What Makes Great Programmers Different? - <AUTHOR> http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/240001472

<comment><USER3> I've hired and worked with hundreds of programmers, most good. The observations in the post are all true, but another correlate I've seen is patience: willingness to slog through difficult, boring work to achieve a great outcome.

All of the very best programmers I know work incredibly hard and never allow a massive boring task to derail them. It's an interesting combination of confidence ("I can solve this insanely hard problem") and humility ("I am not above doing this crappy work").

Sometimes the solution is to automate the boring stuff; other times it's literally just getting through days of grunt work. The very best programmers I know are willing to do both, and know when to do which.

</comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only one who feels like commentary that categorizes "good" and "bad" programmers is unhelpful? One can make a good case for somebody having more appreciable traits than another, but I would be loathe to call either "good" or "bad", even in comparison to each other. This kind of labeling is just namecalling, more harmful than helpful, a stroking of egos.

The reality is that different people have varying strengths and weaknesses for specific tasks; people have different rates of personal development in different areas. It is not a matter of "good programmer" vs "bad programmer"; it is a matter of "That person can do that task in a better way than I can" or "That person can do that task more efficiently than I can" by some perceived measure of "better" and "efficient". The comparisons between people are relative, not absolute, and divided across many kinds of traits.

However, this article does bring up a number of traits that many of us can probably agree with as "goals to achieve in personal development". For that, it has great conversation value. Personally, I like the notion that memory might be correlated to some quality of design and output.

If I were to pick a trait of importance for a programmer, it would be "Consistently improves bottom line growth." Things that factor into that might be "Writes maintainable code" and "Knows his tools well", but it is debatable that these subtraits have a clear correlation with "bottom line growth". Has anyone actually measured these things?

<comment><USER5> The most important trait for me would be Passion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know one programmer who I would call great. Here's what I've observed from him so far:

1-A serious amount of fucks are given both via attention to detail, polish, and no corners are cut. I have been lazy comparatively and often accepted "good enough." I'm working on changing this so that my priority is what is awesome for the user, not easiest for me to implement.

2-At the micro level, before setting out with any new technology, he tests its properties thoroughly. For example, benchmarking each part of the setup on its most intensive tasks before building with it. No "assuming it will work" based on breathless blog posts. Using his intuitive sense of what is expensive, he also optimizes expensive operations in loops by hand (like mysql complex queries).

3-A well thought out, and well practiced tool-chain for development. Ex: Using vim and knows it well, pays for tools to make life easier, has easy backups with time machine to easily go back, etc.

4-Diverse range of skill, and eagerness to dive into something new at any point.

5-An ability to rapidly debug problems. I haven't pieced together how this skill is built, except it involves the usual logic combined with a better memory than mine (so remembering what to rule out) and a pattern recognition that comes from remembering similar problems.

<comment><USER7> Point 2 is something I've heard Jeff Dean strongly suggest. Write microbenchmarks for all the basic operations of the "black boxes" you'll be using to build the system. That way, you can do quick back-of-the-envelope calculations to estimate the performance of the system before actually building it. You can explore the problem space much more quickly when you can simulate the important characteristics in your head instead of having to actually type them out into an editor.

Point 5 is something my former manager once told me. He'd done RoboGames or something like that as a grad student, and he found that invariably, the teams that won were the ones who had built the best debugging infrastructure into their robot, so that when it didn't behave as expected, they knew exactly what was wrong.

This is as much a property of the program as of the programmer. The best programs usually have debug information built into the structure of the program itself, along with an easy UI for viewing that debug info so you don't have to stare at log lines all day. Once a couple programmers start doing this and everyone else realizes how much time it saves, it becomes part of the culture of the organization, and everybody starts designing programs with an eye toward "Will I be able to figure out what's wrong if this doesn't work?"

<comment><USER8> Please, would you give an example of an open source program with such infrastructure built in ? I'm eager to study such programs to pick up insights.

<comment><USER7> The closest open-source example I can think of is --verbose mode on many UNIX utilities, though that wasn't really what I had in mind. Developer Tools in Chrome is another example of the principle - think of how much easier it is to debug Chrome than IE6 - but again, not quite all the way. Imagine using Developer Tools to debug all of _Chrome_ , eg. Webkit rendering (overlaid on the rendered page itself), resource parsing & scheduling, JS JIT compilation, etc, and not just the pages that execute within it. (Maybe this is possible, I'm not familiar enough with the Chrome project to know all the debug flags available.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've found that just about everybody, myself included, thinks they're at least a good, if not great programmer. Obviously a lot of us are wrong!

I tend to think that being great can be a relative term as well. There's different needs. A great programmer who is a genius at coming up with innovations can't always focus to actually get any real work done. A programmer who isn't very creative may plow through tasks like a steamroller. One may be great at intuitive designs, another is great at hard-core algorithms. Which one is the greatest? Depends on what job they're supposed to be doing. Of course a terrible programmer can wreck any of these scenarios.

<comment><USER10> You're spot on about different needs. I used to work for a guy who was a genius at managing programmers and providing an environment for them to thrive (at least he did that for me). He once told me that for an innovative multi- year software project, he needed a small team of really good programmers to spend several years building and refining the core system (on R&D dollars). Then, several years down the road when the contract dollars started coming in, he'd need a much bigger group of average programmers to handle all the humdrum tasks of moving the right bits to the right places, supporting the right formats and protocols, etc. He understood that the average programmers wouldn't be capable of the former, and the great programmers wouldn't enjoy the latter. It was a significant realization for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The only way you can be a great programmer in a meaningful sense is by putting in your best effort every single time you do some programming work, always looking out for ways to improve your work and always looking for feedback from other people, basically cultivating a "beginners mind". Once you start thinking of yourself as a great programmer, you start paying less attention to what you are actually doing and start being over-confident in your decisions on the ground of your "greatness" and it is very easy to delude yourself - <USER2> know from my own experience. Being great is not a permanent trait you have to gain and will from that moment keep on having forever.

In other words, there really are no great programmers, there is only great programming.

<comment><USER12> The man who knows he's not wise is in fact wise?

I actually agree to some degree. Though it could definitely said that it's easier(less time & struggle) for some to create great programs than it is for others.

My entire life as a programmer has been about consistent and constant improvement. A little bit of improvement every day, every project. Committing to the craft(reading, exploring new langs/tools) will definitely allow you to create better and better code as the years go by.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "being capable of quickly shifting registers from the large picture to small details and back again — relies on the strong memory" Something like that, yes. Just huge memory and fast processor. And unfortunatelly it is just talent, after 10-15 years in the profession you will see your limits: your programing skills can be developed further and further to be very good, but it cannot be developed to be really great. I am a good programmer, but not a great one. When I was young, I thought I am great (winning some small math competitions when I was a child helped to develop this false belief), but now I know I am just good: I don't have that incredible brain power (memory + speed). But I am not depressed: being good is also fun, and anyway programming is not my identity: my identity is more a combination of software product design + programming.

<comment><USER14> I would hope your identity was more closely linked to friends, family and hobbies than your career, regardless of how much you enjoy what you do.

<comment><USER15> I can by the friends and family portion, but why would it be better to have your identity linked to your hobbies than to your career?

<comment><USER16> Because you have more control over your hobbies. At the end of the day, the success of your career is (at least in part) dependant on luck and the decisions of others.

<comment><USER7> Not in programming, which is one of the few lucrative careers where you can do it just as well as a hobby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would phrase it slightly differently. I would phrase it as "able to consider multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously".

When I see code execute I almost unconsciously understand what the code is doing at a procedural and sometimes assembly level, as well as what it is doing at an architectural level. It's the skill you need if you are going to work on intentionally undocumented code. It means when I encounter a bug, I know what construct I'm looking for: "ah, yes, there it is." When I architect something it is as simple as it needs to be to do the right thing and I don't have to put any extra effort in to have it communicate meaning through structure. My challenge is to provide guide posts to other programmers coming later to help them swap between those levels, because I don't need them myself, or do what I do now and work with other people who's minds also work this way. If I come back to code I wrote five years ago I still grasp exactly what is going on, and the chances are pretty good I remember the exact code.

I'm still not one of the greatest programmers I know, though. Those can both simultaneously consider multiple levels of abstraction and leave that aside to consider tiny pieces. I can sit down and carve away marble to leave a program; they can sit down and merge tiny chips of marble into something that looks exactly like I would have created out of whole cloth.

For them, unit testing is easy. For me it is challenging and a necessary chore.

On the other hand, at least 40% of my job doesn't benefit from this, mostly because of missing tools. Moving into CMake was fantastic, because finally I could apply the same approach to release engineering I applied to writing code. There are definitely roles for which this is massive overkill, and lots of people who work this way spend all their time building tools to support it rather than producing software used by consumers.

</comment><comment><USER18> They spend time building useful things rather than getting caught up in online discussion forums.

<comment><USER19> I'm not a good programmer, because when I tell myself I will be programming, 2/3 of that time is spent reading Hacker News instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > The other group, the reckless, consists of those who have the skills but > don't have the discipline. They are the cowboy programmers of yore. They > code according to their own desires, do nothing to integrate their work with > that of others, scrimp on basic discipline, and cause work for other team > members.

It is worthwhile to note that Steve, Linus, Feynmann (last one in physics, not coding) all belong to this category. These are the people who do programming (or whatever else they like) for their own pleasure - to derive fun out of. They are unafraid to challenge the status quo - and they are exactly the ones who cause disruptive changes in the world.

If at all, the slowness with which their reputation is dying makes me happy - because though they are capable of having highest success rate in creating start ups, unfortunately not all of them will succeed in building their own company. And it will be a sad world if these people are not allowed in established companies to make the changes that can swing the world in the organization's favor.

<comment><USER5> I've never understood the hate for cowboy coders. A great cowboy coder can do the work of an entire team. It's so typical for people to cry that the cowboy causes work for others, but I've never seen it myself, and I expect the great many who claim it are just following the group-think they've had drilled into their heads.

If you inherit a program from some other maintainer, there is a learning curve no matter what. A good programmer quickly learns how it's put together and plays the field they're on.

<comment><USER21> The problem is when your cowboy coder leaves your company, you are fucked. The code is undocumented, and incomprehensible. It works but you have no idea how it works and neither does anybody else.

<comment><USER5> I think that may just be a straw-man argument. It should not be difficult to figure out how it works, the logic is laid out right in front of you.

There is _always_ a learning curve when taking over a project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think a good memory is important as is a broad knowledge of their tool-set, but how did they get that way? I think curiousity is probably a programmer's biggest asset ... the desire "to know".

</comment><comment><USER23> Is memory really that important? I'm just starting out with programming right now and I have rather poor memory.

<comment><USER24> It's important, but I don't think it's crucial. I've seen a couple programmers that are really good that do not have good memories. They always have apis and cheat sheets open in their browsers they are constantly referencing, along with frequent searches on google.

<comment><USER23> I'm quite relieved to hear it. Constantly referencing is what I do to get around my inability to remember things too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think what's really interesting here is not what makes a good or great programmer but rather how everybody has different criteria for "greatness". I found this thread more enlightening about the commenters than about greatness.

This isn't that surprising: different people do different things, and their ideal programmer is relative to what they do. Somebody more business oriented would value more maintainable software and good team-working; a hacker type would value "getting things done" and "worse is better"; a more academic type would value novel and nontrivial work. Of course, in reality, what different people value is more nuanced, but the core point remains: there is no single definition of greatness.

</comment><comment><USER26> 50% of programmers are below average.

<comment><USER27> 50% of programmers are below median. It is quite possible that programmers do not follow a normal distribution.

<comment><USER28> Interestingly, there is some research to support the idea that ability to learn programming is a bimodal distribution. One interpretation of this was that people fall into three basic categories: those who cannot do the reasoning, those who can, but find it very unpleasant, and those who do it with some ease. Presumably most professional programmers would fall into the third category, but if there were some in the second category, that could perturb the distribution.

<http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So, how do you know if you are a bad programmer? It seems that a programmer could be bad but think they are great....

<comment><USER30> It's really hard to know how competent you are in any field, if you are incompetent.

There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. The problem with really bad programmers, is that the unknown unknowns for them are really large... so they have no ability to gauge just how incompetent they are.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect>

<comment><USER31> On the contrary,when you get better at coding, just like mathematics,whe you compare your codes with others programmers and are comfortable with the similar code patterns and habits, thats one of the indications that you're becoming a great programmer, just like mathematics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Ayn Rand's opinion on genius was similar. She said that what was unique to genius was the ability to very easily shift between different levels of abstraction.

I would not refer to this as "memory", but as understanding. Memory is of course involved in understanding, but it is not sufficient for it, and does not by itself enable the ability to shift.

</comment><comment><USER32> One of the great things about working in software is that if you want to work at the frontier and push the limits of what has been done before, you still can. Your peers may deride you as a "cowboy programmer", but they can't stop you.

Many other fields have been so heavily regulated by government that truly pushing the boundaries is either far more painful or impossible, therefore the pace of improvement in them is far slower than it is in the world of software.</comment>


Russia approves use of military in Ukraine - <AUTHOR> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UKRAINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-01-10-01-41 <comment><USER2> See what happened in Ukraine's neighboring country, Moldova, 24 years ago: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Transnistria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Transnistria)

Moldova had a population of ethnic Russians that lived on the Eastern bank of the river D'niest'r. (Similar to the Crimean region in Ukraine.)

Eventually a civil war broke out, and Russia stepped in to back the ethnically Russian region (sound familiar?). The end result was a stalemate. A ceasefire was declared in 1992, and the ethnically Russian region decided to spin off its own government. They call themselves Pre'd'niest'rovia (or Transnistria), and function as an entirely separate country from Moldova. That means different language (Russian, not Moldovan), currency, parliament, military, etc etc. Yet Moldova never accepted it as a sovereign country, and neither did the rest of the world.

To this day, when you see Moldova on a map you only see one country where really there are two.

What's happening in Ukraine today is almost a mirror image. I suspect it will result either in a similar two-country situation with one being unrecognized, or the Eastern half of Ukraine will form a new country.

PS - I was born in Transnistria and lived there until I was eight. Several months ago I went to visit for the first time since leaving 18 years ago. It's a miserable place to live. I also visited Kiev and Odessa (Ukraine) on the same trip, and am glad I did so before this violence broke out.

<comment><USER3> Same thing happened in Georgia in 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#The_South_Oss...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_\(country\)#The_South_Ossetia_War_and_since)

<comment><USER4> Same thing happened in Serbia in 1999. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo)

Only in this case it was NATO who invaded, and it is viewed quite differently from the western media then what parents have cited.

The worst thing in world today is to become the rope on which the imperial forces tug to prove their strength.

<comment><USER5> Kosovo seems a much better example although I don't understand why NATO was able to enter the war against the wishes of Russia. Maybe nothing major happened because Serbia was sort of a Russian puppet state instead of being Russia itself? Or the lack of interesting resources in Kosovo? I have some remembering to do.

By the way, while reading about Kosovo's history yesterday, I noticed how beautiful Pristina's National Public Library looked: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Biblotek...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bibloteka_Komb%C3%ABtare_e_Kosov%C3%ABs.jpg)

<comment><USER6> Unless you subscribe to an extreme pan Slavophilism, in which the Balkans are legally and morally Russian territory, then no, Russia had nothing to say in the Balkans.

<comment><USER5> Not Russian territory but under Soviet (and then Russian) influence. No?

<comment><USER7> No, pretty much the exact opposite: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split)

<comment><USER5> Ah, this is very interesting, thanks for the eye-opening link! It actually might explain my previous questions about Kosovo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The scariest part of all of this is the 6000 mystery troops that showed up without any logos on their uniforms or carriers or tanks.

They took over the border, airport, etc. without any identification, simply guns to insist "do as we say". They even blocked the coast guard from leaving their ports.

Which means they had this kind of force all prepared.

Can you imagine if US troops showed up somewhere in huge numbers with all identification hidden (I realize small "special forces" operate that way but not regular troops).

<comment> brown9-2 I think the strange/comical part of this is that Russia thought that "we'll just take off our logos" was a good strategy for keeping a secret or saving face.

<comment><USER9> I think it was actually a brilliant FUD strategy to buy the Russians time and stop the West from intervening in a timely (from their perspective) fashion.

<comment><USER10> As if somebody would be intervening. EU bureaucrats plan to hold "emergency meeting" on Monday - because occupation of a foreign country and potential war near their borders is not a reason to work on Sunday, you see. One can be sure nothing would come out of it on Monday either but empty "we are very worried" declarations.

<comment><USER11> > As if somebody would be intervening. EU bureaucrats plan to hold "emergency > meeting" on Monday - because occupation of a foreign country and potential > war near their borders is not a reason to work on Sunday, you see.

Or because the actual work to develop options and brief on the facts prior to the emergency meeting of decision makers is going to happen through Sunday.

Most of the work related to any meeting of decision-makers, even an emergency meeting, happens _before_ the meeting.

<comment><USER10> They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days. Even UN is moving faster.

<comment><USER11> > They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days.

Not really.

> Even UN is moving faster.

Yeah, but all the UN would do in even an ideal (in terms of ability to decide on approach) situation would be to declare broad principles and call on other countries to take action of broadly-specified types to acheive them (with Russia's veto on the UNSC and role in the current crisis, there's about zero chance of even that happening unless Russia's rep gets lost on the way to the chamber.)

OTOH, the EU is more likely to need to evaluate not just what it wants to achieve, but what it can actually concretely do with its real actual resources to achieve its goals, which mean that there is, in practical terms, a lot more substance for the EU to address than the UNSC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This could turn ugly really fast. If Russia attacks Ukraine the US and Britain would have to protect the borders of Ukraine, according to a treaty signed in 1994 [0].

If the US don't follow the treaty I guess we will know how much these treatys really are worth.

[0] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former- Briti...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British- Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html)

<comment><USER13> Is there another source other than the daily mail i.e. one with an ounce of credibility?

<comment><USER14> Good on you for not trusting the Daily Mail, it's not even a rag at this point.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)

<comment><USER13> Depends what you're wiping with it ;)

Thanks for posting a more balanced and altogether less scary sounding article with references.

<comment><USER15> Don't bother to back up you cliched attack on a popular tabloid newspaper. Much more fun to recycle the old epithets. What amuses me is that way hypercritical folk evidently read the Daily Mail (along with the other on a regular basis else how can they be so adamant concerning it's 'rag' characteristics? Seems to be a moveable feast on HN.

Independent reports say that the DM has the largest online readership in the world at around 44 million. Disputable of course; remarkable that so few of these people (if any) appear have made a buck or two by suing the paper for telling all the lies it's supposed to peddle.

<comment><USER13> Of course we read the Daily Mail occasionally. Well not the whole thing every day. That would be tantamount to bashing one's head on the ground until your intelligence quotient descends towards the dog and monkey end of the bell curve. I'm not suggesting any other rag is any better, just with a different agenda. News should be considered based on a number of sources.

With respect to circulation; 44 million affords more lawyers than you. The Mail has certainly attracted its fair share of libel cases over the years where n_lawyers > daily_mail_n_lawyers.

It's not fit for my children to do papier-mâché with for they might accidentally read some.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am glad this has finally got to the top of HN. People should be aware of the fact that a part of sovereign country is being aggressively annexed by their neighbor. And there is virtually no opposition to Putin in Russia.

<comment><USER17> > I am glad this has finally got to the top of HN

Because once HN is aware of it, we'll... uhm... Send Putin some nasty Perl scripts?

This, like almost all political / breaking news stories, is probably off topic for this site, given the guidelines:

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic."

This will probably be the opening item on most TV news shows this evening. It's currently the lead article on www.cnn.com www.corriere.it www.bbc.com/news/ etc...

<comment><USER18> People said the same thing on Slashdot after 9/11, and they were wrong then, too.

Once-a-generation events, with major impacts that last for decades across an entire region of the world, transcend "news for nerds" guidelines.

<comment><USER19> Well, this is really not once per generation. They did this with Georgia and Moldavia already. And more are to follow.

<comment><USER17> And indeed, there it goes - it's dropping off the front page like a lead balloon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> From what I gather, Obama has some of the same foreign policy advisors as Bush did. We are pursuing some backdoor strategy to get Ukraine to join the EU. The democratically elected president chose to ally with Russia instead, because Russia offered them more. We set up riots over there, and he flees the capital.

The leader is declared to be deposed, and now a leader friendly to the west can take over. Russia can't stand for this - they have military bases in the country, and it is literally in their backyard. In terms of distance to moscow, it would be like taking over north carolina to washington DC.

Question is - who is the aggressor in this situation, really? How is some unelected foreign policy team, fighting some bullshit game over expanding the EU, able to get us into this kind of mess?

I thought Obama was supposed to be the anti-imperialist replacement for Bush? Or is each new president just a toady of the people who really run the show?

I've got no stomach for war. We've done enough damage to ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please Obama, live up to what you were elected for - make that nobel peace prize count for something.

<comment><USER10> That's some pile of bullshit. Who are "we" that set up the riots? Those people stayed there since November, with wide popular support, risking life and limb. It is unbelievably obtuse to echo Kremlin propaganda that those were but the agents of US State Department. One has to be either exceptionally ignorant or exceptionally motivated to find a way to blame America to believe this canard.

>>> Question is - who is the aggressor in this situation, really?

Really? I guess that would be the country that sends the military to the territory of another country. But who would that be? There should be some way in here to blame America here and prove sending military into neighbor's territory is actually all fine, provided that neighbor did an unspeakable atrocity of potentially siding with America or EU.

>>> I've got no stomach for war.

Looks like you've got a lot of stomach for believing propaganda, as long as it matches your prejudices of America being the root of all evil. What a surprise would it be for you when it turns out believing propaganda spouted by an authoritarian dictator with ambitions for territorial conquest is not the surest way to achieve peace!

<comment><USER21> >That's some pile of bullshit. Who are "we" that set up the riots?

"We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."

[http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12...](http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12/20131216289031.html#ixzz2uDCREyNA)

You could also research finances behind 2004 Ukrainian revolution. I'm not saying it's bad. I even support current Ukrainian revolution and I am against Russian aggression. But it's quite obvious that US and allies are are trying to undermine pro-Russian or neutral governments in ex-USSR countries and make these countries adversarial towards Russia geopolitically. It happened in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution)

<comment><USER10> Yes, US sent financial aid to Ukraine. And dozens of other countries too. But you talked about setting up the riots.

>>> with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

You must be kidding. That's how revolutions are done since inventing of squares and government buildings. That's what revolutions _are_ \- a lot of people gather together and oust the existing powers. Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented by US State Department is idiotic - this is how it was done before US State Department even existed.

Of course US supports governments that are not aligned with the dictatorship of Putin and of course US encourages people not to align with the dictator - what else would you suggest? For US officials to tell "we don't care if there's a dictatorship or not - it's not like we in America have any position in regard of human rights, freedom, self-rule and all such matters - those are things we don't care about here at all"? That is, however, a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

<comment><USER21> You are placing me in an uncomfortable position of spewing pro-Kremin propaganda. Ok.

>Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented

Well, I didn't go into details, and I'm not an expert, but Color revolutions in ex soviet countries have certain common qualities to them. The main is "nonviolent action" of Gene Sharp. Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used. Other than that there is financing of pro-Democracy NGOs, that work under assumption that there is a lack of democracy(no matter what), and leaders with western eduction or ex-Reagan administration staffer wives.

>dictatorship of Putin

While I hate Putin and don't like Russia generally it's too subjective and CNN-like to call Putin a dictator. He definitely has support of pupation, and is adequate to Russian people. And I think the level of democracy in Russia is not important to US policy. Russia is US's major geopolitical opponent, one of the few of still independent ones. The US will support revolutions on Russian border no matter how democratic Russia is. Even more, it's easy to argue that Russia is not democratic as say western europe or the US, precisely because The US is very capable at overthrowing governments.

>a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

While of course US didn't set up riots, it certainly assisted the forces which performed an illegal government coup. There is even a recording of ambasaddor Nuland on youtube. Maybe Yanukovich wasn't popular in the Ukraine(Bush too at the end of his second term), but he was a legally elected president, and Eastern parts of the country supported him initially. Forces that took over the government lost in the last elections, and (most likely)didn't have a chance at winning them next time.

As for me personally, being a Russian with pro-Liberty ideology, taking into account the fact that US is meddling with Russia's neighbors, still I'm for these revolutions. I even can't wait for one that will take out Putin. Russia must be weak and fragmented, because cultural code is very authoritarian, and if Russia is strong it will create problems not only for Russians but for people all over the world. But it's not a position of a patriot. Nor it's position of neutral observer.

<comment><USER22> _The main is "nonviolent action" of Gene Sharp. Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used._

What about Ghandi in India? Or Mohism in China in 400BC? The idea that the color revolutions are the first to popularise using nonviolent resistance to gain a moral upper hand against an opponent, is plainly ridiculous.

<comment><USER21> >are the first to popularise

Where did I say they are the first?

Ghandi's struggle against colonialism, and I suppose Mohism are not about government coups, especially in modern context, and modern understanding of what the state is. And Color revolutions are not exactly nonviolent - they are non violent at the initial stage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Russia has a long tradition of "protecting"

"[...]The Soviet Government also cannot view with indifference the fact that the kindred Ukrainian and White Russian people, who live on Polish territory and who are at the mercy of fate, should be left defenceless. In these circumstances, the Soviet Government have directed the High Command of the Red Army to order troops to cross the frontier and to take under their protection the life and property of the population of Western Ukraine and Western White Russia."

People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

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

<comment><USER24> US has a long tradition of "protecting" as well. They were protecting Yugoslavia, then protected Iraq, Afganistan, Libya.. recently Syria. They are also looking to protect Iran and Ukraine now. Most of it without UN resolution, with the exception of Libya, where they interpreted "no fly zone" resolution as "just bomb everything that moves" (because Gaddafi tanks could fly I guess).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It would be interesting to discuss how Ukraine got into this kind of situation ([1] [2]) and what are the "natural" consequences of it. Somehow it feels we are not dealing with a single country anymore.

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/1iiXqHN.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/1iiXqHN.jpg)

[2] [http://i.imgur.com/eNo56LZ.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/eNo56LZ.jpg)

<comment><USER9> Crimea is "Russian", it was granted from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev in the 50s.

It's interesting that the situation is playing out pretty much according to this blog post: [http://cluborlov.blogspot.jp/2014/02/shock-over- ukraine.html](http://cluborlov.blogspot.jp/2014/02/shock-over-ukraine.html)

"Most of them don't even know what it is they are protesting, but, in essence, they are protesting the very existence of their country, which is made up of two parts: Eastern Poland, which is Ukrainian-speaking and predominantly Catholic, and Western Russia, which is Russian-speaking and predominantly Orthodox. The "Russians" outnumber the "Ukrainians" two to one. The ultimate resolution to the crisis lies in partitioning the country. Nobody has the stomach to even talk about it—yet. But until that happens we will continue being subjected to this strange spectacle, where every single actor in Ukraine does everything possible to undermine the country's political system. Deep down, the Ukrainians don't want there to be a different government in Kiev—they don't want there to be a government in Kiev at all."

<comment><USER26> I agree separation seems to be the elephant in the room, but ignoring the separate Ukrainian language is somewhat oversimplifying. If the language spoken in Kiev was Polish, then _maybe_ you'd have a case about the Poland bit.

<comment><USER9> What I grokked from the quote is Poland as in catholic and more culturally European, not literally Polish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "The potential strike by the [Russian Federation] against [Ukraine], despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond [Ukraine]'s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the [Chechnya] problem and the [Syrian] conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance." – Vladimir Putin, six months ago. [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for- cau...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from- russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER28> I'm not so sure you can use brackets to replace any noun with another noun. It's clearly satire but some people might think this is a direct quote of Putin.

<comment><USER27> At the time that op-ed came out, people did similar things with an even earlier op-ed of his: [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/opinion/why-we-must- act.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/opinion/why-we-must- act.html?smid=tw-share)

Clearly, his position is whatever is convenient at any given time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It looks to me like it was all organized from the start: If using the economic pressure of gas prices wasn't enough to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence, they were ready to seize Crimea and maybe something more...

<comment><USER30> Russia just cannot lose Crimea. It was silly for EU and especially US pols to think Ukraine could be snatched from Putin wholesale (and using neonazis, no less).

<comment><USER31> _neonazis_

I guess that's the talking point of the day.

Ironically, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia under the pretense that it was to protect its ethnic Germans.

<comment><USER30> It's not a talking point: Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor are right-wing extremist groups with racist tendencies, just look them up on Wikipedia. The first act from their new government was to revoke a law granting language rights to Russian and Hungarian minorities.

Just because Putin is a bad actor, it doesn't mean his enemies are good actors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The Russians have a lot more to lose in this situation than we do. The Russian Mediterranean fleet is based out of Sevastopol, hence their movements into the Crimean Peninsula. While I sympathize with the people of the Ukraine Obama wasn't smart to bet our credibility in a situation where the Russians could not back down.

</comment><comment><USER33> It is too complicated to discuss here. First of all, the naval bases, gas pipeling infrastructure were build in Soviet times using resources of whole Soviet union. After its collapse in 90th everything became messy, but old strategic interests were respected.

These events has very simple cause - too avoid any shift of control over strategic resources of former Soviet Union to pro-EU oligarchy and eventually EU capital which which Russia cannot compete.

The other question is a moral one - does the interests of Russian oligarchs, controlling Gazprom, who "inherited" Soviet infrastructure should be reinforced by military operations?

At least it is not an ethnic conflict, just conflict of interest.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's all going to be fine. Hitler stopped after getting Sudetenland too, right? Oh wait ...

All of Easter Europe should watch this carefully. We all knew that Russia considers all east of Dresden to be their property. When they were leaving here after their invasion of 1968, they told us it's temporary.

Now they are starting to reclaim it. All of it.

</comment><comment><USER34> It's a crazy situation all around. Russia has a military base in the Ukraine, in Crimea.

If Cuba had a modern day revolution would the US not send in troops to Guantanamo? Would we be in the wrong for doing so? Even if the interim government was more US friendly?

<comment> aaron-lebo I tend to agree that the US would take such steps, but if the US decided to control larger portions of the country than just their bases (which is what is sounds like Russia is doing), that is a major problem and more than just protecting a military asset.

<comment><USER9> Who would it be a major problem for if Cuba was ostensibly part of another state, yet had a population of 60% Americans and a newly anti-American government?

<comment><USER27> The analogy doesn't hold, as Cuba's present government is nominally anti-US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> wow! everyone was just silent after the "revolution". no one said a single word about the right-wing armed forces. now the news are back in the front page of HN, cool... and meaningful in terms of timing, as one of those politics guys says in my country.

</comment><comment><USER36> live stream [http://rt.com/on-air/embed/global/](http://rt.com/on- air/embed/global/)

<comment><USER37> RT (of course) gives such a different view from Western media, it may as well be a completely different story. Right now, for example, it tells how "armed extremists sent from Kiev tried to seize government buildings in Crimea".

<comment><USER5> And usually none of the versions is the correct one...

That specific part might talk about some groups of people (not army related) trying to do what some other did in other cities of Ukraine. It's hard to know what's true and what's not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Parliament approved (by 100% votes).

Unbelievable.

<comment><USER39> My reaction as well. I suppose it must be true that United Russia are rigging all the polls.

<comment><USER40> That's normal for Russia, sadly. Yesterday there was a voting about mandatory registration of all web sites in Roskomnadzor (heavily controversial bill). 438 for, 0 against, 0 abstained. Russian democracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I hope that was just a political move in response to harsh words from the USA and no real sending troops will follow. Because that is very stupid thing to do for Russia. It makes me sick that nobody in the parliament voted against. And even though western media was using propaganda heavily as well as russian's did, there's no need to bend the truth with that kind of stupid move. It will only make the conflict bigger instead of helping it. Most people in the Crimea just wants all that shit(from both sides) to stop and live peacefully. I hope everything will end up fine.

P.S. I'm Russian with some Ukrainian roots.

<comment><USER29> Apparently, troops are already there though.

<comment><USER41> There's naval base in Sevastopol with permanent troops.

<comment><USER29> Yes, but from what I read Russian troops are deployed outside those bases, around the government palaces. I just hope this ends well (even if I couldn't define what "well" could mean here).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Will we ever manage to act morally, ethically and rationally in situations like that? Or will the situation where suddenly everything escalates and we blow up the planet come first?

</comment><comment><USER43> This is getting serious. Soon we'll find out how much human politics have progressed in the last ~50 years and what we have learned.

Let's see how this crisis will get solved. Hint: armed forces, not a good sign already.

</comment><comment><USER35> > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics...

I guess most stories about politics involves China, Russia, Iran, Syria, DPRK, USSR, Cuba, Venezuella...

</comment><comment><USER44> We averted the Cuban missile crisis. This is a bit smaller than that. It's power play by Russia. Things will subside soon.

</comment><comment><USER45> Ugh, politics. Why bring into a "hacker news" site? Keep that garbage on Facebook and in reddit where it belongs.

<comment><USER24> "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did." \- [http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Has anyone noticed an ramp of DDOS attacks on ISPs? In the DC Metro Area, we've had a bunch of issues with Windstream, Allied Telecom, Comcast, etc... All NTP based. Not to mention the inbound call issues with ATT in the Mid- Atlantic Market. Could this be a result of Current events with Russia?

</comment><comment><USER44> Images of the USSR invasion of Finland sprang up in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER47> Blood for oil.

</comment><comment><USER48> When will the State Department, the White House and NATO issue a response on Facebook and Twitter? In the ultimate battle, Obama can out text, twitter and talk Putin. US wins and is the world power in nothing. We have the leadership we deserve.</comment>


The Broken Mindset - <AUTHOR> http://fredericjacobs.com/the-broken-mindset#

<comment><USER2> what is this nonsense?

"If you compare US education with the european model, you'll quickly notice that american kids are getting more confident of what they are doing very early in life."

Yes, this is a failure of metacognitive skills. They are too ignorant to realize their ignorance.</comment>


Ask YC: What is your preferable development environment? - <AUTHOR>

Linux with Gnome or KDE. Mac or Windows? Laptop or desktop? In case of Linux, which distro? <comment><USER2> 12" PowerBook with Carbon Emacs 22 (if you're not using Emacs 22, you definitely should be).

It's as portable as I can get without getting cramps from typing. I am looking to check out the Lenovo U110 when it drops though, in which case I'll run Debian 4.0 with Xmonad.

<comment><USER3> I was using Emacs 21 but on your advice I installed 22. OMG! I was developing cataracts with 21, it was just so damn ugly. GTK is like corrective eye surgery. Cheers mate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My preferable development environment would be an IDE I built myself, perfectly tailored to the peculiars of MY workflow. It would also need to feature easy extensibility to make it affordable to extend it, sometimes on a per-project basis. I'd eventually end up working on optimizing my productivity in a quite direct manner, by analysing what the bottlenecks (anything that hampers Flow) are in my different projects and devising solutions.

When you work in Lisp by making DSL's and generally problem-specific extensions, I think the next logical step is to extend the IDE to support it directly (especially if you use the extension in many projects). If for example you make a CSS DSL, it would be great to have full property completion support, syntax highlighting and the other usual suspects.

Two areas I expect to work on a lot is 1. making the operations of my IDE more "semantic" (as in, adapted to what I want to do. If it's easy to think about, it should be easy and quick to carry it out) and 2. Making a system of views that would let me bypass the traditional file-based view of a project. If you program in a mostly functional way, most of the time the load order and segregation into files is much less important than other possible views of the project.

</comment><comment><USER5> Macbook Pro + Emacs (aquamacs) = Love.

Anyone else find that they are absolutely bound to emacs and no matter what else you try to use, you find yourself, like a turtle returning to the beach where it was born, going back to emacs?

P.S. I have nothing against vi, but you know, turtles and nature and all of that.

<comment><USER6> one word: butterflies

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My evolution (doing C++ development on Linux):

1\. First I tried Eclipse. And tried it again, and again. I couldn't figure out how to do the simplest darn things in Eclipse, hated the interface, and it just seemed too complicated to me.

2\. Switched to vim + commandline. Invoking gcc directly.

3\. Tried emacs - decided I felt the same way about it is I did about Eclipse. Too complicated and I can't figure out simple things.

4\. Switched to GEdit + makefiles; still doing a lot on the command line.

5\. Looked for a good visual IDE; discovered Anjuta. Was really impressed and happy for about 2 hours. After 2 days and Anjuta crashed for the 1000th time in a row, I wanted to strangle the programmers who wrote Anjuta.

6\. Discovered KDevelop. KDevelop is a pleasure to use. Feature complete, very productive, no problems. Got to first milestone in project faster than expected, primarily because KDevelop was so good to work in.

</comment><comment><USER8> MacBook Pro running OS X 10.5.2, Emacs, Python primarily, with occasional outbursts of TextMate, Lisp, Perl, Ruby and Logo (for teaching mathematical concepts to my son.)

</comment><comment><USER9> small underpowered laptop, openbsd, dwm, newlisp, vim, javascript, jquery-ui, flot, lighttpd, hg, ssh, cron ubuntu+ff+ie4linux+opera+kazehakaze+jquery for testing mini+leopard+safari for testing deprecated:freebsd,python,php,sqlite,mysqlite,darcs,matlab,R

my mini and desktop are far more powerful than my 450mhz 128mb fujitsu laptop; i might get an eeepc tho, only iff openbsd can run all the hardwares

my iBookG4 broke last year, it's weird but i didn't miss her that much

</comment><comment><USER10> Once I really get into the code, I couldn't care less what OS I'm on. I care about OS more for general use.

</comment><comment><USER11> * 15" Macbook Pro, 4GB, 10.4.8 (waiting for 10.5.3 before upgrading). * Quicksilver (one of the big reasons I switched to Mac in the first place) * IntelliJ IDEA for Java backend stuff (imho, the best code virtuoso tool out there bar none; once you get used to leveraging all the functionality, you will feel crippled in any other environment). * iTerm for terminal needs * Journler (perfect for note taking and keeping interesting reference web pages locally searchable) * VMware Fusion for Windows development stuff * NetNewsWire to consume my daily news fix efficiently

<comment><USER2> Why the wait til 10.5.3?

I use Quicksilver on my Powerbook (running Tiger), but Spotlight is fast enough on the Intel iMac, running Leopard, I use at work that I removed Quicksilver from the system completely.

<comment><USER11> I used to be bleeding edge, always upgrading to the latest version of anything that came out, but as a consequence ran into occasions where things broke that were working perfectly before (and ended up wasting time getting things back to normal again).

My guess is that with 10.5.3 the majority of the rough spots have been smoothed out and all my favorite applications had time to make the Leopard transition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> .net vs05(vs08 seems like it needs a service pack) on windows

php coda/code igniter on mas osx(using mamp)

<comment><USER13> Darren, you a CodeIgniter guy? If you haven't already, I highly recommend getting started with the new ASP.NET MVC framework--it almost makes working with .NET in the day job tolerable (yes, "almost").

<comment><USER12> Thanks yeah I tried the first release but it would not work on my fresh install of vs08 and .net 3.5

I'll give it a go again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> vim, screen, svn...

Don't use lisp(s) enough to enjoy Emacs anymore.

</comment><comment><USER15> Note: all the software I have developed so far has been for personal use.

I use a desktop computer with a Microsoft Natural keyboard, Arch Linux, Emacs, Emacs Lisp, the shell rc.

The elements I am most pleased with are the keyboard and the shell rc. I am also pretty happy with Emacs Lisp, especially its manual and commands like C-h c C-h w and C-h f. Too many administration hassles with Arch Linux though. To reduce hassles, I would buy OS X if I were not very low income.

</comment><comment><USER16> MacBook + Cinema Display 23" + emacs + vmware fusion + safari + coffee + ikea furniture + <http://last.fm/user/egimenez>

</comment><comment><USER17> Ubuntu Laptop, vim, caps-lock-as-additional-ctrl, windows-key bound to new- terminal-window, C, Python, Lisp, Python, Lua, Python. Mercurial.

</comment><comment><USER18> _"... What is your preferable development environment? ..."_

Normal gnu setup ...

\- ubuntu64, gnome, vim, bash, xterm, & git

\- various langs - python, perl, Js, sql, c & basic LAMP stack.

\- browser with firebug, dom inspector, html validator, js debugger, noscript

\- commodity desktop hardware + 22" + good speakers.

</comment><comment><USER19> NetBeans (Sometimes TextMate), Mac OS X on a MacBook Pro, with all code in a Subversion repository.

I started using TextMate, but I find a bunch of things like how it jacks up indenting when pasting, and flashes when matching tabs. NetBeans handles both these things much more nicely.

</comment><comment><USER20> OS X, laptop, Textmate, and Emacs.

Textmate is just more approachable when it comes to extending the editor, though, so I usually use it for odds and ends over Emacs. Emacs is great for well structured projects in well supported languages.

</comment><comment><USER21> Ubuntu + Emacs.

</comment><comment><USER22> MacBook + TextMate + RoR

<comment><USER23> Same here, however I've started treating my laptop as a 'thin client'. All my files are hosted on my iMac, which I access over Wi-Fi when at home, or via iDisk/Back to My Mac when elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I use the latest Netbeans Ruby IDE dev releases, so OS isn't much of a concern.

Just for the record though, I use linux with Gnome, Ubuntu 7.10.

Your dev environment matters less than having two or more monitors in my opinion, though.

</comment><comment><USER25> Windows (Office 2007 won me over temporarily from *nix) and nano over SSH. I get yelled at almost daily to switch to emacs. I'm used to it though, I use Word 2007 instead of LaTeX and will never hear the end of it.

</comment><comment><USER26> For web work: fedora 8, vim php

For desktop app work: netbeans, java (!) either winxp or fedora 8

For mathematical work: Mathematica + win xp

For fooling around learning new stuff: fedora 8 + python

</comment><comment><USER27> At the day job: Ubuntu with Gnome, vim.

At home working on startup/contract work: Macbook running OS X 10.5.whatever the latest, vim, sometimes emacs or aquamacs if I'm messing around with scheme.

</comment><comment><USER28> Emacs, OS X.

</comment><comment><USER29> Eclipse (PDT/Flex Builder) + Text Mate + Aqua Data Studio + PostgresqlMaestro + nano (eat it vi! shove your c-h-ch-x-f-u-ch-k-sh-i-t emacs!) + iTerm + SubEthaEdit (for pair programming)

</comment><comment><USER30> Netbeans for RoR, gvim for everything else (perl, R, autohotkey, actionscript, C). Mercurial. 1920 x 1200 laptop in portrait position with an external IBM keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER31> Ubuntu with decked out Gedit, desktop with two monitors.

I also have a tablet with XP. My favorite editor for Rails is RoRed, but it only works for Windows :(

</comment><comment><USER32> Dell Inspiron + Ubuntu + vim + Python/PyQt/Django/RoR/MySQL

</comment><comment><USER33> Mac Book Pro (15) with key mappings for home and end "fixed" with a 27.5 inch hanns g monitor (good, cheap and big). Netbeans b/c debugging can be handy.

</comment><comment><USER34> Ubuntu Linux with xterm windows, Eclipse, and emacs for those times when you just need some special behavior tied to your F1 key.

</comment><comment><USER35> Windows: VS 2005.NET, ActiveState (Python and Ruby), notepad++ Ubuntu: Gnome, gedit, RoR, Spidermonkey

</comment><comment><USER36> xandros (eee pc version) + KDE + emacs windows + eclipse --->had to use for "other" work stuffs fedora + Gnome + emacs ---> fave

Most important : Flash Drive, IPod, and laptop or desktop and I can code wherever and whenever I want.

</comment><comment><USER37> Mac Book, OSX 10.5 , textmate (ruby,python,...) , eclipse (Lisp - cups, Java, C++)

</comment><comment><USER38> VS 2k5/2k8 while at work for The Man, emacs on OSX/linux while hacking at home.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> here is mine: Ubuntu, Scite, nano, ssh, LightTPD, Python, gcc, gcl and _Firebug_. Virtual Box with FreeBSD and Windows Server 2003, Windows XP SP2 (for pre deployment testing) Thank you all for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER39> vim, kubuntu on a Dell D830, Mercurial

Lately doing Ruby (Ramaze apps) and JRuby (building Swing GUI apps using Monkeybars).

I use Netbeans for some of the JRuby stuff, but do most code editing in vim

</comment><comment><USER13> vim on my MBP (formerly on my Dell laptop running Ubuntu).

I enjoy vim because it rewards me for learning new commands (referencing the "What software makes you happy?" thread).

</comment><comment><USER40> Arch Linux + KDEmod + VIM & Code::Blocks (PHP, Ruby and C++)

</comment><comment><USER41> Desktop + Arch Linux + openbox + gvim

C, Python, Common Lisp

</comment><comment><USER42> Ubuntu ,NetBeans(for RoR), Eclipse(for Python/Django, Java)

<comment><USER43> +1. Ubuntu 7.10, NetBeans 6 (Ruby), Git on my 14" laptop. Very rarely using Eclipse (for Java). How is it for Python ? I am thinking about learning Python and Django.

<comment><USER42> reasonably good with PyDev. Not as good as NB for RoR though

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> OS X, Firebug, TextMate, Git. JavaScript, Python, Io, Arc.

</comment><comment><USER45> Gentoo + gedit + terminal + scheme/ruby/erlang + Google.

</comment><comment><USER46> Linux + gvim + gnome-terminal @ 1920x1200 15" laptop.

</comment><comment><USER47> Debian GNU/Linux, XEmacs, xterms, darcs, theobromin.

</comment><comment><USER48> Textmate + OS X

</comment><comment><USER49> OS X, GNU Emacs, gcc, gdb, MzScheme.

</comment><comment><USER50> Currently a Macbook + Textmate

</comment><comment><USER51> Ubuntu + Python + Scite atm

</comment><comment><USER52> Delphi - I'm all alone :-(

<comment><USER29> I used to Delphi, if that makes you feel any better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Coda, OSX, some TextMate

</comment><comment><USER54> Java or Scala, Linux.

</comment><comment><USER55> preferable: a cocktail, a lounge chair, sand, and the Mediterranean + a phone to call my peon developers and tell them what to do ;)

</comment><comment><USER56> Fedora + KDE + Vim

</comment><comment><USER57> Emacs 22 on Fedora 8 & SciTE on Windows

</comment><comment><USER58> archlinux+wmii+aterm+vim+rails+unfuddle+svn...

</comment><comment><USER59> ubuntu+xterm+screen+vim+git and bash/python scripts.</comment>


WWIV 5.0 released - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wwivbbs/docs/blob/master/docs/WWIVNews_2015_12.md <comment><USER2> I'm psyched. I'd be even more psyched if it was Telegard. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> last time i logged into a WWIVnet BBS must have been around 1991...</comment>


How Much did it Cost Youtube to host Gangnam Style? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/10/29/how-much-did-it-cost-youtube-to-stream-gangnam-style/

<comment><USER2>
      Cost for high resolution streaming, at $10485/PB: $  251658.24
      Cost for low  resolution streaming, at $10485/PB: $   22963.81

The numbers look much better in right-aligned fixed width, don't they?

</comment><comment><USER3> \\\As I pointed out before, there are at least 80 different files that need to be encoded and stored for the approximately 4:15 sec video.

Anyone knows if this is true? Really 80?</comment>


Interesting article about the decline of outsourcing - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/in-early-2010-somewhere-high.ars

<comment><USER2> This is a worthwhile read if you care about manufacturing as a source of jobs and economic activity or if you are running or starting a manufacturing business.

Smaller businesses that offshore their manufacturing to China can find that the savings in labour costs are offset by capital tied up in inventory, poor product quality, lack of agility, increased time to market and bootleg products based on their IP.

Insightful article.</comment>


A pound of flesh: how Cisco's "unmitigated gall" derailed one man's life - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/a-pound-of-flesh-how-ciscos-unmitigated-gall-derailed-one-mans-life.ars <comment><USER2> The win-at-any-cost mindset of modern litigating is here on display at its very worst:

1\. Disregard truth when it gets in the way of the advantage you seek to attain with the aid of law.

2\. Say whatever it takes to get judges to go your way, even if you not only omit important facts in making your petition but also affirmatively misstate whatever inconvenient fact gets in your way.

3\. Disregard your duty as a prosecutor - which ultimately is to ensure that justice is done even as you pursue alleged criminal wrongdoing - and place the formidable powers of your office at the disposal of a private civil litigant with whom you want to cozy up.

4\. Don't give a second thought to wasting the legal and judicial resources of two governments to help put on a charade that is wholly unnecessary to any legitimate goal of the legal system but that serves the interest of a private litigant only.

5\. And, perhaps worst of all, don't hesitate to misuse the law to try to ruin the life of an innocent man in order to protect the market dominance you once had but now see as slipping to the point where it can be upheld only by resort to vicious legal tactics aimed at crushing potential competitors.

One recoils at the thought of it and can only wonder who within Cisco would have countenanced it all.

<comment><USER3> > One recoils at the thought of it and can only wonder who within Cisco would > have countenanced it all.

That's the thing. "Cisco" would be hard to hold accountable. But people made those decisions. Was the law broken (false testimony == perjury? barratry?) If so, it was broken by people.

Hold people accountable and you'll see less abuse.

<comment><USER4> The documentary shows the development of the contemporary business corporation, from a legal entity that originated as a government-chartered institution meant to effect specific public functions, to the rise of the modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person. One theme is its assessment as a "personality", as a result of an 1886 case in the United States Supreme Court in which a statement by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite[nb 1] led to corporations as "persons" having the same rights as human beings, based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The film's assessment is effected via the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and a consultant to the FBI, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically-diagnosed psychopath. The documentary concentrates mostly upon North American corporations, especially those of the United States.

The film is in vignettes examining and criticizing corporate business practices. It establishes parallels between the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave and the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, i.e. callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporati...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporation)

<comment><USER5> Yes, but that's rather beside the point. Corporations might be psychopaths, but having no hands they physically cannot commit murder - and having no minds cannot even enter into a conspiracy to commit murder. They're like a medical patient in a vegetable state: a legal person and able to interact with the world through those they have granted power of attorney, but not able to take independent action.

EDIT: I should point out, it isn't impossible that a person in a vegetable state could commit some criminal offence - goodness knows we have a lot of laws on the books - and it isn't impossible for a corporation to commit a criminal offence either. Just difficult and/or unusual. On the other hand both can easily commit civil offences and corporations are prosecuted for those all the time.

So if there was a crime committed in lying to the police, it was committed by a human being and unlike certain government workers, people acting on behalf of a corporation enjoy no immunity to prosecution.

And I think you're being overly broad in accusing all corporations of the sins of the view. Corporations that are sole proprietorships seem to have all the same morality as the person who owns them. Non profit corporations like the ACLU also appear to display much more morality than a psychopath, as well. And there are many large groups of people - governments and political parties and so forth - which act like psychopaths without being corporations.

<comment><USER6> 100 years ago, yes, a corporation's actions would lay entirely at the feet of people executing them on its behalf. Now, though, a corporation is made up of just as much automation—web services, manufacturing plants, stock trading AI agents—as it is humans. A corporation could do a person a wrong with no human having any sort of mens rea, save perhaps for a systems engineer who signed off on the consequences of interactions of the project components.

For example, see the many cases where hosting providers have received automatic DMCA takedown notices because some spider detected supposedly- infringing content on one of their hosted websites. Did any person decide to send these notices? Is any human legally at-fault for these actions at all?

<comment><USER7> > Did any person decide to send these notices? Is any human legally at-fault > for these actions at all?

Valid DMCA notices require a statement made under penalty of perjury. Either someone is signing them (and therefore liable), or they're not proper DMCA. That said, people frequently respond to and take stuff down even when issued an improper notice.

That said, I've never heard of anyone getting in serious trouble for filing improper notices, even fairly absurd ones, though I think the EFF litigated one such case over the short YouTube clip of the baby dancing to some big label music. I've also never heard of someone getting convicted of perjury for sending a fraudulent notice, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Unfortunately, there is nothing that will prevent Cisco from doing this again in the future. They didn't get the result they wanted, but in all likelihood they aren't going to see any further rebuke for this ridiculous perversion of justice.

At the end of the day, _someone_ at Cisco made the decision to try and completely ruin this guy's life. My sense of justice tells me that person should face criminal liability for his actions.

My sense of cynicism tells me he'll get promoted instead.

<comment><USER9> Actually, if you could find a person directly responsible, it would probably be best if that person were killed. This is not an isolated incident for the US government, where due process has broken down completely, and if naked power is the only law left it would be better if it cut both ways.

<comment><USER10> I'm not at all advocating Cisco's behavior (it's very unethical and likely criminal as well) but I think suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh.

<comment><USER11> _... suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh._

No. A coalition of execs conducted a violent kidnapping in broad daylight to make a political statement. It would not be out of line to whack one of them in front of their family. Tit-for-tat ain't just for game theory papers. Illegality isn't much of an argument, since by corrupting the process of law they have placed themselves outside it.

We can reasonably consider even more than that. The execs corrupted many levels of government, but were so inept that the government itself caught them at it. The Feds don't quite use Roman penalties for corruption (crucifixion), but they are harsh and unforgiving. Even a $100 bribe can get you sent to prison for years.

<comment><USER11> Why the downvotes? If you disagree with an element of fact, then say it.

The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping, to send a political message to the victim and his family. It would easily have turned into a full on mob hit if the victim had put a hand in his pocket and it had been "misinterpreted".

And how is Cisco's next victim to seek redress? Certainly not by crossing a border: they own customs and immigration. Certainly not by working with a foreign court: Cisco's armed agents travel freely anywhere and do as they please. Certainly not by making a complaint to the FBI: who will just turn the complaint over to prosecutors who are Cisco's tame lapdogs.

This is not lost on their prospective victims. With cooperation off the table, they know the choice is to submit or strike first. It is a statistical certainty that one of their prospective victims will choose to strike. It is also a certainty that, given the opaque nature of Cisco's management, that the strike will be broadly targeted. This sort of game-theoretic logic is _exactly_ why corporate disputes in Moscow are so often resolved by bombings.

Cisco has sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind if they do not clean up their act.

<comment><USER12> _The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping_

Re-reading this, I'm now convinced you're trolling. Regardless of whatever inappropriate influence Cisco may have exerted on US authorities, it was the RCMP that arrested Adekeye, and it appears to have been done in a very polite manner.

<comment><USER13> His point is that it was Cisco that masterminded the privation of liberty, to use it as as a lever in the civil suit. Whether they did it Moscow-style paying mobsters or "country of laws style" by lying to a US prosecutor is immaterial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Earnest urged a lawsuit and even raised the idea of criminal charges against Bosack. He e-mailed colleagues: "The fundamental problem is: how do you negotiate an equitable agreement with crooks?"

"1985-88 Back at Stanford as associate chair of Computer Science and also involved in parallel processing research, I discovered that the founder of Cisco Systems, who I was supervising, was selling Stanford technology. I prepared for legal action and induced him to resign but later discovered that the Stanford administration avoids suing corporations whenever possible, thinking of them as potential donors. After a couple of years, during which Cisco illicitly made millions, Stanford gave them a sweetheart licensing deal. A few years later I ran across an endowed chair at Stanford in the name of the chief crook and funded by Cisco. There was additional dirt beneath the surface of these transactions but that story will have to wait till later." -- <http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/net.htm>

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hewlett- Packa...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hewlett- Packard_spying_scandal)

</comment><comment><USER14> It might be worth contacting members of Cisco's board of directors to inquire whether they plan to do something to avoid this kind of illicit behavior in the future. A board of directors doesn't manage day-to-day affairs, but is ultimately responsible for high-level oversight. The Cisco board of directors includes a number of people with generally solid reputations (including the president of Stanford University) who ought to be shocked if a company under their watch has engaged in this sort of behavior.

Here is a list, though you'll have to search elsewhere for contact information: <http://investor.cisco.com/directors.cfm>

Alternatively/additionally, many of us have occasion to do business with Cisco now and then, and if you currently do, you might mention a concern to your local Cisco office/representative.

<comment><USER15> These days they'd be more concerned if people on this site refused to work for them and passed this story around to friends who would avoid it as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is part of a pretty disturbing general trend of large corporations using the criminal justice system as if it were an extension of themselves. I honestly don't see how anyone at Cisco who signed off on this sleeps at night.

<comment><USER17> I'm sure whoever signed off on it probably assuages themself with money, hookers, and blow.

<comment><USER16> A winning long term strategy, to be sure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I always assumed that court rulings were cryptic and overloaded with legal jargon, so I never attempted to read them. However, the ruling provided was very easy to read and just as informative as the article.

(Link to the ruling: [http://www.multiven.com/media/news/pdfs/USAvsAdekeye- BC_Cana...](http://www.multiven.com/media/news/pdfs/USAvsAdekeye- BC_Canada_Supreme_Court_Ruling-May_31_2011.pdf))

<comment><USER19> Thanks! Some nice gems in there:

"This seems to be the start of a series of misadventures that could only be the subject of a Joseph Heller novel"

and

"I accept, as well, that not only was the issuing judge and the bail judge misled, but Canada as well"

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> You might want to read the filings in the civil case ([http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv0...](http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv05391/209307/)) and poke around Mr Adekeye's websites before taking everything in this story at face value. There's a lot left out, and the reporter's backgrounder on page 2 is simply cut'n'pasted from Adekeye's own bio at <http://www.multiven.com/about>

The Vancouver Sun, whose reporter wrote this story for Ars, strikes me as a rather sensationalist paper. YMMV.

<comment><USER21> FWIW The Vancouver Sun is a reputable newspaper by reasonable ethical and reporting standards. They do lack an interesting material to write about now and then, but then which newspaper does not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It seems to me Ronald McKinnon was one of the only sensible authorities in this entire ordeal. I can't believe someone didn't hit the _reality check_ button earlier.

With that being said, I'm not defending him breaking into Cisco's system, and I think the entire act of doing so should lead to actions against him (but not so extreme). Rather than criminal action, I would've thought an injunction, or something to that effect, would've been more appropriate.

<comment><USER23> Yes, and while the behavior of Cisco was reprehensible there is also a requirement that the judiciary be a bit more skeptical when the government is so imprecise in their claims.

It would be a good thing if Canada imposed stricter evidentiary standards to extradition as a result of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Now any future litigant will think twice before tackling Cisco. I'm sure they consider that part a win, even if they had to finally settle.

<comment><USER25> Perhaps we should be thinking twice about buying Cisco products and rewarding such an apparently unethical company.

<comment><USER26> Sadly, people usually buy not from the most ethical manufacturer, but from the cheapest.

<comment><USER27> Cisco is hardly the cheapest manufacture, right?

<comment><USER26> It's not only sticker price that counts. Maintenance, expected lifespan, expandability, training, financing, familiarity of your sysadmins...

Actually, I was quite naïve in my OP. Networking equipment and software selection is rarely conducted by people who can understand what they are doing. The person who makes the sale usually ends up being the one who wined and dined the most high-ranking exec in the client.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've never really followed Cisco before, but this story has really tainted my view of them. I'll think twice next time I see the Cisco logo on something.

</comment><comment><USER29> I was just thinking of buying some Cisco routers (low-end for them -- I'm sure it's a drop in the bucket for them), but I'm definitely not going to now. This image of Cisco will be hard for me shake.

</comment><comment><USER30> This and the News Corp. situation seem like real-life examples of what goes on in the show Damages.

</comment><comment><USER31> Cisco has proven itself an evil company. In other recent news, Cisco promised to create jobs for a "tax holiday" and instead, is laying off employees: [http://www.googlemonopoly.eu/index.php/2011/07/19/cisco- want...](http://www.googlemonopoly.eu/index.php/2011/07/19/cisco-wants-tax- repatriation-holiday-will-create-jobs-but-now-massive-laying-off-employees/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Well done, Ars Technica - the best tech journalism in the business.

</comment><comment><USER33> This guy has the most ridiculous set of balls. The audacity is just out of this world. To suggest that Cisco "derailed one man's life" is not doing him justice at all. Rather the opposite - one man derailed a massive company's plans for dominating its industry. The really amazing thing is that he is alive at all, given the amount of money Cisco isn't going to have going forward.

</comment><comment><USER34> As a US citizen I've found it hard to accept the idea that the US justice system is a thing of the past. At the end of the day though an endless string of examples is proving the fact to be undeniable.

</comment><comment><USER35> Human depravity at its best.

</comment><comment> buff-a In no way am I excusing what was done to this guy, but when will people learn that accessing a computer without permission has anything other than serious consequences. As far as the law is concerned, he might as well have raped the CEO's wife.

No - the damage done is not remotely equivalent, and yet _the criminal penalties are the same_.

<comment><USER36> But he had an employee's permission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Peg me down as sickened to the core. I've given up complaining about corporate influence. I don't even know why they bother putting up a farse anymore, they may as well just cut the crap and come out and say: we will destroy you if it stretches our margins in any way.

</comment><comment><USER38> Boycotting Cisco.

</comment><comment><USER39> I was told by my financial advisor to buy CSCO because of its sound fundamentals, BUT after this, I will stay away from them, it is the least I can do.

</comment><comment><USER40> You can be arrested in the middle of a court testimony? That just doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER5> Canadian police aren't required to respect non-Canadian judicial proceedings in Canada - though they really ought to have in this case.</comment></comment>


ISIS suspect charged with researching encryption, encrypting website - <AUTHOR> https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/10/11/isis-suspect-researching-encryption/ <comment><USER2> The suspect was not charged with researching encryption. The actual charge is "preparation for terrorism." He was researching encryption to use it to prepare for terrorism. You could face the same charge for researching chemistry if you were "preparing for terrorism".

"Count 3: Preparation for terrorism. Between 31 December 2015 and 22 September 2016 Samata Ullah, with the intention of assisting another or others to commit acts of terrorism, engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention namely, by researching an encryption programme, developing an encrypted version of his blog site and publishing the instructions around the use of programme on his blog site. Contrary to section 5 Terrorism Act 2006."

<comment><USER3> My issue is that, according to the article, the research was otherwise legal. This provides a mechanism for a government to take someone suspected of a crime and add additional charges. Note that this is common tactic used to overwhelm a suspects's legal defenses, such that, even if he/she is innocent it's difficult to fight back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Terrifying that the UK's Terrorism Act of 2006 can be used to prevent research and publishing of information. I hope that parliament reconsiders the implications of this act and I hope that the US doesn't look to this as an example. :/

<comment><USER4> The U.S. most certainly will. In testimony before the Congress, the FBI Director James Comey indicated that the U.K. is in some ways ahead of the U.S. He was referring to the banning of end-to-end encryption and key disclosure laws, which it seems that he wishes were the law of the land within the United States as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is not really about encryption or terrorism.

In England and Wales teaching someone a skill is not normally illegal, but teaching someone a skill for the purpose of committing a criminal offence may well be aiding and abetting.

Terrorist offences (as woolly as they are) attract additional penalties but the general principle is nothing new.

<comment><USER6> My knowledge of UK law is limited, but what strikes me as odd is that he's facing additional punishment for several actions that aren't themselves malicious. It's not just a single charge for aiding in a terrorist attack, but a whole range of separate charges (with heavy punishments) for possibly related but otherwise completely innocent actions.

<comment><USER7> But those other actions only appear to be a crime if meant to aid terrorism. Or am I wrong?

see eg CA: possession of lockpicks is legal. If you have criminal intent, which must be proven, possession is a felony.

<comment><USER6> I don't really think that particular law makes any more sense.

If an act is only a crime when used to prepare for a more serious crime, then the crime should be 'preparing <serious crime>' not the preparatory act. If an act can be shown to be preparation for a more serious act then the person should be punished for preparing the more serious crime (which usually has a maximal punishment equal to actually committing the crime), if there isn't enough evidence to show that the preparatory acts shouldn't be punishable either.

It really seems like a way to try to convict someone with shoddy evidence, or some roundabout way of trying to get around double jeopardy, or perhaps to criminalize intent, rather than acts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems USB Cufflinks are a thing! [https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=usb+cufflink&tag=...](https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=usb+cufflink&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=73415064373&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7731927148516397129&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010961&hvtargid=kwd-24771296108&ref=pd_sl_3w77pknhtq_e)

My first thought was it was some sort of hybrid device such as the USB Rubber Ducky, like [https://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky- delu...](https://hakshop.myshopify.com/products/usb-rubber-ducky-deluxe).

Learn something new every day.

</comment><comment><USER8> _The charge regarding the otherwise legal research and dissemination of instructions about the use of encryption software, as well as the encrypting of a website has been brought by invoking the controversial Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which prohibits anyone from engaging in any conduct in preparation for an intended act of terrorism._

Hmm. Well, I certainly hope that they don't make some other Act in the future that defines terrorism to mean anything that hurts the government or society.

</comment><comment><USER9> "possessing articles for the purpose of terrorist acts" seems pretty vague, though I guess you could prove positive even something this nebulous with the right evidence.

</comment><comment><USER10> More comments on this story here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680671)

</comment><comment><USER11> I guess Scotland Yard has their work cut out for them now if they have to arrest every person operating an HTTPS website. Or, the law is arbitrary and we might as well have an insane king deciding things as the outcome would be the same.</comment>


The $19B question: Is Snapchat the new television? - <AUTHOR> https://gigaom.com/2015/02/24/the-19-billion-question-is-snapchat-the-new-television/?utm_source=Daily+Lab+email+list&utm_campaign=e47b84655b-dailylabemail3&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d68264fd5e-e47b84655b-395827456

<comment><USER2> Oh GOD NOOOO!!!! This is truly a sign of the end of modern civilization...reduced to its lowest common denominator.</comment>


Hacking traffic lights for fun and profit - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/07/hacking-traffic-lights-for-fun-and-profit <comment><USER2> > This streamlines the flow of traffic.

Are you sure? It was revealed in 2009 that traffic light systems had been used to maximize fuel duty in the UK.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998182.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998182.stm)

"Previously the Department for Transport (DfT) had discouraged the systems which reduce fuel use, resulting in less tax being paid to the Treasury."</comment>


How to Smell (2018) - <AUTHOR> http://agentyduck.blogspot.com/2018/08/how-to-smell.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> Since I read _Perfume_ by Patrick Süskind, I smell everything. And the sense I had associated with good or bad smells is disappearing. Now I just smell things and etch the moment in my memory.

At night, I lay down and replay my day. I can still smell the moist in the air before it rained today.

<comment><USER3> This book and for that matter the movie has reignited my enthusiasm about the smells. Whenever I go out for shopping, I stop by a perfumery to try random perfumes. In time, I noticed that I can now identify some of the ingredients of the perfumes. I highly recommend this practice as it also teaches you to identify the quality of fruits/vegetables easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In some sommellerie school in France, you train your nose using an "aroma box" ([https://aromaster.com/fr/produit/coffret-master-aromes-du- vi...](https://aromaster.com/fr/produit/coffret-master-aromes-du-vin/)). Being interested into owning one for quite some time now.

</comment><comment><USER5> This reminded me of the anecdote in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! where he had his wife pick a book from a shelf and return it without his watching then using smell alone successfully identified the book she had handled.

</comment><comment><USER6> In chemistry we learned to explicitly _not_ put our nose against something to smell it, instead wave your hand to get the particles into the air, and smell carefully from a distance.

<comment><USER7> Yes, it's definitely good to avoid accidentally snorting the unknown substance.

<comment><USER8> Nah it's great fun

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When smelling lots of things that are somewhat similar (wines, coffees, etc.) I have found you can get some sort of smell fatigue and stop being able to easily differentiate smells.

One trick I have been taught is to smell something that's very different to reset your senses. I've seen people use their clothes, the back of their hand, etc.

<comment><USER10> Coffee beans are the go to for this. You'll find them in perfume stores, wineries, etc. I guess it doesn't work when you're already smelling coffees though..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article is very interesting. For some reason, somewhere down the line humans evolved to use smell as a way to decide if something is worth engaging with or not (Food, people etc) or to detect danger (smoke from a fire) but like the author said. There is a whole world of smells that are just interesting in themselves but humans never explore. I have never entertained the intricacies of a smell I stop at if it is good or bad.

<comment><USER6> In the server room next to my office I have a air cleaner/fan/filter so that I do not have to clean the servers from dust as often. It will ramp up if it detects dust or smell. It will for example ramp up if someone farts nearby which is quite funny. I however have social anxiety, and when I'm on a phone call, or just thinking about talking to someone I don't like, it will also ramp up. I wonder what this smell does to someone's subconscious when I meet them in person ...

<comment><USER12> Interesting, can you share the model of the purifier?

<comment><USER6> Blueair. It looks like this one: [https://images.app.goo.gl/E5XkvbkEsbHix5rZA](https://images.app.goo.gl/E5XkvbkEsbHix5rZA)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting article, will be thinking about smell this week.

Anyone have more articles about honing sense of smell? I have wondered about making a 'calibration array' of esters with increasing lengths of carbon chains or something like that.

What are the receptors in our noses detecting? Do similar smells always imply chemical similarities? Can a trained nose eventually achieve something like "this smells like it has a 3 carbon chain hanging off the 4-position on an indole ring"?

<comment><USER13> Whoa

"Although deuteration does not appreciably change molecular shape, atom size, or bond length or stiffness, it doubles hydrogen mass, thus affecting the overall vibrational modes of an odorant. Therefore, if recognition of molecular shape alone was the sole determinant for odor character (2, 3), then flies should not respond differentially to deuterated [d, where d(x) denotes replacement of x nonexchangeable hydrogens with deuterium atoms] and nondeuterated/normal (i.e., H-) odorants. To address this hypothesis, we took advantage of the commercial availability of acetophenone (ACP) carrying three, five, or eight deuterium atoms (d3, d5, and d8) in place of the respective hydrogens in the normal molecule (h-ACP). Equal amounts (75 μL) of each odorant were diluted to 1 mL in isopropyl myristate and we quantified (Fig. 1A) the response of groups of flies to each odorant versus unscented air traversing the arms of a standard T-maze (Materials and Methods) (19, 20). When given a choice between normal ACP (i.e., h-ACP) and air, the excess flies present in the odor-delivering maze arm indicated that, at the dilution used, the odorant was attractive. However, replacing only three hydrogen atoms with deuterium eliminated this spontaneous preference as the flies distributed nearly equally in the arms of the maze. The d5-ACP was mildly aversive and the fully substituted d8-ACP was the most aversive of the four isotopes."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048096/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048096/)

<comment><USER14> Thanks for this. I recently read a simple book on organic chemistry and wondered the same thing.

<comment><USER13> Note that this was done in flies, and a similar test in humans did not find ability detect deuteration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If I was any more in tune with my sense of smell, I don't think I could live in New York. Walking through most neighborhoods in Manhattan is an assault on most of my senses, smell especially.

I haven't lived in any other large cities in the United States (only a handful in Australia), but is this a common experience for people living in other large, dirty cities or am I just being overly dramatic?

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't say it's true for every major city in US, but yes, unfortunately NYC is decaying. NYC is mess you can't compare to Boston or, let's say, Chicago. Current infrastructure is already stretched very thin, but that's one thing, corrupt and incompetent local government deserves it's own story. If residents don't get their shit together and start voting for the change, it will all end badly.</comment></comment>