PG's Rarely Asked Questions - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/raq.html <comment><USER4> _What should I read to learn more about history?_

I used to consider my knowledge of history better than at least 95% of the population, but while reading _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ I realized how sketchy my view of history really was. So at the ripe old age of 35 I set off on a course of study centered on two series of books, _The Story of Civilization_ , by Will and Ariel Durant, and _Timeframe_ , a Time-Life series focusing on a timeframe in human history and what was going on in all parts of the world inhabited by man: lots of pictures and of course superficial, but it painted in a lot of gaps I othewise would have never covered. The _Timeframe_ series starts much earlier than the Durant's, but once both series were in sync I would read the books in both series for an epoch, as well as at least two other books, either written in the era or about the era, drawing mostly from science, culture, and biography. For instance I read all the books of Euclid, Newton's _Optiks_ and _Principia_ (I slogged through the Motte transaltion before the first modern English translation became available), _The Wealth of Nations_ , Shelby Foote's 3-volume history of the Civil War, and _The Origen of Species_. (It's real easy for me to spot folks who spoot-off about _Wealth_ or _Origen_ who have not actually read the books.) My program culminated with _Tragedy and Hope_ , which being such an inflammatory work, I did not trust to read without the full background of history. The process was like watching Western Civilization unfolding.

Now for the unintended consequences: I became a bore at cocktail parties. I wanted to talk about the ideas in the fascinating book I was reading. I used to love arguing politics. Even with my prior knowledge it was hard enough finding opponents who would engage in rational discourse, now it is impossible. It's been so long my debating skills have totally gone down the tubes. The sad thing is I believe _my_ problem is really _society's_. Political correctness (among other problems) in academia, has produced a generation of intellectually crippled intellectuals; and the entertainment industry, including the 24-hour news cycle as entertainment, has just stupefied people. I fear for democracy and republican government.

<comment><USER5> The force is strong with this one.

I'd love to debate random topics with you. Assuming you've actually read everything you claim, I think you'd be a refreshing change from the vast majority of people who simply regurgitate whatever their heroes say.

If you're interested, email me sometime: zedshaw at zedshaw.com.

<comment><USER4> Zed, You are one of the interesting people I would like to meet someday. I will eventually get in touch. My job (among other distractons) is sapping me right now, but I hope to get back to real life by mid-November. Likewise I can be reached jacfoxy at gmail dot com.

<comment><USER6> I would add Jacob Burckhardt's _The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy_ to the book list. It appears to be a glaring omission.

<comment><USER7> This was one of my favorite college texts. I'm really disappointed that I'd forgotten about it until your comment. Thanks.

<comment><USER6> Thanks. BTW, Caesar's _The Gallic Wars_ is available online from MIT: <http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The tendentious answer on philosophy is an invitation for what would be another "Dabblers and Blowhards" drive-by shooting.

It's not enormously surprising that this question is 'rarely asked'. One would learn a lot more about philosophy ("what questions are these guys asking?" "what are some of the answers they've come to?") from even a mediocre introductory text or a chat with a TA/tutor, than by assuming that this rather sophomoric answer represents a reasonable response to the entire field. Calling it 'sophomoric' doesn't properly engage with the claims, but the claims are so smug, random and content-free:

"Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand (e.g. Hegel)... It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful."

... that I can't find anything remotely meaningful to engage with.

Someone recommended Russell's History of Western Philosophy as an option; this isn't bad (although its treatment of Continental philosophy is hopelessly biased, it would still be enough to get you oriented).

The fact that whenever PG makes statements on some area I understand _more_ about (philosophy, politics, economics) seem to be incredibly shallow, juvenile crowd-pleasers, makes me wonder at his expertise in areas that I don't know much about (history, painting).

<comment><USER9> It's hard to get that deep in a couple paragraphs. But there is a longer version here:

<http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html>

<comment><USER10> Do you believe that most of the stuff covered under philosophy of mind (Dennett, Searle, Block, Chalmers, Jackson, etc.) is not worth studying?

Edit: reduce strength of statement.

<comment><USER11> An easy way to show the importance of philosophy is to show all the powerful sciences it spawned and provided theoretical underpinnings for. Not the least of which is cognitive neuroscience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _The pointy-haired boss is a manager who doesn't program. So the surest way to avoid becoming him is to stay a programmer. What tempts programmers to become managers are companies with old-fashioned corporate structure, where the only way to advance in salary and prestige is to go into management._

I have to disagree with that. I've met many people, especially in larger enterprises, who started in development but then became more abstract over time. They weren't bad people, in fact, they were excellent at their job.

Programming to me has never been something that has to be continually pursued in order to stay fluent or able, but merely something that reflects your more basic skills and talents.

It's like playing a musical instrument. Almost anyone can learn playing the guitar, but it takes a special talent to excel at it. For the guitar this requires hearing, sense of rhythm, and others; for programming, this is analytical thinking, systematic thinking, and more. Some people will try to program but never be really good at it. I studied with people like that. It's not their fault, their skills are just in another area. Some others are great at it. Once they learned, it doesn't matter if they don't develop anything for 3 years; after their break, they look at a piece of code / framework / technology, understand what it does, and continue programming.

And the traits that make you a good programmer help you in other fields, even management. Yes, large corporations have structures, but we need structure to manage them. And we need managers. And a manager who was a distinguished developer will be much better suited for leading a team of developers -- even if he doesn't program any longer. This is a valid career path, and an interesting one at that.

My general opinion is that if you want to stay a programmer, find yourself a role where you can do that. If not, don't bother pursuing programming at all costs. It won't lead you in the right direction.

<comment><USER13> > Almost anyone can learn playing the guitar, but it takes a special talent to > excel at it.

Curious about this notion of 'special talent' - So some people are just born to be better guitar players? Are you saying that something in the brain is pre-wired to be a better guitar player?

I'd say for a claim like that, you need a citation (preferably multiple).

In my opinion: You can excel at anything you like, you just have to work at it (it helps if you do it when you're really young, as your brain has higher plasticity). Get rid of this "special talent" notion.

<comment><USER14> I partially agree with the GP, except I would say it takes a special talent to excel at it in a given amount of time. A "special talent" in this case would be a predisposition to learning how to play a guitar.

>Are you saying that something in the brain is pre-wired to be a better guitar player?

Yes, whether due to nature or nurture, I would say certain people will be faster at learning how to play the guitar, and thus, be a better guitar player given an equal amount of exposure. Of course, you could always put more time into it, but there is only a finite amount of time available to a given individual.

No citations, but I believe this agrees with the general consensus. In fact, I would be greatly interested if anyone could provide studies showing the contrary.

<comment><USER15> What about Salman Khan's TED talk, where he shows that it is a frequent occurrence that kids stumble on a math concept, but then rapidly catch up or exceed their peers. If learning as a general phenomenon occurs in plateaus, but turns out linearly the same in the long run for most everybody (like a graph of the prime counting function seems choppy up close but a line out far), perhaps it is the case we intuitively think some people have a talent, because they didn't experience any early plateaus, but experience some later instead, when they aren't under as careful scrutiny. In other words, it might be a statistical phenomenon of the learning progression (assuming the plateaus are uniformly randomly distributed). Having thought a lot about this issue, I think it is closer to the truth.

In any case, I second the request for more studies.

<comment><USER12> What you're talking about is known generically as the General Learning, which is an aptitude in itself. Some people learn better than others. It also depends on what you learn.

Nurture: At various ages, the ability to learn changes ([http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88....](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.2958&rep=rep1&type=pdf)). It might well be true that there is a lot of optimization to be done in the way we teach -- something that Salman Khan illustrates well with his new teaching methodologies. That doesn't necessarily mean however that at all stages, ages, circumstances, people will be equally able to learn something.

Nature: Some people have an innate aptitude; I won't look for papers, as I find this to be truly obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Couldn't you add something equivalent to Lisp macros to languages like Perl or Python?_

Yes, see Io:

<http://iolanguage.com/>

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/64mgk/why_io_ha...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/64mgk/why_io_has_a_very_clean_mirror_on_the_io/)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20090427182332/http://hackety.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090427182332/http://hackety.org/2008/01/05/ioHasAVeryCleanMirror.html)

<comment><USER17> Also see Smalltalk, for contrast. Lisp's uniform syntax lets the interpreter rewrite parts of programs; Smalltalk's uniform semantics let programs rewrite parts of the interpreter. PG's discussion of objects overlooks that.

OMeta looks like a combination of the two. It sounds really interesting, but I suspect it's for people smarter than me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >I never had to manage anyone in our startup, even though I was the president. The other hackers were my peers, and would have given me the raspberry if I'd tried to "manage" them. We operated by consensus. And the rest of the company reported to our experienced COO, who was also more of a peer.

Operating by consensus and not valuing the role of "manager" only goes so far. It may work when you're a few people living together, but I think it ultimately leads to cultures like Google's, where every decision requires a room full of engineers to agree.

<comment><USER19> Are you saying that Google is anything other than one of the world's most wildly successful companies of the last decade?

<comment><USER20> No, he is saying operating by consensus doesn't scale.

<comment><USER21> "Scale" is a funny word. It doesn't scale in terms of decision making speed. But it does scale in terms of decision making _quality_. Obviously if social cohesion within the group is too high, or if the people present cross too many hierarchical levels, the group won't use its diversity to make excellent decisions. But if done properly, including more people in decision making results in good decisions.

This is one of the ways that you can get over narrow-minded specialists making decisions that work for them but screw everybody else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Re: philosophy, I think understanding the difference between representing the world in language and representing it in logic is critically important to programmers. It has implications for natural language processing as well as artificial intelligence. I personally recommend to anyone endeavoring to understand Wittgenstein's transition from _Tractatus Logico Philosophicus_ to _Philosophical Investigations_. In fact, Google used the family resemblance concept from PI to inform its search algorithm early on to attribute diffent meanings to the same search term.

What you take away is a very precise way to pose questions that make sense and to avoid questions that don't make sense.

<comment><USER23> I disagree with pg about the use of philosophy. If nothing else, Plato should disabuse anyone of the notion that what's obvious to them isn't really that solid. Aristotle at least demonstrates your point about just how hard it is to think systematically about this stuff.

The humility gained from those encounters would do a great deal to open people's minds that "there's more on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Maybe people would less adamant, and pay more attention to why they hold their opinions. If everyone did that, we'd have far more productive discussions.

<comment><USER24> I agree. Philosophy is great for exposing how uncertain we are about things we believe we know for sure. He are some simple games that help demonstrate this:

<http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> He's really wrong about LISP macros. Would suggest pg takes a look at camlp4.

Edit: maybe instead of downvotes, you could reply explaining what's wrong with this position. Or just look at camlp4 and see how it provides macros that are better (with a better underlying language) than LISP. And yes, I've written a LISP compiler.

<comment><USER5> You questioned PG and LISP in one comment then advocated another language with a lesser Nerd Lore Composite Score. About the only thing you could have done worse is to admit you wrote a child porn site in both and found LISP's parentheses to be annoying. :-)

<comment><USER26> PG's assertions are often hard to question, probably because he studied philosophy and is very good at logic. He doesn't say it's impossible and his definition of lisp is very inclusive.

I read some of the docs for camlp4. It looks like a library for extending ocaml using syntax grammars, similar to Langscape(formerly EasyExtend) for Python. It's not clear whether that really addresses PG's point (a). It would be really nice if rwmj would make his point explicit instead of whining about downvotes and telling people to go slog through camlp4's incomplete, broken- english documentation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I clicked through to the Return of the Mac [1] article and it would be of interest to me to know how this community and PG sees the Macs today? Recently some people on HN said that they dont like where the Lion is heading [2] or that OS X is goining to be more closed than open [3]. So.. what are you hacking on today?

[1] <http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html>

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2933895>

[3] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2368932>

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting, now that I think of it, I have never met someone (except pg) who is a painter and programmer. I've met several programmers who are writers, musicians, carpenters, etc, but never painters.

I draw cartoons/caricatures (examples here: <http://www.smileecards.com>) and have painted a few times, but I don't quite call myself a painter.

About teachers, I totally agree that good teachers earn the respect of the students by having high standard, calling students out on bad quality work. I once suspected a teacher only read the beginning and the end of essays, so I submitted a 4 page essay that contained a recipe for banana cake in the second and third pages; I received a B+!

<comment><USER29> Harold Cohen is probably the most famous example--- a painter who also programs AI systems (which are themselves painters...): <http://crca.ucsd.edu/~hcohen/>

Although, looking for painters who are also programmers, but programmers of things _other_ than computer-art systems is also an interesting question. Likewise with musicians, people who are musician-programmers in computer music, and people who are musicians and also programmers separately, might be interesting to consider as different groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> " _I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?_

I would guess a smart person can learn to hack sufficiently well in 6 months to a year."

Hmm... interesting take considering the source, especially when contrasted with the general mentality that programming and software development is the finest of all trades and takes a near preternatural mastery only found elsewhere in classical musicianship 300 years ago. I quite enjoy the feeling that I could be good in a year.

<comment><USER31> Note: he means "good enough", _not_ good.

Which brings to mind patio11's constant reminders, that running a successful software business has very very little to do with programming well.

Which means that pg thinks that 6 months is the level you need to be at to be able to start a startup. This seems intuitively right to me, especially these days.

<comment><USER29> In fact the usual advice is that you _shouldn't_ be doing something technically virtuosic in a startup. If your startup's critical path includes writing something as technically impressive as the Glasgow Haskell Compiler, you might have trouble...

Though there are a few people around here who've built software businesses around things that are also nontrivial technical advances; cperciva comes to mind.

<comment><USER32> It seems all or most pg's articles just say the opposite: a startup should climb the highest hills, and can do so faster the big corporations because they are light-weight. If I'm not mistaking, "climbing" here do not mean find a genius idea or a disrupting design for a search field, it means developping something hard in software.

The conclusion should be that a startups that is not doing something technically hard should be considered in trouble (because so easy to clone).

<comment><USER33> I think it does not have to mean "developing something hard in software", but more like "finding an unsolved problem and using software to solve it." It does not have to be hard to solve in the software side. I guess the hardest part is finding the right problem to solve!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > The pointy-haired boss is a manager who doesn't program. So > the surest way > to avoid becoming him is to stay a programmer.

I agree. One of the absolute worst pieces of advice I got over and over again was "don't go into programming. It's all being outsourced overseas anyway. Just learn how to manage programmers." Luckily for some reason I finally decided to ignore that advice and strive to become a great programmer myself. One of the, if not the, best decisions in my entire life.

Even now, although I certainly could become more of a "manager", I choose to stay in the pit coding. Although I now do tasks that can be called "managing" such as helping out other coders with their bugs and problems, mentoring, communicating with people outside of engineering, recruiting and interviewing, the biggest chunk of my time is spent programming and working on my skills.

It's worked for PG. It's worked for Paul Farmer(replace "programming" with "doctoring"). I'd bet it's worked for nearly every master of their field. I think it's an essential rule to follow.

<comment><USER35> Those task are not just things that could be called "managing" they ARE managing. I think it's funny that programmers think of managing as this horrid thing outside their realm, but really, it's just the skill of working with others and extending your reach beyond your own fingers.

To that end, I think PG is dead wrong. Programmers can make great managers, and find it very rewarding, even if they're not in code all day. There's as much variation in that end of the business as their is in the coding. Would you go into programming if you believed that ever job was a dead-end VB jockey? Of course not. The way to avoid being a PHB is to avoid behaving like a PHB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> PG lost me at the first question. A better answer would be; they are both highly technical skills with almost no overlap that take boatloads of time to master. We all know the bene gesserit mantra...

<comment><USER37> That question is a reference to this essay (and later, book of the same name):

<http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm not sure the advice about "not becoming a pointy haired boss" is any good.

Not all structures can stay small enough to avoid management. The startup phase is just an initial phase that will dysfunction as the number of employees grow.

Additionally, I don't think that having a manager who programs is a way to increase management quality.

So how do you get good management? There's no simple answer to that, it's a central problem to all companies as they grow.

</comment><comment><USER39> I must say that one of the things I value most is the fact that as a Hacker, I have also worked extensively in Landscaping, Kitchens, Coffe houses & Hotels. A wide range of interactions & processes in one's past can always be used as perspective when approaching the next fork in the road.

</comment><comment><USER40> Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a great place to start. Of course, it's as much an introduction to his thinking as anyone else's, but it's accessible and thoughtful. Memorable for the phrase "existence is not a predicate".

</comment><comment><USER41>
      > Couldn't you add something equivalent to Lisp macros to languages like
      > Perl or Python?
      >
      > Not without turning them into dialects of Lisp. Real macros need to
      > operate on the parse tree of the program.

Actually, I've thought about porting some of _On Lisp_ to python using lib2to3 (<http://docs.python.org/library/2to3.html>) It's probably an obscenely bad idea, but I keep getting drawn back to it...

<comment><USER42> How does 2to3 help you with this? If you intend to port macros, you're sort of out of luck in python.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> _Couldn't you add something equivalent to Lisp macros to languages like Perl or Python?_

Perl6 comes with full _Lisp-like_ macros: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_6#Macros>

See previous HN discussion on this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1279238>

</comment><comment><USER44> Does anyone have any insight into why painters are less common among hackers than other artistic persuits, such as music?

I've never met anyone who bridged visual art with anything tech-related, but composers, singers, pianists, orchestra members... hell yes.

Is it just that painters are less common that musicians and that ratio stays true in the tech world?

<comment><USER45> _"I've never met anyone who bridged visual art with anything tech-related"_

You've never met a web designer, video editor, 3D artist or graphic designer?

<comment><USER44> Yeah my bad, wasn't specific enough - I meant painters, sculpters and the like.

In my head they are called "art", I have to make an active decision to think of "art" as "the arts" including other things - guess just the way I learned the vocab. as a kid. So it was already a step to edit from "art" to "visual art".

Perhaps I should have gone with "static visual art that is created for the sake of being art"?

As to your examples, I suspect the main reason that there's such a link is (obviously) the big crossover. If you're an artist who wants to make money making websites, or videos, or whatever, it makes sense to learn at least some of the technology related to it to help you. And if you're, say, a website developer, it sometimes makes sense to go the other way too.

<comment><USER45> _"I meant painters, sculpters and the like."_

I don't believe there's a difference. All the good graphic designers I know don't only do applied design for clients, they also create "static visual art that is created for the sake of being art". On the other hand, most sculptors I know mostly create statues for banks and local governments.

Having attended art school, I can tell you there is little art free from commerce and it mostly is no good. Having some constraints actually helps the quality of the work.

<comment><USER44> Once again I think my wording rather than my point is the problem - <USER2> "created for the sake of being art" I didn't mean in terms of whether there was monetary gain for the artist, I meant how it is to be used.

You create a website, your aim isn't generally to have people stand around and admire the art, that's a side effect. (And sure, sometimes maybe it's the strongest influence when a designer is making a website, but it isn't meant to be - it's meant to be a part of making something functional).

<comment><USER45> Not to make this into a long debate, but I don't think your wording is the problem.

Plenty of websites have no commercial goal, they're just meant to be gawked at. All the major contemporary art museums have websites, photos and posters in their collections.

Also, many sculptures found in museums weren't made to be used as art - <USER3> were meant as tools or status symbols, for communication, sexual arousal or worship.

To be a 'real' artist isn't determined by the medium one uses, but by the quality of the work created. I enjoy the work of Dieter Rams, Saul Bass and Dick Bruna just as much as that of Vincent van Gogh and Jackson Pollock.

<comment><USER44> I certainly didn't mean to imply that some art is not "real art", if anything I have a lot more respect for video editors, web designers, marketing designers than I do for most modern painters (from a very subjective quality of work point of view).

All I was trying to do was find a decent way to seperate art that isn't related to anything technical, of the type that (loosely speaking) has been being produced for centuries(/more), and stuff like video, web etc.

As to not thinking my wording is the problem - your replies have showed that the impression I gave you wasn't at all what my thoughts were, so clearly that was the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> All of you have covered Western History extremely well.Which are the best books to study Asian and African History?

</comment><comment><USER47> "Two startups want to hire me. Which should I choose?

The one with the most determined and smartest founders (in that order) is the more likely to succeed. "

All else being equal this is true and it's good advice.

But unfortunately when you are choosing from two startups to work for all else is not equal.

</comment><comment><USER48> "I'm about to become a teacher. How can I be a good one?"

Also, be ready to put up with bullshit from parents, admins and other teachers who insist on the path of least resistance.

</comment><comment><USER49> How important is knowledge of history when it comes to building a startup? What are the most important periods of time to learn about?

<comment><USER50> Start with 1995 - 2001.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I wish some people would bless us with dates on their timeless essays.

(You too, Peter Norvig.)

<comment><USER52> [http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/r...](http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/raq.html) crawled 130 times going all the way back to February 7, 2004

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> If somebody compiles the history books into an Amazon shopping list, I would gladly use your affiliate link. I haven't read any of them, which is shameful.

<comment><USER54> [http://www.amazon.com/Civilisation-Kenneth- Clark/dp/07195684...](http://www.amazon.com/Civilisation-Kenneth- Clark/dp/0719568447/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change- Whit...](http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change- White/dp/0195002660/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Atlas-Ancient-History- Hist/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Atlas-Ancient-History- Hist/dp/0140511512/)

[http://www.amazon.com/New-Penguin-Atlas-Medieval- History/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Penguin-Atlas-Medieval- History/dp/0140512497/)

[http://www.amazon.com/World-We-Have-Lost- Explored/dp/0415315...](http://www.amazon.com/World-We-Have-Lost- Explored/dp/0415315271/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Extension-Man-History-Physics- Quantum/...](http://www.amazon.com/Extension-Man-History-Physics- Quantum/dp/0262523868/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Benjamin- Franklin/dp/161...](http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Benjamin- Franklin/dp/1612930131/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Life-English-Country-House- Architectur...](http://www.amazon.com/Life-English-Country-House- Architectural/dp/0300058705/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlemagne-Henri- Pirenne/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlemagne-Henri- Pirenne/dp/159740487X/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Fall- Constantinople-1453-Canto/dp/0521...](http://www.amazon.com/Fall- Constantinople-1453-Canto/dp/0521398320/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Sails-Empires-Technological- Innov...](http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Sails-Empires-Technological- Innovation/dp/089745071X/)

[http://www.amazon.com/History-Rome-Origins-Roman- Historians/...](http://www.amazon.com/History-Rome-Origins-Roman- Historians/dp/B000KTLMLC/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Middle- Ages-378-1515/dp/080149...](http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Middle- Ages-378-1515/dp/0801490626/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Lives-Artists-Oxford-Worlds- Classics/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Lives-Artists-Oxford-Worlds- Classics/dp/0199537194/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Trade-Moors-Kingdoms- Fourteenth...](http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Trade-Moors-Kingdoms- Fourteenth/dp/1558760911/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Gallic-Wars-Caesars-Account- Conquest/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Gallic-Wars-Caesars-Account- Conquest/dp/1934941425/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary- Astron...](http://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy- Development/dp/0674171039/)

Note that about half of these are out of print.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Nice. He covers several topics that would be good to have covered on some "What I wish my father had explained to me when I was 12, however, I've come to expect that mostly he didn't understand very well.". But among topics it would have been good to have had Dad cover, PG omits the biggie, especially for hackers, maybe for painters -- how to make an A in Women 101-102!

<comment><USER47> "how to make an A in Women 101-102!"

My initial reaction to this was to agree with the statement. And I still sort of do.

But I think women (or men) can be a big distraction if you are trying to create something. That being said the correct woman or men can help you achieve as well if the relationship is stable. The statement "behind every great man" there is a ... is basically true from my experience.

<comment><USER55> "Behind every great man is a woman"? Maybe! In the case of FDR, Ike, Patton, and McArthur, I suspect it was more their mothers than their wives! Few men have such helpful mothers!

Then there is your "if the relationship is stable". Well, yes, and 'effective'! So, and especially for the huge fraction of men who don't have mothers as helpful as FDR's, how to get such a 'relationship'????!!!! May I suggest Women 101-102!!!!

Otherwise, yup, "can be a big distraction if you are trying to create something". Twelve year old boys, BELIEVE this!

Indeed, one of the first lessons in Women 101-102 is: Since the sixth grade or so, you REALLY wanted the girls to like you, right? So, you did this and that and it didn't work very well, right? Well, heavily what the girls want to see in a boy or man is someone strong, capable, and confident who understands the emotions of girls and women and is nice to them. For a while, being a successful quarterback on the varsity football team can work well. But, big secret: What REALLY works well is to be out of school, have a good career going, have plenty of money in your pocket, have a nice car, say, a recent Corvette, have a house bought, and have plenty of money to be able to support a wife and children. Then a large fraction of the females will, to exaggerate a little, do 'just ANYTHING' to be 'friendly'! Usually they won't even be able to help themselves! Uh, that reaction is a 'built-in function'! With these advantages in place, your brand of aftershave, blue jeans, shoes, cell phone, manner, tone of voice, pickup lines, even height and weight, etc. won't much matter! How 'bout that!

In particular, largely f'get about females your own age. Instead, in your teens, go for girls 1-4 years younger than you are. If she is 13 and you are 16, then she can be REALLY impressed that you have your own car but won't expect you to have a good career or a house yet!

Next, as from an expert on females, "Of COURSE, women are MUCH more emotional than men. That's the cause of all the problems.". Yup, not exactly right, but close! In a 101 level description, what rationalism and logic are for a hacker programming, fixing a car, diagnosing a network problem, etc. emotions are for females. In simple terms, first-cut, at the level males need to understand starting at age 12, the life of a female is all about emotions. Even when she is doing math or science, mostly she is seeking good 'emotions' from praise, acceptance, and approval from others she wants to please!

That's enough!

<comment><USER47> Not sure what you mean by this:

"Twelve year old boys, BELIEVE this!"

<comment><USER55> The "this" was "can be a big distraction if you are trying to create something". Or, put more clearly, 12 year old boys need to understand that (1) it is getting time for them to start to take the rest of their life seriously, (2) for that seriousness, it is time for them to get into some hard work learning and doing, (3) being 'creative' eventually is important, and it is not too soon to get started, (4) for this seriousness, getting much involved with females can be a distraction from a little bit with little harm and maybe some benefit up to too much and a lot of harm.

<comment><USER47> Ok I see what happened. When I read the statement for some reason I missed the comma.

So I read it like "12 year old boys believe this!!!" (mocking)

rather than

"12 year old boys need to understand this!!"

Good points and the inverse is true for women. My sister spent much of high school being popular and although she was smart (and later got a Masters) she didn't achieve as much as she could have had she not been as popular and attractive and good personality. No question in my mind about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?"

A year? Depends! To be very useful on Windows, really need to be okay on the content of several books, each about 1000 pages long, have worked through about 2500 Web pages of documentation at Microsoft's MSDN, along with more pages from other sources. Then need to write some code, at least as exercises, using what learned. For writing code, need to learn either an integrated development environment (IDE), e.g., Visual Studio, or get good with a powerful text editor (I use KEdit) and its macro language (I have about 150 such macros) and a scripting language. And need to get good with Windows, e.g., have traversed much of the obscure tree of things to click on. And need to be good at software installation, e.g., .NET Framework, service packs, IIS (for a Web server), Internet Explorer and some other Web browsers, likely some version of Office, maybe Knuth's TeX, SQL Server or some alternative, etc. Should learn some Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Should learn some T-SQL, HTML, CSS, ASP.NET, and ADO.NET. Also need to be good at backup and recovery, ESPECIALLY of the operating system and boot drive. A year? Want to give up sleep for a year?

<comment><USER56> For web development, you don't need any of that. And anyone taking up pg's suggestion should not be using anything from Microsoft.

<comment><USER55> "For web development, you don't need any of that."

For Web development on Windows, that is a good list of a minimal list of EXACTLY what is needed. Web development on Windows is JUST what I'm doing, and that list of topics is JUST what is centrally involved.

What are you going to leave out? T-SQL? OS backup and recovery? Good skills with an IDE or editor?

Yes, learning most of, say, Visual Basic by itself is easy. The 'rub' is that for anything at all serious in Web development or just software development, it is just crucial to make good use of .NET, and that is HUGE. For a long time, nearly each time you turn around, you will need to use another .NET class, and that will take you 1-3 dozen Web pages at MSDN to find, download, save, index, abstract, and read. The total of MSDN Web pages needed adds up quickly: I have over 2500 now, and it grows quickly. Just yesterday I downloaded a lot just for 'request data validation'. Before that, the topics were HtmlEncode and UriEncode. Before that, TCP/IP sockets. Before that, Windows Communications Foundation. Before that Windows 'remoting'. Before that, Windows remote procedure call. Before that, a LOT on SQL Server administration and mangement. And on and on and on. It's ENORMOUS.

<comment><USER57> > For writing code, need to learn either an integrated development environment > (IDE), e.g., Visual Studio, or get good with a powerful text editor (I use > KEdit) and its macro language (I have about 150 such macros)

All you need at first is something you can type text into that knows how to highlight syntax. You don't even need to know the features of that particular editor, aside from stuff like "save" and "open".

> and a scripting language.

For what, exactly?

> And need to get good with Windows, e.g., have traversed much of the obscure > tree of things to click on. And need to be good at software installation

Why? How does this actually help? How is this actually difficult?

> Should learn some Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

None of that has anything to do with programming. And how is this actually difficult?

> Should learn some T-SQL, HTML, CSS, ASP.NET, and ADO.NET.

Well, you need HTML and CSS for sure, and you need SQL. And I think you're going about it the wrong way if you try and comprehensively read and memorize the API documentation for every single framework call you make. Any programmer looks up what he needs on a case by case basis and over time comes to remember the stuff he uses a lot.

But I think you're just making it harder on yourself using the Microsoft stack. There are, believe it or not, entire web development frameworks where you don't actually need to manage the TCP/IP sockets yourself.

> Also need to be good at backup and recovery, ESPECIALLY of the operating > system and boot drive.

This is part of owning a computer, not programming. It's also not difficult.

<comment><USER55> The question was:

"I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?"

So, he wants to "learn" "how to program". Good objective, clearly stated.

For your

"All you need at first is something you can type text into that knows how to highlight syntax. You don't even need to know the features of that particular editor, aside from stuff like 'save' and 'open'."

Your

"All you need at first"

is not very relevant to the clearly stated objective of learn to program for a startup. You just ran off the subject to try to find something to object to.

From your statement, it would appear that even Notepad would be sufficient, but it is not. Instead for anything productive even just in the learning, what I wrote is on the center of the target.

Actually, the editor I use, KEdit, does know "how to highlight syntax", and I think so little of that I keep it turned off and don't use it. I didn't go into what makes a good editor or IDE, but there's a LOT to it even when "how to highlight syntax" doesn't make the list.

For your

"> and a scripting language.

For what, exactly?"

If not using an IDE, then need a scripting language for common tasks otherwise done by the IDE. Or maybe you would expect the poor student to type

        C:\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\vbc.exe

each time they wanted to do a Visual Basic compile? For the Microsoft C/C++ compilers used outside of an IDE, generally need to set up a lot of environment variables, and want those in a script. Once actually see how to build a DLL, want that in a script so have some good documentation of just what did and don't have to look it up, make it work, and type it in all over again. For running T-SQL, don't want to type in

         C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\SQLCMD.EXE

so want that in a script, along with some more options. And DO want to do a LOT with T-SQL instead of, say, SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) because (1) the documentation of T-SQL is much better, (2) get an explicit record of just what did, (3) get to put comments in the file with the T-SQL (no place for comments when using a GUI) so that six months later can understand what did, (4) some of the most competent documentation for how to do system management and administration of SQL Server is in terms of T-SQL and not clicks on SSMS.

What I wrote is correct: If don't depend on an IDE for essentially everything in the development, then need a scripting language.

For

"> And need to get good with Windows, e.g., have traversed much of the obscure tree of things to click on. And need to be good at software installation

Why? How does this actually help? How is this actually difficult?"

If get very far with it, then it's horrendous. The clicking and clicking and clicking goes on and on. There's next to nothing good in documentation. Much of what need to learn is just by trying, e.g., for everything in sight on the screen right click, left click, double right click, double left click and see what the heck happens.

"> Should learn some Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

None of that has anything to do with programming. And how is this actually difficult?"

If they don't know how to program, then maybe they won't know these tools, either. If they are doing a startup, then they should know them. Word is a pain in the back side, very poorly documented, and commonly takes about two weeks to get good enough to do, say, a document good enough to be, say, a 'business plan' or a report to the Board. Similarly for writing letters to the government, lawyers, etc.

Excel, if get far enough to do some financial projections for fund raising or the Board the first time takes some days or weeks.

Once are okay with Word and Excel, then PowerPoint can go quickly, say, the first good 'foil deck' takes a few days wrestling with PowerPoint.

And I omitted Outlook: Back when I was on OS/2, I wrote my own POP3 e-mail and used it for years as a great tool. But with Outlook, I commonly yell and scream myself hoarse in frustration. Outlook is awash in serious problems: E.g., the PST files are by default in a hidden directory deep in the directory tree on the boot drive; takes a while to discover this and how to put the PST files in a decent place. "Decent"? Yes: DO want to backup the PST files as part of daily incremental backup, but do NOT want the boot partition as part of the daily incremental backup. So, have to get the Outlook PST files OFF the boot partition. Next, starting a new PST file commonly causes Outlook to lose the Contact List, and to get back the list have to discover a certain Web page at Microsoft and go through an obscure dance of about 12 steps. If have more than one PST file seen by Outlook, then on each use of Outlook it will set the archive bits of all the PST files so that they all get backup in incremental backup. So need to find a workaround or can have the daily incremental backup start at 500 MB or so. The options in Outlook are horrendous to get set appropriately; I finally traversed the whole tree of menus, set everything, and documented each click. We're talking DAYS of work. It's super tough to find old e-mail in Outlook. And those are just some of the problems; I omitted security issues and much more.

"And I think you're going about it the wrong way if you try and comprehensively read and memorize the API documentation for every single framework call you make. Any programmer looks up what he needs on a case by case basis and over time comes to remember the stuff he uses a lot."

I wrote nothing that suggested I "comprehensively read and memorize ..." You are straining to get off the subject to find things to criticize. Indeed, I wrote that I "index, abstract" the documentation, of course "to look up" as needed. Still, at least the first time, have to read the pages downloaded. And, again, to get very far with the goal

"I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?"

especially for "a startup", really WILL need MORE than 2500 such Web pages. To pull this all off in one year, we're talking ballpark 10 Web pages a day, on top of the rest. It's beginning to look like a busy year.

For

"But I think you're just making it harder on yourself using the Microsoft stack."

there are pros and cons going with Microsoft. While there are alternatives, net it's not a bad decision. It's not the more popular decision here at HN, but it's still okay, and it's the one I selected so can write about. If some alternatives are much faster, fine, but for the goal

"I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?"

especially for "a startup", my main point is correct: Going with Microsoft, one year is FAST.

For

"> Also need to be good at backup and recovery, ESPECIALLY of the operating system and boot drive.

This is part of owning a computer, not programming. It's also not difficult."

It's also commonly neglected, especially by people who are not yet deep enough into computing to program. So, it is reasonable to believe that the person might have to learn. For a startup, it's IMPORTANT.

And, as I wrote, for

ESPECIALLY of the operating system and boot drive

it IS difficult. It's a self-inflicted, unanesthetized root canal procedure, at least.

Oh, it's easy if don't do it. And it's easy if do it but don't test to see if it actually works, that is, results in a bootable partition with everything back where it was. But if do it and confirm that it actually works, then it's TOUGH. Just the testing requires running experiments where have to reinstall the OS, likely several times.

There may be some easy ways to proceed, with some special third party programs or some newer versions of Windows, but for XP SP3 and using NTBACKUP, we're DEFINITELY talking a self-inflicted, unanesthetized root canal procedure, at least. Why? The relevant documentation for NTBACKUP totally sucks: About all a user can do is just guess and try. Getting a good solution to backup and restore of a bootable XP SP3 partition with NTBACKUP is a real accomplishment, 1-2 weeks of work. But NTBACKUP does have some highly desirable functionality: It can do a 'shadow copy' where it backs up the boot partition while the partition is booted and running. And it can restore to another disk partition (with the same drive letter) of a different size.

As I discovered the hard way, the testing to be sure the are doing the backup so that a restored partition actually is bootable is just CRUCIAL.

Actually, in the end, NTBACKUP can be okay, but the documentation is so bad that lots of experiments are needed to get the procedure working correctly and test it to be sure it is working correctly. The main problem is just the documentation. If someone hands you some good documentation, say, in a well documented script, then you can be okay right away. Then you can save 1-2 weeks.

<comment><USER57> You're making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself, and I don't know if it's because you're ignorant of other options, because you lack the ability to figure out better solutions to your problems, or because you have an irrational compulsion for unproductive busywork. I've never heard of anyone actually documenting every click it takes to configure Outlook. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say you "index" and "abstract" API docs--I just keep them open in a browser window and search for things I don't remember offhand. Maybe all this busywork is a coping strategy for being out of your depth, but it still isn't productive.

Here's how I solved the backup problem: I bought an external hard drive, connected it to my Mac, and clicked "yes" when my Mac asked if I wanted to use it for backups. Here's how I solved my email problem: I set up Google Apps on my domain, which took a total of maybe 30 minutes (though I'm sure you'd go through and document every single click it took to configure the DNS settings). Here's how I got my first editor: I got TextMate and started using it, and was productive from the first second. As far as scripting languages for building code, I think I learned how to use make and that's about it. _That's all I needed to do to be productive_. I can, and in many cases have, wasted time wanking over configuring everything in finer detail, but that's not a useful mentality.

It's probably not even about Microsoft at this point. There are lots of programmers who are productive on Microsoft (though I've never met a serious programmer who actually uses Visual Basic). You just don't seem to be one of them if it's as much of an ordeal for you as you make it out to be.

<comment><USER55> You are uninformed, have some problems with reading comprehension, have too little knowledge of computing, or are just trying to criticize for no good reason.

Everything I said is well informed and well justified.

While you were not clear on just what you did on a Mac, for your

"Here's how I solved the backup problem: I bought an external hard drive, connected it to my Mac, and clicked "yes" when my Mac asked if I wanted to use it for backups."

on Windows XP SP3 that in no way addresses the problem I explained now twice: Back up a bootable partition so that it can be restored and bootable.

One severe problem with such backup is backing up a booted partition as it is running. As I explained, NTBACKUP has this problem solved, with 'volume shadow copy', but the solution is involved. You didn't describe how Mac has this problem solved.

As I explained, the problem with NTBACKUP is the documentation and getting the options so that the backup can be restored and be bootable. Due to the documentation problems, that is NOT easy.

And once you have such a backup of a bootable partition, how do you restore it? I do have a solution, have tested it, and have shown that it WORKS.

Again, yet again, there can be solutions with third party software and/or versions of Windows after XP SP3, but for that version of Windows what I wrote is a very accurate description of what HAS to be done if just using Microsoft's software.

Your claim that I am making things too difficult in backup is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

For Outlook, your solution was to use gmail. That has some pros and cons, and I don't like the cons.

For writing down all the clicks in configuring Outlook, you don't have a better solution. There are a LOT of options for Outlook -- a LOT. Some of them are important for security. About the only way to get all the options right is to do JUST what I did. Security problems with bad options in e-mail programs have been grim for years; maybe most Outlook users without a support group to set all the options have some security holes.

Your claim that I am making things too difficult in Outlook is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

Heck, I even omitted describing setting options for Internet Explorer and Firefox. For Firefox, a default option is to PERMIT running Java in a Web page. OUTRAGEOUS security hole: Java can do ANYTHING. If a user is not REALLY careful with Firefox options, then they will have Java enabled.

Your

"though I've never met a serious programmer who actually uses Visual Basic"

taken literally means nothing but suggests something misinformed, uninformed, and just plain wrong: In fact, on Windows, the .NET version of Visual Basic is fine: It gives essentially full access to the basic 'common language runtime' (CLR) and .NET; it has full 'managed code' including its memory management; using another language on the CLR is mostly just a matter of different syntactic sugar. An advantage of Visual Basic is that the syntax is easy to read and not borrowed from the too sparse and idiosyncratic C/C++ tradition as in C#.

When I hire people, I will have them start on Visual Basic because it is easier to get going with than C#.

On Windows, what language would you use? C/C++? That's not Windows 'managed code', and managed code is IMPORTANT. So your main options will be C# or Visual Basic. You could use either one, but working for me I'd ask you to use Visual Basic. You would not be able to use C/C++.

Your claim that I am doing something wrong using Visual Basic .NET is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

For your

"I don't even know what you're talking about when you say you "index" and "abstract" API docs--I just keep them open in a browser window and search for things I don't remember offhand."

your confession that you don't know is on target. As I wrote, I have something over 2500 Web pages of Microsoft MSDN documentation. For those 2500 pages, what you described is not a solution. For a solution, my "index" and "abstract" are a good solution: So, I have some simple, 'flat ASCII' files. I have one for each of Visual Basic, Windows, ASP.NET, and SQL Server. Typically I have about two of these files open in my favorite editor. For an issue, say, about ASP.NET or related parts of .NET or communications, I start with the file for ASP.NET. In that file each Web page of documentation has a few lines. Some of the lines give the title of the Web page; another line gives the tree name of that Web page on my system; those two lines form the 'index' and are an appropriate use of 'index'. Also there are a few more lines that say a little more about what is in the page, typically copied from the first paragraph or two of the page. If the page is a good 'root' page for a larger topic, then that is noted. Those extra lines are the 'abstract'. And there can be some additional notes of mine.

To find something, I just use the 'locate' command of my editor. Then to open the Web page, in my editor I give one keystroke on the line with the tree name.

Works fine.

But there's no way, as you suggest, to have all 2500 Web page files open at once, and your solution said nothing about how to find the right one of the 2500 pages but my solution did. And there is no XP SP3 'search' function nearly as effective as what I have with the four files and my editor.

Your solution with 2500 Web pages would be much less productive, not more.

Same for using a weak editor, C/C++, MAKE instead of a scripting language, and more. And your suggestion for backup on XP SP3 has little chance of resulting in being able to restore the boot partition so that it will boot.

Your claim that I am doing something wrong with my indexing and abstracting of those 2500 Web pages is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

For your "ignorant", "irrational compulsion", "unproductive busywork", those are all insulting, uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

Again, yet again, one more time, the original question, go back and read it for yourself, was:

"I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?"

and you responded with

"That's all I needed to do to be productive"

which does not answer the original question.

E.g., you said nothing about SQL Server. Hmm .... So, yes, from a plugin in a Web browser, I got a virus. Right: Now I keep nearly all plugins disabled. Have to work at this since some software installs and enables browser plugins without notice. That virus was from one use of the Akamai download manager to get a PDF file on a motherboard from an Asus Web site. Bummer.

So, to be sure to solve the virus problem, I reinstalled Windows, Office .NET, TeX, SQL Server, etc.

Then I wanted SQL Server to read my old database, which was not on the boot drive and not damaged in the reinstallation. So, I used the T-SQL CREATE with ATTACH. This didn't work (for complicated reasons, not my fault). Finally, in trying to get SQL Server to use my old database, SQL Server got 'sick' and quit doing much of anything. So, I tried to uninstall SQL Server. It wouldn't. I tried to 'repair' it; it wouldn't repair. I tried to reinstall SQL Server; it wouldn't. Basically SQL Server had just wiped out my boot drive, and I had to start over with the boot drive. BUMMER.

Now I have a backup, bootable, of my boot partition with everything installed EXCEPT SQL Server so that if SQL Server ruins my boot partition again I will be able to restore the boot partition from just before SQL Server and then reinstall SQL Server. Some of what is important with Windows and SQL Server 'administration and management'.

Yes, I have more than one bootable partition!

One of the problems was that when I installed SQL Server as I had before the virus, what was installed was different -- strongly against my wishes, I ended up with two versions of SQL Server with 'side by side' installation. Well, apparently 'side by side' is just awash in bugs so that can't uninstall, repair, or reinstall.

I finally got through it, but it was NOT fast.

You didn't mention SQL Server. But for the original question, SQL Server or some substitute stands to be important.

So, what you are doing that is "productive" does not answer the original question. I answered the original question, and you didn't.

On what I'm doing, you are WRONG, consistently, 100% WRONG.

That's enough of responding to your errors.

<comment><USER58> Hey mods, please hellban this guy. I keep a short list of users I see who've been hellbanned, but have generally nice comments, because it always bothered me a bit, but sometimes it's warranted.

<comment><USER55> Same to you.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Win10 Power User Resources? - <AUTHOR> It has finally happened and after more than a decade of diving ever deeper into the Linux ecosystem, I am somewhat forced by work to stick with Win 10.
Now, configuring Win10 isn't always a breeze. I have moved some of my tasks to WSL and I found some useful Registry tweaks (e.g. changing the window titlebar height). Lucky for me, I have local admin rights.
But now I am looking for a more in-depth guide to tweaking the best out of my system. It's a pity that Windows Tools are so often closed source and it becomes hard to see wht they actually change in the system (aside from trust issues).
Can you recommend books, websites, anything useful for getting deeper into the relevant workings of Windows for a user that likes to take the most out of their Win10 setup?
Or are full Admin Guides the better way to go?
An equivalent of the Archlinux Wiki would be heaven, hah! But well... <comment><USER2> You might like this thing - [https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys](https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys)

<comment><AUTHOR> ah yes, this is a very nice collection. especially fancyzones seems to be a lot more useful than plain snapping functionality.

and keyboardmanager! <3

and markdown preview in file explorer!

thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Twitter: @shanselman and @jenmsft. Lots of personal stuff and cat photos, but some real power user gems in their tweets.

Web/YouTube: Scott Hanselman's website and YouTube channel is a good jumping off point for power users.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! seems good but unfortunately hard to use for reference. I'll check them out one in a while though :)</comment></comment>


Apple, the first major computer company to do Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Anchel/status/673040083294007297 <comment><USER2> Is this the same engineering management who refused to publish their ObjC frontend for GCC until they were threatened with a lawsuit for violating the GPL? And who still try to stop you from modifying the software you run on your own hardware?

</comment><comment><USER3> It's like they're pretending Sun never existed.

NFS, anyone?

<comment><USER4> An open standard is not the same thing as open source.

As far as I can tell, Apple beat Sun by two months. Apple released Darwin in April 2000, and Sun released StarOffice in July 2000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is tornado class spin.</comment>


How I learned to stop worrying and love Apache - <AUTHOR> http://www.roryhart.net/code/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-apache/

<comment><USER2> He's right. I know I'm guilty of this. Just get something done and out the door... quit navel gazing and pre-optimizing.

One of these days I'm going to take such advice to heart. One of these days.</comment>


Can a POE (power over ethernet) access point become POE router? - <AUTHOR> My isp currently has MAC binding so just as a life hack i have given the MAC of the wifi router and all the members can use the wifi (including guests) whose MAC is not submitted to the isp. so now my isp has put up POE access points in each home in my building.. i don't want that obviously.... is there a way to bypass this? <comment><USER2> You can check this:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVECR_CihkM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVECR_CihkM)

if this work for you?</comment>


Particle: Job Scheduling Simplified - <AUTHOR> https://www.getparticle.io/signup <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN:

We are launching a product that we have been working for awhile. We were frustrated with the current scheduling solutions which were difficult to get users up and running with. We are taking beta testers and would LOVE your feedback.

We were inspired by Airflow but felt Airflow was missing many features and is often a nuisance to deploy and maintain. We wanted to build a solution that works out of the box so even the less technical users can get started quickly.

With Particle, you can build, deploy, and manage your DAGs all from a UI. It also comes with first class support for backfilling and manual running. It is also built on top of OSS so you can avoid vendor lock in and take your DAGs elsewhere.</comment>


Oddball Galaxy Puts Dark Matter Theory to the Test - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oddball-galaxy-find-puts-dark-matter-theory-to-the-test/ <comment><USER2> What I remember from the announcement of this galaxy's discovery a while ago was that it didn't challenge the theory of the existence of dark matter. It only challenged the theory that dark matter surrounded all galaxies. And here, it dark matter and ordinary matter are attached to each by solely by the force of gravity, it seem logical that their correspondence would be standard but universal.

Indeed, to say just a given galaxy lacks dark matter is inherently to say that dark matter exists.

<comment><USER3> >"Indeed, to say just a given galaxy lacks dark matter is inherently to say that dark matter exists."

It means that some assumption somewhere in the calculation is wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know the Dark Matter Theory is very successful at explaining lots of phenomenons of cosmological physics. Nevertheless, it always reminds me of the Aether Theory.

<comment><USER5> There isn't one dark matter theory there are many candidates none of them are exactly implausible or impossible.

We can't account for the mass of the universe so we are looking for it.

There are two options either there is mass that we cannot detect through non- gravitational related observations or that we don't understand gravity on a macro level which also puts relativity at odds.

MOND was pretty much killed last year and it's now completely off the books so modifying Newtonian gravity to fit in our understanding of the universe won't work, which leaves dark matter which is again a place holder name for one or more types of matter that are very hard to observe.

It can be wimps or it can be that there are a lot more brown dwarfs, rogue planets, and other bodily objects that we can't see.

<comment><USER6> I don't really follow astrophysics anymore was there anything specific last year that happened?

(not that various mond's were ever particularly viable)

<comment><USER5> Gravitational waves specifically from the colliding neutron stars which were observed in "real time" in 2017 which arrived at the same time as the light emitted from the collision pretty much killed it.

<comment><USER3> Would it affect your opinion if the light emitted was noticed first by another project, who then told the gravitational wave people about it, at which point they found data their algorithms had previously rejected as noise and changed the classification to be a signal?

<comment><USER7> It was actually detected by two gravitational wave facilities (Hanford and Livingston) _before_ the GRB was detected by Fermi. What you're referring to is that the gravitational wave was in a third facility's blind spot (Virgo). So yes, they had to dig it out of Virgo's data to triangulate the location of the signal so that they could confirm the event in optical wavelengths (which they did). No, that doesn't affect my opinion, because your characterization is inaccurate. It was in fact detected independently as a GW and a GWB.

<comment><USER3> >"On 2017 August 17 12:41:06 UTC the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM; Meegan et al. 2009) onboard flight software triggered on, classified, and localized a GRB. A Gamma-ray Coordinates Network (GCN) Notice (Fermi-GBM 2017) was issued at 12:41:20 UTC announcing the detection of the GRB, which was later designated GRB 170817A (von Kienlin et al. 2017). Approximately 6 minutes later, a gravitational-wave candidate (later designated GW170817) was registered in low latency (Cannon et al. 2012; Messick et al. 2017) based on a single-detector analysis of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) Hanford data. The signal was consistent with a BNS coalescence with merger time, tc, 12:41:04 UTC, less than 2 s before GRB 170817A. A GCN Notice was issued at 13:08:16 UTC. Single-detector gravitational-wave triggers had never been disseminated before in low latency. Given the temporal coincidence with the Fermi-GBM GRB, however, a GCN Circular was issued at 13:21:42 UTC (LIGO Scientific Collaboration & Virgo Collaboration et al. 2017a) reporting that a highly significant candidate event consistent with a BNS coalescence was associated with the time of the GRB959 ."

[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9)

<comment><USER5> Both LIGO detectors detected and classified it as GW event at the same time as the GRB classification then it was confirmed through VIRGO data and localized.

[https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release- gw170817](https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170817)

Gravitational waves are all candidates until they can be confirmed with external sources.

<comment><USER3> >"Both LIGO detectors detected and classified it as GW event at the same time as the GRB classification then it was confirmed through VIRGO data and localized."

All I can say is that other source clearly describes that the Fermi team announced detection of a gamma ray burst well beforehand, and that the ligo team treated the situation as exceptional due to that announcement.

>"Gravitational waves are all candidates until they can be confirmed with external sources."

My understanding is that there is expected to be no accompanying external evidence for waves generated by inspiraling black holes.

<comment><USER7> > _All I can say is that other source clearly describes that the Fermi team > announced detection of a gamma ray burst well beforehand, and that the ligo > team treated the situation as exceptional due to that announcement._

I explained this in a reply that I just posted to your other comment. GCN is basically a mailing list where notices are posted in real-time to coordinate the observation of transient phenomena. If you dig into the citations from the paper you quoted, you'll read that the GW data takes on the order of 5 minutes to process before it can register an event, but it was indeed detected in real-time by their algorithms (gstlal).

There's nothing in the paper you quoted to support the claim that the LIGO team adjusted their analysis based on Fermi's announcment to GCN. 6 minutes isn't "well beforehand" when the GW data takes 30-60 minutes for human vetting ([http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/13...](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136/meta)).

> _My understanding is that there is expected to be no accompanying external > evidence for waves generated by inspiraling black holes._

Multiple signals is the whole point of multi-messenger astronomy. Each detection was independent, but having evidence in GW, GRB, and optical provides multiple lines of evidence, which is a cornerstone of good science.

<comment><USER3> How do you interpret this sentence:

 _" Single-detector gravitational-wave triggers had never been disseminated before in low latency. Given the temporal coincidence with the Fermi-GBM GRB, however, a GCN Circular was issued"_

I interpret it as "Because we read the report from Fermi, we treated this data in an exceptional way". In which case their signal to noise ratio is going to be messed up, for the background estimates to be valid they need to treat everything exactly the same every time. Basically, if they want to do this, Fermi needs to be distributing false positive GRB reports so they can incorporate them into the background.

>"Multiple signals is the whole point of multi-messenger astronomy. Each detection was independent, but having evidence in GW, GRB, and optical provides multiple lines of evidence, which is a cornerstone of good science."

Ok, but I'm saying it is my understanding that no one expects to detect any supporting evidence in the case of the black holes. Ie, not that it was missed. There is "nothing to see":

"These momentous black-hole clashes produced gravitational waves that were audible to LIGO-Virgo but there was nothing to see." [https://www.nature.com/collections/gghkrvklfb](https://www.nature.com/collections/gghkrvklfb)

<comment><USER8> LIGO is sensitive to binary NS (and NS stellar-BH mergers) too. Binary NS mergers throw off a lot of radiation, even or especially if the result of the merger is a black hole. In the case of GW170817/GRB170817a, the evidence leads to the conclusion that there was one event and that it was almost certainly a binary NS merger.

Because gravitational waves' amplitudes fall off linearly with distance rather than quadratically, because gravitational waves are so weakly interacting that they essentially do not scatter and are not absorbed, and because the environments around binary mergers (and between the binaries and us) can strongly absorb or scatter light (incl. radio and gamma), there should be lots of detections which have obscure, dim, or even undetectable optical (also incl. radio and gamma) signals.

Distinguishing among the similar inspiral chirps for similar binary masses where the composition of the masses differ is an area of active research. The strong equivalence principle drives the GW similarity, but whereas binary NSes's surfaces can contact, BH surfaces (if they exist) are deep inside their horizons, so (ignoring any matter in the neighbourhood, such as colliding accretion disks) all we get from binary BH mergers is the ringdown as the hair from the lumpy merging horizon falls off leaving a much more symmetrical horizon. A mixed binary can shred the NS, leaving behind a brilliant structure.

For binary NS mergers the GW events are brief compared to optical events (and the non-gravtiational radiation can interact with (relatively) nearby gas and dust as light echos and the like, so the results of those emissions can be studied for longer). It is much more likely that a GW detection will spur a search by non-gravitational observatories than the reverse. In any case, everything is carefully timestamped, and the records can be compared well after that, including by people who aren't experimentalists. :D

<comment><USER3> > "LIGO is sensitive to binary NS (and NS stellar-BH mergers) too..."

Sure, and the extra info is appreciated, but here is what I was responding to:

>"Gravitational waves are all candidates until they can be confirmed with external sources."

I believe this is false. They expect to detect many gravitational waves that will never be "confirmed with external sources". Namely, those triggered by black holes, and for the reasons you mention.

<comment><USER7> I don't think "external sources" necessarily means "multi-messenger." GW detectors are sensitive to local interference, so we have three of them spread across the globe with non-overlapping blind spots. A GW must be detected in at least two of the detectors to be confirmed.

I'm not sure if that's what @dogma1138 meant, but I'm pretty sure that's how the past GW detections have been confirmed.

<comment><USER3> I agree, thanks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Silicon Valley Investors Worried: Low Interest Rates Cause A Tech Bubble? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-low-interest-rates-tech-bubble-2014-3

<comment><USER2> The "beware the tech bubble" stories can get repetitive, or feel like cheap scaremongering. This one gets points, though, for correctly noting that Fed policies designed to strengthen a large economy can cause overheating in some areas or sectors.

For another example, see Ireland's experience under the ECB. Drastically lower interest rates set by the central commission weren't the sole cause, but a major contributing factor of their boom and bust economy and accompanying housing bubble.

[http://www.notourdebt.ie/the-roots-of-irelands-debt- crisis](http://www.notourdebt.ie/the-roots-of-irelands-debt-crisis)</comment>


Silent magician Teller files copyright suit over "stolen" shadow trick - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/silent-magician-teller-files-copyright-suit-over-stolen-shadow-trick.ars

<comment><USER2> This makes me sad, if the guy figured it out on his own - I don't see what the problem is.

<comment><USER3> _Bakardy sells a kit—including a fake rose, instructions, and a DVD—for about $3,000._

 _Teller had Bakardy's video removed with a DMCA takedown notice, then called Bakardy to demand that the magician stop using his routine. Teller offered to buy Bakardy out, but they were unable to agree on a price. So Teller sued Bakardy last week in a Nevada federal court._

It looks like Teller is upset at the crass commercializaiton of his work.

<comment><USER4> Which is interesting as Penn & Teller have made a career out of showing how tricks are done (and being so skilled that even when you know how it is done you are still amazed).

<comment><USER5> > Penn & Teller have made a career out of showing how tricks are done

No they haven't. P&T don't really show how tricks are done. They especially don't reveal big secrets used by other magicians. The notion that they're doing something transgressive that makes other magicians dislike them is just a schtick they came up with for publicity purposes.

When P&T do "reveals" they are usually mock reveals - revealing a technique that they're _not actually using_ which often was _invented_ specifically for the purpose of being revealed. Or they're "revealing" something that everybody already knows which in no way detracts from the enjoyment of the trick. And sometimes they're just riffing on the psychology of magic, showing us how even when you're trying hard not to be fooled you can still fool yourself.

(The clear Cups And Balls might be an exception to this general rule. That's the only one I can think of that more-or-less fits your description.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Blatantly copying somebody's magic trick from which they make a living from and then literally packaging and selling it as your own is downright dirty.

<comment><USER7> What do you think software developers do for a living?

<comment><USER8> Software is a little different. It generally comes with a license specifying what can or can't be done with it.

<comment><USER7> Sorry I should've been clearer. If as software developers you are under the impression that you are not stealing other people's jobs (aka tricks) by packaging them, making them more efficient, and selling them more cheaply, you are wrong.

I love Penn and Teller but I was pretty bummed to read this story, it's so anti-competitive, and Penn's comments smacked of elitism, especially about how "elegant" the "real" way Teller did the trick was.

<comment><USER6> There is a difference between public common knowledge on "what is good programming practice" and a trick that teller came up with on his own time and made a point telling nobody about.

<comment><USER7> Still missing my point. Software industry profits by making things more efficient. This removes jobs. Robotics is a great example. Whats the difference between packaging a magic trick one uses to make their living, and a manufacturing skill?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some of Teller's bookmarks are very...interesting.

[http://ia601207.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.869...](http://ia601207.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.86951/gov.uscourts.nvd.86951.1.3.pdf)

<comment><USER10> What, mantube? I didn't even know that existed, I was surprised that it was there. I guess I never really concerned myself with Teller's sexuality, and why would I start now...

<comment><USER9> CFselect too, and possibly Corbin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm guessing that Teller is mostly worried about bad magicians undermining his trick by doing the same routine and not fooling audiences as well as he can. Not sure exactly how the law can help at this point, though.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is surprising, given Penn and Teller's political and philosophical beliefs.

<comment><USER13> I don't see why. They are Libertarians (American style). There is nothing in US Libertarianism that is against copyrights.

Can you elaborate about what part you find surprising?

Copyrights are an extension of property rights, which US Libertarians consider very important.

<comment><USER14> I don't think "Intellectual Property" is like physical property at all, but that's a whole other discussion. I believe copyrights have seen (been pushed by lobbyists) as property rights only in the past few decades.

<comment><USER15> That's not correct. IP has been viewed as a property right for approximately 200 years.

It goes back to classical libertarian theories of property, and how a person has a natural right to the fruits of his labor. Well, that's in the US, where our legal philosophy was strongly influenced by Locke. In Europe, their intellectual property philosophy was more shaped by Hegel, and the idea that the creations of your mind are an extension of your personality, and so for someone to use your creations without permission would be a violation of your personalty.

Those who prefer to analyze from an economic viewpoint rather than a philosophical viewpoint also have long considered IP a form of property-- because that's the whole point of IP economically in a free market system. For a free market to work with a good, that good needs to have certain attributes. Goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludible, like intellectual goods, do not work with a free market. In order to try to make the free market work to determine the allocation of resources to production of intellectual goods, we use the law to artificially give intellectual goods those aspects of real property that free markets need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How is this done?

</comment><comment><USER17> It's an _illusion_ ; tricks are for whores.</comment>


What GPT-3 thinks various people would say about Jarosław Kaczyński - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157174163360741 <comment><USER2> Maybe GPT-3 and its successors could be used as a filter to force people to say something or meaningful or get ignored. Instead making new sentences it could be used as a tool to give "cliché index".

Imagine browser filter that kills platitudes, talking points, PR talk, and empty posturing just like ad blocker.</comment>