San Francisco Declares the N.R.A. a 'Domestic Terrorist Organization' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/san-francisco-nra-terrorist.html <comment><USER2> This seems rather silly. But I haven't looked into it. Am I missing something? What's the perspective where this makes sense?

<comment><USER3> Context of this is:

There was a visible mass shooting in Gilroy very recently, and a lot of people are upset.

The gunman used a semiautomatic rifle which is illegal in California, but was legally purchased in Nevada.

The NRA has continually fought to ensure people have access to the tools to commit these atrocities.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shooting)

<comment><USER4> How awful of the NRA to fight for a constitutional right to bear arms.

<comment><USER5> Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it.

I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids.

Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it has to be advocated by an organization.

It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi- billion dollar tobacco industry failed?

<comment><USER6> I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often.

As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views.

[0] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us- canada-41488081](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081)

Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.

<comment><USER7> > I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against > the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science > proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive > to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

It would be great to have scientific evidence on mass gun ownership's effects on health and society, and linkages between gun violence, mental health, and a variety of other factors.

Unfortunately, Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC, etc.) from funding or studying research into those effects. Congress made that decision because of lobbying pressure by...let me check my notes here...huh, interesting, the NRA.

<comment><USER8> > Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC, etc.) from > funding or studying research into those effects.

That's not actually true. The limitations set in the Dickey amendment were only regarding the use of funding to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the purpose of advocating gun control.

<comment><USER7> Dickey covers the CDC and the NIH (as of 2011). And the common interpretation of that amendment[0] is that it is unclear where the line exists between research conclusions and advocating for gun-control.

The CDC's entire purpose is to come up with mitigation plans for public health issues. If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an increase in gun violence, what conclusions would the CDC be allowed to come to, and what possible mitigation could they recommend that couldn't be viewed as advocating for gun control?

Their position is to avoid all such research entirely. The letter of the law seems to speak only to funding, but its effect is to shut down all research into the issue. Which, of course, was the intended effect from the beginning.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2title)

<comment><USER8> > If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an > increase in gun violence

If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership when isolated from the list of variables that they have controlled for, is linked by _correlation_ to an increase in gun violence then why do you believe publishing that correlation is supportive of gun control?

<comment><USER7> It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how the NRA, those in Congress and the administration who are anti-gun-control will spin those findings.

I strongly doubt such a conclusion would pass by unchallenged. If I had to guess, it would probably lead to letting go at least the head investigators of that study, and at most, replacing the head of the CDC.

A study with a conclusion like that was what lead to the Dickey amendment in the first place.

<comment><USER8> I would be more concerned about those in Congress who are pro gun control would spin those findings to push for gun control.

It's not a problematic conclusion because a correlation isn't causation. There is a lot more to study and frankly just going direct from that kind of correlation to gun control is intellectually lazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems weird to me to conflate "advocating the legal right to own technology that can be used to do X" with "doing X", even though obviously you can disagree with both.

<comment><USER10> I think it's quite reasonable to make a distinction between Xs that are "kill people" and Xs that are not.

<comment><USER11> That same argument leads to a ban on cars, or even electricity.

<comment><USER10> That's true, the phrasing isn't quite what I intended. More accurate would be "whose purpose is" rather than "that can be used for".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I understand that I am severely limiting my options in tech employment by not moving to SF or NY, but the all-out assault on freedoms prevalent in both regions is a total dealbreaker.

<comment><USER13> Excuse me for asking you to show your work, but how does this limit anyone's freedoms?

Further, are you not aware of the difference between San Francisco and say, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto... do I need to go on?

(Nevermind the astronomical housing prices and the relatively easy and affordable public transit into the city, making it more than feasible to work in the city and live elsewhere...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Non-american here. Can someone explain what's so shady about NRA aside from their lobbying for gun rights? Also what is NRA's rational/rebuttal for their shady behaviors?

<comment><USER10> As I understand it (and I do not remotely claim to be an expert), they used to be an organization that provided gun safety training, supported gun clubs and shooting ranges, and did some lobbying for gun rights as well—but within reason, supporting provisions like background checks.

Then, some time in the '70s or '80s or so, they decided they really wanted to make lots more money, and the way to do that was to radicalize their support base. These days, they not only oppose any and all restrictions on the purchase of firearms (including preventing random people from getting their hands on military hardware, preventing convicted violent felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill from buying firearms, etc), but they are actively involved in spreading propaganda to keep their base scared of an Other that they'll need guns to protect them from. This ranges from Democrats coming to take their guns, to immigrants coming to take their jerbs, to brown people coming to take their women.

They foment racism and hatred, specifically in order to ensure that people will keep paying them to protect the only amendment to the Constitution that's truly sacred: the right of every single real (white, straight, cis, Christian, male) American to own whatever guns he wants.

<comment><USER15> When Wayne LaPierre took control in 1991 is pretty much when they started pumping money into advertising and building his personality cult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't live in the US, and the consequences of this aren't 100% clear to me, but am I correct in assuming

\- Members of the NRA are now 'domestic terrorists', i.e. when entering the US they have to tick the "I'm a terrorist" box?

\- Donating to the NRA can be considered financing terrorism?

I'm not a big fan of private gun ownership, but if these interpretations are accurate, this move seems pretty excessive.

<comment><USER17> I don't believe a city (or even county) view of who's a terrorist has any relevance to federal procedures.

<comment><USER18> Imagine if the NSA suddenly had to spy on 5 million people. Oh wait.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sweet , anybody that gives money to the nra in san fransisco should be eligible for property seizure by sherrif/police now. Ironically California has strict "proof required" Property seizure laws. Thinking peter theil would be a good candidate.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/21/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/21/police- agencies-forfeit-millions-after-new-law-chokes-off-funds-from-asset- seizures/amp/)

Patriot act! Donations to nra are tax deductible, so the state already has a record.

</comment><comment><USER20> You would think with all the protests in hong kong against an authoritarian government that they would value their 2nd amendment rights.

All you have to do is browse hn once in awhile to see several articles about the US gov't brazenly breaking our constitutional rights.

<comment><USER21> You have a good point but it's hard to rally around gun ownership when you're dodging bullets taking your kids out to shop at Walmart.

<comment><USER20> Maybe the only reason the american gov't isn't as bad as the chinese gov't is that we can, in fact, defend ourselves.

<comment><USER22> Yes, that is literally the _only_ reason.

It's not because of the differences in culture, or the nature and history of governance, or any other possible externality. The only reason the US is not a totalitarian state where dissenters are run over by tanks and sent to death camps is because the American government is simply terrified of and quelled by the mere presence of an armed populace.

I have a magical rock in my garden that repels tigers. I never see any tigers in my garden, so it must work.

<comment><USER20> I mean correlation does not mean causation but the gov't keeps upping the black budget every year and we all know what they do in those gov't basements... It's just a matter of time that industrial factory overflows and spills blood on the streets.

If the gov't was going to put you in a camp because you were jewish or japanese or even muslim, wouldn't you want to have a gun? I know it would make them think twice that's for sure.

<comment><USER22> >If the gov't was going to put you in a camp because you were jewish or japanese or even muslim, wouldn't you want to have a gun?

Sure. But of course, the Second Amendment was a thing when the government from rounding up the Japanese, with popular support.

Hell, after 9/11 much of the gun-owning community would have _supported_ rounding up all of the Muslims into camps. Currently, they don't seem to be too upset about the government aggressively rounding up immigrants.

I don't agree with the premise that government can never be trusted, but an armed mob always can. The world has plenty of democratic states which seem to function without an armed populace keeping them in check.

>I know it would make them think twice that's for sure.

It wouldn't stop them, though.

<comment><USER20> >Sure. But of course, the Second Amendment was a thing when the government from rounding up the Japanese, with popular support.

I guess, maybe the people didn't exercise their rights.

>Hell, after 9/11 much of the gun-owning community would have supported rounding up all of the Muslims into camps. Currently, they don't seem to be too upset about the government aggressively rounding up immigrants.

You can absolutely be on the left and believe in the right to bear arms. Fighting for our constitutional rights is not a partisan issue.

>I don't agree with the premise that government can never be trusted, but an armed mob always can. The world has plenty of democratic states which seem to function without an armed populace keeping them in check.

Another name for an armed mob is called a militia. They were formed when we fought against 'taxation without representation'.

>It wouldn't stop them, though.

Maybe, the only time I can think off of the top of my head of a government subjugating a well armed people was the english/american civil war.

Regardless, I would absolutely exercise my right to bear arms if mao/stalin/hitler gov't came knocking on my door.

<comment><USER22> >I guess, maybe the people didn't exercise their rights.

They didn't want to, that was the general point of my comment. American gun owners aren't a guaranteed bulwark against tyranny - they're just as likely to welcome and defend it, if their ideology supports it.

>You can absolutely be on the left and believe in the right to bear arms. Fighting for our constitutional rights is not a partisan issue.

I have yet to meet an NRA member (and granted, I haven't met them all) who doesn't believe the American left poses an active threat to their right to keep and bear arms, and who wouldn't consider a "pro 2nd Amendment leftist" to be a contradiction in terms.

In theory, you're correct. In practice, thanks to the success of the NRA and Republican party, American gun culture (at least the activist part of it) has become synonymous with conservative, right-wing identity politics.

<comment><USER8> > They didn't want to, that was the general point of my comment. American gun > owners aren't a guaranteed bulwark against tyranny - they're just as likely > to welcome and defend it, if their ideology supports it.

> I have yet to meet an NRA member (and granted, I haven't met them all) who > doesn't believe the American left poses an active threat to their right to > keep and bear arms, and who wouldn't consider a "pro 2nd Amendment leftist" > to be a contradiction in terms.

Your first statement proves the importance of having the right to keep and bear arms be upheld in the "American left".

And you will probably run into many in the Democratic party who think being a "pro 2nd Amendment leftist" is a contradiction in terms too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you want to play semantics labeling a gunlobby 'terrorist' still makes more sense than declaring a 'war' on drugs.

From a European perspective the level of gun violence in the US is completely absurd and out of control and has been for decades.

</comment><comment><USER24> Here is the text of the resolution:

[https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF6...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA)

</comment><comment><USER25> As someone (not a US citizen) who thinks the second amendment can go fuck itself, this isn't helping anyone and looks incredibly childish. Instead of changing people's minds, this will just make gun right activists angry, and make them feel their viewpoint is validated.

This is just preaching to the choir, for scoring some cheap political points. Don't they have better things to do?

</comment><comment><USER26> Too bad people who don't follow the law won't respect the gun bans like law abiding citizens...

Also in the news, Social Credit Red Flag Laws based on speech...

Surely these laws will be applied evenly to all people & not used to suppress anybody like what has happened repeatedly throughout history. It's different this time, right?

Enjoy the dystopia folks!

</comment><comment><USER27> Would this lead to legal actions?

</comment><comment><USER28> San Francisco is getting more ridiculous by the second

<comment> cannot-remember Curious non-American here. Is this really so ridiculous?

<comment><USER29> Yes, labeling a group with 5 million members that supports a right expressly protected by our constitution is ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> sahin-boydas now what? if there is a company (ex some car rental companies

</comment><comment><USER30> Did you mean: "San Francisco"?

</comment><comment><USER31> Does the NRA directly attack civilians? Do they aim for political change?

My understanding is that they do not carry out attacks on civilians and they seek to maintain the status quo.

Regardless of your position on gun control (personally I'm in favour of gun control), words have meaning.

Edit: missed a 'not' above, pardon the confusion

<comment><USER5> Do their members? Yes.

The NRA is a lobbying organization that spends hundreds of millions [0] on advocating political change (or blocking it), so your second question is also a yes.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lob...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lobbying_and_political_activity)

<comment><USER31> Could you please answer the questions in the comment you're replying to, rather than answer different questions? Thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Speeding up FreeBSD Portsnap via geolocation (using EC2 and Route53) - <AUTHOR> http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-05-20-portsnap-geolocation.html

<comment><USER2> If you are interested in "latency-based" DNS routing, I'm giving a talk at Velocity in June about how we do it at Facebook:

[http://velocityconf.com/velocity2012/public/schedule/detail/...](http://velocityconf.com/velocity2012/public/schedule/detail/23732)

Slides: <http://www.slideshare.net/aristus/doppler-12564220>

<comment><AUTHOR> For what it's worth, I decided to use Route 53 for this precisely because of the hard issues you discuss in your talk: Amazon has a huge amount of data at their disposal to use in figuring out how to route traffic. This is one of the areas where the scale of AWS gives them an unfair advantage, and for $2/month (roughly what Route 53 is costing) I'd be a fool to not accept their help.

Given the scale of Facebook, you guys can gather your own data and produce your own reasonably-accurate routing maps; this isn't an option available to most of us.

<comment><USER2> Of course. Route 53 is the way to go for any site smaller than, say, Reddit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's surprising that setting up your own servers on EC2 works out to be cheaper than using CloudFront. Is Amazon just not doing a very good job of charging their real costs, or is HTTP/1.1 pipelining such a big win that this actually works out in EC2's favor here?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know the details behind CloudFront, so this is just speculation, but based on the assumption that CloudFront pricing is based on the usual AWS "cost plus" computations, the per-request price looks like it's mostly covering the cost of random disk seeks. For arbitrary request streams, this is a conservative cost model and makes sense; but portsnap bits happen to be cheaper to serve up since most of the requests are for very small patch files which should never be evicted from RAM.

So I don't think Amazon is doing anything wrong with their pricing, nor is this due to HTTP/1.1; it's just that the portsnap bits are "easy" to serve up in ways which are too subtle to be captured by any reasonable CDN pricing model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good work...</comment>


Okay, Feminism, It's Time We Had a Talk About Empathy - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/dear-blank/bd6321c66b37

<comment><USER2> It probably wasn't the intended effect, but this article leaves the impression that the author doesn't mind being demeaned by men---when they dismiss her ideas because she's a woman, she just laughs it off---but very much minds being criticized by women for not complaining about it. I understand the motivation: if you're a woman in tech just trying to do cool stuff, it's got to be a little irritating to always be expected to be some kind of role model and activist. But it seems inconsistent to say "how comfortable I've always felt and still feel in the tech community" and then reel off a series of incidents where you experienced sexism, including the attempted rape of a friend at a conference.

<comment><USER3> She doesn't deny that she was discriminated. She just didn't notice at first, because it happened on a closed mailing list. And by the time she discovered it, she's already proven the bigot wrong.

She's absolutely fortunate to be in that position, compared to other women who get more publicly demeaned, and don't get the opportunity to prove the bigots wrong. But it's also important that her story gets told, and that she doesn't get labeled as "the problem" simply because her experience is more positive than that of others.

We need more women with positive experiences in tech. Denying the positive creates the impression that it's hopeless, and there's nothing good regarding equality in the tech world. The good examples exist, and we should see them as beacons, rather than deny their existence. In the end, I hope more women get to experience tech like she did, and more misogynists get their comeuppance.

<comment><USER2> I agree, and certainly have no intention to deny the positive. It's just that the author's experience, as she relates it, doesn't sound unusually positive. It sounds typical. What seems unusual is her tolerance for negative experiences. And I can see how her female peers might interpret her attitude as "Hey, suck it up, I did." I'm not sure that _their_ empathy is the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> no surprise this post wasn't popular; it goes against the narrative.

I enjoyed it, FWIW.</comment>


Porsche: The Hedge Fund That Also Made Cars - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/porsche-the-hedge-fund-that-also-made-cars/ <comment><USER2> I've heard Harvard described as a hedge fund that has figured out a great way to avoid taxes.

<comment><USER3> They're not quite on a level with the Catholic Church, but give them a few centuries...

<comment><USER4> Of course, Ikea could school them both when it comes to tax dodges.

<comment><USER5> I am constantly amazed on how well IKEA stays out of the spotlight as a corporate entity. We complain about Apple and Google, while IKEA is playing at least in the same league.

<comment><USER6> But IKEA is not originally a US company, if anything it's avoiding Swedish taxes.

<comment><USER5> And that matters how? I'm not from the US, so I'm more concerned about Google and Apple avoiding local taxes here as well.

Also, I'm sure IKEA avoids local taxes as good as possible as well.

<comment><USER6> It explains why US media are not covering it as much.

<comment><USER5> I didn't speak about US media. Also, is US media your only source?

It's the same over here, IKEA flies under the radar very well.

<comment><USER6> Well I'm in The NL and it's been in the news here because their holding is registered here for tax reasons. I think they're one of nl's biggest tax payers.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but has it been in the news as much as Apple or Google? It's not like it's not a topic over here, but usually in the business part of the newspaper, somewhere down the page. It's not a secret, but rarely an issue people complain about. Which IKEA is probably quite okay with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Berkshire-Hathaway was a textile company (and then an insurance company) before it became an investment company.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway)

"In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company's financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $11-1⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett's shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $11-3⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[7] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing."

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but Buffett was a investor from the beginning, not a textile manager, he just used the company to keep doing what he was doing. He also calls it his worst purchase ever.

<comment><USER9> Any idea why Buffett calls Berkshire as his worst purchase ever? I think it will be interesting to read

<comment><USER10> The answer to your question is in Buffett's 1985 letter to shareholders [1]. The extract below is great demonstration of his business acumen, clarity in writing, humour, and fairness.

\</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

> The domestic textile industry operates in a commodity business, competing in > a world market in which substantial excess capacity exists. Much of the > trouble we experienced was attributable, both directly and indirectly, to > competition from foreign countries whose workers are paid a small fraction > of the U.S. minimum wage. But that in no way means that our labor force > deserves any blame for our closing. In fact, in comparison with employees of > American industry generally, our workers were poorly paid, as has been the > case throughout the textile business. In contract negotiations, union > leaders and members were sensitive to our disadvantageous cost position and > did not push for unrealistic wage increases or unproductive work practices. > To the contrary, they tried just as hard as we did to keep us competitive. > Even during our liquidation period they performed superbly. (Ironically, we > would have been better off financially if our union had behaved unreasonably > some years ago; we then would have recognized the impossible future that we > faced, promptly closed down, and avoided significant future losses.)

> Over the years, we had the option of making large capital expenditures in > the textile operation that would have allowed us to somewhat reduce variable > costs. Each proposal to do so looked like an immediate winner. Measured by > standard return-on- investment tests, in fact, these proposals usually > promised greater economic benefits than would have resulted from comparable > expenditures in our highly-profitable candy and newspaper businesses.

> But the promised benefits from these textile investments were illusory. Many > of our competitors, both domestic and foreign, were stepping up to the same > kind of expenditures and, once enough companies did so, their reduced costs > became the baseline for reduced prices industrywide. Viewed individually, > each company's capital investment decision appeared cost- effective and > rational; viewed collectively, the decisions neutralized each other and were > irrational (just as happens when each person watching a parade decides he > can see a little better if he stands on tiptoes). After each round of > investment, all the players had more money in the game and returns remained > anemic.

> Thus, we faced a miserable choice: huge capital investment would have helped > to keep our textile business alive, but would have left us with terrible > returns on ever-growing amounts of capital. After the investment, moreover, > the foreign competition would still have retained a major, continuing > advantage in labor costs. A refusal to invest, however, would make us > increasingly non-competitive, even measured against domestic textile > manufacturers. I always thought myself in the position described by Woody > Allen in one of his movies: "More than any other time in history, mankind > faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the > other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose > correctly."

[1] [http://berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html](http://berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html)

<comment><USER10> Can't help quoting a little more to give an insight into Buffett's character:

> Though 1979 was moderately profitable, the business thereafter consumed > major amounts of cash. By mid-1985 it became clear, even to me, that this > condition was almost sure to continue. Could we have found a buyer who would > continue operations, I would have certainly preferred to sell the business > rather than liquidate it, even if that meant somewhat lower proceeds for us. > But the economics that were finally obvious to me were also obvious to > others, and interest was nil.

> I won't close down businesses of sub-normal profitability merely to add a > fraction of a point to our corporate rate of return. However, I also feel it > inappropriate for even an exceptionally profitable company to fund an > operation once it appears to have unending losses in prospect. Adam Smith > would disagree with my first proposition, and Karl Marx would disagree with > my second; the middle ground is the only position that leaves me > comfortable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Priceonomics. The blog that also is a startup.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

<comment><USER12> Don't feel bad about the joke, that's how we think of ourselves too (I work at Priceonomics). I think it's actually an interesting advantage versus a content site that just thinks of themselves as a content site.

<comment><USER11> I miss the old price guides, but I enjoy the blog (it's in my RSS feed). I may even buy the book one day.

For those of you who missed the story of Priceonomics' pivot, Techcrunch has a good writeup: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/26/priceonomics-data- services/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/26/priceonomics-data-services/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Did anyone mention McDonald's, the real estate company that also happens to be making hamburgers, yet?

[http://money.howstuffworks.com/mcdonalds.htm](http://money.howstuffworks.com/mcdonalds.htm)

<comment><USER14> They also make money on the pig price oscillations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is a must-read for automobile fans. Ferdinand Piech is as tech and business savvy as he is diabolical, and this article gives you a little perspective of that. I hope someone writes a book about him soon.

I mean, if you personally played a hand in creating the Audi Quattro (that dominated rallying) and the world's fastest car (Veyron, reviving a dead brand), which everyone deemed impossible, you've got to be in the history books of the automobile world.

Can't wait to see how they compete with electric upstarts and how they evolve their Ducati motorcycle brand.

<comment><USER16> > _I hope someone writes a book about him soon._

Mostly in German:

[http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field- keywords=Ferdin...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field- keywords=Ferdinand+Pi%C3%ABch)

<comment><USER15> Thank you for the link. I found one English one, which dedicates part of it about him.

[http://www.amazon.com/Six-Built-Modern-Auto- Industry/dp/B005...](http://www.amazon.com/Six-Built-Modern-Auto- Industry/dp/B005Q5Y3SE)

I do wish for a proper English biography, written by someone like Steven Levy or Walter Isaacson.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The story of one of the largest short squeeze: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_squeeze](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_squeeze)

<comment><USER18> Probably the largest ever in nominal dollars. If you adjust for inflation there might be some historical stuff that would beat it I guess?

<comment><USER18> I note a couple of down votes but the market cap increased by approx $300bn in a couple of days to $370bn. Anyone know any short squeezes that beat that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's an interesting story but hard to understand why they are saying it's a hedge fund. The fact that Porsche made an investment in VW that affected the larger financial markets does in no way equate to Porsche being a hedge fund, especially since that investment was made to allow them to continue manufacturing cars, not as a switch to focusing on financial markets.

<comment><USER20> 1) Porsche's investment did not impact the larger financial markets in any way. Porsche's investment impacted VW stock and nothing else (I believe Porsche was 100% privately owned at that time)

2) Porsche's actions were like a hedge fund because they designed a financial situation where they couldn't lose (up until the financial collapse cut off their liquidity). Had the markets not collapsed and Porsche had been able to borrow like it could in 2007 they would've owned VW, the issue is that the markets collapsed and massive lending restrictions were imposed requiring Porsche to payback loans instead of roll them over. In the end they turned to VW to pay back the loan. Had that external event not impacted the lending environment Porsche would've acquired VW and subsidized their cost through financial participants shorting VW stock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think they are putting a little too much of the blame on Wiedeking here. The CEO doesn't make huge stock purchases like this without board approval, and Piëch was on the board of both Porsche and VW. To me it sounds a lot more like a play by Piëch all along.

The article also understates the rivalry between Porsche and VW. They're saying it's just Wiedeking behind it since '93, but it's really been going on for a lot longer as far as I know.

<comment><USER22> German newspapers at the time mainly blamed Holger Härter as the "mastermind" behind the sketchy stock gamblings of Porsche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> anyone who took a quick look at this and didn't read the whole thing, i highly recommend it... i felt like i was reading Game of Thrones - Car Edition. What a fantastic story I never knew about!

</comment><comment><USER24> I like how desperately this article tries to portray Ferdinand Piëch as a genius when he just got lucky. What if the "great Financial Crisis" of 2008 did not hit and a board member wasn't in bed with German Chancellor? These shenanigans would have blown into Piëch's face.

<comment><USER25> Porsche also required the VW Rule to be repealed, irregardless of the financial collapse that would have been a sticking point and could have dragged on indefinitely or not happened at all. Porsche would have the 75% it wanted but they couldn't have taken a full acquisition, and Piëch could play the game from that position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wow I remember the squeeze, didn't know it cost Porsche it's independence. Great read!

<comment><USER27> It's a very dangerous gambit, because the more you buy, the more power you give to the company you're buying, because so much of your wealth is tied up in them, their actions directly affect your wealth without you having any control. It's the same reason the argument that China could crush the US economically by calling in its debt is so wrong. That would deflate the dollar to such a point that China would lose literally a trillion dollars of value. Porche simply forgot how much power they had given away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It seems that this move has been performed enough times to deserve its own (very amusing) name: Pac-Man defense

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac- Man_defense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man_defense)

</comment><comment><USER29> Blatant clone of a vastly more concisely written (read: not padded using a thesaurus) article by Ivan Krstic

[https://radian.org/notebook/porsche](https://radian.org/notebook/porsche)

<comment><USER30> The Krstic article is an explanation of the short squeeze that happened near the end. This is just a small part of the Priceonomics article. The Priceonomics article includes a lot more history about the companies and people involved as well as the German politics protecting VW. The Krstic article doesn't even include the twist ending where VW buys Porsche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm curious, how much did Wiedeking personally profit from this scheme? How much would he have made had he continued "just focusing on making cars" as the article concludes he should have?

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems like the article actually is an experiment that tries to find out in how many ways you can misspell the word Porsche.

</comment><comment><USER33> Excellent article. In depth, with great sources.

And all on one page!

</comment><comment><USER34> Quite a good read.

</comment><comment><USER35> They should make a movie out of this.

"Das Hedge Fund"

<comment><USER36> "DER" Hedge Fund...;-)

<comment><USER37> The slogan of Volkswagen is "Das Auto". Or did you knew ;)

<comment><USER22> "Das Auto" is correct German, but neither "Das Hedge Fund" nor "Der Hedge Fund" is. Only "Der Hedgefond" is correct.

<comment><USER38> Bessermacher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> such an amazing post. Loved it !!

</comment><comment><USER40> is that true?

<comment><USER4> It's true, but it's also true that the Piëch and Porsche families have always been like the two guys duking it out over the island in LOST. This particular "business relationship" goes back multiple generations.

The good news for owners and fans of the cars is that Porsche's doing their best work ever under the Volkswagen AG umbrella.

<comment><USER41> I know nothing about cars, but I heard from someone who worked there that for some parts, they now have to send half of them back to Volkswagen because they don't meet specifications anymore, and that bureaucracy is on the rise.

Just hearsay, so take this with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER4> _I know nothing about cars, but I heard from someone who worked there that for some parts, they now have to send half of them back to Volkswagen because they don 't meet specifications anymore_

This is a _good_ thing. In 1992, it was my job, as a Porsche customer, to find all of those bad parts. :-P These days the factory does a better job catching the problems before they escape the building.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What I don't understand about Bitcoin - <AUTHOR>

The units are about the same as $20 USD. Because each coin is some encrypted unit or something it exist as an unbreakable unit of currency. The USD can be broken up into dollars, quarters, nickels and down to pennies which are practically worthless. Which is great because if I goto a coffee shop I don't want to have to pay $20 for an espresso since its my lowest form of currency, I only want to pay $2.50 - $3.00. How does Bitcoin get around this? I would have bought a bunch when they were $7 each, if I had of understood this. <comment><USER2> Right now they subdivide to 8 decimal places. .00000001

With minimal change to the protocol they could subdivide to much smaller units.

I think "bitcoin" is a confusing name, because it's really more like a group of account numbers, which can have money with 8 digits of precision to the right of the decimal point.

Think of a Bitcoin Address(es) as your account number(s), and your Private Key as your ATM card, PIN, and signature all wrapped in one.

If someone sends me 50 bitcoins, I have it in my "account" in the giant ledger in the sky. If I want to send 3.5 of them to someone, what might happen is that I create a transaction that sends 50 bitcoins to two different places... 3.5 to someone, and 46.5 to another account (of mine, my change!) in the giant ledger in the sky.

Or for simplicity, think of them like rewards points, and don't try to make it too complicated.

<comment><AUTHOR> If one bitcoin is some encrypted id or whatever how can I transfer 0.00000001 of them to someone else?

<comment><USER3> There are no such thing as "one bitcoin".

Bitcoin is a protocol actually, that store numbers in a peer to peer ledger, what you do is change the values on the ledger, and the encryption is only to ensure the transaction was not a forgery.

Right now the protocol supports as the smallest one the "satoshi", but a "satoshi" is too small, so people for day to day use "BTC".

0.00000001 of a BTC is a satoshi.

But if Bitcoin really gets used in the mainstream, BTC might be valued in the millions, thus the protocol can be more or less easily changed to use a unit smaller than the satoshi.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great... this really helps a lot. Now I finally understand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They are not indivisible units. I believe the minimum possible denomination is 0.00000001 BTC, or about 0.00002 cents.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is why I don't like the name "Bitcoin". The system does not have any coins in it (unlike earlier work like Chaumian digital cash).

</comment><comment><USER6> The smaller possible exchange unit is 1E-8 bitcoin (0,00000001).</comment>


Here's Why Musicians Won't Stand for Illegal Uploads Anymore - <AUTHOR> http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1088-heres-why-musicians-wont-stand-for-illegal-uploads-anymore/ <comment><AUTHOR> FWIW I'm pretty okay with the Safe Harbor provisions as they are, considering the conglomorate rights management entities of the RIAA et al are, by most accounts, doing bang-up business and getting their fingers into everybody's pockets to get their percentages. True, they aren't getting 40% (or whatever) ROI like in the heydey of premium pricing for CDs in the peak market, but the industry's biggest players are equipped and able to manage their rights as-is. Just look at Prince - he has no trouble auditing his material on the internet, down to a dancing baby case of all things (which didn't really clear things up either).

Recent technological advancements by SoundCloud and Dubset purport to be able to identify music pieces using back-end tech. This is a huge development, and could force the issue with other digital service providers. It's a matter of technology catching up to the desired methods of tracking and revenue collection, and it looks like we're a lot closer. Modern problems, modern tools to address them.

As an independent, I'd probably care more if I saw large numbers leading to miniscule revenues, but let's be honest, we're talking the music business and musicians have traditionally not made much income from recorded works. If one of my songs gets used on a viral video without permission and it blows up and gets some ad revenue, yeah, that's a case to pursue (and probably win). Other times this DMCA stuff seems a bit more alarmist than consumer friendly.

Oh, and there seems to be a really glaring factual error in the article about Grooveshark:

> _" In that case, the court found that Grooveshark had created a > 'technological Pez dispenser' that required copyright owners to submit > 'successive takedown notices' in order to remove a single sound recording > from the service," the 18 record industry groups wrote in the brief. "This > type of brazen work-around of the DMCA by Grooveshark and other rogue actors > of the DMCA devalues music and suppresses the legitimate market for it."_

No, in that case, the Record Labels uncovered evidence that Grooveshark employees had uploaded songs and encouraged each other via internal e-mails to upload popular songs. That was the stake through the heart. That is definitely not DMCA compliant and they got utterly destroyed for it. If anything, it's an example that the RIAA still has tremendous rights-management power. See also: Aurous.

End personal opinion, YMMV.</comment>


Unreal Engine 5 Revealed – Next-Gen Real-Time Demo Running on Playstation 5 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC5KtatMcUw&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> I really recommend viewing it on Vimeo instead of YouTube. YouTube _murders_ the quality of the images coming out of this demo. The difference is really stark I can not emphasize enough.

[https://vimeo.com/417882964](https://vimeo.com/417882964)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing this.</comment></comment>


Google Chrome's Sandbox not your average - <AUTHOR> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox

<comment><USER2> There are a few caveats, but the security provided by sandboxing may make a thin client that only contains Chrome a superior place to deploy applications dealing with sensitive information. (And deploying Chrome on a managed thin client would remove most of those caveats, like security holes introduced by anti-malware programs.)</comment>


Introducing Lanyrd Pro, for companies that speak at and sponsor events - <AUTHOR> http://lanyrd.com/blog/2013/lanyrd-pro/

<comment><AUTHOR> We've got a pretty amazing collection of launch customers!

<http://events.heroku.com/>

<http://facebook-developers.lanyrd.com/>

<http://github.lanyrd.com/>

<http://lanyrd.com/mashery/>

<http://lanyrd.com/happy-cog/>

<comment><USER2> HTTPS Everywhere is pushing the Heroku page to HTTPS, which breaks because while you've got a server listening on port 443, it's presenting a Lanyrd certificate.

Definitely an issue with my configuration, but might well affect a few of your more security concious visitors.

<comment><USER3> I have HTTPS Everywhere and I'm shocked at the number of sites I've found that don't work like they should when it's enabled. Namely a certain stock charting website that uses javascript to force you to HTTP unless you are a pro member that gets HTTPS Everywhere stuck in a loop fighting with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not half-bad as a revenue strategy. As an event organizer (the Startup Conference is May 30, check out <http://thestartupconference.com> and contact me if your startup raised money in 2013, we'll put you on stage in front of 1,000 people), the one thing I receive over and over are offers from completely unqualified "partners" and sponsors that don't even bother to check who our audience is. At that point, I stopped answering to the worst offenders.

I like the concept of a branded page for the sponsors, tying together multiple events. Serious sponsors have a long-term view and will have a methodical approach to sponsoring multiple related events over an entire year.

</comment><comment><USER5> Congrats on the launch Simon and team!

Re: the design of the pricing page on <http://lanyrd.com/pro/> (I know it's probably in alpha):

1) The second set of plans on the dark background below the slides looks so much better aesthetically than the first set of plans! Did you find that having the plans below the slides/lists of companies converted better?

2) I found Bronze vs. Bronze Plus and Silver vs Silver Plus confusing, and organizing in 3 columns with Bronze/Bronze Plus and Silver/Silver Plus in the first two columns made it look disorganized. Why not just show 5 columns with more distinct names? The "Book 14 day trial" buttons are sort of scattered/hard to find and require a lot of scrolling to get to (esp after the huge list under Silver).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback - we're going to take another look at the pricing page ASAP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The pricing page lists "administratiors", not sure if that's a pun or typo. The github.lanyrd.com page has "upcoming [78]" and "past [415]" at the bottom, clicking the past tab takes a second or two and then it completely removes the upcoming / past section, no console errors but the network request (to [http://github.lanyrd.com/?context=past&component=107&...](http://github.lanyrd.com/?context=past&component=107&&ajax=1)) returns:

        {"eval": "$('.js-component-107').html(null); lanyrd.truncateFacetLists();"}

I'm using Chrome 26.0.1410.64 on Windows 7.

edit: the upcoming/past thing seems to work now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the bug reports - we're rolling out a couple of spelling corrections right now.

<comment><USER7> Well, on that note--your name comes off rather weird to me. I'm guessing it's supposed to read as "lanyard", but it makes me think "Lanyrd Skanyrd".

<comment><USER8> That is not a bug report, rather an unhelpful opinion on semantics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been wanting to see social networking for business conferences really take off for a while.

Anyone know why Lanyrd doesn't have more traction? For any given conference, I find that it's rare for more than 10% to signal that they are going to the conference.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like, but I'm having a hard job seeing how it's worth so much per month to customers? Silver and Gold plans are definitely not cheap at $799/month / $1599/month respectively (source: <http://lanyrd.com/pro/>).

<comment><AUTHOR> Pricing is based on the number of members - silver gives you up to 180, and the gold plan allows up to 500. If your company have 500 employees out speaking at conferences your annual events budget already measures in the tens of millions of dollars, at which point we're a small fraction. If we can make your event participation just a few percentage points more effective (and we're confident we can do a lot more than that) we're an absolute bargain.

<comment><USER10> I see, you're pricing on members, and I was looking at the useful features (like branded subdomain and suchlike). I wasn't clear what 'members' were, they're speakers? So this really isn't a product for companies with < 20 staff and only 3 speaking, but wanting to show off all their talks in one place...

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll definitely make that clearer.

It's not just for the speakers - we show team members who are attending the event as well. The primary intention of the company pages is "come and meet us at these events", so attendees are very important too.

<comment><USER10> Thanks, that's much clearer now!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I first read this blog article, I was instantly sold on this idea (I personally go to alot of events to represent our company). I was on my way to sign up for a trial but stopped short when I saw the pricing. Why is this service so expensive?

<comment><AUTHOR> Our initial plans and pricing are aimed at companies who have events as a core part of their marketing strategy - companies with developer evangelism teams, for example. We're actively seeking feedback on pricing for other kinds of company at the moment. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this - you can reach me at simon at lanyrd dot com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some commenters are referring to specific prices ("Silver and Gold plans are definitely not cheap at $799/month / $1599/month ") - well, unless I am missing smth, right now the pricing page does not have ANY numbers.

Bug?

</comment><comment><USER13> I love Lanyrd. Best of luck with this, it looks like a good deal all round.

</comment><comment><USER14> Isn't this basically what Pathable offers for $799 / YEAR? <http://www.pathable.com/pricing>

<comment><AUTHOR> Not at all - Pathable is an entirely different kind of product.

Pathable offer a platform for running a social network at an individual conference.

Our product provides tools for companies that speak at and sponsor many different events - a branded site for promoting the events they are involved with and internal tools for planning and coordinating their event marketing strategy.

Take a look at <http://events.heroku.com/> for example, or check out our explanatory slide deck here: <http://www.slideshare.net/lanyrd/lanyrd-pro>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How are you doing the calendar feeds? Using a caldav server or just static ical files for download?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're serving up static iCal feeds - Google Calendar etc can be configured to poll them for updates.

Here's an example of one of our public feeds (of Ruby on Rails events in Europe) - you can paste this in to the "Subscribe" menu in your calendar.

[http://lanyrd.com/topics/ruby-on-rails/in/europe/ruby-on- rai...](http://lanyrd.com/topics/ruby-on-rails/in/europe/ruby-on-rails-in- europe.ics)

You can see our subscribe UI in the right hand column on this page: <http://lanyrd.com/topics/ruby-on-rails/in/europe/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good stuff

I'd suggest you simplify your ^pricing.

Use the most important feature to differentiate. e.g number of people in a team or number of events. As it is presently, it is quite confusing.

^<http://lanyrd.com/pro/>

<comment><USER17> Potentially not even the pricing, just how it's presented. It's almost impossible to do any sort of quick comparison/ understand what the key differences between each plan at the moment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. We'll definitely be iterating on the pricing page a whole bunch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The track topic in a location is such an improvement!</comment>


Unix as IDE (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://sanctum.geek.nz/arabesque/series/unix-as-ide/ <comment><USER2> I'm a terminal jockey and an i3 junkie, and for a long time vim+extensions+Unix tools were my IDE too... but ultimately there is a difference between a powerful editor used like an IDE, and an actual IDE. there are lots of features which get first class.attention in an IDE, which were just kludgy hacks in my beloved vim... and some that simply weren't possible.

For example, VSCode Remote container development. The IDE is split into client and server portions, with the server living in a container (or group of containers) of your definition. So your host environment is clean, but you still get tools that are a PITA or impossible to run remotely, like certain debuggers or linters. And best of all, the configuration is saved in the repo. Commit it, and everyone in your project gets a "one button option" to use the same developent environment as everyone else.

It's not IMPOSSIBLE to do something similar with vim+Unix. Docker compose and enough automation will get you most of the way there. But not without a tremendous amount of work and time spent maintaining it for everyone's unique environment. And certainly not in a fashion that i could call "one button".

There are a few features like that. So I stopped spending hours (and hours and hours) maintaining a collection of hacks that approximated a modern development environment, and started using software for what it was designed to do. Vim is still my superpowered editor of choice, but when i'm working on a significant codebase, I use an IDE.

<comment><USER3> I tried VSCode several times, but always came back to vim. I think there is a fundamental difference to a purely terminal based workflow.

Learning a new commandline tool has almost always been something that paid back for years: CLI cares much more about backwards compatibility than a GUI because it's used in shell scripts. And that's another advantage: you are only one step away from automating stuff. A homogeneousness set of keybindings over all applications are just the icing on the cake.

<comment><USER4> I use both VSCode (in Vim mode) and Vim+Tmux in my work these days.

VSCode is good for working in TypeScript codebases—I couldn't find any way to show helpful and long TS compiler errors in Vim nicely.

However, VSCode's terminal is semi-broken and sessions do not persist, so for other kinds of work that might involve grepping around, running builds and one-off data migration scripts, etc., Tmux+Vim (with respective shortcuts to unify pane navigation) work perfectly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've gotten made fun of because I've said my "IDE" is `tmux` in the past; my typical development environment is a tmux split, where an editor (usually NeoVim, sometimes Emacs) does editing, and the bottom half is a terminal running either a dev server or just the compiler command.

It's not perfect, but I like how I can basically swap any component out (except tmux itself).

<comment><USER6> I think tmux is overrated, at least when running locally. Tiling WM gets you the same efficient screen layout and keybind driven navigation, and it'll manage also graphical windows that you'll inevitably end up having (like browser). Also you'll avoid any tmux-in-tmux issues if you do connect to remote hosts, and all the terminal features (copypaste, urlgrab, scrolling, search etc) actually will work properly.

<comment><USER7> > I think tmux is overrated, at least when running locally. Tiling WM gets you > the same efficient screen layout and keybind driven navigation

Funnily, I have made the opposite path, moving from a tiling WM to tmux into a simple xterm. Tiling wm are overrated, since tmux gives you the same functionality, and you can detach your session easily.

What I'm sorely missing is a way to "freeze" all my tmux processes so that they can be recovered in the case of a system reboot.

<comment><USER6> > since tmux gives you the same functionality

Unless you're browsing HN on Lynx I suspect you'll have at least a graphical browser running, which means you still need _some_ way to manage graphical windows, because that is simply something that tmux does not do.

Also proper WM is unsurprisingly more capable/flexible for window management because it's not limited by a fixed character cell grid and other idiosyncrasies of terminals

<comment><USER7> > Unless you're browsing HN on Lynx

I actually use elinks to read HN and many sites, but I also use regularly a web browser.

However, I try to keep web-browsing usage as sparse as possible. I launch firefox from the terminal, browse tho wherever I need, and then _close_ the browser window. I abhor to have a browser "always open".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't like either extremes. I quite hate working in big bloated IDEs. But I don't like trying to accomplish everything at the terminal. I always use GUI and shell tools together.

My editor of choice TextMate is usually launched from the terminal. I work a lot in a REPL environment and when I get a stack backtrace my terminal program iTerm2 automatically identifies paths in the stack backtrace, so I can mouse click them and open in TextMate at the correct line.

I use a separate git GUI client called Tower a lot, but I also use the git command line. I mix and match a lot.

I really dislike monolithic tools. If you try to do absolutely everything from the CLI you get many of the same problems as in a IDE GUI: You get too much complexity in your interaction. Too many special keystrokes and commands to remember.

I quite like the old NeXT idea of an IDE, kind of how the old xCode was when interface builder was a separate program. As you integrate more tools complexity just grows.

We already have a multitasking OS with windows. We where meant to use multiple tools and not just sit in one big maximized monolithic program.

<comment><USER9> > My editor of choice TextMate is usually launched from the terminal.

My issue is, I need an editor that knows that a field annotated with @Resource with a type and name of SomeService foo is injected by a DI framework and makes it easy for me to navigate to implementations of SomeService with a name of `foo`.

Sure, I could put hundreds of hours into half-way replicating what an IDE does. Or, I could just use an IDE that was written by people who've felt the same pain as me. TextMate might be good for the occasional Ruby or Python script, but even then - do I have to manually manage virtualenvs while working on this script, or can my IDE do it for me? (Spoilers: Intellij can)

<comment><USER10> My understanding is that people who want this sort of thing use a client server set up with a server that does all of the AST parsing and linting separate from the editor.

I feel like there's a weird power thing some people get sucked into that ends in forcing everyone around them to use their preferred (often IntelliJ or vscode) editor often via the argument that the linter configuration only works in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I recently discovered the "watch" command. With an autosave plugin in Vim, I can put some "print()" statements in my code and run "watch python3 mycode.py" in a small Tmux pane to get nearly instant feedback as I debug something. Or if I'm refactoring, I can do "watch pytest". It's pretty sweet.

<comment><USER12> Using _"watch"_ [1] to run your program is a bad idea. The watch command executes a program at regular intervals, by default it runs once every second.

What you should use instead is _"inotifywait"_ [2] to execute your program(s) whenever there is a change. This way the program will run, for example, every time you save your changes. There are many utilities that make use of inotify _(the library that powers inotifywait)_ some of them are fsnotify [3], fswatch [4] and watchexec [5].

[1] [https://linux.die.net/man/1/watch](https://linux.die.net/man/1/watch)

[2] [https://linux.die.net/man/1/inotifywait](https://linux.die.net/man/1/inotifywait)

[3] [https://github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify](https://github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify) _(written in Go — golang)_

[4] [https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch](https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch) _(written in C++)_

[5] [https://github.com/watchexec/watchexec](https://github.com/watchexec/watchexec) _(written in Rust)_

<comment><USER13> If you like inotify, you might also like entr [1].

I only found out about it few days ago, but it seems nice so far.

[1]: [http://eradman.com/entrproject/](http://eradman.com/entrproject/)

<comment><USER14> Wow this is amazing. You made my day with this tool!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A few times previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12653028](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12653028)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105768](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105768)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3594098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3594098)

</comment><comment><USER16> I think code completion is missing. Sure you can always try to grep your function call, but seeing the parameters and return type of a function you are calling as you are coding is really nice.

Also a real IDE does much better debugging. Using Visual Studio for debugging your program is much easier than using GDB, which is probably why the more Unix programmers use printf debugging rather than try to fire up GDB.

<comment><USER8> You can do that in a lot of editors. Don't need an IDE for that. You got standardized language servers now which are often easy to integrate in a multitude of editors.

But personally I don't like IDE style completions that much. In editors I often prefer completions based on what is in the file I am editing. But I also work a lot in a REPL environment.

I personally think a good REPL is a much better debugging tool than most IDE debuggers.

> Using Visual Studio for debugging your program is much easier than using > GDB, which is probably why the more Unix programmers use printf debugging > rather than try to fire up GDB.

That does not really have anything to do with IDE vs command line. My experience as a C++ developer for many years on Linux is that debuggers just don't work that well. Many of the issues has to do with the complexities of C++ and how gcc stores debug information.

Most IDE style debuggers on Linux are quite crappy, because they are slow and undependable. Printf is faster, more dependable and gives more flexibility in how you display data you are interested in.

<comment><USER17> Not sure why you're being downvoted. IMHO, printf based debugging is more ergonomic and requires less context switching. Instead of using my mouse to work with debugger or remembering a myriad of shortcuts for navigating through it I can just keep typing right in my editor where I already am. For me it fall under the keep it simple stupid category.

<comment><USER18> How do you add more watches (printfs) without recompiling/restarting though (That seems like a basic requirement for calling it ergonomic tbh)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What is it about an IDE that you need?

a) The ability to do an end-to-end build with one click (we've lost that with cloud being part of the equation)

b) Guranteed buildability

c) Intellisense/autocomplete

d) Widgets that can be moved into any which way.

I feel that we're missing a trick with CI/CD if IDEs can do a end-to-end build with one click, there's some technology to be shared or extracted here from desktop IDEs.

<comment><USER18> An full build is always the easiest build.

Building as little as possible and having quick iteration is the hard bit when you have statically typed languages and large projects. If I edit a file and change the name of the function, the call sites should all light up with red squiggles. In a statically compiled language. Without requiring a recompile.

<comment><USER20> > If I edit a file and change the name of the function, the call sites should > all light up with red squiggles. In a statically compiled language. Without > requiring a recompile.

which is what all IDE support ? most even allow you to automatically fix it nowadays

<comment><USER18> Well it requires quite a bit from the compiler/language server infrastructure to not just behave like a batch compiler and give up after e.g. a failed parse. The ability to analyze incomplete or incorrectly parsing syntax is very tricky compared to doing it in sequence parse -> analyze etc.

Many IDE's manage this but far from all _languages_ (compilers) do, simply because their compilers are simple batch compilers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Some of the principles discussed here will be applicable to those using > Emacs as well, but probably not for underpowered editors like Nano.

Nano actually can do well over half of the things mentioned…

<comment><USER22> I love nano! No 40 year old mentality with the keybinds like vim and emacs. No text editor should require a learning curve imo. You can make a .nanorc too and tailor your experience. Some syntax highlighting: [https://github.com/scopatz/nanorc](https://github.com/scopatz/nanorc)

<comment><USER23> It is incredibly sad that prejudices like "40 years old mentality" stop people from using vim.

It's not outdated or limited, it's extremely convenient and powerful. Yes, there's some learning involved, but after learning a few keystrokes, you become extremely productive with vim.

nano or other editors can't even come close, because vim allows to edit the text with the speed of your though without pressing a lot of keys.

<comment><USER24> The same could be said for Emacs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Excerpt:

How is UNIX an IDE?

"The primary rationale for using an IDE is that it gathers all your tools in the same place, and you can use them in concert with roughly the same user interface paradigm, and without having to exert too much effort to make separate applications cooperate. The reason this becomes especially desirable with GUI applications is because it's _very difficult to make windowed applications speak a common language or work well with each other; aside from cutting and pasting text, they don't share a common interface._

The interesting thing about this problem for shell users is that well-designed and enduring Unix tools already share a common user interface in _streams of text and files as persistent objects, otherwise expressed in the axiom "everything's a file"._

Pretty much everything in Unix is built around these two concepts, and it's this common user interface, coupled with a forty-year history of high-powered tools whose users and developers have especially prized interoperability, that goes a long way to making Unix as powerful as a full-blown IDE."

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the desktop can be an IDE.

[https://github.com/samsquire/ideas#98-the-desktop-is-an- inte...](https://github.com/samsquire/ideas#98-the-desktop-is-an-integrated- development-environment)

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't muck about with having to use tabs or maybe keycodes to change the current view(s) of a terminal/xterm.

I simply open sufficient xterms on one or more virtual desktops to cover all of my needs.

Ferinstance: I can have the warnings and errors of the last compile displaying in one xterm, I can be editing the relevant xxx.c source file in a second xterm, the associated yyy.h header file being edited in a third xterm, and the man page for a library function showing in yet another fourth xterm.

All of them immediately visible, and all of them interactive.

Unix as IDE 'just works' for me.

</comment><comment><USER27> IntelliJ Editors just straight up not working on Wayland right now has driven me insane. I really like Sway (i3) and Wayland is a must for mixed DPI setups. Now I have started using Kakoune and LSP for Go and Python and it works great. I tried Neovim for a while but having another window manager inside of Sway is too much of a burden. Kakoune opens new windows in Sway (or tmux). Combined with a plugin to make Firefox open tabs in a new window always I found my dream setup.

<comment><USER9> > IntelliJ Editors just straight up not working on Wayland right now has > driven me insane

Maybe don't use Wayland then. Or, at least, suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with some grace. You chose to use Wayland, making you a minority (Wayland users) of a minority (Linux users). All power to you to make your own choices, but to paraphrase an old favourite - "Freedom may be mankind's natural state, but so is sitting in a tree eating your dinner while it is still wriggling."

TL;DR - you choose to use tech not supported by Jetbrains, so please feel free to eat your dinner while it's still wriggling.

<comment><USER27> If Firefox can pull it off so can Jetbrains. X does not work for mixed dpi and xrandr isn't a solution. Wayland has been a thing for 15 years. If Apple released a new window system devs would support it why not Linux? Your view is essentially there are starving kids in Africa so you should starve too.

<comment><USER28> Because there are probably more developers using MacOS and it is officially supported by Apple. Wayland may have been available for 15 years but it isn't defacto (doesn't work with the nvidia driver).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I only started using vim constantly around a year ago because I wanted to get used to it in case I needed it. Now I only use the shell for development and haven't touched an IDE or graphical text editor in months.

This is a treasure trove, there are quite a few tools I wasn't aware of that I shall start using consistently now.

</comment><comment><USER30> I go further. Unix is my IDE and my CMS for my website.

</comment><comment><USER31> anyone figure out how to do this with Java though? Seems more feasible for C or Go but not all..

<comment><USER27> There are language servers for Java now for auto complete in Vim etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Rule #1: Use all the Things.

Rule #2: vim is all you need.</comment>


Ask HN:How to focus on the best idea? - <AUTHOR>

I've read a good chunk of pg's essays. But what I really want to know will come from a variable amount of sources (ie you guys). If someone has a few good ideas (4+) for intriguing startup's how do you focus on only one of those and ignore the rest?<p>The problem is that when focus is shifted to a single idea the remaining ideas still seem intriguing and they lure me away as the rough patches hit during the current project. <comment><USER2> Personally I feel that hard work and determination are probably two of the most important things needed to really be successful. With that said...

Sometimes you have to scratch the itch in order to focus. It might cost you a day or two, but if it helps you get back on track it is probably worth it rather than weeks of being unfocused. If you find the new thing you're working on so much more compelling, you might be better off sticking with it, especially if you're more likely to stay with it.

You might be interested in using a stage gate method for helping to determine whether or not to keep with the current project: [http://lostgarden.com/2007/02/rockets-cars-and-gardens- visua...](http://lostgarden.com/2007/02/rockets-cars-and-gardens- visualizing.html)

I think it is especially hard to let go of failing projects and being able to put things on the shelf will save you years of lost time. Is the rough patch an indicator that maybe the idea isn't as good as you first thought or just hard work, or?

</comment><comment><USER3> I know exactly what you mean.

If I start a project however, I will focus only on it, until its finished (thats not to say it then receives no attention). Only then can I start looking at the other projects I want to do - and decide which to begin next.

Otherwise nothing would ever be accomplished.

</comment><comment><USER4> Work on what you feel yourself drawn to the most.

</comment><comment><USER5> create a spreadsheet with columns:

startup cost

time to build a mock up

business model

estimated revenue in a year

passion index

competition

comments

then you'll know</comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup idea - <AUTHOR>

I'm considering building an iPad app for creating and publishing surveys. With WuFoo's recent acquisition, I looked at innovative ways to create forms. I think an iPad app is a great platform for throwing these together, having them auto-publish to specific channels (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) without having to login on a web interface. The target would be in-between complex form builders and Facebook polling. Customers could also use it as a way to collect in person surveys with a great UX.
I always thrash my ideas and validate it with the HN community before taking the next step. <comment><USER2> The iPad seems like the single best way to conduct in-person, live surveys. I think there should be some focus on that aspect of the device. You mention a great UX – I agree. I nice touchscreen interface for surveys could make them more enjoyable to fill out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just make sure nothing, NOTHING, requires two clicks.

So, a select box should not take one click to activate and display; then another to actually make the selection.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think you need to take a step back from your bias. It's pretty obvious that you like your iPad, and your bias is getting in your way.

Given that WuFoo was recently acquired, and the market for its services are in demand, it nearly makes sense to duplicate what they did rather than build something iPad specific. There may be another corp out there looking to acquire a WuFoo-like startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually don't own an iPad. I do love my friends' iPads and just feel the experience of creating surveys would be superior. Anyways, I'm quite surprised you suggest following a WuFoo model. The product will continue to strengthen I'm sure, and it seems with SurveyMonkey behind them, it would be difficult to compete. I'm sure I missed something with your thought process though.

<comment><USER4> It's plain and simple; Having competitors validates the market. Building easy form creation and tracking is one of those things companies just never think about, so a startup like wufoo can fly under the radar until they're considered valuable enough to acquire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For sure! Make it work on any touch screen for that matter (iPad is premium) - greenpeace people might like it too. Insurance adjusters? Cops? Plumbers? etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> You really opened my eyes to all the possibilities, not just with surveys, but with forms, estimate inputs, invoice sign offs...

<comment><USER5> Now think doctors and nurses running around the hospital with this, ticket checker/conductor on Amtrack, a teacher in a classroom taking attendance, anthropologists in the field, mine and oil site inspectors, most importantly think third world's extended health care workers (docs are a few so they train folks to be half-docs and send them all over - millions of them - imagine one doc sitting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia getting real time data from 1000 workers and only bothered when a red flag is raised by a worker tending to a pregnant woman going in labor shortly - UN orgs give a lot of money for infant mortality - as a matter of fact for all 7 UN's Millennium Development Goals).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> it could work if you made it REALLY simple.. but i mean REALLY simple, sharing and creating

</comment><comment><USER7> You can do it, make it smart but very simple.</comment>


Germany gives nod to US$8B tunnel link to Denmark - <AUTHOR> https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/germany-gives-nod-to-us-8-billion-tunnel-link-to-denmark-11071154 <comment><USER2> I wasn't aware that we have money for that kind of stuff... Also, it will anyhow turn out to be late and way beyond budget. (Sorry for the rant)</comment>


Relativity gives gold its color - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/

<comment><USER2> "If someone tries to sell you non-relativistic gold you are being had!"

This is mostly a concern for theorists who prefer to go as far as possible with non-relativistic theories.

This relativistic shift also has large implications for the bonding of gold nanostructures. The relativistic correction shifts the energy of the core electrons and they hybridize - giving the Au - Au bonds directionality. Small gold clusters can thus take on planar, cage, and tubular structures - completely contrary to what you would expect from surface tension.

see these wonderful papers:

Evidence of hollow golden cages: <http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8326.full>

These small structures are famous for the fact that they are _not_ chemically inert! Many people are exploring applications as catalysts to complete the oxidation of CO in automobiles.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's a plot of the aluminum/silver/gold reflectance spectra, fwiw (visible range is ~390-750 nm): [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Metal- reflectan...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Metal- reflectance.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you have some time to kill and an interest in Chemistry and its history check out Donald Sadoway's excellent lectures at MIT -

Introduction to Solid State Chemistry <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R90sohp6h44>

</comment><comment><USER4> IANAP but I thought that applying relativity to objects that quantum mechanics traditionally studies crates some contradictions. This, as I understand it, is why there is a search for the "Grand Theory of Physics" or whatever the cool name is for it these days. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER5> Yes and no. The short answer would be that the interface between quantum mechanics and special relativity is fairly unproblematic but the interface with general relativity has some huge problems. Since this is a special- relativity effect it's pretty well understood.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the answer. I didn't realize it was only GR that caused the problem.

Do you know any good places I can get a fairly simple description of the long answer? (I.e. a good place to learn about why the interface between GR and QM is problematic)?

<comment><USER6> Any simple explanation you find will be of the form "lies for children". The real explanation is, of course, "None of the things we've tried have succeeded in making testable predictions." But to understand that you need to understand what we have tried, which means understanding the theories, which means a very considerable investment of effort.

That said, I can illustrate the conflict. The fundamental idea of general relativity is that mass warps the structure of space-time, and we perceive this warpage as gravity. One fundamental idea of quantum mechanics is that a quantum mechanical system is always in some superposition of possible states, and the superposition adds. (Since we're dealing with a complex wave, sometimes adding 2 possibilities leads to cancellation in one place and strengthening in another, creating interference patterns. But fundamentally we're just adding waves.)

One of the things that nobody knows how to do is add different kinds of warpage of space-time in a linear way and get a sensible answer.

Let's try something else. In QM perturbations of any kind of field must have an associated particle with describable characteristics. For a random instance vibrations in a lattice of atoms can be described by a field that must have an associated particle. That particle is called the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon>. (Phonons are not fundamental physical particles, but they do exist mathematically and their effects have been experimentally measured.)

Now in QM the exchange of particles actually gives rise to various forces. Furthermore the ability for virtual particles to arise and disappear as long as you stay under the Heisenberg limit causes the prospect of particles interacting with various things, including themselves. When you try to calculate all of these interactions you wind up getting infinities added and subtracted with each other. There is a mathematical trick called renormalization that lets you cancel these out.

Now in General Relativity you have gravitational waves. (They have never been directly detected, but binary star systems have been observed losing power in accord with the predictions of GR.) If you try to fit these waves into QM you should wind up with particles called gravitons. But when you try to do renormalization on them, the procedure fails and you get infinities out.

So we have failures both ways. Attempts to state QM within the framework of GR fails because we don't know how to add perturbations in coordinate systems. Fields that GR predicts exist cause QM to break down and give impossible answers. The theories just don't merge. Experiment doesn't help because each theory is a very good description in its own region, and we can't get data on how the theories break down between their areas of specialization because we can't create regions with high gravitational curvature on a scale where quantum mechanical effects matter.

If you want to know more about some of the attempts to reconcile the theories I'd suggest reading up on "string theory", "quantum loop gravity", and trying to understand John Baez. I'm not a physicist and don't understand John Baez myself, so I can only wish you good luck if you choose to dive more deeply into this.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the relatively (lol) concise response. But really, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/9.html>

I find this article provides a better explanation (and thorougher) of the peculiar properties of gold, and some practical manifestations of those properties.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, the alchemists had no idea how far off they really were.

</comment><comment><USER10> Naive question. If you bombard gold with high energy particle beam, would you be able to bounce off some electrons and get gold isotope? What color would it be?

<comment><USER11> You don't get isotopes by adding or removing electrons. You'd need to alter the number of neutrons for isotopes. And that doesn't normally change the color.

If you would add or remove electrons from your gold particles, you'd need to keep the electrons somewhere close-by e.g. keep them with your anions. If you separate a lot of atoms from their electrons--you get a blob charged matter. To get all the atoms in 1 mol of gold (around 200g, say in a small cube) to each lose one electron and put the mol of electrons somewhere else, you'd need some non-trivial amount of energy. (Sorry, I am currently to lazy to calculate it..)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would that light gives gold its color. Or better yet, the human eye.

</comment><comment><USER13> What would the color of gold be if there was no relativistic effect?

<comment><USER14> Silver. The article explains that without the effects of relativity the electron transition that absorbs blue light(leaving a combination of colors that appear golden) would instead absorb ultra-violet light. With no visible colors absorbed, it would reflect all colors the same like silver.</comment></comment>


Should the OK button be on left of the Cancel button or vice versa? - <AUTHOR> http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/ok-cancel-on-left-right

<comment><USER2> > take photo or choose from library

I choose wrong.. Every time.</comment>