The Benefits of a Classical Education - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/benefits-classical-education.html <comment><USER2> "Lector, si monumentum requiris, Circumspice."

One I've always loved, inscribed above the crypt containing the grave of Christopher Wren in St. Paul's Cathedral. Translated as: "Reader, if you seek his memorial, look around you"

Think that would work equally well for Tim O'Reilly, to the point of a nice Latin pun ;)

<comment><USER3> That is a good one, though I fancy this more:

"Good friend for Jesus' sake forbear To dig the dust enclosed here: Blest be the man that spares these stones, And curst be he that moves my bones. Epitaph on his tomb, probably self composed" -- Shakespeare

<comment><USER4> Just out of curiousity, why do you fancy that one? It always struck me as the most inept set of four lines Shakespeare ever wrote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a hazy recollection that classical education used to mean mathematics, Greek and latin. I take that combination to be pretty good prep for hacking haskell, clojure, erlang, F#, whatever.

Especially with some logic, stats/probability, applied math, linguistics, and intro classes to assembler and C thrown in.

</comment><comment><USER6> I guess this explains how he got into publishing books for programmers/developers. . .

 _O'Reilly was initially interested. . .but after graduating. . .with a B.A. cum laude in Classics he became involved in the field of computer manuals._

[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_O%27Reilly>]

</comment><comment><USER7> "I've been deeply influenced by Aristotle's idea that virtue is a habit, something you practice and get better at, rather than something that comes naturally."

For an individual who has studied classics, you would expect that he would know that all the ancients, greek and romans, considered virtue as a habit, not Aristotle alone. It was rather a cultural thing which is why the Romans emphasised training their pupils to be good citizens by teachers of great character so that they can imitate their habits.</comment>


Show HN: Laravel Factory Beta is available for testing - <AUTHOR> https://laravelfactory.com/blog/laravel-factory-beta-is-available-for-testing <comment><USER2> Wow, your pricing seems quite high for what is effectively a one time use tool. Is this your first release? Have you managed to attract customers at this price point?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying your pricing is going to hurt you. As someone who is really bad at selling people stuff, I'm just curious about how you manage to sell a product like this at what appears to be a pretty high price point.</comment>


I'm an E.R. Doctor in New York. None of Us Will Ever Be the Same - <AUTHOR> https://dnyuz.com/2020/04/14/im-an-e-r-doctor-in-new-york-none-of-us-will-ever-be-the-same/ <comment><USER2> I have friends that are doctors or soon-to-be doctors. Some of the stuff I've heard from them as well as regional outlets always end up being horrifying and it doesn't help when we see downplaying of the issues coming from both the government and the mainstream media.

With profits on the line, I guess it was to be expected. At the same time, I feel like this is going to be a watershed moment for our healthcare system. The average person may forget about it in due time, but the medical community watching their coworkers die and make life or death decisions due to shortages won't.

<comment><USER3> Before blaming shortages on profits, read this:

[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/coronavi...](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-27/coronavirus- california-mobile-hospitals-ventilators)

<comment><USER2> That doesn't really disprove my point though, does it? We run our cities and governments like businesses whose goal is to bring down costs as much as possible.

Getting rid of emergency prep makes the most sense from that perspective because you're hedging your bets on not needing it. It's the exact same thing corporations do when they don't proactively fix security vulnerabilities because they're hedging their bets that the cost of the problem will be less than the cost to prepare.

We're going to have this problem as long as we demand taxes to be as low as possible.

<comment><USER4> > Getting rid of emergency prep makes the most sense from that perspective > because you're hedging your bets on not needing it. ... > We're going to > have this problem as long as we demand taxes to be as low as possible

The USA has enough nukes to destroy the Planet. We have enough Servers to copy everything transmitted. But we don't enough paper masks even though a Bio Attack is eminently possible (always has been) and certainly much more so in a post 9 11 America. I would submit for your consideration that giving more money to those so blissfully uninterested in protecting those under their watch is not the solution you imply it would be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is this site? This article is an uncredited rip of this NY Times article submitted earlier:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22872494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22872494)

The site has no contact info that I can see.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. I found the link on reddit and there was no indication that the whole article was copied from the NY Times, so I decided to share it.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/g1kszp/im_an_er_...](https://old.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/g1kszp/im_an_er_doctor_in_new_york_none_of_us_will_ever/)

<comment><USER5> Does the NY Times license you to "share" their content?

<comment><USER6> What sort of "license" do you propose GP should try to get before posting a link on an internet forum?

<comment><USER5> Do you seriously not understand the difference between posting a _link_ to content and _copying copyrighted content wholesale and reposting it verbatim_ , amd (initially) without credit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would like to share [1] that my daughter brought to me yesterday as her reading assignment. It brings some of the points that society will face once the most terrible part of the pandemic is over.

[1] [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/covid-19s-...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/covid-19s-psychosocial- impacts/)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for sharing that.

I work from home, my wife is a full time mom. My kids aren't school age yet. Practically speaking the pandemic has had almost no effect on our daily lives.

But the article reminded me how when I go out to get groceries, it all comes rushing into focus. The world is unlike anything I've ever experienced. It's like aliens have transported us all to their close representation of Earth. Or if an American was kidnapped and wakes up in Canada. You recognize everything but it's just... Not quite right.

That subtle wrongness is slowly taking a toll. I have a small cry in the parking lot after I've successfully navigated the grocery store and can finally let my guard down.

It reminds me of "homesickness". A condition I've had a few times. I'm thrust into a different city or country because of a new internship or an award + conference trip. Both of which ended incredibly poorly and in both cases I abruptly went home and instantly got better. But I am home right now so I'm not sure where to go.

I keep telling my wife, "it's starting to feel normalized." I'm still not sure if that's a good thing or not.</comment></comment>


Blackberry to exit Pakistan - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/11/why-blackberry-is-exiting-pakistan/ <comment><USER2> Pakistani government is being a total dick. It doesn't make sense to get a backdoor to a service like BB except keeping an eye on the business users for the personal advantages of those in the government. They are passing all types of weird cyber crimes law and taking internet in their own hands but internet is free. I applaud the step by BB. Also, There are so many secure alternatives now such as Telegram that exiting of BB won't make any difference for those who still want a secure communication network.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note the update. But still worth posting, BB apparently does not bend to pressure to install backdoors and would rather exit a market than give in.</comment>


Killer robots will only exist if we are stupid enough to let them - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/11/killer-robots-will-only-exist-if-we-are-stupid-enough-to-let-them <comment><USER2> They will exist when drones (quadcopter etc) become so cheap, and personal identity so easy to resolve (face recognition/national database etc) that anybody with a grudge and $100 can send a dozen assassin drones with a thimbleful of explosive (or ricin pellet or whatever) at somebody else. Maybe from a website.

The idea that we all have to be stupid for this to happen is ridiculous. Just one or two of us have to be. Already our Go-pro or Hexo can follow a person. Add a trigger and explosive (or poison or whatever) and voila.

I'd retitle that article - killer robots will exist inevitably, and soon.</comment>


Show HN: I made a website of LSAT explanations - <AUTHOR>

My niche is LSAT prep. I write books of explanations to LSAT practice tests.
It's a pretty big industry, as people will pay a lot to improve their odds of law school admissions.
I realized that, with my books, I have ~400,000 words of quality content that people search for. Lots of long tail searches for individual LSAT questions.
So I made a site of free explanations for the most recent LSAT:
http://lsathacks.com/
Took about a week to write them and put them up. If it goes well, I'll release my other explanations.
Hope to make this a hub for LSAT study. If it's well received, I'll have no trouble creating paid products to sell to my readers.
Also hope to use this as a project to finally improve my html/CSS/programming knowledge.
What do you guys think of the overall look, useability, and site structure? Would love to hear feedback. <comment><USER2> Looks really great. I'm sure it will help plenty of people.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Any thing in particular you like, or that you would change?

<comment><USER2> I'm already out of law school so unless you have a time machine, it's not something I will probably get into great depth with myself but I'm always glad to see more stuff like it pop up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I just meant in general terms, how you think users will like it, navigate it, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> graeme21, love the idea.

could you get in touch with me? firstname.lastname@example.com would love to chat with you more

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, sent you an email.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Handling Pathologically Nervous Interviewees - <AUTHOR> We've been interviewing for an embedded SW position for a few weeks. Our interview process includes a code review of code written by the candidate as homework. All candidates exhibit some degree of nervousness during the review, however, there have been a couple who virtually shut down and basically stopped being able to think. In one-on-one discussions, these same engineers were more or less fine and expressed a high level of competence. But the code reviews were just really painful: Stuttering, perspiring, unable to process even rudimentary responses to questions that you know they know the answer to...<p>Have you had this experience and if so, were you able to mitigate it and if so, how? <comment><USER2> Some things I've tried or have appreciated:

Don't have the candidate sit across from the folks doing the interview...have somebody sit next to them and include them with open body language, talk slowly and patiently (not rushed).

Have cold water available at the table, encourage drinking, don't make them ask for it--this helps calm nerves.

Be friendly when asking questions, show a little vulnerability--let the candidate double-check some code of yours (perhaps with a purposeful easy bug or two) to show them you respect their opinion.

If possible, do the reviews in a room with natural sunlight or some kind of human-friendly features to help decrease anxiety. Don't put the candidate in the corner away from the door, don't put your team between them and the door, etc.

Basically, just think about all the ways you feel uncomfortable in the room if you were in a bad situation, and try to pre-emptively mitigate them.</comment>


The worst distractions are the ones we love - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rescuetime.com/james-clear/ <comment><USER2> My problem is that my procrastination is an addiction. There is a voice in my head telling me of all the productive things I need to do, and I enjoy rebelling against that voice and doing my own thing.

And then there is the nature of working for others, in that it requires a "sacrifice of ego." I shut down everything and become a work horse. I work for hours on end, because this is what I'm supposed to do for a living. I can't question if I really want to be doing this because that would cause me to procrastinate. Instead I become my work. Sometimes I enjoy what I do, but I am specialized in specific technologies so I'm doing a variation of the same tasks over and over. That's the life of this "modern worker."

<comment><USER3> I admire those that work menial jobs in order to make a living. Im not sure I'd have the strength to do it myself if I had to. I find it very stoic.

<comment><USER4> In all honesty you sound a little disconnected. You'd have the strength to do that, too, if your (children's) livelihood depended on it. It's really not that hard if the other option is being evicted from your house.

<comment><USER5> Agree with the sibling comment. I've heard that tune (how come your kids don't motivate you, etc) so many times when dealing with crippling depression and anxiety. I have 3 children now and much better mentally, but holy shit did I have my share of trite, flippant advice.

<comment><USER4> You seem to suggest that my comment was (trite, flippant) depression advice. I'm not entirely sure how you can read my comment as depression advice given that nothing in the thread had anything to do with depression.

It's like

A: Wow I respect people who can lift heavy stuff

B: Oh come on it's just a matter of workout

C: Holy shit I've had my share of trite flippant workout advice but I have myasthenia so workout won't cut it, come on.

(I react a bit strongly because I'd never give depression advice. I have no fucking clue about depression except that well-meant tips from people like me don't help, at best. I stay out of the way and leave depression to trained shrinks and people with experience)

<comment><USER5> I was going off on a tangent, your comment merely reminded me of what I was referencing, so I'm sorry to have implied otherwise.

<comment><USER4> Appreciate that, and I totally understand. Fwiw, sorry for coming at you so hard. All the best to you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Replying to the article I thought this would be, rather than the article that's here:

I feel this really hard right now. I'm in a polyamorous relationship with a married woman; I live with her and her husband.

I'm trying to build a practice around writing every day. I found a hole in the functional programming literature that I'm well suited to fill. Every time I sit down to write, words are flowing effortlessly, and I've gotten positive feedback so far.

What I find is that engaging with day to day, normal relationship affirming behaviors ("good morning!"), going on dates, etc edge out space in my head for this other thing. I have space to think deeply about one and a half things. Frequently I feel like I need to disconnect from her emotionally to have space to think about anything else.

I haven't ever heard anyone else describe this experience. I wonder if others experience this?I thought this article might be about it. I have a lot of symptoms of high functioning autism, though, so maybe this is just the less maladapted version of getting upset that I can't go read train schedules.

<comment><USER7> Also polyamorous, also living with symptoms of autism, also feeling the need to disconnect emotionally from my partner(s) when I need to focus on my side projects or work. My last primary partner was technical and so we would hack for hours on stuff and it was very much a different experience. My current primary partner is non-technical so the things we do together are non- technical. Maybe your partner isn't a good fit?

Edit: Or maybe it's a fantastic fit and you ought to get used to being less of a technical fanatic.

<comment><USER6> That sounds lovely. Mine is a therapist, and in lieu of hacking we have a rich dialog on how to live in a world with other people.

I am fortunate to have a partner who is willing to face head on that I will never consent to making her my first priority. Just gotta keep making changes until something works. Worst comes to worst, an in-law suite will probably do the trick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you don't want to do it, perhaps you shouldn't do it. RescueTime and similar tools/practices might well be just an internalized social pressure. You put on a mask that others want to see on you only to then helplessly observe your psychological immune system reject the mask through procrastination, depression, or whatever.

It is better to see procrastination and other subconscious work avoidance as a symptom that you are trying to divorce your actions from your inner motivation. Needless to say, such split personality isn't going to last and your inner motivation will win one way or another.

So fuck the work and do something you actually enjoy for a while. You will be more happy that way and chances are you will be more productive too.

<comment><USER9> What if only doing what you actually enjoy won't net you enough resources for living?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In Buddhist thought, one of the afflictions (Kleshas) is that of Attachment to a desire (Raga). It is seen as just as debilitating as other Kleshas (Ignorance, Ego, Aversion and Clinging).

For Raga, it prescribes the following mind exercise:

-Observe your mind – what is it drawn to?

-Recognize the desire you feel (This being the core of the affliction called Raga)

-Give this feeling a name and a space inside you

Now observe what happens if you don't automatically follow through with it. Experience what it's like to create some space between feeling a want/need and acting on it.

(An easier to read version is here - shrunk it for cosmetics - [https://goo.gl/vo4En4](https://goo.gl/vo4En4))

<comment><USER11> I like the word 'cathect'to describe this, although it is more to do with objects of your thoughts, not just the feelings themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One thing has never sat right with me when it comes to Warren Buffet's 2 List approach. After making two lists, Mike says he will prioritize the top 5 list, but that he will also of course spend some time on the second list, because those are important, too. Warren says that he has it all wrong, and that the second list should be his Avoid-At-All-Cost list.

It's an interesting way to think about priorities, but I think the missing step is to then go and make the lists again. My first cut of the lists included lots of individual skills that I wanted to build, and ignoring some felt wrong. I realized that I actually do have a high priority goal of building a broad set of skills, and that I care more about that then mastering any one of my top 5.

A lot of the advice in the article is aimed at folks trying to focus on one skill or habit. You can identify as the kind of person who masters chess, for example, practicing every day. It's equally valid to identify as somebody who has a passing interest in many games and prioritize accordingly.

Building the lists didn't make me focus on the top 5 items, but it did help me better express what I care about.

</comment><comment><USER13> > In this interview, we asked James to apply his unique blend of academic > research and personal anecdote to the biggest issues facing the modern > worker.

"Worker" is not a noun I would apply to myself. I'd say "person". Yes, I "do work", but that doesn't mean I "am a worker". Turning the verb into a noun implies that that activity is somehow fundamental to your identity. (Look at a few bios and it's clear that being a parent and a spouse is very important to a lot of people.)

If you "are a worker", you'll have no problem doing your work — that's who you are and what you do. If you're just a person who "does work", well then the ideas around identity in this article won't be applicable.

The article talks about considering deeply what you _really_ want to achieve, what type of person you want to be. And it kind of assumes the answer to that question is a glib "productive" or an exasperated "the sort of person who doesn't spend 2 hours on Facebook every night". It doesn't ask "why?", and I think that's more fundamental. This article seems quite shallow.

<comment><USER14> Do you also object to the terms "programmer" or "actor"? Would they be better called "person who programs" and "person that acts"?

Perhaps if we're down the pub and I responded to a question about who I am by saying "I'm a programmer" it would be odd. If we're in a meeting at work and I'm just trying to distinguish the number of people available to program software rather than design UI, saying "we have x programmers and y UI designers" seems pretty reasonable to me. I think that also applies to the context where "worker" was used in the article.

<comment><USER13> I would object to someone applying them to _me_ , because I am not fundamentally a programmer or an actor.

But it's a perfectly cromulent way to use words! I'm not objecting to the turn of phrase at all.

My point is just that I draw this distinction (between "an Xer" and "a person who Xes") when describing people, and I think it's a useful nuance.

I don't know whether the writer (and the word somehow loses its special significance after the definite article — I'm not saying it's logical; it's just how my mind reads these things) consciously chose "worker" rather than "hobbyist" or "busy person".

But I think it shows how they see the (abstract) people they're describing. It made me realise that, yes, this advice _is_ useful, but perhaps only to people who "are workers" rather than "do work".

And I agree completely that in this context, "a programmer" or "a worker" is precisely what you need — you don't need a person, you need a function.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there any serious research on gamification of work?

I mean, the abundance of advice that tell you that to be productive you need to cut distractions is maybe evidence of the opposite. Maybe it is deeply wrong. I am most productive when someone distracts me with urgent and somewhat game-like short task. Maybe creative one, or a small investigation.

Small tasks, small random rewards seems like way to go for me. Can we gamify most of work?

Edit: typos

<comment><USER16> I've noticed this as well. From a software perspective, even while working on an extended task that I mostly enjoy, if I'm presented with a novel, seemingly short task I usually have no trouble at all getting motivated and switching gears so I can figure it out and get the quick win. I wonder if it's the anticipation of a quick, clean solution that my brain's reward system desperstely needs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> other distractions include grammatical ambiguities.

the article does not actually imply that, e.g, family members are problems.

</comment><comment><USER18> I started turning off my phone during work hours. I'm getting a bunch more stuff done.

<comment><USER19> I did this before moving to putting my phone on silent and also installing an app which prevents any number not in my contacts list from ringing my phone or even going to voicemail. Just drops the call silently with no ring on their end, either. Everything on my phone is silent except for a very short list of contacts (two people, my wife and my best friend) and a single pipeline for work alerting which is tightly-regulated.

It is the single most effective countermeasure I've taken to reclaim my own thoughts, though slowly phasing out my use of all the shitty social media is a close second.

<comment><USER20> Would you mind sharing the name of that app?

<comment><USER19> The app is no longer maintained even though it's still for sale in the various Android app stores. It doesn't work for Nougat or higher versions, and I would rather not reward the developer for that behavior. Also, from my understanding, it may not be possible to programmatically produce this specific behavior in Nougat or higher versions (hangup, no ring, no voicemail), but I'm not totally certain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My problem is that I cant seem to decide on a single task to tackle which subtly creeps into procrastination.</comment>


Futuristic hotels for business travelers in China and Japan - <AUTHOR> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/futuristic-hotels-for-business-travelers-in-china-and-japan/ <comment><AUTHOR> I feel like the first wave of futuristic tech will appear as tourist novelties or consumer facing. Like robots and self driving vehicles or holograms etc.

Personal opinion in related field: I have been waiting for Ag robots for over 5 years now. I don't think it will ever come out as an industry because of existing competition in a hyper optimized sector. It will first be consumer facing and small scale. The costs are too daunting for large Ag bots.

I believe that the same would be true for other future tech.</comment>


Django Best Practices - <AUTHOR> http://lincolnloop.com/django-best-practices/ <comment><USER2> I have been using Django for about 6 months now. Previously, I had been working on PHP and Rails apps. I have been looking hard for some good best practices for Django. There are some things I really like about Django. I like it's readability and I like that new web developers can get up to speed rather quickly. There is one area that I really wish were better though. It is unfathomable to me that the norm (and best practice too apparently) is to cram pounds of code into single files (views.py, models.py, etc). Now sure, it's Python. You can break it up. But the documentation and also what you see in Django projects perpetuates this insanity. To break up your models, you must add additional glue code to each and every model (app_label) and if your app is large you _will_ run into circular import issues. This is just not practical for medium to large projects. The best practice is to break up your project into applications. Yes, that does help some but you still are going to want to break up an app's model, view, etc into multiple files. Isn't this common sense? This and other areas of Django often makes me wonder: Why does Django make it easy to do the wrong things and hard to do the right thing?

</comment><comment><USER3> It is good to see this but it is also an indictment against Django that there is no one, true way to get it all set up. Since everything is a python module it really does not matter how everything is configured, only that it can be found somewhere on the path, however this causes a great deal of confusion when getting started that leads to a lot of frustation until the module penny drops.

<comment><USER4> You see it as an indictment, I see it as a strength. It's a very pythonic way to handle things, and while I was confused by a lot of deployment options when first learning Django, it was only because it was also my introduction to Python. I'd venture that anyone with decent Python experience will have no trouble with Django.

<comment><USER5> > It's a very pythonic way to handle things

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. "

<comment><USER4> Although I take issue with trotting out single lines out of context, I'd say that this is in line with that. The "one -- preferably only one -- obvious way to do it" is to make everything a module. The confusion stems from not knowing how to deal with Python modules, not from anything Django is doing. If you know Python, you know how Django handles things. There's no (or, very little) magic involved.

<comment><USER6> this ^^

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://blog.zacharyvoase.com/2010/02/03/django-project- conve...](http://blog.zacharyvoase.com/2010/02/03/django-project-conventions/)

Is much more complete IMHO

<comment><USER8> In some ways. In other ways it's very lacking:

* Having everything live within the virtualenv directory is extremely dangerous, especially if you ever need to rebuild the ENV. The virtualenv directory should be completely expendable, I would never recommend storing a single critical file in there.

* Sock/PID file permissions are notoriously a pain in the ass, so I tend not to keep them in directories next to project files with having to muck around with proper write permissions. Put them where they belong, in someplace like /var/run

* Since Django now makes the distinction between media and static files, it'd be cleaner to name your js/css/img containing directory "static"

* etcs and settings directories should be combined, with sub-directories that are also python modules. I prefer to call it conf. That way I can reference it as conf.common.settings, conf.staging.settings, etc. Within the common/ and staging/ folders (and others) are also nginx, supervisord, and whatever other config files I need, which are now variable based on the environment.

* urls.py should also end up being in that conf/ module, seeing as you'll need different patterns in development to serve static files, amongst other things.

* The root of your directory that's tracked by version control should not have an __init__.py in it. Throw the PROJECT_ROOT in its own directory and keep files like README, setup.py, etc outside of it, to be more consistent with standardized python packaging.

* When you're deploying to production, keep a directory structure as follows: releases/, logs/, uploads/, static/.

* Releases should contain the past few versions of the site, along with a "current" and "previous" symlink. Serve out of current, which allows you to instantly roll-back to the previous working version should something break.

* You never want to serve raw files out of the innards of your project directory. That's where the outside static/ comes in. This also allows you to rsync it separately from your project, and put it as a release step after gathering the various files needed, as well as concatenating, minifying, and versioning them (for far future Expires headers).

Edit: For the curious I'm releasing a project later this fall called Prometheus, which includes all the best practices scattered from around the internet, and is essentially a super beefed-up "startproject", but with a lot more features that can't be attained just from git cloning someone else's skeleton Django project directory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Django devs should bookmark this <https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DjangoResources>

</comment><comment><USER10> This is nice. I've been wanting to dabble a bit in Django, but I find it a bit hard to find basic information like this, for example, how to decide when creating a separate app inside a project is better than putting everything in a single app.

It definitely helps to have conventions to follow while you're learning, until you become proficient enough to break those conventions.

<comment><USER11> You might find James Bennett's book "Practical Django Projects" helpful:

<http://www.apress.com/open-source/python/9781430219385>

[https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/practical-django- projects/...](https://bitbucket.org/ubernostrum/practical-django-projects/src)

It talks about Django's apps focus and tries to get one out of the habit of "dumping it all in one app in the project".

Eric Holscher wrote an article about Reusable App conventions:

<http://ericholscher.com/projects/django-conventions/app/></comment></comment>


Teens sued for fake facebook profile - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/09/25/fake-facebook-profile/

<comment><USER2> What's the deal with the "his Mother and his next best friend" thing in the filing? Is "next best friend" some legal term of art? It sure seems creepy....

<comment><USER3> At least this seems like a suit that makes a lot more sense than some of the crazy ones like getting Google to shut down your email when there is no evidence that you've done anything (let alone anything wrong) let alone even read the email from some random third party.

I usually read these filings with a grain of salt - after all, a good lawyer just throws everything at the wall and waits to see what sticks. In this case, it seems like a simple case of defamation/libel - where these kids should be liable - if they indeed did it. I think it's usually the latter that's a lot more difficult to prove if facebook isn't cooperative with releasing IPs for disclosure.

I wonder though... I wonder if I would be less sympathetic if it wasn't some other kid but say a corporation or a celebrity? (but I guess celebrities are generally more fair game given that they're in the public eye and more things can be interpreted as satire)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Article's headline is misleading. Facebook was the vehicle for good old fashioned actionable offenses of the "harassment/defamation/libel/slander/whatever" flavor.</comment>


How can I become a AAA programmer? - <AUTHOR> I am about to receive a bachelor degree on computer science (but the education is not as high level as you have in USA or the like). I live in venezuela and I'm 23 years old (which I think might be of help for the answers)
I've been programming with web stuff for about three years (sporadically). Mostly php, html, css, jQuery.
I try to read everyday programming books, but I don't happen to see much progress. Sure, compared to myself three years ago I've made progress, but now I think I progress very slow and is frustrating.
I have tried applying for freelance projects (because my country's economy makes inviable working on a local company), but I'm always shadowed by people much more skilled (specially from USA).
Also, every time I read the comments in here I feel dumb as a rock. Everybody seems so intelligent and nerdy that I'm actually fearing that I can't get a good paying freelance job. Is it because I'm relatively young and inexperienced? What do you think is the average age here?
I'd like to be that guy whose GitHub's libraries are used by hundreds of people with very nice programming prose. But every time I take a look at other's githubs I feel overwhelmed and so little.
I don't know what else to do to speed up my coding progress. Should I keep with a specific set of tools? Or should I learn the cool kids in town? (that's another problem, there are so many tools to learn to be competitive. It's overwhelming).
Thanks for your time. <comment><USER2> _" Also, every time I read the comments in here I feel dumb as a rock. ... Is it because I'm relatively young and inexperienced?"_

Yes, I think so. If you keep on learning and practicing (writing code), you'll keep getting better.

 _" What do you think is the average age here?"_

I have no idea what the average is (I'd guess somewhere around 28-30), but there are definitely some people here who have decades of work experience. I'm in my 50s, and I know there are some people here who are older than I am.

 _" I'd like to be that guy whose GitHub's libraries are used by hundreds of people with very nice programming prose. But every time I take a look at other's githubs I feel overwhelmed and so little."_

The people who write popular libraries probably have more experience than you do. They weren't born knowing how to write code like that, they learned by programming for many years. But it's a good thing for you to look at that code - you can learn a lot from studying it.

 _" Should I keep with a specific set of tools? Or should I learn the cool kids in town?"_

Every few months there are new "cool" tools, and learning each cool tool that appears is a distraction from learning fundamental programming skills that are pretty similar no matter which tools or languages you use.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is probably not the best site to ask that question. For all the programmers that may be here, I haven't seen very many games programmers pop up, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone identify as a AAA games programmer. (By sheer numbers there must be at least a few, but I've not seen them self- identify.) I'd suggest looking at [http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/301/how_to_break_in_...](http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/301/how_to_break_in_as_a_game_.php?page=2) , which also mentions some other sites you'd probably be better off with.

And I'd take a moment to pitch the idea of not: [https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/49f57n/the_sec...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/49f57n/the_secret_life_of_a_games_programmer_ive_lived/d0rkldc) But do as you feel you should, of course.</comment>


1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface - <AUTHOR> http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/DPM/ <comment><USER2> The second generation of the projection tech does color: [http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/dynaflashv2/index-e.htm...](http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/dynaflashv2/index-e.html)

And they can now do the tracking without the infrared paint: [http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html](http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html)

<comment><USER3> Very cool, a sort of live-action cgi capability.

Hope it doesn't easily scale out to larger spaces and crowds, or the current tech industry would soon have public spaces filled with ads projected on peoples belongings.

<comment><USER4> The target needs to be marked with infrared ink: you can project only on specific surfaces prepared in advance.

Edit: discard this comment, I misread the parent comment.

<comment><USER5> Not according to the comment that started this thread, which suggests that they no longer need the infrared paint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very cool. I do live projection work[0] and latency is always the killer with immersion. Anything higher than a 1000/90ms latency breaks integration at normal dancer movement speeds. 1000fps seems like overkill but it allows for very fast movement.

0\. [https://youtu.be/ggRcDQZWD_8?t=1281](https://youtu.be/ggRcDQZWD_8?t=1281)

<comment><USER7> Is this real-time 3D taking into account dancer's motions? I imagine it takes a crazy GPU rig?

In any case, very impressive.

<comment><USER6> It is, but I cheat! The dancer has a small android device with a custom gyroscope app, mounted in the middle of her back. I can get her general orientation accurately this way (more accurately, and faster, than state of the art pose estimation).

I am in the process of bringing together a community around art making like this. Let me know if this is something that interests you.

<comment><USER7> It is of interest! I am in the process of learning TouchDesigner, looking to integrate it with Ableton Live. I doubt I'll have enough GPU power for real- time 3D renders based on changing sound or visual input though…

Currently I am considering pre-rendering scenes to given BPMs (where applicable) and doing only limited realtime alterations with TD nodes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems like an extremely advanced version of those sand tables at science centers that kids play with, where digging a trench in sand with your hand modifies the projection to affect virtual water flow.

The youtube video[0] from that page is especially interesting.

0: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bh1MHuA5jU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bh1MHuA5jU)

<comment><USER9> Yeah, and for the sandboxes, latency is the part that breaks the immersion. But it is straightforward to set up with a kinect and a projector.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You want a high-bandwidth interface to computing? Combine this with Dynamicland technology ([https://dynamicland.org/](https://dynamicland.org/)). This makes _way_ more sense than creepy neural interfaces. Best of all, it would allow people to freely collaborate on things _in real life_.

<comment><USER11> This here is the real winner. The thread is full of amazing ideas but successfully executing this one combination would be a complete paradigm shift.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is crazy awesome! And look at this one! I don't know if it comes from the same project, but looks cool. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c40cxE- dfPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c40cxE-dfPg)

<comment><USER2> Yes, same research group: [http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html](http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In 1899, H.G. Wells wrote "A Story of Things to Come", which later was adapted become the 1936 film "Things To Come". In the original story, the main characters mention being irritated by the advertisements projected onto the backs of the people they walk behind. Old idea, only now possible without image distortion.

</comment><comment><USER14> The latency is way more impressive than the fps

Edit: the video gets the point across more effectively IMO: [https://youtu.be/-bh1MHuA5jU](https://youtu.be/-bh1MHuA5jU)

<comment><USER15> Well you can't really achieve low latency if the end-to-end system has low FPS.

<comment><USER14> Yes but you can achieve high fps very easily if you have a day to compute each frame! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another use of a high speed projector would be to create real 3d display anywhere in a volume swept out by a moving surface. Objects will be translucent, but otherwise real 3d with wide viewing angles.

<comment><USER17> It's been done-

[https://thefutureofthings.com/3029-the-return-of- the-3d-crys...](https://thefutureofthings.com/3029-the-return-of- the-3d-crystal-ball/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U80TK6PAVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U80TK6PAVc)

<comment><USER16> The first I heard of it in the 1980s. TI used a laser to project point on a rotating surface. Then someone used a flexible mirror in front of a speaker. The mirror would flex convex/concave changing the apparent distance to a vector display screen.

Just saying a modern 1000fps display could do this much better.

<comment><USER18> That flexing mirror idea is really smart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My first thought is that this could provide some awesome effects for live theater.

<comment><USER20> The Mandalorian on Ice!

Iron Man: The Musical

Benjamin and the Buttons in Concert

<comment><USER21> Ruining film was bad enough.

<comment><USER22> Ruining comics was bad enough

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is just too much. My mind is completely blown. And makes me think of how many things I think are impossible but actually are or will be in the near future.

<comment><USER24> Similar feelings. The video doesn't go easy on the tech either. He is shaking that paper violently and I can't see any faults. The part where he has 2 bits of paper as well as when he stretches his shirt are mindblowing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is from 2016, but still very cool.

<comment><USER26> this makes me even happier. Means SOTA is even more advanced?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I was fortunate to see some of the 2019 projection mapping competition on odawara castle. It is absolutely mind bending technology.

This is the real beginning of augmented reality, not VR or cell phones

<comment><USER28> One downside with this approach is that you need something to bounce the light off of (e.g., a surface), so adding virtual objects to AR is difficult if the objects aren't positioned at the surface of real world objects. That's an effect you often want to achieve in AR applications.

<comment><USER27> Nah if you see it in person you understand. No matter the surface, you can create a virtual 3d space from the perspective of the observer.

[https://youtu.be/deJnHFQtbiE](https://youtu.be/deJnHFQtbiE)

This gives you an idea but in person the illusion is stronger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This lab is doing a whole series of amazing stuff---

500ps hand gesture recognition system: [http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/perception/zSpace/index-e.html](http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/perception/zSpace/index-e.html)

Robust tracking for moving objects: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7IL0Gvux7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7IL0Gvux7U)

</comment><comment><USER29> Having just watched a bunch of videos on Deep Fakes after the revelation of the Deep Fake video of Nixon's Moon Landing Disaster speech on here this morning, I can't help but feel like this is something else that will make fakes more and more difficult to distinguish from genuine.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think it would be very interesting idea for a music show. Tell everyone to dress using white tshirts and create this kind of projection from multiple beacons standing spread in the venue. Not sure if that would be possible but very cool to see IRL and talk about

<comment><USER30> My initial reaction was that it would be brilliant to use in theatre productions.

<comment><USER31> The idea of a stage version of A Scanner Darkly's scramble suit seems amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Reminds me of Jeff Han's original multi-touch demo. Slightly different topic, but also mind-boggling back then: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiS-W9aeG0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiS-W9aeG0s)

</comment><comment><USER33> Back in 2012, my wife and I attended a stage show called "The Animals and Children Took To The Streets" [0]. It was done with "dumb" projectors, with choreographed movement of different screens on the stage, but created a highly dynamic show.

Remembering that show, and seeing these videos, it makes me giddy to think what could be done with the latest tech today.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2011/dec/11/animals- childr...](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2011/dec/11/animals-children- took-streets-review)

</comment><comment><USER34> I'd love to see Cirque du Soleil leverage this type of technology in a show...

</comment><comment><USER35> That is pretty impressive. Tried something similar with a DLP projector stolen from texas instruments (not stolen, but they tend to be picky about selling them. Probably because these are awesome devices).

Was slow as hell, since I used a raster with multiple images to measure the topology. The resulting heightmap was awesome, but even with synchronized camera and projector, I needed a pretty long illumination time per image. So it would be interesting what camera(s) they used too. I doubt you would need multiple projectors, because the available ones are extremely fast.

</comment><comment><USER36> First saw the on the prosthetic knowledge Tumblr account years ago. Really miss that account. Whoever was behind it did a phenomenal job of curating incredibly interesting technology developments.

</comment><comment><USER37> Here's a very cool art project done with this tecnology: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Aos1Z2htDU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Aos1Z2htDU)

</comment><comment><USER38> They can project what's behind an object onto an object to make it "invisible"

<comment><USER39> How could you demo that?

<comment><USER40> Turn the projection on and off to see the cloaking in action?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is so cool. Now I want to take this ( and so many more things like it that have come up recently ) and show the students at the art school I attended that projection mapping can be so much more than lining up all the parallel lines.

</comment><comment><USER42> There are going to be clubs/bars/venues that will market themselves as "foo" enabled light spaces for your "bar" apparel.

we really don't need this stuff to overload our already maxed out sense organs but here we go!

</comment><comment><USER43> The demo video answered my questions, is short and the tech is impressive. Not entirely sure of the business model though. The non-rigid tracking might be more useful than the projection -- perhaps a Defense application?

<comment><USER28> Skimming the description, they used a structured light approach (active) for geometry deformation tracking. This is still probably useful for certain defense applications but an ideal goal is often to use passive tracking systems. It's impressive either way.

Lots of theater, performing, and visual art uses come to mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Reminds me of this high speed tracker video from 2013:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5YQVvW- hQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5YQVvW-hQ)

Much easier problem to solve at 1k fps but still cool.

</comment><comment><USER45> This would go great with the teamLab borderless exhibit, which currently seems primitive in comparison (it's an art exhibit where they project images everywhere).

</comment><comment><USER46> Advertising, advertising, advertising and dance floors.

<comment><USER47> > dance floors.

Holy shit. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXrLZmnQ_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXrLZmnQ_M)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Could this be applied to motion capture to remove all the unnecessary gear actors have to wear? This could revolutionize digital animation.

</comment><comment><USER49> What kind of specs would someone need to reproduce this on a Linux system, say?

Are there any FOSS projects that are doing this?

</comment><comment><USER50> I can see some big usage for this in medicine. Projecting stuff to help doctors performing complicated surgeries.

<comment><USER28> I was thinking the same thing. Stryker already has a system that has a tracking device for surgeons that shows pre-OP CT scans around the area and shifts sliced around depending on the position (also performs a 3D rendering).

Projecting this directly on the surface may be useful but you'd have to be careful not to skew information surgeons may find useful. Seems great for training on cadavers and stuff though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Sure seems like a lot of science and tech related awesomeness is introduced to the world on a website from 1998.

</comment><comment><USER52> This is very cool. I suspect that it's only a matter of time before all projectors work like this.

</comment><comment><USER53> This could be cool at techno parties.

</comment><comment><USER54> Something like this should play a role in the future of more sustainable clothing/fashion.

</comment><comment><USER55> if I want to do object tracking for a low-grade version of this kind of thing, what's the best off-the-shelf solution right now? Is it ARKit?

</comment><comment><USER56> That could be big for the fashion industry.

<comment><USER31> I'm working on 3D for clothes design, and we're already exploring VR; seems like this could be really interesting too, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Does anyone know what camera they use is?

</comment><comment><USER58> Simple but effective. Really cool.

</comment><comment><USER59> Military camouflage applications?

</comment><comment><USER60> That demo looked incredible!

</comment><comment><USER61> Advertisers will love this.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is pretty neat.

</comment><comment><USER63> Very cool!

</comment><comment><USER64> This is awesome!

</comment><comment><USER65> wow

</comment><comment><USER66> invisibility cloak is not far away

<comment><USER67> Invisibility cloaks need to work from multiple points of view?</comment></comment>


Microsoft researchers say newest deep learning system beats humans&Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.shmu5.com/vb/redirect-to/?redirect=http://goo.gl/zbLp4c

<comment><USER2> I doubt anyone will see this, people here don't upvote anything that's better than Google, specially if its MS</comment>


Elon Musk says Mark Zuckerberg has 'limited understanding' of AI - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2017/07/25/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-ai/#sKIrQm6eOiqm <comment><USER2> This is somewhat ironic considering how Elon Musk's claims on the danger of AI are viewed in the more serious research community (as overly dramatic).

The consensus amongst many researchers in the area seems to be that we should focus on the dangers of narrow AI applications (social media filtering, targeting) and privacy concerns.

I liked a comment I saw somewhere on r/machinelearning (or twitter) where someone said if you have a text about the consequences of AI and cannot replace 'AI' with statistical learning and then read the text with a straight face, you are probably overdramatising.</comment>


The house that helped build Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2007-07-04-google-wojcicki_N.htm <comment><USER2> Bringing the Google ad network to old media "will be a real challenge," says Greg Sterling, an independent analyst at Sterling Market Intelligence. "The ability to serve a relevant ad against someone's query is one of the great innovations of the Internet, and it's not transferable to other media, where people are more passive."

Unless you acquire a lot of bandwidth and put yourself in the middle of the media stream...

</comment><comment><USER3> Did not Paul Buchheit come up with adsense?

</comment><comment><USER4> just read on valleywag that might be a lie...

<comment><USER5> 1,700/month for a garage? I hope it's a lie.</comment></comment>


Feature Film By Well-Known Director Premieres on Youtube - <AUTHOR> http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/movies/20wang.html

<comment><USER2> Hulu also recently premiered their first-ever movie exclusive. Nifty idea, though I'm sure you lose something of the experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like a sign of great things to come.

<comment><USER4> No doubt. There's [ ... buffering .. ] nothing like the browser [ ... buffering .. ] experience to really [ ... buffering .. ] engage you.

<comment><USER3> Hahah yeah definitely a sign and not proof. It'll be fun to see how things have changed two years from now.</comment></comment></comment>


Think you understand the link between money supply and inflation? Think again - <AUTHOR> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/think-you-understand-the-link-between-money-supply-and-inflation-think-again/?utm_content=buffer2e7de&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Isn't it about the increase in debt? Taking on debt creates money. In the 70's Nixon let loose on the constraints to increased government debt, creating government driven inflation. Workers then had more power to demand higher wages and had low personal debt so could take on a lot more, creating consumer inflation.

Now everyone enters adulthood up to their eyesballs in debt already so they can't take more on. The only way to create more debt to maintain the game is to inflate asset prices so more debt is created for the same assets.

</comment><comment><USER3> Paul Krugman has been naive and shortsighted over his entire career. It almost seems as if everything he says only takes into account what is right in front of his face and he can't think beyond that. He has already said both the internet and bitcoin are worthless trends. Now he says people that think inflation are coming are a cult?

<comment><USER4> What is your opinion on the evidence presented in the article?

<comment><USER5> Mine is that it's a very simplistic analysis, and should just be ignored.

Using the CPI which has been gamed, and changed so many times is the first large flaw. You know how that bag of potato chips stays the same price, but the weight of what you're paying for keeps on lowering? Yeah, that's not inflation per the CPI because it only tracks actual price increases. What about how they switched to substitutes?

The second, is that it completely ignores global trade, and currency valuations.

There's a lot of complex interactions, lag times, and host of other factors that affect pricing at the micro level, and that won't affect all products in the same way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Inflation happens because we expect it to do. A company says: we expect inflation so we'll raise our prices now to get ahead of things. Competitors see prices go up and they raise their prices. Spiral upwards.

If people don't expect inflation, we don't get inflation.</comment>


Welcome To The Community, Partido Pirata Do Brasil - <AUTHOR> http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/28/welcome-to-the-community-partido-pirata-do-brasil/ <comment><USER2> Great! I'll be following their work here...</comment>


After 50 Days Of Attacks, Hacker Group LulzSec Says It's Done - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/25/after-50-days-of-attacks-hacker-group-lulzsec-says-its-done/

<comment><USER2> Translation: the AZ incident made us nervous about the heat so we'll be dropping off the grid for a while.</comment>


DARPA's "Unhackable" Computer - <AUTHOR> https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1332764 <comment><USER2> I'm not familiar with the MORPHEUS proposal specifically, but I do have a tiny bit more knowledge of the SSITH program overall, and this has a _terrible_ explanation of what it is. It's effectively about exploring (with working prototypes in mind) new instruction sets—or, in practice, modifying existing instruction sets—with mitigations for certain common classes of vulnerabilities implemented directly in hardware: specifically, vulnerabilities related to "permissions and privileges, buffer errors, resource management, information leakage, numeric errors, crypto errors, and code injection."

The original proposal says nothing about "unhackable", and in fact, specifically quotes someone as saying that eliminating these hardware vulnerabilities would, "…effectively close down more than 40% of the software doors intruders now have available to them"—a far cry from unhackability! It's pretty typical of both science reporting and marketing bluster to go from "addressing certain vulnerabilities to reduce intrusion by less than half" and end up at "unhackable".

The quotes here come from this announcement, from before the proposals were selected: [https://www.darpa.mil/news- events/2017-04-10](https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-04-10)

</comment><comment><USER3> Our research group at Georgia Tech applied for this grant but we were unfortunately not selected.

As far as I recall, $50m was allocated to the project over a 3 year period. Unlike NSF, DARPA grants typically require a working prototype by the end of the funding period. In this case, DARPA needs a fully functional implementation of the security scheme on a RISC-V processor as well as a development toolchain that can be used to "secure" generic software and/or hardware applications.

At a first glance, it sounds like this team is applying instruction set randomization at the micro-architecture level: as far as I know, this has been done before at a smaller scale. Our approach was to address each of the CWEs (vulnerability classes) with a different technique, which I think contributed to the rejection of our proposal.

Edit: Ignore the title. The goal of SSITH is lofty and likely impossible to achieve for all cases in practice. But this is how DARPA operates: they come up with (currently) far-fetched goals with the hope that one of the funded approaches strikes gold.

<comment><USER4> I don't think its ISA randomization if the EETimes article is accurate:

> Morpheus works its magic by constantly changing the location of the > protective firmware with hardware that also constantly scrambles the > location of stored passwords.

 _Constantly changing the location_ sounds like dynamic ASLR.

I looked at umich to see if there was anything more detailed but all I found was this press release which is pretty much the same article:

[http://www.eecs.umich.edu/eecs/about/articles/2017/morpheus....](http://www.eecs.umich.edu/eecs/about/articles/2017/morpheus.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Todd Austin's group has some (old) publications on something close at least. Looks like they're forcing control flow to not use indirect jumps and branches somehow and using that to do dynamic ASLR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm skeptical. As far as i can tell their 'unhackable' solution is some form of super advanced ASLR that moves 'some' kind of software around and decrypts and re-encrypts it on the fly. By continually encrypting with new keys and such they are betting that an attacker won't have the time to find vulnerabilities. However, this all assumes the 'advanced ASLR' itself isn't vulnerable, and moreover they are not building software that has no bugs, but rather just throwing all the bugs behind a pretty big locked door.

Sure it's a cool idea, but lets not call it unhackable.

<comment> GuB-42 The "unhackable" name probably just comes from a sales pitch or an overenthousiastic journalist.

The Titanic wasn't called unsinkable by people who knew what they were talking about. Same thing for that exploit mitigation hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are we seriously trying to fix buffer overflows in hardware instead of just moving on from C?

<comment> drew-y I feel like that $3.6 Million in funding go a lot further if spent on projects like the Rust Language.

<comment><USER7> Rust's safety was partly inspired from such spending on Cyclone, a safe version of C. The NSF and other organizations fund tons of work on clean-slate languages, type systems, formal methods, etc. The academic incentives usually lead to quickly thrown together prototypes that arent production ready. Even the good ones rarely get used by programmers in general. Ocaml was one of the exceptions. What gets adoption is normally a language/platform with a knock- off of their efforts pushed by a big company or used in a "killer app." Bandwagons in other words.

The consistently-low adoption of clean-slate tech along with lock-in effecta means the opposite is true: massive investment should go into making most common tech more correct, secure, and recoverable as simple as possible for users. If clean-slate, it should stay close as possible to what people already know with clean integrations. We can also continue to invest in ground- breaking stuff for niches that use them (eg SPARK Ada for aerospace) and/or new bandwagons that might build on them (eg Rust ecosystem).

<comment><USER8> I had forgotten Cyclone's name, thanks for the reminder. I've always felt kinda sad some of the small features like int@ didn't make their way back into C. I'm glad at least C++ has non-null pointers via references (but with stricter semantics and potentially undesirable syntactic sugar) and fat pointers via span<T>, but it's useless when I have to write in C for legacy reasons.

<comment><USER7> Trevor Jim revived it a bit with virtualization for those wanting to play with it:

[http://trevorjim.com/unfrozen-cyclone/](http://trevorjim.com/unfrozen- cyclone/)

<comment><USER8> Oh, that looks interesting, thanks for the link!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It sounds like an oxymoron. Given the meaning of hacking today it seems a computer by definition is hackable - if you can't hack it what's the point? There's surely some mathematical way to prove that the usefulness of a computing system declines in proportion to it's hackability, such that the least hackable system resembles more or less a rock.

<comment><USER10> Eh? It's about ensuring that a program running on the computer cannot be altered or compromised in order to run unintended code.

<comment><USER11> Wouldn't abandoning the von Neumann architecture do this immediately? Store the code and data in separate memories. I'd think that would take out most all exploits in one strike, no?

<comment><USER12> It appears that they don't want any sacrifices..just a system to run existing code on top of. But yes, you are correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find it difficult to parse out what's really going on here from the hodgepodge of attempted layman's explanations.

<comment><USER14> Not to mention the weird inaccuracies, like tying vpro (amt) to Xeon.

Also no mention of TrustZone or similar existing techs for ensuring application integrity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Labelling something "unhackable" is the quickest way to get some random person/group on the internet to hack it.

<comment><USER16> > Labelling something "unhackable" is the quickest way to get some random > person/group on the internet to hack it.

Perhaps doing such penetration testing is actually what they (secretly) want people to do?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I actuallyed laughed out loud at this sentence:

> Austin likens Morpheus' defenses to requiring a would-be attacker to solve a > new Rubik's Cube every second to crack the chip's security.

Hopefully that is a gross simplfication for the bendfit of less tech savvy folks. A _physical_ rubiks cube can be solved nowadays in 600ms.

<comment><USER18> To be fair, 600ms is a long time for what I assume is an analogy for a hashing algorithm.

Maybe it would be a fun idea to have sensitive data encrypted in such a way that a part of the hashing algorithm involves solving a physical Rubik's cube.

<comment><USER19> I would say that 600ms is just a _mechanical_ limitation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't know enough about computer security, but I think the talk from Joanna Rutkowska about 'Towards (reasonably) trustworthy x86 laptops' [0] is basically pushing for 'hack resistance' from a different angle, with a stateless laptop. I guess that's focussing more on verifying the lack of hacks rather than making it unhackable.

[0]: [https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7352-towards_reasonably_trustwor...](https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7352-towards_reasonably_trustworthy_x86_laptops)

</comment><comment><USER21> Yep. And Enigma is unbreakable, that's why it's totally safe.

</comment><comment><USER22> What about the Mill architecture? [https://millcomputing.com/docs/security/](https://millcomputing.com/docs/security/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Something as simple as tagged memory becoming a standard feature of the dominant CPU architectures would be a huge step forward for computer security.

</comment><comment><USER24> what a load of shit. as if hardware bugs don't exist

</comment><comment><USER25> I can't help but feel that the only "unhackable" computer is one without powers that's been recently introduced to a sledgehammer.

Besides, if you wanted to hack some sort of computer system: Wouldn't you just take someone's children and do unspeakable things to them until someone cracks, that seems less more straightforward - certainly more reliable than depending on the intellect of an engineer ("hacker").

<comment><USER26> > Wouldn't you just take someone's children and do unspeakable things to them > until someone cracks,

Eek. No need to get ghoulishly creative! We just call that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber- hose_cryptanalysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis) :-)</comment></comment>


Gitea v1.7.0 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/releases/tag/v1.7.0 <comment><USER2> I moved my entire world public and private to Gitea about a month ago. I run it somewhere I trust, and even then only when connected through the SSH tunnel (I tunnel both gitea web and gitea ssh, through the existing SSH tunnel).

The whole thing runs inside my place, on a dynamic IP that constantly changes, and yet I update no-ip from a script every 5 minutes from cron. It's been a game changer.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm picking up Gitea as a "Private Github" for our research group.

My biggest draws were simple single binary deployment, and reduced complexity.

Nice to have LDAP integration(we run FreeIPA).</comment>


NSA compromised Dual EC DRBG never actually worked in OpenSSL - <AUTHOR> http://marc.info/?l=openssl-announce&m=138747119822324&w=2&x=1

<comment><USER2> While it's funny that Dual_EC_DRGB was so maligned, this bug was not found until the recent news, it's also disturbing that OpenSSL is so poorly tested that a bug of this magnitude was allowed to slip through for so long.

<comment><USER3> > Why wasn't this bug caught in the FIPS 140-2 validation testing? > > [snip > explanation...]

Try to read the articles sometimes.

<comment><USER4> FIPS 140-2 isn't the only testing done on OpenSSL. You'd think some unit tests would be in place at least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Next in thread, David Johnson points out:

I have previously pointed this out as a bug in the FIPS spec. The need to prevent matching pairs in random numbers by 4.8.2 in FIPS 140-2 reduces the entropy.

The requirement in 4.8.2 applies to all SP800-90 DRBGs, not just the Dual EC DRBG.

I submitted this as part of my comments to the re-opened SP800-90 comment period.

</comment><comment><USER6> So they have a patch to fix it, but can't apply it because that would void the FIPS certification status, and they won't apply it because they are disabling the use of Dual_EC_DRBG anyway.</comment>


Anti defecation drive: Old school propaganda style - <AUTHOR> https://www.bizasialive.com/dd-national-premiere-toilet-ek-prem-katha-zee-cinema/ <comment><AUTHOR> When I say old school propaganda style, its to be taken humorously. The channel that is airing, DD National, was for the longest time the only television channel around before HBO and the likes came along. Oh and of course it was controlled by the Govt, at least back then, and probably now too to some extent..</comment>


Profile of Qasar Younis and YC Investor Day - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/29/inside-one-of-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-rituals-raising-cash/ <comment><USER2> I'd be interested to know how "Investor Day" went. Any YC founders from this batch want to give their perspective?

<comment><USER3> I thought it was incredibly valuable, but exhausting at the same time. Usually, meetings like this would be spread out over days and weeks, giving you a chance to recover from each pitch. This was relentless: the same questions every 20 minutes for most of the day.

On the other hand, it was awesome to meet so many people excited by what we're doing in a single day. The investors we spoke to were engaging and thoughtful, and we didn't have to worry (for the most part!) about whether speaking with them was worth our time.

The algo for matching investors with companies seemed to work _okay_, although there were a few meetings we had to schedule outside of Investor Day with people who didn't make the cut for whatever reason.

On the whole, it was absolutely worth it and I highly recommend YC keep it as a mechanism for speeding up fundraising after Demo Day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > In the days following the event, Younis ... used the organization's software > to collect data on whether companies raised money on Investor Day. A handful > of companies had. Others reported positive conversations.

A little surprising that only a "handful of companies" raised, although I don't know what "handful" means here. 5%? 10%?

<comment><USER5> Most YC companies will raise money after demo day, but it usually takes a few days for deals to close.

<comment><USER4> That makes sense. I misunderstood that part of the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does YC release stats like: how many companies, how many funds, how much investment went into how many companies?

The piece is quite interesting as an observation of what the mood is like, but the data will tell us the "truth" about what really happened.

<comment><USER5> We haven't in the past. But thanks for letting us know you'd be interested - I'll think about what we could release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is "Silicon Valley" now a short-hand euphemism for all startups worldwide? So if you're in say Chicago or Baltimore or Bangladesh and you're a startup trying to raise money, are you participating in Silicon Valley's most grueling ritual? Yes, I know this article is SPECIFICALLY about the YCombinator demo day which IS in Silicon Valley. But is the side-read here that it's like this (or most likely harder) for startups everywhere outside of Silicon Valley? And is this even representative of how things are really done for everyone outside of YC in Silicon Valley?

Maybe this should really be titled: Inside one of Silicon Valley's top Accelerators: the grueling YC Demo Days. TL;DR: This is not the reality that most startups face when they raise money, but an insight into a unique process at a unique accelerator in a unique part of the ecosystem.

<comment><USER8> In regards to the figure of speech: [http://literarydevices.net/metonymy/](http://literarydevices.net/metonymy/)

<comment><USER7> If that's the case, then the article reads wrong because there's really nothing like this process for startups everywhere outside of Silicon Valley, and probably even inside Silicon Valley. It's a false metonymy in that case.

<comment><USER8> Well, now it sounds like you're arguing against yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's the second most grueling ritual?

<comment><USER10> [http://time.com/35524/ageism-in-silicon-valley-is-causing- an...](http://time.com/35524/ageism-in-silicon-valley-is-causing-an-uptick-in- plastic-surgeries/)</comment></comment>


How to (In)validate Your Startup Idea - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wepay.com/blog/2010/12/17/how-to-invalidate-your-startup-idea/ <comment><USER2> _If anybody responds, tell them that the offer is oversubscribed and that it is no longer available._

Wow!

A company built to handle other people's money that recommends deception. What's wrong with this picture?

<comment><USER3> I think you are being a little melodramatic. This is to vet an idea, not a sustainable way to build a business. I even said that it could/should be more of a thought experiment. And besides, I'm not recommending that you maliciously and deleteriously deceive people.

pg on naughtiness: "Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not goody- two-shoes good. Morally they care about getting the big questions right but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word "naughty" rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules--but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant, though; it may be implied by imagination."

<comment><USER2> Sorry to say, Rich, that was not the response I expected.

AFAIC, there is no gray area here. I have argued (yes, many have disagreed with me) the same for years here.

A little background...

I have seen more deals than you can imagine ruined because someone lost trust. As simple as that. The salesman fibbing to his wife on the phone in front of the customer. The contractor paying the 3rd party vendor a little extra to get his customer's deal. I even saw someone lose a million dollar deal because he took his customer for a ride in his leased car with the speedometer disconnected.

And the reasoning was always the same: "If he could do this little thing to someone else, what will he do with my big deal?"

It's not a matter of what is effective. It's a matter of what's right and wrong. For many people (me included, of course), there is no gray area.

I realize that jaywalking != murder, but deception in business tactics is always a big deal. When one has little more than your reputation to judge, all data that affects that reputation is fair game.

I was disappointed with the original post. Calling deception "a little melodramatic" and citing a pg naughtiness quote as an excuse leaves me more disappointed than ever.

<comment><USER3> If I had more time, I'd go through all your previous HN comments disparaging WePay for different reasons. Somehow I doubt your motivation for doing so is a sterling commitment to morality. If it was, I doubt you would introduce your criticism with: "A company built to handle other people's money...", and instead, just focus your criticism on the point you are attacking.

<comment><USER4> No, that's really what Ed's like. He's also _really_ not OK with you smoking up to relax ("You have trouble reading and writing and 'rithmetic, so you need a little chemical help. You pussy."); I'm pretty sure he also once posted he'd never work with you if you pirated software. I've been surprised by many things he's said. I think he's coming from a principled place.

That doesn't mean I agree with him totally... but I don't think he's gunning for you.

If Ed's disappointed with you, someone else in the real world who could be vital to your business is going to be similarly disappointed. Why not figure out how to fix it? You're going to be successful either way, we all know it, but for the most part nobody in the real world is going to give enough of a shit about you to get past the first negative reaction they have to you. Might as well use Ed as a scientific curiosity.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the memories, Thomas (I think).

I remember that drug post from a few years ago. If was about an English PhD who posted that he needed drugs to cope and I really ripped into him. I wasn't upset so much that he "smoked to relax" but that it ended up here, where it could have easily been misunderstood by someone impressionable (and young). I got shredded by my fellow hn'ers that day. Amazing that you remembered it.

You're right, I won't work with anyone whose ethics I suspect. Pretty simple, I think.

For the record, I'm certainly not a saint. Once you get to know me irl (hopefully that will come about some day), you'll see. It's just that I have never found any substitute for pristine business ethics, and I occasionally point that out here. The feedback, both kinds, is usually quick and predictable.

I'm not disappointed, just concerned, that's all.

<comment><USER5> I think you're deeply naive about how human ethics work. You really cannot easily judge someone else until you have walked a mile in their shoes. I see it a lot: people thinking that character is more important than circumstance, when the reverse is true the _vast_ majority of the time. Character really counts for very little, and in any case you cannot reliably infer much from the ethics of decisions in one circumstance to predict behaviour in another circumstance, unless the circumstances are similar in ways that match the causal reasoning of the agent making the ethical choices - and that reasoning is a hidden model, requiring you to read minds to figure it out, or saving that, hanging around that person for months and years.

For example, things like jaywalking - did you know that jaywalking is statistically safer than crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing in the US, on a per-crossing basis? If you knew that, would it change your opinion of the "ethics" of someone who broke that law? Some people put staying alive at a higher premium than obeying the law. But someone who didn't know that may just think they're a jackass.

It's also easily gamed. When people have such a simplistic and naive view of ethics / morality / character, their adversaries can put on little morality plays to fool them into a false sense of trust.

<comment><USER6> You're equating ethics with the law. They are not the same. In some circumstances, it may be seen as ethical to break the law. One that comes off the top of my head would be... what if you're wife is going into labor and you need to speed to get to the hospital? Obviously the scenario presented has its own set of circumstances, but at face value it could be seen as ethical to do so. Or, how about to speed-up and pass someone?

<comment><USER5> No, I'm not. I'm criticizing a particular mindset which has rules in mind (which may or may not be the law) and judges people by how closely they follow those rules, on the basis that people who break rules in one area may break rules in other areas, simply because rules are rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure I'd want to take any advice that suggests starting off a business relationship by lying to the potential customer.

(Re: "Identify your target customer. COLD email 20 of them and offer to pay THEM to use your product if they are willing to offer some feedback. See how many respond. If anybody responds, tell them that the offer is oversubscribed and that it is no longer available. See how many of those people still ask about the product.")

<comment><USER8> Dry testing has always been controversial, it seems.

<comment><USER9> I'd imagine that merely asking the potential users if they'd buy now, if it were available, would serve the same purpose.

<comment><USER10> No, it wouldn't. "Would you buy know?" doesn't select the same people as "Click here to buy now".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I fully agree with the article, however, when I think of most the big successes of the last 10 years, they all fall in the exception category.

What does that tell me? Would that have worked for twitter? No. For Google search? Barely. For Facebook? Probably not. GroupOn? Probably.

<comment><USER12> You probably could have done this with Google search.

Would you love to replace the super slow inaccurate search you are using now with one that delivered accurate results in 1/10th of the time?

<comment><USER13> [1999] Sure, but I'll believe it when I see it. Look, I've already tried about 10 different search engines, and even with the best of them (altavista) you count on having to click through a few results pages to find what you want. Web servers aren't psychic, you know. You get out what you put into it. There are already a lot of smart, well-funded companies working on this, so good luck.

People who Knew Search back then knew that tedium was part of the bargain, just like people who Know photo sharing today know that tedious sorting/tagging is inevitable if you shoot a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No thanks. Lies are a bad business model and a worse life model. Makes one think wepay.com's sense of ethics all boil down to whether it makes them money or not.

<comment><USER3> um, the business model I recommend is building products that solve real problems and charging people a fair price to use it.

Testing ideas has nothing to do with determining a business model. Not sure how this relates to WePay's ethics or whether it makes us money or not. Bizarre.

<comment><USER15> > Testing ideas has nothing to do with determining a business model

Your business model includes how you're going to cover the costs of market research. This answer boils down to "we're going to trick people into doing it involuntarily for no compensation, throwing chaff into the marketplace as a negative externality", whether or not they think of it that way. Dry testing is just a step short of fraud, and I for one won't deal with anyone who has ever been caught doing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Lying to potential customers is cheap in terms of development time, but costly in terms of reputation.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is exactly what mark zuckerberg did. [sarcasm]

IMHO, you invalidate an idea after you implement it and see the user's reactions. Before then, you cannot know if it will succeed or not.

<comment><USER3> I named fb as a counterexample. I think you can definitely succeed without validating or invalidating your idea first, but it's a much bigger risk, and you are building a very specific kind of company. How many facebooks and twitters are there in the world?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This piece succeeds because it spells the steps out clearly _and_ tells you there are three very big counter-examples. So if you're trying to change the way people spend time and/or communicate, how do you get validation?

</comment><comment><USER18> You guys should work on formatting your posts, bold list titles or italicize or underline - I am too lazy to read everything, I want to skim before I decide to read.

<comment><USER19> <http://summarity.com/bookmarklet_front>

<comment><USER20> That's a great idea and a nice tool. However, I personally found the resulting summary not very useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Instead of saying "the solution to problem X will actually be available TONIGHT at www.[startupname]ly.com" couldn't you say "the solution to problem X will be available SOON/LATER/NEXT YEAR at www.[startupname]ly.com. Pre- register so we can let you know when it is" ? First, you wouldn't be deceiving anyone. Second, wouldn't it be an even better indication of interest if people are willing to wait for the product?

</comment><comment><USER22> To everyone who has a problem with _tell them that the offer is oversubscribed_ , you do not have to take one sentence and turn it into a huge deal. If that is what the author wants to say, then so be it, just suggest something better and that may work.

</comment><comment><USER23> regarding the lying:

didn't bill gates lie to ibm when they were looking for an OS and say he had one (and then bought qdos and hacked it into dos)?

think of what a boon microsoft has been to the world (i'm only half facetious)

from a utilitarian - the only nonreligious, rational morality? - perspective...

<comment><USER24> Utilitarianism isn't the only nonreligious, rational perspective on morality.

Actually, there aren't any _purely_ rational perspectives on morality, as they all seem to hinge on preserving some intuition or another. But in terms of logically consistent, secular ethical frameworks which produce results most of us are comfortable with, utilitarianism isn't the only one on the list. And there are actually points where utilitarianism might end up producing results people _aren't_ comfortable with (such as kidnapping people and killing them for their organs).

<comment><USER23> point taken

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> These are interesting ideas. I'd like to hear from any founders who have used any of these methods, and to what extent they were beneficial in gauging the eventual level of success of an idea.

<comment><USER26> I agree. And on that topic, what are some hair on fire problems that you have or have thought others might have?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I ensure that a real iOS client is using an API - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN! Hoping I can tap the colossal power of the HN hive-mind.
Working on a project where an iOS client hits an API. How do I ensure that only my 'real' client is allowed to use it?
I could bake a secret token into the app, but surely it will just be sniffed (HTTPS only, but a MITM proxy?) or the app decompiled and the token extracted (Like the Sony PS3 master key).
Is there any reliable way to ensure that a hacked, dummy version of my app can't use the real API?
Thanks HN! <comment><USER2> This is not possible. You should design your architecture so that this either does not matter or has a bounded cost.

<comment><AUTHOR> Had a hunch this was the case, just needed someone smarter than I to confirm.

How do banks ensure nobody makes a phishing version of their apps?

<comment><USER2> They can't. If "no phishing" is a desired property, then it would be up to the distribution ecosystem to either carefully monitor for such products and deny them, or to at least allow some mechanisms for users to verify products themselves (such as SSL combined with URL bars do for general web traffic).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is something that the BBC did with iPlayer: [http://po- ru.com/diary/device-discrimination-on-the-internet...](http://po- ru.com/diary/device-discrimination-on-the-internet/)

I've not quite worked out how to implement it though

<comment><AUTHOR> That is interesting, but surely the client-side cert could just be copied and used in a dummy app?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How about this:

1\. Use the current GMT date/time to generate an encrypted api point like adfa923asdf.yourdomain.com. 2\. Make it change every day. 3\. For all other hostnames besides the correct one for the day, dump random data so the fake app cannot tell whether or not the api is giving out the right results for sure. All your apps will be pining the right api end point where as the fake ones will have a hard time catching up.

Also, use authentication on top of all of this.</comment>


Show HN: My 12 HTML5 games in 12 weeks challenge - <AUTHOR> http://lessmilk.com/12games.php

<comment><USER2> Very pleasantly surprised by the snake game. Seeing the thumbnail, it threw me for a loop, I thought you were numbering things backwards, but after playing it, it is definitely a culmination.</comment>


Ask HN: What domain registrar should I switch to from Go Daddy? - <AUTHOR>

Just like everyone else, I want to protest Go Daddy by switching my domains. What are some of the most reputable registrars that you're switching to? <comment><USER2> <http://www.namecheap.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Namecheap is getting a lot of press for its EFF donations, but I've always liked Name.com for its ease of use, clean interface and no-bullshit policies.

Note: I have not used namecheap. They're also against SOPA and are offering a 10% discount to transfers from GoDaddy using the coupon code "NODADDY" (not an affiliate code).</comment>


"10 Lessons of an MIT Education" by Gian-Carlo Rota - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.tamu.edu/~cyan/Rota/mitless.html <comment><USER2> _What matters most is the ambiance in which the course is taught; a gifted student will thrive in the company of other gifted students._

This sentiment comes up time and time again. The first occurance of it being explicitly stated (to my knowledge) was Thoreau, who said that the advantage of Harvard was simply that: The association of the generation's best. But I believe he stated this in a chapter entitled "Economy", and it ended with, "...and the association of other students costs nothing." No one else points out that important point, and it amounts to this: Charging smart people just for gathering them together is a ripoff.

The same is true with housing. Hey, I'd love to buy one of those foreclosures in detroit for 8 thousand dollars, but the problem is, no other smart people are _that_ smart [1], and so you have to live with crackheads.

[1] Unless they do later, and I become a successful land speculator. That's not the goal, however.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Mathematics is still the queen of the sciences"

Absolutely. Yet somehow, even Rota (in his isolated world) doesn't fully comprehend the magnitude of this remark...

Cariovascular or strength training for physical exercise.

Meditation or religion for spiritual exercise.

Mathematics for mental exercise.

</comment><comment><USER4> Alternative view: [http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/w/c/wchuang/News/...](http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/w/c/wchuang/News/college/MIT- views.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Here are a few more essays by Rota:

<http://www.rota.org/hotair/hotair.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> > One: You can and will work at a desk for seven hours straight, routinely

Sign me up. Nothing I like better than being routinely forced to work for 7 hours straight so I can make the grade.

Maybe this is why the smartest people I know drop of out school to learn and work on their own terms.

<comment><USER7> If you'd think of the work you need to do to get an MIT degree as "forced work" that you need to put in just to "make the grade", then yes, I'd agree you'd be better off dropping out, or going to somewhere where the standards are more lax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "There is some satisfaction, however, for a faculty member in encountering a recent graduate who marvels at the light work load they carry in medical school or law school relative to the grueling schedule they had to maintain during their four years at MIT."

This reminds me of people who dropped comp sci to drink beer and scam chicks over in "business school".

</comment><comment><USER9> Lesson Five: You don't have to be a genius to do creative work.

Creative work is not the providence of genius alone. It's part luck, part risky personality, and part intelligence.

I've begun to write on this extensively on my blog: <http://myphdblogged.blogspot.com>

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a great article. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER10> how academic to claim that programmers only implement ideas of others.. is the insight in the new theory, or the revolutionary application of the abstract theory?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a way to read it, but I don't think that's what he necessarily says. He says: "Those who do not become computer scientists to the second degree risk turning into programmers who will only implement the ideas of others." You can also read it as: "There are two kind of programmers; if you are a computer scientist to the second degree you risk turning into a second-type programmer."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mathematics and mathematicians are both over-hyped. Actually, in my opinion the mathematical notation is the worst 'language' ever.

<comment><USER12> Mathematical ideas are among the most timeless and beautiful of all the things discovered by civilization. The fact that such pure knowledge (often researched for purely recreational or aesthetic reasons) has so many useful applications in so many areas is something profoundly surprising and humbling.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Control units for automotive - <AUTHOR> Has anyone experiences with programming or hacking control units for automotive?
Since it is proprietary software do you have any good resources how to get this kind of knowledge (besides to be car-mechanic and access to expensive software and manuals)?
Story behind: I know a few stories where guys with luxury cars had an issues with electronics and payed a insane money for troubleshooting in service station. Unfortunately they weren't able to solve it quickly and within reasonable budget. They just simply order new unit and replace it.
On the other hand, there is small group of guys who specialize on control units. They are "cheaper" then authorized car-stations but still have great income and work for next 6 months. What is untold...i am not sure from where they have got required knowledge and information. <comment><USER2> So in general ECU's are not easy to just wholesale replace as they may have safeguards built into other electronics looking for proprietary signals from the ECU to activate. You can reprogram aspects of an ECU pretty easily, and you can even clone an ECU. But as far as just replacing it with a non-OEM ECU, I would think it would be cost prohibitive to do the research and development needed to do it properly. This is especially true of higher end cars, where the ABS computer, Radio, Transmission Controller etc all are usually separate and require signals from the ECU. You could reverse engineer it again, but time isn't free.

There are specs you can find on ECU's, most are SAE specs, and most late model ECU's use CAN bus for communication. Sparkfun has an article that talks about reading diagnostic codes etc and shows a list of most specs, although I don't think it is comprehensive. [https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/getting- started-with-ob...](https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/getting-started-with- obd-ii)

Aftermarket companies that sell "chip" tuners, from what I understand, work by first using the known protocols to gain access and tune what is possible, but then also will either pay the OEM for access to make other modifications (and thereby usually be covered under factory warranty), or they will reverse engineer things like the fuel map so they can modify it, which works but isn't so warranty friendly.</comment>