MyTime raises $9.3M to build mobile-first local business scheduling - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/21/mytime-scheduler/

<comment><USER2> Hi all, I am the engineering lead at MyTime. We built a scheduling software, even though 100s of such products already exist because we want to provide small businesses with the tools they need to enable online booking and communication with their clients 24/7 - that is mobile first! Scheduling is not an easy problem ([http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/great-unsolved-problems- in-com...](http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/great-unsolved-problems-in-computer- science.html)) but I think we have built a really intuitive product that is easy to use, and feature rich. Ask me any questions you might have. Oh, and we are hiring for all sorts of roles. Send me your resume's at email@example.com

<comment><USER3> I wish you all the best of luck, but there are a few serious problems you're going to run into.

The biggest problem is consumer mindshare. Google and Yelp are where consumers go to find small businesses and they've got integrated scheduling capabilities that's either launched or launching. Getting consumers to come directly to you costs a ton of money in marketing and advertising. Just look at how much Angie's List has advertised and how little mindshare they've gained.

The second problem is on the business side. In most of the verticals that it looks like you're addressing, it's typical to use a practice management system which will hold the authoritative calendar. Without integrations to those management systems, you're never going to be accurate in determining availability. Building integrations is a long-tail problem that often involves integrating with archaic software vendors who have no interest in helping.

Sorry for being so negative, but I've seen plenty of scheduling companies jump into the game because they believe that poor UX is the reason no existing player has become dominant when the reality is that it's just a horribly complex problem where every vertical market has different scheduling needs and there's often very little consistency between providers. And even if you nail the technical problems, you've still got the two biggest problems I described above, which will require some serious BizDev and Marketing, which will often be at odds with each other (i.e. no one wants to partner with a company trying to build a consumer destination).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just tried your service - got a text saying you're trying to find a slot and 3 minutes later confirmation. Nice! Good UI too. Signed up from the browser then downloaded App - the app didn't know I'd already signed in - you may want to add that feature in. Liked it overall - good work.

</comment><comment><USER5> Congratulations guys! Having tried my luck at this years ago the bigger challenge in getting past the front desk folks who see it as a threat. The funding will definitely help. Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER6> What are your thoughts on WeChat? They seem to incorporate a lot of businesses into their app as well.

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats guys! Really nice people + great engineering team.</comment>


Dotcom judge quits the case - <AUTHOR> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10820496

<comment><USER2> More: Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down? [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro- co...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-copyright- judges-never-drop-cases-over-conflicts-so-why-does-megaupload-judge-have-to- step-down.shtml)

A better translation of TPB here: Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter Sunde's Plea – In His Own Words - Falkvinge on Infopolicy. [http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate- bay-...](http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-trial- peter-sundes-plea-in-his-own-words/)

<comment><USER3> I imagine it had something to do with the judge saying that the "US is the enemy", thus indicating that he could not impartially judge a case in which the U.S. was the primary opposing litigant.

<comment><USER4> He didn't say that.

He was quoting a pogo comic:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_- _Earth_D...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_- _Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg)

Not "We have met the enemy and he is U.S."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like the US want to abuse extradition here. If he's guilty of copyright infringement, then they should be able to get him in NZ. Extradition should only be for cases where someone is physically present in a country where they commit a crime then later skip the country to avoid being caught.

<comment><USER6> > Extradition should only be for cases where someone is physically present in > a country where they commit a crime then later skip the country to avoid > being caught.

Not talking about MU or anyone/anything else in particular, but...

If you run a criminal enterprise that does the majority of its business in the US, and you live overseas you can (and should be) subjugated to US laws.

Even for non-criminal enterprises, you don't get to play around with another country, breaking its laws. Why should a criminal enterprise be treated differently?

<comment><USER7> So millions of American women can be extradited to certain Arab nations because they've posted photos online of themselves without their heads covered, contrary to the local law.

By doing it on the internet, they are "exposing" themselves to millions of people where that is illegal, and therefore should be extradited for it.

Even the passport photo of millions of American women is illegal in certain countries... seeings that's an international document, surely they've broken the law in those countries, no?

<comment><USER6> I don't see the similarity of a person posting pictures of self on facebook, and a criminal enterprise knowingly and willfully generating revenue through copyright crimes.

Really, I don't. Even if you ignore that some countries have extradition treaties which spell out exactly at what level this can happen (btw, US and Iran don't).

But if you love analogies, I'm sure I can come up with one even more ridiculous, that would show my case.

<comment><USER7> My analogy is to show that extradition for breaking the law of country A while being in country B is completely ridiculous.

We're all breaking the laws of countries we're not in this very second.

Maybe before the internet it was easier and made more sense. Now it's completely insane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What the title does not make clear is the judge did this to himself.

You have to be careful when you are a judge, you're human so you probably have a bias, but you need to keep it a secret.

<comment><USER9> I would not be totally shocked if there was some pressure involved, which led him to make the original remarks to give him a plausible exit out of the case.

<comment><USER10> That was my first thought too....you don't just step down without being forced to behind the scenes.

<comment><USER3> You do if you do not want to be removed from the bench.

Judges who make explicit statements that indicate they cannot be impartial in a case _currently before them_ but who do not remove themselves from such cases usually find themselves disrobed and disbarred for violating their ethical duties of impartiality. (UK standards are different from US standards, but the duty of impartiality is generally the same.)

Saying that the US is "the enemy" is pretty much as close as you can get to revealing an inability to be impartial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Call me a kook but I personally cannot rule out the possibility that he was made to stand down.

<comment><USER12> I think we can safely assume that unlike the judges in the Pirate Bay case some pressure was applied from above for him to stand aside.

Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he would be found not guilty in a courtroom.

<comment><USER13> > Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as > Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain > he would be found not guilty in a courtroom

Not quite. Dotcom has offered to voluntarily fly to the US in return for them releasing a portion of his funds so he can mount a defence.

The likelyhood that the US will accept his deal is close to 0.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A recording of his comments can be heard here: [http://sciblogs.co.nz/tosp/2012/07/13/podcast-the-fight- for-...](http://sciblogs.co.nz/tosp/2012/07/13/podcast-the-fight-for-the-net/)</comment>


New Architectures for a New Biology (by David E. Shaw) - <AUTHOR> http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/061011.html

<comment><USER2> Here's a good primer (for those with access to _Nature_): <http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451240a.html>

Summary (for those without) - Shaw is the latest in a long history of individuals who thought the way to go in solving the protein folding problem was to create a specialized processor. In every past attempt, these individuals have been beaten out by those who are willing to work with commodity parts and refine the algorithms. At the very least, Shaw is climbing a very steep slope!

Also related: <http://www.astrogrape.org/>

<comment><USER3> Protein folding is a great problem to work on. We know it happens in linear time in every cell in our bodies. And if you can find a way to do it in linear time in silicon, well there's your singularity right there.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> You can watch this talk's video at: [http://stanford- online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/061011-ee3...](http://stanford- online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/061011-ee380-300.asx)

<comment><USER4> That link didn't work for me.

Here's a free iTunes version: [http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/itunes.s...](http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/itunes.stanford.edu.1323712351?i=1538736379)

Or the youtube version: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve5xdqoh1bs></comment></comment>


Developer's dream come true: New MacBook Airs now support two external displays - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/20/retina-macbook-pros-run-three-external-displays-refreshed-airs-get-dual-external-display-support/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a pretty big deal for designers and developers who love dual-display setups, e.g. for looking at code and docs at the same time. Until now you had to lug around a 15" MacBook Pro to get dual external monitor support.

<comment><USER2> Or use something other than a MacBook. That's an option too.

<comment><AUTHOR> The vast majority of developers I know use some version of the MacBook. (However, that could be the San Francisco / New York tech bubble that I live in.)

<comment><USER3> I don't understand the allure of the laptop for developers.

For me, performance easily beats portability. I _also_ have a laptop, but I'd never use it as a primary desktop.

<comment><USER4> I run my own company and have a home office and a regular office, each with a mouse, keyboard, and big monitor. With my laptop I can just take it back and forth - all files come with me and the machine is in the exact state when I boot it up at home as when it was at the office.

If I need to go out of town, I just take the laptop with me and I can do everything I would normally do, just with a smaller screen.

At least for web development, speed usually isn't an issue ... putting in an SSD drive a year or so ago, though, was the best thing I did - very noticeable speed increase!

So, for me it's a convenience factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So where are the affordable Thunderbolt displays? Will they even exist for this generation of tech?

<comment><USER6> I would imagine that there are converters to DVI/HDMI.... I hope?

<comment><USER7> Monoprice has this:

[http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&c...](http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10114&cs_id=1011409&p_id=8118&seq=1&format=2)

It doesn't support chaining more thunderbolt devices, though.

<comment><USER8> All this does is split the video into 2 identical signals. Note their fine print: "the two outputs of this monitor will always be the same"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, that looks amazing. Forgive my ignorance (I don't use external displays with my MBP), but how is this done? Does each display connect to the next display with Thunderbolt daisy chaining?

<comment><USER10> Exactly, the thunderbolt displays have outputs that you can daisy chain with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been running two external displays for some time on my MBP. One mini display port, one USB. The USB has a mostly negligible lag.

<comment><USER12> I've been doing the same and the lag isn't the issue. The real problem is high CPU usage. I can only use the usb monitor for looking at text, anything more (like opening a webpage or watching a video in youtube) and the computer slows to a crawl (I'm using the first unibody macbook pro, pre-thunderbolt).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Do the displays have to be Thunderbolt displays? Seems really expensive.

<comment><USER14> Negatory. The Thunderbolt port is really just passing through a DisplayPort signal - any DisplayPort monitor will do.

Displayport degrades nicely into HDMI, DVI, or VGA with an adapter, so sky's pretty much the limit.

The new MacBook Pro does also have a HDMI port which can do all the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know that.

Since I have Cinema Display with DisplayPort, could I do MacBook Air > Thunderbolt > Cinema Display?

<comment><USER14> No sir. For (presumably) dumb (presumably) Apple Reasons, a non-Thunderbolt display cannot be involved in that chain at all.

I'm not sure why. This is not gospel, by the way - I don't know if this was a limitation of the prior MBAir or else the signalling scheme in play. 1-800-APL-CARE can clarify.

<comment><USER8> As I mentioned in another post, non-thunderbolt displays cannot interpret packet data. When you use a dvi to thunderbolt adapter, it's simply translating the pins, not decoding packets. Your laptop's thunderbolt chip would realize you're connecting a normal display and send the usual display signals rather than packet data.

If you put this normal display at the end of a thunderbolt daisy chain, it would be the responsibility of the last device on the chain to convert the video packets into signals, something I doubt intel would put into their specs, requiring all devices that implement lightpeak to also decode video.

I think adapters are sometimes bad in this regard, people will think if the adapter fits, it should work the way they think it should. Back in the day when parallel ports and scsi used the same 25pin connectors, lots of people destroyed devices thinking they could hook their hard drives to their parallel port.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can the macbook pro retina handle 4 thunderbolt displays (2 on each port as with the Air) + HDMI?

<comment><USER14> Negatory. The total volume of pixels the Mac can push is the limiter. As you add monitors, the Mac will eventually black out the laptop display and spend the pixels externally. Beyond that it'll simply refuse to light up the display it can't feed. Doesn't matter which port they're headed out of.

Three sizeable displays appears to be the limit.

Note: A Thunderbolt display _can_ pass along enough signal for another Thunderbolt display. But not two extra on the chain. And for (presumably) dumb (presumably) Apple Reasons, a non-Thunderbolt display cannot be involved in that chain at all.

tl;dr: give Apple all your money

<comment><USER8> probably not apple reasons since thunderbolt is really just intel's lightpeak spec. you probably can't chain a non-thunderbolt display at the end of the chain because the data packets are probably encoded with some device id, and if it doesn't match the current hardware, it would just forward it along the chain, so when these packets arrive at the non-lightpeak compliant display, it wouldn't be able to interpret it.

tl;dr: normal displays don't read packet data

<comment><USER16> This is a limitation of Apple's Thunderbolt display, not Thunderbolt itself.

Thunderbolt is designed to allow displayport at the end of a chain. For some reason, Apple chose not to support connecting a displayport adapter directly to a Thunderbolt display, but you can put a daisy-chained device in-between your Thunderbolt display and your displayport display, and it will work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Rather presumptuous to imply that developers in general care about MacBook design tweaks, isn't it?

<comment><USER17> The hyperbole didn't sit well with me either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> That's why I pulled the trigger and bought mine yesterday.</comment>


Standards for web developers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/GalvanizeOpenSource/developer-standards/blob/master/standards_for_web_developers.md <comment><USER2> What information do you have about this ICO event for developers? [https://icoreview2018.com/](https://icoreview2018.com/) Maybe you can give me exact answer on this article.</comment>


Shippy for Android – Manage Codeship on the Go - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.steveedson.shippy

<comment><USER2> Absolutely love this. So useful for me as I use Codeship a lot.</comment>


A Photographer Who Tinkers with Time - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/a-photographer-who-tinkers-with-time

<comment><USER2> Fascinating. Here's a talk in which he goes into some background on the technology and process behind some of his work: [http://vimeo.com/78667444](http://vimeo.com/78667444)

<comment><USER3> Holy shit look at his dock at 12:17.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone know how this works? The article says the camera uses high frames per second, but that doesn't seem like enough to do this, he would have to run that whole distance with his camera in just two seconds, or have the camera on long rails. Maybe that's it, rails?

<comment><USER2> Indeed, rails. Subway rails in fact. Subway rails with a subway train riding on them :)

<comment><USER4> D'oh, of course!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His "stainless" series, particularly this shot of the 6 train in NYC, is incredible: [http://www.opiomgallery.com/cspdocs/artwork/images/adam_magy...](http://www.opiomgallery.com/cspdocs/artwork/images/adam_magyar_opiom_gallery_304.jpg)

I keep checking for a place to buy prints online but they don't seem to be available.

</comment><comment><USER6> I keep waiting for the day 1000+fps cameras are affordable

</comment><comment><USER7> check out this scanner camera too: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectese](https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectese)</comment>


A PHP Framework for Distinguished Gentlemen - <AUTHOR> http://laraelite.com/ <comment><USER2> How mean spirited. This attempt at humour undermines Laravel's developer's efforts unneccessarily.

</comment><comment><USER3> I want to purchase it, but the "Buy" button doesn't work :(</comment>


Aerofex: an all terrain hover-bike that is reminiscent of Star Wars tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/hover-bike-lets-you-drive-jedi-956125

<comment><USER2> I wonder why they dont just add wheels? Use the air to cushion and smooth out the ride. Its going to hit the ground anyway.</comment>


Eirôn - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiron <comment><USER2> In modern Greek we use the word irony but we also use the phrase 'are you eiron?'. I always thought this is adjective but as I understand now its a name.</comment>


1,000-year-old onion and garlic eye remedy kills MRSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32117815 <comment><USER2> Radiolab did a show on this recently and it was interesting to say the least.

Podcast here: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/best- medicine/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/best-medicine/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The discussion in HN around the same article 7 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9290271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9290271)</comment>


Forbes Special Report on Achievement - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/home/leadership/2007/02/25/achievement-success-failure-lead_achieve07_cx_mn_ee_0301achieve_land.html <comment><AUTHOR> I've only had the chance to read two of the articles but they were nice reads. I recommend the article "We're all Failures."

<comment><USER2> "The most common regrets all shared one trait: inaction."

Nice

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very thought provoking</comment>


How do you know that Hacker News developers are too smart for their own good? - <AUTHOR>

When "Unknown or expired link" is considered acceptable UI and the Search bar is on the bottom of the scrollable content. <comment><USER2> Nobody ever said hackers were UI geniuses. Also,you have to know your community. For this community, the things you mention works.

<comment><USER3> I can see how the search field works, despite being at the bottom, because "it works."

How does expired links "works?" What do they do for a user?</comment></comment>


Tulsa Doubles Down on Paying Remote Workers $10k to Move There - <AUTHOR> https://www.routefifty.com/finance/2020/01/tulsa-doubling-down-remote-worker-recruitment/162220/ <comment><USER2> This article doesn't address whether Tulsa, State of Oklahoma, or Topeka have addressed some of the underlying reasons why tech workers (who, after all, have opportunities elsewhere, and can leave) might not choose Tulsa, Topeka, Oklahoma or Kansas.

Does OK or KS have those weird "Noncompete laws" that prevent people from changing jobs? What about the "intellectual property" laws where your employer owns all of your ideas, even if they're not work-related, and worked on after hours?

KS public education is a disaster after 8 years of Opposite World "growth- oriented" tax policies. In fact, the entire state of Kansas appears down-at- the-heel, apparently because of the low tax revenues under Gov. Brownback's economic policies. Population growth seems to have fallen off a cliff since 2010: [https://www.macrotrends.net/states/kansas/population](https://www.macrotrends.net/states/kansas/population) Oklahoma doesn't seem to have suffer quite as much of drop in population growth.

Looks like Oklahoma's public education is at least as bad as Kansas': [https://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/columns/oklahoma-s- dismal-...](https://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/columns/oklahoma-s-dismal- public-education-ranking/article_1603d0c0-24a5-11e9-82de-83f7b6bb1a05.html)

How are you going to retain younger workers with children if your public education system is so poor? And let's not even get into the issues like shying away from teaching facts like evolution.

Paying "remote workers" $10k to live someplace for a year strikes me as a doctrinaire free market solution to a problem that has many more real causes than just money.</comment>


If its ratings don't really matter, why is Netflix canceling many shows? - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-its-ratings-dont-really-matter-why-is-netflix-suddenly-canceling-so-many-shows-2018-05-24 <comment><USER3> My assumption is that for Netflix (and similar) it isn't "ratings don't matter" but rather "competitive ratings don't matter". Traditional tv/cable has to compare ratings for multiple shows at the same air time. If a giving show has a lower rating than other shows at the same feasible time - they need broad appeal because the opportunity cost involved in burning a specific time slot.

Basically say you have a few shows, 50% of people like A, 40% each like B, C, and D - note that there's an overlap and underlay. If there's a a single time slot available, the only "correct" solution is to run show A for the 50% popularity. If all the people who like D do not like A, then that whole group (40% of the market) have no compelling reason to pay for your service.

Netflix doesn't have the time slot problem which means the shows are not competing. So they can provide A and D and both groups are happy, and B and C are also available to everyone.

But importantly making a show does cost money, so there's still a minimum popularity you need to justify that cost.

<comment> forgot-my-pw Agree.

Since it's all video on demand, ratings don't matter, but popularity still matters. Production cost also matters.

As long as there's still a segment of the demographic that is watching, and it's comparable with the production cost, the show shouldn't get canceled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can think of Netflix as following a third generation of ratings.

The first generation of ratings was just raw data: how many TV's were tuned into a given show at a given time? More viewers, more ad revenue. Simple as that.

The problem was that some viewers are more lucrative than others. The second generation of ratings added demographic data. This happened sometime in the late 60's/early 70's, just in time to discover that the recently-cancelled _Star Trek_ , despite its low ratings, appealed to a very lucrative demographic.

Netflix has user-by-user, viewer-by-viewer ratings. Not just statistics per the old Nielsen sample, but the entire population of data. Maybe even minute- by-minute (unless you doze off). This is way more powerful than demographics, because instead of targeting shows to "18-35 middle class white urban women", for example, you can target shows to "people who binge watch space operas" or "people who enjoyed only the first two seasons of <<some show>>" or any other large enough group you can tease out of there. And Netflix might only be scratching the surface of what is possible with this data.

<comment><USER5> > Netflix has user-by-user, viewer-by-viewer ratings.

(Minor nit: They don't necessarily know how many viewers are watching a screen)

But maybe that's because they don't care, since, does it really matter? If they're not running ads, isn't every unit of screen-time worth essentially the same amount, ignoring the variance in subscription prices for different regions and resolution options.

Actually, I'd go so far as to argue that viewer time is worth, incrementally, a _negative_ amount. I'd expect their goal is to have just enough content to keep subscribers interested, rather than to maximize viewing time.

As such, it seems to me that their viewer data goes beyond being a different generation of ratings, into a completely different thing. Maybe it's closer to box-office (seats, not revenue) statistics for movies.

Now, I know they're not _actually_ ad-free, what with product placement, in which case traditional "ratings" can translate to real money, but I'm not sure if that's a large enough proportion of revenue (or reduction in content production cost) to change their behavior.

<comment><USER4> > Actually, I'd go so far as to argue that viewer time is worth, > incrementally, a negative amount. I'd expect their goal is to have just > enough content to keep subscribers interested, rather than to maximize > viewing time.

That might be going a LITTLE far. Netflix subscribers who don't actually watch Netflix not only don't give Netflix enough data to make programming decisions from, but I'm willing to bet that an engaged Netflix subscriber is much, much, much less likely to cancel than someone who barely ever watches Netflix. If you think of viewer time as inversely correlated with probability of cancelling, the obvious metric to optimize for is viewer time. You're never going to watch so much Netflix that the marginal infrastructure cost is meaningful to them.

<comment><USER5> Keep in mind, though, that I mentioned _incremental_ value, though maybe what I meant was marginal?

I do agree that NF's business model can't really be compared to that of a gym, with a goal of maximizing subscribers that (eventually) don't use the service at all.

One of the big mysteries is how good a deal did they got for that outsourced delivery infrastructure, as well as how much of it is metered (and how) versus flat-rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Because Netflix can't fund infinite shows, and needs to allocate their resources that will attract and retain customers. It's not as if the crappy show producers will let Netflix keep the shows for free.

<comment><USER7> But maybe Netflix's advantage over a traditional TV channel like HBO is that it can offer ten shows 1 million people will watch instead of one show 10 million will watch?

Traditional channels have limited slots. Obviously there's costs to produce shows, but making 10 small budget shows that attract 10 different types of viewer might be a better way to lock in subscriptions than a small number of "prestige" shows.

<comment><USER8> Possibly. But there's also a dynamic on Netflix (and HBO, etc.) of must-see-TV shows (to steal a term from an earlier era) that pull someone over the hump of signing up and then staying. You need the "filler" (which isn't really intended to be disparaging) too. But a large number of shows which are OK/fine doesn't get people to pull the trigger. Game of Thrones, House of Cards (originally), Man in the High Castle, Orange is the New Black, etc. do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You only need 1 good show that would encourage people to keep their $10/month Netflix subscription. So I assume that extremely high ratings has no particular advantage, but they need to have very high breadth in terms of population coverage, so that almost everyone has a reason to get a Netflix account. At that point, you can calculate how profitable a TV show is, based on number of users vs cost.

If you have a small but very targeted show that costs $1,000,000 to make, but it attracts 10,000 users who would otherwise never get a Netflix account, then the show is profitable after 10 months. If you have a show whose demographics overlap preexisting shows, then its value decreases, unless you can have it premier at different times of the year.

</comment><comment><USER10> Don't think if the show as "cancelled". It's the fact that Netflix won't invest money in paying for another season of the show to be made. They want to invest money in shows people watch the most and will keep them on the platform. So yes, ratings do matter. But in sort of a different way.

<comment><USER11> That's the longest possible way of saying the following two words, "ratings matter".

<comment><USER12> The marginal value of a season with good ratings matters. The content is there forever and two seasons of it vs three might not impact subscriber numbers as much as two seasons of it and one season of a brand new show.

<comment><USER13> This.

Kids shows are a great example - my kids don't (when pressed) care that they don't have season 4 of Octonauts, they _do_ like seeing entirely new stuff.

For the price, I'm happy with what we get from Netflix. I much prefer it to Amazon Video where I'm not sure if I'm going to have to pay extra because my kids throw a fit (because it's _visible_ but not on Prime/free).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To my knowledge, no one has ever said ratings do not count.

In the article, there was no evidence to indicate that anyone at Netflix had made the claim that ratings do not count.

All they said was that they didn't release ratings, but everyone seems to know that ratings count.

So the article's title is misleading. It should say "As we all know, ratings determine whether a show is renewed."

<comment><USER15> I'd enjoy a news source that phrases things like that all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Ever since the American-Norwegian crime drama "Lilyhammer" became Netflix's NFLX, +2.32% first original series to premiere in 2012, the company has been committed to voraciously generating new content _in addition to its huge library of existing TV shows and movies. "_

"huge", my posterior.

U.S. context: In the last couple of years, aside from a very few new headliners (e.g. "Rogue One"), and some lingering headliners from older contracts (e.g. "West Wing", Star Trek), and ever-fewer _good_ independent productions, I find Netflix's streaming library to be the dreggs of barely acceptable quality. (People will watch it when there's nothing better.)

Netflix streaming seems to be more popular than ever, but, "Jessica Jones", "The Crown", and a few other Netflix productions aside, Amazon Prime is bringing more engaging content into their lineup than Netflix is. (And that isn't saying too much. Most recently, on Prime, I'm enjoying re-watching the old "Kung Fu" show from the 70's -- in good if not spotless, widescreen prints -- apparently, original filming was with cinema-format cameras.)

There are still some worthwhile titles on Netflix streaming (U.S.). But after a few months, you've seen them all.

For those of you outside of the U.S., for all that your catalogs are smaller -- so I read -- you should know that, in the U.S., almost no new major films end up on Netflix. And almost all of the older ones are now gone -- contracts expired. Per what I read and hear, some do still end up or remain in other countries' NF catalogs.

<comment><USER17> Absolutely. They're down on anime and older TV shows as well. Most of their new "Netflix original" content have been Chinese and Korean movies with rather limited appeal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The language used, strategy and even just context of TV Broadcast/Cable programming is this whole art/science/data mess that they are constantly tweaking to try and get an advantage.

Ratings "don't matter" to Netflix in the sense of "our single camera family based Thursday sitcom is 5 points higher than theirs but since they attracted more males age 20-35 they're pulling in more advertising".

Netflix is playing a different game entirely.

</comment><comment><USER19> Because salience still matters. A show with few viewers who _love_ it enough to want Netflix might get renewed. A show with few viewers all of whom think it's mediocre has no future in any commissioning system.

<comment><USER20> Also, I'd imagine it makes a difference how _replacable_ shows are. A show which is the only show watched by a user in a given month is probably more valuable to Netflix than a show that is one of seventeen shows that user watches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm assuming Netflix's core KPI would be net subscriber count, and everything that Netflix does, in some form, would be driven by that.

Going further, I'm guessing that there are (or will be) some shows that show highly rated but producing more seasons would not draw in new subscribers or decrease retention rate. It might be that there are shows where their data shows that a large percentage of the fans of that show are unlikely to cancel their subscription, in the case that new season is not produced, and that a new season will not be the kind-of thing that will create new subscribers.

If wonder if Science Fiction might be a genre where the fans are unlikely to cancel their Netflix subscription, but a multi-season run in also unlikely to appeal to people that don't already subscribe to Netflix.

<comment><USER22> Yea, my guess is that the primary divergence is that Netflix probably "weights" ratings of shows that are correlated with new subscribers and subscriber retention. So a low-rated show that on boards a lot of new subscribers or seems to change the behavior of a cohort who'd otherwise be expected to churn would get comparatively more credit that a show that is slightly higher watched in a vacuum, but driven by subscribers unlikely to cancel their subscriptions in the absence of the show.

Basically, any show that can show that its continued existence will result in subscribers that would not exist otherwise would likely see less ratings scrutiny than shows that cannot show this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Ratings don't matter to Netflix - subscriptions matter. The article hints at this but doesn't draw it out.

Netflix in general doesn't make its money from eyes on advertising - <USER2> ratings are not a good KPI for them.

Netflix in general does make its money from subscriptions - so shows that bring in subscriptions and those that are good enough to retain subscriptions are the KPI they will be looking at. I find it likely that they have metrics along the lines of what shows keep people clinging on to their subscription.

It seems likely to me that these two KPIs lead to very different conclusions about what shows to commission and cancel.

<comment><USER22> My guess is that they are related enough that most cancelled shows are on the low end of ratings. But I'd also guess that the relationship is nowhere near as linear as a traditional network. The key to renewal at Netflix seems like it should be proving that its continued existence results in subscriptions that would otherwise not exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Going wide with many shows instead of tall with a few shows with lots of seasons is probably way more optimal.

</comment><comment><USER25> Netflix tries to produce shows for every audience segment instead of big mainstream hits. So the overall ratings don't matter as much.

<comment><USER26> Actually I suspect that this is what it's changed. It's likely that Netflix has abandoned the long tail. They are now focusing on shows that have immediate, short term mass appeal.

Previously Netflix was able to invest in "quirky" shows that had strong appeal to a small percentage of its user base. The classic examples here are indeed Sense8 and Marco Polo. These shows were not blockbusters but they had a strong and loyal following and that should be highly valued by Netflix. Particularly when it comes to original content and as a subscription service, Netflix _should_ be primarily focused on loyalty above all. These are the shows that keep viewers subscribed and make unsubscribing painful.

But the economics here quickly become complicated as the culture evolves. In a world where (a) many (most?) people are already have a Netflix account (b) there are now many competing streaming services each of which have their own exclusives and (c) the concept of "television" itself is gone, now you just have "screens" all over the place and (d) there is an explosion (probably bubble[1]) of original content and amateur content and (d) there is an arms race for talent driving up salaries across the board... the end result is that Netflix is now engaged in a month-by-month war not just to defend the many subscribers it has accumulated but also to take (and retake) subscribers who may have been drawn away to other competing steaming services that have access to historic brands. Netflix no longer has the luxury of gradually building a large, deep catalog that appeals to small segments of the market. It must offer everything, or at least something extremely compelling, to all users, every month, or those users will churn and be drawn away by competitors.

Netflix is likely moving towards the blockbuster model. In this light it starts to make sense why Netflix is dumping hundreds of millions on feature films and also focusing on big shows that can command huge audiences. The blockbuster model is driven by a series of big events carefully scheduled throughout the year to get users to show up in large droves when you need them for something they don't really need. Competitors are doing the same. The streaming business meets the blockbuster model and now you've got to produce a blockbuster every month to keep people coming back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is crazy, of course shows get canceled. Ratings are a huge portion of why shows are canceled on cable because ratings are directly tied to revenue. I guarantee Netflix is looking at revenue when deciding how to spend their Original Content budget. Ratings would be a good indicator, but that's not the stat to chase.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's not about ratings, it's about subscribers. New shows generate subscribers. Many subscribers stay on board with Netflix even after the show that got them to sign on has been canceled. Ergo the more new shows you have, the more subscribers you have.

</comment><comment><USER29> It seems Netflix uses an undisclosed season-by-season ranking to determine which shows are continued and which canceled.

In many cases, I only watch shows that have positive reviews (e.g. IMDB) after 2 seasons or more. I don't know what percentage of Netflix subscribers are like me, but I do wonder if the percentage is high enough that many good shows will get canceled not because they will not be watched in the future but because they hadn't yet gained a following.

</comment><comment><USER30> "The second season of "Flaked" was released earlier this month, but industry observers anticipate it will become Netflix's 20th canceled original show."

When was this written? That aired last year. Also IIRC Flaked was one of those pre-canceled shows where it was announced in advance that the second season would be the last.

</comment><comment><USER31> They clearly matter not only in viewership but also in the whole stars vs thumbs up system.

<comment><USER32> i think its interesting that they can tell if someone has finished all episodes of a series and would be waiting for a next one.

<comment><USER33> Yes. And the switch from "Will they sit through all the ads?" to "Will they watch the whole story arc and give a thumbs up?" is the best thing that could happen to the medium.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I mean, it would be a kind of crazy business model not to take into account what the ratings of shows were...

Then again, Netflix is bathing in an ocean of cash, so they just might be crazy enough to be throwing out anything and everything to see if it sticks.

</comment><comment><USER35> Because subscriptions matter.

</comment><comment><USER36> The benefit of Netflix is that they can leave filmed shows on their platform and cancel future production if interest wanes.

Then they can see if interest comes back and can build future shows based on this feedback.

</comment><comment><USER37> because they are bleeding cash behind the scenes</comment>


Drexler: Self-Assembly for Nanotechnology - <AUTHOR> http://metamodern.com/2009/01/26/self-assembly-for-nanotechnology/

<comment><USER2> here's a book he wrote... 18 years ago. there's great stuff in there. how to build a computer out of rod logic. how get pure sources of elements by cascading filters... armatures for assembling individual atoms.

[http://www.amazon.com/Nanosystems-Molecular-Machinery- Manufa...](http://www.amazon.com/Nanosystems-Molecular-Machinery- Manufacturing-Computation/dp/0471575186/)

Richard Feynman apparently had recursive ideas, use a lathe to make a tiny lathe, use the tiny lathe to make a really really tiny lathe... all the way down.

This is the future... but probably a long way away.

<comment><USER3> The recursive idea is an old one. If it worked we'd have had some sort of assembly-based nanotechnology decades ago. The problem is that the nature of matter and mechanics changes as you get small; the world as we know it ceases to be, and you enter a world where what we macroscopic folk call a "chemical reaction" becomes a "physical force", where friction is a much larger concern, and where this strange new van der Waals force makes everything strangely alternative sticky and slippery in strange and bold new ways.

Unfortunately, we need to build an entirely new engineering discipline for the small. Which is underway, but takes some time.</comment></comment>


California Orders Coding Bootcamps To Stop Enrollment And Issue Refunds - <AUTHOR> http://m.fastcompany.com/3025896/california-orders-coding-bootcamps-to-stop-enrollment-and-issue-refunds <comment><USER2> The experience we've had with hiring people from these bootcamps has been about 50/50\. 50% of the people are completely unable to engineer and instead just know a language. 50% of them are hard workers and eventually learn how to be an engineer. 100% of them ask for outrageous salaries for not actually having any professional experience. I think the bootcamps spend a decent amount of their time setting high expectations and how to ask for a large amount of money.

<comment><USER3> It's the "get high-paying jobs on graduation" aspect of these programs that's never quite gelled for me. I can think of very few jobs I'd be solidly qualified for after a few months of training, no matter how intense the training. Engineering seems no different, and maybe even harder than most. People should be enrolling in bootcamps to learn the basics, not to get some sort of shortcut to a theoretically sexy job -- the true sexiness of which is entirely unknown unless and until they've actually tried it.

If these programs were/are feeding internships, awesome. That's a different story. And on that note, I see no reason why big tech companies can't create their own coding academies, or partner with bootcamps on more structured working internships and externships. The bootcamp --> full-time job connection doesn't make a ton of sense. But bootcamp --> internship --> job makes more sense.

There are a _lot_ of smart, hard-working people out there who, for one reason or another, just never got a deep exposure to computers in childhood, high school, or college. (Reliable childhood access to a decent-quality computer, much less programming resources, is not as common as we might expect.) Giving them a shot at learning is a noble and justifiable endeavor. Not all of them will enjoy it, and not all of them will make it through. But a lot of them might. They need to be going into it with the right expectations, though.

<comment><USER4> Legal internships require you to be in a degree program, so it's not a good path for those of us who are older and looking for a career change.

I have the aptitude and experience to do well in an internship, if I could get one. Having to go from bootcamp to internship would cut off the only structured path available to land a programming job, short of going back into a degree program which is both undesirable and financially not feasible.

I'm in a bootcamp right now that I don't entirely need, but I'm building up my GitHub account and looking at following up with something like thoughtbot's Apprentice.io or (if I'm crazy lucky) getting into ThoughtWorks' junior developer program rather than trying to get a job with a large salary. I want to learn the ropes in this industry by consulting.

Edit: Also, if anyone reading this is looking to hire someone junior (and degreeless) and is committed to training, we should talk. Relocation is not a problem and neither is making an extended commitment on my end (as far as time and/or compensation). I do have a tech background, just not in dev. (Sorry, I gotta hustle! :D)

<comment><USER3> _" Legal internships require you to be in a degree program"_

Fair point, so let's take this a step further and make it something other than an internship. A training program, perhaps. An apprenticeship program, wherein you're paired up with a recognized master/mentor on a team, working on an actual product that will actually ship.

Seems to me that the biggest hurdles are the regulations surrounding what an "internship" requires. So let's hack internships.

<comment><USER4> The two companies that I mentioned are doing a good job at that but they're surely outliers. Also, only making $12/hr for 3 months in New York City is a big hardship, but not as big as paying for a bootcamp.

I think the biggest problem is most selection processes will merely maintain the demographic status quo for the industry. How do you rank older people pivoting careers and folks with the aptitude but no degree or industry experience where they'll be on a fair footing with all of the new CS grads who will be applying who could otherwise land a job anyway?

<comment><USER3> _" How do you rank older people pivoting careers and folks with the aptitude but no degree or industry experience where they'll be on a fair footing with all of the new CS grads who will be applying who could otherwise land a job anyway?"_

I think that's why the internship structure is crucial. Or maybe it's an externship. Or a part-time thing. Generally speaking, I would not put undergrad CS students at top universities into the same internships as I'd put recent grads of crash-course bootcamps. Bootcampers go into a different pool, in different roles, unless and until they graduate to better positions of more responsibility. If a bootcamper kicks serious ass and demonstrates him/herself just as good as a CS-trained graduate, then awesome, he/she can get fast- tracked into the regular job pool.

The goal of these programs should be to create runways for the career switchers and experience-deprived folks who show a decent aptitude for the profession. This would be a supplement to traditional recruiting pathways, rather than a conflict with or cannibalization thereof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The field of programming might evolve similarly to the the field of law as time goes on.

A lawyer friend told me his field used to be more accessible to everyday people. Anyone could study cases and even learn enough to represent themselves and members of their communities.

Law schools and licensing boards were developed to protect the lawyers' wages and prestige, and to insulate them from outside competition.

The regulatory hoops did increase lawyers' salaries, but they also made it impossible for most people to afford legal services. Costly law school requirements prohibited women and ethnic minorities (e.g. Irish people) from entering the field.

Programming is a young field. If the history of similar industries is any indication, it won't stay this open and loosely regulated forever. And incidents like the one in California demonstrate that the tides are changing...

<comment><USER6> And this is why regulation is always harmful for the consumer.

<comment><USER7> Why is our drinking water so dirty?

Oh yeah. It isn't.

Regulation can solve many more ills than it can cause.

<comment><USER6> I wonder what is so magical about government that only it can determine whether something is safe or not. I'm pretty sure private consumer protection companies would do a much better job for less money.

<comment><USER8> How would a private consumer protection company enforce anything?

<comment><USER6> Ahh, and that's the point. It wouldn't need to. Because no one should enforce anything. It would only inform. Consumers must have a choice. When you start banning businesses from operating, you have countless possibilities for corruption and you remove choice from consumers, treating them as mindless idiots incapable of making an informed choice. And if you think they are, then they also shouldn't be allowed to vote.

<comment><USER8> "Sorry none of the water suppliers in your area provide water safe for human consumption. Good luck!"

Now that would be helpful. But sure, you can just move elsewhere. It's going to be easy selling your old house given that there is no clean water available.

Edit: As a bonus, health insurance companies should deny you coverage because you live in a high risk area.

<comment><USER6> If there is a demand for clean water at the price level where it is economically feasible to supply one, it will be supplied. If people prefer to spend less money and have dirty water, they made their choice too. Your case is completely hypothetical.

<comment><USER9> There are probably areas in this country that it would be more profitable for the water companies to stop serving. I think that it is a good thing that they cannot do that.

<comment><USER6> If you are right, then these areas would remain without water supply at all. Last time I checked, government cannot force private companies to do business.

<comment><USER9> Government can set the conditions under which a private company can do business. Companies that provide fundamental services - like water, power, and sanitation - often have government granted monopolies over an area. In exchange for existing without market competition, such companies are subject to more regulation, and often _have_ to service particular areas.

<comment><USER6> Then in this case it turns out that taxpayers from developed regions subsidize those in the remote ones. I'm not saying helping people out is a bad idea, but forcing people to help out other people certainly is. It is absolutely no ones fault that some people live in remote regions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It looks like this is the registration form the bootcamps would need to fill out (plus a $3500 fee): [http://www.bppe.ca.gov/forms_pubs/renewal_nonaccredited.pdf](http://www.bppe.ca.gov/forms_pubs/renewal_nonaccredited.pdf)

It seems like it's basically a whole lot of bureaucracy the schools would need to go through to ensure that they're not selling snake oil, haven't been involved in felonies, etc. Nothing too absurd, but an unnecessary hassle.

Perhaps I'm too much of a free-market loving, meritocratic startup junkie, but all of this seems completely unnecessary. If "colleges" like University of Phoenix et. al can make it through this process, it isn't really going to rule anything out. It introduces a lot of record keeping, forces some self- regulatory procedures, and implements other things that will only slow down the classes.

Are coding bootcamps perfect? By no means. Trying to pack a basic understanding of programming into a three-month course is by no means an easy task (and debatably an impossible one). That having been said, it gets the fundamentals in place so that someone can start to learn on the job, and the demand so highly outweighs the supply that I've seen recruiters and startup founders literally lining up to talk to people who have been coding for three months. It says something when the people that annoy programmers the most are recruiters - people trying to give them a job. You don't see recruiters being hated by people with English degrees.

Sure, a coding bootcamp is no CS degree from Stanford; I don't think anyone would pretend like it is. But it gets you into the coding world as quickly as you can, and the more programmers the better. The people I've seen go through bootcamps would not claim to be the best programmers in the world, but they get their foot in the door and start getting paid to learn. The companies hopefully realize that's who they're hiring, and make their hiring decisions accordingly. I can't see any need for this type of regulation whatsoever.

There's a need (or at least a market), people are willing to pay, they seem to be able to find jobs, and employers are becoming smart with regard to how to properly find/hire/train programmers coming out of bootcamps. Regulation like this, while possibly well-meaning, will only slow things down.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I have two basic takeaways from all of this:

1) These bootcamps are complaining about basically nothing. As you said, even the 'University of Phoenix' is able to operate...

2) The people making points about how these programs are predatory and need to be regulated are really not going to get what they want from this regulation. As you said, even the 'University of Phoenix' is able to operate...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ah, yes, teaching coding without a licence can lead to some unprecedented consequences. Like what if some crypto-anarchist after learning how to code invents a decentralized currency and undermines the banking system. This shall not happen, we must regulate things, or innocent people will get hurt.

Speaking seriously, here's how regulation works in a nutshell. A company that wants to prevent/eliminate competition approaches a legislator (through lobbyist, of course) and offers a bribe, say $100k. That legislator then passes a regulatory law that requires around $1m of taxpayers money to be spent on regulation. The company then makes $10m thanks to that new law. The legislator made money, the company made money, the public thinks it is protected. A perfect crime.

<comment><USER12> I don't think the actual anarchists, crypto- or otherwise, have been hassled (at least, not for this reason). There are free coding clinics at a number of anarchist infoshops and anarchist-inflected hackerspaces, and afaik none has received a complaint.

<comment><USER6> I wasn't being completely serious, but whenever I hear government trying to get its dirty hands to something not yet regulated, it disgusts me. Regulation robs consumers and prevents innovation and competition, while making politicians rich. That's all there is to it. The side-effect of protecting consumers is unreliable and questionable in 99% of cases.

<comment><USER12> I guess I have a more in-between view, in that I'm sympathetic to the anarchists (with reservations), but less sympathetic to the profiteers, many of whom are simply hucksters. I think the trick with government is directing more of its energies against the hucksters than the good guys. Tricky to do, but then also tricky to the do with market forces, which often reward fraud and parasitism. Not always, of course! But I also can't really buy into "government is always oppressing the innovators", since the innovators are often innovating more in the realm of how to separate people from their money...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ridiculous.

Any tech company worth its salt will do technical evaluations of candidates, regardless of their education.

So what advantage does state regulation give, besides putting money in officials' pockets?

<comment><USER14> Stopping people from being ripped off. I am waiting to see if there were registered complains about these schools.

<comment><USER15> I realize you're not saying anything about the effectiveness, but regulation hasn't seemed to stop diploma mills.

<comment><USER16> You realize that there's an ongoing crusade against diploma mills, right?

<comment><USER15> I do. I'd rather fix that before we try to "fix" dev bootcamps.

<comment><USER16> Is it your contention that we should never try to solve one crime if another one is ongoing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How dare you teach someone and get paid for your time without asking permission from the state of California first!

0_o

Why doesn't civil law provide adequate protection for people against sham schools? Has anyone complained about these organizations?

<comment><USER18> There was another article about this posted a couple days ago. Essentially the reasons the law exists in CA is because there were recent high profile civil judgments in the state against similar schools targeting other fields. Suing someone is a major PITA and takes a year or more really not practical in a lot of situations.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147664](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147664)

<comment><USER19> So then let's fix the legal system, not ban a perfectly reasonable enterprise.

<comment><USER20> No one is talking about banning a perfectly reasonable enterprise.

Talk about strawmen.

<comment><USER19> What? That's the whole point of the article.

<comment><USER20> No, its not. No one is talking about banning "hacker schools".

Schools that have chosen to operate without state-mandated licenses are being told they need to get the license to continue operating. The enterprise isn't being banned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What's old is new again.

Bootcamps remind me an awful lot of the certification mills of 15 years ago. It's the same 2 months or so and $10K or so with the suggestion that a well- paying job is waiting on the other side, just swap out MCSE / CCNA for Ruby / CSS.

I'm sure the cert mills launched some great admins, but I know from experience that they shoveled through plenty of people who had no real aptitude or enthusiasm diluting the field and completely devaluing those skills.

It took years and surely a number of painful interviews for those people to filter back out.

It's hard not to expect that bootcamps will play out the same way.

</comment><comment><USER18> There was some prior discussion about this on HN a couple days ago, fills in a couple more of the details.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147664](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147664)

</comment><comment><USER22> For the diligent, these are the requirements these bootcamps are being asked to comply with (warning, legalese ahead): [http://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/institution_minreq.shtml](http://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/institution_minreq.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER23> This is too bad. As a graduate of a similar bootcamp program who is currently working as a Jr. Developer it makes me really sad to see this kind of interference from the Government. As with everything else in life, situations that sound "too good to be true" usually are, and consumers need to exercise due diligence before giving people money they aren't comfortable losing.

I hope the schools are able to work this out because my Bootcamp absolutely changed my life.

</comment><comment><USER24> Oh, no! Not a $50,000 fine! It's not like they are raking in $400k every 3-4 months. If they want to really hurt them they should fine the school $50k every time they use the word "cohort."

<comment><USER25> Yea, I thought the same when seeing the fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it seems like a Randian dystopia, with the government stepping in to prevent you from telling somebody else how to do something. Want to tutor your cousin? Fill out 80 pages of paperwork, register as a school, submit to time-consuming performance reviews and curriculum evaluations.

On the other hand, the law is addressing a real problem, and as the article points out, these schools are charging top dollar, and making some very big promises. If nobody is calling them on it, or if somebody is, but they wield no authority, then we have a problem. I'm not a libertarian, and I have no problem addressing these things on a case-by-case basis.

The problem I see is that the law seems to be very broad, and could be applied arbitrarily to private study sessions just as well as the diploma-mill-minus- the-diploma situation we're seeing here. I think the law needs to be more targeted towards the problematic aspects of these schools, like grandiose claims in their advertising.

If the standard truth-in-advertising laws are too toothless to apply here, then inspections are in order. But they should only apply to schools that make the kinds of claims that triggered the crackdown in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER27> How much of the short duration of these bootcamps is teaching to the test that is the modern software developer interview? I have a really hard time imagining that somebody coming out of a 8-12 week program, even with some prior experience, properly understands the depth and breadth of material that should be necessary to get through a technical interview. It seems like most of them are focused on hacking applications, and not necessarily the fundamentals of data structures, algorithms, software architecture and design, working in a team, etc.

I think it's great that these bootcamps are options, but have long been suspicious that the statistics they like to share are only indicative of either who they decide to admit, or who they decide to let graduate. For instance, how many people who make it through these bootcamps have a strong technical background, perhaps even a computer science degree, and only need the short time to dive deeply into modern web application design and implementation?

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know what the qualifying criteria is here? I'm teaching coding to kids after school in California, no idea if this applies to me.

<comment><USER29> I don't know what your business is, but I doubt you are charging as much as these hack camps or claiming that your students will get huge salaries after they are done with your service. You should be fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Once we get some union teachers in there, I'm sure these schools will be tip top!

</comment><comment><USER31> The Goverment hates competition.

</comment><comment><USER32> My wife applied to one of those "Coding Academies" to learn basic web development. They had a phone screening interview and they asked my wife to write HTML and CSS code! Then later they replied that she is no qualified for the course. While their website had no indication that you need to know any programming language or specific computer related background, they rejected my wife. I was suspicious that this might be a racist discrimination so I look around to see who regulates them. Guess who? No one!

I'm glad that they are facing mandatory regulation. Also I think the way they try to teach computer science is wrong. You can't be a good Rails developer in 6 months if you don't know basic computer science.

My wife no is going to San Jose state university and leaning boring Operation System basics and Assembly. But that's the right way of starting you career in computer science world.

<comment><USER11> > _" They had a phone screening interview and they asked my wife to write HTML > and CSS code! Then later they replied that she is no qualified for the > course. While their website had no indication that you need to know any > programming language or specific computer related background, they rejected > my wife. I was suspicious that this might be a racist discrimination so I > look around to see who regulates them. Guess who? No one!"_

 _Barely_ more charitable explanation: rejecting people who are not already familiar with the subject matter might be how they 'manage' such high success rates.

<comment><USER33> I think that's a given. I don't think any school has ever claimed to take someone from 0 to developer in 3 months. That's unrealistic.

There's obviously a baseline below which any short, high intensity training course isn't viable.

A similar analogue would be baseline fitness levels expected out of candidates at, well, _real_ bootcamps. If you can't jog more than a block or do 1 pushup, chances of making it through are relatively slim.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, on second thought the _" barely"_ in _" barely more charitable"_ is going to far. Universities definitely do the same thing (though to the credit of universities, they are up front (or even brag) about having stringent admission standards).

Your standard university CS department has no problem accepting freshman who have never even heard of HTML, but they are also operating on a different timescale. In universities it is reasonable to spend a few months getting freshman up onto their feet. When the _entire program_ is a few months, you have to operate differently.

<comment><USER20> > Your standard university CS department has no problem accepting freshman who > have never even heard of HTML, but they are also operating on a different > timescale.

Moreover, HTML has very little to do with CS. You can probably graduate with a CS degree and know virtually nothing about HTML (and that's not a bad thing.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Quake 3 engine in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Jeaye/q3 <comment><USER2> Does anyone know if type parameters in Rust can be integers so that you could write vec<3> and get an optimized unrolled implementation of three dimensional vectors without having to hard-code as in vec2, vec3 and vec4, etc?

[1] <http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/rust.html#type-parameters>

[2] <https://github.com/Jeaye/q3/blob/master/src/math/vec2.rs>

[3] <https://github.com/Jeaye/q3/blob/master/src/math/vec3.rs>

[4] <https://github.com/Jeaye/q3/blob/master/src/math/vec4.rs>

<comment><USER3> What you're actually asking for is dependent types, where instead of passing in a type argument you're passing in a value you're asking to have lifted to the type system.

C++ implements this in their templates because templates are rather more dumb than what a "proper" type system would do, because templates are essentially what C++ uses as a powerful macro system. A "Vec<3>" in C++ then is instantiated as a separate class/struct. A "Vector<Int>", if allowed to do it is separately compiled from a "Vector<Double>"[1] and this is what has given templates an uncanny power in C++ as a method of doing very powerful transformations of code, as used by libraries like Eigen to unroll very complex multiple-pass algorithms into a single fast loop. Very neat stuff.

I would be a little surprised, actually, to see Rust implement the same feature because the way C++ has done it is by a rather curious and roundabout[2] and it was just happenstance that made it one the first widely used implementations of dependent types. It's strange to think about, but templates are one way C++'s type system is more expressive than Haskell's. (Wow, that felt strange to write.)

The associated constant idea is kind of neat, but the implementation of associated constants wildly differs from associated functions[3] and I find it difficult to imagine the way they operate having anything, anything at all to do with one another.

If they do implement their associated constants proposal, it'd definitely be something worth following from a type systems perspective because, well, dependent types are one of those things that are curiously difficult to implement, and if they implement it as part of a general type system, it could even be undecidable[4].

[1] This may not be the case now, but it certainly was the case in the past. So this statement is only true to the extent of "very simple C++ compilers" and may not be true of more optimized compilation strategies. I'm not sure what the state of the art is here.

[2] And theoretically unsound, in that the macro/template language is be Turing complete. That's not really very desirable from the perspective of being able to share code or doing "compiler as a service" execution where someone could upload infinite loops or non-terminating templated types. [http://ubietylab.net/ubigraph/content/Papers/pdf/CppTuring.p...](http://ubietylab.net/ubigraph/content/Papers/pdf/CppTuring.pdf)

[3] In C#, they're called Extension Methods, and they're an instance of the compiler simply being smart enough to find functions that say they can work just like a method of a type, but only depend on an already public API. Extension methods are great because they let you turn regular C# generic types into Monads by adding implementations for Select, SelectMany, and so on and so forth. <http://ericlippert.com/category/monads/>

[4] Apologies for the link to wikipedia, but it's the most terse source on it that I can find. It should be noted that just because it's undecidable in some systems doesn't mean it's undecidable in all systems. Let us not make here the mistake of applying Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to the reals. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Dependent_types>

<comment><USER4> With ghc 7.4 onwards you can have that style of static dependent types very easily, and it's even nicer still in ghc 7.6 onwards. That particular flavor of dependent types is singleton types.

I'm actually leaning on the singleton types and type class machinery in ghc very very hard to write some numerical libraries with both a high level API and very strong code specialization guarantees.

A lot of the same stuff could be done with cpp Template programming, but I'd have to worry about a lot more code bloat, a much more inscrutable set of type error messages, and no hope of end users getting good type Inference.

There are a rich space of decidable type systems out there leverage some or all of dependent types. The work on idris is very exciting in my novice opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are interested in reading further about BSP (Binary Space Partitioning) [1], check out the following chapters from Michael Abrash's _Graphics Programming Black Book_ :

Chapter 59: The Idea of BSP Trees

<http://downloads.gamedev.net/pdf/gpbb/gpbb59.pdf>

Chapter 60: Compiling BSP Trees

<http://downloads.gamedev.net/pdf/gpbb/gpbb60.pdf>

Chapter 62: One Story, Two Rules, and a BSP Renderer

<http://downloads.gamedev.net/pdf/gpbb/gpbb62.pdf>

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning>

<comment><USER6> Can someone comment whether if Abrash's Graphics Programming Black Book is still actual today? There are some reviews on amazon, from 1999/2000 mentioning that it is outdated. I guess some percentage could be still actual, of course. So I'm interested what percentage it is.

<comment><USER7> Some parts are still worth reading, but a lot of it is dealing with rendering without any real acceleration. Some of the low level parts on optimisation may still be worth reading, as are the BSP chapters, but you should read more modern books on optimising code, and on spatial indexing schemes of various types as well.

For the pure rendering side I'd say Real-Time Rendering (third edition) gives a good overview of techniques, but you'll want to look elsewhere if you want to see how those algorithms can be really optimised for a given API and GPU.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a great bit of nostalgia, not just for Quake 3 but because quite a while back (2000-2001-ish) I wrote a Q3 BSP format renderer for the Nebula Device open source engine, written in C++. Sadly the code seems to be somewhat lost at this point. I don't have a local copy of it and some cursory searches for it aren't finding much, I suspect it exists in some now-obsolete branch of an SVN repo on SourceForge, but don't care enough to really go looking. Surprisingly there is still a tripod page with screenshots:

<http://gmcbay.tripod.com/>

Anyway, great work so far! I am curious why you're doing BSP rendering if your goal is to have a destructible/voxelized-style world, since the two things are on opposite ends of the spectrum of mutability.

<comment><USER9> I miss the Nebula Device. Nebula3 was really shaping up into something great.

<comment><USER8> Bruce Mitchener, I presume? I remember you from the days of hacking on Nebula!

I wasn't around by the time Nebula 3 came to pass, I actually didn't realize there was a Nebula 3 until I did a google search to see if I could find any of my old nebula code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is more like a renderer for the BSP map format. Still awesome stuff though, interesting to see how it progresses

<comment><USER11> Ah, thanks. From the title I thought that someone had single-handedly re- implemented all of Quake 3 in Rust, which seemed a bit implausible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is _very_ cool, but I wonder why people are already inventing different indentation styles for Rust already. Guys, we _have_ the canonical way all Rust code should look from the Rust compiler itself. Let's not all start using disparate styles just because we can like C/C++.

<comment><USER13> Good point. Need a rustfmt like gofmt in go.

<comment><USER14> I, too, feel that perfectly uniform brace positioning is one of the critical technical challenges facing any new language today. There is no longer any excuse to get such an important and fundamental advance wrong.

<comment><USER15> Sarcasm?

It may not be a "critical technical challenge" but if you are writing a new language there is really no excuse to not cement things like that down before it is too late.

<comment><USER16> Why do you want to force people to use your style? That's pretty much against the hacker mindset.

<comment><USER17> Hackers are about creating things.

Arguing about "using your own style" with regards to braces and such is not hacking, it's bike-shedding.

<comment><USER16> So suddenly you decide what hacking should mean to me?

Sorry, but this thread smells of authoritarian people. I'm not really compatible with that.

<comment><USER17> > _So suddenly you decide what hacking should mean to me?_

Did you start this sub-thread saying: " _Why do you want to force people to use your style? That's pretty much against the hacker mindset_ ", ie telling us what hacking should mean to us?

To answer your question: no.

I merely restated what hacking means for everybody. Words have meanings built- in, individuals don't get to decide "what it means to them" and have that be accepted by other people (Else why even use the common word in the first place? Invent your own).

So, if hacking means "no standard syntax rules" to you (among other things of course), that doesn't mean squat to the general hacking population. Guido Van Rossum, for example, is as much a hacker as anybody, as are Python users, hacking in a language where indenting is enforced.

"Bike-shedding" is also well known, and is well known that syntax-style, brace wars and such fall under bike-shedding and/or yak shaving in Hacker culture, along with Emacs/Vi etc.

> _Sorry, but this thread smells of authoritarian people._

Yes. Either that or people who couldn't give a flying duck for brace/common style wars, and have found by experience that not arguing about such things and having language standards make them more productive.

People that know that your "rebellion" and "creativity" have millions of interesting avenues to be exhibiting in the things you CREATE with your code, instead of in your brace style and such.

It's as if saying "I cannot be creative in this company/school" because they have a dress code. As if wearing some lame t-shirt or whatever makes one more creative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So from what I gather this is basically a wrapper around some libraries that renders a quake map, I've been browsing through and found very little code, which seems implausible for a game of such complexity.

EDIT: was there something wrong with what I wrote? This seems very simple for Quake 3 engine (based on my knowledge of 3D code and skimming the documentation). I've seen code is calling a lot into glfw and opengles libraries.

<comment><USER19> You are correct that it is very simple for a Quake 3 engine - the submission's title is misleading. Calling it "basically a wrapper around some libraries" is a bit harsh though. It's not like it's loading up libloadandrenderaquake3map.so! From a quick glance at the code it implements opening a .bsp file, representing it in memory, and rendering it with direct OpenGL calls. This is pretty close to the metal, so to speak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It looks like pretty good progress! Are you going to be implementing the Quake Virtual Machine (QVM) architecture so that your engine can run the Quake 3 game and its mods?

<comment><USER21> The goal is to create a Quake 3 like game, but with a destructible voxelized world (Ace of Spades doesn't do it for me). As you can see, and as others have commented, this is currently only a rough BSP renderer with almost-complete TTF rendering. Q3 is the inspiration, but my goal is for this is to be a different game.

<comment><USER22> Any tips for rendering text? I'm doing a similar project for Quake 2 with Julia[1]. I haven't tackled text yet, but I probably will need to soon.

[1]: <https://github.com/jayschwa/Quake2.jl>

<comment><USER8> I highly recommend looking at signed distance maps for text rendering. Relatively easy to implement and gives very good results even when drastically scaling the text to different sizes.

Potentially useful links:

[http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/SIGGRAPH2007_...](http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/SIGGRAPH2007_AlphaTestedMagnification.pdf)

[http://www.gamedev.net/topic/491938-signed-distance- bitmap-f...](http://www.gamedev.net/topic/491938-signed-distance-bitmap-font- tool/)

[https://github.com/OpenGLInsights/OpenGLInsightsCode/tree/ma...](https://github.com/OpenGLInsights/OpenGLInsightsCode/tree/master/Chapter%2012%202D%20Shape%20Rendering%20by%20Distance%20Fields/demo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Was anyone able to build this?

I got rustc 0.6 built and installed on my amd64 linux machine, but seems that this q3 codebase triggers some bug in the compiler ..

</comment><comment><USER24> not 100% on topic, but as the author is doing his mod because he likes to have a voxelized and fully destrutable word: I remember Red Faction. Is there any in-depth review/interview on the technology they used at the time? Looked like "simply" carving out destructed structures from a polygon model; But would be interested in the details...

</comment><comment><USER25> Why is this interesting?

<comment><USER26> Why is this comment necessary? You don't have to read code or links if you don't want to. This is even worse than the "how is this topic relevant to _hacker_ news" style comment.

I found it interesting because it is a nice example of real, non-toy, code in rust. I presume others find it interesting because it is a good progress mark of rust.

<comment><USER27> The comment could be out of a genuine desire to understand what makes the code interesting. The brevity makes it a bit ambiguous.

<comment><USER17> No, the comment seems like the author being a jackass.

A genuine desire to understand would have used different questions altogether.

<comment><USER6> It is actually a pretty neutral and dry comment, which is not necessary a "jackassness". Also, this is not a one-to-one conversation, other people read these threads as well. So some of them, which are genuinely interested, could benefit from detailed answers.

<comment><USER17> > _It is actually a pretty neutral and dry comment, which is not necessary a > "jackassness"._

Not really convinced. Even something like "In what ways is this interesting? Can you explain?" would be way more neutral than the current one.

If he was perplexed by something on the article he would ask more specific questions.

As it stands, it's identical to tons of other dismissive comments that follow every announcement. It wants to imply the author is "too technical" for this, e.g "hmm, a yet another 3D engine just done on some new language this time? who cares" or "why is this on top of HN".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Welcome to Pleistocene Park - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I was shocked by the casual mention of genetic engineering:

"using crispr, the genome-editing technology, they began flying along the rails of the Asian elephant's double helix, switching in mammoth traits. They are trying to add cold-resistant hemoglobin and a full-body layer of insulating fat. They want to shrink the elephant's flapping, expressive ears so they don't freeze in the Arctic wind, and they want to coat the whole animal in luxurious fur. By October 2014, Church and his team had succeeded in editing 15 of the Asian elephant's genes."

Sure, this project is toying with making an elephant more cold resistant. But if the technology spreads, how long until we get sharpened pathogens and pests ?

<comment><USER3> Next step, make them tiny! (a la the phyletic dwarf elephants in Peter F. Hamilton's "Great North Road").

<comment><USER4> John Hammond used a tiny genetically-engineered elephant to impress investors in "Jurassic Park".

[http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Pachyderm_Portfolio](http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Pachyderm_Portfolio)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Modify the genomes of elephants like those, as nature modified their ancestors' across hundreds of thousands of years, and you can make your own mammoths."

Yeah, right... They make it sound like putting together a child puzzle.

The differences between those 2 genomes can be vast and even if we did know it 100%, it would take a lot of effort to "craft" this DNA into a usable one and after that how would you have variance? You would need to craft at least a couple dozens randomly changing it so they can breed or would we clone the same one over and over again?

I think it's interesting to bring it back, I would even like to see it but it is one weird of a project to say the least.

<comment><USER6> I've re-upvoted your post because of its relatively substantive core, but please don't lead with snark like "Yeah, right" in comments here. It degrades the community and encourages others to do worse.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER7> Fun fact: The first definition of "snark" is _an imaginary animal_...

...which is also, coincidentally, the subject of the comment :)

But, on a serious note: I don't consider "Yeah, right...", followed by an explanation, to be too snarky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this a precursor to a real life Jurassic Park?

</comment><comment><USER9> No need to "clone".

A wooly mammoth is just an elephant that spent several generations in colder than average weather.

Evolve the wool to insulate.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have no idea whether this will work or not, or if it will have unintended side effects.

I'm more interested in another topic briefly touched on in the article. Has anyone produced a theoretical map of a post-apocalyptic "hot Earth?"</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone noticed the odd timestamps on latest Windows XP patch? - <AUTHOR> Had to patch a few WinXP machines against WannCry recently, and noticed something odd.
Take a look at the XP SP3 update file - as necessary, it is digitally signed by Microsoft. Take a look at the timestamp in the signature - it's February 11th, 2017. The embedded one is 17th, the 2003 server one is 12th, Win 8th one is 13th.
That's a full month before the official update was released, on March 17th. For comparison, Win 10 one is dated March 6th. This is suspicious, even though it doesn't really prove anything - they might have known the severity of the vulnerability and prepared for it in advance or something.
But it's still suspicious - why prepare such updates beforehand, but not release them?
Am i overthinking it, or does anyone else find this odd? <comment><USER2> possible explanation: Because if you release an update for a vulnerability, you often more or less tell the world how the vulnerability works. If the Win10 patch wasn't finished yet, they couldn't release the XP one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm? Win 10 one was released in March, but XP's one wasn't released until WannaCry was rampaging in May.

The fishy part is that they prepared an XP update well in advance, but didn't release it until after the rampage.

<comment><USER2> They released it to customers with WinXP support contracts in March, parallel to the patches for other versions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The SMB exploit was released by the Shadow Brokers on April 14, 2017. How come Microsoft patched it in February? How did they know about it?</comment>


Free storyboard illustrations - <AUTHOR> http://dribbble.com/shots/1083617-430-FREE-storyboard-illustrations

<comment><USER2> Copyright is still widely misunderstood:

> \- Not! For commercial use!

> \- No reselling or any other way of making money with my work

> \- Don't include these illustrations in final products. It's meant for > sketches, storyboards and pitches.

How does "It's meant for […] pitches" goes with "Not for commercial use" and "any other way of making money with my work"?

Please, at least choose one of the many existing licenses (like CC), so one does not need to consult a lawyer just to use two images.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is HN the right site for placing things like "100 free social icons", "300 free wonderful backgrounds". Such stuff is very useful, but I belive it does not fit well here.

</comment><comment><USER4> Did I miss it, or is there not a license provided?

<comment><USER5> If you open the Illustrator document, there's an illustration in the bottom right corner that says "not for commercial use".

<comment><USER4> Ahh, OK. Grabbed it to hand off to the designers just in case, but I have nothing to open AI files with. Thanks!

<comment><USER5> It's informal and cute, here's a close-up of that section: <http://imgur.com/KFlpmES>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How did me make these? Also, dribbble invite?

</comment><comment><USER7> This is really very nice. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER8> If this was you, thank you.</comment>


New IBM memory promises faster, higher-capacity devices - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20026553-76.html

<comment><USER2> Ah the cynic in me. This sounds like a new generation of bubble memory (1970) with the physics and hype scaled for the times. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory></comment>


Simple website is being hosted on a Mac built in 1993 - <AUTHOR> http://rhyal.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> cache on internet archive ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190804220223/http://rhyal.com/](https://web.archive.org/web/20190804220223/http://rhyal.com/))</comment>


U.S. weighs restricting Chinese investment in artificial intelligence - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-artificialintelligence-idUSKBN1942OX <comment><USER2> This is an awkwardly worded title, which nonetheless should have had the word "stateside" in it somewhere.

>> _The report also signaled the need for measures beyond the scope of the U.S. military, such as changing immigration policy to allow Chinese graduate students to stay in the United States after completing their studies, instead of returning home.

[...]

"The single biggest thing we can do is staple a green card to their diploma so that they stay here and build the technologies here – not go back to their countries and compete against us," Ganesan said._

I personally applaud a policy like this. But thinking strictly from the protectionist & security motivations driving the Pentagon report, Menlo Futures Ganeson's proposed remedy makes no sense: If green cards are handed out to foreign students upon completion of their (presumably advanced) degrees, this would allow said students to then perform both actions in their lifetimes (i.e. build technologies in the US, _and_ go back and compete later in life).</comment>