What i wish i knew when learning haskell - <AUTHOR> http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/ <comment><USER2> I tried to use Haskell three times. Cabal was the always the reason why I left. I use three different machines. 2 at two different locations at work and one at home. All three would be different and have different errors. I would spend hours and always left with a horrible taste in my mouth.

Today I use Racket and I won't go back but I am glad Stack is taking over Cabal.

<comment><USER3> _Cabal was the always the reason why I left._

It is not only Cabal, but also the constant churn in a lot of packages. For example, conduit was a great package when I used Haskell. But usually I had to update quite a bit of code when I would bump conduit up to the latest version after not touching a program for a year.

Maybe I have been unlucky enough to use Haskell during some transitions (pre- arrows -> arrows rule, let's use them everywhere -> arrows suck, basic IO monad -> iteratees, old fashioned field access -> various lens proposals -> lens). But I never used a language ecosystem before or after where things would change or break so often.

<comment><USER4> Yes, there have been quite a few transitions happening. They didn't happen "for fun", but because it had been felt that the optimal solutions were not found yet (optimal as in elegant, easy to use, maintainable, ...).

Luckily, Haskell's static typing coupled with the extremely helpful error messages of the compiler makes refactoring a cheerful task: If it worked before and all type errors have been fixed, then we can be quite confident that it works again.

Many areas have stabilized now. For instance, Edward Kmett's lens package is the de facto standard for all things related to records, getters, setters, and all those things on steroids. (Personally, I love how this turned out. Before lens, we quite frankly had the problem that field accesses were much more painful than they are in mainstream object-oriented languages like Python or Java. Nowadays field accesses are as simple as they are in other languages, and in addition to this we have the flexibility of composable first-class lenses.)

<comment><USER5> > all type errors have been fixed

... by someone trying to actually address the issues. There are almost always wrong ways you can fix a type error. Fortunately, that's usually the situation at hand...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a relative newbie to Haskell, the linked document contains a lot of information that I had wondered about but hadn't found definitive answers for (eg. Should I be using String at all?) as well as a wealth of information I hadn't even thought to ask yet. I suspect it's going to live in a browser tab next to Hoogle until I get a lot more experience.

Favorite line: "Playing "type-tetris" to convert between Strings explicitly can be frustrating." Such understatement! Converting between string types and dealing with the lack of scoping in records have been two major pinch points for me with Haskell so far.

Most puzzling part: The description of Erlang as an imperative language.

<comment><USER5> I had a reading group going through this, top to bottom. The chance to stop and discuss things was a big win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Two things missing that I wish I knew when I had learned Haskell.

First, Haskell is just another programming language. It has many papers written about it, and many people have strong opinions about it, but at the end of the day it is not _that_ special.

Second, the Haskell community is _not_ friendly and welcoming to many groups of folks. In particular, if you are a fan of dynamic/gradual typing, objects, distributed systems, etc. do not expect a warm welcome.

A personal anecdote: I left #haskell on Freenode because a regular and popular user proposed and endorsed an extended analogy wherein all humans are divided into "dynamically-typed" and "statically-typed" people, and statically-typed people are superior because they are more reliable. This kind of bias pervades the community and ruins any kind of cross-ecosystem collaborative efforts.

Edit: Was I being confrontational? I wasn't even part of this conversation! I was lurking, and I saw this ridiculous thing play out unprompted between regulars.

<comment><USER8> Conversely, if I am a fan of static typing and compile time constraints, should I expect a warm welcome pushing those ideas in Clojure and Ruby communities?

One should not be surprised that actively rejecting/attacking the core values of a community brings ire. Are you sure you weren't the one being confrontational?

<comment><USER9> Clojure has the core.typed [0] optional type system! So yes, though they are dynamic, they embrace that others can differ.

> This work adds static type checking (and some of its benefits) to Clojure, a > dynamically typed language, while still preserving idioms that characterise > the language. It allows static and dynamically typed code to be mixed so the > programmer can use whichever is more appropriate.

Some communities don't hold the dynamic vs static debate as an issue of such a hard regard that an individual must be rejected, lest they infect others.

matz has pretty much said that static type checking will not be part of Ruby, and he won't open up the syntax for it. But bugs like this one [1] aren't filled with hate, telling people to get lost. There's a constructive approach.

[0] [https://github.com/clojure/core.typed/wiki](https://github.com/clojure/core.typed/wiki)

[1] [https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9999](https://bugs.ruby- lang.org/issues/9999)

<comment><USER8> I am aware of those extensions. There is a difference between some features/extensions and core principles. If you want to play that game, Haskell supports ways to "add on" more dynamic behavior as well. One way is via -fdefer-type-errors [1] which allows parts of the program which do not typecheck to not impede the rest of the program.

But this is missing the point of core values. I will refrain from listing all the digs that Rich Hickey has taken at static types and their ilk, but he has done so quite a lot.. My point is both sides don't like their core values rejected. I thought this thread is about community and not extensions so much.

> bugs like this one aren't filled with hate, telling people to get lost. > There's a constructive approach.

And there are many examples of haskell folks treating others with a constructive approach too on various topics outside of the "cannon". I'm not sure what you're implying here, or are if you're referring to a specific case (however, tallying up some cherry-picked anecdotes may not be so useful)

[1] [https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_gu...](https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/glasgow_exts.html#deferring- type-errors-to-runtime)

<comment><USER9> > I am aware of those extensions. There is a difference between some > features/extensions and core principles.

Referring to a core library as an extension that isn't in line with core principles just sounds... Wrong.

> I thought this thread is about community and not extensions so much.

For something to be taken by the community, and willingly added to the core library, suggests a level of embracement within the community. Hickey himself weighed in on typed [0], embracing it with praise, despite the fact it may go against his personal values, he doesn't see it going against Clojure's values.

Static typing simply isn't a core value for Clojure. Thus:

> Conversely, if I am a fan of static typing and compile time constraints, > should I expect a warm welcome pushing those ideas in Clojure and Ruby > communities?

Absolutely.

> And there are many examples of haskell folks treating others with a > constructive approach too on various topics outside of the "cannon". I'm not > sure what you're implying here, or are if you're referring to a specific > case (however, tallying up some cherry-picked anecdotes may not be so > useful)

I agree, anecdotes here may be entirely unhelpful. Yet, I know I am not alone in saying that some of the haskell community is warm and embracing of newcomers, and yet there are also those that clearly reject newcomers, instructing them instead to learn mathematical concepts or the right words for the right concepts, and not guiding them to do so.

[0] [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/clojure- dev/ryYzI1Bj0p...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/clojure- dev/ryYzI1Bj0p0/uWdEwO9T6xAJ)

<comment><USER8> I did not say core.typed wasn't accepted by the Clojure community. It's great you have many examples of Clojurians extolling core.typed.

I said rejecting "core values", outright, would be met with resistance. Since Optional Typing via core.typed _is_ a "core value" as you claim, there is no conflict. I want to be clear about what I'm claiming here.

> > Conversely, if I am a fan of static typing and compile time constraints, > should I expect a warm welcome pushing those ideas in Clojure and Ruby > communities?

> Absolutely.

Well, I think you're being disingenuous. After saying "Static typing simply isn't a core value for Clojure". If I claim in the Clojurians slack the value of what we agree is not a core value for Clojure, namely, ahead-of- time/compile-time static typing, yes, I think that would be met with some resistance.

Also, I hope you're not thinking that in this thread I have some problem with Clojure. I'm talking about sociology, not technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is such a great reference. The best part is that it's continually updated: [https://github.com/sdiehl/wiwinwlh/commits/master](https://github.com/sdiehl/wiwinwlh/commits/master)

<comment> sid-kap Whoa, didn't know he was still updating it! Last year he announced that he was done working on it: [http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/docs.html](http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/docs.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good advice about how to grok monads. An oldish but still useful video takes a similar concrete approach to building up the idea from simple examples:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_KY2I34-f8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_KY2I34-f8)

</comment><comment><USER12> Whenever I tried to use cabal, I always came up realizing how lucky we are on the JVM with Maven and Gradle.

It's mystifying the Haskell community still hasn't been able to come up with a decent dependency management + build tool.

<comment><USER4> There are a couple of peculiarities of Haskell's module system which made it difficult, but yes, I agree that it took longer than it should have.

However, nowadays there is a decent dependency management and build tool! It's called "stack", as in "stack install xmonad". I never once had any dependency or other compile problems with stack. It simply always works. :-)

<comment><USER13> I've had a lot of problems with Stack whenever I'm doing non-trivial (that is, beyond just "build this executable the standard way") kinds of tasks—in particular, it tends to corrupt its package DB after a while for mysterious reasons, and you have to blow it away and rebuild, and it can be a _nightmare_ to do certain bits of configuration where the UI is undocumented or nonexistant—but it's a pretty big step up from historical Cabal.

There's also an already-working-but-still-not-quite-finished alternative system within Cabal which is eventually gonna become the default one, and which does builds in a Nix-inspired way. I've been using that for the better part of a year now, and I like it far better than either historical Cabal or Stack: [http://blog.ezyang.com/2016/05/announcing-cabal-new-build- ni...](http://blog.ezyang.com/2016/05/announcing-cabal-new-build-nix-style- local-builds/)

<comment><USER5> > it tends to corrupt its package DB after a while for mysterious reasons, and > you have to blow it away and rebuild

Odd, I've been using stack in anger for a while now and have never had that happen. Have you reported a bug? Any ideas about reproduction?

<comment><USER13> I didn't ever figure out a minimal reproduction, but I also should be clear that that was my experience using Stack at the time: I haven't used it in more than a year (I jumped ship to new-build as soon as it was first available and haven't looked back) so those problems might have been alleviated since then.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Vidly Teams Up With Chamillionaire - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/23/vidly-chamillionaire/ <comment><USER2> From one of the comments on techcrunch, it says the video commenting is easier than the seesmic approach. Although this may be true, I think there are more fundamental issues at play:

\- it's quicker to type a comment than make a video comment \- i once read someone say most people don't look good enough on camera to make video comments! \- often commenting sections of blogs become arguements, if someone can see you, it potentially gives them more ammunition to diss you personally (e.g you're fat, short, dumb looking etc)

<comment><USER3> These are all valid points. We are not seeking to replace text comments, only to augment and add to the conversation. Over time, I think we'll see people get more and more comfortable in front of a video camera.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Didn't Viddler do this like 3 years ago?

<comment><USER5> obviously they failed due to the longer domain name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what the Seesmic crew thinks of this.

<comment><USER7> probably makes them wish they were a YC company

<comment><USER6> Loic is as well connected as anyone in the valley. Or are you saying PG is known to bro down with Chamillionaire? You're not saying much...

<comment><USER8> When Vidly told me about this I thought Chamillionaire was the name of a startup.

<comment><USER9> PG, you should try to integrate some hip-hop into your next presentation. But you'll need a better rap name. How about PG-Money?

<comment><USER6> p g-funk

<comment><USER9> "PG-13" was given consideration until focus group testing found the name to be lacking in street cred.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not so special, Chamillionaire is a web 2.0 rapper; he was at the Ad.ly launch party and he partnered with them as well.</comment>


Survey: Cloud Native Application Development - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeVAfZTARMxDuqVl_Etukgk-JstcpHhOlxE2CVd2eYNrCxvwA/viewform?usp=sf_link <comment><AUTHOR> We're conducting a survey with the community to learn more about how you build Cloud Native applications, what you enjoy about it and the challenges that you're facing. We'll be sharing the results publicly once the survey closes.

</comment><comment><USER2> Is there a way to do cloud native without using kubernetes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you can use other container orchestrators and still build cloud native apps. Although in practice, almost everyone uses Kubernetes.

<comment><USER2> why would you want to introduce legacy from the get go?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think you should. But some organizations have legacy needs and might be using other orchestrators. Or K8s might not be a good fit for them for whatever reason.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Should we consider adolescence to last until age 24? (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/21/16909268/adolescence-health-policy-psychology-age-24 <comment><USER2> We really don't need to give young adults just another excuse more to avoid accountability.

</comment><comment><USER3> No, we should move it younger, and stop infantalizing adults, but who wants responsibility?</comment>


Show HN: Book Playlist – collaborative music playlists for your favorite books - <AUTHOR> http://www.bookplaylist.com <comment><AUTHOR> This was built at the CODEX books hackathon this past weekend at MIT.</comment>


I am Facebook friends with Ryan Lanza - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/i_am_facebook_friends_with_ryan_lanza/ <comment><USER2> When we built the net, we had great dreams about every person on the planet connecting to each other and all the information they might need to make their lives better.

What we're actually building is something more like a cross between a tavern, a opium den, and a public square. People hang out in various random emotional moods, all waiting for something to trigger them into acting like a mob.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but it's real. We are creating a system for over-reacting in a big way. Sometime -- sometime soon - some innocent person is going to get killed by one of the internet mob phenomenons. It's a miracle it hasn't happened already.

The interesting question is: what happens then? Does the net somehow correct itself? Or do the swings get wilder and wilder, ending up in 2050 or so with little bits of the net attacking little other bits in widely strewn locations? (What would be the term for this? Internet gangs? New nation-states? Niche warfare?)

<comment><USER3> This. I think the author really highlighted this well at the end of the article:

"Social media purports to connect us but it often does the exact opposite. The barrier, the anonymity, the lack of accountability; all encourage the worst in people."

<comment><USER4> Perhaps because of the sheer number of people the internet has connected combined with the bell curve of asshole-ness, we think humanity is stupider than it is. Anonymity, unaccountability may certainly make things worse, but a small fraction multiplied by an insanely large number will still give us a lot of crazies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> RE: Facebook Groups

I've never understood the psychological reasons behind pointless social commentary during moments of tragedy such as this.

My social media streams were full of blather: "I feel bad for the parents and kids", "I hate school shooters", "I hate kid killers!!...ad nauseum. No kidding! There is a support group for people like you, it's called Everybody.

Why comment at all? Is it some coping mechanism? Do they feel as if they will be judged because they didn't publicly admonish the shooter?

<comment><USER6> Before taking a crack at answering this for you, I'd like to know - how did you feel when you heard about the shooting? What was your reaction? Would you generally describe yourself as an empathic person?

<comment><USER5> I would say that I was/am sympathetic, not empathetic. I recognize that it's a tragedy for them, but I don't feel similar emotions.

I'm curious if the reason behind such vocalization is because very few people actually feel empathy. A facade for their feelings of joy/relief that such things didn't occur to someone they know.

I, as you probably guessed, don't have any children. I presume my feelings on the subject would be different if that weren't the case.

<comment><USER7> with respect (i am speaking retro-introspectively)- i cannot understand how recognizing that your feelings would change with perspective isn't enough in and of itself to change them.

to me, admitting your feelings would change with perspective is admitting you simply cannot relate to what these people are going through. if your lack of empathy is derived from the inability to relate- that seems awfully selfish.

but at the same time, "i cannot pretend to relate with what these people are going through" sounds refreshingly empathetic if you ask me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The case of the mistaken identity of Neda Soltani in 2009 during the Iranian protests is worth reading:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20267989>

> _The whole thing happened in a matter of 12 days. In less than two weeks I > had gone from being a professor of English literature, leading a very normal > life, to a person who had to flee her homeland._

All because somebody mistook her facebook profile for someone else's

<comment><USER9> Wow.. speechless..

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ugh, I feel bad for the guy. His entire life will probably be tainted by this. Any future employer, friend, lover can and will find out about it through a simple Google search. He's probably the worst of after this incident; his brother a mass murder, his mother shot dead, him being tainted for the rest of his life...

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't feel too bad for someone who gets to retire in their 20s, after the settlement checks start rolling in. He could probably start his lifetime vacation now, by getting a loan against the anticipated proceeds.

<comment><USER12> That's because you're an idiot. His mom is dead, he can't talk to his friends and his life is certainly in danger. His life is _shattered_ , he can't buy a new one.

<comment><USER11> Nothing stops him from talking to his friends. Re his mom, I'm referring only to his loss of reputation. He's in danger from idiots; moving to a liberal area should help. He'll be able to afford some decent security in any case, like any multi-millionaire.

<comment><USER13> Regardless of how those of us on Hacker News identify politically, your shot at conservatives is out of line. I identify liberally and even I see it as inappropriate. I'm not being hyperbolic when I inform you that comments and opinions like yours are the kind that will be the end of America and everything that we believe in as we know it. Political conversation in this country is a time bomb.

Beyond that, pretty much every comment you've left in this thread is cancerous, insensitive, and outright stupid, and I wish you'd stop typing. I mean that in the most respectful way.

<comment><USER7> just because you say something isn't hyperbolic, doesn't mean it's not. likewise, just because you say something is respectful, doesn't mean it is.

"liberal" and "conservative", as you don't seem to be aware, have meanings outside of United States politics.

<comment><USER13> I am aware, but since the advice was to move and the guy lives in America, I localized my answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Plain old mob mentality, something bad happened, no one likes it, the suspect is dead, someone must be punished, anyone tangentially related is fair game.

Might as well string up the person who sold him a pack of gum last week.

<comment><USER15> This type of thing is precisely why, after seeing what happened to Richard Jewell after the '96 Olympics bombing, when a tragedy like this happens, I try to stay clear of anything that mentions the killer's name/motivations/etc for a couple days until there is a clearer picture.

<comment><USER16> "I try to stay clear of anything that mentions the killer's name/motivations/etc for a couple days until there is a clearer picture."

A journalist with any shred of integrity should do the same.

<comment><USER17> 24 hour news cycle. Gotta fill the time, and any shred of anything information-like helps add to the discussion.

Every time something happens, the networks fall over themselves to get out the new thing first, and inevitably fuck it up. Recall the Obamacare ruling, and how several networks reported it'd been overturned because they couldn't take the ten minutes to read more carefully.

<comment><USER16> Of course they have logical reasons for acting unethically, just as a common thief has a logical motive for snatching purses. That doesn't make the behavior any less unethical.

<comment><USER17> Oh, I agree that it's unethical. And, frankly, detrimental to our society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there a way to publicly shame the reporter ? Instead of just naming it as "cnn" or any other name without a face, it would be better to name the reporter and the editor. And also link to their Facebook page.

Next time it could keep other reporters in line.

</comment><comment><USER19> "We have a problem with rushing to judgment."

This is the key statement, and the behaviour perpetuated and taught by news outlets. They should be held hugely liable for misinformation and lies that go out -- sure, they legally, in the U.S. at least, have been found to be allowed to lie, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable.

P.S. I somewhat hope Ryan Lanza's Facebook account was unsearchable prior to Facebook changing all accounts to being searchable - I'd like to see if any legal consequences could come of it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone care what this must have done to him? He finds out by watching CNN at work, that his mother has been murdered, along with 20 small children & 6 adults, & that HE is being blamed for it. He is receiving hate mail on his FB page, people are threatening to kill him, all while he rides the business home alone. This is how he spends the first hour after finding out that his family is gone & that it was his little brother who killed his mother. And then the "kind" police officers escort him out in handcuffs for all the world to see. been one week since this tragedy & nowhere do I see anyone reaching out with kindness towards this 24 year old. The media could care less. He has the weight of all 28 victims on him. I cannot imagine his pain, fear, & intense sadness. So, when this country is asked to pray for those who lost loved ones, why in the name of God is he not being included? That is my question & I doubt that he would ever consider suing anyone, even though they deserve it. But I'll tell you what he deserves... grace, loving thoughts, & kindness, just as much as every else who lost someone they loved. My heart breaks for him.

<comment><USER21> I agree with you, This poor young mans life has just been turned around on him. I can't imagine what he is going through,all the question he must have. I do think he should sue and a meaningful gesture on his part would be to give the money back to the community in one way or another. I pray that he can get through this with Gods grace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone care what this must have done to him? He finds out by watching CNN at work, that his mother has been murdered, along with 20 small children & 6 adults, & that HE is being blamed for it. He is receiving hate mail on his FB page, people are threatening to kill him, all while he rides the business home alone. This is how he spends the first hour after finding out that his family is gone & that it was his little brother who killed his mother. And then the "kind" police officers escort him out in handcuffs for all the world to see. been one week since this tragedy & nowhere do I see anyone reaching out with kindness towards this 24 year old. The media could care less. He has the weight of all 28 victims on him. I cannot imagine his pain, fear, & intense sadness. So, when this country is asked to pray for those who lost loved ones, why in the name of God is he not being included? That is my question & I doubt that he would ever consider suing anyone, even though they deserve it. But I'll tell you what he deserves... grace, loving thoughts, & kindness, just as much as every else who lost someone they loved. My heart breaks for him.

</comment><comment><USER22> The lack of critical thinking skills is perhaps my biggest gripe with humanity, and one that I believe underpins, in one way or another, all of its other failings.

If everyone had perfect critical thinking skills, misreporting such as this would cause no harm. There would be no need for defamation laws.

A news organization would make an incorrect assertion, and instead of leaping to conclusions, people would interrogate the assertion, evaluate the supporting evidence themselves, and reserve judgment until the facts are clear.

In the meantime, if you can't help but discuss or act on information of questionable accuracy, qualify yourself appropriately. "If Ryan Lanza was the person responsible, he is a monster!", not "Ryan Lanza is a monster!", etc.

</comment><comment><USER20> "riding the bus home", not business. Journalism today is NOT CNN or MSNBC, or FOX. It's the corporate heads who demand results... right now! Everything is faster, more, now. It doesn't matter if it's true, just that it is EXTREME. Even on Dateline, which aired that Friday night, they reported that Mrs. Lanza was the kindergarten teacher & that's why Adam killed all of "her" students. WRONG! Shut off the TV & wait for the early edition of the New York Times. That's about the only way to get "real" journalism anymore. At least they apologize when they're wrong.

</comment><comment><USER15> "In the end, social media got to the answer of who Ryan Lanza is much more quickly than a dozen local reporters would have done. But social media also creates a world in which we are watching the investigation — and reporting — unfold in real time."

A local reporter, in this case the usage seems pejorative, might have wanted until they were certain before printing the name and therefore might not have needed a retraction. I would have respected them more if they just said that news moves fast and they make their money from ads so being the first mover improves their bottom line.

</comment><comment><USER23> > We have a problem with rushing to judgment.

... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control.

<comment><USER24> Where does he say that?

<comment><USER23> > There a lot of things we need to have a "national discussion" about in > America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most > important . . . . We've decided that access to guns is more important than > our safety, that more guns equals safety

Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.

<comment><USER24> He doesn't say that we need more gun control, though. He has described the situation as he sees it, but he hasn't prescribed an answer, aside from a "national discussion", which by it's nature involves an exchange of opinions, not an answer from on high.

<comment><USER25> Gun control is (or was) a fairly settled issue. Even James Carville said, "I don't think there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun, but I think it's a loser political issue." The only reason to unsettle it is if you wanted to change it, and since it's considered a civil right by many Americans, that's a pretty big deal.

If you want to better understand that sentiment, just substitute any other Constitutionally guaranteed civil right for "guns". "We need to have a national discussion about the right to a fair trial by jury." How does that not sound sinister? It's fairly settled that we have fair trials by jury, or at least try our hardest, and it doesn't serve any good purpose to reopen the question.

<comment><USER26> In _D.C. vs. Heller_ , all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed "there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun" (the so-called individual right, vs. the "collective right" that had been claimed for decades), they just split on if this meant anything (D.C.'s ban on new gun registrations was total, and they effectively banned the use of any grandfathered guns for self-defense).

It is now settled law, there's very little to have a "national discussion" or "conversation" about, especially since we all agree on minor details like: murder is wrong and is properly illegal, felons and the severely mentally ill have no right to own guns (although due to privacy issues it's very hard to do anything about the latter, and too many states like Pennsylvania refuse to report this to the feds), people should treat guns with respect, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Events like this shooting always remind me of Goerge Carlin talking about entropy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egRgweL12Uc&feature=yout...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egRgweL12Uc&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

Watch it, it's really good.

</comment><comment><USER13> From the linked through article on BuzzFeed:

> _Media did not identify the "wrong Ryan Lanza." BuzzFeed, Gawker and > Mediaite correctly reported on the Facebook profile of the person who turned > out to be the older brother of the alleged gunman — and they did so when he > was the person being identified by law enforcement to CNN as the shooter._

This is wrong in a few ways. First:

As I understand it, "identified by law enforcement" was some guy in the Connecticut State Police talking to the media without authorization. The designated media contact of the local police, Lt. Vance, was correcting misinformation that was perpetuated by the media and Internet _all day_. Ryan Lanza was only one of many "facts" that grew legs and ran around the planet, to borrow from Twain. There were so many rumors, many of them perpetuated by the awful "This Just In" live blog on CNN, that were just shown to be blatantly untrue less than an hour later.

I've seen "This Just In" get it so horribly wrong on stories in the interest of speed in the past, particularly with Hurricane Sandy and Twitter (like when they wrote about the stock exchange being flooded based on some Twitter troll, and all the networks ran with it). Real news organizations, like the old stalwarts of CBS & Co., like to wait for a double confirmation. It appears that "This Just In" is being treated as a confirm (since "CNN reported it") by many organizations, even though the bar for truth is abysmally low on that blog. They don't even retract, even though they have the capability. They _leave_ the untruth published, but update later saying "earlier we reported a lie. Sorry 'bout that, it isn't true".

Second:

They didn't "correctly report on the older brother". Half of the developed world ran a story similar to "LOOK AT THE FACE OF THIS STONE COLD KILLER. HERE HE IS". Whatever BuzzFeed needs to tell themselves to sleep better at night, I guess.

Third:

There is an argument that has taken hold in Europe that we should never identify the killer, or omit their last name, in circumstances like this. I sympathize with it extensively, along with the notion that we shouldn't run 24-hour coverage on this to glorify the killer (a common complaint from criminal psychiatrists). If it were against the rules to identify a killer, this would have never happened.

This is why all news organizations should double-confirm before ever releasing a fact with as much gravity as this. Hell, double-confirm everything. The irresponsibility displayed by the media and the ease of which a life can be destroyed in the age of the Internet are simply too dramatic for rush decisions any more. We need to have a culture shift toward being acceptable to waiting a few minutes to be told something is going on, if it means we can be more sure that we're reporting the truth. What point is a fact that we know within seconds if it's not even a fact? If journalism is reporting untruths, what purpose does journalism have in the public interest?

I entirely blame CNN here, and "This Just In" specifically. They got somebody to talk to them in the State Police who didn't know what he was talking about, they ran with it, and they ruined this kid's life. I'd like to see "This Just In" closed entirely, and the Associate Producer that got the duty of updating the blog post that day apologize personally to Ryan.

There is a systemic disease developing inside CNN, completely due to the Web, and it's beginning to infect downstream media. Please, CNN producer if you're reading this (which you should be if you're searching for tech stories), _be better_.

<comment><USER24> I don't understand why law enforcement officials leak this stuff. Presumably they aren't benefitting financially (that would be highly illegal, and surely investigated?), and they aren't ever named publicly, so they don't even get fame out of it. So why risk your job like that?

<comment><USER28> You scratch a journalist's back, they'll scratch yours when the time comes.

Plus, there's always accidental slip ups.</comment></comment></comment>


I gave Amazon a key to my house and regretted it - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/07/amazon-wants-a-key-to-your-house-i-did-it-i-regretted-it/ <comment><USER2> > [Amazon] says that it will "correct the problem" if your property gets > damaged. (In the fine print, you also agree to arbitration, rather than a > lawsuit, if something goes really wrong.)

This is such crap. If they really were committed to making things right in the event of a problem, they wouldn't have to fear being sued. You want me to believe that you'll protect my most valuable asset after I give you free access to it, but you'll make me trust your good intentions and the judgment of an arbitrator you probably picked?

Seems to me that the right to sue should be considered fundamental, and binding arbitration should be made illegal.

<comment><USER3> > binding arbitration should be made illegal

Binding arbitration and non-competes, are both disgusting anti-business, anti- American, anti-worker, anti-innovation, anti-rights that need to be killed.

These two horrible tactics have crept in since 2000 into nearly everything.

Signing away your right to compete and your right to use the legal system should both be illegal and have no place in America. How did we let this happen?

For non-competes, NDAs should suffice.

Arbitration should be a step towards legal rather than supplanting it. Many times arbitration is better for both parties in terms of cost/time but when it isn't people shouldn't be signing away the right into forced arbitration to go further.

<comment><USER4> Arbitration, just like plea deals, are an obviously terrible idea that is legal almost entirely because it reduces the cost of having trials. Less trials is cheaper, which everyone running things likes.

Of course, that's trading justice for money, which most people would agree is a terrible idea. Of course, that isn't reflected in the actual state of the law.

<comment><USER5> > Arbitration, just like plea deals, are an obviously terrible idea that is > legal almost entirely because it reduces the cost of having trials.

Arbitration is legal because of freedom of contract.

There is nothing "obviously terrible" about arbitration per se. When it is included in a freely negotiated contract between parties of equal bargaining power it is hard to find anything wrong with it.

The problem is when the parties do not have anywhere near equal bargaining power.

<comment><USER6> >Arbitration is legal because of freedom of contract.

Indentured servitude is just contracting. Do you think it should be legal too?

<comment><USER5> I think my point may have not been clear. I was responding to someone who offered a theory that it is legal because it reduces the cost of having trials. The implication is that it was decided at some point that we should allow it.

My point is that because it is implied by freedom of contract, it is by default legal until we decide to make it illegal.

<comment><USER7> > it is by default legal until we decide to make it illegal.

No, it's legal because of the Federal Arbitration Act passing in 1925. Prior to that, waiving of such rights "in advance by agreement" was explicitly disallowed, as SCOTUS determined in Insurance Company v. Morse (1874).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Kind of a weird article - it's very long, describes in great detail how everything works, and the regret is hidden about three quarters of the way down, and I am still unclear about what the regret is. That he signed up to a walled garden, and the key doesn't work when you want to share it with your dog walker? The walled garden response is "you should've known as much" and the dog walker response would be "this is version 1"

Anyway, this feels more like an ad for amazon key than a real takedown. Oh wait... WaPo, Bezos... right.

<comment><USER9> _Oh wait... WaPo, Bezos... right_

It states that right near the beginning of the article.

I'm cynical in a different way, though. I see this article as the sort of turgid content that dominates tech media: Take some product or behavior that's new, act like it's scary and milk some content out of it. The title itself is simply _ridiculous_ \-- the regrets seem to be that the product is exactly what it is held as.

It isn't for me. For some people heavily invested in the Amazon ecosystem it might be a fine compromise.

<comment><USER10> Used to be you could read tech news written by people who were both knowledgable and enthusiastic about technology. Now it seems to be mostly paranoid, technophobic clickbait.

<comment><USER11> maybe that's a reflection of their audience?

<comment><USER9> In a way I absolutely think this is true, but it is more the way we consume media now than our basic values changing.

Previously I had a few sites that I visited daily to read tech news. Media properties where writers tried to keep a constant supply of entertaining and illuminating articles that I give attention and focus to, even if superficially not interesting, because I have trust that it's worth my time.

Now I instead rely upon social news and even Facebook feeds to supply the more interesting articles, filtered and crowd "curated". In that gaudy world, you need to show your legs and hoot and holler to get attention. So we end up with this sort of media. We see the same thing with blogs where many of us abandoned subscriptions and readers and just assume that the good content will percolate into our view.

I don't think I'm alone in this behavior, and it has been negative to the whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The company promises deliveries are only made by Amazon employees it thinks > are trustworthy.

Amazon doesn't have employees delivering packages. They are all contractors, and often contractors hired by contractors. The concerning thing about this is that it literally means Amazon may have only learned the name of the person who is accessing your home 30 minutes before they are inside it.

<comment><USER13> I know for a fact that Amazon does employ package delivery people in my area. They are not contractors or hired by contractors. Amazon fulfillment is a massive organization.

<comment><USER12> What makes you sure they aren't contractors? Ask them the next time you get a delivery.

They may drive trucks with the Amazon logo; they may tell you they are delivering for Amazon; they may be driving around with an app made by Amazon that gives them step by step instructions of what to do. But they are not legally employed by Amazon. Not in the US or UK. I spent some time as a part of their software organization, and have been inside the delivery stations. As far as I know, there are no employees delivering packages.

You can speculate as to why Amazon would want things setup this way. I don't speak on the company's behalf.

<comment><USER13> I did ask them, the guy I talked to was an Amazon employee. I wasn't just assuming when I made the comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A lot of comments are about other solutions (lockboxes, etc.) - these are solutions for a problem Amazon doesn't have.

Amazon wants to own grocery delivery (put your milk in your fridge), they want to own dog walking, they want to own plumbing and other house services.

The article's correct that this is the first step in a larger plan, and I think at least fairly well thought out for that.

<comment><USER15> I read about one of Arabic countries - I don't remember if it was the Emirates or Saudi Arabia, but one of the big names. The newspaper article claimed milkmen in that country walk into your house, take money lying on your fridge, leave the change, put milk into your fridge, walk out. You typically leave your house unlocked, the article claimed.

That's a problem the country doesn't have.

<comment><USER16> I think it used to be like this in America too. The milkman would walk into your kitchen (via the back door, which was unlocked) and leave the milk in your fridge.

<comment><USER17> I live in an old house in a cooler climate and my place and most of my neighbors' have a special small two-way "cabinet" through the exterior wall in the back where the milkman used to leave your delivery, sort of like a mailbox built into your house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is Amazon liable if your packages get stolen? If that is the case, that could explain why they want a "key" to your house.

Why else would this do this?

Oh, wait they are bleeding money.

>The amount of money that Amazon lost on shipping — a.k.a. the net cost of landing all those brown boxes on your doorstep in record time — reached an all-time high of nearly _$7.2 billion_ in 2016, according to GeekWire's analysis of the e-commerce giant's financial results.

I would be curious to see another person's take on how much Amazon loses on people stealing packages per year.

[1]([https://www.geekwire.com/2017/true-cost-convenience- amazons-...](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/true-cost-convenience-amazons- annual-shipping-losses-top-7b-first-time/))

<comment><USER19> The article touches on another reason, with house access they can organize services (house cleaning, dog walking etc.) that require access to the house.

<comment><USER20> Yes, The low liability, ups/usps friendly way to do this is to turn that 7 billion into a bunch of little yellow metal boxes with a key pad. I bet a lot of people who want the convenience would let them screw it to the front of the house or down to the deck

<comment><USER21> They're halfway there. The yellow boxes are in most grocery stores in my area. And there are green ones at Whole Foods.

Considering the USPS won't service individual house mailboxes in some parts of the country anymore (only communal mailbox clusters up to a mile away), what's the difference between getting a package from the USPS lockbox, or the Amazon lockbox which is located at a place I was going anyway?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _To share online access with family and friends, you have to give them a > special code to SMS (yes, text) to unlock the door._

This makes sense - nearly everyone's phone can send an SMS. Having to install an app just to unlock a door is an unnecessary barrier.

<comment><USER23> Except, SMS is incredibly insecure and can be easily spoofed.

<comment><USER24> If someone wants to break into your home they're going to break in through a window/back door, etc. They aren't going to go through the hassle of spoofing your number and generating an entry code when they can wrap their hand in a sweatshirt and punch some glass.

<comment><USER25> It depends surely on what they're after. If they want small electronic goods to sell for drug money then they'll smash a window. If they want identity/banking information so they can still the contents of your bank account(s) then probably the SMS and number spoofing is better for them.

<comment><USER26> If they are that sophisticated, wouldn't they just smash the window take some pictures of the information and steal a TV on the way out?

<comment><USER24> Yeah, exactly, my point was more "if someone wants to break in for anything they're just going to break in." Hell, I had a credit card stolen out of my mailbox and used around town last month.

Breaking into houses doesn't require Oceans 11 technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _I paid a locksmith $100 for a new strike plate..._

I had heard this was true, but now I have seen that there really are people who can't use a screwdriver.

<comment><USER28> It's not a lack of ability it's a lack of confidence with a side of liability. See:

>which was Amazon's recommendation.

Customer support and warranty become a massive pain in the ass if you're not a professional. Amazon will fight tooth and nail not to work with a DIYer because when their lock doesn't latch and someone gets killed in a burglary they don't want to be the only first party with money when the lawyers start going up the links in the chain. Obviously the risk is tiny but with a professional installation they can point fingers at the locksmith and hope the lawyers settle for whatever the locksmith's insurance can provide.

Being a DIYer in this day and age is a massive PITA "because liability"

<comment><USER29> I have no exposure to this sentiment.

Everything I ever want to fix, an enterprising handyman has already made a monetized YouTube video on. All the repairs I've done in the last 4 years have been faster than waiting for a repairman. I use an expert's video and parts I've bought at a nearby hardware or auto parts store.

In the the past I slogged through radiator replacements by looking at a Chilton manual. Now, an expert mechanic has created a step-by-step video with all the gotchas that wouldn't fit in a repai manual. This is the golden age of DIY.

You know they have classes at Home Depot and Lowe's for home repair, right?

<comment><USER30> You're missing the point entirely. It's not about the difficulty in making a change or a repair. It's about liability.

If you hire a locksmith, then you have reason to believe that someone was professionally trained to fix the issue at hand. They may not do it any better nor faster, but their job title implies that they know what they are doing by the book.

A DIYer doesn't have that same set of credentials. You could be better than any locksmith in your town, but you're still considered a hobbyist

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consumerism, but if you got to the point where the business you're buying products from has the key to your house just so you can keep up with deliveries, maybe it's time to reconsider your spending habits.

<comment><USER32> And while you're at it maybe give them your bank account details so that they can just sell you stuff that their AI thinks you want.

<comment><USER33> I do that with a monthly clothing service and it works pretty well, so I guess YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Not in a million years. Now, if the EFF or Mozilla made a remotely accessible digital lock that I could control with interfaces to whomever I want that would be a different story.

<comment><USER35> You could make it yourself with cheap parts and some good engineering wrt power failures etc. (don't make it electric only, real world ain't Star Trek). The electromechanical lock is the most expensive part, but everything else can be done with a *PI like board plus battery and an encrypted network connection. If you don't have a fixed IP or are behind a firewall/NAT you can automate a mail reader on the board to monitor an address for an encrypted message containing a code to unlock the door, shoot a few images using a webcam and mail them back to you, or do other things. Basically anything that can be done by closing a switch a meter away can be also done a half planet away through the Internet.

<comment><USER27> Actually the mechanism could be totally mechanical. You just want a compartment with a delivery door and a trap door, which aren't both open at the same time. See that in action at any big blue USPS mailbox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why not just sell a lockbox that you can put on your front porch? Seems like an easier solution.

<comment><USER37> Amazon isn't concerned with what customers want but what is fastest for their deliveries. If they use the same app to open the door, and mark as delivered, then a lockbox would increase the time per delivery.

Is there a delivery person for Amazon who can comment on this?

<comment><USER38> Why would it be harder to place an item behind a locked lid to a box than a locked door to a house? If anything the box should be faster; if it were a smart device it could easily be programmed to be unlocked or even ajar any time it is empty.

<comment><USER37> I read, "a lockbox that you can put on your front porch," as a realtor-style lockbox that holds a key to the house and needs a pin entered to get the key. For what you wrote, it likely wouldn't have the same slowdown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is there a really need for this type of product? With the choice of either collecting your parcel from a delivery office or the multitude of delivery lockers that are popping up everywhere is this a problem that needs solving? Perhaps someone could help me to understand if there are particular scenarios where this would be beneficial to allow this form of parcel delivery.

<comment><USER40> There is a huge convenience to getting your packages at your door rather than having them shipped to a separate location. For a household with kids, we are getting several deliveries a week. Things like diapers, wipes, food, etc. I'm already used to just opening the door and picking them up, so driving somewhere to get them really defeats the point of ordering them online. I might as well just drive to Target instead.

<comment><USER41> I would rather buy a box with a lock on it that I can keep outside my front door than let strangers (and Amazon) into my house.

<comment><USER10> This is an odd but apparently widespread phobia.

Do you not have a housekeeper, or a landscaper, or dog walker, or anyone else who goes into your house when you're not there? It's pretty common for service personnel to be in a house doing stuff.

<comment><USER42> A person or group of people that I've met personally and don't change often is much different than letting a random low-paid employee/contractor into your house.

<comment><USER43> I'm guessing tho that lots of people don't have people they've met personally. In fact, that seems like it would be pretty strong evidence of some kind of illegal activity, e.g. employment tax evasion. I'd guess a good number of people use a service that might sometimes, e.g. send someone other than the regular person.

[I'm unsure why a landscaper would need to enter your home or apartment or whatever.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Even though it claims to be critical, it is not that critical. I almost felt that I'm reading an advertisement for an amazon product

<comment><USER45> Probably because WaPo is owned by Amazon/Bezos

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I watch accounts get popped all the time in cloud providers. Is it a good idea to bridge such risks to your home physical security?

<comment><USER47> I watch windows get popped all the time on physical houses. Is it a good idea to build windows into your house?

<comment><USER48> When a window gets broken, you at least know someone was (or still is) there.

<comment><USER49> That is not a strong counter-argument. Causing damage is not inherent to getting unauthorized entry into a house. A skilled lock-picker can open many locks without destroying them.

<comment><USER50> The crazy thing is, very few B&Es are done via picking the lock, even though it's not a difficult skill. It's easier and faster to just hit the window with a rock, grab some stuff, and run.

There is a public perception of these super-smart techno hackers that crack all of these damn gizmos and rob you blind, but the reality is that most all B&E is done by dumbass drug addicts who barely make anything on a haul and get caught quickly. Even the more sophisticated ones use basically the same tactics but also make sure to move to a different county every couple of houses to avoid sitting in a jurisdiction for too long.

It's a high risk low reward game. Only the most desperate play it. Someone smart enough to hack the system is smart enough to have many better ways of making money. Even if someone sells a kit for dummies to do this it's still more work than picking up a rock.

<comment><USER51> > It's easier and faster to just hit the window with a rock, grab some stuff, > and run

Or put a quick kick to the door. The idea that a hollow door with a inch of metal hanging onto the frame is going to stop someone is laughable. Most homes aren't secure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I just don't understand why you'd put one of these _on your house_ rather than a garage, outhouse, box. Or get things delivered to work or to a neighbour. There are some cases where this isn't possible but I think you could spend the same money on a solution that doesn't grant access to your whole house, even using the smart lock. Additionally, this seems to create a commonly accepted situation where anyone who looks like a delivery driver can have a go at a front door without anyone batting an eyelid.

It seems like there's nothin people won't give up for Amazon. We'll have the Amazon "Cold and Flu Check" next where you have to photograph yourself naked and upload the images to S3.

</comment><comment><USER53> I've thought about this service and what I could do moving forward for better security. A front door airlock came to mind; front Amazon Keyed door that leads to an alcove that is in front of another locked door. Big enough for packages and maybe a couple adults. Unsure if the effort would be worth it however. Just a thought game.

<comment><USER54> As far as security goes, a problem with "airlocks" is similar to a problem with attached garages: It's easier to get into them than directly into the house, and once you are in them, they can provide cover for a more concerted effort to get into the house. An Amazon-Key-like system may mitigate the risk, of course, assuming that the users of the app are properly vetted and that attackers are deterred by cameras.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I just use the Amazon Locker service. There's a set of Amazon Lockers at a convenience store I pass by on my way home from work. Super easy to use and I never have to worry about packages being stolen.

The only downside is that large packages or items from 3rd party sellers can't be shipped to a locker.

<comment><USER56> I use a smart home security system (AT&T Digital Life). Not without its flaws, and not automated but I can, as soon as I see tracking info in Amazon (or wherever) update delivery instructions with a one time door lock code for their drivers. This works with UPS, USPS, FedEx, whomever. When my company shipped me a fully loaded iMac and Cinema screen, while I was 100 miles away, this was perfect. I got a notification on my phone that the door was opened, I could see how long they were inside, and could verify that it was locked after.

<comment><USER57> Not bad!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> > They don't recommend Key if you have pet, and won't come in if they hear > barking.

Two beagles means this is a non-starter for my household, as they immediately will bark if a stranger approaches the driveway.

<comment><USER59> About 56% of US households had pets in 2011.

That's a huge chunk of customers they're missing out on.

<comment><USER60> I get the feeling that Amazon is indifferent to "missing out". The approach is to throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks.

Think of Amazon Key as your average tech startup that has Amazon branding.

<comment><USER58> See what sticks, iterate and improve.

For those with pets, get your own Amazon Locker installed on your porch...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Amazon's end goal is that any consumer purchase you make happens as follows: you say (think?) "hey Alexa I want $ITEM" - anywhere you are - and a few hours later at most, $ITEM is in your house, perhaps even in your fridge if applicable. Maybe Amazon didn't make $ITEM, maybe they don't employ the truck driver/make the drone who drops it off, but they're the ones getting your money.

They're doing extremely well at it so far, but it's kind of terrifying that such a capitalism singularity is plausible.

An HN commenter a while back made the parallel between Amazon and Weyland- Yutani from Alien, which is quite apt.

</comment><comment><USER62> Does anyone know how people are supposed to use these if they have a home alarm? This obviously won't work if your alarm is armed, unless you give Amazon your alarm code.

I've asked a few friends who have an alarm system and they said they would not give out the code if it's going to be passed along to delivery people (who could break into the house later and then disable the alarm).

But I guess not enough people have alarms for Amazon to be worried about this? Or perhaps this is aimed more at urban apartment-dwellers, who are less likely to have security systems?

</comment><comment><USER63> The vendor and ecosystem walled garden lock-in is getting utterly insane. I kind of blame Apple for starting this. They were so successful that other tech companies realized they had to do it too.

</comment><comment><USER64> > The bad news is Amazon missed four of my in-home deliveries and charged me > (on top of a Prime membership) for gear that occasionally jammed and makes > it awkward to _share my own door with people, apps, services — and, of > course, retailers — other than Amazon._

I don't understand this. Are there any APIs for Amazon key which will allow other people/apps to use the key? If yes, how do the damages work?

<comment><USER65> I'm assuming you could use the SMS codes. At the homeowner's responsibility, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> >The Amazon Cloud Cam live streams and archives deliveries with Amazon Key

Are they absolutely crazy? The camera obviously needs to be operated independently from Amazon, being able to be remotely switched on or off by the very people it's supposed to watch completely defeats its purpose.

</comment><comment><USER67> Anyone else find the whole setup strikingly similar to HAL-9000's role in _2001: A Space Odyssey_? The article, too, presented the author with the same issue _Dave_ experienced, when HAL wouldn't open the pod bay doors [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE)

HAL's decision was a conscious one, but I find it rather interesting a 1960s-Kubrick (& Arthur C. Clarke) could predict the casual use of multiple _currently_ -cutting-edge devices, and incorporate them into the story: \- One being HAL's resemblance to a new amazon smart-home, at least in general purpose functionally, plus the vibe of sentience and omnipresence \- Another prediction being realtime face-to-face chat as shown in one scene, which would [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwo6JpMceg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwo6JpMceg)

Naturally this makes me wonder if artificial consciousness is possible or not (be it X years/decades/centuries into the future), what fundamental questions it may answer, and what consequences it may have. I am not necessarily referring to the consequences of recursively self-improving super- intelligence, but not excluding it either I suppose. I am referring to true consciousness, with human-level feelings and emotions, where the personality may have an effect on what it does rather than simply and emotionlessly taking the logical (or programmed) route every time.

Creation of artificial consciousness may be many steps away from trying to undertake; however, given the ever-accelerating rate of both digital-tech and neuroscience, _if_ true consciousness is at all possible to program, it will likely come far sooner than expected. It's bound to also answer a lot of questions about our ontological understanding of our own perception in/of realities.

In any case, by the grace of God and Elon Musk, let's hope we can avoid a Hollywood catastrophe in the upcoming rise of AI in general through the end of time as far as collective consciousness is concerned.

</comment><comment><USER68> In most of Europe AFAIK deliveries are never left at the door, and the deliveryperson calls you shortly before stopping to check that you are at home. In this scenario if I owned a smartlock I could just open the door remotely for them, no need to buy their lock and app.

<comment><USER69> Please be more specific than "most of europe". As you are talking out of experience, you can just say where that happened. At least in Germany no delivery person will call me to check whether I am home.

<comment><USER70> I'm in Serbia and deliverymen always call. There are multiple private courier services, having gotten to know a lot of the drivers they'll sometimes bring me the package to a different location if I'm not home but reasonably close. Online purchases here are mostly paid at point of delivery, in cash if one wishes. So the delivery driver also handles the payment. Hence, they can take some liberties with delivery since the goods haven't been payed for in advance.

The cash on delivery and flexibility of couriers is one of the few services that work quite well here, compared to some more developed countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is not about making it easier to get deliveries. When an Amazon delivery doesn't work out, they refund you. This is about reducing Amazon's costs. Don't do it. As long as we all don't do it, Amazon will credit us when deliveries fail.

<comment><USER72> This makes no sense as a cost reduction. Amazon drivers in my area don't even come to my door. Let alone knock. With this they want their drivers to: 1\. Come to door 2\. Knock 3\. Wait a moment for response 4\. Unlock door with app 5\. Open Door 6\. Drop package 7\. Close and lock door

Delivery has turned into minimizing every excess second. I wager within a few months most of these amazon keys will be ignored as they leave packages on the driveway. I wouldn't buy this unless it comes with a guarantee it will be used.

<comment><USER18> It does make sense for cost reduction because they are liable if they lose the package

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> TL;DR - expect vendor lock-in when a vendor puts your lock in.

> The Key-compatible locks are made by Yale and Kwikset, yet don't work with > those brands' own apps. They also can't connect with a home-security system > or smart-home gadgets that work with Apple and Google software.

> And, of course, the lock can't be accessed by businesses other than Amazon. > No Walmart, no UPS, no local dog-walking company.

</comment><comment><USER74> Amazon practices have become more and more shady and fraud riddled. Just today I found out I was charged for Amazon Cloud Drive that I never authorized for 2 years and they only reversed the charge for the most recent year. I never agreed nor made any consent to signing up to the enlarged storage service. I was never notified my subscription was renewed nor was I aware I was charged through any email.

They absolutely refused to refund me for a purchase I never authorized! How corrupted is that?

</comment><comment><USER75> Is package theft such a widespread problem? I've never had a package stolen from me. I've lived in apartment buildings, single/two-family houses and that never happened to me.

</comment><comment><USER76> No such thing as bad publicity?

Probably lots of people didn't about Amazon Key. Read the scary headline expecting burglary or orgy in the bedroom only to learn nothing all that terrible happened. A few delivery windows got missed. A lock didn't work at some point. With numerous positive things sprinkled in, and things that are coming. Oh but the author doesn't like that. "Who cares?" you are supposed to say. "Packages get delayed all the time! Sign me up".

</comment><comment><USER77> i prefer undelivery, aka leaving it in the closest depot in the same city or town for the recipient to pick at their convenience, for example amazon lockers.

<comment><USER78> so, like a store. I think that the reason I use Amazon is for the shipping convenience.

<comment><USER79> More like how Sears used to work but with more locations so you don't have to go (as far) out of your way on your commute from work. You order stuff from a vast catalog (Amazon website) and then when it's available you go pick it up. The advantage is the selection of goods and that you don't have to actually do the shopping. No hunting through aisles and such, just in and out.

<comment><USER80> Like the way Walmart works?

<comment><USER81> No. This is how major retail stores do these days... Maycs' Best Buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Not sure that any of this crap is needed in the suburbs. Just have a smart- locked container and refrigerator outside your front door.

<comment><USER83> Don't even need the smart-locked container or refrigerator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Alright, here's my idea: Amazon Locker Personal. Same principle as an Amazon Locker, but it's a single locker and you put it outside your house. Such things already exist, the only difference is that this one would be locked all the time and only the delivery person would be able to unlock it.

<comment><USER85> So a box with a unlocked padlock on it?

<comment><USER84> No. Do you know how an Amazon Locker works?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> All the anti-Amazon Key articles mention the "service" costing $250.

I must not be seeing it all.

You get an indoor security camera, and a smart deadbolt for $250, right?

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====

 _I paid a locksmith $100 for a new strike plate, which was Amazon's recommendation._

LOL!

</comment><comment><USER87> Somewhat off-topic, but is anybody using an external security webcam for their home that they'd recommend? Every review I've read seems to have very conflicting opinions. What's good? Ring? Arlo? Nest? Home-Grown w/ Raspberry Pi?

<comment><USER88> Personally I threw up some Samsung wired cams and am happy. Easy to view online and records locally for 3 months or so.

<comment><USER87> Is there a way to view from a mobile device and also receive motion detection alerts?

<comment><USER88> Yup, there's a mobile app and motion detecting alerts (with defined areas).

<comment><USER87> Thanks for the info

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Why anyone would ever do this is beyond me. Same with Alexa-like devices.

</comment><comment><USER90> Maybe [https://mailhaven.co/](https://mailhaven.co/) is an alternative for you. It's a mailbox for packages basically.

</comment><comment><USER91> This is just the plight of an early adopter. Eventually, the idea will develop into something generic without vendor-lock-in, and something reliable.

</comment><comment><USER92> How in earth people can trust multibillion companies ?? They Loe, cheat, violate privacy and you cannot prevent it.

Please, people don't mess your home security !!

<comment><USER93> Digital security is long dead so just dont use smart- _anything_ if you aren't ok with it being pwned

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> tl;dr: Amazon wants to be the Facebook of your home. Decide who and on what terms can access your data. Physical data. Trusted Amazon partners will have an advantage. Others will be excluded.

Actually I think this is not as bad as Facebook, because it's much less abstract and average Joes can wrap their head around it, and I think benefits are not as seductive as in FB's case. So I expect Amazon Key to fail.

</comment><comment><USER94> Anyone have recommendations for a good keyless lock? Seems the one Amazon uses has bad reviews on Amazon.

<comment><USER95> If you want to use Amazon Key (what this article is about) then I think the only lock you can use is this specific one. Any other keyless lock system won't work from Amazon deliveries like this (at least as far as I can tell)

<comment><USER96> I explicitly don't want to use Amazon Key, but would like a keyless lock as keyed locks are basically a _minor inconvenience_ for even an amateur lock picker, but a 5 key pin would take days or weeks to brute force.

Looks like a Schlage Touch might be the best option out there. Numeric keypad, no key hole, and has no radio connectivity of any kind to be tampered with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Amazon is my store of last resort. I prefer to support local businesses even when they charge more.

</comment><comment><USER98> I think it's such crap. Who care's if they stole or broke something under the radar?

</comment><comment><USER99> Regret nothing. You are simply idiot :D

</comment><comment><USER100> why not just have 2 doors with some space in between for deliveries :p

<comment> ng-user I think the term you're looking for is a 'vestibule'

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> clickbait title about nothingburger

</comment><comment><USER102> Washington post did a negative article about Amazon?

<comment><USER103> Controlled opposition, to be exact

<comment><USER104> Yeah, don't expect any articles about how this company upends and ends up virtually owning almost every industry it enters, making the Rockefellers and Carnegies of yester-century red with envy, and how it won't stop any time soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> Hard to believe that people really mess with they home security like this.. haha

</comment><comment><USER106> The longer-term solutions to home delivery are refrigerated and non- refrigerated storage pods with universal app access. These can either be built into a house / garage or be free-standing. This reduces the risks of having delivery people enter your home, which is a bad idea.

Also, in general, in tort-happy America, delivery people and other field workers should always wear bodycams to prove they were in the right because random people can and do make up convincing stories to file lawsuit$.

<comment><USER107> Kind of like old houses with milk and coal delivery hatches?</comment></comment>


How To use Dropbox to organize your startup's documents - <AUTHOR> http://blog.revenueloan.com/2011/02/07/howto-use-dropbox-to-organize-your-startups-documents/

<comment><USER2> I organize Dropbox based on access and make folders for each:

Dropbox > MyStartup > Interns (Shared)

Dropbox > MyStartup > Management (Shared)

Dropbox > MyStartup > Entire Team (Shared)

Dropbox > MyStartup > secret_takeover_plans.doc (Not Shared)

Dropbox > MyStartup > Code (Not Shared, Addition to Git)

Dropbox > Personal Stuff

</comment><comment><USER3> Love me some organized files. We use Google Docs when we need to collaboratively edit a document, but the finalized versions are all stored in Dropbox.

      Startup\ (Shared with all employees)
         Competitors\
         Contacts\ (folders for people/companies, better in a CRM at some point)
         Customers\
         Dev\
             Concepts\ (mockups)
                 Web\
                 iPhone\
                 Android\
             Specs\
         Graphics\ (logo, frequently used images)
         Marketing\
         Presentations\
         Press\
         Reference\
         Research\
         Unfiled\
         Whiteboards_and_Ideas\ (photos of whiteboarding/brainstorming)

      Startup-Confidential\ (Shared with those who need to know)
         Legal\
             Agreements-Executed\
                 (Folders by name of person/organization)\
                     (Agreements signed by this person/organization and us)
             Corporate_Records\
                 Master_Record_Book\
                     (Sequentially labeled, signed finalized documents
                     from the corporate record book)
                 YYYY-MM-DD_<Company-Event-Description>\
                     (Draft documents/revisions for each major legal event like
                     formation, board actions, hiring)
             Employee_Records\
                 (Folders by name of employee)\
                     Important employee files, agreements
             Forms
                 Template legal documents
         Finances\

      Startup\Interns\ (Shared with interns)

      Startup-Working\ (for me)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice, bonus points for using the YYYYMMDD date form in your folder names -- free lexical sort!! (We do likewise with suffix notation, mainly because the more common use case for us is to to first sort by "event description" then by date.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm one of the people that works in RevenueLoan's DropBox structure, and I have to say that it has saved my butt a number of times.

I work on a laptop, and largely work remotely, so the obvious benefit of being able to access the latest files all the time is tremendous. (I use GoogleDocs with another organization I am a part of, and the DropBox interface and user experience is superior in every regard. Especially with my non-technical compatriots!)

I also have Growl notifications turned on for DropBox, so I can see the activity that is happening within the company even if I am not in the office that day. This is a surprising benefit.

And finally, having naming conventions (like the YYYYMMDD format) that we rigidly adhere to, ensures that I can find anything anywhere: The folder hierarchy is clear and concise, the file names are standardized across all folders, Etc.

All of this increases efficiency, and just has to have saved me all kinds of time... and that is one thing every startup company in the world could use more of!

</comment><comment><USER5> you might want to dig deeper into the dropbox encryption and security methodologies before putting valuable information up there if you haven't already.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed; for better or worse, though, a lot of what we get comes in unencrypted email. (This includes legal documents from prestigious law firms, etc., whose practices we are unlikely to be able to influence.)

Hence, we practice "no-worse-than" security. And if we originate a secret, and want it to remain so, we encrypt it using strong encryption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Alternatively, you could set up a private git repo, and use ssh keys to control access with gitolite or similar...

I tend to think that Dropbox is only useful for people who can't figure out version control, but that's probably my own bias.

<comment><USER7> Or for people who want to share binary files, or for people who like drag-and- drop interfaces, or for people who don't want to spend a bunch of time learning about secure shared repo setup. In other words, for people who Just Want To Share A Damn Folder. Like my thesis advisor, my artist friends, and _me_ , a loyal git user.

<comment><USER8> I find google doc better for sharing docs, you can edit them online anywhere and also upload any kind of files now though I never do.

<comment><USER7> Doesn't work at all if the source material is in LaTeX, or anything more complicated than RTF really.

<comment><USER8> You can still upload LaTeX docs to google docs and edit them with your own editor or use <http://code.google.com/p/latex-lab/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have been doing this! However – we are still just two founders, so we haven't expanded beyond the 2gb freebie.

Though I use the following structure:

NEWCO: \- DOCS – then dirs Doc, XLS, PDF, NDA, PPT, Legal, Research

\- GRAPHICS – All graphic collateral .vsd, .psd, .svg etc.

\- IMAGES – Output of graphics files, .png, .jpg

\- SITE – All HTML pages created.

Outside of this, I make my Eclipse Workspace in my dropbox folder as well. Then any machine I open eclipse on, everything is as I left it.

—*NOTE: this i proving weird as the Android SDK installs a TON of stuff in the folder. I am still figuring out the best way to do this.</comment>


Ask HN: I've got an "algorithm-centric" interview soon and no CS degree. Help? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I've been working at a well-known firm for about two years as a software dev. However, I just received a interview for an even better shop, Google. In the interview coming up, there are supposedly a lot of questions about algorithms an data structures, etc. I know enough to hold my own as your average developer, but I've never had a full course in this stuff. I used to be a physicist, so I'm good with math, but I'm really nervous about trying to beef up with so little time, a couple of weeks. Any ideas for someone like myself to get a crash course in this stuff?
Thanks for any help! <comment><USER2> Not to be judgemental, but perhaps you should ask yourself whether you'll be happy with (and able to perform the duties of) a job that you crammed for to pass the interview loop. Sounds like you may end up getting in over your head.

That being said, internalizing the following is a good place to start:

      basic tree (or more generally graph) algorithms and structures

      sort algorithms

      recursion

      principles of OOP

      probability

      memory manipulation

      stack/heap principles

There's a bunch more, but that sort of stuff comes up often in interviews. The main point, however, is that you need to internalize it. Just reading about it, you won't be able to really apply it in a high pressure situation like an interview loop.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a fair criticism indeed. I'm counting on being as honest with them, saying that I don't have a really strong background but I can grok the principles very easily. I'm fortunate enough to be able to understand this stuff but unfortunate in that I chose the wrong major :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just about the only thing you need to know - careercup.com. No I'm not spamming, that has questions from all sorts of companies, Google included. Not as a way to memorize answers, just to let you know & help get you up on, the kind of things you'll get asked.

Here's another good post on the whole thing, the comments are good, too:

[http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at- goog...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-google.html)

He's verbose, but skip to where he's talking about what you're after.</comment>


Summary of "Must Read" articles for starting entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://tappen.posterous.com/nice-summary-stanleytang-256-must-read-conten

<comment><USER2> This is an impressive list of articles, and includes some of the best articles I have read on these topics. However, seeing so many of these articles in one place made me think two seditious thoughts: (1) Larry and Sergey didn't need a single one of these articles to start Google, and (2) if everyone else reads and acts according to these articles, you should probably do the opposite. Just as generals fight the last war, advice articles seems determined to duplicate the last success. If you want the next out-of-left-field success, you need to be where no one else is even thinking to look.

EDIT: Yes, I realize I've just added another advice article to the pile.

<comment><USER3> Here's a counter seditious thought ;-)

Everyone spotlights the biggest success stories (in your case Google) and tries to exrapolate what the average should do to be like them.

However, the average case won't be like the outliers _regardless of what methodological is followed_ , and maximizing the profit for the average startup is likely wildly different from maximizing the profit of the outliers.

Secondly, Google acted like an average startup--seeking funding, seeking sale to Microsoft, Yahoo, et all---until they stumbled upon their disruptive technology: ads.

So unless your startup is likely to revolutionize the industry its good advice to follow proven techniques for profit making.

<comment><USER4> Failing that, you should know what others have done before you lest you repeat the same mistakes.

After fifty startups find out something doesn't work, should the fiftyfirst really try doing it?

<comment><USER5> Sometimes, I'd venture, that is exactly what makes the fifty first succesful.

There are guidelines to what you should do, and what you shouldn't do, but _every case is different_. Clearly, there are things that you aren't likely to ever want to do (rm -rf /), but there are plenty of instances in which a company didn't succeed doing x, and then a later company succeeded in doing exactly x. Whether it was due to a difference in the timing, or a difference in the market, or that something else within the company made x work differently for them than their predecessors, who knows.

Admittedly I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I feel like not enough focus is given to learning from these sorts of guides vs just blindly following them as a business plan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As others have pointed out, the term "must read" is often times thrown around very loosely. I'd probably be more satisfied with this if it were labeled "256 Articles for Starting Entrepreneurs That Might Help You Out" but that just isn't as catchy. The 'summary' part also threw me for a loop, as there aren't any summaries.

That being said, it's a fairly comprehensive list that does hold a lot of merit.

</comment><comment><USER7> I found Eric Ries to be remarkably underrepresented on this list. I've assembled a list of some of his best presentations and related work on this bundle: <http://bit.ly/fXzcTQ>

It mostly falls on product strategy, culture, idea, and general startup advice. Mostly product strategy.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unrelated fact: the stock "article" picture at the top is from a Polish article about snap elections and Polish politics circa 2006.

Web copy: <http://www.wprost.pl/ar/86230/Wybory-szeryfa/> (pictured part is on the second page), machine translated: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.wprost.pl/ar/86230/Wybory- szeryfa/&prev=hp)

</comment><comment><USER9> How much "must read" articles, books, blogs do we've to read in order to be successful?. I don't think it's bad to read an article or so once in a while, but there is no "must read" list.

</comment><comment><USER10> This doesn't really seem like an abridged version of a month's worth of reading...

If you get enough information, of course you can make a good business. The challenging part is condensing that so you can learn the right lessons in a non-geologic timescale.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a case where someone's HN reputaion made the collection a "must read" for me. RoG has done a great job here of knowing what's been posted, more than "finding dupes" and adding to the conversation. I look forward to checking out the list.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's very kind of you to say so, but in the interests of full disclosure I must declare that I've had no hand in creating this list. I've read several of the linked articles and found the general quality to be high (by my standards, for my rather limited context) and so thought I'd share it.

I even suspect it was posted here some time ago, but was ignored. I found it in my "Great Articles" experiment that I'm starting to review that to see if I can turn it into a more generally useful tool.

ADDED IN EDIT: Yes, thought so, here it is: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1753144>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> None of these are "Must Read"

</comment><comment><USER13> Probably the best advice is to learn to write compelling titles like "Must Read articles for Starting Entrepreneurs" vs. "The links on HN I've upvoted in the last year"

</comment><comment><USER14> useful != "Must Read"

<comment><USER15> Despite your downvote, I agree with this.

Two things came to my mind when I landed on the page with links to 256 articles.

1) this isn't a "summary" of articles this is a "list of" articles. There's no time savings to be had by going through this list. In my opinion, it would be a wonderful & time saving "summary" if the article author read the article, and listed the key points contained within. As far as I can tell, the author of the list could just as easily have included the articles based on "has catchy title & contains a significant amount of text" How much repetition & Overlap? Which leads into my _second_ thought upon landing on this page:

2) "Analysis Paralysis" - in the quest to become and entrepreneur one may very well get caught up on preparing to make that leap. There are numerous ways to do that, and the time spent reading those articles (256 articles * 10 minutes = 42 hours) could very well be better spent _actually doing something_

Anyways, I'm sure there are those that disagree with me (as evidenced by the down-vote you received). I certainly didn't evaluate the quality of the articles and maybe they're truly amazing, but I agree, this list isn't "MUST READ".

It looks like it's probably a quality list, but not "must read" or "a summary of"

EDIT: What I'd really love to see is an article entitled "What I've learned from reading all 256 'Must Read' articles" (don't leave out watching each of the videos linked up in full. That's at least 10 hours of TED talks)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to Get unaddicted to YouTube? - <AUTHOR> I track my website usage, and I typically end up around 60-75+% devoted to youtube whenever I check. I think with my phone, it's probably a lot more. Ideally, I'd like to stop completely because that's a lot of time I am devoting to purely bs. There's some videos I watch for "learning", but it's more of a passive learning if anything. The rest is devoted to podcasts and random clips. <comment><USER2> block youtube on all your networks / devices. it's liberating to do that with sites you feel suck up to many of your time.

going another route, you might want to be more mindfull of what you spend your time on in general. if it's a surprise to you that you do X for an Y amount of time, then it seems you are not aware of your own schedule?

it is OK and a good idea to make a schedule for your own time, to manage it better / spend your time on what you want instead of what you do out of habit.

If you want to stop completely and are certain, just implement option 1, its easy and will make sure you can't watch it anymore. ([https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/how-to-block- any-...](https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/how-to-block-any-website- on-your-computer-phone-or-network-588357) this might help to sort it out on your devices if u don't know how yet.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea I've blocked via the hosts file. And it's a little difficult because I just undo the configuration.</comment></comment>


EM Drive tested by NASA might be warp drive - <AUTHOR> http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1858

<comment><AUTHOR> Main chart: [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;t...](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=825622;image)

Measured interferometry data show light traveling significantly farther through the EM Drive chamber than expected. Air currents (test setup was _not_ evacuated) do not seem to explain. Test to be repeated this summer in vacuum.

Reddit discussion: [http://redd.it/33dqdc](http://redd.it/33dqdc)

</comment><comment><USER2> Can you link us to a specific post in that thread?</comment>