The First Conscious Machines Will Probably Be on Wall Street - <AUTHOR> http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/07/01/conscious-machines/

<comment><USER2> This makes as much sense as saying the first robots capable of swimming will be human-form-factor pack mules designed to take small waterproof packs from China, swim over the Pacific, and deposit them in America. Container ships make a heck of a lot more sense, right? Why optimize for pattern-matches-with- a-human on a task that humans inherently suck at?

Incidentally, in quite possibly the only time I've ever agreed with him, Noam Chomsky said that this sort of example makes debating whether a machine will ever "think" pointless, since you're debating the word "think" in English rather than any fact about material reality. We don't say that container ships count as a machine "swimming", but Russians do.

<comment><USER3> Actually in Russian a ship 'goes' :)

<comment><USER4> Perhaps it's only a Internet myth, but I remember a comment that said that in Russian the _submarines_ swim (not the _ships_ ).

I tried to google it, but I was unlucky, especially because a submarine crew decided to swim (without the submarine) in the arctic and make a video.

<comment><USER5> In Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novels (set in the Age of Sail), the characters often refer to ships and boats as "swimming" (e.g., the ship's carpenter saying "she'll swim" after repairing one of the boats).

While that's not a primary source, O'Brian is generally conceded to have done painstaking research to make his novels as authentic as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The stimulus space provided by wallstreet is incredibly impoverished. While a bundle of algos that deal with text and numbers (and has quite a bit of agency) might one day develop into something very similar to what we call consciousness I suspect we will have an extremely hard time recognizing it. We really have zero way to measure consciousness. Autonomous agency? Yes, there are already machines that build their own models and take action based on them (most people, rightly or wrongly, don't consider them to be conscious). Perhaps wallstreet will seek to create algos that examine themselves as part of their model of the world but that can lead to some nasty chaotic behavior, and without having some sense of 'being' in the world that informs its own actions I might argue that we can simply point to the Chinese room experiment and suggest that we come up with better measures for whatever it is we refer to when talking about consciousness.

I might also note that the author grossly oversimplifies human beings and the vast amount and diversity of information our nervous system is continually collecting and processing without our awareness that ultimately feeds into consciousness.

Also worth noting that our experience of consciousness is very much a fabrication created by our brain to impose consistency on the world (my go to example, used here before being our blind spot). I'm not so sure that wallstreet really wants to replicate the kind of 'filling in' that seems to be a critical part of our conscious experience.

</comment><comment><USER7> "today's Wall Street is the first and perhaps only industry putting artificial intelligence toward actual productive ends"

What are you talking about?

Google (search, navigation, advertising), Amazon (recommendations), Facebook (advertising, whatever the hell else they do).

The United States Military (robotics, autonomous drones, scheduling, pretty much all AI applications). UPS (scheduling). NSA (data mining metadata to detect 'em terrorists), NASA (control systems, detection of objects).

You are right though, Wall Street's applications are much more productive.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Wall Street is the first and perhaps only industry putting artificial > intelligence toward actual productive ends

Huh?

How about Google, Facebook and endless number of other businesses that use artificial intelligence all the time in their programs.</comment>


Radar evidence of subglacial liquid water on Mars - <AUTHOR> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/07/24/science.aar7268.full <comment><AUTHOR> This is the actual publication of the discovery, linked from ESA's page [http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express...](http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Mars_Express_detects_liquid_water_hidden_under_planet_s_south_pole) Mars Express is an ESA satellite, with the Italian MARSIS radar instrument, two long antennas: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARSIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARSIS)</comment>


American Dream is Elusive for New Generation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/economy/07generation.html?hp=&pagewanted=print <comment><USER5> This kid that turned down a 40K a year gig for something "perfect" is an idiot that deserves what he gets.

The first thing I would do if I was looking for a job is... get a job. ANY job. I've got an engineering degree, and I'd start flipping burgers or hauling trash or whatever just to keep working. THEN I would start looking for a more suitable career job.

It's pretty simple. As a hiring manager looking at two potential employees, one who is "waiting for the right position" and another that is "trying to get by", I go with the latter every time. The first guy is definitely out of touch with reality, and the second guy is doing what it takes to get stuff done. I want him working for me.

<comment><USER6> Yeah they could have picked a more sympathetic subject.

<comment><USER7> I recall another story about a girl who attended NYU and has a mountain of debt and can't find work.

At the end of the article it stated her major, and it wasn't something that was marketable in today's economy.

Which sounds slightly arrogant. As a reader, I can see the mistakes made. The reality in any economy is that a womens studies graduate from NYU is going to have more difficulty finding work than say an engineering graduate from a state university.

If the goals for employment are self-actualization, then be prepared for a hunt in the beginning. If the goals are to earn a paycheck - any paycheck, then there is plenty of work out there.

I am afraid that a lot of people in my generation have a very strong sense of entitlement.

<comment><USER8> I think there is much more pressure on young people today (me being one of them) that you must be doing what your love or working on your passion.

While good advice, some young people don't realise that this is good long-term advice. It's something you should work towards over a number of years. It is a very big mistake to close doors that may not offer the perfect path. I have some friends like this who seem to want the perfect job right away so they pass up other opportunities even though they could lead to it in the future.

<comment><USER9> There is also a lot more pressure on young people today to go amass piles of debt acquiring a college degree that _they do not need_.

The stigma against trade and vocational educations in this country needs to die, otherwise we're going to just keep starting people off at a bigger disadvantage than they need be for very little good reason.

<comment><USER10> I agree -- and going one step further, WITHIN higher education, there seems to be somewhat of a stigma against training for real-world, hands-on, applications. I was pretty lucky to attend a college that encouraged students to work on projects that could become viable products... but from what I hear from friends, it was the exception.

<comment><USER9> Just to provide another data point from my own college experience, I actually ended up dropping out from my school because I got fed up with the fact that their program focused _too much_ on application.

This is a school whose computer science curriculum circa 2004 still included COBOL because one of the major employers in my area is the banking industry. (Coincidentally, the CS building carries the name of one of the big names in that field here).

CS is a field where the theory end of things are often the most important thing you could take away long term, so having that kind of focus on tools in general (let alone ones that are hopeless obsolete for most purposes) is just insane.

Like everything else in life, it's all about balance. That said, I can't blame academia too much for erring on the side of theory.

<comment><USER10> I agree with what you're saying -- I thoroughly enjoyed the pure theory classes as part of the CS curriculum. I also agree that it is more important to teach concepts than specific technologies. That said, I think there are schools that fail to teach concepts as well... things like working as part of a team, using source control and designing a product modularly and writing code which would be considered "production quality." There's a tendency to put those things off because it is "just for a school project."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article is insulting, this is not the American dream. The American dream has never been about the pampered children of the elite working their way through subsidized higher education and finding exactly the right job just out of college with no experience.

The American dream is about working your ass off and scrambling your way up the ladder. It's about entrepreneurism and opportunity. It's about hard work and determination paying off over time. Andrew Carnegie's first job earned lower wages than working at McDonald's would today, he became wealthy not because he sat around like a sad sack waiting for his pre-conceived dream job to come to him while he was sitting around in his parent's house, he became wealthy because he sought out opportunities and took advantage of what he could. Like many highly successful people he worked his way through several careers.

The American dream isn't about the guy in this article, it's about the guy down the street starting a lawn care business with a rented lawnmower who uses hard work and sound judgment to build it into a landscaping company with its own office and several employees. It's about the other guy who builds an online business in his free time and works days, evenings, and weekends in order to make his dream reality. It's about the opportunity to work your way from nothing up to a comfortable living if you're willing to put in the elbow grease. That dream is as alive as ever, and with the low-overhead of internet based businesses if anything it's seeing a rebirth.

<comment><USER12> > That dream is as alive as ever

While I agree that the article chose the wrong focus, I think you're wrong. Look at the American Dream on a societal level: while there will continue to be outliers, the fact is that today's younger generations are doing worse than their parents by many measures.

How on earth is that "as alive as ever"?

(More abstractly: I think the whole American Dream thing is a destructive myth, due specifically to its fixation on "elbow grease" at the expense of the many, many, other factors that play into success.)

<comment><USER11> I think that the degree to which younger generations are "doing worse" is due to upbringing and work-ethic far more than it is due to opportunity. Today's younger generations start working later, work less, stay at home longer, spend a lot more time pursuing vanity educations with no economic value, have out of control spending habits, and are generally bad with money management.

And even then most "younger generations" live much easier and more wealthy lives than previous generations. They still have cable TV, the internet, cell phones, cars, prepared food, etc, etc, etc.

Every single person I've seen with drive, a good work-ethic, and sound financial sense has gotten ahead quickly in America, even if they never achieved any education beyond a high school diploma. That doesn't mean they all become millionaires, it just means they achieved financial stability and have significant control over their career path.

<comment><USER12> > And even then most "younger generations" live much easier and more wealthy > lives than previous generations. They still have cable TV, the internet, > cell phones, cars, prepared food, etc, etc, etc.

Don't conflate access to luxuries with wealth. Very few will pay off their mortgages as quickly as their parents, retire as early, raise a family of their own as easily, or weather more difficult times as smoothly.

It remains true even if this is due to (to paraphrase your words) a generational gumption shortage; regardless of cause, it looks like the American Dream is fading away.

<comment><USER13> > Don't conflate access to luxuries with wealth. Very few will pay off their > mortgages as quickly as their parents, retire as early, raise a family of > their own as easily, or weather more difficult times as smoothly.

They're trading luxuries for wealth. In other words, they're trading luxury consumption now for house payments later.

It's unclear why that choice is somehow unfortunate. More to the point - <USER2> ones who don't make it are in the same position as their parents.

<comment><USER12> If I could trade an iPhone for a house, I would. You're blatantly misrepresenting the scale of these things in order to equate them.

<comment><USER11> iPhone: $200 + $70/mo + apps & accessories, call it roughly $1k/year

internet/cable: $50-100/mo, call it roughly $1k/year too

gaming: $250 xbox 360 or ps3 every 4ish years, plus maybe a $60 game every 3 months, call it $300/year

entertainment: 10 DVDs a year at $15 each, a movie in the theater every month at $10 a pop, call it $300/year

eating out: $20 including tax and tip every week, call it $1k/year

car payment: a cheap car, only $150/mo, call it $1800/year.

These are just SWAGs, but they are relatively conservative SWAGs compared to the way most 20-somethings live today. Nevertheless, add it all up and you get $4-5k of money spent a year on relative luxuries. Save that up and in 4 years you have a down payment. Then roll it in with what you'd be paying for rent and you have a mortgage payment. Keep your credit clean and you can start paying on a 200k condo even in a big city in no time. Once you build up equity and once your career has advanced and you're making more income you can trade up to an even more expensive house.

This isn't rocket science, but it does take discipline and sacrifice.

<comment><USER12> There's sort of two directions to respond in here. First, you're rather fudging the conclusion that cutting expenses to the bone has bought you a house -- better save for double the time or end up putting 10% or less down, which has been manifestly demonstrated in recent years to be a stupid idea.

More generally, this whole conversation has become one of minutia.

The fact is that moving ahead financially has become more difficult. Impossible, of course not -- but the sacrifice, shrewdness, and plain dumb luck required continue to grow.

You will have a hard time convincing me, or anyone else paying attention, that this trend is due to some sort of society-wide age-related motivational shortcoming, which seems to be your argument.

<comment><USER13> > More generally, this whole conversation has become one of minutia.

Getting ahead is often minutia.

> First, you're rather fudging the conclusion that cutting expenses to the > bone has bought you a house

Actually, he didn't cut anyway near "the bone". Write down everything that you spend money on for a month. (Yes, including vending machines.) You'll be amazed, and you'll save a lot of money because you'll find that the benefit of many purchases is less than the cost of writing them down.

> You will have a hard time convincing me, or anyone else paying attention, > that this trend is due to some sort of society-wide age-related motivational > shortcoming, which seems to be your argument.

We're not claiming that you're lacking motivation. We're claiming that you're spending lots of money that you could spend on something else.

If you're anywhere near "hacker news typical", you're spending 2-3x as some of your neighbors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Rather than waste early years in dead-end work, he reasoned, he would hold out for a corporate position that would draw on his college training and put him, as he sees it, on the bottom rungs of a career ladder._

Prima donna. At least he hasn't been doing any 'dead end' work for the last 2 years. However, he can put 2 years of professional job hunting on his resume. I don't think he understands, that 40K job is the bottom of the career ladder. You're not supposed to stay there very long.

<comment><USER15> I completely agree.

I graduated college 5 years ago with a Poli sci BA from a state school. My first job was for $11/hr working on MS Pagemaker for the Wisconsin Medicaid website for EDS. Talk about soul sucking!

Now, I'm a senior software engineer at a VC-funded software company in Boulder. Needless to say earning a bit more and doing a lot more rewarding work.

Between those two places there are about four other jobs and literally thousands of hours reading programming books, working on "play" projects, making websites for my Aunt, Grandma, anyone who would let me, etc.

Best advice is to get out there, get any job, stay hungry, intellectually curious and never settle. Then stop worrying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hate to say it, but if you have been looking for work for a long time and turn down an offer.... You can't complain.

There is a saying about beggars and choosers.

I completely understand being in a job that I dislike, but a job that I dislike is better than no job and no prospects of a job.

A single position can build a resume and open more doors. This was a foolish mistake it seems. I would love to hear about a follow up. Did this guy land the job that he wants?

<comment><USER16> _"The conversation I'm going to have with my parents now that I've turned down this job is more of a concern to me than turning down the job,"_

That's what jumped out at me as the giant, blinking, neon sign. _You and I_ can't turn down an offer and still complain.

But a kid with that mindset absolutely will. He has absolutely no perspective. His parents and grandparents have raised him within Plato's Cave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am not American but French-Canadian. Perhaps my idea of the American dream was skewed by hollywood.

I always thought that the American dream was about determination winning over "old money". I thought it was having fewer roadblocks in front of you. I thought it was about having opportunities to prove oneself regardless of wether or not you have a diploma.

Am I so disconnected from this kid's worldview that I can't understand why he didn't take up the 40k? I accepted my first job realizing that it wasn't so much about the money I was making as the chance to prove myself out there. Prove myself I did. I doubled my salary within the first 5 years and got more and more interesting jobs as time went by.

This guy just has sense of entitlement. He calls it the American dream but either he doesn't know what that means or I don't.

</comment><comment><USER18> Actually, upon looking again, I think that his grandfather has a point. My english teacher my senior year of high school strongly encouraged me to spend a semester biking or backpacking through Europe, taking short term jobs to support myself as I traveled. At the time, I thought she was insane, but that kind of perspective could probably do this guy lots of good.

<comment><USER19> Any kind of perspective would do this guy lots of good, period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I graduated a few years ago, and a common worldview in my graduating class was, "I've put X amount of work in my whole life, so I should hear back from jobs when I apply." It's a flawed line of thought, but it's not common to question things you've been told your whole life. The truth is much more subtle - hard work is important, but working hard towards a goal is what gets you jobs.

It wasn't very common to find someone who tried to make industry contacts, or who helped out inside of their department at special events, or who spent large amounts of spare time trying to improve themselves. They just signed up for a whole bunch of classes and worked their ass off in the classroom. Which is good! But it doesn't translate well into job offers

The kid in the article lacks the fundamentals for getting a job he wants, but at least he seemed willing to compromise on his lofty ideals and MIGHT accept a lesser job in the future. He should listen to his grandfather! ""Scott has got to find somebody who knows someone," the grandfather said, "someone who can get him to the head of the line.""

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was surprised to read this article, as it seemed to me from reading HN and other tech-related news sources that there are more opportunities than ever. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER21> From the article: he doesn't want to be an entrepreneur or work in small-fish business. He is set for building a traditional career in a finance corporation. A yuppie born into wrong era.

<comment><USER22> Killer quote:

 _"If you talk to 20 people," Scott said, "you'll find only one in manufacturing and everyone else in finance_

Umm, no...

<comment><USER23> Well in Canada (Montreal city) they are a lot of student in Mangament/Finance and a lot less in other fields. People think finance is the "only" way to make big easy money now.

<comment><USER24> All the talk about the big bonuses in Wall Street during the US crisis sent the wrong signals, I suspect.

I daydream about working at a Wall Street bank from what I read here on HN occasionally about the paychecks (currently can't because I'm not an US or EU citizen)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Political science with a history minor. I feel bad for him, but what did he expect?

<comment><USER25> I think it's partly the universities fault for promoting this kind of "well rounded" education. You would have to think though that this can't be doing him any favours applying for finance jobs against people that actually did economics and similar.

<comment><USER8> I agree but then universities are businesses. It's in their economic interest for offering these degrees.

I still have university students in my social circle and I cringe everytime I meet someone that says they are studying political science or psychology or art or history or women's studies. Many of the degrees universities offer these days are only helpful if you stay within the university system and become a prof.

<comment><USER22> There is a mantra that I don't know where exactly came from, but my teachers in the 6th form (High School) all repeated it: it doesn't matter what you study as at university you are really learning how to learn.

We need to knock that on the head before we make any progress,

<comment><USER25> Agreed, this thought has some value but people need to realise that it doesn't mean that studying something then applying for another field puts them on an equal standing to those who studied in that specific field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> He's 24 and his parents are still paying his cell phone bill? Yikes.

<comment><USER27> Is this particular point so terrible? I'm 23 and am still on my parents' plan. The marginal cost of keeping me on their family plan is so much less than the cost of me getting my own line that it makes little sense for me to get my own, even though I could easily afford it.

<comment><USER26> In the context of the article, it reinforces the idea that he's spoiled - <USER3> while his parents continue to pay all of his bills, he turns down what most of us would consider a more than reasonable starting salary given this economy, his major, and his lack of experience.

I would assume that in your case (since you could easily afford your own line), you're at least reimbursing your parents. This guy isn't.

<comment><USER8> Also mentioned is that his schooling was entirely paid for along with his rent.

I imagine that if his parents weren't still subsidizing his life, he wouldn't have had any thought about rejecting that job offer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Single page version: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/economy/07generat...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/economy/07generation.html?pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER29> hah...I actually went to high school with that kid. My parents went broke sending me to a private school they couldn't afford, so I had the pleasure of growing up with spoiled millionaire future liberal arts majors. Do I take pleasure knowing that today, I forbid my parents from ever picking up a restaurant tab when we go out, and meanwhile his parents are still paying for his cell phone? Yes, yes I do take pleasure :)

</comment><comment><USER30> _"I don't think I fully understood the severity of the situation I had graduated into," he said, speaking in effect for an age group — the so-called millennials, 18 to 29 — whose unemployment rate of nearly 14 percent approaches the levels of that group in the Great Depression. And then he veered into the optimism that, polls show, is persistently, perhaps perversely, characteristic of millennials today. "I am absolutely certain that my job hunt will eventually pay off," he said._

This writer should be doing over-dramatic stories for The Onion.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think this kid's problem ultimately boils down to one statement: "He majored in political science and minored in history."

And he wants to earn north of $75k? Why? Because he read a lot of history books? And he's arrogant enough to say this to the NY Times? He might as well put a stamp on his forehead that says "Arrogant bastard. Do not hire."

</comment><comment><USER32> These articles emerge like cicadas every few years, especially during temporary economic downturns. The definition of the 'American Dream' is nebulous enough that you can always, for the purpose of the story, define it as what today's kids won't have as easy as their parents.

</comment><comment><USER33> I feel for the guy, though I think he should have considered the $40K job a little more.

Sounds like what he really needs to do is get the hell away from his parents who keep making excuses for him and trying to be "understanding".

</comment><comment><USER34> I think my friend Dan (who is on HN incidentally) summed it up perfectly:

"American Dream Elusive for New Generation": get political science degree, apply to finance jobs, reject entry-level positions -> fail.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think this article has riled up quite a few folks, there's nearly 1500 comments in this nytimes article!!!

</comment><comment><USER36> This is the curse of coming from a well-off family: you can't imagine struggling up. And your mommy probably agrees that you're better than that. Maybe his father disagreed temporarily with his son's rejection of that job, but I bet the message he's been giving his son the other 365 days a year is that he's so gifted, talented, and destined for great things.

That said, I'd love to have coffee with his grandfather. Sounds like an interesting guy.

There are a million opportunities out there for young people who are willing to work outside of school, on talents or skills or connections - but not for those who expect to get experience handed to them with their grades.

<comment><USER37> It seems to me this is a generational thing. I live in Europe, coming from a not-so-rich family, and my 30 years old sister is exactly like that guy - <USER4> the job is so-called boring or "inferior", she would not even consider it...she prefers to keep sending resumes.

But on the other hand, I am not willing to criticize him too quickly. I think there is some truth to it - if you settle for the unsuitable job, it might be difficult to move from there. In other words, I am not a strong proponent of the "better any job than no job" mentality. Sometimes it is better to continue searching.

<comment><USER36> I didn't say "rich," I said "well-off." The middle class fear poverty more than the truly rich, in my experience.

You can quit a job at any point, and nothing bad happens. That's easy to explain, too. I quit my first real job after 3 months because it was too aggravating, and I got a better offer. Never posed me any problems, and meanwhile I paid off a lot of my debt.

People who make excuses will always find some _new_ excuse to make.</comment></comment></comment>


Google to offer app devs the same revenue sharing terms as Apple – immediately - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2016/6/8/11889298/google-apple-subscription-app-revenue-share <comment><USER2> Maybe they ought to be more consumer focussed and developer friendly.

Their outrageous LIFETIME ban hammer on devs which cannot be argued with any human inside googleplex and their bots making the decisions to shutter all your gmail+drive+docs for violations of play store or youtube and also banning any "related accounts" is absolutely abhorring.

My first startup was shuttered down by google because one of our devs used "multiple sign in" to login with his personal account and then to our business account. His personal account was banned for using "copyrighted images" and google bot tied his account to our company and overnight everything in our account was gone : docs, gmail, drive, adsense (they kept adwords alive because it was being charged monthly).

I tried contacting everyone and anyone remotely possible and none could do anything.

Plenty of stories like this was brought up to their head of public policy at reddit AMA: [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/35b6bt/we_are_senior_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/35b6bt/we_are_senior_members_of_googles_public_policy/cr2smcq?context=3)

Their VP promised to look into it but he never did. Even their engineering department said that customer service was a "black box" and there is nothing they could do.

Fuck Google. They went from a developer respected company to plain shill bags.</comment>


Good books or articles on randomness? - <AUTHOR>

Recently I've become very interested in randomness. This includes pseudorandom number generators, random number tests, as well as statistics and probability. I would really like to learn a lot more about these kinds of things since I know very little about them at the moment.
I'd like to know if there are some books, articles, websites, or blogs that people recommend I read. These should not be too technical (I'm in high school), but I don't want something that is too broad or general as well. An ideal book/article would be one that introduces a beginner to randomness and includes mathematics and statistics (or at least has some numbers in it).
In addition to the book/article suggestions, I would love to hear everyone's opinions on randomness here on Hacker News. I personally believe in determinism, cause-and-effect, and materialism (which I feel all are quite close connected). Since I haven't found any good books yet on these topics, I've learned most of what I know from websites and Wikipedia. Recently I started pondering how I could write a program the test the "quality" or "randomness" of a random set of numbers. I was confronted with the enormous difficulty of this task, and I ended up spending more time debating with myself whether this was even possible. I've heard of chi squared tests and I know there are other tests out there, but I don't know much about them. Isn't it hard to really know what you're looking for when you're testing random numbers? I mean, what is the ideal set of random numbers? Is there one?
This brings me to a conclusion, coming from my ignorant perspective on this area of research. I hardly know anything about what I'm talking about (so I hope know one takes offense from what I've said or am about to say), but it seems as if there could be a close connection between psychology and random number generators. A random number generator is only as random as it is portrayed by our brains. Right? The objective is too make a set of random numbers that are not predictable by us. It looks as if people have taken many approaches on testing random numbers, but I'd like to see some research that people have done on how we, humans, can act as the testers (which I'm sure has been done before many times). Maybe an experiment to see which random number sets humans can least accurately guess the next number in the sequence?
To conclude this lengthy post, I'll summarize by saying that I find the fields around randomness very fascinating and I'd like to hear you recommendations on relating books or articles that would be good for a beginner to read.
Thanks for your time! <comment><USER2> Well, there are some related topics on Quora: <http://www.quora.com/Randomness?q=random> and [http://www.quora.com/What-are- some-good-books-on-random-proc...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good- books-on-random-processes)

You can actually ask your question there as well in case this question gets unnoticed on HN; Quora people are very smart and pretty responsive

see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk> and do a search for Random Processes or Stochastic Processes on Amazon bookstore

Read about Entropy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> A good book on Information theory can help you put it in context: [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_18?url=search- alias...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_18?url=search- alias%3Dstripbooks&field- keywords=information+theory&sprefix=information+theory)

Check out GMP <http://gmplib.org/>

If you're philosophically inclined read some existentialists, they deal a lot with irrationality and chaos: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism>

If you're financially inclined read Random Walk Down Wall Street: <http://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/039331> and the Black Swan: [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly- Improbable/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly- Improbable/dp/1400063515) you may want to check out his other book as well, it is rather non-technical: [http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden- Chance-Market...](http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance- Markets/dp/1400067936/r)

To learn more on how Wall Street deals with the stock market randomness read some books on Time Series analysis and forecasting, e.g the classic [http://www.amazon.com/Time-Analysis-Forecasting- Probability-...](http://www.amazon.com/Time-Analysis-Forecasting-Probability- Statistics/dp/0470272848)

If you are a data scientist in heart read this great Q&A thread: <http://www.quora.com/How-do-I-become-a-data-scientist>

I wish I could help you with a link to a clear non-technical introductory article but this is all I've got. As random as it gets:)

Probably some good introductory book on science will fit the bill, science after all deals primarily with randomness. You may want to check out [http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal- Golden/...](http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal- Golden/dp/0465026567)

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, since it looks like you're like you've been on HN for a while, do you know how I can add this to the questions section? Some posts start with "Ask HN:"

[I'll delete this comment once the issue's been resolved]

<comment><USER2> Just put "Ask HN:" in the title

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, but I guess I can't change that now.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin prices falling - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.html

<comment><AUTHOR> right now in the red across all exchanges, aprox 25% drop (4:32am UTC)</comment>


Network Demands Are iPhone Hang-Up - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124200303430005275.html <comment><USER2> Am I reading this wrong? It sounds like the article is complaining about _decreasing_ , not zero or negative, profits from iPhone users, and wondering how carriers can maintain fat profits like the ones they get from text messaging. I'm not inclined to feel particularly bad about competition and commoditization making the telecom market more efficient.

</comment><comment><USER3> Considering that these same companies (AT&T and Verizon for instance) haven't figured out how to properly price and build out the hardwired data network, it shouldn't be a surprise that they're having issues with where wireless is going.

</comment><comment><USER4> They could save tremendous bandwidth if safari could manage to keep the pages in memory. It seems to want to reload the page whenever I switch between tabs.</comment>


Why Everyone in the U.S. Who Counts Wants Julian Assange Dead - <AUTHOR> https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/why-everyone-in-the-u-s-who-counts-wants-julian-assange-dead.html <comment><USER2> Hey, Yves Smith... The chopper crews were correct: don't take your kids to war. War is not about fairness, but about killing. If that is distasteful, then consider making a greater effort to avoid armed conflict, including insurgency and terrorism.</comment>


Show HN: Minimal freestanding C runtime for bare-metal/embedded PC projects - <AUTHOR> http://www.github.com/marssaxman/startc <comment><USER2> It's the basis for another project of his called 'fleet': [https://github.com/marssaxman/fleet](https://github.com/marssaxman/fleet)

The idea for fleet (and thus for startc) is to work inside a hypervisor (kvm) instead of real hardware so you get a few devices implemented through virtio and run on top of that.

His blog post on fleet is at [http://www.redecho.org/2015/10/01/system- programming-is-fun-...](http://www.redecho.org/2015/10/01/system-programming- is-fun-introducing-fleet/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm would be fun to add something like Lisp or Erlang on top of that and have the OS boot to the REPL :)

Edit: There is a Erlang project already: [http://erlangonxen.org/](http://erlangonxen.org/) Edit2: wrong link...

<comment><USER4> Not to C programmers. ;) Most of those projects are dead now. However, I think this one was semi-usable and might still be:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8955140](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8955140)

</comment></comment><comment> bro-stick Not all that useful and the code quality is mediocre. gas has macros to reduce boilerplate to nearly nothing. String primitives have already been written in portable C with one liners (see Klee on github). Assembly should only be for things primitive bootstrapping, really weird alignment issues (such as to avoid F00F) or crazy but necessary tricks like stackless operation. Higher level is your friend, low level is "I have a hammer" job security. (I know the area around p. 1800-2200 of the Intel IA-32 manual too well, I'll probably never forget PDE and PDT layouts, GDTR-null self-hosting.)

A more interesting trick of exokernel frameworks would be to provide a consistent interface _across platforms_ such as video, input, storage and threads made easily accessible like QNX and others have done.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be happy to hear your suggestions for improving the code. I've done lots of assembly programming and firmware development over the years, but rarely on x86, and this project was the first time I've used the GNU assembler. It was a learning experience, and that's part of the reason I decided to share it.

I actually wrote parts of this library in C at first, but ported them down to assembler once I got them working, because it felt more elegant to divide my project cleanly into a 'runtime' library written in assembler and a 'kernel' program written in C. A matter of taste, I suppose. The use of assembly doesn't really create a maintenance burden as the target architecture isn't changing and the library already does everything it needs to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting to see where this will go. I believe the common things to choose when one wants C on minimal runtime are RTEMS and eCOS:

[https://www.rtems.org/](https://www.rtems.org/)

[http://ecos.sourceware.org/about.html](http://ecos.sourceware.org/about.html)

I've always been surprised they weren't modified for use in VM's in the JeOS- type deployments. I'm sure some components like network stack could use some security review but I don't think that's why they were ignored. eCos's configuration options were particularly a strength as you could keep just what you wanted.

</comment><comment><USER5> Something that would be really useful: a freestanding snprintf implementation.

There are a few self-contained snprintf implementations, such as this one: [http://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf](http://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf)

Some porting work may be required for freestanding/bare metal platforms.

<comment><USER6> I've used [https://github.com/h2o/qrintf](https://github.com/h2o/qrintf) before which replaces many snprintf usages with standard C code at compile time

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pure64 from Return Infinity sounds like something similar for 64-bit systems (sans C headers): [https://github.com/ReturnInfinity/Pure64](https://github.com/ReturnInfinity/Pure64)

</comment><comment><USER8> Should check out my bare-metal unit test project targeting microcontrollers. Goal is to not use things like pipe()/fork()/malloc() etc.

[https://github.com/kylemanna](https://github.com/kylemanna)

<comment><USER8> Agrh, [https://github.com/kylemanna/nanotest](https://github.com/kylemanna/nanotest)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A bit limited, as it's only for 32 bits x86, something the topic doesn't mention.

There is no example of supported hardware, so at first glance It seems it would only be useful on old hardware, or Soekris-like boxes...

<comment><USER3> From his other project metioned by baruch:

"Requiring each program to include drivers for every possible hardware device would be madness, and slow madness since device emulation is tricky and expensive. These programs are never going to be run on bare metal anyway, so I'm going to ignore all legacy PC devices and define the 'fleet' system interface a consisting solely of virtio devices. These devices all have a simple, standardized IO interface, so it should be no problem to build drivers for six or eight of them into my kernel-library. I'll offer an efficient low- level I/O API for nonblocking DMA transfers. All the clunky, synchronous, blocking C APIs can be implemented on top of that."

<comment><USER9> Xvisor [ [http://xhypervisor.org/](http://xhypervisor.org/) ] does that (plus many other things) -- I do like the virtio driver layer a lot; however in the case of Xvisor, you also get CPU virtualisation as well as IO drivers -- it's also portable across quite a few platforms.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Developers, How do you keep yourselves motivated? - <AUTHOR> I have several goals related to my career and life but after a full day at office(developer  job), I find it impossible to do anything related to learning. Every morning I wake up motivated but by the evening there is no energy. I just want to watch Netflix and then sleep<p>Is it a sign of overwork, or burnout or something else. How  do other developers deal with the same? <comment><USER2> Check this out, you may find it useful:

[https://alexvermeer.com/getmotivated/](https://alexvermeer.com/getmotivated/)</comment>


Open Access to SIGGRAPH-Sponsored Conference Content (1 Month) - <AUTHOR> http://www.siggraph.org/learn/sponsored-conference-content <comment><USER2> > Following this one-month "free access" window, the content is available at > no cost in perpetuity, exclusively through the open access links on the page > below.

The whole 1 month thing is really weird</comment>


Feature Teams in large org - <AUTHOR> Hello,
I'm looking for more information about Feature Teams ( as explained in this video https://labs.spotify.com/2014/03/27/spotify-engineering-culture-part-1/).
Do you have articles on how big web companies work? Do you know who use Feature teams? How the product teams are organized in your company?
Some context: I'm a PO working in a 300+ people web company that wants to move from platform teams (web, web app, IOS, Android) to feature teams.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> My understanding [based on listening to Software Engineering Daily podcasts] is that Facebook uses feature teams and implementing feature teams was a primary motivation for developing React Native. Coordinating features between the web, iOS, and Android platform teams still produced inconsistencies and staggered rollouts and duplication of implementation logic [or worse divergence].

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tank you! If yiu have a link it'd be useful.</comment></comment>


Programming Languages and RailsGirls.tw - <AUTHOR> http://pugs.blogs.com/pugs/2014/04/programming-languages-and-rails-girls.html <comment><USER2> TL;DR: We refactor Scripts into Programs through sharing reusable Code to build maintainable systems.

We can also refactor Social Scripts into Social Programs through sharing Codes of Conduct to build maintainable communities.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best platform to coordinate people to fix a local problem? - <AUTHOR> My neighborhood in a major American city is generally a great place to live.  However, there is a large, (somehow) publicly owned and privately run, Section 8 apartment complex that is a constant source of crime and gunfire a majority of nights (not fireworks, there is a difference, and I'm aware of it).  There have been two nights of 20+ shots being fired this week for example.  The corporate landlord is located about 2,000 miles away.
It has been a constant source of chatter on the Facebook and Nextdoor neighborhood sites, and has been a problem for several decades now.  There ARE several security measures that have proven effective in reducing crime in the past few years, but they require more or less active maintenance, namely on premises security, gates and outdoor security cameras.  The out of state landlords do not make that a priority.
Much agitation has been spent on social media, which is effective in informing the neighborhood about the problem, but ineffective in finding a solution.
Does anyone know of a good platform to use to coordinate neighborhood efforts in solving the problem as much as it can be solved?  I'm envisioning something like
Description of the problem Mapping History of incidents (i.e. 32 shots fired on this such and such a date, Police Report ABC123 filed (link to pdf etc) Numbers to call/emails to send (corporate landlords and political leaders) What the goals should be (in this case on premises secuity, working gates and security cameras)
Just checking to see if there is a pre-built solution before I start to build one... <comment><USER3> Step 1 should be talking to affected parties, not building software. Meet and talk in person. When something happens, people can take notes on paper and when you meet you combine those notes of recorded incidents. This creates more of a community feeling than anonymous flyers with a link to a website.

Edit: The problem is armchair activism. Your proposed solution is moving the conversation from Facebook to your neighborhood platform. But in the end, if everyone keeps sitting in isolation in front of their computer, the problem remains. If you are not willing to talk to people now, you won't be later, and not change a thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Step 1 is being done as well as the various facebook and nextdoor - <USER2> software is to extend and amplify that.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clarifier - the software is to extend and amplify actual pressure, created mostly by people meeting in person to discuss the problems, not another place to vent (sorry, I should have been clearer in the original post)

</comment><comment><USER4> Have you tried using Nextdoor?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have - it's actually less useful than Facebook for this purpose.</comment></comment>


Liberapay, open source Patreon like - recurrent donation platform - <AUTHOR> https://en.liberapay.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> What's impressive compared to patreon (and the latest policy change) is that they take absolutely no fees. The only fees are transaction fees, totally transparents.

They are financed only with their liberapay account, where you can pledge money.</comment>


Tell HN: Failing to log in to deactivated Facebook account has reactivated it - J-dawg I 'left' Facebook a couple of years ago, but only deactivated my profile at the time. Today I decided to delete it fully. Maybe I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but whatever, I've been meaning to do it for a while.
I went to log in but had forgotten that I used to use the Facebook app for 2-factor auth. I've also changed my phone number so I couldn't receive a code via SMS. I do have the recovery codes [0] from when I set up 2-factor auth, but cannot find any part of the login process that will accept a recovery code.
I then received an email from Facebook saying "Welcome Back to Facebook", telling me my account has been reactivated! Despite the fact that I never successfully logged in to my account. So apparently my profile is now back out there on Facebook, and there's nothing I can do about it until I (somehow) gain access to the account.
There seem to be two huge flaws here:
1. Why can't I log into my 2-factor protected account using saved recovery codes? That's what they're there for. (if anyone knows how to do this, please share!)
2. It seems anyone can reactivate a deactivated Facebook account by simply attempting to log in? EDIT: Perhaps it reactivated because I gave a correct username and password, but it still shouldn't do this until after the 2FA step
This seems like yet another dark UX pattern / security flaw from Facebook.
Just another reason to #deleteFacebook... (if only I could)
[0] https://www.facebook.com/help/www/148104135383285?helpref=faq_content&rdrhc <comment><AUTHOR> Presumably it reactivated because you got the correct username _and password_?

Don't get me wrong the reactivation step should be after the 2FA step but I can see how this happened, feels like it's a Hanlon's razor situation.

It would need testing again if an attempt with an incorrect password reactivated the account

<comment> J-dawg Yeah, now you mention it, it may have reactivated after I gave the correct username and password, but before the 2FA step.

I still think it's insane that you can reactivate an account without actually gaining access to it.

<comment><USER2> I deactivated my account. Facebook sent me a "Come back to Facebook" SMS. I replied with "No" and it reactivated my account and posted a global viewable "No" to my feed.

By me stating my displeasure, they got an MAU. Great.

<comment> J-dawg Ugh. Did you go back later and delete it fully?

<comment><USER2> March 31st is my delete day :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi, I'm Sophie and I work at Facebook.

The behavior here was not intentional, and we deployed a fix today so that a login that fails 2FA (even with a correct password) will not result in the reactivation of a deactivated account.

Thanks for noticing this bug and posting!

<comment> J-dawg Thanks. I'm not the greatest fan of your employer/product but it's great that you are responsive to stuff like this.

Out of curiosity, is the inability to log in with recovery codes also a bug? The help page I linked to explains the process for _getting_ recovery codes, but when I was attempting to log in I couldn't find any option to actually use one. The 2FA input wouldn't accept an 8 digit code. Maybe I was missing something obvious.

Perhaps this is something that only happens with deactivated accounts? (Although people with deactivated accounts are arguably the group most likely to _need_ recovery codes).

<comment><USER3> The usual 2FA input should work. Do you mind mailing me (username sophiebits, domain fb.com) your email or a link to your FB profile so I can have someone look into this? A screenshot of the input field that you see would also be helpful.

<comment> J-dawg I have now requested to delete the profile and entered the 14 day waiting period so I'm not really minded to reactivate it just to investigate this, sorry!

Thanks again for getting in touch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To me, this sounds really nasty. But it's not something I'd be shocked about, because it's Facebook. Please document this in detail in a blog post or somewhere, and then share it around through (obviously, non-Facebook channels) Twitter and other platforms. Maybe some journalists would be interested in covering this too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Someone long time ago registered an facebook account for my email. I've reset password and, what I though, deleted the account, but it never expired because someone was trying to login and reset passwords again and again and again. So yep, it's kind of known behavior for many years.

</comment><comment><USER6> I asked, pleaded, begged and demanded Spotify to dissociate my Facebook account, and even though they claim they did, when I log into Spotify with a username and password, I'll get an email within a few seconds "Welcome back to Facebook".

Absolutely maddening.

<comment><USER7> While not ideal, you should be able to go into facebook, revoke Spotify's access and then deactivate your facebook account again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yeah reactivating just requires 1 login, I've done it a few times. Sometimes it asks you to point out a few friends in a bunch of pictures.

The fact that your failed login reactivated your account is kinda scary. Anyone could just try to login with your e-mail address and your account would be reactivated ?

<comment><USER9> Only if they also know his password.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are two options on facebook, I think if you deactivate then if you ever login to facebook, then profile is back. The other option is to delete the account in which you have to wait for 14 days without logging in. My account got deleted successfully some days back.

</comment><comment><USER11> Out of curiosity, why don't you think you can delete Facebook? I have a few friends whose jobs are in new media spaces and have thrown out a couple reasons off the cuff. After talking through those scenarios though, we concluded it's entirely reasonable and practical to delete their Facebook accounts, and it wouldn't negatively impact their livelihood as much as they originally thought.

<comment> J-dawg The point of my post is that I literally _can 't_ delete Facebook right now because I'm locked out of my account. I'm not one of those people who thinks I can't live without it, my account has already been deactivated for around 2 years.

The main thing I am complaining about is that I think it's appalling that my account can be reactivated without actually giving me access to the account.

I have submitted a support request and will be deleting Facebook as soon as I get access to the account!</comment></comment>


Why Positive Cashflow Matters - <AUTHOR> https://avc.com/2019/09/why-positive-cashflow-matters/ <comment><USER2> One sign of a bubble: traditional valuation principles are abandoned because "this time it's different". See Nifty Fifty, 2000 dotcom, 1920's crash, 2015 Chinese A shares, ... . It usually requires a new generation of people to enter the market because most people learn only on their own mistakes, not on other people mistakes.

This article talks about what negative cash flow means for the company. But what does it mean for the investor? A company that cannot go cash flow positive is worth zero - the value of the company is max(all future cash flows discounted by the interest rate curve, 0). The max(, 0) comes from the concept of the limited liability company.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't said company still have assets? At some point, the company can just dissolve and liquidate its assets. Assuming the assets are worth more then the companies debt, this leaves something to distribute to shareholders.

<comment><USER4> If the company hasn't been cash flow positive over its lifetime, it is unlikely that the assets will be worth more than the debts.

Investments in machinery almost invariably depreciate significantly the moment they are bought, and salaries paid to personnel, electricity to power the lights in your office building, money spent on legal, etc, all lead to zero assets.

It can happen if most of the assets are products the company made, and the company can produce them below market value, but then, why would it have have products in store, and not sell them?

There are exceptions, but they're easily recognized. On the one hand there's seasonal demand: companies growing Christmas trees, or producing umbrellas, hockey skates, etc.

On the other hand, there's companies with long production times such as whiskey distillers or factories building nuclear plants.

<comment><USER5> Well, this is why it makes a lot more sense for startups to raise equity versus debt typically. There could be some exceptions such as using the debt to buy required hard assets, but typically, it makes very little sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also from avc.com: "the 40% rule" [0]

"I have never seen growth and profitability so nicely tied together in a simple rule like this. I've always felt intuitively that it's OK to lose money if you are growing fast, and you must make money and increasing amounts of it as your growth slows. Now there's a formula for that instinct. And I like that very much."

[0] [https://avc.com/2015/02/the-40-rule/](https://avc.com/2015/02/the-40-rule/)

<comment><USER7> That's an interesting rule, but doesn't account for companies running at negative gross profit. SaaS companies can have non-negligible COGS since they have (virtual or otherwise) server costs. If (for example) your AWS bill is higher than your revenue, no amount of growth is likely to make that healthy.

<comment><USER8> > SaaS companies can have non-negligible COGS since they have (virtual or > otherwise) server costs.

Is payroll not in that COGS equation?

<comment><USER9> COGS typically includes payroll for employees whose labor is directly tied to production but doesn't include 'overhead' employees and other categories like rent / legal / sales / marketing.

The best way to think about it: "If we had 0 sales, would this expense still exist?" If it wouldn't exist, it's COGS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The traditional defense of negative cash flow is that excessive cash means that resources are idle that could be working towards growth. This makes sense in winner-take-all markets, where getting marketshare fastest means establishing a semi-monopoly and ensuring years of profit.

I think there is some validity to that thinking, but there is an implicit assumption that one could choose to step on the brakes on growth at any time and resume positive cash flow. For many firms, that is simply not the case. The firms in that position are more desperate for growth, and in my opinion the most dangerous to all. When backed into a financial corner they make comprises that harm their customers or the ecosystem as a whole.

Therefore, I think it's crucial to distinguish strategic cash burn vs unsustainable business model. Metrics like negative return on ad spend (ROAS) are decent indicators.

<comment><USER11> In tech, it feels like negative cash flow is valued partly for it's ambiguity.

With positive cash flow, your valuation becomes easier.

With negative cash flow, you're either (a) strategically burning for growth or (b) unsustainable.

But you can pitch as to why it's one instead of the other. Which gives a lot of wiggle room for "early stage unicorn magic" tales.

<comment><USER12> I always looked at negative cash flow as _default dead_ , regardless of profitability. Long term survival is at risk when you run out of cash to pay invoices, profits or not. All that needs to happen is financing, either by banks or investors, to stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Coming from the manufacturing sector, the idea that anybody could fail to have an instinctive terror of negative cashflow... horrifies me.

<comment><USER14> A lot of companies would be fine with 5-10 million in funding and organic growth. However investors don't want to manage thousands of small profitable private companies. They want fast growth and then exit quickly in a bang. This means a lot of companies get 3-5 times more funding than they need, then generate a nice profit but not enough to pay back the excess funding and finally shut down.

<comment><USER15> Why would they shut down if they generate a nice profit?

<comment><USER16> Right, if they can't pay back funding, they haven't made any profit yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I once read about a simple AI strategy for multiple games that has stuck with me. The strategy at any point was to make moves which increase the number of moves available to the AI.

When making decisions now, I often step back and think about what types of decisions will give me more opportunities to make more choices. This often involves increasing the funds available to me.

Funds without encumbrance are better than a debt of any kind though... and venture capital is just a different kind of debt.

<comment><USER18> In some situations, curtailing your options can be good. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment)

<comment><USER17> Interesting. I can see how that could be effective due to our natural tendancy to over value immediate utility.

It makes me wonder what sort of evolutionary advantage that sort of willpower breakdown provides... If any.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > _I could go on, but I suspect you get the point. Positive cash flow puts you > in control versus the capital markets._

I guess that's why VCs generally don't encourage this sort of behavior.

<comment><USER20> It's also why it's not terribly uncommon for stock to dip a bit after getting the books in the black.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Breaking News: Companies that make real profits have more flexibility.

<comment><USER22> Except Positive Cashflow != Profitability. ;)

<comment><USER23> Yep.

I had a long debate with an accountant, regarding what I should primarily manage. Being bootstrapped I mostly manage cash-flow and made the mistake of saying "profit is made up". That got him real worked up.

My point was we derive profit. The actual transactions are in the cash-flow statement which does not lie.

<comment><USER24> You can hang on to a lot of cash while making lots of promises, and bankrupt a company without spending a penny.

I know you know, but it's a real problem with a lot of small operations getting their accounts done; they think they're in the black due to a bank balance, but when the accountant sees the books, things aren't so rosy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> His advice does not apply to you (as a founder).

He is diversified, so the outcome of one company does not really matter.

You are not diversified, so only you know what best.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Positive cash flow puts you on (sic) control ..."

Applies to individuals just as much as companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think people are very different than companies in this respect.

An individual would want to have savings (in the form of pension - e.g. 401k - and invested savings), while a company's mandate is NOT to store significant amounts of money to derive capital interest from it.

<comment><USER26> True, but it's similar in the sense that both can leverage credit but then become dependent on their creditors, and that having a significant chunk of cash in your assets gives you freedom to do what you think should be done (invest in new facilities, etc.)

A quick google reveals that Apple supposedly has over 200 billion in cash reserves...

<comment><USER18> Apple's case is partially a tax arbitrage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Silicon Valley: We don't want these silly MBAs coming out here and telling us how to run our businesses with their dated teachings.

Also Silicon Valley: Hey guys, did you know having positive cash flow is a good thing?

</comment><comment><USER28> Well, you'll need positive cash flow sooner or later if you want to stay in business. But the advantages the op attributes to positive cash flow are really advantages of having money in the bank. The only advantage to having a slightly positive cash flow is that it makes you feel good. If your cash flow is slightly positive but your key people are getting stock options or whatever as a nontrivial part of their compensation, you are actually losing money.

<comment><USER12> Didn't that happen to Uber when all the RSU from before the IPO vested?

Or with Amazon around 2017 after the stock jumped by a factor of more than five and they gave put too much RSUs in the years before?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Man, this kind of B.S. wisdom from VC gets me pissed. Do you think in all the thousands of boards meetings he has sat on that he ever recommended getting cashflow positive? The whole VC model is burn baby burn until you can get big a flip of the asset.

This kind of articles come out during a down market when the VC go from 'we will make billions' to 'cut your burn rate so I can see sell the startup you worked on for the past few years for pennies on the dollar.'

Everything VCs write is warped by their capital distortion field. Beware

<comment><USER30> False. VCs really want to build a fast growth enduring company. That's very hard to achieve, but it is what they want.

> The whole VC model is burn baby burn until you can get big a flip of the > asset.

<comment><USER31> A typical VC fund's portfolio has a lifespan of 8-12 years. This is the amount of time the venture principals have told their investors that, after which, they'll start realizing the value of the portfolio. Funds typically have multiple portfolios active concurrently, and additional investors may come in throughout the initial stages of a fund (couple years).

There isn't any way around this: at the end of the day, VCs want a return in about a decade. That's their window. They absolutely will sacrifice the long- term success of a company in order to attain a positive return within that decade, because that's when their investors want to see a return. What most people don't realize is that VCs are, usually, just middlemen. Maybe a firm is started by someone hyper-rich, but even in cases like this, they're taking in external money from dozens of sources to build these checks they write to founders.

Of course, they're not evil. In everyone's ideal world, they can see a return in their window and the business can go on to be sustainable and amazing. But the world isn't sunshine and rainbows; if they have to choose between "maybe successful in 20 years" or "sell it and break even", they're going to force a sale (if they can). I've seen it happen first-hand about three times (though, in these cases I witnessed and many I'm sure: the businesses had become "zombie startups" and likely wouldn't have seen substantial growth even with more funding. an early exit was the best outcome for everyone involved. But, in one of them at least, the CEO was pretty angry at them.)

<comment><USER32> Different motivations AND different evaluations of the company and market between the VCs and the founders. Also different risks and rewards for the VC and the founders.

Sometimes the VC thinks that the market the startup is in is a bubble and the VC will push for growth over long term health. Sometimes the VC is right and sometimes they are wrong.

I've seen this play out where the VC pushed for growth probably to get acquired. The VC may have been mostly right since the market was a bubble that popped. One competitor was able to pivot though and ended up with 4X. Most competitors failed. Perhaps the VC wanted the money or perhaps the VC didn't believe in the founders.

Sometimes the startup has no market and then the VC may push for actions that lead to acquisition. Sometimes the founders demand additional incentives in the acquisition.

I've seen this play out since the VCs probably at best break even and want to wash their hands and the founders threaten to stop the deal since they lost out on salary and stock founding the company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I really hate this modern way of doing business where being successful means your company implodes after losing five billion dollars a year for ten years rather than imploding after losing a hundred million dollars a year for five years.

Aside from being, you know, crazy, aren't there laws about charging customers below cost in order to fuel expansion and grab market share?

</comment><comment><USER34> "You can also prove that you have a business model that can generate positive cash flows, which it must at some point as a stand alone entity."

</comment><comment><USER35> He's using the term cashflow in the wrong way. You can have positive cashflow as long as investors are investing in your company, but that doesn't mean your business is going anywhere or that you make a profit.

<comment><USER36> What you say is true, though unlevered cash flow from operations is what is typically meant rather than cash flow from operations plus cash flow from financing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> It continues to amaze me that these big companies are allowed to operate at a loss for years.

<comment><USER38> Under limited circumstances, depending heavily on what is causing the loss, sometimes this can be effective for very few companies. Of course, many people unrealistically believe that their circumstances apply, that the cause of the loss is irrelevant, and that it will be effective for them. Most are wrong.

Losing money per transaction is dangerous. Making money per transaction but plowing the profits into expansion is less dangerous. The latter is what Amazon did. The former is what too many companies are doing, not seeing the difference.

<comment><USER39> >> Losing money per transaction is dangerous.

Is that not just a form of dumping, and should therefore be illegal/regulated?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_\(pricing_policy\))

<comment><USER38> There is theoretically a scenario in which a company might _temporarily_ lose money on each transaction due to scale, but over the long term manage to lower costs so that each transaction is profitable. Even that, I'd say it's dangerous to _count_ on that, but it's not completely impossible.

I think that's different from dumping, which I consider to be a more deliberate attempt to outlast a competitor.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Review my startup idea: Reduce spam sent to company's contact e-mail  - <AUTHOR>

I experienced it myself, from time to time we get spam sent to our company's contact e-mail displayed on the front page.
One work around is replacing the '@' character with 'at' or something similar. However we did not want to do that, as we wanted a clickable link.
I think a good solution to this problem would be an e-mail address that changes periodically, say from: firstname.lastname@example.com to email@example.com. where abc.com (for example) would be the domain of my startup, and company the name of a customer. This changing e-mail would only be valid for a limited time.
The idea is to provide a piece of code that changes the e-mail and handling redirections. What do you think? <comment><USER2> Here's a simple solution that works: <http://www.dynamicdrive.com/emailriddler/>

No startup needed.

</comment><comment><USER3> If all you want is a clickable link, you can set it with javascript- almost every "real" person runs javascript, and most of the spam bots don't.

<comment><AUTHOR> If that's the case then I guess this is not such a great idea for a startup:).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem is that if I save email@example.com in my address book, and it changes two weeks later, I suddenly stop receiving responses from you, and have no idea why.

Also, how is this a startup idea?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well usually when you contact a company through their contact e-mail you get response from a concrete person and their e-mail you can save in your address book. Also, if someone still did that and their message wouldn't get through, they'd get a message with the valid address to contact and so would the company be informed on the contact attempts.

Although the word startup is broadly abused these days, I used this because I could provide this service (the piece of code that changes e-mail, redirections, auto-responses and so on) and charge for it.

<comment><USER4> > Also, if someone still did that and their message wouldn't get through, > they'd get a message with the valid address to contact and so would the > company be informed on the contact attempts.

So if someone sent an outdated contact address a piece of spam, the system would reply back with the correct up-to-date e-mail address to which they could then send the spam?

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly, but that would be useless for a bot sending spam, wouldn't it?

<comment><USER4> What? It would give them a current, working e-mail address to send more spam to.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kexi Project – an open-source visual database applications creator - <AUTHOR> http://www.kexi-project.org/ <comment><USER2> The following sections on the website would be useful

* roadmap : planned features with rough timeline, and an option for the public to be able to request/prioritize/vote.

* comparison : a list of features of MS Access that Kexi can do, and more importantly, what Kexi can't do yet. Its completely ok to state that something is in the roadmap, or even that it currently is not in the works.

This is very important to potential MS Access users or those who understand that world, who might consider migrating.

<comment><USER3> I don't know if there is a roadmap but you can request and vote on features in their bugzilla: [https://community.kde.org/Calligra/File_a_bug_or_wish](https://community.kde.org/Calligra/File_a_bug_or_wish)

For the other thing, I don't know if it's up to date but there's this page: [http://www.kexi- project.org/wiki/wikiview/index.php@KexiComp...](http://www.kexi- email@example.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> wow... didn't know this was still going. I remember reading about this (probably from slashdot) in 2004/2005...

last couple projects of mine have been rebuilding access and filemaker stuff for the web. filemaker, as nice as it is in some respects, introduces relatively high licensing costs (at least relative to my client's test pricing). i guess had he used kexi it wouldn't have been a problem... :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Hi, Jaroslaw Staniek, Kexi maintainer here. Nice to meet you and I find the comments interesting. Feel free to ask me anything about Kexi :)

I'll try to answer some questions.

PS: came here alerted by this post :) [https://www.reddit.com/r/hackernews/comments/3p8e9z](https://www.reddit.com/r/hackernews/comments/3p8e9z)

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't -want- to be negative, but how relevant is this (* nix only, runs on single machine) in a world ruled by browsers?

My gut feeling says the Access world is dying rapidly, and if that is true, a * nix version playing catch-up does not have a bright future.

<comment><USER7> Actually, genuinely curious here, does anyone know of a solid (popular) equivalent of MS Access, but web-based? The feature I'd put emphasis on is rapid point-and-click form creation, not the database and tables part (for that of course there are plenty).

I've developped a few web applications and forms along the years, but never could I get something together as quick as I did when I decided to try MS Access, for a prototype app. E.g. I've used Django, yes I can create forms pretty quick, but with Access with _no programming_ and 2-3 hours of familiarization I could put up forms with create/edit/delete functionality in something like 30 minutes, along with the underlying schema.

I haven't touched it since I created that prototype, but I was left wondering what's the equivalent in the webapp world, for the basic CRUD use-case.

<comment><USER8> For some reason, people don't think of it in this context a lot, but this is EXACTLY what Salesforce.com does. In addition to the usual "Sales Cloud" licenses, there is a much cheaper "Force.com Platform" license that doesn't have any of the core sales features but gives you the database to play with.

100% point-and-click creation of new objects, relationships, forms, etc... Easy baked in reporting, import, and export. Workflow automation totally configurable without code. Thousands of apps on the AppExchange to add interesting features. And of course, when you need to add code, it's very easy to get started if you know OOP.

If you frequently have to create quick web-based systems that would have been MS Access, go check out [https://developer.salesforce.com/trailhead](https://developer.salesforce.com/trailhead), grab a free SFDC org, and build something cool.

<comment><USER9> My employer was looking for a business process integration platform. We looked at Salesforce, MS Dyanics, Oracle. We decided to go with Django + Posgres. We're in the process of converting 100's Access apps and management spreadsheets at a fraction of the cost £170 per user per month. We where looking at over £200K PA before we started talking about systems integration. Similar costs from other suppliers. The management just wasn't interested in spending that kind of cash before we had anything to show for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> enjoy-your-stay Another app (just for Linux) for throwing a few controls on a Form and making a database front end is this :

[http://data-forms-action.com](http://data-forms-action.com)

Doesn't support database creation, just Form building.

</comment><comment><USER10> It would be nice, if there was a platform like Kexi that allowed you to make not just desktop apps, but mobile apps that allowed large (>1GB) local storage of data on a phone or tablet.

Filemaker has this for iOS, but not android.

It may exist, but I haven't see it.

<comment><USER5> Right, in 2006 this was a target for quite an investment thanks to Google's SoC funds. We had a lighttpd server bundled with Kexi and it was all the way to expose Kexi projects to the web environment with a 'single click deploy' to server. Unmaintained since then, but we know how to do that properly and for the modern web.

In some way it's even better the 2006's solution isn't in use, we can start fresh. For this volunteers are needed: web developers/users/designer, not necessarily C++ hackers.

Some jquery/bootstrap components can make the data grids and forms work well.

<comment><USER10> One challenge would be maintaining the native mobile platforms. Because of local storage limits on HTML5, I think you need to use more then the stock browsers on get it done.

<comment><USER5> Yes I believe so. how do you feel about SQLite for local storage?

Kexi picked SQLite as the default backend in 2004, and it was a good bet. For native mobile there's Qt Quick for the GUI with which large part of Kexi is compatible. A database creation/handling layer has been extracted years ago and now it matures under name KDb: [https://community.kde.org/KDb](https://community.kde.org/KDb)

<comment><USER10> I think SQLite would work well for most local storage application. It also helps that it is well known, well documented, and supported.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hong Kong shocked by violent police arrest of 12-year-old girl - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/07/hong-kong-violent-police-arrest-of-12-year-old-girl <comment><USER2> In the meantime, in Salt Lake City, a 13 years old kid who committed the crime of being autistic, was shot multiple times by the police. Still alive, luckily.

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-shoot- autistic-1...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-shoot- autistic-13-year-old-boy-multiple-times-while-he-s-having-a-mental-health- episode/ar-BB18P6TS)

It's a worldwide phenomenon: cops are trained to execute orders from above without thinking twice or questioning if those orders might be wrong. They dehumanize common people by regarding them as targets rather than persons. Every day someone is being harassed/bullied/robbed/beaten/killed by them, and they usually get away with minimal consequences because of their immunity. I don't see any reasons to believe things are going to change, unless of course people stops protesting and finally accept to live in dictatorial police states worldwide. Defending freedom will become a crime everywhere; the day one has to choose between doing nothing as a slave or being murdered for defending his/hers rights is about to come.

<comment><USER3> I think it's telling about our society, that the only public support that was available to the mother of this 13 year old kid was the police. There were no first responders for a mental health crisis. We have pawned off our mental health treatment to our police and prisons and they don't have the tools or training to deal with stuff like this.

Maybe someday we'll have something a little better. Sweden seems to be trying to get a handle on this.

[https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/worlds-first- menta...](https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/worlds-first-mental- health-ambulance-arrives- sweden#:~:text=Over%201%2C500%20suicides%20and%2015%2C000,only%20to%20mental%20health%20care).</comment></comment>


Researchers Mount Successful GPS Spoofing Attack Against Road Navigation Systems - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/researchers-mount-successful-gps-spoofing-attack-against-road-navigation-systems/ <comment><USER2> GPS messages are not cryptographically signed so of course they can be spoofed. Who designed these things?

<comment><USER3> GPS messages for civilian use are unencrypted. The US Military has access to another set of signals that ARE encrypted.

<comment><USER2> Signing messages is completely separate from encryption.

Also there is no longer separate quality gps for military vs civilian use:

[https://www.cnet.com/news/celebrating-10-years-of-gps-for- th...](https://www.cnet.com/news/celebrating-10-years-of-gps-for-the-masses/)

<comment><USER4> There is presently no difference in _accuracy_ between military and civilian GPS signals. The civilian / unencrypted stream is no longer intentionally degraded, as it once was (via "Selective Availability").

But there are still multiple datastreams, and the military one is still encrypted, and the military retains the ability to degrade or disable or degrade the civilian/unencrypted signal if circumstances require it, although it is hard to imagine a circumstance where this would be desirable, given the proliferation of civilian GPS receivers among military personnel, disruption to civil aviation / airlift capability, etc.

The military GPS signal from the Block III satellites is called "M-Code":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals#Military_(M-code)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals#Military_\(M-code\))

<comment><USER5> Selective availability is no longer available on newer satellites. I assume they can still shut off the stream though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think this is really news. Anyone with an SDR good enough could easy replicate and alter GPS signals. Since the satellites are so far away, spoofing and jamming are simple affairs. You could affect GPS for miles with something you can carry in your pocket.

You can see a crude form of this around tall buildings. Multipath from large structures is enough to "spoof" GPS by hundreds of meters.

<comment><USER7> The novel part here is tacking on the map data to only generate malicious instructions that are plausible. Not a massive hurdle but not something you do in an afternoon either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the sixties a system of wires buried in the centre of the road lanes was invented to guide autonomous vehicles.

they could have specific signals injected to specify what road and what lane etc

This would be a far more robust and simpler way of achieving autonomous vehicle use.

<comment><USER9> "Researchers Mount Successful Attack on Navigational Wires Buried Under Roads Using Commonly Found Garden Implements"

<comment><USER4> If you're fine with physically digging up roads in order to cause car crashes, you can do that regardless of whether the vehicles on them are autonomous or not...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this applicable to aircraft?

<comment><USER11> Yes, but you can also navigate via radio beacons, or by simple map and protractor if you really had too.

Obviously, planes took off and landed just fine for many years before GPS was invented / released to the public.

Ironically the incident that caused it to be released was flight KAL 007 from Anchorage to Seoul. Plane misnavigated into Soviet airspace and was shot down. A congressman aboard, plus about 200 others, were killed.

<comment><USER12> You can also navigate a car using a map. The point of a spoof is misdirection.

<comment><USER13> I'm pretty sure you could replace a paper map in a car with a fake paper map. Analog spoofing.

<comment><USER14> Someone hacking your paper, in person, means you have much larger problems.

Most hacks rely on attacks of scale. They don't care about _you_. They care about some percentage of "you" that makes their hack work.

Of course, the very hacking has changed significantly since I started years ago. It used to be about exploration and investigation - it was much more akin to trespassing than anything else.

Now, it's about making money and influence control. That saddens me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Levitron – Anti-gravity top - <AUTHOR> http://www.levitron.com/index.html

<comment><USER2> These things are pretty old. I distinctly remember seeing one in a local curiosity/games shop well over 15 years ago.</comment>


Google Surveys: Know What You Are Asking - <AUTHOR> http://diegobasch.com/google-surveys-know-what-you-are-asking <comment><USER2> (disclaimer: I work for Google Consumer Surveys)

Here is a February 2012 study from Pew Internet, citing that 66% of the American internet population uses social media.

[http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet- So...](http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social- Networking-full-detail.aspx)

Our data, in addition to the survey shared on HN earlier, shows very similar statistics.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not exactly the same question. Wouldn't that response include much more than Facebook and Twitter? E.g. Pinterest, LinkedIn, Reddit, Google+, a long tail of social media sites?

<comment><USER2> It's a great point. To compare benchmarks, we'd have to consider...6 months in behavioral changes since the Pew survey; the likelihood that long tail users also use the main social properties; what we actually classify as a social network; medium effects on answer bias and more.

I couldn't agree more with your points about the importance of survey design. Our hope with GCS is to provide a real time, affordable, iterative mechanism for conducting this type of research.

The challenges faced when benchmarking against Pew and others, is, I believe, an indication of the value of continually collecting and updating data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The author's point is true of all surveys and has nothing to do with Google Consumer Surveys in particular.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is correct. However, Google Consumer Surveys is accessible to laypeople for a relatively low price. I would assume that when a company commissions a Gallup Poll, Gallup ensures the poll is properly designed. On the other hand, people without the proper knowledge could spend money on Google polls only to draw wrong/useless conclusions.

<comment><USER4> We had two professionally conducted polls in Germany by one company, asking more-or-less the same thing (internet censorship as means to combat child pornography), commissioned by different stakeholders (one in favor of internet censorship, one against), with different phrasing. Each got >90% approval for their preferred point of view.

That company took no issue with running both polls (telephone, n=1030, "representative of people living in Germany"), and merely pointed out the differences in the questions when asked for comment afterwards. The second poll was mostly run to prove exactly that point.

It seems they take money for whatever poll they're asked to do, no matter how useless. They probably even optimize it to confirm the bias of their client - since polls are usually used for (internal) marketing purposes, I'd assume that's usually desired, too.

I wouldn't expect Gallup to do different. That's their business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Suppose I want to run a survey, and I want the responses to be as unbiased as possible (not like in the video). How can I learn to do it "the right way" ?

<comment><USER6> This is what I have noticed several social scientists reference when discussing survey/questionnaire development:

[http://www.amazon.com/Asking-Questions-Definitive- Questionna...](http://www.amazon.com/Asking-Questions-Definitive- Questionnaire-Questionnaires/dp/0787970883/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would posit that the issue with the original post referenced by Diego is, in fact, that the conclusion he draws is poorly stated. Reading the full post by Jamie, it's clear that the title "34.5% of US Internet Population not using Facebook/Twitter" should actually read 34.5% of US Internet Population not using Facebook/Twitter _to manage their identities on third party sites._ "

<comment><USER8> 34.5% chose the answer "No - I'm not on Facebook/Twitter", there were other ways to answer "no" that didn't imply that you weren't on Facebook or Twitter, and in total the poll showed 77% responding that they didn't use Facebook/Twitter to manage their online identities with third parties.

<comment><USER9> The only way to choose "no" is "no - I don't understand how it works" or "no - I'm scared of scams". I know how it works and I'm not scared of scams, but I still don't use Facebook to log in to third party sites. What do I choose?

<comment><USER8> That's an issue with the survey, it's not clear what people in your situation chose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not interested in what percentage of the population uses social media. I'm interested in increased sales/subscriptions.

It's the difference between speculating and actually making money. It's the difference between making a survey (the beginning, perhaps, of an indirect path to something... who knows what) and making a sale (direct path to booking revenue).

Programmers have a particular love for indirection. And the web has a particular love for speculation. Can we sell surveys? Yes, I think we can.

</comment><comment><USER11> Eh, seems plausible that Jamie got >$150 worth of return for his advertising spend on the survey.

I'm sorry, did you think that there was _science_ happening in the HN self- promotional echo chamber?</comment>


Snapchat now owns your photos, even after they disappear - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/snapchat-now-owns-your-photos-even-after-they-disappear-20151101-gkobrl.html <comment><USER2> They never disappeared. You could still poll them with the API.

</comment><comment><USER3> crickets. nobody cares about privacy.</comment>


Why do software projects fail? - <AUTHOR> http://spage.fi/software-fail

<comment><USER2> Crosstalk, which covers defense-oriented software development, did a whole issue[1] on this a number of years ago. Now to some extent it's geared towards SEI/CMMI and waterfall crowd, however, even if you don't agree with all the analysis it's still a good read.

[1] [http://www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue- archives/2006/2...](http://www.crosstalkonline.org/storage/issue- archives/2006/200606/200606-0-Issue.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Tom DeMarco, software engineering process expert, recently decided almost all these other reasons are distractions from the one true reason software projects fail: they were started late.</comment>


Cool iOS app for creating slow-mo videos and giphs - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/slow-motion-gif-video-loop/id1054906533?mt=8 <comment><USER2> great app, stunning team, kudos!</comment>


Debugging Lambdas by re-materializing execution contexts on your local machine - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNNCT1hLA3E <comment> ben-coman A bit of context from the original community mail list post, "it supports post mortem debugging by saving a zipped execution context onto S3. This is particularly satisfying as at a recent serverless conference (JeffConf) there was a panel where poor development tools on serverless platforms was highlighted as a real problem.

Debugging something short lived like a Lambda execution is quite startling, as the current answer is 'add more logging', and we all know that sucks. To this end, I've created a little screencast showing this in action - and it was pretty cool because it was a real example I encountered when I got everything working and was trying my test application out."

@2:17 "PharoLambda has serialized the execution context of its application and saved it into [my S3 bucket] ... [then on my local machine] rematerializes a debugger [on that context]."</comment>


Ask HN: Does YC funded startups in US hire foreign nationals? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Depends on the company, but almost all do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>