Arctic Code Vault Contributor - <AUTHOR> https://sam.elborai.me/blog/arctic-code-vault-contributor <comment><USER2> \- We cracked the encoding on the artifact

\- What did you find? What was in the vault?

\- We think it's... code. Software code. Early 21st century.

\- Code from the early web? This could be historic! What's in there? The google algorithm? The code for the iphone?

\- Not that we've found

\- Twitter? Does it have Twitter? Imagine if we found the code that contains the bug that caused world war three!

\- No

\- Then what is in there?

\- Just... tools, mainly. Manual tools from when people used to write software by hand.

\- Really? Why do you think they archived those?

\- I don't know. Maybe they thought they were clever?

\- Maybe it's not actually an archive. Maybe it's just a garbage dump.

\- You think everything we dig up is a garbage dump.

\- It usually is!

\- True. But look, we did find one artifact that's interesting. It's called 'react'. It appears to be an object of veneration. A lot of other things reference it.

\- Are you saying this may have served some sort of ritual purpose?

\- It's possible....

<comment><USER3> > Maybe they thought they were clever? ... Maybe it's just a garbage dump.

This is a really nasty, snarky comment. Deriding people who try to build things and talking about their work as garbage.

There's lot of software we wish we had access to now from the past, but we don't because people had the same attitude as you.

<comment><USER4> It is a joke about the tendency of archaeologists to classify everything they find as being either part of a garbage dump (aka a midden[0]) or as some variety of religious artifact [1].

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

[1] See discussion here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_religion_and_ri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_religion_and_ritual#Material_correlates)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In some ways this is a nice feature - it's a neat accomplishment for contributors to be aware of, and something that they can be proud of.

But I don't entirely understand why it has been enabled on public profiles by default.

As a regular user I hope that GitHub doesn't continue down the path of becoming a popularity contest at the expense of fostering co-operative work on equal terms.

<comment><USER6> I had to opt-in. So it is not something that is on-by-default, from what I know.

<comment><USER7> Where did you opt-in? I wasn't asked before it showed up, and then I disabled it through the "Settings > Profile > Profile Settings" page.

<comment><USER6> I cannot reproduce, unfortunately. But I half-conciously agreed to some modal/popup telling me I got some award and wether I wanted to show it. At least, that is what I remember, but it might have been a modal telling me they were going to show it, rather than asking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think I'd rather see which of my repos were contributed rather than what the most popular repos I fixed typos in were.

<comment><USER9> All public repositories[1] were archived.

_On February 2, 2020, we took a snapshot of all active public repositories on GitHub to archive in the vault._

[1] [https://github.blog/2020-07-16-github-archive-program-the- jo...](https://github.blog/2020-07-16-github-archive-program-the-journey-of- the-worlds-open-source-code-to-the-arctic/)

<comment><USER10> They only encoded 21TB worth.

Also, you can see which repos of yours were selected with the "Arctic Code Contributor" badge in the highlights section of your profile.

In my case they only grabbed one library that I was half-finished on... I'm pretty sure they grabbed everything they thought would be important and filled remaining space with random selections

<comment><USER11> > Also, you can see which repos of yours were selected with the "Arctic Code > Contributor" badge in the highlights section of your profile.

Not really. It only shows the first three or four. As an example from mine, it says:

      avelino/awesome-go, awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted, ansible/ansible, and more!

For people who have contributed widely, it's not a useful representation. That being said, it doesn't appear to be actively hurting anyone. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is anyone here active on GitHub and _not_ a vault contributor?

I was pretty happy to find that my company's free football data made it in, although I'm not sure how much help that's going to be to rebuild society after the collapse:

[https://github.com/statsbomb/open-data](https://github.com/statsbomb/open- data)

<comment><USER13> I open a lot of issues but don't really commit code and I didn't get the badge.

<comment><USER12> That feels like an oversight, what a shame not to acknowledge those contributions.

<comment><USER5> Yep, no doubt there's a huge amount of valuable contribution archive material in pull request and issue comments as well.

Some of these may be available soon via joint partner initiatives[1].

[1] - [https://github.blog/2020-07-16-github-archive-program-the- jo...](https://github.blog/2020-07-16-github-archive-program-the-journey-of- the-worlds-open-source-code-to-the-arctic/#an-update-from-our-archive-program- partners)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As far as I can tell, just about every active GitHub user has the same thing - just as long as you've ever committed to a public repo

<comment><USER15> Yeah, the inclusion criteria are pretty broad:

      The snapshot will include every repo with any commits
      between the announcement at GitHub Universe on November 13th
      and 02/02/2020, every repo with at least 1 star and any
      commits from the year before the snapshot (02/03/2019 -
      02/02/2020), and every repo with at least 250 stars.

from [https://archiveprogram.github.com/#arctic-code- vault](https://archiveprogram.github.com/#arctic-code-vault)

<comment><USER16> This would make sense, as it looks like money wasn't a huge factor. If money wasn't an issue, time and effort would be, and you can easily reduce effort by storing pretty much everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not going to lie, the comment about "if they can use git" is the core of my problem with the arctic storage. I'm still wondering what the point is other than to make some meta point about how committed github is to preservation

<comment><USER18> There's no git usage, they're just storing a snapshot of each repo's current HEAD in a TAR file (and then compressed and QR-encoded).

> The snapshot will consist of the HEAD of the default branch of each > repository, minus any binaries larger than 100KB in size—depending on > available space, repos with more stars may retain binaries. Each repository > will be packaged as a single TAR file.

The guide included on each reel about how to access the data is public, git isn't involved in the process: [https://github.com/github/archive- program/blob/master/GUIDE....](https://github.com/github/archive- program/blob/master/GUIDE.md)

<comment><USER19> No, it is not QR-encoded.

This is the method:

[https://earth.esa.int/documents/1656065/3222865/170922-Piql-...](https://earth.esa.int/documents/1656065/3222865/170922-Piql- ESA_Slides-Final)

<comment><USER20> In the link you post it states "piqlWriter: data writtenas high-densityQR codesEncode binary data to 2D barcode (apply Forward Error Correction)Modulate light using a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) to project the barcode on the film."

<comment><USER19> It's a lie. It's not a QR code. I don't know why they say it is. Look at the code. It's nothing like a QR.

They should have said "2D Barcode" but they might be assuming an ignorant audience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> when I started coding my mentor told me: "it doesn't matter if it's 2 lines of code, you are still contributing". I'll always remember that, a contribution is a contribution :)

<comment><USER22> The right line in the right place can save the whole system.

Especially if the line is a consistency check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The three projects shown in the badge seem to be the top three by star count. Of course star count often poorly reflects actual importance of project: in my case, python/cpython only squeezed in at the third, another cornerstone project where I'm a member and contribute to long term got relegated to "and more", while two popular yet much less important developer tools where I submitted some drive-by patches took the top spots.

It would be nice if star count is weighted by amount of contributions, and cornerstone projects like python/cpython get a boost in ranking.

<comment><USER24> I assume by "importance of project" you mean your importance _to_ the project? I agree that there's probably a balance to be struck there. But also, I think that choosing what repos to show in the badge isn't really that important so any simple heuristic is fine.

<comment><USER23> No, I meant importance of project. For instance, sindresorhus/awesome has 137k stars, python/cpython only has 32.4k, but the latter is clearly orders of magnitude more important than the former. Which is why I called the latter a cornerstone project.

<comment><USER24> Good point. Although when it comes to deciding which repositories to show on the badge, I think I'd like a balance between the amount of my contribution and the importance of the repository.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, I did say star count should be weighted by amount of contributions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ah! Checked mine, I got one too. Not sure what to make of it!

</comment><comment><USER26> In the incredibly competitive and arbitrary world of tech hiring and networking, any little thing that makes you stand out is worth while. I have friend whose résumé says "600 lines of my Python are running on the International Space Station". I got my current job because an undergrad internship from 10 years ago caught the hiring manager's attention. Any little thing helps.

</comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps it would be better if it showed a list of contributions to projects in the Code Vault, ordered by contribution size…

</comment><comment><USER28> While it seems silly, I think it can also help highlight how even the smallest changes can be impactful. Collaboration like this requires lots of unsung heroes. A fix or small change goes a long way in helping people. I think of it as a reminder that even the smallest things can have real impact.

</comment><comment><USER29> I got the badge. I didn't understand why and couldn't find which repos I'd contributed to had become part of this vault I'd not heard of before. I decided it was meaningless because I couldn't immediately see any substance behind the award. I turned it off. Have I missed out on some greatness?

<comment><USER30> If you hover over the badge on your profile, it shows you which repos you contributed to that made it into the vault.

<comment><USER27> Well, three of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I got that for a bunch of repos I've archived. Not many stars, but they are ones that are part of a team effort. It may have to do with the number of contributors.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a "special honor."

If so, GoMeGoMe. If not, _meh_.

</comment><comment><USER32> Just wondering, I didn't got the badge since I work on private repos mostly but I do have write access to a few public repos that got stored on the vaultg, if I commit to them now will I get the badge?

<comment><USER24> I assume not since your code will not be in the vault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Related thread from yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23860659](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23860659)

</comment><comment><USER34> Really don't like they don't show contributions in an (open source) organisation. My private contributions are not that many in comparison to org contributions.

</comment><comment><USER35> Apparently my single rule addition to HTTPS Everywhere got me the badge. Not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do with that.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if the small contributions I made to the WebGL implementation in Mozilla will go in there...

</comment><comment><USER37> What was the aim of Artic Code Vault ? Was that necessary?

</comment><comment><USER38> Yeah, I just noticed mine... 3 went in.

</comment><comment><USER39> Does anyone know how this interacts with GDPR? In particular, if someone has personal information stored in a GitHub repo and asks for it to be permanently deleted, do they need to dig it out of a bunker in the Arctic?

</comment><comment><USER40> Woot I made it!

</comment><comment><USER41> Thanks to Microsoft, the crapware arrives at GitHub. I'm looking forward to a long future of disabling ads* that have been automatically added to my profile page.

* Yes, this is an ad for a GitHub project that I didn't ask to be a part of and give zero farts about. Depicting me as some kind of deliberate contributor is false.</comment>


Onward from the Hard Fork - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/26/onward_from_the_hard_fork/ <comment><USER2> So we now know that contracts on Ethereum mean what they say, unless there is a community consensus that the contract actually means something else, and the machine meaning doesn't properly reflect the intent of the parties.

But it is a little unsatisfactory to have this ad-hoc method of hard forking. Maybe there should be in future some sort of public process to determine whether an action is consistent with the intentional meaning of the contract (as opposed to the machine meaning). We could all agree to appoint some qualified person to hear disputes and determine whether the code has got it wrong and we should fix the code with a hard fork. Let's call that person a 'judge'.

Now that judge will need to have procedures and rules. He or she isn't deciding on a whim, after all. These rules will set out things like what evidence the judge can look at to determine the intentional meaning of the contract. Just for giggles, let's call one of those rules the 'parol evidence rule'. Also, we don't want anyone to be able to bug the judge and waste their time, so we need some rules as to who can ask the judge to look at a dispute. I'm feeling creative, so let's call those rules 'standing rules'.

What would be really fabulous is if this system could be paid by the taxpayer out of general revenue. That way we can reduce the likelihood of the biggest, richest investors bribing the judges.

But this is obviously all fantasy. No one would ever build such a system.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. But I'm a widget maker, not a specialist in any of those fanciful terms you threw around. I'd like to participate in the judges' world, but my widgets take all my time. Is there someone that can sort through the precedents and rules on my behalf if I tell them what I need in widget-speak?

<comment><USER4> good point! another thing is, i don't really have time to read all these meta- rules for judges, and i certainly don't have time to write new ones in detail or to argue or vote for each one of them. is there anyway i could help choose a representative that'd consider my interests and the interests of others and then do the actual nitty-gritty work of writing and selecting such rules?

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, it has been found that the principle-agent problem is just to much to overcome in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It has been interesting to witness ETC (the original non forked chain) gain momentum in the past 48 hours.

According to Poloniex, as of this post, trade volume for ETC (via BTC) is double that of ETH today. And asking price for ETC is up 140% while ETH is down -8%.

So this fork isn't over - in fact, there's still no guarantee it will succeed; the ETC vs ETH battle has just begun.

<comment><USER7> It makes sense volume would be high on ETC, the market is trying to resolve its price. The price of ETH is basically what it was before.

It also makes sense that it would be making big gains. It just crashed basically to zero, there's nowhere to go but up.

Neither of these metrics suggest long term viability to me. Although I am surprised it's trading as well as it is. 10% of ETH is pretty good!

<comment><USER6> "Nowhere to go but up" is perfectly logical reasoning, but may be an over simplification; as it implies speculation only.

There may be another factor involved here; perhaps the 'hive mind' (market) is arriving to a realization...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does anybody else find that, even though this might have been a "sensible" decision, particularly for people who have a vested (i.e., financial) interest, that now a lot of the "wow" factor and everything that made Ethereum exciting, has just evaporated? Now it's clear that rather than being idealistic and principled for the greater good, it's simply nothing more than a way for people to make money and for the powers that be to retain the status quo. Business as usual, "the system" will prevail. The magic has gone.

<comment><USER9> Yes. It will never be the same. Part of the appeal was to entirely delegate decisions to autonomous software. The autonomy aspect has been diminished at a meta level.

It had always been clear that there would be bugs and exploitable logic flaws in contracts. It's inherent to the platform. It does feel like a change in philosophy has happened now that people have invested in it, their principles are more pragmatic and less idealistic, which might be good short term but inevitably undermine the project.

The idea behind the project are still good I think, and position regarding this type of incidents will be a litmus test for future platforms based on similar concepts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This situation perfectly demonstrates the possible repercussions of performing rushed _and_ contentious hard forks (which is actually the worst way one should do a hard fork). Possible replay attacks alone cause considerable confusion amongst Ethereum users. I believe Vitalik and the whole Ethereum dev team sound much more relaxed than they really are at this point.

Note that Ethereum was just used for speculation so far. Had the same thing happened on Bitcoin, it would wreak havoc to its reputation and utility as a token to transfer wealth...most importantly because it would destroy two very important properties: Immutability and fungibility.

Ethereum developers don't seem to care that much about those properties so far.

<comment><USER11> The hardfork was on a clock to prevent the "hacker" (a.k.a. the person who just executed the code as it was coded and therefore inteded) from cashing out.

No doubt developers went through a few extremely stressful weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Generally in real currency, when the government has difficulty managing things (like in Brazil with years of inflation), people seem to have no trouble returning to the currency after things are apparently fixed (for example, in Argentina where foreign investors are happy to buy government bonds now).

For that reason, I suppose Ethereum will continue to exist and draw support.

<comment><USER13> The reason why fiat currencies are stable is because they are backed by governments. Governments who can collect taxes, set monetary policy through central banks and mints, control inflation through various means, and so on. Recoveries from periods of instability usually involve massive efforts from governments to do all of those things better. Virtual currencies generally lack all of those mechanisms, so transitioning from "trust the protocol" to "trust the people in charge" is a huge and risky step.

<comment><USER14> Going off this, let's say I'm paid in Bitcoin and think the US Dollar is dumb. I still owe taxes in US Dollars and if taxes are 20-50% of what I spend money on in the world, then I'm going to have to use the US Dollar whether I want to or not. That gives the fiat currency weight - someone that is a third of my budget will only accept payment in it.

That's what a virtual currency lacks - someone that is a large portion of your spending that won't accept any other currency as payment. The US government is a large portion of my spending and won't accept non-USD payments.

The fact that you need to pay the government money in the currency they mandate means you'll use their currency. That guarantees users. For a virtual currency, there's no one demanding that I use it - at least no one that's a significant portion of my life that I can't avoid. So, I can easily leave and never come back. But if I lose faith in the US Dollar, I still need a significant portion of my income in dollars to give to the government.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure that paying (US) taxes is a good example. The effort required to buy some virtual currency is insignificant compared to the effort required to file a tax return.

<comment><USER16> Yes, but US citizens are also legally compelled to file a tax return if their income is above about $10,000 to $15,000. So that effort is a sunk cost for many people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That people are buying and investing in bitcoin is hard to fathom but why would anyone after this bother with ethereum? Oh well, it's good entertainment.

I had my share of moving internationally and it's not trivial occasionally (although Transferwise took most of the hurt out by now!) but [https://steemit.com/ethereum/@pauls/ethereum-fork-step-by- st...](https://steemit.com/ethereum/@pauls/ethereum-fork-step-by-step-guide- to-safely-splitting-your-eth-etc) this is ridiculous.

Ah yes the downvote brigade is here. Hi!

<comment><USER7> I think it's a good question. And you're being polite. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

My interest in Ethereum is twofold:

1) I got into open source software at a time when you ran software locally. An OSS project could just post a tarball and users could download it, modify it, and use it. That meant hosting costs were low for the developers, and most of the computational cost was born by the users. This system has broken down in the X-as-a-Service era. If an open source developer wants to build a web service, they have to basically pay the entire computing bill for their users, which can get exorbitant if your software is popular.

Ethereum is a way to socialize the hosting costs. I can write software as an Ethereum contract, put it onto the network, and then users can pay for their own hosting. I can do the work of setting up the necessary software infrastructure, and they can pay for it without having to do the work of maintaining their own server instance. Something like Ethereum is needed to bring about a resurgence in end-user open source software.

2) Bitcoin has value because it can do some useful tasks, but not very many. You can keep a ledger, transfer funds to another person. That's about it. That's an advantage: it's the first mover, and it is very narrow in scope. It's easy to reason about, and offers a clear value proposition. It is useful the way Western Union is useful, or the way your savings account is useful. Those are big markets, and Bitcoin is worth whatever amount of value it takes to float some large number of transactions from the time of purchase to the time of sale.

Ethereum does function as a currency, but that's almost a side effect. Instead of just burning cycles on transaction processing the way Bitcoin does, Ethereum actually does valuable work. It is useful the way Google is useful, or the way Microsoft Word is useful. And those are _really_ big markets, and growing. Ethereum is potentially worth whatever amount of value is required to float that computational power between the time of purchase and the time of execution. That could be a quite large number.

I think there will be a lot of projects like Ethereum, which do valuable work in a decentralized way and use a currency to float the running computational costs. Ethereum is the first credible such system we've seen and appears to be fairly general purpose. Whether it is The One, or just The First One leaves to be seen.

But as a speculator in currencies, I think it's a great diversification after you've invested in Bitcoin. And I am quite certain there will be another down the line.

<comment><USER17> 1) Ethereum is a clear scam after this. Your contracts say one thing unless someone posits a vote where a miniscule fraction of the userbase votes one way and from that point on your contract suddenly say something else.

2) Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. It never was anything else and it will never be anything else. That temporarily you can trade shares in a Ponzi scheme without being badly burned is certainly a novelty but beyond that, it's a typical, very old scam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > The foundation has committed to support the community consensus on the > admittedly difficult hard fork decision.

Consensus? The hard fork has majority support, not consensus.

<comment><USER19> consensus [kuh n-sen-suh s]

1\. Majority of opinion: _The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month._

[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus)

<comment><USER20> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision- making](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making)

<comment><USER21> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision- making](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Wants You to Vote on Tuesday - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/can-voting-facebook-button-improve-voter-turnout

<comment><USER2> For those who are not going to vote, would you mind commenting as to why not? I'm genuinely curious.

<comment><USER3> I expect it's a combination of not having time during polling hours or not being able to make it to the polling place easily. Since moving to Seattle, where ballots come automatically in the mail for everything other than primaries, I've voted in every election. Before moving here, it used to depend on if I could get off work, had time, etc etc, so I voted a lot less.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Strategy maps for software development - <AUTHOR> http://www.systemmeasure.com <comment><USER2> The website is very nice, but I find it difficult to make sense of what the different 'dashboards' actually do, and how I might use it.

I think a demo video would be nice or even an open project where I can actually interact and see what's happening.

On the pricing side. How much benefit does a single developer get from this? I would think most of the benefit comes to teams, so why do a very short 7 day free, why not free for single users and charge for more. Or at least a 30 day trial. Am I really going to be so impressed with your solution in 7 days that I'm going to NEED/WANT to pay you $40/month? That's pretty steep for a solo developer.

Just my 2cents

<comment><AUTHOR> Pedalpete - Thanks for the feedback. This is very good stuff. We'd gladly extend a 30 day-trial for you (or others who view this thread). Your solo- developer option is a great idea, and we'd work with you on that as well. If you are interested contact me at email@example.com. In any case, thanks again for taking the time to help us out.

<comment><USER3> Pedalpete's comment didn't seem to be about getting an extension on the free trial for himself or his team. It seems to be more about helping you to understand that he sees that your marketing model may not be sufficient.

You might get more customers if you offer a freemium model to everyone, not just those that read this thread. The true value resides with teams. Charge the teams, get the word of mouth from individuals.

<comment><AUTHOR> ReedJessen - thank you so much for your feedback. We are working on freemium options for our customers. It makes sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Free option is available for single user.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Enable SSL on Tumblr, WordPress, Blogger, AppEngine, Posterous  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudflare.com/ssl-on-tumblr-wordpress-blogger-appengine-pos

<comment><USER2> I gave cloudflare a look early on (even signed up), then I found out you had to set your DNS authority to their servers (could not just use a CNAME). No thanks.

After checking their knowledge base this still seems to be the case.</comment>


Fun with AngularJS - <AUTHOR> http://devgirl.org/2013/03/21/fun-with-angularjs/

<comment><USER2> It's great to see an example that actually produces a full running app. There are lots of little things involved in making an app that get missed if you just talk about directives and scope.

Will be interesting to see how easy it is to get the same project working on mobile, hopefully with minimal changes :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably, this one will help: [http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript- ajax/building-a...](http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript- ajax/building-a-web-app-from-scratch-in-angularjs/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks nice. I think collection price and track price might be reversed on the example site, though. Track price for one was 11.99, where the collection was 0.99.

</comment><comment><USER4> That's some hot dev there ;)</comment>


Clip-On Handgun Attachment Makes Bullets Non-Lethal - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/this-clip-on-handgun-attachment-makes-bullets-non-letha-1730039256 <comment><USER2> While I'm open to seeing advancements in weapon and/or projectile safety this is a horrible idea. just no. from the stupid title to the actual implementation of the device to the assumed benefits. meh.</comment>


Leave IE6 Alone - <AUTHOR> http://www.edicy.com/blog/leave-ie6-alone

<comment><USER2> I decided not to support IE6 on a new project, but not because of some self- righteous desire to tell people what browser they should use. It's just a feature that I'm not implementing.I don't have an iPhone app in the works either, but it's not because I hate Apple. I'm prepared to lose some fraction of people who can't/won't use a better browser. It's just not worth the initial effort and continued maintenance. Especially considering that that fraction will only be getting smaller.

</comment><comment><USER3> _> It may be a surprise but we have most issues with Opera (Don't worry, I have spoken to both Opera users and they said it's fine for them to use Firefox sometimes:)._

You can't have your cake and eat it too. So really, it's completely immature to say that and then go on to say:

 _> It's not our job to tell the customers which browser to use_

That only applies when it's IE6? At least Opera has a steady market share, whereas IE6 is losing it at a rapid pace.

<comment><USER4> IE6 still has more market share than Opera, Safari, Chrome, and Conqueror combined...as measured amongst the population most likely to use alternative browsers. <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> An extremely valid, if unpopular point.</comment>


Outlier Detection Techniques (2010) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://archive.siam.org/meetings/sdm10/tutorial3.pdf <comment><USER2> The OP has a problem: The algorithms don't give any significant, meaningful results. E.g., can run one of the algorithms, and it can report that there is an outlier or not, and in either case we have no idea if the answer is better than just something from reading tea leafs.

For sorting numbers, an _algorithm_ is appropriate, e.g., heap sort, once we have checked the algorithm and shown that actually does sort. For outlier detection, we have no such simple criterion that the _algorithm_ did anything meaningful.

For some first progress, we can consider the framework of statistical hypothesis testing with Type I error, Type II error, and the probability of Type I error. If we can do some derivations so that we know the probability of Type I error, then we have a meaningful way to know how seriously to take the result.

E.g., suppose we are receiving points one at a time. Our null hypothesis is that the points are independent and have the same distribution. Then Type I error is saying that a point violates the null hypothesis, is an _outlier_ , when it does not. A Type II error is saying that the point does satisfy the null hypothesis when it does not.

Generally we want to be able to adjust, set, and know the probability of Type I error. Then we have an outlier technique with some meaning. If in addition, e.g., via the classic Neyman-Pearson result, we can show that for the probability of Type I error we have selected we get the lowest possible probability of Type II error, then we have the best possible test.

The OP is too eager to work with a Gaussian assumption. Too commonly in practice, that assumption is absurd. Instead, we should be able to work with a _distribution free_ assumption, that is, the null hypothesis assumes that all the data has the same distribution but we don't know what that distribution is.

<comment><USER3> I spent some time thinking about this. See [https://github.com/jeroenjanssens/phd- thesis](https://github.com/jeroenjanssens/phd-thesis)

<comment><USER4> Tangent: that is _the_ most visually pleasing PhD thesis I have ever come across! How did you create it if I may ask?

<comment><USER5> It's just a regular LaTeX template.

<comment><USER4> Which one??

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Although I'm usually the last to recommend ML/Deeplearning, this seems better solved with nnets.

</comment><comment><USER7> 2010 is pre-deep learning revolution/hype, so these slides are outdated. See e.g. [https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01907](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01907) [https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01403](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01403)

<comment><USER8> Have you actually tried to implement outlier detection in production on any serious level? Most who do realize pretty quickly that deep learning is way overkill and finicky, and pretty soon head for resources like this.

<comment><USER7> The method in the first paper is in production, AFAIK. Also, outdated ≠ obsolete.</comment></comment></comment>


Lully (YC W15) Lands $2.1M in Seed Funding to Prevent Night Terrors - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/01/yc-backed-lully-lands-2-1m-in-seed-funding-to-prevent-night-terrors/

<comment><USER2> "But beyond automation, the team at Lully is focused on solving different sleep problems in children. For example, 75 percent of infants between the ages of four to six months are unable to sleep through the night, even though they should be able to at that age."

For parents that's absolutely massive. I can see a lot of people paying a lot of money if it works.

<comment><USER3> > 75 percent of infants between the ages of four to six months

With average customer lifetime of 2 months, they better pay a LOT and/or have a real low CAC.

<comment><USER2> Sleep consultants cost hundreds of dollars an hour. If this works people will pay.</comment></comment></comment>


Do Political Protests Matter? Evidence from the Tea Party Movement - <AUTHOR> https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/128/4/1633/1849540/Do-Political-Protests-Matter-Evidence-from-the-Tea?redirectedFrom=fulltext <comment><AUTHOR> Whenever anybody asks this question, I always send them this paper. Rainfall on the Tea Party's "tax day" protest had a significant effect on the outcome of subsequent elections.</comment>


Ask HN: Sick of your bank? Want to build a open source, non-profit, online bank? - <AUTHOR> Hey there, I'm Irish, and here our banks are shady and private. The government owns most of them (through bailouts) yet still there's little to no transparency - they act as the please, grabbing as much profit off their customers as possible. Most people here hate their bank and would gladly move to a half decent alternative, but of course there is none. It's identical in most countries nowadays, including the US. I think we can all agree that fundamentally, the finance industry is backward, greedy and corrupt. It needs to change.
Here's the idea: An open source, upfront, transparant and humane bank driven not by profit but by the passion to simply create a bank that people like and enjoy using.
A few key ideas or keystones might include:

    * Transparant/Open Source
    * Non Profit
    * Great Customer Support
    * Few and fair fees
    * Great User Experience
    * Mobile First (cliche I know..)
    * Open API

 This wouldn't just be a projects for fellow developers. We'd need designers, lawyers, and people involved in banks who are dissatisfied at the current status quo (after all we'll need a partner bank in every country we want to operate in to avoid logistical nightmares). I really think it could be a project anyone could help out in - Think of it as a generation coming together to drag one of the biggest industries in the world into the 21st century.
By partnering with a local bank in each country, it would cut out a lot of issue logistically, making the project a lot easier to implement than just building a new bank from the ground up.
Any thoughts?
By the way, my email address is npaterson1 [at] gmail [dot] com if you're interested/want to know more :) Niall
P.S Regarding Credit Unions, I can see why people are bringing them up but mcuy issue with them is that they don't offer stuff like checking accounts, atms etc, aren't really open that much, are exceptionally slow at allowing you withdraw and are completely offline. That's just my experience, but I don't think you could actually bank with a credit union, which is what I'm trying to get at.
P.P.S I think if you were to look at the three things I mentioned - online, non profit and open source, non profit is the one I think is least differentiable if that makes any sense. I think an online open source bank is the real innovative part, not the non profit part.
EDIT: A lot of people are asking something along the lines of 'well this works when it comes to banking, what else is there to it?'. I think banking is a really really backward system, there's so much you could do, simple tiny things that would make experiences so much more pleasant. Here's an example: Imagine if your bank account had a profile, almost like a social network, and you could go to someone else's profile and quickly see recent transactions you've had with them. I'm not thinking of something like a credit union, rather something quite different, and I really feel there's lots more that can be done with banking from a tech pov. I don't get why we have to assume banking is as advanced as it can be, it's clearly not. <comment><USER2> >Credit Unions [...] don't offer stuff like checking accounts, atms etc, aren't really open that much, are exceptionally slow at allowing you withdraw and are completely offline. That's just my experience, but I don't think you could actually bank with a credit union, which is what I'm trying to get at.

I'll chime in with a bunch of the other people in the thread and say that none of these things are true of my (US) credit union. Their online banking could use a design refresh, but fulfills all of my needs pretty well.

Plenty of atms and free checking, also a few convenient physical locations in case I need to look someone in the eye. Been with them for 10 years.

edit: branches close at 6, but the drive through is open until 8. Also open on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think like always, the US is a bit different. As I think I mentioned, I'm not thinking of something like a credit union, rather something quite different.

<comment><USER2> The only differences from my credit union seem to be mobile-first web design and an open API.

I usually deal with my cu through my phone, and I do have to click "Mobile" to get the mobile site - but it doesn't bother me very much.

<comment><AUTHOR> I assume your credit union isn't open source though? It's great that you're happy with your bank, but I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that banks can improve a lot, and just because it you're happy now, doesn't mean we can't try to do better. It's kind of along the lines of Ford's Quote:

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are so-called "sustainable banks". The largest in Europe is Triodos, they also have a British subsidiary. Globally they are networked through the Global Alliance for Banking on Values ([http://gabv.org](http://gabv.org)). Key features of those banks are transparency as to how much money is lent to whom (there's a Google Maps based tool on Triodos' website to discover their borrowers), non-financing of certain industries (e.g. weapons), non- participation in food speculation, etc.

<comment><USER4> I would be very interested in a bank that is open source, radically transparent, and run for the benefit of the community.

The code for the website, backoffice systems, credit scoring, and fraud detection could be open-sourced and continually improved.

Data on credit decisions would be available to any member to scrutinize and challenge, thus reducing fraudulent or unwise loans and identifying opportunities to expand profitable lending.

The bank's individual loans and investments would be public, perhaps lightly scrubbed of personal identifying information. Regulators, journalists, and motivated individuals could see if sweetheart deals are being made at the expense of the membership or the deposit insurance fund.

The bank could publish a public "blockchain" of transactions similar to Bitcoin so financial statements could be reconciled down to the transaction level. This might make it much more difficult to hide fraud and abuse.

Incidents of fraud and default would be published as they occur. The resulting social pressure should reduce the bank's costs, and the data could be used to improve credit and membership decisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think you'll need to define "bank" first. What services does a bank offer that you could replicate? Would it offer interest?

I strongly believe that this will go nowhere unless you spec out exactly what you want to accomplish. Just saying "we should make a better bank. Let's talk about it" won't progress much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, I think it would make most sense to keep it really simple for now. So like a checking account at heart. No loans or anything like that. I think that's what most people would need - if you need a savings account you don't need an accessible online back.

<comment><USER6> So what does the bank do with all of this money that people deposit if they don't make loans.

From [http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal- finance/banking/bank...](http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal- finance/banking/bank1.htm): Banks accept deposits and make loans and derive a profit from the difference in the interest rates paid and charged, respectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My Credit Union (in Oregon)

* Offers Checking accounts

* Has ATM's

* Are open as much as most banks are.

* Are exceptionally friendly.

* Have an online presence that... well it's not exceptional, but it's not that bad either as far as these things go.

That's why I've always kept my personal and business accounts there over the past 20 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's cool. Business accounts aswell? CU's seem much more developed in the US. I think if you were to look at the three things I mentioned - online, non profit and open source, non profit is the one I think is least differentiable if that makes any sense. I think an online open source bank is the real innovative part, not the non profit part.

<comment><USER7> Yes, my business account as well.

I love open source software, but from a bank...I just want them to give me a good deal and be helpful.

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting. Why would you be against an open source bank? Would you agree that banks aren't exactly cutting edge? If so, wouldn't it be better if they were? (More features, easier experience)? Thanks :)

<comment><USER8> Most businesses are probably running the majority of their banking through banking software -- so long as the bank integrates with their package of choice (Peachtree, etc), most won't care beyond basic friendly business banking practices.

Banks are not cutting edge in general, at least not in the US. If you look at other markets, like Europe, they adopted a lot of technology must faster than US banks: two-factor auth tokens, sending money via SMS, for example.

<comment><USER7> My bank here in Italy has a pretty good web interface, and very easy money transfers with IBAN. Other than that though, I prefer the low fees in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My credit union (in USA) is awesome. It offers all "other stuff" like checking accounts and atms. They are open "normal business hours" which doesnt matter to me since I live out of state anyway, theyre exceptionally fast at allowing me to withdraw, and are 100% online. I mostly interact with my credit union via my iPhone, and have no problems.

Yes, Im way out of range of my credit union's ATMs. No biggie, they pay me $20 a month to cover any ATM charges! In fact, just yesterday, I got a free $80 long term member award (its been more than a decade).

Basically my credit union kicks all kinds of *ss. If they ever grow huge and get pwned by big bankery, Ill likely change my mind.

Im totally down for the open source non profit bank though.

</comment><comment><USER10> As other people mentioned, most of what you described is offered through credit unions. But most credit unions are small and don't have the capacity to offer great online/mobile experiences. I would be interested to see a project to open source a solution for credit unions to customize and use to offer a better user experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting.. but I think you can go further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The US has credit unions, which (generally) address the non-technical things here - they're owned by their depositors and any profits beyond what's needed to operate get returned as dividends. I've had very good experiences thus far with Simple, as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can see why you're linking credit unions with the non profit thing, but I think the non profit thing is there, for me at least, as more of a statement to show aims, so not nessecarily the same reason why a credit union is non profit. My experience with CU's here is that they are even worse than banks (almost impossible to withdraw, no current accounts, no atms, rarely open) is that similar in the US?

<comment><USER11> Very different here in the States. They have ATMs, are open about the same hours as banks, checking/business accounts, offer credit, mortgages, car loans, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _I 'm not thinking of something like a credit union, rather something quite > different_

I'd guess from reading the comments that US-style credit unions are not common outside the US.

If you came up with a radical new banking product that has the characteristic of, say, reducing fee income, credit unions might be the best place to launch it. As you can see from other comments, transparency tools probably fit this category.

Generally, however, I think there is a lot of potential in organizations outside the "investor owned corporation" sphere. A co-op ISP, for example.

Anywhere there are perverse incentives for investor owned enterprises there is room for different structures.

Adding open source client software and high transparency in operations for a credit union could provide an incremental improvement over the basic idea of depositor-owned banks. But features like a "social investing profile' if that's what you are getting at, would be applicable to any bank's customers.

</comment><comment><USER13> I was just musing about this too ([http://domitable.com/content/it-time- protocol-renaissance](http://domitable.com/content/it-time-protocol- renaissance))

The enabling technology of the outcome you are after will likely be a protocol rather than a service, as a service only succeeds if it can outdo the competition, which leads to more fracturing rather than unity.

Just as HTTP enabled the document Web, the development of a Hyper Payment Transfer Protocol (or Hyperfunds Transfer Protocol, or something along those lines) could enable the financial Web.

Decentralizing transactions and capital is something Ripple and the various cryptocoins hope to achieve, so whether the protocol emerges along those lines or as something that doesn't require a peer-to-peer network, I don't know, only that it's a good conversation to be having right now.

<comment><USER14> I agree that the protocol is the key. Its quite useful to think of the protocol for transactions to be similar to a transaction in the realworld. A discussion on terms of the deal, a transfer of goods/services, perhaps a lingering of a favour owed. Perhaps in the future every person will have their own "currency", with their own exchange rate with every other person they ever meet or deal with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is a new credit card in the US that has crowd sourced policies set by the customer community. The incentive is that the card profit shares.

Article - [http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120305006339/en/Barc...](http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120305006339/en/Barclaycard- Introduces-Crowdsourced-Credit-Card-Driven-Online)

Main Site - [http://www.barclaycardring.com/](http://www.barclaycardring.com/)

A similar approach may be feasible for an online world bank to generate enough income to pay employees.

</comment><comment><USER16> Banks have 2 key functions: 1\. Taking deposits and lending them out again. i.e. creating money through the credit creation process. 2\. Providing money transfer capabilities.

positvemoney.org runs a policy campaign which makes a compelling argument for a separation of these two functions as a response to the financial crisis. One of the arguments is that when the investments of banks fail, our ability to transact fails with them. Not exactly a resilient system.

There are a number of existing open source projects to create libraries and protocols to generically provide money transfers. [http://opencoin.org](http://opencoin.org) (disclaimer: I am involved with this project) [http://opentransactions.org](http://opentransactions.org) [http://opencoin.com](http://opencoin.com) \- open source but very much commercial

Those who say bitcoin is addressing these functions are misguided. Bitcoin is arguably a currency tightly integrated with a transaction technology. In theory the bitcoin transaction technology could be re-worked to be useful as a library for money transfers (non-anonymous). I imagine that would be a significant amount of work.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've been reading through this thread and find it very interesting. I really don't know much about banking systems in general but I'm all for an open- source, transparent banking system; one that isn't controlled by a central body that can fail spectacularly and have consequences for everyone around the world. I think what I'm getting at is that we have to stop thinking of this in terms of "my bank does this, my bank does that." This is the current system and one that has proven to be elitest, corruptable and fallible. As I said, I'm not very knowledgable about the specifics of banking but what do people think about this idea. I was checking out stripe.com and I had the idea: What if everybody was their OWN bank? I have some kind of server that hosts my account, I can accept and make payments and connect with anyone else to do transfers. I can be paid directly from my job etc... I know it sounds a bit like bitcoin but why would it not work with our current currencies? Why do I need to put my money in one of the 'approved' banks? I guess there are standards and such but could we not work toward this kind of system?

</comment><comment><USER18> I personally think that the problem with banks is that they do so much more than what they are supposed to do. The only thing I need from a bank is a place to "store" my money, and possibly make transactions.

That's all, that's what a bank is supposed to do. Also no interest rate, my dad used to be a member of a group here in the Netherlands who wanted to create a bank of their own too. I never really understood it, I was just 10-12 when it was most active, but what I understood from it was that there would be no interest rates. You might try searching for it on google, it was called CMN. There is a Dutch book about it written by Hank Monrobey. You'll have more chance of finding that than anything else about it.

Here is a link: [http://books.google.nl/books?id=2uTzrLOGfGwC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA...](http://books.google.nl/books?id=2uTzrLOGfGwC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=%22CMN%22+bank&source=bl&ots=gmpjzWGkxZ&sig=QDp05QzaJSiPMKdlb26S19p-h_I&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=rdLOUuehB4TI0QX_84HwBw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22CMN%22%20bank&f=false)

</comment><comment><USER19> Here's what I would do if my country needed this (Canada has very strong Credit Unions already, that accomplish nearly all of what you want. I actually work for them, on online banking software):

1\. Form a credit union, or partner with an existing one. This is a very good structure for a financial institution that is open and non-profit. You don't need any physical branches, you can be online only.

2\. Read up on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8583](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8583) , check out a project like [http://www.jpos.org/](http://www.jpos.org/) \- this is the standard all financial institutions (and ATMs, debit terminals, etc.) use to talk to each other.

3\. You'll also need the actual banking database-of-record software (banking system, banking host software are commons terms). There are some open ones already out there, I can't speak to their quality.

4\. If you just want retail banking (ATM cards, current accounts, etc.) you're pretty much done. If you want to offer loans/mortgages, things get a lot more complicated.

</comment><comment><USER14> That's great and all, but I think just starting a new bank is not good enough.

In my opinion if we can combine some of the good ideas behind bitcoin with those in your list. Im not saying bitcoin is the right model. I think we need to think hard about what enables trade, growth and a society that enables not just a good standard of living, but also makes collaboration easier on large (think planet wide) projects. Automatic auditing should be built in from the ground up, transparency will allow trust between parties both private and public. Community voted policies that reflect in specific functions/code that can be made part of the transaction system to collect taxes that we can use to fund schools, infrastructure and other projects communities decide are worth funding.

</comment><comment><USER20> In Italy we have [http://www.bancaetica.it/](http://www.bancaetica.it/) it's a 'popular' bank, it means that collects money on the local district to borrow to local/italian entrepreneurs. And it's ehical, it borrows only to projects with high levels of sustainability: green economy, innovation, alternative energies etc. Now it's quite up also the concept of 'social banking' [http://www.social-banking.org/the-institute/what-is- social-b...](http://www.social-banking.org/the-institute/what-is-social- banking/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I have a CU in USA an it's pretty good to me so far so I'm satisfy with it.

I can get cash from any participating atm or just cash back at a groceries. I have a saving and a checking account. I had two loans with them. First loan was a 15k one I paid off and currently I have a 25k loan with them. The interest rate is pretty low.

I usually just pay via credit card to get points and use my CU to pay the credit card bill.

I think my CU addresses every single point on your bullet list except for mobile first. But I usually just use a credit card by proxy.

One negative thing about CU is just the fact that they're selective on membership.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's pretty nice. Is there some kind of online/mobile setup for adminstering? Also actually, do they do business accounts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Other people brought this up, but it's strange you don't mention credit unions, since according to the Irish Examiner [0], 75% of Ireland's citizens have a credit union account, which is the greatest proportion of any country [1].

[0] [http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/75-of-irish-adults- in-...](http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/75-of-irish-adults-in-credit- unions-187549.html)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union#Global_presence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union#Global_presence)

<comment><AUTHOR> My issue with Credit Unions is that they don't offer stuff like current accounts, atms etc, are really open, are exceptionally slow at allowing you withdraw. That's just my experience, but I don't think you could actually bank with a credit union, which is what I'm trying to get at

<comment><USER23> What is a 'current account'?

<comment><USER24> In the UK a Current Account is basically equivalent to a US checking account. So your average day-to-day account normally with a debit card, cheque book and easy access. It might also offer an overdraft facility. Typically you'll get zero or very little interest on any money in the account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> \+ A nice, well documented, and secure API for developers to create all sort of applications to integrate with the bank.

I'm a software developer, glad to spend some of my time in this project: rodrigosetti [at] gmail [dot] com

<comment><AUTHOR> You read my mind :) Was one of the ideas I had. I think that'd be really cool. Will let you know thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This sounds like a US credit union. Many people belong to them, and they are fantastic. That said, I do not know of any credit unions with open source software. It would be very interesting to see.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you haven't watched "Bank Of Dave" you really should check it out. Basically this guy setup a 'bank' and the show documents all the troubles throughout the process and the hoops he had the jump through to open. Check it out.

[http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bank-of- dave](http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bank-of-dave)

<comment><AUTHOR> Will do. Is that setting up a bank from scratch though? Partnering would/should remove a lot of the logisitics.

<comment><USER27> Yes, I guess he is starting from 'scratch' but the show aligns really well with your ideas and I think it will help you at least see someone go down that path and what comes up and what you might need to get started. Anyways, check it out, pretty interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've heard good things about Simple and Ally, but for myself I find my local podunk bank supplemented by Amex Bluebird is enough.

<comment><USER29> Simple is still incredibly restrictive to me. Ally or Schwab would be my first choices if I ever moved off my current bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> My credit union is in the US and I have 2 checking accounts, savings accounts, auto loans, etc through them. I can use any shared branch ATM for no fee too. I have had several credit unions in the past and they have all offered everything you said they dont in your posting.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's pretty nice. Is there some kind of online/mobile setup?

<comment><USER30> Yeah. They have web banking and a mobile app. I can even deposit checks from my phone.

I have to ask though, is this seriously not the case for CU's in Ireland? I think here in the US this is totally common place and nobody would use a CU if they didn't offer these services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What do you mean by open source? Do you want the banks website to be open source, or all of the back office code that talks to ancient mainframes and proprietary 3rd party applications?

What will draw customers (other then fellow developers) to a bank with open source software?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good Question. Lets take the scenario where we are partnering with another bank. So then we have two main applications or systems - 1) Integration with their api (I'm assuming this would be a fairly big thing considering the complexities) and 2) Our API/App i.e what people would actually use. I would see the second one there being open source, but not the first one, for obvious security reasons. Furthermore, apps and other smaller services would be open source. I think if you can portray an image that you are transparant and in a non technical way, have it as part of the brand as such, it might interest people. Get me?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> You might be better off by starting to develop open source software for existing banks that align with the other values. just to get started. The regulatory side is hard and expensive.

Banks to look at are Metro (UK), Handelsbanken (Sweden and elsewhere), Triodos.

</comment><comment><USER32> Isn't Bitcoin already addressing most of your concerns? I think the solution is not open centralization (Open source Banking) but de-centralization, which is what Bitcoin addresses by giving the power and money of the people back to people.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think 99% of people aren't going to bank with an unregulated, fluctuating currency that they don't understand or control.

<comment><USER32> _..99% of people aren 't going to bank with.._

People won't "bank" when it comes to Bitcoin - There's no need of a Banking system really. And as per your concern around fluctuating value of Bitcoins, It's just a matter of how you look at it and standardization.

Assuming everyone tomorrow agrees to standardize that Bitcoin is the de-facto currency and decides to transact in BTC only, I don't think anyone will be concerned about fluctuation anymore. Item X which retails for 2BTC, will retail for 2BTC today, tomorrow and day after tomorrow. (Assuming no price change, offcourse)

<comment><AUTHOR> Consider John Doe. John is an ordinary internet user who's heard of bitcoin, but has no iota of how it works and 0 control over it. Will John trust his life savings with it? No. I think that's pretty obvious.

Let's face it 'Assuming everyone tomorrow agrees to standardize that Bitcoin is the de-facto currency and decides to transact in BTC only' is a crazy assumption right now.

<comment><USER33> >Consider John Doe. John is an ordinary internet user who's heard of bitcoin, but has no iota of how it works and 0 control over it. Will John trust his life savings with it? No. I think that's pretty obvious.

err consider John Doe... He doesn't give a damn if his bank is open source or not. John Doe is not your target, people who use BitCoins (and I don't mean lemonade selling girl scouts) are your target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I really like @photomatt's ideas on this topic from four years ago :)

[http://ma.tt/2009/08/starting-a-bank/](http://ma.tt/2009/08/starting-a-bank/)

</comment><comment><USER35> How would this be different from [http://www.creditunion.ie/](http://www.creditunion.ie/) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> \- Open Source \- Online (no physical presence) \- Available 24/7 \- Checking account \- Debit card

I think people have seized on the non profit word here. I think credit unions and this would be non profit in different ways if that makes sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've really liked simple.com.

<comment><USER37> Simple.com is only in the US

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> some people will tell you bitcoin is going to be that online non-profit open- source bank

<comment><USER32> I might be one of those people. :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Isn't this the idea behind bitcoin?

</comment><comment><USER40> Perhaps its the legislation or financial overseer institutions that make banking pure hell?

Banks are required to for example know their customers before giving them accounts, and can be held responsible for money or shady laundering.

Im all for the idea anyway but lets talk real, how would it work? It has to be for profit else its not a business but a welfare whixh the banks will go to for bailouts next. Owned by all members?

We had such discussions before on hn conclusio was that current laws and requirements dont make that possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> See how simple do it in the US? They've a partner bank, which handles that side of things. I'd be optimistic the same could work.

<comment><USER41> But then it isn't really "non-profit", it's "doing work for a big shady corporation without making any margin on it"...

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's unavoidable to have a partner bank (at least for now) but considering they wouldn't get as much, that would surely be better? I completely get what you mean, and agree in many ways, but is there any other way?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Millions of tea kettles switching on causes power grid issues in the UK - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCAzalhldg8

<comment><USER2> Interesting, sort of like the US "Millions of Toilets Flushing in each city" at the end of the Superbowl or the last episode of MASH.

Still, as may people have asked... why hasn't this been automated? If a guy watching a screen can decide on what systems to turn off and on to generate the power, why couldn't an expert system?

<comment><USER3> It's more about predicting imminent power changes since power stations take time to come online.</comment></comment>


IPOs Bring Tax Jackpot for California; Can Lawmakers Resist? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/05/us/ap-us-california-budget-enticing-ipos.html <comment><USER2> For those who didn't (or can't) read the article, the question being posed is --can they resist committing to additional recurring expenses in the face of a one-time windfall, _not_ can they resist imposing a windfall profits tax on IPOs.

</comment><comment><USER3> They are rubbing their hands because they see these high taxes on individuals as the bonanza of their low corporate tax policy. The problem is that people hate paying taxes more than companies do.

I have many friends that work in late stage startups who are planning to move to secondary offices in Seattle or Austin just to escape an eventual California taxation once they can convert their options because of an IPO or an acquisition.

This by itself it's not a big problem, but California is so damn expensive that it starts looking pretty unattractive to future prospective entrepreneurs that can opt for other less expensive states to run their business.

<comment><USER4> Everybody has an anecdote, but the fact is that California continues to enjoy net domestic in-migration in the highest income group. Rich people do not avoid it because of taxation. They avoid other states because other states are terrible and they can afford to live here.

<comment><USER3> That's true partially. At least you have to segment extremely wealthy individuals from high-middle class individuals who don't care too much about this. Again this also anecdotal, but most people I know simply want a good quality of life at a reasonable cost.

At a certain point that stops being feasible if the cost of living keeps increasing and additionally you're taxed at the highest rates.

Also from an economic perspective, people will move close to where the jobs are. You hear a lot about startups hiring in the Bay Area but almost never hear the big incumbent businesses expanding there. Quite the opposite.

As with any macro-economic trend, it would pass years until you see the effects of these things, but I do believe that this doesn't play well for California's economy in the long-term.

Fortunately for California, there is more than Bay Area, so it's also possible that this is just a phenomenon applicable to the economic behavior and impact of the tech industry and tech employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related - Some SF Supervisors are going to put a retroactive 1.12% stock compensation payroll tax on the November ballot: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Here-come- the-I...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Here-come-the-IPO-s- and-here-comes-a-proposal-13790280.php)

<comment><USER6> Can I retroactively vote against those supervisors?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> An article about CA taxes always has to include someone from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the wonderful group that brought us Prop 13 and would turn us into Alabama if they had their way. Howard Jarvis stands for everything bad in CA. Gentrification, HOAs, paranoid city councils, and why the schools are so hit-or-miss. I wish journalists would let them fade away like Mr. Jarvis's acting career.

</comment><comment><USER8> > The state budget relies heavily on the wealthiest earners; in 2017, the top > 1% were responsible for more than 47% of the state's income tax collections.

Until I saw it in action (2001, 2008) I hadn't realized that a tax regime could meaningfully be _too_ progressive. But this statistic quoted in the article results in a tax receipts whipsaw in hard times. If you have a lot of money and your income declines dramatically for a couple of years you don't need to lose sleep over it -- it'll come back and meanwhile you can live of your assets. The same doesn't apply to entities that need to live off their tax receipts: such a time calls for increased spending just when the money isn't coming in.

</comment><comment><USER9> Should lawmakers resist? There's no lack of housing and infrastructure projects worth spending on, state-wide.

<comment><USER10> $180 billion in unfunded CalPERS liabilities, too...

<comment><USER11> I reckon I'll need a couple million to retire in the next several decades. As I'm still pretty young I have a personal pension liability of a couple million dollars.

My point here, what's the practical impact of this number? It's a scary number that's thrown out a lot, but is this number going to break the budget, or will pension spending as a fraction of the total budget be fairly stable?

<comment><USER12> The CalPERS money is invested. In recessions, the pension fund shrinks and tax revenues shrink at the same time. The fraction of government spending needed to cover pensions increases as a result.

<comment><USER13> You forgot to mention that Calpers also assumed an 8% annualized return for their funding purposes. Slightly optimistic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Taxing founders and employees even more (on top of CA's very high income tax and capital gains) seems like a ridiculous proposal when corporate net taxes are low or zero in many cases.

<comment><USER15> Where do you see that proposal? The article never mentioned anything about taxing more.

<comment><USER16> Probably the proposed San Francisco 'IPO tax': [https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Supervisor- Proposes...](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Supervisor-Proposes-IPO- Tax-on-Tech-Companies-509032951.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> California rewards property speculation and rent seeking with Prop 13; this is an untouchable source of inequality because landowning wealth is fiercely anti-tax.

The more tax-friendly stance of tech wealth means that tech money funds much of the state, while those who hoard land reap many unearned profits from rent seeking and increased property values, which directly pushes our so many of those with lower incomes.

Meanwhile the general attitude of the state is that tech is the source of the problems, rather than the conservatives who are unwilling to share their neighborhoods with new residents. It's quite an upside down view of the world.

<comment><USER18> Prop 13 was heavily pushed by businesses under the guise of "saving your grand parents from excessive taxes".

What it actually is, is a tax cut for businesses (they don't generally sell property, and so don't ever pay tax on the actual property value), and land owners who rent/lease out property (because they can increase revenue in line with market value, while only paying taxes on increasingly far from market value properties). Given property taxes are generally used to fund a lot of public services (police, fire, schools, roads, etc) and a lot of those have costs determined by market value of property (eg cost of rent/mortgage is a significant determining factor for income), you end up necessarily pushing those costs on to individual tax payers. Businesses can easily incorporate out of state and so choose yet another cheap tax rate, pushing all of the costs into individuals.

Prop 13 must be revoked.

<comment><USER19> > _Prop 13 must be revoked_

It might be easier, politically, to add carve-outs.

Not your primary residence? Assessed value rises with CPI. Renting it out? Assessed value increases capped to _e.g._ 5% per year. Businesses with more than X in revenues or Y in employees? No price protection. Home value more than Z? No price protection. _Et cetera_.

<comment><USER20> Also we could defer taxes for elderly and charge the deferred taxes when they pass away. That way they don't lose their home.

<comment><USER4> That's what we always did before Prop 13. Nobody was being turfed out of their homes. The counties were just putting liens on properties.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Upsert Lands in PostgreSQL 9.5 – A First Look - <AUTHOR> http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2015/05/08/upsert-lands-in-postgres-9.5/

<comment><USER2> "DO UPDATE SET description=description;"

I think that should be:

"DO UPDATE SET description=excluded.description;"

And doesn't it also need an inference clause or constraint specification for DO UPDATE?

Please update example code to be self-contained, so that readers can copy/paste.

The example itself -- upserting product descriptions from another data source -- is a great one though.

<comment><USER3> Hi, Jeff

Will update as soon as I'm at a machine, but yes of course you're correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've read several times now that the tradeoff for upsert taking so long was that the implementation is "safe". Is MySQL's / other DB's version of this "unsafe" somehow? Or was there a particular architecture issue specific to Postgres that made this so difficult to implement without bugs?

<comment><USER5> I think one of the quirks you can run in to with MySQL's implementation is that even the DB decides to do an update, you end up burning an auto incremented key. Curious to see what PG ends up doing here.

<comment><USER6> You pretty much have to do so. The conflict could be on the column with the default value after all. And obviously you can't just rollback the sequence/autoincrement value after deciding to update because that'd either require locking the sequence for the duration (horrible for concurrency) or would pose problems with other sessions already having used further values.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now if only there was some syntax shorthand for "just take everything from this now conflicting INSERT and discard what's already there".

Like SQLite's "INSERT OR REPLACE".

Aside of the transactional benefits that upsert has, it's also convenient in that you don't have to update and then insert, saving a lot of typing in cases where you're not relying on an ORM and still have to work with bulk data where you really don't care about local changes (because there were none).

The syntax for this is a bit inconvenient right now.

<comment><USER8> The syntax looks inconvenient, but I like it. If you have a conflict, you might not want to just update everything, but only a subset of the fields. With this syntax (verbose as it is), you have the option of explicitly stating what you want to happen in the event of a conflict with no ambiguity. Perhaps there is a place for some shorthand like

        ON CONFLICT SET *=*.

But aside from that, for a RDBMS like Postgres, I'd opt for explicit over implicit.

<comment><USER9> One would think you would just need a list of fields...

       ON CONFLICT SET colA,colB,colC

As to the gp, you don't want to update the "CREATED" field on an upsert.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a reason for yet another syntax for upserts?

There's an ANSI SQL syntax: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merge_%28SQL%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merge_%28SQL%29)

And MySQL has its own syntax: [http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/insert- on-duplicate.h...](http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/insert-on- duplicate.html)

This is a pain for those of us who are trying to maintain cross-database libraries. ([https://github.com/dieselpoint/norm](https://github.com/dieselpoint/norm))

<comment><USER11> Norm looks very nice, thanks for posting. I haven't had a chance to look at the internals, but do you think it could be ported to C#?

<comment><USER10> Probably, but I don't use C#. Feel free to give it a shot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Getting Sorry, I cannot find /2015/05/08/upsert-lands-in-postgres-9.5/

</comment><comment><USER13> Yep, this is awesome. Go Postgres!

</comment><comment><USER14> good news: upsert works, bad news: select doesn't work

<comment><USER15> IMHO, this qualifies as trolling without further explanation.</comment></comment>


Google Doesn't Have the Guts to Make Page Speed Actually Matter - <AUTHOR> https://redfin.engineering/google-doesnt-have-the-guts-to-make-page-speed-actually-matter-ab2a1a8fe496 <comment><USER2> Agreed - their primary motive is to induce conversations about page speed performance within dev teams. Same reason they used the red "slow" tag in serps back in 2015. If G wants to really, really induce change and AMP adoption remains low, they'll throw their own resources at serving faster versions of other people's pages.</comment>


Lessons in bootstrapping from the founders of Urbanspoon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/venture/Ten_lessons_in_bootstrapping_from_the_founders_of_Urbanspoon_44968952.html

<comment><USER2> I especially liked this tip:

Buy a big whiteboard. Don't use calendaring, bug tracking or project management software. Put it all on the whiteboard. At the start of each week, erase and start over. Worried about losing something? If you erase it and forget, it wasn't that important in the first place.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure : I am the author of the guest post. This is very HN appropriate.

<comment><USER3> Congratulations on your successful exit and thanks for posting this. Sometimes it's hard to read these things and think they are true, but they are.

Yesterday, I was thinking, "Why am I doing this? Why do I work so hard for ~nothing?" and then it dawned on me that if it isn't hard, it isn't worth anything. If it was easy, everyone else could do it. If everyone else can do it, why would they pay you to do it? They won't.

It has to be hard. You have to feel the pain. You have to lie awake at night wondering if you're crazy -- YOU ARE! Keep being crazy. Do the crazy things, the impossible things and keep doing them until you have something someone thinks is worth buying and then sell it and go on vacation, until you get bored with that and then do it all over again!

<comment><USER4> I like your last paragraph. Its important to pump up yourself continuously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bootstrap++

It's nice to hear a success story like this from time to time as reassurance and that it's not entirely impossible possible achieve. I am walking down the same path as you guys are, and I hope we come out as successful as you. Good job!

</comment><comment><USER6> I won't lie to you, I'm pretty impressed that Urbanspoon caught on like it did. Congratulations on the successful venture, I'd love to join the club.

</comment><comment><USER7> Inspiring! Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER8> Great bootstrapping tips!!</comment>


Chickens Are Bullies – Can Their Behavior Teach Us About Our Own? - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/chickens-are-bullies-can-their-bad-behavior-teach-us-about-our-own-8ba58c735178 <comment><USER2> When I was growing up on a farm, my Aunt Hattie had chickens and it was normal when we went to her house for dinner to watch her chop the chickens head off (on a farm, such things were fairly common and not at all shocking when you are brought up with it).

I remember asking her how she decided which one to take. She said that when she went out to get their eggs, whichever one pecked at her the most would be the next one to go. I asked her if that worked, did it send a message to the others. She very flatly said no, they are too stupid to understand that but it makes me feel better. I just thought that was funny and somehow is something I remember.

<comment><USER3> We had over a dozen chickens growing up in rural New England. The one at the bottom of the pecking order lost a toe due to it being pecked at by all the others. Our chickens were only for eggs. My Uncle & neighbor had a flock as meat birds; one fall we had a get together where we killed them all, de- feathered and cleaned them, and ultimately froze them. He said sorry to every chicken. You're right; such things are not shocking if you grow up with it.

<comment><USER4> Chicken pecking orders can be brutal.

We had multiple flocks for eggs when I was growing up, and they were usually placid but some hens were so aggressive that I wish we had made dinner of them.

One in particular systematically pecked to death every other hen, working down the pecking order until it was the only one left. She was eventually taken out by a fox. We raised them all together from chicks, so I have no explanation for it. As the Simpsons put it, some animals are just jerks.

<comment><USER5> > One in particular systematically pecked to death every other hen, working > down the pecking order until it was the only one left.

Is this where the term "pecking order" comes from? It seems particularly apt in this case.

<comment><USER6> Yes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a small flock of about 50 cockerels two years ago. And the bullying issue made me swear never to raise cockerels again. They were petty, jealous, constantly fighting, noisy and downright nosy.

The big shots would peck any insolent runt who tried to steal a bite. They'd sit down to relax after they'd had their fill but still wouldn't allow the smaller birds to feed. I lost quite a number to pecking injuries and outright starvation - in a cage filled with food.

I however enjoyed turning the bullies into the bullied by isolating them for a few days and reintroducing them.

Broilers on the other hand were a joy to own. All they cared for was food, water and a clean, dry spot to rest. It's a pity they shit too much.

<comment><USER8> >50 cockerels

You recreated the chicken version of an American prison, no where in nature would you find a gathering of 50 male chickens in tight living quarters. They, and humans, aren't built for that sort of living situation and it is unsurprising that behavioral problems materialize.

My favorite flock composition was a base of all female birds, add in a cockerel and see how he and the hens interact. If you find a good match leave him there and then as new male chickens are born watch how they interact with the current cockerel. Sometimes they get along fine with each other and you can leave them, other times they go at each other like mad and then I'd usually kill the younger male. I never liked broilers because _all_ they liked was food, they were just so boring! I like curious chickens!

<comment><USER9> Yeah. I mean, what do you expect to happen when you put a bunch of animals in a social and physical environment they are not well-adapted to? It's humans who are the bullies.

<comment><USER10> I can't imagine that modern chickens aren't well adapted to coop life. We've been raising them that way for quite a few millenia now. And look how, for example, dogs have evolved from wolves in the same time frame. At any rate, my mother raises chickens and tried to raise them free range (with full access to 3 or 4 acres) for a while, but she would lose them constantly to coyotes. I think that nowadays, chickens are ill-adapted for the wild.

<comment><USER11> That's preposterous. There's no way chickens with the best adaptation are the ones being bread; they're in cages. Selective breeding could've easily developed a selection bias of large chickens that are obscenely aggressive and fight their confines.

<comment><USER10> Large chickens have certainly been bred for but this is part of the reason modern domesticated chickens are ill suited for wild life: they are too fat and too slow besides being flightless. Hens in particular have no natural defenses against predators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The phrase "pecking order" has some reality to it.

Though, I'd like to mention that most chickens aren't bullies. In fact, I'd say something like 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 is a bully [0]. The rest just get along.

Now, if you want to see a really mean bird, go watch some turkies for a while.

[0] I grew up around a lot of chickens.

<comment><USER13> >Now, if you want to see a really mean bird, go watch some turkies for a while.

...and if that's not enough, wander within 50' of a Canada goose. Those things are powered by distilled spite and angry honking.

<comment><USER14> My theory on why Canadians are so nice is because the geese are downright assholes, and the entire country evens out.

<comment><USER13> I am now picturing some Lovecraftian Ritual, purple tendrils of evil snaking into a white goose, turning its head black with hate, its body singed from the hellfire, while the human contingent of Canada suddenly feels the urge to be friendly and apologise for something.

<comment><USER15> We appease them by making sure they have a plentiful food supply of well manicured grass.

<comment><USER16> A ritual they seal by promptly shitting all over it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We had chickens when I was a kid and they can really be mean to each other. I witnessed bullying and the killing and eating thing happened once as well. They were always happy to see me because I was the one that fed them.

I imagine dinosaurs behaving like chickens, and that's a scary thought. Chickens will eat pretty much anything organic and a giant chicken would have no problem eating people.

They had a fenced outdoor area they could wander around in, but they always ate everything that grew, so it was just dirt. We did let the chickens out of their pen in the late fall and winter when we didn't have a garden planted. They were really happy roaming around and pecking at things. They'd all wander back into their coop in evening to go to sleep, so all I had to do was close the door at the end of the day.

<comment><USER18> > They had a fenced outdoor area they could wander around in, but they always > ate everything that grew, so it was just dirt. We did let the chickens out > of their pen in the late fall and winter when we didn't have a garden > planted. They were really happy roaming around and pecking at things. They'd > all wander back into their coop in evening to go to sleep, so all I had to > do was close the door at the end of the day.

Hmmm... I did the exact same thing. Only difference is that I did it in Stardew Valley. =D

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Having worked on a farm, I can confirm that chickens are unsympathetic and occasionally cannibalistic, especially when large numbers live together. (We had one case where eggs were getting eaten, and discovered the culprit one day with yolk on its beak.)

If you converted them all to humans, they would be a bunch of jerks of breathtaking stupidity. The Biff Tannens of Back to the Future. I love that Sarah French is looking at how to mitigate the bullying.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure you can blame the chickens if you force them to live in an unnatural, stressful environment that they are not well-adapted to. As the article mentions, the primary reasons for "bullying" are stress, boredom, illness and overcrowding, all four of which are caused or controlled by the birds' human keepers.

<comment><USER20> It's interesting too that all 4 of those are present to some extent in our schools where much bullying takes place.

<comment><USER9> Quite so. Workplaces, as well.

<comment><USER21> Already mentioned, but prisons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a kid we had 3 chickens in our garden. One day some farmer gave us a rooster that while small a small one, consistently bullied all the other animals in his farm. Our 3 black hens somehow decided to act together against him. Until we found him killed and half eaten. Nature can be nightmarish!

</comment><comment><USER23> I agree with others that this is an over-generalization.

We had many hens, and the only one that was a bully was the bottom of the pack. We had babies and this one chicken would try to bully the babies. I think being the bottom of the pack, it might be understandable.

We've also had a few roosters. Two of them were absolutely docile and really lovable. The third, although lovable, really was bossy with humans, but he was a really good protector of the hens. He took his job seriously.

</comment><comment><USER24> Those pinless peepers are an incredible invention. Forwarding that info on my urban chicken family.

</comment><comment><USER25> Interesting insight into some of the mechanisms that go on. We had 4 hens that got on pretty well for the most part. We also had a few ducks housed in the same pen. They also got on fairly well. I wonder how different species interactions in birds could be mapped to human behaviour? We have probably a dozen different wild birds that visit our yard and it is interesting watching how they interact.

</comment><comment><USER26> You put too many people in a confined space and they go nuts - is this a surprise ?

</comment><comment><USER27> John B. Calhoun studies are pertinent.

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

</comment><comment><USER27> AFAIK chicken systematically and thoroughly pecking at open wounds need proteins.

</comment><comment><USER28> Children are bullies too! Why do we need to extrapolate from chickens.

<comment><USER29> I've worked in offices with full grown adults that are bullies, on a few occasions. I don't mean physical. But small minded people talking and sneering in groups, or managers taking credit or lying or blaming staff. Can take months of dropping positive metaphors, analogies, idioms like "I don't care who did it I just want it fixed" etc.. while turning the cheek or forgiving their ignorance/stupidity until they're reprogrammed to have more decency or be nice. Also takes a lot out of you. But worth it in the end. Especially if you join an office where it's coming from the top down and it's miserable and full of blame, then months later people are smiling and working together. I agree with you here, why extrapolate specifically from chickens?. There are many types of abuse; discriminatory, psychological, financial, hierarchical, neglect, sexual, modern slavery, domestic, physical, verbal. Chickens are not complex enough to understand much more than the obvious. Any threat to our needs will be fought off however we instinctively know how or have learned. Sounds strange but many people are unaware they are bullying and if you call out the behavior they will feel bad and amend it. I doubt you could do that with a chicken.

<comment><USER30> I wonder to what extent this is a manifestation of a lack of growth opportunities in the environment.

In my experience, when a company is growing quickly, customers are abundant, there are more new projects than people to do them, and everybody's stock options go up each year, people tend to be cooperative, energetic, and generally delightful to work with. Once growth slows, promotions & raises stop coming, exciting new projects are scarce resources, and customers don't really care what you do, the office politics gets insufferable. It's like as soon as people run out of worthwhile things to do, they invent oppressive status games to pass the time.

My recollection of middle & high school was similar. When kids are engaged, learning things, able to pursue their interests, and have adequate adult attention, they're cooperative and well-behaved. When they're all corraled into the same track and have to compete for grades & attention, they get nasty.

<comment><USER29> Completely agree. It's founded in needs and resources. Also it's not all about the bully. Hierachies exist. There's not much we can do about that, it's nature. No one calls a shark a bully. All we can really do is try and make them less abusive. The 'victim' can also bring a lot of it on themselves by being a 'snowflake'. A victim can quite quickly become a bully when their aloofness pays off and everyone turns on the person that was 'bullying'. I guess when it's really 'bullying' is when it's unnecessary? If someone is being assertive or pushing you to see you evolve, is that bullying? nope. not in my book. But can be percieved that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Sounds like school to me.</comment>


Ask HN: What specific techniques do you use to improve as a programmer? - <AUTHOR>

How do you all make an effort to learn and avoid repeating coding errors? I'm thinking about starting a running document where I will catalogue things that I get stuck on and how I overcome them, in an effort to crystallize new knowledge and logical thinking.<p>How do you get better? <comment><USER3> As beobab said, code, debug, feedback, rinse and repeat

Other resources that were helpful for me as well

Books:

      - SICP (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html)
      - The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master

Courses:

      - Almost all udacity CS classes
      - SaaS courses at edx.org
      - Scala course and most CS courses in coursera

Open source:

      - browse most popular OS projects on GH, and try to contribute
      - create your own open source project, and get feedback / pull requests

Q&A sites:

      - <USER2>
      - http://codereview.stackexchange.com

and of course most coding related articles here on HN

edit: SICP has an online course at MIT OCW:

[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and- comput...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer- science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/)

it might cover a lot of things you know, but I think it's a must have for every developer out there.

</comment><comment><USER4> There is no shortcut to get better. You have to write software. Write, write and write again.

Take part in different kind of apps. Small web apps, big and complex web apps, simple mobile apps or more complex mobile apps. Each of these will teach you on how to think and organize your work. Try learning different programming languages for example Clojure, python, ruby, javascript, C#, java and haskell. You don't need become an expert but each language will teach you a different way to tackle problems. Another thing that I've found useful is looking at other people's code. Github and the thousands open source projects there, make this super easy. Learn what you should do and what you should not.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Sharpen your saw. Keep learning new technologies and programming methodologies.

2\. Make an effort to use what you have learned from past experiences to write better code in terms of usability, efficiency, readability, maintainability, etc.

3\. Read Code(good ones). Sometimes, looking at other people's code allows you to have a fresh perspective about coding style.

4\. Contribute to open source. It will help you immensely in understanding what it takes to write code that others can read and maintain.

5\. Help others on sites like stackexchange.

</comment><comment><USER6> Learn a new (people) language to shore up your propositional calculus skills. If you're a native Germanic (English) language speaker, learn an Altaic one (like Japanese for example) and vice versa. It has certainly helped me write elegant code. Code isn't just code, its a mindset and approach with a lot of room for creativity.

</comment><comment><USER7> Practice, feedback, practice, feedback, ..repeat..

</comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Learn more languages and technologies.

2\. Create new projects as often as possible.</comment>