Docker Enterprise Edition - <AUTHOR> https://blog.docker.com/2017/03/docker-enterprise-edition/ <comment><USER4> My worst fears confirmed. Docker finally realized they couldn't get a piece of the orchestration pie and are resorting to making Docker a freemium product. Very sad. Wished they had gone so many different directions than this. Knew things were going to get bad then they pushed out their terrible new versioning scheme that every developer had a negative reaction to on the PR. Docker was great, but now I'm really wishing their was a fork or alternative with feature parity.

<comment><USER5> There's no need to worry. `Docker CE` is the exact same Docker as before - just renamed to clarify the relationship to Docker EE.

Docker is still open-source; it still has all the same features; it has the same maintainers and contribution roles; it has the same _roadmap_ of features. And we still welcome pull requests.

Meanwhile we have been breaking the components of Docker into standalone upstream projects: containerd, swarmkit, libnetwork etc. So there are more and more ways to use parts of Docker without being forced to use all of it. We will continue doing that.

Is there any detailed fear that you can describe? I will do my best to reassure you.

<comment><USER4> It may be only a name change today, but relabeling the docker to 'CE' opens up a world of possibilities where 'enterprise features' get shipped in the 'EE' and the 'CE' turns into watered down freemiumware. Honestly I don't believe that this 'clarifies' an existing relationship. DDC was the product and the locked down engine was just a part of that product. This makes it excruciatingly clear that DDC failed to take off and now we're going another level down to making the engine itself a product, which comes with all sorts of questions about what will really be driving the roadmap in the future. What would have been wrong with focusing on monetizing Docker Hub and leaving the tool alone like Github and Git? Docker Hub doesn't look like it's been updated in ages... I also don't see why anyone should be thrilled that this split is being made when you can only offer a 1 year support window for 'EE'? How is anyone going to explain to their manager that what the cool tool they were sold on is now just the 'community version' and if they want support they can only get it for one year at a time? Do you know how long it takes to go through the upgrade process in a large enterprise? We'll be lucky if we get six months or less of support before we have to upgrade again. Also, I feel no urge to go and create pull requests for your community edition product. If Docker were still completely free and community driven I would feel compelled to do my part, but I'm not building software for you to sell.

<comment><USER6> Seems unlikely that there would be 'enterprise features'... the value of Docker is that you can send a Dockerfile somewhere and it will work identically on each system. If they changed the feature-set of Docker EE it'd undermine the reason people use their product

<comment><USER7> I'd guess that if enterprise features were to appear, it would be higher up in the stack then "sending a Dockerfile somewhere". Container runtimes are becoming (or have already become) a commodity, so people are now chasing to get a slice of the orchestration pie before everyone standardizes on Kubernetes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Each Docker EE release is supported and maintained for one year and receives > security and critical bugfixes during that period.

I thought one of those most important enterprisy things would usually be a long support timeframe. One year isn't exactly very LTS.

<comment><USER5> It's true that 1 year support is not as long as many enterprise infrastructure products. We plan to expand it over time. But we've found that it's a good fit for our current offering, and the value enterprises are getting from it.

\- Keep in mind we are releasing Docker EE _quarterly_ , and supporting _every release_ for a year. This is attractive for enterprises who are adopting Docker in part to make their software practice more agile. They don't want to be _forced_ to upgrade every 3 months. But they appreciate that they can. This works for Docker because it sits relatively higher on the stack. If we were providing a storage appliance, or a traditional host operating system, this wouldn't make sense

\- For a company of our size and maturity (300 people, 4 year-old free product, 18 months-old paid product), earning the trust of large conservative enterprises can be hard. We do it by being honest about our abilities, conservative in what we promise, and going above and beyond to deliver on what we promised. In this case, we simply weren't confident that we could promise more than 4 simultaneous EE releases (1 year support x 4 releases per year). That might cost us sales opportunities now with more conservative buyers, but those buyers would probably have been unhappy with us anyway. We can get them later - when our product is more mature and our release and support infrastructure is more robust.

EDIT: I see other commentors confidently stating what is and isn't enterprise- ready. Remember that enterprises are, by definition, very large. There are many departments with different goals and different priorities. For some of them, Docker EE with quarterly releases and 1-year support is a good fit. For other, it's not. And that's OK.

<comment><USER9> As a relatable data point, Pivotal Cloud Foundry does not have LTS releases yet. We also release quarterly and make very frequent updates, usually from upstream CVEs, through Pivotal Network.

Enterprises want LTSes because legacy platforms are a nightmare to install, operate and upgrade. It becomes less important as the platform itself becomes less bestial.

Ultimately, enterprises want _outcomes_. Any given checklist item from the buying department usually represents scar tissue that may or may not still be relevant. New platforms -- Cloud Foundry, OpenShift v3, Docker EE, whichever of the thousand blooming Kubernetes offerings will succeed -- are in a position to renegotiate from first principles.

You might want to look into BOSH. It's a large part of the operability secret sauce for Cloud Foundry.

Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we're ostensibly competitors due to the increasing overlap between Docker EE and Cloud Foundry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Look, CE vs EE feature gating aside I think what rubs me the wrong way the most here is the abandoning of SemVer. I was following the PR where it happened and the reasoning seemed to boil down to a bunch of hand-wavey "just because". When 1.13.1 was released I installed it being pretty confident that it was only bugfixes and that's how I perceive the rest of the world to work. When I install 17.04 CE how will I have any idea of the impact on my servers vs 17.03 CE? I mean I read CHANGELOGS and stuff when I can but there's a certain level of comfort knowing that the people who create and package the software have spent enough time to figure out it's just a bunch of non- breaking bugfixes and I'm safe to send it out pretty quickly.

EDIT: I've seen somewhere that it's supposed to mirror the Ubuntu naming scheme but that's fundamentally different. I know that the "X.04 LTS" releases are stable-ish and they only come out every 2 years (right? Going off the top of my head here), which is waaaaay different than monthly releases in terms of time spent vetting the stability IMO.

<comment><USER11> We take backwards compatibility seriously. If you encounter problems updating from one version of Docker to the next (whether from 1.13.1 to 17.03 or from 17.03 to the upcoming 17.04), please open an issue on docker/docker so that can fix the incompatibility and improve our change process.

Quoting from the blog post:

        The Docker API version continues to be independent of the
        Docker platform version and the API version does not
        change from Docker 1.13.1 to Docker 17.03. Even with the
        faster release pace, Docker will continue to maintain
        careful API backwards compatibility and deprecate APIs and
        features only slowly and conservatively. And in Docker
        1.13 introduced improved interoperability between clients
        and servers using different API versions, including
        dynamic feature negotiation.

\- [https://blog.docker.com/2017/03/docker-enterprise- edition/](https://blog.docker.com/2017/03/docker-enterprise-edition/)

<comment><USER12> Docker takes backwards compatibility so seriously they wholesale block the client and server from communicating with each other if they differ by a single minor version.

Docker takes backwards compatibility so seriously they've released multiple versions of a docker registry all with completely new APIs.

Sorry if I don't buy it.

<comment><USER5> > _Docker takes backwards compatibility so seriously they wholesale block the > client and server from communicating with each other if they differ by a > single minor version._

That has been fixed. Note that this limitation (although it turned out to be annoying, which is why we removed it), did _not_ actually break reverse compatibility in the API. It just made the client excessively paranoid about reverse compatibility. In other words the client didn't trust the stability of the daemon enough, even though the daemon in pratice almost never broke compat.

> _Docker takes backwards compatibility so seriously they 've released > multiple versions of a docker registry all with completely new APIs._

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I will look into it. Is this still affecting you? Or is it a past problem you are still pissed off about?

<comment><USER12> With all due respect, this is exactly the attitude that will prevent enterprises from ever taking Docker seriously.

Why should enterprises trust you on backwards compatibility when longstanding issues with backwards compatibility were just fixed and then glossed over like this ("it never broke in practice because we forcibly made you update")? Docker has repeatedly made poor decisions with really poor optics both in the open source community and with their product, this is just one example, and asking enterprises to just trust you now while not even providing the support terms most of the enterprise world demands is doing the exact opposite of inspiring trust.

Do you honestly not remember sunsetting the python docker registry _just a year and a half ago_ and then introducing a brand new golang registry product with an entirely different API? Because that's precisely what enterprises pay to avoid, they don't shell out absurd money for LTS versions to hit a constantly moving target. And please don't patronize me with "past problem", some of us lowly end users of your product had to clean up that mess just to get day to day operations working again. Forgive me if I'm gunshy.

<comment><USER5> My intention is not dismiss your complaint, but to gather more details so I can help.

Here is a list of known past breaking changes in the Docker API. [https://docs.docker.com/engine/breaking_changes/](https://docs.docker.com/engine/breaking_changes/)

If you have encountered a breaking change that is not on the list, could you mention it either here or on [https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io](https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io) ?

Some of your claims about breaking backwards compatibility above are incorrect. I am trying my best to point that out without seeming dismissive of your overall point - which I think is that Docker can do more to improve stability and backwards-compat. I agree with that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't see how a freemium model solves the fundamental problem of Kubernetes eating their lunch. If anything surely this exacerbates it?

<comment><USER5> Hi, I'm the founder of Docker.

> _[...] a freemium model_

Docker had already adopted an enterprise subscription + freemium model, but the offering was less clear (case in point: you weren't aware of it). This clarifies and simplifies our offering, and upgrades the enterprise offering along the way.

> _[...] solves the fundamental problem of Kubernetes eating their lunch_

Kubernetes is a component (like containerd or swarmkit), while Docker is a platform which integrates many components (like Cloud Foundry or Openshift).

So Docker and Kubernetes are not directly competitive - Docker just happens not use Kubernetes as an orchestration component. It uses SwarmKit, an open- source component developed in-house ([https://github.com/docker/swarmkit](https://github.com/docker/swarmkit))

A better comparison would be Docker and Openshift (which is Kubernetes-based). Is Openshift eating Docker's lunch? It certainly doesn't feel that way to me, but of course I am biased. Docker has three major advantages over Openshift: it's modular, it has better security, and it's not locked to RHEL. The main advantage of Openshift of course is that it is highly integrated into the Red Hat platform, which is appealing if you are already heavily invested in it. Openshift also benefits from the demand for a commercially supported product based on kubernetes.

But either way the market is so early, and the demand so strong, I believe there is room for more than one major container platform. In a few years when the market starts maturing, we'll see!

<comment><USER14> _" Kubernetes is a component (like containerd or swarmkit)...Docker is a platform...(like Cloud Foundry or Openshift)"_

I think that's pushing k8s farther to the left of what it really is, and pushing Docker farther to the right of what it really is.

k8s, for example, incorporates service discovery. As far as I can tell, swarmkit does not. k8s incorporates networking, containerd does not. Similar for things like ingress load balancing.

There are certainly potential customers debating, directly, k8s vs your full Docker platform, even if there are some gaps they have to fill with other software.

<comment><USER5> > _k8s, for example, incorporates service discovery. As far as I can tell, > swarmkit does not. k8s incorporates networking, containerd does not. Similar > for things like ingress load balancing._

Swarmkit does in fact implement service discovery, networking, and ingress load-balancing. It also implements out-of-the-box node security and mutual TLS, secure secrets management, a built-in raft store, infrastructure-agnostic overlay networking, and various goodies which we needed to make Docker work great out of the box.

containerd is a different type of component entirely - in fact it is very complementary to kubernetes.

> _There are certainly potential customers debating, directly, k8s vs your > full Docker platform_

They typically debate Docker vs kubernetes-based platforms (among other possible alternatives). If they're a Red Hat shop, they typically evaluate Openshift. Sometimes there's a team building an in-house platform. Nobody ever deploys kub alone in production. There is always some form of platform on top.

<comment><USER7> > Nobody ever deploys kub alone in production.

We do. I work at SAP, and we run our company-wide OpenStack on pure Kubernetes on CoreOS's Container Linux. [1] We _do_ use Docker (the container runtime) because it comes with CoreOS, but no other Docker product as far as I'm aware. I've been working with Kubernetes for quite some time now, and honestly don't know what else you would need on top of it (except for some Continuous Integration tool, of course, but that's already a staple of any well-organized agile team, no matter the platform).

[1] I mean the API and orchestrator parts, not the customer VMs themselves. These sit on traditional hypervisors.

<comment><USER9> Of interest, SAP is a Platinum member of the Cloud Foundry Foundation and has a certified CF distribution, SAP Cloud Platform.

Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, another Foundation member, which also sells a commercial CF distribution.

<comment><USER7> Ah, yeah, the CF guys are from another team. They deploy their stuff on (among other things) the VMs created by the OpenStacks running within our Kuberneteses, though. It's turtles all the way down. :)

<comment><USER9> That's more turtles than I've typically seen. How're you deploying k8s?

<comment><USER7> Bare-metal with homebrew automation. We install CoreOS via PXE boot, and during the installation it also sets up a Kubelet as an rkt container. The Kubelet then spins up the other k8s components via manifests. The pod and service networks are routed via BGP using our own [https://github.com/sapcc/parrot](https://github.com/sapcc/parrot)

Later this year, we will go back and evaluate the maturing k8s administration landscape. Our current approach has a few drawbacks, e.g. it requires a CoreOS reinstall to upgrade k8s cleanly (since all the magic happens in cloud-init and Ignition).

<comment><USER9> Could you email me on my work address? I may have something of interest to share. I'm just not sure if we've made it public yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> They also announced the Docker Certified program [1] but with no technical details about what that involves beyond hand waving that "containers are tested, built with Docker recommended best practices, are scanned for vulnerabilities, and are reviewed before posting on Docker Store."

Is there some set of automated tests my container has to pass? Can I run them today? More to the point, how much will it cost me?

[1] [https://blog.docker.com/2017/03/announcing-docker- certified/](https://blog.docker.com/2017/03/announcing-docker-certified/)

<comment><USER11> Here's a link to resources on how to start publishing content: [https://success.docker.com/store](https://success.docker.com/store)

<comment><USER15> Thank you. I think you buried the lede at the bottom of the page though - <USER2> certification program is free currently.

On the other hand it looks like you have to purchase an EE license to test your code for certification: "Content that runs on the Docker Community Edition may be published in the Store, but will not be supported by Docker nor is it eligible for certification".

So looks like a minimum of $750 for one node EE license to play?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Docker CE, Docker EE... was docker purchased by Oracle?

The only sad part of this annoucement is the part were they talk about "certifications" this will open the world to the next stage "docker developer certifications" and will soon start seeing HR departments asking for it.

<comment><USER17> Providing certification is typically a means of establishing trust in the marketplace and opens up new revenue. We saw this with OpenStack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Following the directions here[1] - adding Docker CE to CentOS 7.3 is broken right now:

[root@sandbox ~]# yum-config-manager --add-repo [https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo](https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo) Loaded plugins: fastestmirror adding repo from: [https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo](https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo) grabbing file [https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo](https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo) to /etc/yum.repos.d/docker.repo Could not fetch/save url [https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo](https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker.repo) to file /etc/yum.repos.d/docker.repo: [Errno 14] HTTPS Error 403 - <USER3>

[1] [https://store.docker.com/editions/community/docker-ce- server...](https://store.docker.com/editions/community/docker-ce-server- centos?tab=description)

<comment><USER19> Thanks for reporting! Looks like a typo on the store page install instructions, having this updated.

In the meantime here is the correct URL: [https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker- ce.repo](https://download.docker.com/linux/centos/docker-ce.repo)

<comment><USER18> That resolved it. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> To the Docker guys/gals around here

\- I'd be more comfortable using Docker if we had alternative runtimes, Docker being just one (maybe primus-inter-pares) among them; I'm aware of runC but don't know if Docker images are realistically portable (after all, Docker with its quarterly release and only 1 year enterprise support seems relative immature still)

\- I'm not 100% sure on the legal situation re: distributing Linux and GNU userland binaries along with non-F/OSS commercial software; the practice of running eg `apt-get` and fetch the base OS userland on first start (and to a lesser degree, using union'd file systems, though I like that part actually), for me, has the smell of circumventing implied GPL conditions (but IANAL)

\- in that light, I'd like a characterization of Docker vs. basic built-in POSIX/Linux/FreeBSD chroot jails

\- the permissions story (must start as root, effective UID in container typically not resolvable with /etc/passwd) is suboptimal

<comment><USER11> Docker is trying to alleviate this concern by spinning out and trying to foster alternative runtimes, check out containerd and runc:

* [https://blog.docker.com/2016/12/introducing-containerd/](https://blog.docker.com/2016/12/introducing-containerd/) * [https://runc.io/](https://runc.io/)

<comment><USER21> > I'm aware of runC but don't know if Docker images are realistically portabl

(It wasn't clear from your comment if you were aware of this) Since last year (docker 1.11) docker itself no longer is a runtime, and uses runC as the default runtime ([https://blog.docker.com/2016/04/docker- engine-1-11-runc/](https://blog.docker.com/2016/04/docker-engine-1-11-runc/))

Additional OCI compliant runtimes can be configured on the daemon ([https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/dockerd...](https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/dockerd/#docker- runtime-execution-options)), and can be selected per container, using the "\--runtime" option on "docker run" ([https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/run/#op...](https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/run/#options))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As I understand one of the target audiences of Docker EE is RHEL/Docker users. New version of documentation now says:

\- Docker Community Edition (Docker CE) is not supported on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Previous version of documentation have had no such sentence.

<comment><USER23> Also EE support for RHEL: [https://store.docker.com/editions/enterprise/docker-ee- serve...](https://store.docker.com/editions/enterprise/docker-ee-server-rhel)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Nice, no features anymore for CE. I really love the path Docker has taken in the past months...

I wish I could switch to rkt, but there are so many things such as docker- compose which don't exist as equivalent for rkt yet.

<comment><USER5> > _Nice, no features anymore for CE_

What do you mean by that? Docker CE will continue to ship features in exactly the same way as before. If anything the new monthly edge releases will allow us to ship features faster. A common complaint from enterprise customers was that they were tied to the same release trains as the community version. Now that the CE and EE releases are clearly distinct, CE has more flexibility to move fast.

<comment><USER25> That's how it always starts. EE gets introduced, Company assures everyone they will have the same features then CE goes down the hill in time. I want to believe you though.

<comment><USER5> What's hilarious is that Docker is frequently criticized for "moving too fast" and "adding too many features". Now it seems we're going to be suspected of not adding enough features... Which is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Ugh, Docker for Mac now has two separate ads in it's 9 options in the menubar :/

</comment><comment><USER27> A possibly bad thing I see about this, there seems to be a segmentation of sorts. I've noticed there are now a few conflicting editions of Docker Engine. There's CE and EE now, then there's some version that Docker Cloud Agent bundles, and probably more. (Maybe I'm wrong, though)

Maybe that's just me, but it would be better if there'd be one core to rule them all, and extras would be managed by plugins/wrappers/companion daemons. So if you have Docker Engine installed you're good to go.

<comment><USER5> One of the goals of this release is to remove this fragmentation. For example Docker Cloud will use CE, and soon will allow you to easily upgrade to EE.

In the free / open-source side, Docker CE is the "one core to rule them all" that you describe.

<comment><USER27> Oh, then it's great!

I just didn't wanted to have different daemons (server, not client), and having to replace them if I'll want to use Cloud, EE or whatever (or stop using that or replace them with something else, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Off-ish topic. But will the last piece of the puzzle (compose) be integrated into the Docker Go binary?

<comment><USER5> Yes. We have already started in 1.13. Check out the "docker stack" subcommand.

[https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/stack/](https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/stack/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What about swarm? you have not mentioned it in your blog post - will it continue to be part of CE?

You guys have a big PR problem when it comes to swarm. I believe that Swarm is a nicer, simpler alternative to those trying out kubernetes and its well worth running in production.

But there are absolutely no case studies, success stories, etc around Swarm. Possibly that's happening as a consequence of your Datacenter product. For example, this entire page has zero mentions of Swarm - [https://www.docker.com/enterprise-edition](https://www.docker.com/enterprise- edition)

On Azure, it took me quite a while to figure out (after going through support) that their cluster management is the pre-1.12 cluster product... not the Swarm mode.

Then someone pointed Docker-for-Azure which is way down google search results when you search for "azure docker swarm".

So what's the future of swarm? will you go back from being integrated to a separate product like Datacenter? why is it conspicuous by its absence in every post and press release? Including a path to your enterprise product.

The consequence of that is the comments on this very thread on HN : "Docker does not implement service discovery like kubernetes".

<comment><USER11> Oh, and to answer your question: Yes, Swarm is core part of Docker and is in Docker Community Edition too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Uuuuuugggh. Docker for Mac now won't let you uncheck "Send usage statistics"

<comment><USER30> Does OS X have an iptables equivalent? Does seem rather unfriendly though..

<comment><USER19> Not sure how configurable it is under the hood, but it's in the "Security & Privacy" preferences pane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't understand what anybody would be paying for here.

If I'm already paying $OS_VENDOR to support my OS, wouldn't whatever packages I'm running be covered as well? If not, why am I paying them?!

<comment><USER7> $OS_VENDOR most likely only ships Docker the container runtime, not Docker all the other shebang.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> These comments are crazy. @shykes and team have done a wonderful job of making Linux containers easier to use. They have every right to make money from that work, and nothing Docker has done to date has concerned me with it's future. We also run Kubernetes in Production, from source, using a custom provisioner.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hoping this is mostly support

<comment><USER34> it's all in here : [https://www.docker.com/pricing](https://www.docker.com/pricing)

<comment><USER35> If you link deeper to the offerings for specific providers you get a bit more clarity. For example, Docker EE for AWS is $0.119 per node hour, or roughly $80/month per node.

[https://store.docker.com/editions/enterprise/docker-ee- aws?t...](https://store.docker.com/editions/enterprise/docker-ee- aws?tab=description)

<comment><USER36> I have to assume some really deep discounts must be available, because although I can see paying $80 per "node" in a small shop, when you start to scale this doesn't make any sense. If I had a shop with 50,000 servers in it that would be $48 million a year in docker fees. Sorry, no.

<comment><USER5> That is very typical of enterprise products. Large deployments always get discounts. Extremely large deployments will often request "all-you-can-eat" unlimited deployment for a flat fee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Can I license a single node & then rephrase all my support requests so they occur on that host? Even better, can I do it with the AWS option so I only need to pay when I find a critical bug?

</comment><comment><USER38> Does anyone know why GCP isn't one of the supported cloud providers for EE? This is surprising to me since they had docker-related offerings a long time before AWS and Azure.

</comment><comment><USER39> 1 year of support is better than 0 years of support.

</comment><comment><USER40> Is there a tl;dr on the differences between enterprise and community edition?

<comment><USER5> Here you go: [https://www.docker.com/get- docker#/edition](https://www.docker.com/get-docker#/edition)

<comment><USER41> Ford's this mean that we can no longer have more than one private image server?</comment></comment></comment>


Interactive explanation of a procedural music system - <AUTHOR> https://thesaplinggame.com/devlogs/music.html <comment><USER2> I really like this post, especially the interactive grid with labels. A quick tip so it's easier for people to share and link to it: please add some Open Graph meta tags to the page so it looks nice[0].

Anyone who's interested on the subject, I can recommend two books I found useful.

[1] Winifred Phillips: A Composer's Guide to Game Music

[2] Michael Sweet: Writing Interactive Music for Video Games

The first one is a bit heavier on freelance/business advice. Both go quite in depth with tips on how to work with game dev companies, but about half of the texts relate to actual composition techniques.

[0]: [https://neilpatel.com/blog/open-graph-meta- tags/](https://neilpatel.com/blog/open-graph-meta-tags/)

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Composers-Guide-Game-Music- Press/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Composers-Guide-Game-Music- Press/dp/0262534495/)

[2]: [https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Interactive-Addison-Wesley- De...](https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Interactive-Addison-Wesley-Design- Development/dp/0321961587)</comment>


China's gene-editing 'Frankenstein' jailed for three years in modified baby case - <AUTHOR> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3043894/chinas-gene-editing-frankenstein-jailed-3-years-modified-baby <comment><USER2> Strange sort of fear-based moral response to something which will clearly be common in 20 years.</comment>


Body Count of the Roman Empire - <AUTHOR> http://necrometrics.com/romestat.htm <comment><USER3> For anyone interested in historical atrocities, _" The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities"_ by Matthew White hardcover is on sale for $7. Oddly, the Kindle version is $10 and paperback $11.

[http://amzn.to/2voMw7Y](http://amzn.to/2voMw7Y)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If the numbers are true, Genghis Khan killed more people in a few decades than the Romans did in a thousand years. It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2004/04/04/steppe- masters/1606bbc8-77ff-4170-a73d-f87ae4899208/?utm_term=.c7aeada4b360) Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens.

<comment><USER4> Just to add a bit of context: that 15M figure averages out to a quarter million people _every single month for five years_.

<comment><AUTHOR> Jack Weatherford, author of the controversial _Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World_ , wrote that " _...more conservative scholars place the number of dead from Genghis Khan 's invasion of central Asia at 15 million within five years._" But he strongly disagrees with that estimate. [https://books.google.it/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&pg=PA118&lpg=P...](https://books.google.it/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=jack+weatherford+15+million&source=bl&ots=Cc40qIf6i3&sig=Ge_Dc0Ooj7Bq1jZCO_ZyzH5Px-o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4rOHtvc_VAhVFxRQKHaD5A8MQ6AEITjAI#v=snippet&q=%22while%20the%20destruction%22&f=false)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Romans weren't afraid to win wars by attrition. Some of their generals were definitely good but they could just swarm any opposing force with highly disciplined, well armed troops.

Hannibal crushed the Romans several times, it didn't matter. Carthage still got wiped off the map.

<comment><USER6> Who dealt Rome the most damage?

Spartacus and the Slave Wars

Hannibal and Carthage

Bar Kohkba and the Judaic Wars?

<comment><USER7> In a single event, the Roman navy during the first Punic war. Rome lost the entire invasion fleet with estimates of more than 90.000 drowned during a storm. (It is still the second worst maritime disaster in history as Wikipedia counts. [0] Wikipedia lists the Mongol invasion of Japan as the worst, with more than 100.000 lives lost.)

The bloodiest war in Roman history was the second Punic war, that is the battles lost against Hannibal.

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

<comment><USER6> What about the sinking of the Spanish armada invading Britain? As far as maritime disasters it was pretty huge. And that seems to have turned the tide of history.

<comment><USER8> That's third on the list linked above, with estimated 15-20k men lost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author of this seems to have quit on the Eastern (Byzantine) empire several hundred years early...

</comment><comment><USER10> This is (oddly enough) a part of Matthew White's "Historical Atlas of the 20th Century", one of my favourite early history sites.

</comment><comment><USER11> 1000 casualties averaged a year?

That's actually amazing.

<comment><USER12> Yes, especially when compared to suicide rates, occupational or traffic fatalities.... or numbers like 2 Kings 19:35

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Smaller than Russian losses during WWII.

<comment><USER14> The USSR's population in 1939 (immediately pre-war) was about 188 million.

The peak Roman Empire population, in ~160 CE, was 60-70 million. Less than half that of the USSR. Still, the war dead over the empires _history_ are just 1.25% of its peak instantaneous population. So yes, war was overall less deadly. But being an infant was far deadlier than today (~50% mortality by age 5).

Total Soviet casualties: 20-27 million, or 13.7% of the 1940 population. Compare against Poland at about 17%.

By contrast, the Third Reich saw ~8.5% population losses. The US and UK, less than 1% each, France, 1.4%.

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

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empi...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire)

Consider that there was a vastly increased ability to deliver and effect damage on both military and civilian targets in WWII. I'm not sure that a direct comparison is particularly meaningful. And I don't much encourage one- upmanship in this particular sphere.

<comment><USER15> To add to your point - due to mechanization, and fossil fuel-operated logistics, participants in WWII could field much larger armies. In ancient and medieval societies, a huge portion of the population was needed to work full- time to feed relatively small groups of artisans/warriors/politicians.

In contrast, in WWII, the Red Army conscripted 33 million men. One sixth of the population.

<comment><USER14> Very much this.

The source which really hammered this home for me was Daniel Yergin's book, _The Prize_. It's a history of oil, but if you think that that doesn't have anything to do with war ....

Yergin never quite comes out and state that WWI and WWII were resource wars, but they were resource wars.

WWI saw the introduction of mechanisation to battle: cavelry were replaced by tanks, first motorcycles, then cars and trucks were used for personnel and materiel transport. And aircraft. Plus rail and ships: Churchill had famously just converted the British Navy from coal to oil, a massive military and operation advantage, but also an incredible risk for Britain who lacked (so far as anyone knew at the time) any indigenous oil. Instead, by way of naval bases serving Suez and India, it happened to have a presence in Persia and on the Arabian peninsula ....

The United States _singlehandedly_ supplied both its homeland, two fronts, _and_ its allies with oil through WWII. Much of the Pacific battle was over Japanese access to Indonesian oilfields (and Chinese coal), which the US blocked by way of submarines. The Germans very nearly accomplished the same _for domestic US oil shipments_ from Texas to East Coast population centres, resulting in a government financed-and-operated oil pipelines project, still in use today, the Big Inch and the Little Inch pipelines, from Beaumont, TX, to New Jersey.

And petroleum-fueled tractors meant that the U.S. could also _feed_ not only itself and its troops but its European allies.

The U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia rank 1-3, in that order (I think) for the largest original oil reserves. Venezuala is 3rd, though with much heavier (harder to extract, not as useful, dirtier) petroleum.

<comment><USER16> > The Germans very nearly accomplished the same for domestic US oil shipments > from Texas to East Coast population centres

I didn't know about that. It was called Operation Paukenschlag.

> [January to August] During this period, Axis submarines sank 609 ships > totalling 3.1 million tons

That's _three sunk ships a day_. The biggest problem for German subs in that operation was _running out of torpedoes_. Completely insane.

<comment><USER17> I seem to remember that Nicholas Monsarrat, who served on RN corvettes, had particular respect for the crews of oil tankers who had an even lower chance than normal of surviving an attack by a U-boat.

Monsarrat's "Three Corvettes" is one of the few books that has moved me to tears (ironically enough while flying over the very same North Atlantic).

 _" The only villain is the sea, the cruel sea, that man has made more cruel..."_

<comment><USER18> Agree. Monsarrat wrote a horribly graphic description of the aftermath of a torpedo strike on an oil tanker in "The Cruel Sea" [1]. Not only do the crew have to survive the sinking, they then have to (try to) outswim the burning oil. In the same book Monsarrat also has a very angry dig at the home population who then casually waste petrol and other convoyed products, which he brings to life by describing the reaction of the convoy escort crews when they get home.

I re-read the "The Cruel Sea" a few weeks ago (a very old battered copy that I inherited from my dad). It didn't move me to tears, but is still a very moving piece of literature describing a horrendously gruelling theatre of war.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_\(novel\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Relevant: Dan Carlin just came out with a new episode of Hardcore History called "The Celtic Holocaust," which deals with the subject of the Roman subjugation of Gaul and the Celtic people.

[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the- cel...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-celtic- holocaust/)

<comment><USER20> I tend to ignore people who call something a Holocaust that wasn't the actual Holocaust.

<comment><USER21> I agree. The term holocaust is more contemporary. Back in roman times enslavement and extermination seems to have been relatively common.

<comment><USER22> [Disclaimer: I've only listened to the first chunk of the episode. It's 6 hours long, and I have other things to do with my brain]

As far as I can tell, you've hit on exactly the distinction he's trying to make in the episode. There's a running theme of highlighting the difference in attitude towards war/death from the Romans to the modern era, especially with respect to things like civilian extermination.

The name might be unfortunate, but he's pretty open about acknowledging that it's an intentional juxtaposition.

<comment><USER21> I feel that the term "Holocaust" is being used here to sensationalize something that used to be a relatively common occurrence back in those days (infact also used to happen in medieval and post medieval - e.g. Trail of tears - times).

You should not compare ancient post-war extermination events with a modern, civilized state exterminating a section of the population in an organized manner. It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.

<comment><USER23> > It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.

conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

it also seems such a bizarre point of view that something was "relatively common" (and i'm not sure this phrasing is helpful) therefore it's /less/ of a tragedy for that fact.

<comment><USER24> > conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not > "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

Yes. I guess it was special. I think that it touches something we fear deeply - that seemingly rational/intelligent/scientific people can do _evil_ things.

I think there have been plenty of things since then which have similar levels of horrificness (albeit usually on a smaller scale). I just don't think they proc the "there but for the grace of god go I" reaction

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real.

> It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central > Asia.

Estimated based on what? Myth?

> Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a > permanent status) or tax-paying citizens.

And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into tribute states. The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute. What do you think yuan china, duchy of muscow, mughal persia and a host of other khanates were?

The mongol army generally consisted of a few thousand to 30K and their campaigns were largely targeted at cities and capitals rather than populations. And keep in mind that during this time, most of the human population was rural rather than urban.

The idea that the mongols killed that many people is absurd. Not only did they generally target cities/capitals, once the ruler submitted or was deposed, the mongols generally went home and left a small contingent.

You shouldn't take anything you read in WaPo at face value. But even more, you shouldn't anything you read about the mongol empire at face value either. There is so much nonsense and myth that is written about the mongol empire.

<comment><USER26> > _The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in > human history._

It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - <USER2> argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense.

If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed _cities_ " is hardly a testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'.

> _They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you > accepted mongol rule and paid tribute_

How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for them.

<comment><USER27> Regarding British in India, according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule), there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting.

And from [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india- britain-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain- empire-railways-myths-gifts),

In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world's GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor "third-world" country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line.

Also, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4)

<comment><USER26> It's no secret that Britain stripped India of its wealth. I wasn't saying the the British were a benevolent empire. But to imply that India dropping from 23% GDP from 1700 - 1940 was all Englands fault is grossly misleading. You're completely ignoring _the Industrial revolution_ that swept Europe and North America in doing that, along with the immense increase in international trade that happened at the same time.

The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do was wilfully exterminate entire cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It took them nearly a millennium to do only a fraction of what communists accomplished in about a century.

If anyone wants to crunch numbers and determine a per capita "death as a result of state action" for various empires over time I think it would be really interesting.

How does a bad year in the roman empire compared to a purge year in the USSR? Average year vs average year? What about the great leap forward?

<comment><USER29> But, percapita? There were far fewer people around in Roman times. The 'death rate' must have been an order of magnitude higher then.</comment></comment>


These 11 People Watch Every Movie, Especially the Gross Bits - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/destroy-earth-just-dont-smoke-how-hollywood-decides-whats-acceptable-1496422644 <comment><USER2> Not worth fighting to get around the pay wall.</comment>


Microsoft is about to drive a wedge into the mobile market - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/14/dylans-desk-microsoft-is-about-to-drive-a-wedge-into-the-mobile-market/

<comment><USER2> "design and quality only appeal to a subset of consumers"… so this means what exactly? Microsoft isn't focusing on design and quality? Who doesn't care about these things? How can that possibly be a separating factor?

People have been repeatedly stating that "Apple risks losing its dominance based on its closed system" - and _that has never materialized_. Yet people still say it. VentureBeat keeps writing it. And if anything - Apple has proven the exact opposite.

Its iPhone division makes more money than all of Microsoft. That very division is based on the premise that people _do_ care about design and quality. How can the author possibly ignore this?

I, for one, am hoping Apple gets a challenge in this space. Competition is good for the consumer and right now it's a one-horse race and Apple is completely crushing the competition by _not even trying_ to compete. Think on that - they just push new products, and everyone else scrambles to try and differentiate themselves… and they fail!

Someday Apple will have competition in this arena. And of all the candidates out there I can see it being Microsoft. The company is quite strong and if Ballmer finally gets the boot - yes I can see a new wave of optimism and effort here. Maybe.

To suggest that it's in the offing right now? With what - a consumer preview of Windows 8 that no one really likes? I don't know how you can put your name to that article.

</comment><comment><USER3> As far as the vast array of software goes, isn't it all going to have to be rebuilt for the new platforms (ARM etc) anyway? And if you want people to develop for Metro they're going to have to develop for that rather than just offering the same old software.

I really don't see the advantage MS is supposed to have here.

</comment><comment><USER4> Apple is getting my money because they have a compelling product NOW. That's the name of the game in business. This is old-fashioned Microsoft FUD, from a fanboy to boot.</comment>


Wishing for some way to cross-correlate and cross-link submissions - <AUTHOR>

It would be nice to have some way of cross-connecting HN submissions.  Currently we have lots of submissions about the "Rooms" thingy, whatever it may be.  Reports from different sources, articles from different people. Wouldn't it be nice to have some way of having a single conversation in a single thread, instead of having one (or two) submissions "win" and the others get lost, even though the articles may be of near equal value? <comment><AUTHOR> As an example, here are the submissions about "Rooms"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499854)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499247)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499255](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499255) (15 comments so far)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499286) (15 comments so far)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499360](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499360)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499523](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499523)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499558)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499738](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499738)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8499854)

Some of those are interesting stories, and yet they'll get lost when one thread "wins". That's a shame.

 _Edit: I see now the mods have moved the comments from ...286 to ...255_</comment>


Most book clubs are doing it wrong (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://jsomers.net/blog/book-clubs <comment><USER3> > A book club run in the standard way isn't efficient or practical — it's just > a good opportunity wasted.

This kinda misses the point of most book clubs. The point is to have an excuse to meet and talk to people - the book is secondary. In fact many people come to book clubs without having read that month's book, just for the social outlet. Perhaps that's silly from a literary perspective but it still serves a purpose.

<comment><USER4> I'm now wondering how common the two (or more?) types of book clubs in the wild are.

I've always treated book clubs more like a shared class and get extremely frustrated when someone shows up without reading the book/chapters ("they're just wasting everyone's time") or when conversation temporarily drifts to non- book-related topics. I go to book clubs for the insights and commentary I get on books from people with different life experiences, reading history, etc. There's plenty of other places you can go if you just want to be social.

I've definitely seen more "social" book clubs, too. I just assumed they were "bad" or not serious, but I guess they're just targeted at people wanting something different out of the book club experience.

<comment><USER5> > There's plenty of other places you can go if you just want to be social.

There is not? People don't socialize without excuse and did not for years. People who want to socialize have to pick a hobby or interest and try there. It may be sport, bookclub, game, something technical, whatever, but it must be _something_.

<comment><USER6> What about going to a party? That is a purely social event without any hobby attached to it. Hell, you can find random parties to attend on Meetup or similar if you really wanted, which I've gone to.

<comment><USER7> If you are extrovert and you are OK with dozens of strangers around you it will work.

If you have hard time getting along with random people and you need time to open up and get confident with others that is really bad idea. I think book club where mostly the same people who are also less outgoing is better option.

<comment><USER6> That's understandable. I wish there were a way of separating these two types of book clubs then, a casual versus hardcore variety. I think by doing so, fewer people would be disappointed when it turns out to be the opposite variety of what they expected. Thanks for your viewpoint, it helped me understand the idea better.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's difficult? It's just in the way it's described.

> Monthly social book club, not too serious, new faces always welcome.

> Monthly book club exploring everything from X to Y with a focus on Z. > Newcomers wanting a place to discuss how P Qs R with like-minded friends > always welcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Most book clubs are doing it wrong... You have one meeting per book.... The > problem is that there's no time to cash in on anyone else's insights._

> _My book club started four years ago to read Infinite Jest._

Well SHEESH -- most book clubs aren't trying to read 1,079 page long books. Of _course_ you're going to need to break that up.

But the idea that anyone else is doing it "wrong" is both nonsensical and _incredibly_ arrogant. Book clubs are usually concerned with much shorter books that are more easily accessible, where _of course_ you can understand each others' insights afterwards.

And for me, the goal isn't just (or even primarily) to understand the _book_ better or "cash in", as it is more to understand your _friends_ better and enjoy time together. Even if you haven't read the book at all, you can go to hear what they have to say and discuss the topics raised generally.

(If your goal _is_ primarily to understand the book better, you'll probably get a lot more out of reading reviews, analysis, etc. online that meeting with friends, unless your friends happen to be English professors, writers for the New Yorker, etc.)

<comment><USER10> Yeah this is written from a pretty narrow perspective

Relevant questions: what bookclubs was the author familiar with? and what books were they reading?

The bookclubs I'm familiar with are all run by and for the sake of their members, and if the goal is either encourage regular reading or just social, they'll checkpoint at the same pace regardless of the book (eg every 2-4 weeks) and decide how much to read depending... on the book?

The idea that most bookclubs wouldn't do this seems very bizarre to me, and I just can't imagine the sampling the author had done prior to this post

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Few observations from my bookclub:

A bookclub is not a class. For most people it's an excuse to get together, have a drink and talk about a thing they like in a lightly structured manner. What OP is describing sounds more like a study group.

If I don't like the book I don't want to read it for months and months.

<comment><USER12> An observation from my wife's book club. They spend 15 minutes talking about a book that perhaps 50% of them red, and the remaining two hours talking about other things.

The 1-2 women that were actually serious about book analysis quit the book club.

<comment><USER13> Before the pandemic, I usually switched between attending 2 different book clubs.

One is exactly how you said, and the other had a host who a list of prepared questions and trivia to discuss, and pretty much goes down her list each time, and everyone gets a chance to answer each if they have anything.

I've found value in both types. I learn more from the latter, usually, but I enjoy the former, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We run a group in Barcelona where we meet once per week and read the book aloud. It's technically not a "book club", but rather "pronunciation improvement group" – while we read, an organizer who is a native-speaker corrects the mistakes on the go – but as we'd finished already 4 fantastic books together, we obviously had a plenty of opportunity and time to discuss what we're reading, I would qualify it's as a book club for sure.

This club format is not just great for improving English (you develop listening, reading and speaking skills at the same time), but also have become one of the most favourite activity of mine during the week – we usually meet in some lovely place in the Saturday morning, drink coffee with croissants, meet wonderful smart people, discuss life and books, while enjoying views on Sagrada Familia.

Having this experience, idea of reading silently at home and then meeting once to briefly share the opinion about a book, doesn't sound exciting at all :)

<comment><USER15> This sounds awesome and would be something I'd definitely join. (Sadly not being based in Barcelona though :)

What books did you read and how was this event initiated?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My experience with a non-fiction book club was somewhere in-between the 'study group' and 'social club' extremes. We ran the club via a meetup group for about three years, with a 'core' group of ~10 people (of which about half would show up each month). Each month would also bring a few random meetup people who we would see once and never again.

a) Many non-fiction books are effectively a 'very good essay' in the first couple chapters, followed by N*100 pages of lower-quality expansion on the initial topic. It's completely OK if most people in the meeting don't read the whole thing. It's also much easier to skip around in non-fiction books, since the chapters are often more modular.

b) We would have a rotating 'moderator' who generally read the whole book, usually before it got picked up by the group. The moderator generally picks a subset of 'good chapters' which people can read if they aren't going to get through the whole book. Usually intro + chapter 1 + two later chapters with the best points.

c) For non-fiction, outside experience is often just as valuable to the discussion as having read the book. Having a really relevant person involved int he discussion is fantastic.

d) We also had a some great experiences with inviting the author to the discussion group, for books written by people who live in the area. We would often get ~20 people to turn out for these ones, and the authors were very happy to come talk about the thing they care about to even our small group.

<comment><USER17> > Many non-fiction books are effectively a 'very good essay' in the first > couple chapters, followed by N*100 pages of lower-quality expansion

I wonder if an essay club, rather than a book club, would work. You pick something short enough that it's easy to read, but still with enough ideas in to talk about. You then have time to either dig into the text really deeply, or use it as a prompt for a largely unrelated but still interesting conversation, HN comments style.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, maaaaaybe. My guess is you'd end up reading a lot of book chapters for the essay club.

The problem I think is that the economics of writing books is much more author-friendly than writing longform articles. So by the time you put a shitpile of research into writing something /good/, you really should be writing a book. Even if the 'cream' of the content is about three chapters. And the rest of the deep dive is still worth it for many readers (and those who aren't reading the whole book for book club can still go back for the rest later, if they want to).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Any book club that gets people to read and show up is not "doing it wrong."

I'd be interested in a format suggested by the author, but I think I'm the only one in my book club that would. The fact that I'm regularly reading and talking about books with a group without any particular literary bent is something very valuable to me, even if we don't mine every hidden treasure of the books we read.

<comment><USER19> Seriously. I would absolutely be interested in a book club like that, especially one that went through the "Great Books" or whatever...But I'm also the only one of my friends who really reads outside genre fiction so sadly no chance of that happening soon unless I can find one at the local university that's open to the public.

<comment><USER10> You could start or join a remote bookclub / study group

Especially given current circumstances, this would possibly help you meet the analysis goal

<comment><USER19> Aye, but I've found those generally tend to have _worse_ engagement over time than in-person ones. Much worse, which is the problem. Though maybe I am being too pessimistic about it; might look around and see what there is to be had. I'd love one with a more academic bent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was in a classics reading group. We met _weekly_ and plowed through material. It was not a democracy but instead run by a guy who knew his stuff. I read a lot of stuff I didn't want to (way too much gore in the Greek tragedies for my taste).

It wasn't an excuse to meet and kvetch. It was closer to a class. It was about the books. Every other book club I've been in has been a pale imitation. The one I'm in now is stocked with PhDs and Berkeley profs and isn't even a drone fest. It doesn't even reach a high school level of engagement with the material.

Our sports club is sidelined because of the quarantine. So I'll admit, they're not very good at this. I'm going to suggest that we read books about the sport next time.

<comment><USER19> That classics reading group honestly sounds amazing. I wish I could find something like that in person, or online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> One alternate way to do a book club:

1\. Meet every 3 to 6 months.

2\. Everyone bring books to swap.

3\. Everyone bring a list of books they really loved.

4\. Each person takes turn talking about the books they loved while sitting around a dining room table with snacks and drinks.

5\. It's fun if other people have read the same books. It's even more fun if they disagree.

6\. Last time I did this I added 10 books to my "To Read Pile" and traded books with friends.

7\. Everyone wanted to do it again.

<comment><USER17> Something i do:

1\. Find 10-20 friends

2\. Go on holiday for a week in a cottage in the middle of nowhere with terrible internet speed

3\. Bring a dozen books each and put them in a huge pile in the middle of one room

4\. Eat a lovely big meal together in the evening

5\. Mercilessly shame anyone who is doing anything other than reading a book, cooking, or performing essential biological functions before dinner time

You don't all read the same book, but there will be plenty of overlap, and it usually works out that there are a few books that many people have read.

<comment><USER21> I WANT TO GO TO THERE

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > The discussion goes on for one or two hours before it runs out of gas, and > then the group picks the next book, and you agree to meet in another month > or six weeks.

I have been running a book club for the past year and a half and that is a fair summary of how it goes. It is definitely hard to keep a discussion on topic for more than a couple of hours without it becoming a generic social event, especially if there are late arrivals. Productivity of work meetings tends to approach zero after an hour; so why should it be different for book clubs? Denser books should require more discussion, but doing it in a single session is hard. The social aspect is fun and is a part of why I run the book club I do, but it is a competing priority with the book itself and different people in the club prioritize the two differently. The prioritization changes for everyone as time progresses and the amount of alcohol consumed increases.

Recommendation of having smaller meetings while the book is in progress deserves a trial. I will adopt it for the next book in my club. While we are holding these virtually, it seems that people are having easier time parceling an hour of their evening time so this will be practical.

There are a few things that differentiates my book club from the authors description of how a typical book club operates. Firstly, I select the book that I want to read and I think my friends will enjoy that is of appropriate time investment. This means there is no griping about book selection and having to competing desires of multiple people. Secondly there is a set schedule: 7:30pm on the first Monday of every other month at my apartment. This means there is no griping about choice of venue (an issue in NYC) and rescheduling to fit prior commitments the participants have. I make an announcement on Facebook and people have a choice to participate or not. This has been working out rather well with turns outs of somewhere between half a dozen to a dozen friends depending on the book. Conversations have been good and organizational investment very reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER23> I fully agree with the author on the problem, but the suggested solution of doing periodic readings together is a hard sell for busy ppl to commit to - <USER2> find synchronous reading boring.

There are a few ways to increase the chance of a book club:

(1) Reduce the reading length per session.

(2) Provide a carrot to encourage ppl to do the reading.

These two levers led a few friends and I to start something called Short Story Club [1], which is really starting to take off now.

It's relatively easy to get folks to read a 30-40 page short story, and we try to provide a free copy so people don't have to make a purchase. IMO short stories are super underrated and overlooked - many of them pack a punch bigger than the average novel.

We start each session with small group discussions over Zoom.

For the carrot, we get the author of the short story to come on the Zoom and do a Q&A session, letting attendees ask their questions directly via video like in a real event. So far, we've focused on science fiction, and we've gotten Ted Chiang, Ken Liu, and Cory Doctorow to join us.

So, even if you're not doing short stories for your own book club, a better way is to chunk up big books and meet periodically. Make it an event: if in person make an effort to cook or provide good snacks, music, whatever it takes to make it easy for people to commit to. And have good discussion points ready.

[1] [https://www.shortstory.club](https://www.shortstory.club) \- if you're interested, we have Hugh Howey coming next week to discuss WOOL, one of my fav stories

</comment><comment><USER24> I've never belonged to an actual book club, but have followed along as a podcast I listen to did a virtual book club. They did it as the article suggests, reading a small portion of the book each week and discussing that one portion for around an hour and a half.

If anyone's interested, it is the Grey Company podcast, which began as a podcast discussing the Lord of the Rings card game, but branched out to doing the afore mentioned read through of Lord of the Rings.

Also of interest is Tolkien Road, a podcast which reads through and discusses the Silmarillion and other Tolkien works in a bit by bit fashion.

</comment><comment><USER25> > You would never run a class this way

As a literature graduate, this made me laugh. Maybe literature courses are more leisurely stateside, but for me it was a book a _week_ (not 4 to 6 weeks, as OP suggests). That was literally how classes were run.

And it was stupid for the reasons outlined. I remember my class on Ulysses mostly because a) I was acutely conscious of not having been fully keeping up in the 250 pages before the closing chapter and b) when I arrived at class it became clear after about 2 minutes that only I had finished it, because I had read it over the summer break because I was really keen on those bragging rights, but everyone else has tried to read it in one week, which is a doomed endeavour if ever there was one. It would have been a better experience for everyone concerned if more than one person had done the reading, but that was not realistic on the assumption that Ulysses can be polished off in the same time as The Power and the Glory.

</comment><comment><USER26> From the comments here it seems like we've got a case of an overloaded term.

Just like you need terms like "intramural" and "club" to differentiate the type of sports team to which you belong there seems to be a need for a common and well understood differentiation between book groups which are primarily _social_ and which are geared toward analysis and/or study.

The objectives of the two groups don't seem to mesh well at all so perhaps they are deserving of their own terms.

<comment><USER9> Me personally, I'd use "book club" for the social one, and "study group" for the academic one.

The author seems to be describing a study group, not a book club.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Are there any good online programming clubs?

It would be fun to work on a project together every weekend.

</comment><comment><USER28> The method described in this article sounds more similar to a college study group than a book club. To each their own on how you enjoy reading a book with friends. It's pretty arrogant to just say "if you enjoy it this other way, you're wrong."

<comment><USER29> Author seems to be gatekeeping and has little experience with clubs outside their own bubble.

Would be fun to have this person attend a knitting club. Their head would probably explode.

<comment><USER11> You're not talking about knitting techniques?! You animals!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I always wanted a club where everyone was reading the same ebook -- and left comments and highlights that were shared throughout the text.

Amazon's Kindle has this capability -- but I've never heard anyone who's actually taken advantage of it.

<comment><USER30> Also, I think it'd be cool to see the highlights and comments left by celebrities or "authoritative" readers. I'm really surprised this hasn't become a thing...

[https://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/677-share-your-kindle- no...](https://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/677-share-your-kindle-notes-and- highlights-with-your-friends-beta)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> anyone know of some good online book clubs?

I have this idea in the back of my mind for a while, which is a mailing list or forum where members agree to read a specific book every 2 weeks and then write a review about it or discuss it online.

every member gets to suggest a book as what to read next and whatever suggestion gets the most votes will be read. it would be highly specific to keep the communities small enough and to really dive deep on certain works/authors. this could be done using categories. a category has certain rules for the books to be read, and could be titles which are at least 100 years old (my pet peeve), in the public domain, and limited to n-authors, ... one could then also have all future readings be descendents of that category/author (e.g. in follow-up readings read only/everything that an author has cited, or things they have read etc). kind of like a snow-ball system. but there are many ways how to structure this to make it interesting for different crowds.

<comment><USER32> You could probably set on up on Tildes? (Although it might be a bit quiet at first). [https://tildes.net/~books](https://tildes.net/~books)

<comment><USER31> cool thanks, this looks interesting. never heard of it. much appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another great experience I want to share is the online bookchallenge I participated in, organized by Dmitry Dubilet (founder of Monobank). It marries simple economic incentives design with love to reading books.

The idea is that each participant sends some money into the pool – 10 euros in that particular case – and commit to read a book from the list in 3 weeks. (There was a prepared list of diverse set of books like "You must be joking, Mr. Feynman" or "Freakonomics"). By the end of the challenge, a simple oracle mechanism was used to determine who read a book or not – everyone was randomly assigned a few people who have chosen the same book and had to make a call to talk about a book and check if person have read it. Once verification was done, money from the pool have been divided between people who read the book.

I especially loved that concept due to the fact that it's almost exactly what people in cryptocommunity try to do with tokens and cryptoeconomy – create economic incentives (in a new way), new oracles (mechanisms of connecting economic system to the offline world) and change peoples behavior in the socially beneficial way.

But this time it was done just with a mobile banking app and a Google Forms.

<comment><USER33> I think that's simultaneously the most depressing and hilarious thing I have read on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think this sounds like an excellent approach for reading a long book that is worth dissecting, but unfortunately it's a time intensive approach. I suspect the once a month approach is a time-conscious approach rather than what we would select for a serious reading.

</comment><comment><USER35> what the author describes resembles salons[0] more than book clubs. salons have some (negative) connotations of idle aristocracy, but can be modernized to simply be a bunch of people getting together expressly to discuss interesting ideas around wine/beer/coffee. those ideas could be a few chapters of an interesting book.

i've always wanted to start a salon (insert lots of excuses for why i haven't here).

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(gathering)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_\(gathering\))

<comment><USER17> I would say the opposite. To me, the characteristic of a salon is free-ranging discussion on whatever the participants find interesting. What Somers is suggesting is a tight focus on a defined topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Personally I'd go a step further and say if you want to really read the book together you should read it together on Kindle and make shared notes and highlights as you're all reading so you can note where others, or you, are struggling. This would truly help it become a collaboration moreso than a retrospective.

</comment><comment><USER37> A book isn't something you're supposed to read and finish. It's a set of ideas you develop over multiple reads, if a book isn't worth reading multiple times it's probably not worth reading once.

This is obviously true for non fiction programming books where you can spend years developing a library off of ideas from a single chapter but I was also surprised to learn that it's also true for fiction books. My girlfriend doesn't mind spoilers in novels because she reasons if a book isn't good enough with spoilers it's probably not good enough without the spoilers too.

The goal should be to enjoy reading not read, it's deceptively unproductive to force yourself to finish a book.

<comment><USER38> I respect and partially agree with what you're saying. However, your post sounds a bit too absolutist to me.

In reality books, like any form of communication are incredibly diverse on the production as well on the consumption side. A novel is very different than a reference. A teaching book is very different than a biography. Some books are more about the journey - some are more about the destination.

There are many different ways to consume (some or all of) a book. And that's driven by both: how it was written and what a reader wants out of it at that moment in time.

Books are one of the manifestations of the incredible plurality in our species.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> That's a study group not a book club.

</comment><comment><USER40> I am charmed by the idea that my neighborhood book club would ever consider _Ulysses_ or _Pale Fire_. Now and then somebody comes up with something I haven't read and enjoy encountering. Mostly I like the club for a) not interfering with my ordinary reading, and ) a chance to get together with neighbors over dinner and wine.

</comment><comment><USER41> Very timely topic. Please excuse me for hijacking this to gather some input on the following:

I'm curious to hear if anyone has stories, success or otherwise, and methods on organizing a non-fiction study group.

(Assume: small groups, serious and experienced participants.)

Bonus marks for any "bear in minds" and "gotchas" when a plague forces you to resort to online group readings and discussions.

<comment><USER42> I and 2 friends had a political science reading/discussion group that lasted a while. The most important things were keeping the reading short and polemic, and asking a question that we'd all respond to in writing via a short essay before gathering to discuss. Oh, and drinking heavily. The writing was necessary to keep us on track while drunk.

<comment><USER41> I see, keeping the reading short and focused plus an essay sounds effective. (I'm not good with alcohol, so I'll skip that part ;-) I can stay on track reasonably well without any external stimuli.)

This evening I'll be out at a nearby nature reserve with a fellow serious participant to talk about organizing an advanced study/discussion group on Greek & Roman philosophy -- mostly Hellenistic.

Thanks for the input, _xapata_ , much appreciated.

<comment><USER42> We were heavily inspired by learning about the Metaphysical Club. You could say it was a sort of book club. Some of the United States' most famous philosophers were members. They named the club ironically, because they hated the idea of metaphysics. One of my favorite anecdotes was when they considered changing their name to the "Whiskey Punch Club."

 _The Metaphysical Club_ [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OI1AF2](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OI1AF2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I've tried the "book chunk club" approach too. Same problem. The right size chunk is a hard thing to optimize.

</comment><comment><USER44> Never mind all that!

How about IJ? Have you folks made any progress at all on guessing what maybe actually happens? For example do we know anything at all about Hal and Gately digging up JOI's head? Even for example what possible use that would be to anybody?

</comment><comment><USER45> I've been to a tech 'code and bitch' ('stitch and bitch'). The premise was really obvious because everyone knew not to bring a laptop.

</comment><comment><USER46> What the author wants isn't a book club. He wants a secular Bible study. Most people don't treat reading like that, though.

</comment><comment><USER47> Did you ever finish Infinite Jest?

<comment><USER48> Reading that book needs a support group, not a book club. It was strange, I think someone recommended the book to me, I started reading it, and immediately regretted the purchase. Then, by chance watched 'The End of the Tour' and realized who the author was. That attempt, I made it to the YEAR OF THE DEPEND ADULT UNDERGARMENT so many times I lost count. The book reminds me of reading unformatted code, something from a decompiler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see other commentors saying book clubs as primarily social gatherings and about the book second. This strikes me as odd. If you want a social gathering, why have the pretense of reading books, just organize the social gathering, perhaps a weekly meeting at the local pub or someone's home. When I attend book clubs, it's about the literary aspects of the book first and any social interaction is incidental, such as if I really like another person's opinions, I'll go chat with them afterwards. Indeed, I would be particularly annoyed if I spent time reading a book and went to discuss it, and all I got were people not talking about the book, either in depth or at least shallowly, and I'd find another book club.

In regards to the ongoing nature of book clubs, discussing every chapter, I think is is a great idea, and the best avenue I've seen it happen through is a medium like Reddit (or Tildes.net), with a nested forum post for each chapter that people can not only look back on now but in the future. Indeed, r/bookclub and even other media related subreddits, like r/anime or your favorite TV show like r/gameofthrones, have such weekly threads for reading or rewatching the requisite media. This feels to me the best way to accomplish the author's goals. Of course, there is no real social interaction, but again, if you want social interaction, go to a social event that is explicitly (or sufficiently implicitly) stated that it is for socialization, such as a pub gathering. No one's going to be reading books with their friends at a pub.

<comment><USER49> Hmm I'd say all the book clubs I belong to are social first, book second; one club spends the majority of each meeting roasting the people who haven't read the book, another good portion debating our selection procedures, and a minimal amount of time on the book itself. Different flavors for different people!

<comment><USER6> If that's the case, why have a "book" club at all, rather than make a social gathering? Let me be clear in that I also attend social events, but they're called social events on the face of it. If I'm attending a book club, I expect to talk about books.

<comment><USER50> > If that's the case, why have a "book" club at all

To get a conversation started, but it doesn't matter where it ends up.

Do you understand people making smalltalk and the purpose of it? It's like that.

<comment><USER6> I said this in another comment, hope it clarifies my understanding:

Sure, I get smalltalk, and I now understand the dichotomy of book club types. Some people are expecting book clubs to be casual and others hardcore. Our definitions are not the same so our conclusions as to what book clubs should be are also not the same. I like both approaches but I like them to be delineated. If I'm with my friends I can appreciate it being a social gathering with a theme, but if I attend a "hardcore" book club, well, I expect it to be hardcore, talking about the book itself for most of the time.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Startup idea for an already (over)crowded market - <AUTHOR>

Lately I have been toying with an idea for a(nother) productivity/time-managment application, and I want to know what you think:
I began building an app for myself that tells me what to work on and for how long each day, while providing an interface that tells my colleagues (and bosses) how busy I am on any given work day so I don't get overbooked with too much work. Furthermore, it allows me track the amount of time I've actually spent on all my tasks/projects, so I can tell my project managers how many hours to bill for.
The essence of this glorified todo list is that each todo is paired with:
1. a time estimate (how many total hours will the task take to complete)
2. time spent (how many hours of work have already been spent on the task)
3. a due date (on what day and at what time must the task be complete)
Then, given a calendar which tells the app which days are work days, and how many hours of work can be done on each of those work days, it automatically populates each day with tasks based on some algorithm—ideally user-customizable—based on the urgency of the tasks and the number of hours needed to complete them. Thus, urgent tasks that will take longer to complete are automatically scheduled before less-urgent ones that can be done quickly, and I am immediately aware of 'overbooking'—if there aren't enough available work hours before the due date for a task, I receive a warning notifying me of the time conflict. A time-tracker manages completed hours versus outstanding hours on each task (it could even have a nifty 'x percent complete' bar).
Thus, the addition of news tasks or revision of hours/due dates causes scheduling of tasks to update automatically according to the algorithm, so I always know what I should be working on and if I have enough time to take on more work.
This seems extravagantly naive, I know, but I would like your feedback anyway. Would you consider using it? <comment><USER2> Assume it's already built, now what would you do? how would you market it?

<comment><AUTHOR> The first thing I would do is use it/test it within my current workplace. I am scratching my own itch (and an itch my colleagues have, as well) so if we didn't find it useful, it would be time to reconsider things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you can predict time taken to complete tasks, that would be awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had thought of maybe running reports to show the user if she consistently over- or underestimated the amount of time needed for tasks, but I have no idea how I could predict these time estimates.

Any ideas?

I any case—I agree. It would be awesome.

<comment><USER3> This might be helpful - <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html></comment></comment></comment>