Why Bikes Make Smart People Say Dumb Things - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/9316abbd5735 <comment><USER2> Cyclists and motorists need to stop demonizing each other. The problem is not with either of those groups, the problem is with indecisive, inconsistent enforcement of the law.

A cyclist knows that there is most likely no consequence for running a stop sign, so even if it is technically illegal, there's no incentive for them to stop. If motorists could get away with running stop signs just as easily, they would do the same. It's unreasonable to expect people to act contrary to their incentives.

We need to agree on what the law is, and enforce it accordingly. Maybe it doesn't make sense for cyclists to obey the same set of traffic signals as motorists; if that is the case then we need to explicitly say so.

This business where some people obey traffic signals and other don't needs to stop. That is the responsibility of city government and law enforcement.

<comment><USER3> According to the article, 80% of motorists and 95% of bicyclists do not come to a complete stop at stop signs.

In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs.

The elephant in the room is speeding. Speeding is responsible for ~30% of all road fatalities, yet is universally condoned on American roads. Drivers do not understand how hypocritical they are when they complain about bicyclists disobeying road rules while they themselves are speeding.

<comment><USER4> >In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs.

Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again adds a huge amount of effort to a ride, and a cyclist has plenty of incentive to look before rolling through an intersection.

<comment><USER5> That argument works even better for cars. Cars are much heavier. It's far more effort to stop a car and get it going again than for a bicycle. It would dramatically improve gas mileage if cars could ignore stop signs.

<comment><USER4> Getting people out of cars and onto bikes would save even more oil.

We also have 30 years of data from Idaho which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields: "Idaho bicycle-collision statistics confirm that the Idaho law has resulted in no discernible increase in injuries or fatalities to bicyclists."

[http://btaoregon.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/hb2690-idaho...](http://btaoregon.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/hb2690-idaho-stop-second-article-by-ray-thomas-for- oregon-cycling-magazine1.pdf)

Do you think this would be the case if applied to cars?

<comment><USER6> I do. At most intersections, a driver of normal capability should be capable of determining whether there are any other cars at the intersection without completely stopping for multiple seconds. And in reality, most drivers in my area do roll stops and it does not cause an appreciable number of accidents.

<comment><USER4> I think you also need to account for stopping distances and acceleration.

A bike can stop in far shorter distances than a car can (and will be travelling at a lower speed in the first place).

Bikes are also slower to accelerate than a car. Allowing a bike to maintain more of its momentum gets it through the intersection quicker, _especially_ on any kind of uphill grade.

Anecdotal, perhaps, but I know that my personal experience has been that the combination of those two things means that I'm evaluating whether it's safe for me to pass through an intersection and making the decision much sooner on a bike than I would in a car where the assumption is I need to mostly stop because I may not be able to otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was a well written article.

I'm a commuter cyclist (in San Francisco) and I admit to taking actions that I'm sure piss off some pedestrians. I always feel bad about it and am working on it. The one thing is that 99% of my focus is on dealing with the 1-ton boxes of death metal traveling at 60KM/h and not on the 150lb squishy humans going 5KM/h.

The new bike lans going up in the city are awesome though. I'm sure if you looked at biker<->pedestrian conflicts on a street like Folsom before and after the huge bike lane they put up, you would (hopefully!) see a marked decrease.

<comment><USER8> The thing that really pisses off pedestrians is when bicycles don't stop when their supposed to and just go through intersections when they aren't supposed to.

That type of action doesn't help with your safety against motor vehicles, its purely bicyclists not wanting to stop. That seems selfish on the part of bicyclists who do this.

<comment><USER9> Just walk. The cyclist most likely sees you and is waiting for you to move past. The worst thing you can do is react to the cyclist, stopping and starting.

<comment><USER10> I agree, but peds who never ride bikes don't realize this and I don't think you can expect them to. They're used to interacting with cars, where there's not enough room for both (a car and a ped) in an intersection, so their reaction is to avoid sharing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a european biker my theory on the aggressiveness in the debate about bikers in the USA is simply that, due to how traffic laws over there are structured, bikers are much more endangered and have to respond with much more aggressiveness.

As an example: In Germany a biker legally has to keep a minimum distance from parked cars. This often means riding in the middle of the lane, something which german bikers are not only, as in this minimum distance case, forced to, but generally allowed to in every case.

From what friends in the USA tell me, trying to do that is a very quick trip to a hospital.

<comment><USER12> My understanding in the US is that riding on the sidewalks is illegal, and that cyclists must ride in the road to follow the law (I am not a cyclist).

<comment><USER13> I can only speak for my state (South Carolina) but that is absolutely true, but rarely enforced. I've had several accidents and near misses pulling out of my driveway and bumping into people biking down the sidewalk. They were always at fault, but at the same time the street they should have been riding on is a major thoroughfare downtown and has speeds of 25-35 MPH with no bike lane. You really cannot expect everyone to be able to bike anywhere near that fast, but then you wind up with folks going a few MPH on a bike and holding up traffic. It's just a terrible situation all around.

<comment><USER14> > They were always at fault, but at the same time the street they should have > been riding on is a major thoroughfare downtown and has speeds of 25-35 MPH > with no bike lane. You really cannot expect everyone to be able to bike > anywhere near that fast, but then you wind up with folks going a few MPH on > a bike and holding up traffic. It's just a terrible situation all around.

This is a major problem in Houston as well. I think cyclists are generally disliked here because the road system is just not at all designed to accommodate them. There are a lot of roads with 30-40 mph speeds, no bike lanes, and sidewalks that are very popular for walkers (plus it's illegal to ride a bike on them). A cyclist has the choice of either biking on the sidewalk, thereby endangering pedestrians, or biking on the road, thereby causing a small traffic jam and forcing all the cars to switch lanes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Those in cars getting angry at cyclists are most often doing it because they believe the cyclist to be slowing them down. There are plenty of valid reasons as well, but by and large, this is the reason when you boil it down. We have an unrealistic expectation of speed on city streets because our highway speed limits are so disproportionately high compared to urban ones, that travelling at the true speed limit is frustrating if one doesn't constantly do it.

Yield to those at greater risk than you, and never assume your travel time is more important than anothers safety, and all other laws/rules enforcement arguments go out the window, in my book.

If there was one thing that would greatly improve cyclist-pedestrian incidents, in my mind, it would be heavily enforcing the stop sign parking distance laws. Too often I see cars (especially delivery vehicles) parked in such a way that a cyclist doesn't even see a pedestrian about to cross or vice versa until the last minute, because the pedestrian side of the crosswalk is obstructed from view by an illegally parked vehicle upon approach. This stops the "Idaho Stop" philosophy from working well here in Chicago.

<comment><USER14> I think it depends heavily on the city and the way the roads have been planned. There are places where cyclists most definitely do slow down traffic, and that can be pretty unsafe for the cars.

Houston, where I live, is an example. I don't dislike cyclists at all, but when a long string of cars encounters a single cyclist going at half the speed, at most, it really does cause problems. There are no bike lanes here and it's illegal to bike on sidewalks, so cyclists have no choice but to ride in the middle of the lane.

What happens is, if there's enough traffic, a single cyclist can cause a mini traffic jam, because every car will try to switch lanes so they can pass, but there are too many cars for everybody to safely switch lanes. So one lane basically comes to a stop behind the cyclist and the other doesn't go much faster because of people trying to merge into it (which isn't safe due to the volume of cars).

This is far from the worst situation that can happen on the road, but this is what happens with probably 90% of the cyclists I encounter in Houston while driving. In a city like Houston where everything is spread out, it is truly not practical to reduce all car speeds down to bike speeds.

<comment><USER15> Ah Houston. I spent a month there for work a few years ago, and brought my bike only to find the stretch I was staying at it was incredibly difficult to find a good road to ride on. Of course, in 105 degrees and 90% humidity I rarely felt like riding my bike :)

That's a real tough place to find a happy medium. Many of the places people go to are long fast stretches with few alternate routes. As much as I love riding, my bike barely saw any use other than driving it in my rental car miles north on the weekends to find somewhere to go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Say what you will about the relative dangers of autos vs. cyclists, but my closest call to death in SF traffic (as a pedestrian) was due to a cyclist, not a car: I was about to cross an otherwise-empty intersection legally, when a bicyclist shot through against the light at high speed, missing me by centimeters. Had I been hit by the guy I'd have been severely injured, if not killed.

Moreover, riders around here don't seem to pay much attention to pedestrians -- they're so focused on cars that they routinely do things to endanger the rest of us (I can't even begin to tell you the number of times I've had to dodge bikes on crowded sidewalks, even though it's illegal to ride on sidewalks here.)

There's a certain type of "activist" rider here who has made flaunting the law a badge of honor. I don't own a car and I do ride a bike, but at this point, I have a lot of sympathy for the people who criticize cyclists -- the entitlement is a little out of control.

(edit: thanks for the downvotes, folks. you're definitely changing my mind on this issue.)

<comment><USER11> > (edit: thanks for the downvotes, folks. you're definitely changing my mind > on this issue.)

You're getting downvotes because you managed to completely miss the point the article is trying to make:

Anecdotes are not generalized evidence.

<comment><USER16> This is from the guy whose other comment on this thread is a personal opinion/theory? [1]

Let's be honest: you don't have a problem with opinions, you just don't happen to like mine.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999941](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999941)

<comment><USER11> The difference is that i noted from the get-go that my post is a theory, which, as theories go, is implicitly understood to maybe be right or maybe be wrong. Take care to note for example how i marked which statements i made were either fact or hear-say.

Now the article, which freely admitted that there are black sheep on both sides and that there are certainly situations where bikers are MORE likely to break the law than others, merely tried to make the point that the, often unreflected, demonization (not all criticism, the demonization) is undeserved and that the situation would be better for everyone if people simply thought a bit more.

Your comment on that? "I had some trouble with bikers who broke the laws, so some criticism is deserved." The latter part of that was already a sentiment in the article, and the entirety of that is what the article tried to point out as thoughtlessness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The problem has already been solved a long time ago, but Americans just don't like the answer.

Driving a car means driving a vehicle that can easily murder an entire family in a split second. Drivers should have a greater amount of responsibility for traffic safety and that responsibility should be enshrined in the laws.

It's so hypocritical that Americans do apply that logic to guns and use it to justify responsible gun ownership, but any 16 year old can wield a car like it's toy and get away with it.

Amsterdam cyclist all act like anti-social a-holes, but over here that is _not considered an excuse to just fucking run them over with your car_. Period.

It's a pointless argument. Unprotected cyclists and pedestrians should not be held to the same standards as drivers because the consequences are wildly different.

It's like saying because people are hitting me with fluffy cotton balls it's okay for me to fire live rounds at them if nobody stops them. Insane.

<comment><USER18> "Amsterdam cyclist all act like anti-social a-holes, but over here that is not considered an excuse to just fucking run them over with your car."

Why? Anything other than "just because"?

I'll give you a personal example where I was not directly involved but I was sort of present. So I'm at my place of employment, there's streetlights with a dangerous blind corner less than a block away from the front door, trucks parked on the street and stuff. Teen on his bike tries to run a red light at this blind corner, ends up dead underneath a bus in an instant. I ran the math based on some trig and the speeds involved and at this blind corner both the biker and bus driver thought the intersection was clear until, at most, the last 1/20th of a second of the kids life. The passenger side wheels went right over the kids head, likely he never knew what hit him. Wasn't much left of that kid.

Most drivers I work with were infuriated because everyone's got experience with bikers not following the law and its bound to happen sooner or later. And frankly its going to happen again, and maybe I'll be the one hitting a red- light-running biker. And I don't really feel bad about it and I refuse to accept responsibility for the kids actions. There's nothing the bus driver could have done about it and nothing I can do about it in the inevitable situation I hit a biker. So there seems little point in not allowing it as an excuse.

Note that I've got nothing against suicide prevention, I'd be the first guy to suggest maybe education, or rebuild that intersection, or ... something? But the kid willfully and intentionally played russian roulette and lost. I don't wanna have to wash his innards off my car, but I'm probably going to have to do something like this, sooner or later. Who pays for the damage to my car, thats whats important to me. The bikers might not care about their own lives so I feel no obligation to do the caring for them, but I do care about my car.

<comment><USER9> > I don't wanna have to wash his innards off my car, but I'm probably going to > have to do something like this, sooner or later

Sounds like selection bias. The amount of bike fatalities is nowhere near large enough that you should be _expecting_ to run someone over.

<comment><USER18> Then they should keep running red lights. What could possibly go wrong?

Its also a strongly social discussion, not private. Someone I know or care about will run a red-light running biker over, although ahead of time there's no way to tell who.

<comment><USER9> > Someone I know or care about will run a red-light running biker over

Also very doubtful. It's much more likely that your or someone you care about will run over a law-abiding cyclist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Running a stop on a bicycle is perfectly safe when there is nobody around. You can be sure that nobody is around because, first of all you're not in a cabin, and nothing blocks your vision: you have a 360 view of the situation, and you can hear well also. A driver's vision is blocked by window posts, the rear- view mirror, and additional things like object hanging from the mirror and passenger's heads. These objects can occlude an entire pedestrian or three. Secondly, on a bicycle, you will rarely go faster than 30 km/h. If you sustain 30 km/h on flat pavement in the absence of wind, you're pretty fit and going at it quite hard. The higher speeds are achieved when going down hill or in a tailwind. 30 km/h is in the ballpark of what cars slow down to when running stops. Drivers don't even consider that running because they believe they really slowed down and looked very well; it's called "rolling" through a stop, or making a "taxi stop".

If you still runs stops at full speed on your bicycle when going downhill at 50-60 or more, or barging into intersections where visibility is poor, then you're crazy.

Obeying traffic rules to the letter is not a substitute for knowing the limitations of the machine, accounting for weather conditions, being "radar aware" of everything that is going on as far as your eye can see, and predicting the possible thing that drivers are going to do several moves into the future. Oh, and being properly clothed and lit for visibility at night! If you're doing all that, then reward yourself by rolling through a few stop signs.

Being vigilant for drivers swinging their doors open into traffic will pay off a lot more than coming to a full stop at stop signs. Cyclists are often killed in "dooring" accidents.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have no idea why this is on HN. In any case, he's absolutely right. It's not overgeneralization when everyone sees it day-in and day-out in every major American city. This article simply seems to be shocked that anyone would criticize bicyclists for doing what they do every single day. Source: I cycle myself.

<comment><USER18> "I have no idea why this is on HN."

I believe its a really good example of how to manipulate statistics to meet a predetermined conclusion. I'm not sure if there was one number in the entire article that wasn't manipulated into propaganda. The text prose was OK but the manipulation of statistics was masterful.

Here's one example. If a skinny biker, hit pedestrian me, at a "normal" speed maybe 10 MPH, the kinetic impact would be similar (for me, anyway) to a normal size person hitting me in the hallway. Oh we'd both get knocked down, and if I was 80 like my grandma, or 8 like my kid, it might kill, and maybe 1 in 100 odds someone would break a bone, but the fatality rate per accident would hover near enough zero. In comparison, hit a pedestrian on a 45 (really more like 60) MPH country road and the only question is if they'll be enough left to fill a coffin or not, so we'll call that near 100% fatality rate per accident. So the fixation on comparing fatality rates is meaningless. There's more to a good day than merely not dying in a bike-ped accident and I have no great desire to be hit over and over and "its OK because I wasn't killed and my desire to wear spandex is more important than your desire to live". "Well sorry I killed your kid or grandma but statistically they don't count." That's not really a culture to aspire to.

Another example is the fixation on counts without discussing percentages. Lets see, on my commute home about 60000 of my closest friends and I will drive on that major interstate over the course of the entire commute, while what, maybe a handful of bikers will spend hours taking the surface streets? So if bikes were rabid death machines I'd still expect the death counts to be spectacularly higher for cars than bikers because practically no one bikes. The death count from a rounding error will in fact approach zero. That doesn't mean Russian Roulette is a great game to recommend and the authors observation is meaningless.

I have mixed feelings in that my opinions and biases generally match the authors, because I like to ride my bike (although I ride safely, which even I admit is unusual for bikers), but I can't decide if I should complain about the evils of propaganda or compliment the guy on doing a near legendarily good job at generating propaganda. You have to respect competence, even if its doing something evil. You can always learn something from competence. Just don't confuse successful competence with good ethics. Life isn't as simple as merely success = goodness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A few thoughts...

1) Current US roads infrastructure is not designed for bicycles. If we are serious about getting people to use bikes, then we have to re-think how we design roads and re-build the ones we currently have. Same goes to the traffic laws.

2) Personally I feel that not stopping on a red light or a stop sign is far more dangerous than going over speed limit in the flow of traffic on 280. I do understand why bicyclists don't want to stop. We should re-think the roads and traffic laws to fix this instead of accepting the fact.

3) While this is true that the number of deaths from bike is not even close to the number of deaths from cars, this comparison is not fare. We should look at the total number of accidents with death or a hospital stay and factor in the number of bikes/cars on the road. Not sure if this kind of research exists.

4) Lastly, the bikers on public roads need to be regulated. Right now there is an implicit assumption that all bikers are also car drivers and they know the rules. However, it is not really the case anymore. Moreover, bike rules ARE different.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've done both biking in the city and driving. City governments need to push both parties to be better on the road.

In Toronto, bikes are considered slow motor vehicles. We have these kinds of problems. I think from a biker's perspective, it's dangerous because their life is on the line. But from a car's perspective, bikers are a danger to them finacially.

The problems IMO is asymetrical. Bikers put themselves on the line, but it's low cost (realatively) and no pre-requesite knowlege on how to behave on roads (no bike exam vs driver exam). A Car has low risk to themselves on the road, but it's costly (car cost + insurance + maintenance), and they have to past an exam on how to behave on the road.

To a driver: Bikers pretty much break the rules of the road and there isn't much consequence execpt an accident. I've never seen a cop pull over a bike for behaving badly. Bikes also have this thing where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them.

To a cyclist: Drivers need to be punished for dangerous actions against cyclists. Like not checking your mirrors before opening doors, or changing lanes. There needs to be civic campagins from the government urging drivers in the cities to be aware of cyclists and to remind drivers how to co-exists with cyclists.

I've thought of both sides of the arguement, I've changed the way I drive and cycle. Driving rules are pretty clear, but when I cycle, I just pretty much act likes a car with my hazzard lights on and hand signal like my blinkers are broken. I take up a lane and people can pass me when they can do so safely. Does it imped traffic? Yes, but I don't see anyone complaining about heavy trucks on the road.

<comment><USER23> > .... where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians > when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad > bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is > a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they > just have to be more of them.

Biked in Europe for 20+ years, and now live in North America. The problem is exactly your attitude: that there is only one "road", that there is one right way to behave on it, and both drivers and cyclists should follow it. It's like North Americans can't wrap their head around the fact that driving is just one mode, cycling is another, walking is yet another, trains are yet another, etc. and what you call "the road" is the disproportionate part of the pavement that you dedicate uniquely to drivers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The core problem is nobody gives a shit. The traffic designers, the urban planners, the cyclists, the drivers, the pedestrians, the cops, the government. Everyone cheats, everyone makes excuses, it's someone else's fault, yadda yadda.

It makes perfect sense for cyclists to obey the effing law but they don't. They'll rattle off an infinite number of excuses, ranging from it doesn't make sense, to everybody does it why should I be the good rider, to laws of physics: it is hard to stop a bike and then restart at an intersection so I will just race right through, yadda yadda yadda. It's lazy, cheater thinking.

Everyone out for themselves. No empathy anywhere in sight.

</comment><comment><USER25> Before I moved to the DC-area, I was quite familiar with automobile assholes. They're everywhere. But, before I moved here, I had a pretty good impression of bikers - I always thought that they were a mellow bunch. But, DC introduced me to the biker asshole, a species that seems to flourish here, like mosquitoes.

While it's bad to generalize, like the journalist in the article did, I can see how he could become irritated after a while.

<comment><USER26> What about DC pedestrians? Are there assholes among them, too? Is everyone in DC an asshole?

<comment><USER25> The pedestrians aren't bad, except maybe the ones near the Mall and the other tourist attractions.

DC has some nice bike/hike trails that extend way out (50-100 miles or more). I happened to have lived on one of these trails, called the 'W&OD', at three different locations.

These trails are somewhat overcrowded, especially during commuting hours. But, it's not unusual for a biker, traveling at high speed, to swerve extremely close to a walker. A lot of times it's out of spite. I've gotten physically hit several times - and, I try to do a good job at staying on the margin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> One (slightly off-topic comment):

I live in Santa Barbara, and the bikes going 30+MPH down Alameda Padre Serra at night with no lights on is a significant source of injury. That is a stretch where bicyclists are regularly hit by cars backing out of driveways.

Even a bike with the average headlamp is far less visible than a car with its lights on to a car backing up, and this is a _very_ windy road. It is just not true that cars going 30 on this road at night are more dangerous (to the operator of the vehicle) than bicycles, as serious bicycle accidents are more regular there than serious car accidents. Of course, a car doing something unsafe is far more of a danger to others, but that's a universal truth.

I can't speak for the author's mother, but nearly everyone I know would agree that 40mph is far too fast for cars on that stretch of road (30mph speed limit, and most cars tend to go 25-35mph on it). I've even seen a resident there standing next to the road raising up rude signs to cars they feel are going too fast.

On another note, bicycling here is very frustrating as the roads are not safe for cycling (even where there are bike lanes, cars are often parked overlapping them), there are few dedicated bike paths, and bicycling on sidewalks has its own issue. It's particularly frustrating since the weather is amenable to year-round cycling.

For those interested, here's a streetview of the downhill stretch likely talked about:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/181+Alameda+Padre+Serra/@3...](https://email@example.com,-119.674207,3a,75y,252.79h,76.97t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srkOzRxDxp5xOilKwwHNTkg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x80e9139f418bd513:0xf1b6ebb9f422c33e)

</comment><comment><USER28> Zero fatalities per 15 million miles is not a great metric. For one thing, cars boast less than 0.3 fatalities per 15 million miles, so if anybody dies between now and 45 million bike miles that will not be a great statistic.

I'd wager that 1 million bike miles represent far more trips than 1 million car miles, though, since obviously bikes are (usually) used for shorter trips than cars.

<comment><USER29> Though most _pedestrian_ fatalities would be on relatively short car trips or relatively short stretches of long car trips (before/after the highway).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have to contribute to this because I have this deep pent up rage against most bicyclists in Sacramento...

>The few studies that look at specific violations have found that people on bikes do roll through stop signs about 15% more than drivers do (at least in Oregon), but also that drivers roll through them almost 80% of the time

This is the source of all my aggression. First off, this is an incredibly high percentage, basically confirming almost all bicyclists don't stop at stop signs. Looks like I have reason to generalize. This statistic is deceptive in that it doesn't compare speed through a stop sign. Most drivers roll through stop signs (no source but based on personal experience), they don't blow through them at full speed. Downtown/midtown Sacramento has hundreds of stop signs and I almost hit bicyclists on a weekly basis.

There were lots of statistical goofs in this article but this one made my eyes turn red.

rant over

</comment><comment><USER31> I think zaccus and OmarIsmail are on the right track.

Re: zaccus - Google the "Idaho stop." The folks in Idaho got it right: cyclists should slow down at stop sign intersections and come to a full stop (with foot on ground) if a car got there first; otherwise proceed through with caution. As far as red lights in a crowded city like SF -- sorry you gotta stop like everyone else.

Re: OmarIsmail - We cyclists can do a better job. It's all about showing respect to everyone, ESPECIALLY pedestrians. Get off your bike and walk if necessary to not spook them.

Overall I would say that Scott Simon got a raw deal. There ARE a lot of jerks on bicycles and it is just plain honesty to say so.

</comment><comment><USER32> The smiling man on the bike in the last photo on the page was my high school psychology teacher. Can confirm: not a hipster.

</comment><comment><USER19> I bought a cool rear-view mirror today: it clips onto the temple of your glasses rather than your helmet.

Off the bike, it doubles as a cubicle rear-view mirror.

If I turn my head about 45 degrees to the left, I see the "third quadrant" behind me, and if I turn a little bit more, I see directly backwards, all with a decently wide angle.

</comment><comment><USER33> Bikes can go 20-30MPH = 10X what pedestrians can do. In comparison cards go 35-45 in city traffic - may 2X what cycles can do.

Bicycles and pedestrians do not belong on the same path. I know we WISH they could, or that they could just get along somehow, but the math says it isn't going to happen.

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure what you're responding to, but I agree that bikes do not generally belong on sidewalks.

<comment><USER33> ...Or in crosswalks when pedestrians are there. So bikes must respect stop signs and signals, period.

<comment><USER29> I don't think the author of this piece disagrees with you, there. In fact:

 _" I tense up when I see a cyclist approaching a stop sign without slowing all the way down, but I tense up a lot more when a car does the same. And I fantasize about a cop showing up and ticketing them both, so I can make it safely to work today."_

I mostly agree, although if there is sufficient visibility and no one around I might relax "period" _slightly_.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: HN Rank Chrome extension - <AUTHOR> https://www.jitbit.com/hacker-news-rank/

<comment><USER2> This should be really helpful at showing me what sites I think I should submit to HN that have already appeared as popular in the past. Really neat plugin, already enjoying looking at sites with it!

</comment><comment><USER3> Getting this error - "Package is invalid. Details: 'Could not load extension icon 'icon.png'.'"

Chrome Version 40.0.2214.94 (64-bit) Arch Linux

<comment><AUTHOR> Submitted an update to the Chrome Web Store. Should appear soon. Could anyone on Ubuntu let me know if it worked please?

<comment><USER4> 403 - Forbidden: Access is denied.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be a great addition to be able to upvote/downvote from the extension, and see an overview of who made the post (user) with karma details

<comment><USER6> I can't see why it's a good feature, since upvotes count when something is hot on HN, when it's not hot you can simply "submit" it and it upvotes for the previous submitter but HN is for discover of new stuff, less for "maintaining point of interest" for that btw you can try kifi.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So is it for submitting sites to HN or for seeing site rank from the extension? (or both?)

<comment><AUTHOR> It does both. If a web-site wasn't submitted before, you can quickly submit it by clicking on the extension. So it works as a share bookmarklet too.</comment></comment>


MyHTML – HTML Parser on Pure C with POSIX Threads Support - <AUTHOR> http://lexborisov.github.io/myhtml/ <comment><USER2> > By the way, SCRIPT tag tokenization is a hell of an effort. I had to draw a > _graph_ [...] Next in turn are the CSS parser and Renderer.

CSS parsing should be ok, but layout computation is hard, especially with all the latest specs. The graph presented in the article will be the size of a postage stamp on an aircraft carrier deck.

Take a look at the Cassowary constraint solver, btw: [http://overconstrained.io/](http://overconstrained.io/)

> I'm writing them all by myself, still full of energy.

I wish the author the best of luck.

<comment><USER3> The great thing about writing the layout computation code is that specs are mostly additive. You can start by supporting only a few properties and then as you progress support more and more.

I've used this approach for css-layout[1] and in 2 weeks I got enough implemented to support most use cases we've needed to build mobile apps.

Also, Cassowary won't really help you there. It's going to take a much bigger effort to translate CSS into constraints than just reimplementing the steps themselves.

[1] [https://github.com/facebook/css-layout](https://github.com/facebook/css- layout)

<comment><USER2> cool project!

flex-box is a mostly self-contained and powerful spec (if i understand correctly).

however, when you don't need to account for floats, relative layout, mixed box-sizing, negative margins, complex overflow conditions and interaction with a ton of older specs, you vastly simplify the problem space for yourself.

it makes perfect sense for a modern system but is quite far from a general impl that can compute layout from html+css unconditionally. the article starts with:

"Once I got an X idea, but its implementation required a calculated DOM with all its styles and goodies"

so the goal is not "the most useful subset". flexbox is currently the least- used (& least supported) layout, so for the author's purposes which sounds like scraping existing markup would not help very much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is incredibly clean code. Large, long-term single-person hobby projects make for some kickass codebases. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER5> Amazing work. How does this compare (in terms of speed mostly) to Google's gumbo parser?

<comment><USER6> It looks much faster: [http://lexborisov.github.io/myhtml/bm/time_0_100.png](http://lexborisov.github.io/myhtml/bm/time_0_100.png)

<comment><USER7> could you elaborate please? it looks quite radical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://github.com/servo/html5ever](https://github.com/servo/html5ever) seems to also have a (not yet complete) C API

</comment><comment><USER9> Putting "my" in front of anything should be forbidden.

Just "my" two cents.

<comment><USER10> MySQL. Although that My refers to author's daughter's name. You can guess the rest of his kids names from other products: MaxDB and MariaDB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting to see, just took handmade xml parser as a personal challenge, in python though, I've been hitting nasty performance issues compared to libxml2.

<comment><USER12> Basic XML parsing should be very simple, it's deterministic with one-symbol lookahead. There's a number of small C parsers out there and even one written in assembly. If you want to validate it though or parse DTDs, that's a different story.

<comment><USER11> Indeed that's why I was surprised to be 200x slower than libxml2. A lesson in performance.

<comment><USER13> Any idea what the cause of the bottleneck is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder how easy it would be too adapt the API to a set of C++ classes?</comment>


H1B Visa Lottery for FY 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5051f359827dd310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7801c2c9be44210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD <comment><USER2> I don't know where I read it, but I think it's true: every generation of Americans has tried to close the door to immigrants that try to come after them. This is simply the latest example.

Except it is not simply that. I think this is far more important. In an age where competition for talent has become global, any country that wants to get ahead (or remain ahead) needs to do everything it can to both train _and_ attract said talent. And since American universities are not turning up enough people with technology degrees, America has to turn to foreigners to fill in the gaps in the tech sector.

Does this depress wages and screw over some Americans? You bet. Welcome to globalism. Your citizenship no longer matters to the labor market. Soon, your physical location won't matter either. Hopefully you have some other means of setting yourself apart from the (now) global pool of candidates.

<comment><USER3> >> _..every generation of Americans has tried to close the door to immigrants that try to come after them_

And the first generation(and next few) butchered the native habitants or sidelined them to the _reserves_. Is this the entire story?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My H1B application is in lottery despite already having an H1B visa. Here's why -

There are two types of H1Bs -

      * cap exempt: For non-profits, public/state universities , public university hospitals and national labs.
      * cap subject: For profit making companies.

According to visa rules, an applicant is subject to cap-based system if he/she hasn't been counted in the cap in last six years. You need to find an employer who will apply for your H1B in April and then wait for you until October. Not many employers will hire such candidate. So it's extremely difficult to transfer job from cap-exempt H1B employer to cap-subject H1B employer unless you have been counted in the cap-based H1B system before.

Moral: Don't take your first H1B job with a non-profit (Khan Academy??), national lab or public university.

You would think you may get some benefits by working for a research or non- profit organization, but sadly that's not the case.

<comment><AUTHOR> So are you saying you've been on H1B visa for 6 years of more as of now? This is a great point, can you please share?

<comment><USER5> hes just applying again for H1B the second time after his 6 years expired for the previous time he was granted ( 3years reg + 3 years extension). Thats normal logic

<comment><AUTHOR> His comment created confusion with "cap exempt" vs "cap subject" logic.

<comment><USER4> Murthy folks have explained this in better manner: [http://www.murthy.com/2013/01/14/moving-from-cap-exempt- to-c...](http://www.murthy.com/2013/01/14/moving-from-cap-exempt-to-cap- subject-h1b/)

Seems like there are many like me..!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It took only 5 days this year...

Past years: "FY 2010 cap numbers lasted until December 21, 2009. The FY 2011 cap was reached on January 26, 2011, the FY 2012 cap was reached on November 23, 2011, the FY 2013 cap was reached on June 11, 2012, and the FY 2014 cap was reached on April 5, 2013." Source: [http://www.nafsa.org/Resource_Library_Assets/Regulatory_Info...](http://www.nafsa.org/Resource_Library_Assets/Regulatory_Information/H-1B_Cap_Resource_Page/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Next year it could be worse, like the 1st day the cap might be reached. It only shows how important and urgent is to fix the legal immigration system in this country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The "apply in April and spend six months in limbo" structure of the H-1B program seems like it would heavily favor multinational companies that can hire someone for a position abroad, and relocate them to the US if their visa comes through. I wonder if that's why Infosys et al account for such a large portion of the H-1B pool.

Can anyone more familiar with the situation comment on whether this is how the process actually works? Do people who would be Infosys employees in the US continue to work for Infosys in India if their visa application gets rejected?

<comment><USER8> If you are talking about people who get hired in India, then yes they continue to work for Infosys. I am not sure about what will happen to people who get hired in the US(like international students). Companies like Infosys are large enough that there is always another project where you can move to even if you dont get a visa.

<comment><USER9> Depending on what the classification of the U.S. student hire is they may qualify for extensions. For example an F-1 student that is nearing the end of their OPT work period (90-120 days) and is working towards a STEM degree can get an F-1 STEM OPT extension of 17 months. The employer they are working for must also be enrolled in E-Verify to qualify to employ an F-1 student with a STEM extension.

Then you have Cap-Gap. An F-1 student that has completed their OPT period and with a pending or approved H-1B petition may qualify to remain in F-1 status and get extended work authorization until Sept 30th (H-1B status and work authorization periods start on Oct 1). USCIS publishes the specifics for each fiscal year about Cap-Gap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am writing this so people in situation like me will feel better.

People didn't know what day it will run out, so we can assume than number of applications on 5th probably wasn't higher than on previous 4 days. We don't know on what time on day on 5th day it ran out. What's more majority of applications were made on 1st day (a lot of companies were expecting this situation, one which is getting me h1b included). I'd say expected probability of not getting a VISA is below 10% .

To counter the fact that USA government does "weekly" accounting of number of applications (that 65k-th application was made earlier this week, but only today government realized this) is this document from 2008 - www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/H1BFY08Cap040307.pdf , where USCIS released document the next day after cap was reached, the next day after they started accepting applications.

<comment><USER11> I realize this is guesswork but it makes me feel slightly better :) Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think H1B visa is pretty horrible for start-up employees. Large Indian outsourcing companies like TCS, Infoasys etc. are using H1B for sending their half-trained software donkeys as cheap labor to US.

How can you equate a start-up founder with a QA guy working in TCS ?

</comment><comment><USER12> I think there should be two different visa categories.

1\. Those who are employed in their respective country for an outsourcing company and are applying for H1B. 2\. Separate category for US based companies hiring global talent. 3\. Separate caps for small companies.

What is wrong with lottery system.

My wife worked with an Indian outsourcing giant. She worked on a project by an American client. When they wanted to send someone to US on B1 visa they put 10 of their employees in the pipeline. Idea was if anyone's visa gets rejected the next person will try for it. They also divided these 10 people in 4 buckets and each bucket applied with a separate embassy in India.

I suspect with H1B lottery such large companies will also try to make more applications. Bad for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER13> If government really wanted to fix this, they would give priority to international students graduating from universities in US first, then allocate any remaining H1-Bs for consultancy agencies from India and elsewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, outsourcing companies such as Infosys, Wipro, Satyam, Tata etc gobble up majority of H1B visas for sending cheap labor to US. <http://www.businessweek.com/table/08/0305_h1b.htm>

<comment><USER14> The data is for 2007, when financial sector was one of their primary customers. A bunch of Infosys and Tata's major customers (Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns) are out of business, other entities are significantly smaller in size. That list might look very different in 2013.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is the list from 2013, the situation is even worse, most Indian Offshore companies are among top 10 now: [http://www.epi.org/blog/top-10-h1b-guestworker-offshore- outs...](http://www.epi.org/blog/top-10-h1b-guestworker-offshore-outsourcing/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The program was first come first server after financial crisis. Now US economy became more attractive to foreign engineers and consulting companies once again.

</comment><comment><USER11> God damn it, this screws me over pretty bad. Anyone else?

<comment><USER5> same here.. my OPT gets over in a few months.. this may screw me over completely and force me to go back to native country. Dreams in Silicon Valley burnt due to extremely limited cap.

<comment><USER16> I'm in the same boat as you. My OPT ends on September 30th, ironically enough (H1B starts Oct 1st).

A backup plan I've been thinking about would be to move to the Canadian west coast if I don't get a visa (EU citizens, your country may or may not have visa agreements with Canada that allow you to work there- France has nice things in that regard) to be not too far from my team.

<comment><USER9> Look into STEM OPT extension. It's good for 17 months. Your student advisor should know about it and your employer must be enrolled in E-Verify. You'll need the employers E-Verify # when applying and you'll get a new I-20 from your school. Nothing with USCIS is ever that simple but the employers I work with have lots of F-1 students that qualify and quite easily get their STEM OPT extension. You have to apply well before your OPT expires though (90-120 days).

<comment><USER16> Yeah, we thought about the OPT extension. The problem is that we're not enrolled in e-verify, and the company that we outsource HR etc. too doesn't do it at the moment either.

We might go down that path anyways if H1B fails; we'll see what happens.

<comment><USER9> Enrolling in E-Verify is very easy and if the company you outsource HR to can't process E-Verify for your I-9 Forms I'd be extremely worried.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> #NeedImmigrationReform Nobody tells me that I need to win a lottery to just work...

</comment><comment><USER10> Do I understand it right, that lottery will be only for applications made on 5th day, not for applications made through whole week? My application was on 1st and I don't know if I still can get screwed by randomness.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, USCIS collects all the applications received during the 1st five business days and put them together before they are lottried out. So any application received after today would automatically be rejected.

<comment><USER18> Since the cap was reached today, does that mean 60K cap + all excess applicants that applied today, are put in the lottery for 60K slots?

<comment><AUTHOR> exactly, the applications received were more than quota, thus the lottery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Meanwhile, Obama gives citizenship to illegal immigrants.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly, I never understood Obama's stance on Immigration. He comes to SV and promises us that he will fix High Tech Immigration Problem but in actuality he does little. His policy instead focusses more on Illegal Immigration. This is where I prefer Republican party's agenda.

<comment><USER2> Republican Party's agenda... of building a long-ass fence across the US-Mexico border, or of punishing the kids of illegal immigrants for choices their parents made decades ago?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't necessarily agree with that either, I prefer Republican party's stance over high tech legal immigration. We need to give Green Cards to qualified people who will start tech startups and employ thousands of qualified people in america before we start giving green card to illegal aliens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is the lottery nationality based, or completely random?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is completely random, so an international student who is a CS grad from Stanford is in the same boat as a Infosys QA guy from India.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I believe a lot of Companies would get angry when they realize their candidate did not get H1B. #NeedImmigrationReform

</comment><comment><USER20> Do they review 85k (general and Masters combined) applications or grant 85k visas?

</comment><comment><USER21> Well that sucks.

</comment><comment><USER22> wow, that's 1st time since a few years...

</comment><comment><USER23> Ridiculous!

</comment><comment><USER12> You are an Indian who has just finished your MS in Stanford. To get a job now you compete in a lottery which puts you and a software donkey from TCS with a degree from pretentious engineering college at the same odds.

<comment><USER24> How is this tripe modded up? A software donkey? Has it ever occurred to this guy that he is talking about another human being? And has history belonged to only those who passed through the hallow halls of Stanford? WTF?

<comment><USER12> I have do not mean to disrespect any human being sir. (Also, I think I should apologize for using a specific company name in my comment but please read it only as Company X). To be more clear I belong to one such companies which is sending large number of H1B guys to US. When H1B visa is over its the turn of B1 Visa.

H1B visa is for specially skilled people who are in short supply in US. Most of the people including me in reality have no "special" skill that is in short supply in US.

We come here to US and paid enough just to survive + Indian salary.</comment></comment></comment>


Reason Can Die - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantology.org/reason-can-die/ <comment><USER2> Interesting post. Author seems to want to remain anonymous, which is not an unreasonable impulse these days. The argumentative style -- if you can call it that -- is quite nuanced.

I suspect the author is a youngish person who works in math or science, is liberal but has not embraced the more extreme tenets now popular among progressives. Probably born in the West but with parents from the Middle East.</comment>


House Season Finale Filmed Entirely with Canon 5D Mark II - <AUTHOR> http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-season-finale-filmed-entirely-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/ <comment><USER2> For those of you not familiar with what is going on in the DSLR world, everything shifted when the 5D Mark II came out. We are talking earthquake- like fault lines. It gave every indy film-maker an insta-hard-on.

It was just another standard hand-held photographer's camera until some gent got a pre-release version and showed the world its capacity to capture film- like imagery -- beautiful blacks, shallow depth-of-field, that 24-frames-a- second look, etc.

Even with high-end prosumer cameras, you couldn't quite nail the cinema-look without resorting to actual film. But this toy camera came out of nowhere and was capturing images several times better than anyone could have expected!

So each time we see a news story like this, it is validation of the technology and that in a very short time, all of us will have the ability to capture the types of motion images that normally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And as is often the case with technology leveling the playing field, the winners will be the folks that are daring and creative!

<comment><USER3> > all of us will have the ability to capture the types of motion images that > normally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

well, not really. You see, camera was never the expensive part. Not even Arri. For example good Cooke S4 lenses cost as much as a fine new Audi. Hell, even Fischer stand costs like a car, and having a good stand+lens is more important than camera itself. Not to mention good lighting, without which shot looks like crap. You can rent RED+S4 kit for about ~600€ per day though - add light, electricity etc.. and it is more cheaper than ever. But this "we can all do it a la panavision, without panavision" is BS IMO.

Not trying to be rude or anything, just trying to put some things into perspective. I do like the trend of cheap good cameras (like RED - which is borderline great), but camera is only one tiny part of the picture.

<comment><USER4> Lens production involves high fixed costs and fairly low marginal costs.

Right now you have to build a lens factory so you can sell lenses to professionals and indie filmmakers.

As soon as everybody and their parents are buying DSLRs instead of video cameras the price on good lenses will surely fall.

<comment><USER5> That's the beauty of the Canon 5D Mk2 -- off-the-shelf easily available Canon lenses. They're lenses most photographers already have. And no additional work to make them work for film. A decent L lens is $1000. Not bad at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> And the 5D becomes _much_ more useful for film making with the much improved, open source Magic Lantern firmware patch from Trammell Hudson

[http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wi...](http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki)

<comment><USER7> Didn't he lead the Autopilot GPL autonomous helicopter project ~8 years ago? A true hacker.

<comment><USER8> Yep - same guy. I was wondering what he'd got himself up to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I own the 5DmII. The HD video really is amazing–especially with fast lenses (my favorites are the 35/1.4 and 135/2).

The main problem is that it's hard to handle and focus the camera hand-held. You really need a good rig and focus ring to get it right. And some of those from Redrock or Zacuto can cost almost as much as the camera body.

Here's a couple videos I shot with the 5DmII (again, handheld and I'm a terrible videographer) <http://vimeo.com/10768127> <http://vimeo.com/5253857>

<comment><AUTHOR> If you have an auto-focusing lens, will it continually focus while you are recording video? That's the one thing that's held me back from upgrading. I badly want to combine my DSLR with my camcorder--I hate having to decide which one I'm going to carry with me.

<comment><USER10> If you're just getting feet wet, the (~$1000) Canon T2i will do that. but most of the time you wouldn't want to. Autofocus is horrible on video, even on the best gear I have used (like a varicam). YMMV may vary of course if you are trying to shoot sports or certain documentary stuff.

I think you would do far better to get some good used manual lenses and acquaint yourself with focusing manually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _The last 3 minutes_ , a demo of what the camera can do:

[http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/the-last-3-minutes- showc...](http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/the-last-3-minutes-showcases- new-canon-5d-mark-ii-24p-capabilities/)

</comment><comment><USER12> > In 2008, House was distributed in a total of 66 countries. With an audience > of over 81.8 million worldwide...

 _There's only like 6bn people on the globe, right? And that's including feral wolf children and fuel-starved hermits living on sun tea in the Chinese desert. And yet, if aliens did some random sampling of people around Earth, they'd find that more than one in every hundred of us watches House. "The Earthlings' religion is based on weekly silent observances of medicine-man figure called 'Dwelling-Place' in the local tongue. Possessing supernatural powers of observation and an ability to perform healing miracles, this god also suffers from hubris and vanity, and he is susceptible to the temptations of certain potions. Essentially, we are grading Earth's religious development somewhere between animist and monotheistic. Not yet adequately prepared for Operation Helping Hand. Revisit in 1,000 local solar units."_ [http://modcult.org/read/2010/4/13/this-is-called-sending- the...](http://modcult.org/read/2010/4/13/this-is-called-sending-the-lede-to- sleep-with-the-fishes)

</comment><comment><USER13> The 5DM2 has been getting a lot of attention recently being used as a HD video camera. Canon even sponsored a short being made entirely with the 5D after the most recent firmware update: [http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/04/07/the- last-3-minutes...](http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/04/07/the- last-3-minutes-canon-5d-24p-firmware-shines/)

It was also used in a recent Nissan commercial attached to a mini helicopter: <http://www.blogmeright.com/?p=1059>

</comment><comment><USER14> See if you can spot any jellocam a la this:

<http://vimeo.com/10796434>

/disgruntled D90 user

<comment><USER15> The D90 is easily the worst of the VDSLRs... for video. It's still one of the best mid-range DSLRs out there, if not the best. I have one too; the video is completely broken. While I have no direct experience with the 5D Mark II, rumour has it that the rolling shutter problems are considerably less noticeable.

<comment><USER14> A very close friend of mine has the 5D and she uses it to shoot video. The 5D is absolutely _fantastic_ as a motion camera. If I didn't already have a stock of nikon lenses, I absolutely would have gotten the 5D.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> On a related note, a few years back the movie "Cold Mountain" was edited entirely using Apple Final Cut Pro: <http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/murch/> The editor, Walter Murch, received an Academy Award nomination for his work.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't get it. When I look at that Camera on Amazon it looks like a camera for photographs, not for video. Why would they shoot a movie with this?

<comment><USER18> It shoots at 1080 with a great sensor, and can mount some very nice lenses for a relatively low price. Plus the 5DmkII is no slouch in the low-light/high-iso arena.

Vincent Laforet has been at the forefront of this since the 5DmkII came out. See this: [http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct...](http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326)

It has some warts since it is a still camera shooting video, but is still capable turning out some truly stunning results.

<comment><USER17> You seem to know your stuff. So if I get a Nikon D90, what quality of video am I looking at?

<comment><USER18> I believe there as an update to the video processing on the D90 which removes a good amount of the jello-cam that blhack demonstrated. Although as an HD video camera, the D90 is still a little lacking (no 1080). As a stills camera, it is excellent.

Disclaimer: I use Nikon cameras (though not for video).

<comment><USER14> Do you mean a firmware update? I hadn't heard anything about that (but would love to)

Do you have a link? My googling is failing me :(

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I looked too, I might have misremembered, or been thinking of D3s or something. Bummer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Doesn't look like he's talking about it at the moment, but Stu over at ProLost (author of the great indie film manual "The DV Rebel's Guide") covers the DSLR-for-filmmaking subject a lot and has lots of good technical (and technique) info if you're into that sort of thing:

<http://prolost.com/>

</comment><comment><USER20> If you're interested in this sort of thing, definitely check out DSLR News Shooter: <http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com> The blog covers video journalists using DSLRs for their stories and the articles generally come with some great advice.

A couple of examples:

\- [http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/03/22/johnnie-behiri- sho...](http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/03/22/johnnie-behiri-shoots- national-geographic-earth-explore-desert-adventure-on-7d/)

\- [http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/03/25/into-the-haiti- ear...](http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/03/25/into-the-haiti-earthquake- zone-khalid-mohtaseb-covers-the-aftermath-on-5dmkii/)

I bought a 7D a few months back. It's fantastic, although I haven't made use of the video much yet.

</comment><comment><USER21> The sensor on the 5D is _huge_. Here's a graphic with most of the current video camera sensor sizes: <http://rebelsguide.com/dl/sensorSizes_06_cheatSheet.png> A bigger sensor means that it can operate well at very low light levels.

Also note that at $2500 this is by far the cheapest option for shooting feature quality films. There are some issues with audio, so you will have to record it using an external recorder, but with a nice mount, this is an amazing camera.

</comment><comment><USER22> Interesting. The 5D is smaller and cheaper than RED, but not that much. I wonder if it was just an experiment for its own sake or if there was some deciding factor in favor of the 5D.

<comment><USER23> The millions that Canon likely paid them probably had something to do with it.

<comment><USER14> Or, possibly, like they said in the article, they're doing it because the 5D is more mobile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I know nothing about Canon's product release cycles. Is now a good time to invest in this puppy? Or will the 5D Mark III or some such thing be out soon?

<comment><USER25> The 5D Mark II came out at the end of 2008. The Mark III is widely rumored, but hasn't been officially announced; most people are guessing it will arrive toward the end of 2010 or early 2011. canonrumors.com has lots of this kind of speculation...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Plot Written Entirely On iPad. In Starbucks. Does Anyone Actually Watch This Stupid Show Any More, Didn't It Jump The Shark A Couple Of Series Ago?

<comment><USER27> Did you read the article? They quote the show's stats. 81 million viewers. Most widely watched show on the globe right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does it take pictures?

</comment><comment><USER29> Is this why it's taken so long for a new episode? Or is that just my AppleTV...</comment>


Microsoft Update Quietly Installs Firefox Extension - <AUTHOR> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft_update_quietly_insta.html

<comment><USER3> Personally, I would have been okie if Microsoft installed an extension in Firefox to support .NET related applications [ClickOnce for instance.].

But it is completely unacceptable that it disables the Uninstall button! Who is thinking of these ideas at Microsoft? Also, why does Firefox let an extension decide whether it is uninstallable or not?

<comment><USER4> Quoting a comment on the article by WladimirPalant:

\</comment></comment><comment>---- Unfortunately, this is only partially Microsoft's fault. Firefox makes it easy for applications to ship their own browser extensions - <USER2> only need to add a registry entry that points to the extension's directory. But Firefox cannot uninstall extensions that were installed like this (because it didn't install them in the first place, because it might require administrator rights and because doing that would affect other Firefox profiles as well). So while this feature is great for application developers, it is rather flawed from user's point of view. \</comment><comment>-----

<comment><USER3> Yes, you are right. Here's the relevant documentation from Mozilla.

"Extensions that are installed this way include the Java Quick Starter extension for Firefox (see above), the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant [13] [14] the RealPlayer Browser Record Plugin extension, [15] and the Lenovo ThinkVantage Password Manager extension for Firefox [16] [17]. Although you can disable the extension in the Add-ons manager, the Uninstall option may not be functional (it will be "greyed out). In such cases, experienced users can uninstall the extension by removing the associated Registry entry and/or the contents of the folder containing the extension; otherwise, simply disable it."

[http://kb.mozillazine.org/Uninstalling_add- ons#Windows_Regis...](http://kb.mozillazine.org/Uninstalling_add- ons#Windows_Registry_extension)

Microsoft has an article about how to remove this extension:

<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/963707/>

From the same KB article,

"In Windows 7 and in a forthcoming update for the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, the .NET Framework Assistant will be installed on a per-user basis. As a result, the Uninstall button will be functional in the Firefox Add-ons menu."

I am using Windows 7 right now and I can verify that I do see that Uninstall button is functional.

<http://imgur.com/gX5c8.png>

BTW, this just goes to show the kind of reputation Microsoft has achieved in the marketplace. When the uninstall button was disabled, no one thought that it could be problem in the way Firefox works. Everyone (including me) just assumed that it was Microsoft who is deliberately doing this. I don't know how can they possibly fix their image.

<comment><USER5> If you install an update & this annoying extension shows up, you say the update caused the annoyance. That's how it works. It's their fault for pushing the bug/feature & they still haven't taken it out.

Regarding your other point, I think 1 high profile FOSS project (eg webkit, hadoop, V8 ) or would do a lot for microsoft's image among techies.

<comment><USER6> Even that option has limited PR value; Microsoft either uses their "shared source" licenses (and comes under fire for not using a more recognized license like GPL or BSD) or they use such a license and feed ammo to the "shared source is trap" crowd.

<comment><USER5> Well either way they'll come under fire from that crowd. (And i'd agree it sort of is a trap.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is very old news. Even Slashdot had the story in february: <http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218>

I feel sorry for voting this thing up, before investigating the links in the article.

<comment><USER8> First I heard of it. Glad you voted it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This started happening well over a year ago and has been covered extensively before.

[http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+Microsoft+.NET+Framew...](http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+Microsoft+.NET+Framework+Assistant+1.0)

</comment><comment><USER10> The people at Microsoft who are responsible for this should be questioned.

<comment><USER11> Right, because nothing inspires risk taking in a corporation like a good old fashioned witch hunt.

I agree with you in that this is a shitty thing for MS to do (hell, I was one of the first ones to write a blog post explaining how to undo it - [http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-uninstall-microsoft-net- fr...](http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-uninstall-microsoft-net-framework- assistant-from-firefox/) ).

But, a witch hunt is idiotic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know what's scarier: this "update" from Microsoft or the Washington Post reporting on technology.

<comment><USER13> He may still usually misrepresent stories due to ignorance, but at least these days Brian Krebs is less of an asshat tabloidist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Man, when this happened, it was the worst. See, at my college, it logs you in with a fresh copy of everything, every time you log in. And it automatically applies patches. This patch came out after the latest image was made, so when you log in, it grabs the patch and installs it. Every time. Then, you start Fx, and it has to install the patch, and restart itself. Every time.

Takes almost 8 minutes to log in. It's the absolute worst.

<comment><USER15> So the installation of the extension occurs on the next run of Firefox and takes 8 minutes? That does really suck regardless of the whole imaging thing.

<comment><USER14> From typing username/password to being able to type something into Firefox, 8 minutes is a loose guess. It's really, really bad.

Part of the problem is also that the computers in the "social" CS lab are pretty old by now. Lots of the newer labs are better, but they just won't replace the computers in this one. So there's a lot of factors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Secondly -- to Microsoft -- this is a great example of how not to convince people to trust your security updates."

</comment><comment><USER17> Besides this being old news, yes let's all hate on Microsoft for them writing actual code and adding ClickOnce deployment support to Firefox.

I agree the lack of an uninstall option is silly, but calling this a "rougue Firefox extension" just makes you look like an asshat.

<comment><USER18> Well, sure. Next time when they silently install, say, an MP3 blocker in your Firefox, let's also applaud all the troubles they went through coding it.

Just in case if it's not clear - what makes it a _rogue_ extension is the fact that it was installed _silently_.

<comment><USER17> _Next time when they silently install, say, an MP3 blocker in your Firefox_

Protip: If you want to be taken seriously, omit bullshit like this the next time you make a comment.

 _Just in case if it's not clear - what makes it a rogue extension is the fact that it was installed silently._

So basically just like any Adobe product ever. Gotcha.</comment></comment></comment>


The Intellectual yet Idiot - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.oppjrpu7a <comment><USER2> If there was a good point to this poorly worded rant I couldn't stick around long enough to find it.

The evidence given for our intellectuals being clueless is the low replicability of psychology and pharmaceutical studies, and no thought is given to the fact that maybe, this stuff is hard, and maybe it's exponentially hard to keep up the exponential progress we've seen.

Maybe people are trying hard to work on hard things to help others, and they get righteous articles deriding them as elitist hacks for their troubles.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough. But to a non-intellectual, it must seem crazy that the supposed intellectuals can't tell him whether a drug works or not, or whether eating fat or sugar makes you fat.

Part of being non-intellectual is believing that there are simple answers to simple questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Complexity aside, this is more of an indictment of the perverse systems that have emerged in our time.

If you look at the old ARPA days, we threw money at smart guys, and if you were a smart guy, you could do smart things, like pure research. Today, not so much.

If you are a smart guy today, you either go to the west coast to algorithmically advertise things, or you go to the east coast to algorithmically drain granny's pension, or you go into academia and spend most of your time writing low-value papers to climb the ladder and chump-change grants to keep your students busy.

Sometimes, this gives otherwise decent people moral fatigue to the point where they sell out and do industry-sponsored work that, OF COURSE, couldn't possibly be biased or misleading or toxic to society because THEY'RE PROFESSIONALS.

Then there's the fact that people invest so much time and money in getting a higher education that once they hit the real world, they pretty much have to play ball with all of the awful things people want because, hey, those student loans aren't going to pay themselves, and you don't have another 5-6 years to study something else.</comment>


A new funding model for open source - <AUTHOR> https://vriad.com/essays/a-new-funding-model-for-open-source <comment><USER2> [dupe] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23981563](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23981563)</comment>


The Colossal Strangeness of China's Most Excellent Tourist City - <AUTHOR> http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/ordos-china-tourist-city/

<comment><USER2> I was there on business about a month ago. Lovely city.

<comment><USER3> I actually believe in the potential of these planned cities, but when are they actually going to start populating them?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is source code included? - <AUTHOR> Independent developers, consultants, and small dev shops: When doing consulting work or building a piece of custom software, how often does your client request the source code as one of the deliverables? Is this a common request? Is there any reason to say no? <comment><USER2> It's absolutely common. In fact, it's quite rare for the source code not to be included in the deliverables.

No matter if the client directly sells the software you built for them or just uses the software internally for managing / organizing his business, it's essential for clients to be able to make changes to the software without necessarily having to draw upon the person who originally built it.

I can't think of any reason for keeping the source code from the client other than shady and unethical business practices.

From my personal experience, there were only two occasions where the source code wasn't required and even in those cases I gladly supplied it.

I've been burned before by the original developers of an internal CRM software not supplying the source code (which in that case happened more out of laziness rather than malice). That original dev shop went bankrupt along the way and several years later the client called me because he needed a few vital changes to the software to keep his business running.

So, I took up the task of making changes to a Windows 9-something application that was written in VB5 and an Access backend without access to the actual source code. I did it using a hex editor and several work-arounds. It certainly was an intriguing challenge but nothing you'd ever want to happen to any of your clients' businesses.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would not pay a contractor if I did not get the source code. The is exactly what I am paying for.

<comment><USER3> That is*

Whoops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It, well, depends. In my business, clients are often given the choice between a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free license to basically do whatever with the final product (which often includes code and graphics but not, for example, source PSD or AI files) or they get everything and pay more for the "buyout".

Surprisingly, this works well enough that many clients opt for the non- exclusive license, and we get to re-use the code.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd find it incredibly suspicious and unethical if a developer didn't provide source code to the company paying him/her.

</comment><comment><USER6> It is standard, that's what they're paying for unless you are providing it strictly as a service that you own.

</comment><comment><USER7> You're either providing a product or a service.</comment>


Swearing at work - a guide - <AUTHOR> http://nic.ferrier.me.uk/blog/2013_04/swearing-at-work <comment><USER3> Surely this is the right time to quote mr. Stephen Fry.

"Swearing is a really important part of one's life. It would be impossible to imagine going through life without swearing and without enjoying swearing... There used to be mad, silly, prissy people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter nonsense. The people I know who swear the most tend to have the widest vocabularies and the kind of person who says swearing is a sign of a poor vocabulary usually have a pretty poor vocabulary themselves... The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or a lack of verbal interest or -is just a fucking lunatic... I haven't met anybody who's truly shocked at swearing, really, they're only shocked on behalf of other people. Well, you know, that's preposterous... or they say 'it's not necessary'. As if that should stop one doing it! It's not necessary to have coloured socks, it's not necessary for this cushion to be here, but is anyone going to write in and say 'I was shocked to see that cushion there, it really wasn't necessary'? No, things not being necessary is what makes life interesting -the little extras in life."

<comment><USER4> > people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter > nonsense.

Well, it's plausible. There are only a few common swear words, so if a person uses those many more times than other people, and if they aren't actually talking a lot more, they must be using fewer other words, potentially replacing hundreds of descriptive adjectives and adverbs with the same five or seven words.

I suppose Stephen Fry hasn't noticed, but many people who use several swear words in every sentence actually don't seem to have a large working vocabulary, and even if they technically know a more precise word for what they mean, they have to think a bit to find it, as though non-swearing was a peculiar dialect.

Using swear words for emphasis doesn't seem correlated in this way, to me.

<comment><USER5> >I suppose Stephen Fry hasn't noticed, but many people who use several swear words in every sentence actually don't seem to have a large working vocabulary.

What Fry noticed is that many people use several swear words in every sentence period full stop <blink>.</blink> He's claiming it's orthogonal to working vocabulary size.

<comment><USER4> I addressed that in the previous sentence: if it's orthogonal to working vocabulary size, then it must be positively correlated with verbosity. That could be true, but I can't tell from personal experience.

<comment><USER5> Only if vocabulary size already has some specific correlation with verbosity but it's easy to use many words or very few words regardless of vocab size.

Something can be "truly fucking staggeringly-ass colossal" or it can be "fucking tall". Something can just as easily be "fucking colossal" or "god damn motherfucking-ass tall".

Yeah if you're the sort that "truly staggeringly colossal" comes naturally to you'd see a difference in emphasis, but they're equivalent to Joe Shitpack.

<comment><USER3> Ah, but some things are "amazing" while other things are "amazeballs".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An excellent guide, that I would tend to agree with. I would also like to offer up this quote from General Patton:

"When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight it's way out of a piss-soaked paper bag."

<comment><USER7> Intriguingly the advice given to British officers is not to swear at those under your command.

That is what non commissioned officers are for. And they are much better at it.

<comment><USER8> In the early 1980's, while serving in the US Army, we sang some rather explicit cadence calls, and this practice was curtailed by the increasing presence of females in the ranks.

      Stomp with the left and drag your right!"
      SKULL FUCKIN!
      SKULL FUCKIN!
      If you like the pussy tight!
      ...

Our NCO's were masters of creative profanity. But that's an infantry unit, not an office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For some people swearing is natural and cultural. For me it's just part of my vernacular, and to varying levels that's true of all my colleagues and most of my friends. I don't stop to plan when swearing would best fit or use it tactically, it just comes out in sentences. When I'm hungry there's a good chance I'm actually "fucking starving", and if I'm referencing someone who can be a bit annoying there's a good chance he's "a bit of a cunt".

However I do have an automatic filter to tone down or remove swearing based on who I'm talking to. Around a new person, especially work-related, I'll cut it out completely until I have the feeling they're comfortable with it. In particular around clients, there are some who I know well enough to swear at my normal levels around, others I know well but still keep swearing away. I guess sometimes I think about this stuff but for the most part it's just my subconscious knowing when not to swear. Interestingly I very rarely swear when talking to my parents, despite the fact that my mum reels through "fuck bugger damn shit" when something goes wrong (so not regularly but maybe once every few days) and my dad swears... a lot.

When someone swears a lot it just removes the strength of that swearing. When I call someone a cunt or someone calls me a cunt we judge their meaning not on the word but the tone of voice, most of the time it's not at all offensive - but obviously I wouldn't just hop onto HN and type "you're a cunt" to somebody as contextually it's completely different.

<comment><USER10> Ugh, I hate people using the word "cunt" willy-nilly. It's the one word we have left that will still make people flinch and has any force left in it, but many people using it for ordinary situations are making sure that doesn't stay that way.

I like a language to have a swearword that gives people an emotional response. Something that you can use and people can say "oh shit, the other guy is fucked now". The nuclear bomb of swearwords.

The only word that approaches that that's left in English is "cunt", but that's also quickly losing its power. The word "nigger" is also supremely powerful (I bet you flinched when you read it, and I'm dreading the consequences this comment will have while I'm writing it), but it's completely useless for universal swearing due to its racial implications, and also completely useless in general due to the fact that racism is fucking retarded and doesn't even make any sense.

So, please don't overuse "cunt".

Excuse my French.

<comment><USER11> Are you American?

'cunt' has largely lost its power here in the UK. You still wouldn't say it in front of your mother, but even my very middle class mother drops the odd F-bomb now and again. 'nigger' is deeply unpleasant but I don't flinch when reading it on the internet because I spent time on a few sites (in the old days...) where people thought it was clever to say as often as possible.

I was at a gig the other week that ended with the (dire, dreadful, untalented) band singing "Cunt, cunt, cunt, pussy cunt!" and looking just _so_ pleased with themselves, like they'd just done something so revolutionary and intellectual. Maybe 40 years ago guys...

I think the only punch that's left is making compound words. And even then 'pigfucker' is sort of funny.

<comment><USER10> > Are you American?

Nope, Greek. I know "cunt" has lost its power in the UK (hell, Charlie Brooker says it five times per show), but I think americans still flinch a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm British. I did a stint on a factory floor. Oh My! The language!

The article is correct. Never aim words at people. Be sensitive to those around you, some of them will be deeply upset by bad language. And be creative. English is a glorious language and the range of swearing isn't limited to a few F-Bombs.

<comment><USER13> I've been spending a bit of time on a building site recently. The brickies. Oh fuck... it seems one of their job functions is to lower the tone as far as it will go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've got a boss, when he's talking something up, every other word out of his mouth is "fuck".

It's not abusive, but it isn't useful. Extolling the virtues of a product by saying "it's fucking awesome" doesn't tell me anything about that product or why it's so fucking awesome or why I should be so excited about it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Luckily I work in a situation where swearing is completely acceptable.

>Almost everyone in Britain will blanch at "Cunt".

Really? Britain is one of the very few places I've found that _doesn't_ seem to flinch at the word. It's almost common place.

<comment><USER16> You can get away with 'Cunt' in the UK but its something you would only call a close friend, not a new acquaintance (whereas calling someone a fucker with a grin is almost always fine)

<comment><USER15> Oh yes, I wouldn't dream of doing that haha. I just mean that it seems cunt is more 'acceptable' in the UK. In the US I've seen people REALLY offended by someone even saying it while it's not in reference to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I haven't sworn prolifically in almost 30 years ... right around the time I decided I should attempt to use the most obscure words in the dictionary. The strange thing is, I think swearing (or not) is simply a habit and that, if you want to, you can change your habits.

I should also note that there has been plenty of swearing at the places I've worked over those 30 years, but I've only found a very small percentage of it offensive, so I'd suggest that the article is reasonably accurate.

</comment><comment><USER18> An interesting aspect in Denmark is that _English_ profanities don't really raise eyebrows in professional settings (or at least "fuck" and "shit" don't), but swearing _in Danish_ in a workplace or university has to be done much more carefully, and can come off as either offensive or crude or both. By swearing primarily with loanwords, it seems to come off as somehow softer or less "really" swearing.

edit: Was googling to see if I could find a good link on the subject. I didn't, but _did_ find this event I'm now sad that I missed, [http://nordisksprogkoordination.org/dokumenter-til- download/...](http://nordisksprogkoordination.org/dokumenter-til- download/Symposium%20on%20Swearing%20in%20the%20Nordic%20Countries.pdf)

<comment><USER19> It's similar in Poland; you can talk dirty in English all day long, but if you actually swear in Polish, you're likely gonna to raise some eyebrows. My guess is it's because throughout the years people got used to profanities in TV and music, which is mostly American.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> That cunt nailed it. To some degree anyway.

</comment><comment><USER20> curiously, although the article mentions that american research is more critical of swearing than uk research, it doesn't consider cultural differences. as a brit working in an american company i have learnt that swearing is _much_ less tolerated over there. after being met with stony silence a couple of times i no longer do it.

would love to see nationalitites added to posts here. i suspect many posts at this hour (early for the usa, and generally pro-swearing) are from the uk....

<comment><USER14> American in the UK.

I've had sexual harassment training in the US, and a lot of standards are different between the two countries.

At least 5 things happen at work every day, that if they happened at one of the companies I worked for in the US, the people involved would be brought to HR.

I find workmates in the UK to be more matey at work, where as in the US, you are co-workers at work, and mates only when you leave work.

<comment><USER21> Depends very much on the workplace, and a lot of companies are becoming increasingly `American' in their attitudes. it tends to be a function of size as well: bigger companies are generally much stricter than smaller ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Its all very easy with words like f _ck and c_ nt, best avoid unless you are very sure of it, but the problem I come across is defining what actually is a swear word. Where is the line drawn? A particular issue being words that offend religious folk. "oh for god's sake" is to me completely soft, but I have come across some people who are upset by that. But, is that swearing, or just offending? Which is worse?

Most of the time I find that once you get to know a work place, you find that it varies, as you would expect. Different people have different standards so you need to get to know them. I don't think any one starts off swearing in front of a boss, but if you work on say a building site, you'd probably get swearing quick before the other decide you are a posh git who needs de- bagging, or something.

The only time I personally think it really matters is when dealing with the public, customers or clients. But if you man a phone, or are out in public, swearing is a total no no. But, I suppose even then, there are loads of exceptions. In the work place I see it as a personal 1-2-1 negotiation over time. Or to put it another way, we individually learn when, where and who to swear in front of.

To be honest though, I wonder if you are at more risk by offering opinion in the work place. I know I would find it harder to work with people of certain political views than any one who swears.

</comment><comment><USER11> Shouting "Fuck you computer!", standing up and storming out of the room was acceptable (but infrequent) practice at one of my previous workplaces. Nobody seemed to mind.

I think I swear a little to easily. I used the C word at a barbecue the other week, when I dropped a sausage in the coals. In front of all my friends' children.... Ooops.

<comment><USER23> Which C word?

Edit: link instead <http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary/c>

<comment><USER11> Why, 'custard' of course!

Actually I meant the one so offensive to Americans that even the obscenity- filled South Park balks at saying it. I must remember this when I travel to the US next week.

<comment><USER21> ``Crumbs''? Or, if you're a fan of _Oor Wullie_ , ``Crivens''?

<comment><USER11> Communist!!

;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Working on a trading desk is a great experience in creative profanity - <USER2> well as discussion of the various things that dildos can do to various parts of the body, fecal expulsion, and so forth. It's tons of fun.

</comment><comment><USER25> In Ireland (where I live), swearing in front of someone generally means you regard them as an equal. It's like calling someone "dude"

</comment><comment><USER26> Or just don't.</comment>


The obsessive dreamers behind a $17M miniature model of Canada - <AUTHOR> https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2019/06/29/wee-the-north-the-obsessive-dreamers-behind-a-17-million-miniature-model-of-canada.html <comment><USER2> That would be super fun to work on this project.</comment>


How to Build Static Checking Systems Using Orders of Magnitude Less Code [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://web.stanford.edu/~mlfbrown/paper.pdf <comment><USER2> I would desperately love to see an HN discussion of this, but despite multiple submissions, the only comment points at an article of the actual paper[0]. Has no one read this paper? Does no one have anything to say?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12143845](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12143845)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11853165](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11853165)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11822546](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11822546)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808331](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808331)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11805262](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11805262)

</comment><comment>==

[0] [https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/05/31/how-to-build-static- chec...](https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/05/31/how-to-build-static-checking- systems-using-orders-of-magnitude-less-code/)

<comment><AUTHOR> > I would desperately love to see an HN discussion of this

This was the reason behind posting it again after 3 days.

Worth highlighting:

      our checkers are built on micro-grammars, incomplete fragments of a language.

Tools like vet [0] can also offers insights.

[0] [https://golang.org/cmd/vet/](https://golang.org/cmd/vet/)</comment></comment>