Can You Swim Faster in Water or Corn Syrup? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040920/full/news040920-2.html

<comment><USER2> This title is misleading, as the article makes no mention of 'corn syrup'. Instead, they thickened with guar gum to achieve "liquid twice as thick as water". I'm not sure what standard they are using for 'thickness', but corn syrup has a viscosity thousands of times more than water.

The article points out that "below a certain threshold of speed and size, viscous drag becomes the dominant force". I'd strongly guess that humans swimming in corn syrup is below this point. Thus despite the summary article, I'd answer that one can swim faster in water than corn syrup.

</comment><comment><USER3> To quote my favorite philosopher:

Yes, Pinky, but who would _want_ to?!

</comment><comment><USER4> This is pretty interesting, but perhaps the new question would be at what point does the thickness of a liquid slow down a swimmer. For example, there's no way a person could swim equally fast through water vs mud.

Perhaps the thickness of the syrup was not a significant enough difference to prove this.

<comment><USER5> I only skimmed the article so they might have covered this, but I would think that this comparison would, at least in theory, hold true for any two substances.

Pressure is pressure. No liquid is going to react differently to pressure applied by your head and shoulders than it does to pressure applied by your arms and legs. In other words: swimming is essentially pushing against something with your head while you push against something else with your arms and legs. The pressure and force received from these two actions should stay comparably constant in any PURE substance.

So maybe you would swim at a different speed in mud, if there were rocks in it.

<comment><USER6> You'd like it to be the case that all you have to worry about is pressure and force, but that's not always true. A chemistry major in my dorm once made a non-newtonian fluid just with water and the appropriate concentration of corn starch. The viscosity is not a constant in such a fluid, but rather scales with the force applied. If you struck it hard with a pencil, the pencil would bounce off like the fluid was solid--but if you pushed slowly, it would act like a thick liquid. It was like... a liquid chinese finger trap.

Since your hands move faster than your head, I think that means you would swim faster in such a liquid, up to a point, although after a certain point swimming faster gets harder to. It hurts my head to think about it though.

<comment><USER7> I believe this is the seminal work on the subject: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think mythbusters did the same thing with similar results.

Im surprised they didnt do(or if they did, it wasnt mentioned) the difference in long distances. Maybe it doesnt make much difference for a lap, but what about the 100m?

<comment><USER9> Note this article does predate the Mythbusters episode (and the study probably precipitated it). The Mythbusters anecdotally reported that while you could go roughly as fast in high-viscosity fluid it was much harder; IIRC Jamie couldn't even finish his highest-viscosity run, or at least made very heavy weather of it.

(I for one would accept anecdotal reports on the matter, but if you're in an excessively science-uber-alles mood YMMV.)

<comment><USER10> Right -- this was my initial reaction. You can generate more thrust in a higher viscosity fluid, which will "cancel out" the increased friction, but it also takes more energy to generate the increased thrust, so you'd tire out more quickly.

<comment><USER11> This may sound absurd, but I wonder if this has ever been seriously tried as a training platform for competitive swimmers.

<comment><USER12> IIRC mythbusters used a medal winning swimmer and he couldn't perform. His body was attuned to swimming in water and he was messing up on his strokes (from what it looked like, he was taking longer to do a stroke in the more viscous liquids but he was going further with each stroke).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is science at its humorous best.

</comment><comment><USER14> According to the MythBusters, no.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4Q5jZSJbA>

</comment><comment><USER15> Dunno; I suspect I sink faster in water than I would inevitably sink in Karo... does that count?

</comment><comment><USER16> I swim faster in honey. Don't ask how I know.</comment>


Cop to Google: Why did you ignore my question to Obama about drug policy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downing/silence-says-a-lot-an-ope_b_1250966.html

<comment><USER2> Its possible that "good" cop doesn't seem to realize how much money is involved when the corporate plutocracy declares WAR ON [insert soundbyte that appeals to the teaparty mentality]. Drugs, like Terror are money machines and are not going away until the corporate influence goes away.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's pretty clear that Obama has tried to evade drug policy discussion, but I'm surprised that Google didn't just ask him the question and let him give his canned / broken record response.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> ....and you're suggesting that Google is part of the "corporate plutocracy" and as such affirmatively insulated President Obama from this and similar questions?</comment>


Ask HN: What are best practices to building a developer experience? - <AUTHOR> We're opening up integrations on our platform so developers can build on top of us. What matters to you as a developer when interacting with a 3rd party API? Would appreciate any pointers to good developer experiences (I like Slack and Stripe) and how to think about implementing them<p>Top of mind is: - Comprehensive documentation - Interactive APIs - Easy to test - Easy to get keys, register webhooks, etc to setup OAuth - Fast approval if needed - Stats on your API usage <comment><USER2> We have an internal platform. I'm writing the SDK before the API. My success measure is the following: I should be able to build a clone of the platform using the SDK. _Anything I can do with point and click, I could do with the SDK or sending a request_. I should be able to build a CLI that manipulates the platform and does all one can do with the web application. I should be able to fork myself, then hire that fork to write a separate front-end that uses our API, feature match the current product, and have a better user experience. I should be able to use the platform as a building block to something else, and it should be trivial.

Once this is possible, it means that almost all the logic is in separate functions, and not intertwined to the "web" application. Which means these functions are more easily tested, and can easily support whatever CLI/"RestfulAPI" one wants.</comment>


Show HN: Fwd is a network port forwarder cross platform/arch dead simple to use - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kintoandar/fwd <comment><USER2> Nice little trick, but what use case does fwd cover than can't be done with Netcat?

E.g. [http://www.devkb.org/linux/115-TCP-tunnel-port-forwarding- us...](http://www.devkb.org/linux/115-TCP-tunnel-port-forwarding-using-Netcat)

<comment><AUTHOR> nc is a terrific tool with tons features when compared with fwd, the main difference would be the the ability of accepting multiple connections and the simplicity of use.

As netcat is already multi platform/arch that wouldn't be a decisive factor.</comment></comment>


Interview with Lars Bak about Dart - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/18/google_dart_interview/

<comment><USER2> Does anyone who follows Dart development have any hard benchmark figures? The only mention of performance in the article is distressingly light on numbers:

 _"Bak now reckons Dart runs 30 per cent faster on Google's V8 than JavaScript under the Richards operating system kernel simulation benchmark and under the DeltaBlue benchmark – two standards used at Google."_

What's perhaps _most_ important for Dart at this stage isn't how much faster its VM is than Javascript; what matters is how its generated Javascript performs relative to hand-written Javascript in browsers without a Dart VM.

<comment><USER3> [disclaimer: I'm a member of the Dart project working on the VM]

These two benchmarks are publicly tracked at <http://www.dartlang.org/performance/>

Dart VM is used to provide smooth developer experience and can operate standalone on the server side (there is dart:io library) which makes its raw performance quite important, from my point of view.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, this graph is perfect. (For everyone else, note that you can click and drag on the graph to go back in time.)

      > Dart VM is used to provide smooth developer experience and
      > can operate standalone on the server side (there is dart:io
      > library) which makes its raw performance quite important,
      > from my point of view.

The server side is a bit irrelevant here; nobody's pretending that Dart's ever going to get traction on the server side if it doesn't first have a strong stake on the client side. And if I'm pitching to my team that we should use Dart for our web applications, I need to know that my performance won't be dreadful on the majority of installed browsers in the world.

One more question: is there a reason you only run two of the Octane benchmarks, rather than the entire suite? More data points would make for a more convincing argument.

<comment><USER3>
        > is there a reason you only run two of the Octane benchmarks

As the FAQ states at the very bottom of the page:

        Porting benchmarks correctly takes time.
        As more benchmarks become ready, we will publish more charts.

Some Octane benchmarks are quite hard to port either because they are very big (PDF.js), generated by some sort of compiler (e.g. Mandreel and EarleyBoyer) or exercise things that might not necessarily have any direct translation to Dart (RayTrace is using class emulation code take from prototype.js).

<comment><USER2> Ah yes, thanks. I'm so used to benchmarks being trivial that I keep forgetting that Octane contains full-fledged applications!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While it's much more consistent than JavaScript, I find Dart to be a pretty bad language. It's sad that it doesn't learn from the failures of Java and JavaScript.

Hopefully the VM will be easy to target from other languages.

<comment><USER5> When I very briefly looked at Dart I found it to have a Java-ish flavor. Is that the problem you had? Can you mention a little of what makes Dart pretty bad?

<comment><USER4> I guess it's more disappointment than anything else. I find:

\- syntax to be a step backwards. Useless tokens everywhere, distinction between expressions and statements, no macros or some other extension mechanism. Docstrings-in-comments. Silly operators like &&. Increment operators, even with post/pre distinction! The switch, with yet another form of fall-through. "new" keyword for creating objects. I thought we'd all learned that C/Java syntax is stupid.

\- the distinction between production and development mode to be dangerous (no asserts in production). Behaviour differs enough to be confusing

\- anything can be thrown. Why even bother with an exception type then?

\- I see no value in specifying types if they aren't actually checked all the time. Generics are equally optional. We'll see if this experiment proves me wrong, but I doubt it.

\- constructors are complex and confusing. For some reason they don't get inherited

\- static methods. They aren't class methods, so why even bother? The docs even recommend not using them

\- peculiar boolean context. For some reason, everything is falsy except for true

\- no ADTs or at least non-nullable types

On the other hand, it gets many other things right (module system, less crazy semantics than JavaScript, properties, operator methods, libraries are saner, etc.). It's just sad that it could've actually been a nice language.

<comment><USER6> Dart is basically Java Script. It's not called that because some language completely unrelated to Java called itself that already :)

To reply to some of your points:

The syntax is designed to look like Java. It's there for Java programmers, not to be the best syntax ever. (new is important, however, because you can also create objects with const.) Yeah, it's not Python.

Production and development mode are a common optimization in other languages. Remember: type annotations in Dart cannot, by design, change the behavior of the application. So in production mode, that part of the language spec is enforced. Static analysis tools, etc., are free to do whatever they want, however. I'd rather catch type errors at code review time rather than at runtime in production anyway.

The constructors make sense to me. They work like Java, and there is better syntax for initializing fields (which is all I ever do in constructors anyway).

Ultimately, it's Java in client-side form. Compare it to GWT, not Python or Haskell.

<comment><USER4> Right, and I think that's precisely what's wrong with it. It's only slightly better than both Java and JavaScript, but not an appreciable improvement otherwise.

I'd have hoped for a more interesting language for such an interestingly pedigreed VM.

<comment><USER6> As a programming language, Dart isn't particularly interesting, but as a tool, it's very interesting. You can actually write client code that can be reused: as your web UI, as your smoke test, as a Chrome extension, etc. And it's easy to write tests for, with Hamcrest-style matchers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I'm not opposed to speed improvements just happening. I'm somewhat curious to know how often the processing power of javascript is the limiting factor in an application.

That is, I can't see this being too compelling for the majority use case of browsers. Without that, I can't see not having Dart support being an issue for competing browsers.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not a fan of Dart, however Lars Bak was a guest on Javascript Jabber some time back:

[http://javascriptjabber.com/008-jsj-v8-and-dart-with-lars- ba...](http://javascriptjabber.com/008-jsj-v8-and-dart-with-lars-bak-and- kaspar-lund/)

Interesting listen.

</comment><comment><USER9> > and should generate fewer bugs – called side effects

I know this was unintentional, but I agree, for the most part side effects are bugs.</comment>


This 15 year old Calvin and Hobbs comic is frighteningly relevant to today - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/imagescalvin-20and-20hobbs.jpg

<comment><USER2> Brilliant!</comment>


Amazon's Whale Strategy - <AUTHOR> http://stratechery.com/2014/amazons-whale-strategy/ <comment><USER2> > A week before yesterday's launch of the Fire Phone, Amazon sent all of the > attendees a copy of the children's book "Mr. Pines Purple House" with a note > from Jeff Bezos

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5431301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5431301)</comment>


Jwzlyrics – Jamie Zawinski's lyrics display app (with source) - <AUTHOR> https://www.jwz.org/jwzlyrics/ <comment><USER2> Following this link from HN might not get you what you want…

<comment><USER3> "...but you just might find... you get what you need."

Keep being you, JWZ.</comment></comment>


How Not to Pitch to a Startup - <AUTHOR> http://particletree.com/features/how-not-to-pitch-to-a-startup/ <comment><USER2> One of the most important things I had to learn when I started my company was how to quickly get off the phone with people who wanted to waste my time. It seems trivial, but in an effort to be polite and not burn any bridges, I was wasting a lot of time. Plus, these sorts of conversations often left me feeling angry.

So I developed a system. Step one is to be clear with yourself about what you're looking for. We're not looking for funding and if we do, we will mine our own network for introductions to VC. We don't do partnerships unless the partner already has a customer who is asking specifically for us and who is willing to pay for any integration work. We never work with recruiters and haven't had any problems finding the people we need.

Step two, is to develop a script.

Here's an example, "I appreciate your call, but we don't work with recruiters and are happy with our current hiring practices. Pause. Have a nice day. Pause. Bye. Pause. Click."

If I only say nice things, then that leaves me in a good mood at the end of the call. My barber just hangs up on people without saying a word. But that doesn't work for me. Neither does yelling at them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Same thing happens to us all the time, really annoying. I've had some associates have the balls to call us up, not do any research, and then try to lecture me on how we should be running our business.

Fortunately, I've had a few "hero" associates who have dug down deep into my social network and found friends that we share, or read quite a few of my blog posts.

Either way, I've found that these associate calls are a complete waste of time. It can be hard enough getting taken seriously if you aren't brought in by the right partner, and getting funded off of an associate or analyst introduction is very unlikely, despite the fact that each and every one of them makes it sound like they are ready to cut a fat check on the spot.

<comment><USER4> There's smart and then there's perspective. VCs are smart, but they're looking for perspective. They're cold calling you to understand your company and your space and try to possibly invest in you. In fundamental analysis, they call this the scuttlebutt approach. From our personal experience, we've even gotten partners who haven't done their research. The would immediately want to go into the demo during the pitch. When we meet the occasional partner and associate who _actually_ knows the space and the product, we are more than impressed. In reality, if you only vaguely know the space and you're asking retarded questions about engagement and metrics, you're not really adding value. We judge VCs by their questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is another reason why some of these calls may be made: due diligence before investing in a competitor. This would explain why VC's ask for an explanation of things that are obvious and available on the website: they are looking for any unreported changes, and trying to get some nuance by talking to a founder.

I like the WuFoo folks and have been impressed with their approach and their application ever since I saw them at the first Office 2.0 conference, but one thing they may not appreciate is that their business stands as a beacon pointing at a large and profitable market, and their lack of desire to take funding means that some other team may be using them as a proof point. Naturally a VC firm will contact them before making an investment in a competitor. I am not suggesting that it's every call, but it's likely to be some of them.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you have a chance to prepare before the calls, they must be prearranged, right? So why not send a form email that says, 'We're flattered that you'd consider working with us. We're not looking for funding right now, and we're really busy improving our product, but if you have any thoughts on what we could be doing better, send me a short memo at this address, and we'll follow up. For more information on our company go to wufoo.com/faq.'

From what I understand about VC psychology (all from PG essays and this site, not personal experience) this would drive them mad with desire. Plus you'd save a lot of time.

<comment><USER7> I love this! It will indeed drive some of the VCs nuts. And it's the ultimate test. Everyone's money is the same. What can you bring to the table beyond a check? Tell me something smart and I might take your money.

It's the right way for a founder to do due diligence, and it puts the relationship upside down with VCs. I'd love to be in that position. I got my share of calls from VC associates, but the real VCs I care about barely give me more than the time of day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suspect this is a case of "poor venture capitalists circulate more", like poor programmers or poor boyfriends. See <http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/you_are_not_hir.html>

</comment><comment><USER9> This article clearly shows the fear VCs have to miss the next big thing.

IMHO thats why they try to collect data on as many companies as possible and according to the article that happens without much coordination or without a clear goal. At least from the outside it seems like an effort to only cover their asses.

</comment><comment><USER10> Two paragraphs lead off with the "Now, <statement>" construct:

"Now, our funding situation is that..."

"Now, we understand that..."

I'm starting to get sensitized to this construct. The 'now' is like an 'um' -- i.e., filler -- except, it's an 'um' that says, "I am about to say something authoritatively."

Obama uses it a lot, too.

I'm starting to flag it as sort of poser-ish.

The content of the article was super high quality, and outweighed this nit.

<comment><USER6> Obama uses it when speaking without a script, right? In that circumstance it's a kind of time-filler while he arranges his next sentence in his head -- he often uses a long, drawn-out 'Aaaaand' in the same way. At least it's better than 'uh,' which is what most people (including me) use.

But in written English it serves no purpose.

<comment><USER11> It serves the purpose of imparting a conversational style with minimal effort.

<comment><USER10> That's right. Now, that being said, it begs the question of whether or not the style imparted is any good.

<comment><USER12> If you're going to focus on style, you should use "prompts the question" or "raises the question."

<http://begthequestion.info/>

<comment><USER10> Yes, "begs the question" is misused all the time.

"Now, that being said, it begs the question of <whatever>" -- the sentence was tongue-in-cheek. I was illustrating, in a mocking way, the style I don't like.

Sorry for the troll.

<comment><USER12> Now I see. I totally missed that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bang on. About time someone took the VC's to task.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, no one ever does that :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "rare position" indeed but that also means it's a solid business. Congrats!

</comment><comment><USER16> This sounds like your fault rather than theirs. You have VCs who are inviting you to pitch your company to them, you are accepting their offer and then getting upset that they actually expect you to pitch them.

The point of an intro call is that you tell them what you are up to and they tell you what their firm is about. If you aren't interested in hearing about their firm and and you don't want to explain to them what you are up to, then don't waste their time and yours with the phone call.

<comment><USER17> But it's the other way around. This isn't the typical startup hustling for VCs intros while hoping to get funding.

Wufoo is profitable and growing. And Wufoo is in the very fortunate position of having VCs sell them on the idea of taking money. So far, the VCs appear to be doing a piss poor job of it.

<comment><USER18> There is an impression among VC's that every startup wants their money. We've had calls like this too. We tell them we are building sweat equity and they offer to call next quarter to check on our progress.

I suspect the author of the blog post could do more to change the situation into one that is mutually beneficial.

Why not just reply to the initial email with a link to a page that has answers to the common VC questions? Let them fill out their spreadsheets from that.

Unfortunately for Wufoo, they are losing the opportunity to have a productive conversation by allowing it to repeat itself over and over. If they "know" how the conversation is going to go, it's their responsibility to move it in a different direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> probably an opportunity here, since all of the VCs are asking for the same exact information, have a website that has the information for multiple companies in the same place

<comment><USER20> That's what CrunchBase (<http://www.crunchbase.com/>) is. The phone call definitely serves more of a purpose beyond data collection - pitching the company and verifying legitimacy.

<comment><USER19> What do you mean by verifying legitimacy?

<comment><USER20> Making sure there's actually a company behind the website and not just a 13-year-old kid who's good at FrontPage.

<comment><USER19> if its a startup that they think is good enough to pitch to, why should they care?

<comment><USER20> Because VCs invest in teams with good ideas not in ideas alone.

<comment><USER19> yes at the earliest stage, when its just an idea, and nothing more.

But we are talking about something that has already been built. Something that is already popular enough to catch the eye of VCs. So obviously the team is good enough, if they arrived at that stage. If they didn't have a good team, they wouldn't have arrived at that stage to be hounded by VCs.

<comment><USER21> Not only at the idea stage.

VC's obviously want a team that isn't simply capable of launching a site and get 10.000 users. They're looking for a team that can make it into a business that's worth millions.

Not many teams can do this. So yes, people matter, both in the very earliest stages, mature companies and everything in between. If you don't believe me look at Apple's stockprice every time there's a story on their CEO's bad health.

The team that built a site and got 10.000 users may not be capable of driving it forward to a real large-scale business. Maybe they just got lucky, maybe they don't really care for the money but just want to have fun, maybe they have no idea how to manage other people. The team in a companys earliest stages doesn't say a lot about how well they will perform in the setting of a larger company, which they will hopefully become.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _Because, honestly, it's so bad out there, that it would probably take very little to actually impress us even a little bit._

Brilliant! Applies to much more that just VC.

<comment><USER23> "When looking at the men of today [...] those who seem like real men [are] few. Because of this, if one were to make a little effort, he would be able to take the upper hand quite easily." --Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659-1719)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> what a great blog, nothing will make them lust after you more then swatting their week attempts back, human nature meets capitalism.</comment>


NSA Reports Data Deletion - <AUTHOR> https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/press-room/statements/jun-28-2018-ufa-cdr-decision.shtml <comment> a-fried-egg There's something called a "betrayal of trust" and when you betray someone's trust, good luck getting it back.

</comment><comment><USER2> Funny because the whole 'we don't spy on US people.'

And now the 'whoops, we actually did, and are deleting them now, so nobody can cry foul.'

They got their use out of them, and to make sure and current(?)/future lawsuits won't have data; just delete it.

</comment><comment><USER3> "...but it's cool, don't worry about us. We will just make new requests for clean data from the providers, and continue serving you the citizenry."

</comment><comment> java-man not wittingly</comment>


Ask HN: is a bot automatically approving pending comments? - <AUTHOR>

Every time I visit https://news.ycombinator.com/pending there are no pending comments. I would expect there to be at least some delay in the approval of new comments, but it seems to be instantaneous. I even tried submitting an obvious garbage comment under a new account, thinking that it would not possibly be approved, but it still went through.<p>Is there someone or something approving comments at lightning speed? Or has comment approval been disabled already? Or perhaps there is something else I'm not seeing? <comment><USER2> The feature isn't currently active, I believe. It was trialed on Friday night and (as far as I know) has not yet been reactivated.</comment>


Zoom fatigue is real - <AUTHOR> https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/video-call-fatigue-tips/ <comment><USER2> I telecommuted for years and almost never used a webcam. A shared desktop has way more potential for something really interesting and valuable being displayed.

Watching hoards of people hop on webcams to transmit choppy video information about their face and home seems like wasted bandwidth to me.

Edit: addendum, get a headset, transmitting voice clearly with some decent noise cancellation is really important. I buy the cheap logitech h390, like 25 bucks each.

<comment> blaser-waffle Been remote for ~6 years now. I've used my camera maybe a dozen times, tops, during that time.

+1 for investing in a good headset. Get something that completely covers the ears, and/or has some noise cancelling. I bought a Logitech gaming headset with a good mic and it's made a BIG difference, esp. on days where I'm on 4+ hours for calls.

<comment><USER3> Ironically, what matters most for your own audio quality is that _other_ people use headsets — because feedback cancellation is an extremely difficult algorithm which often malfunctions, and if someone wears a headset that algorithm doesn't have to run.

But I'm shouting into the void about that. Most people won't adapt their behavior when it doesn't impact them personally.

<comment><USER4> Upstream bandwidth is similar. If someone has bad upstream you receive bad video from them but for them it's just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> FYI, if you have an NVIDIA card on your machine, you can run their voice filtering software: [https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/guides/nvidia-rtx- voice...](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/guides/nvidia-rtx-voice-setup- guide/)

It works for non-RTX cards as well with some tweaking ([https://arstechnica.com/?post_type=post&p=1670164](https://arstechnica.com/?post_type=post&p=1670164)). Works marvelously for removing background noise - mic hum, typing, cars driving by.

One of the nice things about it is that you can also filter the output on your end - so if you're in a meeting with someone who is sitting outside near a busy road, or they have a roommate who is gaming on a mechanical keyboard, you can filter the noise out without missing something if that person decides to speak up.

<comment><USER6> There has to be a non-NVIDIA solution to this doesn't there?

<comment><USER7> Not at the moment from my research a few weeks ago. There's some sort of lock which only allows it to work on the RTX cores.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If the theory is correct, Zoom fatigue exists because videoconferencing is a worse experience than in-person conversations. Media quality, latency, the inability to use most of our motor/sensory apparatus, all contribute to micro- frustrations which accumulate over the course of a meeting.

On the other hand, screen sharing with interactive control when working together on a shared task is actually better than sitting next to someone on their computer. In person, I can only talk and point at their screen. With interactive screen sharing, I can click, type, and even draw live on their screen.

I spend hours a day in interactive screen share sessions (quasi-pair programming but not really) and never feel the effects of Zoom fatigue. But when I have to use a product without the ability to easily draw or interact, or have a meeting where it's just about faces in boxes, I immediately feel extra "drag".

I'm curious to hear if anyone else has had the same experience.

If this is correct, there may be a way to sidestep the issues of Zoom fatigue with better tools and processes (e.g. don't talk about work, instead do the work together).

<comment><USER9> > the inability to use most of our motor/sensory apparatus, all contribute to > micro-frustrations which accumulate over the course of a meeting.

I wonder if VR or AR would help with this. If your stand-up was in a VR room then you could look people in the eye, and maybe even move around or gesture with your hands. Wouldn't it be ironic if something mundane like remote work turned out to be the killer Virtual Reality app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article is easier to read on the site where it was originally posted:

[https://theconversation.com/zoom-fatigue-how-to-make- video-c...](https://theconversation.com/zoom-fatigue-how-to-make-video-calls- less-tiring-137861)

<comment><USER11> This is an interesting comparison. I'm using uBlock Origin so I'm not sure how the ads compare. Layout-wise, theconversation.com is a little more narrow, and the links are not as highlighted. But the non-black font is a deal-breaker for me. (I'm sure there's an extension, but I find myself doing Inspect -> Uncheck Font Color a lot!) The only other difference is that PopSci.com seems to have less clutter in the columns, so for me, it's the better reading experience (before I give up and toggle reader view!)

EDIT: There is (at least one!)

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/blacken/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/blacken/)

<comment><USER12> Another difference is that with The Conversation, when I scroll to the bottom, I get a dialog that says, "Get The Conversation's newsletter to understand the news" and "Subscribe now". Popular Science doesn't seem to have a dialog like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The solution to Zoom fatigue is to eliminate meetings where the purpose is to share basic facts & information.

Save meetings for collaboration, relationship-building, and working on thorny problems.

<comment><USER14> _> The solution to Zoom fatigue is to eliminate meetings where the purpose is to share basic facts & information. Save meetings for collaboration, relationship-building, and working on thorny problems._

Just an fyi to avoid derailing the topic...

The "fatigue" the author is talking about _is not_ about frequency of useless and redundant meetings.

Her usage of "fatigue" is specifically talking about _bad sound quality_ and some ideas on how to _change the acoustic environment_ to improve it.

Whether everybody in the press uses _" zoom fatigue"_ the same way I can't say. In any case, it's the _fatigue from suboptimal sound environments_ is how the author of this thread's article is using it.

<comment><USER15> Thank you! Props for polite correction on someone straw-manning the OP. Otherwise I likely wouldn't have looked into this one.

I've definitely noticed mental fatigue from the changed aural environment in my house. I normally work from home, but now that my wife is also WFH, I've realized that hearing her on zoom at the same time as I'm in a meeting (or trying to concentrate) just _melts_ my brain. Can't actually comment on zoom sound quality as have a pair of headphones that doesn't drive me completely nuts, and didn't notice anything about it in the previous few years of WFH...

<comment><USER16> Same here. Having my girlfriend in the house and talking the whole day is starting to really bother me. Thank god i have an office door I can close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As someone who has worked with remote teams for years and has spent many, many hours in Zooms and the like, my advice is to get used to it because it's great.

I used to dread conference calls. I can't stand listening to a room where I can't see faces. I never know what people are thinking.

What I really can't understand is the people who hate turning on their cameras yet will greet me with a smile and a handshake in person. What's the difference between a camera and being in person?

<comment><USER16> For me seeing people on webcam is a totally different experience than from seeing them in person. I don't get any of the signals I get from being in the same room so for me it's basically useless and even distracting.

I think with some image computation it should be possible to give a much better video conferencing experience. Add better backgrounds and maybe have several cameras and compute a more 3D image vs the weird angles we see now.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I was talking about this with a friend recently. I think that straight video conferencing is now pretty commoditized and cheap to execute. Facetime, Meet, Duo, Teams, Zoom are fairly undifferentiated. And you see products like Slack just drop video calling in without a lot of fanfare. I think there's going to be another generation on very near horizon where we see video software that is much more fit to purpose. One-on-one calls is not the same use case and business meetings, presentations, fitness classes, classroom situations. Streaming video and audio is easy, but there is a lot of room in the user experience and modes of interaction to build more useful products than just turning on a camera and microphone. Solving things like "eye contact" or the equivalent could be done. And we definitely shouldn't stop at just trying to model in-person interaction and really look at what the medium allows that wasn't possible before.

<comment><USER16> "Solving things like "eye contact" or the equivalent could be done."

I bet if you had several cameras you could compute a video feed where people have direct eye contact instead of seeing them staring at a screen during a conversation

<comment><USER17> You can track gaze with just a single web cam with something like webgazer.js although it's not super precise. There are companies like Tobii that make dedicated gaze tracking sensors in multiple form factors. The trick is figuring out what to do with that information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> All of these video fatigue articles ignore the eye contact problem. From a paper I wrote on mediating over video:

The most important element of body language is eye contact. "Gaze is vital in the flow of natural communication, monitoring of feedback, regulating turn taking, and punctuating emotion. The lack of eye contact shows timidity, embarrassment, shyness, uncertainty and social awkwardness. (Edelmann and Hampson [1])." Having a camera on top of a monitor creates the appearance that participants are looking down. If you do look up into the camera, you aren't looking at the other participant's faces! Our minds are programmed to interpret looking down as gaze avoidance. Seeing someone look down makes them seem disinterested or even dishonest.

It is a hard problem to solve. I set up a studio in my office where I have a second monitor and external camera back far enough away so it works. I have looked for solutions and they are generally inaccessible. Room sized immersive systems from Cisco, etc solve it, but they are too expensive for the plebs. I have seen some goofy hacks using see through mirrors and video prompters. There are some productized versions of that but they all seemed to fail. The latest apple phones use ARKit to solve it by manipulating your video, but I have only read about it as a beta feature for facetime.

There is probably some money to be made here, but the gating factor is general awareness of this gaping hole...

<comment><USER19> > Our minds are programmed to interpret looking down as gaze avoidance. Seeing > someone look down makes them seem disinterested or even dishonest.

How about someone looking over your head? (I have my camera set up _below_ my monitor.)

<comment><USER18> Common wisdom is that you want your camera to be just above eye level slightly looking down on you. The camera pointed up at your face is "unflattering."

<comment><USER19> I am 6'4" tall and so everyone is extremely used to looking up at me and it even can feel very strange seeing a camera looking down at me ;P. But I am more asking about stuff like "there is research which shows that if you are looking down you look like you are hiding something but if you look up it looks like you are arrogant or distracted or [fill in the blank]", not "is this a flattering camera angle" ;P.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Zoom fatigue is real.

What's the evidence for this? I believe there is a psychological effect that people report more malaise when you ask them about it. Back when I first studied psychology I self-diagnosed myself with like 5 different mental defects. Confirmation bias and hypochondriasis?

<comment><USER21> There are a bunch of articles about it. National Geographic [1], Harvard Business Review [2], BB [3]. One of the theories is that we have to work harder to pick up on non-verbal cues, which consumes energy.

A data point from the BBC article: "One 2014 study by German academics showed that delays on phone or conferencing systems shaped our views of people negatively: even delays of 1.2 seconds made people perceive the responder as less friendly or focused."

[1] [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavir...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus- zoom-fatigue-is-taxing-the-brain-here-is-why-that-happens/)

[2] [https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom- fatigue](https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue)

[3] [https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200421-why-zoom- video...](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200421-why-zoom-video-chats- are-so-exhausting)

<comment><USER20> Brief confusion and distraction is not the same as malaise.

<comment><USER21> Nobody claimed they were, you introduced those words.

<comment><USER20> Fair enough. But if "mental exhaustion" is not some serious impediment, then not sure this is worth talking about. Not seeing much evidence here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article seems to address the problem of being a bad online meeting participant which I see as different than Zoom Fatigue.

</comment><comment><USER23> Am I the only one that really hates being on webcam?

<comment><USER24> I don't really get the point of keeping video open. I'm always either looking at emails, a shared desktop, an issue tracker, or some kind of document while we are on calls. Seeing people sip coffee and pick their nose doesn't really add anything except bandwidth.

<comment><USER25> If someone is presenting it's useful to be able to gauge how well it's going, whether people are paying attention, if they're bored, etc..

<comment><USER26> Then let that be a presenter's view. Don't make everyone suffer through it. When I'm in a room with people in a meeting, I'm focused on the presenter. I'm not looking at everyone in the room at the same time.

<comment><USER27> In Teams at least, you can disable all incoming video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Really I find the large face array more draining than the audio - you usually don't get a clear and in focus view of that many people.

<comment><USER29> Haven't messed with Zoom too much, but I find that in Webex and Hangouts, the default is to focus the main "camera" on whoever has been talking for the past few seconds. It doesn't engage immediately so there are no rapid cuts between feeds just because someone cleared their throat or clicked a mouse while someone was speaking.

Of course it isn't perfect. It depends on people taking turns to speak (as they should, but can't always do if latency causes two people to start talking at once). Still beats the "Brady Bunch" window I only see when I do social meetings with a handful of friends on Friday evenings.

With those it's less of an issue since we're often on the couch in front of the TV with a webcam mounted on top or in the kitchen making dinner with the laptop open on the table anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Zoom bombing. Zoom fatigue.

Fascinating how an entirely new culture and vocabulary sprung up in no time.

<comment><USER31> Coronaspeak: [https://language-and- innovation.com/2020/04/15/coronaspeak-p...](https://language-and- innovation.com/2020/04/15/coronaspeak-part-2-the-language-of-covid-19-goes- viral/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> From my experience: get headsets for people, they are cheap. Get dual monitor setups and foster culture of active screen sharing - that's very powerful thing.

Picture quality tends to be so bad that there's not many non-verbal cues transmitted. Video may cause fatigue - you feel the need look smart. When video is off you can lean back, stand, walk circles, draw things, stare out..

</comment><comment><USER33> Based on an earlier discussion here on HN about Zoom burnout and latency I recorded a cast episode about that very subject:

[https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/3-is-latency- killing-o...](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/3-is-latency-killing-our- minds/id1510813211?i=1000473654195)

<comment><USER3> Nice! I submitted your podcast to HN.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179607)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> In our WebXR community we hold business meetings in Mozilla Hubs or VRChat -- and we've closed contracts that way.

For all of the problems with VR/spatial meetings, boredom is not one, and Hubs makes for a pretty good Powerpoint with fidget spinners.

It requires the office buy into gaming/avatar culture (which I realize is a tall order) but it works for us.

</comment><comment><USER35> What do people think of "equalizing" your voice for these online meetings? Reducing the higher frequencies in favor of lower ones.

Any tools on linux that can do this?

<comment><USER36> Not a linux user, but a decent external mic or headset is going to make the most difference here, its largely a factor of the tiny internal mics in laptops. They will also do better with sound insulation, internal are not well insulated from the fan, keyboard etc.

<comment><USER25> Tone changes can help with audibility. I have a really low voice, it doesn't carry well over voice-chat; I'd push my register up a few notes. But yes, filtering tweety mic sounds from other people would be good too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Meeting fatigue is real.</comment>


Show HN: Making pro weather data free for Hurricane Dorian - <AUTHOR> I have added OpenZones to Flowx, my Android weather app[0]. OpenZones are regions covering disaster zones where all the pro data in the app is freely available.
I have created an 1200km diameter OpenZone over Florida with Hurricane Dorian approaching. So if you add Florida to the app, you can view radar, NOAA's GFS, NAM and HRRR models, CMC GDPS and RDPS models, and the DWD (Germany) ICON model. There are also predicted hurricane tracks from the NOAA and CMC ensemble models which I find extremely valuable to predict the possible paths of Dorian. This YouTube video[1] shows an example of the hurricane tracks.
The reasoning behind OpenZones is that meteorological organizations solve weather simulations and release data to the public with the aim to reduce damage, injury and fatalities. It's only right to support this purpose and open up all data in disaster zones.
The idea for OpenZones came from the fires (Camp Fire) in California last year. I was part way through adding HRRR smoke simulation data to Flowx when a user asked if I could release the smoke data early for the California fires. I did so in the free version of the app and then rolled it into the pro version after the fires.
Sorry there is no Apple version of the app.
[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.enzuredigital.weatherbomb
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5do7dYfYfQ <comment><AUTHOR> I believe the hurricane tracks is a solution to the problem outlined in the HN post 3 days ago on "Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts"[0].

The hurricane tracks are a new addition to Flowx but I believe it can be improved a lot. For example, you can color the dots by the hurricane category or wind speed. Better still, draw a heat map around each dot would generate a probability map for the hurricane.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20833030](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20833030)

<comment><USER2> Not a bad idea but only if the tracks are independent. Was reading something saying that these tracks aren't different random realizations of the same simulation (in which case what you're saying is a good way to estimate the posterior of the hurricane track — it's just Monte Carlo) but that these tracks come from many different types of simulations, some with higher quality than others and they're likely all correlated in some weird way. If it's the latter case there has to be some care and thought put into combining the predictions into a single estimate of the posterior.

<comment><AUTHOR> The initial conditions of the weather simulation, which is based on measured data and previous simulation results, are perturbed to within a reasonable range to represent the error in the measurements. Because of the equations being solved and numerical methods being used, these small changes can cause large change on long term predictions.

The tracks come from one original simulation. If you look at the start of the tracks closely, you'll see the eye of the hurricanes diverge in a regular grid, so I'm guessing they are perturbing the direction and speed of the bulk movement of mass - I would have to research more.

So the initial conditions and early stages of the simulations are correlated, but each simulation is solved independently. The question is how long into the future can you consider each track less-correlated.

Given the met organizations release probability envelopes based on these track means it's a reasonable approach.

What I really want to do is weight the predicted wind speed with the probability map. I don't know if this will work. But you can imagine if a hurricane has a 75% change of going well into the continent it would weaken and cause less damage, but if the other 25% of the tracks go over sea and hit an island, it'll likely strengthen and cause more damage.

In any case, all the above will be interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is cool! I will download.

I also have a Dorian-related Android app to share. I use the barometers in phones to measure surface pressure with All Clear:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.allclearwe...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.allclearweather.android)

Here is a graph of Hurricane Florence last year: [https://www.allclearweather.com/hurricane- florence](https://www.allclearweather.com/hurricane-florence). I will do a much more geographical and full analysis for Dorian. The raw data from barometers in phones is messy, and requires significant bias correction and quality control, but one day could be assimilated into weather models like WRF and improving forecast accuracy.

</comment><comment><USER4> For particulates in particular (no pun intended), purple is a good resource. [https://www.purpleair.com](https://www.purpleair.com)

PS: In Paradise right now, incidentally.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been using your app for awhile now! It's quite good. OpenZones is a fantastic idea.

</comment><comment><USER6> How does this post not qualify as 'spam'?

<comment><USER7> It's informational, for the free version of the app, and you have to click on it to read it. Spam is a term for unsolicited commercial messages sent indiscriminately. Still marketing arguably, but then so is a lot of things that get posted to HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I was going through my memory of previous "Show HN" posts I've read and many are products.

If it's any consolation, we don't have a marketing department or budget :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Own your time. Ditch Emails. - mista-t http://www.intentdo.com

<comment> mista-t Invite code is "ditch-emails".</comment>


Should Go 2.0 support generics? - <AUTHOR> https://dave.cheney.net/2017/07/22/should-go-2-0-support-generics <comment><USER2> This isn't like inheritance because there are already generics in Go; in all the built-in collections and channels. By releasing the very first version the designers admitted that generics are necessary.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if Go could avoid full genetics by supporting union types, as seen in languages like Ceylon and TypeScript.

For example, you could declare a function as Foo(thing string | []int). In other to use "thing" you'd need to do a type assertion. That'd allow "generic" functions where the author could decide which types to support, without going all the way to generics, which tend to open a few cans of worms. Same thing for structs and such. Obviously this has an impact on internal layouts; union values would need an internal type tag similar to interfaces.

With this in mind, I would hope that Go could get better pattern matching with destructuring; switch statements currently only allow you to extract one value, and it's confusing that a single name is shared between all cases. But I'd love to be able to do something like:

        switch thing {
          case s := string:
            ...
          case [x, y] := []int if len(thing) == 2:
            ...
        }

or whatever.

If we could get proper Rust-style enums on top of that (with appropriate pattern matching) that'd also be neat.

<comment><USER4> There's no amount of union types that will save you if you want to write a polymorphic, type safe map/filter/reduce function. These functions need to be generic over containers.

At best, with this union type hack what you'll recover is similar to "ad hoc" polymorphism, not true parametric polymorphism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > My point is that if Go is not going to have a story for templated types, > then we need to own it, just like Haskell programmers own their decisions.

> This isn't simply a case of saying "nope, sorry, no generics for Go 2.0, > maybe in another 5 years", but a more fundamental statement that they are > not something that will be implemented in Go because we believe there is a > better way to solve the underlying problem.

ffs. tldr; yes. Add generics.

Come on, the feedback from the community has been overwhelming.

If we were going to 'own' not having generics, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There's a disconnect here, clearly, between the community and what the community wants, and what the language makers and designers want.

I think what Dave is advocating here is basically the 'status quo' from golang 1.0 (ie. we'll never have generics).

That hasn't worked.

Lets not do it again.

<comment><USER6> Is it what the Go community wants or is it what a lot of people who don't actually write much Go want?

It can be hard to tell, which is why they came up with a process and are asking for experience reports:

[https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports](https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports)

<comment><USER7> so, they're asking people who didn't use go because of generics to provide experience reports on the specific kind of problems they encountered when writing go ???

I write or use generic code in every single of my projects. i don't need to start coding in go ( which i did) to understand what i'll miss. i did my share of void* casting in C and i know how much it sucks.

This is an _old_ problem. Everybody knows what the use is and what the benefits are. They tried to show the world that they were wrong and they failed to convince that people could get away without this feature. Now all they need is to get over it and start implementing something to fill that gap.

<comment><USER8> They are asking people who extensively use Go to help collecting cases where generics would be useful in the context of real world Go programs. So instead of cargo-culting a random generics design from a different language or some theoretical reasoning, they want to make sure to enhance the language in a way that actually solve real-world problems in programs written in Go.

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't it imply that they're happy with the current audience of the language, and don't wish to extend it ?

nothing wrong with that, though.

<comment><USER9> > Wouldn't it imply that they're happy with the current audience of the > language, and don't wish to extend it ?

You're assuming that people who have some degree of interest in generics and aren't Go users right now will somehow and for some reason decide to avoid Go just because it lacks generics.

It's a silly assumption.

<comment><USER7> well not really. I'm saying it could be interesting to ask people that decided not to use go , the reason they choose not to, in order to expand their user base.

<comment><USER9> > well not really. I'm saying it could be interesting to ask people that > decided not to use go

You're assuming that these people have anything relevant to say, particularly as they present irrational arguments to justify their fatwa on a programming language.

Meanwhile, those who are interested in exploring the language and are interested in putting it to work aren't wasting their time with irrational stances on a minor technical detail.

<comment><USER10> I use Go quite a lot, and I agree with their "irrational arguments". It seems quite dishonest to pretend that anyone who doesn't use Go because they found it too restrictive to be "wasting their time with irrational stances". It's also quite close-minded.

You're right that most Go developers aren't going to go out of their way to write a 5-page dissertation about how generics would help solve a problem they worked around, but that's not a justification for not including generics. The fact you have to write orders of magnitude more code in order to work around a lack of generics is ridiculous, and I find it frustrating every time I have to do it. Will I eventually crack and write a series of blog posts that just rant about every single fucking problem I have with Go? Maybe. But it seems quite unreasonable to only want reviews which effectively must be of the form of a coherent rant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Java and C++ programmers seem to like generics (templates in C++'s). Both languages needed to make some compromises, like Java's run-time type erasure and the complexity of the C++ templates with the resulting compile times.

I'd like user defined collections to be easier in go, but that's only one reason I'd like generics in go. I'd also like to remove one of the biggest arguing points over the programming language go, a language I think hits lots of important requirements. Getting it adopted by more teams will be easier and the whole go ecosystem will expand more rapidly if there was less to argue over.

I believe the go team when they say they haven't solved all the problems with adding generics to go; however, worse is better and Java and C++ show that an approach to generics doesn't have to be perfect to be very beneficial.

<comment><USER12> "I'd also like to remove one of the biggest arguing points over the programming language go, a language I think hits lots of important requirements. Getting it adopted by more teams will be easier and the whole go ecosystem will expand more rapidly if there was less to argue over."

That's how I feel about it. I have a suspicion that this will play out like classes in ES6: some people use them a lot, some don't, some feel that that they should not be used, but it was necessary to add them to the language for the community to move forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's interesting that it's 2017 and this question still gets asked. Go having static types but no generics is the worst of two worlds: both dynamic languages and compiled languages with genetics have basic functional constructs like map/reduce but Go insists on sprinkling interface {} everywhere and calls this "solution" good enough?

<comment><USER14> Where do you see interface{} getting sprinkled?

Any libraries or anything in particular?

<comment><USER15> [https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/sync/syncmap](https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/sync/syncmap) leaps to mind as a type whose users should demand and get static type safety, but it can't happen until the language definition adds yet another special case blessing it as a properly supported collection type.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hmmm, on one hand Golang/generics seems to be a fairly popular discussion issue on (at least) HN.

On the other hand, it's weird (to me) that people seem to seriously be considering Golang 2.0, when the current (1.0) doesn't even have debugging working 100%.

Debugging on Linux with non-CGO seems ok. All other situations though have various levels of breakage. :(

</comment><comment><USER17> If it can be implemented without significantly affecting pre-existing code, I see no reason why not. Generics are infinitely preferable to VerbBytes(), VerbString(), VerbFloat(), ...

</comment><comment><USER18> well generic's wasn't the things why I stopped using golang. But I think many do because of it.

I stopped because of the error handling. try in rust/scala is just too awesome to go back to basically a tuple that will always need to be handled.

<comment><USER19> With generics, it would be possible to write a library implementing 2-track, functional error handling, which would allow for a form of automatic error propagation. The if err != nil statements would be kept to a minimum. It's precisely the lack of generics in the first place that makes error handling in Go so obnoxious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> go should support whatever stuff that could let me create a custom type safe container.

What is so hard to understand in that need ??

<comment><USER20> Because you should stop asking for generics like in Java/C#/rust etc.. Such generic to make custom type safe container is like using a canon to kill a fly.

You should ask for generic package/templated package. It solve the problem, it's way simpler and and would only touch a small part of the spec. More importantly, it wouldn't change the way we code in go today.

With generic package you only have to define the parameter in package declaration like this:

package list {Value: interface{}

And use it by importing it like this:

import list "container/list" {Value: int}

And that's why to go team asked for use case. To use the most simple tool to fix a problem so there is less chance for other problems to appear. If every people wanting to make custom type safe container would stop asking for full generics and instead would brought their case with a simpler solution. I'm sure it would have a chance to go in Go 2.0.

<comment><USER21> I don't see how that would allow you to do both

      import list "container/list" {Value: int}
      import list "container/list" {Value: string}

in a single source file. At the least, you would need the ability to give the type(s) that those import statements import distinctive names.

Even that would, IMO, not be enough, as this seems (from what I infer the semantics to be) to make it impossible for writers of such a generic library to build on another generic library.

That can be fixed by allowing such a programmer to write:

      package foo {MyValue: interface{}}
      ...
      import list "container/list" {Value: MyValue}

but that, IMO, would be way too cumbersome. That package declaration would have to mention all types in all generic packages that get imported.

<comment><USER22> Go already allows you to rename imports. It's already used in the example provided, actually; the first token is the aliased name of the package.

I.e.

      import intlist "container/list" {Value: int}
      import stringlist "container/list" {Value: string}

<comment><USER21> Thanks. I didn't realize that the second token was a user-specified name.

So, this basically would boil down to something like C++ templates, with he extra requirement that templates must be instantiated explicitly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Absolutely not. Go is the new php and should stick to its original moto. Solve fmo problems and ignore everything else, go for it.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's important to remember how simple Java was in 1999. 10-15 years from now it's likely Go will have all the features that people have been asking for. The earlier these features are added the better. As a project gets larger it gets much harder to make large changes. Do it now and while they're at it they should fix the lack of good exception handling and a few other things that they will most likely have to address eventually.

<comment><USER25> What will distinguish Go then? From say Nim, D, Rust, OCaml, Haskell, etc?

<comment><USER23> Better runtime and tooling plus lower entry bar hopefully.

<comment><USER26> Pervasive custom generics will raise that entry bar significantly.

<comment><USER23> Why? It doesn't have to be the mess java generics are. Just look at scala. Well, don't dig too deeply</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


GM is ending production of the Chevy Volt - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/26/18112536/gm-layoffs-factory-closing-ending-production-chevy-volt <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18530413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18530413).

</comment><comment><USER3> I owned a 2017 Chevrolet Volt for a little over a year. It was a great car and it is the main reason I ended up buying the Tesla Model 3. The Volt was my training wheels move into an EV, I had the full benefits of an EV with the safety of never have range issues.

I just got addicted to the EV part and found myself always trying to better my range. My commute is roughly 54 miles round trip which is in line with the EPA 53 miles range the Volt has. In mild weather, say 55F+ I could make that trip and have six to ten miles to spare. Winter with temperatures near freezing or below I fell back on the gasoline motor.

However also notice that GM is doing away with its platform mate, the Chevrolet Cruze, and that is the bigger story. Ford already state they are dropping many of their sedans and GM is dropping the Cruze as well as the Impala, the later is from the plant closing in Canada.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I suspect the dropping of the Volt is more about no longer having a platform to build that specific model on.

I haven't dug into the news, but I'd be surprised if we've seen the end of the Voltec hybrid powertrain - we'll probably just see it in cute-utes.

<comment><USER5> More to do with only selling about 300 per month, and sales dropping year over year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That is a shame. When my old car died I wanted to buy one but I was living in an apartment without a garage. I went with a Prius instead. I don't drive much and not very far, so I'd likely be in their ideal use case of someone who mostly uses the battery with the occasional need for the generator to charge it back up. I always thought it was a superior system to both short range EVs like the Leaf, and conventional hybrids like the Prius.</comment>


Utah Bans Police from Searching Digital Data Without a Warrant, Closes Loophole - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/04/16/utah-bans-police-from-searching-digital-data-without-a-warrant-closes-fourth-amendment-loophole/ <comment><USER2> It's my opinion that there never should have been a loophole and that the 1970s SCOTUS cases ruled incorrectly about our expectations of privacy for the "third-party doctrine." So this law, in my view, simply restores the 4th amendment protections guaranteed by the US constitution. I'm glad they did it, but as noted in the article, Chief Justice Roberts had to take more complicated positions for Carpenter vs United States, a recent case about cell phone surveillance.

He said cell phone location information "does not fit neatly under existing precedents," but I think the court should just re-evaluate the 1970s cases and come to a place of consistent reasoning about our data, so everything can fit neatly under the protection of the 4th amendment. When we use products or buy things, we expect our data to be private. I don't expect my banker to give away my personal financial information. Nor do I expect my cell phone carrier to share my call history. We do have an expectation of privacy, and the 1970s rulings are hugely flawed, especially in light of today's digital world.

<comment><USER3> Yeah we've passed the point where there is so much third party involvement / data that the standard read strictly pretty much eliminates the 4th amendment. ... any privacy you might hope to have.

As an individual the only option is to withdraw from society as a whole and become a mountain man, that seems unreasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > In a concession to law enforcement, the act will let police obtain location- > tracking information or subscriber data without a warrant if there's an > "imminent risk" of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, > livestreamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping, or human trafficking.

A fairly reasonable exception which is then randomly extended to also cover prostitution and porn. Oh well.

I do have to question why they needed a specific emergency exemption for "livestreamed sexual exploitation" when that "exploitation" would not qualify as "sexual abuse". (If it were abuse, then it would already be covered under the exemption for sexual abuse!)

<comment><USER5> Livestreamed sexual exploitation was undoubtedly included as a way to extend law enforcement a way to act on "distribution of an intimate image" as defined in 76-5b-203.

Abuse and exploitation do, in fact, have different legal definitions in Utah.

Livestreaming a sexual act without the consent of the 2nd party wouldn't be covered under sexual abuse, as the party is consenting to the sexual act. But, would be covered as exploitation, if the party doesn't consent to the distribution of their image [2].

I'm a huge critic of the church's influence on our legislature, but it's not an extension to porn and/or prostitution. If anything, it's a strengthening of privacy.

[Edit] spelling, sources, and clarification [1] [https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S406.html](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S406.html) [2] [https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5B/C76-5b-P2_180001...](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5B/C76-5b-P2_1800010118000101.pdf)

<comment><USER6> For people who aren't familiar with "the church" mentioned above, it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA LDS Church AKA the Mormon Church[1].

In Utah the Church has a large (usually indirect) influence over politics. They don't often pick sides, but with some social issues like Gay marriage and legalized Cannabis they have specifically reached out to members encouraging them to vote a certain way.

[1] [https://www.lds.org/](https://www.lds.org/)

<comment><USER7> > (usually indirect)

This can be disputed.

<comment><USER6> Are you saying you think it's usually direct, or are you saying that you don't think they have an influence?

<comment><USER8> Well, a couple years back an internal PPT and videos from "the church" was leaked that documented how the church considered a legislator from a state in the northwest "in their pocket".

The legislator wasn't even coerced - he would just regularly report back to church leaders and ask for guidance on which way he should lean on specific issues.

If the church has that kind of _direct_ influence out of state, it stands to reason they at least have a similar level in Utah where most of the legislature and politicians are Mormon.

<comment><USER6> Interesting, I hadn't heard that. Do you remember where you heard about it? It sounds like that legislator needs to be voted out of office ASAP.

<comment><USER8> It was from MormonLeaks, I'm sure. Look through their history. It was at the same time as the "bubble" PPT that listed the church's largest "adversaries" or "problems" and John Dehlin was one of the bubbles LOL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a good step in the right direction. What I would ultimately like to see is mandatory, impossible to shut off, police wide body cameras. There is no reason in this day and age to not have it.

<comment><USER10> Well there is the use case of the PO exercising his or her judgement in a situation where there may technically be a violation, e.g. carrying an open bottle of beer. Today, a PO can simply require the perpetrator to discard the beer and then both parties move on.

If we have cameras in that situation, the PO will have no choice but to issue a summons to the person and then potentially have to show up in court if the person requests it.

Is that the best use of our police officers and the courts time? I think your intention is to provide citizens protection against police abuse of our rights but I think that the situation is more complex and getting the right mix of tech and humanity in police practices requires better training and education of both the police and the citizenry.

<comment><USER11> I would love for the police to enforce the law strictly and uniformly. If the laws are bad, then we will change them.

<comment><USER12> True, too often this discretion is only exercised for friends, relatives, and the powerful. Occasionally it gets extended to people who remind the officer of those people, because they fit the preconceptions or remind the officer of their own youth or family.

[https://genius.com/Dave-chappelle-killin-them-softly- annotat...](https://genius.com/Dave-chappelle-killin-them-softly-annotated)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm probably reading this wrong, but it sounds like police would be barred from e.g. looking at a public FB profile. That would go way to far IMHO. The police should be able to view simple public information.

In my opinion (and hopefully, this is what the law means) the warrant should be needed whenever the police need to compel a third party to hand over information. So, viewing a public FB profile is okay, but demanding FB to show the private profile would require a warrant.

<comment><USER14> Looks like section 2... on page 5 of the PDF it lists some warrant exclusions:

        (v) if the owner has voluntarily and publicly disclosed the location information[.]; or
        (vi) from the remote computing service provider if the remote computing service provider voluntarily discloses the location information...

[https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillenr/HB0057.pdf](https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillenr/HB0057.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good job, Utah! Let's hope that more states follow their lead.

</comment><comment><USER16> How does this close a loophole when its merely the first of 50+ autonomous jurisdictions in the US to do it</comment>


Eigengrau - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigengrau <comment><USER2> I use to do some spelunking and on many occasions lost light while underground (usually failed batteries, one time my light took a bad hit. Thankfully I always had backups). I wouldn't really describe the color as "gray" though, there is too much randomly colored static for that. More of a very dark soupy brown. Sort of like construction paper perhaps.

<comment><USER3> Definitely mirrors my experience.

<comment><USER4> For full sensory deprivation this becomes especially trippy when you can only hear the white noise of rushing water and you're numb from cold.

<comment><USER5> Or you can find yourself an isolation tank.

<comment><USER6> Are there tanks engineered for those with tinnitus? Sensory deprivation + tinnitus only means screamingly loud ringing for me - nightmarish.

<comment><USER7> This is a total aside, but I've always wondered: is the ringing a repeating waveform? If you could discover its structure through trial and error (e.g, cycling through pure tones and looking for beat frequencies), could you create an anti-ringing real waveform that nullifies the tinnitus? In other words make a hearing aide + your ear physiology act like a noise cancelling headphone, at least as far as your auditory nerves are concerned.

<comment><USER6> My limited understanding is that it is from one of the hairs in your inner ear being bent or broken in some way - the hair itself doesn't move, but since it's bent in the way airwaves could are able to bend it momentarily, the brain interprets it as it being in that momentary state permanently. Waveform cancellation happens at a physical level - it wouldn't "unbend" the hair as the hair isn't actually moving.

I don't actually know though, this is just my understanding.

<comment><USER8> Some people get surgery to cut their cochlear nerve, and they still hear it. Tinnitus often originates in the brain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd be quite keen to hear how they determined that #16161D is _the_ color of Eigengrau. Stick somebody in a pitch black room, show him various shades of grey on an illuminated display, stop when indistinguishable? But alas, the [citation needed] suggests it was simply pulled out of someone's Eigengrau- colored orifice...

<comment><USER10> @coldarchon - you are hell-banned.

<comment><USER11> How could you tell?

<comment><USER12> Turn on "showdead" in your profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how that is connected to phenomena like visual snow. Many people including me see similar effects not only in dark environments but troughout the day. Some resembling swarms of color, some seeing snow or something that resembles television static. For me there is no evenly colored surface anymore because a very faint swarm of colors washes over them.

It affects my vision rather negatively and the darkness magnifies the effect immensely making it hard for me to be aware of the countours of objects.

There are forums on the net were people experiment with various drugs with bizarre effects, spontaneous healing or no improvement at all were others see immediate effects.

My doctor send me to the optometrist, his assistant wondered why he didn't send me to a neurologist, the optometrist dismissed it because there wasn't anything wrong with my eyes.

<comment><USER14> IANAD but that sounds serious to me. Visual field distortions are often brain issues. I would go to a neurologist to be sure. Could be a tumor applying pressure to your optic nerve or something.

<comment><USER13> I've became aware of it about 15 years ago, so it would probably have already killed me if it was anything like that.

<comment><USER15> No, not necessarily. I've met someone who had a benign brain tumor -- it caused them to have mood swings, but was not in any danger of spreading.

In their case the doctors didn't remove it because the operation would have been more dangerous than the tumor itself, and the symptoms were not too severe. But it's obviously better to be aware of such things.

<comment><USER16> My wife had a growth removed from her brain a few years ago. Apparently it had quietly sat around since she was a child, not doing anything, until it decided to get its shit together and try to kill her.

ElongatedTowel ought to go to the doctor and deal with a few weeks of feeling like an embarrassed jerk by demanding that they scan his/her brain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've experienced this any number of times, mostly when backpacking in the Adirondacks in overcast conditions. I've woken up in the middle of the night with no feeling of vision at all -- no sense of light or dark. It can be extremely disconcerting and similar to the feeling of drowning, for anyone who's also experienced that.

The article also suggests the phenomenon is temperature related, which I'd confirm. The times I've approached true panic for feeling "blind" have been between -20 and 30 degrees Fahrenheit, while I've always seen more of a mid to dark brown at warmer temperatures, from 50F up.

<comment><USER17> I'm pretty sure the temperature of the rhodopsin in your eye was above 30 degrees Fahrenheit :)

A toad's eye temperature can vary because it's cold-blooded. If humans' experience of eigengrau varies with outside temperature, well that's interesting and deserves study.

<comment><USER3> Sure. I assume I'd be truly blind if the fluid in my eye eve went below zero C. I'm talking about the perception only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I found wikipedia's section on "The mathematics of color perception" very, err, illuminating. It made me realize just how complicated the topic is...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_perception#Mathematics_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_perception#Mathematics_of_color_perception)

<comment> alok-g A question also comes on why humans have three color channels. Or more generally, why is the number of cones relatively small (some species have more than three).

While I cannot find the reference, some researchers recorded full visible- range spectrum for a very large number of naturally occurring objects. Then they performed principle components analysis of these spectra and found that for naturally occurring reflection spectra, nearly all signal energy is recovered with a small number of independent components like three or four. In other words, the spectra of naturally occurring materials does not vary as widely as it could to exercise the full Hilbert space available. A downside of having a larger number of cones is of course that the percentage area available to each cone will be less, so a higher density of cells would be needed to maintain the resolution and color perception under dark will suffer more. The nature then has chosen a near optimal number of cone types for vision.

One issue I had discovered with the above study was that it was possibly cyclic. The database of spectra they used did not had too many samples of (different) objects with the same apparent colors since the latter was collected primarily to count the number of human-distinguishable colors occurring naturally in nature.

If the number of primary colors visible to humans were significantly larger, I can on the very least say that TVs and printers would have been significantly different than what they are, if at all they would have been practical.

The above however does not answer the question of the electromagnetic radiation frequency span sensed by the eyes. In other words, why is the visible range not wider than what it is. Again, some animals do have a wider range. Had the visible range been wider, it may have required a larger number of primary colors to cover the expanded Hilbert space. What a physicist once told me is that the range of frequencies that are visible to humans and animals correlates very well to the frequency range under which water is transparent. See [1]. This according to him offers a solid indication that life originated in water.

A few more interesting thoughts:

1\. Figure out what determines the shape of the locus of the spectrum (monochromatic) colors on the color chart [2]. It is an interesting exercise to derive this locus from the measurements of the spectral responses of the three cone types. Note that the outer boundary of the color chart has a straight line bottom with purple to magenta in the middle. While the non- straight boundaries span monochromatic colors, the colors on the straight edge at the bottom cannot be monochromatic. Figure out why.

2\. A question comes if the spectral responses of the cones could have been such that the above locus would have concavities. I am not sure of the answer, though am sure colors outside of the locus but within its convex hull would still have been visible.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liq...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cie_Chart_with_sRGB_gamut_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cie_Chart_with_sRGB_gamut_by_spigget.png)

<comment><USER18> > What a physicist once told me is that the range of frequencies that are > visible to humans and animals correlates very well to the frequency range > under which water is transparent.

I always thought that it was related to the spectrum of sunlight.

<comment> alok-g Well, that too. While UV is nearly absent in sunlight at the sea level, there still is a lot of energy in infrared that is not visible to the human eyes. See here for examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography)

<comment><USER18> It's probably just a matter of trade-offs. The visible range does cover the peak energy of the spectrum of sunlight, and covering more of the infrared may just not be worth the cost of a more complicated eye.

It would be interesting to see some type of measure of the information content of adding more infrared in typical nature scenes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let's post random wikipedia articles without commentary, turning HN into /r/todayilearned.

<comment><USER20> Go ahead, post all random wikipedia articles you want. The cool thing is how only the most interesting ones will be upvoted. Now that I think of it, that could be a neat small script to hack.. post random wiki articles on HN, let HN-ers upvote the good ones, and only read the best ranked ones.

<comment><USER19> Voting works well with small-to-medium communities of readers invested in the quality of discussion, but breaks down in large groups. Look at some of the larger subreddits - people in the comments complain about the quality of frontpage articles because the voting group becomes much larger than the commenting/discussion group.

I wonder what's going to be the next big innovation in filtering the firehose?

<comment><USER21> There are more interesting algebraic operations you can do on the voting vector than just adding it up..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Another interesting color is _Cosmic Latte_ : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_latte](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_latte)

</comment><comment><USER23> Didn't Goethe describe this in his Theory of Color? Amazing physical/physiological study of sight.

</comment><comment><USER24> I find the Eigengrau to be a very relaxing color and I use it as the background of my desktop. It always puzzled me that it's not a pure grey but it has a little blue. I thought he had more sense that there was a little red because of the minimal amount of light that passes through the capillaries of the eyelids.

I suffer from epilepsy and often I see scintillating scotoma, visual snow and other strange light phenomena. Given this I came to the conclusion that my brain associate this color to a quiet mental state.

</comment><comment><USER25> 1) Close eyes. 2) Point flashlight at eyes.

I observe that the intensity of the "Eigengrau" depends on how tightly I close my eyes. With the flashlight, the image is clearly more red than gray. This could explain some reports of "brown", to the extent that brown is a dark red.

</comment><comment><USER26> when it says that the half-life of the rhodopsin molecule is about 420 years, does that mean that if we would live that long, half of our rhodopsin will be gone? how would that affect our eyesight?

<comment><USER21> Your rhodopsin get replenished.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> How did they decide on the RGB values? Or did someone just make that up?

<comment><USER28> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> this isn't particularly surprising. every photo-sensor known to man has "dark" noise and it is indeed temperature dependent. noise goes up for a fixed temperature for sensors that are sensitive to longer wavelengths, so the fact that people report a more brownish color makes more sense than perfectly grey to me. the sensors in your eyes that are sensitive to deep red will be noisier than ones sensitive to blue.

</comment><comment><USER30> Why is this #1 on the front page? And how is it useful? I think a common pitfall for techies is amassing lots of useless knowledge (a habit I have weaned myself off over the last few years).

<comment><USER31> I kinda feel like _useless knowledge_ is an oxymoron.

If knowledge about our world is a pitfall, then I'm happy to seek out new traps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Neat find! I really dislike the feeling that 'seeing' this causes. I can only describe it as helpless and vulnerable, while I search for light.</comment>


Electron: Desktop Apps with HTML5 and JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://electron.atom.io/ <comment><USER2> XSS vulnerabilities take on another dimension when the HTML and JS is running in the context of an un-sandboxed native app.

[http://electron.atom.io/docs/tutorial/security/](http://electron.atom.io/docs/tutorial/security/)

One missing HTML escape away from cryptolocking your whole computer?

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing that link :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is not efficient to download Chromium for every app. I think Electron produces 60-80 MB binary files. I'm disappointed when someone uses Electron because it usually means a slow subpar experience.

</comment><comment><USER5> please stop making desktop apps using web technologies :/</comment>


Gmail Denial of Service Attack - <AUTHOR> https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/67307115 <comment><USER2> I don't have access to Google's internal issue tracker... I don't think anyone on HN who doesn't work at Google has access.

<comment><USER3> Interestingly, other issues seem to be visible [0], but not this one in particular.

0: [https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=status:open](https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=status:open)

<comment><AUTHOR> Apparently it was set to hidden before it was triaged, but left hidden after it was closed and the status was changed.

There is nothing in the UI that indicates it is hidden. They said it was a known issue and they won't fix it, so it doesn't make much sense to keep it hidden.</comment></comment></comment>


Knight vs. Snail - <AUTHOR> https://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2013/09/knight-v-snail.html <comment><USER2> A bit off topic, but I can't resist.

This idea was made into a game:

[https://kebabgames.itch.io/marginalia- hero](https://kebabgames.itch.io/marginalia-hero)

Search for versions on various platforms. Personally, I like the soundtrack on the mobile version, though it can get a bit repetitive after a while.</comment>


Uber CEO reportedly favored rank-and-file layoffs over pay cuts for top execs - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2020/05/13/uber-ceo-reportedly-favored-rank-and-file-layoffs-over-pay-cuts-for-top-execs/ <comment><USER2> People: Travis is too wartime and idealistic, let's bring in safe people who don't rock the boat.

Also people: hired management is amoral and selfish, why don't they lead by example (like a founder would).

Airbnb: classy, redeeming, well executed. Founder led.

Uber: poorly communicated, abundant leaks, bad PR. Hired guns.</comment>


The Parents Who Give Their Children Bleach Enemas to 'Cure' Them of Autism - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/read/parents-are-giving-their-children-bleach-enemas-to-cure-them-of-autism-311

<comment><USER2> That's what happens when parents are so desperate to help their kids that they will try absolutely anything if someone even hints it might help.

Doing nothing is not seen as a valid choice. "At least try something!"</comment>


FreeCodeCamps Foudner Salary and Budget - <AUTHOR> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/quincy-larson-net-worth/ <comment><AUTHOR> Why is this here? Well, I am kinda surprised of the budget this non-profit operates with and the range/popularity/quality they can provide on less than what a experienced senior software engineer can make in SV(373,000$ according to this blog post).</comment>


Mumbai Police Play a Trick on Honking Drivers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/world/asia/mumbai-horn-honking.html <comment><USER2> Maybe excessive horn honking is a problem, but conditioning drivers to second guess their use of a safety device is a horrible, horrible idea.

<comment><USER3> It's not a safety device in the way it's used most of the time in India. This is absolutely a great move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is direly needed in every part of India. Everyone honks all the time and it can be maddening.

</comment><comment><USER5> Could the cars with the green signal honk to keep their lane flowing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Think the decibel meter is only connected to the red light.

<comment><USER5> Right, so the green drivers would just keep resetting the red light's timer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah! That's definitely an interesting case and quite possible.

<comment> m-p-3 A way to counteract this would be to interconnect the mics to determine the origin of the sound and its flow. Nefarious drivers honking while passing the green light could be ignored, or have the green light cut short (but then you risk penalizing drivers behind them who might not be responsible).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


UK publishes report and recommendations for online targeting - <AUTHOR> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cdei-review-of-online-targeting/online-targeting-final-report-and-recommendations <comment><USER2> Finding out that the UK has a "Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation" alone gave me a warm fuzzy glow, they have Ethics before innovation, think on that.</comment>