A New Look for Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.behance.net/gallery/Facebook-New-Look-Concept/6504647 <comment><USER2> Visually pretty, but the grid is completely non-functional. I don't know where to start looking to get at the information I go to Facebook to find. The other pages look better, but still seem to be a summation of current design trends rather than any sort of innovative new way to display the information (which is fine, but not interesting to me).

I also agree that it looks a lot nicer because of the high-end stock photos.

Edit: scrolling down further, there are some other UI refreshes that I do think improve the experience overall - the calendar and photo album views stood out to me. But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production! The dark theme on pages, for example, looks very clean with Apple and Adobe as featured, but I imagine will look pretty dreary to stare at all day.

<comment><USER3> >But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production!

I .. I'm not sure if you're serious, but that is either smart, insulting or both. It's true that cleavage and nice smiles were there, but noting it as a non-production look, - that's a bit bleak.

The design looks great. I can't wait to hear my friends opinions as I don't use Facebook on regular basis.

<comment><USER4> My friends aren't overwhelmingly ugly, but they certainly don't take production-quality pictures. Judging a social app's beauty by the stock photos is like judging the fit of a shirt by how it looks on the model.

<comment><USER5> this is not a fair analogy. if a model _chooses_ to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves.

likewise, if Facebook _chooses_ to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.

<comment><USER6> but facebook _doesn't_ choose what photos get uploaded. They simply provide the platform for it and the content is up to the users. Most users take photos with camera phones, not DSLRs.

<comment><USER5> your argument is fallacious in that i never made the assertion that Facebook chose what photos got uploaded. my point is exactly the opposite of that. (but i reserve some responsibility here- see my other response which clarifies a fallacy in my own argument).

a. Facebook does not get to choose what photos get uploaded

b. Facebook knows the overwhelming majority of these photos are of poor quality

as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Most comments above your's point out that the linked design prototype looks attractive mostly due to the high quality images. If implemented as the actual Facebook design, much of the appeal would be lost. That is, the prototype did not take "shit user generated photos" into designs at all. Facebook on the other hand, does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's much easier to make it look "gorgeous" when the timeline is full of gorgeous people, beautifully photographed.

<comment><USER9> I just uploaded a version with some crap instead [1], and it still works fine. These Metro styled tiles looks great whatever content you put in, the problem is the space wasted to achieve this look.

<http://imgur.com/H9Tri>

<comment><USER10> Facebook is about displaying posts in descending order. This screenshot is way to confusing. It's too hard to follow posts. It may work for, say, Pinterest but it wouldn't work for Twitter and Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Awesome, I look forward to purchasing my OEM copy of Facebook Home Premium 8!

<comment><USER12> My thoughts exactly, except my joke was going to be the reverse.

<comment><USER13> Facebook purchasing your copy of kaliblack Home Premium 8?

<comment><USER14> More like Facebook selling a copy of ScottWhigham Home Premium 8 (to advertisers)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is really pretty.

This is impossible to use.

This doesn't take into account the fact that not all photos are stock photos, not all monitors are good at rendering fine serif fonts on dark backgrounds, some users need affordances for buttons and interactors, and that the fluid grid with no spacing whatsoever between content areas makes some information nearly impossible to scan.

</comment><comment><USER16> For years, before Behance redesigned their layout (which I think was sometime last year), the way that it sorted projects when you stumbled across the site was by popularity, so the popular ones just kept getting more popular. A project called the "Facebook Facelift" from 2009 (<http://www.behance.net/gallery/Facebook-Facelift/314489>) was (is?) the most popular project on the site, and is equally thorough with a video to boot. I'm going to take a guess that the designer here was looking to piggyback on the success that project had, rather than create an honestly useable/consistent design (not that this is a justification of how poor some of the concepts are, but rather a reason why someone would spend so much time working on something as tedious as this despite the UX issues it creates).

</comment><comment><USER17> Love the design and new ideas. Although judging by the way facebook has been moving it lacks 1 main ingredient, Ads.

I know I hate them as much as you do, yet still buy them, but keep in mind that ad integration should be not only important with design but a must.

Just my $0.02 :)

</comment><comment><USER18> Aside from the obvious "this looks like the new myspace and windows 8 mashed together", I would be curious to see how this concept would fare with what people ACTUALLY post to Facebook. People with no concept of image quality or resolution. People I call my friends :)

<comment><USER19> Those were my exact initial thoughts. I am surprised this isn't the most highlighted aspect to be honest.

<comment><USER20> I also immediately thought that this is very reminiscent of the new myspace look.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Have to admire how thorough the designer was. Redesigning even the "events" pages? That's some level of detail there.

And this redesign will probably work across tablets and phones too, as everything is "big" and "tablety".

But I would not want my Facebook profile to turn into a Metro UI-esque photo collage lacking detail or order.

<comment><USER22> I _totally_ disagree.

They weren't thorough enough to really bother with much of the text anywhere, given the amount of lorem ipsum and many-gendered John Smiths.

Content wasn't really top of the list of priorities, it seems, which I think is a bit of a mistake if you're trying to 're-design' something driven _entirely_ by content.

Despite that, this concept is pretty much all about an in-your-face layout of pretty pictures that looks incredibly difficult to make any real sense of, and might as well be a collage of 2013's cargo-cult trends-to-come.

<comment><USER23> _Content wasn't really top of the list of priorities, it seems, which I think is a bit of a mistake if you're trying to 're-design' something driven entirely by content._

This reminds me of all of the times where I enountered disappointment that the actual functional implementation "didn't look as good" as the flat mockups because the actual content had sections of varying sizes.

Content in the real world? It's messy and uneven. If you can't design for that, you're doing more harm than good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I scrolled up and down for about 15 seconds trying to figure out if this screenshot was supposed to be a concatenation of multiple Walls or if it was one long wall view (I think it's the latter):

[http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles14/398559/projects/65046...](http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles14/398559/projects/6504647/69d246ffc5fac4a619e4b852b9c2f807.jpg)

That kind of visual confusion is a bad thing. I understand the desire to move away from lines and boxes within boxes. But elegant lines should not blur functionality.

Also, how would this design look when trying to accomodate the many kinds of statuses that do not have banner-size-worthy photos? My guess is not very well.

<comment><USER25> Your last point is a huge problem with the Google+ Android app. I like the normal g+ website, but on the mobile app it assumes that every single post is just a pretty picture. That app is a usability nightmare because they failed to grasp how people actually use social networks (which is strange since the design on the normal website seems to understand this just fine).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So on a somewhat random note, I wonder when it will become true that this sort of thing will ensure the design never gets used. My reasoning here is based on watching the evolution of the entertainment industry, and industry lawyers.

So it used to be someone could say "Wow, wouldn't it be funny if Gillgan had a secret crush on Mary Anne and the skipper found out and used it against him?" and some writer for the show might say "Yeah, that would be funny, and maybe include a variation of that in the show."

Except there came a time where the show would air, that "someone" would show up, lawyers in tow, and demand compensation for using their idea. Which, after some pretty amazing litigation, the studios paid, and which resulted in pretty much any idea that was ever shared with a writer, or person associated with any show, was put on the list of 'things we can never do for fear of being sued.'

I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this already frankly.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady It looks good but it doesn't seem like it would be as useful as the actual Facebook design. It also remind me of the new MySpace design.

<https://new.myspace.com/play> [Video]

</comment><comment><USER27> Not too bad, but here are a few observations:

1) It feels too dark. Dark is fine, but there doesn't seem to be enough contrast to even it out.

2) The news grid is too hard to follow. Not sure where a new story begins and ends.

3) You forgot about advertisements in these mockups. Ads can't be an afterthought. Especially for a public company.

</comment><comment><USER28> The lack of flow that Metro provides was not lost when copying it.

<comment><USER29> like

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here's an idea: why not code it up?

I mean, Facebook isn't that revolutionary in terms of a site - there's a user with a login, there are comments, there are pictures. A demo site wouldn't need a scalable infrastructure to show off these ideas.

I'm just not so sure that some of the site controls would be possible in a browser. It's very tablet-y with controls that we are accustomed to in our phones and pads but not on a desktop. Also, it's very horizontal, which isn't typically very friendly on handhelds.

<comment><USER31> >>> A demo site wouldn't need a scalable infrastructure to show off these ideas.

You can also get actual FB data via API.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "nice" to look at, absolutely terrible to scan. I don't know where to begin and the 'noise levels' on every element is pretty much the same, making me feel very lost. Imagine a layman using this.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is all very nice from a design point of view. But from a User Experience point of view, it's horrible. Each screen is totally different, there's absolutely no consistency between views.

I would like for things to go back to minimalist and simple. After all, the human brain can concentrate only on one thing at a time, so why show 20 different things on a page, when you could make the experience so much better with just what's essential for you in that very moment?

Facebook is a social network where you can view info about what your friends are doing. A good UX needs to do only that, and nothing more.

</comment><comment><USER34> I cant understand how this design type is liked so much. I find the whole "flat" thing confusing and counter intuitive, and these days not exactly new. Given the title, I was hoping for something original.

<comment><USER35> I agree, flat design is in vogue (and is done badly most of the time). Where were all these designers with their beloved flat designs before Windows Phone came out? Rhetorical question, I know exactly where they were: designing and blogging about faux 3D iPhone-inspired UIs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is nice but isn't it basically the design of the new myspace rehashed?

</comment><comment><USER37> Notice how there are no ads in the layout. The ads are often what make a layout tricky, as is providing a reliable degradation for low-end browsers and computers.

</comment><comment><USER38> Its a gorgeous look because of Samantha, the profile used in designs. ;)

</comment><comment><USER39> Great, another mosaic of shit I can't visually organize. I think it needs more stock photos as well.

Are we done with this kind of stuff already? Do people think that Facebook just haphazardly through together their current UI without doing extensive user testing?

</comment><comment><USER40> I like the look, though some of it would need to be changed for functional purposes. My question is...why not implement such an interface via a plugin/extension and actually make it a reality for anyone that wants it? It's possible from a technical standpoint. There are already a few plugins that add themes etc. but not the this extent.

That would be an interesting business...create better/specialty interfaces for utility websites implemented by third parties via browser plugins. Maybe have a different and more convenient view and tools on Facebook depending on what you are trying to do on the site at the time (marketing view, developer view, time-killing view, etc).

<comment><USER41> > _My question is...why not implement such an interface via a plugin/extension > and actually make it a reality for anyone that wants it?_

Oh, a couple of reasons.

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-bans-browser- plu...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-bans-browser-plugin-fgs- and-its-developer/6955)

[http://www.fbpurity.com/news/important-news-facebooks- legal-...](http://www.fbpurity.com/news/important-news-facebooks-legal-team- have-told-me-i-am-banned-from-facebook-because-of-f-b-purity/)

<comment><USER40> I'm well aware of FB purity, but if enough people were doing it, FB would learn to embrace it - probably as long as you didn't nix their advertising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Given the change-averse nature that I notice a in many of my facebook friends - I think a design change this radical would cause people to absolutely freak out.

I actually like this design though, it reminds me a lot of Microsoft's new aesthetic.

</comment><comment><USER43> I pitched this Facebook concept on HN last month but got no love here. No interest or not seen?

<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151391609962845>

</comment><comment><USER44> Aside from the photo gallery, which actually feels improved, I think everything else about this redesign went in totally the wrong direction. A massive sect of users is stuck in the "give me simple, stupid" mindset, and the platform popularity is really to blame. While it's a decent attempt at "beautifying" the interface, I think it's somehow more confusing.

Also, the design seems to be missing a way to shove hundreds of ad impressions into my eyeballs with each click -- a definite thumbs down in the facebook world.

</comment><comment><USER45> Well, the newsfeed replacement doesn't do justice to the rest of the design. The newsfeed is terrible but I think the rest is pretty decent. I disagree that it's mostly aesthetics and no design. There are some good ideas in there. This are the main points for me:

a. The dark theme is a bit weird for Facebook. Recently there was this good article posted here[1] about background colors and motivations. It says white backgrounds ("low arousal" themes, according to the author) are for utilitarian websites and dark backgrounds for hedonistic motivated designs. Facebook is both, but I think our moms wouldn't use it with a dark theme.

b. The use of the screen real state is great. Facebook is really bad at this. This design looks like it could adapt to different screen sizes really well. It's almost the equivalent of Smashing Magazine for social. Really good, although it'd have to avoid horizontal scrolling on desktops which get weird very fast.

c. All interactive targets are quite big yet they look good enough for a website to be displayed on a desktop machine. That's not easy to achieve.

Overall I think this is more of a concept for a Win8 app, mostly based on the video in which it seems like the home page is a "live tiles" sort of thing. It could be made into a great website that uses the full screen with a bit of work. And that's a direction that most websites are lacking nowadays.

[1] [http://kaikkonendesign.fi/user-motivation-determines-the- bes...](http://kaikkonendesign.fi/user-motivation-determines-the-best-color- scheme-for-your-website/)

</comment><comment><USER46> IMO, its an extremely average redesign.

Major problem is responsive design, its not scalable for content heavy sites. Same code scaling for different screens, makes sense in theory but is nightmare in practice. I've been part of couple of projects where-in we learnt the hard way. Hence, you don't see any big site use responsive design in major way. Almost all sites (Facebook, Amazon, Flipkart) go with a different sites for mobile & desktop.

Also the use of white text on dark background is extremely hard to read. Hence you see pretty much every content-rich site uses white or light background with dark/grey text. An exception might be Myspace which went with dark background approach and failed miserably in engagement.

When using any site, we like consistency. By incorporating panels which open up from both left and right side, it provides an inconsistent feel while using the site. My usage might be completely different from yours. It is important to keep the overall layout consistent with content personalized based on users needs.

</comment><comment><USER47> It kind of looks a little like the new myspace..

<comment><USER48> I thought the same.

<comment><USER49> LOL, same here :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Personally, I would find the design much more functional if there were padding between individual "items" and each item were in its own clearly defined box. Also, if we could keep the widths/heights consistent my eyes would flow much more easily. Essentially this would be like the Facebook layout right now, except with perhaps 3-4 items per row instead of one.

I quite like the login screen. In the new "Twitter Bootstrap" era of web design I think this design is much more what users would expect/be used to. I just don't like two things: the login button, because that color is not Facebook-y; and the background, because it's obnoxious, basically says "look at all the cool people using Facebook, come join us!", and one thing I've always liked Facebook for not doing). Take away these two and it looks amazing (and functional).

All of this could happen without changing any aesthetically fundamental components.

</comment><comment><USER51> It always looks goodwith hot girls everywhere; Sadly, my Facebook is more about old "friend" whining about temperature.

</comment><comment><USER52> Facebook, brought to you by Microsoft Windows.

<comment><USER53> Exactly what I've thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I sure hope that the grid is religiously chronological. Otherwise, this design has the same fundamental flaw that the current timeline has - rearrangement of stories that is not easy to predict. The current timeline moves stories from left to right, into and out of folders making finding a story impossible. This design will do that to by rearranging the grid after every story comes through.

I'm not sure why designers would think this would appeal. This is like throwing a pile of papers on the desk. And rearranging them each time a new sheet is added.

</comment><comment><USER55> The hype around this Facebook redesign is a testament to the fact that the user never knows what they want. He neglected revenue, typography, balance, rhythm and purpose, but that's obvious, I guess, I hope. Frozen within the current paradigm of Facebook, bickering with itself, it fails to push the argument in any direction. Good man for trying, but we have to think higher. Does Facebook even need to be a website or an app? If we're going to design so recklessly, why not commit to it? What if the solution was no Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER56> Really love this design, it is eye candy, maybe not very user friendly for most. Reminds me a little of the new MySpace design. One thing I did notice about this design, you have not added any space for advertising space. We all know how much Facebook love to ply our feeds and right hand column full of sponsored ads these days. If this was seriously a option for Facebook (which i know is hypothetical) they would first look at how they can montenize from this design.

</comment><comment><USER57> When a huge percentage of your supposed new design is covered with stock photos of pretty people, it makes it extremely hard to judge _objectively_. On the other hand, that is a great sales tactic.

I always felt it is kind of wrong for designers to use stock photos that represent best-case uses instead of typical-case photos. Best case photos show models smiling. The typical-case pictures are poorly taken photos or random gifs or someone not very photogenenic.

</comment><comment><USER58> It's a very, very bad re-design. \- Grid is hard to track and keep an eye on. You will constantly lose information and get frustrated pretty quickly \- Long comments with 20 words per-line is bad for reading. You will have hard time jumping to the new line. \- Navigation is quite complex and will turn many new users down. It is good for experience users though. \- In reality you will not have such nice videos and photos. So it is quite artificial.

</comment><comment><USER59> Ack! I wish designers would not always augment their designs with good looking people smiling, it only slants the emotional reaction in the designs favour when the real content in practice will rarely be as pretty/optimistic.

I think all designs should use unfavourable photos so as not to influence the overall design... e.g - <http://i.qkme.me/3sfkf8.jpg> :-)

Otherwise it's a vast improvement over the current FB

</comment><comment><USER60> Personally, I think this looks awful. It doesn't look organised and I'm not sure where I should be looking. Seems like a complete UI failure to me.

</comment><comment><USER61> Nothing seems clickable apart from the anchors in the mast.

Tile layouts have no place on pcs where pointing devices are used to interact with interfaces,however they seem to be a natural fit on tablets.

Nielsen wrote an article recently on major drawbacks of this trend.

[http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing- usab...](http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-usability/)

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't know exact details about the content delivery process for loading various pages on Facebook, but this doesn't seem to follow the standard they've set at all. It mixes together parts that make up the various content blocks that load asynchronously.

It's really pretty and nice to look at, but it's one of those nightmare designs that didn't get much development thought.

</comment><comment><USER63> Pretty from an artistic point of view, but the Win 8 design influences are clearly visible. The only place I've seen the Metro look really good and functional is on Windows Phone. The ascetic doesn't work on the desktop. It kind of works on tablet (Surface) but the massive UX problems with Win8 prevent a clear analysis of the style in that form factor.

<comment><USER64> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I agree that there are a few small issues with this re-design, but I don't see how Windows 8's "massive UX problems" manifest themselves here. Are you saying that just because the buttons / "tiles" in this design are more chunky than things that you're used to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> The full use of the screen is quite nice when there is less is happening, such as the About page. And while the Dashboard/news page is clean, it could be rather overwhelming to look at and visually cluttered with poor pictures.

The one area I think he did fantastic in is of the displaying of individual pictures, events, finding friends, and company pages.

</comment><comment><USER66> So Facebook for Windows 8?

</comment><comment><USER67> It looks like a Microsoft concept. It has nice features, don't get me wrong. But I wouldn't like it to be the new design because of lots of reasons. Mostly because I don't like tile-structure for timelined events. I find that very confusing and looks messy. (Plus looks bad when your window is small).

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm not too familiar with Facebook's APIs, but could someone just go ahead and make a live version of Facebook like this? I know there are 3rd party iPad apps, what about a web version? (Not that I'd use this one - looks too crazy - but someone could come up with a different look I prefer.)

</comment><comment><USER69> Thank you windows 8 for "inspiring" a whole generation of designers to rip you off.

In all seriousness, I've seen this same style concept for more then a few redesigns as of late. I fear for the design industry sometimes. I guess it's better then rounded corners, reflections and drop shadows though.

</comment><comment><USER70> Imagine this design with poorly filtered instagram pictures and fishy facebook application ads all over the place, instead of brilliantly lighted professional photographs of beautiful women.

It's a great work of art from a design perspective, but quite unfeasible to turn into the real thing.

<comment><USER71> It's a great work of art from a Silicon Valley marketing perspective since it looks so attractive. It's a design disaster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> This is a very nice contribution of how to "prettify" facebook. Facebook is and has been so ugly, and in many ways just complicated and not functional. I also believe this may be flawed but I think facebook really has to do something about it's design.

</comment><comment><USER73> Let's stress test it. He only shows a case scenario where the user has a 1600x1200 screen. The first example is the chaos itself. The rest seems eye candy and well done. I guess, with all the propaganda he's getting it will be contracted at Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER74> All these kinds of redesigns assume we all have tons of high-res, color- balanced, artistically-balanced, beautiful photos of everything. Have you looked at people's Facebook albums lately? I think it might have a different effect with real data.

</comment><comment><USER75> Yay, more linkbait from a small, unknown company that thinks they can do a tech giant's job better than them through the sheer power of design! This will look awesome on my Microsoft Surface. Can't wait for Facebook to take the hint.

</comment><comment><USER12> Having white on black and black on white next to each other makes it hard to transition. Hiding nav mobile-style on a desktop is an extra click for no reason.

There's a lot of work into how it looks, but very little into how it will actually work.

</comment><comment><USER76> Facebook is all about marketing, marketing yourself to the world. That's why i hate it, i prefer the tool like Yahoo Blog: very ugly design but it's useable and useful. Facebook's new design just makes the marketing faster.

</comment><comment><USER77> Since I'm not as pretty as Samantha I suspect my page would look this good to glance at. Also with the grid view my eyes won't know what direction to travel in. So I fear that my page would be neither pretty nor functional.

</comment><comment><USER78> There are good ideas, like the profile page (which right now serves no purpose on Facebook). Sadly, my Facebook is not a wall full of models, and this design seem to fail to account for anything that isn't a photo.

</comment><comment><USER79> "The models will have children, and get a divorce. Then find some more models, everything will run its course."

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9dSYgd5Elk>

</comment><comment><USER80> Amazing how high quality, HDR-blasted stock images distort reality. Replace those with more typical pictures of crappy iPhone pictures about things no one cares about, and I imagine it looks far less pretty.

</comment><comment><USER81> Come on, you are all very brainy people - is really anybody here using Facebook? Ok, for making money out of the dumbheads that do not care about their data, but using it yourself??? Crazy idea!

</comment><comment><USER82> I love that these slides only show white people. Looks the same to me.

</comment><comment><USER83> It doesn't just look like Metro, to me. It looks like Encarta circa 2000. Not necessarily a bad thing at all. The aesthetics just really remind me of turn of the century Microsoft software.

</comment><comment><USER84> Hate to be that guy, but I'm guessing black people don't use facebook?

</comment><comment><USER85> It should just look like outlook 2007 with each "email" being a post that will open up when you click on it. Obviously a lot of other minor changes but that would be a great interface.

</comment><comment><USER86> This looks like what ad agencies wish we did on the internet

</comment><comment><USER87> Designers make dream Programmers fuck themselves to make the dream come true To this design, I think it should be an application rather than a webpage.

</comment><comment><USER88> I wish i had the money to get a proper design for my latest little project <http://Rendip.com>

</comment><comment><USER89> Looks nice, but - and don't necessarily take this as an insult - it seems very "Microsoftish" for some reason. Nevertheless, I like it!

</comment><comment><USER90> I always wanted to like behance, but they never hired engineers, only designers, and I could never get the site to work consistently.

<comment> Aco- uh, and what makes you think that? I work in the NY tech sector and would argue the opposite. The Behance network has one of the better tech teams in the city.

<comment><USER16> I'm going to agree with you re:the opposite. The Web Design Served category (supposedly the best of the best on the site) posts some seriously awful stuff (stock photos, overuse of textures, bad typography, poor UX practices). When I emailed them to ask who curated the site and if they were an actual web designer or just a random intern, I was told it was curated by the entire web design department. I stopped visiting Behance after that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Even though it looks cool, I don't like desktop websites to look like overblown touch/mobile sites/apps. It just doesn't look right.

</comment><comment><USER92> Love the design but its missing a key section... The ads... Without which Facebook would not even consider something like this

</comment><comment><USER93> They should really use more photos taken with crappy cameras in less than optimal conditions so it looks more realistic.

</comment><comment><USER94> This just goes to show that the previously known as Metro look can be overdone just as badly as rich leather and linen.

</comment><comment><USER95> This is really well done, but it relies too heavily on the users providing good content (clean, high res images).

</comment><comment><USER96> Imagine this but instead of awesome professionally shot pictures it is just full of crappy webcams. It is awful.

</comment><comment><USER97> My eye is all over the place with these designs. Very difficult to distinguish content/photo pairings.

</comment><comment><USER98> So, how does this design look when you put the "average" person's photos into the slots provided...

</comment><comment> Link- Visually appealing and gorgeously executed, but HELL NO to the "windowsification" of facebook...

</comment><comment><USER99> One of those designs that make you wonder whether design without function is design at all.

</comment><comment><USER100> I don't understand why so many support this, it would be a terrible experience to navigate

</comment><comment><USER101> It looks like their trying to ride on the coat-tails of the success of Windows 8.

</comment><comment><USER102> It looks like nice, but where would the "Find singles around your area" ads go :)

</comment><comment><USER71> Aesthetically petty, yeah, but horribly designed. The best design is no design.

</comment><comment><USER103> I'm sure they'll love the absence of the ad space plastering the current site.

</comment><comment><USER104> All the people in this presentation look like professional models.

And "colloseum", really?

</comment><comment><USER105> Great- more non-data driven design innovation. Just. What. We. Need. :(

</comment><comment><USER106> Is this official and endorsed by FB? Or is it just an artist's mock up?

</comment><comment><USER107> No. Just no. Too many carrets, visual clutter, and form over function.

</comment><comment><USER108> Reminds me a lot of the MySpace redesign video a few months back.

</comment><comment><USER109> would you like facebook if it looked like this? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud96cWPBTws>

</comment><comment><USER110> This looks eerily similar to late Microsoft design patterns.

</comment><comment><USER111> Wow, what happen? Facebook reqruited windows8's UI designer?

</comment><comment><USER112> This looks curiously like the interface on the new myspace.

</comment><comment><USER113> I'm sure they've put layouts through a focus group or two.

</comment><comment><USER114> Is this upcoming facebook profile or proposed idea?

</comment><comment><USER115> Hmmm...let's put some ugly people in their and test.

</comment><comment><USER116> The new look has tempted me to rejoin facebook...

</comment><comment><USER117> Pinterest for Facebook, basically. I'm not a fan.

</comment><comment><USER118> This looks just like Facebook with the Metro UI.

</comment><comment><USER119> When did cluster fuck become a design paradigm?

</comment><comment><USER120> My buzzword detector burnt out on the title slide.

Pretty though.

</comment><comment><USER121> The wall design reminded me of Orkut scraps :-)

</comment><comment><USER122> Instant headache

</comment><comment><USER123> WHAT DID YOU DO WITH ALL MY FAVORITE ADS?

</comment><comment><USER124> Inspired by Lumia 920 and Windows 8 :D

</comment><comment><USER125> FB may end up hiring this designer :(

</comment><comment><USER126> Seems looking like the new myspace?

</comment><comment><USER127> when is it going to be live? Is it going to be live for desktop users too or just ipad?

</comment><comment><USER128> Is gorgeous the new beautiful?

<comment><USER129> Considering it is one of Steve Jobs' buzz words, no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> By god, it's like timeline^2 !

</comment><comment><USER131> Let the usability wars begin!

</comment><comment><USER132> Windows 8 meets MySpace 2.0

</comment><comment><USER133> This looks ultra amazing.

</comment><comment><USER134> It just doesn't work

</comment><comment><USER135> too much going on...need to simplify it!

</comment><comment><USER136> Nah. Their new look should be like this:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Barbed_w...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Barbed_wire_in_the_sky.jpg)</comment>


Ask HN: How did you learn programming? - <AUTHOR>

<comment> shane-armstrong I am a 19 year old programmer, I began in 2009, learning PHP via debugging a broken PHP script for a friend. It took me a long time, days, as the script was 2,300 lines long and I was a complete beginner.

w3cschools was a great help during this time, but I would say that my biggest help was trial and error. You have to get a lot of things wrong before your finally understand how to do them right.

Once I learned PHP I wanted an easier way to display data, and started learning markup, XHTML, CSS, etc. I used w3cschools again for this.

I read a few books at that time (unfortunately, they were online, and I can not for the life of me remember what they were, apologies) to help improve my skills and began to study typography. This mainly involved searching google for web typography, experimenting in photoshop and then creating the styles as close as I could in CSS.

About 7 months ago I realised that I needed more depth, I was not content with mere web applications. I started learning .cpp, using the visual express 2010 tutorials provided with the download and then I started searching for (once again via google) simple code examples. My time with PHP had taught me simple class architecture so it was not as difficult to pick up as a beginner would find it.

As I expanded my knowledge I found that I could not find enough online material, so I started a local "computer club", where I could meet like minded people. Via Coursera (the online stanford cryptography class was fabulous) and the club I have since gained what I would consider an acceptable level of programming with .CPP (and Python, but that is a whole other story.)

Along the way, I also added javascript, mysql and xml, but I left these out due to their connection to web design.

Anyway, this is just the path I chose, I dare say it was unconventional, but it worked for me.

If you are looking for advice, all I will say is this: Google is your friend, MiTx will definitely help you to improve once you gain an acceptable skill and coursera's CS101 class would give you the basic knowledge required to continue.

Also, on an unrelated note, congratulations, I have read HN for a very long time now, and I signed up specifically to reply to your question :)

<comment><AUTHOR> So, what are you currently doing now?

<comment> shane-armstrong Currently, waiting for the coursera cryptography course and I just began working for a web design company in Preston, England. Entry level wage, but good experience :)

Although, I'm also building a blog for my girlfriend, as she is "sick of tumblr" (lame, I know, but she begged me >.< ) and will likely pop it on here in a few days once it's finished.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I offered to work in exchange for a local dev consultancy (pybrew.com) in exchange for instruction. I had a basic understanding of procedural code (could figure out for loops and generally make things happen with very spaghetti-ish code) but didn't know what an object was.

At the time, I didn't really know how to solve code problems, how to effectively use docs, or how to use a debugger -- which they taught me. A lot of times they let me build the wrong thing then show me how I could do it better (doing research, learning how cookies work, and reinventing the wheel with web authentication, for example).

'Twas an odd, makeshift apprenticeship program, but it was perfect for me. At the time I didn't realize how lucky I was (I don't think they did either), but I am very grateful to have stumbled upon the opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER3> Learned Basic from my computer's manual, learned assembly from magazines.

I took some "computer programming" class in high school, but computers were still new-fangled to the faculty and it was entirely self-directed. I used the time to make a game in assembly on the school's Model III. There were PC Jrs for a broader computer literacy class, but I never used those.

In college, I started as a physics major and hence learned Fortran. Dropped out for a couple of years, went back as a CS major. Then was exposed to many things; C, C++, Prolog, Ada. But Pascal was the workhorse of the curriculum.

First job out of college was C (legacy projects) and C++ (new projects). And Visual Basic for some quick and dirty things.

Worked as a programmer for a while. Stopped. Did something else for many years. The last year or so I've been retraining myself. Played with Erlang and Clojure, but nothing serious. Made a couple of toy Android apps with Java. Wrote some simple Atari 2600 things using an emulator. Working through an idea for a site with Python/Django at the moment.

I'd like to work as a programmer again, I think. Or more accurately, I really enjoy being able to build things.

I feel most at home in C++ still, but I find myself using Python to try out ideas more and more as time goes on. Assembly still makes me happy, but I don't really use it for anything.

</comment><comment><USER4> Started typing BASIC from my ZX81 manual because the machine could do little otherwise, moved on to a bit more on the C64 but it really kicked off when I got an Amiga. A _lot_ of games in AMOS and then after weeks of delicate preparation, convinced my parents to buy me a book that was a spin-off of an Amiga mag, it came with the full version of Dice C (£25 was a lot of money for a book for a 14 year old!).

Later I got a C compiler off a PC mag and dabbled with that, moved on to Delphi and then by the time the internet made an appearance in my household I began with the HTML and shortly afterwards Perl and then PHP. It was only at this point that I started learning "properly". I guess partly because it was time and partly because it was the first time I ever had some level of access to best practices, theory and whatnot.

</comment><comment><USER5> I started consulting instead of going to college and (almost) always said yes when asked if I knew how to do something, whether or not I knew that particular task yet. Once I said I could do something, I was locked in and forced myself to learn it.

</comment><comment><USER6> In middle school I took a computer science class because it had "science" in the name. Computers were still very expensive and I had practically never used a computer till that moment. One of the modules of the class was a walk through software engineering using the old waterfall model. We had to design, build and test a basic application in Pascal. Nice memories. From there onwards it was all self study.

</comment><comment><USER7> As per my brother's recommendation, I ignored all the modern hoo-ha's about high-level programming languages and dove right into C and C++.

Spent weeks grinding it out until I was finally comfortable writing code. I can tell you honestly that this experience has never left me and I've never been at a completely loss navigating through different languages since.

</comment><comment><USER8> I dabbled around in BASIC for a while, but my real effort to learn programming started with Python when I was about 18. Compared to much of what I've seen on here, I'm quite a late starter, but then again, I have many interests.

</comment><comment><USER9> I remember to have carried a bunch of basic programming language cards (happy families card game style) as a kid - especially I remember two cards, GOTO and GOSUB - which sounded so similar, yet had quite different depictions :)

<comment> shane-armstrong I had them for my high school statistics exams, I remember having one which just said: "Hypothesis testing via the binomial tables of probabi" and then presumably they ran out of characters because it cut off there.

I never did find out what the last word was ^.^

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I took a few programming courses, then W3schools of course, and watching as many tutorials I can find online. Then, I started offering help to friends and worked on some small projects. Practice, practice, practice...

</comment><comment><USER11> Started to seriously learn programming about 2 years ago by joining a user group, reading lots of books and writing lots of code to practice. The only way to learn is by doing.

</comment><comment><USER12> Trying to build an imdb for music in javascript + coldfusion

I probably owe my interest in computers thanks to imdb and wikipedia

<comment><USER13> This is a good idea, but why coldfusion?

<comment><USER12> A friend of the family knew it and taught me some, I wouldnt chose it again :)

I even remember the name now, I called it indb (indie database), it didnt get very far

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My folks bought me a C64 instead of a video game console.

</comment><comment><USER15> Immersion and starting from scratch on everything.</comment>


Lucet: Native WebAssembly Compiler and Runtime - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastly.com/blog/announcing-lucet-fastly-native-webassembly-compiler-runtime <comment><USER2> The wasm runtime wars are heating up! Exciting times :)

Really pumped to see this open sourced. And the performance properties look awesome.

One interesting thing we're seeing in this space is sort of two parallel paths emerge: do you want to support JavaScript, or not? An example of the former is CloudFlare and their Workers platform. Hopefully they'll follow Fastly's lead and open source their runtime too, but it's built on top of V8 because they want to support JavaScript. You also gain the additional advantage of all the engineering that Google puts into V8.

The other option is stuff like Lucent, wasmer, and wasmtime. By dropping the JavaScript requirement, you can build something that really screams, as seen here. You can partially regain _some_ support via AssemblyScript, the TypeScript subset that compiles to JS. But we haven't seen JavaScript compile directly to wasm yet because if you want that, well, V8 exists. And you do have to build it all yourself.

JavaScript is one of most popular programming programming languages that exists. Time will tell which approach is better, but it's really fun to watch all of this cool technology explode onto the scene right now.

(Disclaimer: I have connections to all of these projects in various ways. Everyone involved in all of them is doing great work.)

<comment><USER3> Sounds really exciting.

Are comparisons to things like the JVM or native binaries already possible?

<comment><USER2> I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that final sentence, could you maybe elaborate?

<comment><USER3> Sure.

Does WASM have better performance than the JVM? If not, could it have better performance theoretically? Is it more secure? How much slower than a regular binary would it be? etc.

<comment><USER2> Ah, cool.

Performance is really difficult to properly measure, because each of these projects have different performance profiles, and new ones keep popping up, like Lucet did today! And if you write a benchmark, then something like [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/10/calls-between- javascript-a...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/10/calls-between-javascript- and-webassembly-are-finally-fast-%F0%9F%8E%89/) happens, and all of a sudden the numbers are all different. So it's really hard to speak about wasm generally this way, it's better to talk about specific implementations and use-cases, IMHO. And to understand that benchmarks need to be updated in order to still be relevant.

Security is an interesting axis; like the JVM (as far as I know), wasm is memory safe by design. But security is more holistic than that. One interesting thing about wasm is that you have to say up-front what things you want to call in the host, which provides the ability for the host to say "nope, you're not gonna be able to do that." And of course, logic bugs can lead to security vulnerabilities in all of these platforms.

<comment><USER4> I think wasm's memory safety is weaker than JVM. wasm's checking occurs at control flow points and the linear memory boundary, but does not extend down to individual objects. For example arrays are not bound checked in wasm.

<comment><USER2> Wasm doesn't really have "arrays", so I don't think wasm checking them would really make sense. I guess you could argue that this is a distinction without a difference. You still won't get memory unsafety, which in my mind, is the higher order bit. YMMV of course.

<comment><USER4> You _do_ get memory unsafety. OpenSSL compiled to wasm would still be vulnerable to Heartbleed. The JVM would prevent it.

<comment><USER2> Please re-read what Rusky said; the point is about the boundary. Yes, wasm programs can mess up their own memory. That's not what I'm talking about. I should be more clear about this in the future though, thanks.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand this point. We don't say that C is memory safe because of the kernel boundary, even though this boundary does provide important safety guarantees.

edit: I guess this viewpoint makes sense for the use case of "thousands of wasm programs in the same process." They are protected from each other, in a sense qualitatively the same as Unix processes. This is still a much weaker guarantee than the JVM provides.

<comment><USER5> The goal is to allow existing C code to run, so in the end you'll need the same freedom when it comes to memory access. The difference between this and plain process is that the sandbox uses a capability-based security model, instead of giving all the user's rights to the process [1].

[1]: [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a- webas...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webassembly- system-interface/)

<comment><USER6> There is not a mention of memory safety in this post. It's very confusing term in this context. I wouldn't call running a binary with syscall interception (with qemu for example) as "memory safe".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Author here- happy to take questions.

<comment><USER8> Why did you write your own implementation rather than contribute directly to any of the projects with similar aims, e.g. wasmer or wasmtime.

<comment><USER7> We started the codebase that became Lucet in July 2017. It went through a few fast iterations, and by Jan 2018 we had Cranelift running with AOT compilation. In the early days of Cranelift that meant adding support for position-independent code output and filling in a bunch of gaps in the x86_64 encodings and other really low level stuff. At the time, wasmtime (under the name wasm-standalone, i think?) was a lot less mature, and wasmer was not public yet. So, in a sense, we did (& continue to) contribute to both of those runtimes via Cranelift and other dependencies like Faerie.

We spent the bulk of 2018 solving performance and integration problems, rather than cleaning up the codebase to the point where we could open source it. In the meantime wasmer was released, and both wasmtime and wasmer made a ton of progress. Now that our stuff is open source, it is easier for us to collaborate with other runtimes, possibly by moving more code back into the common Cranelift parent, or by adopting modules from each other.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the answer, that makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting! I wonder this compares with other WebAssembly runtimes (Wasmer?)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for asking! I'm Syrus, I started the Wasmer project.

Lucet just released, but so far these are the current differences as far as I can tell:

1\. Wasmer is meant to execute any WebAssembly file and run on any platform. Wasmer currently runs on Mac, Linux and Windows. Lucet only works on Linux at the moment, since its main goal is to be executed on Fastly's infra.

2\. We support multiple compiler backends: dynasm, cranelift and LLVM. Each with a tradeoff between runtime speed and compilation speed (more info here [https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/tree/master/lib#backends](https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/tree/master/lib#backends) ). Lucet's architecture only supports one backend at the moment.

3\. Wasmer has multiple interfaces/ABI integrations, including Emscripten, and soon WASI. Lucet initially shipped with WASI support, which is awesome.

4\. Wasmer has a C/C++ API and its runtime can be integrated with other languages (C/C++, Rust and PHP at the moment)

And, of course... a link to the project if anyone else wants to take a look! [https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer](https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer)

<comment><USER7> That is a good summary! Lucet's runtime has a C API as well. We haven't created bindings to languages beyond C and Rust, but it should be pretty straightforward using the C API.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the correction! And congrats for the great work

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Now that I see this, a question comes to mind: Why do we have yet another VM? Why didn't browsers just implement LLVM? Is it the sandbox?

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see wasm spread, but the question does cross my mind.

<comment><USER2> LLVM is not really a VM in the sense of the JVM. LLVM-IR is not platform independent, and was never intended for this use-case.

It is also _significantly_ more complex than wasm, which is partially why wasm ended up working. Start small, add over time: that's the way of the web platform.

<comment><USER12> There's a subset of LLVM-IR that IS platform independent. PNacl, and many others rely on this.

The reason for wasm's victory is two found:

1\. WASM is a stack based VM (LLVM IR is register based). Additionally, instructions chosen for wasm were inspired by the byte code representation used in existing JS JIT compilers. This meant that WASM almost fit effortlessly into the browser compiler pipeline. Compare this to adding the LLVM jit engine that the nacl philosophy uses. WASM was easier to implement. Stack based VMs are also (apparently) easier to sandbox, with a significantly lower attack surface

2\. Firefox was philosophically against nacl/PNacl. Considering how Webview Safari eventually chose LLVM jit for it's JS JIT, as of 2019, PNacl would probably have won, given Microsoft (chromium edge), Google and Safari all support LLVM jit anyways.

<comment><USER13> Safari ditched LLVM JIT for B3 a couple of years ago and V8 has never used it, so it was never really established for JS engines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > With Lucet, Fastly's edge cloud can execute tens of thousands of WebAssembly > programs simultaneously, _in the same process_ , without compromising > security. [emphasis mine]

How does it handle Spectre, etc.?

<comment><USER7> We have a security document that addresses the big picture, and this specific concern as well: [https://github.com/fastly/lucet/blob/master/SECURITY.md#cave...](https://github.com/fastly/lucet/blob/master/SECURITY.md#caveats) For speculative execution, we don't yet implement all of the mitigations possible in Lucet, but will in the near future.

<comment><USER15> So currently it does compromise on security? Seems extremely misleading to claim any security if you are just currently ignoring the last years worth of major security issues.

<comment><USER16> From what I gather the thing is based on WASI which in early beta and for which many parts don't exist or don't work, networking and file access being a few of those [1]: _Note that everything here is a prototype, and while a lot of stuff works, there are numerous missing features and some rough edges. One big thing that 's not done yet is the actual mechanism to provide a directory as a pre-opened capability, to allow files to be opened. Some of the pieces are there (__wasilibc_register_preopened_fd) but they're not used yet. Networking support is also incomplete._

In other words, this is a somewhat premature announcement when it comes to fulfilling those promises.

[1] [https://github.com/CraneStation/wasmtime/blob/master/docs/WA...](https://github.com/CraneStation/wasmtime/blob/master/docs/WASI- intro.md)

<comment><USER17> That sentence about pre-opened directory capabilities not being supported is actually outdated. They're supported now, so I've now updated the documentation. Thanks for pointing that out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Excited to see this come about and how it could be used with the OpenFaaS watchdog on Kubernetes. [https://docs.openfaas.com/architecture/watchdog/](https://docs.openfaas.com/architecture/watchdog/) \- is the 5 nano seconds the time to fork at the OS level or a kind of in- process hot performance?

I got an error with the example however.. is everyone else seeing the same thing?

Unpacking wasi-sdk (3.0) ... Setting up wasi-sdk (3.0) ... Removing intermediate container d552f4538e26 \---> 713ff6032205 Step 8/8 : ENV WASI_SDK=/opt/wasi-sdk \---> Running in 4189f307a30e Removing intermediate container 4189f307a30e \---> a142a5620a28 Successfully built a142a5620a28 Successfully tagged lucet-dev:latest Lucet hasn't been installed yet... installing... Creating a RELEASE build cargo build --all --release --bins --lib error: failed to read `/lucet/pwasm-validation/Cargo.toml`

Caused by: No such file or directory (os error 2) Makefile:11: recipe for target 'build' failed make: __* [build] Error 101

<comment><USER7> You need to checkout submodules - $ git submodule init && git submodule update. Sorry, multiple people have reported this problem, and we're adding it to the docs right now!

<comment><USER19> Indeed.

And even if you know that a project uses submodules, forgetting `--recursive` happens constantly.

The script will now automatically install the required submodules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Native WebAssembly sure is an exciting topic. But I can't think of a single concrete use case that someone could use---besides having another standard for secure bytecode to choose from. Help?

<comment><USER2> As the blog post mentions,

> Lucet is designed to take WebAssembly beyond the browser, and build a > platform for faster, safer execution on Fastly's edge cloud.

> Lucet is the engine behind Terrarium, our experimental platform for edge > computation using WebAssembly. Soon, we will make it available on Fastly's > edge cloud as well.

You can see the Terrarium announcement here: [https://www.fastly.com/blog/edge-programming-rust-web- assemb...](https://www.fastly.com/blog/edge-programming-rust-web-assembly)

So that's at one concrete use case for you! I'm sure we'll be seeing more pop up in the future, there's so much going on here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> how does it look like this will work from a stack and a request/response flow perspective?

meaning, am I calling it as a function from within my vcl config? or am i mapping my service-id straight to a binary?

<comment><USER7> We're not quite there yet, but we're working on answering those questions right now. Stay tuned!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why use this as opposed to Google NaCl or PNaCl?

<comment><USER19> (P)NaCl is dead: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/31/googles_portable_na...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/31/googles_portable_native_client_to_be_killed/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can you comment on how big an effort it would be to support arm platforms?

</comment><comment><USER24> How does Lucet's WebAssembly performance compare to LuaJIT (one of the fastest JITs in existence) right now including VM warm-up time? Also, what's the GUI story like outside of browsers?

<comment><USER25> What other fast JITs in existence are there that are worth noting?

<comment><USER26> HotSpot, the JavaScript JITs?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much do you sleep? - <AUTHOR> This a bit off topic for HN, but I would like to know your sleep patterns, and what you do to get great sleep. <comment><USER2> I sleep from 9pm to 4am, +/\- 30 minutes. I was never a morning person but having a kid changed that out of necessity. From 4pm until 9pm, my life is absolutely frantic: commute and/or daycare pickup, feed, cleanup, bathe, and by 9 I'm exhausted. My partner stays up to work after my son and i go to bed. I tried that approach but was totally unproductive. Now I get up 2 or 3 hours before anyone else and in that time I get more done than I used to do in a normal 8 hour workday.

My team at work mostly get in and stay late which is sometimes difficult because I'm basically out of commission after 3pm. But I like to think I compensate by getting so much done in the early hours. I got dinged on a performance review for ignoring slack messages sent at 6pm. It was hard to swallow because I basically work 11 hours a day. I have to refuse meeting requests after 3pm, and if I get pushback, I offer to reschedule for 5am. Oh that's too early for you? So I have to accept your schedule? Fine, cut me a check for $80 because that's what my daycare charges for late pickups. Oops, this got a little off topic. But as you can see, work/life balance should really be renamed work/sleep balance since I'm working basically every waking minute that I'm possibly able to.

<comment><USER3> > I got dinged on a performance review for ignoring slack messages sent at > 6pm.

Ugh, that's not reasonable on your manager's part.

> I have to refuse meeting requests after 3pm, and if I get pushback, I offer > to reschedule for 5am.

That's also not really reasonable on your part. Of course it all depends on dynamics and mutual understanding, but 3pm is certainly well within "core hours" of a normal working day, and 5am certainly isn't.

<comment><USER2> > but 3pm is certainly well within "core hours" of a normal working day, and > 5am certainly isn't.

So I get that, but how else can I approach the situation when I have to leave the office at 3pm in order to get to the daycare in time? I'm not truly expecting the rest of the world to adopt my schedule, but the reason I start working at 4 is precisely to compensate for not being available in the late afternoon. If anything I'm over-compensating because as I said, I usually end up working 11 hours a day.

It's sad that people who stay late are routinely lauded as committed heroes, but I get no points for getting 5 or 6 hours of solid work done before most of the company even gets started!

Again, I understand that 9-6 (used to be 9-5) is conventional core hours, so how can I defray negative perceptions when I'm physically unable to join meetings or respond to slack messages? Seriously I would love some advice on how to handle this, it's highly stressful and I'm always coming off sounding defensive :(

<comment><USER4> Personally, I believe a flexible work schedule is a privilege. I think it's a great thing and I think that it's totally fine to work non-standard hours, but I also think that if you are going to make the choice to not be in the office during core hours (I'd consider 9-5 "core" but I think companies should define this) then it's also your responsibility to be available during those core hours when it's necessary. If a meeting needs to be held at 3 (which is a completely reasonable meeting time within core hours) and you need to be at that meeting then I think it's on you to make accommodations for that by having someone else pick up your kids that day or making some other arrangements since it's your choice to work a nonstandard schedule. Same goes for a 9am meeting and someone who comes in at 11am. In a work environment where employees can make their own schedule I think having "core hours" where every employee is expected to be available at least sometimes is totally reasonable since otherwise your personal schedule is going to be negatively affecting your job performance, and that's a personal responsibility issue, not a job issue.

<comment><USER2> > Personally, I believe a flexible work schedule is a privilege.

I'd like to challenge this, if you'll bear with me. I am not a cog in a machine, I'm not performing mindless repetitive tasks. My work requires exacting concentration and the liberty to set aside large blocks of uninterrupted time in order to be fully productive. I will spin this around: personally, I believe my company should feel privileged to have me work for them. Don't dare tell me I should grovel and feel grateful to my masters allowing me the privilege of a flexible work schedule. Why would they purposely enact counter-productive tactics that would not enable me to perform this work most efficiently?

In full disclosure, I do have one standing meeting one day a week at 4pm. On that day my partner will handle the daycare pickup. So I am not categorically opposed to later meetings. What I get upset about is being asked at noon to join a meeting at 4pm on the same day. It is impossible to make the necessary arrangements with such short notice. That's when I get snarky and say how about 5am tomorrow.

I understand that by convention it's reasonable to expect people to available during usual 9-5 hours. But don't use the language of "personal responsibility issue" with me about this. I will not allow any implication that I am being irresponsible or slacking off work simply because my schedule demands that I typically leave work at 3pm. It is deeply offensive to me because as I already said, I work my ass off and am far more productive than I used to be when I worked 10-7.

<comment><USER5> In principle I agree with you (see my other comment), but would also suggest that what you're doing requires a bit more communication.

For example, making sure all of your managers are totally bought in. If you were dinged as unresponsive, probably at least one person wasn't fully bought in or clear on the terms, right?

Same with your team, they should be able to see clearly on your calendar what times are blocked out. And there should be a note taped near your desk. And maybe an auto responder during off hours explaining how you can best help them.

Did I mention that even after syncing with managers on this, you'll probably have to periodically refresh their memory for as long as you work there?

Nothing at all wrong with what you're doing, but setting expectations is so important and requires diligence.

<comment><USER2> Thank you, that is excellent advice. I didn't consider the utility of ongoing communication and you're absolutely right about setting appropriate expectations with everyone, especially those I may not deal with on a daily basis.

Diplomacy is better than defensiveness. I do want people to know that I'm accessible, and should do a better job of spreading that message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For most of my life, if I wanted to be productive, I aimed for 10h of sleep. Yes, really, ten hours. There is nothing like a good amount of sleep to make you productive. If its about achieving a certain goal, without pouring a specificed amount of hours into it every day, it is the best solution to let your brain refresh every night as much as it can. I don't hold any self- optimization approaches in high esteem; I found that, indeed, nothing helps as much as an healthy amount of sleep. This is not only important for my brain, but also for my stomach, and, especially, my eyes, I have found.

When "working a specified amount of hours every day at a minimum" is the modus operandi, I tend to make sure I get at least 8 hours of sleep at night.

Recreational days are strictly exempt from this policy. If my intellectual output does not matter, e.g., during holidays, I do not care whether I sleep 7 or 12 hours, then I strictly care about my well-feeling only. This might indeed involve vast amounts of cheese, red wine, and whisky. ;-)

</comment><comment> alex- The normal 8 hrs here. I don't set an alarm (unless getting up early for something) I just wake up when I normally wake up. This means I go to bed very consistently and earlier than most of my peers.

The main thing I need to sleep is total darkness.

Some years ago I read that people don't need as much sleep as they think. In an attempt to gain some extra time in the day I experimented with reducing the amount I slept. I found even a little less sleep has a significant adverse effect on me; lower energy levels, irritability, reduced attention span.

</comment><comment><USER7> Anywhere from 6 to 10 hours, with the occasional 5-hour or 12-hour nights. If I could, I'd sleep from 1:30-2AM until 10-11AM. I can get away with this every now and then when my schedule permits. I'll spend 30-45 minutes on email, eat a big lunch, and then work for 6-7 hours straight.

I haven't had much look finding sleep strategies. Screen or no screens, my mind will race while I lay in bed until 1AM or so. I've found it to be a great time for me to think about my work as I end up doing a lot of 'background processing' while I sleep.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is something I have been researching. I feel like I am constantly tired even if I get 8 hours. The strange thing is I went on a 5 day hike earlier this year, no tech uncomfortable sleeping spots, no pillow yet I slept and woke up super refreshed.

My theory's are:

Could be related to physical activity, no tech, went to bed early and woke up before sunrise.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

<comment><USER9> > I feel like I am constantly tired even if I get 8 hours.

This is a classic symptom of hypothyroidism, maybe you should get your thyroid checked.

<comment><USER10> are you a doctor?

<comment><USER9> more like a patient... :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For a million years I was a 'night owl' and did 2am, 8am or so sleep. I changed about 2 years ago to more like a 11pm, 6:30am or so.

I know that a lot of people think it's a good idea and all that, but I think my productivity overrall is way down than it was before.

Twist in the story is that, being aware of that, I'm unlikely to change back, as the new schedule gives more more time to do /other/ things than being productive... For example, I hit the office at 7am, and leave at 3pm, and have the whole afternoon 'off' technically.

</comment><comment><USER12> most days 8-9 hours. 5-7 during stressful times and on occasion 10 when "catching up" on sleep.

I prioritize sleep as I think thats the single best way to live a long life and to have a healthy brain. After all, for most us, its our livelihood and I'm hoping I can avoid serious neurological diseases and disorders just by getting a full night's rest as often as possible.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2013/10/18/23621181...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2013/10/18/236211811/brains-sweep-themselves-clean-of-toxins-during- sleep)

</comment><comment><USER13> When I had a regular job, I could do with about 6hrs of sleep, but eventually over time slept debt would accumulate, and I'd sleep one day (usually Saturdays) about 10hrs to catch up.

Now, that I work on my schedule (getting a startup off the ground), I regularly sleep 9hrs, sometimes 10. Time to time I have coding marathons (when I am doing something exiting), that might cut my sleep to only 5-6 hrs a day, but that usually lasts only about a week and my productivity drops. I noticed with 9hrs a day, building muscle is easier, I have less body inflammation, and no stress or anxiety. The quality of my code is substantially better as well.

Bottom line: I thought 6hrs a day was enough, but I see that naturally my body wants about 9hrs of sleep, and the 'plentiness' of sleep affects my mood in good ways. This is probably some of the happiest times of my life, even though it is the middle of winter here in NYC.

</comment><comment><USER14> I sleep 5-7 hours per night, very broken up b/c of a nursing baby and because our primary heat source is a wood stove that sometimes needs to be restocked. I am quite adjusted to broken sleep after doing it for the better part of 6 years (my oldest is 6).

Sleep is a valuable resource even if I don't always treat it that way. The biggest helps for me:

1\. Stop using computers, phones, etc, at least 2 hours before bed. Lots of people recommend this to help with the "quality" of sleep, but I've also noticed I fall asleep _much more_ quickly when I follow this rigorously.

2\. Prioritize extra sleep every so often - that means skipping "fun" things like reading before bed after the kids are down.

3\. The occasional mid-day nap works wonders.

<comment><USER15> I used to sit in bed for like an hour just... trying to fall asleep.

Realized it was specifically because I was staring at my phone/computer/TV right before bed, which was both pouring bright light into my eyes at night, and even worse, giving me something to think about most of the time (work, news, etc).

I started meditating instead for about 15-20 minutes before bed and now I'm half asleep before I even lie down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 8 or 9 hours.

Moderate exercise and a clean diet, along with reduced stress have improved my sleep markedly (I've had sleep problems for almost 2 decades now).

</comment><comment><USER17> I sleep 2-8:30am during the week, and 2-10am or so on the weekends. I could maybe try going to bed at 1am, but going to sleep before midnight usually results in being awake from 3-5am which is stressful if I feel I have to get up the next day.

One interesting thing I've noticed, is that when I get 8+ hours of sleep, I'm happy but not as productive. On 6.5 hours of sleep, I'm a little grouchier but a LOT more productive. It's like I get into a mode where nothing feels right so I may as well just bang it out and get it done, whereas when I feel 100% mentally, I spend more time noodling and trying to find a better/perfect solution.

I'm 40 years old and a software dev, btw.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm 29, and I still don't have enough frontal lobe development to go to bed at a healthy hour. A flexible work schedule doesn't help either. There's a big difference between going to bed at 11 PM and sleeping 8-10 hours and going to bed at 2 AM and sleeping 8 - 10 hours. The rest just isn't the same. When I really want great sleep before a big interview or something, I turn off all things digital and yoga/stretching, basically a wind down routine.

<comment><USER19> _When I really want great sleep before a big interview or something, I turn off all things digital and yoga /stretching, basically a wind down routine._

You have to start doing that as a matter of course. It can't just be for the night before an important day, it has to be routine.

When I practice proper sleep hygiene, I feel immeasurably better. Usually takes about a week, maybe two. Think of staying up late like eating poorly. You can do it once in a while, and that's more than fine, but you can't make a lifestyle out of it without big consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 3-5 hours per night, depending on what I'm doing. I usually end up switching off the book around 0300, the alarm is set for 0620, children get up at 0730, I drive them to school at 0815, work on the farm and work on different projects between then and 1315/1415 when it is time to get them from school again, after that my time is divided between work, children, food preparation and such. Around 2200-2300 I'm 'free' again to do some more work, this time usually something IT or electronics-related. Bed around 0200-0230.

I never was much of a sleeper, not even when growing up. When I was around 12 I used to switch off the radio when the boring night programming started (I still hear the beginning tunes of those programs in my head and remember the dreary sensation which came with them: time to tune out and read a bit more...). Officially I don't get enough sleep and I should suffer from all sorts of ailments but... I don't.

The children are 5 and 12, I'm 51.

<comment><USER21> You're not alone in needing very little. I myself need the usual 7 1/2-8 to feel good, but a long time ago I did martial arts with a guy who slept 4 hours a night, from 1am to 5am. He just didn't need more, and enjoyed more free time than most of us get.

<comment><USER22> Colloquially referred to as the "efficient sleeper gene" or "super-sleeper gene", a quick search of these terms, or DEC2, reveals some lucky people among us get by - indeed thrive - on 4 or 5 hours of sleep per day.

Famous examples include Kobe Bryant and Donald Trump (please suspend irrational partisanship for just one minute - __ducks __).

I'm not big into basketball but I was thoroughly inspired by Kobe legends (linked below). Favorite among them, John Celestand jealously pleased he might finally beat Kobe to training one day after Kobe's wrist was broken, only to find Kobe still there first, and training just as hard as usual, only with his off-hand.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/2dzolu/compilation_of_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/2dzolu/compilation_of_kobe_bryant_stories/) [http://www.viralhoops.com/kobe-bryant-motivational- stories/](http://www.viralhoops.com/kobe-bryant-motivational-stories/).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I just bought one of those Phillips wake up lights. Only been two weeks, but now I have way more energy in the morning, usually enough to get up and do 30 min of exercise and be finished before i had previously finished dozing. I find I am slightly awake 15min into the light cycle, and fully away 25 min in ( 5 min before the alarm actually goes off)

</comment><comment><USER24> I sleep between 3 and 11 hours which sounds strange until I mention I also don't go to sleep every night or live within the confines of any given time zone... wait that still sounds strange. I'm strange.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have a ten month old daughter. I vaguely remember the concept of a regular sleeping pattern, but I can't for the life of me, remember what that would be like.

<comment><USER2> It gets better, I know being in that zone you can't imagine what "normal" life is like but trust me it gets better.

Right after my son was born when I was on paternity leave, I slept in two shifts, for about 2-3 hours if I was lucky. I pulled the night shift and got to sleep around 5am when my partner and in-laws woke up to relieve me. Then I'd get another 2-3 hour cat nap in the late afternoon.

While doing the overnight shift, in the rare moments when all the baby's needs were met I took to studying bash. I wrote some really crazy cryptic bash scripts! Of course I totally forgot everything I learned but for awhile I felt like a zen master of bash.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for your kind message! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm usually in bed 7-9 hours. Occasionally I sleep less, and very rarely more. Right now, I don't work so I usually sleep around 3-4am and wake between 10:30 and 12.

I've always slept well so long as I'm not on a morning shift: In this case, I just let myself sleep most days.

If I have to get up early, my sleep quality suffers even with good sleeping habits. The difference between the waking times is stark. In these cases, I just suffer through it.

</comment><comment><USER19> 7-8 hours, more towards 7 depending on how much cardio I'm getting. If I'm going through a weight-lifting routine, I tend to sleep more, 8-9 hours.

</comment><comment><USER27> If I fall asleep at 2am I wake at 9am, and if I fall asleep at 11pm I wake at 9am. The latter is extremely hard, so generally I just try to work around my night-owl body clock. I am most productive in the evenings anyway.

It's hard though, because there are a lot of early risers, and there's always an expectation that you must fully conform to the norm or else must be lazy.

</comment><comment><USER28> I've been using the Eight "smart" mattress cover to track my sleeping patterns. I average about 9 hours of sleep.

The quality of that sleep though (per their algorithm) varies greatly. Some nights I sleep really well, others, I toss and turn all night. I'm hoping to figure out why that is, using their "experiment" feature.

</comment><comment><USER29> 11pm-6am most nights.

Best when I actually stick to a no "no screens policy" 30mins prior.

I also use f.lux (mac) and the Night Shift mode on iPhone.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I go to bed at 2am-3am, alarm rings 10:50, I reset it to 11:10, wake up, get dressed and walk to office without breakfast to be there at noon sharp. Not feeling well. On weekend, I would go to sleep even later, wake up after 9 hours of sleep and still feel like crap.

</comment><comment><USER30> I prefer 9 hrs if I can, scales down to 6 during stressful periods but if I do less than 6 for a while it becomes a real problem. Hours are all over the place, this summer I was sleeping midnight to 7:30, right now I'm 3a to 11/12

</comment><comment><USER31> 8 hours, give or take. In bed by 10pm, read for a bit, alarm at 6am. Doze a bit while my wife showers, then up and get myself ready.

I try to work out 5-6 times/week. Without it, I sleep lighter and inconsistently. With it, I usually sleep well.

</comment><comment><USER32> 9pm - 5am, ideally. But just as often, I get off schedule, and end up doing a split of 9-1, be up for 4 hours, then 5-9.

For the best sleep, I take melatonin, I exercise in the mornings, avoid caffeine after lunch, and avoid naps.

</comment><comment><USER33> In bed by 9pm, asleep by 10, and wake up around 6-7am. I've found that a full night of rest enables great productivity. And things are a lot less crowded and traffic-y early in the morning!

</comment><comment><USER34> I get about 6.5 hours of sleep every night on weekdays. Closer to 8 on weekends.

I graduated from college a year ago and I used to get around 6 hours of sleep daily with a 20 minute nap.

I'm 23, by the way.

</comment><comment><USER35> 6-7 hours. If I sleep for longer, I feel like shit.

</comment><comment><USER36> 6-8 hours on weeknights, 8-10 on weekends

</comment><comment><USER37> I sleep from 11/1130pm to about 7/730am. I live in San Francisco and sleep with earplugs in

</comment><comment><USER38> 364 nights using the Sleep Cycle app and I have an average time in bed of 6.5 hours.

</comment><comment><USER39> Around 7 hours most of the time, from 1:30-8:30am

</comment><comment><USER40> 8-10 hours</comment>


Using Frida for Windows Reverse Engineering - <AUTHOR> https://darungrim.com/research/2020-06-17-using-frida-for-windows-reverse-engineering.html <comment><USER2> They mentioned WinDbg and OllyDbg but both are quirks of the past (except WinDbg usage for kernel debugging), and there's a better tool for this - x32dbg/x64dbg[1]. It's open-source, unlike WinDbg and actively developed, unlike OllyDbg. Moreover, recently we worked a lot on improving Windows support in radare2 [2] and Cutter[3]. Most of our fixes should land in the upcoming 4.5.0[4] release. This summer one of our GSoC students works on improving reversible debugging [5] feature as well. And of course, both integrated with Frida as well - see r2frida plugin[6].

[1] [https://x64dbg.com/](https://x64dbg.com/)

[2] [https://github.com/radareorg/radare2](https://github.com/radareorg/radare2)

[3] [https://github.com/radareorg/cutter](https://github.com/radareorg/cutter)

[4] [https://github.com/radareorg/radare2/milestone/51](https://github.com/radareorg/radare2/milestone/51)

[5] [https://www.radare.org/gsoc/2020/ideas.html#title_10](https://www.radare.org/gsoc/2020/ideas.html#title_10)

[6] [https://github.com/nowsecure/r2frida](https://github.com/nowsecure/r2frida)

<comment><USER3> Microsoft has recently modernized WinDbg[1]. Sadly, it's available only via the Microsoft Store[2].

[1] - [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows- hardware/drivers/de...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows- hardware/drivers/debugger/debugging-using-windbg-preview)

[2] - [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/windbg- preview/9pgjgd53tn8...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/windbg- preview/9pgjgd53tn86)

<comment><USER4> My reaction upon seeing that can be summed up in two words: _WTF!?, yuck!_

Even the latest version of _Visual Studio_ , their flagship IDE, doesn't have that stupid ribbon UI, because they know their developers absolutely abhor it. To see it in WinDbg, whose userbase is even more traditional and "hardcore", is extremely shocking. With that ridiculous full-screen File menu (or page?), it looks like a part of Microsoft Office!

<comment><USER5> The vast majority of the interaction with the new windbg is using the same commands in the same tiling inner windows as before. The ribbon is usually hidden if you know the key commands to move around. It's only to help new and infrequent users find their way around.

<comment><USER4> _It 's only to help new and infrequent users find their way around._

Visual Studio is what most Windows developers use, including beginners, and it doesn't need --- or want --- a ribbon. It also doesn't have a full-screen File "menu", which is a repulsive visual assault and one of the other abominations that came from recent versions of Office.

The UI isn't even the worse of it. Old WinDbg was a pretty portable thing that you could just copy onto a machine wherever you wanted to debug something. New WinDbg is...

[https://lifeinhex.com/running-windbgx-on- windows-7/](https://lifeinhex.com/running-windbgx-on-windows-7/)

...no. Just... no.

(Yes, keep on downvoting me if you want, I don't care. I've had enough of this idiotic 'modern' shit creeping into everything.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Brew stopped accepting custom options for packages and installing from source - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/issues/31510 <comment><AUTHOR> This started be a problem when I could not compile curl anymore with --with- http2 option. See [https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew- core/commit/7f9bfa67922...](https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew- core/commit/7f9bfa679229a6837d2d8ba8a08bc6154f0ed4d4)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also: [https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/5514](https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/5514) \- No more HOMEBREW_BUILD_FROM_SOURCE</comment>


Mixing commercial feeds in Facebook Timeline : A different approach - <AUTHOR> http://www.syncfin.com/facebook-promote/ How I would have tried differently about mixing commercial feeds in Facebook timeline for accelerating revenue. <comment><USER2> 3rd party apps are not allowed to access the Social Graph beyond 1st level connections i.e. you cann't get friends of friends. But I wonder , why does facebook not develop Apps based on their Social Graph by itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could be it was because facebook wanted to focus and capture other important stuff like - facebook comment plugin , facebook like button, facebook share plugin ...

They always knew that replicating craiglist can be done any day later.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> More information on promoting facebook posts is here : <http://www.facebook.com/help/promote>

<comment><AUTHOR> But i guess for last few days it has been disabled for Individual accounts.

Also facebook has "strangely" stopped showing "Why this ad" after facebook signout. !!</comment></comment>


How I built a startup while traveling to 20 countries - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-digital-nomad-community/how-i-built-a-startup-while-traveling-to-20-countries-f0ec3a92bc3c <comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I'm not the author of the article, but I'm extremely interested in the _technomadic_ lifestyle and I hope to achieve it someday soon.

If you're interested in other nomadic-related articles, check out:

\- Matthew Karsten: [http://goo.gl/kUydE](http://goo.gl/kUydE)

\- Alex MacCaw: [http://goo.gl/bjw4P](http://goo.gl/bjw4P)

\- Raam Dev: [http://goo.gl/SwH6lO](http://goo.gl/SwH6lO)

\- Thomas Backlund: [http://goo.gl/GVlES](http://goo.gl/GVlES)

\- Noel Tock: [http://goo.gl/7fGJOv](http://goo.gl/7fGJOv)

\- Jason Fox: [http://goo.gl/LSnlV9](http://goo.gl/LSnlV9)

\- Peter Levels: [https://levels.io/](https://levels.io/)

\- ...

</comment><comment><USER2> This is an interesting article that raises questions about larger scale application. I wonder how the "nomadic" startup method would work once a startup has shifted from a single person effort into a larger team collaboration. Is there a need for teams to be physically in the same place? Would it be beneficial for entire teams to constantly be on the move?

</comment><comment><USER3> It must take a certain type of personality to be able to pull this off. I am guessing that they need to be single with no strong emotional attachments to family or love ones, relatively healthy, extremely focused on a single objective, and working on projects that do work well for small teams.</comment>


Ecuador has received an asylum request from Snowden - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/RicardoPatinoEC/statuses/348841761684197378 <comment><USER2> Now even regular tweets without sources qualify for submissions to HN? hmmmm

<comment><USER3> That tweet is by the Ecuadorian minister who granted asylum to Julian Assange.</comment></comment>


Matlab semantic-segmentation-using-deep-learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.mathworks.com/help/vision/examples/semantic-segmentation-using-deep-learning.html <comment><AUTHOR> Not sure if it's as optimized as maskrcnn on tensorflow yet, but matlab is almost caught up to deep learning on python.</comment>


How Water Heaters Evolved into Grid-Scale Energy-Storage Devices (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.esource.com/ES-WP-18/GIWHs

<comment><USER2> This concept has been used in new zealand for decades. The communications channel is probably moving to radio and possibly integrated in to smart meters. It used to/still does work on a "ripple" signal where the utility injects a higher frequency signal, such as 300 Hz, on to the power lines and then relays at the customer's houses pick up the signals and operate on and off.

They cycle through groups of customers so nobody's hot water is off for very long.

here is an excellent resource with pictures of the ripple plant and the evolution of the equipment [http://www.oriongroup.co.nz/downloads/ripplesignalguide.pdf](http://www.oriongroup.co.nz/downloads/ripplesignalguide.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> The legal issues with this technology have now been resolved and the first units are being sold in the open market[1].

A 10-20x cheaper energy storage solution than current battery technologies and it is available right now, and not years away from being implemented like other technologies.

[1][http://www.vaughncorp.com/downloads/press/grid- enabled%20wat...](http://www.vaughncorp.com/downloads/press/grid- enabled%20water%20heaters%20press%20release.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> "Sequentric's technology has been tested by the Electric Power Research Institute and is now being deployed by Hawaiian Electric, but we have yet to see the results of these studies." This technological approach is widely used in private homes in Germany. The energy savings are significant and customers are extremely satisfied with every aspect of it.

</comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of District heating - they do use the benefits of thermal storage and economies of scale to cheaply create and store energy (for heating homes).

The issue with District heating is that in many places district heating companies are abusive monopolists with awful service. Here it is actually cheaper to warm the water on demand with grid electricity!

However, having the technology to allow individual households and businesses to benefit from water heaters as grid storage is very different - this also solves an economic/political issue.

</comment><comment><USER6> I though heat pumps were generally more efficient.

They still do use a lot of energy, so it can be used in a similar scheme, but I wonder how it would change details.</comment>


Facebook's growth - approaching #1. What's next? - <AUTHOR> http://www.fbbook.com/fblog/2007/10/04/facebooks-growth-approaching-1-whats-next/ <comment><USER2> Well, these are all fine predictions and suggestions but I'm curious how much of it will really help Facebook. The reality is that most people aren't on Facebook to look for things to buy in a Marketplace, they are there to "superpoke" their buddies and otherwise use time wasting "apps" and while this makes it a decent advertising platform due to the number of users and page views I don't see why it would be worth 10 billion dollars. The problem is that sites of this nature are a fad and while attempts like the facebook application platform might keep users on the site longer it is hard to predict when something revolutionary better comes along and people will go and waste time somewhere else.</comment>


Swaziland turns to mass circumcision - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-kindest-cut/8338/ <comment><AUTHOR> For more information on Circumcision and HIV [1].

\----

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV></comment>


Reaper IOT botnet has infected a million networks - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/reaper-iot-botnet-infected-million-networks/ <comment><USER2> As I always say. The S in IOT stands for security.</comment>


Emergent dynamics of neuromorphic nanowire networks - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-12-brain-like-behavior-nanoscale-device.html <comment><USER2> This nature paper is spawning a bunch of articles with rather sensational titles. There was a post about one such article a few days ago. The actual paper is quite readable and less sensational: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51330-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51330-6)

<comment><USER3> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21879444](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21879444) was the previous discussion, but this one already seems better, so we can leave it up for now.

We'll change the title to that of the paper, which is less sensational.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" After current flowed through the network, the connections between nanowires persisted for as much as one minute in some cases, which resembled the process of learning and memorization in the brain. Other times, the connections shut down abruptly after the charge ended, mimicking the brain's process of forgetting."_

Memories are _of_ something. There is no indication that anything like that is going on in this device.

Sure, this might be "brain-like" on the physical level, but that's a far cry from being brain-like on a functional level, much less being brain-like on a subjective, experiential level (ie. we actually experience memories)

Still interesting and promising research, though.

<comment><USER5> I'm always wary of comparisons and interpretations that work regardless of what happens. One one thing happens, that's like a brain. When the complete opposite thing happens, that's also like the brain.

It reminds me of bad Freudian analysis: drinking too much or talking too much indicate an oral fixation. So does not drinking enough or talking enough. Also, not drinking or talking excessively is not an indication that you don't have an oral fixation, since any other vague metaphor about the mouth can also indicate an oral fixation.

The behaviors this chip exhibited couldn't be not exhibited by the microchip. The comparisons are suitably vague and can be applied regardless of the outcome of the study. Especially when you consider we don't even know precisely how memory, sleep, or wakefulness work in humans. So you're vaguely comparing a device to something you don't even understand.

The actual paper might be more rigorous and level-headed, but the write-up is pure pseudoscience.

</comment></comment><comment> oh-4-fucks-sake I mean, woah. Hard to decide if these scientists created a chaotic system and are simply drawing the conclusion that "our system of silver nanowires is chaotic and the brain works kinda chaotically, so, this is a proto-brain" or truly "we spawned a chaotic system that self-organizes into meaningful, manipulable thought-like behaviors".

It seems that a similar experiment was used to implement a ML algorithm to predict traffic patterns--but they didn't provide enough detail for us to ascertain if those silver nanowires were more-or-less "a tiny, classical, programmable cpu built out of nanowires".

The biggest questions in my mind are:

1) How much can this system be manipulated/programmed to solve or "focus" on specific (or fuzzy) tasks?

2) What does the I/O look like for this? Can varied and non-trivial datasets be fed into the system? What does getting data out look like?

Super interesting if this all legit.

<comment><USER6> More like what conclusion are the reporters drawing, because usually it's a million miles from what the researchers are concluding, but much more exciting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> reminding that scientific reports publishes articles that are reviewed to be technically correct but regardless of their importance.

</comment><comment><USER8> Are they saying a Current is spontaneously emerging and disappearing?</comment>


"MVC is one big controller doing all the work, so it's bad" - <AUTHOR> https://theswiftdev.com/2018/03/12/the-ultimate-viper-architecture-tutorial/ <comment><AUTHOR> "The Model-View-Controller (Massive-View-Controller) pattern is a basic concept. You have usually a huge UIViewController subclass that controls all the views and collects every model that needed to be displayed for the end user. For example you call an API endpoint using URLSession or Alamofire from the controller, do the response data validation and formatting then you implement your table or collection view delegates on the view controller, so basically all the application logic goes inside that single overstuffed miserable view controller class. Does this ring a bell for you?"

No, that's not actually what MVC is. First learn MVC, then speak why it's good or bad.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/theswiftdev/viperb/issues/1](https://github.com/theswiftdev/viperb/issues/1)</comment></comment>


Australia now has encryption-busting laws as Labor capitulates - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/australia-now-has-encryption-busting-laws-as-labor-capitulates/ <comment><USER2> I'd like to see:

\- Apple, Samsung, HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc, suspend imports to Australia

\- Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc (anyone significant who provides a service to Australians) suspect their services to Australian geo IPs.

I can't see much other hope for getting it repealed ...

</comment><comment><USER3> How nice, you wake up in the morning and people from other countries are messaging you about this and it's nowhere in the news here. Smells fishy.</comment>