Q&A with David Heinemeier Hansson - <AUTHOR> http://blog.learnstreet.com/?p=255 <comment><USER2> I made a transcription of a FLOSS interview with DHH about Rails, Ruby, and how he became a programmer.

[http://www.transcribed-interview.com/dhh-rails-david- heineme...](http://www.transcribed-interview.com/dhh-rails-david-heinemeier- hansson-interview-randal-schwartz-floss.html)

From that interview: _"The wonderful thing about the Web is that it divorces the notion of the native environment from the implementational technology. Any piece of programming language can spit out HTML and JavaScript, which means that you can build it in whatever the hell you want. It can be a tiny program. _You_ can invent a language and you can start using it and your users will not know the difference. So it really is this great equalizer in the sense of allowing new technologies to spring up and get serious traction because they don't need those network effects."_

</comment><comment><USER3> >JavaScript is there to decorate HTML, not the other way around.

Does that mean that HTML is not there to decorate JavaScript? Or is he dinging Backbone and the other JS MV* frameworks cropping up.

<comment><USER4> The latter.

<comment><USER5> Conflict of interests. The server side is dying.

<comment><USER6> Did you not live through the thin- vs. thick-client wars of the 90s? It's an ever-swinging pendulum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "JavaScript is there to decorate HTML, not the other way around."

Would it be fair to say this is a subtle jab at JavaScript used on the server side, namely what nodejs is doing?

<comment><USER8> No, it's a jab at client-side frameworks like Angular and Ember.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Error establishing a database connection._

I guess they didn't ask him any questions about caching or scalability...

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok - should be fixed now.

<comment><USER10> I was gonna say, it's not like I wanted to read it or anything.

Are you guys running a reverse proxy? It kinda looks like a naked Wordpress install that's borked. Really interested in the article; looking forward to you guys getting back online!

As a unit of measure, when I hit the top 10 on HN I get about 6-8000 hits in the day. I would imagine that a DHH article would be 5-10x of that.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're up. Got attacked by a bot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd be curious as to exactly what features comprised the first released version of rails. Was it originally in the MVC structure we know today, or was it more a mixture of random parts that were refactored into that later?

Did it use a CGI model, or did it embed webbrick from the start? etc.

<comment><USER12> I used rails 0.8, which was a couple months after rails 0.5, the first released version. It was the same mvc structure, centered around activerecord, actioncontroller, and erb views. It embedded webrick for development, and production was a heinous cobbled-together choice of fcgi, fastcgi, or pcgi that you were expected to figure out for yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder what his opinion about Functional Programming is.</comment>


Getting Started with Profile Guided Optimization - <AUTHOR> http://textslashplain.com/2016/01/10/getting-started-with-profile-guided-optimization/ <comment><USER2> Remember that your corpus must consist of a very wide range of scenarios. PGO, unsurprisingly, shares some pitfalls with supervised learning. Too few scenarios and your binary will excel at those scenarios but do terribly at others.</comment>


Google Ventures Puts $258M Into Uber, Its Largest Deal Ever - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-into-uber-its-largest-deal-ever/ <comment><USER2> This makes perfect sense, and if I had money to invest in this market, I would. Self-driving cars coupled with such an infrastructure means a very profitable business in the not-too-distant future.

The highest cost for taxis is not the cars, nor the gas, but the drivers. Get rid of them, and it's all gravy.

Something like this is most certainly the "mass" transit of the future. It would be lower cost, more convenient, and would actually pollute less than buses during non-peak times.

<comment><USER3> It's more than that. Google is interested in the movement of goods and services and how they can make those transactions more efficient. Google can umbrella commerce in general and just take a small google tax. It's like amazon's end game, except a lot more lightweight and uninvested.

<comment><USER4> _Google is interested in the movement of goods and services_

Quite a bit beyond "organizing the worlds information"[!]

<comment><USER5> I'd argue those are the same thing.

<comment><USER6> Energy-mass-information equivalence

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy.2C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy.2C_matter.2C_and_information_equivalence)

<comment><USER7> I hope my power company doesn't decide to start charging me per kilobyte.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Uber makes absurd amounts of money. I've had many conversations with drivers and they claim to be pulling in $35-$45 per hour after uber's 30% cut. I've talked to drivers who have quit their full time jobs and love it. Some have said that because the service is so convenient that people have started using it as a _walking_ replacement, often opting to catch a cab for 5 blocks. Lastly, many companies have enterprise uber accounts and will happily pay their employee's $200 cab rides to the airport or even 45 minute drive home.

<comment><USER9> I live in Montreal, so I"ve never been able to use Uber. What makes it different from a cab?

In Montreal, cab to the airport costs $50. Cab arrives in about 1-2 minutes most locations, and drives you there as fast as taxis go.

I don't doubt that Uber's great - this is a serious question. How much of a premium do people pay, and what are the main benefits in cities that already have developed taxi networks?

<comment><USER10> Uber is 15% cheaper than cabs in the market's their in. So you get your phone charged, a bottle of water, a nicer car, a lower price, no cards/cash or tips and you only wait a couple of minutes. Regardless of your location.

It also stops discrimination of location or profile (They can't say they don't go to X place or not pick you up).

<comment><USER11> Uber drivers still discriminate on location. When I wanted an SUV near Golden Gate Park, the first driver assigned to me cancelled the trip, and the second phoned me to verbally confirm before coming that far.

<comment> mh- I live a block from GGP and have never had this happen. (I've taken Uber a couple hundred times.)

I'm not doubting your anecdote, just adding my own. I have definitely had a handful of disappointing Uber experiences; however, 90%+ have been fantastic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Given the scale of the cash injection, the company might not have to raise another series round before going public, though a bridge round isn't inconceivable."

Why does a company need to raise so-much-money before going public? Isn't the whole point of "going public" to raise money?

<comment><USER13> I'd say that the point of "going public" is to provide liquidity to existing shareholders (e.g. founders, employees, outside investors). There are other ways to raise money, if that's all you want.

<comment><USER14> Sorry, I don't know anything about finance/business. What you say makes some sense to me, that going public lets initial investors cash out, if they so wish. But I'm still confused, why not sell public shares from the get-go. Is it that it's easier to make your case (for investment) to a VC than it is to Joe public?

<comment><USER15> Its the bane of quarterly capitalism - once public, management focus is diverted to managing earnings and increased amount of transparency needs to be provided for the company's internal operations.

Companies would prefer to stay private (and away from the limelight) while they're still figuring out product/market fit etc

<comment><USER16> You really should find product-market fit before you raise any money at all. However, it seems Uber has found it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For those who find this new baffling: Uber operates in the following cities:

      1 AMSTERDAM
      2 ATLANTA
      3 BALTIMORE
      4 BERLIN
      5 BOSTON
      6 CHICAGO
      7 DALLAS
      8 DENVER
      9 DETROIT
     10 HAMPTONS
     11 HONOLULU
     12 INDIANAPOLIS
     13 JOHANNESBURG
     14 LONDON
     15 LOS ANGELES
     16 LYON
     17 MELBOURNE
     18 MEXICO CITY
     19 MILAN
     20 MINNEAPOLIS
     21 MUNICH
     22 NEW YORK CITY
     23 ORANGE COUNTY
     24 PARIS
     25 PHILADELPHIA
     26 PHOENIX
     27 PROVIDENCE
     28 ROME
     29 SACRAMENTO
     30 SAN DIEGO
     31 SAN FRANCISCO
     32 SEATTLE
     33 SEOUL
     34 SHANGHAI
     35 SINGAPORE
     36 STOCKHOLM
     37 SYDNEY
     38 TAIPEI
     39 TORONTO
     40 WASHINGTON D.C.
     41 ZURICH

<comment><USER18> I had a look at their careers page - that list will be expanding quite a bit soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "The $258 million is a 86% chunk of Google Ventures' $300 million dollar a > year fund, and its unclear as to whether the firm will continue to make such > sizable investments."

So a towncar hire service, with an app, is worth over $3bn ? Really?!

Maybe there's one or two other metropolitan cities in the US where the taxi service isn't up to scratch, but where is the growth going to come from?

I doubt whether regulators and taxi unions in London, Tokyo or Hong Kong would sit idly by when some Silicon Valley kool-aid types come knocking.

<comment><USER20> People spend $10B on taxis per year in the United States alone. Smartphone adoption is going to reach 100%. I think if you put those two together, you really can't pigeonhole this type of service as "just another Silicon Valley app."

<comment><USER21> * Build out the technology so that every existing cab service can license and whitelabel

* Build out the service so that Uber is the central dispatch to any ride option based on price - also playing into the whitelabel/building of tech

* Provide Uber a significant fund with which to seek M&As of existing taxi cos all over the place

* Provide an investment sizeable enough to serve as national/global free PR for the service, investment

* Provide an investment large enough to back a significant legal team that can take on any metro taxi service's bitching

* Provide an investment large enough to lobby the hell out of local/national representation

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A lot of people are commenting about Uber + self-driving cars. What's the point of Uber if there are self-driving cars? Doesn't the existence of fully automated, driverless cars kill the value of Uber's driver network while equaling or surpassing Uber's no-hassle experience?

I think what I'm saying is: if Google actually created a fleet of driverless cars, would anyone still use Uber?

<comment><USER23> I think the idea is that you would not have to own, maintain, and park a car if you could summon one on a whim.

<comment><USER22> I definitely get the appeal and the value of that kind of future. It just feels like "driverless cars + simple Google-made reservation app" would send Uber's value down to zero. So if driverless fleets of cars are the future that Google is aiming for, then why invest in Uber? What does Uber currently have that would still be valuable in that future?

<comment><USER23> Probably the operational expertise in efficiently getting cars to pick up and drop off people at arbitrary points throughout a city. They're building that expertise right now with human drivers.

<comment><USER6> Organizing human operators and delegating machines are expertise that have almost zero in common.

<comment><USER23> I'm referring to logistics. I have 3 cars available and a set of 5 passengers, their coordinates, and their destination coordinates. How do I efficiently deliver these 5 passengers that minimizes their wait time and travel distance?

Please explain how it makes a difference whether humans are operating the vehicles or whether they are self driving. In either case a larger network is making the pickup, dropoff and navigation decisions, not the driver.

<comment><USER6> I humbly propose that if you have perfect agents, picking up 5 people with 3 cars is an incredibly simple problem.

It's only difficult because Uber has to deal with humans - will their cell phone be charged? Will they hear the notification on their phones? What if they forgot to indicate that they've taken the rest of the day off? What if they claim to be available but are actually in the restroom at a fast food restaurant? It's supposed to be a 6 minute drive but what if they make a wrong turn? What if they glance quickly at the map of where they're supposed to go but saw it wrong, then muted the turn-by-turn so they could blast some daft punk? Working with human agents is hard.

If you have always-online self-driving cars, then you've already done the hard part. Directing them where to go is trivial.

<comment><USER23> Since when was traveling salesman trivial?

I'm only using 5 people with 3 cars as an example. In reality it's hundreds upon hundreds of people and proportionally fewer cars. I understand there are challenges with dealing with humans that will disappear when we switch to robots, but I can't see the API changing very much. The concept of a vehicle network, customers, app, doing clever things to anticipate traffic and customer desires on certain days, all of these things take (I would imagine) years to understand and optimize.

Your claim that operating such a network with humans versus robots, on a logistical (API) level, have "almost zero in common" is rather brash.

<comment><USER24> Travelling salesman isn't that hard when you 1) scale it down and 2) add in a load of constraints.

Also, the travelling salesman problem is hard because you're looking for _the best_ solution not a _good_ solution. A good one is pretty easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Regulation is the biggest obstacle with Uber. The Taxi services have the city regulators in their pockets. Google, with their influence and money, may help solve Uber's biggest issue.

<comment><USER26> It looks likely to not be a problem in California shortly.

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/30/california-regulator- propos...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/30/california-regulator-proposes-new- ride-sharing-rules-in-a-victory-for-uber-lyft-and-sidecar/)

<comment><USER27> The federal FTC has also indicated it considers some of the state/local transport regulatory regimes anti-competitive, though it's not clear they have any legal authority to interfere with local determination.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Live in New York, think Uber is both more expensive and less convenient than just hailing a cab and I never use it. They seem to want to skim money from cabbies. I was also particularly appalled by their jacking up their prices during Hurricane Sandy. Their one killer feature - being able to see your car's arrival status on your phone, will be a commodity soon enough. Company won't exist in 5 years.

</comment><comment><USER29> Love Uber. After using it for over a year, just had my first negative experience this past weekend in SF when the UberX driver had no clue how to get from SOMA to Ocean Beach. I left negative feedback and in a few hours got a response from one of their customer experience folks apologizing for the poor service and refunding my money for the trip. Service like that is why I'll always choose Uber over alternatives like Lyft, Sidecar, etc.

</comment><comment><USER30> I can't help but wonder if it might have been wise for them to wait until they had widespread approval and adoption of self-driving cars. Completely disrupting mass transit will threaten a very large number of people's bottom lines, and many of those people have the ability to make things difficult for Google. Not least among these are auto manufacturers.

<comment><USER3> This is an angel investment. Google is bolstering Uber, not competing directly.

<comment><USER30> Even so, I wonder if they might do better not to draw attention to the disaster that "easy car sharing (or similar concepts)" \+ "self-driving car" could be for car sales. Maybe I'm underestimating car companies in assuming that the haven't already anticipated this (although in that case, why aren't we seeing resistance), or maybe Google holds them in even lower esteem.

<comment><USER31> My guess is that the car companies haven't figured this out. It takes two steps of reasoning: 1. Figuring out that self-driving cars are practical in the medium term and 2. Figuring out that widespread availability of self- driving cars means that people might not want to own their own.

<comment><USER30> Here's hoping that they, like many others before them, flinch away from the mental pain of noticing that their business model is about to crumble until it's too late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So, you do all realize that this was an investment (of less than 10%) and not an acquisition right? Everyone here is talking about how this plays right into Google's plans - no. With their stake, Google does not have enough leverage to direct what direction Uber should be moving in.

</comment><comment><USER33> You know what, Uber is awesome. Congrats to those guys and gals.

I think Uber will evolve to become a service that even regular people can use, not just a speciality service for the relatively wealthy tech community (though it is necessary to start out as such; ala Tesla). I also think that taxis aren't the only thing that it will offer in the future. There is a wealth of potential for what they can do. They sometimes do fun one-off Ubers like Helecopters or Ice Cream Trucks which don't quite capture this potential but shows us that they realize that there's much more to experiment with and that they're not afraid to experiment.

Imagine when we have self driving vehicles (which, incidentally Google is helping develop).

<comment><USER34> I'd say that among people who take cabs, not necessarily wealthy, Uber is growing fantastically in some markets. Here in DC - almost everyone I know prefers and uses Uber now.

<comment><USER35> Uber in DC is under attack from the government.

"DCTC passed a new set of regulations which bans mid-sized, fuel-efficient vehicles from being hired, as well as places color restrictions on those cars."

[http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/uber-and-d-c-taxicab- co...](http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/uber-and-d-c-taxicab-commission- square-off-in-new-fight-92966.html)

<comment><USER34> I think Uber is pretty safe in DC.

UberX is under attack in DC. The Limo/livery (black car and SUVs) businesses is now well protected by DC law and the definitions passed earlier this year. The DCTC rules will classify the UberX hybrid vehicles as Sedans and subject to the new rules. However, Uber has secured enough allies in the DC Council, including the DC Transportation CMTE Chair.

I've watched this fight play out a few times now, and I think the worst case scenario is no UberX through the end of 2013 prior to the next set of DCTC rule-making or council intervention. Uber rightly gins everyone up in DC about these issues, but the truth is they've done a great job in this market attracting the right allies and have been consistently winning their battles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It would be awesome if they next look at Lit Motors or a similar safe 1-2 person pod. Lit Motors + Über + Self-driving cars is total win. Once you get rid of the driver all you really need are 1-2 seats for most black car service and taxi rides

</comment><comment><USER37> self-driving taxis, here we come

<comment><USER38> This is interesting because if we think, 100 years from now, on demand transportation could be the most efficient way to go. Now Lyft, Uber's biggest threat, has been winning market share by being the ride for the common man and focusing on community. If that is Lyft's biggest strength, what happens to Lyft when self driving taxis are the most obvious solution to transportation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The current business models of transportation startups like Uber, Lyft, Sidecar and Car2Go are merely a stepping stone to something much greater. It's only a matter of time before self-driving car technology is developed enough to be deployed widely. It seems clear to me that Google's investment in Uber is their way to guarantee access to a large fleet of vehicles and an established brand. The next 10-15 years are going to be very interesting :)

</comment><comment><USER40> Anyone else see Google lining up Uber to get bought, so that they can consolidate Uber with their self-driving car to provide an on-demand taxi service?

</comment><comment><USER41> Is it not weird that Google Ventures also invested in Sidecar? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

<comment><USER42> Sounds like they're betting on two horses in the race.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is an incredible move on Google's part. Uber can be seen as the physical arm of Google in meatspace; imagine having your flight information come up in Google Now with a button to summon an Uber car.

I look into the future and I primarily see "Google".

<comment><USER44> From my understanding, Google and Google Ventures are 100% independent.

<comment><USER27> I've seen alternate stories about GV which seem to want to have it both ways – some that imply an ability for GV to bring in Google staff/expertise to help investments, and others vaguely implying a more strict separation.

This page...

[http://www.googleventures.com/investing](http://www.googleventures.com/investing)

...touts "Uparallelled Access to Google", and supposedly GV won its share in Uber's round with the help of direct lobbying from Larry Page.

So GV may be ostensibly empowered to seek return without regard to Google's other objectives... but it doesn't appear there's a "Chinese Wall". If theoretically the GV partners wanted to do something Larry Page absolutely didn't want, I'm not sure I'd bet on the GV partners having their way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This year will be remembered as the first year TechCrunch failed to break any major stories.

</comment><comment><USER3> A big piece of google's continued growth is going to be in mobile commerce. Take offers, maps, search and self-driving cars and put them into an amalgamated new product. Google's future is an ecological approach.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm surprised not to see anyone mention this but a large taxi service for Google can become a huge competitive advantage if it can be intelligently used to gather real-time traffic/street-view/etc data.

</comment><comment><USER47>
        Step one: buy car service
        Step two: replace drivers with computers
        Step three: profit, optimize traffic patterns from within the swarm, decrease accidents, increase fuel efficiency, etc.

</comment><comment><USER48> Travis Kalanick is the definition of relentless - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico)

</comment><comment><USER49> Looking at the Uber website, they refer the the Twin Cities as Minneapolis, even though their service area includes St Paul and Minneapolis.

That's a deal killer for me.

</comment><comment><USER50> Will a web-bot be able to automatically order self-driving cars to pick up robots so they can peaceably assemble outside Utah data centers?

</comment><comment><USER51> Aside: the quality of comments on Techcrunch seems to have really deteriorated with their current comment system.

</comment><comment><USER52> Guber [http://imgur.com/Klr7cHY](http://imgur.com/Klr7cHY)

</comment><comment><USER53> uber + Tesla + driverless = an environment friendly transportation system as convenient as if you have a private car and driver and as cheap as public bus.

</comment><comment><USER54> Basically Uber-driverless cars?

</comment><comment><USER42> Should have been 256M for a nice round number.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is kind of silly. If Google launched it's own uber with the google brand on it, it would easily trump uber. Developing the the uber software would cost way way less than $250 million. These large companies are throwing a lot of money away on stupid acquisitions. (It makes sense in social networking, but not with something like uber which isn't a network effects company).

</comment><comment><USER56> Wow, corrupt governments everywhere, kiss your corruption goodbye.</comment>


Rust for Node developers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Mercateo/rust-for-node-developers <comment><USER2> Didn't really see a ton of substance in that, it seemed to mainly add up to a long-winded explanation of printing out a text file using two different languages in convoluted ways.

Here is my much shorter version of basically the same thing with a different language:

Nim for Node.js Programmers

I love Node.js programming, especially because of the massive ecosystem of modules available, but Nim has some advantages in many cases. Here are three: it uses very little memory, creates code that is very fast, and interfaces extremely easily with C and C++.

### Node.js

How to set up Node

Since you are a Node programmer, you already have it set up.

        const fs = require('fs');

        fs.readFile('hello.txt', 'utf8', (err, data) => {
          if (err)  {
            console.error('Problem reading file:', err);
          } else {
            console.log(data);
          }
        });

How to set up an editor/IDE

Since you are a programmer, you already set it up.

### Nim

Install Nim -- thoroughly explained here: [http://nim- lang.org/download.html](http://nim-lang.org/download.html)

Enter into readfile.nim:

        try:
          echo readFile("hello.txt")
        except:
          echo "Problem reading file."

Run command 'nim c readfile.nim' then './readfile'

### Package Management in Nim

The `nimble` command handles packages in Nim. Please read the excellent and thorough documentation here: [https://github.com/nim- lang/nimble](https://github.com/nim-lang/nimble)

For more information, see the great documentation at [http://nim- lang.org/documentation.html](http://nim-lang.org/documentation.html), the new book Nim in Action, [https://www.manning.com/books/nim-in- action](https://www.manning.com/books/nim-in-action), or many other resources online such as those listed here: [http://nim-lang.org/learn.html](http://nim- lang.org/learn.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> After using Firefox for the first time in forever I noticed that I'm liking a lot of what Mozilla does to try to educate people on web development practices. I am curious as to how others find Rust to use in practice. Looking to augment my knowledge in Java with another language that's quite different.</comment>


Show HN: Getting Warmer! A POC for providing visual cues for password inputs - <AUTHOR> https://okal.github.io/getting-warmer/

<comment><USER2> This idea looks similar to the Lotus Notes login. You can also use more recognizable images. That can help a lot to remember a password by graphic association.</comment>


Uber driver taken hostage in Marseille within 24 hours of launch - <AUTHOR> https://www.rudebaguette.com/2015/06/09/video-uberpop-driver-taken-hostage-marseille-within-24-hours-launch/

<comment><USER2> "Uber driver taken hostage by the taxi cartel"</comment>


Ask HN: Can the brain create something it doesn't have? - <AUTHOR>

How powerful is fear? If you fear something so much can the brain actually create it?<p>Like fear of being blind or fear of having a mental disorder is that fear enough to actually make the brain mimic symptoms of it? <comment><USER2> You might want to web-search for "somatoform".

These are pretty common and can cause considerable distress to people. Common forms include health-anxiety ("I'm having a heart attack"; "I have cancer"). Less common forms include blindness or paralysis.

A complicating factor is that people reject the treatment because they feel they are being ignored or dismissed as "making it up" or "faking it".

It can be tricky for clinicians to work with someone with a somatic symptom disorder. How do you respond to someone who claims to be blind, but who does stuff that requires sight?

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

> A somatic symptom disorder, formerly known as a somatoform > disorder,[1][2][3] is a mental disorder characterized by physical symptoms > that suggest physical illness or injury – symptoms that cannot be explained > fully by a general medical condition or by the direct effect of a substance, > and are not attributable to another mental disorder (e.g., panic disorder).

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

> A conversion disorder causes patients to suffer from neurological symptoms, > such as numbness, blindness, paralysis, or fits without a definable organic > cause. It is thought that symptoms arise in response to stressful situations > affecting a patient's mental health. Conversion disorder is considered a > psychiatric disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental > Disorders fifth edition (DSM-5).[1]

<comment><AUTHOR> So if you have a thought of having a panic attack even though no health problems would cause just the mere fact of fearing a panic attack can cause one?

<comment><USER3> You might be describing an anxiety attack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes, check out the Nocebo effect[0] (Placebos evil twin) and related phenomena like Voodoo death.[1]

From Wikipedia: "Voodoo death, a term coined by Walter Cannon in 1942 also known as psychogenic death or psychosomatic death, is the phenomenon of sudden death as brought about by a strong emotional shock, such as fear."

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

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

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes, but it is unlikely.

<comment><AUTHOR> Explain?

<comment><USER5> DanBC basically answered your question. The thing to keep in mind is this is pretty rare.</comment></comment></comment>


What Killed Single-Payer in California? - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/143650/killed-single-payer-california <comment><USER2> In a word, the answer is still "cost". You can try to dance around it and talk about how " A single-payer program would inevitably incur additional taxes, but the overall health care costs would be lower for most people and businesses", but at the end of the day, it's going to cost a lot of money. This article claims it'd "only" cost about an additional $100b or so in CA; I think critics would be very skeptical of that, especially since costs are claimed to come from "reduced overhead" areas. I'm not sure that governments have a history of keeping costs low, so voters would likely be skeptical of that.

Ultimately I imagine it boils down to voters in a state with already very high taxes (by American standards) being very wary of voting to significantly increasing their taxes again.

<comment><USER3> Agree cost is a huge factor, but another key issues is the inconvenient fact that most Americans with employer-provided coverage are satisfied with it. Convincing them to take a leap into the dark with no credible promises that they could still see the same PCPs and specialists they can see today and with similar wait time/referral requirements would be politically Herculean.

<comment><USER4> > they could still see the same PCPs and specialists they can see today

What do you think single-payer is? There's no such thing as "out of network".

<comment><USER3> I don't think single-payer works the way you seem to think it does in nations where it's been implemented.

I have an expensive employer-provided plan. I can, without any referral, make an appointment with a specialist (surely making $300K+) at a top teaching hospital and expect to wait weeks at the most.

There is no way to offer that level of service to anyone and not explode costs, let alone contain them.

<comment><USER5> > I don't think single-payer works the way you seem to think it does in > nations where it's been implemented.

I don't think single-payer works the way _you_ seem to think it does.

> I have an expensive employer-provided plan.

I'm happy for you. What happens when you lose your job?

I live in Belgium. I'm covered by the basic social security health insurance, just like any other Belgian.

> I can, without any referral, make an appointment with a specialist (surely > making $300K+) at a top teaching hospital and expect to wait weeks at the > most.

So can I. I've never had to wait more than a couple of weeks at most. If it's urgent, they fit you in on the same day or a couple of days later at the latest. That seems to be corroborated by [1]. One exception is mental health care, where the waiting lists are long.

> There is no way to offer that level of service to anyone and not explode > costs, let alone contain them.

That is wrong. According to [2], health spending accounted for 10.9% of GDP in Belgium in 2012, which is much lower than the 16.9% the US spends.

[1] [http://focusonbelgium.be/en/international/belgium-has- shorte...](http://focusonbelgium.be/en/international/belgium-has-shortest- waiting-time-healthcare-europe)

[2] [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2VeNWmB...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2VeNWmBzMy0J:www.oecd.org/belgium/Briefing- Note-BELGIUM-2014.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=be)

<comment><USER3> The Belgian system contains costs in other ways. For example, doctors (especially GP's) are paid significantly less. Belgium is also over 10x as population dense as the U.S., which offers significant opportunities for more efficient care delivery.

Anyway, it's not clear to me that Belgium has anything like a single-payer system[1]:

 _The Belgian population enjoys good health and increasing life expectancy of 79.5 years (2004). Most Belgians have access to health care of high quality, financed mainly through social security contributions and taxation. Compulsory health insurance is combined with a mostly private system of health care delivery, based on independent medical practice, free choice of physician and predominantly fee-for-service payment._

That doesn't sound at all like single-payer.

[1] [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/96442/E9...](http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/96442/E90059.pdf)

<comment><USER5> > The Belgian system contains costs in other ways. For example, doctors > (especially GP's) are paid significantly less.

That's exactly the point! Single-payer is much better at containing the costs. The cost of a GP's visit is fixed centrally. And somehow we still end up with more doctors per 1000 inhabitants than the US.

> Belgium is also over 10x as population dense as the U.S., which offers > significant opportunities for more efficient care delivery.

States like New Jersey and Rhode Island have higher population densities than Belgium. Is health care significantly cheaper there? A cursory glance at [3] suggests otherwise.

One big difference between Belgium and the US is that damages in malpractice suits are not determined by jury, and hence much lower.

> Anyway, it's not clear to me that Belgium has anything like a single-payer > system[1]:

What is your definition of single-payer healthcare? If I look at wikipedia [1]: _Single-payer healthcare is a healthcare system in which the state, financed by taxes, covers basic healthcare costs for all residents regardless of income, occupation, or health status_.

The Belgian health-care system covers everybody, financed by social security contributions and taxation. The compulsory health insurance is about 75 EUR per year, and amounts to simply another disguised tax. What is not single- payer about that?

There are deductibles for doctor's visits (e.g. 6 EUR for a GP visit), but your total healthcare costs are capped at 459 EUR per year (even lower for low-income families). Anything over that is covered by social security.

You can get optional, extra health-insurance which can cover additional services. E.g. if you prefer a single room when you are hospitalised, that costs extra. Some extra health-insurance covers nonsense like homeopathy, which is otherwise not covered.

Btw, dental care is included in basic coverage. No third-world country situations like [2].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single- payer_healthcare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare)

[2] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2017/05/13/the- pai...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2017/05/13/the-painful- truth-about-teeth/?utm_term=.e6e240695895)

[3] [http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending- per...](http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-per- capita/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yeah, "free" healthcare is expensive for sure. Here in Quebec, I'd guess that it's around 40%-60% of the overall province's budget. Sure, it means higher taxes, but we don't have to deal with health insurance. How much do people (or their employer) pay for that in California? 300$ / month? I'm pretty sure my (provincial) taxes are not 3.6K higher than someone in California.

People mention better access to specialists in a privatized system... I'd argue the peace of mind of not having to worry about healthcare costs far outweigh whatever advantages a privatized system may have.

<comment><USER7> 10 years ago I paid $140 per month ($1,500 per year) for a great healthcare plan. Last year, my employer (w/over 5k employees, so I am hoping some discount) paid 10k for a great health plan. Both are California numbers.

<comment><USER6> That 10k, is it per person, or total? I find it hard to believe you can get health insurance for 2$ / person!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As bad as some private insurance is; having friends and family who must seek care at the VA makes me want to run far far away from single payer. We have failed our members of the armed services, what makes you think we would do better for Joe & Jane Schmoe than we do for them? Larger organizations fester with waste and mismanagement the bigger they get, its simply a law of nature.

<comment><USER9> That is not single payer though. They run the hospitals as far as I know, so it is more like socialized health care. I actually thought VA was good from what I've read/heard.

Anyway a problem with a public option for the few is that there will be no political pressure to make it good. You see this in every country which offer public and private options, where the rich primarily chose private. The public option turns into crap because the very people who could have put heavy political pressure on the public option don't care.

This is the experience we've had in Norway at least through history. If you want good public services, they need to be universal and apply to both rich and poor people. Means tested solutions only for the poor or disadvantaged always end up crappy. When somebody is universal, everybody gets a stake in it and a desire for it to be good, including the politicians who get elected.

If all the politicians and the bankers on wall street had to use VA, you can bet it would have offered great service.

Once great example of this dynamic is from the 60s when they forced mixed schools in the US. "black schools" which suddenly got white students, suddenly got all sorts of maintenance work taken care of. Those schools got big upgrades due to that. In short if people with power and influence has to use a system, it will get a lot better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> it would be nice for those supporting single payer to first describe exactly how the funding would work. Instead of trying to hide it under a mismash of taxes, like Obamacare, just come out and say (for example), there will be a X% tax added to FICA, where the employee will pay 1/2 and employer pay 1/2\. Or a VAT tax. Or whatever. Just come out and say what it will cost instead and how it will be funded. Instead its always about the benefits while avoiding any mention of new tax.

just be honest about it.

<comment><USER9> That seems to be a problem in the US, that people are so afraid of talking about taxes. It should be hard to be honest about it though, as one can make a calculation about how much people pay out of pocket and through company provided health care today, and compare this to how much it would cost in taxes instead.

I would probably have used VAT for this.

<comment><USER11> The word's been weaponized by the right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> NB: the US _already_ spends more on socialized medicine than any other country except Norway:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File:OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg)

The US spends more on _socialized_ medicine than countries like Japan and Great Britain spend in total.

It is a very bad situation here in the US.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't get why they make this so complicated. It is not like this costs any more than the existing system. You are just paying for it in a different way. Rather than paying the insurance system directly you are paying the tax man. Whether you pay the insurance company 100 bucks or the tax man, shouldn't make a difference.

<comment><USER13> > It is not like this costs any more than the existing system

The budget estimates indicate that it would be about 50% more expensive than the status quo, after accounting for private expenditures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > A legislative analysis found that California's single-payer plan would cost > $400 billion to implement, $200 billion of which would be new spending. > Critics were quick to point out that this "hefty" price tag is twice the > state budget. Furthermore, the bill did not include a funding plan.

Amazing they needed a whole article to say this. How disjointed from reality do people have to be to go through the legislative process with something that fiscally infeasible?

<comment><USER15> California legislators have learned that they can appeal to their rabid left wing by passing unrealistic bills, and Jerry Brown will play the adult in the room and veto them. So there's not really any danger to the legislators. It's a game they all understand.</comment></comment>


Fred Wilson: The End of the IPO Drought is Coming - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/05/the-end-of-the-ipo-drought-is-coming.html

<comment><USER2> He says new tools make Sarbanes Oaxley cheaper to comply with. This is the first that I have heard. Somehow I dont think it means cheap or easy.

<comment><USER3> This was a point I kinda commented on to Fred a few weeks ago, and I was surprised that Sarbox isn't a main concern anymore.

However your point about 'cheap or easy' is precisely what may help the IPO market credibility. If it were cheap and easy and everybody could do it, we would be back to the bubble (in theory). With the right tools and people who can work with it, the companies that truly are ready for IPO can make it work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hopefully, but I'm kinda doubtful

<comment><USER5> If it's true, I'll take it as an early leading indicator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I doubt it'll be this year. Lots of potential shoes out to drop yet. Maybe late next year?</comment>


Model Zoo – Pretrained deep learning models - <AUTHOR> https://modelzoo.co/ <comment><USER2> As a researcher who has work "featured" here, I am confused.

I was going across the projects and found my own - "Quasi-Recurrent Neural Network"[1]. I was interested to see what type of model would be trained as the QRNN is a component, not a model. Upon clicking it, I'm shown the README I wrote on GitHub and a "Get model" button that takes you to the Github repo where I know there isn't a model.

This is true for other projects I looked at.

A model zoo without the models seems misleading especially when the claim is "Model Zoo - Pretrained deep learning models" ...

Mixed with already having an Advertise button gets me a little concerned.

[1]: [https://modelzoo.co/model/quasi-recurrent-neural-network- qrn...](https://modelzoo.co/model/quasi-recurrent-neural-network-qrnn)

<comment><USER3> Hey, I'm the one who made the site. Thanks for your feedback. Most of the models listed on the site are taken from lists of deep learning resources (and framework specific model zoos), so I did not validate every repo to ensure they actually offer pretrained models. I guess a more accurate text for the link would be "view code" or "more info" instead of "get model". Indeed a lot of papers don't release their models but just the code.

The goal of the site was to create a common platform to search and aggregate models (or code) available for reimplementation. I'm planning to add tools to allow users to flag or report errors on pages, since most of the content is automatically scraped.

<comment><USER4> I hate to be "that guy" but I have pretty serious problems with the site and your response here. Respectfully, you're admitting that you're not doing the thing the website principally claims. It doesn't matter what you intended - the site is claiming that it aggregates pretrained models.

Not only does it _not_ do that, but it apparently only scrapes third party resources with little to no manual oversight in whether or not the e.g. code repository even contains a pretrained model. But wait: your plan going forward is to offload the moderation onto users?! So instead of being responsible for the content, the users (who ostensibly came to your site because they couldn't find what they were looking for) are now obligated to do due diligence. What's the difference between this and just searching GitHub for paper titles or keywords?

The final issue I have is more meta. I don't really see the value of the site as implemented. Why are you automatically scraping all of these resources? Why don't you curate them yourself and demonstrate that competency to the community? As it stands this is blatantly misleading and seems like a transparent attempt to cash in views for buzzwords, regardless of whether or not the user is ultimately helped by the content.

Sorry for being harsh, but this is kind of brazenly inept. I can understand that automatically scraping these resources gives you a lot of leeway to scale up inclusion to make it more viable. However you really can't just turn on a scraper, direct it at a few keywords and tell your users to sort it out. Users will want this site to make their lives easier instead of wading into the complexity themselves. You're not reducing that complexity, you're just adding another layer of abstraction to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just an FYI - neat though this is, there does exist a related underrated thing called OpenML that hosts data, models, and individual runs: [https://www.openml.org/](https://www.openml.org/) . Really want this to be more well known...

<comment><USER6> OpenML looks great! I hope it gets a bit of attention from this thread. Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So if I understand correctly, as it is right now, it is just a Github scraper with an advertisement button, right?

</comment><comment><USER8> Caffe has a thing called exactly "model zoo"[1], which is also a collection of pre-trained models. The submitted site looks like a borrowed idea (+ borrowed name).

[1]: [https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/wiki/Model- Zoo](https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/wiki/Model-Zoo)

<comment><USER9> I always figured 'model zoo' was a general term for for a collection of trained models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Full Disclaimer: One of the creators. But I'm working on a platform that has pretrained models, with notebooks that are I've personally verified works correctly & is well documented/explained. We also host the models ourselves for you to easily download via CURL/WGET.

If anyone is looking for curated pre-trained DL models that have IPython Notebooks that run out of the box, check out [https://modeldepot.io](https://modeldepot.io)

If you have some pretrained models that you'd love to share, feel free to hit share via the submit button :)

We might not have the volume of modelzoo.co, but we have a focus on quality and understandability, especially for those that are newer to the ML/DL field.

<comment><USER11> Great product, I'll definitely share it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This looks quite nice in the sense that it's an index of Deep Learning projects, but it only seems to copy the README and link to the the github projects of those papers.

I thought by clicking "Get Model" I would get the model right away but it just redirects me to the github page of the project.

There is certainly value in getting information about all these models in one place but I feel more friction can be elimaned by providing direct ability to download the model files.

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems to be a directory of neural network and RL related projects _not_ a model zoo at all.

It's a pity - I'm still looking for a WikisumWeb pretrained model!

</comment><comment><USER6> This thread could serve as an informative discussion on how to properly site open, collaborative ML tools and resources. If anyone reading is active in the OpenML and OpenAI communities, could you provide some best practices for attribution and curation of these resources? There are already some pretty obvious recommendations: the project name or description of the site should be accurate. Describe what the site actually does, and credit those whose models are used. Hopefully someone can provide some formal specifications for how to do this.

</comment><comment><USER14> Could this kind of model registry enable efficient model search based on input/output queries, a la this paper about semantic code search? [https://kstolee.github.io/papers/JSS2015.pdf](https://kstolee.github.io/papers/JSS2015.pdf)

Perhaps the registry would need to be a lot larger before semantic search would be really useful?

</comment><comment><USER15> This looks like a Pretty neat idea. Do you cross check the models to see if they are working? Or you just consider based on stars?

<comment><USER3> Most of the models are retrieved from "awesome" lists or other framework specific model zoos - I didn't have time to check all the models. I'm planning to add tools for reporting non-functional models for this purpose.

<comment><USER16> You didn't have time? Was this site developed under a deadline?

I'll just add to the other comments here that I think you need to try a little harder to make this site do what it claims to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Model Zoo" is the thing that is going to fuck us up when the machines finally rise up

</comment><comment><USER18> blank page with JS disabled</comment>


ReGoogle: Search for pages that are similar to a URL - <AUTHOR>

This is a Chrome extension: https://github.com/downloads/gokturk/ReGoogle/ReGoogle.crx
Open Source: https://github.com/gokturk/ReGoogle/downloads
github.com/gokturk <comment><USER2> Simple implementation of a good idea.

A suggestion though: why not show the results in an info window/modal pop-over like a lot of Google Chrome widgets do? Seems like that would be much more usable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good suggestion. ;) Thanks.</comment></comment>


Facebook has turned data against us. Here's how we fight back - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/data-personalisation-algorithms <comment><USER2> [https://twitter.com/coreytrampe/status/1210885461083918337](https://twitter.com/coreytrampe/status/1210885461083918337)

</comment><comment><USER3> This made me chuckle:

> The backlash was so extreme that Twitter reinstated the time-based timeline > [wait for the punchline] two years later.

There's no call to action here. All it says is customization is better than personalization while accepting that the internet must be ad powered. The larger problem to solve is filter bubbles.

<comment><USER4> I really don't know what to make of the filter bubble discussion. I get the feeling that the problem began well before social media. The political divide in the USA is what fuels those bubbles, and that started well before Facebook and Twitter.

Social media almost certainly accelerates the divide, but I'm not sure we can entirely ignore the fact that there are billion dollar corporations that feed off of it.

In the best case, we can say we just want to point out blatant lies. But those lies are often reinforced by traditional media, politicians, etc. Facebook has repeatedly said they will _not_ come out on the side of truth. They'll let any politician lie as much as they want, even if it would otherwise break their ToS. How can we break filter bubbles if the powerful are allowed free reign to execute disinformation campaigns?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like the way to fight back is to not give them your data in the first place. Stop using their services/apps.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not one word what the actual harm is. I mean I get it, Facebook is evil, but this whole article feels like someone (using ads as a business model crying witch (data! Ads!) to an angry mob without one piece od explanation what the actual harm is.

</comment><comment><USER7> Right below the headline, there is a prominent Facebook icon, providing free publicity for Facebook, as well as allowing Wired to use Facebook as a marketing platform.</comment>


Show HN: Ordered Error Diffusion Dithering - <AUTHOR> https://observablehq.com/@jobleonard/ordered-error-diffusion-dithering <comment><AUTHOR> So as I mentioned somewhere in the wall of text, I'm fairly convinced that combining error diffusion with ordered dithering must already exist. It feels like such an obvious and fundamental idea to _not_ have been discovered already at some point by one of the many, many people who have spent time implementing and tinkering with dithering algorithms.

So part of the reason why I submitted this was that I hoped that it would result in some feedback from people saying _" oh yeah, that's actually pretty standard stuff, Knuth mentions it on page X"_, but maybe the topic is a bit too niche even for HN.

<comment><USER2> > _combining error diffusion with ordered dithering must already exist._

> _people saying "oh yeah, [...] Knuth mentions it on page X"_

Though the following answers your question only in a literal sense, you might find it interesting to read Knuth's article "Fonts for Digital Halftones", originally published in _TUGboat_ (the magazine of the TeX Users Group), Volume 8 (1987), No. 2: [http://mirror.tug.org/TUGboat/tb08-2/tb18knut.pdf](http://mirror.tug.org/TUGboat/tb08-2/tb18knut.pdf) (Reprinted with revisions as Chapter 21 of _Digital Typography_.) Though it technically mentions "ordered dither" (on the first page), it uses it in a different sense/purpose (to get an initial patterns of dots that make up a "font" called "odith"). It does do error diffusion though (details are in appendix).

Ah, the next chapter of _Digital Typography_ (Knuth's paper "Digital Halftones by Dot Diffusion") seems even more relevant. It mentions "It would be nice to have a solution that retains both the sharpness of the Floyd-Steinberg method [of error diffusion] and the parallelism of ordered dither" and does something that seems to combine the two. (DOI 10.1145/35039.35040)

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Digital Halftones by Dot Diffusion_

Is that the same dot diffusion that is also mentioned here?

[http://caca.zoy.org/study/part3.html](http://caca.zoy.org/study/part3.html)

If I understand the description that page correctly, dot diffusion _visits_ pixels in Bayer order (instead of from left to right, top to bottom), and propagates error to all surrounding pixels that have not been visited yet. So yes, that does combine ordered dithering with error diffusion, but in a very different fashion than I do. The output (at least on the page that I've linked) is very half-tone ish.

<comment><USER2> Haha just read the page again properly:

> Do not get fooled by Knuth's apparent good results. They specifically target > dot printers and do not give terribly good results on a computer screen.

But of course! Knuth, as is his wont, was obviously not targeting computer screens or even targeting dot printers in general but a specific (Imagen) printer that happened to be on the Stanford campus. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, that explanation makes a lot of sense actually! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I consider this thesis one of the best works on dither and noise shaping (error diffusion is just another name for noise shaping): [http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/3867/1/thesis.pd...](http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/3867/1/thesis.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like a great resource! It seems mostly focused on one-dimensional cases, based on a quick skim, so that would take some time to grok and "translate" to 2D images, but it looks like it's full of in-depth theory and other useful information to make sense of what I'm experimenting with. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> The generalization to 2D is relatively straight-forward.

My own interest in the subject has mostly been 1D signals which might also serve to explain my affection for that thesis... but it really is much easier to understand first in 1D.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Blank page? What's it meant to show?

<comment><AUTHOR> Observable uses JavaScript to render the page, I presume that's why it's broken for you (I use uMatrix myself as well).

It's supposed to show an interactive notebook with canvas-based images, describing how ordered dithering can be composed with error diffusion dithering to create a form of hybrid dithering that is somewhere in-between.

<comment><USER5> I only want a description (that I can copy, print out, or whatever); not an interactive notebook.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really? Is half of the feedback I'm going to get here complaints that the webpage isn't static enough?

Look, it's a simple page with text and images describing what happens. There is a description of the algorithm.

But one of the neat things of this method is that you can combine any error diffusion method with any threshold map, so to illustrate the point I implemented the idea in an interactive page where you can combine 14 different error diffusion methods with 12 threshold maps and 3 input images, for a total of 504 possible combinations. My apologies for giving you easy tools to experiment.

<comment><USER4> If I go to a web site, and it's a blank page, that gives me zero information. It's quite trivial to have a fallback, even if it just says "Really sorry, I see you have Javascript off, but this web page does cool things that need Javascript, so you won't see much here unless you switch it on. I promise not to do evil things."

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I suggest you either tweet at Observable, or open a feedback topic on their forums. Either way, I'm not in charge of their website (and would not have been able to implement this stuff in a day on any other platform, so no, building a static site from scratch is not a realistic option for me).

[https://twitter.com/observablehq](https://twitter.com/observablehq)

[https://talk.observablehq.com/](https://talk.observablehq.com/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ex-Goldman programmer indicted over HFT code theft - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61A5P120100212

<comment><USER2> The article begins with 'A former Goldman Sachs Group programer...'. Amazing insight sure to follow.</comment>