Killing Email: How and Why I Ditched My Inbox - <AUTHOR> http://zenhabits.net/2009/07/killing-email-how-and-why-i-ditched-my-inbox/

<comment><USER2> I work a lot with people in different timezones, email is nicely asynchronous and that is why I think it will be with me for a long long time.

I got rid of IM though, that was simply too much of a distraction, so much 'stream of consciousness' because of the too-low barrier that it becomes overwhelming. Email has just the right barrier of entry to me, it is relatively cheap for me to check and a lot of work on the part of the sender. If I'm not interested the cost is near 0, if I'm interested it can go quite far.

Also, for anybody in bussiness for themselves not checking email is a limiting move imo, snappy response to email is very much appreciated by customers and collaborators alike.

<comment><USER3> I completely agree with IM; I avoid it if at all possible. There's too much of a time lag between responses so it seems slow, but because it's live it's very hard to turn my attention away. Email I can at least deal with on my own terms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If a so-called productivity expert has problems with "checking email multiple times a day, of responding over and over throughout the day, deleting spam and unsubscribing from newsletters and unwanted notices, filtering out messages and notifications, deleting those dumb forwarded jokes and chain mails" then they might want to consider a career change.

I've been using email for 20 years, and I only receive work-related mail (that I read at appropriate intervals to my workflow), the occasional personal email, and specific automated emails that are filtered to specific folders (where I can give them attention when I need to). I never receive chain mail or stupid jokes, because I don't deal with the type of idiots who send that kind of stuff. Those who _did_ send me that sort of stuff were told in no uncertain terms that I'm not interested in it, and it stopped immediately (this doesn't mean I was nasty about it, though).

I almost choked laughing when he said he was ditching email for Twitter. Twitter is possibly the least efficient and reliable Internet-based communications medium. And I say this as someone whose profession is software to make greater sense of that medium. Was this piece meant to be satire? It just seems ridiculous to me.

</comment><comment><USER5> I stopped reading after he said he replaced email with Twitter.

<comment><USER6> I saw that coming when I read the headline, but I have to say that at least one thing is really compelling about the switch: people have to be concise. When people have to be concise they put more thought into

1) The communication itself 2) Whether the communication is even necessary

That is a positive.

<comment><USER7> On the other hand, you cannot compress all messages into 140 characters. Recently, we had to setup some buildfiles in this university project and after a while, things grew pretty weird, so we started to exchange informations about what I had done, what I thought that meant and so on. There is no way this information would be transmitted better via 28 140-character-twitter messages or something else. In this case, a nice well-formatted email with each step in a paragraph was the best way to communicate this and it worked very well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Except, he hasn't ditched email at all.

 _6\. A few types of emails will get through for now. My filters allow emails for advertisers, interviews, refunds, and people who want to hire me, to get through to my inbox [...] I'm working on automating these processes via the web_

Even if he 'automates processes via the web' that's _still_ having to spend time to read, process, and deal with text content sent by others. Rather than ditch email, he seems to have put forward a plan for receiving less of it.

<comment><USER9> > ...having to spend time to read, process, and deal with text content sent by > others.

Not doing so wouldn't be ditching _email_ , that would be ditching _communication_.

<comment><USER8> That's completely in-line with my point -- that 'ditching' email isn't necessarily getting rid of the time and effort involved in dealing with others' communication

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So he's giving up one inbox (email) for another (twitter)?

It's going to be an interesting experiment because people are not really expected to reply back to every message on Twitter, so will people get ticked off if Leo doesn't reply to tweets?

If Leo had instead responded only to really important emails and not every single email, would he have achieved the same results?

I hope Leo posts an update on the same two months from now, would like to see if he has indeed _got rid of inboxes_ (irrespective of whether it is email or twitter)

<comment><USER2> I think he's too obsessive about his inbox, whatever it is to make it work. If you can't deal with your email inbox then I don't see how switching to another kind of inbox is going to solve the problem. It's a self discipline issue, there is absolutely nothing wrong with email, if used well.

Prioritization would go a long way to getting the problem solved.

Stuff that's urgent I take care of when it reaches me, stuff that is to be taken care of goes on the back burner until I have a spare moment, some stuff I never get around to. That's life. It applies to just about everything from maintaining a house to managing your communications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I guess I'm old fashioned. I like e-mail. I like having everything collected together in one spot. I like being able to make one set of filtering/sorting rules. I like being able to segment my communication into work & personal e-mail addresses. It seems to me this strategy simply pushes stuff around to new places. I can't imagine dealing with Twitter, increased telephone call volume, more IMs, etc actually makes things easier but it's a personal choice. Probably depends a lot on what type of people are contacting you and what exactly they want.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish I got email - that is, instead of phone calls.

People still call me for non urgent items, like calling me on the weekend to remind me to do something on Monday.

Even worse, phone calls with list of feature requests and bug reports. I'd be so happy if these were all written down in an email - even better if they were entered directly into the bug tracker.

<comment><USER6> You need to stop that. You teach people how to treat you. You've obviously been a bad teacher 8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not a big fan of email but replacing it with a hodge-podge of trendy, proprietary services is a terrible idea. We need to consolidate communication, not fragment it more than it already is _cough_ googlewave _cough_.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting, and for the most part sounds feasible.

But for me, I'd rather check my Inbox than Twitter.

And I'd rather people emailed me than called me, since most of the time they'd get a voicemail which I would have to pay to retrieve, and then I'd call them and it wouldn't be convenient, and then ...

And while some things (think long discussions) are done better verbally than by email, there's a lot of other things (like Reports from clients, or my global office) for which email is the only alternative to actual mail (since, and again this is for me, the chances of any of them diving into Google Docs or Wikis in the next 3 years is negligible).

</comment><comment><USER15> This is _exactly_ the opposite of how I operate.

I love email. Why? Because I'm a programmer and I don't want to be interrupted. I like to keep the day-to-day things simple because my work is anything but simple.

I use gmail and everyone I know has my gmail address. It has excellent spam filters and it's easy to manage. Best of all, it never bothers me. When I'm ready for a break, I check and manage my email. It takes 5 minutes, just enough time to eat an apple.

Family, close friends, and some business associates have my cell phone #. They know not to text me because if I'm working, I will not respond. If I'm not working, the only response they'll get is "ok". If the phone rings, I know it must be important to talk. Usually not for long, then back to work.

I do not IM. I do not Twitter. I can't imagine worse ways to ruin productivity. I IM'd for 3 days. I got nothing done, so I emailed everyone to never IM me again. Email me and I'll respond when I'm available.

I surf my favorite sites (especially hn) during breaks. When the break is over, on go the headphones and up comes my text editor. See you in an hour or two. Not before then.

<comment><USER16> Do you use Gmail's chat, perchance? It's a nice way to quickly talk to those folks who use Gmail too.

How do you enforce your breaks? I'm still trying to beat some self-discipline into me.

<comment><USER15> I make no distinction between Gmail's chat and any other chat. I don't use them. For 99% of my communication, email is fine. For anything more urgent, I prefer the phone.

I don't "enforce breaks". My body lets me know when it's time. My critical path is usually eyestrain, but it could be anything.

"I'm still trying to beat some self-discipline into me."

Don't. You can't win that battle. Even if you do, it will only be temporary.

I look at it completely differently. I absolutely love what I'm doing so much that I have to pull myself away for breaks.

Do you love what you're working on? If so, discipline will never be a problem. If not, then why not? Solve that problem and discipline will never be a problem. Either way, discipline is never a problem. Working on the right thing and devouring it is the solution.

You don't worry about enforcing discipline when you're eating a great meal, partying, or having great sex, do you? Find a way to make your work like that and you'll never worry about it again.

<comment><USER16> When I follow my own work schedule, I am very erratic. I've got days of nonproductivity followed by spurts of genius. I'd like to get to be able to work even when I'm not completely in the zone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Twitter also allows more ability to get distracted than the averages persons email inbox. At least with email everything is directed at you.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have a 1-2 weeks response time for most things. Works great to limit the stream.</comment>


I didn't spend my VC money on Armani suits (a true story) - <AUTHOR> http://jhaniv.svbtle.com/i-didnt-spend-my-vc-money-on-armani-suits

<comment><USER2> Tragic. What kind of cancer did he die of?

What was your startup? What was your business model?</comment>


Why Game of Thrones is the best thing on television - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/why-game-of-thrones-is-the-best-thing-on-television.ars <comment><USER2> Here's the primary reason it's not: There is currently no way for me to pay for a digital copy until the DVDs come out. I know they're angling for subscribers, but they're still leaving money on the table for all those like me who've cut the cable cord entirely. Get with the times, HBO.

<comment><USER3> What about HBO Go?

<comment><USER4> If I'm not mistaken, HBO Go requires an HBO subscription.

Edit: Which requires cable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just so everyone knows, Game of Thrones is based off of the first book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire>

So if you like the tv show you'll probably love the books.

<comment><USER6> I'm not convinced. The show is pretty good, the books less so, for reasons I wrote about in detail here: [http://jseliger.com/2011/04/17/people-like-a- game-of-thrones...](http://jseliger.com/2011/04/17/people-like-a-game-of- thrones-the-novel-i-mean) .

I suspect this is a case of _The Godfather_ and other book-to-movie adaptations I can't recall off the top of my head: the adaptation transcends its source material.

<comment><USER7> _Fight Club_ is my go-to example of a film that was better than the original novel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was hooked after the first ten minutes of the first episode. Also, best opening credits and theme music probably since the X-Files.

That said, I find the show distasteful at times (the use of 'sexposition'), and sometimes it mishandles morality, making it hard to sympathize with any of the characters if you evaluate their decisions objectively. I suspect that like The Wire (and it's probably in that sort of league) it's weakest point will be unrelenting naturalism - constantly trying to show us how terrible and pointless life is, not offering much to aspire to.

But heck, it's mostly just outrageous fun.

<comment><USER9> I rate the GoT and Fringe themes as tops. I love the visuals of the GoT intro, too.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely agree with you. G0T's theme song is unusually long. Yet, I haven't forwarded past it even once.Same with Fringe (I love the little changes they make based on the episode's universe or timeframe). The retro theme song was absolutely nerdgasmic. I also used to be quite fond of Rome and Prison Break's (chiefly because of the music, which is also composed by the music director of GoT) opening sequences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As the name suggests, it's all about politics.

I tried reading the book, and by the end of the preview on my Kindle app, I hadn't yet managed to care about any of it.

I tried the TV series and liked it even less.

And I -wanted- to like it. All my friends like it. I just can't.

</comment><comment><USER12> Spoiler Warning!!

</comment><comment><USER13> I love the first book and like the HBO show, but I'm curious what people who haven't read the books think about the plot. Does it make sense? Is it just a jumble of characters that don't seem to have any depth?

<comment><USER14> It's complex and there are a lot of characters to follow, but many of them are developed very well - which is rare on TV and wonderful to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's not strictly a topic for HN but I concur.

<comment><USER16> I would disagree. From the guidelines on what is acceptable for HN: "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

I have not had my intellectual curiosity challenged by a television show like this in years.</comment></comment>


Ruby4Kids: Another initiative to teach kids with Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://thechangelog.com/post/3364672576/ruby4kids-another-initiative-to-teach-kids-with-ruby <comment><USER2> I'll be damned if I have to start listening to my daughter interrupt my technical conference calls with "you know, you guys could have this already done with a few lines of ruby"

</comment><comment><USER3> In case you missed it, there was more discussion about Ruby4Kids here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158231>

</comment><comment><USER4> Not sure if everyone has seen:

<http://www.railsmentors.org/>

But it's another worthwhile project.

</comment><comment><USER5> OK, I thought this might be cool - so I clicked on over to Ruby4kids [<http://ruby4kids.com/ruby4kids>]. The first link is to Gosu [<http://code.google.com/p/gosu/wiki/RubyTutorial>]. This isn't for kids. The first heading is _1\. Overriding Window's callbacks._

<comment><USER6> Gosu isn't for kids. But that doesn't mean that people can't use Gosu to teach kids, with proper instruction.

<comment><USER5> > _"Gosu isn't for kids"_

That's what makes it inappropriate as the first link on Ruby4kids. It's analogous to having dotnet4kids link to:

[http://channel9.msdn.com/coding4fun/articles/Beginning- Game-...](http://channel9.msdn.com/coding4fun/articles/Beginning-Game- Development-Part-I--Introduction)

rather than to this:

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ff384126.aspx>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The more resources to teach kids programming the better! Especially ones which use games, but ugh, += and @ signs on the front page!

I'm sure my kids would get used to the syntax without too much trouble, just like they deal with the idiosyncrasies of the English language, but Python seems like a better language to teach kids with, especially since there's only one way to do something in Python.

<comment><USER6> I actually (surprise!) disagree. The primary reason is this: Ruby's flexibility as a language lets you give them simpler libraries. You have to consider the language as a whole, not just the base language.

For example, Shoes just wouldn't really be possible in Python. At least, it'd end up being much worse.

In the end, though, it's really just partisan squabbling. Let's worry about getting as many kids as possible exposed to programming before we start optimizing, eh?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was looking through some of those videos and I felt a very strong pang of envy. These kids have videos that will live forever on the internet of them programming. I wish I had that from when I was 6 to 13ish (before I started coding for money).

</comment><comment><USER9> @steveklabnik Google helped with <http://hackety-hack.com> right? Is this an extension of that?

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure what you mean by 'Google helped.'

Ruby4Kids has no relationship with Hackety. We just share the same goals.

<comment><USER9> Didn't Google sponsor someone for gSummer of Code to work on Hackety?

<comment><USER6> Ahhh. No. Google said "Summer of Code will not have any Ruby projects," so the Ruby community put a bunch of money together and did Ruby Summer of Code. Same thing, no Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What age of kids does it target?</comment>


Our people are not discussing about it.. - <AUTHOR> http://onsoftwares.com/2010/07/01/decision-making-and-organizations/

<comment><USER2> This post attracted my attention for several reasons, but I'm having trouble understanding the flow and finding the point.

* _Well.. here's an interesting solution:_

What follows appears not to be a solution - it's a story.

* _When organizations make decisions that their people need, you have multiple advantages._

I don't understand this at all. I can nearly make some sense of it by reading the next paragraph ...

* _People are naturally inclined with the decision, and its easier to motivate people to make it more effective. On the other side, when decisions are taken without considering the people, they mostly fall flat on their faces._

But where are the multiple advantages? Why do _I_ have advantages? I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

* _It is also important to cultivate a culture of discussing important things._

Chicken and egg. Things will get discussed if and only if people think they're worth discussing, but for some things, you don't realise they're worth discussing until you've discussed them. You've stated the obvious, but have offered no solution (as yet - I read on, waiting to see if there are any practical suggestions)

* _The change wouldn't have to be made from management side only,_

What change?

* _the employees are as much responsible for the decisions as the managers._

That's an interesting statement.

* _Once you have people expressing their opinions in a much clearer format and are debated on various forums, its easier to understand the pulse of the organization. Hence the decision-making process improves. This is one of the best ways to affect decisions in a democratic way._

Wait - you're advocating having decisions driven by discussions involving how many people? If you can't get the decision makers to care, how will you get enough ground-swell to make them care?

It seems to me that there's a hint of an interesting idea here, but I can't really find it. I wish I could - perhaps you could write a more careful piece.

ADDED IN EDIT

In thinking about it further, it seems like you're saying this:

* Decisions don't get made by management unless they discuss the issues

* they don't discuss the issues if they have no interest in them

* They won't get any interest in the issues unless they hear and see the employees talking about them

* Therefore, get the employees talking about things,

* therefore the managers will notice,

* therefore they'll discuss them,

* therefore decisions will be made.

The chain is faulty. Getting employees talking is neither necessary nor sufficient. It's not necessary because sometimes one of the managers will be interested. It's not sufficient, because even if the employees are talking about things, the managers may _still_ not care.

In any organisation of sufficient hierarchical depth, the only way employees can get managers to make decisions is by getting the "on board" and acting as advocates.

Discussion on forums, _etc,_ is a great way for managers to make employees think they (the employees) are having an influence, and that they (the managers) care.

<comment><AUTHOR> @RiderOfGiraffes The write-up is about a bottom-up approach in making organizational decisions. Most of the decisions as we know are made right at the top, with minimal understanding of what people on the ground are actually thinking about.

Once you start listening to your people and pick your organizational directions from there, the whole decision making process gets more efficient.

Keep the floor open for different kind of discussions. Keep looking at what discussions are catching heat (more people talking about it). Pick your directions from them. That was the intent.

Eg. Which technology is the most popular among our folks? What kind of clients are liked by our folks? What kind of work do our people prefer? etc. etc.

<comment><USER2> OK, just a couple of points and I have to go.

* Why didn't you write that?

* For these sorts of decisions, why not empower the employees to do things _without_ requiring decision/dictats from on high?

* Most "chat" in forums like the ones you seem to be suggesting are a genuine, complete waste of time, and ...

* Most proposals from "the floor" have been really, really poorly thought through, and just won't work.

Now, let me say that I agree with what you're trying to accomplish, and that your comments/thoughts have some merit, but as they stand they seem poorly thought through and unimplementable in practice. I'd really like to see you have something more concrete and practical to suggest that solve the problem you think you've seen.

I manage a company with around 30 employees - not real big, but the sort of shop where your ideas might be relevant, especially to implement them before we get any bigger and change is harder. However:

* Which technology is the most popular among our folks?

We let them use whatever technology they want, provided they can then justify their decision. We empower our people to make decisions and stand by them.

* What kind of clients are liked by our folks?

We don't have a choice as to our clients. We have multi-million dollar contracts in a fairly small market.

* What kind of work do our people prefer?

I don't understand how that kind of question can be made relevant. Our database people work on database stuff, our embedded people work on the embedded stuff, our user experience people work on user experience stuff, and everyone talks to everyone else, because all of the software modules talk to all the other software modules. If a database programmer wants to work more on the embedded side then he studies up on his own, asks for some tasks, gets given some tasks under supervision, then his skill set is bigger and the task allocations can be more favorable to him.

In short, it sounds like you're sounding off without really thinking about how things really work. I'd like to see a better, more thought through presentation.

Finally, it might sound like I'm attacking you, or picking on you, but I am genuinely interested in any ideas on how better to manage. I'd hoped there was something interesting in your article, I feel like there's a hint of something interesting in your article, but then it all went away and feel like I was left with nothing.

If there's more, write it better.</comment></comment></comment>


Offshore and Startup - <AUTHOR> https://n.survol.fr/n/offshore-startup

<comment><AUTHOR> The poster (not me) is looking for feedback on startups using a relocated employees team to reduce costs (in english at the bottom). Maybe someone here has some data? Thanks!</comment>


Overclocking SSL - n-named http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html <comment><AUTHOR> The article states that SSL encrypted with a 1024 bit RSA key is computationally inexpensive, taking less than 1% of the CPU time on his current web servers. This is correct, however, 1024 bit RSA is no longer considered secure enough. It can be brute forced by modern computing systems.

In fact, the NIST has recommended that all SSL systems be upgraded to 2048 bit keys by January 1st, 2011. This recommendation will have "teeth" for financial institutions that must comply with PCI guidelines, and healthcare that must comply with HIPPA, ARRA, and HITECH regulations.

The problem is that encryption with larger key sizes is computationally much more than 2x expensive. In fact, compute costs are based on a cube of key size, meaning encryption using a 2048 bit private key can be as much as 30x more expensive than 1024 bit.

I agree that website operators should encrypt everywhere, however, encryption with weak keys might be almost as bad as no encryption in the near future, by giving people a false sense of security.

If you are running a serious volume website, you pretty much need SSL accelerators to handle the volume of traffic with 2048 bit encryption. 1-2% CPU load on your web servers can be managed, but 30-60% cannot.

<comment><USER2> > The problem is that encryption with larger key sizes is computationally much > more than 2x expensive. In fact, compute costs are based on a cube of key > size, meaning encryption using a 2048 bit private key can be as much as 30x > more expensive than 1024 bit.

How'd you get 30? From what you said, it sounds like it should be 2^3 = 8 times as expensive.

<comment><USER3> I'm also curious where the 30x comes from. If cost is indeed the square of key size I would expect:

      Cost(1024) = (1024*x)^2
      Cost(2048) = (2048*x)^2 = (2*1024*x)^2 = 4 * (1024*x)^2

Which is a 4x increase in cost, not 30x.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cube, not square. Also, implementation matters.

2^3, or 8 times more expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are some server-side implementation notes here, focused on Apache: [http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2010/07/10/overclock...](http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2010/07/10/overclocking- mod_ssl/)

<http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/09/05/blacklisting.html> is also interesting; it says Chrome will use a blacklist to avoid using False Start on some domains.

Also, does anyone know which older clients require that the server cache the session information? The article doesn't say.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does the extra 1K added by OSCP stapling put enough pressure to make your payload too big for the initial TCP window? It seems like it is impossible to use a 2048 bit key, include an intermediate certificate and turn on OSCP stapling while staying under 4k.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting article, lead me on a bit of a side tangent to my usual monday morning.

Based on people saying that 1024 bit RSA is no longer considered secure. I hunted down what I believe is at least one source from nist.gov.

[http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication- search.cfm?pub_id...](http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication- search.cfm?pub_id=903633)

With the default having to be increased in less than a few months, I was a little surprised to see that google, having recently trumpeted about their "encrypted" search is using 1024bits.

<https://encrypted.google.com/>

If you check their certificates you will see it is 1024bit.

I was hoping to compare it to <https://duckduckgo.com>, yet it turns out they too are running 1024bits.

I hasten to add, I dont really understand the significance of different ciphers used etc, this is purely based on bits.

<comment><USER7> Elliptic curve cryptography can get away with less bits in the keys than RSA at the moment. We do a better job of breaking RSA than elliptic curves. I don't know about Diffie-Hellman, which is based on discrete logarithms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can someone explain this statement: "remember that there's no point using AES-256 with a 1024-bit public key"

Why not?

<comment><USER8> Because once the 1024-bit RSA is cracked, it doesn't matter how strong the symmetric algorithm is as you'll have its key. Analogy: a virtually uncrackable safe (AES-256) whose combination is written on a piece of paper that's stuck in a box protected by a weak padlock (1024-bit RSA).</comment></comment>


Cops: We Need Rights More Than You, Citizen - <AUTHOR> https://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/ <comment><USER2> > In other jurisdictions, those protections are a result of collective > bargaining and embedded in negotiated contracts.

This is the part people need to internalize. Police departments in most cities are insulated from accountability for the same reason public employees are in general--they have incredibly powerful unions that can decide elections. The recent scrutiny of police activities presents a once in a lifetime opportunity for liberals and conservatives to come together and both get something they want: Improve police accountability and take a major bite out of budget- sapping public employee benefits in one shot.

<comment><USER3> This creates a problem for a lot of progressives, since attacking public sector unions is a big no no. Like, a super duper colossal no no. I see it floated around every once in a while on some mainstream American lefty blogs, and it always gets shot down.

<comment><USER4> The idea that attack police unions is a negative seems pretty bizarre to me.

In Europe, the left generally ranges from broadly accepting of (social democrats), to wholeheartedly embracing (many anarchist or other anti- authoritarian groups), the generally _very_ strict limits on the powers granted to police unions vs. other unions, on the basis that large parts of the European left see police as a potential threat to democratic society if their power is left unchecked (whether or not said group have a positive or negative view of police in general), and not insignificant numbers have relatively regular direct run-ins with police in the context of demonstrations etc.

E.g. in the UK police has been denied the right to strike is the 1919 Police Act. In Norway police may strike, but only subject to very strict limits on when and how, and with the caveat that the government may at any time declare a continued strike illegal - only a few other groups (military, essential hospital staff and similar) are subject to similarly strict regulation of strikes.

The limited strike right is often used as an invitation to substantially limit these unions influence.

<comment><USER5> Actually responding to jjoonathan here...

Both the police and correctional officer unions often donate to the Republicans as much if not more than the Democrat politicians.

<comment><USER6> Relevant: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394743/its-time- take-p...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394743/its-time-take-police- unions-lucy-morrow-caldwell) And more police-union goodness: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380455/tax-funded- unio...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380455/tax-funded-union-work- jillian-kay-melchior)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In Germany, we do not have any "Police Bill of Rights", as far as I know, but in practice, it works out quite similarly in cases of police misconduct or outright brutality.

The DA's office, which depends on the police to perform investigations for them, is quite reluctant to investigate police officers in the first place. And when they do, the police force will behave quite uncooperatively, testify only in favor of the accused police officer, evidence will get "lost" mysteriously, and so forth.

Plus, if somebody sues a police officer for brutality, the usual reaction is to counter-sue for slander or false accusation (falsely accusing somebody of a crime is itself a crime under German law). In these cases, the best one can hope for is that the police drops its charges if you drop yours.

I remember a case from a few years back that exemplifies the problem over here quite well: The police had a warrant so search the home of somebody accused of drug trafficking. They did however, by accident, drive to the wrong address and - because of alleged "imminent danger" \- kick down the door. They did not find any drugs or other illegal stuff at the place (because it was the _wrong_ place). But the person whose appartment they searched wanted the police to pay for his door. The police refused, so he sued. The judge's statement when he dismissed the case came down to "Tough luck, dude, deal with it".

I find the very idea of a "Police Bill of Rights" repulsive. The police's job - formally speaking - is to enforce the law; as such, the law should be applied to them the same as to everybody else. If anything, the police - precisely because they are allowed, under certain circumstances, to beat and kill people - should be held to a stricter standard.

It is also interesting that the police union here in Germany rarely if ever does what a union is supposed to do, namely to work towards better working conditions - better pay, shorter hours, and so forth - for their members, instead they mainly seem to advocate for more surveillance and against police accountability.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if there's a way to decouple the role of prosecutional evidence gathering from the role of public security that the police play. Basically having two departments with an iron wall of separation between them, so they're effectively neutral toward each other, if not adversarial.

I'm not sure, though, how it even currently works in most places. Does anywhere do it like that?

<comment><USER9> Ontario has the SIU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit)

Unfortunately, police are still extremely uncooperative and it has had more or less teeth over the years, depending on who gets appointed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Have I been missing stuff like this throughout the time I was growing up?

This person is pretty much arguing for a legally different, privileged class of citizens to be created. The New York Times published an article by someone asking to create two classes in American society.

Have power hungry nut jobs been publishing this stuff in the most respected media outlets forever? Or is this new?

<comment><USER11> Opinion pages like this are exactly where these articles belong. The national president of the Fraternal Order of Police is a pretty important position, and I see no reason not to let him have his say in the opinion pages of an important publication.

You seem to be implying that they shouldn't have published this. Personally, I'm _much_ happier with having powerful nutjobs like this get attention for their views than keeping them hidden away. Mr. National President of the Fraternal Order of Police is going to think that police need their own separate "bill of rights" whether or not he gets space in the New York Times. By publishing him, the NYT is merely making us aware of that fact, and I think it's good for everyone to know.

<comment><USER12> But he is not just sharing his opinion, he's using it as a propaganda vehicle and trying to further a campaign. If he gets support by doing this, it's a net loss.

<comment><USER11> If our position cannot withstand some attention being given to the opposition, then it's not worth defending in the first place.

Censorship solves nothing. If he gets support by doing this, then we need to counter that by providing a better argument, not by trying to silence the opposition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand the lack of accountability issue, but perhaps it is because I live in Ontario. Sure, there are any number of abuses, but as soon as anything crosses a certain threshold, it is investigated by the provincial SIU (Special Investigations Unit). I may be very much mistaken, but fire a gun in the line, the SIU investigates. Someone dies in custody, the SIU investigates.

Perhaps it is because Canadian municipalities - and their police services - are subordinate to the provinces - and to the provincial service. (The SIU is part of the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police.)

I'd be very curious to learn more from those more in the know.

<comment><USER14> > the SIU investigates. Someone dies in custody, the SIU investigates.

You forgot to add "and nothing ever happens"...

Remember Sammy Yatim? The teenager who was begging for the cop to shoot him that was posted to youtube in 2013?

Well, the cop shot him to death, and then another cop ran on the ttc car to taser him (trying to cover up the fact that his buddy shot and killed him at point blank range with no provocation), and even more cops were filmed kicking away shell casings (in an attempt to make it look as though fewer bullets had been fired?? I don't know...) That's destruction of evidence.

There still isn't even a trial date set almost 2 years later now. [0] Forcillo is still working in law enforcement with Crime Stoppers. And when the trial does finally occur, the entire thing is under a publication ban, so nobody will even hear about it. It will be on page 7 of the toronto star that James Forcillo was found not guilty and is now working for another police division.

If he does get 10 years in prison I would be incredibly surprised.

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

<comment><USER15> Why only "he"? You are also pointing out that there were a bunch of accomplices - why shouldn't they be treated as such? If a "mundane" were to shoot someone and his friends tried to cover it up, wouldn't they also be charged?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is disgusting, and will only lead to more incidents like this [1]. Cops have too much protection as it is - they are essentially impossible to sue. They are fortunately being charged criminally on occasion, but not nearly enough. Unfortunately the kinds of people that will take a high risk job for low pay tend to be seeking the only other "benefit" of the job: power over others, that they are likely missing in their own lives (or they wouldn't have pursued the job). Many of them take joy in others' misery, and they have guns and handcuffs. It's a bad combination.

[1] [http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21557505/cover-up-alleged- in-c...](http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21557505/cover-up-alleged-in-clark- clark-family-court) \- A woman was sexually assaulted by a police officer during an alleged "search for drugs," walked back into the family court she had just come from to tell the judge about it, and was arrested in front of her daughter for "making a false accusation against a police officer" (which, it turns out, isn't actually a crime in Nevada where this took place). The cop and the judge that watched her get arrested and refused to intervene while playing with the woman's daughter were both eventually fired but not criminally charged.

</comment><comment><USER17> According to some comments on the article these rights apply only during "Administrative Investigations" and not "Criminal Investigations".

Does anyone know if any officer involved death starts off as an administrative investigation or as a criminal one?

<comment><USER18> Here's a quote from Wisconsin's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights[0]:

 _If a law enforcement officer is under investigation and is subjected to interrogation for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, dismissal or criminal charges, the interrogation shall comply with the following requirements..._

That sounds broad enough to cover "Criminal Investigations".

This might just be just Wisconsin though; the law might be different where that commenter lives.

[0] [http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/1979/79Stat0164.pdf](http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/1979/79Stat0164.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Great article. But this a symptom of the bigger problem of government workers wanting extra rights above and beyond what a normal citizen has. This will only get worse as governments (local, state, federal) grab more power over the people.

</comment><comment><USER20> Maybe one day we'll have technology which gets embedded and self-reports us whenever we transgress whatever laws we agree to or are born into. It's all automatic and tunable in order to produce the desired result from society. It could even be 'democratic' voted upon by everyone, so there is no bootstrapping and no second guessing.

I think some of Canterbury's comments speak to a population not waiting for an investigation to complete before it reacts to events which have not reached an official conclusion (just or unjust). Let's say the family of a rape or murder victim does not wait till a jury reaches a decision and vents its frustration against the accused, or in some cases unrelated bystanders -resorts to extrajudicial procedure.

In reality the problem is not the speed of justice but rather the reactions and impatience is a product of lack of access to the mainstream economy, some of this is due to biases and some of it is due to socio-cultural issues (same as Appalachian whites). It's not as if some police brutality and injustice does not happen in other communities, but generally those communities don't feel disenfranchised so they don't need an outlet for their frustration. When an injustice happens they have access to the justice system to address their complaints and they have political power to bring attention to issues.

<comment><USER21> There are so many laws and regulations, some contradictory, that at any given moment you are guaranteed to be in violation of some of them.

<comment><USER22> It could be an opportunity to force streamlining of laws. The bigger issue in my mind is that most social change involves breaking some laws. A lot of those changes have been for the better.

<comment><USER20> If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to break laws, just vote to amend or void them. Of course, beware the curse of the tyranny of the majority.

<comment><USER23> _If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to break laws, just vote to amend of void them. Of course, beware the curse of the tyranny of the majority._

Which is it? Your two sentences stand diametrically opposed to each other. The history of civil rights in the US suggests that your first sentence is absurd, and your second dead on.

<comment><USER20> It's hard to reconcile, yes, so typically one relies on 'basic laws'. In the end, however, it falls on the majority, strictly speaking. If 95% of the voting public wanted to they certainly could change the Us constitution, and there is very little the dissenting 5% could do about it.

<comment><USER22> Sure, but the way that historically the 5% has grown to 50%+ has involved a bunch of people willfully breaking laws. They can't just be static standards. Society changes, and for the laws to reflect that there has to be some wiggle room. If we just say "any time that 90% or more of society agrees on a law _right now_ , it will be that way _forever_ ," we will stagnate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> To quote KRS-One (Boogie Down Productions):

"The police department is like a crew, it does whatever it wants to do."

<comment><USER25> _Take the word "overseer," like a sample_

 _Repeat it very quickly in a crew, for example_

 _Overseer, overseer, overseer, overseer_

 _Officer, officer, officer, officer_

 _Yeah, officer from overseer_

 _You need a little clarity, check the similarity_

[http://genius.com/Krs-one-sound-of-da-police-lyrics](http://genius.com/Krs- one-sound-of-da-police-lyrics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Might as well make this bill of rights complete and add the right to murder non-whites without consequences to it since that's already a given.

I will never understand how anyone can defend or support or even respect the police in the US when they are nothing more than the most powerful, most corrupt, most violent, and most murderous (we think since most figures are suppressed) gang in the country. Fear, yes. It seems to me that at least in other countries, people are less deluded about their police situation (which is generally similar, though the details may be different).

What we need are _much higher_ standards for police conduct and independent investigation and prosecutorial forces that are strictly separated from the regular police force / prosecutors (and closely monitored for corruption) to investigate police abuses. There will be _plenty_ of work for such full-time, permanent positions in every single jurisdiction given the amount of corruption and violence police cause. This idea that a police officer's testimony is somehow impervious to scrutiny, so much so that it will be accepted even when the judge knows the officer is lying needs to end. Basically, we have set up a huge, elitist "society" of cops, prosecutors, judges, and the rich people who support them who are beyond the law, not to mention justice. Of course we then get pissed off when these people talk about justice and even more so when they are either acquitted or not even charged with the serious crimes they commit, up to and including murder. Atrocious indeed.

Fixing this situation seems rather tricky since the layperson only has the power to vote and there are no candidates who are willing to address this problem at any level. Fixing other laws that criminalize everyday activity, while incredibly difficult, seems to be the only way to try to go about at least reducing the ability of police to insert themselves into everyday situations they have no business inserting themselves in the first place. Still, at best, it's a workaround to reduce abuse, not one to actually eliminate it or deal out justice after the fact. In the case of police, the criminals (police) always get away with it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Everything he said is true, now what are we going to do about it?

<comment><USER27> Nothing. In US, people have "too much" respect for military and police. This respect has turned into an almost fanatical devotion. Say anything against these professionals and you will be branded as anti-national. Even the President cannot criticize the police. Unless US citizens realize that policemen are just professionals performing their jobs and not selfless angels, the police in US will always stay above the law.

<comment><USER11> Your statement doesn't sound familiar to me. It does seem to be true for the military, which enjoys pretty much universal devotion from all. I think it's because we've finally figured out how to disentangle being pro-war from being pro-soldier, so that both warmongers and peaceniks can embrace members of the military. But I don't see anything remotely like it for the police. Respect is common, but far from universal. Where it exists, it tends to be mild.

<comment><USER28> I'd like to live where you live and have your acquaintances. I live in the midwest and the adoration of police is ever so slightly lower than that for the military.

<comment><USER11> Interesting. DC area here, which might be it. I do have roots in the midwest and it seems like nobody pays much mind to the police there. Maybe it's even more specifically regional or maybe I just never noticed it.

<comment><USER29> Yes, I think you will find the public perception of the police to be much different in urban inner cities than in small midwestern towns.

<comment><USER11> There's a lot more to the DC area than the inner city. I happen to live in the suburbs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> How about we the people demand the same bill of rights as police. It's only right and fair.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm really waiting for some piece of white trash to get into one of these COPS-style police brutality cases, just to see what the reaction would be.

My guess is, a whole lot of silence.

<comment><USER32> You don't have to guess. While unarmed blacks have been killed by police at a disproportionate _rate_ , in absolute numbers more unarmed white people are killed by police in the US.

These are indeed largely ignored outside of local news, after perhaps one or two brief mentions nationally.

What seems to generally happen then is that they are investigated, and the killing is found to be somewhere between clearly justified and criminal, so there are no criminal charges but a good chance of a successful civil suit for wrongful death. That will often get a brief mention in the national news.

Another large group of deaths that doesn't get a lot of attention, in either the press or on the streets, are the ~20 mostly young blacks killed per day by homicide. While some of these are due to criminal gangs attacking other criminal gangs, many are innocent people killed by mistake. It's sad that they are largely overlooked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Perhaps we should become educated in how such protections are used locally and insist on the same treatment when "interacting" with the cops.

</comment><comment><USER34> I find it odd that there is all these hate for cops (we can't trust them, etc)..yet, allowing citizens to own guns for their own protection is frowned upon by those same people.

<comment><USER35> Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection -- especially not from cops, who have more guns, more manpower, and tend to frown upon being shot at.

And considering that one of the few times I'd consider lethal force justified would be when someone actually pulls a gun on a cop, that makes them especially useless.

I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?

<comment><USER5> I hate to say this, as someone who is pretty incensed by police brutality yet also believes in the right to responsible gun ownership in the US, that it is often better to kill an intruder to your house than wound or "incapacitate" them, as there is a precedent of criminals who have invaded homes and been wounded by the owners suing and winning financial judgements against the owners of the property.

<comment><USER36> You know what's even better (and for example, what local law here demands you to do)? Not HURTING anyone. It's just a damn TV.

<comment><USER37> I find it strange how you can know ahead of time the intentions and potentials of home invaders. What I call "strong Castle Doctrine" laws, in effect in many states, allow residents to use lethal force without warning, let along divining the intent of an intruder, because it can be presupposed in the US that someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come across, which happens all too often.

<comment><USER38> I take it you've never heard of selection bias?

<comment><USER37> Could you sketch out how you think it's relevant?

<comment><USER38> The phrase "someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come across, which happens all too often," seems to be ignoring the cases when it doesn't happen, or when someone dies when they were in fact unwilling will kill anyone.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Toyota: The World's Biggest Car Company Wants to Get Rid of Gasoline - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-17/toyota-embraces-fuel-cell-cars-for-post-gasoline-future

<comment><USER2> Where exactly does this article actually conclude that "The World's Biggest Car Company Wants to Get Rid of Gasoline"?

<comment><USER3> The URL is 'toyota-embraces-fuel-cell-cars-for-post-gasoline-future' so the title was changed later, probably to get more people to click. Other than that a good article in my opinion.</comment></comment>


How a book I wrote in two weeks made $4,000 in its first month - <AUTHOR> http://swizec.com/blog/how-a-book-i-wrote-in-two-weeks-made-4000-in-its-first-month/

<comment><USER2> I'd be curious to see how sales pan out looking forward too, considering the intersection of popularity of the topic.</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find a list of hosts that implement OpenStack? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public- clouds/](https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/)

Looks like a good start.</comment>


Xiaomi's 5-inch MI3 Smartphone, 47-inch 3D Android Smart TV - <AUTHOR> http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/3281/xiaomi-officially-launches-5-inch-mi3-smartphone-47-inch-3d-android-smart-tv.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Specs:

5-inch 1080p (1920 x 1080) IPS LCD display, Tegra 4 SoC inside the Mi3 is clocked at 1.8 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, 16 GB of internal storage, a large 3,050 mAh battery and a 13 megapixel rear shooter (2 MP front). The cost? $330 for the 16 GB variant ($410 for the 32 GB variant).</comment>


A mathematical formalisation of dimensional analysis - <AUTHOR> http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/a-mathematical-formalisation-of-dimensional-analysis/

<comment><USER2> This article appears to be describing a type system without making use of anything type-theoretical. Maybe it's just my inexperience with mathematical language, but the presentation seems to suffer badly as a result. The system in question is actually rather simple.

"There are several reasons why it is advantageous to retain the limitation to only perform dimensionally consistent operations. One is that of error correction: one can often catch (and correct for) errors in one's calculations by discovering a dimensional inconsistency, and tracing it back to the first step where it occurs."

This is basically describing the "stack trace" you get when typechecking a program.

"By performing dimensional analysis, one can often identify the form of a physical law before one has fully derived it."

This is tantamount to saying that it's possible to glean an implementation from a type, which is true—the implementations of all total functions with a given type are (I think) recursively enumerable.

<comment><USER3> It's possible, because you aren't a mathematician, that you aren't aware of who Terrence Tao is. He is one of the most celebrated mathematicians of our time, and a prolific one at that. His goal is emphatically _not_ to explain what dimensional analysis is, but to provide a basis for a mathematical formalism for it that does not fully exist yet.

<comment><USER4> That doesn't seem to be any sort of refutation of the given complaint. Sure, Terrence Tao is a great mathematician, and he may trying to do something that type theorists _haven't_ done yet, and we can reasonably give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that, even though he didn't mention it, he may well be familiar with type theory and left out reference to it on purpose.

Nevertheless, for some audience, in which I am included, the connection to type theory seems blatantly obvious and it would've been a better article for us had it been presented in that light.

<comment><USER3> It's not the same as type theory because the relationships between physical units are actually tied by real mathematical operations. A float and a string do not combine in any sensible way (aside from type-casting, which is entirely different). This suggests that type theory as you are familiar with isn't as connected as you might think.

<comment><USER2> There are plenty of systems making use of the algebraic operations of product (tuple) and sum (disjoint union) on types. These are regularly extended with notions of exponentiation, division, subtraction, complement, union, and intersection. There is little formal reason why an algebra of types shouldn't include even more interesting operations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know it's a side point, but I loved the comment:

"...explaining for instance why in any trigonometric identity such as

        sin(x+y) = sin(x) cos(y) + cos(x) sin(y)

the number of odd functions (sine, tangent, cotangent, and their inverses) in each term has the same parity."

I never thought of it that way. I always converted to exponential notation to derive them, but you could use this units approach to provide what you needed.</comment>


Ask HN:Math Books - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN,<p>I recently finshed reading stroud's and john bird's engineering mathematics.but i want to continue to read as much as math books possible.(not sure what the motive is!!) I'am really curious to know your personal list .Please list a whole bunch of math books that you've read and interested in. it's ok to list right from elementary to the most advanced mathematics under the sun.(also include physics right from elementary to advanced). . <comment><USER2> Anything written by Ian Stewart. "Rational points on elliptic curves" by Silverman

</comment><comment><USER3> An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers (Niven, Zuckerman and Montgomery)

Graph theory with applications (JA Bondy and USR Murty, available online)</comment>


Beej's Guide to Network Programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.beej.us/guide/bgnet/output/html/singlepage/bgnet.html <comment><USER2> When I was at university I wanted to take a class that had 'introduction to computer networks' as a prerequisite, but I didn't want to wait 2 semesters for it to come around again after taking networks first. I spoke to the professor and he said he'd let me enroll in the course if I promised to carefully read Beej's guide first, since it contains all the essentials I'd _really_ need for this follow-on. So, this saved me 6 months, what a golden nugget!

<comment><USER3> Same here. My course was a simple one and didn't include network programming, and at the same time I was learning about select() and co in C. This was a great primer especially for me as I had some Python knowledge; it really helped with understanding network programming at a lower level.

Even if you don't code the examples, reading them will give you so much information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Still not updated to mention anything more than select() as far as non- blocking IO is concerned, like poll, epoll, or, god no, using an abstract event loop. Nobody who cares about their code and sanity does blocking I/O with sockets.

But then, I must confess I too started network programming with this guide :) It presents the basics nicely, but there's a lot more you should learn about network programming.

<comment><USER5> Are you saying "god no" to using an abstract event loop? If so, why? (I've been using libuv for a project, so far so good.)

<comment><USER4> No, of course not, I was just referring the the reluctance of the book to get modernized. I can't possibly imagine not using an abstract event loop.

<comment><USER5> Ah, "God forbid"--gotcha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there a similar or updated guide some place which includes non-blocking i/o?

<comment><USER7> Check out "The C10K Problem" (<http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html>) for a high level discussion of some techniques for high performance servers.

For basic info on Epoll: [http://www.devshed.com/c/a/BrainDump/Linux-Files- and-the-Eve...](http://www.devshed.com/c/a/BrainDump/Linux-Files-and-the- Event-Poll-Interface/) epoll socket tutorial: [http://kovyrin.net/2006/04/13/epoll-asynchronous-network- pro...](http://kovyrin.net/2006/04/13/epoll-asynchronous-network-programming/)

Or kqueue if your OS supports it: <http://wiki.netbsd.org/tutorials/kqueue_tutorial/>

Lower level details on level triggered vs edge triggered interrupts: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt#Level-triggered>

Overview of the thundering herd problem: [http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux- scalability/reports...](http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux- scalability/reports/accept.html)

<comment><USER8> Take a look at lthread <http://github.com/halayli/lthread>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> it's a shortcut to learn basic network programming with sockets, without spending too much time on it. Anyone more than casually serious about it should consider looking at Richard Stevens books, Unix network programming and TCP/IP illustrated (esp. volume 2).

<comment><USER10> I'm shocked that you are the only one to mention rstevens, It won't be far fetched if Beej learned from rstevens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For this community, I would have thought this is a bit like seeing a link to Google.com on the HN front page. Beej's guide is staple internet fodder.

</comment><comment><USER12> This was an absolute lifesaver when I was thrown into the deep end writing a high-performance TCP server from scratch. I think it's so effective because it's "highly opinionated", which is to say, he points out "Foo does this, but don't use it because that's just silly" or "don't use bar, use baz instead because it handles qux more easily" and so on.

<comment><USER9> what makes this stuff seem "high-performance" TCP to you? This is standard socket programming. High performance TCP server is when you actually roll out your own TCP stack.

<comment><USER12> Fair enough, to be honest the tcp part was not really the bottleneck. But servicing multiple incoming streams without starving any is really what i meant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If I'm not mistaken this original document was on Chico State's computer science domain. It was my understanding Beej went to Chico; does anyone know for sure? This was around long before 2006, I remember reading it around the year 2000 when I was first getting into C++. (miracle this quality of a document escaped anyone's brain in Chico -- I know, I went to CSUC. Let's just say it was hard to concentrate there :)

<comment><USER14> I'm curious as to why its hard to concentrate, is it a party school or does it have its own beach like UCSB or what?

<comment><USER13> Party school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is one of those priceless documents that served me well, and which I have recommended to many others as a great starting place.

</comment><comment> X-Istence Still refer to it every so often, especially as backup documentation from the man pages when something isn't entirely clear.

</comment><comment><USER16> learning from this now. glad its got all this credibility! (context: college operating systems course)

<comment><USER7> If you want to learn about some more advanced strategies, you may also benefit from this classic: <http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Like others, this is how i learned to do it too. The C programming guide is very good too

</comment><comment><USER18> I owe this guy my entry into network programming and eventually security.

<comment><USER19> I owe him the implementation details part of my networking code for my game from 5~ years back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> lol soooo retro! brings back memories almost 10 years old. i used it as a guideline for writing an SMS notifier on incoming e-mails through free HTTP SMS service. with auth. ;)

</comment><comment><USER21> +1 !!

This is the number one thing that got me through network class back in university. Next to that is the professor's office hour. I don't think I even touched the textbook.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is there an even better, more modern networking guide that's free (or not)? Does anyone have a list of networking reference/tutorial/introduction material?

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow, I am glad that this is still around - the first tutorial that I learned socket and network programming back in 2004.

</comment><comment><USER24> Its nice to know other guys learned from this as well. Makes me feel that what I learned back in college was legit.

</comment><comment><USER25> This saved me when I had to write a P2P file distribution system for a project in college.

</comment><comment><USER26> This was the go-to guide back in its times. Circa 2006?

</comment><comment><USER27> This was my first look at networking. Worked for me.

</comment><comment><USER28> I learned from this in 2006-2007.

</comment><comment><USER29> truely classics. i learned network programming from this guide a decade ago.

</comment><comment><USER30> A reference for beginners!

</comment><comment><USER31> At first, I was confused, thinking that the porn site beeg.com posted a networking tutorial.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is how I learned to do it.</comment>


Full-time software engineers in London, how much do you earn (2019)? - <AUTHOR> I'm a junior dev and I'm not sure how much I should ask for, so I thought that I should do a survey.
It would be great if people could answer using the format.
Salary - Years of Experience - CS Degree (Y/N) - Company Type (Startup/Big Tech/Finance).
Thank you very much <comment><USER2> £75k base, 10% bonus + options that are hard to value. CS degree + PhD. Start- up.

I'm actually a research scientist, but I have significant SWE responsibilities, so I figure it's worth answering.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it was, thank you for answering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is likely all you need: [https://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/](https://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah thank you very much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> £100k base salary 15% bonus £60k a year in RSUs

No CS degree, 8 years of experience. In big tech.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for answering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> £90k base, £25k bonus. CS degree + 6 years. Investment bank.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for answering

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> people commenting these figures are way off to what you find on like Glassdoor. Can more people chip in and get more data for this.

</comment><comment><USER7> $3.50</comment>


Too Much of the World Cup Is Just Soccer Failing to Get Out of Its Own Way - <AUTHOR> https://deadspin.com/too-much-of-the-world-cup-is-just-soccer-failing-to-get-1835674531 <comment><USER2> According to Forbes [1] men's world cup generated $6b in revenue and shared $400m between participants. [1] The women's world cup is expected to generate $131m and share $30m between participants. This means that as a share of the pie, women's are actually making more % wise, even though there is less demand. This is likely needed, in part, to encourage more woman to participate in the world cup so that it can grow in the future.

It is difficult to dole out blame in scenarios such as this, should you blame FIFA? The country's soccer organizations? The media? The customers?

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world- cu...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer- pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#302968246da4)</comment>


Sell it before you build it - <AUTHOR> http://venturehacks.com/articles/sell-it-before-you-build-it <comment><USER2> I think if you have good sales (or sales oriented) people on the team, you probably already are selling before you build, regardless on what stage the company is in.

As developers, we'd often complain about sales people selling features we haven't yet created. Only after learning about Steve Blank's Customer Development approach I realized that's how it's supposed to be. Sales people are the ones in contact with the client, and incoming revenue is the signal the real world is giving you on the value of your product.

<comment><USER3> To be fair, developers complain about salespeople selling features that don't exist yet and promising delivery by a certain date without consulting us. That kind of thing makes our lives hell and makes us write terrible crap that undermines all of the company's software assets.

Selling features that don't exist is ok, just check with the guys that have to deliver on your promises first.

<comment><USER2> I know what you mean, I've been the developer in this scenario more than once :)

In the end it's a matter of balance between sales and development. Unlike the common "10 things you must do" stories on HN, there aren't really any well- defined rules for this. You just hope to have smart sales people and developers, good communication between them, and have neither side controlling the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a really interesting idea, but I'd like to see more examples with some actual data. For example, how many people check the box? Of those, how many actually sign up when the service is available?

<comment><USER5> This is pretty standard advice actually. The reason you don't hear more about it on HN is because most of the case studies are B2B startups, and HN seems to be less interested in those. The obvious example that comes to mind is DOS.

Another good example is a guy I met who started a business putting pro sports logos on car seats. First he went to the national retail chains and got them to order a hundred thousand units. Then once he made the sale he used it to get the rights from the sports leagues to use their logos. Only then did he go out and find a manufacturer, and by then he was already guaranteed to make money on the deal. So his only startup costs were a couple weeks making phone calls, and he made a ton of money.

<comment><USER3> 'Sell before you build' is an old saw, but the 'coming soon/contact' landing page metric I had not heard before, and its great because its a very simply algorithm for developers to follow to arrive at a successful product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Take-home message:

Step 1) Build a brief, branded landing page describing the product, with a 'contact me when you ship' form.

Step 2) Gauge interest based on form responses. Only build if interest is strong.

Step 3) Edit product and reiterate.

Brilliant!

<comment><USER6> There's another important step:

Drive customers to the site AND make sure they are the _real_ market your targeting before taking their feedback.

<comment><USER7> Good points. I've "expressed interest" in a bazillion things, but I'm loath to part with money. I sign up for information announcements and beta sites because I'm simply curious about stuff, but I may not be a good customer when you get to the bottom line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To take this to an extreme, you could simply ask people - off or online - "Do you ever have problem x?" implicitly asking about the problem your product will solve. The more responses you get, the more you'll know you're on to something.

</comment><comment><USER9> I loved this article. We're doing exactly that with our B2B product for NewsCred. Just getting it out to and seeing who's willing to pay for it, what people think of current features, but also to prioritize the medium term feature roadmap.

This all fits quite nicely with Steve Blank's Customer Development methodology/framework.

</comment><comment><USER10> That looks like give it away before you ask for money for it. The checkbox is interesting though.

</comment><comment><USER11> If nothing else, you've got a list of hot sales leads. And if you've got halfway decent analytics, you could figure out that, say, people who come to the site through a google ad are more likely to check the box than those from TechCrunch (or whatever).

<comment><USER12> Additionally they can display different combinations of features for the bullet points and prices each time the page is looked at and see what generates the most interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was one of the steps mentioned in 4 hour workweek, although this example is a little different. I don't like the book in general, but you can cherry pick some of the cool strategies like this one.

</comment><comment><USER14> I sort of find this idea quite weird. In this case it is interesting to note they already have a product, all they are doing is pre-selling a pro version. But when you try to apply this strategy to a new product being created, your focus often gets diluted. And if you are asking what customers want, you risk to get overwhelmed by their requests. So, it is better to sell after you have a actual (no matter how minimal) product. Frankly, I don't see a point in pre- selling, do you?

<comment><USER3> Yes. You'll build the wrong thing. Something nobody wants.

<comment><USER14> Or you would never build the right thing, because all your time is consumed in selling the thing that is never made.

<comment><USER3> You aren't just selling, you are learning.

You are very unlikely to get it right based on a hunch without multiple iterations with real customers. That means that you will end up iterating whether you build it or not. So its best to first iterate without building: you get more iterations and less wasted development that way.

As the interview explores, that doesn't mean building nothing, but it does mean validating an idea first and foremost.

I understand that this can be frustrating for a developer. We tend to think, 'if we build it, they will come' and we don't like sales. But personally I've wasted too much time building elegant software... nobody much wanted, to build new stuff without validating it first.

If you "don't get" this interview, I would suggest a second listen. It contains a critical lesson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Build for long term growth.

</comment><comment><USER16> Go fliggo!

</comment><comment><USER17> On a related note, check out Mindrosia: [http://www.allfacebook.com/2007/11/mindrosia-app-ideas- gener...](http://www.allfacebook.com/2007/11/mindrosia-app-ideas-generated- through-horseplay)</comment>


Ask HN: Help in handling dangerous users who report fake data? - <AUTHOR>

We have a feature in PressureNet that lets users self-report the weather conditions. This will send a notification to all the nearby users telling them what that weather is like. This is pretty neat when you get a notification that says "Thunderstorm 2k East" and then a few minutes later you get a thunderstorm.
However, we have some users who are reporting Tornados, Wildfires and Floods in downtown Vancouver. This means that all our Vancouver users get notified of a Tornado nearby.
We're going to eventually build a reputation system so that these won't be trusted and notifications won't be delivered. But that's going to be a fair bit of work and we won't be ready to ship that for months.
In the mean time, we have a situation where lots of people are being notified of fake dangerous weather through our app - is this a legal problem for us? Or just a trust problem? What's the best mechanism to deal with this in the short-term?
I think a Confirm/Deny button on each weather condition would help (if 2+ people Deny then it goes away). But that still doesn't stop the initial notification from going out (and it clutters the UI).
Have you solved similar problems? Any ideas on how we can best deal with this? Thanks!
Here's the app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbus.barometernetwork <comment><USER2> In a similar situation with user data. I wait for three user reports for the same thing in a limited time. Three reports from the same area in 10min = condition is real. Adjust as necessary</comment>


Senator Franken on COICA - <AUTHOR>

I wrote Senator Franken on COICA after seeing him on the list of supporters, below was his response.
Dear Steve,
Thank you for contacting me about the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
I believe that intellectual property enforcement is extremely important.  We must protect American jobs from piracy, which has become rampant on the Internet.  We don't tolerate shoplifters in stores, and we should not tolerate them online.
COICA would give the Department of Justice an expedited process for cracking down on websites whose primary purpose is to sell pirated goods.  Right now, if a company finds that its products are being pirated or counterfeited online, its only recourse is to sue in civil court, a process that can take years, during which time the offending website continues to do harm.  Under COICA, the Justice Department gains jurisdiction over off-shore infringers--something that is extremely difficult under current law--and can use expedited legal procedures to stop the worst of these offenders.
I was initially wary of COICA, but there have been some important improvements that have addressed my concerns.  The most controversial provision of this bill, sometimes called the "Internet Blacklist," originally directed the Justice Department to publish a list of offending websites and encouraged Internet service providers (ISPs) and other relevant parties to shut down the listed websites without a judicial process.  This provision was clearly wrong, and I was glad to see it removed prior to the bill's consideration.  I also worked with Chairman Leahy to narrow the definition of an infringing site to include only sites where copyright infringement is "the central purpose" of the site, not sites which may be engaged in copyright infringement incidentally but are also devoted to other purposes.
This bill has also been amended to protect net neutrality.  In the initial version of the bill, ISPs were given legal immunity to voluntarily enforce the bill's provisions and block access to websites.  This provision has been removed.  As it currently stands, this bill won't allow a fast lane and a slow lane of Internet traffic.  It will not affect net neutrality, which has always been about protecting users' access to legal content.
It is unlikely that this bill will come to the floor of the Senate before the end of the year.  This means that it must pass through the legislative process again in the next Congress.  I look forward to working with Chairman Leahy to further improve the bill next year.
Thank you again for contacting me.  Please don't hesitate to contact me again on this or any other issue that may be important to you.
Sincerely,
Al Franken
United States Senator <comment><USER2> I got the same response. :)</comment>


Ask HN: Best site to buy business cards? - <AUTHOR>

I'm getting very close to launching my start-up and my designer has designed some very nice business cards. Does anyone know of a site that will take the assets and print very high quality cards? Thanks! <comment><USER2> I have used overnightprints.com many, many times and have always been impressed with the quality. I wrote about my experience with them here: <http://paulstamatiou.com/you-need-business-cards>

In a nutshell.. 1000 high quality cards (in my case double-sided glossy with their standard, great-thickness stock) for like $70 bucks. In hindsight, I should have gone with at least one side not glossy so I can write stuff on it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is your designer local to you? Ask them about local print shops. Most freelance designers know who can do quality work locally for a great price.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm pretty happy with printplace.com. You can request a free sample package to see what kind of paper and printing they offer.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd say moo.com</comment>


This Tech Bubble Is Bursting - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/this-tech-bubble-is-bursting-1462161662?mod=e2fb <comment><USER2> This is one of those articles that consists mainly of speculation, anecdotes, and quotes from phone interviews. It's hard to tell if Mimms left his office to do the foot-soldier work that serious journalism requires.

</comment><comment><USER3> Comparing 2000s to today is not fair.

<comment><USER4> It's quite different. Still, even if the revenues of big companies are real, and the P/E ratios are in a smaller bubble than in 2000, the problem is that if there's a deflation in the world, the ad revenues will dry up as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Winter is coming, he says, and venture capitalists know it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps "hissing out" more than "bursting".

</comment><comment><USER7> Any link that's not under paywall? I would love to hear the arguments.

<comment><USER2> [http://on.wsj.com/1Y29zLd](http://on.wsj.com/1Y29zLd)

<comment><USER8> great, thanks for the url.

<comment><USER2> WSJ subscribers may not be aware of this, but if you share an article via email, WSJ generates a shortened link to the same article that seems to work for non-subscribers.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Code42 shuttering consumer offering, CrashPlan for Home - <AUTHOR> https://www.code42.com/news-releases/code42-focus-business/ <comment><USER2> Some of the things hidden in the transition here that I noticed when exploring converting to a small business account:

> Any computer-to-computer backups will be permanently deleted. After > migration, you can't use computer-to-computer backups.

This was a neat feature to simplify local backups and makes the "higher tier" a less compelling product.

</comment><comment><USER3> Indefinite retention of old versions and even deleted files was the killer feature for me. It doesn't look like the small business plan supports it. Any recommendations?</comment>


Shall we fork Fedora? - <AUTHOR> http://forkfedora.org/ <comment><USER2> It's probably a bad idea to start (another) discussion on this topic, but...

While the original (Debian Fork) made some ridiculous claims, this is not a fair comparison to make. As a neutral party I don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that SysVinit is any good, just that some other options may be better, and they should at least be an option.

When you compare systemd with something like OpenRC the obvious choice is less clear: [http://pastebin.com/DfAL75Kd](http://pastebin.com/DfAL75Kd)

<comment><USER3> OpenRC is interesting. Also compare with a runit example of managing sendmail from the runit-for-lfs project:

        #!/bin/sh
        sv check slapd postgresql mysql >/dev/null || exit 0
        exec /usr/sbin/sendmail -bs -bd -q5m start

[https://github.com/inthecloud247/runit-for- lfs/blob/master/b...](https://github.com/inthecloud247/runit-for- lfs/blob/master/blfs-servicescripts/services/sendmail/run)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the debianfork.org page, which this is apparently mocking:

"Why don't you do that yourselves? We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us have the time and patience to interact with Debian on a voluntary basis."

If you don't have the time and patience to contribute to a project like Debian, how are you planning to muster up the time and patience to run a full- on FORK of Debian?

<comment><USER5> Short answer, because I've said it before: You can't vote on Debian issues without becoming a Debian Developer; that title requires a multistep process that takes between months and years. Debian publishes the stats at nm.debian.org, and there is general agreement that the length of the process is a problem, but not on how to solve it.

<comment><USER4> I don't doubt that there's a barrier there, and it could possibly (probably?) made easier to overcome. But it still strikes me as a smaller barrier than that of having to maintain a full-fledged fork, especially one that focuses on a low-level dependency like systemd, rather than focusing on higher-level stuff like the desktop environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> love it.

i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff.

so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no way i'm going back to sysv init, thought i'd give fedora a try, and so far i'm really liking it, everything works, and is upto date enough for my needs

anyway, systemd ftw. if you're against it and you've not used it, then that's stupid. if you're against it and have used it, fair enough, i can't fault that. i hate gnome, you can hate systemd. although the comparison isn't fair, as interaction with the init process if fairly low, but interaction with the de is high

<comment><USER7> Flakeyness of Arch? What do you mean by this? It seems to be very reliable for me.

<comment><USER8> Personally, Arch has been really unstable for me, although I have a newer ATI graphics card and am trying to go it with the open-source drivers, so that's my problem.

In general, what people mean about Arch's flakeyness is the general maintenance involved with staying up-to-date, and reviewing all your pacnews/pacsaves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What a puerile attempt at trivialising someone's concerns. Why do you think a file length is important? What you are demonstrating is the very lack of control that people are complaining about. Well done, you've replaced the standard functionality with an ini file. What about non-standard functionality? Flexibility? Transparency? The logging concerns? The dbus concerns?

I think one of my biggest concerns with systemd is that there seems to be little valid debate around it. The pro-brigade mock the anti brigade with little attempt to address their concerns.

<comment><USER10> I have been using the tried and true ostrich technique to avoid the topic (the whole systemd debate). But honestly it feels like the file on the right is a whole lot more opaque. If (or when) it goes horribly wrong, I am not certain I would know where to start, as compared to a simple script file where I would walk it / debug it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As an outsider, it frightens me how many flamewars Linux people can start over a single program. How many years has this systems soap opera been going on now?

Maybe I only see the outbursts, but it seems to me like there's way too much emotion and way too little honest discussion going on. Why is that?

<comment><USER12> The debate around systemd is not only technical, but also highly political. Systemd is a shift towards the "aggregation" of many separate projects/components of the linux core userland (udev, polkit, wayland, logging, session management, etc) in a way that's highly incompatible with everything else. Some people like this new way forward (or don't care much), some do not. The attitude and the history of some developers of systemd do nothing to help (same thing for their "wakeup calls").

And this is even before talking about systemd proper in a technical-ish way...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As a 'devops', I've been sometimes saddled with the unfortunate task of bridging the communication gap between Sysadmins/TechOps and Devs.

Although there are technical arguments here on both sides, I really hope that this 'SystemD vs Freedom Of Choice in Init Systems' discussion gets resolved in a way that doesn't create further divisions.

</comment><comment><USER13> The argument presented is very weak. Yes, the service file is smaller and simpler, but I actually understand perfectly the init file, whereas to understand how systemd processes the service file I'd have to actually read all of systemd's source code.

Programs have many bugs. I'd rather debug that shell script than debug systemd.

<comment><USER14> Sure, debug that shell script, but then don't forget to propagate the fix to _all the shell scripts_.

The shell script approach violates the DRY principle--it's probably _super_ similar to some 50 other init scripts on the same system. systemd, in principle, removes the boilerplate so that the bug would only have to be fixed once.

<comment><USER12> So does rc.subr under freebsd. Or openrc under gentoo.

I would not be surprised if all that boilerplate present in the shell script was now in /etc/mail/make now. No Fedora system around to check this right now, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Trying to work out which linux dist to switch to. Obviously one that doesn't use systemd. So what choices do I have?

<comment><USER6> why not one that uses systemd?

<comment><USER16> perhaps just freedom of choice, knowing that you aren't just being forced to do something

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wish Fedora had PPA's, I had to ditch it for Ubuntu, got fed up of having to compile everything I wanted to use.

<comment><USER18> Can you give a few examples, please? I've been using Fedora as my primary home and work OS, since v14 and was gradually upgrading it and so far I never needed to compile anything.

<comment><USER17> Example:

Instead of having to compile software like Atom in every computer I own, I could just add a PPA repository and then install and update Atom (assuming the PPA remains maintained). It's not just Atom though, other software as well isn't as easily found on Fedora as it would be on the Ubuntu / Debian ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As much as I love the Fedora folks, I think this is going to backfire. It comes off as even more condescending than the Debian-fork it mocks, and condescension is already one of the gripes people have.

NB not taking a position, just making a prediction

</comment><comment><USER20> I rolled my eyes at the title after watching "Linux Sucks 2014" last night. I was pleasantly surprised to see an example comparison of init files.

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure it's exactly a fair comparison though; the right-hand file is shorter and simpler largely because they've split the work of the old init script across at least three files: the one shown, /etc/mail/make (which presumably now contains the messy preparatory work that made up most of the old init file), and sm-client.service. You could do that with traditional init if you wanted.

<comment><USER22> And the only thing keeping that from happening with traditional init is someone submitting a patch against the package to split up the functionality of the init script into more distinct subunits.

It's interesting to note that no patch has been submitted against the sendmail package, most likely because it's unnecessary. And the only reason that the logic was moved to separate subscripts called in ExecStartPre entries for systemd is because systemd doesn't have a language to express those things in, so they _need_ to be subscripts in order to have that capability at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is unfair. You can actually do a shared shell library that other services use and also have just a few lines service definitions.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm hoping by the time CentOS 6.5 is EOL this systemd situation will be all worked out.</comment>


California Regulators Vote for Zero Emissions Busses by 2040 - <AUTHOR> https://earther.gizmodo.com/california-regulators-vote-to-require-all-transit-agenc-1831135366 <comment><USER2> 22 years, how ambitious !</comment>