React create composable components - <AUTHOR> https://www.dzurico.com/react-compound-components-with-usecontext-hook/ <comment><USER2> I'm not usually one to ad hominem like this, but IMO you cannot both posit to give advice on good frontend engineering and fiddle with window.onScroll.

<comment><USER3> Are you against listening to the onScroll event in general, or only against scroll hijacking?

<comment><USER4> I'm not the person you are replying to but I have strong feeling that it's the latter. The scroll event has, IMHO, outside the annoying infinite scroll circus and the hijacks, a single good use: Lazy loading of expensive resources (then one would ask why it's not paginated in the first place but well).

<comment><USER5> It's more convenient than pagination for the user. At least up until they want to share a specific section

<comment><USER6> > At least up until they want to share a specific section

Which is why I hate automatic pagination unless some sort of anchor or direct URL to a section is made (prominently) available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can somebody think of easier way to implement tabs with current setState functionality? Everyone! It may have few more lines of code but it's gonna be clear and every react dev is gonna know what it does.

Seriously, feels like we are going in circles and each round we add another layer of complexity on top.

Also a trend I noticed and it bothers the hell out of me is the fact that all these people build todo list apps and blog about it frantically how the world is different now and easier. Maintain an app with xK+ lines of code for a year or two and then tell me about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi I can understand your point but if a post is written around a difficult example you need more time to understand it then fully understand what the functionality does. In my case I used a todo because everyone know how to do it and you can appreciate how the use of Hooks can simplify or change your code.

<comment><USER7> Sorry to be PITA. TODO list example wasn't specifically targeted at you. I'm just frustrated because I finished a big migration just Today that was caused by uninformed internet blog posts praising specific library which mostly works only in simple examples (TODO Lists).

Thanks for spreading the knowledge, but I think beginners don't take advice as "this is an option of how things can be done" but rather as "this is how we do things and we should follow this". Maybe a paragraph saying when it makes sense to go for this pattern would help.

<comment><USER8> Out of curiosity, which library are you referring to?

<comment><USER7> Specifically: `react-native-navigation` replaced with `react-navigation`.

Few issues:

\- Tons of bugs (see next point)

\- Bigger error/bug surface, 3 languages compared to 1.

\- Poor documentation

\- Stopped accepting PRs for 1.0 when they decided 2.0 is the way to go (randomly, 2.0 wasn't nearly ready)

\- Closing issues without any response (bot that closes them, wtf?)

Check Twitter, Google or whatever and people will mostly say positive stuff about it how they are excited and how fun it is for their TODO List app. We tried building something more sophisticated and it's insane how many things don't work as documented.

Note: react-navigation is also pretty bad, it improved in last year, but there is nothing better in the react-native ecosystem (there used to be something but during my months of inactivity it was removed from the RN itself).

Can probably compile a list of high profile libraries that suck if anyone is interested...

<comment><USER9> >Can probably compile a list of high profile libraries that suck if anyone is interested

Please do!

I agree with your stance on react-native navigation, but I'm not having too many problems with react-navigation. What's your issue with it?

<comment><USER7> Seems like there is interest, will compile and publish to HN in the next couple of weeks.

react-navigation is pretty good actually, haven't had any big issues this time. At the beginning when I first evaluated it they had breaking changes way too often, things were buggy, all in all, it wasn't ready for production. Today it feels different, but I can't write a blog post about it yet as I haven't been using it for long enough.

<comment><USER10> 3.0 has some breaking changes, but hey, they are using semver correctly at least!

I'm still not sure how to get previous functionality from 2.0 (app wide background image) working in 3.0, considering that now my root component has to be provided by React-Navigation.

<comment><USER9> You can wrap your root navigator!

<ImageBackground> <RootNavigator/> </ImageBackground>

There can be only 1 navigator rendered at a time, but it does not have to be the root of your application. Otherwise there wouldn't be any redux, either.

<comment><USER10> Ah ok, the docs didn't make it 100% clear and I got tired messing with the toy app I was using with React Navigation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's the point of using Typescript if everything is typed as any or provides no types at all (as demonstrated in the article)?

<comment><USER12> There is no point in Typescript, as new ECMAScript specs provide most of the syntactic sugar and compile-time type checking is obviated by exactly 1 test, which people using it are writing anyway; this is not a compelling use-case for an entirely new syntax, and it needs to die, instead of contributing to the already-bloated ecosystem.

<comment><USER9> >compile-time type checking is obviated by exactly 1 test

>1 test

per code path?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wayback machine link:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190115130326/https://www.dzuri...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190115130326/https://www.dzurico.com/react- compound-components-with-usecontext-hook/)

<comment><USER14> whatever happened to the current article?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's with the title? The title on the article is fine but the one on Hacker News is terrible. It doesn't mention anything to do with hooks and components are supposed to be composable. That's kind of the goal.

</comment><comment><USER16> My click got hijacked and it took me to a PDF reader app on Google Play. Usually you wouldn't expect this kind of behaviour on a personal blog.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not to deny any and all of the points made, but getting beyond those, it would be nice to get an assessment of using the new react hooks and especially the context in this manner?

I find the whole thing of reusing components in React harder than I would hope, and I find the hook API has let me remove massive amounts of code. The context API does the same thing, so combining them in some way ...?

<comment><USER18> Hooks are an attempt to _reuse stateful logic_. This is a problem that React never solved well moving from mixins, to higher order components, to children as render functions, and finally to hooks (maybe!). Ideally, hooks would also fully replace eg usage of react-redux even if that isn't their stated goal (managing global state across components is not really the same thing as reusing stateful logic). In fact, I don't really care about the former at all in the case of the later.

The current hooks API is not up to the task, or even up to integrating with react-redux given constraints around the new concurrent rendering and reasonable performance [1]. Hooks run during render with no ability to bail, while react-redux requires a way to avoid calling render in the first place to avoid every connected component re-rendering on every state change (ie, basically the whole tree)[2]. The new context API is also not ready for the limelight [3].

Hooks would solve _some_ problems but at the expense of introducing yet another way to do _some_ things. They can't replace react-redux or even provider a cleaner binding. Using hooks is risky because the API really ought to change to make them more useful, and they aren't particularly performant or powerful.

1\. [https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/14110#issuecomment-...](https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/14110#issuecomment-447040520) 2\. [https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/14110#issuecomment-...](https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/14110#issuecomment-448070764) 3\. [https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/14110#issuecomment-...](https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/14110#issuecomment-448074060)

<comment><USER17> When the context API was released I began to rip out redux. After things went well with that, I no longer use redux, and I was a big fan of redux. A problems I had with using context was what seemed to me like a crufty way to access it - the whole wrapping things in a Provider. Now, I can just rip out more code and use the context hook. I'm a big fan of technologies that let you rip out tons of code. My experienc e then is that hooks are a great improvement. So far ....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> CxJS uses the same concept for charts, form validation, and other inter- component communication.

[https://docs.cxjs.io/charts/line-graphs](https://docs.cxjs.io/charts/line- graphs)

</comment><comment><USER20> Mirror: [http://archive.fo/dM5mR](http://archive.fo/dM5mR)

</comment><comment><USER21> I find it ironic that Angular's dependency injection system attracted so much disdain, particularly from React advocates, then React ends up implementing a less-powerful and more verbose equivalent in its new context API.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry guys can I know what's going on I really dont' understand</comment>


A geek's work-at-home experience - <AUTHOR> http://fileit.in/p/31 <comment><USER2> "I don't commute anywhere during peak hours. My carbon footprint is considerably reduced."

He must have a pretty dull life if the first "Joy of Working From Home" is reducing his carbon footprint ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> He hasn't been at it long enough to really know. Live and work in the same place for long enough and it will feel like a cage.

<comment><USER4> This is why you go out and work in cafes a few times a week .. or if you can afford it, rent out a co-working space, which is probably the best idea due to the ability to talk with many other like-minded people</comment></comment>


JRE 8 needs more codecache than before - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.indeedblog.com/blog/2016/09/job-search-web-app-java-8-migration/ <comment><USER2> Typical problem of over tuning. Not every tunable needs to be tweaked (or worse cut'n'pasted somewhere from the internet). Your street cred as a admin does not depend on how many settings you can change. If they had just kept using the defaults everything would have been fine.

That said 250MB is really a lot of code. Their binaries must be gigantic. This by itself likely already causes performance problems because all caches will be thrashing.

<comment><USER3> It's all about the tiered compilation. Tons of unused but eagerly compiled code w/ C1 (the dumb and fast compiler) that never reached the proper C2.

The issue has been three since 6.0.23 when the -XX:+TieredCompilation defaulted to true. (hmm, or was it 6.0.25?)

I'd say nothing really new. If you run a server, just disable tired compilation altogether. It might cost few seconds slower startup but that's it.

<comment><USER4> I believe TieredCompilation was disabled by default on Java 7u55:

        $ java -server -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:+PrintFlagsFinal -version|grep TieredCompilation
             bool TieredCompilation                         = false           {pd product}
        java version "1.7.0_55"
        Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_55-b13)
        Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.55-b03, mixed mode)

I would be interested in hearing from people with first-hand experience disabling TieredCompilation on Java 8 on production servers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To the author: It would be useful to put a little blurb paragraph at the top to say that if you haven't overridden the default codecache size via JVM options, no action is necessary. This information is buried way down at the bottom of the page, which may lead hurried readers to assume that something may already be wrong with their Java 8 JVMs.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, I'll see what I can do to clarify that point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would a good approach to major JVM upgrades in production be to remove all but critical JVM flags in the new version, and run it on a subset of nodes, then?

After getting a baseline measurement of performance with JVM defaults, experiment with tuning a couple of settings, measure some more, make sure nothing breaks under load. Repeat until new JVM version seems stable/performs better/etc even under worst load and then upgrade all nodes to the latest and greatest?

<comment><USER7> Yes. The good approach when you're given a legacy java application with tons of flags is to removed ALL the optimizations flags for the heap and the GC.

Most of the settings found in legacy projects or on the internet are either obsolete or defaults in the latest version of the JVM.

The only mandatory heap flag is: "-Xms???M -Xmx???M" which set the heap size of the application to ??? megabytes.

<comment><USER8> Not even -Xms -Xmx, there's heuristics built in to appropriately size the gc spaces... [http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/tip/src/sh...](http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/tip/src/share/vm/memory/collectorPolicy.cpp)

<comment><USER7> Right. Most applications don't need that.

It's only the server apps running 24/7 on fixed hardware that should have a defined memory usage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how many projects have production issues because they are not able to hit expected production volume in a QA environment? This is certainly the cause of a lot of grief I've experienced.

<comment><USER10> For us, it's not production volumes that are the main issue but production dynamics i.e. how the volumes change over time. It's such a big issue that standard practice is to run QA against live production data by default and manage the consequences.

The downside is, when we do need to use test data e.g. when there's a large change to the structure of the upstream or we want to do stress scenarios, it's a pain in the backside.

<comment><USER11> We struggle with this too. There are so many ways the dynamics can change-- daily/weekly/seasonal cycles, robots, client caching, etc. One best practice we use for high-volume services is to minimize the variance in call mixtures-- if there are two calls with vastly different call patterns, it's probably worth it to split them into separate services, so you can tune throttling, GC, load balancing, etc. specifically for those calls, instead of having to tune them to support both calls (which is often difficult or impossible to do). Of course, it's hard to predict how your service will evolve over time, so making the split is often painful for you and your clients. Some of our services can't be handled by a single load balancer, so we use DNS round robins, which have a whole other class of problems when you have mixed call patterns. Gotta earn your pay...

Some other techniques we use are one-box deployments that receive a proportion of production traffic and "bake" new changes before deploying to the whole fleet, and shadow fleets which let you tune and test against live traffic. We've found that simply replaying production traffic at higher volumes sometimes isn't sufficient, because our calls don't necessarily scale that way (some of them scale with upstream traffic, some of them scale by downstream fleet sizes due to client caching).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How much Java source code does it take to need 256MB of codecache? The author says they're using a service architecture where each transaction uses about 20 services. There's no indication of why their program is so huge.

<comment><USER4> Author here. We know 128MB codecache was not enough and 256MB was sufficient. I think we could have gotten by with less, e.g. 200MB, but we stopped experimenting once we found a value that worked.

We don't have a complete understanding of why this app uses so much more codecache than other apps we've switched to Java 8. Now that we expose the codecache size in Datadog, I may try plotting code size vs codecache size for a variety of our apps.

<comment><USER13> Datadog employee here, you don't need to run your own collector to collect codecache usage. As it's exposed through JMX, the JMX collector can collect it [http://docs.datadoghq.com/integrations/java/](http://docs.datadoghq.com/integrations/java/) . It doesn't by default though, so you'll need to configure it to collect the metrics from the "java.lang:name=Code Cache,type=MemoryPool" bean. We should add that in our default configuration.

<comment><USER14> If it's exposed through JMX, would it also be visible via something like _jvisualvm_?

<comment><USER13> Not sure about jvisualvm, but it will definitely be visible in jconsole

<comment><USER14> _jvisualvm_ is largely a superset of _jconsole_ , with a plugin interface, so it probably is.

I have no idea how many other people actually use it though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> so the unspoken thing seems to be that they kept the same JVM arguments as java 7 and that caused problems in java 8? and they had a JVM argument that was setting a value to the same as the default?

<comment><USER4> We knew to adjust other JVM settings (e.g. PermGen replaced by Metaspace) but we overlooked that (1) we used a non-default max codecache size and (2) the default for that setting was 3x higher for Java 8.

An unfortunate thing about using non-default JVM settings is that you need to scrutinize them every time you switch Java versions. If I ever go through this again, I will know to pay more attention to every JVM setting we override.

<comment><USER15> ah, so you had tuned JRE7 to use 64mb code cache (more than default), when then became far less than the new default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> __-X-__ -XX:-TieredCompilation is the magic option to disable tiered compilation.

Beginning with Java 8, instead of having the VM to magically choose between using the client JIT (c1: think V8) or the server JIT (c2: think gcc -O2), the default configuration is to run in so called "tiered mode", first starts with the interpreter (as usual) then c1 (here keep the profile info) then c2. Because the code is compiled twice, you need a twice bigger code cache.

From my own experience, tiered compilation is nice when you run something interactive like an IDE (IntelliJ IDEA) and useless when you run a server app. That's said i've never had to have a 250MB code cache.

</comment><comment><USER16> If the JVM has one bytecode compiler that it uses only during startup and another that it used the rest of the time, shouldn't it dump the bytecode generated by the first compiler from the cache at the point when it switches to the second compiler?

<comment><USER17> The article's wording is a bit misleading here. The first-tier and second-tier compilers are always available throughout the entire lifetime of the program. The first-tier compiler performs very few optimizations, but compiles very quickly. It is a simple and literal compiler -- most direct translation of byte code to machine code. It's meant to be a quick win to get out of interpreted mode, which is vastly slower. The second-tier compiler is slower, but also takes advantage of the data collected during runtime profiling to make optimizations. Basically, there's a trade-off between the time it takes to run the second-tier compiler and the time it will save. By comparison, the first-tier compiler is almost always a win over interpreted code, even if the code is only run a small number of times.

Now, sometimes optimizations can be "wrong", in the sense that something new has happened that invalidates an assumption used during second-tier compilation. Here's a real-world example: I have an interface and only one loaded class that implements that interface. The second-tier compiler will use this information to basically do this:

        function doStuff(MyInterface a) {
            if (a.getClass() != MyClass.class)
                deoptimize();

            // Do everything from here on assuming
            // that a is an instance of MyClass.
            // This includes inlining simple getter
            // methods to pure field accesses, etc.
        }

Now, when a second class that implements `MyInterface` is loaded and makes it to that function, it will hit the `deoptimize` branch and go back to first- tier or even interpreted mode. Eventually the function will be recompiled by both tiers with the new assumption -- two implementing classes.

So, in the case of deoptimization, it can be a win to keep the first-tier code to fall-back to.

<comment> __-X-__ yes that's the idea ! but your example is wrong because c1 never compile a branch that was not executed before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yikes ! Can somebody with deep AWS knowledge comment on how this impacts aws lambda (java) and AWS Elastic beanstalk applications? what configuration is recommended?

<comment><USER4> To be clear, the Java 8 default is much higher than Java 7's. If you stick with the default, you will probably be fine.</comment></comment>


A command-line murder mystery - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/veltman/clmystery <comment> Lex-2008 Solving a murder using grep, sed, and awk!

Ok, they actually suggest simpler tools, like head and tail, but it still is pretty fun.

Obligatory xkcd reference: [https://xkcd.com/208/](https://xkcd.com/208/)</comment>


Review my one-day Twilio project: track and view your customer support calls - <AUTHOR> http://www.shokii.com/support_dashboard/

<comment><USER2> Twilio has so many options for improving phone support it is unbelievable. Imagine an integrated CRM which, as your phone rang, brought up Milly Smith's account info on screen. Or a quick prehuman prompt asking her for her SSN so that she never had to tell your employees. Or both of these, in a call center environment.

<comment><USER3> Large companies who handle a lot of call volume, like cable and credit cards, have had IVR systems with that capability for years, but now, with Twilio, it's so much easier and cheaper.

Two things you've said or done, that have really made Twilio click for me are:

1) It brings smart-phone web capabilities to every simple voice phone.

2) As a dev, your appointment reminder demo just slaps me in the face with the concept that a phone call and web session can essentially share the same session id.

<comment><USER2> #2 was what sold me on AR. It makes you look like a wizard, which makes for a _very_ compelling demo.

<comment><USER4> What is AR?

<comment><AUTHOR> Appointment Reminder, Patrick's (patio11) latest product: <http://www.appointmentreminder.org>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you'd like a demo, call (877) 264-0341 (toll-free, forwards to my cell). Then visit <http://www.hirahim.com/projects/support_dashboard/>

I've blanked out the last four digits of the calls listed there for privacy purposes.

</comment><comment><USER5> hrm.... would have been nice to have seen this built on 'twiliokit' (<http://github.com/mgkimsal/twiliokit>) - a starter kit I put together for building twilio apps inside a pre-configured MVC framework (ZF 1.10). I guess I need to do a better job of promoting twiliokit :)

Thanks for your support-desk contribution all the same - looks nice and clean :)

<comment><USER6> hey we need to do a better job of promoting it too, I'll work on that (-danielle @ twilio)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good job. This looks cool. I made something like this for dell once called FTR (First Time Resolution). FTR is a metic that describes how many times (on avg) a user has to call in before their issue is resolved. I think if you added that here w/ some pretty charts or something it could help you monetize it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback!

It's very minimal right now. (This is basically what I got done on Friday before a late lunch. The Twilio API is that awesome.) I'm open to adding anything other Twilio-based businesses find useful--stats, graphs, whatever it may be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is _great_. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER9> FWIW, I very much like the UI.</comment>


The coronavirus may have reached Los Angeles before China announced its outbreak - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-09-10/the-coronavirus-may-have-reached-los-angeles-even-before-china-announced-its-outbreak <comment><USER2> Why don't they test these patients for Covid19 antibodies?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I can't really understand why they wouldn't verify this theory with antibody tests before publishing. It's not like they'd have to test every single one.

Even just checking how many of them later got infected would be helpful, since that would make it very unlikely they had it in December.</comment></comment>


'Ghostbusters' Is a Perfect Example of How Internet Movie Ratings Are Broken - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/?ex_cid=538fb <comment><USER2> The new ghostbusters movie looks awful - it's not a thing about women leads, it's that it looks really bad in a way the original isn't. I know that's subjective, but watch the trailer:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP- yZXw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw)

Just bad.

There are a lot of bad movies, but this one walks around in the corpse of a much loved and nostalgic intellectual property that a bunch of people wanted. They got that.

Is this really about sexism?

This pattern has shown up a lot recently when an intellectual property is used by something that the original audience doesn't fit into (e.g. the last fable game that got canceled). It's a pretty silly use of an IP - the original audience is where the value comes from.

<comment><USER3> The movie looks really bad but as someone who saw the movie, it's actually pretty good and funny. The quatuor works perfectly, there is no feminism message at all, it's just a good comedy.

Maybe it won't be your type of humor, but this is not a bad movie in any way. People are just rating the movie without seeing it, which is pretty stupid in the first place. Because of that I expect the score to be much higher, hopefully a lot of people won't listen to the haters and see for themselves.

<comment><USER4> Simply casting typically male roles (comedic lead, scientist, etc.) with female actors is feminist. The movie doesn't need to have a feminist "message" to be feminist. Note: when I say feminist I mean that entirely as a good thing.

<comment><USER5> > Simply casting typically male roles (comedic lead, scientist, etc.) with > female actors is feminist.

No, it is not. Print roles as male only that is mysogenic. Comedic lead and scientists are only typically male roles because they are - and a lot of freak White guys are trying to "fight hard" to prevent that móveis and the internet changes it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I actually agree with much of the articles reasoning, other than the title, and everything about Ghostbusters:

> More specifically, a vocal portion of men on the internet — shall we say — > go out of their way to make their voices heard when it comes to judging > entertainment aimed at women, and that appears to be happening with the new > "Ghostbusters."

The thing with the new Ghostbusters has nothing to do with them being women. I'd see Bridesmaids 2 or any other comedy with Kristen Wiig (probably have), and I like Paul Feig fine.

The problem with the new Ghostbusters is that it's not Ghostbusters, not that it's necessarily a bad comedy.

The old Ghostbusters is shot and built up as a dark disaster movie, that just happens to be really funny. The new one is a Paul Feig movie (again, not knocking). It doesn't fit.

I noticed the same thing in the last season of Veep when Ianucci left. Instead of it shot more like an Office-type documentary (without the interviews, like its predecessor The Thick of It), if you look at the Christmas episode (of Veep) as the clearest example, it's shot like any other honestly mediocre sitcom, with saturated colors and honestly phoned in jokes.

Sorry about the tirade, but as a guy who does like good female media (Broad City and Lady Dynamite are my latest favorites), seeing this argument be made with terrible examples is unfortunate.

<comment><USER5> The thing is that we have been in the work of parody for so long time that we don't ever know were it started. Get the Rocky series blockbuster, for example. We had a much better history, with a black man and boxe. But then someone stole the idea and put a white man against his worst enemy: another white man with diferent world view (Russians).

I find it funny how most of people that discredit the OP conclusion also thinks they are right when they are in the opposite situation. I don't see you Bros complaining when Hollywood whitewash history.

And last, when did you guys started to think that the "old" stuff is yours? They have legally owners, and they can change to fit or create a better history/world (and some guys like you keep thinking in ways to put it worse), like star wars and the woman and black as main characters.

<comment><USER6> > The thing is that we have been in the work of parody for so long time that > we don't ever know were it started. Get the Rocky series blockbuster, for > example. We had a much better history, with a black man and boxe. But then > someone stole the idea and put a white man against his worst enemy: another > white man with diferent world view (Russians).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "someone stole" the idea of Rocky for Rocky IV. Sly both wrote and directed that. It's as regular a sequel as anything.

> I find it funny how most of people that discredit the OP conclusion also > thinks they are right when they are in the opposite situation. I don't see > you Bros complaining when Hollywood whitewash history.

I explicitly said that I'm not discrediting OPs conclusion, I however did not agree with how they arrived there.

The collective "Bro"-thing I don't feel worthy of responding to.

> And last, when did you guys started to think that the "old" stuff is yours? > They have legally owners, and they can change to fit or create a better > history/world (and some guys like you keep thinking in ways to put it > worse), like star wars and the woman and black as main characters.

I can't answer for "us guys", only for me, but I have no problem with them doing whatever they want with Ghostbusters. All I am saying is that the reviews in this specific case isn't about sexism, but the movie not being at all relatable to the original one(s) in tone. Nothing to do with gender. As much right as they have to make the movie, the fans of the original have a right to opinions on it, without it being sexism, simply because the new characters happen to be women.

Personally I liked the new Star Wars, but it's entirely beside the point, but since you brought it up: SW:TFA was so true to SW:ANH that I'm inclined to call it a true remake, much in how Interstellar worked as an homage/rehash of 2001 with slight twists. I happened to like that one too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I saw the new Ghostbusters trailer in the cinema (yes, I still go there), I thought it was a parody film. I'm not kidding.

Nowadays, people always try to find ways to be offended. A women-led movie got bad ratings? It must be the patriarchy! Nobody wonders if it might have been just a bad movie, as I, as a man, also enjoy women-led movies (I mean movies in the cinemas, not what you think :P). Hoewever, the new Ghostbusters just looks like a big horrible painful joke, and that's why the ratings tanked.

Given it's so hard to even assess statistically, how many men are among movie raters, this entire article stands on weak feet.

<comment><USER8> Have you watched the movie

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I won't argue that an average score on its own doesn't provide you with information about the diversity of opinion that led to that average, I'm sure we could do better in this regard. Perhaps something like Amazon does with the graphical representation showing how many people gave each star rating on a product review.

What I do have two problems with is the framing of this article when it comes to the new Ghostbusters film. This quote is a useful starting point for looking at those problems:

"More specifically, a vocal portion of men on the internet — shall we say — go out of their way to make their voices heard when it comes to judging entertainment aimed at women"

First of all, is the new Ghostbusters film meant to be aimed at women? If you look at it at a superficial level perhaps. To me, when you take on a beloved film franchise, you should make something that stays true to the spirit of the earlier films. The earlier Ghostbusters films have appeal across the board, why can't the new film have the same?

Secondly, the issue people are having with the Ghostbusters reboot is not really because all the new Ghostbusters are female. I, for one, think it was a good idea to do so, as it provided something new, and could have helped it to break from conventions whilst still providing something recognisable as a Ghostbusters film. The main problem people have with the film (and yes, they are just basing it on trailers at this point), is that it appears to be a generic, formulaic comedy with Ghostbusters dressing. For example, with the 'sassy black lady' Ghostbuster, the vast majority of the backlash isn't because she's a woman, the majority of the backlash is because she's playing a hackneyed stereotype. There were other parts of the trailers that were similarly paint-by-numbers Hollywood comedy.

Perhaps the trailers did the film a great disservice and there are better moments to be found in the film itself, but early impressions are not too great IMO.

<comment><USER10> No, main problem is its another effing REBOOT hijacking original name.

<comment><USER11> Technically the original movie wasn't the first to use the "Ghostbusters" name, and there were some legal issues around that. This is why there was a "Ghostbusters" cartoon that _was not_ tied to the movie franchise, and a "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon that _was_ tied to the franchise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The original Ghostbusters was a laugh, but what made it so memorable for me was the weird texture and depth built-in to its lore and tech. Classic!

The previews I've seen of the reboot present like schlock; some writing-by- committee mess. Based on my recent disappointment watching Finding Dory, I suppose muddled writing to be a common affliction in Hollywood, even for the top studios.

</comment><comment><USER13> How does the author know which reviewers are female or male?

I do wonder how the review sites could allow reviews for a movie that isn't released yet, seems the few prerelease viewers isn't worth the chance of being gamed(or guarantee?)

</comment><comment><USER14> There is a movie rating website called filmaffinity [http://www.filmaffinity.com/en/main.html](http://www.filmaffinity.com/en/main.html) that has an interesting feature called "Movie Soulmates".

It matches your movie ratings against the rest of the users, selecting the ones with a highest coincidence.

Then you can discover unseen films highly rated by people with, allegedly, your same taste.

I also found Tastekid [http://www.tastekid.com/](http://www.tastekid.com/) and FilmFish [https://www.film-fish.com/](https://www.film-fish.com/) quite accurate.

</comment><comment><USER15> I strongly enjoy movies by Studio Ghibli, and they mostly are female-led. Lets look at the latest, exclusively female-led movie from 2014 called When Marnie Was There.

IMDB: Men made 7779 votes with average 7.7, women made 2881 votes with average 7.9

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3398268/ratings- male](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3398268/ratings-male)

That is 0.2 points difference. If we look at ponyo, the difference is even less, with 0.1 points difference. If there is a bias, it is not exactly tanking the rating, and someone would have work hard to identify if its because women rate women-led movies higher than average, or males who rate it lower.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have no opinion on Ghosbusters, but I just wanted to add that maybe it's not all out of spite and out of hatred towards media aimed at women? I'm a man and I would on average rate any rom-com that I saw with my fiancee much lower than she would - but at the same time, she would usually rate any action move that I liked much lower than I would. It's not because I hate women or she hates men - it's just.....not everything is for everyone? I have no idea how you would reflect it in ratings though?

<comment><USER17> The argument of the article seems to be that meta-ratings sites don't handle that class of movie well, more than it is claiming that "men are misogynistic and hate any media aimed at women".

To some extent it's the nature of a polarising topic. It's just that when it's a male/female split, it's easier to detect and analyse, so it's easy to build an article around.

The argument here is when men post internet reviews of "female oriented films", they tend to be far more critical than women are of "male oriented films". And in this case at least, (based on people who probably haven't seen the movie) men are more likely to post negative reviews of "female movies" than women are to post positive reviews.

So, to use your example, Internet meta-scores for rom-coms are not very helpful. Sure, if your fiancee wants to see one, you can work out how much you're going to hate it based on how badly other men reviewed it, but if she wants to go see one with her sister, then the internet scores tell her almost nothing. She really wants to know "do people who normally like rom-coms like this movie?" but she gets to see a relatively meaningless "5 out of 10" (based on 10 women averaging 9/10, and 20 men averaging 3/10)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't buy that Ghostbusters success will hinge on the gender of the lead actors - the leads in the new film have a lot to live up to in Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray.

<comment><USER4> The trick is the controversy. I know a lot of people who absolutely love Total Recall. There was a remake a few years ago, and it was bad (like everyone expected). People saw it or didnt, and nobody complained about it "ruining their childhood" or publicly boycotted it. I can't help but feel the different reaction is due to the gender recasting.

<comment><USER15> Similar statements was made when Star Wars: The Phantom Menace came out, and it had nothing to do with gender. How does Jar Jar Binks fit with your theory?

<comment><USER4> Nobody complained about it doing that prior to its release. It was hotly anticipated. Lineups around blocks were lined up. when it turned out to be bad, decades of anticipation turned to outrage. That was all after it came out.

<comment><USER15> You mean, the trailer for ghostbuster turned decades of anticipation to outrage, but in the case of star wars, the trailer was fine but the actually movie wasn't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is mostly covered in the article, but anyway:

I see a few overlapping effects here:

1) Aggregators like Tomatometer rank based on broad appeal. That's why Toy Story is one of the highest scored of all time (if you don't like Toy Story, you're _dead inside_ ), and Fight Club can be beloved to many but still not A grade.

2) Audiences are slowly getting tired of cynical reboots. Sure, I understand the harsh reality that means Hollywood has to play as risk averse as possible, and that recycling beloved IP has slightly-better-than break even results on average, but you can't expect movie watchers to gush over story retreads.

3) Yes, the loudest and most obnoxious voices on the internet are also the ones who will go to the most trouble to tank your reviews. This is not specific to movies. The fact that men are doing this for Ghostbusters does not reveal an inherent misogyny overall, just that said mysoginistic neckbeards are more likely to invest their time in trolling the internet (the 4chan effect).

I have no trouble with an all female lead cast. I just wish they didn't waste all that potential on such a crappy regurgitation.

<comment><USER4> So you've seen it already?

The internet matters. A cultural consensus has formed and that means a lot of people won't see this movie because the internet "decided" it was bad before anyone had seen it. The way I see it, a small number of overtly mysogynist trolls exploited a widespread subtle cultural mysogyny to tank a movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ratings (for movies or whatever) are not broken, they just are a limited model of appreciation by a cohort. All statistical models have their limits, that does not make them «broken», just somewhat inaccurate (ie. with varying levels of accuracy).

The author shows it with the gender of the voters, but it would very probably have been the same with IQ, education level, zipcode, country, income level, etc

</comment><comment><USER21> >Essentially, male users were more likely to rate television shows with a female-heavy audience lower than female users would rate male-centric television lower.

If you look at the gender breakdown on imdb for movies that have been out for a while (meaning that people have actually have had the time to watch them), it seems like the differences between the genders are nowhere near as big as for the new ghostbusters movie. The original Ghostbusters for example is 7.8 (m) vs 7.6 (f) [0]. It doesn't look like imdb provides the gender breakdown of votes in their publicly available dataset[1], but it would be interesting to see someone preform a more rigorous analysis (than me looking at movies I can remember at the top of my head).

[0] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/ratings- male](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/ratings-male)

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/interfaces/](http://www.imdb.com/interfaces/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Ghostbusters may not be out where the author is from, but it certainly is here. It's not possible to dismiss all of the reviews as bogus.

</comment><comment><USER23> > So, do you have a preconceived notion of how good or bad the "Ghostbusters" > movie is going to be? Of course you do, you clicked on an article with > "Ghostbusters" in the title.

I blindly clicked because of fivethirtyeight in the url.

</comment><comment><USER24> "if we aggregate the ratings, they don't show what we want".

"we blame men who obviously didn't even see the movie, don't ask us how we know".

<comment><USER25> ... because the movie wasn't out yet...?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The last "movie" I enjoyed was Terminator 2. Not too long after that, I realised that I had seen all possible combinations of ways that you can tell a story in 90 minutes.

Music Industry and Film Industry have essentially just become about personalities and big money. They can peddle garbage because everyone buys it.

I just hope that books are not next because that is all that remains of quality entertainment.

<comment><USER27> There's only seven possible plots for books, so I guess they're over too.

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

<comment><USER28> I would find it very hard to fit e.g. the Song of Ice and Fire into any of the 7 categories without moving the goalposts.

<comment><USER27> I know. The "seven basic plots" idea works, but only if you completely ignore the subtly and nuance of story-telling that authors have used most of the time. The point I was making was that you _can 't_ just boil every movie since Terminator 2 down to a rehash of what's come before. If the poster I was replying to is going to be over-simplify film plots then you also have to accept we can over-simplify book plots to get to the same point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Men were tanking the ratings of shows aimed at women.

Yes. and Im one of those men. Maybe, just maybe STOP marketing those 'women shows' to men?

Remember recent Deadpool marketing campaign around Valentines Day painting it as a romantic comedy? This is what most 'movies and shows aimed at women' do, because they just cant let of the male market $$. "Hey go watch this cool new SciFi movie" never mentions its a Urban fantasy romance novel with 70% screen time taken by woman protagonist crying on someones shoulder.</comment>


PageRank Explained with Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://williamcotton.com/pagerank-explained-with-javascript

<comment><USER2> this guys explanation was way easier to understand: [http://www.rubyinside.com/google-pagerank-in-five-lines- of-r...](http://www.rubyinside.com/google-pagerank-in-five-lines-of- ruby-3313.html)

<comment><USER3> That guy is, uh, annoying. I like the original link better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> insightful.</comment>


Ask HN: Where they/you spend $1m for a startup? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN,<p>That was always a question for me, where do startups spend $100k or $1M of their funding?
How much money does a web-startup need to be determined it's successful or not? <comment><USER2> The word "startup" means you're looking at a company that hasn't found its business model (which can scale) yet - at least that's how I interpret it. Important to clarify this first.

As a startup, money should only be spent on making sure that the product and vision are geared towards solving a problem that a lot of people have. If your product isn't solving a problem, then you can spend more of your cash on trying to figure that out in iterations. If a company is iterating in this customer discovery phase then their burn rate should be fairly low.

Once you're convinced that your product resonates with your intended customers (i.e. people have paid you, signed up, or some other KPI has sufficient momentum) then you can start to spend to accelerate marketing and sales in order to "fill the sales funnel". This spending is usually through hires, paid clicks, other advertising and PR.

Spending to accelerate marketing and sales prior to ensuring that your product solves an important problem for a lot of people is a great way to blow through your $1m or more.

In summary, great founders spend their seed money making sure that they have their product aligned with a bit/important problem, then once that is found they spend to accelerate marketing and sales.

<comment><AUTHOR> [Repeat] We assume that your are a web developer, you have an idea and have it implemented. you sell or are not! do you really need hundreds of thousands of dollars?

<comment><USER2> What this usually gets used for is hiring sales staff in advance of having the revenue that allows it. Acceleration is really the key thing that this capital is looking to accomplish (in theory).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you're looking for a short answer, startups spend most of their money on people. And rightfully so. At such an early stage, the only assets that really count are human.

</comment><comment><USER4> On the execution of an idea that provides something that people want and are willing to pay for.

So, you're question is really "How do you define 'Execution of an idea, and how do you fund that":

You'll need an idea with capable skill behind it. The skills you need will evolve with the idea and the % of execution performed.

At times you will need development, infrastructure, sales and administration.

Development is the team to execute on the feeatures your idea needs to keep users engaged/paying.

Infrastructure is needed initially/at scale in different forms, factors and frequencies.

Sales is getting people to know about use and pay for your idea.

Administration (I am using generically) to include all the activities that support the above. Rent, HR, Marketing (though this can also go into Sales)

So, you need to have a somewhat solid understanding of the above as it relates to your idea and where you are in the process of building a company.

A very very early startup is going to spend most on, intially development and infrastructure, then on sales, then on admin, then cycling back to the other areas as needed.

Hopefully you do NOT wind up with a resource sink such as legal battles, poor investments on non-contributors etc...

<comment><AUTHOR> We assume that your are a web developer, you have an idea and have it implemented. you sell or are not! I really need hundreds of thousands of dollars?

<comment><USER5> It makes life easier for sure. For example, you're just a sole developer with limited time. If you add others to your team and pay them a salary, that could be money. Or you simply aren't a web startup, but a startup in hardware or something else that requires more money.

Etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Minus: Google keeps backing all the wrong social products - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-minus-google-keeps-backing-all-the-wrong-social-products/

<comment><USER2> Google has a great (perpetual?) cash cow from advertising. That's what allows it to pursue all these other ventures.

But, does it have the right leadership? Maybe Stanford PhD's aren't the right people to make decisions about social products?

Also, Google appears to be the antithesis of the Steve Jobs idea of "focus is about saying no". They flail around doing all sorts of random stuff without any rhyme or reason. Granted, they are willing to "fail fast" and walk away from a lot of stuff they shouldn't have done in the first place.

I think Google is still in need of "adult supervision". But not too many people are able to say "NO" to multi-billionaire founders with voting control of the company. We'll see how their recent CFO hire works out. Wall Street is hoping she will help them focus more on making money and less on wild tangents.</comment>


Show HN: I'm biking across the US; this is the journal I'm keeping. - <AUTHOR> http://ahadventure.us/logs.html

<comment><USER2> Wow that looks amazing. I just moved out of Knoxville, so reading about your day there made me miss it a bit.

A few years ago, a buddy and I biked down the west coast, and it was probably the best thing I've ever done. I noticed you guys arent planning any rest days - we did the same thing, and I think it was a mistake. Towards the end of the trip, both of our knees were really starting to hurt, but we just pushed on. I was still getting pains in them for another year or so after the trip. Something to watch out for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we didn't initially budget in any rest days, but their necessity became apparent quickly. We've actually taken a rest day in Memphis and Bolivar, TN so far.

Besides, what's the fun in blowing everything by? Thanks for reading.</comment></comment>


Free teams on Trello will be able to use only up to 10 boards - <AUTHOR> https://help.trello.com/article/1177-personal-vs-team-boards <comment><AUTHOR> I think it's an unacceptable short notice. I now feel extorted to pay an annual fee that wasn't budgeted this year, because I don't have time to plan and execute a migration, even if I wanted to.

<comment><USER2> Completely unacceptable. In my feedback to the trello team, I basically said that the way this was handled makes it easy for a decision maker to say no.

On top of this, the price isn't remotely competitive. 30-50% of an O365 license, for a single application.

<comment><AUTHOR> In our specific case, they're asking to bill us an amount which is higher than what we spent on Github, Slack and Google Apps _all together_ , in 2018. This isn't completely fair because there's some growth to account for, but anyway it's very hard to justify such a price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Whelp. It was a fun ride but I was expecting something like this to happen for a while.

I realise they are cutting the deadweight off the platform and can at least appreciate that you get to keep the boards you already have. But when you are using Trello with a small not-for-profit org and the budget for online task management software is $0 then you can see where this is heading. Google Sheets?

We can install some open-source analogue like Wekan or Taiga but that then requires monitoring and updates.</comment>


Hosting: Media Temple or Slice - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I need cheap hosting that can handle massive trafic if I get lucky. I am tending towards Media Temple. I don't have time for Amazon EC. I am using Rails.

Any suggestions?

</comment><comment><USER2> We have 4 great value plans, designed to suit everyone looking to start their own website, from as little as 2 pounds a month.

[B]SAPPHIRE PLAN[/B]

Web space: 1Gb Monthly Bandwidth: 10Gb FTP Accounts: 20 E-mail Accounts: 20 MySQL Databases: 20 Subdomains 20 (example: <http://something.yourdomain.com)> Parked Domains: 2 Addon Domains: 1 CGI-BIN Access: Yes Microsoft Frontpage Extensions: Yes cPanel control panel Support for ASP

Cost: £2/Mo

[B]RUBY PLAN[/B]

Web space: 5Gb Monthly Bandwidth: 20Gb FTP Accounts: 50 E-mail Accounts: 50 MySQL Databases: 50 Subdomains 50 (example: <http://something.yourdomain.com):> Parked Domains: 4 Addon Domains: 2 CGI-BIN Access: Yes Microsoft Frontpage Extensions: Yes cPanel control panel Support for ASP

Cost: £4/Mo

[B]DIAMOND PLAN[/B] Web space: 10Gb Monthly Bandwidth: 50Gb FTP Accounts: 90 E-mail Accounts: 90 MySQL Databases: 90 Subdomains 90 (example: <http://something.yourdomain.com):> Parked Domains: 10 Addon Domains: 5 CGI- BIN Access: Yes Microsoft Frontpage Extensions: Yes cPanel control panel Support for ASP

Cost: £6/Mo

[B]UNLIMITED PLAN[/B] Order Web space: Unlimited Monthly Bandwidth: Unlimited FTP Accounts: Unlimited E-mail Accounts: Unlimited MySQL Databases: Unlimited Subdomains Unlimited (example: <http://something.yourdomain.com):> Parked Domains: Unlimited Addon Domains: Unlimited CGI-BIN Access: Yes Microsoft Frontpage Extensions: Yes cPanel control panel Support for ASP

Cost: £8/Mo

Pyament Method: Paypal

So visit us today, at www.nemesis-web.net or check out our forums, here: www.nemesis-web.net/community.

Thanks</comment>


How Elon Musk Can Save Tesla: Hire Alan Mulally, Ford's Savior - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-23/how-elon-musk-can-save-tesla-hire-alan-mulally-ford-s-savior <comment><USER2> I'm sort of a Mulally fan, he I think was fairly critical in how smoothly the 777 development was for Boeing - and was passed up to be CEO of Boeing, and went to Ford as CEO instead. But I wonder that today Ford is in something a problem spot, and how much of that (if any) is attributable to Mulally.</comment>