Peergos Alpha – A decentralized file storage and communication network - <AUTHOR> https://peergos.org/blog#alpha_release_june_2019_ <comment><USER2> Trying out the demo, got this warning:

> I understand that passwords cannot be reset or recovered - if I forget my > password, then I will lose access to my account and all my data

Shame, cause P2P password resets are totally possible these days, see my tweets on this with Brendan Eich: [https://twitter.com/marknadal/status/1131258225095991296](https://twitter.com/marknadal/status/1131258225095991296)

Also, I just got:

> Error: User already exists!

How is this decentralized then? Unless it is using a blockchain to register usernames, then there has to be a master server that "decides" whose username is taken.

Or worse: It is decentralized, but not offline-first (what happens if I register without internet access)? What is the point of being P2P/decentralized if I need to be connected to a peer?

> Creating filesystem

Is really slow! Is this IPFS?

Small actions, like "send friend request" takes ~5seconds. Have you guys tried using something faster? There is a P2P version of Reddit ( [https://notabug.io/](https://notabug.io/) ) and he's done a ton of optimizations to make things instant, probably require switching p2p protocols though.

Overall, it worked! That is saying a lot in the blockchain/decentralized world. So this should actually be viewed as a huge success. Congrats!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Mark,

Thanks for your feedback.

We do hope to use shamir secret sharing among your friends to allow password recovery in the future, but that's strictly less secure (your friend's can collude against you) and would be optional.

There is a centralised pki to ensure unique usernames (eventually it could be made into a blockchain - it's already an append only merkle-tree in ipfs, but this is an alpha). This is a UX tradeoff. Peergos is designed to be used by people who can use facebook - they should never need to see a hash or manage their keys. Once you have signed up and claimed your username you only need to interact with your storage node (and those of your friends for social stuff) unless you need to lookup a new friend who's recently signed up.

Some things are slow yes, we have a lot of optimisation to do, but wanted to start getting feedback.

<comment><USER3> The idea of enforcing unique usernames kinda sucks, and so does trying to add people to a contact list by searching for and entering usernames.

This is, of course, how it's always been done. But need it be?

If you're bootstrapping off of your existing Twitter/Facebook/Whatever I would assume Oauth could get you the ability to discover friends on the network without ever having a "username" to enter.

If you're making a new friend on the spot it's a QR code or Bluetooth or Ultrasonic handshake between the devices?

If you're making a new friend online I'd rather send them a peergos://<base56>/invite via SMS or Email or whatever other chat program we're using. Tap and it should app switch right over to a screen showing their contact info with the "Friend" or "Add" button right there.

iOS will convert a webpage link into a preview of the page. I wonder if you could use that functionality to make sharing an invite link via SMS on iOS preview the actual contact page. I don't know if iOS will let installed third party apps provide a preview bubble for link/protocols they've registered to handle.

OT: Shouldn't the name just be PeerGo? Or really, Peer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the [https://peergos.org/features](https://peergos.org/features) page we can read:

"Alternatively you can pay another provider to store your data (they won't be able to read your files). Currently, we have a small central server which stores usernames and public key"

So IPFS is useful to eventually have your data copied to other nodes, but you need centralized servers for basically all reliable operations?

<comment><AUTHOR> The only thing that is currently logically centralised is the pki server. And that is only to guarantee unique usernames during sign-up, and its data is mirrored on other nodes.

You can self host, and then your own node is responsible for storing your data (which could be a machine in your house, or eventually maybe even your phone).

<comment><USER5> Why use a centralized server to guarantee unique usernames instead of using a public key as a username?, potentially with a friendly alias?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a UX tradeoff. People are used to services having unique usernames for everyone which they can use to look friends up. No one wants to say oh just add me on X I'm Qmeufhj32f84hfnejcn438f. Or Add me on X I'm one of the 100 people with real name Bob. Long term it doesn't need to be physically centralized and would make a good candidate for a blockchain with consensus. It's already an append only merkle-tree which is mirrored in other nodes for privacy of public key look ups.

The other effect it has is it allows us to have a global filesystem with all the semantics people are used to from filesystems with human readable paths of the form /$username/$path_in_users_space

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are binaries / programmatic access available?

I've been writing a knowledge repository and was debating using IPFS to distribute encrypted files. However Peergos is interesting for the same reason. To toy around with the alpha I'd like to experiment with integrating the sharing model with my project.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are distributing releases through Peergos itself: [https://alpha.peergos.net/public/peergos/releases](https://alpha.peergos.net/public/peergos/releases)

The rest api is quite simple, and mostly a subset of the IPFS rest api. The complexity is mostly client side. We have a Java client, which we cross compile to JS for the browser.

If you're mainly interested in the access control mechanism it is a simplification of cryptree: [https://github.com/Peergos/Peergos/tree/master/papers](https://github.com/Peergos/Peergos/tree/master/papers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tried to sign up, but just got `(TypeError) : Cannot read property 'dhtClient' of null` on submitting the form. Chrome 74 on Linux. All blockers off/tried in incognito.

<comment><AUTHOR> We think we've just figured out the cause, and deployed a fix. Are you able to sign up now? You may need to CTRL+F5 force refresh.

Blockers shouldn't matter because we don't have any third party hosted content, not even fonts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Another one? These are all subject to network effects. consider them contractions on the way to the birth of the successor to the web.

<comment><USER6> > These are all subject to network effects.

Can you describe in more detail the issue? Would love to hear critical thoughts on this project, as I'm interested, but wary.

<comment><USER8> It's just the chicken-and-egg problem - how do you get enough people using it for it to be a real resource, vs another OK-but-not-outstanding platform that has a few dedicated users but too shallow a community?

I'm a bit cranky about it because I have watched a bunch of projects like this bud and then fail to develop even though they were/all very worthy in their way.

<comment><USER6> Ah hah, appreciate the depth. I misunderstood your comment and thought you meant it was vulnerable to some type of network attack haha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sign up is broken. It didn't finished, but now shows user taken. Would love to try login in, but can't find the login screen.

<comment><AUTHOR> The login url is [https://alpha.peergos.net](https://alpha.peergos.net)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a little confused what the use case is for this. Can someone elaborate?

<comment><USER11> Right now, we have a consumer, provider model of the internet. The internet in the 90s was very different, and looked much more peer-to-peer.

The higher level sharing and storage that we have now through services such as Facebook, Instagram, Dropbox, etc, could have been built in a peer-to-peer way, on top of things like Peergos.

I do not think that Peergos will necessarily be the exact technology that a new, decentralized version of internet technologies will be built on, but we are building the infrastructure and knowledge needed to be ready for power and economics shifts online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Amazing! How it works?

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a talk introducing the architecture here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h54pShffxvI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h54pShffxvI)

TLDR: It's a cryptographic capability based global filesystem with a focus on privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How does this compare to IPFS and the DAT project?

<comment><USER14> It seems like it uses IPFS under-the-hood. So they're essentially handling the end-to-end encryption aspect of it, so that those hosting it via IPFS can't see the data.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, we use IPFS as a datastore using their IPLD merkle tree data structure, and as a p2p networking stack.

Disclaimer: I also work on IPFS

<comment><USER6> On that note, how does this differ from FileCoin? Is it basically a self- hosted NAS on top of IPFS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Congrats guys!!

</comment><comment><USER16> Please use an informative title.

<comment><AUTHOR> How is it now?</comment></comment>


Promises guide from W3C has beautiful ECMAScript 6 programming style - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/promises-guide

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://domenic.me](http://domenic.me)

Editor Domenic Denicola's website</comment>


SCO vs. IBM: 13-year-old Linux dispute returns as SCO files new appeal - <AUTHOR> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2452793/sco-vs-ibm-13-year-old-linux-dispute-returns-as-sco-files-new-appeal <comment><USER2> Wow, I thought this was finally done in February. IBM had done a wait and see. It looked then that SCO had agreed it was also finished. Wonder if the are lurching to life now that Linux apps can run on Windows, they think they can get cash from a new player.

IBM should get the troll-killers from Newegg to call over to SCO.

</comment><comment><USER3> Slightly more reliable source with link to the appeal: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/30/zombie_sco_rises_fro...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/30/zombie_sco_rises_from_the_grave_iagaini/)

<comment><USER4> Better headline also.</comment></comment>


Building Jabber Chat Bots in place of redundant web applications - <AUTHOR> http://ashwinraghav.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/interactive-jabber-bots/ I spoke at a conference recently on building jabber chat bots as interfaces instead of getting end-users to run scripts on their machines. I find it an interesting way to present scripts to non technical users <comment><USER2> This is an interesting solution, but I wonder if it was more novelty-based, than a product of necessity. It's true that the chat bot can be decentralized, running from anyone's laptop, to serve incoming requests. However, so could a web application. Sooner or later, it would have to be run from a dedicated server anyway. As far as maintenance, how is a chat bot wrapping the script any easier to maintain than a web app?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for bringing up the web-app vs chat bot straight away. I did get some questions on these lines during the conference itself. 1) I do not agree that maintaining bots and web apps are the same effort-wise. An IRC can very easily be served of a framework that is event driven in nature -- on the lines of a node.js or eventmachine with barely any additional effort. On the other hand, doing this for a web application would require extensive effort for writing your code the right way and bringing in the right tools like a templating engine. You will build your own framework almost.

2) Since the application is process heavy and take over 45 seconds to serve a request, this would involve extensive tweaking of your forward proxy which in the case of most data centres and clouds will simply respond with a "Service Unavailable" after 30 seconds. Off course you can defer this to a background job and provide the results elsewhere on your application. But like I said, you would be doing things that the user actually does not need.

3) How would you scale up such an operation heavy application if it were a web app. Have 1000 background jobs running for a 1000 users? An event driven approach will pay off for sure. And 1) illustrates why its easier to do this with a bot.

The real disadvantage I came across was to be able to get it to work with a load balancer. I can write about this if there is more interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I almost had a tear in my eye while watching that video. It makes me feel like we're back in the 90s creating IRC bots, but come to think of it, it's a simple and working solution to some problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah well, I guess there is nothing wrong in getting back to an 'old' yet 'proven' solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So is there an easy way to set this up, preferably server-agnostic?

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is the ruby library that I used <https://github.com/ashwinraghav/marvin>. It can help you write a pure ruby application that you can later convert to an event-driven app(If you wish)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i feel this is all essentially what message oriented middleware is.

</comment><comment><USER6> I enjoyed this and quite an inspiring alternative to solving problems.</comment>


Ask HN: I Am Looking for a Mentor - <AUTHOR> Hello HNers,
For past 10 years, I have tried to self learn programming language and web dev, but I could not succeed in learning any langauage. I had tried to abandon this career path, but I always find  some inspiration, and coming back to the same path to learn language. Currently I am learning Python for web dev. I need a mentor who can guide me through.
Please help. <comment><USER2> When you engage into any transaction, you have to gain something and the other person has to gain something. You'll find that very few people are going to be willing to give up their time to help you, and those that do will do it because they feel good giving up some of their time to help somebody who is really trying to learn on their own. So in that situation, you are getting much more than you are giving. If you're looking for somebody to help you out of kindness, which I'm happy to do in certain scenarios, I'd expect that you have:

(a) Shown them some research effort (and are) (b) Are asking very specific question that takes little effort on my part to help you with

I have to be frank with you, asking for a mentor to guide you through the basics is not really a fair thing to ask of anybody. Especially since there are hundreds of people who have given up many hours of their time trying to create learning material that you can use to learn your basics - they are all over the internet (googling learn to code will provide many useful hits). I worry that perhaps your idea of what a mentor should be, is not realistic.

You must take a greater responsibility for yourself. Remember, with enough effort, you can do it! If you need help along the way, there are many places you can go for help - (stackoverflow, discord chats, etc...)

Best of luck on your journey :)

</comment><comment><USER3> No mentor is going to be able to help you based on the information you've provided.

> For past 10 years, I have tried to self learn programming language and web > dev, but I could not succeed in learning any langauage.

Why haven't you been successful? What do you want a mentor to help you with?

> I had tried to abandon this career path, but I always find some inspiration, > and coming back to the same path to learn language. Currently I am learning > Python for web dev. I need a mentor who can guide me through.

Why does your inspiration fade? What kind of guidance do you need?

</comment><comment><USER4> Try taking a class, online or in-person.</comment>


High-Fidelity Digital Music, Tidal, and You - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vlgroup.com/post/117614999108/high-fidelity-digital-music-tidal-and-you

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey all, I did a technical breakdown of high-fidelity audio recently for our company and thought that it might be of interest to hackers. I'm especially interested in ideas & criticisms to lead to a more thorough test methodology for when we revisit this topic in the future. I know I simplified or explained away a lot of complex subjects in digital audio, but otherwise this would have been an even more massive post!

<comment><USER2> It is a good analysis! The null test was surprising, I'm sort of interested how bad the result would be if you went up against something like 192kbit MP3! My music collection is in FLAC and MP3 (256kbit VBR actually), just because MP3 is so widely supported.

Thank you for the interesting read!

<comment><USER3> In my own testing the only thing that stands out in null testing is artifact noise and stuff that's lost in the higher frequencies, i.e. cymbals. The more compressed you go, the more artifact noise introduced and high frequencies lost. As someone who can enjoy classical music (for simplicities sake "classical" and not some other classification), I notice that a bunch of "audiophiles" seem to think that's where their money is going - to increased listening satisfaction of classical - when that tends to be the type of music where least is lost in compression. Music with constant cymbal hits (e.g. rock music with drumkit) seems to lose the most.

Again, my own personal null testing with music spanning various genres in my library.</comment></comment></comment>


ChatSim – unlimited global chat sim card - <AUTHOR> https://www.chatsim.com/how-works <comment><USER2> Looks great for IoT and Texting via gsm modules</comment>


Have you thought about gaming Twitter? - <AUTHOR> http://daslee.me/have-you-thought-about-gaming-twitter <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if you would call it "gaming", but I use twitter to get beta testers for all of my apps. If you have no money for marketing, it can be a great tool to get traction.

The trick is to not act like a spammer and only try to target people that are in the demographic of your app.</comment>


Glazier: a text-based  tool for automated installation of Windows - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/google/glazier <comment><USER2> If the repo's readme says "This is not an official Google product", is it really fair to call it "Google Glazier" in the submission title? Seems a bit murky to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. That's my bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> humorous that Google is facilitating installing Windows.

<comment><USER4> Well not everyone can run Linux. I've worked in many companies where people only know how to use Outlook, Word, and Excel and that was enough to do their job.

I'm just surprised that Google's tool has no GUI. I know things are changing in the Windows world with PowerShell, but stereotypically Windows was always the "there's a GUI for that" OS.

It's rare that I meet a Windows sysadmin who prefers command line to clicking buttons.

<comment><USER5> Presumably this tool is not for Windows sysadmins, it's for Linux/Unix sysadmins who also have to manage some Windows machines...</comment></comment></comment>


Vim tutorial videos - <AUTHOR> http://www.derekwyatt.org/vim/vim-tutorial-videos/

<comment><USER2> I think you should edit the title to "some vim screencasts"

That takes the sensationalism out, and would've kept me from clicking (no interest in vim)

<comment> the-kenny Yeah, the title is misleading and it's intention is to flame... Please change it to something meaningful.

<comment><USER3> I too rolled my eyes until I saw that it was about vim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a typo in the URL.

The correct version should be: <http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/tour/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Touche. Though I said best editor, not best OS. I tried Emacs once, org-mode was a bliss until I realized I had no feeling on my left pinky and realized I was more productive when I used Vim.

You have to admit though, those screencasts are a godsend for Vim newbies. They're excellently produced and lighthearted to boot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hoped it would be an emacs tutorial. Vim is quite obviously the best editor ever, but I already know vim!

<comment><USER6> I used to use vi/vim but one day I stumbled upon Common Lisp and started learning/using emacs because it seemed to be the best ide available for CL. Now I can't imagine living without org-mode, mew, jabber-el, w3m and many other emacs applications.

Isn't emacs more popular among programmers and vi/vim among sysadmins/unix guys?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure, I'm both but I never found a good tutorial on emacs...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For those of us who are largely in the Microsoft world who think VIM doesn't apply to us, I highly suggest using this[1] VIM plugin for Visual Studio.

[1] <http://www.viemu.com>

</comment><comment><USER8> Bummer, I thought it would be an emacs tutorial :-[

</comment><comment><USER9> got the first real contact to vim via these screencasts a few weeks ago (except for the standard i,:wq commands to get around). Amazing editor: powerful and available on any platform; my main problem before was that the later is not true for textmate; now: learn once, use anywhere!

</comment><comment><USER10> i guess vim didn't help you from been making editing mistakes in the title of your post

i'll stick with emacs + vimpulse + textmate.el</comment>


microsoft.com html title - signs of a company in decay? - <AUTHOR>

Microsoft.com's title is: Microsoft Corporation: Software, Smartphones, Online, Games, Cloud Computing, IT Business Technology, Downloads
Apple.com : Apple - Start
google.com just say Google
Even yahoo just say yahoo!
is this a contractor shortchanging microsoft or something graver?
-even oracle.com isnt that sucky: Oracle | Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together <comment><USER2> Having worked at CDnow back in '98-99 and being part of one of the grand front page re-designs, I had to deal with every department (of a company of only about 350 people, mind you) that wanted a piece of the above the fold space.

• Operations wanted order status

• Affiliate marketing wanted a promo

• _Corporate_ affiliate marketing wanted a promo

• The merchandizing people wanted…merch promos

• The bizdev people wanted ads and partner logos.

• Ad nauseam.

Balancing the interests of all these groups, who seemed not even dimly aware that they existed only to the extent that the _whole_ thrived, was difficult. (CDnow was eventually bought by Bertelsmann and turned into a redirect to Amazon, by the way…)

I can imagine similar conversations regarding the content of the Microsoft front page title. And there's probably extensive internal front page title page kremlinology, where employees track the waxing and waning of various business groups by watching what the keeper of the page title deems worth highlighting, and in what order.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have worked for a few years with a company pretending to be many things at the same time. it was a mess of strategy and homepage. each department and each individual wants a piece of the homepage. that meant fecal widgets just showing up anywhere at random. The pathology wasnt restricted to design. It went deeper into the mess of css, html and javascript. And I felt very alone as amongst the very few who had a huge problem with the way it worked. I was kept out of meetings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Comparison of Microsoft to Google and Yahoo is a bit silly based on the fundamental differences in the purpose of their landing pages - i.e. Bing.com : Bing

If you buy into the Apple v Microsoft meme then maybe that comparison is somewhat meaningful. Personally, I don't buy in given their primary organization around B2C and B2B respectively.

It's hardly as if any of this has an effect on sales - and to the degree it does, one would suspect that Microsoft's title would drive more traffic to their site than Apple's or Oracle's - again, Google and Yahoo don't really have a comparable business model.

</comment><comment><USER4> Their title tag isn't terrible. It's highly descriptive of what they do and not repetitive or spammy, albeit a little long. Other brands decided that the branding was enough, while Microsoft wanted to be more descriptive.

If you want ugly corporate title tags, look at the pages for HP/Palm's products. They always seemed amateurish.

TouchPad | Laptop TouchPad | TouchPad Computer

HP Pre3 | Business Smartphone, Business Mobile Phones

Palm USA | Palm Pixi Plus Phone | Features, Details

Palm USA | Palm Pre Phone | Features, Details

(The last one is for their "applications" page.)

<comment><USER5> Yeah but something that long is best left to the meta description, not the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would imagine that the keywords they are using in their title should really be on the relevant pages for their term. I always wondered how all the different sites worked to be honest. All the little domains that Microsoft have never seem to be consistent with their brand either?

I find their websites so detached from each other, the deeper you get into the microsoft site, the more the theme changes.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is quite a subjective area for discussion. I imagine what may seem _wrong_ to some people may be _right_ for Microsoft and their products. Microsoft probably just wants to brand itself in the forefront of these technologies and they have not found a good keyword or phrase that would lump them altogether.

</comment><comment><USER8> A decent SEO idea gone wrong.

It seems they are trying to draw attention to their homepage for searches for Software, Smartphones, etc. when in reality they should be choosing one focus for the homepage, and optimizing category or subpages for various specialities (Cloud Computing, IT Business Technology, etc).

</comment><comment><USER9> Microsoft is no more the destination for any of the skills claimed in the title tag

so they are using SEO for getting on first page on search engines :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe Microsoft is just dumb?

</comment><comment><USER11> Other companies are even worse - The title for Instagram.com is instagr.am</comment>


Bootstrap or Die - Lessons Learned From a Web Startup's Murder/Suicide (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://bootstrappy.blogspot.se/2010/02/bootstrap-or-die-lessons-learned-from.html <comment><USER2> There are a lot of mistakes you can make.

In our case, it was Bootstrap AND die, as we were choked for resources and scope at a pivotal time. My business partner was so obsessed with the idea of bootstrapping, keeping all our equity, and making something for ourselves and not someone else—that we certainly starved from lack of growth. Our development suffered as we moved to also doing sales and marketing (with too few resources); our product suffered as we spent more time doing customer service; and most of all, our lives suffered as we had no time for anything, not even the company we had built.

We surely made other mistakes, but being absolute zealots about bootstrapping was definitely one of them. Be careful of that, even with this advice.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the concept of assigning a motion picture rating to a blog post. "Coming this summer: a mother-fucking lesson about founder equity value."

</comment><comment><USER4> (2010). Also, not about the web framework, but about funding options instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, updated title w/ year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The headline is link bait. That article involved neither murder, nor suicide.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can someone or the OP provide a Tl;Dr; first?

<comment><USER7> Here's what I got out of it:

1: VC interests and founders interests aren't entirely aligned. The VCs want a large return on their investment, fast. What your business needs to do to achieve this isn't necessarily what is best for you as a founder.

2: Don't take VC money unless you're absolutely sure about how you're going to use it to grow your business.

3: The odds that it'll work out in your favor otherwise are incredibly slim.

<comment><USER8> > 2

I could be wrong but shouldn't this almost always be to pay your employees?

<comment><USER9> >> 2: Don't take VC money unless you're absolutely sure about how you're going to use it to grow your business. > I could be wrong but shouldn't this almost always be to pay your employees?

Warning: opinions ahead, proceed with caution...

I think it's easy to equate your employee headcount with growth, but I think this often leads to companies growing their headcount too fast without the preparation necessary to handle that employee growth. I consider this unhealthy growth.

Contrast this with growing your revenue and profit, which I consider healthy growth. If you take funding because you know how you can channel that funding into further revenue and profit, then you've found an excellent reason to take funding. Anything else and you're doing yourself and everyone involved with your business a disservice.

Yes, if you take funding you will likely grow your employee count, but hopefully you'll do so in a precise fashion, with a plan on how those new employees help improve the bottom line of the business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> VC sucks but I wouldn't recommend bootstrapping unless you're wealthy even by HN terms. (You're an angel investor in yourself.)

I lost about $300k (opportunity cost) bootstrapping a startup over almost 3 years. I burned up about $100k of savings (finance jobs before that) and was, at the end of it, about $15k in debt and, psychologically, in a really bad place. (It's actually pretty amazing that I didn't fall harder or sooner, living in NYC on about $3k per month.) Can't recommend that. Oh, and because I was the first to leave (because I literally ran out of money) and eat blame, the CEO refused to let me open-source the work I'd done, out of spite. Two years of what was then cutting-edge Clojure code (that was one awesome thing about the experience, being an early-adopter in Clojure) gone. (Most of it would be out-of-date now; the language has made impressive strides.)

Oh, and that Valhalla where after failing at a bootstrapped startup, you get hired as a Staff SWE at Google or an EIR at a venture firm? Doesn't fucking exist. Most startups leave your career in worse shape than you'd be in had you gotten a decent big-company job. (Emphasis on _decent_. Yes, bad big-company jobs waste your life and career and reputation, but so do bad startups and those are quite common.)

The second startup where I worked was VC-funded and paid a low but acceptable (savings-neutral) salary. I was there for 3 months. Hired as VP/Eng but disallowed to use the title (first warning sign) until 6-month point. Asked to sign bogus performance reviews against early joiners with "too much" equity. Refused to do it. Got fired. No severance (I was an idiot and failed to take pictures of the documents I was asked to sign; had I, I'd probably be a half a million richer). Credit card debt. CEO spent _months_ trying to destroy my reputation. (Combining that with my accurate but politically unwise public commentary about experiences at Google, I had some interesting job interviews.) Ultimately that CEO failed (like at everything in life, except for pulling family connections to raise money for bad ideas) to ruin me and I'm fine now, but I've been through hell.

Observation: in the bootstrapped world, you risk savings. This is not be taken lightly. It's not "just money". The temptation to quit too late might land you in credit card debt or fuck up your family life or something else. Really dangerous. I like the idea of bootstrapping, but I can't advise it unless you're rich enough to be a genuine angel investor (because that's what you are). Getting to that point, savings-wise, usually requires climbing a corporate ladder anyway; at that point, the bootstrapped startup is just a victory lap.

In the VC-funded world, on the other hand, you risk _reputation_. (Whether savings or reputation is worse to lose depends on one's personal circumstances; there's no globally valid comparison there.) The VCs have set up a tight-knit and utterly feudal reputation economy that exists in spite of its many violations of law, at least in spirit if not in letter (the note- sharing and co-funding culture is fundamentally collusive). VCs won't go after your house or your car, but if you cross them, they'll destroy your career and reputation. Morally speaking, that's even worse.

Maybe the truth is that this startup crank being peddled is, to paraphrase George Carlin, Bad for Ya. Or maybe I'm just a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 30. I don't think so. I've seen a lot, I understand technology at a deep level, and I think the startup game is _extremely_ dangerous and the risks are often intentionally hidden. At a Series D startup, you'll get some pathetic 0.02% slice because "the business is de-risked". It's true that a startup will never have a true "layoff" (for image reasons, it must appear to be expanding) unless in dire straits, but phony "performance" firings (no severance, and feces all over the target's reputation) to hide layoffs are extremely common. Not fucking de-risked at all.

People are waking up to the evil of the VC-funded world and its disgusting good-ole-boy network, and the way forward is going to involve bootstrapping. I just don't want people to think it's a panacea. Like gambling, bootstrapping will not fuck up your life if you can contain your impulses... but if you keep burning savings because "this month is going to be the month I hit" then you can wreck your life even harder than a VC can. Frankly, I'd rather get a bad reputation in VC-istan (there are other options) than end up $50k in credit card debt.

<comment><USER11> >CEO spent months trying to destroy my reputation.

What company? I feel at this point, public shaming via stating a sequence of events isn't morally wrong and it might keep one of us from taking a bath on collaborating with one of his future companies.

<comment><USER10> I go back and forth on name-and-shame with this one. I made that mistake at Google by exposing some mildly embarrassing information about the company, and it hurt me pretty bad in the long run. Admittedly, Google is a good company with some bad apples; this startup has an executive team that is pure rot. So this company "deserves" it more. On the other hand, it'll do a lot more damage.

Nothing I could say about Google could ever really hurt it, but if I name this company, I destroy it. While it shouldn't exist, that means that about 100 innocent people lose their jobs (and suffer the same kinds of unexpected financial difficulty that made my life hell for a while) and the executives mark it as a mild annoyance. Shit floats, no matter what ya do. Then, there are 100 people who hate me for causing them to lose their jobs, and I don't really gain anything. This CEO is rich/powerful enough that even if I could prove everything I said (which would take a lot of time and energy) it wouldn't mess up his life. Anyway, there are a lot of shitty startups that don't deserve to live, but taking down all of them would be a massive waste of time. I'm not sure that taking down one is worth doing either. I have no moral problem with the idea, I just see it as potentially producing more bad than good.

I'll say this much here: it's New York based and in the ed-tech space. I only worked there for 3 months and it has a pretty horrible reputation among people in the know-- one interviewer I had said he'd never hire anyone who worked there, but made an exception for me because of my unusual story-- so I've taken it off my resume, but if you end up considering such a company for a job, feel free to email me and I'll confirm or deny whether we're talking about the same company.

<comment><USER11> I don't see an e-mail for you in your profile. I assume it's Amplify/WirelessGeneration/NewsCorp, Knewton, or Schoology.

<comment><USER10> Not Amplify or Schoology.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm Canadian and I want to found my startup in the USA. What are my options? - <AUTHOR>

I've lived in the US for the last 6 years. My life, friends, and relationship are here in the USA. I am a software developer in San Francisco and I want to start a company. I can't abandon my life here so how can I achieve my dream and start a company in San Francisco?
Can I found a company with an American? Is it possible to start the business in Canada and live in the US?
I appreciate any help or advice you can provide.  <comment><USER2> I think canada's an alright jurisdiction. fundica.com usefull for grants and vc. Alberta has the 10% flat income tax, corporate tax at 20%. Not a lawyer. Just check the govs websites, on registering a business. The feds have an accelerator program in the valley [http://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/eng/document.jsp?did=1323...](http://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/eng/document.jsp?did=132376) I just don't know what residency requirements, etc, maybe pop in the tradecommissioners office.</comment>


A Javascript game that's making money - <AUTHOR> http://picklive.com/play/demo

<comment><USER2> It's just a link to a game.

Disappointing. My initial hopes were of finding a discussion on how someone made money using Javascript and were able to protect their product.</comment>


Suicide has surpassed war as the leading cause of US military deaths - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation/2014/10/31/suicide-deaths-us-military-war-study/18261185/ <comment><USER2> When I joined the military in 2004, it was because I was near suicidal and felt that I needed to change something or I might die. ...I was young and stupid. I'm probably still stupid. :)

See, I was poor. I had done very well on standardized tests and received a full-ride scholarship with a stipend, but then I failed out of college, probably _due_ to depression... So there I was without a lot of prospects in front of me, and I chose that moment to start drinking, for the first time. 2003 went by in a blur.

I woke up one day and realized that here I was in a small town in Arkansas, working in some approximation of a box factory which paid just enough for rent and nothing more, never anything more. I knew that I must alter my path dramatically.

So, I walked in to the only place in the world where I knew I'd get hired on the spot.

To their credit, they did make a man of me. That was what I wanted. To be changed. You know, discipline and all that.

(It wore off after a little while, and I can't say honestly that I don't miss it.)

Back to my point: young white American men that enlist in the military aren't a random selection of young white American men.

A strong majority of the members of that demographic in my Flight who I spoke with about why they joined had similar stories: the military is widely known as an option, and for many, it's the second to last option.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing. It inspired me to read more into the article. All we really get from it is that there has been a drop in combat deaths. I'm not a fan of the military but this article is just white noise.

There's no denominator or basis for understanding what the numbers mean.

If we're looking to investigate suicides in the military then we need to compare it against appropriate baselines, accounting for the types of issues daveloyall raises, and even the economy.

Here's wikipedia's suicide rates for comparison:

US Men: 19.2

US Women: 5.5

Military: 17.1

What surprises me is that the military suicide rate in combat zones (17.3) is lower than military in the US (19.2)

<comment><USER4> >What surprises me is that the military suicide rate in combat zones (17.3) is lower than military in the US (19.2)

Doing something suicidal that gets yourself killed in combat doesn't count as suicide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I made a throwaway to comment on this...

I think the biggest reason why soldiers are killing themselves is that the Army throws drugs at the problem and then doesn't monitor the soldiers. Everyone I know in the Army was on "psycho" drugs at one time or another.

While serving in the Army, I found myself having symptoms of PTSD. Before this, I thought PTSD was for Vietnam or WWII vets. Anyway, the docs gave me handfuls of various meds (lithium, Haldol, Prozac, Risperdol, Seroquel, Clonopin, etc.) and did minimal monitoring. I would fall asleep in the parking lot of Landstuhl and barely remember what I was doing there. I became violent and beat my wife. I would become another person while I was on the meds. I was arrested for domestic violence and ordered to go to anger mngt, which was a joke. Everybody in my platoon was already there so it was just a way to get out of work and screw around. I trusted the docs to know what they were doing until I was at the edge of suicide/murder. Eventually, I stopped the meds (really tough aftereffect) and started dealing with the wreck my life had become. Most soldiers don't need meds, they need sleep and some one to talk to. The Army needs less psychiatrists and more psychologists.

<comment><USER6> It's hard and takes time to fix root emotional problems. Attempting to suppress your mind with drugs is easier and cheaper.

Consequently, when someone is found to be on (illegal) drugs, locking them up in prison for a few decades is also easier than fixing the problem.

In fact, according to the prisons themselves, banning books is thought to help apparently. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401)

<comment><USER7> Er... not sure that locking people up is cheaper. What it is is more profitable for lobbyists and prison companies, to the tune of $37 billion + per year!

Nice one lobbyists!

<comment><USER8> He said easier, not cheaper.

<comment><USER7> Read the parent comment again...

> Attempting to suppress your mind with drugs is easier and cheaper

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who are effective at firing them). In the UK we used to kill ourselves with gas from the stove (it had carbon monoxide in it) - when gas stopped having carbon monoxide people thought - 'well people will find another way of killing themselves' but they didn't - availability of way of killing yourself was a factor in suicide. There's no obvious solution for the military, since they need guns. However, we can say that as a group they are more likely to kill themselves as they have an effective means to commit suicide when they are depressed. In the way an office worker does not.

Wikipedia article on this subject:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

Lethal means reduction [edit] Means reduction, reducing the odds that a suicide attempter will use highly lethal means, is an important component of suicide prevention.[17]

For years, researchers and health policy planners have theorized and demonstrated that restricting lethal means can help reduce suicide rates, as delaying action until depression passes.[18] There is strong evidence that restricted access at so-called suicide hotspots, such as bridges and cliffs, reduces suicides, whereas other interventions such as placing signs or increasing surveillance at these sites appears less effective.[19] One of the most famous historical examples, of means reduction, is that of coal gas in the United Kingdom. Until the 1950s, the most common means of suicide in the UK was poisoning by gas inhalation. In 1958, natural gas (virtually free of carbon monoxide) was introduced, and over the next decade, comprised over 50% of gas used. As carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased. The decrease was driven entirely by dramatic decreases in the number of suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning.[20][21]

A photo illustration produced by the Defense Media Agency on suicide prevention In the United States, numerous studies have concluded that firearm access is associated with increased suicide completion.[22] "About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that's a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.".[23][24]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention)

<comment><USER10> >A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who are effective at firing them).

I think this is a bit misplaced in the context of the US military.

Firearms are very tightly controlled on bases. The only people with guns at any given time are people that have an active reason for having them, e.g., guard duty, MP, training, etc. It's not like there are M16s just piled up in the barracks. It's one of the reasons the shootings at Ft. Hood were so deadly; despite taking place in the middle of a major military base, there wasn't anyone nearby with a firearm to respond like many people imagine to be the case.

You are correct about availability of firearms in general being associated with suicide rates, but I'm just pointing out that, in the US, military doesn't equate to easier access than the general population.

<comment><USER11> You do have easier access in the sense that you have _regular_ access to weapons and ammunition. You don't have _on demand_ access, so you can't often make impulsive decisions with firearms. You can, however, make planned decisions fairly easily.

<comment><USER10> For that to follow, you'd have to show that a significant proportion of the suicides by firearm by stateside service members involved government firearms. I sincerely doubt that's the case.

<comment><USER11> For what to follow?

<comment><USER10> The premise that access to duty firearms is a driving factor being logically followed by higher suicide rates among service members.

If the suicides aren't being committed with duty weapons, then there isn't really a logical link there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Allow me to paint a picture for you purely from my experience in the Army.

It appears from the article that these were active duty deaths. Alcoholism is rampant in the Army. Alcohol is a downer. PTSD is rampant in the Army which means you're surrounded by people who might have anger issues or might be emotionally withdrawn (hah! understatement). Those same people might be your superiors. So you have a sadistic emotionally detached superior who controls your life. Maybe not, maybe you have great leaders, maybe you're the person struggling with alcoholism, depression, survivor guilt, nightmares, hyper awareness. Also, the Army's answer to psychological issues is pills, some of which can make things worse. There is a stigma associated with needing a hug. Also, "kids these days" (see the other comment about millennials, it is a thing). There was a book I read (forgot the title) that was veteran studies published after WWII. One of the ones that stood out to me the most showed that vets who came from stable homes faired better (emotionally) after war. If you are in the Army you didn't likely grow up in a stable emotional environment.

Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it produces. By system I mean all the inputs. I don't know, when you look at this picture, what would you expect to happen? Also, there's no easy fix.

</comment><comment><USER13> Given previous discussions on Hacker News, isn't suicide one of the leading causes of deaths for young men anyway?

What would be significant is if the proportion of soldier suicides is greater than that of the similar group of age and sex in the general population.

<comment><USER14> Not only are suicides more likely to happen with military and veterans, but it is only recently that suicides in the military went from below general population, to higher than general population.

That suggests to me that the structure of the military would generally have significant effects of reducing depression, or maybe just the type of person joining the military is/was less likely to be depressed, but now it seems reasonable that maybe the nature of our military services today causes potentially more stable men and women to be more likely than ordinary to commit suicide.

[http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm)

"Although historically, the suicide death rates in the U.S. Army have been below the civilian rate, the suicide rate in the U.S. Army began climbing in the early 2000s, and by 2008, it exceeded the demographically matched civilian rate (20.2 suicide deaths per 100,000 vs. 19.2). Concerns about this increase led to a partnership between the Army and the NIMH to identify risks."

<comment><USER13> I'm no maths whizz, but is 20.2/100,000 vs 19.2/100,000 statistically significant?

<comment><USER15> If these were sample statistics, no, but these are population numbers. They aren't sampling 100K people and seeing how many commit suicide, they know how many suicides are reported in the entire population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just finished the book Acid Test ([http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy- Power-Heal/dp/039916...](http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-Power- Heal/dp/0399162798)). The stories about the progress that the lucky individuals, who have been part of MDMA therapy studies for PTSD, have made; combined with government's refusal to fund research as well as their stonewalling during permitting (DEA primarily) is heartbreaking and infuriating.

The author quotes some numbers about how much the US Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs Administration spend (and are projected to spend) "treating" PTSD in veterans over the coming decades. They are shockingly large and unfortunately the US keeps sending more meat into the grinder.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm currently listening to an audiobook about the Falklands War. 649 Argentinians died in a horrific but short (2 months) conflict, but they claim since then more than 649 of the surviving soldiers have committed suicide, and PTSD remains a huge issue with both Argentine and British veterans.

<comment><USER18> I've listened to presentations by Combat Stress, a UK charity that works with veterans with mental health issues. Surprisingly it is veterans of Northern Ireland that have the greatest number of mental health issues, not those involved in what we might think of as more active wars.

I can see parallels with what many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are suffering, the constant threat of attack and a local populace you are supposed to be protecting. Yet in NI the populace was British, the cognitive disconnect must have been tremendous.

<comment><USER19> And the Irish were losing friends, family, and people they knew from the neighbourhood growing up. Whereas in the military it was guys you went to basic with. Which is similar to family but not as deep rooted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Meaningless statistics : are there more suicides or are combat deaths declining ?

<comment><USER21> It's meaningful regardless of whether one number is increasing or the other is decreasing.

If, as I suspect, the military spends vastly more time and money trying to prevent combat deaths than trying to help suicidal soldiers and veterans, then this statistic suggests that their priorities are out of whack.

<comment><USER22> How is it out-of-whack? For the sake of the argument if they have $1 billion to spend and if spending it on combat deaths prevention saves say 1000 people, while spending it on suicide reduction gets you 10 then it seems very reasonable to spend money on decreasing combat deaths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> More than anything this statistic speaks to the overwhelming military superiority of the U.S. military. The number of deaths for the U.S. military is quite small in relation to the numbers involved and the length of time of the occupation.

A very large majority of deaths have been the native populace. Such a disparity of casualties leads to a situation where war does not seem as bad as it really is by the American public. We're supposed to be aghast that suicide is a greater cause of death than the 'enemy'.

</comment><comment><USER24> Nobody wants to admit the leading cause of suicide in the military, probably in society in general, because it is politically sensitive. There is fear that announcing the leading demographic outright might make matters worse before it gets better. I have been a soldier in the US Army for 17 years, and the FBI has likely identified the cause of this trend using statistics.

The leading cause for suicide in the US military is that society is generally becoming increasingly incompatible with military service. The demographic least likely to commit suicide of any age range are black females. The demographic most likely to commit suicide are white males under the age of 25. It should be known that suicides occur among all races, genders, and ages. The problem, however, is not that suicide occurs but the quantity and trends with which it occurs.

The cultural generation born between the mid 1990-2005 are referred to as Millennials. This group is the first born into a world where the internet has always existed and divorce among their parents stands at record highs. This group is less willing to make social commitments, expects constant social feedback, and delays making life changing decisions longer than previous generations. Of particular concern is that this group tends to be nurtured more directly and longer than previous generations even while relationships of their elders disintegrate more rapidly.

In previous generations people learn some hard life lessons early in life. Not everybody gets to be a winner. Time is short. If you screw-up there is a punishment. Quitting is not acceptable when people depend upon you. Life isn't fair. Many Millennials are shielded from these harsh lessons by over protective guardians.

This profound change in social development has numerous consequences. Withdrawal from society and intimacy are perhaps the most common consequence for society generally. In the military you cannot hide from society, so simply withdrawing is not an option.

The military is also a highly confrontational environment. Positive confrontations are often regarded as a necessary quality in successful corporate environments, but not everybody is well prepared for communication that is so direct. Typically the confrontations in the corporate world are soft or rare for entry level positions, where the opposite is true in the military.

Historically military training has attempted to prepare people for this. Basic training is extremely confrontational and not in a positive way, but basic training is also a safe environment. In earlier times basic training was less safe thereby increasing stress for attendees. If a person is not sufficiently stressed during their entry level training they are ill-prepared to manage such stresses when their career becomes at risk.

Related: [http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The- Sex...](http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus- Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society)

<comment> vezzy-fnord _divorce among their parents stands at record highs_

The fact that you think this is inherently bad is odd.

It happens largely because: a) The nuclear family is mostly sustainable in times of economic prosperity, b) Divorce used to entail far larger social consequences in the past. Women were generally more dependent, as well. Staying with someone you don't like out of some perverse ideological duty like yours is far worse than divorcing them.

 _This group is less willing to make social commitments_

Social commitment as to what?

 _delays making life changing decisions longer than previous generations_

This is a _bad_ thing, again?

 _Not everybody gets to be a winner._

Did you listen to some rant about participation trophies in school and you're now extending it to some insidious, omnipresent cultural idea that children are being taught everyone's a winner?

 _Time is short._

Hasn't changed.

 _If you screw-up there is a punishment._

Hasn't changed.

 _Quitting is not acceptable when people depend upon you._

I keep observing this form of values dissonance amongst reactionaries like you. On one hand, they value nothing more than the spirit of individualism and free trade. On the other, they hold these vague ideals (which have never been widespread) that sound oddly collectivist in nature.

 _Life isn 't fair._

Hasn't changed.

 _Withdrawal from society and intimacy_

I don't recall previous generations being particularly positive with regards to sexuality (this hasn't changed: many are still puritanical, but from leftist perspectives).

Finally, here's a little thought. If all of this is true and Millennials are the end of the moral zenith as we know it, who do you think is responsible for raising them to be this way?

<comment><USER25> I'd actually like to point out that staying together with someone you don't like because you are obligated to (due to social norms or religious reasons or whatever) is not only bad for you, it's also bad for your children.

Parental divorce, especially if it happened in mutual agreement, is far better than a having parents constantly fight and being raised in an environment full of micro-aggressions and hostility.

Blaming failed marriages on divorce is blaming the symptoms for the disease. Social acceptance of divorce isn't making married couples fall out, failed relationships are. Pretending everything is fine won't make it so.

(insert obligatory comparison to drug decriminalization here)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not all problems have solutions. The military has been applied to an unreasonable and impossible task. They may be no way to "get better" at doing that.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have seen many tragic headlines of late, and, for me, this is one of the most tragic.

<comment><USER28> You might want to read Better Angels by Steven Pinker, which argues quite convincingly that things are getting better overall. "The news you recently read sticks in the mind, the worse news from long ago doesn't" etc. You may or may not be persuaded about all he says, but the book definitely helps build resistance to tragic headlines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> There's no denying that death is a common consequence of war.

</comment><comment><USER30> I can't find a decent link ATM, but I've also seen smoking claimed as a major cause of death among the military.

Soldiers and veterans tend to smoke much more than civilians, which doesn't do wonders for their life expectancy.

</comment><comment><USER31> a bit hard to understand the figures in the real paper.

while the numbers have crossed, what about the absolutes? there are less deaths in combat now due to massive improvements in field treatment and armor. the total number of suicides in the armed forces is now higher than combat deaths and in civilian life, but it still could be lower overall than 20 years ago.

armchair analysis would be still, that if more service members survive injuries that would otherwise killed them before, there are more survivors now that try to live with massive traumas, amputations, mental disorders. if you come back from stan with no legs, massive PTSD and a missing jaw, well, you kill yourself afterwards. young people joining in frontline roles tend to be more athletic, more body conscious. your high school sweetheart will still marry you out of peer pressure, but 2 years in she won't like changing your diapers anymore.

<comment><USER32> (I am not a veteran. I merely know a few. All of the following is based on anecdotes.)

There is a small, but not insignificant, number of people who aggressively pursue naive young people in the military for monetary advantage. These range from predatory lenders to semi-professional spouses. The military employee becomes their golden ticket to enjoying the benefits of the military without taking on any of the risks.

If you can stay married for 20 years to a military person on active duty, you can retain a lot of the MWR and federal benefits that you were able to enjoy during that entire 20 years, even if you get divorced. If the military person dies, you and your children get survivor benefits. You might also be able to use their GI bill benefit while they are busy working.

So some people will marry someone in the military, then cheat on that person at every available opportunity, and spend as much of their reliable paycheck as possible, while enjoying military family benefits. For that sort of person, a war-zone deployment is like a vacation, with the added possibility of winning the widow(er) lottery.

If their young sucker of a spouse returns with PTSD or a brain injury, that has the potential to screw up their lifestyle, particularly if a discharge seems likely. The best play would likely be emotional abuse to encourage suicide. I have known enough people with military backgrounds to know that many of them had unfaithful or benefits-mercenary spouses. One even remarried to a non-American and intentionally kept her away from the on-base culture, because he could no longer trust anyone who was too familiar with the system. More than one explicitly mentioned that they intentionally avoided marriage for at least the first five years of their service, to weed out anyone trying to become a 20/20/20 spouse.

So even if that high school sweetheart doesn't last, at least they might have loved their partner for a while before they came home changed and wore down their endurance. A benefits-mercenary spouse may actually be _angry_ that their partner survived their injuries.

I am not certain exactly how prevalent this behavior is, as there may be some selection bias in play. Maybe ex-military folks just particularly like to brood over their failed marriages, calculate illusory motives, and then complain about their evil exes to anyone who will listen.

<comment><USER33> I'm not sure why you were downvoted, but this is one of the life dangers that servicemen face. Worse yet, the military unwittingly subsidizes this kind of thing--lots of servicemen will marry just about anyone to get out of the barracks and to collect the extra housing allowance.

<comment><USER32> Speaking from personal experience, people aged 18-25 don't always make the wisest decisions, with due consideration for the potential consequences. The military may actually be doing it wittingly. A spouse that only receives continuing benefits if their partner remains in the service will probably be in the military's corner whenever re-enlistment comes up.

Interestingly enough, despite the topic of ex-spouses lagging slightly behind football, barracks stories, barbecue-related food, and generalized complaining about the government among the vets that I have known, not a single one of them has ever been in a position to do anything about it, regardless of their rank or tenure. It seems to be an unintended consequence of a much larger problem, one that is politically untouchable.

I think it is entirely unsolvable as long as any cultural continuity exists within the institution, much like the problem of corruption in some law enforcement units. Too many people have too much at stake in the status quo.

Another unintended consequence that may lead to suicide is that the provision of veterans' medical benefits has become much more expensive, particularly with respect to head injuries. So injured veterans that should be receiving medical discharges for service-related injuries (along with those promised lifetime treatment benefits) are being discharged for other reasons, and their service records falsified. PTSD patients may be denied benefits under the rationale that their PTSD symptoms are actually from a previously concealed psychological condition. If the vet has a brain injury, but no pieces obviously missing, they may be informally classified as malingerers, to be treated accordingly.

It is often left to the person with a severe concussion to navigate a tangled web of bureaucracy on their own, to prove that they are not faking their injury--a task that could probably only be successfully negotiated by someone who was actually faking it. That's somewhat of a catch-22.

So when the organization that formerly saw to your every need suddenly decides to turn on you in your moment of weakness, I can see how that might generate a few bad thoughts--perhaps even suicidal impulses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Congress needs to act NOW to save lives by passing a law that makes suicide illegal.

</comment><comment><USER35> Despite how bad this seems, it's a good thing that barely anyone is dying from war. Even adding up the highest possible estimates, we're doing a hell of a lot better than the 20th century was.

<comment><USER33> The 20th century didn't even start racking up real casualties until...right about now, actually.

<comment><USER36> There were 36 wars in the 20th century that started and ended before 1914.

Those wars had about 500,000 deaths.

[http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp](http://www.war- memorial.net/wars_all.asp)

        Chinese Govt vs Bai Lang (White Wolf) Rebels	1914 - 1914	 5,000
        2nd Balkan War	1913 - 1913	 60,500
        Kuomintang vs Chinese Army	1913 - 1913	 5,000
        Moro Rebellion	1913 - 1913	 15,050
        1st Balkan War	1912 - 1913	 82,000	[1]
        Paraguay Coups	1911 - 1912	 5,000
        Italo-Turkish War	1911 - 1912	 20,000
        First Sino-Tibetan War	1911 - 1912	 2,000
        Cuba vs Partido Independiente de Color	1911 - 1911	 1,050
        Chinese Revolution	1911 - 1911	 1,000	[2]
        Asir-Yemen Revolt	1910 - 1911	 9,000
        French Conquest of Wadai Sultanate	1909 - 1911	 12,000
        The second Rif War	1909 - 1910	 10,000
        Portugese war against Dembos	1907 - 1910	 5,100
        Ma al-'Aynayn's Anti-Colonial Insurgency	1907 - 1910	 3,150
        Korean guerilla war against Japanese occupation	1907 - 1910	 17,736
        Iranian Constitution War	1908 - 1909	 1,100
        Morocco unrest	1907 - 1908	 1,400
        Romanian Peasant Revolt	1907 - 1907	 2,000
        4th Central American war	1907 - 1907	 1,000
        Dutch-Achinese War	1904 - 1907	 24,200
        Sokoto and UK vs Mahdist Revolt	1906 - 1906	 2,080
        Zulu Rebellion	1906 - 1906	 2,356
        Third Central American war	1906 - 1906	 1,000
        Russian Revolution 1905	1905 - 1906	 1,500
        Maji Maji revolt	1905 - 1906	 8,840
        Russo-Japanese war	1904 - 1905	 151,831	[1]
        Southwest African Revolt	1904 - 1905	 12,800	[1]
        Uruguay Civil War	1904 - 1904	 1,000
        Second Yemen Rebellion	1904 - 1904	 30,000
        Uprisings in Colonial Angola	1902 - 1904	 2,000
        Ilinden Uprising	1903 - 1903	 6,330
        The War of a Thousand Days	1899 - 1903	 100,000
        Philippine insurrection	1899 - 1902	 20,500
        Second Boer war	1899 - 1902	 30,800
        The Boxer Rebellion	1900 - 1900	 3,003
        Sino-Russian War	1900 - 1900	 4,000

EDIT: I'm on mobile. Sorry for the awful formating.

<comment><USER37> Well, let's look at this data on a plot

[http://imgur.com/EuHcSzT](http://imgur.com/EuHcSzT)

Conclusion: philwelch is not completely off.

(edit: make the graph less ugly)

<comment><USER35> Thank you for proving my point. Apparently pointing out that this century is going way better than the 1900s is a sin.

You should post this as an individual submission. That's a really nice graph.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Scale Distributed SQL to 1M+ Inserts per Second - <AUTHOR> https://blog.yugabyte.com/how-yugabytedb-scales-to-more-than-1-million-inserts-per-sec/ <comment><USER2> Honestly this marketing piece should be titled "How to configure our company's product so it can hit specific throughput metrics."

<comment><USER3> Yugabyte PM here. The goal is to demonstrate that even SQL databases can now be scaled to 1M inserts per second, a feat that was previously reserved for NoSQL databases.

<comment><USER4> This is not the case. There are in fact many SQL capable databases which showed such results, Clustrix and MySQL Cluster (NDB) among them. Here is link to benchmark (to actually rather old version) [https://www.mysql.com/why- mysql/benchmarks/mysql-cluster/](https://www.mysql.com/why- mysql/benchmarks/mysql-cluster/)</comment></comment></comment>


I went from zero to getting a position in ML research (in a year) - <AUTHOR> https://glibert.io/blog/learn_ml/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I went through quite a ride last academic year when I went from knowing nothing about modern ML to getting an offer for a research internship. Someone emailed me today asking how I did it, I went on to write a long email detailing the steps I went through. I was quite satisfied with the end result and decided to share it online! Feedback appreciated and hope you can learn something new out of this post.</comment>


Do You Know the Biggest Reason for Why Enterprise Software Sucks? - <AUTHOR> http://bearmetal.eu/theden/do-you-know-the-biggest-reason-why-enterprise-software-sucks/

<comment><USER2> "That's Tron. He fights for the Users." :)</comment>


Example Ansible scripts for building a full, multi-AZ AWS stack - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rabidgremlin/dev-ops-snippets/tree/master/aws-full-stack <comment><USER2> This is great! I've had a hard time finding examples of pro-grade ansible playbooks that deploy entire products across multiple environments. I've had to assemble dozens of randomly obtained ideas piece by piece over the years, but it'd be fantastic if there were more full projects for reference out there. Any idea where one could find more complete examples for best practice reference?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah it was really hard finding good examples to piece this together. Also I'm not sure this is a best practice example as it probably should use roles....

<comment><USER3> Roles PR'd

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome... I had avoided roles to keep things easier to understand but will check out the PR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How is this better than going the Cloudformation route? (genuinely curios)

Seen Cloudformation coupled with Chef or Puppet. I don't see why Ansible would not work in the later stages of bringing up the machines, but personally think it's overkill to do everything via an Ansible playbook.

<comment><USER5> Same feedback. Cloudformation has many advantages including idempotency and ability to tear down what it created.

Also, see terraform from Hashicorp:

[https://www.terraform.io/intro/vs/cloudformation.html](https://www.terraform.io/intro/vs/cloudformation.html)

Still, a complete Ansible approach is illustrative so kudos on that.

<comment><USER6> (disclaimer: I wrote Ansible)

These are some pretty clean playbooks and probably the most coherent example of using the ec2 modules together I've ever seen.

Alternative approach for consideration -- currently, I am working for a company who has a very nice deployment setup that mostly just uses mostly just the Ansible ec2_tag and ec2_facts, and has an Immutable Systems (Packer) stack deployed by CloudFormation and Asgard APIs. In other words, the ansible cloud modules are not heavily utilized, but it's nice because in CF we have access to all the knobs and services. Asgard handles rolling updates across ELBs, where CF defines the infrastructure.

It's a pretty good setup! Ansible cloud modules are more or less serially executed, but don't know about each other. I do think it's important that Cloud Formation and other solutions understand the relationships between the resources.

For this reason, Terraform is super interesting conceptually, and it may be a good answer to some quirks in CF (one being it's a little hard to read/write!). Though I haven't had much direct experience to try it out, I look forward to having some time in the future.

Aside: Troposphere is an interesting project but doesn't have a lot of AWS service coverage yet - [https://github.com/cloudtools/troposphere](https://github.com/cloudtools/troposphere)

Organizations attempting "multiple-cloud providers" have more challenges than ones attempting to just pick AWS (or another), that's for sure - as they are really different in the end, and I sort of have this question in the back of my mind whether cloud abstractions are really a good idea in the end, or you really really need to know the differences between Cloud X and Y (especially to expose all the constituent services accurately).

Anyway, yeah, I think building Packer images with Ansible and deploying with something like Terraform is where I would consider starting if I had a green field infrastructure.

Don't live-manage your AWS boxen if you can help it, as you miss most of the advantages of being able to deploy AMIs. A packer.json in the example would be a good idea, and you'll get faster deploys that are a bit more predictable. Then you can use something like Vagrant to test the packer config.

I wrote a very lightweight Vagrant clone here this weekend for exactly that purpose - [https://github.com/mpdehaan/strider](https://github.com/mpdehaan/strider)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That might be helpful for you. [https://github.com/arbabnazar/ansible-aws-vpc- ha-wordpress](https://github.com/arbabnazar/ansible-aws-vpc-ha-wordpress)

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow...this is really cool. Does this work with the newer version 4 signing keys?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mmm I'm not sure. The Ansible AWS modules use the Boto library so perhaps there is more info in its docs somewhere?</comment></comment>


LibreSSL 3.2.0 – TLS 1.3 - <AUTHOR> https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/libressl-3.2.0-relnotes.txt <comment><USER2> This item from their change list:

> Use non-expired certificates first when building a certificate chain.

.. Is relevant to the recent expiry of Sectigo's old "AddTrust" root. If your library cheerfully assembles a trust path with the expired root and then concludes the certificate isn't valid because the root is expired you're pointlessly inconvenienced compared to a library that can use the same raw materials to discover a working trust path with no expired certificates.

<comment><USER3> Would be nice to patch openssl and python to skip expired certificates too when there is a newer one available.

<comment><USER4> I believe this was fixed in openssl 1.1.1 but there are millions of devices still on 1.0.x

<comment><USER5> Yeah, we're seeing it in coworkers still running OSX Mojave (albeit with older LibreSSL instead of OpenSSL) using the default curl. Catalina users seem okay though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To those wondering, LibreSSL has its own TLS 1.3 implementation. Client support shipped in LibreSSL 3.1.1.

[https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/libressl-3.1.1-...](https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/libressl-3.1.1-relnotes.txt)

[https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan2019-tls13.pdf](https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan2019-tls13.pdf)

<comment><USER2> As those release notes mention (and the new ones do too) you don't get a TLS 1.3 API

So you only benefit from features that already existed in TLS 1.2 (using the same API) or do not require an API such as the reduced round trips for initiating a new connection.

In particular you can't use 0RTT "Early" data because the specification asks that only be supplied via a dedicated API in both clients and servers.

The reason is that Early data might be replayed by an attacker in some cases despite all practical countermeasures and so your application software needs to make an explicit decision about whether it's acceptable to use Early data. Providing a separate API forces you to actually confront that decision and not get surprised by upgrading to TLS 1.3 and finding now you're subject to a replay attack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is great news!

However, note that the OpenSSL API compatibility layer doesn't support TLS 1.3 yet. So, if you're using Nginx or something else that doesn't use the LibreSSL API, you're out of luck for now.

<comment><USER6> This is simply not true. For a lot software you will get 1.3 automatically, for example mutt and irssi pick it up just fine. The existing APIs will work and LibreSSL will prefer TLS 1.3 over 1.2 if clients/servers support it.

OpenSSL offers some additional APIs for certain TLS 1.3 features, but are hardly mandatory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As someone who uses OpenBSD on a few machines it strikes me that this is going into OpenBSD's -current branch so won't be released for another 6 months, with OpenBSD 6.8.

As I parse more and look at the libressl site I see that similarly, this is a _development_ release and the _stable_ release, 3.1.2, matches OpenBSD 6.7.</comment>


HN/YC BBQ today - <AUTHOR> http://anyvite.com/events/home/lld60cypag

<comment><USER2> Hm. When I saw that the link was to something on ycombinator.com, it looked like it might have been endorsed by YC. Perhaps this should be changed, to prevent abuse -- links to something on news.yc could be treated like 'ask YC' comments.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just left awhile ago. Wanted to say thanks to those that organized it and showed up.</comment>


Shipshape RenderMan Art Challenge - <AUTHOR> https://blog.yiningkarlli.com/2020/07/shipshape-renderman-challenge.html <comment><USER2> I like everything of it besides the final composition;

I have no idea whats going on when i just glance over and its not very clear what this big thing on the left side is if you don't study it in detail;

<comment><USER3> I agree completely, you can't even really see the ship. It's too busy.

I can't imagine putting so much effort into the models only to cover them up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Other participants: [https://renderman.pixar.com/news/renderman-shipshape-art- cha...](https://renderman.pixar.com/news/renderman-shipshape-art-challenge- final-results)

</comment><comment><USER5> Impressive how far RenderMan has come.

My graduation project was to port a particle engine from NeXTSTEP to Windows, and the professor had a RenderMan book that I read cherished back when Riva TNT and Voodoo were the best one could get on the PC world.

</comment><comment><USER6> One of the coolest things I've seen in a long time. Extremely clever and such a great aesthetic. Awesome job!

</comment><comment><USER7> This is very inspiring to me as a Computer Graphics student! I will join the competition next time.</comment>


Fast Food for the Mind: Why I Don't Have a Facebook or Twitter Account - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/sungardas/2014/04/08/fast-food-for-the-mind-why-i-dont-have-a-facebook-or-twitter-account/

<comment><USER3> Wow. This was almost the exact analogy that prompted me to quit facebook about a year ago.

I was watching a show about the addictive nature of junk food, and how it works. Many food items, especially zero calorie ones like diet soda, trick your mind into believing it has received something it needs. However, by tricking your mind but denying your body, you come back again for it later (and again, and again). Unfortunately, this applies to high calorie foods that are largely nutritionally empty. You sense a need, you go to the food for that need, and it provides a mental signal that you have received it without actually filling the need.

The recommendation was - every time you find yourself reaching for a salty bag of chips or a diet soda, ask yourself, what is my body actually telling me it wants? While it may seem more expensive, try to fulfill that need as low on the "processed" chain as you can. This way, you'll fulfill the signal _and_ the need.

That was kind of long winded, but I realized, at that moment, how I was using social media. I'm in a state of life, for better and worse, where I have very, very little time (kids, mortgages, work, and so forth). Many relationships are starting to fade, or rot.

My mind was sending me signals that I needed more social interaction, and I was fulfilling these signals with social media rather than real human contact. To me, this is the aspartane of social interactions. You have a need, you use something that satisfies the signal but not the need itself, and so you keep coming back.

Very specifically, I was replacing something that used to be a big part of my life - playing music at jams and with friends, with youtube clips and other videos.

Now, this is a little complicated, in that videos have actually been a good thing in some ways. For instance, because of youtube, I've been able to learn a lot of bluegrass songs well prior to going to a jam, which has certainly enhanced my experience at those jam sessions. And if all I have is 30 minutes after the kids go to bed to learn a new song, well, at least I got to learn a new song.

So I'm not sure total abstinence is a good idea here. There's an interesting continuum of these addictive things. You can quit cigarettes completely, just walk away. You can (and probably should[1]) quit junk food completely, but you can't quit food. And lastly, I'd say you probably shouldn't quit social media completely. But this does make it much more complicated, and you need to be careful about it - and of course, keep in mind that a corporation that seeks to maximize ad revenue from you is something you need to be particularly cautious about.

Personally, I am glad I quit facebook, for all kind of reasons, not just the one above. Occasional fast food is pretty much harmless. I'd also guess that the risks of a once in a blue moon cigar are vanishingly low. The difference here is that you can tolerate some of a bad thing, whereas I'm not sure all social media should be considered a bad thing. But I'd put it in the category of food, there is definitely junk social media that you would want to avoid.

<comment><USER4> _> 'You have a need, you use something that satisfies the signal but not the need itself, and so you keep coming back.'_

Exactly.

I'm not sure who coined it, but I've taken to the term 'infosugar' to describe the knowledge analog of this.

I don't want to take the analogy too far, but I expect there's a whole range of behavior we easily slip into that evidence this same sort of pattern - <USER2> behaviors as the result of an unfulfilled subconscious desire.

For example, I wonder how much the assorted aggressive nastiness you find online is basically a burst valve from sedentary people who really just need to go hit a ball or run hard for an hour?

<comment><USER5> > For example, I wonder how much the assorted aggressive nastiness you find > online is basically a burst valve from sedentary people who really just need > to go hit a ball or run hard for an hour?

Physical venting/channelling seems like a very temporary outlet for general misanthropy.

<comment><USER4> I don't follow.

It seems to me that anything short of death would be a temporary outlet for 'general misanthropy'.

<comment><USER5> I'm saying that people who are really hateful online have issues that are deeper than simply having pent-up aggression/restlessness that can be channelled through some physical activity or sport.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I eat at McDonald's once a week, and I log onto Facebook a couple of times per month. This sounds like a recovering alcoholic ranting about how alcohol is evil and nobody should drink it.

<comment><USER7> I got a similar vibe. It talks about how facebook _can_ be bad for some people, but then basically calls out everyone for being unhealthy. I react to this the same way I react to someone who sees a small part of my life (like me grabbing a shitty McDonald's burger) and extrapolates my entire physical and mental health based on that small point. And that reaction is usually "piss off, you're being really presumptuous."

<comment><USER8> While you're both correct, I really do think things like twitter do fit somewhat into if not fast food, maybe candy category of social/interaction.

It feels empty. I vastly prefer chilling out in person, even if there isn't a ton of conversation, its preferable to texting on my phone or whatever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't quit - my active Facebook-ing GF and my own profile have a relationship status pointing to each other. If I quit her relationship status would suddenly look weird (I think) and that would raise silly questions. But I'm practically inactive on Facebook. I do request my friends from time to time to not tag me on photos after social gatherings and events. Facebook Message is the only useful thing for me - glad Facebook recognized that there's a market that covers people like me and decided to separate the Message app from the main one.

<comment><USER10> > _I can 't quit - my active Facebook-ing GF and my own profile have a > relationship status pointing to each other. If I quit her relationship > status would suddenly look weird (I think) and that would raise silly > questions._

That's a valid reason not to quit Facebook if you're both 14 year olds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> ... much like fast food, there are decent options out there for moderate consumption.

</comment><comment><USER12> People who say they don't have a facebook or twitter account are the new people who say they don't own a tv...

<comment><USER13> How do you know when someone doesn't have a Facebook account? They'll tell you. But at least you won't have to friend them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The usefulness and power of FB and Twitter is for your professional network.

It is immensely valuable that relevant people that you know get update on your what you are building and any insightful information that you have. Rarely do people keep up with their LinkedIn.

<comment><USER15> This is why I hate social networks for professional work: a nauseating level of self-promotion. "Wow, my repo has twenty stars!" Great, why did you tell us all that? I'm more interested in discussion or insight. Twitter's character limits make that nearly impossible; relegating it to snark, cheap puns, and humblebrags.

We're blind to it here at HN; we worship success and accept that contributing to the noise of it all is a necessary evil so we can build our brand. Meanwhile, everyone's doing the same, hawking e-books/courses/OSS/products/consultancies. It's not communication, it's typing at each other. Now that we're supposed to maintain an online identity, it's utterly exhausting at times.

Disclaimer: I'm an old soul. I much preferred the non-social web because we didn't all seem to be pushing something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have been having intriguing discussions on Facebook with my friends. I think it's a matter of what friends you have or are paying attention to. One could say visiting mediocre people who gossip about other people is junk food for the brain also.

</comment><comment><USER17> This smells a lot like arguments people would have made against TV when it first showed up. Comic books, non-classical music, yadda yadda yadda. It seems like every generation thinks that the way they grew up was relatively wholesome and meaningful when compared to newer generations... I don't buy it. People change, habits change, ways of communicating and experiencing the world change, but I think it's silly to compare any of that to actually doing things that are physically unhealthy or harmful to your body.

All that being said, I don't use Facebook or Twitter either, but mostly because I find them tedious.

<comment><USER18> The problem with your comment is that it can be said about any criticism of anything new, regardless of whether it is objectively good or bad.

Not every way of communicating and experiencing the world is psychologically equivalent. If my choice of "experiencing the world" is lying in bed and watching pictures on reddit for 50 years (let's say I'm rich), without going outside even once, and my idea of "having a relationship" is FB chat - It's likely that this is going to make me a very miserable person. There are limits to the amount of behavioural changes you can make without causing psychological damage.

That's why there are actual studies on the matter: does Facebook make us feel good? Is it psychologically healthy? Some of those studies are mentioned in the article. A much better line of criticism would be to address those studies directly, rather than making very general comments that can be used to justify anything.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've been thinking about quitting Facebook but I haven't convinced myself of it yet. Over the last year I've been trying to eat better, trying to be more productive with my time....is it time to quit?

<comment><USER19> You could just try treating it like an inbox (which is basically what I do). I feel like people always talk as if the trade-off is between wasting hours of time on the newsfeed or being harder to reach, but this is a false dilemma. I log onto FB in an incognito window once every two or three days to check my messages (I've turned off email notifications). I spent all of 1 minute there, and I haven't looked at the newsfeed in at least a year or two. If I were to close my account and lose its function as an inbox, there's a lot of messages I simply wouldn't get. For example, it's happened more than once that extended family visiting my city from overseas want to grab lunch in < a week; this has happened more than once and I would hate to miss a message like that. Sometimes these people won't go to the effort to hunt down the chain of phone numbers across a few continents to get to my phone number, and that's totally understandable when Facebook is a convenient alternative in terms of messaging.

<comment><USER20> I treat Facebook in much the same way. However, I don't completely agree with your statement that:

> I feel like people always talk as if the trade-off is between wasting hours > of time on the newsfeed or being harder to reach, but this is a false > dilemma.

I've often argued the same when friends of mine closed their facebook account and became harder to reach. Then I realized that this choice of 'moderation' can be very difficult for many people, in the same way that for some people it can be _really_ difficult to stop drinking once they start, and in the same way that for _me_ it's _really_ difficult to start watching a new show without binging on it.

That said, ideally I'd propose your solution. On mobile this is easier if you just install the messenger app without the facebook app (assuming that's possible).

<comment><USER19> Oh yea I totally agree. Some people definitely can't control themselves and in their case closing down the account is definitely best. I had a friend who broke his civ4 cd so he'd stop playing so much... He just ended up pirating it a month later haha. I should have specified in my comment "if possible".

I've considered the messaging app but given the immaturity of app permissions and Facebook's abysmal record, I figured I'd stick with the incognito login thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I never understood the appeal behind Twitter myself. I don't have an account (nor one on Facebook) and I only use it infrequently to search various trends when my curiosity is piqued. Twitter is an indispensable tool to perform sentimental analysis and analyze/predict societal tendencies and trends in general.

But as a social media tool? People always keep saying that there's plenty of interesting information to be obtained from following technical individuals. I just don't see that. What can I get that I won't obtain from blogs attached to my RSS reader, or even just by going to high-profile communities and message boards like /r/netsec, HN and Slashdot/SoylentNews/AltSlashdot to use as digests?

Finally, even if you do find golden nuggets, they're buried between layers of inanity and mundane content. Who would've thought a communication medium limited to 140 characters would suffer from that?

I guess the only real benefit is that I can directly speak to tech figures, although in a highly constrained format. I don't think I'd want to, though, especially considering plenty of those people would likely see you as a Luddite for still using email and IRC. Twitter's very webdev-centric, I find.

I waste enough time on the web as is. Adding Twitter to the mix would offer no benefit. Though I'm assuming employers insist on it?

<comment><USER21> Okay for social media. What about reading online articles?

<comment> vezzy-fnord What about it?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Parsing arbitrarily structured data by example - <AUTHOR> I remember seeing a demo here last year of a system which allowed you to enter arbitrarily structured data (be it JSON, CSV or some custom format), and by selecting a few examples of the data, the demo was then able to parse the entire dataset.
For example, if you provided data in this format which I've just made up:
"Pig";"Dog";"Mouse";"Cat"
By selecting Pig, it was able to determine the formatting, and returns Dog, Mouse and Cat as well.
However, I've been unable to find this demo, or any example of something similar. Can anyone point me in the right direction? <comment><USER2> Could it be this?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9432949](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9432949)</comment>