3D for the real world - <AUTHOR> http://matterport.com/

<comment><USER3> It doesn't look ready for consumers. The scans looks like lumps of clay. Shouldn't it look exactly like the spaces it scans ? Thats what scanners do. When I scan a document, it gives me pretty sharp copy. I wouldn't pay for scanner that give me very fuzzy copy of a document, at least i would not try to sell it until i perfect it.

<comment><USER4> When you scan a document, it produces a two-dimensional image. This is producing a traversable three dimensional space. It's a very different problem for so many reasons, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect the same fidelity in the result in the near future.

<comment><USER3> As a consumer I don't care how difficult it is for you to implement it. Its the harsh reality of the consumer market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am a little taken aback by their pricing strategy, or maybe I'm misunderstanding it.

If you purchase this, you have to pay (at least) $500 a year, for hosting, and $20 per scan, if you scan more than (say) 6 times in a month?

<comment><USER6> I too was confused but then I realised this isn't meant for fun hacky 3D-mapping. It's meant to sell stuff for the home and I think that's unfortunately going to limit the reach of this technology. The only third party type of business that might be able to make use of this is a real estate company for obvious reasons. I guess they have a public API that can pull the data but even then that requires somebody with the camera to upload your house.

I highly doubt IKEA or any other furniture store is going to bring their camera out to me just so I can then digitally place a few sofas and I'm not going to pay $500 just to... what... save me a trip to the returns department? If I bought it what happens when I'm done decorating? Does my camera become a useless $500 paperweight?

It's cool that they allow you to have an OBJ (UV maps and textures too?) - <USER2> assume that doesn't include whatever proprietary meta-data gets attached to denote walls, floors, et al. If I could get the mesh with just the camera I would buy one of these in a heartbeat but otherwise I don't see this being used by any consumer apart from the absurdly obsessive renovator.

<comment><USER5> Right? Except it's not a $500 paperweight. It's a $4,500 paperweight with an additional $500 a year overhead.

Depending on how effective Project Tango is, this technology might be short lived. Maybe there's some manual labor that has to happen on _their_ end before your files are ready? Otherwise I just don't understand the cost. Storage and bandwidth couldn't possibly cost $50/mo.

Sometimes I really do lament the fact that everyone decided that an ongoing subscription model is the way to go for everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised there hasn't been more improvement in the scans - I would think given the restricted domain of interiors it'd be possible to straighten out edges and things.

<comment><USER4> Yes. The thing that sticks out the most to me is the poor treatment of edges. One possible reason the edges look bad is that meshing algorithms that take into account sharp edges can produce unrealistic mesh topologies that are difficult to work with. Bad mesh topologies can wreak havoc on some operations like texture mapping, which they obviously use quite heavily. There are algorithms that can clean this up, but it is a messy and computationally intensive business.

Or it could just be poor data from the scanner -- that would be unfortunate. Some of the artifacts are so bad that it would seem to suggest that this is the case (the corner of the countertop in the kitchen is quite bad, or the protrusion in the wall above the entry-way into the kitchen, for some examples). It's hard to tell from looking at the processed result. I wonder what the raw scans look like.

Very cool product though, even if it's rough right now. I can see this looking nice in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is so cool. I want to be able to build clay sculptures and convert them to blender or CAD files then rig/animate them.

</comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone recommend some open source code to experiment with at home? Maybe fed by Google Tango or Microsoft Kinect?

<comment><USER10> [http://pointclouds.org/](http://pointclouds.org/) has a subproject called ([http://pointclouds.org/documentation/tutorials/using_kinfu_l...](http://pointclouds.org/documentation/tutorials/using_kinfu_large_scale.php)) that you can feed with a kinect or a similar device. It's quite fun!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I want this + something to preview paint, furniture and renovation changes to my home!

</comment><comment><USER11> This is cool, I note the video is part of the trend for voices to sound more robotic.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is like Paracosm.io

</comment><comment><USER13> Camera looks like three Kinect sensors.</comment>


The Intellectual yet Idiot - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.8lg4jek8v <comment><USER2> Yes, sure, why not. But will Trump and Brexit actually help the common man, or were the IYIs actually correct? It's possible to be disconnected and overconfident and yet still get the right answer.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a wonderful piece, thank you both author and ghosh very much!

The IYI, in my opinion, misses the most important opportunity which is to learn from bad predictions. Especially when predictions are about something big and smart, like nation.

</comment><comment><USER4> Fun, so long as you don't take it too seriously.</comment>


The Pace Of Change - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sokanu.com/the-pace-of-change-2

<comment><USER2> This is a really insightful post. When viewed in this way there are two interpretations:

1) The world is a scary place full of insecurity and instability

2) The world is wide open and full of opportunity to those who have the flexibility to survive

Eitherway I don't think that there's any doubt that massive change is upon us, and many older structures and ways of thinking are being replaced.

I'm thankful that my parents are old enough to be unaffected by it and that I'm young enough to be equipped to deal with it. Some others aren't so lucky.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the kind words. Yes, there are two ways to take this post. I'm hoping most people will take #2, as that is the reality we live in. We live in a time where we can do anything we want, at the lowest level of risk in history. The older structures of society will continue to come down as we evolve at an ever greater pace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _"Children starting school this year will be retiring in the year 2071."_

That's if the relatively new concept of retiring at 65 is still around or even makes sense in 2071.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very true. We don't know what the retirement age shift will be. My guess is that it pushes upwards until we have people working until they are unable to anymore. We can see that coming with the lack of savings and commitment to finances.</comment></comment>


YC 2019 Winter Batch Results - <AUTHOR> If you gotten an invite for interview, share here.
To join Slack group, leave you email.
https://ycw2018applicants.slack.com/ <comment><USER2> There is also a chat here : [https://www.hackerschat.net/](https://www.hackerschat.net/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Join the group using

[https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQ...](https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQtNDYyODE2OTIyNzcyLTYxMzBmMTc4ZGI0MDZiMWIyZjg5Njg4MTRjOTJlOWUyNTlmMGZlM2RkNmJkOGUzOGZjMGM5MDQxZTI4Zjg5NjA)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Join Slack using

[https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQ...](https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQtNDYyODE2OTIyNzcyLTYxMzBmMTc4ZGI0MDZiMWIyZjg5Njg4MTRjOTJlOWUyNTlmMGZlM2RkNmJkOGUzOGZjMGM5MDQxZTI4Zjg5NjA)

</comment><comment><USER3> Acceptance emails started. [https://www.hackerschat.net](https://www.hackerschat.net)

</comment><comment><USER4> Is the Slack channel exclusive for those accepted? Company is Cinedapt and email firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Invite sent. Nope: For all applicants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hello guys I'm applying for winter 2019 batch. This is my email firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

<comment><USER6> I can't see #intro channel in invited link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My email id is ' firstname.lastname@example.com ' . Please add me in. Thanks :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Hi please add firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER8> Can you send invitation to slack group to firstname.lastname@example.com please. Thanks

<comment><USER9> Did you receive the invitation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can you please add me to slack channel? My id is email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please invite firstname.lastname@example.com; Good luck everybody!

<comment><AUTHOR> Done

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> we have close to a 100 people on this discord [https://discord.gg/QZJxUn](https://discord.gg/QZJxUn) :)

</comment><comment><USER13> Hey, please add me to the group: firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER14> Are the invites sent already? I thought it was at 10 PM PST.

<comment><USER15> The apply page says interview invites are sent out _by_ 10PM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hi guys, please add me, thank you: email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My email id is email@example.com Please add me. Thanks

</comment><comment><USER18> Hey guys please add me up.. firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER19> Please add me too email@example.com, thanks :)

</comment><comment><USER20> So invites come out at 10pm pacific time or eastern?

<comment><USER21> Pacific, so in 3 hours

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Please add me too "firstname.lastname@example.com"

</comment><comment><USER23> Could you please add email@example.com? Thank you!

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'd love to join the slack. firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Can you please add me: email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Please add me on slack: firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Please add me email@example.com

<comment><USER27> I was able to join using the Slack link! Thanks everyone

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Please add me :-email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hey guys, please add me firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Join via

[https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQ...](https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQtNDYyODE2OTIyNzcyLTYxMzBmMTc4ZGI0MDZiMWIyZjg5Njg4MTRjOTJlOWUyNTlmMGZlM2RkNmJkOGUzOGZjMGM5MDQxZTI4Zjg5NjA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Please add me: email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Add me please email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER9> I have not received the invitation yet

</comment><comment><USER32> Please add me on firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Please add email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone has received the invitation?

</comment><comment><USER3> I did not receive slack invite yet.

</comment><comment><USER34> Got it. See you all in California.

<comment><USER35> Hey, did you just receive the invite?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Please add m.troc @ ProtonMail.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Please add me: firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Do we get an email for rejection?

<comment><USER21> yes you do, I think they will come after invites but I am not too sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Please Add me firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER40> Please add me: firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Plz add email@example.com thnx!

</comment><comment><USER42> The waiting game is tough.

</comment><comment><USER43> No. I think no one did yet.

</comment><comment><USER44> please add firstname.lastname@example.com Thank you and good luck everyone

</comment><comment><USER3> Add firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER45> Isn't it YCW2019?

<comment><AUTHOR> Corrected

<comment><USER46> Pls add firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Are the results out?

<comment><USER48> nothing yet for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Any one got email ?

<comment><USER48> nopes!

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> please add me firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER51> email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER52> can you please add firstname.lastname@example.com thanks.

</comment><comment><USER48> Any invites yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't think so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER54> firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER55> please add me. thanks.

email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, please drop a line on #intro channel about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Join via

[https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQ...](https://join.slack.com/t/ycw2018applicants/shared_invite/enQtNDYyODE2OTIyNzcyLTYxMzBmMTc4ZGI0MDZiMWIyZjg5Njg4MTRjOTJlOWUyNTlmMGZlM2RkNmJkOGUzOGZjMGM5MDQxZTI4Zjg5NjA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER58> please add me in. thanks.

</comment><comment><USER59> any one received invites ?

</comment><comment><USER60> anyone received invites ?

<comment><USER61> not yet

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> firstname.lastname@example.com :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Done

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER64> email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER65> firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER57> please add me

</comment><comment><USER60> please add

email@example.com</comment>


Senator Blumenthal Mad That Zoom Not Offering the Encryption His Law Will Outlaw - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200401/16571344217/senator-blumenthal-is-super-mad-that-zoom-isnt-actually-offering-end-to-end-encryption-his-law-will-outlaw.shtml <comment><USER2> I don't think this is inconsistent.

What they want is encryption that only the _American_ government can tap.

Zoom is susceptible to the _Chinese_ government. They don't want that _at all_.

<comment><USER3> Finally someone who thinks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From TFA: Gorsuch stated that "The [Supreme] Court has, after all, suggested that individuals lack any reasonable expectation of privacy and so forfeit any Fourth Amendment protections in materials they choose to share with third parties."

That's an awfully broad brush he is painting with there. If the third party I choose to share information with is telling me that the data will be private, then of course I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the site's TOS claim to have rights to everything that you upload to the site, then they also cannot claim the content to be private. You can claim in TOS that by uploading, you grant rights to interact with the data to make it work within the site (making multiple versions of images etc) but it can still be private. If the TOS says by uploading content, I grant them the right to do anything they can with the data including researching how to offer better experience on said site, that content is no longer private.

<comment><USER2> It's really weird to invoke Gorsuch in that way, since those quotes are from an opinion where he wants to get rid of the "third party doctrine", have stronger privacy protections, and require warrants in more cases.

[https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/394215-gorsuchs- di...](https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/394215-gorsuchs-dissent-in- carpenter-case-has-implications-for-the-future-of)

For the locked up, Gorsuch's dissent starts on page 99/119: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Blumenthal is a 74 year old millionaire. Is it possible hes just forgotten the fact that hes presently on record as ardently opposed to competent encryption? or has he been lead to co-sponsor FOSTA without being given an honest explanation of what it actually does?

<comment><USER6> Blumenthal's position is that creating backdoors doesn't have anything to do with weakening encryption. Considering he's tone deaf enough to actually tweet this it seems more and more plausible that he actually BELIEVES his own vapid bullshit and really is that stupid and ignorant.

<comment><USER7> Most politicians are dangerous especially due to their irrational fanaticism about whatever they believe. They want to shape the world to be what they believe it should be without actually paying much attention to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is funny, sad and familiar all at the same time. It's not limited to politicians either. I've seen top leadership in companies where they cut resources or investment in an area, then when the quality or output suffers make grandstanding speeches about how this must be improved, they're either totally clueless or psychos, or in some cases a bit of both.

<comment><USER4> Or just realize that the mass population won't remember anything from 30 seconds ago, so they can wave their hands and make it sound like they are doing the right thing. Spin only works with short memories.

I don't know if that makes them psychos or not, but they definitely are not clueless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Call your Congress-critters. I happen to benefit from being in Oregon, represented by Sen. Wyden, who opposes EARN-IT, but I know that many of y'all are in California may recognize Sen. Feinstein on the co-sponsor list [0]. Reach out now.

And, remember this next time she's up for re-election; this isn't her first time. She also co-sponsored PIPA [1] along with Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, for the many of y'all in New York. You get who you vote for.

[0] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/339...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/3398/cosponsors)

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate- bill/968...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate- bill/968/cosponsors)

<comment><USER10> "What's good for thee is not for me." Taking away peoples rights may sound appealing if its something you disagree with until the topic changes and it's used against you.

<comment><USER11> It's a difficult problem, because the reverse is also worth contemplating: Giving people rights sounds appealing if it's something you agree with, until those rights are used against you.

At either extreme—no rights or complete anarchy—society breaks down. Everything in between is a society trying to find the most workable compromise.

<comment><USER12> "giving people rights" sounds kind of odd. No one has the power to "give" rights to anyone else. Government can confer privileges and protect rights. But rights themselves are inalienable.

<comment><USER13> This is nice in theory. In practice you can take rights away (obviously) and so protecting them instead is functionally identical to giving them. Mincing words about inalienable rights from the inside of a gulag falls rather flat to me.

<comment><USER14> > In practice you can take rights away (obviously)

You can _infringe_ rights; that's not the same as taking them away. There is a clear difference between having the _power_ to do something and having the _right_ to do it. There is nothing unusual about having the right to do something but lacking sufficient power to accomplish it. A right does not disappear merely because one lacks the power to prevent it from being infringed.

As the name implies, rights are fundamentally about right and wrong: they are expressions of how one ought to act, or respond to another's actions. Saying that a right exists is the same as saying that your own actions ought not infringe that right for others. _Practicality_ is irrelevant. The "theory" (or rather, philosophy) you've casually dismissed is the entire point of the exercise.

Of course one needs power also, if only for self-defense, but power—or lack thereof—does not dictate right and wrong. Power merely expands the range of options available to you. Your _rights_ —the things that it would be _right for you to do_ —are the same whether you are powerless or omnipotent.

So what exactly _are_ your rights? Well, that's for you to decide. Even true omnipotence wouldn't be enough to grant anyone else the power to make that decision for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Encryption backdoors are like religion. Each government wants you to believe in their backdoor and no other countries. Just like how most religions want you to believe in their god, not anyone else's. God is basically a backdoor to your mind and soul.

</comment><comment><USER16> I hope one outcome of this crisis is that people start caring about who they are electing as their leaders.

As Yuval Noah said, we are in the middle of the worst modern crisis this world has seen and we have global leaders that can't inspire, organize and finance a coordinated global response.

<comment><USER4> It is hard to believe that in 2020 we cannot handle this type of situation really any better than middle ages dealing with the plague. That maybe a bit hyperbolic, but it's odd that we haven't protected ourselves better.

<comment><USER7> The cost-benefit was not there. It was simply not worth it to take the necessary hard actions to reach a level of difference in preparedness on a group level. (Basically it would mean that anyone who wanted to "protect themselves" would have to strategically move to one place, buy land, organize, coordinate, get politically active, etc. It's a long and costly project. Usually only sects and religions have the capacity to carry out things like this.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well that would be the first time a politician was completely worthless and serving only his own interests</comment>


Eight #aabill predictions: consequences of Australia's new spying law - <AUTHOR> https://www.mnot.net/blog/2018/12/06/predictions <comment><USER2> I love how these bills are always named things that make you feel bad about voting against them if you don't know anything about them. I would much rather they just call it "The Eye of Sauron act" or something like that</comment>


'Inevitable' That GE Brings Offshore Wind Manufacturing to the US - <AUTHOR> https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ge-eyes-us-for-future-offshore-wind-turbine-factory <comment><USER2> Think again how this will go:

1\. The moment their Chinese contractor get so much free capacity, they will instantly sell to competitors, often at a better price.

2\. Very likely they will qualify for state loans to expand, and start living as an independent player

3\. By the time GE will internalise all the know how, finish construction, and windup the capacity, they will be much outsold

4\. Their former contractor, and its clients will turn to their biggest competitor who know all about them, and share the same technological platform. Their parts are compatible, and they can offer service to old plants built by GE.

5\. By the time they can start deliveries, they will have an open would in cash flow calendar. There will be no sources of cash for that time period on the market for them, as all of them went to competitor the moment GE stopped deliveries few years ago.

Moral of the story, it's near impossible to change from being an OEM client to being its competitor.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there any famous hackers / programmers that smoke marijuana? - <AUTHOR> All famous IT-guys, who smoke marijuana I've found have "creative jobs", like "UI designer". But I've found no engineers, that are known for doing this thing.<p>Do you know any of them? <comment><USER2> I'd venture that some do and just don't talk about it seeing as its illegal and all.

</comment><comment><USER3> Somewhat related... relationship between psychedelics and developments in math and computers: <http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v18n1/v18n1-MAPS_8-10.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER4> On hacking while stoned: <http://hack.org/mc/texts/inspiration.txt>

Also, I'm not going to name names, but I know several non-famous (but very accomplished) hackers who swear by it.

<comment><USER5> Yep - More people partake than you might suspect at first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Being an engineer is a creative job, despite some people trying to bogart the term.

Read the book The Eudaemonic Pie for tales of dope-smoking uber-geeks.

Also Fire in the Valley might be a source, though I've not yet read it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Check this article out

<http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015>

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't know about the computer realm, but Feynman, Sagan, etc

</comment><comment><USER8> Steve Jobs back in the day when he phreaked phones?</comment>


Ask HN: what's in your Mac menu bar? - <AUTHOR>

I find that I learn about an interesting app and/or workflow when I check out other people's menu bars. Here's mine.
TOP LEVEL
- ActionAlly (I'm an evangelist)
- Degrees (simple weather app)
- MyPrivateInternet (VPN for watching BBC iPlayer)
- Radium (awesome radio app, I have a nice collection of global stations)
- ColorSnapper
- SlimBatteryMonitor
- Clock (stock)
- Fantastical
- Spotlight
BARTENDER BAR
- Bartender (manage/organize menu bar apps)
- SpaceMonkey (not the backup solution I wanted, but I have a lot of data on it)
- Divvy
- DropBox
- CrashPlan (has saved my bacon)
- 1Password (runs so I can use the keyboard shortcut)
- Arq (backup of my backup)
- Wifi (stock) <comment><USER2> the mac on my desk is a sad reminder that apple explores it's user to the end. i wanted osx and ios emulator and would pay for it. but i was also forced to buy an extra inefficient x86 machine to be able to run it locally.

so all i have is safari (for web dev on ios, which also was removed from the win version), xcode ios emulator (don't think I've ever used the other parts of xcode), and the vnc server thing.</comment>


NoScript and other popular Firefox add-ons open millions to new attack - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/04/noscript-and-other-popular-firefox-add-ons-open-millions-to-new-attack/ <comment><USER2> So disable the top 10 Firefox extensions listed here until a new patch comes out?

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/extensions/?sort=users)

<comment><USER3> Then you have to disable all extensions, because others might be vulnerable as well.

If you only install trustworthy extensions (whatever that is :/) and can avoid installing a malicious one, it doesn't matter if the other installed ones are vulnerable. You have to install a malicious one to trigger it, they just use the vulnerabilities in other extensions to hide from review.</comment></comment>


Craigslist is Hiring Front-End Developers - <AUTHOR> http://sfbay.craigslist.org/about/craigslist_is_hiring

<comment><USER2> Is their site written in c/c++? (it's on the list of requirements for the dev position at the bottom).

<comment><USER3> Maybe they're using it as a filter for smart developers. There's a lot of shitty scripty developers out there, but if you can show you know C you're pretty much guaranteed to be at least decent.

But then again, it might be written in C++; some very very large sites are. For example, OkCupid.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> One has to assume this means that they might finally be updating their UI.</comment>


Former Mozilla CTO was detained at US border and told he had no right to lawyer - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2019/04/03/former-mozilla-cto-was-detaine.html <comment><USER2> I really wonder what can reasonably be done about this. It seems to be commonly accepted that TSA and border security are generally totally incompetent [1], but AFAIK no politician is making a strong effort to fix the problem. To me it's not really clear how it can be fixed anyways, as long as we continue to give inordinate power to jobs which have minimal requirements.

I'm sure just about everyone who travels frequently has had a bad experience at a border. Here's an anecdote: One time when I was returning from an overseas trip a border security guy said there was a problem and started questioning me about my trip and my whereabouts for the past couple years. He wouldn't hand the passport back to me and wouldn't say what the problem was. I finally got him to say that I was missing a visa. About 5 minutes later after finally convincing him to keep flipping through the passport instead of asking me more pointless questions, lo and behold, the visa was right on a page in my passport where it was supposed to be.

And yet despite the utter waste of my time and uncomfortable questioning, I didn't dare to say something slightly snarky like "you couldn't have looked through the passport once before deciding I didn't have a visa?", because I've read too many horror stories of ppeople being thrown into cells at US borders with little or no recourse and certainly no responsibility on the part of whoever makes that decision. Ultimately, in its current state these procedures are far too prone to one dude having a bad day and taking it out by power tripping on some poor traveller.

[1] [https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest- undercover-...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover- operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188)

btw, recent discussions on this:

(2 days ago): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19558161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19558161)

(1 day ago): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19562920](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19562920)

<comment><USER3> It's easy. Don't bother to visit US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can ACLU or anyone help sue the US Govt in any way or border security is off- limits to prosecution?

<comment><USER5> Border security is not categorically off-limits, there have been past court restrictions on their powers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is incredible - he is specifically accusing the Trump administration and/or the CBP of targeting him for harassment. These are the important lines:

> Until this incident, I have never been questioned like this by the CBP in my > life."

> "The only thing that changed recently is that I have spoken out against > Trump administration policies, including immigration policies and CBP," Gal > added.</comment>


On Artificial Intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf <comment><USER2> Europe leads in legal frameworks for privacy/trust but they lag far behind USA and China.

From what I have read, there are good incubator organizations in Europe but going from idea, to implementation, manufacturing, customer support, are really difficult. I make this comment because I see cool project coming out of Europe but they are behind in deployed systems.</comment>


One of many reasons why CSS is ridiculous - <AUTHOR> http://css-tricks.com/hash-tag-links-padding/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's really painful to think about all the productivity that is lost on tricking browsers into doing what developers want.

Just imagine where the web would be today if it wasn't necessary to build it with obsolete, counter-intuitive technologies.</comment>


Genetically engineering bees to be resistant to viruses and parasites - <AUTHOR> https://get21stnight.com/2020/03/15/genetically-engineering-virus-immune-bees/ <comment><USER2> Rarely mentioned in the "save the bees" stories are the decades before this crisis where "Africanized Killer Bees" were the bugbear and the regulations that prevented outbreeding and robbed domesticated bees of the diversity they had.</comment>


Why women stray - q-base https://aeon.co/essays/does-the-mate-switching-hypothesis-explain-female-infidelity <comment><AUTHOR> For a counter theory, try reading Sex at Dawn. It's far from perfect. The authors accuse "the establishment" of picking and choosing evidence to show that men stray to spread their genetic material, while women are glorified prostitutes: seeking shelter, food, and security from men, while trying to obtain superior genetic material by cheating. They then turn around and pick and choose their own evidence to support the theory that humans aren't and were never genetically monogamous, and that we stray because we are trying to force monogamy as a fundamental human condition. Nevertheless, the evidence they do present is compelling enough to show that monogamy isn't fundamental to humans or our closest relatives.

For an even better read, try Mating in Captivity which talks about sex and intimacy from the point of view of examining couples whose sex life has died away. This is better place to start if you want to understand cheating.

<comment><USER2> _For a counter theory, try reading Sex at Dawn. It 's far from perfect_

It's worse than far from perfect; the authors misread, misconstrue, or make up evidence, and they ignore countervailing evidence: [https://jakeseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn- christopher-r...](https://jakeseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher- ryan-and-cacilda-jetha)

<comment><AUTHOR> > The book argues that humans are not "naturally" monogamous. That might be > true. But Sex at Dawn doesn't prove it. The data are ambiguous.

Exactly. I still found it a stimulating read, but my "the evidence they present isn't justified" senses were going off from chapter 1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Related article, [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/why- hap...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/why-happy-people- cheat/537882/?single_page=true), which gave an empathetic and intriguing perspective on cheating, without being too forgiving of the cheaters themselves.

<comment> q-base Thanks! That was actually better than the one I posted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article and its hypothesis are both just so incredibly, horribly bad. I don't even know where to begin, and I feel ill equipped to comment in a way that isn't some scathing, scoffing violation of HN guidelines. Geez.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can evolutionary theory even be taken seriously? It seems some people, especially in the 'manosphere' accept it as Gospel. It used to attract me because 'oh what a convenient explanation for everything' but later I started thinking that's all it was - something fun to think about but not a foundation for policy or practical action.

<comment><USER6> > Can evolutionary theory even be taken seriously?

As opposed to what? Are you a proponent of creative design or young earth creationism?

> especially in the 'manosphere' accept it as Gospel

What is a "manosphere"?

<comment><USER5> No, I wasn't careful with word choice. I was referring to highly theoretical field of evolutionary psychology.

The manosphere is a place where male bloggers try to understand the dynamics of mating and sometimes evolutionary psychology is used as evidence.

<comment><USER7> My impression is that evolutionary psychology is largely all the worst parts of psychology made appealing because, well, who can argue with evolution.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo - <AUTHOR> https://onezero.medium.com/planes-are-ruining-the-planet-new-mighty-airships-wont-d8eb39418acc <comment><USER2> This article doesn't seem to take into account that Helium is becoming scarce, and when used in airships, it's eventually just released and lost forever. NYT Article on the shortage: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium- shortage-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-shortage- party-city.html)

We used to have a strategic Helium reserve in the US for zepplins and so forth, then it was just kept for chemistry and other purposes. I think we started selling it down under GW. Helium seems like it's more valuable as a component in chemistry, super cooling, etc, rather than just using it for lift.

Also, we tend to think of Zepplins as rare things, like singular one-off vessels like the Hindenburg. In actuality, the Germans produced 131 of them! Most were used in World War 1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins)

<comment><USER3> It's the second most abundant element in the universe. Maybe we'll put in a tad more effort to explore it if Helium runs out.

<comment><USER4> That doesn't really help if it isn't abundant where it's needed. There's no primordial helium on Earth, all of it is created by alpha decay of radioactive elements. As to the rest of the solar system, all that abundant helium is locked in the bottom of particularly deep gravity wells.

<comment><USER3> There's a huge amount on our only moon.

<comment><USER4> A few parts per billion, about one gram of helium-3 per 150 tons of regolith. For comparison, economical _gold mining on Earth_ typically requires a deposit of at least 500 ppb or so. And there are no 3He "deposits" on the moon; it's all fairly uniformly distributed across the 38 million square kilometers of lunar surface!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All air travel combined emits 2.5% of our yearly CO2 emissions.

That's hundreds of thousands of flights a day.

We could just eliminate all coal electric plants in the world and make a real impact. Then use that cleaner energy to power our electric cars.

<comment><AUTHOR> Except we're not demi-Gods, able to decide what to do at will with the entire planet. Pursuing some serious efforts in one area can't be turned down simply because there's something else that could be done in another area.

<comment><USER6> On the contrary, the rational way of solving a complex problem that cannot be addressed entirely is to break it down into smaller ones, estimate their individual cost/impact/risk and start with the most cost-effective options.

In fact, people who actively shame others for eating meat, having vacations, and raising kids, are doing exactly that. Except, instead of optimizing the ecological impact, they optimize their own emotional return through gaining influence over others, similar to religious missionaries.

I think, for everyone who actually wants to solve the climate change problem, being honest about their goals could be a good starting point.

<comment><USER7> Not eating meat (or eating less meat) is VERY cost-effective and very easy to do.

<comment><USER6> Only if you don't like the taste in the first place. Not being overweight and counting calories is another topic, but restraining yourself to a highly processed bean paste instead of grilling a steak in your backyard is a very questionable thing in terms of cost/impact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What I don't see is a discussion of how these airships would avoid the sort of weather-related accidents that destroyed the Shenandoah, the R101, the Akron, and the Macon. The Hindenburg disaster gets all the attention, but the bigger problem with the large rigid airships was their inability to avoid or weather storms. I'd love to see it --- I really would --- but I never see this point addressed.

<comment> em-bee according to the article, these newer ships could fly high enough to be above all the problematic weather. only take off and landing would be an issue. but at the speed they are flying, a few hours delay won't make much off a difference either.

<comment><USER9> I wonder if it would be easier to just lower the cargo instead of the entire airship

<comment> em-bee from their cruising altitude? more then 10000km up?

<comment><USER10> I assume you mean metres, not kilometres? There wouldn't appear to be much atmosphere to benefit a lighter than air ship at 10000 km.

<comment> em-bee uhm, yes, _facepalm_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Airplanes fly high and have tiny porthole windows. You can't appreciate the beauty of the earth.

Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low. The experience of flight would be amazing -- focused on the beauty of the natural world.

Zeppelins offer a low-carbon earth-conscious luxury good that the superrich should spend money on -- so that eventually it's affordable to the rest of us.

<comment><USER12> > Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low

Also they are constrained by weight, not volume, so there's plenty of legroom. The Hindenburg had private cabins, a lounge, a bar, and a dining room (and a smoking room!). More like a cruise ship than an airliner.

<comment><USER11> Here is a picture:

[https://images.app.goo.gl/7Q7T2DLDjwU3xk367](https://images.app.goo.gl/7Q7T2DLDjwU3xk367)

<comment><USER13> Never realized there was passenger space inside the hull! That makes me slightly less stupefied about the enormous size/capacity ratio of zeppelins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I got a dumb idea. Permanently stationed blimps around the world that never land. And cable cars for moving between them, on pulleys.

Pros: Energy efficient: no need to generate lift. No need for fans to move the cars as you are on pulleys, which are more efficient. Minimal noise! You could go as fast as you want but your efficiency will start to drop due to drag.

It can't be any worse an idea than a hyperloop can it?

<comment><USER15> Sounds like they would need to keep the same position.

Would that be practical for such a large, light ship that can not avoid the weather?

<comment><USER14> Yes... They may have to be grounded occasionally during extreme weather.

But they can be tethered to the ground and use the tether for power for maneuvering with electric props.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If they used H2 (vs He) for buoyancy they could make (liquefied) H2 fuel very cost efficient: When you want to come down you are high up and it is cold! Perfect time to liquefy!

Making H2 gas is also subsidized on the production end, as Airship travel is cheaper than any other method, so making H2 has that cost advantage.

Safety is not an issue for transport. Human travel has that tradeoff though over He.

<comment><USER17> > Safety is not an issue for transport.

It's _less_ of an issue. You still don't want a burning hydrogen zeppelin crashing down on a populated area, and unless you've fully automated it you'll still have human crew aboard (though they'll be better trained and equipped to deal with problems).

<comment><USER18> If it's filled with Hydrogen, it doesn't burn for very long - it would be an explosive burn. The cargo is still aloft in the air though, but that's also a theoretical problem with planes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why wouldn't people think this is a serious idea?? We can make far safer zeppelins with current technology even if we use H2 gas. And when you're using it for something mundane like cargo instead of human recreational activity it's a no brainer.

<comment><USER20> Wind shear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> German company Cargolifter tried, about 20 years ago.

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

<comment><USER22> My father worked at the company back then, designing the rudders. After that, he worked at Airbus until retirement. He always said that his coworkers at Cargolifter where really good engineers and much brighter on average than at Airbus, I always wonder where they might be if they didn't run out of funding / if they would have started the company today, where people are much more willing to invest into risky firms like these.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The article's headline seems misleading: the article is actually about cargo, not traditional travel -- since airships are so slow.

But I don't see what needs this would meet -- either you need something to be shipped between continents quick (~overnight) so you use a plane, or you don't so you use a container ship.

This seems like it has neither the speed advantage of a plane, nor anything close to the size and scale advantage of a container ship.

So aside from the niche use of large deliveries to remote areas inaccessible by ship or rail... I'm not getting it.

<comment><USER24> How do you drive a container ship over land?

I Think the point is that you could use this across the USA or other large geographic bodies for similar efficiency that you see with a container ship on water.

<comment><USER25> Wonderful thing called a railroad network.

<comment><USER26> Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and streets aren't much better.

The defunct Cargolifter protect was quite open about not attempting to be competitive for loads that easily fit conventional transport. They saw their market exclusively in loads that are too bulky for ground transport and I don't think that anything has changed.

Other than that this hypothetical market could be really huge now that wind turbines have grown into the "untransportable" realm for offshore use where no practical transport restrictions exist. (At least in countries that haven't universally given in to NIMBY and are still expand their land-based wind capacity)

<comment><USER27> _> Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and streets aren't much better._

Trains typically carry the same intermodal containers that cargo ships do.

<comment><USER26> That answers GP's "how do you drive a container ship over land" but we seem agree that container transport is a solved problem that airships can't meaningfully contribute to.

But there are objects that don't fit the rail profile that still need transportation.

And a lot more objects that don't fit that profile, or the more generous limitations of an oversize road load, that could exists if matching overland transportation existed. A lot of technology is severely size-constrained only because roads between factory and deployment site are size constrained. A cargo airship that can take those loads could completely change whole industries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A former neighbor of mine now works at [http://flying- whales.com/en](http://flying-whales.com/en) . Spot on the topic. They plan to specialise on special fret counting in dozens of tons, plus clever engineering to quickly transition between cargo on-the-ground to cargo airborne, and on arrival, airborne to on-the-ground.

<comment><USER29> Off topic but I couldn't help but find it funny that a French airship company is called Flying Whales given that one of the best known songs by French metal band Gojira is called Flying Whales.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I see old pictures with zeppelins in the sky, I am jealous and think they're more futuristic than we are.

</comment><comment><USER31> Airships don't make sense for commercial travel. But they make a lot of sense for transporting cargo, specifically to regions that are difficult to serve by road or rail. LM has had a scalable, deployable system for years but no one has pulled the trigger on actually buying it yet.

<comment><USER32> An ordinary suburban location is difficult to serve by road if you'd like to ship a large house.

<comment><USER33> I hadn't even considered that. You could blimp all sorts of things that won't fit on the road. Houses, windmill blades, HVAC units, pods for modular buildings, extremely large pianos, ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is huge potential for solar energy production on zeppelins. Back of the napkin:

The Graf Zeppelin had a surface area of 27,299 square meters. If the top ⅓ was covered in solar, it could produce 10,800 kWh per day, assuming 1.2 kWh per day per square meter.

<comment><USER11> Also, they could harvest sea water or condensation to generate hydrogen.

To produce one kilogram of hydrogen, 12 cubic meters, it takes 9 kg of water and 50 kWh of electricity. The solar Zeppelin described above could generate 2,589 cubic meters of hydrogen a day. At this rate, it would take 77 days to fill the Graf Zeppelin's 200,000 cubic meter capacity

<comment><USER11> So, perhaps we could float giant plastic solar balloons in a lake -- and semi- organically "grow" enormous hydrogen cells for aerostatic lift.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This article reads like Popular Science or Popular Mechanics.

From the late 80's.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but this ship has already sailed. Pun intended.

</comment><comment><USER35> Incidental article about Macys Thanksgiving parade baloons are filled with Helium [https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/11/27/macys- than...](https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/11/27/macys-thanksgiving- parade-balloons-may-not-rise-helium-costs/4318407002/)

At the end the gas is released, not recycled.

<comment><USER36> I think recreational use of helium ought to be banned. It's a rare gas that once gone is gone from the atmosphere. It's likely that our great great grandchildren won't have it left for other uses.

Well it's also likely that they really won't have a habitable planet too.

But we gotta start somewhere right ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Like the render on the Lockheed Martin site the first thing that came to my mind was Africa. This could be a solution for heavy-load cheap transport across huge swaths of land where road or rail infrastructure would be inefficient or too expensive to develop. It could help extend commerce beyond coastal regions both on the continent and worldwide.

</comment><comment><USER38> Reminds me of [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter)

</comment><comment><USER39> "... using almost no energy at all if we used airships to harness the free winds of the jet stream, the narrow band of fast-moving air above the troposphere, where planes fly." But what if the jetstreams are already transporting something useful in nature? Sucking off energy from there will mean messing up with those natural systems that rely on the jetstreams. Oh Consequences!

</comment><comment><USER11> Here is a short slide presentation with great pictures of future zeppelins and an exploration of possible applications:

[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r6CPFJ1AX1ZULacguTf6...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r6CPFJ1AX1ZULacguTf6IyCS1dyiqFz_HsjH- evYiHg/edit?usp=drivesdk)

</comment><comment><USER40> A different way to reduce the fuel bill and contamination without being constricted by scarce non scalable resources could be to design a new generation of (small?) cargo airplanes flying in a zig zag pattern of spending fuel to gain elevation and then gliding with some extra big pliable wings, extensible membranes or something like that...

</comment><comment><USER41> Great now if we can just stop Bedford council building houses all over Cardington we can get the Sheds back in use.

</comment><comment><USER42> And where will they source the helium? Gas wells?

We already waste the stuff and it's an incredibly useful substance.

</comment><comment><USER43> Better idea ultra high speed megascale nuclear powered cruise ships that never dock. They pull in 1 km from port and use deckside drones to transport tens of thousands of passengers safely on shore in different places all at once or as needed. Speed should reach at least 150mph. And with nuclear power become the domina t coastal form of circuit/belt transport. Not just people but cargo. Nuclear powered merchant marine should have happened. One day it will.

Problem with zepllins is the skin will never be robust...because the bigger and faster the zepplins go the thicker the skin must be and the more difficult self healin smart skin systems will be to invent iterate and operate.

Forget c02 and global warming. Think about simple economics. Next generation systems must be an order of magnitude more efficient in delivering a passenger to his ultimate goal or to any goal. That doesnt always mean only energy efficiency and operation and fuel price per passenger mile but these are strong factors in the equation.

<comment><USER44> I'd hate to think what the propellor noise would do to whales and other sea life.

<comment><USER45> If we're already fantasizing about going nuclear, why not also use classified military submarine propulsion systems? That ought to keep the noise down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> If they were serious they would have calculated the max theoretical energetic efficiency of Zeppelin cargo hauling and realized they should stop

<comment><USER47> Can you expand, or give some numbers?

<comment><USER46> [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/helium- hokum...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/helium-hokum-why- airships-will-never-be-part-of-our-transportation-infrastructure/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One problem with airships is the shear size and hence the handling, particularly during the time the airship is in dock.

<comment><USER48> I suppose it could be possible to leave the airship in the air almost indefinitely, with smaller craft doing the loading/unloading at each end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Resurrecting dirigibles comes up every 5 years or so. This attempt looks no more serious than the others.

</comment><comment><USER50> Why not sailing ships while we are at it?

<comment><USER51> The article addresses this. Ships are restricted to docking where there are ports, which are expensive and potentially fragile infrastructure (e.g. after a big storm), and can only be situated at the water's edge; while airships can pick up put down essentially anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Anyone have a non-paywalled version? Frustrating to only be able to read the first paragraph.

</comment><comment><USER53> Seven days from Dallas to China? How is this considered a serious alternative to current planes?

<comment><USER54> Maybe an alternative to cruise ships is a better option.</comment></comment>


A re-introduction to JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/a_re-introduction_to_javascript <comment><USER2> Glad to see they linked Crockford's site. I discovered his site probably four years ago or so and it really opened my eyes to the capabilities of the language. I think anyone who wants to learn more about JavaScript should definitely include Crockford in his studies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Question to JavaScript gurus: how would i know if my code works in various browserless environments like Reeno and V8? Is there a compatibility table of various JS features is isn't browser-centric?

Thanks!

<comment><USER4> Get "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" and look at the API reference, it's split into two sections, one for APIs provided with every JavaScript implemetation, and one for APIs provided by browsers.

Currently there's not much compatibility between server-side JavaScript platforms (beyond the minimal set of APIs provided by the language implementations), something we're trying to solve with CommonJS, but that effort has been inhibited by node.js's sudden rise in popularity and refusal to work with CommonJS...

<comment><USER5> "refusal to work with CommonJS..." I thought this was a thing of past. Node.js is listed on the CommonJS website: <http://www.commonjs.org/impl/>

<comment><USER4> Node has CommonJS modules, which is a good start, but that's it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just a heads up, article was last significantly edited in March '06.

<comment><USER7> What has changed since then?

<comment><USER8> My only qualm is that it gives advice on how to use arguments.callee, which was depreciated in ECMAScript 5, for recursive anonymous functions.

Since they already give an example of how to use a named function recursively, the arguments.callee example could just simply be removed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been using Javascript for years and never really 'learned it'. It's just something I've dipped into to solve a particular problem - largely through just grabbing other code/dissecting existing stuff. Then I got hold of jQuery and never learned about the underlying language. This was great to catch up on the basics.

</comment><comment> andrew-bor Despite hundreds of thousands of search results in Google when you're looking for "Javascript tutorial" this one is by far the best one for a beginner.

<comment><USER10> Provided you have some familiarity with C like languages. I'm skimming through this now, and it really is quite well-written, but I'd be totally lost if I didn't have some experience with C/C++ in school years ago since it does make a number of assumptions that you'll just 'get it' -- e.g., the section on for loops pretty much says "they work like in C." :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> An introduction really shouldn't encourage things like "for (var i = 0, item; item = a[i]; i++)". Someone's going to cut-and-paste that because it looks cute, and their code will break when their array suddenly needs to contain null values. Fuzzy boolean semantics are bad enough without spreading stuff like this around (speaking from experience with || abuse in Perl).

<comment><USER12> To be fair, they do note this shortcoming.

"Note that this trick should only be used for arrays which you know do not contain "falsy" values (arrays of objects or DOM nodes for example). If you are iterating over numeric data that might include a 0 or string data that might include the empty string you should use the i, j idiom instead."

<comment><USER13> So it should be used approximately never in real code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article has a good description of closures, which is very important to brush up on if one is developing a heavy dhtml site. Thanks.

<comment><USER9> DHTML - That's a blast from the past. Don't see that acronym any more.

<comment><USER14> What would you call it, Mr. AlexMuir ? :)

<comment><USER9> I'm not saying it's the wrong term, just that I've not seen it for ages. I think people just sort of take it for granted nowadays that HTML probably includes Javascript, rendering the D for dynamic a bit redundant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not a bad guide, old as it may be. Chuckled a bit when I read, "JavaScript has a _tertiary operator_ for one-line conditional statements..." - been in there since the original version.

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

<comment><USER13> That could be worked into a great programming language misappropriation-based comedy routine! Also the one about the guy who said "overriding" when he meant "overloading" is usually good for a laugh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you like this article, you'll _love_ the book "Javascript: The Good Parts":

[http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Good-Parts-Douglas- Crockfor...](http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Good-Parts-Douglas- Crockford/dp/0596517742)

</comment><comment><USER17> This article provided my "aha!" moment for prototypes.</comment>


Our One Wish? Longer Battery Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/our-one-wish-longer-battery-life-1424650700

<comment><USER2> I've long wanted a phone case that worked as a battery pack. Probably very iffy, though, even with induction charging. I discovered last year that holding my Anker and phone together in my hand destroyed GPS. Better they just make it part of the phone design.

One big question is how it effects heat/cooling, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm working on ways to refactor source code in such a way that it uses less energy.

One way is to decrease cache misses. There are lots of ways that I've thought of.</comment>


Ask HN: Help with programming language design and implementation. - <AUTHOR>

I've implemented a very basic Lisp-y programming language, but there are some things which I'm not sure about how to fix/implement.
I'm happy with my parser, but the evaluation part is very buggy and in some cases unusable. I'd really like to end up with a usable programming language at the end but I've realised that I'm a bit out of my depth, both in debugging and implementing some features I'd like (continuations being a main example.)
Please recommend some sources for help in avoiding common pitfalls and implementing languages. (If anyone with experience wants to help me, also, that would be especially great.) <comment><USER2> Not sure if I can help or not, but feel free to contact me by email and I'll see what I can do.

My biggest recommendation, since you are implementing a lispy language, is to implement macros as soon as possible as this will let you implement most things within the language itself - you only really need a dozen or so built- in features to implement a lisp (except, of course, for performance you may want to add more - but get it working first, then get it fast!) and everything else can be built up from there.

You should also take a look at the source code to a (toy, non-compiled) scheme implementation - they are often extremely small and simple and may give you ideas. If you want your language to be compiled (ahead of time or JIT), I would recommend LLVM.

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing about your experiences, so perhaps you should write a blog post or something when you get it working.</comment>


European startups need to work as hard as Valley ones – or forget it - <AUTHOR> http://eu.techcrunch.com/2009/11/20/european-startups-need-to-work-as-hard-as-valley-ones-or-forget-it/

<comment><AUTHOR> we moved our startup from London to SV in Jan 2007 partly due to this line of thinking. it is false, no-one _productively_ works 24/7 and trying to do so is a mistake i don't intend to repeat on my next startup.

the vision of the workaholic, always at their desk entrepreneur is in my experience usually propagated by people with little actual operational experience of raw startups. this post from Naval Ravikant sums up what i've learnt about productivity, <http://startupboy.com/2005/11/29/the-80-hour- myth/>

and on the london vs SV work ethic. my peers in london work just as hard as my peers in SV.

<comment><USER2> I think there is a popular ideology (perhaps of protestant roots) that makes it "noble" to work long hours, hence why such stories are appealing to readers (and writers). It's a kind of narrative fallacy which people use to explain success without getting into too much detail: "he worked long hours he succeeded, this makes sense to me logically and ethically as those who work visibly hard are truly worthy".

If you want to create a great company it's best to seek proper work/life balance that delivers best outcome over the entire period of the few years, rather than optimize an appealing narrative.

The worst thing you can do it get trapped in the narrative yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article writer claims:

"obviously the absolute pool of talent is smaller here in the UK/Europe than it is in the U.S. (and that cannot be disputed nor is it anything more than a function of population)"

It can be disputed. I am disputing it. The writer needs to check his population statistics.

Population of the US: 304 million

Population of the Euro area (therefore not including UK, Poland, and several other countries): 329 million

Source: Eurostat U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

</comment><comment><USER4> >> "As anyone who's ever been there or visited will attest, in Silicon Valley everyone is working _all of the time_."

BS.

Techcrunch swings wildly once again between quality journalism uncovering scams in facebook advertising, to this sort of trashy rubbish.

</comment><comment><USER5> As a European this pissed me off a lot.

Looking at it from the other perspective, it's an example of how an unhealthily competitive culture can lead to wastage; where everyone is forced to work harder to keep up with the competition, but as a result everyone has less time for culture, social life or sleep. Are you really any better off for it as a society? Where does the extra value go if there's no time to enjoy it?

Also: a lot of hungry people chasing each other's tails in increasingly manic circles, does not necessarily make for technological innovation with lasting value to society. Some of it might, but I imagine a lot of it just contributes to the "technology treadmill", or to burn out, or to poor ideas conceived after 4 hours sleep...

One other thing: a lot of european cities are great, beautiful places to live with a lot of culture going on. You don't pay a premium to live in these places if you want to spend 12 hours a day working (or at least if you do, you'll go work for a bank where the pay's much better).

</comment><comment><USER6> TechCrunch said the same thing about Seattle a year ago. It sure was effective at generating links back to TechCrunch.

</comment><comment><USER7> Companies that seem to be 'slacking' probably just haven't achieved product- market fit yet. If a company has achieved this, and is growing like a weed, I doubt the employees will be 'coasting'. Greed will take care of that.

So, I'd be willing to bet that the referenced companies are still trying to figure out what they're really going to build. Don't blame the employees, this is the job of management.

I could be wrong of course. Are there companies that are growing rapidly that have problems motivating employees?

<comment><USER8> In Europe it's quite usual to refuse business when you're busy. A lot of small businesses never grow larger than 10/20 people; after that the owners are satisfied and have enough money for a comfortable lifestyle. Companies don't fail catastrophically fail here, they just peter out.

The entrepreneur that "dreams big" is the exception. And people with entrepreneurial aspirations are themselves exceptions. I think I read an article in the NY Times a while back that over 70% of MIT students are interested in business, and that 30% or so take a stab at it.

Over here in Europe many college kids subscribe to the "profit is evil" philosophy and starting a business is "something they maybe want to do some day".

<comment><USER5> > After that the owners are satisfied and have enough money for a comfortable > lifestyle. The entrepreneur that "dreams big" is the exception.

What exactly is wrong with this?

The marginal value of money decreases significantly once you have enough to live comfortably.

Also big companies aren't an end in themselves; a thriving economy full of profitable small-to-medium businesses is not a bad thing.

<comment><USER8> I wasn't even suggesting that there's anything wrong with that approach.

Needless to say, if you're a VC you want to fund people who want to create a company that can get a big exit. And people with those aspirations are few and far between in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am from Europe and several of my colleagues went to work to our USA branch (within the same corp). They told me the same thing I am reading in the article - in USA, they work harder and more hours per day. And we are not a startup!

[By contrast here in the UK I'm well aware that the legal requirement is 20 days (4 weeks' worth!) and _everyone_ is keeping track — and actually taking them!]

This is funny - I am really surprised that the author is surprised about that. ;-) Of course, I take those full 4 weeks, and I am also required to do so, otherwise the company would have to pay me extra money for those days, which they usually do not want to do. We are also encouraged to take at least one two-weeks long vacation "to fully recover". Moreover, in my country we have as much as 15 non-working days (state holidays).

Anyway, I'd like to hear some perspective of you living in USA - it is really enough for you to have just 10 days of vacation per year? Is that number even correct? And... what you think is the actual reason that working so many hours and days per year is valued so much? What's the point - to make more money, or to prove oneself, or is it just a best spended time? I am really curious to learn more about it.

<comment><USER10> I get 12 vacation and 5 sick days/year, plus a few (maybe 9) holidays off. I think I'm probably at about the median of vacation days for a standard American professional (maybe on the low end for the software industry).

I like the month plan better. I think there's a split in ideology here. A lot of people think we lose our competitive edge if we take more vacation. I think we'd really be at about the same productivity level but a lot happier. I think, in general, we're heading to the more leisurely schedule that you guys are. And I think that in talent-based work, a more leisurely schedule will bring about better quality and productivity.

<comment><USER11> I always thought the 4 weeks compulsory time off in Australia (same as UK I guess) was on the low side. I mean if you don't get some time every year to sit back, take a holiday and enjoy what are you working for?

I guess there is a big difference between doing a job you love and being stuck in something to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In China they work even harder for less money. From my European perspective it is all about how much you are willing to sacrifice for your job. Because no matter how much you love your job, it's still a sacrifice. As an inidividual I'm more concerned with the quality of my life than the local quality of investors options. This guy is simply pushing is own agenda here, and the people insecure enough to listen will work harder. Which apparantly is everyone in SV. But without a proper social safety net in the US, I can very well imagine.

</comment><comment><USER13> From the article: "Something I've realised and have to admit is that while obviously the absolute pool of talent is smaller here in the UK/Europe than it is in the U.S. (and that cannot be disputed nor is it anything more than a function of population) another factor."

\- Last time I looked there was 300M people in the US and 500M in the EU.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm Italian, currently living in Paris. I have worked in small and large companies (even startup) all over Europe and I hear what the British VC says. I totally feel that in Europe personal life is way more important that the professional one and most of the people doing tech work are not passionate about it. Europe working culture is very much about "how many days of holidays I have left", bittered employees and clueless managers.

</comment><comment><USER15> There is certainly a correlation between a competitive environment such as that in SV and elevated work ethic, but is this really something that is so unique, geographically speaking? Why does the author and philip Letts (see the comments on site) seem to think that such a condition is impossible to replicate elsewhere?

</comment><comment><USER16> Being able to speak about workplace legislation of taxation in the EU would have been a topic of interest on founding a startup. However the author chose to squander the article on meaningless speculation.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is it intentional that the link is to a comment below the article?

<comment><AUTHOR> no, fixed

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seriously? There's even concern over whether startups "work as hard" Silicon Valley ones?

If that's where they're at, then there is almost no hope? The concept "working hard" is just ingrained in entrepreneurship. If you don't work hard, work smart, then you aren't really an entrepreneur; you're something else.</comment>


Ruport Murdoch sold $125M in Theranos stock for just $1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-murdoch-sells-theranos-stake-2017-3 <comment><USER2> > That price tag could potentially allow Murdoch to write off his investment > in Theranos as a loss, a move that could let the media mogul save millions > on taxes owed on other investments, the report speculated.

That was my guess reading the headline.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with dullness? - <AUTHOR> I am asking, what are your hobbies? (Recently lost one lately and I am looking for something on weekends) <comment><USER2> Start learning a musical instrument, my friend. If you already play one, then learn a new one. It will bring you pure joy.

<comment><USER3> I started learning classical guitar a year ago.

It's challenging but really nice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about photography? Lots of people are (re)discovering the fun of analogue/film photography now and there are plenty of usable cameras on ebay. It gets you out of the house and there are often relevant clubs where you can make friends.

</comment><comment><USER5> LSD or shrooms

<comment><AUTHOR> I would like to find out how to buy them in my country (are illegal and in Romania)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Copious amounts of weed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fun story: I had a friend who secretly grew them but he got caught and interrogate until the point of telling the truth where we were growing it (in the middle of nowhere on a private land)</comment></comment>


Google App Engine Adds a New Language - <AUTHOR> https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/333055646

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing either, 1: Javascript 2: Ruby Probably javascript since Google has a lot of experience running javascript on the server.</comment>


From PhD in Experimental Physics to Independent Software Developer - <AUTHOR> https://www.aquicarattino.com/blog/phd-independent-software-developer/ <comment><AUTHOR> I tried to summarize my path after finishing my Ph.D. in Physics. What was in my mind, and the things that made me focus on a niche that was obviously under-served. I had no tools to think about markets, value, money, but I think I managed to learn quite a great deal in a short time, and wondered who else out there is following a similar path.

</comment><comment><USER2> Isn't then the PhD itself partly a failure, in the sense of wasted energy/time to obtain the final Certificate, but not using it at all?

<comment><AUTHOR> What does it mean for you to 'use a PhD'?

<comment><USER2> Stay relevant in the field of the PhD?</comment></comment></comment>


2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate - <AUTHOR> http://www.amnh.org/2014-isaac-asimov-memorial-debate?utm_source=email&utm_medium=membership&utm_campaign=cultivation-asimov&utm_term=20140319-wed

<comment><AUTHOR> "Selling Space with Neil Tyson"</comment>


Cutting Edge Deep Learning for Coders: 2018 Edition - <AUTHOR> http://www.fast.ai/2018/05/07/part2-launch/ <comment><AUTHOR> Jeremy from fast.ai here - let me know if you have any questions about the new course. :)</comment>


Video chat with friends and family right from the browser - <AUTHOR> https://sayhello.li <comment><USER2> So I get a screen with 8 colored boxes. Until I get told anything about security, how it uses my data, how it secures my data, _anything,_ I'm not going to unblock my camera and/or phone.

It would be nice to have a link to some sort of "About" page. Until there is, I won't be using it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its a peer-to-peer video conference. Will surely work on the about page.

<comment><USER2> I see you've submitted this several times and got no response at all. What you've produced might be wonderful, but writing something technically excellent still needs some sort of "on-boarding" technique.

How are you trying to get users? Sending them to a page that asks for permissions and tells them nothing is clearly not working.

Design an on-boarding strategy, write an entry page, then try submitting that and measure how far people get into the process before giving up. Measurement of the process is critical.

Good luck!</comment></comment></comment>


My experience as the first employee of a Y Combinator startup - <AUTHOR> http://nathanmarz.com/blog/my-experience-as-the-first-employee-of-a-y-combinator-startu.html <comment><USER2> My experience as being employee 8 million at a Large Corporation is nearly identical. I can choose my own tools, work from home when I want to, take breaks, etc.

We've already taken care of the cash flow thing, so it ends up being much more relaxing than working for a small company. We aren't going to go out of business if our software isn't released tomorrow, so we have lots of time to write quality solutions. We can build stuff that's really nice to work on, instead of stuff that will give us one more checkbox in a TechCrunch comparison article.

(I worked at a small company for a long time. It was less flexible, and every year, we "don't have enough money" for a raise. Eventually it was very stressful, my input didn't matter at all, and I got paid nothing. All for what most people consider "the ideal job". "Going corporate" was the best thing I ever did!)

<comment><USER3> It's better if you actually own the small company, though...

<comment><USER2> So that I can spend 99% of my time doing something I'm bad at, and 1% of my time doing something I'm good at? No thanks.

As an employee, I spend at least 80% of my time doing my best work -- no billing, no taxes, no finding new clients. I wake up, do some programming, chat with coworkers, eat lunch, do some more programming, then go home. And oh yeah, I get paid even if the company has a slow month or year.

Don't get me wrong; in many ways, I would love to have my own company. But I am pretty sure I will make more money, be less stressed, and have more free time not doing that.

(Anyone want to pay me to implement whatever random useless ideas interest me? Exactly.)

<comment><USER4> Will you still be happy with this kind of job in 20 or 30 years?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I personally think the first one to five employees in a minimally funded startup with small m&a exit as the likely exit are getting a bad deal, vs. the founders or employees who join after financing.

An early employee will get about a percent tops as an individual contributor...maybe up to five percent tops if he is more of a vp engineering. In exchange, a seriously below market salary, equally high if not higher risk of losing one's job vs. founders, and vastly less respect when he later goes to try to do his own startup.

Assuming the same caliber of individual, it makes a lot more sense to either found your own startup, or join after real financing (where you get a market salary, and have a lot less risk, plus a lot of startups with problems have been shaken out.).

Obviously being am early employee at a great startup like google or Facebook makes sense, but for companies more likely going for 10 to 50m base hits, I don't think early employee is a financially rational decision. (note to future people I want to hire: I only do high risk potentially high value exit startups, so your initial equity actually is worth it!)

<comment><USER6> If by "real" financing you mean a series A round, then you're probably mistaken. People who join a startup with just angel funding might get roughly 4-5x as much stock as they'd get post series A. It's only a worse deal if a series A round makes a company 4-5x less risky.

There's a market price for all the different options, from founder to early hire to later hire. It would not make sense for there to be points on the continuum that would suddenly be a much worse (or better) deal, and in my experience there aren't.

You're also mistaken in saying that an early hire will get 1 percent tops. This number varies by 30-40x, depending on where the company is and how early the hire is. 1 percent would be typical for a very good hacker fairly soon after a series A. You can get much more pre series A.

<comment><USER7> "You're also mistaken in saying that an early hire will get 1 percent tops. This number varies by 30-40x, "

so the #1 and #2 employees are going to get 60% equity combined?

Or was that x supposed to be a % sign?

<comment><USER8> One company might choose to give an early hire 20%, possibly even making them a cofounder. Another company might give an early hire 0.5%. Hence the 40x variability in the amount of equity given to early hires.

<comment><USER9> all equity isn't created equally -- .5% of google is worth vastly more than 20% of a brand new startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If it takes you weeks to recover from a burn-out you haven't burned out - yet.

Burn out is a serious issue and some people never fully recover from it. If you're working hard and you need a break after a few months of hard labour that's normal, but it's not the same as being burned out.

Otherwise a great piece and nice to get some insight in to what goes on behind the scenes of backtype.

<comment><USER11> Years ago I suffered what I would now call "burn out" although at the time I didn't know what was happening. I found this essay to be an accurate description of my experience, but I think a doctor would be a better source of information on this topic: <http://www.stressdoc.com/four_stages_burnbout.htm>

At the worst point I was experiencing anxiety, paranoia and depression. My only strategy for coping with stress and difficult situations at the time was to put my head down and work through it. I thought if I was having problems getting the job done, I would just put in more hours. This turned out to be a terrible idea. I worked 80 hour weeks for months at a time in highly stressful situations. Initially this work ethic bought me promotions and raises, but you can't work these kinds of hours under a huge load of stress for years and not suffer consequences. In two years I gained 40 pounds and became a pack a day smoker. When you never put a limit on how much you work you eventually break down.

I nearly ended up quitting and going to seminary. Instead I just got a new job with less hours and responsibility on the other side of the country. After a few years I'm finally getting to the point where I can handle stress like I used to: until now any moderate level of stress has caused me to spiral into anxiety and paranoia again. I was worried I was permanently damaged, but thankfully I'm getting better.

EDIT: I haven't smoked for two years. I've lost over 40 pounds and I'm running my first 5K on Thursday. I got better but I had to drastically change my life.

<comment><USER12> I've found exercise to be one of the best ways to help prevent burnout. Especially exercises that put one into a meditative state. (Running, rowing, swimming, yoga, etc.)

Good luck on the 5K. :-)

<comment><USER5> I definitely agree re exercise.

A good relationship, kids, and general family life also seems to help people survive high stress, but high stress often leads to a bad home life which can make it worse yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Employee compensation from startups depends on many factors including how much they value employees, but it's really important for prospective startup employees to understand that you'll probably work longer hours, have more responsibility, and earn less than if you keep your day job.

Someone with experience in a great "normal" job may be surprised that the compensation, including equity, of a first employee is usually significantly less than what they're already earning. A first employee is taking a risk in opportunity cost by accepting a lower salary, but the risk should have an associated reward, namely equity. However, if a company has to do well just for the employee to break even with the opportunity cost, joining a startup doesn't seem like a sound choice. And not just in terms of money, but also general wealth and quality of life.

Further, the hours conserved by remaining at the day job can be used to build your own product. When the risk-level is acceptable, leave the day job for your own startup where you can maintain control and keep a meaningful equity percentage.

There are benefits to being a startup employee, such as the exposure to growing a company and the opportunity to join a support network and work with good people. Those things have value, but not always enough to offset the opportunity cost of either keeping the day job or founding your own startup.

Personally, I'd still consider joining a startup as an employee if it was a great match.

As a side note, RethinkDB has done a great job with posting a mapping of position/experience to compensation. They set compensation expectations before a prospective employee has even applied.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting read but the details are a bit scary from my comfy chair here in enterprise software land:

\- Six years at Stanford, two CS degrees

\- Works up to 90 hours a week from home, has burned out multiple times in only six months with the company

\- Founders work even more

\- All three appear to be single white 20something males

\- Job and tech (Clojure!) sound cool.

 _Edit: All that said he seems like a nice guy and I hope he gets rich off of Backtype. I love the service. I just can't quite project myself into the profile above._

<comment><USER15> I've had some weeks where I've pulled 90+ hours, but my normal week is more like 70 hours.

<comment><USER16> this is similarly ridiculously high.

<comment><USER15> Well, I really enjoy what I do, and I'm passionate about seeing this company succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What salary can one expect while working for a YC startup? Is it comparable with the industry's average?

<comment><USER18> I took an almost 50% salary cut when I first started working at justin.tv. I don't think you can generally expect the industry average in an early-stage startup. My salary is nearly back up to what it used to be now though.

<comment><USER10> > My salary is nearly back up to what it used to be now though.

How much do you figure is your overall loss because of joining (in $) ? Does your equity make up for that ?

<comment><USER18> If you assume the company's most-recent valuation accurately reflects its worth, then yeah, my equity more-than makes up for my loss. Until there's an exit though of course, the equity is essentially worthless (I find I stay more sane if I just act like it has no more value than a random lottery ticket has).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love the layout on <http://www.backtype.com/about>

Seeing the two open positions in line with the current team really drives home the point that you'll be taking on key people and not just filling out an org chart.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow, having read that I'm genuinely horrified. You work 6 days a week. Why? You're an employee. Seriously even if you weren't theres more important things in life. I can understand where you're coming from but believe me, it's not that the founders are abusing you, it's that you're abusing yourself.

Seriously, go out, enjoy yourself. Live.

</comment><comment><USER20> Just wanted to comment that this is a great post and I enjoyed reading it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice post. I think I would have a hard time pulling the trigger so quickly after meeting someone, but it sounds like serendipity.</comment>


8÷2(2+2) =? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaitsBUyiNQ <comment><USER2> To save you the watch...

        8 / 2 (2 + 2)
        = 8 / 2 (4)
        = 4 (4)
        = 16

It's easy to accidentally arrive at a result of 1 by mistake by doing 2 * 4 "bottom up" after the second line instead of applying multiplication & division left to right.

Surprisingly I've seen an older Casio scientific calculator given an incorrect answer of 1.

<comment><USER3> BODMAS.

is

BRACKETS then OF then DIVISION then MULTIPLICATION Then ADDITION then SUBTRACTION

8 / 2(2 + 2)

8 / 2(4)

8 / 8

= 1

> Surprisingly I've seen an older Casio scientific calculator given an > incorrect answer of 1

LOL.

The brackets bind tighter than the division sign. _It 's a trick question._

What the 16 proponents are seeing is

(8/2) x (2+2)

      (4) x (4)

       (16)

What the brackets are doing though is

(8) / (2 x (2 +2))

(8) / (2 x 4)

(8) / (8)

(1)

<comment><USER2> But the extra set of parentheses added here in your reply is not part of the original equation:

        (8) / (2 x (2 +2))
              ^          ^

I don't follow why you don't do the multiplication left to right after the expression inside the parentheses has been evaluated. Once the parentheses (PEMDAS) precedence has been applied to result in 8 / 2 * 4, then it should just be standard multiplication and division left to right, right?

[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%3D%208%20%2F%202%20(2...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%3D%208%20%2F%202%20\(2%20%2B%202\))

<comment><USER3> The extra set of brackets is an attempt to show that the '2' in front of the bracket is shorthand for '2 x'

i.e 2(...) = (2x(...))

but that '2' is part of the whole brackets expression and should be evaluated as such.

As I mentioned before, this is really a trick question, and meant to be deliberately ambiguous.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Drop.lol – user-friendly peer to peer file sharing in a web app - <AUTHOR> https://drop.lol <comment><USER2> Nice!

It's a bit frustrating that the native behavior of the browser back-button is being prevented.

<comment><AUTHOR> It isn't intentional, exists only as a side effect.

Thank you for your feedback and I will fix it soon.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The README on GitHub contains more information about the project: [https://github.com/mat-sz/filedrop-web](https://github.com/mat-sz/filedrop- web)

If you have any other questions let me know and I'll add them to the FAQ.</comment>


Dangerous Ideas - david-cako https://cako.io/the-divine-logos-and-eros/ <comment> david-cako Looking for any and all criticisms! This is something I think a lot about and I think it's a really interesting way of presenting and understanding it -- digging our way into and out of plato's cave as reductionistically as possible.</comment>