[http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/Projects/IDPP/The-Expert-Group- on...](http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/Projects/IDPP/The-Expert-Group-on-the- Economics-of-Drug-Policy.aspx)

<comment><USER13> It sorta sickens me that those on the pro-war side of this debate always ignore what happens in South America and parts of Africa. The rhetoric is always about preventing addiction at home, stopping a few American (or British or Australian or whatever) kids from getting hooked and having a tough life.

Never mind the destabilised countries, the thousands slaughtered, that's far away and not our problem. Jim-bob having a reduced bank-balance, a hole in his septum or a heart condition from cocaine abuse is far worse, somehow. To the outside world our countries are schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical - buying massive quantities of drugs and at the same time sending out military and quasi-military forces around the world to stop them.

The whole thing is crazy and pushes our demand-side problem out to the poorer places on the supply side.

<comment><USER14> Agree 100%: War on Drugs is bad, instead legalize/ decriminalize/ provide medical care. The War on Drugs puts massive pressure on South-/Central American countries. End the War on Drugs and this pressure is relieved.

HOWEVER, no one seems to spell out exactly who is hypocritical or schizophrenic: The actual people who buy drugs that originate from these countries. People need to actually stop giving their money directly to the Cartels, right?

<comment><USER13> >> HOWEVER, no one seems to spell out exactly who is hypocritical or schizophrenic

To me it's the actions of the country as a whole. On the one hand the citizens set up this incredibly lucrative market, and on the other the (allegedly) democratic governments send out the troops/agents/whatever to make life worse for those in the countries selling/producing.

>> People need to actually stop giving their money directly to the Cartels, right?

It's both, equally. One side creates the market, the other forces it underground. Without the buyers the cartels would fold. If the trade was white-market the cartels would fold. It takes both 'sides', the buyers and the suppressors, to get where we are now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> While I do not condone the use of mind altering substances, I believe that the externalities of the illegal drug trade are far worse than what the drugs do to the users (e.g., the number of murders is Mexico is currently unknown and is somewhere between 20k and 250k a year).

A second argument in favor of regulation over an outright ban is personal liberty. Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone other than the user should be illegal, much like banning second-hand smoke. Outside of that restriction, we should value personal liberty and freedom to make choices about ourselves.

<comment><USER10>
        > While I do not condone the use of mind altering
        > substances

Why not?

Also, you should try beer, it's AMAZING.

<comment><USER16> There seems to be some sort of taboo on getting high for whatever reason. I have asked a few people opposed to drugs why they were opposed to drugs and their answers were mostly health related i.e. Cannabis gives you psychosis so you shouldn't smoke it. I then ask if, hypothetically, there was a drug developed which produces intense happiness for one hour but had no side effects, caused no long term damage and was totally benign, would it be morally acceptable for a person to take that substance, the answer is usually a firm no. We seem to have some vestigial opposition to joy and happiness left over from Catholicism.

<comment><USER13> I once had a conversation about cannabis with my mother that went along these lines. I told her I'd smoked it a few times, she was shocked, I asked what her concerns were.

Over the next half an hour or so I patiently and factually answered all of them. She had clearly been sold fully on the propaganda and had thought, amongst other things, that one puff of weed smoke could potentially kill you if you were unlucky.

Anyway, at the end of this I said "so what do you think about the law now, seems pretty stupid huh?" and she said that no, she still thought it should be illegal because it was just bad, regardless. Facts just don't work on some people.

<comment><USER17> Facts don't work on some people because their ego doesn't let them to admit they were wrong.

It shakes your belief systems, specially if you built your character around some facts like these and they stuck with you for the better part of your life. You have to consider that core beliefs like this influenced many decisions in life.

People actually thinking about that they were perhaps wrong is more painful that blindly refusing to accept the fact.

*disclaimer : I'm not a professional, but am interested in human psychology from a self growth perspective.

<comment><USER18> >>Facts don't work on some people because their ego doesn't let them to admit they were wrong.

It's not about ego. It's about emotions. In this case, she is fearful of something that she doesn't understand, and has made a decision ("marijuana is bad!") based on that fear. Logic is not going to overcome that fear. She has to start associating marijuana with positive feelings first before she opens up to changing her mind.

This isn't gender-specific either. Most people, whether they are men or women, operate like this: they feel an emotion, associate it with the thing/person that caused that emotion, and then make decisions based on that emotion. They use logic only for post-hoc justification.

<comment><USER17> > It's not about ego. It's about emotions.

Correct, used a wrong term but actually thought about emotions.

How a human learns to deal with his emotions sets a blueprint for life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In 100 years from now the war on drugs is going to be seen as one of the most absurd, inhuman, draconian and misguided ways to deal with the problem.

<comment><USER20> We look at the Prohibition of alcohol as a huge mistake yet societally we continue to repeat the basic pattern.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> UK political party, Cannabis is safer than alcohol (CISTA) is fielding candidates in the UK general election next month.

[http://cista.org/](http://cista.org/)

Funded by one of the co-founders of Bebo, a social network.

</comment><comment><USER22> There was an interesting talk on Radio 4's Fourthought recently by an ex-cop.

"Peter Bleksley, a former undercover policeman fighting drugs crime and an ex- drug addict, argues that the only answer in the so-called "war on drugs" is to legalise and license them."

However, he was against simply putting the supply into the hands of pharmaceutical companies instead of criminals. He was calling for an affordable, state controlled supply to remove the incentive to build a business based on pushing the crap.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3zby](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3zby) [http://www.amazon.com/Gangbuster-Peter- Bleksley/dp/190340291...](http://www.amazon.com/Gangbuster-Peter- Bleksley/dp/1903402913)

<comment><USER13> He's probably right.

I'm very pro-legalisation myself. I also think it would be amazing if we could point our pharmaceutical research facilities at recreational drugs and say "Hey! Go find drugs people like that are less addictive and less harmful!".

But given the nature of markets we'd end up optimising for the most addictive substance, because you want repeat customers, right?

And the last thing I want to see is aspirational drug advertising of the sort we've had forever with tobacco and alcohol.

"I don't often take cocaine, but when I do it's Old-style ultra-crack, because I'm a young go-getting executive type with lots of cash and a hot girlfriend..."

(Please snort responsibly. This message brought to you by the cocaine producers alliance)

<comment><USER23> Makes me wonder if the US (or Uruguay?) will start seeing TV commercials or magazine ads for marijuana brands soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I just finished Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs by Johann Hari. I highly recommend reading it if you're interested to know more about this topic.

<comment><USER25> It is a brilliant, sometimes harrowing first hand account of the effects of the drug war.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> For the sake of sanity let's remember that sugar is at least as addictive as cocaine and heroin. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research- shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/) It's probably even more addictive if 94% of lab rats prefer sugar over cocaine. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074)

The majority of drug addicts are victims of abuse. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051362](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051362) They need medical / mental health benefits. Drug addiction is clearly a medical issue. Let's treat it as such.

We didn't learn our lesson with Alcohol, so we repeated history with the war on drugs. Now we are failing to learn our lesson yet again.

Logic, reason, and education are not the driving factors for making drugs illegal. Fear, lack of education, politics, and deep misunderstanding are the true drivers of this insane ideology.

</comment><comment><USER27> "...the impossibility of winning the "war" against theft, burglary, robbery, and fraud has never been used as an argument that these categories of crime should be abandoned."

(From Don't Legalize Drugs, [http://www.city- journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html](http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html))

<comment><USER28> It has often been pointed out that taking prohibited drugs is a victimless crime. Your examples of theft, burglary, robbery and fraud are not.

<comment><USER27> Speeding is also a victimless crime until an accident happens.

I don't have a strong opinion about this, I'm just saying it's more complicated than victimless crime, war that cannot be won, etc. For each such talking point there's a counter-point. What will actually happen once you legalize a given substance I don't know.

The article I linked to has a lot of arguments against legalization, which, judging by the comments, the commenters didn't bother to skim through.

<comment><USER13> >>The article I linked to has a lot of arguments against legalization, which, judging by the comments, the commenters didn't bother to skim through.

It's a long article, and it contains ungrounded assertions like this -

 _" Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers."_

This is ... well it's just wrong. Many people regularly use alcohol in moderation, there's no reason to think that regular, moderate use of cannabis and various other currently illegal drugs would be any worse when alcohol has one of the worst harm and addiction profiles of any drug.

So I'm not convinced I want to take the time to answer it, as it's not really honest.

\--edit-- I've read more of it now, it's full of preconceptions and assertions like this one, no grounding in facts. It's not a good set of objections.

<comment><USER29> > Many people regularly use alcohol in moderation, there's no reason to think > that regular, moderate use of cannabis and various other currently illegal > drugs would be any worse when alcohol has one of the worst harm and > addiction profiles of any drug.

This argument always seems a bit silly to me.

Perhaps these people oppose legalization in part because they don't want more drugs to be as common and socially acceptable as alcohol and all the evils that come with it, and simply regard alcohol and tobacco use as a largely lost cause. This argument is common and it always frames the issue as if the person is 100% pro-alcohol.

<comment><USER13> Then perhaps that worry should be stated more often, and we could argue about that worry, rather than have bland, baseless assertions that any use of any currently illegal substance will necessarily lose you your job, family etc.

Fact 1 - lots of people, maybe even most people in the western world, use alcohol to varying degrees and have jobs and families that are not falling apart due to their drug use.

Fact 2 - many currently illegal drugs are less severe in their acute effects than alcohol, are less severe in their chronic effects than alcohol and are less addictive than alcohol.

Combined, these torpedo the point stated in the article, but not your point. The only way to address your concerns there is with studies of what happens in places like Amsterdam and Colorado.

Personally I would argue that even if legalising drugs makes some things worse (more users, more addicts), applying the cost of the drug war to mitigating the harms instead of amplifying them is a win regardless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Looks like Rand Paul, a Republican surprisingly, is the only candidate running from either side is taking the correct stance on the "War on Drugs".

[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm)

<comment><USER31> Tell that to Bernie Sanders:

[http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> They are working just fine for the people that profit from them, drug cartels and the law-prison complex. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER33> I hope they apply this to PEDs as well. They actually have health benefits (as well as drawbacks), rather than just altering your mental state.

</comment><comment><USER34> Well, if you consider it from the point of view of law enforcement, private prisons and weapon manufacturers, the wars are working splendidly - lots of jobs for everyone, and tons of profits to be made.

</comment><comment><USER35> Of course it works. It all depend on what the goals are. If the goal is to stop people from using drugs, that'll never work. But if it is to make a lot of money for some, it sure works.

</comment><comment><USER36> "Doesn't work" ?!?! For whom?? It works swimmingly well for the people in power, and the people who love to have control over their citizens!

</comment><comment><USER37> The drug war is a civil war. It divides and breaks up society for horrific purposes. In the US, it's always been racism, a way for the government to put down people of races they could no longer legally murder or enslave. Some 'friendly casualties' in such a war will always be overlooked by any government. It's certainly no coincidence that the ramping up of the drug war by Nixon came only a few years after the passing of civil rights legislation. I'm not as familiar with the histories of countries like China or Russia, but I am curious as to what nefarious purposes their drug war serves. With such scummy, tyrannical regimes, it's easy to imagine a million reasons for the persecution they are and will cause their people.

While some people say not to ascribe to evil what can be ascribed to stupidity, I disagree strongly. Evil is just as pervasive and I just cannot believe that this drug war in Asia comes simply from stupidity, especially given the tyrannical governments now perpetuating it. Well, at least the US is now in the proper company with other tyrants--just as our laws are changing. It's hard to estimate the power and money that governments can make when persecuting and oppressing any group of people deemed to be enemies, whether they're deemed so because of drug use, race, religion, etc.

<comment><USER38> It is definitely not a tool to continue a race war, racial program, etc, etc.

It is a tool of politicians much like the issues with pornography. It relies on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, with a big dose of apathy thrown in. The last is because the majority really doesn't care what happens to users because they do not themselves use these drugs. Images on TV, internet, and newspaper, reinforce the image of those who do as low lifes, malcontents, people you cross the street because of, and such.

Politicians love power with which comes money. Police love the job security and money. Prison systems love the job security and money. So any solution is going to involve taking the monetary rewards out of it to those who enforce it.

One example, instead of paying prisons by the number of people you penalize the system for repeat offenders. This would drive the implementation of more programs designed to get people off the drugs and also get them jobs training so that the job is more valuable than the drugs. Should it end up costing too much then the system needs to adjust what it jails people for which eventually would lead to the decriminalization of drugs.

Make it too expensive for those who currently profit off the situation as is and it will lead to a road where it can be fixed

<comment><USER37> It's not _a_ tool to continue the race war, it's _the main_ tool to continue the race war. The rest of your points are quite valid but are not an argument against the numbers that prove that race is not only a major factor, it's the driving factor behind the war. Otherwise, you'd have to explain the racial disparity in deaths, arrests, incarceration, and poverty directly related to drugs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws:

-Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distinguish. -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. Many of the advocates not only want legalization (because it's their choice, their body) but none of the consequences that come along with it (medical bills due to addiction). It's unfair for me, as an individual that chooses not to put those drugs into my body to also have rising medical costs that pay for the people that willingly ingest drugs. -Tort reform. We all know heroin is addictive and will cause many deaths and ruin many lives. If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government.

We still have cigarette lawsuits..and it's been known to cause cancer for 50+ years (it's even written on the box).

I think my overall issue is that advocates want all of the benefits (ability to use illegal drugs legally) yet also want society to pay for any of the negative effects that come along with it (death, addiction). You should have the choice to legally put anything in your body....but be responsible for anything negative that comes along with it. If you don't have the resources to deal with the consequences, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

<comment><USER13> >> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance.

Pretty sure they already can, you do _not_ come into work drunk, for example.

>> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ...

You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this.

Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man).

Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?

<comment><USER39> "Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example."

We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing.

"You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this."

The costs can't really be calculated at this point. We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now.

"Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man)."

That's not how taxes work. Yes, we will have have more taxes, but they will be spent on something..and we will always need more. The benefit is that our fellow man gets the option now of recreational drug use without going to jail.

"Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?"

I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me. It's answers like this that make me glad I have multiple guns at my disposal to protect my home and my family.

If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized?

You aren't really making a good case, sorry.

<comment><USER13> >> We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing.

Yah, we do. Addicts in the UK are given maintenance IIRC.

Alcohol is also used in cases of methanol poisoning and various other emergency treatments, though that's not quite the same thing I guess.

>> We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now.

It'll still be cheaper than the prisons, the militarised police etc etc.

Of course, like you, I'm not naive enough to think those things will just go away.

>> I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me.

>> If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized?

Legalising would help you be less likely to have a criminal rob you by not pushing up the prices of their addiction to the point they feel they have to do this.

But we're talking here about your demand that we not fund any healthcare or rehab once we have legalised/decriminalised. This is all part of the picture of helping people to recover and contribute to society rather than casting them out and saying "you fix it", which has a long history of not working.

I mean, you're just kind-of OK with legalisation, not outraged at the billions spent in your name on making everything worse, but you're demanding that not one red-cent be spent on helping people? Sick dude.

>> You aren't really making a good case, sorry.

There are not many cases that can be made when someone has already decided that everyone else in society is not their problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm against the drug war and for people's choice to decide what they want to put in their bodies. I'm also against waste, cruel treatment and general stupidity which are also reasons I oppose the drug war.

That being said, I believe drug wars can work. China and opium a century ago and modern day Singapore come to mind. The reason the drug war isn't being won in the West is because it isn't being executed properly. So why not drop the pretense?

<comment><USER13> What's "properly"?

I think (hope) the citizens of the USA and Europe would not put up with people being executed for what we currently consider quite minor offences.

I guess in some ways you're right - if this was transformed to total warfare, with no mercy for anyone in any part of it, then it might be won, maybe. But the price is unacceptably high.

(Oh, also, Singapore is one small island with one city on it and a comparatively huge security service, it's often considered a sham democracy and a police-state. Cure worse than disease, IMHO)

<comment><USER40> Just responding to the title (which is not factual). I didn't even read the article.

Unacceptable prices and value judgements aside, drug wars _can_ be won and they have before.</comment></comment></comment>


A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eat24hours.com/breakup-letter-to-facebook-from-eat24/ <comment><USER2> A bit bold and a bit direct, but I like it. I wish more (and higher profile) companies would make statements like this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems like a bit of a PR stunt to be honest, we'll see if they follow through...</comment>


The Missing Career Path for the Technical Expert - <AUTHOR> https://www.betonyourself.com/articles/the-missing-career-path-for-the-technical-expert <comment><USER2> This article is an advert, it offers no solutions, and the last line even ends with the name of the author's company which sells solutions to this problem. Maybe it sells great solutions - I don't know, but this article is not too helpful.

</comment><comment><USER3> It astonishes me how much some people will speak or write and how little information they'll convey.

The whole article is reducible to a platitude. "Believe in yourself and take that leap. You can do it!"

</comment><comment><USER4> Don't mind reading this article. All it has to say is "ask an expert". It looks like a clickbait or an advertise rather than actually providing any actual information.

So, go ask an expert and in this case the author might be referring to herself.

<comment><USER5> > _in this case the author might be referring to herself_

There is no "might". This is an ad disguised an article. In the final paragraphs, she writes:

 _Watching the pattern repeat with my dad and the experts I was charged with supporting, made me want to solve this problem. It's why I want help companies understand how to optimize the options for their technical experts — and, to help technical experts carve their own path._

The final portion is a hyperlink to elsewhere on the site where you'd sign up for her service/coaching. The missing career path in question is _pay me and I 'll figure it out for you_.

Edit: It's not that I'm against services like this. By all means, if you have helpful information that get people where they want in life, charge however much you see fit before sharing. The annoyance is this is really an _adicle_ with zero information. It's called _The Missing Career Path for the Technical Expert_ for crying out loud, but it tells me nothing about the path in question. At least with other adicles (like Cloudflare) that I've seen on HN, they actually have helpful tech information (even if considered shallow) before trying to sell a service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can always go the eat-your-own-dog-food route: create a startup around your technical expertise. The only problem is that it ends up making you learn and practice all the people/soft skills (and more) that you were trying to avoid in the first place. The upside is the possibility of a much bigger financial return.

</comment><comment><USER7> Would great if people can share if expert career path exist. How those work, what they look like and what the benefits are. Because we are also struggling with defining those.

</comment><comment><USER8> Sometimes I feel like folks push me to management just so that I stop writing and teaching FP techniques in the org, which are seen by some folks as "destructive"...

</comment><comment><USER9> The nowadays industry largely advocates for producing software that can be sold, rather than finished software.

With unfinished software I refer to functional prototypes, or software that only implement functional requirements (features) rather than non-functional requirements (security, performance, scalability, configuration, stability, etc).

In my opinion, selling unfinished software is a form of fraud and I expect that in the future it will become illegal.

<comment><USER10> It's not called unfinished software anymore, it's called "software as a service". Just keep paying them and they'll keep working on it.

<comment><USER9> Except when you can't. Like Equifax. Once your sensitive data is exfiltrated you cannot "keep working on it".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I liked this article. It highlights a serious problem. Most companies I've worked for don't really put a lot of thought into career paths,and it's not their fault. The market will be different in five years, what path are you talking about again?

</comment><comment><USER12> Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over, The management pit!

</comment><comment><USER13> Technical consulting is one path.</comment>


Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman: could GOP do worse? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/16294/carly_fiorina_meg_whitman_could_gop_do_worse_tcot

<comment><USER2> It's telling that the author used the stock price to trash Fiorina and then used a qualitative argument about the customer experience to trash Whitman.

Both were in fact tremendously valuable to their companies. Fiorina's attitude and approach were completely unsuitable for HP, but she did execute the Compaq transaction which ended up being one of those rare value-creating mega- acquisitions (some may say that was luck, but she did it).

Whitman was even more successful, growing EBay's profits more than 100 times. If you showed a stock price chart for her tenure vs. the index it would be staggering.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure what it would "tell" if t'were true.

In fact, I gave a qualitative and a quantitative argument about each candidate. Assuming you care about the issue, feel free to check back at the story and read it again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes they can and yes they have: Sarah Palin.</comment>


Nearly all web APIs get paging wrong - <AUTHOR> http://vermorel.com/journal/2015/5/8/nearly-all-web-apis-get-paging-wrong.html

<comment><USER2> I'd like to see this continuation pattern described in a bit more detail. How does the client define the sort parameters or preferred data limits per continuation? Have I missed the point?

<comment><USER3> Continuations are "easy" (if you have decent language support or can glom it on) but that's keeping state on the server side. The author describes continuation tokens that "never expire", which is incompatible with server- side state.

Without state, a token can be a bookmark into a predefined ordered dataset. That's more reliable than an offset, but just as inflexible, and much more expensive on the server side.

Or, I'm missing something too.

<comment><USER4> One thing to note is that while the continuation token is just a blob of data from the clients perspective, the server can actually use it to store the required state information.

A simple method would be to take the state information the server needs in order to continue the enumeration (e.g. sorting order, how far along it was in the enumeration, etc.), JSON-encode it, encrypt&sign it, and then base64 encode it.

Return that token to the client, and if the client wants more data it can pass that token back to the server, which can decode it into all the information it needs to resume the enumeration.

<comment><USER5> I like this approach, but this requires storing the rest of the enumeration. I think that you would want to the continuation token to expire after a reasonable period of time (10 minutes to 1 hour). When the token expired, you would remove the rest of the enumeration from your data store.

This isn't what the author recommends, but I think this is a good approach.

<comment><USER4> I don't think this requires storing anything on the server. That was kind of the point of the whole "store the server state in the continuation token"-thing :)

You want to store enough information in the token that you can easily reconstruct and resume the enumeration.

For example, let us say that the user asked for all comments with a score >= 5 sorted by post time. In that case you could return 100 comments, and a token that encoded something like:

      {
        "min_score": 5,
        "sort": "post_time",
        "resume_from_post_time": "2015-05-07T05:34:02Z",
      }

To ensure that it is easy to resume the enumeration, the API can fudge the number of returned items so that the returned data always breaks at a nice "post_time" boundary. The goal here is to make it easy for the client to get all the data in the enumeration without implementing all this logic themselves.

True, it will only work efficiently for some types of queries, but a lot of the common queries can be reworked into something like that.

<comment><USER5> Ok, I see the difference.

You suggest that the continuation token, is basically an encoding of the query parameters, to fetch results from the API. If you go with this approach, then you don't have to store any state on the server. This is a good approach, because it's simple, but it doesn't solve the issue, where the response from the API changes while you making the paging API calls. The example used in the article is where an order was deleted, while you were calling the API.

I was thinking of using a uuid to generate a continuation token, and storing a copy of the results from the API. Subsequent calls that use the continuation token, would take a subset of these results. This requires storing more state on the server, and managing that state. The benefit to this approach is that results you get back from paging are consistent. This solves the issue, where the results from the API change while you are calling the API multiple times. The downside to this approach is that you have to store more state in server. If you are storing the full results for all of these paging API calls, then this could be quite large.

<comment><USER4> Actually, deleted orders are not a problem with continuation tokens. The deleted order is only an issue if you use traditional paging requests, which was the point of the article.

The only case I can currently think of that cannot be solved using continuation tokens sent to the client is where the order of the items that are enumerated may change between calls to the API. For example, imagine that you are fetching items sorted by score, and somebody upvotes or downvotes an item while you are enumerating them. In that case it is very difficult to encode enough information in the continuation token. (I can think of complicated ways to make it work, but the resulting database queries would be horrible.)

But for simple stuff like deleted items and similar, it is easy. If you leave out sorting it is trivial to implement as well -- all you need is to enumerate the items based on an internal ID that is guaranteed to always increase, filtering them as required. The continuation token will simply be the ID of the last item you evaluated and the filter that is applied. On the next request you just resume from that ID. If that item ID happens to be deleted in the meantime it is no problem. You just resume from the next one available. I.e.:

      SELECT * FROM items WHERE id > :last_returned_id AND [insert-filter-here] ORDER BY id LIMIT 100;

<comment><USER3> I understand where you're going, but this is not a continuation in the formal sense, and it isn't even usefully similar.

If the client stores the state on behalf of the server, the server will potentially be working with a modified dataset on the next request, and we're right back where we started with limit and offset.

You can cook up a scheme to make it work for a restricted range of requests, but the compromises are severe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've often wondered how the paging on HN could be better. The main issue is going from page 1 to page 2 where items move between them and I either see items a second time, or miss them. The problem with fixing a sequence on first page load is then when to refresh for new content--only on page 1? Lastly, a prescription is not helpful without a design for efficient implementation. How can this be achieved in a stateless manner?

<comment><USER4> The only way I see to solve this without server side state is to replace the page-parameter with a list of items you have seen. The more button would then just find the top 30 items you haven't previously seen. Unfortunately, this would become unwieldy very quickly, and sooner or later you hit the browser limitations on maximum URL size.

A relatively simple approach that involves server side state is to periodically (once a minute?) generate the list of (for example) the 10000 top items.

(A high traffic site will most likely want to do this in any case, so that it has a cached list of items ready to serve to clients, instead of issuing a database query to find the top items for every request.)

Now, instead of overwriting the list of top items every time you regenerate it, keep multiple versions of the list. Then you can make the link to the next page specify the version of the list and the page number. That way, users will browse through one specific version of the list.

(This requires storing some state on the server, but the amount is relatively small. You control both the size of the generated list, how often new lists are generated and how long they are kept, so there is an easily calculated upper bound on the amount of state information you need store.)

<comment><USER6> This solution satisfies my usage and doesn't use a continuation token, though one could be constructed from version and page. It does however expire.

I can see that the other comments on constructing continuation tokens won't work for HN assuming post upvotes are mutably updated.</comment></comment></comment>


The Inside Story Behind Pebble's Demise - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/the-real-story-behind-pebbles-demise-303802a7afaa#.9uw1p6lig <comment><USER2> _The one killer app for wrist devices, at least so far, seems to be fitness. Active people find it useful to wear something that quantifies your biometrics and tracks your runs._

Ugh, I wished there were some way to have relayed this to the Pebble CEO a few years back. I've been through three Pebbles, all of which were backed on Kickstarter. But having to take the Pebble off my wrist to swap with a Garmin before a run made this crystal clear to me: as soon as Garmin (et. al.) puts notifications on their devices, Pebble is done. I knew the barrier was low because I had done similar hands-on work for another large fitness-oriented company. And when I updated my Garmin to one that had notifications and apps, I never put my Pebble on again.

No one wears watches anymore. What would it take to get people to put something on their wrist? Two or three years ago one need look no further than the wrists of one's cow-orkers: fitness trackers. Be it the xTreme d00d who wears his giant Suunto Ambit as a signal, or the office admin who just wants to "lose a few pounds" with a $99 FitBit. I was usually met with indifference as I went on about how nice it was to leave my phone in my pocket all day thanks to Pebble. Until a watch renders Facebook feeds and toots, people are going to take their phones out anyway, at least that's my guess. Take a look at how many phone zombies have an Apple watch on their wrist (my current data are taken from corporate halls of a large multinational that serves caffeinated beverages, so the dataset might be skewed).

Most telling, though, was that the final Kickstarter was because they couldn't get the money another way. Two versions shipped, and they still don't have cash to back the manufacturing of a third? At that point, I'm going to guess that Pebble knew they were done but a "hail Mary" was worth a shot. And like most such plays, it didn't work. They gave it a good go, missed the market a fair bit, but at a minimum I'd say that the team can be credited with getting the ball rolling even if they didn't ultimately benefit from it.</comment>


Ask HN; How to gain control over frustration?  - <AUTHOR>

The other day I went to a jewelry shop and was very impressed by its salesman. Even though I pestered him with so many irrational questions on quality and price of a ornament, he never got frustrated. Is it his natural ability or was he trained to not get frustrated with customer under any circumstances? <comment><USER2> I used to work in telephone customer service. There is a certain amount of frustration that comes with the job.

I'm also, if I can toot my own horn for a bit, really freaking good at it. My secret is that I don't answer phone calls. A puppet answers phone calls. I just manipulate the puppet such that the customer and company come out to a mutually beneficial resolution. If you need to vent a bit at the puppet, that is no problem -- the puppet does not mind. Can't decide between two equivalent black pens? The puppet does not mind. The puppet seeks only your happiness.

At the end of my shift I put the puppet away and go home.

My puppet also works well for technical support of non-technical customers these days. Can't download your website to the monitor? The puppet sympathizes and is happy to walk you through every step.

[Edited to add:

Credit where credit is due: The puppet phrasing is borrowed from a old Joel post. I had my puppet prior to that but lacked the good English metaphor.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/customerservice.html>

]

<comment><USER3> Creepy, but effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used to work retail as a kid and at that time I learned two tricks.

The first was for normal people (like you seem to be) and it was simply to put myself in the customer's shoes.

Generally a person isn't going to pester you over a $9 cable so those who do pester are making long term purchases. That means they are speaking to you about something that will affect their life for years to come. If you as the salesman remind yourself of how important this purchase is to the customer I find it keeps frustration down.

The second trick was for the really obnoxious people and it basically boils down to invoking pity.

I found it is very hard to stay angry at someone you truely pity. So in the case of really obnoxious people who got me angry I'd remind myself that this person probably treats everyone in their life this way and basically lives a life in which everyone regards them in the same angry light I do. A life like that can't be easy to live and the truth is it's probably a vicious cycle (they treat people badly so people hate them more which leads them to conclude people are all mean and treat them even worse and so on.) So the truely obnoxious live in a hell of their own making and that's really, really sad when you think about it.

</comment><comment><USER5> The only thing you really know is he didn't _show_ frustration. But that aside.

When you've heard every question before and dealt with every type of customer before, you're simply going through the motions. Frustration is partly about feeling powerless, not knowing what to do or how to act.

Remember the frustration you felt when you first started using a new operating system. Settings change, and you don't know how to put them back. The boot loader crushes another partition. You suddenly have to do without a right mouse button. Many people feel that kind of frustration when dealing with computers -every single day-. We don't.

The salesperson can go through the motions in the same way we do when a package breaks /etc/X11/xorg.conf and we're left without a gui. When you go through the motions you're emotionally distant, so frustration won't come into play.

</comment><comment><USER6> Some people are very good at dealing with others, the same way some others are good at dealing with computers.

Of course, it is their natural ability. (That is why the salesman became a salesman!)

Even if we do not have a natural ability to make others comfortable and happy with us, it does not mean that we cannot cultivate that trait later. Just remember two things:

        Smile.
        Genuinely think about helping the other person, regardless of your motives.

On the _not getting frustrated_ part, I honestly don't know how to do that. Anyway I will tell my story:

I wanted to change the world. I wanted people not to be stupid. I wanted people to do the right thing. We usually get frustrated when people look stupid to us. We want people to understand our logic, but it looks like they never will! I used to get frustrated a lot those days.

Then I learned the lesson that spreading happiness is better than spreading logic. People have their own logic, and it is not better/worse than what we have. It is just different. Make the others happy, make their lives better, help them in every way we can and that is better than trying to make them think in a rational way. Thinking more about it, it is the most logical way too.

<comment><USER5> About that last paragraph: you can't spread logic, because people need to be logical in order to be persuaded by logic.

And if people don't realize the positions they hold are not logically consistent (which is my main gripe: I can deal with any point of view, as long as it's not self-contradictory), then you cannot explain that to them using logic -by definition-.

I also don't buy the different but equal thing.

Of course making other people happy is a good thing. But there is no choice to be made between spreading happiness and spreading logic - they're orthogonal.

<comment><USER7> > But there is no choice to be made between spreading happiness and spreading > logic - they're orthogonal.

Religion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Having worked in sales, I very much doubt you were more annoying than the median customer.

<comment><USER9> An honestly curious customer with an open mind gets to ask as many questions as he likes. If you're excited about what you do, initiating that excitement in someone new is very rewarding. I suspect that's what happened in the jewellery store.

And that goes both ways: nothing is more annoying than a clerk who doesn't know anything, and even gets the information on the label wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That's the power of exposure.

For some reason I hate making phone calls to people I don't know. Logically I don't, but for some reason my body gets anxious about it. So I don't make many phone calls, so it's not resolved. I bet if I _had_ to make 100 phone calls to strangers every day I'd have no issue with it after a few weeks. Same issue with this dude and getting bombarded with questions.

</comment><comment><USER11> He probably learned, through experience and reflection, that getting frustrated or angry never pays off, ever.

</comment><comment><USER12> Somedays issues with the compiler/development environment/meetings/business analysts/the feeling that I'm stuck on a problem are potential source(s) of frustration -sometimes I get somewhat frustrated. The salesman deals with customers all day, we deal with software issues. We both can get frustrated, blow things out of proportion on a bad day. But on a good day, we can make things happen without effort, deal with issues without issue. Work frustration is a dynamic constant. Sometimes it affects us, other times it motivates us.

</comment><comment><USER13> i don't get why he'd be frustrated to begin with.

probably it was a situation he didn't care much about. you know, whatever, he's doing his job, answering the same questions everyone asks. maybe he even has a financial incentive to make sales, or he's just happy to interact and not be bored.

sure, professional interactions is a skill that must be learned and practiced, but being a salesman is hardly an interaction where "important" decisions are being made. the only important decision is to persuade the customer to buy the product, which is usually accomplished by not arguing.

take something you really care about, add some stress and conflict, and then practice controlling frustration. yeah.

i struggle with frustration and acceptance. it's been a significant problem with my family, while not a problem ever at work.

i've found that it can absolutely be worked on. general personality and reactions do vary between people, but they're based on more than static genetics.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think dealing well with frustration is a personality trait.

In a large enough company, I really believe you should let people specialize in dealing with the client. To do it well requires a skill-set and personality that are at odds with other types of work.

I get very frustrated with things that don't work, don't respond usefully, that make me waste time and that can't be automated (to require less supervision). That frustration builds up and drives me to improve things, great for machines but almost always self-defeating around people.

</comment><comment><USER15> You can't, just roll over limp and let the bear have its way with you :-)

</comment><comment><USER16> If he is genuinely interested in what he is selling you then it shouldn't be to hard to run through the in's and outs of it . What I hate is when I witness sales people in action selling people technology who don't really have a clue what there talking about.

My experience with sales people in a retail environment personally is very limited because for most products I much prefer to do my own research on them that believe the person trying to sell it to me.

</comment><comment><USER17> In terms of the more general question in the title (and not specifically in terms of customer service/sales), I'd recommend meditation. Shamatha/Vipassana, for example. There are lots of (non-denominational) meditation centers out there where one can learn some pretty powerful techniques.

<comment><USER18> And if meditation is too artsy for you... I used to work on doing tricks with my soccer ball for a while after work everyday. They weren't easy, so I basically didn't think about anything else and essentially held one state of mind the whole time -- pretty close to meditation, I'd say. Headstands work too, until they become easy ... then you can move onto handstands! :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I rarely get angry at other people but a certain, mostly rational, part of me is often quite frustrated with the part of me that acts stupid. I have no idea how to reconcile these two parts.

</comment><comment><USER20> Were you "pestering him with irrational questions" just to test his limits? If so, then the question in your post can probably be answered by people who know you.

</comment><comment><USER21> <http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/89257/200.jpg> :-)

</comment><comment><USER22> When its your living you better be good or you get fired or quit. Generally the rule of thumb is make eye contact, be reassuring and repeat the persons name or say sir nearly every other fucking word.

There's all kinds of people out there, and you need to be specially careful about the ticking time bombs that for whatever reason are already pissed off with everything. The last thing you want is for people to make a scene; no matter how stupid or crazy what their demands or statements are, 'the customer is always right' and saying anything to the contrary, or even hinting a reaction to their attitude, can escalate the stupidest of arguments. In fact, they will blow up even more after they realize they were wrong instead of face embarrassment. Coincidentally the same salesman rules apply for dealing with women.

Any job where people come in confused and you have to explain a very limited set of most-often asked questions leads to frustration. Whether they're doctors, mechanics, police officers or people who think yahoo answers is some kind of intellectual hub when people hear the same stuff over, people start gaining a prejudice for the infinite influx of never ending confused people they have to work with.

My point is, when google has enough servers to have gained a self awareness you better hope you'd proven yourself a patient man through all your queries, for it will be judgement time. No seriously, this would have been more relevant and interesting if this had turned out programming related instead of HR. eg How do you deal with programming frustration or the frustration of learning new languages. Not the frustrations salesmen feel when responding to my questions.</comment>


Original Apple 1 Computer, 1976 (Lot 20) - <AUTHOR> http://www.breker.com/english/index.htm

<comment><USER2> The starting bid is €70,000. The estimate is €120,000 to €200,000. The buyer's premium is 22.5% and the sales tax is 19% (26.78% on top of the final fee in total). The last one sold at Sotheby's New York in June 2012 for $374,500.

Good luck with your bidding, everyone.

[http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/13714882_original- apple-...](http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/13714882_original- apple-1-computer-1976)

<comment><AUTHOR> Quote from the link in the parent post: "The current vendor has offered to set up, install and put it into operation anywhere in the world in exchange of his expenses."

The link also has a series of relatively detailed images.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can tell it's a genuine Apple, the screen has rounded corners...

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm somewhat glad I never had to use cassette tapes for storage.

<comment><USER5> Why? They only look slow and difficult looking backwards.

If you'd lived through the use of them you'd know that it was incredibly cool to be able to save multiple programs on a small, portable medium and just find the program you are looking for by fast forwarding to the right position on the tape based on the counter.

Also, tape was incredibly easy to get because it was the same stuff you used to record music. It was not hard to obtain; any music shop or even stationer had it.

And it turns out it was very robust: [http://blog.jgc.org/2009/08/in-which-i- switch-on-30-year-old...](http://blog.jgc.org/2009/08/in-which-i-switch- on-30-year-old.html)

<comment><USER6> Yep; tape was the cheapest, easiest thing there was. You didn't have to buy any extra stuff. Like sd cards are now for music/pics/vids/computers. It was slow but I had fun.

Waiting for things also makes it more special/valuable; instant gratification is definitely not what it's cracked up to be in most cases; buying games is definitely one of those things. When I buy some instant games for my Android devices is one of them; they appear instantly, you try them and discard mostly. When you have to wait 15 min and have a good chance your computer will crash during the ordeal so you'll have to wait another 15 min you'll feel it has more value for your money for some reason. You would play games which suck for weeks/months because they take effort to load and get going. Not sure if that's different now with Linux; when you cannot get something going because you have to build it and ./configure; make; make install has errors; if, after a week of messing around, you get it going, you'll bloody play/use it, no matter what it turns out to be.

<comment><USER7> Well SD cards these days are kind of a replacement for cassettes. Cameras use them, camcorders use them, phones use them, computers use them, tablets use them, some cards can use them. An SD card isn't limited to one device, similar to how a cassette found its home in the recording studio, the car, the home, and the computer.

<comment><USER6> Yep, that was my point :)

<comment><USER7> Ah, I guess I misunderstood. Apologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That belongs in a museum! - Indiana Jones

In all seriousness don't you think this should be in the Smithsonian?

<comment><USER6> They are not in computer museums?

<comment><USER8> I'm sure they are but the Smithsonian museums in DC are some of the most widely visited in the country and there is no charge for admission. I do not believe they have one of these there and it seems like something they should have one on display.

<comment><USER9>
      "... what better cake to build than that of the Apple I that now
       resides in the Smithsonian Institute?"

Source: [http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joystuff/apple1cake.htm...](http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joystuff/apple1cake.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Where did somebody find a box of 20 of there? Does anybody how many Apple 1's there were made?

<comment><USER11> It's not a box of 20, it's listed as lot 20.</comment></comment>


Tell HN: I'm Selling Programming.io - <AUTHOR> Long story short, I had big plans for developing Programming.io into a cruft-free social bookmarking service for developers, but other projects are making that impossible.
It could obviously be made into anything related to programming (tutorials, mentoring or freelance marketplace, Q&A format forum, etc.)
If you're interested, you can check out the auction here (ends in 2 days): https://flippa.com/10635953-programming-io <comment><AUTHOR> Link: [https://flippa.com/10635953-programming- io](https://flippa.com/10635953-programming-io)

</comment><comment> replies-to-fool Regarding domains such as these, e.g programming.io or insurance.com, why would one want these? Aren't they too generic? Shouldn't domain names correspond more to the brand itself?

I don't know anyone who looks for things related to programming by going directly on programming.com.

If i was looking for insurance, I wouldn't just go on insurance.com either.

What's the benefit of owning this type of domain?

<comment><USER2> I think they're useful for targeting search intentions and monetizing through SEO, ads, affiliate links.

People are unlikely to visit "programming.io" and then search something specific, but if it becomes popular for a particular type of content or tone or niche purely through organic search, people will include an easy-to- remember domain in the search query. Remembering "programming.io <query>" is easier than "johndoereactjsdev.blogger.com <query>".

It's not uncommon either. Just run a random tech search and notice how many hits are under generic "tec*" domains that publish how-to articles on multiple topics.</comment></comment>


How to be lazy (but still productive) when writing - <AUTHOR> https://adolos.substack.com/p/how-to-be-lazy-but-still-productive <comment><USER2> Agree with the post, but not with the title. Overtime I have come to realize that being lazy/productive are the most meaningless measures there can be. You are either enjoying what you are doing so much so that you don't give an _f_ about the time spent or you are at a position of responsibility. Either way you are doing something worthwhile(at least to you). The unwarranted mechanization of your life through quantifying the superficial aspects of what constitutes productive and what doesn't will only distance you from writing more. In fact, The feeling of being unproductive is more often than not a byproduct of not being in one of these situations --- all it says is neither am I enjoying what I'm doing nor am I in a position of responsibility. A net negative term, says nothing of essence at all, squeezing every bit of life out of you by inducing unwarranted guilt!</comment>


How LinkedIn Changed My Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130502184035-48426-how-linkedin-changed-my-life?trk=li_tw_0513_tod_howlichangedmylife&sf12417607=1&_mSplash=1 <comment><USER2> a great place for business networking. got lot of customer through this channel!</comment>


How To Be Less Afraid of Everything With Visualization - <AUTHOR> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/02/16/fear-visualization/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tecosystems+%28tecosystems%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> Tableau appears to be all expired.</comment>


Startups - don´t outsource coding [video] - <AUTHOR> http://video.forbes.com/fvn/tech/start-ups-dont-outsource-coding

<comment><USER2> Please, _Please_ people follow the guidelines:

        In Submissions

        If you submit a link to a video or pdf, please warn us
        by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title.

I've just had to hunt through some 100 or so open tabs to find the one with the audio that I didn't want and didn't expect.

...

And after all that it said (paraphrased): Do the coding yourself so you can iterate faster - assume your competitors are doing the coding themselves, and realise you have to compete against them, so you have to iterate faster. Outsourcing slows you down.

<shrug> Wasn't worth the 2 minutes taken to find it.

<comment><USER3> Outsourcing is slower than in-house development, but it scales a bit more. It's a lot faster to outsource the development of multiple iOS apps than to develop them yourself.

<comment><USER4> Not if they are very different. I agree it's not a long term solution, but in house coders in a startup just don't sleep and work until done AND they know what has to be done. When something is off, they rapidly change/fix it. There are people making prototypes (working, not just screens) of iOS apps in a few days, good enough to visit potential clients / investors. There is no outsourcing process capable of doing that; explaining will take you more time. And outsourcers have no other incentive than payment, so they just go home at 5.

Where you would be right is if you want the same app coded on iOS / BB / Android / mobile Win / etc. Then you explain ones and you can put n expert teams on those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> to save everyone the trouble of watching a very slow video, the basic insight is:

        if you are working the mobile space, you need to code.  there are teams of
        2-4 dedicated hackers working on your idea, so if you're outsourcing development,
        they can iterate 20x a day and you can only iterate once.
        as such, you will lose.

That said, "Don't outsource coding" is too big a statement. Naval is saying "IF you're working in a crowded space, your iteration cycle will be too slow if you outsource".

There are times when outsourcing coding makes plenty of sense.

</comment><comment><USER6> While these kids clearly don't understand what Philip Rosedale is building (or even the space they're entering) you still shouldn't blindly accept what Naval Ravikant is saying. They're obviously naive about how much their app should cost to build and are at a distinct disadvantage because of their naiveté, but outsourcing in the this way could allow you to iterate faster and more effectively than if you only relied on your smaller team alone. Believe me I am no fan of outsourcing in general, but blind generalizations like this are harmful and misinformed. I am a little disappointed that I am starting to see submissions like this on Hacker News.

Please go watch the Foundation Philip Rosedale interview and learn about his concept before you dismiss it <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irF-V9RUuXo>

</comment><comment><USER7> Programming is not for anyone. You can't just say "oh dude, you have this idea but you have to learn iOS and Ruby and Java and JavaScript (because, surprise, they're not the same) so you can implement what you design and then try to sell it". Don't outsource coding, don't outsource design, don't outsource anything! Find co-founders that share the same values as you do and can complete the team with design or coding skills.

<comment><USER8> If coding is not for everyone, then maybe technology-based startups aren't for everyone. If all you are bringing to the table is an idea and a business degree, then I will absolutely tell you that you need to learn coding. The video is 4 college students (I assume they're business students since they are outsourcing) who want to do a loyalty card program for smart phones.

They brought an idea to the table. Now they told you their idea. At this point, they're redundant.

<comment><USER7> That wasn't my point — I'm a coder, btw and I'm totally 100% with your comment. My point was that if you don't know how to code, get a team mate or a co-founder that does. Same goes for design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For the curious ones, this is the service mentioned in the interview : <http://www.lovemachineinc.com/>

I would say "divide and conquer model of social coding."

</comment><comment><USER10> 'non-coding founders'

What a fantastic designation.

:)

</comment><comment><USER11> See also: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000007.html>

</comment><comment><USER12> You have to go to 2:55 to get to the part about this topic.

</comment><comment><USER13> Sorry, I just had to go back to that part where two really truly retarded things are said back to back:

"We started to iterate the product..." Translation: We smoked some weed and someone was like, "Dude, IPHONE APP!"

"How scalable do you think our idea is, do you think it's a good idea?" Not sure where to start but, Dude, is "Scalable" like the new "dope"? "sick"? "rad"? "dudical?" "mega"?

</comment><comment><USER14> Honestly, the title says enough for me. Experienced first hand. LEARN HOW TO CODE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY

...without spending more $$$£££ than you should...

...unless your color.com and have cash to burn!</comment>


Ancient Greek as a gateway drug to Mastery - <AUTHOR> https://langerman.co.za/2016/02/26/ancient-greek-as-a-gateway-drug-to-mastery/ <comment><USER2> Good write up. Don't give up either... True mastery is always just that far away. Fair warning though, something like Hebrew or even middle Egyptian might be around the corner of your interests.</comment>


Show HN: Simple Jekyll Search - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/christian-fei/Simple-Jekyll-Search

<comment><USER2> Self promotion time, I've also written a Jekyll plugin to provide search using lunr.js [1].

[1] Jekyll + lunr.js = Static websites with powerful full-text search using JavaScript [https://github.com/slashdotdash/jekyll-lunr-js- search](https://github.com/slashdotdash/jekyll-lunr-js-search)

<comment><USER3> +1 for lunr.

I built my own search on my blog using lunr. It's fast and works great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey author, it'd be cool if you gave me a mention, as you did comment on my post about it [1]!

[1] [https://alexpearce.me/2012/04/simple-jekyll- searching/#disqu...](https://alexpearce.me/2012/04/simple-jekyll- searching/#disqus_thread)

<comment><AUTHOR> you're right, thanks for pointing it out. will fix the readme, sorry.</comment></comment>