Can we fix the 'fear of failure' in Europe to stimulate entrepreneurship? - <AUTHOR> http://tech.eu/inside/4584/fail-better/

<comment><USER2> The problem is probably that failure in some countries of Europe leads to a different, more complex, legal situation that failure in other places. In most cases is almost guaranteed by the current law (and the absence of well developped second opportunity laws) that if you are small you will be systematically crushed for the next 10 years or so. The current fear of failure in some european countries is totally justified.</comment>


Freetype is developed by one person and deployed on 1 billion devices - <AUTHOR> http://freetype.org

<comment><AUTHOR> I love the idea of open source, but it doesn't receive enough donations. If the donations for freetype is only enough to cover the expences for one person, we all get vulnerable.</comment>


Transparency is Bunk - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/transparencybunk

<comment><USER2> What Aaron doesn't give due attention to here is that improving existing government transparency is part of a larger information ecosystem. Digitizing previously paper-bound and siloed databases makes possible a new kind of "connect-the-dots" work that used to take investigative journalists months to do--or they simply didn't even try. His own project, Watchdog.net, has pioneered a new way of finding links, or "handshakes" as he called it, between campaign contributors and congressional earmarks, and the demographic data he's cataloged is going to help power new tools for investigative types to answer such questions as "How many members of Congress who represent districts where X percent of their households have experienced a foreclosure last year voted for the banking bailout?"

We're just at the beginning of a new wave of data- and citizen-empowered watchdogging of government, and it would be a huge mistake to discount how valuable these government transparency projects are in opening up the process in fundamentally new ways. Yes, it's true that government still wants to hide its dirt and the data it discloses is often only part of the picture. But the more we open access to the existing data and involve people in connecting the dots, the greater the appetite and demand for even more transparency, of the sort even Aaron might find useful.

(My collegue Micah Sifry wrote this with me)

<comment><USER3> Indeed, and there are real examples of local reporters uncovering corrupt congressman based on data in these public records. This is a lot harder if they have to travel to DC and sit in a basement reading room to pore over paper ledgers.

<comment><USER4> Where 'harder' is 'more expensive' and we know that the present newspaper model doesn't look like it can support expensive endeavors. Investigative journalism in the info age is only possible if those practicing it have info age tools.

<comment><USER3> Well, yes, but "harder" as in "more difficult" too. It's basically impossible to do anything useful with data stored in a paper ledger that's only available in a basement reading room a few hours a day and copies cost $0.15 a page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Databases of campaign contributions and legislative data are just tools. Posting the data (which is supposedly already "public," but is often hidden in a basement somewhere) online doesn't sprinkle fairy dust over the capital.

But people can (and do) use these tools to write books like the ones he links, and to pull data from different sources to uncover specific acts of corruption and malfeasance.

Databases are just as useful to reporters and authors as anonymous leaks and insider sources.

</comment><comment><USER5> "The real action is buried in obscure subchapters of innocuous-sounding bills and voted on under emergency provisions that let everything happen without public disclosure."

Doesn't sound like transparency to me. The authors point seems to be that efforts to be transparent, aren't actually. If Congress and others are hiding the 'good stuff', we need to work on making _that_ transparent.

<comment><USER6> Or maybe Congress should meet for a few days every few years, so only the really important things ever get worked on.

<comment><USER7> That would never work. To start with, you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. If you said "you get one week every 2 years to pass everything", the entire congress would spend 1 year and 51 weeks in secret meetings trying to figuring out what to vote for in their 1 week of voting time.

All that would happen as a result is there would be a 2 year back log of legislation, and it would take FOREVER for anything to get done.

The only real way to deal with corruption in government is to limit it's power. As long as there are people in power, some of them are going to become corrupt. That's just human nature. The best you can do is limit power, so that the damage they can do is minimized.

<comment><USER8> > you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other.

Actually, many states have open meeting laws where, if it becomes clear that politicians met and discussed certain topics, it __is __a crime, and it's punishable.

They don't often get used, but I think that the threat does alter behavior at least a bit.

<comment><USER9> I'd like to read about these, particularly about how they could be Constitutional, but I can't seem to find the correct words for a Google search. Would you post a link, or possibly a set of words to search for?

<comment><USER10> <http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/index.php> provides an outline of open meeting laws by state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> And that linked Sunlight Foundation essay at the bottom seems awfully ad hominem.</comment>


The Nobel Peace Prize sucks for some. - <AUTHOR> http://www.spottiness.com/spots/U4MRHWN8

<comment><USER2> If the Nobel Prize was motivated by some penance for the "discovery" of dynamite which made high explosives usable for wars, then a peace prize is certainly justified.

<comment><USER3> The idea of a peace prize was probably good in 1895, but it has been poorly implemented in comparison with the other prizes. To me, it just doesn't feel right to say that Albert Einstein and Al Gore are both Nobel Prize winners. Yet, because that's what it means, that's what people perceive (even in academia): that they are both Nobel Prize winners and therefore somehow equal.

<comment><USER2> "The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The Peace Prize has been awarded 91 times in the 110 years Nobels have been awarded.

Clearly the charter has changed somewhat over the years and has moved more towards mitigating those things which are thought to be at the root cause of war and conflict.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The United States has many Nobel Prize Winners: E.g. Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Herbert Simon, Al Gore, ... What?

</comment><comment><USER4> While we're at it, let's remove the Nobel Prize in Economics. It was not part of Alfred Nobel's original will and is also a dubious category to include with the other sciences.

<comment><USER5> You maybe right, but Economics at least has some scientific foundation.

<comment><USER2> Economics does have some lovely mathematics, interesting ideas, but it is not really an experimental science. Eric D. Beinhocker book, The Origin of Wealth is an interesting critique of modern economics and the problems inherent in its use in modeling the real-world. From the Nobel Prize point of view, a prize makes sense because so much of modern decision making is informed by economics, right or wrong. BTW, the economics prize was not one of the original Nobel Prizes and was not created by Alfred Nobel.</comment></comment></comment>


A homeless couple moved into a $4M home. Then came the calls to police - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/otisrtaylorjr/article/A-homeless-Oakland-couple-moved-into-a-4-million-13812019.php <comment><USER2> Cue up the posts from people criticizing McGrath for doing this. I expect several variations on "He's doing this for some ulterior motive", "Nice, but why isn't he doing more", "The neighbors who are calling the cops are totally justified in doing so", blah, blah, blah.

Personally I think he's doing a wonderful thing, and hope his example can act as inspiration for others... and that this story encourages more people to think about the problem of homelessness, and to realize that homeless people are _people_ first and foremost.

<comment><USER3> > The neighbors who are calling the cops are totally justified in doing so

I mean... if someone was lighting a joint regularly near my home I'd call the cops too. Same for cigarettes, though the smell doesn't carry that far. We have asked people smoking cigarettes and lingering out front to move on. We have two little kids.

I grew up poor. We were homeless at times. The culture is different. You _don 't_ fit in, and there's a real culture clash. I go back to the deep south and walk into a gas station and watch the little kids load up on $20 worth of junk food for dinner while the mom chain smokes outside and I feel more comfortable and at ease than I do anywhere else. These are people I can relate with. Still, I don't want my children to grow up in that kind of environment or to think such habits are normal and okay.

<comment><USER2> _or to think such habits are normal and okay._

You made a pretty big jump from a lot of other stuff, to a lady sitting outside smoking a cigarette. But in either case, isn't their some onus on parents to educate their children that "there are some people that engage in behaviors that we don't approve of. Those people have a right to do that, but we don't want you to grow up doing the same things because ... $A, $B, and $C."?

I mean, you _really_ don't have any standing to think that you can bend the entire world to conform to your particular beliefs and values.

<comment><USER3> You can't _teach_ that sort of behavior. These habits and social norms are internalized at a young age, or through years of habituation. My children sit down for dinner every night like it's the most normal thing in the world. I'm a middle-aged man for whom sitting down at the dinner table is exceptionally stressful because growing up for as long as I could remember you ate whatever was available in the house (if anything), whenever you wanted, and wherever you wanted. I feel like a caged animal sitting down at the table, and that will _never_ change. But I don't deny that doing so is much healthier in terms of physical and social development for my children. Conversely, my wife grew up in a household where sitting down with family was natural, so _not_ sitting down with family for dinner is uncomfortable and unnatural for her. So I hide my struggle from my kids because even though they're good at the table now they're still impressionable young kids who are much more likely than an adult to gravitate to such bad behavior if given the opportunity or excuse. I know that because I see my oldest kid mimicking and being shaped by the behaviors of his classmates and kids; it was clear and obvious starting from when he was barely 2 years old. (I disagree strongly that television makes such strong impressions. People underestimate how well children are capable of differentiating fiction from real life, but it's dangerous to discount the normalizing effect of exposure to real life behaviors, no matter how an adult tries to frame the context.)

That's why I can deeply sympathize with the homeless couple in the story. They feel alienated and there's really nothing that can be done about that. I _still_ feel alienated in middle-class culture. It's exhausting. Are they staring at my teeth? Am I thin enough? Did I shake hands correctly or keep eye contact long enough, but not too long? Should I have acted surprised about the cost of this or the cheapness of that? Am I dressed right? And given how desperately poor the couple was and remains and the fact that they're poor blacks living in a rich white neighborhood (making it harder to fake it, or to be stereotyped even when they're fitting in in every other way) the feeling must be magnitudes worse.

At the same time people, including rich people, shouldn't be shamed for demanding certain normative behaviors. We shouldn't fetishize poverty and the culture of poverty. We should demand sympathy, understand that bad choices aren't always "choices", and refrain from using stereotypes (even truthful stereotypes) to imprison individuals. But none of that implies we can't pass judgement on _behaviors_ , even if it makes people feel uncomfortable. Shame is an evolutionary mechanism for coaxing us to adopt normative behaviors. It's painful, but it is what it is. We all want to live in a pain-free world--it's what every animal wants. It's not how the world works or even should work, however. We just need to be honest about it, not vindictive, angry, self- righteous, or unsympathetic. And recognize that some things can only be remediated inter-generationally.

Regularly smoking a joint on the sidewalk? Hell no! This isn't the ghetto or a trailer park. And I'm also prepared to defend people who won't even tolerate smoking, even though I deeply sympathize with smokers who feel put upon. You want to light up? Go ahead! But don't feel so entitled that people aren't even allowed to judge you for it, or pretend to be self-righteous about it on others' behalf, even if it's ostensibly used medicinally. I mean, most smoking is medicinal--it's one of the most common drugs used to manage depression and anxiety, which is one reason why it's much more common among the poor and working classes worldwide. But if you want to defend the poor and working class you don't defend smoking, you promote wealth equality. On the other hand, you have to remain sympathetic and give people space to live as they are. I think the flavored tobacco ban in SF is outright racist, but that doesn't mean I don't accept that smoking menthols is a particularly bad behavior that's also almost entirely confined to the black community and that society and even government should remain free to reign it in somehow. These are messy problems without tidy solutions.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but again, you're talking about stuff that's way beyond the original issue, which was simply about calling the cops on somebody who happened to be smoking (either tobacco or marijuana). You're _not_ going to create a world where no one smokes, or at least it's not very likely. But you can still influence your children to not take up smoking. Of course you can't _guarantee_ that they won't, but parental influence certainly plays a role. Looking back on my own life, I'm pretty sure my parent's instruction and attitudes play a role in my never choosing to take up smoking (which I was exposed too regularly, as my maternal grandfather was a smoker), heavy drinking, recreational drugs, etc.

 _We shouldn 't fetishize poverty and the culture of poverty._

Agreed, and nowhere did I suggest that we should. There's a big difference between _accepting_ something and _fetishizing_ it. And by _accepting_ I don't mean "embrace as normative or desirable". I just mean, "don't treat people who engage in this behavior as sub-human".

<comment><USER3> > But you can still influence your children to not take up smoking. Of course > you can't guarantee that they won't, but parental influence certainly plays > a role.

Parental influence includes direct modeling as well as environmental modeling. I'm not even sure if the two can be meaningfully delineated.

The article said the person would "occasionally" smoke marijuana on the steps, which is another way of saying regularly (but not necessarily frequently). It may be a little passive aggressive to call the cops, and I'm not going to bury my head in the sand--it's probable such a passive-aggressive approach was racially motivated. OTOH, I'm a pretty non-confrontational person and would probably use the same approach if I wasn't already on friendly terms, regardless of race. I mean, this is the Bay Area--nobody is going to get arrested or even fined. The cop is just going to tell them to stop because he doesn't want to be inconvenienced again. The unfortunate truth is that middle- and upper-class disputes are mediated through the authorities these days. Even if we would be better of if a more friendly approach were taken--as is still common in many poor (urban or rural) and rural (white or black) communities-- realistically it's the couple who need to accept that disputes about seemingly innocuous behavior will be resolved through the cops, not direct confrontation.

The article said they simply changed their behavior to smoking in the backyard, out of sight of most neighbors and, presumably, with less intrusive odors. I think that's not only acceptable but desirable, regardless of any racial or class animus.

Even if, for the sake of argument, there would otherwise be zero effect on neighborhood children's propensity to smoke, such exposure likely _would_ perpetuate stereotypes about blacks smoking marijuana. And even if the couple were otherwise the most respectable couple on the block admired by all the children for being kind and caring and intelligent that simple stereotype alone could be harmful in terms of children's (and even adults') internalized image of blacks and black culture.

Respect is a two way street. I support legalized marijuana because I respect it's a peculiar feature of some cultures, especially but hardly exclusively to black culture. Adults smoked it in my household regularly. I also respect the WASPy culture of turning their noses up at such behavior, because it _is_ bad behavior--individualized exceptions notwithstanding--and the most effective way to suppress it is to make it a taboo. How do you respect both cultures simultaneously as well as all individuals concerned? Smoke it privately and non-invasively. The neighbors and the couple each take a small step towards better social integration. Talk is cheap, shifts in behavior are what count.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What a great story. The only thing that makes it a bit sad is how unscalable it is. It's great to help two people, but it must be frustrating knowing there are so many others you cannot help. Imagine if everyone in SF with a guest bedroom did this.

<comment><USER5> Scale at the lower end is far more important and impactful. A guy decides he wants to help some people and he does. He uses resources he has available to do so. He's involved.

Much more honest than someone deciding they want to help people, and then turns around and lobbies the government to do it.</comment></comment>


How to Be Indistractable - <AUTHOR> https://psyche.co/guides/to-become-indistractable-recognise-that-it-starts-within-you <comment><USER2> I think its pretty damning for the guy who literally wrote the book on making tech products more addictive ( _Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products_ ) is telling us the technology isn't the problem, we just need to solve our inability to cope with our feelings. Sounds like an attempt to absolve guilt.

<comment><USER3> Huh?

People have been working on making things addictive / attention getting forever. Sugar? Caffeine? Video games? Back in the day plenty of drugs, including those sold by pharmacists.

Either you have agency or you don't. I for one very much like the idea of someone with some actual expertise in how addictive products are created talking about how to avoid the addiction.

If you don't want to read his stuff - don't. And if you wanted to avoid these issues, even before this book lots of others. One easy one - no TV at home. I don't watch any TV shoes. I don't play any video games. Not sure if that's in the book, but getting outside, getting exercise, sleeping, spending time with partner, no phones at the dinner table (or breakfast or lunch) etc go a long way to just being a bit more distraction free.

Agency means you can decide what you want to do with your day and your life.

To much of anti-addiction / behavior self improvement stuff comes across as just pablum.

<comment><USER4> The heroin dealer just opened up a rehab center.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly what the author did with his second book as well, not just this article. It's literally called _Indistractable_!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had a similar experience as the author when trying to do a "digital detox." I removed apps from my phone, installed a launcher that forces you to type the app name you want to open, changed the screen to black and white, etc. Yet a new distraction always creeps in to fill the space.

The most useful thing I did was put all my electronic devices in a separate room when going to bed. Before, I would often stay up on my phone until I was seconds away from falling asleep. The first day trying to fall asleep without any distractions was scarily difficult. Just being alone with your own thoughts, worries, stress, etc. can be really uncomfortable. But after getting used to it, not only do I get better sleep, but I think I also have better self-control to resist distractions during the day.

So for anyone looking to reduce distractions, start by removing all distractions when going to sleep. The first few times trying to fall asleep without distractions will probably be harder than you think, but it gets easier and you'll be better for it in the end.

</comment><comment><USER7> If your problems with distraction are severe enough to affect your mental health it's worth considering the possibility you have undiagnosed ADHD. Just because you sometimes code for 12 hours straight doesn't mean you don't (common misconception).

5 minute ASRS screening test here (pdf, not some data harvesting online monstrosity):

[https://add.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/adhd- questionnair...](https://add.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/adhd- questionnaire-ASRS111.pdf)

<comment><USER8> I agree with you and people with ADHD has an ability called hyper-focus which let's us (I am diagnosed with ADHD) focus on stuff without ever letting go.

ADHD has a kind of wrong name in that it has "Attention Deficit" when really paying attention is not the problem, regulating attention is the problem.

We often struggle with either paying too little attention or too much attention.

<comment><USER9> It's really executive function disorder and maybe something related hyperbolic discounting in the reward/habit/focus system.

<comment><USER8> There are more to ADHD than just trouble with executive functions. There are things like emotional dysregulation, rejection sensitivity, sensory processing that are also common traits among people with ADHD. Trouble with executive functions is just one aspect of the issues we, as people with ADHD face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The reason I'm distracted is because what I'm doing sucks and doesn't actually matter, and deep down I know it's not worth the effort. But, in life you have to do lots and lots and lots of things you really don't want to do. That doesn't seem to go away. I know people who don't mind it, and that's fine they're just built that way or they're comfortable medicating to get what they want.

I've personally never been distracted on a dirt bike riding through deep sand, or two pitches up on a trad climb, building something with my hands, dealing with a medical emergency, or diving through kelp fields. But, sitting at a desk job staring down 200 emails and dealing with whatever new bullshit upper management has decided we should be freaked out about that doesn't really have a solution, and, well, the brain tries to wander out the back door. Pretty sure that's a reasonable reaction for my brain. Would I really want the kind of brain that was perfectly happy doing my bullshit job? Naw, I have to drag it kicking and screaming and I wouldn't want it any other way.

This doesn't count for real ADHD. I've had friends that had legit ADHD, and, uh, I wouldn't want to be 2 pitches up on a trad climb with them because they can manage to wander off mentally even in the face of death. It's pretty spectacular. Those people, however didn't select into desk jobs, they went into firefighting and emergency medicine, and special forces and stuff that holds their attention by necessity, and spent every ounce of their free time running, on a bicycle, doing pullups, in crossfit or something to burn off energy.

</comment><comment><USER11> > distraction is your brain ducking challenging feelings such as boredom, > loneliness, insecurity, fatigue and uncertainty.

This above and this:

> Distraction, [...], is a symptom of a problem – not the problem itself.

It sums it all. Once you understand that, there is a new path opening in front of you, leading to a better life.

... Now back to work :)

</comment><comment><USER12> First step: stop reading random posts about "how to be indistractable".

<comment><USER13> Yeah, on this topic I never read the articles but like reading the comments for other people's noprocrast strategies, even if they're just "close this tab and get back to work".

<comment><USER14> On my desktop I just have 0.0.0.0 news.ycombinator.com (etc) in /etc/hosts

That forces me to use either the media PC or my laptop if I want to access HN/twitter/reddit.

It works because it puts a breaker in the "I'm a bit bored, I wonder who is wrong on the internet today" loop.

<comment><USER15> How does this help? Won't you just comment out the entry in hosts file if you want to visit HN?

<comment><USER16> The time taken to do that is often enough to remind one of their _don 't get distracted_ resolution.

<comment><USER17> Especially if it says "don't get distracted" or "too much information too fast is toxic" in a comment right above the line blocking HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> An article about distraction on HN! How ironic! HN is often a place for me to be distracted!

I often romanticize about living a distraction free life. I contemplate the idea to the point of being labeled a luddite by my friends. I dream of being a cool kid that uses a Light Phone (I really want one!). I want to be one of the people in their advertisements that is fully engaged in some activity. I think that if I just threw out all of the distractors and lived a more simple life I would be more present. I sincerely appreciate the authors attempts at scaling back technology in the hopes of living a more present life. I never thought to buy a wordprocessor that was not connected to the internet! This is a man that understands my inner itch at living this minimialist, distraction free, fully engaged presence.

I, like the author, am discovering that I can't buy a Light Phone and then suddenly be fully engaged. I can't throw out all of the technology in the hopes that my enlightened self emerges. The distractors will simply change. The hard work begins when I begin examining the root behind my distraction. What am I running from? Why?

Thank you to the author for reminding me to focus on the root causes of my distractions. Alas, the magical solution to distraction is nothing but an illusion. Maybe I will still buy a Light Phone though :-)

</comment><comment><USER19> _«Distraction, in other words, is a symptom of a problem – not the problem itself. Those deeper and systemic reasons – such as an inability to cope with fear, anxiety or stress – deserve our concern, because it's only when we start to address them that we can make real progress.»_

Good.

Further down, pretty reasonable and actionable.

Firefox's (or possibly Safari's) Reading Mode recommended.

</comment><comment><USER20> Cal Newport's _Deep Work_ is a framework with similar purported goals, and it's been much more effective for me.

<comment><USER21> Agreed, with a caveat: _Deep Work_ is a great book that could've been a blog post, and the final summary wrap-up chapter _is that blog post_. If you're pressed for time you can just read the last chapter in the book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just turn off all notifications. You don't need them.

If there is something important for you you will remember to check for it.

<comment><USER23> In addition to notifications from (social media) apps, turn off notifications for every messenger. I turned off everything but SMS and phone. If it's super important people will contact me there, all other messages can be read later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wonderful article. Made me realize that I had this TSR program running in my brain.

"If it's important, serious, embarrassing, difficult or just uncomfortable, do it later."

<comment><USER21> Totally tangential, but I'm pleased to see TSR in the wild; haven't seen that acronym used in at least a decade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Great article.

About "Self-explore" part.

I agree that the identification of internal distractions is important for somebody who wants to be less distracted.

It was easy for me to get distracted to my smartphone, even without notification until I started tracking and thinking about every interaction with it. And I can confirm that when you know the root cause you can prevent it or handle it somehow.

It may sound self-promotional but nevertheless. I created an app([https://acture.app](https://acture.app)) for tracking smartphone usage intentions for myself. And it really helped me to deal with smartphone overuse(I still overuse on my laptop but that's another history). Every time when I would like to use my phone I make a pause and think about the intention and validating it before using. I was writing this intention right into the app which popup with input form after every unlock(pop up is only on Android, on iOS user have to manually go to the app). I found several usage patterns in my usages and then I created plans for every pattern "How to deal with it". And I don't need to delete all apps from my phone to use my smartphone less, instead, it's a chance to investigate how do I use it and then adapt and get best from these apps. In other words, I created a habit to think and validate my every phone usage intention. E.G it's morning and I picked up my smartphone and I would like to check some tweets and then I got a pop-up window that reminded me to think about my intention and write intention and then I realized that it's morning better to prepare some coffee and go through my morning routine.

Then I shared this app and looks like for some people it works. There is no magic app or one concrete approach on how to identify these triggers. I think it's more about self-monitoring and your desire to change it.

Thanks for post

</comment><comment><USER26> How to be truly indistractable?

Step 1: Don't be on the "less control" side of the "control over attention" bell curve.

Step 2: There is no step 2.

Distractions are not simply, as the author puts it, "your brain ducking challenging feelings". Distraction is your concentration slipping your control. Some people have that control. Others don't. And most lie somewhere in the middle where reducing inputs can help, but your brain isn't solely distracted by external stimuli.

Accept it, work around it, move on. Note that, on the "less control" extreme end of the "control of attention spectrum", working around it may require medication and psychiatric training - CBT - as it describes ADHD.

</comment><comment><USER27> _smartphones didn't invent distraction_

Very true, but their designers are accomplice to the crime.

I'm generally a nice guy but I harbor uncharacteristically visceral malice toward the a-hole who deemed it appropriate for my Android to let apps or the OS interrupt me _by default_. If you're that guy and reading this right now I hope you feel ashamed.

I don't need to know my peasants in your game are idle.

I don't care that the Gmail account I set up for alerting is missing a backup email address.

My bank does NOT need me to check that my contact info is the same as it was a year ago.

Even the OS updates can keep for a few days; I'll check for and apply them on my terms.

And that Samsung Experience one which keeps sprouting up like a hydra head every time you kill it can go to hell [0].

Yes, Google has improved tooling and made it easier to snipe out unwanted notifications with precision (and I truly commend them for that), but I'm deeply concerned by the culture of disrespectful interruption that has normalized in the mobile ecosystem. Out of the box on a fresh install there's still way too much superfluous chuff and it takes month being subjected to it and correcting the behavior before I finally have some level of confidence my phone has been housebroken. It's more painful than teaching a puppy not to crap on the carpet.

And it's spreading to other "smart" devices. My Roomba work me up with a chime at 3am last night to tell me it's out of battery after it got stuck somewhere the previous afternoon. (Turns out she "fell off a cliff" in my single-story apartment).

Vendors: You aren't as important as you think. You really aren't.

I wish Google and Apple let me bill publishers for my attention - maybe a fraction of a cent for every notification that's dismissed without interaction. That might finally incentivize them toward more judicial and thoughtful use of the "poke and prod" finger the platforms granted them.

[0] [https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/201141/how-to- re...](https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/201141/how-to-remove- persistent-samsung-account-notification-it-keeps-showing-up-reg)

<comment><USER5> > I'm generally a nice guy but I harbor uncharacteristically visceral malice > toward the a-hole who deemed it appropriate for my Android to let apps or > the OS interrupt me by default. If you're that guy and reading this right > now I hope you feel ashamed.

The guy you want to be mad at is actually the author of this article! He's the one behind _Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products._ As another comment said, I wonder how much of this is him trying to alleviate his conscience for the world he helped create when he started spreading his addiction causing message across business schools and companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Kind of irony to put that on HN

<comment><USER29> Also that the article has a pop up that distracts you from reading after the first few paragraphs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What works for me is a barebones window manager. I use cwm on Xorg and don't have any window chrome or toolbars or start buttons or slack notifications or anything. When an app is full screened, you literally can't see anything else.

Works pretty well. No clock is nice too. Unless I check my phone or run the date command, I have no idea what time it is.

<comment><USER31> Yup recently did it myself... I moved to i3 (WM) and try to get a fully keyboard-driven workflow.

Just "setting up" workspaces (linux desktop) correctly helped a lot. For example 1=Terminal,2=Browser, 3=Comms,4=Code... This helps me to better organise my thoughts and all those browser windows !

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Not Found

> This article must not exist.

I guess the website is distractible. And we'll never know the secret!

Edit: only in Safari it's borked.

</comment><comment><USER33> Anything important is deeply interesting after learning how so, so I'm distracted only when tired, then switch to a pending (or try a new) rested activity; so avoiding recursive digressions, I `work' almost all day every day.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've been meaning to read his book but I keep getting distracted.

Maybe reading his article will help, but I'm also feeling quite distractible.</comment>


Mutant butterflies found in Japan after Fukushima nuclear disaster - <AUTHOR> http://inhabitat.com/mutant-butterflies-found-in-japan-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

<comment><USER2> This study was shown to be based on faulty statistics and method. For examination check out the following: [http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2012/08/frog- muta...](http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2012/08/frog-mutations- and-fukushima-butterfly.html)</comment>


Cofounder needed for profitable startup. - <AUTHOR>

Hi there!
I'm a semi-popular HN user that runs a startup in the Software-as-a-service space.
We've got traction, and we have money coming in. But, I need a cofounder. Most of the work is already done, but I need someone to stick around and help improve the product, as we grow.
My startup recently was incubated by one of the top US incubators, but I need your help to take it to the next level.
Interested? Lets talk: email@example.com <comment><USER2> What kind of a co-founder? A programmer, a product guy, a marketing genius, a person with contacts in a certain industry... ?

</comment><comment><USER3> Should I paypal $500,000 to: firstname.lastname@example.com ?

</comment><comment><USER4> I understand you probably do not want to reveal anything to the US incubator, but I suggest just re-posting or posting with your real account. I think HN readers will be far more willing to help you.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why not use that account instead to post this? If you were popular, then people would be more likely to contact you. My first inclination is to wonder if you are hiding something?</comment>


[webkit-dev] Thank you - <AUTHOR> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-April/024384.html

<comment><USER2> Most interesting follow-up: [https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit- dev/2013-April/024...](https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit- dev/2013-April/024388.html):

 _"Since we no longer need to support the Chromium port, let's take the opportunity to streamline. Hopefully, this will make development easier and more coherent for everyone."_

That makes one almost think that any project with users with differing goals is best forked. In reality, I think it is a signal that both parties realize that, because of the difference in goals, the fork may have more benefits than disadvantages for both sides of the fork.</comment>


Give researchers a lifetime word limit - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/news/give-researchers-a-lifetime-word-limit-1.22835 <comment><USER2> That's a horrible idea. Not everyone is going to output the same amount of work, some will legitimately be more prolific than others.

I sort of agree with the sentiment, but artificial limitations doesn't seem like a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> While we're at it, let's give lawyers a lifetime word limit too...</comment>


Genetic Algorithm Car Physics - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/f6g98/genetic_algorithm_car_physics/

<comment><USER2> Why is this linking through Reddit? Link directly to the source: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><USER3> Reddit is the source. equalRightsForRobots created it, and is writing about it in that post.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is indeed why I linked through Reddit. I had pasted a direct link first in the submit form but changed my mind because the creator was commenting in the Reddit thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this might have been the original swf the Reddit one is based on: <http://www.qubit.devisland.net/ga/index.html>

I found this one years ago and have been meaning to try copying it one day myself to learn about genetic algorithms.

<comment><USER5> Lots of people on the Reddit thread are really into it: "It's heartbreaking when it spawns a totally sweet car, upside down." "my entire office is idle cheering nonentities on"

It's hard to imagine anyone getting as excited about the swf you just linked to.

It's interesting from a user experience perspective as the programs are doing almost the same thing.

There's the colorfulness of the one on Reddit, making the cars more personable. In contrast, the other program kills unsuccessful cars very quickly, without giving you time to think about why the car was unsuccessful/feel its pain. Also, the load bearing concept might be cool in theory, but I think it makes it more difficult for the viewer to process what's going on.

It's also interesting how both authors consciously chose to make their algorithms worse so that the program wouldn't converge to a solution as quickly.

<comment><USER6> I think the reason behind this is struggle. The original killed cars as soon as they started struggling (the load hits the ground). The latest allows you to watch bad implementations struggle to traverse the landscape.

That's all. There's probably a deep lesson in there somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be interesting to see how a car designed by a person would perform. Maybe make it a competition where two players design a car and then compete on some randomly generated terrain.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is really great! After 5 generations, the algorithm gets the wheel positioning/size right. In a few more, it figures how the lower middle portion of the car should be.

I'm in the 9th and I've already seen it go past 150.

<comment><USER9> Mine go further (230+) but I got a weird duncecap-like structure over the rear wheel that keeps cropping up, putting the center of gravity too far back and making them fall over backwards. Interestingly, instead of getting rid of the balance problem, my cars are evolving a wheely bar to prevent the backward flip at the expense of speed.

I wish the goal involved speed in combination with distance.

Update: stagnation after generation 10. I spun up another instance and it is amazing how different that one is evolving.

<comment><USER10> You can also up the mutation rate to knock it out of a rut

<comment><USER11> I'm experimenting with 'intelligent mutations' - when the cars look promising I reduce the mutation rate and when it looks stuck in a rut I increase it again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very similar to an item from nearly two months ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1949947>

</comment><comment><USER13> Pretty slow, you need 20 or so generations to start getting interesting results.

Edit: after letting it run 30 generations, the best car went past 200.

<comment><USER14> That's not slow. In 20 generations, humans hardly change at all.

<comment><USER15> If you take a population of humans, put them on an island, and only allow those that grow tall to breed, after 20 generations you will notice a huge difference in the average height of your population.

You might already be aware of this, but it is important not to confuse the slow mutation rate, with a slow response to selection pressure.

Nor is it appropriate to generalise that because the modern day selection pressures are mild, humans somehow evolve 'intrinsically' slowly.

The 'cars' are evolving fast, because those with a low fitness are ruthlessly culled. Human populations can change fast when comparably strong selection pressure is applied.

<comment><USER16> The 'cars' population is pretty small too. Generic algorithm needs large population to have a good result.

<comment><USER13> It plateaus around 195 distance after about 15 generations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Finally, a use for Web Snippets.</comment>


The Daily Northwestern Apologizes to Student Protesters for Reporting - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/business/media/northwestern-university-newspaper.html <comment><USER2> 'It said that the editors were sorry that photographs of some protesters had been shared by reporters on social media. It also said that reporters' efforts to contact students for interviews using Northwestern's directory had been "an invasion of privacy."

"Ultimately, The Daily failed to consider our impact in our reporting surrounding Jeff Sessions," the column said. "We know we hurt students that night, especially those who identify with marginalized groups."'

If the newspaper avoided photographing and contacting members of "marginalized groups", it would be accused of further marginalizing them. What is it supposed to do?</comment>


Ask HN: Great monitor for programming - <AUTHOR>

I'm on the market for a new monitor, and the Amazon reviews are not very helpful since they focus gaming. My demands are simple: 2560x{1440,1600} resolution, either 27" or 30", good warranty and reliability.
Main usage: programming on Ubuntu (Vim, terminals, web browsers).
What do you recommend?
Thanks in advance <comment><USER2> I don't really know much about monitors, but all I know is if you stick with the big brands you should be alright. BenQ, Asus and Dell monitors seem to be quite popular or so I'm told.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been using Apple's 27" display for a couple of years now, and have been happy with it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use a Dell U2711. But I needed perfect color calibration.</comment>


ICE Says Newly Enrolling Intl Students Can't Come to US If Classes Fully Online - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/ice-says-newly-enrolling-international-students-can-t-come-to-u-s-if-classes-fully-online-11595611772 <comment><USER2> If someone is (a new student) taking fully-online classes abroad - why would traveling be a necessity?

It seems like the extra moving would erode any savings gained from not having locality matter?

<comment><USER3> Internet quality/availability at home. Ease of collaboration. Home situation not allowing easy studying. Lots of other potential issues...

(This is targeted at normal classes that are online right now, not just at online-only courses)

<comment><USER4> And timezones. Some classes are synchronous and often deadlines times unsuitable.</comment></comment></comment>


Regulators looking at antibacterial in soap - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63759M20100408

<comment><USER2> ADA seems to think Triclosan is just fine in toothpaste:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20071024144101/http://www.ada.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20071024144101/http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=1375)</comment>


The Single Founder Myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.singlefounder.com/2006/10/23/thesinglefoundermyth/

<comment><USER2> FTA: _Y Combinator refuses to work with individuals_

YC FAQ:

 _Can a single person apply for funding?_

 _Yes, but the odds of being accepted are much lower. A startup is too much work for one person._

It is my understanding that YC has funded several single-founder startups. I can recall someone listing a few of them recently.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for posting that, I was going to ask.

It feels odd that Y Combinator wouldn't fund single startups. If I wanted to apply for funding would I be better taking on a faux-cofounder? Of course I wouldn't do it, i'd just apply as me, but it feels false.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's one factor the author forgot: persistence.

The best programmers I know are also friends of mine. But I pay them to do work for me. I could ask them to join me as a co-founder, but they would have to be willing to cross the Antarctic on foot to make the company succeed. Frozen toes, black fingers. It's something I would do, and I expect that of anyone with the title "co-founder". If they can't bring that (and that's hard to find -- I've looked), then I'll pay them, we'll remain friends, and I'll remain a single founder.

Investors are many, good investments are few. They might say they have rules, but they'll drop those in a heartbeat to be part of something good. In other words, I don't care about what investors want; I only care about making something great.

</comment><comment><USER5> Putting it off on funding seems a bit odd. That's kind of like saying feet are shaped the way they are because otherwise they wouldn't fit into shoes.

If there's a bias against single founders from investors, it's likely to be rooted in them being less likely to succeed. If the opposite were true some investor would probably have figured that out by now and would be spanking his competitors who didn't have that rule.

<comment><USER6> >being less likely to succeed

More likely in their being less likely to succeed _as big and as quick_ as the investors would prefer.

Also, from what I have read (mostly on HN), many VCs tend to be pretty control-freakish who often play-off founders against each other, which they can't do without co-founders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think often the term Startup is used in a way that confuses this kind of conversation and analysis. The term Startup, itself, really implies only that it's a new business. The word does not imply anything regarding the market or business model (i.e. how new vs. established each is). I think to many, especially in this forum, Startup implies innovative products in emerging markets using novel business models. Were this the frame of discussion, then I'd tend to agree that co-founders are important if not essential.

But, given a broader perspective of Startup types (i.e. the me-too crowd, or those with humbler aspirations than to be Googlesque) I think it's less true. That is, I think there are plenty of single-founder technology/web companies doing quite well.

</comment><comment><USER8> StatSheet (<http://statsheet.net>) is "One Person Profitable"

</comment><comment><USER9> It's not a matter of skillsets; it's a matter of communication.

Having a co-founder lets you bounce ideas off one another. It lets everything you do take on its own natural evolution. It's hard to explain unless you have a co-founder that you can easily and quickly communicate with, but I'll try.

You could compare it the show House MD. House is a brilliant medical mind, and much better than anyone on his team. Why does he even have a team, you ask? To throw ideas back and forth. When he can't access his team, he'll go to anyone to keep the idea in the air. He's even used a bum and an ex-con.

As an individual, you can train in all the skillsets in the world. You can become better at front-end, back-end, business development, selling, talking to people... everything. You can be even be better at coming up with ideas.

But you'll never be better at _developing_ ideas.

That's the strength of multiple founders.

<comment><USER10> _House_ , being fictitious, might be a bad example though. It's a TV show, so he _needs_ a foil, how else are the viewers supposed to know what he's thinking? Besides, House is great because of the dialogue writing.

I'd say how good a programmer I am doesn't depend on whether I have company. Being a sole founder sucks because there's just so much to do and it's easy to feel overwhelmed, which means you can lose motivation very quickly, and there's nobody there to help you get fired up again.

<comment><USER11> It might depend on your personality - although you can be sure that you can be a good programmer 100% of the time, I know I occasionally make decisions that, in hindsight, are significantly stupid. Currently I can sanity-check things with my co-workers (or at least those of them that can spot signs of my stupidity) - if I were a sole programmer, that resource would not be available, so I'd either spend much more time checking my work, or end up wasting more time doing things the wrong way. Possibly even both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If there were a lot of single founders with good ideas YC might consider creating a new program called 2and20. If your single founder application is accepted you have 20 days to get 2 additional founders and resubmit for a second approval?

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... f your single founder application is accepted you have 20 days to get 2 additional founders and resubmit for a second approval? ..."_

Informally YC appears to be doing something like this anyway. cf Swartz & Reddit. Is there more?

<comment><USER13> Dropbox: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801739>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think part of it is that running a startup going for investor money requires similar social skills to running a startup with a co-founder. These skills are not required, and sometimes don't exist in the lone founder.

The big difference, I think, is that if you have all the equity, really all that matters is your will and ability to go on. Sure, your employees, friends, spouse, etc... are incredibly important, but dealing with a friend, spouse or employee is a rather different thing from dealing with a cofounder

</comment><comment><USER15> FWIW, Pat House is a fantastic speaker. If you ever have the chance to see her speak, go. She was in the trenches during a very exciting and interesting time in the software industry, and besides for being a major player in the industry, she has a lot of interesting stories and insights to share.

Discounting here role as a co-founder would be a mistake.

</comment><comment><USER16> One reason is that several different skills are required for a successful startup, and it's rare to find aptitude for all of them in one person.

OTOH, any intelligent person can develop skills they lack, with sufficient determination, humility, courage and patience.

<comment><USER17> and stubbornness. Never underestimate the power of the stubborn.

<comment><USER6> Determination _is_ intelligent stubbornness. Stubbornness by itself is how many startups run into the ground - as PG has noted, most startups change direction at least once after they get started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> continuing from this thread, _"One Person Profitable"_ ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144038> and <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=arieljraz></comment>


URL Rewriting for Beginners - <AUTHOR> http://www.addedbytes.com/apache/url-rewriting-for-beginners/ <comment><USER2> Bah, mod_rewrite is for sissies! Parse the url in your handler code!

       <Location /dostuff>
         SetHandler mod_python
         PythonHandler DoStuff
       </Location>

Any request starting with /dostuff gets passed to DoStuff handler and you can parse the url pieces in the handler itself:

       from mod_python import apache

       def handler(req):
         req.content_type = 'text/plain'
         print >> req, 'uri = %s' % req.uri
         print >> req, 'filename = %s' % req.filename
         print >> req, 'path_info = %s' % req.path_info
         return apache.OK

<comment><AUTHOR> or like this:

        require 'rubygems'
        require 'sinatra'

        get '/:name' do
           "Your name is #{param[:name]}"
        end

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It needs to be pointed out that this kind of trick is essentially a workaround for the awful URLs caused by the "the URL is the path of the handler" scheme that Apache and PHP like to encourage.

It's almost always a better idea to do this another way. Note that the distinction between the "handler" part of the URL, the remaining "path-like" part and the query string is already exposed in the CGI variables (SCRIPT_NAME, PATH_INFO, and QUERY_STRING). The handlers can do this magic on their own. Doing it by placing important application code into the apache configuration for the site strikes me as very confusing.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Indeed, most of the rewrites I've seen look like this: RewriteRule .* /index.php

<comment><USER5> Are you implying that the front-controller pattern is bad?

<comment><USER4> No, but mod_rewrite is not the only way of implementing it. In the mentioned case, index.php would implement a front-controller. mod_rewrite is black magic, and will fail without suggesting why, just throwing a 500 Internal Server Error. Debugging a front controller in PHP (or whatever) it much easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, I suppose that this is a big issue for people, isn't it. I'd forgotted since I'm using Django. Django makes you craft your URLs from the start. Granted, you can still create crap URLs if you really want to, but Django makes it harder to do.

</comment><comment><USER7> I used to do this with my flat file PHP files, but then I started using a framework. I suggest you do too.

Kohana (PHP Framework) has pretty good URL rewriting resembling RoR's. /controller/method/variable. (/user/edit/1005 would reference application/controllers/user.php, class User_Controller, function user(1005).) POST/GET/PUT/etc are retained.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm part of the "I don't do this myself, but I manage people who do" crowd. It's always good to see these types of articles on here. They keep us from being totally ignorant about the mechanics of our own projects. Thanks!

<comment><USER9> Doing that with web.py is easy and fun, takes at most half an hour, worth playing with at least once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am very new to URL rewriting myself, so I have a pretty dumb question.

How does mod rewrite affect GET operations in PHP? If you rewrite the URL: <http://www.example.com?id=1> to <http://www.example.com/1/>

And your code uses GET to grab the id from the URL. Does this still work? Or is the mod rewrite processed afterwards?

</comment><comment><USER11> An article that tells me how to use Apache is definitely worth 60+ upvotes! Honestly, I can appreciate the effort that went into this tutorial, but I would expect that a "hacker" could get this information just from reading a README or an example htaccess file.

</comment><comment><USER12> <http://forum.modrewrite.com/> has really helped me a couple of times. Just about any reasonable rewrite scenario you can think of has been asked and answered somewhere in the archive.</comment>


Gizmodo on Rob Rhinehart and Soylent - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/rob-rhineharts-latest-attempt-to-make-you-buy-soylent-i-1721852606

<comment><USER2> I came to the conclusion that Rob Rhinehart's musings were mostly satire. Could I be giving him to much credit?

I do however strongly agree with this though "he's marketing a pseudoscientific bullshit product, Soylent".</comment>


Proposals to use AI chatbots for job interviews - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/937996507118227456 <comment><AUTHOR> the fact that they "are simply to build" is part of the problem. I consider it highly unethical and could use a hand educating decision makers before this technology is making us all miserable.

see also [https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6343760...](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6343760215497854976)</comment>


Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim-of-overdiagnosis.html

<comment><USER2> This is an interesting article for several reasons.

One is the immediate - more knowledge about mammography leads to scientists telling us to rely on it less -- and that will be a message that flies in the face of what women's organizations may want to hear.

Second, it's another example of a medical technology or science that upon further inspection, turned out to be not so scientific. It's something to consider when you hear or read a "Science, it works, bitches". It's something to consider when various groups are demanding some form of government action based on "Science, it works, bitches."

<comment><USER3> I agree with your main point, but it's ahistorical to say that if something was wrong then it must not have been scientific. That's a popular and seductive view that manages to commit both the hindsight and no-true-scotsman fallacies. The truth is that science (by which I mean the community of scientific opinion) is often wrong. It's just hard to see this in any given case until enough time has passed.

For example, in the 1960s scientists told women not to breast-feed their babies because Science had proven that "formula" was better. That could hardly seem stupider or more absurd now, but an entire generation was affected by it. To me, that's a reasonable baseline against which to guard ourselves. It seems arrogant to suppose that we're smarter or less error-prone than the experts of 40 years ago.

The conclusion I draw from this is that public policy should be skeptical of scientific opinion — not dismissive of it, of course; that would be silly — but inclined to err on the side of pluralism and non-intervention. That would also be an appropriate use of the word "skepticism" as opposed to the dogmatism that calls itself by that name these days. I'm uncomfortable (as your comment suggests you are) with the zealotry of the more aggressive pro- science movements that have arisen in recent years. They speak in the name of science, but emotionally they are proto-religious. Science, the abstraction, does not exist. What exists are communities of fallible and corruptible humans. We need to take that into account, everywhere and deeply.</comment></comment>


Applicative WTF? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/prog/haskell/applicative.html <comment><USER2> It seems to me that people often overthink applicative. It falls right out of functor. Normally when you call fmap, you pass it a function that takes a single parameter. What happens if you pass it a function that takes _more than one_ parameter (the other parameters being curried)? fmap applies a value from the functor to the function. Since it only passes one parameter, the result is a partially applied function. The result is that you end up with a functor containing partially applied functions.

For example, take a list of number and a function that takes 2 parameters, x and y. Maybe the function adds x to y (it doesn't matter). Pass these to fmap. Your result will be a list of partially applied functions with x being set to the values in the list. Now we want to apply the y parameter. We need something similar to fmap, but rather than taking a function and a functor, it needs to take a functor containing functions and a functor containing data. It will then apply the data to the functions and you will end up with a functor containing the result.

That's _all_ applicative is. It applies the subsequent parameters to the result of having run fmap on functions that have more than one parameter. It shows up in a lot of different places, though and is incredibly handy. When I'm writing FP style code in languages that don't normally curry parameters, I often find myself currying parameters precisely because I _want_ applicative ;-). It's just super convenient.

NB: pure being part of applicative is really interesting. I don't know for sure, but I'm relatively sure that a functor is applicative IFF your can define pure for it, which is really interesting to think about.

Edit: weird wording

<comment><USER3> > It seems to me that people often overthink applicative. It falls right out > of functor. Normally when you call fmap, you pass it a function that takes a > single parameter. What happens if you pass it a function that takes more > than one parameter (the other parameters being curried)? fmap applies a > value from the functor to the function. Since it only passes one parameter, > the result is a partially applied function. The result is that you end up > with a functor containing partially applied functions.

I blame this on Haskell's overreliance on currying. If applicative was explained in terms of (pure and) liftA2 aka map2, which is completely equivalent to defining it in terms of ap, the analogy with Functor would be much more obvious.

> NB: pure being part of applicative is really interesting. I don't know for > sure, but I'm relatively sure that a functor is applicative IFF your can > define pure for it, which is really interesting to think about.

Not true. Const b (i.e. f a = b for all a) forms a valid functor and you can define pure as long as there's at least one value of type b (pure a = 1 where 1 is that value), but if b is some type that does not form a monoid (e.g. nonzero octonions) then Const b does not from an applicative.

<comment><USER2> Cheers! That's a great example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Last time I used Haskell, Applicative wasn't even a thing. I had read the > McBride and Paterson paper that introduced applicative functors, but that > was years ago, and I didn't remember any of the details.

In the previous post he learns how to use an Applicative.

In this post, he learns how to define Applicative for a new type he's created.

Yes, Applicative is abstract enough that it takes a few concrete examples to get a feel for it and grok what it's purpose is.

This is the work that's required to learn a new abstraction. All abstractions that are sufficiently different from previous experience require this kind of effort to make it legible to you.

Once you do, it kind of just 'snaps' and you get it.

Then, you get to leverage that knowledge in all the places it is re-used, instead of having to read the library code doing data manipulation in a bespoke way - you can just look at the type can say "yes, this is an Applicative - i know how to manipulate it and it will accord to some laws i can depend on", without having to read the source code.

<comment><USER5> Given that he already knew how to define a Monad instance for his type, the Applicative instance could simply be:

        import Control.Monad (ap)
        instance Applicative Tree where
           pure  = return
           (<*>) = ap

Also, given a Traversable instance—which is essentially just "fmap with effects"—one can get Foldable and Functor for free via foldMapDefault and fmapDefault.

The really interesting cases are the ones where you can define an instance for Applicative but _not_ Monad.

<comment><USER6> An example of this is the two possible applicative instance of list. One is based on the monad instance and does a cross product if presented with two lists. The other zips its arguments. It is the more interesting one imho:

        import Control.Applicative
        newtype ZList a = ZList { runZList :: [a] }
        instance Functor ZList where
            fmap f = ZList . fmap f . runZList

        instance Applicative ZList where
            pure a = ZList [a]
            (<*>) f x = ZList $ zipper (runZList f) (runZList x)
                    where zipper (f:fs) (x:xs) = f x : zipper fs xs
                          zipper [] _ = []
                          zipper _ [] = []

Difference of behaviour:

       *Main> ZipList [(*3),(*5),(*6)] <*> ZipList [1,2,3,4]
        ZipList {getZipList = [3,10,18]}
       *Main> [(*3),(*5),(*6)] <*> [1,2,3,4]
        [3,6,9,12,5,10,15,20,6,12,18,24]
        *Main>

<comment><USER5> Yes, though that definition results in:

        pure id <*> ZipList [x, y, z] == ZipList [x]

and thus breaks one of the Applicative laws:

        pure id <*> v == v

The standard ZipList definition is `pure a = ZipList (repeat a)` (an infinite list).

The issue with defining a Monad instance for ZList is that mapping the function on the right of (>>=) over the ZList on the left gets you a ZList of `ZList b`, with no meaningful way to zip these ZLists together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The reason GHC won't infer the definition of Applicative is because there can be multiple valid `Applicative` instances for a type (unlike `Functor` where there is a unique (non-trivial) instance).

The canonical example of this is lists, with 2 valid instances of `Applicative`.

The author of the post seems to have this realization, but I wanted to call it out, just in case.

<comment><USER8> That's true, but only one of the instances is 'compatible' with the Monad definition which requires (<*>) = ap (the first 'recipe' he showed for implementing Applicative)

<comment><USER9> I think that law is slightly too restrictive; there's a useful class of Monad instances where it doesn't hold: commutative monads, in which:

        x <- f
        y <- g

Is equal to:

        y <- g
        x <- f

Provided that "x" is not free in "g". A good example is an async monad that provides concurrency in (<*>) and only blocks when there's a data dependency in (>>=)—the result is the same regardless of evaluation order, but the implementations (and performance characteristics) are different. You could handwave it away by arguing that they're "morally equivalent", but I think it pays to be precise about properties like commutativity of actions.

<comment><USER3> > the result is the same regardless of evaluation order, but the > implementations (and performance characteristics) are different. You could > handwave it away by arguing that they're "morally equivalent", but I think > it pays to be precise about properties like commutativity of actions.

You have to decide whether they're equivalent or they're not, and if they're not equivalent (for your purposes) you probably shouldn't provide both instances. If you implement <hnmarkupisbad> and ap but they're not equivalent, a future maintainer _will_ get a nasty surprise sooner or later.

<comment><USER9> I mean if you can't observe any difference from safe code, then despite having different intensional/operational definitions, they are _extensionally_ equivalent, and that's mostly what I care about.

The ApplicativeDo desugaring, which uses the Applicative combinator instead of bind in exactly the circumstance I described above, was added specifically to support this use case when we (at Facebook) were writing Haxl, which is just such an example of a commutative monad; it's built on IO, but doesn't expose IO to safe code, so there's no way to observe the concurrency from inside Haxl.

Granted, I'm biased because I have a somewhat unpopular definition of "effect" and "side effect"—if an effect can't be observed from code by a particular observer that is safe wrt some property, then to me it's not a _side_ -effect.

It's pretty widely accepted that _within_ an ST action, mutating an STRef is a side effect to any observers within that action, but from the POV of the caller, the code is pure and thus side-effect–free; but I argue that mutating an IORef within an IO action is _also_ not side-effectful, say from the POV of another thread, if the IORef is never shared—e.g.:

        -- Morally equivalent to "pure 1".
        do
          x <- newIORef (0 :: Int)
          modifyIORef' x (+ 1)
          pure x

Again, all I'm really saying is that you need to be precise about what model of effects you're talking about, and what properties you guarantee re. safety, commutativity wrt other effects, &c.

<comment><USER3> > if you can't observe any difference from safe code, then despite having > different intensional/operational definitions, they are extensionally > equivalent, and that's mostly what I care about.

That's true if the only things you care about are the things that are visible from safe code. But if you care about performance characteristics (which is presumably the whole point of this kind of monad) then code that gives the same result but has different performance characteristics is _not_ equivalent for your purposes.

Ultimately, if x and y are marked as equivalent then a future maintainer will expect to be able to blindly replace x with y - and by convention that's true of <hnmarkupisbad> and ap. So you shouldn't define <hnmarkupisbad> and ap in such a way that replacing one with the other will change important characteristics of the code - you should only make things look equivalent in your code if they are equivalent for your purposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tree is just the free monad over the Pair functor, what's the problem?

</comment><comment><USER10> "Digging deeper into why this worked this way was interesting, but it's bed time, so I'm going to cut the scroll here." I can very roughly intuit why this is-- the difference between the two Applicative instances the author noticed was that the shape of the first tree was being fitted into the second tree vs the shape of the second into the first. So if you "bind" the lefthand side of <* > first, its shape will be "fitted" to the righthand side, and if you do the opposite you get the second "fitted" to the first shape.

I believe it's the same as iterating over the righthand side of <* > in its implementation first instead of the lefthand side like in their first, wrong implementation?

But my reasoning feels loose here. I probably just need to look at their implementation of Monad Tree closer. :-)

</comment><comment><USER11> I find it a little easier to decide what the Applicative instance "should" do by starting with

pair :: f a -> f b -> f (a, b)

from which you can derive the rest using pure and fmap

<comment><USER12> Yes, and actually I wanted that to be the actual method of Applicative (although I called it "liftPair" instead, but maybe "pair" is better), because it make sense to me, I agree with you.

(Although for optimization purposes it can help to also have the other stuff it already has too, in case you want to use an optimized implementation instead of the default implementation.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I relish, lead to I discovered just what I used to be having a look for. You have ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye</comment>


Privacy focused Zoom alternative Beacon enters open beta - <AUTHOR> https://proprivacy.com/privacy-service/privacy-news/beacon-video-conferencing-software-enters-open-beta <comment><USER2> How can a service be bother end-to-end encrypted and have what is effectively a wire-tap that allows for services like real-time transcription? Even if we assume the transcription service is part of an e2e call the operation of the transcriber would still need to generate logs or allow for improvement over time. I don't see how privacy and real-time transcripts are both possible at the same time.</comment>


Pawn: a fast, embeddable, typeless, bytecode-compiled scripting language - <AUTHOR> http://www.compuphase.com/pawn/pawn.htm <comment><USER2> "Current [Pawn] version: 4.0.4733 (2012-06-22)"

Lua and LuaJIT are updated fairly regularly and target the same "fast, embeddable, typeless, bytecode-compiled scripting language" use-case.

<comment><USER3> Be careful of getting drawn in to "newer is better".

<comment><USER4> Newer might not be but maintained and popular definitely is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You may also have a look at SourcePawn from AlliedModders who enhanced it a lot.</comment>


Why you'll always think your product is shit - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchenblog.com/2012/03/02/why-your-product-will-never-seem-like-its-good-enough/ <comment><USER2> So true. I think the sign of a great PM is the ability to see all the imperfections but the self-control to focus on the things that matter and to de-prioritize the things that don't.

It's easy to make a list of everything wrong with your product and spend eternity trying to fix it all. It's harder to reconcile imperfection with the reality of limited resources and business objectives.

<comment><USER3> +1. (I'm the author of the article)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the article, Andrew.

Content has a way of their own. Appreciation never really reaches upto the perceived recognition. Being in content game and UX occasionally gives in the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >Pixar's teams are ultimately a collaboration of creative people and software engineers.

Grrr.

<comment><USER6> Can you explain to clarify? I and perhaps a few other people do not have enough background information to deduce the reason of your 'Grrr'.

<comment><USER7> The implication that software engineers aren't "creative" people.

Many believe that software engineering is closer to art then it is to engineering.

<comment><USER8> I could be wrong, but I think what you're seeing is industry jargon more than a slight on software engineers. In movies and theatre, the "creative team" refers to designers, directors, writers, etc. "Technicians" like camera operators, CGI engineers, props people, etc, aren't on this team. It's not meant to be a comment on their level of creativity, it's just a way of delineating roles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've had to counsel (for lack of a better word) team members who got excessively demoralized and cynical about the product we were working on, because all they ever hear about is what is broken, who is pissed about it, and what deal fell through because of it, on what is largely a successful product making a decent number of people happy. Make sure that you don't just look up and check the global context sometimes, make sure your team members do too, and help them if you have to.

<comment><USER10> I am reminded of the 'Cool Cam' anecdote, in which morale was shifted from "Not only that, but everyone had grown tired enduring the stress of the weekly 'why-shouldn't-we-cancel-this-project' meetings with the executives" to "The weekly meetings got easier, more developers were brought on, and the team managed to put together one hell of a game."

[http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Cool- Cam.asp...](http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Cool-Cam.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A friend of mine says that in the aerospace industry they have a saying that goes something like: "Eventually you have to shoot the engineers and fly the damn thing"

<comment><USER12> I suppose when you're strapping jet engines onto a metal tube, filling it with people and hurling it into the sky you have to accept that things are never quite going to be perfect.

In the same manner, it seems like the take-away is: if you create something, then you'll always spot the flaws, but when the benefits outweigh those drawbacks enough, you'll probably be the only one who really notices them.

<comment><USER13> Or as I like to put it (regarding LedgerSMB):

All accounting software sucks, LedgerSMB included. We are working hard to reduce that until eventually we will be the first accounting software that doesn't suck. But that is no reason to withhold our progress from our userbase!

<comment><USER14> I think LessAccounting may have beat you to that particular line of branding: <http://lessaccounting.com/>

<comment><USER13> Well,not sure I would want to build a brand on that. It's not very customer- positive. But I am glad they realize the same as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A friend of mine always tells me how buggy and terrible the software he works on is. He says it's amazing that people even pay money for it.

I've used the software, and it's pretty great. It's easy to use, powerful, and nothing else really compares to it, but he still thinks it's shit.

It's funny how spending your days making your product awesome will warp your mind into thinking it's terrible.

<comment><USER13> Almost all software is buggy and terrible if you look at it closely enough. There are few truly elegant, robust programs out there. Even PostgreSQL has its warts....

However, the fact is..... you have to release continuously to make the software better, and quality is also relative. As a friend of mine said, if you are with a dwarf and you run into a dragon, you don't have to outrun the dragon, only the dwarf!

I like to think as bad as the software I work on is, we are outrunning the dwarves!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a great article.

What if your product actually is shit though? To all the wannabe entrepreneurs on here, if you feel that your product sucks, it's probably because it does, not because it's a beautiful gem that you'll never be satisfied with.

<comment><USER17> If it really sucks, people will tell you. So build something and ask for feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of my favorite quotes, from Lee Unkrich of Pixar: "We don't ever finish a film, I could keep on making it better. We're just forced to release it." <http://m.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/process_pixar/all/1>

Pixar is such an inspiring company when it comes to creativity, innovation, and values. If you've never seen the excellent documentary "The Pixar Story", I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Then the question becomes how do you know your product is good enough for release despite all the shortcomings you know inside?

<comment><USER2> My 2¢:

If it's a software product, and you're debating whether it's time to release, it's probably time to release.

If your customers try your product and quickly abandon it because of it's imperfections, you prioritize fixing those imperfections. If they complain a little, and a few of them leave after a while because they're fed up, it's probably worth fixing those imperfections at some point, but you may want to focus on other priorities.

<comment><USER20> What about the importance of the 'first impression'. This is an overwhelming concern for the PM of my current product, and going for that 'extra 10%' is causing many delays to launch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So so true.

On the flipside - there is usually also a bunch of stuff that you know is _freakin' awesome_ , but which sits way in the background, and explaining what it is and why it is nearly impossible without the context of having worked on the project.

<comment><USER22> I've heard something like that phenomenon called a _black triangle_. It's a thing that took a lot of effort to make, that's awesome on the inside; when you run it, all the developers see the output and know it is deeply meaningful—but all anybody else sees is something as meaningless as a spinning black triangle.

<comment><USER23> As far as I heard it referred to a game development company which had spend weeks making sure the code could compile for the new platform, setting up asset pipelines, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the context of this article, it is only true for people who care as much, have spent years caring about their work and continue to do so. Surviving sufficiently long enough in the world where you get to a point where you are truly awesome at your craft and still get to make these choices and worry about them and think about them and have those choices bother you is the realm of very few fantastic people.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think the root cause of this is that engineers are constantly working on things that are broken or not working properly yet. By definition of our jobs: it wasn't broken, we would stop working on it.

Consequently I think engineers naturally focus on what is undone, rather than what is finished.

<comment><USER26> _By definition of our jobs: it wasn't broken, we would stop working on it_

This is inaccurate, IMO. Rather, engineers are constantly working on improving things. If it was perfect, we would stop working on it, but nothing is ever perfect.

Hence why knowing what is worth fixing and what is not can be just as valuable as knowing how to fix it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I see this all the time with clients & projects and it's quite simple:

\- The familiar becomes common quickly, thus losing the shine & new car smell.

\- Your imagination will always outpace your productivity and imagination is where the fun is...

</comment><comment><USER28> Nice article. Its true every developer knows the weakness about his product and when other users use his product he just hopes that they don't catch those weak points of his product. But still a product maker should always love and admire his product. If we won't love the things that we make how can we expect others to love it. Sorry, but I won't be the one who thinks his product is shit.

</comment><comment><USER29> Ofcourse, I think everybody agrees that there are shitty products. I would not be surprised if somebody told me that there are products which are considered shitty by overwhelming number of people (developers and users alike). Now that said, whats a good metric to fairly evaluate if a product is shitty or not? May be sales? may be something else?

</comment><comment><USER22> Corollary: accept that your product has imperfections, and be forthright about it. An imperfect thing that works, that you can talk about and improve upon, is _infinitely_ better than promises, excuses, or silence. Even if the thing you made is not the thing you meant to make, it is 100% more thing than the nothing you had before.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think most people create software (and food and everything else) to add some enjoyment or lift some burden.

The desire to be perfect is part of that. We wish to delight, not annoy.

But sometimes we are just afraid of having our egos bruised.

</comment><comment><USER31> Something that adds to this is that kudos are mentioned in passing but screw ups are the end of the world. You can service thousands of clients a day but that one that gets pissed ...

</comment><comment><USER32> Ira Glass has a great take on this:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY>

</comment><comment><USER33> I usually compare software development to painting, it's always hard to know when is the final brush stroke.

</comment><comment><USER34> Surely this can be classified as one of the many cognitive fallacies, which one though?

</comment><comment><USER30> There will always be top ten things that need work.</comment>


Show HN: An open-source ultrasound imaging dev kit side project - <AUTHOR> http://murgen.echopen.org <comment><USER2> Yikes! This is brilliant innovation, but it should come with a pretty serious warning somewhere about the potential dangers of medical ultrasound. While the jury is still out about a lot of things, there are major reasons why the NHS in Britain discourages expectant mothers from having private "4D" scans and additional procedures.

[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/02February/Pages/Warning-over- so...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/02February/Pages/Warning-over-souvenir- baby-scans.aspx)

Brilliant to see you doing it though, and I'd be fascinated to see it paired with AI to make swifter diagnoses in order to cut down the length of exposure required for various measurements.

<comment><USER3> > Yikes! This is brilliant innovation, but it should come with a pretty > serious warning somewhere about the potential dangers of medical ultrasound. > While the jury is still out about a lot of things, there are major reasons > why the NHS in Britain discourages expectant mothers from having private > "4D" scans and additional procedures.

This is an overstatement of the available evidence. The link you post says so itself:

> These studies have found no evidence that ultrasound affects mortality > around the time of pregnancy or birth, or has any effect on childhood > cancers. In randomised-controlled trials there has been 'weak evidence' that > it may affect whether a child is right or left handed (known as handedness), > which the reviewers say may be the result of confounding, rather than actual > causation.

I cringe when I read well-meaning but irrelevant warnings like the one you gave. To me, these warnings are somewhere between naysaying and spreading FUD. The NHS wants to make sure that millions of people don't take unnecessary ultrasounds, since a tiny risk, multiplied by millions, equals a few unnecessary deaths/left-handed children. The individual risk of unnecessary ultrasounds, however, is extremely low compared to the usual risks of pregrancy and childbirth.

Many medical devices are unnecessarily expensive (and suprisingly badly designed, from a user-interface standpoint). There are already enough regulatory hurdles in place that prevent disruption of the medical device markets, let us not add to these hurdles by being overly cautious!

<comment><USER4> Many years ago my grandfather owned a retail shoe store in Appleton, WI (back before malls). They used an x-ray machine to aid in sizing shoes. As a kid, years after it was put out of service, I came across it in the store basement. The device was about the size of a washing machine, made of a fine cabinet wood, and had a crt on top that allowed customers an x-ray view of their feet with the new shoes on. Fortunately it was no longer working when I found it.

The point is, lack of evidence is no reason to assume a non-invasive procedure is safe. There should be many "hurdles" in place to prevent unsafe medical devices. This is an area where very few consumers can analyze the risk.

<comment><USER5> Combining the two topics... why can't we use ultrasound to size shoes? Anyone want to work on that with me?

<comment> semi-extrinsic Because there are many small air gaps between the shoes and the feet. The impedance mismatch would be huge, and likely throw your signal deep into noise territory. Have you seen the amount of jelly they spread on your skin for medical ultrasounds? I don't think having to submerge your feet in liquid when trying out shoes would win many customers.

<comment><USER5> But in this case you just need a very rough 2d outline. I believe some stud finders use ultrasound. This might be more similar to that than a medical ultrasound.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This looks very cool!

I've just been looking at your github repository, you mention you use the HV7360 chip to generate the ultrasound pulse.

I'm slightly confused by the datasheet for this chip, am I right in thinking you supply +/\- 100V to this chip? If so, what are you using to generate that voltage out of curiosity?

(I have a ~2MHz ultrasound transducer which I keep meaning to play with, to attempt to measure liquid density, so your project is very interesting to me!)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there. Indeed, we supply HV to the pulser. Integrated is a recom dc/dc converter. Alternatively, for a DIY approach, you can as well work with something as in [http://echopen.org/index.php?title=Analog_Parts_%28Farad%29#...](http://echopen.org/index.php?title=Analog_Parts_%28Farad%29#High_Pulse_Voltage) \- for HV and pulser.

<comment><USER6> Thanks a lot for your response, I hadn't seen those recom modules before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Would be glad to get your comments !

<comment><USER7> Raspberry PI and Arduiono's changed a lot in embedded space, because of price and flexibility, how this board can change its space? How much does it cost to build complete solution using this project?

 _However, unlike the technology used in most hospitals across the UK costing anywhere from £20,000-£100,000, the scanner created by Jeff Neasham and Research Associate Dave Graham at Newcastle University can be manufactured for as little as £30-40._ [0]

If thats true, it can be game changer in some developing countries.

[0] - [http://echopen.org/index.php?title=Article:_Low_cost_design_...](http://echopen.org/index.php?title=Article:_Low_cost_design_makes_ultrasound_imaging_affordable_to_the_world)

<comment><AUTHOR> Depends on the volume of course, and of the quality of image that is expected. This board, plus transducer (necessary to get the image) in small volumes, should be around 200$. Maybe less in higher quantities, and with streamlined components. Far lower than the usual portable ultrasound scanners (costing ~5k$). But that's a work in progress so let's see!

We were following the Newcastle project, but I guess the tech was finally bought by NDT -> image quality and framerate were not as good as expected. At least, haven't seen progress on medical imaging use from this end.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apologies for my somewhat off-topic question, which is only tenuously related to the topic: is there an open-source application that is capable of reading or converting .vml ultrasound scan files that are produced by proprietary devices?

<comment><AUTHOR> No idea! Though, if VML is the Vector Markup Language, then "VML is specified in Part 4 of the Office Open XML standards". Maybe MVL ?

For medical images, ezDICOM may work ?

<comment><USER8> Sorry - I meant .MVL!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Everyone is really excited about the future expansion of inky rasping in medicine (even though it's already been in use for decades). Excited to check this out.

<comment><AUTHOR> inky rasping ?

<comment><USER10> I'd guess it's an autocorrectism for "ultra sound".

<comment><USER9> Yeah, you're right. Whoops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's great! It can help many developing countries.

<comment><USER12> Esp in sexing female fetuses!

[http://www.bc.edu/clubs/mendel/ethos/archives/2008/younger.s...](http://www.bc.edu/clubs/mendel/ethos/archives/2008/younger.shtml)

> These counterfeit medical professionals lure in clients with advertisements > outside their clinics stating, "pay 500 Rupees now and save 50,000 in the > future". Parents can spare a lot of time and future hardship by terminating > the pregnancy early and trying again for a son in lieu of having to kill a > newborn child. The clinics have proven so profitable, that ultrasound > machines are even finding their way into rural villages that do not have > potable water (Kumar 1998).

<comment><AUTHOR> Answer to that one is easy: with the level of details that this board can provide, one can't find the sex of the fetus - whereas placental location is still possible - and allows the medical staff to inform the mother and prepare the birth =)

Still, an issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The key question is, how good are the quality for images comparing to others? Did not find info related to that on the site yet.</comment>


LinkedChat – Live Chat for Facebook, Telegram and Slack - <AUTHOR> https://linked.chat <comment><AUTHOR> Use Facebook, Telegram or Slack to chat with your customers. Real-time support without another chat client. Unlimited agents. No additional software.</comment>


Spotify Disrupted the Music World, Now It's Doing the Same to Wall Street - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-disrupted-the-music-world-now-its-doing-the-same-to-wall-street-1516024778 <comment><USER2> Someone on HN gave an interesting point a while back about how the 3 major labels (Sony, Universal, and Warner) basically have Spotify by the balls, since they now have public filings insights into Spotify's performance and can increase their royalties accordingly. These 3 labels basically own 95% of the popular songs on Spotify, so I wonder how Spotify will deal with this.</comment>