Judge Tells Uber Lawyer: 'It Looks Like You Covered This Up' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/waymo-uber-trial.html <comment><USER2> This is frankly incredible the more that comes out. Paying someone 4.5M in 12 months and then saying everything they claimed is false is some Olympic level gymnastics. I think this level of cover-up is bigger than many reasonable people who thought Uber was guilty expected.

<comment><USER3> Nonetheless, Uber paid a $3 million settlement to the lawyer who wrote the letter in addition to the $4.5 million paid to Mr. Jacobs. As part of the deal, Mr. Jacobs was kept on as a security consultant, Ms. Padilla testified. His job: investigating the claims made in the letter his lawyer wrote.

Mr. Jacobs received $2 million up front and was to receive $1 million spread over 12 months and $1.5 million in stock, also spread out over 12 months.

\---

I think his job is one of those "I can do this job from home" Fightclub type jobs.

<comment><USER4> So they paid him to investigate claims they argue are baseless? That doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER5> It does not make any sense at all. It does not ring true. It will not ring true to a jury either.

<comment><USER6> On the contrary, it's security done right!

There was no evidence of issues, yet they will still have a look to make sure of it.

<comment><USER7> You seem incredibly biased. Do you have a dog in this battle? Would you mind revealing your real name and employer, please? Or do you need to stay anonymous? Your relationship with the facts has a familiar ring to it. Kellyanne?

<comment><USER8> Maybe I'm missing a joke here but he or she is right. "we have no reason to believe any of this is true but we will investigate it to be sure" is more than we expect most companies to do.

That being said I doubt any of us honestly believe those words from Uber.

<comment><USER7> You must be missing something. I think you missed the part about paying the guy AND his lawyer an enormous pile of money, then continuing to employ the guy who reported it, and who they're now calling an untrustworthy lying extortionist.

Those words just don't ring true no matter who they came from, and Uber's recent pay-off of a hacker who breached their customer data follows the exact same pattern.

Go back and read the article carefully, please. I'll repeat thisisit's pointed questions for you to address after you've gotten your head around the facts:

>I am sorry but do you mean companies should pay off a whistle-blower rather than say - >a. litigate, if the claims are baseless >b. In case the claim has substance to try and rectify the issue along with responsible disclosure?

After getting your head around all that, do you really think the guy who said "The fact that two qualified employees, a lawyer and a security constant, getting a similar sum should hint that it is common." sounds unbiased?

<comment><USER6> I just wanted to outline that investigating baseless claims if perfectly normal. How could they even be qualified of baseless fore sure if they were not investigated?

The payout is a different matter, that we both agree doesn't contribute to their defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Judge Alsup questioned why Uber would pay so much to an employee making bogus claims. "To someone like me, an ordinary mortal, and to ordinary mortals out there in the audience — people don't pay that kind of money for B.S.," the judge said._

 _Uber's rationale for the settlement: It would cost less to settle with him than to fight him in court. Also, Mr. Jacobs's claims could hurt Uber's reputation, Ms. Padilla testified._

I guess it's open season at Uber now? All you have to do is send them a letter with bogus claims, and they'll pay you millions? /s

<comment><USER10> I love the line about "hurting Uber's reputation", as if they are the sterling example of honest and ethical company.

<comment><USER11> To most users in most places, there's nothing particularly notable about Uber. They have an unsavory reputation if you move in certain rarefied technical or political circles, but not among the general public. My parents, who are by no means ignorant or uneducated, would be completely unable to comment on why Uber might have a bad reputation.

<comment><USER12> It's not just tech circles. Many Lyft drivers tell me that they refuse to drive for Uber because Uber is not friendly. That's a significant number of people, more so if you include people they talk to. Word gets out.

<comment><USER13> Drivers drive for the product that provides the most income. Outside of the realms of SF (and even within), there are only two types of drivers:

1\. Ones who drive for both - this cohort used to prefer Lyft due to tips but the scales have tipped (no pun) due to Uber introducing a whole host of features which Lyft is catching up to. This is easily verifiable by frequenting reddit.com/r/uberdrivers or reddit.com/r/lyft

2\. Ones who only drive for Uber because the demand is overwhelming enough to not justify managing two separate accounts.

Anything else you hear is pure anecdote. My source - I am an Uber employee :)

<comment><USER14> If you work for Uber, it's not surprising that you only hear from drivers that do some work for Uber!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "As part of the deal, Mr. Jacobs was kept on as a security consultant, Ms. Padilla testified. His job: investigating the claims made in the letter his lawyer wrote."

Is this a joke? Is this real? I can't even.

<comment><USER16> Seems like straight from the Fight Club

"Narrator: I have a better solution: You keep me on the payroll as an outside consultant and in exchange for my salary, my job will be never to tell people these things that I know. "

<comment><USER17> I think this is the scene: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pJC0FLA3Sk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pJC0FLA3Sk)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seems Uber's solution to every problem - throw money and see it disappear. If it comes back say - well that was not the intention.

Threatens to become a whistle blower? Pay the guy 4.5 million and his lawyer 3 million.

Stolen data? Pay the hacker to delete data.

<comment><USER19> I mean, in the case of the whistleblower, I'm not sure what you do in this case if you're them aside from this. Which is why there should be a law against this type of behavior. There probably is; I'm a programmer, not a lawyer

<comment><USER18> I am sorry but do you mean companies should pay off a whistle-blower rather than say -

a. litigate, if the claims are baseless

b. In case the claim has substance to try and rectify the issue along with responsible disclosure?

<comment><USER19> if you have reason to think that praying off the guy will work during a huge public image crisis, it would be a very attractive option I'm sure.

they should act morally, etc., that's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to extract the raw incentives of the situation

<comment><USER20> No, that would just signal that other employees could earn a huge amount of money by making claims about illegal activity, true or not. I really doubt that any company could be so stupid as to get itself into that sort of situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> " _She said Uber had planned to fire Mr. Jacobs because its security team had caught him downloading sensitive company information to his personal computer._ "

Well, I guess they'd know how bad that was.

<comment><USER22> I would have thought downloading sensitive company information to a personal computer would have been a requirement for employment at Uber.

<comment><USER23> Are you perhaps confusing personal computer as in "a small individual workstation" with personal computer as in "a computer not managed by the company's IT policies"? I have to download sensitive stuff to my laptop all the time, but it's a laptop I'm given a computer by IT that has to be secured a certain way and connected to their network. They don't want me having customer details or anything on an actual personally-owned computer.

<comment><USER24> Pretty sure that was a riff on their employee stealing data from Waymo via personal laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> For anyone interested in reading more about this. You can see the docket, and a lot of the original filings for this case for free via the RECAP project.

[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v- ube...](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber- technologies- inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc)

</comment><comment><USER26> I'll be damned if Uber isn't a required case study for business school students in the (near) future. They are fast becoming the Enron of this generation.

<comment><USER27> Not even close to the scale of Enron. Even mentioning them in the same sentence is preposterous.

First off, Enron was publicly traded. Uber is private.

I will just leave this here.

>Between 1996 and 2000, Enron's revenues increased by more than 750%, rising from $13.3 billion in 1996 to $100.8 billion in 2000. This extensive expansion of 65% per year was unprecedented in any industry, including the energy industry which typically considered growth of 2–3% per year to be respectable. For just the first nine months of 2001, Enron reported $138.7 billion in revenues, which placed the company at the sixth position on the Fortune Global 500

>the company used accounting limitations to misrepresent earnings and modify the balance sheet to indicate favorable performance

<comment><USER28> I'm baffled: If you're going to make up your numbers, why go with something preposterous instead of credible?

<comment><USER29> It seems like in a lot of these cases, there are plenty of parties who can intuit that something is wrong, but they choose not to dig any deeper because they're happy with the results of the way things are.

<comment><USER30> I wouldn't be surprised if ego entered in to it a little too on the not digging deeper side. "Clearly everyone else in the industry are idiots, or they'd be as profitable as we are".

<comment><USER29> I just think back to some of the stuff I listened to about the Bernie Madoff case where they were saying, essentially, that a lot of the bigger institutions bringing him clients had to have known something was up with the numbers, but they chose not to understand because they were making money and didn't want to rock the boat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If Uber is found to have stolen trade secrets, how large is the judgment against them likely to be? Is it based on some multiple of the cost of the research that produced those secrets? Or the market value of those secrets?

<comment><USER32> I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the worst thing that could happen would be that Uber would be forbidden from using the stolen technology or its fruits.

... which would basically be akin to telling them "Get out of the self-driving vehicle business."

<comment><USER33> That is the worst that can come out of this case - and it would be a critical hit for Uber. Self-driving _will_ be a big aspect of the future (how long that future's away is a different discussion), but once self-driving cars are here, what would Uber's business be? Kalanick himself said this:

"If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the entity that's in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber's, then Uber is no longer a thing"

OTOH, Alsup (the judge in this case) recommended to look into a criminal investigation against Uber, which seems to be in progress considering that is what lead to the Jacob's letter in Alsup's hands. That potential investigation could have worse impact than just "don't do self-driving cars". Depending on the verdict, it could lead to anything between nothing to prison time for numerous executives to the point that the company itself would struggle to survive.

<comment><USER34> > struggle to survive

it probably would result in Uber being acquired

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Uber business model is:

\- Make money willfully violating the law

\- Use a portion of the money to pay fines, settlements, cover ups. Keep violating the law

That's how they expanded to many countries before they were even authorized.

<comment><USER36> You missed a couple steps

\- hire a PR firm to flood new cities with stories of how g great uber is

\- build up a huge rider and driver base by offering riders deep discounts and drivers big bonuses

\- when threaten with regulations email the user base asking them to contact city officials because regulators are stifling innovation and limiting consumer choice... asnd throw in a line about taxis being old and crappy. They did this exactly when it wad announced London banned them.

<comment><USER37> Successfully. They're still operating in London.

<comment><USER38> What. I didn't know that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Does Uber risk losing the Waymo trial by default, and not only suffering sanctions along the way, because of this evidence tampering?

<comment><USER37> My understanding is that this kind of hiding evidence and tampering would not be punished in the current trial. Instead, if it was determined to be criminal behaviour, there would be another follow up criminal trial.

<comment><USER40> Consider the possibility that the fact that they concealed evidence would be highlighted by the judge to the jury. Thus they may well be punished for it in the current trial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Headline is pretty misleading. The full quote is "On the surface it looks like you covered this up"

<comment><USER2> If anything the headline is misleading in the other direction. The details in this are pretty damning:

1\. Paid an employee 4.5M after sending accusatory email to CEO

2\. Levandowski used Wickr for an unknown purpose, an app no longer used within the company

3\. Said email to CEO hidden from discovery during trial

None of this is 100% proof, but the body of evidence that is growing makes it harder and harder to reasonably believe that Uber is innocent here.

That said yes the quote as stated is misleading of what Alsup actually said. I just wish the headline was about the points above, not his quote.

<comment><USER42> You can twist a narrative about using an app with 'self-destructing messages' to sound like a malicious act but what's stopping any individual or company from wanting privacy? Wickr is a very popular app, especially among technically-savvy people.

With widespread surveillance and hacking there are a hundred other reasons besides hiding evidence from an IP trial for using an app like that.

Uber's claims the letter from the security employee, who highlighted the use of 'special laptops' and self-destruction messaging apps, was of an 'extortionist' nature and led to him getting a payout. Calling that employee a 'whistleblower' is another potential spin.

Which is why that statement rightfully includes "On the surface...".

Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. And I don't think we should ignore that

<comment><USER25> You can't accuse GP of twisting the 'self destructing message' app thing when the original source says it was for malicious purposes (you could arguably accuse the original source, except...). I'm also highly skeptical that it is at all legal to use such an app for communications you are legally required to preserve because you are aware of the possibility of a lawsuit.

> Jacobs: Uber's use of encrypted ephemeral systems was dessigned to protect > sensitive info and ensure we didn't create a paper trail that wd come back > to haunt the co in any potential civil or criminal investigation. [0]

> Judge quotes Jacob's atty letter: Uber employees went to Pittsburgh to > educate the AV group about ephemeral, encrypted communications "to prevent > Uber's unlawful schemes from seeing the light of day" [1]

[0] [https://twitter.com/CSaid/status/935555627815813120](https://twitter.com/CSaid/status/935555627815813120)

[1] [https://twitter.com/CSaid/status/935569588309327878](https://twitter.com/CSaid/status/935569588309327878)

<comment><USER42> The Jacob person you're quoting was demanding money to not expose such information in an 'extortionist' style attempt... and he did take the money and he did keep quiet. He wasn't some good-guy whistleblower, he took advantage of his inside knowledge after he was fired for personal gain. While then rejoining Uber after the fact and continuing to work there.

In that letter, likely written by his attorney who also got $3 million, had a clear incentive to twist the narrative of using an app like Wickr to make it seem as malicious and damaging as possible.

Uber also went to federal prosecutors with his letter to preempt him from using it for further personal gain. They didn't try to hide from it.

I'm not saying it wasn't used for malicious purposes but I'd take those allegations in the letter with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER27> >I'm not saying it wasn't used for malicious purposes but I'd take those allegations in the letter with a grain of salt.

Seriously? What ever happened to due process?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > Thirty-seven pages long, it detailed a list of questionable behavior at > Uber, including spying on competitors and using special laptop computers and > self-destructing messaging apps that would hide communications.

It doesn't seem like a good thing that using self-destructing messaging apps is considered by our court system to be "questionable behavior". It is akin to the argument that using encryption implies guilt.

<comment><USER44> > akin to the argument that using encryption...

That's quite a stretch.

If you read the document, it says they use self-destructing apps to not leave paper trail.

That is akin to saying you used encryption so that DEA won't catch you selling drugs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> >The letter is sealed but the judge said he intends to make it public after hearing any objections.

I love this, not only do we get to read the letter, we also get to read Uber's transparent objections beforehand.

</comment><comment><USER46> I know of one case where after a subpoena and request for evidence: hard drives were wiped clean and mobile devices were destroyed with a hammer. We can't have it both ways, can we?

</comment><comment><USER47> I believe Uber was hacked years ago and knew about it yet did nothing but blame it's users for using a bad password.

Case in point in 2014 1K was stolen from my bank account via my Uber account for a ride in London(im in DC). I searched Twitter and saw 10 to 20 ppl a day complaining about the same thing.

<comment><USER29> Did you have your bank account linked to Uber? Is this a common thing to do?

<comment><USER47> PayPal

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What's an "intellectual-theft trial"?

<comment><USER49> Would a trial to determine theft of property normally be called a "theft trial"?

I assumed that if that were the case, it would follow logically that an "intellectual theft trial" would be a trial to determine theft of intellectual property. I suppose it might be strange if the former is not common vernacular.

<comment><USER29> It would be more likely to use the actual crime someone was charged with (e.g., "robbery trial," "larceny trial," etc.) and I think it's rare for legal statutes to have a crime called "theft." But otherwise the form seems normal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Anil-Shrestha And Anthony Levandowski will walk a free man?

<comment><USER20> Probably not, since he is being investigated by federal prosecutors for criminal behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> It seems like the "well, all startups do bad things, Uber is just in the spotlight" crowd has dried up a bit...

<comment><USER51> It's always sort of nuts to me how often that excuse comes out for nearly everything. Politics especially. We find out one government official is doing something bad and the response for those on that side of the party line is "everyone does it, don't single this person out!"

Perhaps I'm just being overly purist, but I always want to hang them _(not literally)_ _AND_ try to solve the problem. In this case, if it's true than we clearly need more oversight on startups/companies, and we also need to prosecute Uber.

<comment><USER52> No its not being a purist at all. Legally, the law doesn't recognize any whataboutism whatsoever (unless its in the specific sense of legal precedents). So you can't argue your innocence in a bank robbery just because another gang also robbed a bank but did not get convicted.

The law is pretty clear; its just that most people are not prosecuted for it.

<comment><USER53> There's selective prosecution, but I take your point.

<comment><USER54> Unfortunately, when law is enforced sufficiently selectively, you do not have rule of law, nor do you live in a nation of laws.

Saying that the law does not recognize whataboutism is a red herring (Unless we are talking about the outcome of a specific legal case).

In short, whataboutism is a legitimate argument for why someone should not be prosecuted (Because the law has nothing to do with that decision.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> when is the Uber exodus going to start?

<comment><USER36> I think it'll be exodus 2.0. I contracted there until Nov 2016, a few months before the delete uber campaign and Susan Fowler. I kept in contact with some service desk friends and they said after Susan's blog at least 200 people quit right after. Again this is just anecdotal hearsay but I was told another 500 people left a few months later after they collected their yearly bonuses. After bonuses he said maybe 10 to 15 people per week were stopping by the support bar to turn in their laptops on their last day in his building alone. His guess was that at least 800 to 1000 people quit in the first six months of the year. I haven't spoken to him since the end of summer so I don't know how their policy changes, pay bumps, and CEO/ leadership have changed things and if the attrition number slowed. But with this recent news I think this could kick off exodus 2.0.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I don't want to defend Uber here, but I don't see what this letter business has to do with Waymo's allegedly stolen LIDAR. Why should Uber have disclosed this letter to Waymo?

Also, I don't see what's the legal problem with spying on your competitors. I mean, Google and Facebook are spying on their customers, and the law apparently has no problem with that.

<comment><USER57> > Also, I don't see what's the legal problem with spying on your competitors. > I mean, Google and Facebook are spying on their customers, and the law > apparently has no problem with that.

It's not spying, it's doing so illegally. Facebook and Google don't do that. The letter accuses Uber of doing just that, and that's pretty damned relevant in a case where Uber stole trade secrets.

<comment><USER58> "I did not believe it was patently illegal," Jacobs said. "I had questions about the ethics of it. I suppose because of my personal ethics it felt overly aggressive and invasive."

ref: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/waymo- tri...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/waymo-trial- delayed-again-with-sharp-words-for-uber-from-judge)

<comment><USER57> He's not a lawyer. The question is a question to debate legally. When something is questionably ethical, whether or not it's legal is dependent on the outcome of a trial.

An employee was accusing them of doing something highly unethical and potentially illegal regarding information about competitors. Again, that's incredibly relevant.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Thanks, IoT vendors: your slack attitude will get regulators moving - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/24/thanks_iot_vendors_your_slack_attitude_will_get_regulators_moving/ <comment><USER2> The EU Commission announced this at the beginning of October [http://www.euractiv.com/section/innovation- industry/news/com...](http://www.euractiv.com/section/innovation- industry/news/commission-plans-cybersecurity-rules-for-internet-connected- machines/)</comment>


Gameboy Color Emulator:  A brilliant use of HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://gamecenter.grantgalitz.org/ One of the most brilliant uses of HTML5 I've ever seen.  The technique he used to build this is beyond my comprehension at this point, but I'd certainly love to dive into his code (which is available publicly on Github) and figure it all out! <comment><USER2> Related, GBA.js is a project a friend of mine has been working on to make a GameBoy Advance emulator in pure Javascript. A WIP version is running at <http://endrift.com/gbajs/index.html> but there's a lot of bugs and compatibility is far from perfect. Source code is all on GitHub at <https://github.com/jpfau/gbajs/>

<comment><USER3> ahahahaha, I'm working on my own GBA emulator in JS too. It seems I might have started a trend, since I've been working on <https://github.com/grantgalitz/IodineGBA> for a bit now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Previous posts: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3969394> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3446871> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2266701>

</comment><comment><USER5> This is the third time this has been featured on the front page of HN. Not that I'm complaining, its a neat pile of Javascript.

<comment><USER3> Yeah seriously, there has to be other js projects... :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Has anyone suceeded in running it in any browser on any smartphone? It seems to fail on Windows Phone's IE. However, it works perfectly in few desktop browsers (including IE9), I've tried.

Anyway it seemes, that gameboy game format could be used as some kind of lightweight format for cross-platform browser games. It could enable publishing small browser games without giving away js sources or using third- party plug-ins.

<comment><USER7> Works fine (not at full frame rate, but playable) on an iPad 3. No sound of course. The Audio APIs still aren't just there yet for dynamically generated audio.

<comment><USER8> Same with the iPhone 4s, though it tried to download the .js file first and didn't start working until I hit back. Load time was also much longer on the iPhone 4 over the same connection. Low framerate is hard to play through :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not that familiar with html5/js, but I am curious if it is viable to develop games for it old-school. What I mean by that is having a framebuffer and direct per pixel control. Is this what people do?

<comment><USER10> Canvas w/ ImageData lets you do exact pixel control, and with requestAnimationFrame you can time animations best for the system.

<comment><USER9> Thanks! But do people use that for web game development at all?

<comment><USER10> I've certainly used it myself (for loading levels - bitmaps are great for level designing), dunno about performance with direct pixel access. It may be higher or lower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My friend wrote jsGB over 2 years ago, you might find that interesting too: <https://github.com/Two9A/jsGB>

Maybe needs a canvas update :)

</comment><comment><USER12> Really cool, but on other Gameboy emulators I have used including the visual boy advanced, Z=A and X=B this is the other way around for any reason?

<comment><USER13> Because on the physical Gameboy the B is on the left and A is on the right but then again the DPad is on the left and the buttons are on the right and I use my thumbs instead of fingers so I'm not sure copying the physical layout for just this one particular thing improves the experience any.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> How does one teach himself to write such a thing?

<comment><USER15> How To Write a Computer Emulator: <http://fms.komkon.org/EMUL8/HOWTO.html>

Study of the techniques for emulation programming: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/94546/Study-of-the-techniques- for-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/94546/Study-of-the-techniques-for- emulation-programming-by-Victor-Moya-del-Barrio)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Started to download this. It appears to be malware infected.

<comment><USER3> There is nothing to download.... It's just a webpage...

<comment><USER17> Webpages are files too...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Aren't game ROMs illegal to distribute? How legal is this?

<comment><USER10> Definitely illegal, I'm sure he'll get a C&D eventually.</comment></comment>


What's the largest number you can represent with 3 digits? Nope. It's not 999 - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-largest-number-you-can-represent-3-digits-nope-its-ed-trice <comment><USER2> Copying to here the comment I made elsewhere[0]:

There is so much right with this article, and so much wrong.

Firstly, it's not the Common Core he's fighting, but the implementation of some of the testing. Assessment is _hard,_ really hard, really really hard. Making sure someone actually knows something, as opposed to going through the motions in which they are well drilled, is nearly impossible.

But secondly, 9^9^9 is not the largest number that can be represented by three digits. There's Knuth's notation. Oh, perhaps they haven't learned that yet.

And there's the dilemma. Arguing that all the other students were wrong because they didn't use something that they hadn't learned, we can also argue that his daughter was wrong for the same reason.

Education is hard, assessment is hard, and arguments like this don't actually help.

</comment><comment>==

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322756](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322756)

<comment><USER3> I would argue that is not the point of the story. The point is that this man stood up for his daughter who was being made to feel bad because she had a better answer than the other kids. You can quibble about 9^9^9 vs Knuth notation vs Conway notation (you didn't mention that one) vs some arbitrary notation you can invent, but the point is the girl was more creative than the rest of her class and was penalized for it, and her dad stood up for her.

<comment><USER4> You frame the poster as quibbling, but that's exactly what the father is doing, in a way that is both incorrect and pedantic, even if we were to follow their internal logic of using only implicit operators (why not tetration?).

Yes, the girl exercised creativity. It is the teacher's discretionary job to reward that creativity. In this case, though, the father is wrong and he myopically uses it to attack the Common Core.

<comment><USER5> I think you are missing the wood for the trees. The question as stated allowed for multiple answers to be correct. Note that exponentiation needs no 'operators' to work in a visual way, just place the two 9's in ascending positions relative to the first. That's just 'three digits'.

Now that's a clever answer. A teacher appreciative of that cleverness would have noted it and would have marked the answer correct and moved on.

To go 'to war' over something that simple at some point becomes a point of principle and if - as a parent - you let your kid down at a time like that when your kid has fought very hard to maintain a 'perfect score' then you fail your duty as a parent.

The school should have backed down immediately, then when given the choice again they should have backed down by simply marking the answer correct upon review. Finally, by making it a point of principle that they would not mark the answer correct they essentially forced the dad to choose between supporting his daughter or telling her to suck it up because 'after all, what does a perfect math score matter'. That he chose to pursue it is a-ok in my book. To 'attack the common core' need not have happened.

If the school wanted the simple answer they could have chosen to only allow multiple choice, by making it an 'open answer' they allowed for creativity and that should _always_ be rewarded, especially in classes such as math.

<comment><USER4> I have already entertained the internal and idiosyncratic logic at play here, that implicit operators are fair game. If that's the case, then tetration is the right answer. Furthermore, the question permitted argumentation, which was refused.

Why might 500 be a wrong answer? For the same logic you might use to answer that question, I would say that tetration is a superior answer to exponentiation, even following the typographic logic that implicit operators are okay. Typographically, tetration is the reverse of exponentiation.

And I believe I addressed the broadest-perspective point of all -- that this is not an adequate launching point for an argument against the Common Core. It's shrill.

<comment><USER5> > If that's the case, then tetration is the right answer.

Sure, and whenever you're in a position to give that answer you should. But from the point of view of the girl her answer was right and 'better' than 999, and to deny her that small victory (especially with her being such a good student) would seem to me to achieve the exact opposite of what school is all about: to teach, to motivate and to reward original thinking, especially when it leads to better answers than the commonly visible ones. To dis-incentivize (I hope that's spelled correctly) that is the worst thing you could do to an otherwise motivated student.

<comment><USER4> If one wants to give an award for clever typographical thinking, then of course the teacher should consider an external discretionary reward.

If one wants to bring a lawyer to school to argue from a place of typographic visual logic, please be correct. The Common Core is right to question for the largest number possible with three digits. The Common Core implementation could say, "without operators", but then you'd have to explain what operators are and then not touch upon it again, and that becomes disconnected trivia. Otherwise, "without operators" is just there to stop another incident with a lawyer.

Self-efficacy is indeed important to a student's math success and interest. I don't think that correctly correcting a student will lead to unrealistic self- efficacy. I was being charitable by entertaining the logic of visual implicitness, which has little to do with math.

And one's self efficacy is a function of more than whether a teacher gives you an almost perfect score, if not for the accurately graded 3 digit problem. It's built by countless complex environmental feedback.

<comment><USER5> You're stuck in a groove. The whole thing could have been avoided, _that_ is the point. But once people start digging in over something that should have just received a pass (note that it was you, not them that brought up tetration, which - unlike exponentiation - probably does not figure into their worldview of math to begin with) then you can expect all kinds of further confrontations.

The school messed up, pure and simple, everything else was just part of the avalanche that followed.

Feel free to try to out-do the world on the pedantry scale but you're not being productive and you are willfully missing the point.

<comment><USER4> You're being quite uncharitable to me by accusing me of foul or insincere behavior, though I've suggested nothing of that from you, and have responded robustly to your points. At the very least you could assume that we've failed to understand each other, but you instead assume a "willful" dishonesty.

I discussed self-efficacy. I discussed discretionary awards for creativity. I also discussed the problem from the young girl and her father's frame of discussion -- the frame of typography. You've not reciprocated with robust response. The pedantry is a point I'm making -- it's pedantry conforming to the pedantic frame they brought up. Tetration is no more the right answer than exponentiation. 999 is the right answer. The Common Core is good here.

If you're talking about how the school can skillfully avoid lawyers, then yes, that's the one point I've missed. The school can have all sorts of strategies to skillfully avoid lawyers. If that's the case, for anything which might summon a lawyer, do a cost-benefit analysis and form a school risk-averse policy. Is that the point you wanted to make?

If anyone brings a lawyer in to school, admit fault right away, and then go on teaching the same way, because 99.99% of children are going through the lesson just fine. Blogpost and HN moment successfully averted.

<comment><USER5> That was the _only_ point I was making.

Whether tetration or exponentiation are the better answer, whether or not the dad should have stood by his daughter or not, none of that matters because it should have never even left the classroom in the first place, and they had multiple good reasons for doing that and _none_ to dig in the way they did.

Once it did leave the classroom all bets were off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TLDR: Helicopter parent pretentiously humblebrags about how his daughter is the only one in the country to get a 100% on a standardized test, since no one else answered "9^9^9" (I am guessing this was a "none of the above" answer) and how he had to get a lawyer involved to make the scoring organization mark his daughter's answer correct and everyone else's incorrect.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately the answer isn't even correct, and the parent uses this local example to launch an argument against the Common Core itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Don't let common core stand in the way of your own children's education.

Yeah, instead let a pretentious father tell every single kid in the country they are wrong because they failed to realize a technical loophole in the question that uses something that they aren't supposed to know at that age anyway. Congratulations.

I won't envy someone with a daddy who would hire a lawyer and spend three months arguing how his daughter must have every answer marked correct. I'd feel sorry for her.

<comment><USER8> You didn't read the article carefully enough.

He asked them: Recognize that multiple answers can be correct and mark my daughter correct. They responded with: Only one can be correct, period. The wrong-doing is 100% with the school administration.

Also, telling children: "You're not supposed to have this knowledge." is down- right despicable on a personal level.

<comment><USER7> I agree the school behaved very poorly, but that doesn't mean the father was being reasonable.

By "not supposed to know", I mean the other students should not be penalized for not knowing exponentiation. If marking down his daughter is despicable, so is marking down every other children for not having a father who can afford to hire a lawyer for their grades.

The way I read it, he decided it's OK to give the same injustice his daughter received to every other children, because they are not his children, after all. I don't think that's the kind of parental role children needs, and I don't want to be such a parent. (Well, luckily for me, I can't afford lawyer for such matters, and my kids have no danger of having a five-week 100% streak on math problems, let alone five years, so I guess that point is moot...)

<comment><USER8> You're still not understanding the crux of the issue here. There are two possible ways to handle this:

1\. A text question can have multiple correct answers.

Great, accept that, mark her as correct, everyone else too, everyone gets to be happy.

2\. A text question can have only one single correct answer.

In that case she was correct and everyone else was not. Period. End of game.

\--

And here's why the father was reasonable: He did offer them option 1. He did ask for that. The school administration refused it. It was their choice. They were being unreasonable, not the father.

Also, yes, marking the other children down is despicable, however this was the choice of the school, not the choice of the father. All he told them was "mark her correct". The schools response to not simply do that and actually mark everyone else down is despicable, and they deserve all the misfortune he had the power to bring upon them, and more.

"I only followed orders." has not been acceptable for a LONG time now.

<comment><USER7> I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

A math exam in a grade school is not an end in itself. It's a tool to assess how much each student learned and how well the school system is functioning. Your choice 2 is not reasonable at all, and in fact many more parents will be angry if they're told "Your kid was marked incorrect because they didn't know something we won't teach for another two years." It will also be a very poor educational experience.

<comment><USER8> It is not reasonable at all, but it is what currently is the reality. The current school system is brokena nd unreasonable. And it wasn't chosen by the father, it was chosen by the school system. If many parents will indeed be angry, then they should, and they should be at the school system. Being angry at the father is just the short-sighted and ignorant "let's go for the closest target" knee-jerk reaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 9^9^9 is still wrong.

0 takes up more space, and therefore three zeros will be the `largest` number you can represent in terms of area. Thus, even his daughter must be marked wrong.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's also not 9^9^9. If you are allowing use of exponentation, well there are an infinite number of other math symbols out there you can use too. BusyBeaver(9^9^9), or BusyBeaver(BusyBeaver(9^9^9)), etc.

And yes that's pointless know it all pedantry, but so is this whole post. The teacher obviously meant the largest number that can be stated without external math functions, and 999 is that.

</comment><comment><USER5> Way to go dad. I'd be very proud if that was my father standing up for me and as a father I'd be very proud if that was my daughter.

<comment><USER4> But the answer isn't even correct, and it's the bad kind of pedantry. It looks myopic, but with a flair for overgeneralization (an attack on Common Core itself).

<comment><USER5> It is correct.

<comment><USER4> Following the _typographic_ (not mathematical) logic of using implicit operators, why would exponentiation of three 9's be correct in the face of tetration of three 9's? Alternatively, why would 111 be correct in the face of 999?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow. The title would make me guess "not using base-10" but then these comments seem to let you use operators.

</comment><comment><USER12> If we allow that then I could represent a larger number with customFunction(123) and have it return (9^9^9)+1. The kids haven't learned programming? Too bad I guess. Mark that girl down to a 99 score please.

</comment><comment><USER13> I can't view this, just loads a "create a LinkedIn account!" page. Is there a better link for the article?

<comment><USER5> [http://pastebin.com/hWxg8ywJ](http://pastebin.com/hWxg8ywJ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A side note, why is he bragging about "carrying a 3.82 in Biology with a leaning towards pre-med", that's not a mathematical subject. It would seem that in the end, didn't he lost the battle, because his daughter didn't follow maths all the way.

<comment><USER15> It wasn't about math. It was about being intelligent and being encouraged for it.</comment></comment>


Low-end laptops:The rise of the Chromebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/low-end-laptopsthe-rise-of-the-chromebook-7000022991/ <comment><USER4> I have a hard time understanding why Chromebooks are getting so much praise over the internet, but at the same time Windows RT is considered as the worst piece of technology ever invented. Aren't they mostly the same thing? Both Windows RT and ChromeOS machines are similarly priced, both can be used to browse the internet and access web apps. Windows RT machine usually ship with Office 2013 for free (or the light version of it). They all have touch screens ( I dont think all Chromebooks machine have it). And last time I checked, android apps didnt work natively on Chromebooks, meaning that Windows RT machine have access to more applications than Chromebooks. This will probably be a very unpopular opinion, but I really don't understand why one is so popular vs the other (is it only explicable by the fact that most people hate Microsoft, but love Google?)

<comment><USER5> Windows RT comes off as "Windows that you're familiar with" with the RT part as a huge asterisk that means "except you can't just install what you'd expect to be able to."

Chrome OS comes off as "Chrome, the browser on your computer"

The former is underwhelming whereas the latter meets expectations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The reason I purchased mine today is that I will never purchase a Windows 8 machine because I hate them and I can't afford a Mac. So the only other OS and that is supported and is cheap is ChromeOS. Its all well and good saying Linux, However you have to buy a Windows 8 laptop before you can even put Linux on it.

<comment><USER7> _I can 't afford a Mac_

Consider buying used, either from Craigslist or a dealer; three-year-old Macs are still very nice and cost about half to a third of new ones (I know, because I sell my firm's old Macs on Craigslist).

If you're proficient with hardware, it's also possible to dramatically improve performance by installing a cheap SSD.

<comment><USER6> I did - I got a PowerPC G4 or G5. The problem was I couldn't upgrade it past os 10.5 and the latest version of chrome at the time wouldn't run on anything less than 10.6 or something like that so nothing would work properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know of one person who has brought one and ended up describing it as useless, selling it on, and buying a macbook air.

I've not seen or heard of anyone else with one. Shipping volumes do not equal consumer purchases, so till I actually see people with them I'll take this as some sort of advertorial.

<comment><USER9> I bought a Samsung ARM Chromebook to play around with and see what Chrome OS is like. It definitely has a single-purpose, very limited use case - <USER2> deliver web content. But, it does this extremely well.

The good parts: Automatic syncing with Google services, such that you can wipe everything and restore, and it will automatically reinstall all of your applications and settings; encrypted storage and signed binaries so it is difficult if not impossible to load malware; and a very polished UI that gets you into a browser and gets out of the way to let you surf the web.

However, it does start breaking down when you want to start doing more CPU- intensive tasks like gaming, there is a big gap right now between where HTML5 gaming is and what native gaming (even through Flash) delivers. For a system that runs all apps through the browser, that is going to continue being difficult. Also, the almost-continuously-online requirement can be tough in some cases, but really I already have wifi everywhere I want to use it...

I can see it being a great option for 95% of day-to-day computer users, though. Mine was $250, and it definitely outperforms low-end laptops - <USER3> battery life, good speed, lightweight, etc.

Not to mention it can run a full version of armhf Ubuntu so I can still run tuxracer when necessary.

TFA may be an advertorial, but I see Chromebooks as the evolution of the original netbook idea - a cheap PC that goes everywhere and is good enough for most online activities.

<comment><USER10> also bought this, the only problem is there're so less REALLY offline chrome apps in the store

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some discussion on the Debian forums (Chromebooks are popular as cheap laptops that can run Linux) about actually using the ChromeOS, quite a few people dual boot [1]

My local Tesco is shifting the cheaper Chromebooks quite quickly.

[1] [http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=107358](http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=107358)

</comment><comment><USER12> Yet another "PC is dying" article. Booooooring!!!

The reality is that market is saturated, and there was practically zero innovation for the past 5 years (except ultrabooks and SSDs). But as a working tool PCs are not going anywhere.

I want laptop with 4:3 high resolution PVA screen and replaceable battery.

<comment><USER13> The reality is that most people don't want a "full" PC. The PC certainly isn't going anywhere - desktops and laptops are here to stay for the foreseeable future. However, it's not a growing market. And that's perfectly OK.

<comment><USER14> Even if the laptop & desktop PC markets are not growing as fast as in past years...it still is a very large market. There is far less incentive for most people to buy newer or higher-end hardware for the PC than smartphones.

Mobile devices (tablets, smartphones...and even chromebooks or lightweight notebooks) are competing against the sales of higher-end laptops or desktops.

I think there may be a resurgence of laptop sales (and desktop sales) after a few more years of intense innovation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder what of those cheep Chromebooks are suite to free them from Google spyware? How good or bad is a normal Debian running? Is the hardware supported by 100% free drivers? Can I boot my own Kernel? Is there any site comparing this?

Chromebook with Google spyware is a big step backward from eeepc.

<comment><USER16> You can Ubuntu them pretty easily, either side-by-side or replacing ChromeOS. Bang, you have a netbook just like a few years ago.

<comment><USER15> Googled about it, but crouton only installs Ubuntu in a chroot of same kernel. Thats similar shit as Motorola with 2nd-boot.

The question is to free the Chromebook from Google spyware completely, including kernel, device drivers, and OpenGL acceleration.

Is any of those Chromebooks able to boot into backup cycle? Means boot with DCHP, TFTP and NFS root?

<comment><USER17> You can definitely wipe out the entire ChromeOS partition and replace it with some other Linux if that's what you want. Some people do that but it's definitely less common than dual booting or a chroot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For my use case, I love my chromebook. I started with the samsung arm chromebook and have since moved to the Asus 720, and it has become my go-to around-town/coffeshop/travel laptop.

A) it's light -- other devices are lighter but it's light enough. B) decent battery life -- again other device might win here but it lasts a work day so I can leave the charger behind. C) it's cheap -- almost disposable, if I leave it behind, it gets stolen, or destroyed I'm not going to lose my mind. D) it still functional for content creation -- paired with nitrous.io it's fantastic but even without it I can get by at least until I get back to a real workstation.

But then again my use case may be pretty narrow but it works really well for me, that hits the sweet spot between an iPad and a MacBook Air at a fraction of price of either.

</comment><comment><USER19> Rise of the Chromebook indeed. I think we will be seeing A LOT of these being used by software engineers. For $250, you get a very capable Haswell-equipped notebook with 8 hours of battery life and can easily accept a Ubuntu installation (ChromeOS is built on the Ubuntu core, so technically you can dual-boot and never even uninstall ChromeOS.)

In fact, I've done just this with the new Acer C720 machine. While I use a Macbook Air as my main machine, the Acer with Ubuntu fills the "beater" role very nicely and is really more than is needed.

This is a godsend for developing nations.

Also makes you wonder when you hear people talking about "bootstrapping" and you see them using new Macbook Airs...

<comment><USER20> > Also makes you wonder when you hear people talking about "bootstrapping" and > you see them using new Macbook Airs...

It's a matter of how much you value general purpose capabilities. When you'll desperately need Photoshop for some unpredicted task, will you pay 5$ a month for Adobe cloud and just do it, or hassle to find a way around you ubuntu ? Won't you miss a specification sent by a client because LibreOffice parsed the docx formatting of a paragraph as striked through instead of highlighted? If you have four or five "crisis" like that while struggling to make a product, is the extra 900$ for a Macbook Air unjustified ?

<comment><USER21> I think you're missing a significant 0 on that Creative Cloud price.

<comment><USER20> You're right, it's 50$ for full monthly membership, 20$/month for single app and it goes down only for ultra specific cases (i.e. 10$ for photoshop only for existing CS3 license owners [1]).

I messed it with the Revel subscription witch is lower (but still 6$, 1$ higher than I remembered)

[1][http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying- guide.htm...](http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The Chromebook Pixel costs $1,449.00

<comment><USER23> That you can buy designer jeans for $500 doesn't make all jeans hoity-toity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The one thing I really like about the ChromeOS is the way it updates. It basically has two root partitions and it updates the one it is currently not booted from. I am unaware of any other OS that uses such as scheme.

<comment><USER25> With advanced file-system technology, it should be possible to load a "shadow image" of the new version of the OS and "commit" it atomically. Smalltalk can be thought of as a very basic sort of OS, and some versions of that had the ability to load as a "shadow" a new version of the class library, then commit it atomically. (Including updates of the part doing the updating.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've never seen one and the reviews I find on Youtube mostly cover hardware.

So these Chromebooks, you can basically only use browser-apps? Is this what these laptops do? Or can I install native apps in some way?

<comment><USER6> Think of a netbook running just the chrome browser and that's it.

However with chrome you can install addons, extentions and apps.

I love it

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I just wish it were a viable development platform without having to install a *nix distro. Let me set up and run a MEAN stack out of the box, Google!

</comment><comment><USER10> i am using my arm chromebook, it has the power for my daily developing and it even has a terminal. its batterlife is also good. with the help of crouton, its perfect to me.

well, it still has problem when using the input method on the terminal, but its ok to you guys who dont need that</comment>


The rest of the Lenna story (the standard imaging photo) - <AUTHOR> http://lenna.org/ <comment><USER2> Her 2nd Playboy picture is much better: [http://www.lenna.org/full/len_unpub.html](http://www.lenna.org/full/len_unpub.html)

Wonder why they did pick the centerfold pic, which was also too large to fit into the scanner.</comment>


How To Think About Chess - <AUTHOR> http://taaalk.co/taaalk/chess/robert-heaton-josh-summers.html <comment><USER2> Some diagrams and actual moves would have been very useful to help explain the concepts he talked about.

As it is, I am left with no idea what "attacking the king in the midgame" really meant to him. Did it mean sacrificing material for a mate, or a more standard development?

Most midgame analysis use the concepts of force, space, and time[1], and he didn't even mention these terms, so I was left confused.

I am not sure what my level is, but pretty much all I did in my two years in prison was play chess, and in my relatively short stay, I became around the 5th best player "on the yard" and was able to play at the specific table where only the best players could play.

There were over 1500 inmates at the facility I was at, and at least half of them played chess as it was one of the only board games readily available, so playing at that table was no mean feat.

We would play for $1 a game and it became my "hustle" (a hustle in prison is something that allows you to make money doing something of value, like making some else's rack (bed), or sneaking food out of the kitchen etc).

Anyway, I digress...I try to play at coffee shops when I can these days but I find often the existing players seem snobbish and its hard to find a game with the better players.

[1] [http://chessimprover.com/force-space-and- time/](http://chessimprover.com/force-space-and-time/)

</comment><comment><USER3> As a person of color, I really got this:

"At the very very highest levels winning with black is really quite an impressive achievement, and black will often go into a game playing for a draw. The advantage of the first move is very pronounced, and sets the tone for the entire game, with white generally calling the shots. Attempts by black to generate active counterplay are often very risky. "

"So the aim when black is to survive and make sure you're doing enough sensible things to not get exploited because of the disadvantage of moving second."

<comment><USER4> That reminds me of the billiards scene from Boomerang:

"The white ball dominates everything. Knocks the shit out of the yellow ball, the red ball, right? And the game's over when the white ball drives the black ball completely off the table."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have an expert level rating. I agree with everything in the content. My games are very similar to what he describes. I have not memorized many openings. I just know a few moves in common openings and how to respond to a few quirky responses to them. I want to get to the middle game or out of my opponents memory as quickly as possible. I also sometimes deliberately make some opening weak moves to get out of opponent's memory.

One main thing I found in my experience is, majority of the games in amateur level are decided by blunders. I am not talking about small positional bad moves. These loose pieces are get mated in one move. If you are an amateur first focus on avoiding them by studying tactics before memorizing anything else.

<comment><USER6> I am a terrible player, but I absolutely love playing. One of my biggest problems is making a move and them immediately seeing the err of my ways. It's beyond bizarre how quickly I'll realize what a shitty move I have just made right after I take my hand off the piece.

I'd say I have a few decent tactics that I sort of lean on, but, like you pointed to, if my opponent does something to break me from that memory, my game is shot and I'm flailing around trying to recover (which rarely works).

Not sure if I'll ever dedicate enough time to reach "decent" status but I definitely enjoy the game.

<comment><USER7> This. I take my hand off the piece and immediately resign. Allowing a single 'undo-last-move' play would help my game a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi Everyone,

I'm one of the founders of Taaalk and also the person interviewing my knowledgable friend Robert Heaton on this one.

We'd love anyone who might be interested in being talked with or talking to someone else (either someone we'd set you up with, or someone you know) to reach out to us. Please email email@example.com or hit us up on twitter at [https://twitter.com/gotaaalk](https://twitter.com/gotaaalk).

Please don't be too modest in terms of getting in touch! We've found that when someone starts asking you questions you become more interesting than you realise!

Thanks very much for the chess discussion. Great to learn even more.

Josh

</comment><comment><USER8> Besides the awesome content - which is great for starters to grasp some basic concepts of tactics and pay attention to some common patterns on the checkboard -

I love the format too.

It's really a conversation, a chat, but with solid content and serious people. So following is really easy, and satisfying. (unlike audio/videos of interviews here you can go back and reread lots of times a passage you lost - which is good.)

So Kudos also to the Taaalk team for the great design and format.

<comment><USER9> I like the format and the content as well, but the domain name and company name seem pretty terrible, if I'm to be honest.

Imagine explaining it to a friend or prospective user.

"Yeah it's called Taaalk, just go to taaalk.co"

"What, talk.co?"

"No, you need 3 As."

 _user types 3 more As_

"Taaaalk.co is giving me a 404."

"Sorry, you needed 2 more As, let's start over."

"Taalk.co?"

"Just google 'talk'. Actually, wait, don't do that..."

And for that matter, what is the official pronunciation? "Talk"? Or do you have to elongate the vowel? How long should you elongate it for?

Seems like they should decide on a new name before they invest too much into this one.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, but who shares URLs with their friends by speech these days? In fact, who really speaks?

<comment><USER11> Filthy peasants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Speaking of chess, I strongly recommend this youtube channel:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/MatoJelic](https://www.youtube.com/user/MatoJelic)

I have no affiliation with him, but he is a brilliant trainer and he is a very lovely game narrator. I feel it is appropriate to talk about this channel, because I have not played serious chess in decades but just watching this guy go through these famous games, gave me such insight that reading this article (the on from OP) sounded rather naive.

<comment><USER13> I would add [https://www.youtube.com/user/PowerPlayChess/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PowerPlayChess/videos) and [https://www.youtube.com/user/Chessexplained/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/Chessexplained/videos) to that list.

<comment><USER14> As much as I enjoy and watch almost every video, chessexplained is not very educational unless you're pretty high rated, it's very entertaining nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The article's good. However, the comment about experts not getting to the endgame as often as non-experts is likely wrong. I don't have the data either, but I'm fairly experienced at chess, and in my experience high level games get to an endgame moderately often, but amateur games almost always end before an endgame. Amateurs typically don't even know how to play an endgame, because they rarely get to it so they don't realize why they should learn. I know a lot of amateurs focus a lot on the opening because they see themselves winning or losing in the opening, when that's more due to tactical blunders than anything essential to the opening.

It'd be interesting to see some statistics for this.

<comment><USER16> Agreed: the higher level the players, the more endgames. Think of two people fighting on a balance beam. The weaker the fighters, the greater the chance that one of them is going to slip off the beam (make a blunder that is punishable) earlier in the fight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like this. I've been getting back into chess as of lately and I keep a board on my desk while I do work on my laptop. Here's my strategy for playing 'solitaire chess' as I call it - I make a move, then I move a poker chip to the side whose turn it is, I go back to doing whatever I was doing on my laptop for a while (until I forget the game entirely), then I return and make another move. Then I rinse and repeat this process until the game is over - it's amazing how rapidly this improves your strategy compared to playing against another person or a computer. Because as they say - you are your own worst enemy... Or most brutal competitor as I like to think ;)

<comment><USER18> You'd want to be careful with that, Stefan Zweig has a novella about a guy playing chess against himself in his head who loses his mind! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Game](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Game)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have to agree there is a slight bias towards White winning, but it really isn't a landslide [1]. And it's probably a cliche by now, but I always liked the saying (apparently by Tarkatower [2]):

        The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First- move_advantage_in_chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First- move_advantage_in_chess)

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

<comment><USER10> The first-move-advantage becomes increasingly relevant the higher the level of play, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I got really into chess for a bit, but started to find it sort of boring after a while. Midgames can be interesting but the early games are simply displays of memorization. Really incredibly good players end in draws more often than not.

Games like Starcraft are pretty much the exact same - there's a defined early game, a midgame and endgame.

<comment><USER21> >> there's a defined early game, a midgame and endgame.

all things with defined start and finish criteria can be conceptualized this way.

careers: education is early game setting you up for success, job/career is midgame, retirement is end game.

relationships: dating is early game, engagement/marriage is midgame, death/divorce is end game.

software development: envision project/write requirements is early game, coding/developing/testing is midgame, shipping and bug patching/customer support is end game.

... I could go on and on, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader

<comment><USER22> I think you've got the parallels for "early game" right, but the parallels for "endgame" wrong. The endgame is the phase directly _before_ the end of the game, where two players who have each managed to avoid screwing themselves over in the early game, and who have each managed to match their opponent's multiple-front challenges and feints in the middlegame, finally are forced (usually by the game's increasing resource constraint) to "put all their cards on the table" and do the interesting and tricky things that make their playstyle unique.

<comment><USER21> right. the end game is before the end of the games. we're on the same page on that.

disconnect on our understandings is that I didn't define the game ending criteria for each example. in chess, it's either a checkmate or a draw that ends the game.

for my examples, my criteria are death for the career, the relationship ending, and the software product reaching the end if it's supported life.

<comment><USER23> The point was that checkmate is not "endgame," it's literally when the game is over.

Endgame is a part of the game, the late stages. It comes after the midgame.

It doesn't go "early game, midgame, checkmate."

Same for all of your examples, where you note the endpoint, not the endgame.

<comment><USER21> look, I get it.

everything has a starting point. (you decide what career you want) then an early game phase. (you go to school to get a degree) than a midgame phase. (you start work and collect paychecks during your career) than an end game phase. (uou live the retired life using the resources you earned during your career ) than the game actually ends when predefined conditions are met. (you die or whatever)

got it.

we are literally arguing in circles because we are not conceptualizing the problem the same way and not communicating clearly.

<comment><USER22> I think the thing trying to be pointed out here is that "retirement" is not _inside_ what most people consider to be the game of a career. When you quit your last job, your career is over; that is the checkmate moment.

Retirement, on the other hand, is the equivalent of the time _between_ games (or after you quit playing games) when you have a static ranking from your previous play (maybe you're a retired world champion, say), that other people treat as a milestone in their own development—something to reach or to pass.

Now, if you said _life_ , then sure, the endgame phase of _that_ is retirement. But the early-game phase of that is when your parents are providing for you, and only extreme incompetence (or genetic bad luck) can cause you to "lose."

<comment><USER21> again, we're arguing in circles because we are conceptualizing the analogies differently. our definitions of "career" are different.

oh well.

<comment><USER23> ca·reer kəˈrir/ noun 1\. an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress.

There really aren't different definitions. It's a "work life", it doesn't include retirement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My 2 cents, and somewhat related: everyone should read Josh Waitzkin's The Art Of Learning [1].

[1] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art-Learning-Journey- Performance...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Art-Learning-Journey- Performance/dp/0743277465)

</comment><comment><USER25> Good conversation at about my level (read: plays a bit, but not necessarily well). I've noticed that many new players seem to obsess on their Openings, while my skills are very much the Endgame (I'm great at holding multiple logic trees in my head, which becomes an asset late in a game when you can pursue these to a checkmate). Basically, if I can survive 15 moves against comparably skilled players, I will win.

But that's an "if". I thrashed a mate in about a dozen games in a row, including one where I called 'Checkmate in 8' which drove him mad. And then the following game he 'pantsed' me, drove through to a checkmate without me even taking a single of his pieces.

Is there a point here? I guess you'll rarely win a match in the Opening, but you can lose it. And maybe more people should practice end game positions instead of just playing lots of games from the start and researching Openings because of the literature volume dedicated to those.

<comment><USER22> Is there a playstyle of chess where both players agree to skip the opening, just setting up the board as if the opening were played "by the book" by both players and going from there? It seems like that'd be much better for getting amateur-level players practice in their middlegames, since they wouldn't need to worry about perfecting the opening before they could even attempt it.

<comment><USER10> This type of training game is more often used to practice a certain structure that arises from a specific opening, and thus is a type of practice used more towards the higher levels of play (International Master+).

The thing is, if two amateurs are playing, neither of whom deeply know openings, then the starting position (or 4-5 moves in) is essentially new territory, like what might arise for a Grandmaster 15-30 moves into the game. Does this make sense?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I play ridiculous amounts of blitz and bullet chess and I can tell you that openings dominate faster games. The more bizarre the better.

But you had better know the main openings and a lot of sidelines fairly deep or you're toast.

Of course, my memory is next to useless, so for me, to really "know" the openings means I _understand_ them. When my opponents plays weak moves "to get me out of my memory" that's when I really dominate.

Honestly, sometimes chess strategies are like rock-paper-scissors. Guys with great memory can sometimes trounce me, but people who use this "play weak moves to confuse my opponent" oh yeah, I eat that for breakfast.</comment>


Ask HN: How does your CV look like? - <AUTHOR>

I've happened to see dozens of CV's that don't follow the traditional standard of a plain Word document with some text in it. How does yours look? What part of it makes your soon to be employer say "Wow, this is the one"? Have you used unconventional handing out techniques to highlight yourself?<p>If you don't feel comfortable with personal info, hide it, as this is not intended to be a recruiting topic. <comment><USER2> I've got a standard resume in Word and PDF form. Name and contact stuff at the top, then education, work experience, and skills. Just a light horizontal line break between sections to give it some visual separation.

I would hope that the bullet points on my resume stands out enough, having spent considerable time going over all my accomplishments, selecting and combining the right things to demonstrate my skills, and giving the right quantitative details.

In comparison, my LinkedIn, which seems to be a CV for most folks these days, is really scarce. I've intentionally left it vague because I'm concerned about running afoul of disclosure agreements. I'm wondering if I should revisit it to spruce it up.

</comment><comment><USER3> Always keep to two pages maximum. I have a lightly coloured header with my name in large letters at the head of page 1, the rest in a nice, clear, structured list of skills and previous jobs. If I remember later on I'll link it up here for you to see.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a nice, clean version that I wrote up in LaTeX, and another 'fancy' version that I did in Illustrator.</comment>


Nearables: Why a global lost-and-found network is finally viable - <AUTHOR> http://willd.me/posts/nearables-why-a-global-lost-and-found-network-is-finally-viable

<comment><USER2> The estimote stickers are pretty cool. However, I notice they have a battery life of one year, at $12.50 a sticker ($99 for a pack of 10 + $25 in shipping) it is starting to get close to where I can imagine buying a set. If only they had some sort of solar recharging, or ability to pop in a new battery for a few bucks.

<comment><USER3> Hey, Tanuj from Estimote here. We're constantly challenging our engineering team to extend battery life through a combination of better hardware but more importantly smarter software, delivered via OTA updates. For instance, our first generation beacons just had their battery life significantly upgraded recently (blog.estimote.com/post/91749152580/estimote-rolls-out-the-worlds- first-power-management) without any need for a hardware change. We'll do the same with Stickers. 1 year is the default battery life at launch but it'll get better, quickly :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for the thorough description. Could we simplify this by replacing the beacons with a sticker that says "if found email firstname.lastname@example.com" and the rest of the flow begin through email? Much lower barriers with almost all of the same results.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the benefit with using beacons would be that you can be anywhere within ~70 meters of the item and get a notification to help out. You don't have to even see it to be able to help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm still waiting for the energy-harvesting, no-battery-required, versions to hit the market .. seems the technology (BTLE) is out there, but its just waiting for someone to have the balls to mass-manufacture them ..

<comment><USER6> Me too, but I think we'll have to keep waiting. I was one of these people who "thought I had the balls" to use piezo using this chip: [http://www.linear.com/solutions/1506](http://www.linear.com/solutions/1506) Not only did this not sustain enough current, but taking up more space (doubling the size of my board) also hurt it to the point of it being too clunky (e.g. See linqet [http://m.connectedly.com/linquet-review-smart- tracking-devic...](http://m.connectedly.com/linquet-review-smart-tracking- device-thats-not-quite-there-yet))

Believe it or not, BTLE isn't a holy grail for power, batteries are still a better bet when it comes to long life. One method that might work is inductive charging, which is what the pebblebee dragon does ([http://www.pebblebee.com/products/bluetooth- dragon](http://www.pebblebee.com/products/bluetooth-dragon)). Also notice how big the pebblebee is too- but that's because it has many other sensors.

But yeah, there are several devices in this business, and they are all trying to do a variety of things, and energy harvesting just isn't cutting it at the moment.

I really don't think it's a matter of balls ;P

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> For the iphone at least the problem is apple will not approve apps that try to discover beacons. Identifiers must be baked into the application, which greatly limits their utility.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's been viable for at least a year in other forms. (Have a small demo system) However, there are some technical and social challenges associated with such a database. Most notably it would be very easy to poison the well as a thief/opportunitist. There's zero security around what beacons represent themselves as, it takes less than a second to clone one with a smartphone app.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd like a passport holder that sets off an alarm on my phone eveytime its more than 2 meters away. You'd only have it active when you are travelling. Might help relieve some of the paranoia I have about loosing it.

I Say passport holder because I'm not sure if you could physically affix if to the passport without upsetting border control.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't this basically Tile? [https://www.thetileapp.com/](https://www.thetileapp.com/)

<comment><USER11> Looks like the same idea, I'm pretty disappointed that Tile is only for iOS. Looks like a good implementation of the idea in this article.

<comment><USER12> I think tile will come out with an android client seeing how an android engineer is on their careers page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Cory Doctorow's _Makers_ describes a very similar item tracking and locating system based off of RFID. With effective reader ranges being up to several meters, this could be extended to a L&F system.

</comment><comment><USER14> For that matter, the app could just record every time it "sees" an object and when you mark it lost, it tells you where it was the last time (GPS coordinates and all) it "saw" it.

</comment><comment><USER15> I sat in a coffee shop ~5 years ago, and sketched out what a lost-and-found system based on QR codes and QR code readers. My particular application was 'Non-verbal kid lost at mall, kindly smartphone user with QR reader scans (branded) QR code on kid's shirt to get parent's contact info', but I saw no reason why that couldn't work for any item large enough to have a QR code painted/sprayed/stapled on. I don't know why this doesn't exist yet.

<comment><USER16> My mother just wrote her phone number on the tag of my brother's shirt. What's the point of the QR code?

<comment><USER17> Two benefits I can see:

\- The parent can change what the QR code points to at any time.

\- You can scan a QR code from a distance without making physical contact.</comment></comment></comment>


Caroline Lucretia Herschel – Comet Huntress (1999) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1999JBAA..109...78H&data_type=PDF_HIGH <comment><USER2> The book "Age of Wonder" by Richard Holmes [1] includes a sympathetic overview of Caroline. I do not recall Holmes ever describing her as "spinster" as Hughes does in the sixth word of her outline above. Hughes seems condescending in his first and last sentences, which I don't appreciate.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Wonder-Generation- Discovery/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Wonder-Generation- Discovery/dp/1400031877)</comment>


What I've Learned After 13 Years of Web Engineering - <AUTHOR> https://coderwall.com/p/izxoyw

<comment><USER2> > My lack of a proper CS degree only haunts me during bullshit interviews as > many interviewers who do have a CS degree tend to focus on CS academic > topics rather than things a web developer would actually do during his > tenure at the company

You don't know what you don't know. I could hurt you in other ways you just don't know it. For example it shows when you write blogs that claim SQL joins why there are deadlocks in your web application code. You don't have to go do a 4 year college but not knowing the basics of O(n) notation, how relational databases work inside, how concurrency works, different programming paradigms, is going to hurt you.

> 2) Engineers are paid way too much

Bullshit. If you feel like you are fraud and you are paid too much, well you might just well be. Doesn't mean everyone is.

Software engineering is qualitatively different from being a waiter. The equivalent would be compare a software engineer with a robot maker that builds waiter robots.

It is not about fairness. Tell someone born in a war torn country about fairness. He'd love to swap places with any waiter in US probably.

> One of the bigger websites I worked on relied heavily on SQL joins at > runtime.

Now I am laughing. That is a pretty broad assertion. It is like saying "don't use C" or only use 3 space indents. Basically ignore this and use joins, use indices, and benchmark and even better -- (gasp) hire people who have got a CS degree and know about O notation, about concurrency, relational databases.

<comment><USER3> How many fresh CS grads have a strong command of database performance or concurrency?

<comment><USER2> Sure as hell more than history, biology, sociology grads and high school students.

We did have to study concurrency and a database course. They were general and were not tied to any particular database, and good thing, because that a while ago. But it was a good theoretical understanding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Avoid SQL joins in your website code

That's none sense. There is nothing wrong with SQL joins in your code so long as you've properly indexed and understand the query execution plan. Table joins are also not going to be a likely culprit of deadlocks either (varies depending on database platform, but generally true)

</comment><comment><USER5> _Avoid SQL joins in your website code_

Disagree. If you need to join data, you have do do it somewhere. You think you are going to do a better job of it than the database engine, which has probably been optimized for years if not decades to do this very thing?

<comment><USER6> This response is more amusing in light of the author's first claim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> @OP - points 2 and 5 are opposing each other - you can't be paid too much and demand to be treated as a King in the Bay.

Kings are known for their high incomes.

</comment><comment><USER8> "For example, when I see the wait staff at a restaurant running around to serve dinner, I feel these people as working much harder than any internet engineer you'll ever see"

True but being a waiter doesn't not required much skills or staying up all night to fix a product blocker issue.

<comment><USER9> Most people can become an average waiter very quickly, whereas most people hardly care to know how their computer works. The additional pay is for the huge amounts of time we've spent learning the craft, some of us being obsessed with it since childhood, and the mild rarity of the skill. Also because writing some code has the possibility of affecting huge numbers of people and bringing in a decent sum of money for a company, whereas you can only wait on so many tables per day for an industry known for its low margins.

That's not to say that the proportions are balanced, or that all good waiters are getting what they deserve, or that there aren't shoddy engineers who are getting far more than they deserve. There's just a lot more money in computers than foodservice.

<comment><USER10> I hate when people say stuff like X should get paid more or Y should get paid less. You can't say that without explaining your moral system. You can't go from is to ought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow, what a nonsense. Honestly, comparing a waiter to a software engineer ? Really ?

You see these types of claims are usually made by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. I've been a "software engineer" for over 7 years now and the amount of stuff you have to know is overwhelming. Honestly in my current project I'm working with at least 4 different languages, a lot of software engineering concepts, platforms, a tons of tools and I can promise you that in my professional career there wasn't a time where I stopped studying just trying to keep up.

Having said that, I've seen a lot of "engineers" like the OP, that think it's all too easy until they make a huge mess and call the "real engineers" to fix it up.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wait, you're a CTO?

Please don't complain about CS degrees being useless and then state some technical rule-of-thumb which a proper theoretical background would help you to understand is poor advice.

Ever been SCUBA diving? It's completely impossible to see your own tank. Your peripheral vision sucks in a dive mask, and you can't turn your head that far. Funny thing is the valve with your primary regulator connected makes an excellent hook for things. Most divers carry knives or scissors just in case they get some fishing line, rope, or kelp wrapped around their tank. Divers also focus a lot on streamlining to maintain an efficient swimming profile. Efficiency underwater means that you breathe less, which means you can stay down longer, see more, and/or get more done. Very occasionally a diver will get something caught on their tank, but it won't trap them. It just slows them down. They wind up breathing through their air much quicker than the rest of the other divers _because they 're completely unaware that something is giving them an uneven challenge._

Or let's talk about it in a more direct sense...

Let's say you have two candidates. One has 8 years of experience. The other has a BS in Computer Science and 8 years of experience. Otherwise they've rated identically in your interview process. Which one are you going to hire? Are you honestly saying that the guy or gal with 4 years of rigorous formal training in addition to the 8 years of on-the-job experience is only just equally qualified?

Regarding salaries, effort is in absolutely no way related to value. It's a sad fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. Saying it "should" or "shouldn't" be this way is a bit like passing moral judgement on the laws of physics. "This is wrong. If I flap my arms really hard, I should be able to fly."

Further, the idea that value and effort aren't strictly coupled is a key component of scaling a business. As someone with a C-level title, you should understand that intuitively.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Engineers are paid way too much

Engineering skills take years to acquire. Sure it's not rocket science or a brain surgeon which takes another level of dedication to profession. The job of a waiter or a 711 guy or a janitor and similar does not take much skill and hence the term 'unskilled'. The salaries merely reflect this fact.

</comment><comment><USER14> >> Engineers are paid way too much? Wtf is this guy a CEO or something?

This is bullshit. If other people waiting tables are working harder then why can't every body be an engineer? Why is there are a small population of engineer? Or a small population of doctor? It's because it's fucking hard to acquire the skill and you should be rewarded for it. Supply and demand. If it's overpay then the author can go ahead and take the 20k salary that is equivalent to waiting tables. Just don't expect me to do take it, that's just a fucking slap in the face.

The SQL joins thing is also full of it.

\---

I agree with most of the other points though.

</comment><comment><USER15> > 2) Engineers are paid way too much

As others have commented, this is totally market, which is detached from the actual working conditions. Can 100K really be considered overpaid in the bay area? Or is everyone making much less than 100K just crazy to live there (I don't live there, so I don't know how much you really need to make to survive there.)

I think sometimes it's hard for us to see how much we really learn over time. It seems so easy, yet have someone who has never written a line of code try to get to the point where you are at.

</comment><comment><USER16> Fun read. You do have a point in that engineers are paid way too much, what we do is actually fun and we sit and code most of the time where as the wait staff have to deal with bad tippers and be on their feet all the time.

<comment><USER17> I see you haven't had to

      * deal with product owners
      * deal with customer service
      * deal with marketing
      * deal with legacy code
      * deal with emergency production issues
      * deal with whatever the latest buzzword is in project management

<comment><USER18> * deal with re-orgs, layoffs, and acquisitions

Also, for everyone saying we're paid too much, keep in mind that it might be just that on an individual level, you're underachieving. Being a good programmer is very hard, and being a good engineer in a large, bureaucratic org is even harder.

However, do make sure to tip your servers well, they deserve every dollar you'd ever give.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Second point removes all value if this article. Do you think your work brings same value to business as work of officiant? Well, then yes, you are paid too much, but not all engineers.</comment>


The lifesaving transplant organ you're waiting on may go missing in transit - <AUTHOR> https://massivesci.com/articles/lifesaving-organs-transplant-kidneys-shipping-delay/ <comment><USER2> As a recipient of a transplanted kidney in the UK I have to say for this is what the Fuck!

No Apologies for the profanity there</comment>


Runabove announces cheaper instances and simpliest billing - <AUTHOR> https://www.runabove.com/specs/cloud-pricing-billing

<comment><USER2> > Runabove announces cheaper instances and simpliest [sic] billing

It gets simplier and simplier.</comment>


Organic foods are more cancerous than the ones grown sprayed pesticides(1987) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.exerciseforthereader.org/fat/cancerrisk.pdf <comment><USER2> not sure if i should punch the author of this or give him a stone cold stunner.

As if anyone could suggest that cancer could be a result of natural grown fruits and vegetables over ones sprayed with hazardous pesticides or are GMO foods.

I couldn't even finish that garbage he wrote it was so damn speculative. if you were to eat naturally, take care of yourself and steer clear of as many carcinogens as possible - if you then got cancer i would happily eat my own toe nails for a year - and pay you for the privilege!</comment>


Egypt's Aswan Damn - <AUTHOR> https://unintendedconsequenc.es/egypts-aswan-damn/ <comment><USER2> While I don't don't doubt the value of the book overall, I appreciate the blogger's skepticism. When the story seems too perfect to be true, it most likely isn't.

I find the same thing often in Malcolm Gladwell -- the thesis or a close variant of it is true, but the anecdotes are too pat and perfect.

<comment><USER3> >When the story seems too perfect to be true, it most likely isn't [true].

I was expecting to read

>When the story seems too perfect to be true, it most likely isn't [too perfect].

I only comment in case someone else makes my mistake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While the author makes good points about that aspect of the book, it is nonetheless a book worth the read in today's world. I have seen this many times throughout the career and I call it the "The thing i built does WHAT??" syndrome.

</comment><comment><USER5> I vaguely remembered that this was the first of a number of notorious World Bank dam projects, so went googling; it turns out to be geopolitically even stranger: [https://adst.org/2016/06/dont-give-dam-feud-financing- aswan-...](https://adst.org/2016/06/dont-give-dam-feud-financing-aswan-high- dam/)

</comment><comment><USER6> _Systemantics_ , the book the article is based on, sounds like a good addition to a system designer's library.

Any reviews from people who've read it?

<comment><USER7> It's an extremely good book. Not only useful to a system designer, but anyone who ever interacts with bureaucracies, or who works in organizations with more than ten people.

<comment><USER8> I concur - "Systemantics" (now "The Systems Bible") is an excellent book. I had a boss turn me onto it in the 1980s, and to this day I still quote from it, and re-read it about once a decade just to keep the lessons fresh.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a great book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ok fag packet out.

Aswan dam production: 10000gwh [1]

Area of Egyptian farmland 3000000 ha [2]

Energy input for fertilising ha of wheat: 3000kwh [3] (it could be 47% of this?, but then theres 3 harvests a year...)

=9000 gwh

So the figure seems plausible?

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

[2] [http://www.fao.org/docrep/v9978e/v9978e0e.htm](http://www.fao.org/docrep/v9978e/v9978e0e.htm)

[3] [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279037757_Energy_re...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279037757_Energy_requirements_and_economic_analysis_of_wheat_rice_and_barley_production_in_Australia)

</comment><comment><USER10> Aswan Dam also lead to the prevalence of schistosomiasis, or bilharzia. Kind of a big unintended consequence.

<comment><USER11> Interestingly, Wikipedia cites an EPA study as saying that it did not in fact increase the incidence of bilharzia.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_Dam#Health](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_Dam#Health)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is also the whole question of salinization. I highly recommend Cadillac Desert</comment>


Data Security and the Nasuni Filer - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasuni.com/news/nasuni-blog/data-security-and-the-nasuni-filer-just-the-facts/

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought I would share this with everyone - after last weeks discussions around various security topics in this vein, I thought it would be good to outline exactly what/how/why Nasuni supports data security-wise.

For full disclosure; I am an employee.</comment>


Is TSA serious about letting people carry knives? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/opinion/hawk-tsa-knives/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

<comment><USER2> _I don't know about you, but I find that blatantly offensive. When terrorists use box cutters and pocketknives to slit your colleagues' throats, you don't move on so easily. And that is why I am so utterly slack-jawed at the decision to allow the same weapons that were used to kill so many people. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission found that terrorists used knives such as Leatherman tools to overtake the crew._

This is just as true everywhere else. Should we have security screening at malls, on busses, and checkpoints on public streets to make sure nobody's carrying a pocket knife?

On 9/11 the passengers had no idea that they were about to fly into buildings. Threatening to stab someone if the pilot doesn't open the cockpit would never work today; the assumption is that if a hijacker takes control of a plane then everyone on board is very likely to die.

I can only assume that the author thinks sharp objects should be illegal everywhere?

</comment><comment><USER3> I concur with everything I've read by Bruce Schneier re: "security theater" as practiced by the TSA, and I think the TSA could/should backtrack a lot further than merely re-allowing small knives.

Post-9/11, a small knife is not a threat to airline safety if for no other reason than (a) the policies are explicit that threatening a hostage will never again result in control of the plane, and (b) the bad guys know that.

</comment><comment><USER4> _If the search for knives truly is the culprit that's clogging up screening lanes, maybe those who bring them should be fined._

This single sentence could potentially solve the entire problem. By having a financial penalty, instead of just confiscating the problematic item, would force people to reconsider what is and isn't allowed.

<comment><USER5> Doubtful. There's already a financial penalty: the loss of the confiscated item. Increasing the penalty (by adding a fine) would just make the process more frustrating -- nobody's trying to take a pocket knife through security on purpose. (Nor would adding a fine make the search any easier to carry out.)</comment></comment>