What The "Great Delicious Exodus" Looked Like For Pinboard - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/29/delicious-exodus-pinboard/

<comment><USER2> I'm still having a few issues with with pinboard I'm starting to regret leaving delicious.

For one the autocomplete on the bookmarklet will only suggest about half of my tags. Also the add a note feature doesn't save the text of the note. I haven't heard back from support.

<comment><USER3> We're usually pretty quick with support, although it has been a bit of a crush lately. Feel free to email again (or simply email, if you tweeted, it's really easy to miss a tweet).

The way notes work is a little odd for historical reasons and needs cleaning up, you can search the dev list for a more detailed explanation. It does save the text of the note, though.

Either way, sorry for the delay and drop us a line with your questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad I made the switch - pinboard seems much more responsive, even during that massive spike. The only thing that took a while was importing my bookmarks. That's more than understandable - how many bookmarks were imported over those few days?

<comment><USER3> Maciej's write-up will have accurate numbers but it was a pile. Something in the 7 to 10 mil range for the first 36 or so hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd love to see a graph of signups during this time. The article says "not a whole lot of Delicious users switched to Pinboard"--is this true? I wonder how much the signup fee dissuades people.

<comment><USER6> The signup graph pretty much tracks the traffic graph. We added about 9k users in three days.

I'm writing up a technical blog post to go with the graphs, for people who are curious about what we did to keep the site up.

<comment><USER7> I signed up but I'm wondering, how does it make sense for you to run the site with just a small one-time fee?

<comment><USER6> The signup fee is there to put a brake on growth and offset the development and hardware costs of scaling the site when lots of new users arrive.

Our bread and butter is the $25/year from archival accounts.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


This Fake Log Jams Your Phone So You'll Shut Up And Enjoy Nature - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/10/fake-log-jams-your-phone/

<comment><USER2> Interesting that it only blocks voice, which is my cellphone's least used functionality.</comment>


Ask HN: How to write a book? - <AUTHOR> I've had a yearning for most of my life to write a book, and have decided 2019 to be the year to do so.
I anticipate some feedback like, "Well first you need to have something to say." Fair enough - I'm at a stage where I have a few half baked ideas but no story complete or complex enough to warrant a full book length. I do have things to say, though, and know I have the drive in me to get them out with some guidance.
Has anyone been here? How did you write a book, writers of HN? Do you just start? And word by word keep going? <comment><USER2> ... By writing, like you said. It's no more complicated than that.

That you're asking this here leads me to believe there's some unknown (to me) internal resistance holding you back: start writing. Write some more. Then write some more.

You might be interested in books like "Bird by Bird" (Lamott) or "Do the Work" (Pressman) etc. (I've read BbyB a few times, and am re-reading/-listening to DtW again as I plow through some drudge work that's necessary, but irritating.)

</comment><comment><USER3> First thing in the morning, write three pages. 30-40 mts. Don't plot. Just write. Don't spell check. Don't try to weave a story. Just write without a plan. Pen to paper. Writing is a habit. You can't be a sporadic writer or author. It's a craft. It needs discipline. Do this for six weeks first.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not sure if you mean fiction or non-fiction.

For non-fiction (at least):

1\. Write - a first draft, of an essay, chapter, article, anything. Don't judge for quality. A first draft is supposed to be bad.[0] Just write the stuff down. The main thing is to have raw material for:

2\. Editing. Edit, re-edit, reorganize, etc. Maybe dozens of times or more, until there's not a word that can be improved or cut, until every cliché is gone. Edit more. Maybe the pieces will merge, or split apart - let the writing happen, go where it wants to go, not where you want it to go.

p.s. Zinsser's _On Writing Well_ , on writing non-fiction, is wonderful, as is pg's essay about writing essays.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html) also: [http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html)

[0] Like it says in _Clean Code_ , first you write dirty code, then you clean it. Nobody can _write_ clean code; it's a product of editing.

</comment><comment><USER5> I came across an interview in the Paris Review in which E. B. White (of Charlotte's Web and "Strunk & White" fame) talked about his writing process.

I believe jelliclesfarm has given you some excellent advice. On the other hand, White spoke about how, for him, writing was sort of like surfing -- he liked to wait for the wave of inspiration to come upon him before he started to write. Obviously that notion can be abused. You might wait months for "inspiration" to hit you. Fair enough. But what I think he meant -- and this is valuable -- is that there were certain optimal conditions for him for writing, and it was important for him not to waste them. For me, my best writing is early in the morning when the house is quiet. I think White liked to write in the kitchen when there was activity going on with which he was uninvolved.

</comment><comment><USER6> This Twitter thread has some good pointers: [https://twitter.com/JamieJBartlett/status/966603813791649792](https://twitter.com/JamieJBartlett/status/966603813791649792)</comment>


Ask HN: What are some alternative activities to replace using social media? - <AUTHOR> I have been trying to quit facebook and twitter, and have tried a couple of times. But after 1 week or so I find myself getting back to them again. I think I am failing because I am not replacing them with some sustainable alternatives. People here who have quit social media, how did you do so? What activities you started that helped you getting away from them? Any kind of insight will be valuable. <comment><USER2> I tried to make it difficult, but still possible to log into them. Remove the apps from your phone, and remove the login information from your browser. (back it up somewhere if you're the forgetful type like me)

Even though getting to the website on my phone, or putting in my credentials is fast/easy it still created a barrier to entry which wasn't there before.

Even with the barrier in place I still needed to have something else that was easier than getting over that barrier. I tried to have some form of entertainment lined up that didn't include a social media element, like something to read or watch.

</comment><comment><USER3> biking, reading, playing guitar/music, take a class, get involved in community groups/initiatives, coffee shops, beer w/ friends, potlucks, dog walking, writing letters, learning a language, making cartoons, birding, coding, sailing, volunteering, read the news, get involved politically... literally anything that you feel would be more meaningful and less of a waste of life than cyber fake book etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> <useless and data>HN is as "social media-y" as I get. I guess I just don't care that much about FB and Twitter, etc. </useless anecdata>

I am a musician and scuba diver. I find that when I have a good music thing going or middle of the dive season, I lose interest in all other free time activities.

I guess the Tl,dr is find something you're passionate about. Everything else goes away.

</comment><comment><USER5> Any side project is good. I have a few Raspberry Pi that I use to hack with and those are a lot more fun, entertaining, and productive than arguing on FB.

I have never installed FB or any others on my iPhone but if I were wanting to spend less time on them I'd remove them from it first.</comment>


Memory Layouts for Binary Search - <AUTHOR> http://cglab.ca/~morin/misc/arraylayout/

<comment><USER2> Sorry for the blatant plug, but it might be relevant — in my M.Sc. thesis I surveyed main memory optimized index techniques and also provided some background for why traditional binary search is not very optimized for modern hardware. There's lots of illustrations and I cite some great material. :)

See here: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Florian_Gross/publicati...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Florian_Gross/publication/275971053_Index_Search_Algorithms_for_Databases_and_Modern_CPUs/links/554cffca0cf29f836c9cd539.pdf)

Along those lines:

* CSS Trees: Pointerless b-Trees with a layout optimized for cache lines ([http://www.vldb.org/conf/1999/P7.pdf](http://www.vldb.org/conf/1999/P7.pdf))

* Intel & Oracle's fast architecture-sensitive tree search (combines huge pages, cache line blocking, and SIMD in an optimal layout): [http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jatin_Chhugani/publicati...](http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jatin_Chhugani/publication/221213860_FAST_fast_architecture_sensitive_tree_search_on_modern_CPUs_and_GPUs/links/0c96051f5d2990770d000000.pdf)

* Adaptive radix trees ([http://codematch.muehe.org/~leis/papers/ART.pdf](http://codematch.muehe.org/~leis/papers/ART.pdf))

<comment><USER3> > _ResearchGate is currently down for maintenance, but we 'll be back online > very soon._

Do you have a mirror?

<comment><USER2> Since I haven't set up any other domain to put it right now (should get to that), I put it here:

[http://webclonk.flgr.me/index-search-modern- cpus.pdf](http://webclonk.flgr.me/index-search-modern-cpus.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is a really good article on the topic [1], »Binary Search Is a Pathological Case for Caches«.

[1] [http://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2012/07/30/binary-search-is-a- patholo...](http://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2012/07/30/binary-search-is-a-pathological- case-for-caches/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Data locality matters _so_ much.

This talk from Herb Sutter at 29:00 shows this wonderfully: [http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-661](http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-661)

<comment><USER6> The table in this Coding Horror blog helps to show the point:

[http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-infinite-space-between- word...](http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-infinite-space-between-words)

1 CPU cycle 0.3 ns 1 s

Level 1 cache access 0.9 ns 3 s

Level 2 cache access 2.8 ns 9 s

Level 3 cache access 12.9 ns 43 s

Main memory access 120 ns 6 min

<comment><USER5> That's not even the half of it though.

One of the main points from Herb Sutter's talk is your prefetcher is a cache of _infinite_ size. This is why Radix destroys other in-memory sorting algorithms and why the way you access data is the most critical performance thing you should focus on.

It's also incredibly hard to retrofit when you find out you really need that performance back.

<comment><USER7> > One of the main points from Herb Sutter's talk is your prefetcher is a cache > of infinite size. This is why Radix destroys other in-memory sorting > algorithms

Can you elaborate? Radix sort seems like the most unpredictable sorting algorithm out there last time I checked... it jumps all over memory.

<comment><USER5> Radix sort on a fixed width key is actually one of the most predictable sorting algorithm. In a traditional Radix sort the complexity is O(kn) where k is how much bucketing you want to do on the key size. Buckets are fixed at 2^n bit size so more buckets = less space, less buckets = fewer passes.

Say for a sorting 32bit values you might split your buckets by a factor of 4 aligning to a byte boundary. This would give you 4, 256 entry buckets.

The sort then becomes a linear walk of the data doing the standard Radix sort. This is where the prefetcher and packed arrays really start working to your advantage. Your memory access is trivially predictable and the prefetcher gets to work eliminating all DRAM cache misses. Most algorithms will hint at the fetches but it usually takes just a few loops for the prefetcher to do just as well. If you want to some parts of the passes can be batched to get better than O(kn).

Now if you want to get fancy you can take your key, and find out what bit width for your buckets line up nicely with your cache line size and watch Radix really scream.

This used a lot in computer graphics for determining draw order, intersection tests, etc(in fact the book "Realtime Collision Detection" is one of the best data structure literature I've read, it just happens to be about 2D/3D problem spaces).

This is why understanding the implications of memory access is so important. Paraphrased from the talk: Big O notation is really a blunt tool and sometimes those constant factors can be incredibly painful.

[edit] They also have the nice property of being stable which can have some useful benefits.

<comment><USER7> > on a fixed width key

Okay well that changes things a bit. I was thinking on general data, like strings.

> The sort then becomes a linear walk of the data doing the standard Radix > sort.

Does it? What about all the buckets which you write randomly to?

<comment><USER5> Strings are going to be bad anyway because there's a high chance you're hitting a cache miss just to get access to the heap allocated string data.

Yes, only the histogram pass has random writes and if you pick your bucket size appropriately(like I mentioned above) then the surface area for those random writes can land within a cache line or two.

Summing the histograms are a very nice linear read/write pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Deciding memory layout is a sub-task of designing cache-oblivious algorithms. Cache-oblivious algorithms optimize the number of memory transfers. I found this very interesting [http://erikdemaine.org/papers/BRICS2002/paper.pdf](http://erikdemaine.org/papers/BRICS2002/paper.pdf)

<comment><USER9> Everything Demaine works on look so new, simple and interesting. Succint DS, origami/folds proofs, now this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting.

A while back I did some rough tests on search of arrays in depth first order. The hope was that the better contiguity (the next element in the array is the next element to test 50% of the time) would lead to better search performance, but I wasn't able to observe much of a difference in practice.

I also found that while writing the search operation was very easy for arrays in this order, insertion was much more difficult.</comment>


Ask HN: How not to fear from bigger and well established competitior? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I guess the goal should not be to 'not fear' but to win over the competition by not allowing fear of the bigger size of the competitor.

There can be two pronged strategy-

* how is my small size an advantage - how can I maximise that advantage? Can i move fast, can i create specialised features which bigger competitor can not focus on and can those specialised features be of high margin? ex- Mac versus Windows in early 2000. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17695388](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17695388)

* what can the competitor not do, because of the big size? Is doing some of those things bringing me enough advantage to pursue them.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do not compete with shark, but don't put us in the same tank

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition)</comment>


'The sense I was clever was knocked out of me': confessions of a uni dropout - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/09/confessions-of-a-university-dropout <comment><USER2> When a child is small it can be disingenuous to always praise them for being 'smart' or 'clever' even if it is true.

Eventually even if they are top 1% in their home town, when they go to a University and surround themselves with other 1% students all of a sudden that feeling of I can get by because I'm smarter than everyone vanishes, even if they are in the top 20% of the new University.

It is much more beneficial, at least in my opinion to praise your children for working hard, or for working out a solution rather than simply calling them 'smart or 'clever'.

There will always be someone smarter than you (unless you are some genius), and learning to accept this early on and know that by working hard you can also accomplish as much as the genius, although you may need to work harder if it doesn't come as naturally, is very important to instill in youth.</comment>


Ceph 3.0: Block, Object and File Storage from One Cluster - <AUTHOR> https://f2.svbtle.com/a-luminous-release <comment><AUTHOR> CephFS finally reached supported status -- and many other additions in this summary of Red Hat's new storage system.</comment>


Review My Startup: Bloggers-Circle - <AUTHOR> http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/bloggers-circle/

<comment><USER2> Have you validated there is a market for this and which segment of bloggers that is? And that people would be willing to pay for reviews of drafts?

I'd imagine people like blogging for many reasons including:

* it's free-form and easy

* it's immediate, i .e. my thoughts on the interweb now

* it's free or relatively cheap (less hosting/domain)

This concept might fly in the face of some of these reasons so market need would be the first thing I'd validate.

Also, I'd likely want someone reviewing my drafts who has relevant domain expertise. So if I write about business, a blogger writing about celeb/pop culture may not be the best fit.

I'm unsure there is a large need, but I may just fall way outside of the target demo so just my $.02. Good luck.

BTW - Agree with JangoSteve that a 12 min intro video is way too long.

<comment><USER3> The huge amount of bloggers makes the market interesting enough.

But you are right about the categorization of reviewers.

<comment><USER2> Bloggers is a highly heterogeneous group so it's important to understand the true addressable market (how many on wordpress, how many write content that is review-worthy, how frequently do they write, do they have their own domain, are they trying to make money, etc etc). Otherwise, it's akin to saying "my market is internet users".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is a good idea, as it's something I've struggled with. I started watching the video thinking I'd get the usual 2-3 minute intro, but instead was greeted with a 12 minute video for a Wordpress plugin!

It took 3 minutes just to recap the couple hundred words in the paragraphs leading into the video. You could probably skip the instructions on how to install a Wordpress plugin. Combined with the sub-par audio quality, I just ran out of patience.

I'll probably give it a soon though when I get back to the computer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Video is too long. Check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The concept is good.

* Get a clear simple landing page - take wordy.com as a guideline

* Focus more on repuation / P2P and less on paying in the explanation

* Let customers pay quicker pickup and response or if they insist to have it just reviewed by the "best" of the community

* Intro categorization of users if you haven't already (sorry video too long)

<comment><AUTHOR> I hadn't actually considered the option of having customers pay for quicker responses. It's an interesting idea. Once it's reached the stage where billing is integrated this would make an interesting layer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just from a technical point of view: the distorted sounds and voice quality in the screencast is kind of annoying

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll try and redo the screen cast tonight! Also, do you think it's too long? Should I produce a short-short version?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Any plans for an API so users of other blogging software could implement it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes! But only after there is a living community.</comment></comment>


Why you should use "exec" in all your wrapper shell scripts - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mxe/mxe/pull/1785#issuecomment-309014433 <comment><USER2> > Using exec has several benefits:

> \- The exit code of the wrapper will automatically become the exit code of > wrapped_tool. Of course, you can achieve the same effect if you use set -e > in the shell script.

False. Exit code of the last executed command is the exit code of the whole script.

> \- While running, only the wrapped_tool is in memory, the shell is wiped out > on exec and no longer uses any resources (memory, process scheduling, ...)

True.

> \- The process name and path is wrapped_tool, not the shell script.

True, but it's not always a _benefit_ (from my experience, when it actually matters it's usually a _drawback_ ).

> \- If the wrapper is supervised and the caller decides to kill it, it will > kill directly the wrapped_tool. Otherwise, it would only kill the shell and > wrapped_tool might continue to run in the background.

This is true only for broken supervisors. Supervised process should be put in a process group, so supervisor can send a signal to the whole process group.</comment>


Happy 15th Birthday to Tcl and the Tk Toolkit - <AUTHOR> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1335649

<comment><USER2> Cool! That's me on the cover: [http://www.informit.com/store/LargeCover.aspx?isbn=032160175...](http://www.informit.com/store/LargeCover.aspx?isbn=0321601750) :-)

(BTW, they're talking about the book by J.O, Tcl is older than 15 years, probably closer to 20).

<comment><USER3> Woohoo! It's great to see an update to John's book!

[BTW, the Tcl language is well over 20 years old. IIRC, Tk is about 20 years old.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tcl is an amazing language. Very underrated. It's "EIAS" (everything is a string) philosophy, and the duality of strings and lists is very very powerful. It's got one of the best-documented and precisely written standard libraries I've ever seen (and the "extended standard library" tcllib is of similar quality).

E.g., if some script returns "350 seconds to execute command <more stuff here>" you can hold your nose and just treat the string as a list and extract the 0th element :) ('lindex $return 0').

It's speed leaves much to be desired. My ideal stack would in a large project would be:

1\. Tcl shell on top 2\. ... talking to either Python or C/C++ below

<comment><USER2> Python is, I think, still a bit faster than Tcl, but it's not the order of magnitude that C is. And, realistically, there are a lot of things that Tcl _is_ fast enough for these days... it's certainly in the same league as, if not faster, than Ruby and PHP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Tcl gave me my first taste of scripting, but even more of a revelation was that I could bury a Tcl interpreter in a C program and use Tcl to control all the C modules. It made it really easy to dynamically change the behavior of a running server. Of course security was a bit of an issue, but in 1992 the net was still relatively calm.

<comment><USER2> Tcl's C API is still more or less the 'best in the business', afaik. Ruby and Python aren't _bad_ , but Tcl just gives you so much access, and the source code itself (modulo the regexp code) is a pleasure to read if you want to hack the C code yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Nice to see a _new_ Tcl book on the bookshelves</comment>


We're happier when busy but our instinct is for idleness - <AUTHOR> http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/07/were-happier-when-busy-but-our-instinct.html

<comment><USER2> Ugh, what's with the "evolutionary vestige" and "instinctual idleness" crap? The lead researcher is a behavioral psychologist, not an evolutionary biologist. There's no basis for the conclusion that this behavior is genetic, let alone instinctive.

</comment><comment><USER3> This makes perfect intuitive sense to me and is reflected frequently in my life. I have a job where I can often get away with doing very little, but if I do that I feel bad (and it creates a negative spiral). If instead I engage and work hard, I feel much better, but it seems I am always batting a innate preference for inaction. Or just laziness :-)

</comment><comment><USER4> I like the chocolate bar experiment. Even if the rewards were switched, more people would still opt for the "busy" option. That has very interesting implications: At times, the reward really doesn't matter. It's the process which is important.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Implications for user interface design?

<comment><USER4> Hmm.. I can think of one off the top of my head. Give the user something to do or read while he is waiting for content to load

<comment><USER5> Google has made this a lab option in gmail called 'gmail preview' if shows a quick snapshot of your email while loading ... pretty cool</comment></comment></comment>


Refactor My Code - now open sourced - <AUTHOR> http://refactormycode.com/

<comment><USER2> The announcement is here: <http://intridea.com/2011/7/7/refactormycode-open- source>

[EDIT] And here's the Github repo: <https://github.com/intridea/refactormycode></comment>


Grasp2Vec: Learning Object Representations from Self-Supervised Grasping - <AUTHOR> https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/12/grasp2vec-learning-object.html <comment><USER2> I'm one of the authors of the paper. Many folks from our lab (including myself) are super bullish on "using robots to supervise representation learning and using representation learning to supervise robots". Happy to answer any questions!

<comment><USER3> Why is everyone turning to a xxx2vec representation?

Obviously, NN work well with one-hot and other vector relations. But I keep wondering why some sort of higher-order-input graph-network (Kipf,etc) is not more popular.

What has been your experience ?

<comment><USER4> It begs the question of creating something like "2vec2vec", a vectorization model that takes vectorization models as input and embeds them in a vector space that encodes representational semantics of vectorization models into linear operations in a vector space.

Of course then you just run 2vec2vec through itself and get the vectorized representation of a vectorized representation model of vectorized representations.

<comment><USER5> This would define an AI that classifies if something has jumped the shark or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's linked from above - putting it here for anyone else looking for videos.

I found more content at [https://sites.google.com/site/grasp2vec/](https://sites.google.com/site/grasp2vec/)

And this video

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z1q7zSQERrm_tgboGGoG8MHewj1...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z1q7zSQERrm_tgboGGoG8MHewj1bV76i/view)</comment>


Invisalign and 3D Printing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/d286fb1efc90

<comment><USER2> I am on aligner 11/15, so I am almost done with Invisalign. And before anyone thinks they can do this at home, there are two points to consider. Invisalign needs attachments to help move your teeth along. Just this Monday, my dentist had to redo the attachment on #10. Also, if your teeth need a little more room, your dentist will sand your teeth down as well. Attachments are temporary, but sanding your teeth down is permanent!

</comment><comment><USER3> The article glosses over that Invisalign already uses 3D printers! Thousands of jaws have been 3D printed as part of the Invisalign manufacturing process. The clear brace is molded on the 3D printed jaw.

<comment><USER4> I suspect that's true. I recently had invisalign and when I lost one they got one printed locally. the material was thicker and less precise than the original.

also, of interest, my dentist said they couldn't number the trays 1,2,3,4... because that was patented. the numbers were like 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently discovered that the technology has developed to the extent that I can inexpensively purchase the materials needed for a variety of useful items to self-assemble in my backyard.

Despite the ability to grow peppers and cucumbers myself, I still buy them at the store because it is only worthwhile as an entertaining hobby and practitioners skilled in the art can produce the same items more efficiently.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting how much micro fabrication technology has infiltrated the dentists' offices. When I needed a couple of crowns a few years back, my dentist was able to make my permanent ones on the spot (while I waited). He used a hand-held 3d scanner and then a small CNC mill machined out the pieces. I'd presume other components will quickly move that way as well.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, my dentist sends the permanent crown out to a lab who apparently guarantees fit based off the mold impressions. The turn around time is about 2-3 weeks. For those of you fortunate enough to not have any crowns, a temporary crown created while in the dentist chair is worn in the interim. A temporary crown takes about 15-30 minutes to make.

I bet out sourcing that allows him to see more patients. I wonder what the economics look like between the two options on the dentist's end.

<comment><USER6> He previously out-sourced the work, in the traditional way (I'm unfortunate to have 12 crowns done by him). This is much, much better - the machining took 30 minutes, and he worked on other patients in the mean-time. He indicated his profit margins per crown were higher, while the price to me was lower. As I was heading out to Europe the next week, having permanent crowns made my life much more enjoyable. =)

I think the big drawback was that he had to pay for the machines and software - he indicated that he would have them paid off in a year or two.

<comment><USER8> The handheld scanner and mill are key. My dentist and I also spoke about 3D printing, and he said you need 50 micron resolution or better, which 3D scanning and milling can do, but not 3D printing. You want the best fit possible, otherwise the piece will fail.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I don't think low-cost 3D printing is yet where it needs to be for this purpose - but PLA definitely is the wrong choice. I wonder if the sinterized metal/ceramic printers have higher resolution. (Admittedly, I have little knowledge of this class of printer. And, generally, I still prefer subtractive machining for precision parts.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "So far the only physical thing created is the models by the orthodontist."

Actually at this point, the dentist can take the models entirely digitally. My dentist did this a few months ago with a new scanning machine. There was nothing physical sent.

</comment><comment><USER10> 3D printers are not accurate enough at this time to print such a detailed object. I am printing a large project with many interlocking pieces. The prints are always slightly too large due to the bulge of the deposited plastic as it cools. You can compensate by making the piece slightly smaller, but it is never a perfect fit. In addition, the smallest layer right now is .1 mm, which is not detailed enough for a tooth mold. For a tooth mold, I would want it perfect.

<comment><USER11> Which is why the article says "in the next five years"

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I thought this would be a "look at me I made my own Invisalign trays!" post; I had no idea the process took this long.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think 3d printing has some way to go before this is possible. A 3d printed denture would not have the material properties required to align teeth and maintain integrity in a human mouth.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a A/B- or multivariate testing solution for Google Adwords ads? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to optimize some Adwords campaigns, but with ads I don't really know how to tackle it. I love Google Website Optimizer and similar tools, so I was wondering if there are any solutions for Google Adwords ads? <comment><USER2> If you create multiple ads, Adwords will rotate the ads. You can choose which ad is most effective based on click thru % or even better conversion rate if you have conversion tracking setup.

Also, make sure you set "Ad rotation" to "Rotate: Show ads more evenly" under the campaign's settings so that your ads are shown evenly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks terrellm. I'm pretty experienced with Adwords and know the options. The basic setup and possibilites is okay, but I'm missing simple and optimized testing reports, optimized ways to start new tests (without having to take notes) and so on.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure of a tool to automate testing of ads. It's more of a gut feeling / experience in creating the ads than it is creating an endless number of combinations. Goal completion is influenced by both the ad and the landing page. I've had cases where the weaker ad became more successful by pointing it to a different landing page.

I'd certainly be interested in discussing further as it sounds like you have some experience in Adwords and conversion too. I develop software and am always looking to share techniques on testing and improving conversion. Feel free to email me (info is in profile).</comment></comment></comment>


Google ups its Linux Foundation membership to the $500,000/year Platinum level - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/27/google-ups-its-linux-foundation-membership-to-the-500000-year-platinum-level/ <comment><USER2> The amount of Linux foundation OS code that google uses, probably makes them 1000x that amount.

I believe you can't really put a $$ amount on good OS projects. They really do fundamentally shift how things work for an entire industry and make a tiny dent in the universe.

While the world worships the Tech billionaires like Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Brin e.t.c Something has to be said for people who pour their hearts and lives to making a great OS project that's used under the hood almost everywhere.

<comment><USER3> Serious question, what would the Linux foundation do with 5bn/year?

<comment><USER4> Target code needed by municipalities.

A long while back, my city paid for a billing system. Was something like 30, 40 million bucks. They did not own the code, or if they did, were not in a position to make that the benefit it should have been.

Long story short, they ended up paying a lot more for support, updates, bug fixes and the like. And then did it again to finally arrive at something workable!

A group of people, myself included took this to government as an example where open code could be a much better investment.

For that same sum, an entity could be created to develop that code, making for local jobs, local revenue and a very likely savings over the long life possible.

Maintenance fees could provide the entity with the staff needed to maintain that code, until it pays for itself.

Additionally, that entity could make it available to other municipalities, and or consult on that problem domain. That turns what us currently a cost center into revenue that could, at a minimum, lower the cost of the utility currently paying way too much for software not really adding that much value.

We got bipartisan support. Industry lobbyists killed it off back then. Our bad. At the time, the thrust was to get OSS written into law as a must consider. The industry arguments and ability to lobby won the day, and were compelling to legislstors who were not well equipped to really grok the potential benefits.

What we shouod have done was push for and more fully develop the plans and non profit model needed to sell it as a project, or investment.

This all happened in the early 00's too. Its a bit different and even more plausible today, and legislators are more likely to understand it all better too.

Open code would mean other projects could build on that effort, and open data would mean the business of the people would be available where and how needed.

A project of this kind would end up sustainable and would yield consistent savings to every municipality using it, whether they developed it or not.

Once done, its a model for similar needs and costs and could be repeated anywhere. An umbrella foundation could unify these things, or several sprout up, each owning a needed domain, each making revenue and ending up self sustaining.

Over time, there would be various entities of this kind solving not sexy, but quite expensive and painful problems that really do need solving.

This kind of thing is not well matched to investors and founders looking to make big returns. The primary value is making public works, utilities, etc. lean, efficient.

It's also not well matched to proprietary software houses, who may well deliver great solutions, but at high margins and with closed and often expensive dependencies. Their solutions could be a bust too.

It's high risk.

Oregon vs Oracle comes to mind.

This kind of thing is well matched to a non profit type effort, or foundation and could easily be seen as a public work, of benefit to everyone, in that taxes, the cost of running the basics in society would be reduced for everyone.

Cheaper, efficient government basically.

Redirect the savings into things like potholes, schools, health care maybe.

With these kinds of resources, or even a modest fraction, a whole lot of good can be done.

Pair developers with domain experts and legislators, city council people and solve some problems. Each solution woukd likely displace closed, expensive software and doing that would be a public good where it's most needed.

While doing this would not make the Microsofts, Oracles of the world happy, it would mean a lot of people get to make a great living, and we all see the benefit of a more lean, efficient use of taxes actually adding value instead of mostly cost to our lives.

<comment><USER2> Governments mandating OS code and ownership by the people could go a long way.

Thanks was a great story. Thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER4> The mandating of open code is a major league sticking point.

I think personally, mandating open data is probably easier, and could be successful.

Industry lobbies will beat that open code mandate back hard. And I'm not sure we can win on that basis even today. Open data however, is a no-brainer.

I think the real answer is to just compete. If one of these projects were started, using the model that I put in my other comment, it would compete very well. I don't think it's even really a contest. And from there the savings and the economic forces would push it where it needs to go.

That would set the market opposition to the side, where it really should be. It may well be that closed proprietary solutions really are the best, and this would be one way to find that out, and find out where it's appropriate and where it's not. That's a big win for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Linux Foundation is a corporate PR joke. Even Oracle, slayer of FLOSS projects for decades, and vmware, violating the GPL for the Linux kernel for years with ESX, are 'platinum members'[1].

At this point, any membership in this 'foundation' should be viewed a shallow attempt at marketing.

1\. [https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/](https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/)

<comment><USER6> The Linux Foundation _does_ do some pretty useful work. For instance, iirc, they facilitate much of the work on Let's Encrypt.

<comment><USER5> AFAIK, they provide only administrative support (payroll, HR, etc). That's not really "much of" the work on Let's Encrypt.

There's a whole lot of other facilitating not included in that.. like infrastructure (hosting, development, test), management, technical support, etc.

<comment><USER7> I think it's important to not underestimate the amount of time and effort that goes into the non-technical side of any organization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's funny and sad how Linux Foundation gets all the attention from these corporations, when GNU/FSF have been just as (or more) enabling for their success (ignoring Android for a moment).

Imagine what GNU could do if they had just a fraction of the donations LF receives. Perhaps we could finally get good, affordable hardware that respects our freedoms.

Misunderstand me right, Linux Foundation does great work and deserve the success, but they likely would not exist if it wasn't for the FSF.

<comment><USER9> _Imagine what GNU could do if they had just a fraction of the donations LF receives._

Publish more rants telling people to stop using all software and services they enjoy? Fork already-free software to be more free? Rewrite popular BSD- licensed software as GPLv3?

 _Perhaps we could finally get good, affordable hardware that respects our freedoms._

The way to get freedom-respecting hardware is to build something 80% free, then invest the profits into a second generation that's 90% free, then 95%, etc. Companies like Purism are doing this but the FSF isn't willing to compromise so they make no progress.

<comment><USER10> >Rewrite popular BSD-licensed software as GPLv3?

What do they rewrite? To the best of my knowledge, they have no problem _using_ BSD licensed software, they just won't _develop_ BSD license software[1] (mostly, though they do approve it here and there for new projects).

[1]. More accurately, they won't approve it for _new_ projects. But the projects are fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I read things like this, it makes appreciate OpenBSD (and the rest of projects under the OpenBSD Foundation) even more, considering how it is still actively and fearlessly maintained by few individuals (less than 40), motivated mainly by their own enthusiast and passion, investing their own time and money on it, just for the purpose of producing a bloat-free OS focused on security and correctness, that can rival GNU/Linux in terms of performance.

<comment><USER12> Um... How do the 40+ OpenBSD make living? I first thought donations to FreeBSD were already tiny compared to Linux, and then OpenBSD seems to be even smaller.

I am amazed at how the BSD community continue to survive when Linux has literally suck out all the OS OS development fundings.

<comment><USER11> FreeBSD's kernel offers better performance (on the server) compared to Linux, and the licensing model makes it more attractive to some industries. Whatsapp (server side), Netflix, and the internals of PS3/4 all use FreeBSD code. OpenBSD is actively used in networks, as a firewall (where iptables from Linux is a mess) and other security oriented aspects where stability is also crucial. Linux is popular because it became available to users first than the others back in the 90s, OpenBSD's contributors, on the contrary, are comfortable on not implementing overengineered "features" with the sole purpose on keeping the source clean, stable, and with as less bugs as possible, as a UNIX system should be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I may be cynical, but I'll make a bet that there's a big Fuchsia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia)) announcement on the horizon and Google wants to have some evidence to point to that shows they still care about Linux to combat the inevitable "Google is abandoning Linux" FUD/headlines.

<comment><USER14> To add to the cynicism... Maybe Linux Foundation will host that as one of their Collaborative Projects? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Seems like a ridiculously low amount of money from the world's largest company. Doesn't Linux power their entire business?

<comment><USER16> They also contributed a lot of work to the linux kernel like initial support for containers with cgroups in 2006-2007.

<comment><USER17> I've a rule: don't consider "give back" to the community things that are strictly aligned to what you need. Google contributes a lot to the Linux kernel by other means as well, but the work to the containers was strategic for them. To really provide something back is to give $$$ or work to just make a project better regardless of your end goals. Otherwise it's great that you are doing it as OSS, but I would not consider it a "give back" from what you got.

<comment><USER18> Meh. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing. If everyone benefits from their additions, it's immaterial to me what the intent of those additions were.

<comment><USER19> And even then is it "the wrong reasons"? Surely most third party contributions to the Linux core are from people that need a feature or support for a specific use case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have a mixed view about this. On one hand I'm happy to see money going back to open source, but then I'm not sure those foundations are a good thing at the end of the day.

They bring politics, ego, and other undesired side-effects to open source. I saw that happening for a lot of projects that were very well self-managed until they grew to become part of a foundation, with all the politics that come with it.

<comment><USER21> IMO, politics are an unfortunate result of any kind of growth. Even self- managed organizations become political when they scale up -- it's just the nature of society.

I think the best organizations are the ones that actively manage their political complexity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> 500k lol that's peanuts. That's basically what they spend yearly on a good engineer.

<comment><USER23> keep in mind they also pay engineer salaries to work on stuff that gets contributed back to the kernel (and other projects). of course that's with a healthy dose of self interest, but this 500k isn't the real bottom line

<comment><USER24> Indeed Google has hundreds of engineers dedicated to kernel projects, not just people who are allowed to dabble in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I'm glad that they're increasing their donation (and donating at all), I'm surprised it's only to $0.5 million per year for a company as big, profitable, and Linux-dependent as Google is. Though I suppose they also donate labor, which might not be quantified publicly.

<comment><USER26> I've been thinking about it as well and came to an idea that excessive donation can be damning to the recipient. Tougher constraints keep you sharper.

<comment><USER27> That's true, but there's so much open source around and so many critical projects are developed on a shoestring or by time-pressed volunteers. We learned the consequences that hard way with OpenSSL (and at least partially mitigated them since).

An excessive donation could pay for some needed but more workmanlike development, like better open source drivers (or hardware reverse-engineering to create them).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Tencent became a platinum member a mere three days ago: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/24/tencent-increases-its- focu...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/24/tencent-increases-its-focus-on- open-source/)

I wonder if that may have prompted Google to up it's place on the list. Regardless, more money to open source is a good thing.

<comment><USER29> I dont think you drop half a million dollars because a news article came out. My guess is this was in the works for a while, carefully assessing impact, risks and potential reactions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Does the Linux Foundation really help Linux and _software libre_? If so, in what ways?

</comment><comment><USER31> Everybody talking about money here, more important is the choice who will join the foundation. A precious position in your hand as employer.

</comment><comment><USER32> Just a bit below two mid level developer salaries at Google.

</comment><comment><USER33> Is that enough to make the best Linux desktop ever?

<comment><USER34> Google already did that twice. Android and ChromeOS.

<comment><USER35> Best, not worst

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The title should read Google bought a seat at Linux Foundation board of directors for $500k.

<comment><USER37> Microsoft bought their seat sometime ago. That's how they got LF's public endorsement for buying GitHub.

<comment><USER38> Is that relevant to the comment you replied to?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> $500k per is a rounding error for Google. Why didn't they do this earlier?

</comment><comment><USER40> Meanwhile, IBM has poured Billions with a capital B to turn Linux from a hobbyist me-too to a top-tier OS.

<comment><USER41> Pretty sure Linux was great before IBM was pouring jack shit into it

<comment><USER42> It was being used in a lot of Internet infrastructure but IBM investments (and marketing) are what really sent a message that enterprises could safely start using it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Startup outside the US - <AUTHOR> Hello,<p>I'm in the process of starting a startup, but I'm outside the US. Does it make sense to go through ycombinator.com or should I choose some other entity? I'm not sure if I want to be incorporated in the US. <comment><USER2> You need to decide for yourself if the hassle in incorporating in the US is worth it and also if there are other reasons for doing so.

Like you, I am based outside of the US. I'm currently in the UK and yet, I am incorporating in the US.

The five reasons for this are :-

1) 99% of my customers are there.

2) 100% of my vendors are there.

3) Potential investors are there.

4) 99% of my financial transactions are in dollars.

5) My Bank is in the US and no currency conversions eroding profits.

Of course, some will say why don't I go to London and seek out investment? I have looked into this:

1) The mindset of a UK investor is vastly different than that of a US investor.

2) They sum of monies for potential investment is greater for a US investor and so is the level of risk. The sum of equity is greater for the UK investor.

3) The US investor has many more connections than the UK investor.

4) The US investor has made many more bets than the UK investor and therefore has much better advice going forward.

I could go on... But there is 0% chance that I will be starting up in the UK.

Here's what I have found so far:

US | YC - $120k in return for 7% of the company's equity.

London | Bethnal Green Ventures - £15,000 in exchange for 6%.

London | Founders Factory - £30k for around 7%.

London | IGNITE 100 - £17,000 in return for 8%.

London | Oxygen Accelerator - £20,000 for 8%.

There's probably more, but I doubt you'll get to YC levels of funding and influence in London.

If someone knows where I could get a better deal on funding, equity and terms. I'd love to know!

What I am doing, is bootstrapping until I'm ready to onboard an investor.

I can't really offer you advise, as I don't know your full situation. But hopefully what I have found offers some insight!

<comment><USER3> Nice summary. As a German running a company in the UK, I'm also thinking about a US based corp using Atlas from Stripe.

May I ask in which sector you're working, goods or services?

How do you feel about the hassle that comes with an US based corp compared to the ease of a UK one?

<comment><USER2> > I'm also thinking about a US based corp using Atlas from Stripe.

I was thinking of Stripe as well, but unfortunately they don't support LLCs as yet. Which means I'll be doing all the leg-work myself.

I will be noting down all my steps and will one day blog about my whole startup experience.

That said, since stripe now works with US based companies. I may apply when they do roll-out LLC support so then I can get some of the benefits. That is of course, if they'll have me!

> May I ask in which sector you're working, goods or services?

I'm launching a SaaS very very soon. It's actually ready now, but I'm still not happy with certain aspects.

> How do you feel about the hassle that comes with an US based corp compared > to the ease of a UK one?

I have held LTDs in the UK in the past. It was trivial to incorporate with a 3rd party service and then retain the services of an accountant to deal with HMRC.

I have this same view for the LLC. The only issue I have so far, is dealing with long distance calls. Some vendors are happy to talk on Skype which is great. But the majority always want you to call them.

In addition, I have dealt with lawyers, accountants, opened and closed businesses and bank accounts before, all in different countries, the US, UK and EU. I am not too worried about whatever the process will throw at me. My mindset is, if something happens. Just deal with it and move on. No point worrying about it.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the in-depth reply!

> That is of course, if they'll have me!

Go ahead and apply. You don't have to actually purchase the company, just because you applied. We already got accepted and can now go ahead, if we want to, at any point. Also, I don't think they are too picky. We got accepted within 2 business days.

> I have this same view for the LLC. The only issue I have so far, is dealing > with long distance calls. Some vendors are happy to talk on Skype which is > great. But the majority always want you to call them.

Yeah makes sense since most of your customers are US based. Good point, didn't think about that.

My first concerns were more towards dealing with lawyers, accountants and potential lawsuits as well as taxes in the US. Lawsuits are way more common their and taxes are quite complex due to federal/state/city laws, compared to the kindergarden-level flat tax in the UK... But yeah, I guess that's why people have accountants.

> My mindset is, if something happens. Just deal with it and move on. No point > worrying about it.

That sounds quite british :) Good luck then! Do you have a blog already, so I can subscribe or something, to see the post once you release it?

<comment><USER4> > Yeah makes sense since most of your customers are US based. Good point, > didn't think about that.

Skype allows to buy US phone number and will receive incoming calls to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Apply first. You don't have a decision to make until you've been accepted.

<comment><USER6> I disagree. I think you should be sure to want it, if you apply. Otherwise it is half-hearted.

<comment><USER7> Your chances of getting an interview or acceptance are so slim, you have nothing to lose by applying and thinking through the application process could help clarify parts of your business.

Think of YC as a customer, as all investors are. You're selling them the investment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We are outside the US, but incorporated in Delaware, without even going to the US. We did that to keep our options open in case of raising, but we are slowly becoming more and more against raising. Anyways, it was cheap enough (~$700) and now with Stripe Atlas its even easier/cheaper.

It really depends on your idea, where your customers are and the way you want to execute. In our case we were lucky enough to have had some government grants from various countries, gone through some accelerators and now we are trying to organically grow.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER9> SV is _undesirable_ for visas, general overheads, regulation in some sectors, and segments like hardware. Basically YC seems to be optimized for software- focused startups within 3 months of market seeking SV, US or at least English speaking investors, usually with a US initial market.

For hardware startups I can strongly recommend considering HK/Shenzhen, as I can personally attest that sourcing, consulting, manufacturing, and capital are readily and cost-effectively available.

</comment><comment><USER10> There are a number of good programmes in many countries, from the usual suspects (London, Stockholm etc), to places that could surprise you (take a look at Bulgaria, for example).

</comment><comment><USER11> If you can be selected to YC, it almost definitely makes sense. The important question is, will you be able to go through it whether than it makes sense or not.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why do you want to start a startup? What will a startup do for you? Are you working on something besides starting a startup?

Without these answers I'm affraid we can't really provide any valuable insights for you.

</comment><comment><USER13> Growing a business takes money. Silicon Valley is (for now) where the most money is. It makes sense from that perspective.

Good luck with your venture:)

<comment><USER14> Although if he is bootstrapping the MVP, maybe he can bootstrap it all. 100% beats the investor treadmill in some ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Related question: How do taxes work for companies which are incorporated in US and operate in a second country ?

<comment><USER16> Can you clarify the meaning of "operate?" Do you mean operate or is being managed?

If you mean "operate," then there isn't really much to add. If you are performing some sort of SaaS (like Netflix), the US company will pay tax on worldwide profits. The other jurisdiction may assess a withholding tax, but in practice it is difficult to collect it from consumers. If you have people selling things in another country and concluding contracts, you may have a permanent establishment in that other country and be required to file branch financial statements and pay tax thereon.

If you mean "managed from a second country," things get more complex. If the "mind and management" of the company is in another country, that country will probably take a position that the US company is subject to the local tax laws. For example, if you are a Canadian that owns a US company or corporation and you control it from Canada, then Canada will deem that company or corporation to be a tax resident and you must file a Canadian corporate tax return in addition to all your US filings. You will need to look at the US-Canada Tax Treaty carefully to see how this plays out. In particular, the tie-breaker rules and anti-avoidance rules.

I'm a tax practitioner. I shudder when I see how many people are opening US companies without looking at their home country rules. Before you consider opening a US company, ask yourself:

(1) What is my foreign affiliate disclosure requirements?

(2) Will my US company be liable for tax in my home country? Will my US company be a tax resident in my home country?

(3) What are the residency rules and tie-breakers under my country's tax treaty with the United States? (If you don't have a treaty, it should light up as a red flag.)

(4) Do I have a budget to pay for local tax advice and compliance, and US tax advice and compliance, each year?

Tax is not simple!

<comment><USER15> > Can you clarify the meaning of "operate?"

Thank you _soloadvnturer_

I had in mind YC companies. They are required as a matter of procedure to incorporate in the US before funding is released.

I always had a nagging suspicion it is a more complex issue than meets the eye.

In many cases these companies (operating in markets outside the US)also frequently incorporate in their home countries (which host their target markets) eg India, South-Africa, Nigeria as the case may be

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Have you gotten any feedback from anyone who has honestly met their definition of successful?</comment>


Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/24/half-the-facts-you-know-are-probably-wro <comment><USER3> I'd peg it at over 90%, depending on how your define terms.

One of the difficult parts of being a teenager and young adult is that you learn the rhythm and gist of how things operate without actually learning how they operate. This is one of the reasons "being cool" is such a big deal at that age -- the idea is to learn to mimic and fit in with the rest of how society works, not actually to be able to manipulate it. Faking it is much more important than actually doing it. That's what everybody else is doing anyway.

Somewhere in your 30s or 40s (perhaps sooner or later) you realize that much of life is like that: you don't really understand how a car works, only that most of the time you can get in it and go places. When it doesn't work, you take it to another person. She may also not understand what's wrong. But most all of the time she does. If she doesn't, she takes it to another person, and so on. You keep getting closer and closer to total understanding but you never reach 100%. That same pattern applies to medicine, advanced physics, and most everything else. When there's a billion areas of knowledge, even 99% knowledge leaves a helluva lot of holes. There's this surface layer of generalities and half-truths that work so often that it's just not worth diving down into the details on everything else.

On top of that, other people are very happy to share their own generalizations and heuristics, so we're kind of operating in a rumor-of-a-rumor mode. The vast majority of the time it doesn't matter, but sometimes, like when you ask questions about how startups work and most of your surrounding culture gives you bad answers, it does. Most of life isn't a geometric proof built on the linear progress of science; it's a bunch of heuristics strewn together to make something practical that you can use.

What we "know" is a product of generalizations and communications about half- truths from the environment we're in. This is one reason why it's so critical to spend a lot of time challenging the things you think you know, especially in areas that make a big difference to you personally. It also means that you must accept a deep and abiding peacefulness in not knowing very much at all about most of the stuff you actually work with in your day-to-day life.

<comment><USER4> >You don't really understand how a car works, only that most of the time you can get in it and go places. When it doesn't work, you take it to another person. She may also not understand what's wrong.

Oh, please! "She"? Let's all ruin the flow of our prose in an attempt at social engineering that probably isn't even worthwhile, shall we? I suppose you didn't bat an eyelash at Denzel Washington as savant pilot Whip Whitaker either.

<comment><USER5> If the parent had used "he", would you be complaining?

<comment><USER6> No, because like it or not, "he" is the de facto pronoun for a person of irrelevant gender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article says:

 _In 2005, the physician and statistician John Ioannides published "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in the journal PLoS Medicine. Ioannides cataloged the flaws of much biomedical research, pointing out that reported studies are less likely to be true when they are small, the postulated effect is likely to be weak, research designs and endpoints are flexible, financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest are common, and competition in the field is fierce. Ioannides concluded that "for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."_

If Ioannidis' findings apply to areas of science other than biomedical research (where there is also competition, pressure to publish, conflict of interest, etc.), then most scientific knowledge is already false at the time that it's published; you don't have to wait 45 years for it to become false like this article claims.

Here are some references to Ioannidis' work:

\- The cited PLoS paper (2005): [http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

\- A less technical article in The Atlantic: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" (2010): [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies- dam...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies- and-medical-science/308269)

Edit: Corrected spelling of Ioannidis' name; it's misspelled in the article.

</comment><comment><USER8> The scientific method and the community of science that surrounds it is truly a powerful machine - able to take the worst aspects of human nature, sailing atop a river of garbage specked with half-wrong answers, and spin that mix into the gold of technology. It doesn't matter what your right to wrong to nonsense ratio is when it comes to deciphering the world; so long as you have the will to progress and your sifting mechanism is good enough, accumulating a whole pile of right is just a matter of time.

The front line of science is a messy place; a mostly wrong messy place, as any of us who have spent time there know. A recent study claimed massive error rates across all scientific papers - which is not a surprise to scientists. The closer to the edge of knowledge you come, the more wrong you'll find - <USER2> great frothing sea of wrong, enthusiastically generated by scientists in search of nuggets of right. It's all part of the process, and you have to step back from the details in order to see where the process is taking you. In any complex field, and biotechnology and medicine are about as complex is it gets outside astrophysics, validating truth takes time. Scratch any unanswered question and it'll bleed papers and reviews, a dozen for any given position on the topic.

<comment><USER9> > The front line of science is a messy place; a mostly wrong messy place

Reading the article, the most interesting aspect was the concept of a "half- life" of knowledge. This, of course, applies not just to the front lines, but also to the rear guard.

By definition, a new idea that proves to work well obsoletes an old one that didn't work quite as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _"In the past half-century, all of the foregoing facts have turned out to be > wrong.... As facts are made and remade with increasing speed, Arbesman is > worried that most of us don't keep up to date."_

It can take a lot longer than a half-century to catch up.

For example, it's surprising how often I hear people talk about "exponential" population growth, which was the going theory in 1798 [0] but known to be inaccurate by 1838 [1]. I hear similarly out-of-date comments on topics ranging from evolution to Bible manuscripts with shocking regularity.

People sometimes learn "facts" from trusted friends or preferred authority figures, who learned them the same way, going back generations without anybody thinking to double-check. I suspect the emotional cost of finding out a friend was wrong provides just enough friction to keep people from looking things up, even in a world with wikipedia and snopes at our fingertips.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Po...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_m...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_modeling_population_growth)

<comment><USER11> To be fair, a lot of laypeople use "exponential" to mean superlinear. Not to mention that the "logistic function" you cited is essentially exponential until it hits saturation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> My first foray into science was working in a lab at NASA on an internship. The scientist I was working with came up with a hypothesis and instead of testing it in a scientific way, simply disregarded the information that didn't agree with her thesis and used the information that did. I'm obviously not saying all scientists do this, but the way she did it, and the complete lack of self awareness for what she was doing make me feel like it happens fairly often.

I also feel like its a pretty good analogue for modern life. People seem less willing to discover the truth than they are to use facts that support the point they want to make while ignoring the inconvenient parts of the facts.

<comment><USER13> I think the way the scientific method is generally presented does not really accurately represent how science is really done. It's true that there are many scientists who more or less follow the scientific method to the letter. But I think it's more common that scientists individually don't follow the scientific method terribly closely. It's only scientists _collectively_ that follow the scientific method.

One scientist might come up with a hypothesis, never test it, but nevertheless believe it devoutly. But science progresses because _other_ scientists are sceptical and test the hypothesis.

It's in the first scientist's self-interest that the hypothesis is proven true, but it's generally more in other scientists' self-interest to prove the hypothesis false.

Some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century closed their eyes to overwhelming evidence that their pet hypothesis was wrong. One of the classic examples was Geoffrey Burbidge (known best for showing that the heavy elements were created in stars and released into the universe in supernovae) who believed until the day he died that quasars were galactic objects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Most of the DNA in the human genome is junk

This topic is still very controversial and I don't think the article should be citing it in this context.

It was only a few months ago that the ENCODE project released its first results claiming that 80% of the genome is "functional", and many scientists have noted that their definition of "functional" is much too broad. It includes any piece of DNA that becomes bound to protein at some time, while it is known that many proteins bind nonspecifically.

<comment><USER15> Yup. Most of the DNA is not directly involved in coding proteins but we've been finding out more and more of how DNA works. Significant parts of DNA are there merely to help maintain chemical and solubility properties so that the DNA coils correctly. And far more of it is there for gene regulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A counterpoint - The Relativity of Wrong, famous essay by Asimov. <http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm>

</comment><comment><USER17> An interesting BBC Radio Four programme about this kind of stuff specifically about the mind / brain: (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016wzs9>)

I'm cautious about children. I've seen plenty of boys learn a long list of (for example) dinosaur names. Is this something I should try to avoid with my son, or should I encourage it, or should I just remain neutral? I have no idea.

I do know that I want to encourage him to think about relationships between things, rather than just learning a list of names. (For example; "That tree is evergreen, which means it keeps its leaves all year round. It does that because [...]" rather than "That's a Leylandii".

<comment><USER18> > I do know that I want to encourage him to think about relationships between > things, rather than just learning a list of names. (For example; "That tree > is evergreen, which means it keeps its leaves all year round. It does that > because [...]" rather than "That's a Leylandii".

I don't suppose there's any harm in loading your children up with trivial knowledge, but I would certainly put more effort into teaching them thinking skills than specific knowledge.

These days, if you have the necessary thinking skills, the sum of human knowledge is within reaching distance. If you know how to research a subject, how to corroborate and verify the veracity of positive claims and theories presented to you, you can find out pretty much everything about anything in a matter of minutes.

I suppose it's the old "give a man a fish" adage applied to knowledge.

<comment><USER19> "I don't suppose there's any harm in loading your children up with trivial knowledge, but I would certainly put more effort into teaching them thinking skills than specific knowledge."

I find that kids are like sponges for details like names. They'll soak them up whether you're teaching them intentionally or not. Or if you're trying to get your kid to learn animals or stars or whatever, they'll be memorizing scores of baseball statistics, or Pokemon, or airplanes.

Teach thinking skills; the trivia will take care of itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was telling somebody my theory on this the other day, and I thought I might share it here.

Basically information is power. Due to informational asymmetry[1] being exploitable via economic, political and other forms of power, it is almost always in somebody else's interest that you be misinformed.

Therefore the person with the most to lose (and the person with the best interest in being informed) is you. And instead of seeking out the forms of information that empower us, we fritter away our attentions on trivialities and pop culture (yes, including programming pop culture). A good example of a prophet who tries to steer us programmers the right way is Kalzumeus, imho.

Part of the reason we fritter away our time is that it is simply easier to consume the mass-delusion, because the search for truth can be fairly lonesome (since you are the only interested party).

Under the circumstances outlined above, it is no wonder that most of what we believe may be false, and part of a larger (self-bootstrapping) conspiracy to keep us in the dark (cue ominous music, break out the tin-foil hats).

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

</comment><comment><USER21> I try to keep the question "What do you know, and how do you think you know it?" in my head as much as possible (I think I picked it up from Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality). I mentally recite it a lot, often without really thinking about it. Every once in a while, though, the thought catches me as I'm recalling some long-known fact, and I'll realize that I don't have a good reason to believe it. Many of these are things I was told long ago by friends/parents/family/teachers and stored away, their sources forgotten. The maxim has proved useful in unlearning things I was too young to disbelieve when I learned them.

<comment><USER22> I know its good to have a healthy self doubt but this makes dumb people look more confident (who don't revise their facts) than the smart people who are too cautious with their knowledge. This is the reasons most dumb people end up being the boss of the smart people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Obligatory xkcd(s):

<http://xkcd.com/843/> (Misconceptions)

<http://xkcd.com/1053/> (Ten Thousand)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions> (The link referred to in 'Misconceptions')

EDIT: Darnit.

<comment><USER24> Your links are swapped!

Is that a typo or humor about facts being wrong?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Now I know that half the facts I know are probably wrong. But which half is _that_ fact in?

<comment><USER26> That reminds me of the old joke about medical school: half the things you learn are wrong, and half you forget - you just have to hope it's the same half.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a naive view, with inaccuracies in at least one of the "facts" it claims to be wrong. It's what I would call a level 2 grad student view. Level 1 - you believe every research article you read and everything your advisors tell you, and you glom onto one area or viewpoint in particular without considering alternatives. Level 2 - you reject everything that isn't in line with your viewpoint. I've seen professors stuck at level 1 and 2. Level 3 - you start to see what's 'right' and 'wrong' (and more useful or less useful) about everything you learn.

Consider this "fact" from the article, which has no citation whatsoever:

"Increased K-12 spending and lower pupil/teacher ratios boost public school student outcomes."

Which the author claims is "wrong."

Actually the evidence suggests that it is right, although the effect of class size alone may be small. And it is not just a matter of how much an effect reducing class size has on learning, but also in what circumstances and to what extent. And even with these "facts", it doesn't mean that big classes are inherently always "bad" and useless - MOOCs are still quite useful even though 90% of students don't finish them. And large class lectures actually could be made more effective if given after (not before) a lab or other interactive learning activity. But a wealth of research has showed how one on one tutoring is generally the most effective method of teaching (which also directly contradicts the author's assertion that reducing class size has no effect).

[http://www.districtadministration.com/article/does-class- siz...](http://www.districtadministration.com/article/does-class-size-really- matter) [http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/-issues-in- education/class-...](http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/-issues-in- education/class-size?start=4)

</comment><comment><USER28> Half of the facts are wrong may be a little steep. Do we breathe air? Does it contain oxygen? I'm sure some enthusiast will give me the composition of air (inc some stat on nitrogen:). There are many trivial facts that we know with confidence.

However, in a recent conversation with my mother, I asked her about a talking donkey in the bible. she confirmed the reference saying "the lord works in mysterious ways" and "donkeys could talk back then". Maybe there is some truth that 1/2 of our facts are wrong... If you skip religion, I view my mother as a very clever woman who is very astute with business. She was indoctrinated at a young age.

<comment><USER29> Religion is everywhere, even where it is specifically disclaimed (see also: The Singularity).

We're hardwired for it.

<comment><USER30> Are you claiming that the idea that AI will eventually be smarter than humans and thus render human work mostly useless, a religious idea?

<comment><USER31> I'm not the OP, but: Yes.

And on top of that I'm claiming that the singularity will never happen.

We have incredibly fast computers with enormous amounts of memory, yet are no closer to AI.

And even given infinite computing power, we still wouldn't have AI, so the race for computing power is a red herring. (It's not like we know how to do it, but the computers are not powerful enough - we don't have the slightest clue how make AI.)

(I define AI as the ability to learn any topic at all with unstructured instruction - like reading a book, or being told verbally. Additionally after learning the material an AI must be able to invent and synthesize new material from the old.)

And on top of that computers aren't getting any faster, that's basically stopped. (Although if AI is parallelizable it might not matter.)

<comment><USER32> > We have incredibly fast computers with enormous amounts of memory, yet are > no closer to AI.

Supercomputers today are the equivalent of a tractor - they do simple things that people can do but at a greater scale. Nobody ever looked at the first tractor and claimed it was a step towards better AI, and nor should they when they look at supercomputers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Please, please don't listen to this article! The author is far worse than the processes he is demeaning. This article gives no reason whatsoever to believe the title. The main argument seems to be "we learn lots of new things, therefore most of what you previously learned is wrong." This has numerous and obvious problems. We can easily be learning new facts about things that were previously not considered or not known. Most facts that humans know are not scientific facts but rather personal. The large majority of people don't know very much about recent experimental results and only hear about ones after they have been so long and well-established that there is little chance they are significantly wrong. A fact can be 'wrong' while still being nearly right. That the list of ten largest cities in the US has changed just means that the person only knew the list of ten largest cities at the time that they learned it.

If 'half of our facts were wrong' is taken at face value, then our truth- determining process is no better than flipping a coin. Do you think we could engineer bridges, build computers, get to the moon, sequence the human genome, or write software if every time we didn't know something we just asked it as a yes-no question and flipped a coin?

So as much as I want to support skepticism and free-thinking or whatever this article is aiming at, this article is wrong and bad. I have the means to go out and determine true facts and I do this routinely.

</comment><comment><USER34> The problem is the word "fact". Somehow this is now perceived as an eternal truth, rather than a statement which is true right now, but might change soon.

Some of the examples point this out nicely, let's take the 10 biggest cities in the US. Isn't it obvious that this "fact" only works with a timestamp attached to it? The 10 biggest cities in 1990?

Maybe this is more about the language in science, textbooks and science journalism. A little more precision would make the real facts stand out better.

</comment><comment><USER35> Re: The title: Not for me, baby. I haven't many "facts", and most of those are math or avowed articles of faith. I learned a long time ago to replace "is" with "I have read that" or "I have heard". My opinions are wrong all the time -- but not for long.

</comment><comment><USER19> Several of these are things that were the good-faith best effort at the time based on available knowledge and/or technology. (DNA, cold-blooded dinosaurs, star size limits, etc).

I don't much like the depiction of scientific knowledge as "manufactured facts".

</comment><comment><USER36> Complete fantasy tangent here but ...

Its amazing to me how much effort we as human beings put into memorizing and retaining 'factual' knowledge like this. Can you imagine how far we could go if all this knowledge could literally be loaded into our brains at an early age so that instead of basic arithmetic (for example) kids in elementary were already doing quantum physics and things of that nature.

I know its far far away, but it really really fascinates me to think of the implications of just doing away with having to relearn "learned" things so that we could devote energies to far more advanced topics.

<comment><USER37> Assuming that the act of learning doesn't 'grow' the brain in a meaningful way as part of the process. I think that's probably an assumption too far though.

<comment><USER38> When you learn, the myelin between the relevant neurons increases. The Talent Code discusses this at length, and argues that skill in something is a function of myelin strength.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> >> Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong

Now to which half does this fact belong?

</comment><comment><USER40> Then article speaks about the half life of truth, but that is really just how long it takes us to find out it was never true in the first place. But even that is assuming that in 100 more years we don't find out it was actually correct. We need to make a distinction between truth that becomes outdated and facts that were never true in the first place. So what percentage of current scientific conclusions are likely to be wrong?

</comment><comment><USER19> Given the source, I can't help but suspect there's an underlying desire to willfully misunderstand how science works in order to dismiss all research that could be used to support or justify regulation.

Hey, you never know, maybe in ten years we'll find out tobacco use _doesn't_ cause cancer. Better remove all the restrictions that have been placed on tobacco until we're _certain_.

<comment><USER13> I would agree that having a healthy scepticism of those in authority is a very fundamental part of libertarian philosophy. But if you find the author's political inclinations objectionable you can read the original book by Samuel Arbesman that Ronald Bailey based his article on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> We are wrong more often than we are right, but the scientific method has proven itself a powerful error-correction tool.

</comment><comment><USER42> > Arbesman notes that "the number of neurons that can be recorded > simultaneously has been growing exponentially, with a doubling time of about > seven and a half years." This suggests that brain/computer linkages will one > day be possible.

What?

<comment><USER19> Current brain-computer interfaces have 96 needle-like electrodes, so can interface with 96 neurons. That produces an enormous amount of data at the sampling rates used, but is already being used for things like controlling robot arms.

In 7.5 years, perhaps it'll be up to 192 neurons, if the connected computers and processors can keep up with the data flow.

7.5 years after that, maybe it'll be up to 384. Etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> These days, QI is my favourite TV show for exactly these reasons.

[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=qi&page=&...](http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=qi&page=&utm_source=opensearch)

</comment><comment><USER44> I guess I have a small problem with this use of the word "fact" which to me is something provably true. What this piece is actually saying is that half of scientific theory is probably wrong.

<comment><USER7> Only in mathematics are things _provably_ true. In science, things are considered true based on the best theories and experimental evidence we have so far, and our observational abilities increase as technology gets better over time. For example, Newtonian mechanics was considered "true" for centuries, until it was replaced by relativistic mechanics. In the 18th century, we just didn't have the equipment to measure phenomena at quantum scales; now we do. As we observe the world in greater detail, we find that things that seemed to be true before are now false. That's the best that science can do.

<comment><USER45> Actually, I'd say that in mathematics, things are provably true given that the initial assumptions are true. However, mathematics does not so far as I know deal with the truth of those initial assumptions (axioms), it simply accepts them as true.

Where this gets interesting is that you can say, what if this axiom was not true? Let's assume it's not. And then possibly come up with a whole new system of mathematics (like non-euclidean geometry) which may turn out to have actual use in previously unsolvable problems.

<comment><USER10> I think it's better to conceive of mathematical axioms as being part of mathematical system X or not, rather than as true or false. That is, they're not self-evident or universal or true according to some external standard, they're merely postulated as properties of a given mathematical structure.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Non-logical_axioms>

<comment><USER45> That's seems like a useful understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Including this one.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's not that widely held bogus views turn out to be wrong by accident or from some congenital defect in human reasoning.

Issac Newton's physics, while not applying to all possible contexts, still holds as correct over a vast range, and that's because it's properly identifying an aspect of Nature's behavior, and it did so due to Newton's extreme methodological diligence. Some of these other "facts" that get overturned likely did not adhere to Newton's Rules of Reasoning, or had some other flaw that led people to jump to conclusions prematurely.

Of course, it's exceedingly unpopular to point out that we should learn why we make mistakes and then strive to not make them by scrutinizing the source of the error and adopting better methods. Most people are amenable to having their mistakes pointed out, but are extremely offended if you try to point out that the way they are arriving at conclusions is mistaken. It's as if most people don't want to believe that yes, there is a difference between wisdom and foolishness, and instead want to believe that the highest form of foolishness is in fact to believe in wisdom.</comment>


Quality is Fractal, from restaurants to software.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.contrast.ie/blog/the-thickness-of-napkins/

<comment><USER2> This is a nice piece on aesthetics, right up to the last bit where it talks about technology and veers off the cliff.

The example simply makes no sense. In what way is a laptop with (gasp) modular panels and air vents (the horrors!) of lower quality than the apple thing? Modularity is good, it allows piecewise replacement of parts by untrained (or less trained) service personnel. Air vents are good, because they keep the CPU cool. Clean design is good too, because it makes people happy. What we have here is a collision of design goals, not a quality metric.

The author is trying to make a purely aesthetic point (Apple laptops look pretty) and extend it to one of hardware (and even software) quality. But that fails, because "quality" isn't always about aesthetics. It's about practical concerns. Maybe the Mac aesthetics are a net win, even at a $200 premium; maybe they're not. Maybe better ventilation is important; maybe it's not.

<comment><USER3> Many of the people who commented on the post called out the author for the Apple example as coming out of left field and not being relevant to an otherwise well thought out post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I worked as an Emergency Medical Technician I observed that nursing homes who regularly trim their residents' toenails are always of significantly higher quality.

</comment><comment><USER5> This account reminds me of a company manager who oversaw their external printing jobs. He would visit different printery/bindery operations, not your kinko's sized stuff, but large Lith-o-man type offset presses.

He said he had all different types of metrics he used when evaluating a potential vendor for his jobs. But what it usually all boiled down to was how clean was the press area.

If the presses and surrounding area were grimy and tools, supplies etc. were scattered about, he knew the jobs they did would most likely not meet his expectations.

If however the area was clean and the press operators keeps things in order, he could count on that vendor to produce a superior product.

<comment><USER6> But counter examples along those lines are plentiful. I remember reading a breathless writeup on a tour of a new VW plant. The cleanliness and spotless floors were apparently the main important factor there. Yet VW cars are well known in the industry as having serious quality issues with everything from blistering paint to the continuously faulty electrical systems of the New Beetle.

Here's a video of said plant. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5WGLWNllA>

If this dog-and-pony show was representative of VWs efforts to reach parity with the mechanical quality of say, the Honda Civic and Accord, then I would say this "quality is fractal" idea would have some merit. But even a cursory review of something as basic as mechanical reliability in consumer reports or on true delta shows VWs to regularly be just "meh" in terms of reliability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article follows a line of reasoning about quality which seems to lead to the conclusion, in part, that Apple makes superior products. My question is "compared to what?"

The conclusion is drawn based on the fallacious view that the properties optimized by Apple are universally important. Britney Spears may be hot and rich, but I wouldn't consider her a quality mate. She doesn't meet the minimum set of criteria I'm looking for. In the same vein, not all of Apple's products optimize on properties I care about (e.g. open source, full control of configuration, etc.). Lots of other people probably disagree on both counts, and that's okay.

The point is that while I agree quality is important, it's just as important to know what properties of a thing you're judging or optimizing, and why. This is especially true since the resources for producing anything are finite.

<comment><USER8> Seems to me that the only conclusion he comes to is that Apple makes quality products. Where does he imply that they're superior?

<comment><USER6> But he doesn't even come to that conclusion in a logical way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Gordon Ramsey, in his auto-biography, defended his obsessive perfectionist nature..."

 _Ramsay_! It's Gordon _Ramsay_!

<comment><USER10> So what can we say about bloggers who cannot get the names of the people they quote right?

<comment><USER11> Hilarious. The equivalent of someone putting "amazing attention to detial" on their resume.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since I'm hungry I want to talk about restaurants for a second.

You can usually tell quality restaurants by a signature dish more than their napkins.

For example, Pho places have to have good Pho. Pho is a touch dish to make requiring lots of detail to assemble complex ingredients in the right proportions over many hours. Good places are famous, bad places die.

Around where I live the best Pho place is "Pho 75". However, eating there is like eating at a cheap cafeteria. There's almost no decoration, everybody eats at long, fold-up tables like you might see at a middle school. They don't really have much of a menu and it's printed as cheaply as possible and then laminated so they don't have to print more. Napkins are the $2/1000 type you get at institutions, the silverware is so cheap it's possibly dangerous, and the chopsticks and soup spoons are made of heavy grade, dishwasher safe plastic. There's almost no service from the staff, they get your order and come back to drop off soup.

There are fancier places, with better napkins and silveware, tableclothes and expensive statues of dragons and such in the area. There's a few places that try to make Pho hip and trendy with modern lighting and fancy, custom interior decorator designed decors and fancy napkins.

But Pho 75 regularly beats them all. The line at lunch is always out the door (even in frigid weather), usually giving you about 10-15 minutes to actually eat the steaming bowl of soup. Yet from appearances to new people, it's a dive.

Anybody who's asked says they go to Pho 75 instead of some other place because of the quality of the soup. Not because of the napkins.

</comment><comment><USER12> Reminds me of the importance of a good product manager. So many big software shops develop product today on the "feature level". As a result, developers and "managers" lose sight of the customer's workflow. Understanding the product from entry to exit and seeing how all of the pieces fit together is critical to creating a good product.

</comment><comment><USER13> The basic observation is that, since all/most aspects of a system are likely to be of high or low quality, you can use the quality of any of them as s proxy metric for overall quality.

Note that this fails if the proxy metric becomes popular or standardised in any way, since those providing the systems will realise they can appear to be better by improving only that proxy metric.

</comment><comment><USER14> Abuse of language warning;

I can't see any connection between restaurant quality and the particular properties of _fractals_.

I mean, fractal properties appear in a situation such as when one section of the coast of England resembles (statistically) another section of the coast of England. I don't see the comfortable chair of a restaurant resembling the thick napkin or the delicious steak of the restaurant in such a fashion. They're just all product of a single, conscious plan - something fractals generally are _not_.

It's shame people know so little about mathematical process that "fractal" is the only analogy that's become popular enough to use. If people had a larger pallet of terms, they could perhaps use them more correctly. Restaurant quality and overall quality _is_ like a dynamic, feedback system. If only the author had known...

<comment><USER15> One of the defining characteristics of fractals is that they are _self similar_ , meaning that a small part is similar to a larger part, or to the whole. The authors argument is that there is a self similarity in the quality of restaurants, by looking at a small part (in this case the napkin) you can with a some certainty say what a larger part is like. Fractals don't have to be geometric patterns, in this case it's the quality that's self-similar. Fractals aren't pictures, they're a mathematical concept. In this case I think the analogy is a good one.

<comment><USER16> They're also non-Euclidean geometric shapes. So calling it fractal is ambiguous at best and requires you extract one element that makes a fractal. While there are times writing in such a way can be helpful, this is not one of those times. Instead, "Quality is consistent across levels" or even "Organizational quality is self-similar".

<comment><USER15> I didn't think fractals had to be geometric shapes, but Wikipedia seems to agree with you, so I stand corrected. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal>)

I still think the analogy is pretty good though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Putting the Fast in FastMail - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fastmail.com/2014/12/15/dec-15-putting-the-fast-in-fastmail-loading-your-mailbox-quickly/

<comment><USER2> I'm really loving the openness and detail in the blogposts of Fastmail. It's making me seriously consider switching to Fastmail, even though my current email solutions are free (legacy gapps domains).

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm so happy that I decided to move to Fastmail this year, definitely a great choice and it's awesome to see how passionate they are about their platform.</comment>


The Commodore 64 is the best selling computer ever - <AUTHOR> http://distrita.com/the-commodore-64-is-the-best-selling-home-computer-ever/ <comment><USER2> Actually the claim is the best selling "single model" computer ever as most other computers had more sales but didn't stick with the same features. Might be more IBM PCs out there but they were not compatible with each other like the C64...

Though I hear this might not be a thing anymore now due to the Rasberry Pi's popularity.</comment>