Ask HN: How to remember what I've read in a book? - <AUTHOR>

I read a lot (non-fiction) but I also forget a lot. So, why I read  that lot if I forget the 90%? How can I improve this? <comment><USER2> \- make little red X's in the margin for important points,

\- make cheat sheet or an outline out of those, connected ot Table of Contents

\- "triangulate", read multiple books on one topic, say, C++ programming. Make sure they're good books, there's some horrible C++ books out there, and some horrible deceptive amazon reviews.

_______

Cal Newport has some good study hacks on [http://calnewport.com/blog/](http://calnewport.com/blog/).

HN has lots of study hacks threads: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=study+hacks#!/story/forever/0/stud...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=study+hacks#!/story/forever/0/study%20hacks)

Also this book has lots of interesting ideas for $6.54 + shipping: [http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Exams-Dummies-Patrick- Sherratt...](http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Exams-Dummies-Patrick- Sherratt/dp/1742169252)

</comment><comment><USER3> Some thoughts:

1\. Take notes while or after you read. Not too much, but enough to summarize what you've read. This is especially good because if you do forget what you read you can just refer to the notes.

2\. Explain what you've read to someone else. Or imagine you're explaining what you read to your grandmother.

3\. Find a way to use what you just learned in a new way or maybe continue to read more on the topic to reinforce what you've just read.

4\. Take breaks. It's easy to zone out and start skimming. Allow yourself time to digest the new content. I find this helps for particularly dense or abstract topics.

5\. Some people say it's easier to remember things that are novel or emotionally compelling in some way. Maybe create a mnemonic or imagine a scene or metaphor to remember the key points of what you have read.

</comment><comment><USER4> If it's prose, I write one or more essay(s) on the topic after reading the topic and mulling over it for 1 or 2 days.

Oh - and this one makes me look crazy but here goes nothing - I teach it....to myself that is, in my own mind that is, usually while exercising! How weird is that! I become these 2 persons in my head - 1 is the teacher, 1 is the student - and I pretend that teacher-me is teaching the subject to student-me, using own vocabulary. Sounds weird, but it works for me.

If it's programming, I implement the concepts I read.

If it's math, I write notes, solve related problems and try to come up with related corollaries.

In general, _using_ whatever I've read in some way seems to help me a lot.

</comment><comment><USER5> tldr; you tend to remember a) things that interest you and b) things that you repeat.

I am also very fond of reading but I usually read fictional books. One of the things that I have noticed is how I tend to remember the plot even after a long time. For instance a few days back I was reading a Sherlock Holmes story (the speckled band) after about a decade and I was surprised at how well I remembered the solution to the puzzle. Incidentally I have also noticed this on previous occasions like when I turned the pages of count of Monte cristo or the three musketeers or other books that I enjoyed back in the day and I instantly found myself "in the world" when I expected to be "out of place".

On the other hand I tried reading a Shakespeare play that I had the opportunity to read before in my high school and I didn't remember it quite as well. No wonder there because I never enjoyed his work even though I tried many times. So my conclusion is that I tend to remember things that I like. Even if I forget them I get up to speed very quickly.

But the problem is there are things that are good for us that we might not enjoy. I don't particularly enjoy reading non fictional books but I know it is important that I read them if I want to learn. So I read them slowly making progress each day. Often taking handwritten notes and re reading things that I found interesting the first time around.

I have this theory that if you read anything some parts stick in your brain and they stay with you forever. Even if you feel like you have learned nothing you always take something with you. It could be a changed outlook on the subject or maybe a better understanding but you never leave empty handed if you read. I have no evidence to support what I have said though it's just something that I have noticed in my self :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Make a presentation on what you have read. Present it to a group or at the least put it on Slideshare.

More than just taking notes (which are more effective than not taking notes), when you try to present something (or explain to others) is when you really capture the knowledge in your head for a really really long time.

</comment><comment><USER7> I created my own personal wiki where I would keep book notes from the various things I read. I really like it as a solution personally and it was nothing more complicated than a 10 minute wordpress install on a $5/m VPS though you could arguably use Evernote in much the same way for free if you prefered.

</comment><comment><USER8> I had The same problem... Muy solución is two fold: 1\. Use anki for spaced repetittion 2\. Read a lot more con the same subject... For that I use audiobooks and audible... That has made muy morning jog... A lo more productive.

</comment><comment><USER9> Depends on the reading material

Technical books: Spaced repetition

General story-telling: Re-read chapters/reflect on deeper meanings and try to be "in the moment" while reading.

</comment><comment> p-pat-ni You could use Goodreads to keep track of books 'to read' and 'read'. Adding a review once the book is read, will help you summarize it and retrieve it later.

</comment><comment><USER10> HI could anyone here let me know that why I got negative points for this comment of mine - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8333921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8333921)

-nitin</comment>


The Case for Teaching Ignorance - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/opinion/the-case-for-teaching-ignorance.html <comment><USER2> There's a lot to be said for this, especially in biology, where there's so much we don't know, and textbooks don't make this clear. Brain science is even worse. We still don't know how memories are stored, either the mechanism or the format.

Economics remains badly understood. The predictive power of economic models is low. Psychology and sociology are even worse.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the point here is not that the limits of knowledge are not know, but that the focus of course work often stops at what is know. If you are training future experts you should spend the vast majority of the time focusing on the interesting questions that don't have answers right now. The realm of the 'textbook' known is so small for many scientific domains that in an ideal world it would be relegated to summer reading (yes, I'm implying one should read most if not all of that 800 page textbook, or many curated sections from it).

<comment><USER4> "The realm of the 'textbook' known is so small for many scientific domains that in an ideal world it would be relegated to summer reading"

It seems like you're implying that the 4-8 years graduate students spend, starting in undergrad, learning what's already known about their field could be relegated to a single summer? That's fairly outrageous, given how many thousands of scientists have been building increasingly complex theories and categorizations of knowledge over the past few hundred years.

<comment><USER3> I'm exaggerating a bit but mostly because my experience is that the kinds of questions that are asked on tests a lower levels of science education are things that you simply know at higher levels and not because you were tested on them but because you have to use them and apply them every day. Better to have courses that expect you to have read all of Molecular Biology of the Cell in advance and present material with that expectation. That way students can see the real applications of the knowledge that we build on and not just see it as some stupid thing to be memorized for the next certificate. I get no prize for knowing IUPAC nomenclature, but I couldn't even start to do my work without it. The expectation should be as such, you get a prize for thinking creatively about how one could answer questions or for coming up with answerable questions that haven't been asked before.

I actually think that formal courses are an excellent way to learn 'textbook' material, but they are far more useful when you know you are going to use that knowledge in the future. The question for me is whether, at the highest levels, we should be focusing our courses, and rewarding people for the equivalent of learning how to walk when we need them to fly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This sort of course isn't for medical school. Maybe undergrad, but to-be doctors have enough on their plate without focusing on the blank areas of scientific knowledge. Once you at a professional school the time for fostering curiosity is long gone. If you;ve dedicated much of your life to a subject then you are already curious.

I hesitate to say such a course could be useful at the highschool level. It would certainly encourage independent leaning and humble many subjects. But it would also become political. It's a fine line between teaching the limits of biological knowledge and preaching intelligent design.

<comment><USER6> It is quite important for medical school. Doctors give poor care when they say, "You don't have a problem," rather than, "Science does not know how to deal with this problem." Examples of this include "complementary" medicine that is supported by science ([http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/upshot/labels-like- alterna...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/upshot/labels-like-alternative- medicine-dont-matter-the-science-does.html)) but which doctors are not necessarily educated about, and even worse, the false certainty around prostate cancer screening which has led to urination problems and erectile dysfunction and even death for many men who would not have died from prostate cancer ([http://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/research/overtreatment](http://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/research/overtreatment)).

Doctors _must_ know the limits of their scientific knowledge or they endanger the lifespan and the quality of life of their patients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd love to see a similar approach to CS-related topics. We don't know how to solve many security problems (key delivery, etc). We don't know what exactly makes a good user interface (many psychological/natural/social factors that we aren't aware). And we're yet to know how to write a correct program, let alone what "correctness" is. We don't even know what's a good way approach the problem, or even discuss it.

<comment><USER8> It took me nearly two decades working in IT before I was in a position where I was respected, secure and comfortable enough to be able to say "I don't know" in front of the business client.

If I had said that even after five years on the job I would have been hauled into a meeting room by my manager and dressed-down for giving a 'poor image of the Technology department'.

Unfortunately that's also one of the reasons we have so much buggy code; people are afraid to express their lack of knowledge of a particular subject, so they kludge on through with some code pasted from a Google search.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure about the philosophy of it all, but I think the concept to be conveyed is an understanding of how large a domain of knowledge is, and an understating of how little of that domain you have removed the "fog of war" from. Of course, this is a Bayesian interpretation, believing everything exists, we have but to go discover and interpret it.

Do others perceive a domain of knowledge to grow and change as one interacts with it and asks questions?

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't buy it. Any academic presentation of a subject includes the limits of current knowledge. Maybe this is not emphasized enough, but it's a matter of extent, not a qualitative refusal to acknowledge ignorance.

A great example is that mainstream academic economists are _very_ open about not being able to explain why monetary stimulus works. At one point (maybe this goes back to Keynes or even further) people attributed it to sticky prices. But current research cannot come up with a reasonable mechanism based on sticky prices that would explain the magnitude of the effect of monetary policy. Currently people accept that what we observe on the macro level cannot be explained on the micro level.

</comment><comment><USER11> Medical science has limits? I thought we proved we're just finite state machines that are occasionally jostled into unfavorable states that can only balanced by external chemicals.

<comment><USER12> Can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or didn't read the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "We are blind to our blindness." Daniel Khaneman

<comment><USER14> "But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." SecDef Donald Rumsfeld

<comment><USER15> I don't get why he is laughed at because of that quote. I personally find it quite elegant.

<comment><USER13> The quote wasn't spoken eloquently but it was profound. He was speaking truth but it was also amazingly ironic. Why risk and assume so much about success in Iraq with the quagmire of obvious unknowns?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It blows my mind that we don't know if Japanese intestines are longer than Westerners even though it's a popular meme in Japan.

<comment><USER17> It blows my mind that there is some myth about the Japanese still floating around in Japan may have been started by some pasty white German in the late 1800's.

<comment><USER16> But how come we can't/haven't disproved it, this to me is more the question, unless the article is incorrect and it has been disproved.

Why don't we have average sizes for body parts on record? Surly this would have been step one in Anatomy.

[https://medium.com/unpublishable-elsewhere/are-japanese- inte...](https://medium.com/unpublishable-elsewhere/are-japanese-intestines- longer-8a41ca3e7d89)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seems more like she's trying to teach a class on relativism, a subject I wholeheartedly hope stays away from science. Additionally, epistemology already exists, and is a well established field of study.

<comment><USER19> Did you even read the article before typing out your smug post? The professor is not advocating ignorance. She is advocating an honest recognition of the bounds of knowledge and ignorance versus false certainty.

<comment><USER18> When did I make that claim? I said that I think what she's promoting is based more off of relativism, and that epistemology is already an established field; hell, it's quite literally the study of knowledge. So _smug_!</comment></comment></comment>


CakePHP 2.0 released - <AUTHOR> http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/lorenzo/2011/10/16/cakephp_2_0_released <comment><USER2> "We have dropped PHP 4 support and we have refactored all the code to be strictly compliant with PHP 5.2+."

Exciting!

I have some projects written in 1.3. Anyone port from 1.3 yet and care to comment on their experience with it?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks like nobody cares about cakephp anymore...</comment>


Facebook Is Using Your Profile to Track Global Urban Migration Trends - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/12/facebook-using-your-profile-track-global-urban-migration-trends/7982/ <comment><USER2> I'm sure the discussion will soon slip to "OMG, Facebook has data and its gonna do evil things". That's a valid point, but I hope people here see the amount of information we now know about _us_, that equips for more informed decisions of tomorrow.

<comment><USER3> Not so sure. According to Facebook I'm 6 years younger than I am, I live in Monaco and studied rocket science at Harvard. Most of my friends have similar distortions, and when the subject comes up we're surprised when someone tells us their profile uses real data.

I know that my experience is hardly indicative of anything, but I'd like to believe that it's happening more and more.

<comment><USER4> Really? Apart from the odd few who use "Full time mummy" as their job description, everyone I know uses real information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Google's Moto G seems a lot more interesting now -- their marketing effort has been summarized as "getting the next 1 billion people online."

This alludes to anticipating urban migration and knowing 1) who moves where 2) when they move. This can be very interesting and (in most cases) frighteningly accurate advertisement information.

<comment><USER6> The Moto G is a great effort and I applaud them for it (and my Moto X is the best Android I've ever had), but the real next billion don't come from a phone that still costs $179 or so. It will come significantly cheaper smart or smart-enough-for-facebook devices. Think the even cheaper Chinese OEM Androids, think the Nokia Asha devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tracking urban migration trends?

The temptation that none of the big data hoover companies (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, etc.) will be able to resist is something else:

When you have so much data on everybody, you have created yourself a situation that allows you to "hack the system" to your advantage and the disadvantage of those who don't have all that data. You can analyze the trends that the data shows and link them to the movements of the stock exchange, and you're all set for infinite passive income and domination - now you know before everybody else what to buy and what to sell and when (you can call it "insider trading based on data").

Now, if you, as the user want to supply all that data, that's up to you. If so, you'll not only be appreciated by those companies but by certain government agencies as well.

</comment><comment><USER8> My team and I did an analysis on our Facebook dataset recently that might (or might not) have inspired this particular work.

You can find the geographic analysis within this blog post:

[http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/04/data-science-of- the-f...](http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/04/data-science-of-the-facebook- world/)

There is a much higher resolution version of the "migration wheel" available here:

[http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/12/start/facebo...](http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/12/start/facebook- migration-station)

</comment><comment><USER9> From that data? It's way too basic.

Mine isn't completed, partly because the real friends know it and the casual acquaintances don't need it, but if it were? Well, I can't tell them where I'm from with any precision. I grew up in four different towns, none particularly close to the others, went back to one for University (well, sort of - a stint in each of two towns in a conurbation), moved to a fifth for work, currently live in a sixth but will probably move to a seventh later this year - and I don't expect that move to be a 'forever' home.

So, Facebook, where am I from?

<comment><USER10> Do you think that your situation is typical? I don't think so

<comment><USER9> No (though I'd suggest less atypical than you might think), but that's the point.

If you're looking to model migration patterns and you have a data gathering system that biases your data to capture a bimodal migration pattern - childhood in one location, adulthood in another - then I might suggest that you'll disproportionately find the data you were apparently expecting which fits that pattern.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really wish this was interactive. I clicked through to the article directly from Facebook, but it was still static images. It's hard to follow the lines when there are a bunch of them overlapping.

</comment><comment><USER12> Does that give them enough of an edge to make a killing in the property market? (by investing in up-and-coming areas before everyone else catches on)

</comment><comment><USER13> And their users are giving them their data for free, in exchange for being able to get a daily does of "Like"-events, so that we can feel validated I guess?</comment>


Decoupled Neural Interfaces Using Synthetic Gradients - <AUTHOR> https://deepmind.com/blog#decoupled-neural-interfaces-using-synthetic-gradients <comment><USER2> Super cool stuff in this paper.

At its heart, this is a new training architecture that allows parameter weights to be updated faster in a distributed setting.

The speed-up happens like so: instead of waiting for the full error gradient to propagate through the entire model, nodes can calculate the local gradient immediately and estimate the rest of it.

The full gradient does eventually get propagated, and it is used to fine-tune the estimator, which is a mini-neural net in itself.

Its amazing that this works, and the implications that full back-prop may not always be needed shakes up a lot of assumptions about training deep nets. This paper also continues the trend of this year of using neural nets as estimators/tools to improve the training of other neural nets. (I'm looking at you GANs).

Overall, excited to see where this goes as other researchers explore the possibilities when you throw the back-prop assumption out.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a big deal. One of the weaknesses of NNs is their time/memory complexity. Having to store every previous state and iterate backwards through them to the beginning of time, to learn. And if you want to learn "online" then you need to do that at every single step. It's unlikely the human brain works that way, and that has been one of the big arguments for why the brain can't use something similar to backprop.

<comment><USER4> It has been proven that sparse backwards connections, even with tied weights, can substitute backprop. In biological systems the feedback routes can't be the same and share connections with the feed forward routes.

<comment><USER5> Are you referring to [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0247v1.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0247v1.pdf) ? That doesn't mention sparse backward connections, but it does show that feedback weights that aren't computing the actual derivative dloss/din can till support learning. The network 'learns to learn', so to speak.

<comment><USER6> I also dimly remember that sparsity in the random fixed backward connections still works. There is actually a figure about that in the paper you've linked to.

Interestingly, feedback alignment is also patented, but it is unclear that is actually helpful, except for explaining neuroscience. To my knowledge there has been no application of it in two years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anyone knows how they generated the illustration images?

Seems much better than relying on the client to render cpu intensive JS.

<comment><USER8> Keynote for the static ones, After Effects for the gifs

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do most of the images not load for you guys too? (nevermind, works now!)

<comment><USER3> None of the images load for me, even after many refreshes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this a big deal?

<comment><USER11> This area is a big deal - ML networks need to be much deeper and denser to provide human-level understanding, and training networks is currently a considerable bottleneck.

<comment><USER4> Does this method make it easier to spread a neural network over multiple GPUs/machines? I mean, does it reduce the amount of data being communicated between compute nodes or just decouples the updates from the need to wait for the rest of the net to finish?

<comment><USER12> _Does this method make it easier to spread a neural network over multiple GPUs /machines?_

Yes, but this isn't the primary focus of this work.

This is about a method of approximating error rates (gradient) back up the neural network.

This is important because allowing the use of approximate error rates means that earlier layers can be trained without waiting for error back-propagation from the later layers.

This asynchronous feature helps on a (computer) network too - there is no need to wait for back-propagation across the network.

As they point out the error will back-propagation eventually. The analogy with an eventually consistent database system (and the effect that has on scalability) is pretty clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> wait... the model can be linear. So then it's just the second order terms of the error gradient? Or the Jacobian or something?

<comment><USER14> Hmmm - I'm also thinking that this is one of those things that probably has a much better explanation - and the science/maths will (hopefully) backfill why it works so well.

I half-remember from somewhere that as long as the gradient descent direction has the correct sign 'in expectation', then the SGD will ~work. So there's a whole lot of flexibility in there for having a good idea that at least doesn't fail horribly.

For instance, in other DeepMind work, they do lots of asynchronous weight updates - and the accuracy decrease from ignoring any kind of 'locking' is dwarfed by the speed increase of being able to run more stuff in parallel.

Another image I can't shrug off is that of Q-learning in a game, where the updates implicitly pass back from 'the future' (which also works ~better than it should). In this case, the linear model would just be an estimator of where the update values are going to land...

<comment><USER15> HOGWILD [1] lock-free weight updates are a great example of how forgiving SGD can be.

1 : [https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5730](https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5730)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Cedreo easy Floor Plan Software. Instant 3D floor plans from 2D drawing - <AUTHOR> https://cedreo.com/floor-plan-software/ <comment><USER2> I wanted to check whether you've greatly improved the usability of Cedreo since last time it was flogged on HN.

But, when I tried to log in again I was immediately presented with an option to buy a monthly license (min $79/mnth).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, You can try it for free during 15 days. A new version, completely redesigned will come before the end of the year thanks to the first feebacks</comment></comment>


Why Virtual Classes Can Be Better Than Real Ones (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/why-virtual-classes-can-be-better-than-real-ones <comment><USER2> I've been working as a data scientist for a few years now, primarily self taught using the wealth of high quality videos and other materials online.

I recently worked as a teaching assistant on an expensive and well-regarded data science bootcamp course. I did this primarily because I was curious what classroom-based training in data science was like.

I found it much less useful than online materials. It seemed like the primary benefit was just that once you've stumped up several thousand pounds, you're motivated to actually show up and concentrate. And you also get to meet some people with a common interest.

But the quality of teaching fell well below the standard online (not surprisingly, when online you have access to lectures by superstars like Hadley Wickham, Peter Norvig and Andrew Ng, with lectures that have been carefully recorded).

And on top of that, it's not a great use of time. A half hour to commute to get to the lecture. Then the lectures being in 'real time'. Online, I find myself running video lectures at 1.5 or 2x speed for large portions of the material - the 'filler' \- and then having to watch, re-watch the hard concepts several times at normal speed and pause just to think.

I found that at the end of the classroom course, I had developed an awareness of the existence of concepts and techniques, but not really an understanding of them.

<comment><USER3> Can you talk about finding a job in data science despite being self taught?

<comment><USER4> +1'd. Also, whether working in the field has satisfied you as you had hoped.

<comment><USER2> I've been a government analyst for around 10 years, starting my career as an economist (after graduating with an economics degree). This meant I was working with numbers a lot, and I found that my strengths were mainly in statistics and working with complex datasets rather than e.g. macroeconomic analysis.

This meant I had started to build up examples of projects which were getting close to 'data science' (the term, I think, is vague). Custom interactive data vis in d3.js, forecasting and regression modelling etc.

I also started quite a large web scraping project in my own time, which led to me needing to develop a much stronger programming skillset, and gave me some more tangible examples of having done 'data sciency' stuff.

When data science took off in UK gvt a few years ago, that meant I was well positioned to make the switch. No-one had much experience at that point, so it wasn't too hard to get a first role. I think generally, there's such strong demand for data scientists that there's a mismatch between the job spec (which look scary), and the candidates (who aren't the data science unicorns the job ads ask for). So with a few projects under your belt, it worth having a crack at applying for stuff.

In terms of being satisfied: It helps working for government because we're trying to use data to make better decisions that help people. There's definitely too many buzz words and fluff, and it's difficult to help non-data scientists understand what's hard (all the data engineering and modelling leading up to delivery) and what's not (a flashy data vis) - so it's hard to convince non-data scientists to allocate resource to the best areas. The flip side is that it's really clear there is a great opportunity to change how we do analysis for the better. So overall it's pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > This is particularly true in the fraught area of STEM (Science, Technology, > Engineering, Math), where difficult explanations often cry out for a student > to replay a portion of a lecture, or simply to take a pause while > comprehension works its way to consciousness

Or to do a couple of exercises until students really grasp the subject matter. Often it feels like we can grasp something in theory, only to be stumped by practical applications. One of the greatest benefits a course could have is example problems, with fully explained solutions. If the problems are fun to work through, then it makes for a good course.

What I'd like to see is a promise on the likes of:

> Do these 100 problems and you'll grock X (where X is probability, calculus, > functional programming, deep learning, etc)!

And the problems be well chosen, well explained and fun to work out.

<comment><USER6> I realised that with mathematics in school and university.

Even though I usually understood everything after hearing it once I was only able to get an A on an exam after I did the calculations at least once by myself.

If I didn't do that I would get caught up on "unknown unknowns", lose time and get a C.

<comment><USER7> Same experience here. Math et al are technique oriented at that level. You simply have to practice to get good at it, no way around it. Just like comprehending a jump shot is no substitute for taking hundreds of shots a day if you want to get good at it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jesus, it took me way too long to realize this was about online classes, not virtual classes in languages. :-)

<comment><USER9> I read it "huh? You have to subclass it eventually to make an instance, right? I dunno, let's go see what the comments say...WTF?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So I've been taking online courses on the side for the last little while, including the author's often recommended, Learning How to Learn. I guess I was spurred on because I felt like I wanted to use my spare time doing something outside of playing games during the winter.

I have to say that watching lectures on Khan Academy, Udacity, or YouTube rekindled my love of learning. Now, I look forward to a block of spare time when I can watch a video and test out my knowledge by practicing on various quizzes from university sources, or by picking up a book with harder examples. And of course, one major advantage is that if I get stuck on a term or concept, I can rewind the lecture, or search on Google for more explanation, or find yet another YouTube video with another take on it. And if I get stuck, I recognize to take one step back and take a refresher on more fundamental concepts.

I think that's why I prefer it over being back in school where the quality and personal connection to the teacher varied so heavily, and the class/course just kept going regardless of your comprehension. We all know those one or two teachers growing up who were so exceptionally bad at teaching a particular subject that it's quite probable some students stopped going in a certain path because of that struggle. Just look up popular math or biology videos, and you'll find students who leave comments like, "Wow you just explained in five minutes what my teacher/prof tried teaching me for x months." I know so many smart people who don't think they could excel in variety of subjects because of bad experiences in school, treating it like a mark of permanence. And it didn't help that some teachers honestly believed if you didn't get it then, well tough luck, you're hopeless.

I still much prefer in-class instructions, largely for the communal experience of learning with others and because the curriculum tends to be more rigorous than online courses. But I find online videos, and write-ups far more effective at teaching me complex things over the average teacher/professor. And one can sometimes make up the difference in difficulty by taking up personal projects or finding difficult quizzes/tests online.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think a lot of this is stemming from the deeper issue that kids are just tired of being charged absurd amounts of money for a cookie cutter syllabus based on a text book, and then tested on it, while the college shoves as many kids in classrooms and labs as possible and praising their "% of grads that find jobs immediately after graduating!"

As a reaction to that, yes I agree. However, we will be fooling ourselves if you think that anything compares being next to a real teacher. Someone who has intimate knowledge of the subject. Someone who truly cares about teaching and guiding. I can think of all the MIT OpenCourseWare lectures I watched where my mouth dropped to the floor and I said to myself "Gosh I really wish I could of had a teacher like that at my University" And I can only imagine being able to actually go up to their office and get personal 1 on 1 time with them, or work along side some of them in research...crazy, but getting that experience at some state college in middle america somewhere is just a rarity, a needle in a haystack.

<comment><USER12> I've been lucky enough to get that experience with a Udacity course. The first time Peter Norvig taught Design of Computer Programs, he was very active in the forums and in Google Hangouts. I got the chance to study from one of the best out there, and it didn't cost me a dime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Virtual classes are better in some ways and inferior (to in person) in others.

I'm currently applying for a masters in computer science and debating between attending a program in person or online. One advantage of attending in person is immersing myself in a class room full of students, aligned with a similar goal in mind. An online course, on the other hand, offers me more flexibility (I'm working full time at AWS) and saves me time on commuting.

Although I'm constantly studying on my own and leveraging online courses, I'm leaning towards an in person program for a couple reasons. First, I recently moved to Seattle and the university of Washington (UW) offers a program tailored for working professionals; this is a great way to not only meet other people on a similar path, but, most importantly, receive in-person feedback from the professors (as well as other students). Feedback, as well as networking, is really difficult to replicate with an online format.

On an separate note, I have yet to find an online masters in CS that offers a thesis—all the programs I researched only offer course based work.

</comment><comment><USER14> I worked on a few projects where I wished the other coders only wrote virtual classes.

</comment><comment><USER15> The only problem with MOOCs I've had is that they assume the message boards are usable (they're not) and basically non-existent study groups. The boards are insanely slow and they're no substitute for office hours or a study group. Study groups are hard to put together because most people don't have 2-5 people in real life interested in taking the course and have time to come together on a Friday night. Though I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, those two factors have caused me to "fudge" the homework a little bit because there's just no way I can tackle something like that on my own and finish it on time. I still learned the material, but there's always the guilt that I "cheated" because I just don't have the time to finish it without any external help.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't know about MOOCs, but I teach Programming online (we have a remote bootcamp) and I prefer the online experience 1000 times more than the physical experience. The amazing groups of people that we create, having folks from all around the world is invaluable. They feel comfortable, secure, and motivated.

</comment><comment><USER17> My main perspective on the issue: If I want to learn a completely new topic, I like it to with a teacher standing in front of me. Otherwise, I can take an online course just to recall some topics and update my outdated information.

<comment><USER17> I forgot why. Because I like to interact and get answers for my unique questions from the teacher. Not a lot of online classes provide this interaction. Actually most of them are prerecorded videos and stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> DataCamp is what got me my current job - I think the extra flexibility is what makes virtual classes better than real ones

</comment><comment><USER19> Ok, I'll bite - I thought this was an article about C++.

<comment><USER20> This is such a perfect comment! Love it.

<comment><USER21> Me too, as I pondered the vtbl arguments to come.</comment></comment></comment>


The London Underground turns 150. See how the tube map has changed - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/41893/the-london-underground-turns-150-today-see-how-the-tube-map-has-changed/ <comment><USER2> I'm always amazed at how modern the world was in 1890-1910. I recently learned that the train line I take to work every morning (Metro North's New Haven line) was electrified in 1907!

At Disneyland, Tomorrowland has an exhibit the Carousel of Progress. While it's ostensibly about the advances in home technology over the last 100 years, what really strikes you is how quickly it becomes recognizably modern. Electric lighting and cooking became common in the 1920's, and by 1940 you've got a dishwasher, television, etc.

<comment><USER3> Don't forget that it was true only for a very small percent of Earth's land/people. For example in Eastern Europe - Bulgaria, electricity reached smaller towns and villages during the 1950s and 60s.

<comment><USER4> Even Americans didn't have electrification or indoor plumbing everywhere in the 1930's.

<comment><USER5> Even seemingly modern, developed countries didn't have indoor plumbing in the 1930s.

My parents grew up in houses on modern (for the time) housing estates in England in the 1950s/1960s without indoor plumbing. Though it was indoor in the sense that the shed was attached to the house out back, but the plumbing was not inside the house until the late 1960s.

The number of dwellings in Japan with flush toilets increased from 45.9% in 1978 to 83.0% in 1998.

* Statistics Bureau, Japan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this is one of the most interesting parts of the old subway - <http://www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html>

There are fake houses in London, with very real looking facades, that were built so that the steam from the engines could escape.

Epic.

<comment><USER7> Not related, but also interesting. The railway U1 in Berlin going right through a house. Amazing when you are in front of the house's door. [http://www.bahnbilder.de/1024/-hausdurchfahrt-im- uebergangsb...](http://www.bahnbilder.de/1024/-hausdurchfahrt-im- uebergangsbereich-542267.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In case any New Yorkers are interested, historical maps (minus any textual guide to them) is available here:

<http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Historical_Maps>

Sometimes I wonder what the NYC subway system would look like if it was centrally administered from the start, like the Tube was. NYC definitely has made some choices that look strange today.

<comment><USER9> > Sometimes I wonder what the NYC subway system would look like if it was > centrally administered from the start, like the Tube was. NYC definitely has > made some choices that look strange today.

I'm new in NYC. Could you elaborate on this?

<comment><USER8> The subway system used to be operated by different companies. To simplify greatly- the letter lines were a different company (BMT) to the number lines (IRT). That's why there are so few stations that allow you to transfer between letters and numbers, and why trains on lettered lines cannot run on numbered tracks, and vice versa. It's also why we have countdown clocks on numbered lines and not lettered ones- they use different technology.

There are even stories of one company intentionally obstructing the other. If I recall correctly, the BMT built track that they had no intention of using, just so that they could block the IRT from extending the 7 line beyond Times Square.

Sometimes I wonder why the subways fascinate me as much as they do.

<comment><USER9> > It's also why we have countdown clocks on numbered lines and not lettered > ones- they use different technology.

This actually came up in a different thread, where I asked how the old technology could possibly prevent something as simple as countdown clocks. I never got a good answer when I said

> I don't care about the signal towers or how old the system is. The point is > that the technology for identifying the location and speed of a few hundred > giant hunks of metal moving around on fixed tracks is trivial and does not > need to interact with the old system (or humans) at all. Just tag each train > with a few RFID's, and stick in a few hundred miles of wiring into the > tunnels.

>I mean, are you telling me for a 100 million dollars this couldn't be done?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4979988>

The context was this:

> "The existence of this sleek digital interface barely hints at the > investment that had to be made in terms of hardware and infrastructure to > make this enormous public benefit a reality," said Thomas F. Prendergast, > President of MTA New York City Transit. "Think of Subway Time as the small > tip of a huge iceberg. For a product of this quality to be available on the > lettered lines, we will need to commit hundreds of millions of dollars and > years of dedicated effort."

> Automatic Train Supervision installation began in 1997. The system was > activated in segments, with the substantial completion taking place in 2008. > The project cost $20.8 million per year over 11 years, or $228.3 million in > total.

<http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=921>

I find this baffling. Can anyone shed some light?

<comment><USER8> I imagine (though I have no idea) that those millions of dollars are not used on countdown clocks- they're used to centralise all train operations in one building, with countdown clocks as a side-effect benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That webpage is a nightmare to use. I love almost any kind of maps though, so it was worth it.

<comment> tech-no-logical +1. this is the worst user experience I've had in a long time.

<comment><USER11> Care to elaborate? I think it's a well-worked responsive design. The only annoyance is the navigation bar flitting up and down on scroll.

<comment><USER12> Well for example Ghostery! kills all functionality, when killing all trackers on the page. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Huh, bit of a gap between 1974 and 2002, you don't get to see the Jubilee line prior to its extension south of the river.

</comment><comment><USER14> The light grey zone coloration (In the last 2 maps) is hugely distracting in these images, though I don't remember that being the case in real life. Perhaps it's an artifact of the size.

</comment><comment><USER15> Bit of a gap between 2002 and 2013. That's just lazy. It couldn't be too hard to find more maps.

</comment><comment><USER16> Mornington crescent!</comment>


Octane: Javascript Benchmark Suite for the modern web - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chromium.org/2012/08/octane-javascript-benchmark-suite-for.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting, as Firefox 17 has caught up to Chrome in older benchmarks.

[http://www.arewefastyet.com/?machine=11&view=regress](http://www.arewefastyet.com/?machine=11&view=regress)

[http://www.arewefastyet.com/?view=regress&machine=10](http://www.arewefastyet.com/?view=regress&machine=10)

With this kind of competition, we all win.</comment>


TSA acknowledges financial stress of shutdown is forcing officers to stay home - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/01/17/tsa-says-financial-stress-shutdown-is-forcing-growing-number-officers-stay-home/ <comment><USER2>
      She said her fellow officers are "out there working, they're putting their lives on the line. We took that oath when we got hired here, and we're not even getting what we deserve."

All budgeting problems aside, how do TSA officers put their lives on the line?

<comment><USER3> You don't think screening for bombs has any potential to be dangerous?

<comment><USER4> The TSA has never found a bomb.

<comment><USER5> I don't think that statement, by itself, tells us much about the TSA's efficacy. Because their mere presence could be an effective deterrent.

<comment><USER6> We know at least two made it through. Underwear bomber, shoe bomber.

We also know pre-9/11 how common it was (non-existent).

We also know that they consistently fail audits. Though they've gotten better! Most recently they only failed ~75% of the time at detecting things auditors were trying to smuggle in, instead of the prior 95%!

So, yeah, by itself it doesn't. But we have enough data to make a pretty solid eval.

<comment><USER7> Both the underwear bomber and shoe bomber boarded flights overseas (Amsterdam and Paris respectively) -- so no TSA involvement.

<comment><USER8> The TSA has operated overseas before, but probably not in these countries.

If they see a country isn't up to their standard, I think they either show up to implement it for flights headed to the US or at least consult with the nation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> TSA is a case where the government nationalized a thing (airport security) that was sufficiently handled by the private sector.

A centralized regulating agency for transportation security makes sense, but heres what I don't get: what was the argument for also creating/hiring a literal army of guards to replace the private force that existed before? It seems unprecedented considering everything else in the post-Reagan political ideology.

It was a massive and invasive expansion of Federal policing power, and it seemingly comes under no real scrutiny or opposition (beyond everyone completely hating it)

<comment><USER10> I have little sympathy for the TSA as an organization. I also have no idea if the effectiveness is any better or worse, but I feel like the policies and protocols are more consistent between airports or even terminals than they were before they took over. (although, the TSA seemed to struggle with this during the first decade or so of their existence and it's still an ongoing problem...just much smaller). As airport security concerns grew after 9/11 more demands were made of travelers with vary inconsistent application. At least now if I go to most airports I know what the security protocol will be. If I have PreCheck, that is also pretty consistent with how its applied.

Given that, I don't see any reason they can't just be standards or policies that private security would adhere to. I'm sure there's a boondoggle story behind it, but I thought some airports had tried replacing TSA with middling success?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "they're putting their lives on the line"

Yeah right, my heros.

<comment><USER12> If that is true, then technically anyone at the airport is putting their lives on the line. No one life is worth more than another, so arguing they are putting their lives on the line is an attempt at controlling the conversation.

That said, the airport is a TSA run security theater: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater). They know this, of course, but must act otherwise.

<comment><USER11> I was being sarsactic. The TSA is nonsense and a huge waste of money not to mention time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> TSA is one of the biggest jokes in government economic rigging. Anecdotally, they're even more grumpy than the DMV. Yeah I've heard the adage the DMV is supposed to be slow as a control theory.

Bottom line is the TSA doesn't provide the value it costs.

<comment><USER14> DMV in my area is quite pleasant. Then again, the TSA is also quite pleasant (in demeanor, not the inconvenience), so maybe I'm just in a pleasant area.

I really wish we could just abolish the TSA and let the airlines and their insurance work it out with the airports. Things were _way_ better before 9/11 when I didn't feel like a criminal when I need to ride on an airplane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The system whereby the government is "shutdown", forcing all its employees to become creditors, but at the same time everyone is expected to treat it as mere theatre where they eventually will be paid, is absurd. If it was France everyone involved would be in the street throwing road flares at the police. They should at the very least be starting to talk up the threat of going on strike - or action short of a strike.

(Also, shutdowns are becoming increasingly frequent. If this continues, maybe one day it won't come out of the shutdown ...)

<comment><USER16> I don't imagine we'll be out of this one as long as trump is in office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> ATC staff, inspectors -- I get that, they're useful

TSA?? They're not doing anything of value, for the most part. Three quarters of them could probably be let go. We're not losing much here.

<comment><USER18> That might be true, but it's still fucked up to not pay them, and you guys are being crass by saying this stuff right now. They're people just like you and I, and the TSA front line employees aren't the problem, it's the security theatre that's become the norm that's the issue. Please consider separating your hate for the TSA from the individuals doing their jobs each day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I'm not a fan of the TSA as an institution, I'm certainly sympathetic to them being in a situation of essentially unpaid servitude. Nobody deserves that, no matter how shitty or unimportant you think their job is.

<comment><USER19> > essentially unpaid servitude

According to Webster: "a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life"

This is false. They have an option (leave) and can execute on it.

<comment><USER20> Man the world you must live in where the option to be unemployed for months is a trivial thing for everyone involved.

<comment><USER19> Months of unemployment != servitude. There is an option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if Uber/Lyft has seen a jump in driver sign ups since the shutdown. Not sure how fast their onboarding is...but probably faster than trying to find a new job / temp job?

<comment><USER22> A friend of mine works for Shipt and she says there's been huge amounts of new signups in the past two weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> TSA staff going from poorly paid to not paid at all certainly doesn't open the door for any perverse incentives for extra cash. No sir-ee.

</comment><comment><USER8> Perfect time to end this thinly veiled jobs program.

</comment><comment><USER24> > "The American people need to know that their air travel remains safe," > Markey wrote.

I think the American people have been lied to enough.

<comment><USER25> Air travel is probably safer with the TSA in full operation, but only because there is a lower proportion of angry and tired people who have been waiting in line for 4 hours around.

<comment><USER24> Sen. Markey wasn't referring to the TSA, at least not primarily. He was much more concerned about air traffic control and safety inspections, as we should all be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a bit puzzling to me. Isn't TSA paid for by user fees? If so, why are they being impacted by the Government's failure to pass a budget?

[https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees](https://www.tsa.gov/for- industry/security-fees)

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd like to know how TSA employees are getting by and paying the mortgage or rent, considering that most people have less than $500 in savings. People saying that they've heard of banks giving out zero-interest loans in some areas is only anecdotal.

</comment><comment><USER28> If this happened in France (or many other places) there would be strikes, barricades, burning towers of tires, the whole works. American workers are incredibly timid.

</comment><comment><USER29> [https://outline.com/Kp9kvE](https://outline.com/Kp9kvE)

</comment><comment><USER30> Non-paywall link: [http://archive.is/RPAmu](http://archive.is/RPAmu)

</comment><comment><USER31> Nothing like a bunch of privileged computer geeks laughing at the 'help' that isn't getting paid. And mocking them because they feel insecure dealing with all the hostility every day on the job.

</comment><comment><USER32> Time to get a more useful minimum wage job. TSA is just an occasional contractor enrichment scheme that senator's can't roll back just in case something happens.

</comment><comment><USER33> While i don't envy their position - i think describing it as working without pay as a little disingenuous - while they have yet to be paid for the work they are performing, does anyone really believe that they are not going to be paid for their work down the road?

<comment><USER34> > i think describing it as working without pay as a little disingenuous

Disingenuous is taking this too far. They're paid in arrears, so the fact they've missed a paycheck means they've already done work which ought to have resulted in pay. They are currently without pay for labor they've contributed within the appropriate time-frame.

<comment><USER33> look i'm not saying they are in a desirable position, or that they are not entitled to pay that they earned, what i am saying is that if you asked a private sector worker which would you rather: 1. work without pay, but knowing you will have a job and eventually get paid (TSA) or 2. find out you no longer have a job and that you will never get paid for the work you performed (the private sector example)

<comment><USER34> > what i am saying is that if you asked a private sector worker which would > you rather

I was saying, regardless of whatever position I might take in a thought experiment, the US government has acted irrationally and violated an implicitly (and often explicitly) defined contract within our society: I give you my labor power, you give me cash. It currently stands that many government workers are without pay because that contract was violated and they have yet to be paid for their labor, so WP saying they are without pay is a valid statement.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Plan 9 released under GPLv2 - <AUTHOR> http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/files/Plan9License <comment><USER2> Title is misleading. Plan 9 was, and continue to be LPL. The Labs just made a special arrangement with these guys from Berkeley for them to distribute Plan 9 under dual-licensing terms. They in turn integrate Plan 9 bits into their GPL operating system (akaros).

Plan 9 as distributed by the labs continues to be LPL (not GPL and not dual licensed).

<comment><USER3> I'm confused. If Berkeley received a GPL license for Plan9, doesn't that mean they can redistribute it under the GPL?

From the GPL:

You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.

I'm assuming "it" in this case refers to the Plan 9 code.

<comment><USER4> 4ad is just nit-picking.

The labs still only distribute Plan 9 under its own license. Now Plan 9 is available also underthe GPL, but the labs doesn't distribute that version. it's only relevant if they continue to work on it and don't continue to share their changes under the GPL.

At worst, there will be a fork under GPL and they will slowly diverge.

<comment><USER2> My understanding is that the Berkley guys develop akaros and have no interest in maintaining a Plan 9 fork (they just want to integrate some Plan 9 code). Of course, other parties are free to fork the GPL version (not that this will ever happen).

<comment><USER5> Now that there's a GPL version, it does mean other developers of Linux derivatives, or of Linux itself, could mine bits and pieces of the code, though, just like Akaros is doing. I agree a long-running GPL-licensed Plan9 fork isn't that likely, but now that there's even a one-time dump of the code under the GPL, it removes the legal barrier to kernel devs cherrypicking pieces of the Plan9 code and integrating them into patches. For example, the developers of Linux's v9fs implementation can now borrow code from Plan9's 9p implementation, if they choose.

<comment><USER2> That's true, although I doubt that will happen as well. Time will tell.

FWIW, Ron Minnich wrote the Linux v9fs. He was very involved with Plan 9, for example the Blue Gene port. He know ports Plan 9 bits into Akaros.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Referring to Plan 9's previous license, the Lucent Public License, Wikipedia says:

'The clause in particular that causes it to be incompatible with the GNU GPL is "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America."'

<comment><USER7> How is the GPL _not_ governed by the said laws? I'm confused. Is the GPL illegal in the State of New York?

<comment><USER8> If you live in the UK and release code under the GPL to someone else in the UK, then yes said code is not governed by the laws of the state of New York. I am unfamiliar with GPL case law in New York but it is probably legal there.

The point is the LPL license says you agree to be bound by New York law for license disputes even if you do not call New York home. Which means you have to defend any license violation suits in New York, because the odds of finding a Judge capable of hearing New York law cases outside of New York are rather slim.

<comment><USER9> Actually, New York law is pretty much the world standard for international commerce. Foreign law is applied regularly in many courts, for instance inquiring if a marriage is valid.

<comment><USER10> Including in countries where we use code law rather than common law ? That seems strange.

<comment><USER11> It has nothing to do with common/code law as I understand it.

It means that you agree that all disputes will be settled in NY. Every european consultant that had done work for US company has signed such agreement (enforcement cross continent is another beast altogether)

<comment><USER12> Still, if you're UK based, and you provide GPL software to someone else who is UK based - how would it make sense for that license arrangement were governed by NY law. (which is presumably why the GPL doesn't have such a clause)

<comment><USER6> The bottom line is the clause is only to protect the lawyers and the original distributor because they have chosen a jurisdiction they know best. The GPL is all about protecting the user's freedoms, which is why they're so at odds: even if the result isn't so different, the intent is very different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They also added Plan 9 to a github repository[0]

[0] [https://github.com/brho/plan9](https://github.com/brho/plan9)

</comment><comment><USER14> From the Wikipedia article:

>Consequently, sharing the device across the network can be accomplished by mounting the corresponding directory tree to the target machine.

Does this mean Plan 9 natively supports sharing _any_ device managed by the kernel over a network connection?

<comment><USER2> Yes, mounting a remote /proc means instant remote debugging. Mounting a remote /net means instant VPN.

<comment><USER15> ...bores me to no end. There's never any use for that stuff. The opposite direction is more interesting, when the far end of the cpu connection uses /mnt/term, especially for the like of /mnt/term/mnt/plumb.

I've never really understood why 'import /proc' is better than 'cpu acid'. Yeah, there's cases where the remote host won't have acid installed.

More interesting, I think, would be stuff like getting /net in a VM from the host OS [surely 9vx or inferno's /net could be separated out], getting /dev/sd* from a 9P server that knows QCOW, etc.

Not mattering whether it's in the kernel or userspace, without using $LD_*, is also far more interesting that not mattering whether it's local or remote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The project responsible for getting the license changed is doing some awesome work in the manycore lightweight OS space - [http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/akaros- web/news.php](http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/akaros-web/news.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> i would have submitted this link, but it has already been linked in the past, and there was no other news page dedicated to this information on that site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can someone explain in plain talk what Plan 9 is and does? Thanks...

<comment><USER18> Everything in UNIX is modelled as a "file", whereas in Plan9 everything is modelled after a "burrito" \- some guy on Slashdot

<comment><USER19> Plan9 needs a wider adoption. It is an evolution of UNIX design concepts:

* all objects are either files or file systems

* communication is over a network

* private namespaces (transparent access to remote processes) [1]

Even more modern concepts are in the NT kernel by Dave Cutler (VMS fame). NT uses an object metaphor that is pervasive throughout the architecture of the system. Not only are all of the things in the UNIX file metaphor viewed as objects by NT, but so are things such as processes and threads, shared memory segments, the global registry database and even access rights. [2] You can browse the NT object tree e.g. with the ReactOS Explorer on Windows or ReactOS. [3]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs)

[2] [http://old.reactos.org/en/about.html](http://old.reactos.org/en/about.html)

[3] [http://www.foxplanet.de/explorer/](http://www.foxplanet.de/explorer/)

<comment><USER20> The NT Kernel is quite good.

<comment><USER21> I recall hearing old NT hands saying that in the early versions of NT, it was more of a micro-kernel -- eg. the video driver ran in user space. So if the video-driver crashed (obviously leaving the screen in an unusable state) -- it was still possible to restart the driver via the keyboard -- no OS reboot needed. But at the time, they couldn't get the performance they wanted, so moved the stuff into the kernel -- the rest is a long history of blue screens of death...

<comment><USER20> That is true story.

Thankfully as of Vista, video drivers are back in userspace.

NT is still a microkernel by design. What Microsoft did was to keep the modules logically separated and use kernel internal RPC to switch between areas of responsibility in the kernel. Even if it looks like a monolithic one.

This is how hybrid mikrokernels tend to work.

Since Vista the support for user space drivers has been improved a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great news, but they really should have picked GPLv3+ or GPLv2+.

<comment><USER23> Actually, it's a very good thing they didn't pick GPLv3+, or have you forgotten what license the Linux kernel is under?

The Linux kernel is also GPLv2 (not +); I completely agree with the '+' thing as that leaves the FSF in control of the license (effectively).

<comment><USER22> It's unfortunate that the kernel Linux is not GPLv3, either.

<comment><USER23> No, it really isn't unfortunate -- and Linus explained why:

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161](https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161)

<comment><USER24> The parent poster expressed a personal opinion.

Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong."

There are many reasons why one might wish that Linux was GPLv3: for instance, one might think that the "anti-Tivoisation" provisions are important. Linus obviously doesn't share this point of view; that doesn't make it an invalid point of view to have.

<comment><USER23> Call me silly, but I believe the primary and original author of a project or other creative work has the right to establish what is "right" or "wrong" for their project unless they otherwise waived that right.

<comment><USER5> Once a project has become a large collaborative project, I don't believe the original author remains the sole arbiter of what's good for the project. Their opinion should be given some weight, but whatever their opinion is doesn't automatically decide what's right for the project.

<comment><USER23> Which is why I said they had the right to "establish".

And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus.

Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.

<comment><USER25> > _And you can 't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of > the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus._

You can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't disagree with Linus.

Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey.

> _Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, > after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which > (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed._

You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.

<comment><USER23>
      Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey.

That's your problem not mine; history has already established a precedent and you seem deadset to prove otherwise. I don't need to disprove what is already apparent.

      You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.

No, I've established that not only are they willing to work within that framework, but that it's logical to assume that they agree with both the licensing and direction. Otherwise, why would they devote so much time and energy?

As they, "actions speak louder than words" \-- and your words seem very dim compared to the action of thousands of contributors.

<comment><USER25> > _That 's your problem not mine_

Then it's not going to happen, and our opinions are equally valid.

> _it 's logical to assume that they agree with both the licensing and > direction_

No, it's not. It's logical to assume they _accept_ them. There are many reasons they might do so. One is certainly because they agree with them, another is that, weighing the benefits of working within the existing framework, they conclude it outweighs their disagreement with the licensing and direction.

Some of the benefits include, by the way, continued salary. Most kernel contributors are paid for their work by employers.

I work within frameworks I disagree with _all the time_. We all do. Sometimes because I'm paid for it. Sometimes because I feel I can do more good within that framework than fighting it. Sometimes it's because I'm bound to by law or social contract.

That I don't shoot anyone that stands in the way of my ideals is not the same as saying I agree with theirs.

If I had some motivation to do so (something I thought needed fixed, a new driver I wanted, or an employer who paid me), I would have no issue contributing to the Linux kernel. Yet I disagree with the decision to make it GPLv2 only.

Anyone who can't hold two opposed ideas in their mind at the same time is surely too stupid to be trusted to work on a kernel, no?

<comment><USER23> For all practical purposes, by contributing, they (employers or individuals) are agreeing (in whole or in part, through organisation or individually) with the direction and vision that Linus has established enough to contribute. So in the end, all of your convoluted arguments about not being in complete agreement and frameworks is pointless.

<comment><USER26> What's funny about this discussion is the fact that Linus is supreme dictator of kernel.org. Whatever he decides to merge in his personal fork of Linux shouldn't be up for debate just because the Linux community willingly decides to keep pulling his commits into their clones.

That's why we have the right to fork. While we can't change GPLv2 kernel code, there is nothing stopping anybody from including GPLv3 code in the kernel so long as it doesn't directly link against GPLv2 code in a way when the fork is distributed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm always hoping Plan 9 will take off! Such an interesting system to experiment with...

Would be interesting to see what would happen if a cloud provider offered an (updated) version.

</comment><comment><USER28> seems to be a lot of confusion here. excellent explanation of this by Ron Minnich, directly from the 9fans mailing list [http://9fans.net/archive/2014/02/75](http://9fans.net/archive/2014/02/75)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is great news.

</comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone have some insight into how Akaros compares to (and contrasts with) Dragonfly BSD?

</comment><comment><USER29> Am I the only one who thought this referred to the movie plan 9 from outer space?

<comment><USER30> In a roundabout way, it does, as that's what the OS was named for.

But as an older unix nerd/Go programmer, I have the opposite reaction where when I hear people talking about the movie it immediately reminds me of the OS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is it easy to install under VMware, VirtualBox, or KVM?

</comment><comment><USER32> PLAN 9 uses its own standard of C

<comment><USER33> That's incorrect. Plan 9's C is a restricted ANSI C variety.

<comment><USER2> It's not restricted, it has extensions rather.

<comment><USER33> I'm thinking about the pre-processor not supporting #if and the requirement for function prototypes.

I suppose the extension you have in mind are the extra libraries for dealing with buffered io, unicode and concurrency. But I don't think those could be termed "PLAN 9 own standard of C".

To clarify, my idea of restricted was in the sense of a highly refined subset. Much akin to how one should use C++ for instance. A careful selection of the good parts in C. Essentially, I was paying a complement to Plan9. :)

<comment><USER2> There are language extensions, mostly related to embedding structs (which made it in Go) and a new storage class, not only new libraries.

Please see section 3.3: [http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/compiler](http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/compiler)

<comment><USER33> Extensions don't break standard compliance so I didn't bring them up. Note that both C++ and GNU C have similar extensions but under different semantics which don't make them any less ANSI compliant.

BTW, be careful around those documents. The assembler, compiler, parser and linker have seen over two decades worth of work since those were put ink to paper. Though admittedly I haven't read through the lib9 source tree in years...

<comment><USER2> > Extensions don't break standard compliance so I didn't bring them up.

Sure they do, by definition code that uses the extensions is not standards compliant. Plan 9 C code makes heavy use of Plan 9 extensions. The Go runtime also makes use of those extensions, that's why gcc recently (2009) implemented -fplan9-extensions in order for gccgo to compile the Go standard library.

> Note that both C++ and GNU C have similar extensions but under different > semantics which don't make them any less ANSI compliant.

I think what you mean is that GNU C is a strict superset of ANSI C and you assume that Plan 9 C is the same. This assumption is wrong. Plan 9 C is not a superset of ANSI C, some ANSI C things are missing; e.g. const. That being said it's not that hard to compile C89 code with the Plan 9 C compilers.

> be careful around those documents. The assembler, compiler, parser and > linker have seen over two decades worth of work since those were put ink to > paper.

I should know since I use Plan 9 every day and I recently ported the Go toolchain to Solaris and gave a talk on these tools. The compiler document is very accurate, the only glaring anachronism is that the extern register storage class doesn't necessarily use a register in the Go toolchain, but depends on the target operating system. It's still true on Plan 9 though. The assembly guide is more inaccurate, but the C papers are accurate, at least for now.

<comment><USER33> > Sure they do, by definition code that uses the extensions is not standards > compliant.

I don't follow. How's having non-standard complying code taking advantage of the extensions offered makes the compiler itself any less standard capable? I was under the impression being standard compliant didn't mean forbidding extensions... But I suppose I could have been mistaken. :(

> GNU C is a strict superset of ANSI C...

In the same way that I said "Plan 9's C is a restricted ANSI C variety". Yes. It takes some good stuff from ANSI C and leaves some unnecessary stuff out by default. Still, keeping to the standard.

> some ANSI C things are missing; e.g. const.

Surprisingly irrelevant. The draft actually said "If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined.". So, regardless of what the Plan9 doc says about giving warnings and not implementing const in a standard confirming way, no behavior was ever expected in the first place by the standard so the compiler is unwittingly compliant :D And volatile follows suit...

My guess to why the standard requires to implement a keyword without specifying explicit behavior, is that they wanted backward-compatibility with some vendor compiler that did implement these but didn't want to force any actual functionality.

Mind you the standard is far more lax then most people give it credit: Even "void main()" and "exits(0);" that usually raise a few eyebrows are all implementation-specific according to the standard and thus are compliant.

> The compiler document is very accurate...

I was thinking about [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xN-g6qjjWflecSP08LNgh2uF...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xN-g6qjjWflecSP08LNgh2uFsKjWb- rR9KA11ip_DIE) but I'm obviously not as versed as you in the state of the tool-chain so that's that I suppose. I personally did some work on getting the compiler to work on a MIPS router I had a few years back but my work was superseded by something better before I could even think about release so that was that... It was at a pretty late stage though with most of the assembly written down. So the impression I got at the time must have had mostly to do with the assembler. But that's ancient history I suppose.

So, from what I can tell out of the standard and the actual behavior of the compiler, it's complaint regardless of what it's docs say. More so, I can't think of a lot of non-confirming compilers I came across outside the embedded circles in recent years. Why, even MSVC is at most a custom header away per project away from compliance and since boiler-plate was never restricted it might as well be considered standard.

TL;DR Standards are highly overrated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a big shame. They are already familiar with the BSD license, so why the GPL?

<comment><USER20> To forbid getting money leeching the work of others for free.

<comment><USER35> Yes, it would be an absolutely horrible thing if someone actually started to use the OS.

<comment><USER36> Apple gives people who want to make use of their beautiful code the finger. Why not do the same to potential Steve Jobs'? If BSD had been licensed under the GNU GPL, OS X would either have to have been built from scratch, or be free software.

<comment><USER35> They also backport a lot of it upstream to FreeBSD. It is not a black and white question.

<comment><USER37> If one go by market share, the code sent back upstream are worth far less than 1% of Os X.

<comment><USER35> So? That doesn't change that Apple usage of FreeBSD codebase is still a net win for the FreeBSD project. It is still a win-win situation even if the win isn't totally symmetrical.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The called shot: I'm retiring in 3 months - <AUTHOR> http://baberuth.posterous.com/retirement-in-3-months

<comment><USER2> It's not an impossible dream, but if Vegas allowed me to, I'd put a large bet against you.

Not because I don't think it won't happen. But your timeline is far too short to grow the audiences you'll need on whatever app(s) you create.

<comment><AUTHOR> And I'd support your bet as the rational move.

I currently have zero web income, but a few half baked projects. I'd bet against me from scratch too, but I'm hoping I can turn partial projects into profit quickly.

I'm going to be very transparent about what I have and my plans on the blog. If after we have the same information, you want to make a small bet against me, I'd consider taking the other side (I'd want odds). It's doubling down, but I want to put my money where my mouth is.

<comment><USER2> I respect the hell out of you for it. What you're doing is going to be tough, and you know it.

I haven't taken that leap yet, I keep collecting app and site ideas, but my normal day job hasn't reached a point where I need to take that leap.

We'll see how you do and whether or not a bet would be placed, I look forward to following your journey.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Stating your goals makes it less likely for you to achieve them, because you get the praise and ego boost at the wrong time. There's probably a better link than this weird blog, but it has the info : [http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2010/12/all_talk_and_...](http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2010/12/all_talk_and_no_action.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> Derek Sivers said the same in a post called 'keep your goals to yourself' at I read here before.

There's certainly some truth to it.

I failed in secrecy before though, so Im giving transparency a shot.

I am also hoping that it will help me connect with people who can help me make it happen.

Edit: The post was called zip it - <http://sivers.org/> There's a TED Talk - [http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_keep_your_goals_to_you...](http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_keep_your_goals_to_yourself.html)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yes it sounds ridiculous, but I'm going to work as hell and make it happen.

You should be skeptical, and if you were saying it, I would be too. Naysayers, I'll see you in 3 months.

<comment><USER4> You're using an anonymous account, what do you really have to lose by making bombastic predictions?

Nobody's going to say anything in 3 months because they'll have forgotten completely about this post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I only clicked because I love baseball, but it was an interesting post.

Here's the deal: how is what you're trying to do considered _retirement_? I'm not aware of any web apps that require no maintenance, no customer support, and no administrativa after 3 months. Sure, you can outsource some (maybe all) of that, but you still have to manage the outsourcing.

Being location-independent isn't retirement. Neither is un-conventional employment. If it's the Tim Ferris/4HWW lifestyle you're going for, fine–but even he's not "retired".

I applaud you for setting a goal, learning from past mistakes, and being bold about it. On the other hand, I boo you for bad semantics and possibly being a little too bold.

<comment><USER6> _On the other hand, I boo you for bad semantics and possibly being a little too bold._

I don't understand booing anybody for being too bold. But maybe that's just me... I advocate being very bold and setting audacious goals. But I also advocate crashing and burning while shooting for the stars, as opposed to merely shooting for the hilltop and then quietly fading away. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> thats a wonderful set of guidelines for a startup. "Dont be secretive" resonated with me. Keep source on a public github repo and keep notes in a public wiki (doesn't have to be public-editable). An idea that can succeed for you is something, from a very real point of view, that only you can do. Your set of skills and resources is a competitive advantage if they can be leveraged enough. So share the idea, let it develop in other people's minds. Watch and talk to groups doing similar projects.

Another maxim is "Implementation is more important than idea". Diapers.com is my inspiration for this. One might say, "Another retail outlet on the web? Boring, laughable, amazon.com is already there", but they implemented so well on a boring, obvious idea, that they rocketed into their particular niche and were acquired by Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER8> Worked for Babe Ruth, didn't work for this year's New York Jets. I'm rooting for you.

</comment><comment><USER9> Strange post. All he talks about is himself. I would think that the second time around would include at least a passing reference about his customers/users and how what he is building will benefit them. I wonder if he's learned anything at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> edw519, that post was a bit self centered.

To be honest, failing hard made me learn mostly about me, especially my own personal shortcomings.

I didn't _have_ users Round 1.

I understand that it won't ever be a startup without users, but the last journey was very personal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I appreciated this post. Yes, it was a bit self-obsessed, but I found value in reading about someone else working through similar issues. Constantly reading about, "how I made x successful" can increase personal frustration and push vicious cycles further.

 _Ignore distraction. My natural tendency is to idea hop to the next shiny object _real_ fast. I want to know about everything and I can't help but listen in on interesting conversations. I read links that really shouldn't interest me at all._

I think that's the universal bane of the software guy right now. We want to take in everything to stay up-to-date and at the edge, but by doing so we actually let our skills (technical and time-management) slide.</comment>


Mozilla Exec: Firefox 4 Will Arrive in February - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/216635/ <comment><USER2> I think I would be more likely to move back to firefox if they changed to a release cycle more like chromes where small features are added in pretty quickly through silent updates, rather than big changes over large amounts of time. Probably a little offtopic but I was looking forward to trying the new firefox as my main browser when it was supposed to release about now.

<comment><USER3> I have both Chrome and Firefox installed on my Mac. I take turns switching between them and Safari. I don't want the "there can be only one" browser limitation to ever happen again. They're all free, and they're trying to implement open standards. Let's spend a little time with each of them.

<comment><USER2> Thing is I like to customize some things and sometimes I do that by writing an extension and adding such and such so using other browsers at the same time becomes harder.

I use chrome now because it starts up fast and I have all the things I like, if firefox started up faster and had similar window freedom (last I checked linux wasn't as lucky as windows) I would switch back. The update thing was just a nitpick that if I could see changes happening over time rather than one huge update it would entice me back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One big issue I've been having with the current FF 4 builds are extremely blurry fonts (supposedly due to hardware rendering). There are a number of work arounds but I'm concerned that it doesn't work right out of the box. If it's still just as blurry in February it won't be usable for me.

<comment><USER5> Install IE9 (yes, seriously; it comes with patches for the drivers). Failing that, turn DirectWrite off: go to about:config and switch gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled to false.</comment></comment>


Are Tech Workers' Skills at Google, Facebook, and Others Overrated? - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3062634/the-disconnect-between-staff-skill-and-public-perception-at-facebook-google-and-more <comment><USER2> Certainly, a percentage (guessing under 10%??) of the employees at Google and Facebook ARE superstars in their fields. But the others are mostly over-rated.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article draws meaningless conclusions. "More innovative"? What does that even mean?

Companies like Facebook and Google select for engineering talent, not people trying to turn a sinking ship around.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've read the article twice and I'm still not sure what point it is trying to convey.

</comment><comment><USER5> Pretty poor assumptions drawn by the survey.</comment>


Digital Field Guides Identify Tree From Photo of Leaf - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/business/10novel.html?_r=1&hpw

<comment><USER2> What similar things would people like to be able to do using a photo? Does anyone know of other fields where people have to identify things using a cumbersome book, etc.?

<comment><USER3> How about pill identification? This is currently covered by systems that search by feature or imprint, and it would be cool if there were a way to pull these search features from a photograph input.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Strangers – A non-fiction book club focused on technology and society - <AUTHOR> https://strangers.club/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is my attempt at organizing the kind of focused reading and discussion group I wish existed.

Truth is, I haven't found anyone in my own peer group who is reading, thinking, or talking about the effects of technology on society. Elull, Boorstin, Illich, Postman, McLuhan, de Tocqueville, Mumford, Baudrillard, Dewey, Debord...these are names you don't typically see on people's bookshelves. I'm eager to read alongside and talk to people who are equally curious about their works and ideas.

Anyway, I just wanted to get this out there, see if it resonates, and I'll update the page with questions and answers as needed. If you're interested, I'm happy to talk via email or over video if you just want to learn more.

<comment><USER2> Please contact me using my email in my profile, I have some great book suggestions you might enjoy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent, I will shoot you an email.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Generally speaking, I like it. $12 seems high and 60 is high. I would lower the cost to $5.00($4.99)per month but charged per year. I would also reduce the number of people to 20 or so. I would then create multiple groups of 20. The idea is that people get to discuss the book and they get to know each other and will return month after month.

Also, reward someone with a free membership if they lead the group.

You are heading in the right direction.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thoughts! I should clarify that I am not looking to go to the bank with this project. But I did want to start shaping the idea, and part of that was defining a lightweight, uncomplicated subscription of sorts. From price to the number of people, to the books on the list, all of this is subject to change.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another update, removed the subscription altogether, didn't feel right. Don't like how everything is productized these days.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Quick update, there have been 13 people who have gotten in touch about joining.</comment>


Amazon: one click to checkout, Evernote: two clicks to create a note - <AUTHOR>

I just got the latest update for Evernote, and now I have to tap twice to create a note. Of course, I have options to create multiple types of notes, but I only use text notes, so that's a whole additional steps, and with a very tiny icon. That, combined with the fact that the focus moves from the title field to the description textarea shortly after the new note screen opens (but if you are fast enough, you have already started typing in the title field), gives my the feeling that UX isn't a priority. I took the leap to contrast the two-tap note creation to Amazon's one-click checkout. Which is a bit superficial, but outlines the difference in thinking.<p>Why is that? Am I completely wrong with my UX expectations, or they (Evernote being just a single example) are just randomly arranging buttons and features? Or somewhere in between? <comment><USER2> I think evernote is becoming a bloated application. It's hard to balance between UX and features.

<comment><USER3> perhaps it's a trade off between UX and business model, catering for different use cases.</comment></comment>


Changelog CI (Continuous Integration for Your Projects Changelog) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/saadmk11/changelog-ci <comment><AUTHOR> What is Changelog CI?

Changelog CI is a GitHub Action that generates changelog, prepends it to ``CHANGELOG.md`` file and commits it to a release pull request

How Does It Work:

Changelog CI uses ``python`` and ``GitHub API`` to generate changelog for a repository. First, it tries to get the ``latest release`` from the repository (If available). Then, it checks all the pull requests merged after the last release using the GitHub API. After that it parses the data and generates the ``changelog``. Finally, It writes the generated changelog at the beginning of the ``CHANGELOG.md`` (or user provided filename) file. In addition to that, if an user provides a config (json file), Changelog CI parses the user provided config file and renders the changelog according to users config. Then the changes are committed to the release Pull request.

More details on my dev.to post: [https://dev.to/saadmk11/github-actions- changelog-ci-4ojh](https://dev.to/saadmk11/github-actions-changelog-ci-4ojh)

<comment><USER2> We've switched our CI/CD to GitHub Actions and love finding these useful actions that we can plug into our workflows with minimal effort. Thank you for sharing this!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome :), Please share your feedback if you use it in any of your projects. Also you can create issues if you find any bug or need a new feature. Feedback is always appreciated :)</comment></comment></comment>


A Collection of Dice Problems [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.madandmoonly.com/doctormatt/mathematics/dice1.pdf <comment><USER2> Non-transitive dice:

A > B more than half the time.

B > C more than half the time.

C > A more than half the time.

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

<comment><USER3> I like the dice with numbers instead of dots on them. It would be cool if the 6 and the 9 were indistinguishable and the thrower could choose either value!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did Slashdot make the list?

</comment><comment><USER5> They don't really define what "on average" means in the problems. It makes a difference for example on problem 6; the median and mean result in different answers.

<comment><USER6> It seems clear to me that they're asking about the expected value.</comment></comment>


Clojure: from concurrency to parallelism - <AUTHOR> http://blip.tv/file/4645227

<comment><USER2> What a nice talk! Really intressting stuff. The Idea not creat a new datatype and reuse the datatypes we allready have is great because you get to keep all the features we have atm with the clojure datastructures.

Im not sure about this: If you would use pv... function all the time (where it would be reasonably easy to implement on) then the overhead would basiclly go away because all threads would have plent things to steal. (I mean the initiall overhead would stay but it would break even really fast, so you would not have that overhead for every function that is called that way). Help me out if you know (or know at least more than I do).

Sidenode: The recordings was better than in the other videos so far specially in the beginning. Did the second camara stream get lost in the end? Anyway very lookable I'm so happy that we have recordings from conj.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Best. Slides. Ever.</comment>