Why PHP and JavaScript IDE's Suck  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jeremymartin.name/2008/05/why-php-and-javascript-ides-suck.html

<comment><USER2> Dynamic abbreviations ("dabbrev-expand" and "dabbrev-completion") solve the problem quite nicely 90% of the time. If you keep the documentation open in another buffer, then it works 99% of the time, as long as you have a clue on what you're doing.

People seem a little bit too concerned about getting a java-style 100% correct solution when a 90% solution is nearly as good.

<comment><USER3> I love Emacs, but I think the lack of 'Intellisense' is one of the few good reasons to use an IDE over Emacs or Vim. Some people think Intellisense rots the brain [1], but I can't see anyone ever saying that about eldoc-mode.

[1] [http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind...](http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html)

<comment><USER2> lisp-complete-symbol definitely does rob the brain. I've written plenty of braindead Lisp with its help :) Eldoc is not the same thing, though, since it just shows some basic documentation _after_ you've remembered the name of the function. It's a nice "yeah, I _knew_ that was the name" reminder. Finally, it's easy to "dive deeper" with Lisp, thanks to "describe-function" and friends. I would definitely not complain about having that for other languages. (Languages that don't have docstrings are really annoying me these days. Perl especially.)

Honestly, I use dabbrevs more often than lisp-complete-symbol when writing lisp. It usually gets me what I want with less typing. (There are a lot of lisp functions that start with the same prefix, but not as many that I've used in my editor session. So dabbrev-expand has less to look at, and hence it usually gives me what I want faster.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I absolutely love working in Komodo Edit (<http://www.activestate.com/Products/komodo_edit/>). This guy's big complaint seems to be a lack of Intellisense, but seriously, it's OUT there. You just have to look beyond Dreamweaver.

In Komodo, I get intellisense, but the damn thing's even smart enough to pick up if I'm writing javascript inside a <script> tag inside HTML inside a PHP doc - it pops up the appropriate javascript autocomplete stuff and not the PHP stuff. It's awesome.

</comment><comment><USER5> He probably never tried the javascript editor of netbeans.

[http://www.netbeans.org/download/flash/js/javascript_demo.ht...](http://www.netbeans.org/download/flash/js/javascript_demo.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> why would the author use dreamweaver for php? try zend, or phped. for js, there's aptana. the author is misinformed. that article was a big waste of time.</comment>


Samsung plans to outspend Iceland's GDP on advertising and marketing - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/samsung-plans-to-outspend-icelands-gdp-on-advertising-and-marketing

<comment><AUTHOR> FWIW, that's more than London spent on the 2012 Olympics.</comment>


Independent Inida - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ananyadhoundiyal4558/aatmanirbhar-bharat-through-one-india-prosperous-india-c7d8254dbd83 <comment><USER2> Looks like some nationalistic bull-crap.

Diversity only does not lead to success or innovation.

Diversity lead to the same problem as with LINUX Distro.</comment>


How Debunked Fire Science Could Exonerate a Convicted Murderer - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/making-an-arsonist-how-debunked-fire-science-could-exonerate <comment><USER2> Perhaps the problem is that I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the title is wrong. From the title, I understand that he is guilty and bad science will make him free. From the story, I understand he is innocent and was convicted using bad science.</comment>


Did Percona help Facebook troubleshoot their recent incident? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/09/23/more-on-dangers-of-the-caches/

<comment><USER2> A more accurate title is "More on dangers of the caches"

<comment><AUTHOR> well, yeah - but I thought that the possible backstory due to the timing of the publication was exciting.</comment></comment>


Recki-CT – A compiler for PHP, written in PHP - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/google/recki-ct

<comment><USER2> This looks awesome. PHP doesn't get a lot of love but it is really improving a lot and obviously still dominates the web... Glad the turkish bug is finally done with.

Would be really nice to see security augmentations to the language. The vast majority (maybe 9/10) sites I look at where no framework was used, the site is missing have no CSRF tokens, very poor XSS protections, and RCEs are pretty common too. I think this would really improve the language.

<comment><USER3> I find it odd that a language whose entire purpose is mixing code in with html doesn't come with the ability to automatically escape any echoed string by default. If you're not using something like Twig you have to wrap each variable in htmlspecialchars or something.

The argument that 'PHP is a framework' may be valid, but as a framework, raw PHP kind of sucks.

<comment><USER4> PHP is simply a scripting language. It has numerous other uses besides just "mixing code in with html"; it wouldn't make sense to have something like enabled by default. For example, all console scripts would need to disable it.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a general purpose language and can be used for many different things, but as its name once indicated, PHP's primary use case is _preprocessing hypertext_. I think it would make sense since that's what almost all the PHP in the wild is involved with. Although i'm sure escaping could also be disabled by default when running from the command line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone have an idea for some of Recki-CT's use cases? I get that compiled PHP will be faster. This seems useful for PHP scripts you would run from the command line. Using the resulting binary as a CGI with Apache would incur the fork/exec cost that the PHP module avoided.

<comment><USER6> Some explanation here:

[http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2014/08/introducing-recki- ct.html](http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2014/08/introducing-recki-ct.html)

(it's vaguely redundant with the readme, but there is some additional stuff)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8244014](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8244014).

</comment><comment><USER8> >This means that global variables, dynamic variables (variable-variables, variable function calls, etc) and references are not allowed.

Globals, sure, bad practice. Ideally we wouldn't have any. Dynamic variables make sense to exclude, it turns static analysis into the halting problem. Luckily they're a bad practice too since 5.3 introduced closures.

But _references_?

 __EDIT __: It 's by Anthony Ferrara! and some other pretty big names in the PHP community</comment>


Alarm System Defeated by $2 Wireless Dongle - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/08/23/alarm-system-defeated-by-2-wireless-dongle-nobody-surprised/ <comment><USER2> Article comments on this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlNkQJzw4oA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlNkQJzw4oA)</comment>


Ruby gem that adds support for Java syntax - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/vanruby/java

<comment><USER2> This is the worst thing to happen to Ruby in a long long time.

Why would one choose to develop in Ruby if they didn't want a dynamic language to start with? Why not just develop your application in Objective-C which gives you the option to be dynamic or static?</comment>


Scalable CSS-based Playing Cards - <AUTHOR> http://donpark.github.com/scalable-css-playing-cards/

<comment><USER2> Great Work. I love these posts on HN where people show case what they hacked on during the weekend. These are the real "builders" or creators out there. And about the negative guys, believe me they have probably never created anything in their life, so don't bother!

</comment><comment><USER3> Screw these negative guys, this is amazing. Great work! :-)

</comment><comment><USER4> Thank you for the great work. I've been thinking about doing a simple web- based card game for my friends and me, and not having a good way to show cards in the browser has been my biggest impediment!

</comment><comment><USER5> How can I use this CardView class? The demo seems to be using the DeckView, but what if I just want to deal five specific cards?

</comment><comment><USER6> I get weird clipping on the right fourth of the various card symbols. Chrome 18 on nexus 7.

<comment><AUTHOR> Issue already filed: [https://github.com/donpark/scalable-css-playing- cards/issues...](https://github.com/donpark/scalable-css-playing- cards/issues/1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is what HN is becoming, CSS playing cards on the front page. (sigh)

<comment><AUTHOR> OP and author here. I'm a long time HN reader but this is only my second submission. I know my weekend hack is no where near amazing but I think it's useful which is why I intentionally spent extra time making it easy to reuse.

Could you explain what kind of posts you want on HN front page and why my submission is unfit to be on it so I can avoid making the same mistake?

<comment><USER8> The face cards appear to be rendering as PNG instead of SVG. Additionally, it would be cool to render the flip as a CSS 3d transform transition and fall back to jQuery flippy where not supported.

Also, I'm not sure about the mustache.js + hogan.js + jquery + backbone combo. That's a whole lotta libraries for something that would take around 20 lines in d3.js.

I don't mean this to put you down, but there are different ways of thinking of problems and you are approaching an interface/visualization problem from a templating background (which is possible, but not ideal).

<comment><AUTHOR> I went with PNG over SVG because I wanted to keep things unfancy until later given that SVG versions are much bigger than PNG versions and I've heard rumors of SVG issues on Mobile Safari. Optional SVG support will likely be added later.

Re unnecessary rigging (hogan.js, jquery, backbone), they're there because this hack was original built as part of a larger project. I'll be tearing them out as time allows because they're definitely not needed.

Re d3 and approaching problem differently, I wholeheartedly agree. I'll be happy to use a 20 line d3.js version if someone comes up with one. :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket - <AUTHOR> http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2016/22407810 <comment><USER2> It is really interesting to see that this is a very 'ordinary' commercial geostationary launch customer, and not a government funded research satellite. This is oversimplified, but traditionally, rockets that are in beta test mode are tested like:

1) static pad tests/firings of engines

2) all-up launch of the full rocket, carrying a boilerplate satellite with some instrumentation, maybe some cubesats or low cost small R&D satellites tagging along

3) one or two launches of government science payloads, or government-funded weather satellites, something like that

4) commercial launches begin

<comment><USER3> Not contradicting anything you've said seeing as the first few launches of the falcon 9 followed your rough outline, but SES was SpaceX's first GTO launch so they've clearly got an appetite for a bit of risk.

<comment><USER4> Also I read elsewhere that SES is in a "unique" situation here.

They are still building up their fleet of satellites, so if they lose one now it's not like it is some kind of company ending setback or will allow a competitor to launch ahead of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if they'll really save money right away doing this. I imagine they'll spend a lot on inspections and getting things 100% right.

Either way, it's an amazing achievement.

<comment><USER6> There is a bigger question which was asked in the Economist this week ([http://www.economist.com/technology- quarterly/2016-25-08/spa...](http://www.economist.com/technology- quarterly/2016-25-08/space-2016#section-4)), which is can SpaceX create a big enough market where they can realize the savings of reusability? Right now satellites cost more than the price of the rocket, so if you shave off $10 million on a launch that's pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the overall price.

This isn't to take anything away from SpaceX. It's absolutely amazing what they've done. I only hope that they can open up the market enough for things like asteroid mining and space tourism.

<comment><USER2> Building many identical satellites in an assembly-line like fashion cuts down on costs significantly. Large geostationary satellites are currently based on standard buses (like the Boeing 702 and its variants), but each satellite is generally a bespoke product. Larger quantities of the same thing like the second generation Iridium network and the o3b MEO satellites are very interesting from a per-unit cost perspective.

<comment><USER6> Right. It definitely looks like we could be in for a shakeup in the industry. The question still remains though; what is the total size of the market for all of those satellites? How many could we place in MEO/GEO/GSO before the market is completely saturated? I honestly have no idea. I would think the LEO satellite market will eventually be dominated by less powerful vehicles, although if SpaceX can survive long enough to open up other markets (like Mars tourism and mining), maybe those smaller rockets get cannibalized by payloads being co-launched on larger vehicles.

<comment><USER7> Geosync slots are scarce. There's a market in them.[1] Low-orbit slots are more available.

[1] [http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Paper_satellites_free_u...](http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Paper_satellites_free_use_outer_space.html#_Toc408928574)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So knowing nothing about this subject, why do they pursue landing rockets, or at least landing them vertically? It seems like the hardest possible way to handle this problem, as opposed to for example what the shuttles did. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

<comment><USER9> The experience of the Shuttle program demonstrated that taking off like a rocket and landing like a plane has a lot of problems that make it not as great as you might think. The wings, heat shield, etc are all pretty heavy - notice that the shuttle required two whole extra rockets and a disposable fuel tank to make it to orbit - and the heat shield required for landing like a plane turned out to be a huge problem (see: The Columbia Disaster).

Plus, it turns out that landing a rocket vertically is now possible. I'm not clear on if it's now possible thanks to advances in technology (particularly in automation) or if it's just that no one had tried it until now.

<comment><USER10> Note that the Space Shuttle only needs a heat shield because it's returning from orbital velocity. The Falcon 9 first stage is suborbital.

<comment><USER3> Even at the far slower speed the first stage would still be damaged from re- entry. That's why they do a re-entry burn to slow the stage down before the atmosphere gets too dense. There's apparently also some interesting physics on the engine firing dissipating the bow shock which helps keep temperatures down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hopefully someone can support/refute this: my off the cuff guess why this happened is because the discount on the launch price is about equal to the cost of building the satellite. So if it works, everyone is happy. If it explodes, they can build another one and aren't out any money (but are out time), and the launch costs for the next one are covered by SpaceX or insurance - however they have it set up.

<comment><USER12> Payloads are insured and the insurance cost in this case is reportedly more or less the same as on a new rocket. That makes it a no-brainer.

<comment><USER13> Are the opportunity costs of not having the satellite up there for the duration of however long it takes to build and launch a replacement insured as well?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Whenever see a news about SpaceX it gives me goosbumps. I hope it will land successfully again.

</comment><comment><USER15> Just wanted to say that the phrase "flight-proven" is genius marketing.

<comment><USER16> Better than "Certified Pre-Owned Rocket" :-) I agree with the folks who have tweeted they should start adding launch "check marks" to the paint but that assumes that they will launch it w/recovery and then do it again.

<comment><USER7> The title of this article should have been "Used Rocket".

<comment><USER16> I think it would be funny if Gwen Shotwell put "Used Rocket Salesperson" on a business card.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Results: Finland's Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World - <AUTHOR> https://www.demoshelsinki.fi/en/2020/05/08/letter-results-of-finlands-basic-income-experiment-will-help-us-build-the-post-pandemic-society/ <comment><USER2> The experiment was terribly flawed in that it only addressed the unemployed, and it didn't affect the existing unemployment system for them, making incentives perverse for all taking part. The UBI was offered tax-free on top.

It represents nothing like real life UBI and needs to be redesigned as a test.

<comment><USER3> Why can't we ever design one such experiment right? It's as if we were giving ammunition to those opposed to it by conducting trials that have flaws! Would it really be so hard to run a proper test that follows all the best practices and isn't biased/flawed so that we could once and for all point at it and say "we can conclusively say UBI is/isn't viable based on this experiment"?

I mean if a country goes all the way to overcoming political and opinion opposition along with securing funding to actually run such a trial, why not go all the way and do it right?

<comment><USER2> The test was conducted by a popular right wing party "Kokoomus", which is heavily opposed to the system. This might affect the design of the test

<comment><USER4> >According to its 2006-adopted platform, the National Coalition Party's policy is based on "freedom, responsibility and democracy, equality of opportunity, education, supportiveness, tolerance and caring".[9] The party is described by literature as a liberal[2] and conservative[3] as well as a liberal- conservative[4] party in the centre-right[8] with catch-all party characteristics.[29] The non-profit Democratic Society described it as "the heir to both liberal and conservative strains of right-of-centre thought" that is becoming increasingly liberal compared to its official stance of conservatism.[6]

>Specifically, it contains elements of cultural and economic liberalism and social reformism.[30] For example, it supports multiculturalism, work-based immigration, gay rights and same sex marriage.[6][31][32][33] Although formerly considered to have been critical of the Nordic welfare model and campaigning for strict doctrines of economic liberalism, in the 1970s the party shifted to supporting more social liberalism, such as increased social security and a welfare state, justified by increased individual liberty.[34]

They've really pivoted on that issue in the past few decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Meta: countless fiscal policy changes are made in weeks.

But for UBI, decades of experiments and data-driven validation seem to be required.

Why is it acceptable that UBI requires such huge burden of proof?

Don't tell me that it's more radical than other reforms: when used as a replacement for welfare and other subsidies at comparable cost, it is pretty mild.

<comment><USER6> > But for UBI, decades of experiments and data-driven validation seem to be > required.

Because it costs so much, and is so radically different.

> when used as a replacement for welfare and other subsidies at comparable > cost, it is pretty mild

Buzzocks. UK over 18 population is ~52m. Give them each £1,000 a month, and you get a cost of £624,000,000,000, which is 3 times what the UK currently spends on "welfare"[0], and is about 3/4 of the overall UK budget. And you're cutting the payments of a sizeable number of current welfare receipients.

Sure you can find more recent figures, or play around with how much you claim you're going to give, but let's not entertain the fantasy that this is a "mild comparative cost".

[0] [https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare- budget/](https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seeing both sides of my family doing everything they can to scam the government and NGOs for benefits just so they can avoid going to work, I always think the UBI might only work as intended for perhaps 10% of the most highly motivated individuals among us.

If I had UBI, I'd quit my skilled and productive developer job and probably drive a taxi, because it's more satisfying, even though my contribution to the society will be much smaller and in a certain sense, my skills would be wasted. And I'd probably take half a year off on a beach every year.

Because of that, my tax contribution would be much smaller (probably zero), and the country would have less money to treat sick people, buy hospital equipment and build housing for the poor. That would worsen life outcomes for many people and will likely cause additional deaths.

</comment><comment><USER8> Medicare for All (or equiv) is enabler for widespread UBI.

The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups.

If I had had health insurance, I would have taken a lot more risks. But I average a major health crisis every two years, so whenever I ran out of savings and COBRA, I had to take jobs just to get insured. (ACA helped by prohibiting exclusion based on preexisting conditions.)

I did manage to work solo twice, with modest success. But the uncertainty freaked my partner out and we needed guaranteed insurance for our family.

<comment><USER9> > The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of > entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups.

Funnily enough, the western country with the least amount of safety net has the most successfull startup community and entrepreneurial spirit. Must be an anomaly in your theory.

<comment><USER10> Coincidentally, the western countries with the strongest safety nets, m4a and affordable / free child care have weak startup communities and little entrepreneurial spirit. Another anomaly!

<comment><USER8> Rankings from 2005. USA is #32.

[https://www.nationmaster.com/country- info/stats/Economy/New-...](https://www.nationmaster.com/country- info/stats/Economy/New-businesses-registered/Number/Per-capita)

To your point, it'd be interesting to compare more recent data. Please share if you find such datasets.

\--

Of course there are multiple factors. Inhibitors and accelerators, advantages and disadvantages. Even between states. Access to capital, quality of schools, real estate prices, labor laws, ad nauseum.

Some are non-obvious. One possible crucial factor between Boston and Silicon Valley was California's lack of non-compete employment arrangements. If true, shouldn't others consider adapting? Why haven't they?

Imagine young professionals have children. Imagine access to reasonable and trustworthy child care is important to those parents. So important it influences their job choices. Imagine innovative companies providing that service to better recruit and retain talent.

You don't have to imagine. Because it's already happening.

Ditto healthcare.

So why shouldn't similarly minded jurisdictions do the same?

<comment><USER10> We have pretty much all that in Germany. Healthcare is mostly public and affordable, strong social safety net, free childcare in lots of cities, free schools & higher education (and if you/your family meet some criteria, you'll actually get "student loans" that are generally interest-free _and_ you only need to pay back half of it). Want to start a company while unemployed? You'll get subsidies you don't need to pay back to get you started etc etc etc.

Germany's top startups are mostly copy cats, and that's pretty much all VCs will invest in (granted, they're not VC by SV standards, but mostly just investors). We're #51 on that list you posted.

I don't believe that entrepreneurship is significantly encouraged or discouraged by what happens if you fail or whether child care is free or expensive. Imho even regulation and red tape isn't the primary issue, but the local culture's general relationship with risk vs safety. Germans save more than e.g. US citizens, and they don't move to other states within Germany nearly as much (even though it's really not that far, Germany is smaller than California).

> Imagine innovative companies providing that service to better recruit and > retain talent.

What you do to get & keep _talent_ (aka "the elite") doesn't necessarily scale to the population at large. If you pay someone $200k, adding $10k for perks doesn't matter as much. It's very different if you're paying them $50k.

<comment><USER8> Hmmm.

I'd love to know if you're right (less wrong) about culture.

How does Finland punch above their weight? Can't we steal some of their fire?

While I advocate for a democratic socialist utopia (Denmark), I'd support anything that moves the needle to the left. When Reagan-era policies are now regarded as marxism, methinks we've gone too far in the other direction.

<comment><USER10> > How does Finland punch above their weight? Can't we steal some of their > fire?

I mean, Finland fought off the Soviet Union's invasion, punching above their weight seems to be their national pasttime. Maybe size matters, just like small companies will be more agile than large ones, smaller states will be able to pivot easier.

> When Reagan-era policies are now regarded as marxism, methinks we've gone > too far in the other direction.

We have essentially the opposite trend in Germany. Social democrat policies of the 70ies and 80ies are considered conservative/reactionary today.

I still believe we should establish some international citizenship trading system. Apparently plenty of Americans would love to get into Europe and I know quite a few Europeans who'd like to emigrate to the US. That'd really allow voting with your feet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Open borders and UBI are mutually exclusive. There, I said it.

<comment><USER12> You're right. We gotta push for Global Universal Basic Income. Someone surely has "X% of people live on less than 5 dollars a day" stats available on hand. If it makes their lives better over there, they have less incentive to uproot their life to go over here.

<comment><USER7> What's the cost and how much I'd need to pay?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If UBI allowed me to live my life, which is not extragent, then I would not do 'nothing', but I doubt I would do anything that raised tax revenue. I pay more tax than the median tax payer in the country I live in. I would be a net loss to the tax income of the country.

</comment><comment><USER14> > Build the Post-Pandemic World

Unfortunately how the insane amount of money was injected in other countries since some months seems to indicate that the rest of the world have absolutely no ambition to build a new world nor share the same vision.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why not just pay people more for the work they're doing? Why not value work again? It seems to me that the decrease in stress / increase in well-being from basic income is the ability to afford shelter, food, some leisure etc. without intense stress.

</comment><comment><USER7> An alternative would be to make no changes to the world due to COVID-19, just like we shouldn't have created TSA after 9/11.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> true it was not a test of "universal basic income" as such as it targeted only part of the population.

Some results are, however, relevant when assessing them from the world of (post-pandemic) 2020: the participants of the experiment reported 1) less economic troubles and financial stress; 2) Higher confidence in future possibilities; 3) More self-determination and autonomy.

<comment><USER16> but did UBI encourage more productivity from those participants? Is it more than the cost of such a program? I want to know if UBI is a net benefit or not.

<comment><USER2> Since the target audience was rhe unemployed, changing up their type of income isn't going to give them a job, so prpductivity is difficult to measure.

The entire point of UBI is to secure everyones basic human needs, not get them a job (unlike unemployment benefits).

If we were to test UBI also on employed people, and observed their behavior, we might avtually gain useful insight into mechanica with UBI. Perhaps we will see more 6-hour workdays with more people employed?

<comment><USER17> If you already have your basic human needs met then it is just a shortcut to provide the money only to those that don't have that one checked off yet. Otherwise you'd just end up pumping money around from those that don't need it to those that don't need it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It only works for a relatively small group of people. Scaling it up to 100% of the population would result in inflation.

<comment><USER19> It depends, if you have some essential resource where supply is constrained then you might expect inflation. On the other hand goods that are readily available like food or oil shouldn't see any significant difference.

<comment><USER20> I can't argue for oil, but for food, unless everyone agrees to eat only processed food or cook by themselves, it's still going to see some inflation.

<comment><USER19> Why? What mechanism would drive that? In the West we already have more food available than we can reasonably eat. Margins in agriculture are wafer thin driven down by competition.

Compare that to property where there is a limited supply and people are constrained in what they can buy by their salary and ability to get a mortgage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> We should just give everyone $100k a month so we can all be rich.

If you think that is a stupid idea then what is the threshold with a lower amount that this becomes a smart idea?

What evidence is there that whatever threshold you come up with is less stupid than my $100k a month?

<comment><USER22> We (Europe) already do give people a certain amount per month. We give them healthcare, pensions and various other tax breaks depending on needs.

It is all very complicated.

The idea is to replace the complication with a simpler UBI in as close to a cost neutral manner as possible.

<comment><USER9> UBI is _basic_ income. What you describe will not bring working people basic housing and basic food. Pensions and unemployment incomes are only a small part of population, you will need to pay _everyone_.

Taking money from healthcare and putting it in my pocket so I have to pay for it myself doesn't bring me much income you know.

<comment><USER22> Yes, it is clear that universal basic income means everyone gets it. If my post wasn't clear, it should be now. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> TL/DR: If failed, but that was totally expected.

</comment><comment><USER24> Nothing in Scandinavia or Japan is a viable concept for elsewhere unless explicitly tested elsewhere.

<comment><USER2> No country's alike, and no system can be copied naively.

(also Finland isn't part of Scandinavia)

<comment><USER25> > (also Finland isn't part of Scandinavia)

The Scandinavian countries are easy to recognize based on their flags, as we all share the same pattern on our flags, a cross with the center slightly to the left. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Where's the money for the UBI experiment coming from?

There's no free lunch, folks...

<comment><USER27> Where do _you_ think money comes from? Seriously, how do you think it's created?

<comment><USER28> It comes from taxes, borrowing and printing. Only one of those relates to the added value otherwise known as wealth creation. The other two ultimately make everyone poorer.

The question is: for a given country, what proportion of the population can theoretically be supported by the efforts of those who pay those taxes. This isn't a moral judgement on the basic income idea; it's just required prior basic arithmetic for those planning to introduce BI. Will BI actually work in the long run? I don't know.

<comment><USER29> > The question is: for a given country, what proportion of the population can > theoretically be supported by the efforts of those who pay those taxes.

idk, you tell me: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill- gates-...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff- bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us)

<comment><USER30> Wealth != income.

Gates, Buffett and Bezos are worth a combined $250bn. There are about 210mm Americans over 18. So you can wipe out the entire accumulated wealth of those three and give everyone ... $1,200, one time only.

Not life changing, is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude In The Netherlands there has been a form of UBI for decades, for anyone who wants it or needs it.

It is called 'bijstand', is about € 1k a month and you are eligible for all kinds of other discounts and support.

Just request it at your municipality and make sure not to find work.

<comment><USER4> >and make sure not to find work

That's just welfare, not UBI. The U stands for Universal, which means it goes to everyone. Not just the poor or unemployed.

<comment><USER31> The problem with "universal" is, that someone with an average paycheck doesn't get anything, because he pays back the same amount he gets in taxes.

And the 'average' paycheck is not an 'average' in the term we use now (where we just look at the workers, add up their paychecks and divide by their number), but we also have to add up all the non workers (kids, pensioners, unemployed, studens,...) with "0 EUR" paychecks, and divide by the number of them too, because they'd get UBI too.

<comment><USER9> > The problem with "universal" is, that someone with an average paycheck > doesn't get anything, because he pays back the same amount he gets in taxes.

If it stays the same for this person, that means he has to pay an extra UBI to receive the UBI. If this person is making _basic income_ right now, he might as wel stop working and still get the basic income, or at least lose less percentage wise when stop working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I get the appeal of UBI, more self determination, personal fulfilment etc.

Whenever I hear the arguments for UBI, the arguments for personal fulfilment are usually predominant and financial aspects are usually left out. I'm always interested in "how to pay for all this?", which proponents of UBI often classify as a conservative talking point, but that is clearly not the case.

Another point I usually bring up is "how much is necessary to achieve that? and why?" is $1000 each month enough and how should this be adapted over time.

My biggest concern with UBI and I haven't heard a convincing answer to it yet, how to prevent the baseline from being moved permanently and eating up all the additional income. If you make low income jobs less attractive, employers must pay more to keep their employees so they have to raise prices accordingly or go bust. So how to avoid that UBI is not just massive inflation in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER9> You think UBI can work? Show me the numbers for some western country. Can be a small country like Luxembourg.

First show me the numbers if all people that are working now keep their job. Show me the extra cost and how you will get that money.

After that, give me a prediction of how many people will stop working. I can't imagine moms (or dads), that now have only 3 months of parental leave, will keep on working when they can have a nice income every month without doing anything, and not paying for daycare. Your unemployment rate will not go down, I hope we all agree on this.

And then finally, show me that this has 0 effect on all prices. Show me for example how rent will not go up, when all of us have 1-5k extra to spend on a bigger appartement or house.

<comment><USER9> Downvotes but no numbers...</comment></comment>


From 48k lines of code to 10 – The story of GitHub's JavaScript SDK - <AUTHOR> https://github.blog/2020-04-09-from-48k-lines-of-code-to-10-the-story-of-githubs-javascript-sdk/ <comment><USER2> At work this week I replaced jQuery with vanilla JavaScript. I reduced 12000 LOC to 20 LOC but was told to revert that change.</comment>


Our startup saved the world on Dec 21 - <AUTHOR> http://www.invgate.com/blog/breaking-news-invgate-saves-the-world/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is us trying to convince ourselves that goofing off on Camtasia for a few hours constitutes "online marketing" :)

<comment><USER2> It's been a long day. Good thing nothing happened... yet. We might need your services again if something does! :D

<comment><AUTHOR> We are not on AWS @ US-East-1 so you can count on us being up should the need arise ;)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Online Clojure REPL - <AUTHOR> https://repl.it/languages/clojure <comment><USER2> Neat! I especially like that you provide some samples right up front. You might want to explore sandboxing it some:

      (slurp "/etc/passwd")
      (clojure.java.shell/sh "find" "/" "-name" "*clojure*")

<comment><USER3> This applies to all their languages, I don't think it's a real problem. (Repl.it's been around for a while.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This site has a propensity for crashing my web browser (firefox 51.0.1)

</comment><comment><USER5> Haskell, and now Clojure... what's next ? sml ? prolog ?</comment>


Ask HN: Why is inter-device file sharing still a hassle? - <AUTHOR> Imagine these scenarios:
* You sit in some pub with a few friends. You show them a video you filmed yesterday on your phone. You're speakers are really bad, and you want to send it to a friend who has better speakers.
--> You try to send the video over What's App. You discover you have no cell reception. You give up.
* You are at a conference, about to give a talk. For some reason, your MacBook won't work with the projector. You want to copy the presentation to some other laptop. The WiFi is overloaded.
--> You spend 5 minutes finding someone who still carries a USB stick and transfer the files.
* You are in an airplane, and you have a bunch of company documents stored on your laptop, which you want to read on your tablet. You forgot your micro USB cable.
--> You are angry at yourself for not installing a file sharing app and for forgetting to send yourself the documents with GMail and downloading them on the tablet.
Everytime I run into one of those situations, I just get angry that there is no easy solution, and most of the time we have to resort to some clutch, like relying on a centralized service like email or messenger apps.
How do we still have this problem in 2016, where we all carry multiple supposedly inter-connected and interoperable devices?
There is an endless amount of file sharing apps for iOS and Android. There are countless protocols and options for discovering devices and sharing files  (including "ancient" options like Samba, NFS and FTP).
Why is there no universally accepted standard that facilitates device discovery and file sharing between devices over WiFi AND Bluetooth, with implementations installed by default on every device?
Am I alone in seeing a need here? <comment><USER2> You are not alone. This is one of those problems that we seemingly can't solve, mostly because there is no business in it. Ask anyone if they have a problem sharing files, and most people will say no (witness the responses in this thread), even though you are perfectly correct that file sharing is a complete and utter mess. And when buying a new phone, practically no one will consider "easy file sharing" as a feature worth paying for.

Apple was traditonally better at this sort of thing ("just works"), but a) it doesn't actually "just work", because their software quality is not up to par, and b) the lack of interoperability means this is only useful if you live in an Apple-only world.

In general, I'd say it will stay like this. Unfortunately.

Other similar examples: E-mail (yes, SMTP and E-mail clients, it all sucks badly, and we can't agree on how to improve it) and instant messaging.

<comment><USER3> Great point. Having there be a business is important.

It's one of those things that seems simple (move 1 file 2 inches) but is really complex, with a lot of possible mechanisms, protocols, OSes, devices, and edge cases.

When the Dropbox people were looking for money, VCs would say, "But there are already plenty of ways to keep files in sync." They'd say, "Do you use any of them regularly?" The answer was always no. There was a giant gap that nobody had filled.

And they started with an easier problem, which is one person with multiple devices who wants one folder to be in two places. No features, just a folder that's always the same. (And they started with just desktop OSes.) Transferring files seamlessly between devices owned by different people on demand is much harder. Especially given how mobile OSes have deemphasized the notion of "file" altogether.

So yes, I don't expect a solution either.

<comment><USER4> > mobile OSes have deemphasized the notion of "file" altogether.

This to me hits on the real problem. Filesharing is easy when all files are strings of ones and zeros, to be freely interpreted by programs and stored in a generic filesystem. When your operating system treats files as atomic things that can only be managed by a specific program baked into the OS, filesharing becomes much more difficult.

This is a classic Apple dark pattern that spread to the rest of the industry and is now a poison that can't be easily purged.

<comment><USER5> This is perhaps my least favorite thing about Apple's software concept, but at the same time I have to admit they've made it simple for the masses, and it works. The iOS file concept seems to be closer to how people without knowledge of computers perceive things, and matches what I saw in computer learners 20 years ago. People would think their documents were gone if they couldn't launch Word, or were confused by getting a file on a floppy that they couldn't open because they didn't have the right program installed.

Technically, you have a generic filesystem, and individual programs can load files from that, there's no direct relationship between the files and programs. But in the mind of a typical non-tech user, files are something that belong to a program.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I think it's a losing game to ask users to do more work because we technical people think it better or more correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pretty much everyone agrees that if companies like Google and Apple made local file sharing easy and cross-platform, all of us -- all of society -- would benefit.

However, these companies have financial incentives to do the opposite: they want users to do everything within tightly controlled platforms like Google Drive and iCloud, and they want to avoid commoditization at all costs. The last thing these companies want is for users to be able _easily_ to transfer all their videos, music, photos, work files, contacts, calendar data, bookmarks, etc. from one platform to another.

The behavior of these companies is analogous to the behavor of AT&T at the beginning of the 20th century. AT&T had the largest telephone network with the most users, and smaller independent phone companies wanted to interconnect with it, but AT&T refused to do so, causing users to leave the smaller networks for AT&T's. Users of the smaller networks were unable to connect with users of the largest network. It wasn't until after the US federal government challenged AT&T for monopolistic behavior that this changed. In 1913, AT&T settled with the government in the "Kingsbury Committment," which required AT&T to allow non-competing independent telephone companies to interconnect with the AT&T network.[1]

I suspect the only way we can get easy and cross-platform data portability (local and otherwise) is via government intervention -- that is, if the government forces companies to do it for society's benefit (for example, by legally requiring compatibility with open data-sharing and app-interconnection standards), at the expense of user lock-in and corporate profits.

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

<comment><USER7> I agree with everything but your final two paragraphs; I suspect that a government-mandated solution would be horrible in all sorts of ways (poor security, a mandated backdoor &c.).

My hope is that the propellerheads in those companies are able to figure out a way to sneak this killer feature past their respective marketing people.

<comment><USER6> Government-mandated solutions can take many forms, some of which are less intrusive and/or more reasonable than others.

For example, if you live in the US, you are legally _required_ by the government to drive on the right side of the road (to avoid the chaos of the past, when each US city and state had different driving rules), and you are also legally _required_ to buy car insurance (to make sure irresponsible drivers who cause more accidents don't get a free ride from responsible drivers). I think most people would agree these are reasonable government solutions that are not too intrusive.

Perhaps it might be possible to come up with reasonable "rules of the road" that are not too intrusive and which the government can enforce so all of us -- all of society -- can easily share data between applications and platforms?

<comment><USER8> For all its warts governments seems to be mostly good.

It seems however they should however be balanced by a powerful population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Why is inter-device file sharing still a hassle?

Because every vendor and their dog wants to push their own proprietary toy solution to lock in users, instead of using any of the existing standards.

<comment><USER10> No doubt DRM has a part in it too. In fact I'd say file sharing has gotten _more_ difficult precisely because of those business desires to ultimately control how people share content. The fact that locked-down platforms like iOS even _hide_ the concept of a filesystem from the user is a good indication of this trend. Android isn't quite there yet, but you can see it in their gradually degrading support for removable media.

 _\-- > You spend 5 minutes finding someone who still carries a USB stick and transfer the files._

I still do, and perhaps 5-10 years ago, when file sharing as a whole was more... healthy, almost everyone did. MP3 players (except Apple's) also doubled as convenient portable USB mass storage devices. Before that, floppies and null modem cables (remember those?) were pretty popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is a universally accepted standard. And I believe the usual suspects have each had it implemented on their manufactured "smartphones". Each device can put its network interface into AP mode.

I think the marketing term is "WiFi Direct". But good luck getting Apple and Samsung devices to both discover and associate with each other.

If it feels like you're continually being corralled into sharing files _with the person next to you_ via a third party's servers and an open, insecure, untrusted network ("the internet"), then maybe you are.

It is not necessary to use the internet and third parties to do something as simple as _transfer files to the person sitting next to you_ (without using removable media), but it's easy for companies to convince users that this is the only way to do it.

And in most cases no convincing is even necessary because users fail to consider the alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER12> What's the problem with Bluetooth? File sharing between smartphones and computers has worked every single time for me, and it's natively build into all devices.

<comment><USER13> I have never gotten a Bluetooth device to ever work. I've heard tell of people using Bluetooth, but I think it's an urban myth.

<comment><USER14> It works for keyboards and mice made by the same vendor as your OS but otherwise it's junk. Terrible protocol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Randall made the same observation some time ago:

[https://xkcd.com/949/](https://xkcd.com/949/)

<comment><USER16> That was years ago. The crazy thing is that it is still true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have been working on this area for 2 years now and created AirMount [https://www.airmountapp.com](https://www.airmountapp.com). You don't need the cloud, internet, Bluetooth or USB. Today it works between iOS and Mac, and now we are building it out for Windows and Android. I dream of the day when sharing files with any nearby device will just work like AirMount does today, irrespective of their OS. The industry needs to collaborate to make open standards, but in the meantime I intend to push the limits of what is possible already.

<comment><USER18> looks interesting, does it support the transferring of pdf/epub files from iBook?

<comment><USER17> Yes, AirMount integrates with the native iOS Photos app for accessing photos and videos directly from the Mac's Finder. It supports all file types through a built-in "Drive" where you can store PDFs, documents, email attachments and documents from the Mac that you want to carry in your phone, without sending anything to the cloud. From the Drive, you can preview those PDFs and files, and share via other apps. I love that I can just drag and drop stuff between my devices and it feels very natural, personal and quick.

<comment><USER18> just to confirm, specifically I can access all files stored in iBook?

<comment><USER17> iOS does not permit another app to access iBooks data. So I would suggest storing the PDFs directly in AirMount app, so you can access them from your Mac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The closest thing we've got is Beam, here on Android, which Apple and MS should seriously consider adopting. The only problem is that it does require some hardware support, IIRC.

Before that, the best thing for file sharing _was_ Bump, which was kind of hacky, and required internet as a result, but _did_ work. Sadly, Bump is no more.

As for sharing files with _yourself_ , my answer is typically SFTP, which is excellent, provided it does what you want. It also works well for transferring files at conferences, providing your slides aren't to big to make the roundtrip in good time. A bit hacky, yes, but it works.

<comment><USER20> I thought Bump was a pretty cool idea. It's a shame that it didn't take off.

<comment><USER19> Beam is hardware-assisted Bump, essentially. The protocol is radically different, but the UX is the same. Unfortunately, that seems to be android- only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > implementations installed by default on every device

That's not a trivial ask. Security experts might wonder, "Wait, what new entry point are you mandating on my devices? To solve which problem?"

They'd caution that several subsets of this problem are already solved, lowering its urgency. You own both devices and have wifi? Dropbox. You have internet access? Email or other messaging services / file lockers. Both devices are the same ecosystem? Bluetooth / AirDrop / WifiDirect / Beam. You are near a gas station or in a house with a junk drawer? $1 USB stick. You didn't forget your cable? Cable. You are both developers? You may already have some arcane solution, depending on the platforms...

So, while it'd be nice to ensure two unacquainted technophobes who meet in the woods have the ability to move some file from one's mp3 player to the other's digital camera, despite never having installed any software or brought any drives or cables to help, we're slicing off thinner and thinner portions of salami here.

Also consider other approaches. More ubiquitous (functioning) internet solves all of the above, along with several other problems.

Absent that, foresight would have prevented a few of the test cases. Foresight isn't trivial, I know, but that opens up other approaches. Like maybe an alarm on a device that rings if the device gets too far away from some other little chip, which you can stick on a cable you want to never forget. A shim to friend and create a temporary shared Dropbox directory with strangers nearby would require advanced installation, but might be useful.

I don't mean to diminish the frustration of these situations. If you were talking about developing some software to help local area sharing, I'd say go for it. But putting the bar at mandatory interconnection in all devices... it's a high bar. The mere fact that legacy devices exist makes it impossible to meet those constraints.

If you relax your constraints just a little, though, I suspect a few opportunities for interesting work open up.

</comment><comment><USER22> This was actually easiest for me during the end of the dumbphone era. All the devices around then had Bluetooth and supported the Object Push Profile, and there wasn't yet any DRM implemented on sending stuff like MP3 files. It was slow but worked.

Then Apple killed Bluetooth by never supporting it well on the iPhone, and then implemented their proprietary AirDrop (which is actually LESS reliable for me, between Apple devices(!), than Bluetooth OPP was)

</comment><comment><USER23> A Y Combinator pitch:

 _[It] synchronizes files across your /your team's computers. It's much better than uploading or email, because it's automatic, integrated into Windows, and fits into the way you already work. There's also a web interface, and the files are securely backed up to Amazon S3. [It] is kind of like taking the best elements of subversion, trac and rsync and making them "just work" for the average individual or team. Hackers have access to these tools, but normal people don't._

The problem has been attacked many times, but only centralized subscription services and hardware vendor walled gardens have succeeded as businesses.

[[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27532820/app.html](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27532820/app.html)]

<comment><USER24> _The problem has been attacked many times, but .. have succeeded as businesses._

That is the problem right there. It shouldn't be a business. It should be a standard for all devices e.g keyboard and mice work out of the box everywhere.

There was an open source file system aiming for just that, including internet- based storage named 'opfs' or something but I can't find it anywhere now.

<comment><USER25> Not sure if sarcasm... do you mean IPFS?

<comment><USER24> yes thank you and I'm sorry, no sarcasm just plain stupidity

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is no business in it. If anything there is a powerful incentive against anything that permits interoperation. The big guys all want to build closed vertically integrated silos, and probably more than half if all startups are trying to do the same or position themselves for an acquisition by building entirely within someone else's silo.

Open source is the only way this could be fixed, and unfortunately that is mostly the kingdom of developers who already think this is a solved problem via ssh, virtual networks, etc. Developers tend not to care about end user problems unless... well... there is a business in it!

</comment><comment><USER26> A few perspectives:

1). Agree with many that Bluetooth (or another open protocol) is really the way to solve, but the incentives are low to implement universally as the common operating systems in our devices have shifted dramatically in the last 10 years.

2) remember the brief peer-to-peer revolution? Bit torrent, kazaa and emule were (are) pretty effective but have a bad reputation from being used for file piracy.

3). Because of #2, it's been safer for businesses to conform to the SaaS models / garden walls. (Monetizing them is also better understood)

</comment><comment><USER27> Bluetooth used to be common until vendors started implementing their own file- sharing or just focused on sharing files in the "cloud", which is really inconvenient when there's no internet connection (not to mention, even when there is internet connection, it's really an inefficient process, bandwidth- wise, to send someone right beside you a single file over the internet).

Maybe we should push a standard for local file-sharing so that all vendors will implement it in their mobile operating systems.

<comment><USER28> We need to focus more on mesh wifi networking. If Our phones could connect directly (and they can) using wifi in a mesh, it would be quite easy to write network clients to share data with them.

<comment><USER27> FireChat ([http://www.opengarden.com/firechat.html](http://www.opengarden.com/firechat.html)) tried to do mesh network messaging, but security is hard to get right in mesh networks, since the data passes to other clients if needed. For example in Tor, it's great use for anonymizing end users, but it's not great for security - I wouldn't use it to send confidential information such as credit card info.

<comment><USER28> What about a rings of trust system? Tap your phone to someone you know etc, and your devices know to trust each other. Add a level of trust to that, so the apps can act accordingly. Also, make it so messages can be stored until a PtP or relay over internet can be done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you have IP network, It's pretty easy to setup a FTP(S) server. Just close it when you are done with the transfers.

The problem I think is NAT, witch makes everything much harder. But it also works as a basic firewall ... I remember the age when you used to connect your PC directly to the Internet, and if you didn't have the latest patches you would get the sasser virus within seconds. It would be scary running even Linux not behind a firewall. And many devices (smart-TV's etc) now a days expect a LAN and will be completely open.

Raise your hand if you would be OK with exposing your whole LAN to the Internet.

Whatever you do, do not use e-mail to send files! Your e-mail will go though many servers on the way, and will take up server disk space. And the data will be encoded to base64 witch will make them about 30% larger. Small files <20 Mb will be fine, but don't send Gigabytes!

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't understand this either. We've had the ability to transfer single files over a local network basically forever with netcat [http://jvns.ca/blog/2013/10/01/day-2-netcat- fun/](http://jvns.ca/blog/2013/10/01/day-2-netcat-fun/). This just uses TCP and is really really simple. I use it all the time if I need to transfer a video or something.

the problem with this (even though the basic capabilities are there!!!) is that netcat isn't super user-friendly so people don't use it. And it's not possible to do easily on a mobile device.

So why hasn't someone built a widely-used user-friendly application that lets you send files over local networks using TCP? I don't know. I don't think it's because it's too technically challenging though.

<comment><USER31> Well if you're on a local network you could be using scp or rsync, both of which do folders and at least the latter of which does compression and avoids transferring duplicate files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think you're right it's always a hassle. Personally at work (we make hardware) I take photos of our product or other products in thr market, want to highlight interesting design choices, and put the pictures on Slack.

So I taka a photo via iOS, connect to Wifi so Dropbox uploads the photo, open the file on my laptop, highlight and tag the feature, and put it on Slack. It's way better than a USB cable but there's so much more technology involved in the chain.

I think for me it's difficult to imagine a better solution though. So what's the ideal experience? Does it fit into the existing computing paradigm or no?

</comment><comment><USER33> On Android (possibly only Android, unfortunately) there's an app called "Share via HTTP" in the fdroid repositories. Basically if your devices are on the same LAN, you can get the file off your phone, either with an IP/port combination, or a QR code. Obviously it would be nice if there were a desktop equivalent so you could go the other way, but this app has really made things a lot easier for me to move files around.

</comment><comment><USER34> I use HTTP, it works everywhere. On my notebook, I have a http server, on Android phone I use TotalCommander app with HTTP server that works both for upload and download.

</comment><comment><USER35> Bluetooth. It is a bit slow - especially on large video files, but you can use it to send arbitrary files to just about any modern device.

Or, WiFi direct [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi- Fi_Direct](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Direct) for larger files.

Now there's a problem with discoverabillity and compatibility - but that's no different to trying to get CIFS devices talking to each other.

</comment><comment><USER36> [https://github.com/mafintosh/airpaste](https://github.com/mafintosh/airpaste)

</comment><comment><USER37> Check out [https://www.mimik.com](https://www.mimik.com)

Disclaimer: I used to work for mimik.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Whoops, totally forgot to post the link in the first place: [http://theduke.at/blog/develop/sad-state-of-file- sharing/](http://theduke.at/blog/develop/sad-state-of-file-sharing/).

</comment><comment><USER38> This search and download by tag app ([https://www.coopla.com/filefile/](https://www.coopla.com/filefile/)) makes it convenient. However all files are public, its iOS only, no Android, no web and no desktop.

</comment><comment><USER39> it's definitely still a hassle but there is this great free solution that is not very well known, at least for when there's internet on the devices: [https://file.pizza/](https://file.pizza/)

<comment><USER40> Nice idea, but doesn't work on iOS (Safari nor Chrome)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> For a short time I had a windows 8 phone. That was the only time sending stuff over bluetooth from computer -> phone, phone-> computer, phone -> windows phone actually worked well. Unfortunately the rest of windows phone sucked.

</comment><comment><USER42> Why isn't browser enabled Bluetooth sharing the answer? Every phone has a browser to use for the offline UI, every phone has Bluetooth as the transport mechanism. Seems like a pretty simple implementation.

</comment><comment><USER43> Easy solution for problems 2+3: tiny USB sticks. For example SanDisk Cruzer Fit 32GB ($ 9) on amazon.

They have a tiny loop, but I prefer to always keep it plugged in to my laptop.

Always works.

Except with smartphones.

<comment><USER35> Have you looked at USB OTG? Most Android phones will natively mount a USB stick when plugged in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> because everyone insists on managing their own files by hand instead of storing them in a version controlled database with client caching

</comment><comment><USER45> Forget file sharing, offline backups & recoveries are a massive pain on mobile, cloud, etc.

</comment><comment><USER46> Hmm, Airdrop is usually fine for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> AirDrop is Apple device only...

<comment><USER47> That shouldn't stop someone from reverse engineering it</comment></comment></comment>


How I made $178,000 selling my future - <AUTHOR> http://jasondoesstuff.com/buymyfuture/ <comment><USER2> Whatever he is selling, we may never know.. or care.

<comment><USER3> Seems like spin is what he's selling</comment></comment>


Palm Developer Program: Project Appetite, $1M How App Program, and more - <AUTHOR> http://ajaxian.com/archives/palmdevprogram-launch?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ajaxian+%28Ajaxian+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

<comment><USER2> Palm's value proposition at the moment is two-fold: great hardware with great software. Arguably, Palm Web OS is better than Android. I think that the best path for Palm to take right now is to open source their Web OS. There is no downside because people are going to buy Palm devices if they want a good device and I think they have a good shot at taking down Android's marketshare.

The big play right now is a mobile OS land-grab -- Palm isn't even playing.

<comment><USER3> Surely one downside is if OEMs such as HTC are able to make a better WebOS handset than Palm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It should be "Hot App Program" in the headline.

Took me a bit of head scratching to figure out what that meant.

</comment><comment><USER5> If I was feeling particularly malevolent, I'd create a free WebOS app that offered its downloaders the chance to win up to $50,000. The app would have one field for capturing a user's email address, and the app description would clearly state that I'd split any winnings from this contest with them 50-50.

Who wouldn't download the app?

</comment><comment><USER6> Heh. I think the <[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=849409>](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=849409>); hubbub has had what's commonly called a "chilling effect" for me, when it comes to 3rd-party development on the Palm. Not that it's a field I'm in, anyway.

<comment><USER7> Your link is borked - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=849409></comment></comment>


Measuring Mobile Apps: The Problem With Mobile Analytics - <AUTHOR> http://betak.it/1pQ

<comment><USER2> I agree with your point that turn around time for feedback is slower in mobile apps. I think the problem is that in the web its easier for users to communicate with you. The communication channels available for mobile app users are very limited. Appstore is where users are ranting about the apps.

We have built a way for users can directly talk to the developer inside mobile apps. Check it out at <http://appstark.com></comment>


NASA achieves data goals for Mars rover with open source software - <AUTHOR> http://opensource.com/life/12/10/NASA-achieves-data-goals-Mars-rover-open-source-software

<comment><USER2> I'd never heard of Nginx or Railo CMS open source tools before. I can add that to my oss toolkit!

<comment><AUTHOR> I am surprised you have not heard of Nginx. It was released in October 2004, 8 years ago!</comment></comment>


Growing Fast: A (personal) Startup Journey - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@edwardjkim/806fe2fbe991 I was inspired by this blog post by Kyle Tibbitts to tell my own story. https://medium.com/@KyleTibbitts/56dddc17fa42 <comment><USER2> Its like ratatouille... Everyone can cook!!</comment>


Show HN: Current HBOGO and MAXGO movies sorted by IMDb rating - <AUTHOR> http://lak.in/gomovies/

<comment><USER2> I like it but the Maxgo link is broken and returns a 404: <http://lak.in/gomovies/maxgo.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! fixing that right now</comment></comment>


For Two Months, I Got My News from Print Newspapers. Here's What I Learned - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/technology/two-months-news-newspapers.html?partner=hvper.com <comment><AUTHOR> Overnewsed but underinformed.</comment>


Ask HN: Who wants to partner with me? - <AUTHOR>

eBackers.com right now is a neglected request / jobs board for web workers I started a year ago. Got into other things and its been sitting there so I definitely want to bring it back to life and probably do something different with it,
Am looking for anyone here to partner with who might have some ideas or interest (a developer would be ideal as I have design chops).
It's been covered on a bunch of blogs too, TechCrunch being one.
email me at email@example.com <comment><AUTHOR> I also thought the site would be a great name for a startup vc firm. If I had the funds though, I wouldn't be posting here.

<comment> jack-r-abbit The name screams "Kickstarter alternative" to me. Maybe you need to find out what keeps people from using Kickstarter (or others in that "crowdfunding" space) and fix that. Find a niche market that needs funding for projects. Or take a different approach to the Project <=> Backer relationship. Find a void in that space and fill it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thought of this already but a ton of competition in this space. Don't want to put something out there that is already being done a ton of times just for the sake of doing something.

Was thinking more along the lines of an app that can help startups secure funding. Not angellist, but something that provides value thru exclusive data, procedures and previous pitches other entrepreneurs used etc.

Appreciate the response nonetheless.</comment></comment></comment>


RPCS3 Inside Look: A Deep-Dive into Hardware and Performance Scaling - <AUTHOR> https://rpcs3.net/blog/2020/08/21/hardware-performance-scaling/ <comment><USER2> Intel: still the undisputed king of single thread performance. For some applications that's all that matters.

<comment><USER3> Still charging a king's ransom, too. Looking on Amazon right now, the i9-9900K (which reached 32.3 FPS) costs 422.59 USD, compared to R7 3700X (which reached 28.0 FPS), which costs 329.99 USD.

That's a nearly 2:1 ratio for performance/price scaling.

<comment><USER4> Current price for the R7 3700X on amazon is $289.99. That is one thing about AMD's prices, they fall over time.

I know this because I bought a 3700X recently. I debated buying online vs getting a 3700X for 269.99 in-store in Microcenter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder what memory they used with the Ryzen builds, as the memory frequency may decide the FCLK which affects some (all?) core to core communication speed

</comment><comment><USER6> PciE 4.0?</comment>


BuzzAware. Yup, Now There's An App Directory For Google Buzz - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/buzzaware-google-buzz-app-directory/ <comment><USER2> Say, that BuzzAware ([http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/buzzaware-google-buzz- app-d...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/01/buzzaware-google-buzz-app- directory/)) is not a bad idea. Anyone want to build something similar (but different and better) with me using one of these names that I own?

<http://BuzzConnect.me> (available); <http://BuzzFindr.com> (available); <http://BuzzLove.com> (in use, but can re-purpose); <http://BuzzPal.com> (in use, but can re-purpose); <http://BuzzPop.com> (people are trying to buy this name); <http://PopBuzz.com> (and this one); <http://LatinBuzz.com> (and this one).

This is a build, monetize, sell kind of thing. No outside capital, which means team owns 100% of the equity, which means early and lower-priced exit can be profitable for all. Also means lower risk of this kind of blowout: [http://bootstrappy.blogspot.com/2010/02/bootstrap-or-die- les...](http://bootstrappy.blogspot.com/2010/02/bootstrap-or-die-lessons- learned-from.html)

Just send me a tweet or use my contact form <http://buzzpal.com/contact>. I'm a former venture investor and current web startup founder, adviser, and prospective seed investor. With this deal, we can structure it however we want and you can own a big chunk of equity (up to 50%, depending on what you bring to the table). This is me and some of what I bring to the table: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/comella> (I also bring seed capital).</comment>


How Do Tech Corporations See You? - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/10/21/tech-corporations-comic/

<comment><USER2> Hah, I hope RIM can get there stuff together and pull through, I'm not really a fan of any of there products but they're one of the last bastions of the Canadian tech sector and I definitely want that to grow so that I don't have to move to the states. It wouldn't be horrible but I like it here.</comment>


Japanese teachers expel school intruder with the Sasumata - <AUTHOR> http://inventorspot.com/articles/teachers_expel_school_intruder_twopronged_people_pusher <comment><USER2> Sounds a lot better than a bucket of rocks. Does anyone in the US use these?

<comment><USER3> It's probably a harder sell in the US where the intruder is more likely to have a gun.</comment></comment>


How to tell co-worker he has gross eating style? - <AUTHOR>

I was thinking of an anonymous letter on the desk, so there's no confrontation. Bad idea?
Dear X,
I'd like to discuss a sensitive topic with you. I do not intend any disrespect. Instead, I mention it in a sincere desire to benefit you.
Different cultures have different norms when it comes to eating etiquette. In mainstream Canadian culture, it is generally considered to be quite rude and crude to make excessive noise while eating. This is especially true of wet lip-smacking noises, and slurping. I understand that in other cultures these gestures are in fact encouraged, and show an appreciation for the meal.
I recognize that you are someone who cares about his appearance. You are always well dressed, and well groomed. Be advised that you may be unintentionally undermining your image by eating in this way. Obviously, you are not intending to offend.
I'm writing this in a spirit of helpfulness, and truthfulness. It's an uncomfortable topic, but I hope that this information is useful to you. Often in these situations, others will never say anything, because they are too afraid of being rude. In that case, people never get feed-back they can use.
## <comment><USER2> In true hacker spirit I would have farted when he slurped and tell him that is ... our custom:)

On a more serious note your letter is not a good idea. In general any anonymous letter is not a good idea. Put a signature and offer to help him to understand your culture more, it will be more appreciated.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I think an anonymous letter would make the person always wonder who wrote it and have a general sense of embarassment. It's a tough topic to broach but if its bothering you its probably better if you just do it directly. I usually try to make a joke out of things so people don't take it too bad, but it sort of depends on the person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why not tell those that judge someone based on his eating style not to? Especially when those gestures are not considered gross in other cultures.

</comment><comment><USER5> Send an email from an anonymous email account. I think your message is super well written.</comment>


Are fans telling friends? If not, improve, don't promote. - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/purplecow

<comment><USER2> A fair point, although I'd say it's highly dependent on the kind of product you're building, too, and who your audience is.

For instance, if you're selling enterprise products rather than consumer products, and you're selling them to a less communicative industry (like the construction industry, for example), you may find that there's a lot less "word of mouth" going on, so the fact that it's not just spreading completely by itself shouldn't necessarily discourage you...

Another point - you might need to reach a critical mass of users in order to be able to effectively improve the product using A/B testing and other techniques that rely on larger numbers... if so, it may be worth investing in marketing the product to build those numbers and then be able to make those improvements measurable and rapid.

<comment><USER3> It's just that wom is the _best_ marketing. It's free. It's credible. If you can make it work, do it.

"Crossing the Chasm" claims wom works _better_ in smaller, specialized niche markets, because everyone in it has similar needs. Though it takes your point that they do need to actually be talking to each other for wom to work. There are trade-shows and trade-magazones for every industry you can imagine (not saying you should necessarily use them, but it indicates communicativeness), and I believe (without proof) that when people of related industries bump into each other, they'll talk shop, sharing their news and common concerns. _hey, what do you think of this new thing? Isn't it terrible what's happening with that new issue?_

In practice, I've seen wom for my developer software product on mailing lists, websites and blogs. Someone even targetted it as an AdWords keyword (cool). My product doesn't target a tightly communicative market - it's not specific to an industry, but cuts across them; and it's not a whole solution to a problem, but a tool that's part of a solution. So I think its wom is fairly diluted. And yet... there is wom.

 _EDIT_ hmmm, perhaps I'm really targeting the "IT" industry (even though its members work in other industries.) And, I guess, it is by far the most "tech- enabled". I still like "Crossing the Chasms" idea of crafting your product in a way that fits in with those shop-talk conversation: the shared concern +cool solution, in a short, memorable, interesting soundbite (like a joke that goes viral.)

<comment><USER2> _It's just that wom is the best marketing. It's free. It's credible. If you can make it work, do it._

No disagreement there. But the article claims that if you _can't_ make it work, you should go back to the drawing board... I was disagreeing with that.

<comment><USER3> I see now: you're interpreting the article as saying wom is a litmus test of how good your product is: if wom isn't working, your product is rubbish, and you're better improve it. You're saying that the ease of wom varies with industry, so that as a metric, it's not a universal indicator of the quality of your product. I think you mean "discouraging", in that one thinks one's product isn't good enough. But maybe you mean "discouraging" in that one thinks one's marketing isn't working.

I interpret it a strategy: make your product so extraordinary that wom comes into play. Wom is so great, that it's worth the effort, even in an industry where wom is harder.

But I see your point: maybe the wom-bar is so high, that you're better off just marketing in traditional ways. I still think wom is great, and worth trying for, but I acknowledge it's a tradeoff, not a simple "if no wom, do nothing but improve your product".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So what does that say about people who put a lot of effort into promoting? Does it mean their customers aren't telling their friends? Are the customers just not internet users, or is the product bad?

What does that say about companies (newspapers, Google) whose income stream is from people pouring money into promoting their products? Does it mean they'll be continually in search of new advertisers as the old ones go broke, unless they can fool their eyeballs into confusing ads with honest recommendations?

I have been thinking this from a theoretical point of view for years. But it doesn't seem to be happening. GM is still in business, the New York Times isn't going anywhere, AdSense payments-per-click aren't dropping, and Anheuser-Busch still seems to be spending plenty on ads — right?

<comment><USER5> I think you're absolutely right. This idea sticks like the emperor's new clothes. Nobody wants to point out it's not true for fear of looking bad. Because supposedly the people who believe it's true will be producing exciting, awesome products.

I'm still trying to work out what amount of organic growth one should see before doing advertising. It certainly isn't every user getting ten other users.

<comment><USER4> I expressed two contradictory points of view in my comment (or possibly three). Which one are you agreeing with?

<comment><USER5> I'm agreeing that it's good to question the central thesis of the article, and that there's a lot that casts doubt on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there are two pieces to it - "making things exciting for the user" and "making it easier to share the excitement". A "tell your friend" link here, "post to facebook" there - this sort of thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really? Do those "click here to share" things make any difference? Has anyone seen a measurable difference?

<comment><USER7> Yes. YouTube only had 150 videos uploaded after their first 1.5 years of existence. But once they added the click to share buttons and allowed users to embed their content they went crazy viral.

<comment><USER8> That doesn't really jive with wikipedia's history:

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

According to wikipedia a few months after they launched they were extremely popular.

<comment><USER7> Then Wikipedia is wrong. There is a video of the founders at Arrington's house over a year in where they talk about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you have a lot of money just create the need rather than make a better product, most corporations do that, especially pharmaceutical ones.

</comment><comment><USER10> I just told people by up-voting... nuff said.</comment>


Netflix saves children from 150 hours of commercials annually - <AUTHOR> http://exstreamist.com/report-netflix-saves-children-from-150-hours-of-commercials-a-year/ <comment><USER2> This is a very good thing... Given that how susceptible we all are to commercials, children are particularly trusting of commercial information. "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day..." "You need milk to grow, and build strong bones and muscles..." Not to mention ads for toys, candy, fast food, etc.

Although I'm skeptical about the amount of TV that everyone watches (myself included), having mostly ad-free sources of entertainment for children is a great option imho. And by mostly, I'm meaning product placements, and products based on a given title itself.

<comment><USER3> Very naive. Commercials won't go away, they will be embeeded within the content. Product placement, paid sponserships, influencers.

You will always get ads so long as it remains profitable.

<comment><USER4> There are some workarounds. There are old shows, where the product placements are no longer relevant. "Mom! The Shadow says we should buy Blue Coal." (Yes, that's a radio show; how about the Zima sign in a Babylon 5 episode?)

Or old shows which were funded by other sources, like Fraggle Rock.

There are also foreign shows, like ones from the BBC, which aren't allowed to use product placement, or where the products aren't available local.

That said, most kids want to watch what their friends watch. I doubt "The Vicar of Dibley" will be popular among US kids, making my proposal mostly theoretical.

After thinking about it for a bit, if such workarounds prove popular, the provider will likely start inserting product placement into the shows digitally, after the fact. So, umm, nevermind.

<comment><USER5> > how about the Zima sign in a Babylon 5 episode?

Seeing the Zima sign up in the Zócalo always makes me laugh.

<comment><USER4> Apparently it was not product placement, but meant for laughter. I thought it was placement when I saw it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's probably good - unless all the advertising money goes to comparatively hidden ad formats as native ads or stuff like product placement.

Because if ads were not to disappear, I wouldn't know whether I'd necessarily prefer hidden formats.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's a great point, but consider that most of the shows for kids are just ads for the toys they'll see in the toy shop.

</comment><comment><USER8> ... and then Ashton Kutcher makes absolutely sure you can see the Muscle Milk logo every episode of The Ranch.

</comment><comment><USER9> s/Netflix/BBC/</comment>