Total victory for open source software in a patent lawsuit - <AUTHOR> http://opensource.com/law/10/5/total-victory-patent-lawsuit-against-open-source-software <comment><USER2> Acacia has been doing this for _years_ , they have a very big warchest filled with the money from previous extortions.

They simply bit off more than they could chew, you can bet that in the future they're not going to change their game much, they will just go after smaller companies again.

I really hope that this will set precedent in the sense that a future defendant will be able to point to this suit and link this party with their previous loss, unfortunately that is not how it normally works in the courtroom.

It's a pity that the lawyers didn't get reprimanded for bringing this case, that would have been better still. After all, if you can get the legal profession to think twice before bringing bogus lawsuits then Acacia et al will have do a lot of homework beforehand instead of hoping that the sheer pressure of a lawsuit will cause their opponents to capitulate, as has happened so frequently in the past.

Here's a link to a previous case they lost, it doesn't seem like that deterred them much:

<http://www.eff.org/files/acacia-patent-invalidated.pdf>

and a blog article about that:

[http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/200...](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/09/good- day-for-the-industry-federal-court-invalidates-acacia-streaming-patents.html)

Another party that should be in the docket here is the patent office, they should somehow be made liable for the cost of litigation stemming from the issuing of patents that should never have been granted in the first place.

<comment><USER3> How do they sleep at night? :(

<comment><USER4> On a big pile of money.

<comment><USER5> With many beautiful ladies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Plaintiffs attempted to exploit this inexperience by arguing that open source software involved behavior that was, if not downright illegal, at least ethically dubious. They promoted the fallacy that open source distributors unfairly take the property of others and thereby unfairly profit. They also suggested that Red Hat's public criticisms of the U.S. patent system as it relates to software and related calls for legal reform were un-American and indicated a secret fondness for the writings of Karl Marx."

Wow. It's like a bad movie.

<comment><USER7> > They also suggested that Red Hat's public criticisms of the U.S. patent > system as it relates to software and related calls for legal reform were un- > American and indicated a secret fondness for the writings of Karl Marx."

What an ignorant and destructive attitude - systems of free enterprise allow people to build whatever charity they want, whatever church they want, whatever business they want, build a worker's cooperative if they want, or create an open source platform. Marx advocated violence and control, free enterprise is the opposite of that. Free enterprise is not and shouldn't be equated with profit-seeking: For profit businesses are one way to build and better the world, but there are many other ways. Marx would have the government snuff out churches, businesses, private charities, and everything that isn't subordinate to the state. Free enterprise is the opposite of that.

<comment><USER8> > _systems of free enterprise allow people to build whatever charity they > want, whatever church they want, whatever business they want, build a > worker's cooperative if they want, or create an open source platform_

Kind of off-topic, but it's something that bothers me ...

Some free software activists should also be reminded of this, since their agenda is getting rid of proprietary software which is considered to be immoral / unethical. Some open-source projects or companies having a business on top of open-source are perpetually harassed for their choices, some of which are viewed to be in the detriment of free software.

See here for a shining example: [http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2009/07/timeline-of-david- schl...](http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2009/07/timeline-of-david- schlesingermark.html)

Every ideology is right of course ( <http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003097.html> ), it's only a matter of perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This case at once underscores the good and the bad of the jury system.

The good: surprising as it may seem to many, jurors usually do try to evaluate the facts, and apply the law as instructed, in a conscientious manner - and, probably 90% of the time, the result is sound.

The bad: Red Hat and Novell undoubtedly put up a 7-figure defense to get the case to a jury and then had to undergo the risk of sweating it out to see if this particular jury might be gulled into giving sleazeballs or opportunists a victory - this is something an average defendant just can't afford to do.

Another note for those who can't abide by the idea of software patents: even though an orgy of such patents has been granted this past 30 years, there does come a time when all of the dubious and obvious ones do enter into prior art through lapse of time and, in this sense, the problem is at least to a degree self-correcting (obviously, this is cold comfort for those who have to suffer under such patents during their long tenure). That really was what won the day for the defendants in this case.

<comment><USER10> > this is something an average defendant just can't afford to do.

Every time we don't, we fund the trolls even further. Acacia won't die because of this one and will live on to extort smaller companies.

<comment><USER11> So the solution is to fund defendants so they can stand up to this abuse. Wear the trolls down. Easier said than done, of course.

<comment><USER10> Indeed. Much easier to say than to do, but, still, it looks like it's the only correct solution - to borrow the M.A.D. doctrine from the cold-war era.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yay! A jury acted intelligently!

Woohoo! The obviously-just outcome was reached in an unjust accusation!

Does it really have to be like this? How can we as a nation justify a system that forces entities _that are obviously not in the wrong_ to spend a large sum of money in order to defend themselves from freeloaders who clearly _are_ in the wrong? And even after spending all that money, we are _elated_ when the correct individuals manage to win.

Why can't the patent office (if we must have one) actually employ field experts? Patent infringement cases would be submitted to the appropriate department, and the accused would submit evidence supporting their case. The case should have to go to court only in the case that the accused loses such an accusation and decides to appeal.

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems like a pretty big deal - not only did the patent troll lose the case, he lost his patents.

I wonder on what grounds the jury found the patents invalid. Was it a technicality, or prior art or obviousness?

This could significantly raise the risk (cost) of being a patent troll since the pressure to settle out of court is now, at least to a higher degree than previously, on the plaintiffs.

<comment><USER14> Judging by this article alone, I'd say "prior art".

>However, the plaintiffs came forward with minimal evidence to support their argument of infringement. They also faced abundant evidence showing that the patents were invalid based on prior art. In other words, there was nothing new in these "inventions" sufficient for a patent.

<comment> s-phi-nl Why wasn't the prior art discovered when the patent was granted?

<comment><USER15> Because the USPTO couldn't give a hoot. They face no negative consequences when they rubber-stamp a bogus patent application.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> good.

Patent trolls have abused the system for too long. The whole point of patents was to increase innovation not stifle it

<comment><USER17> >>> The whole point of patents was to increase innovation not stifle it

Don't tell the lobbyists that. They've worked really hard to make sure that the point of patents (and all IP law) is to protect large companies from innovative newcomers on the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In the general scheme of things this is an example of a failure. Software patents are a failure - full stop.</comment>


Code your own Proof of Stake blockchain in Go - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mycoralhealth/code-your-own-proof-of-stake-blockchain-in-go-610cd99aa658 <comment><USER2> The only problem here is that Proof-of-Work is the evolution of Proof-of- Stake, not the other way around.

PoS is how Paxos and RAFT work, and it was described in Wei Dai's b-money in 1989 [1]. But it didn't work for an adversarial byzantine network, and so it wasn't until Satoshi invented a Proof-of-Work based solution in 2008 that we had a crypto-currency.

1\. [http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt](http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt)

      "Each server is required to deposit a certain amount of money in a special account to be used as potential fines or rewards for
      proof of misconduct."

<comment><USER3> PoS is also plutocratic isn't it? Money would always flow to those that already have the largest stake. Economies already naturally do that, so also coding it into the monetary system would double the exponent on the effect. Winners take all, and are then the arbiters of all transactions.

<comment><USER4> Money flows to everyone, just more goes to those with more money. However that isn't as bad as it sounds. If you own 10% and someone owns 1%, after the money has been given out you will still have 10% and they 1%. From a relative wealth perspective it actually just maintains everyone's position in society, neither benefiting nor disadvantaging anyone...

That's the spiel at least...

<comment><USER5> If I have 10% and you have 1%, I might be able to keep 5% locked as my stake and 5% liquid, where you need 0.9% liquid and can only lock 0.1%. What was a 10:1 ratio in capital becomes a 50:1 ratio after we each chunk some out for liquidity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't the P2P feature what makes blockchain useful? I've seen many tutorials to code a blockchain in 10min, but they leave out this seemingly vital piece.

It's like how to a SaaS tutorial without user authentication or payment processing.

<comment><USER7> Blockchains can be useful without P2P, notably when all actors in the chain know eachother but don't trust eachother. In this case everyone can just forward ports and hardcode nodes into a config.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's a great thing that people are trying different approaches.

One factor is that a technology on its own doesn't create its success, but it's also dependent on the sociological environment the technology is born into.

This is why we see many technologies get hyped up and die off, just to come back decades later to succeed. The success depends heavily on the context.

That said, just like gtrubetskoy said below, proof of work was the solution that came after and solved all the seemingly impossible problems in an elegant manner.

The reason I'm skeptical about most "proof of stake" fanboys is that they are not even aware of all this history, and they also fail to realize the elegance of proof of work.

If you think about it, "proof of stake" is a very natural and even an obvious idea. I'm not saying the researchers who came up with proof of stake concept didn't achieve much, I'm saying the "proof of work" is almost like an alchemy compared to "proof of stake" because proof of stake is purely a system based on social factors ("let's vote to make decisions!") whereas proof of work is something not one person can easily wrap their head around.

And the craziest part is that this system has worked for a decade now. The only reason we know this works is because it's worked for a decade. I'm pretty sure Satoshi Nakamoto himself had no idea if it would work when he invented the scheme.

Overall I do think that proof of work is beautiful piece of technology that most people don't appreciate enough.

I run into many people just getting into "crypto" outright criticizing proof of work and not even understanding how it actually works, which is a pity because in their mind, proof of work is some stupid scheme that's like a crappy MVP with all the shitty problems like global warming, etc., while "proof of stake" is the clear future, and with a closed mindset like that you can't create a true solution IMO.

<comment><USER2> I definitely agree that PoW is very hard to understand because it is not a computer thing, it's about the relationship between large number theory, thermodynamics and statistics/probabilities.

I describe it to myself as a clock, I've written my thoughts down here, you might find it interesting: [https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining- proof-of-work/](https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/)

<comment><USER8> Wow that was a great post. Thanks for sharing. Yes I agree proof of "work" is a misnomer and a red herring.

The work is just a means to an end which is "Time".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is Hashgraph good? [http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/can-hashgraph- su...](http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/can-hashgraph-succeed- blockchain-as-the-technology-of-choice-for- cryptocurrencies/article23348176.ece)

</comment><comment><USER10> How is this a valid PoS blockchain at all? Its just one centralized node choosing the winner? What stops anyone from proposing a fake winner? How is consensus reached if there were multiple nodes choosing winners?</comment>


How to use popularity lists to influence your users behavior - <AUTHOR> http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/how-to-use-popularity-lists-to-influence-your-users-behavior/

<comment><USER2> Interesting, but unfortunately the author missed an opportunity for a great title:

"The Top 10 Ways to Use Popularity Lists to Influence Your Users' Behavior"

<comment><USER3> Haha! I had to read that twice to get it. Nice one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> required reading for any aspiring iPhone developer.</comment>


5 Myths About Sick Old Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501041.html?sub=AR <comment><USER2> The article is right and wrong at the same time, mostly because the topic is complex and there is no way to properly lay it out on just two pages. They did not mention a few crucial differences between two economies such as military spending for example.

For those interested in the subject I highly recommend the following book: "United States of Europe". That book tries to _carefully_ compare US and EU as two major competing nations/economies.

<comment><USER3> > mostly because the topic is complex and there is no way to properly lay it > out on just two pages

 _Way_ more complex. You're absolutely right. I think I could write a book about it...

> United States of Europe

I didn't like it very much. It's kind of superficial, and I think he actually gets a lot of things wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I lived in Germany for 7 months last year. Everything looks good to me, they have a very strong consumer market as opposed to what I've seen here in the States.

<comment><USER5> As ridiculous as things have got here with the welfare state and the size of government, the problem is much worse in Europe. There is just no way they can continue to afford the government payrolls and social benefits they have.

The US has a chance of navigating out of the failing socialist systems. The cultural heritage of individual independence and government mistrust means it's possible. But Europeans exhibit nothing but obstinate rigidity, even with a more serious problem. It's a ticking fiscal time bomb.

<comment><USER6> Europe is not just one thing. There are many countries in europe that have very different labour laws and regulations.

South\Eastern Europe is now the place with the most growth, like an "up and comming" neighborhood, and you can get away with a lot more there.

Back home, most of my friends that have "starter" jobs, are actually doing it under the rug. Go to work, regurarly, get paid, but they don't officially result in the payroll of the company (to avoid all the obligations that come with it).

After a couple of years of work, once you gained some experience you move there, or somewhere else in a more stable status.

I am assuming a startup will probably be the same. First years it will all be under the rug. Remember, laws are made to be broken to a certain extent, but they also prevent large companies from treating employees just as a disposable thing, with no rights, no vacation, no health care, no paid maternity leave as you have in the US.

Sure some large companies do provide them, but some don't (ala Walmart), and this nation leaves it's citizen under the mercy of capitalism (which just wants you healthy enough to perform your duties).

Remember, Europeans work to live, Americans live to work.

<comment><USER7> > large companies from treating employees just as a disposable thing, with no > rights, no vacation, no health care, no paid maternity leave as you have in > the US.

My US company has those things. If it didn't, I'd find another company. Having lots of companies makes this feasible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What about taxes in Europe compared to the US?

<comment><USER9> I have lived in California & Massachusetts as well as the UK and Sweden. Sweden has the highest taxes in the world according to the Economist. With that comes cheap healthcare for all. My experience is that it is better than both UK and the US healthcare I have been exposed to. Yet the US pays $6100/capita/year for healthcare compared to Swedens $2800/capita/year. And in the US not everyone is covered.

In addition to that we have free schooling, and Swedish schools are not bad, not as good as the top US ivy league, but better than the average US state university. We have very low CO2 emissions, partially due to geography, but also due to extensive investments by local government on biofuel district heating networks. We also have good public transport. Sweden is about the same size as California, but has a superior public transport infrastructure, despite only having 9 million people (compared to 34 million in CA). Nearly all of the Swedish transport system was publicly funded.

On top of this Sweden is consistently ranked among the top countries for standard of living. Despite all the taxes. Now, just like others have said, there is a big difference between different countries in Europe. Bigger than most who have never visited imagine. But high taxes does not automatically mean crappy lifestyle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> They are proud of a positive trade balance for the EU (of 3 billion, which seems tiny for a 16 trillion GDP). That's silly:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism>

 _David Hume famously noted the impossibility of the mercantilists' goal of a constant positive balance of trade. As bullion flowed into one country, the supply would increase and the value of bullion in that state would steadily decline relative to other goods. Conversely, in the state exporting bullion, its value would slowly rise. Eventually it would no longer be cost-effective to export goods from the high-price country to the low-price country, and the balance of trade would reverse itself. Mercantilists fundamentally misunderstood this, long arguing that an increase in the money supply simply meant that everyone gets richer.[20]_

Countries with trade surplus are _giving loans_ of wealth and capital to other people who are better at actually using stuff. In return for their _giving up their stuff_ they get money, which has only one use: getting some stuff back later. Whereas countries with trade deficits are like new companies that get a loan and go do something useful with it -- they are the ones who are best at using stuff.

<comment><USER5> > giving up their stuff they get money, which has only one use: getting some > stuff back later

It's not just for "getting stuff back." It's capital. It can be used to buy up or create dividend producing assets. Nations that accumulate capital can invest it, and through the magic of compounding interest and capital investment they can race ahead of competitors.

> countries with trade deficits are like new companies that get a loan and go > do something useful with it

This way of thinking is so at odds with historical reality I need to know where you encountered it. Every great and ascendant nation has run consistent trade surpluses. Nations with trade deficits are either banana republics or headed that way.

The US trade deficit is not from imported capital goods. The US imports consumer products.

The US now runs a trade deficit with every region of the world. The US has a net trade imbalance in every category of industrial/scientific machinery and high-tech products.

Sorry, there is no way to spin trade deficits as positive.

<comment><USER11> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_surplus>

"Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and father of Monetarism, argued that many of the fears of trade deficits are unfair criticisms in an attempt to push macroeconomic policies favorable to exporting industries. He stated that these deficits are not harmful to the country as the currency always comes back to the country of origin in some form or another (country A sells to country B, country B sells to country C who buys from country A, but the trade deficit only includes A and B). In fact, in his view, the "worst case scenario" of the currency never returning to the country of origin was actually the best possible outcome: the country actually purchased its goods by exchanging them for pieces of cheaply-made paper. As Friedman put it, this would be the same result as if the exporting country burned the dollars it earned, never returning it to market circulation."

It's worth keeping in mind that trade is not a race or competition. It doesn't hurt us in any way if Europe accumulates wealth quickly.

I think the idea that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good is largely an artifact of the way we talk about it. It wouldn't sound as scary if Lou Dobbs talked about "America's looming capital account surplus," even though a capital account surplus is logically equivalent to a trade deficit. Right now, foreigners are buying up a small share of our capital goods and sending us consumer goods in exchange. At some point in the future, those same foreigners will sell the capital goods and use them to purchase consumer goods from us. In an of itself, neither situation is something to be concerned about.

<comment><USER5> > It's worth keeping in mind that trade is not a race or competition. It > doesn't hurt us in any way if Europe accumulates wealth quickly.

This isn't quite true. The nations that accumulate capital tend to buy up the high return assets of financially weaker nations. Now that the dollar is tanking, due to the deficits and monetary irresponsibility, you see foreigners snapping up American companies and properties. The dividends from those things are now less likely to be invested here.

<comment><USER12> Foreigners, who almost by definition have less local knowledge than locals (duh), are more likely to be stuck overpaying for less than premium assets, rather than getting the prime ones. The most talked about European investments in the US as of late seems to have been in Chrysler and subprime mortgages. Hardly stellar examples of high return assets.

Hollywood has been riding high on this principle for decades, sucking in foreign money like a turbocharged vacuum cleaner on crack, and promptly distributing it to themselves, their lawyers, surgeons, trainers and decorators, as salaries and bonuses. All the while, the local insiders/studios keep the choicest releases to themselves. They only need financing 'help' for the risky, read subprime, stuff.

What's really sad, for European savers at least, is that despite being fully aware of this, their homegrown movie industries continue to be an even shittier bet.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Linode launches a one-click app marketplace - <AUTHOR> https://www.linode.com/2020/03/30/introducing-linode-one-click-app-marketplace/ <comment><USER2> The signup for app devs doesn't work here, anyone else see the form?</comment>


Multiple vulnerabilities found in Rack - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rack-devel/mZsuRonD7G8/DpZIOmMLbOgJ

<comment><USER2> If my site is SSL only, is it still vulnerable to the cookie timing attack?

Are there details about the file-traversal one?

<comment><USER3> The file traversal vulnerability allows an attacker to access unauthorized files outside of the document root, assuming that there exists a symlink from inside the document root to a path that is outside of it.

For example:

Symlink: public/foo -> /secret/path/not_very_secret

An attacker could request /foo/../really_secret, which the OS would interpret as /secret/path/really_secret and happily serve up.

The attacker is limited in the number of ".." components they can add to the path by the number of real path components that precede it, i.e. they still cannot do /foo/../../../etc/passwd

The fixed version of rack correctly removes ".." path components _before_ passing the resulting path to the OS, i.e. "/foo/../really_secret" is translated to "/really_secret", and results in a 404 error instead of a security breach.

This vulnerability is particularly concerning for Rails apps deployed using Capistrano (unless config.serve_static_assets = false). This is because there are typically symlinks from public/assets and public/system to the corresponding directories under the Capistrano deploy's "shared" directory, and also under "shared" are typically things like logs, configuration, and a copy of the application code!

Fortunately, Rails ships by default with a production configuration that sets serve_static_assets to false, relying on the frontend web server to serve up all static content (so the attacker will just get a 404). This directory traversal bug is not present in current versions of Apache or nginx.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How many people use rack? Is it almost always used when deploying rails apps?

<comment><USER5> Rails has been built around Rack for a couple years, but I _think_ its sessions are safe from this Rack vulnerability. Rails' CookieStore class inherits from Rack::Session::Cookie, but it overwrites the unpacked_cookie_data() method which was open to a timing attack. Rails uses its own MessageVerifier class ([https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/lib...](https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/lib/active_support/message_verifier.rb#L53)) to do a constant time comparison, which would avoid this attack.

Any other frameworks/libs that use Rack's session cookies should upgrade though, afaik.</comment></comment>


Show HN: The new Longform app, a reader for smart content - <AUTHOR> http://longform.org/app/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey - I know Longform.org pops up from time to time in HN threads and I wanted to let people know that we have a new iOS app.

The app features the curated daily article recommendations you find on Longform.org plus features that let you customize your own information diet. We filter out the short linkbait crap so you're left only with engaging, deep articles.

You can follow writers and get notified any time they publish any article anywhere. Or follow friends and see what they're loving.

Our popular tab is a leaderboard for in-depth articles from across the internet.

Anyway, feedback is greatly appreciated (and yes, we do want to do Android): firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Pro-choice Programmer - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.tedneward.com/2008/05/11/Im+ProChoice+Pro+Programmer+Choice+That+Is.aspx

<comment><USER2> This article basically attempts to discredit the maxim that 'The three most "personal" choices a developer makes are language, tool, and OS.'

The author posits that these shouldn't be 'personal' choices, rather a programmer should just choose the right tool for the job.

However, I think he fails to take into consideration that some choices are 'sticky' (in the economic sense) because of external efficiency boosts.

For example, Eclipse may be a better Java IDE than Emacs, ceteris paribus. However, all things are not equal. By using Emacs with JDEE I get free svn integration, my keybindings, my customizations, and so on. All those things would take considerable time to set up/learn on Eclipse.

Similarly, I can imagine certain tasks for which OCaml may be better suited than CL or Perl (my two strongest languages). But, I may have enough additional expertise in Lisp or Perl to offset the 'natural' advantage OCaml would offer. (This isn't to suggest that we shouldn't push our comfort zones and expand our skills, though).

It's a basic principle that specialization often leads to efficiency increases. And, since the decision of what to specialize in (Emacs v Vim, Ruby v Python, etc.) is effectively arbitrary, it boils down to a personal choice.

I should learn the basics of both A and B (windows and linux, cl and scheme, etc), but at some point I should choose one to specialize in. And that choice is pretty personal.

<comment><USER3> Great post & totally agree.

silly nitpick: you get free svn integration with Eclipse, too.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, I know Eclipse has SVN support.

I guess my point (see: "those things would take considerable time to set up/learn on Eclipse.") was that yes, the feature is there, but it isn't free because it costs me time to learn/configure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "When programmers embed their choice so deeply into their psyche that it becomes the tagline by which they identify themselves... Do you, the customer, really care what kind of tools they use?"

The customer probably doesn't care, but recruiters certainly do. They want a 'C# developer' or 'experience of VB.NET' rather than a 'good programmer', which is probably what they should be looking for.

If the writer is saying he'd avoid working with someone who would only use his own favourite language no matter what, then I'd agree with him. However, I'd also be suspicious of an experienced programmer who didn't have strong views on operating systems, languages, and text editors/IDEs. If you don't care about these things, you probably don't care about programming.

</comment><comment><USER5> "I use a variety of languages, tools, and OSes, and my choice of which to use are all geared around a single end goal: not to promote my own social or political agenda, but to make my customer happy."

My customer probably won't be happy if I programmed his thing with a language, tools and OS that frustrate me to no end. That frustration will no doubt find its way in the product, just as sheer joy finds it way into the product when I love the way I work.

My agenda? Having fun making software that's fun to use.

<comment><USER6> There's nothing wrong in promoting a social or political agenda either. We are software specialists and we should educate other citizens, including our clients, about the virtues of good software and the right tools to build it. This is no different from any other field. I though the post made Ted look like a pushover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The author says that choice of language, OS, and so on ought not to be deeply personal for programmers; they should be guided only by what's best for the customer. That's pretty hard to dispute. Who wants to argue that their ego needs matter more than customer value?

But choice of language, OS, and so on _are_ deeply personal for many programmers, including many good ones. Are they all just being self-centered and misguided? I doubt it. Neward doesn't offer any insight into why this might be. He just says it makes him want to "hurl". (Actually, his attitude seems condemnatory and dismissive in a way that's more similar to the caricatured programmers he's critiquing than it is to the heterodox flexibility he advocates.)</comment>


"Manager READMEs" from some tech companies - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/12-manager-readmes-from-silicon-valleys-top-tech-companies-26588a660afe <comment><USER2> These should be taken as the hypothesis statement at the start of an experiment, that will or won't be borne out by what actually happens. Show, don't tell. One reason: People can be wrong about themselves. Or they can, with varying degrees of either idealism or self-dishonesty, present a rosy view that amounts to little more than a sales pitch for themselves. If it's true, you'll find out soon enough. If it's not, you'll find out soon enough. Therefore these documents have little value and should be kept to the minimum length needed to discuss practical things like email expectations and overall goals - things everybody has to agree on.

<comment><USER3> Too many teams I have worked in have way too little personal on-boarding in my opinion. At least with these presentations I know how the manager "wants" to present him/herself, if this turns out to be false, as you say, I'll know soon enough.

On the other hand there are managers that do not introduce themselves enough to new employees which forces you to effectively learn by trial and error how you should interact with them.

My point is I would appreciate an idealist sales pitch about a new manager more than just an unplanned, informal conversation.

<comment><USER2> It definitely does provide a sort of head-start on reaching that understanding, so in that sense it's valuable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There seems to be a fair amount of skepticism about this method, but I think it's a great system - and it can with great success be extended to everyone else in the company too - not just managers. At Dropbox, a lot of employees have (and we're all encouraged to have) a "Working with me" document that describes your personality and work style, how you like to get and receive feedback, your career goals, your schedule and communication preferences etc.. it helps people work with each other in a more compatible, effective and empathetic way. But there's definitely a level of vulnerability and trust that is needed to make it work, however it's a powerful tool if you have a good culture to support it. Just my 5 cents.

<comment><USER5> Were the "working with me" documents started by employees or was that something someone pitched/asked for from management? I'd like to do like that. Even as an individual contributor, there are times where I find myself describing my working style or communication style to new teammates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting that many seem to prefer weekly 1:1s. That seems far too much to me. I would absolutely dread having to spend so much time on that with my manager or my managees and I can't imagine there are substantial benefits to it (does anyone REALLY have meaningful thoughts about their job/career path EVERY WEEK?)

<comment><USER7> Whenever I've managed people, I've made a point of scheduling weekly 1:1s; did that even with 12 or so reports, and it did take a significant chunk of time, but it was IMO one of the most important things, if not the most important thing, I could do for them as a manager (and also the one I enjoyed the most about the role).

As other commenters have said, the 1:1 time is the report's time. It's a chunk of time in which I'm entirely and exclusively available to them. I have a set of standard questions I can default to, mostly trying to understand how they're feeling, and open-ended enough that they can talk about whatever they want. Some are done in 5 minutes with a progress report, some take close to an hour in which they sometimes share personal stuff; it's all good from my POV, happy employees are productive employees.

It's absolutely not just about their job/career path. You wouldn't believe what a MASSIVE difference it makes for people just to be heard and have your undivided attention.

<comment><USER8> I am about 6mo into a job with weekly 1:1s, and am coming from a job that did them every other week. I am always excited for my weekly 1:1.

As a disclaimer, my boss scheduled a weekly 30min 1:1 when I started, but with the caveat that we could make it less often if I found it not useful. He just preferred weekly during the "settling in" phase.

Almost without fail, our 1:1s go over time, totaling between 45min and 1hr. I can't imagine how my boss finds the time, but I so appreciate that he does.

I keep a pinned slack message in our DM, of priority-ordered things to discuss. Often these are things like:

\- Something went wrong this week. How did I do? How could I have performed better?

\- I noticed something unhealthy with our team, how can we fix it?

\- You did something that surprised me as a manager, what was your thought process (this is sometimes critical feedback, sometimes curiousity)

\- Is this thing I want to do a good idea?

\- Debrief on progress (or lack thereof) on a predefined goal.

\- Help me with this stupid HR/Expense report thing

And the list always ends with:

\- leave space for <BOSS> to discuss things he wants

This is easily the most valuable growth time of my week. I appreciate my IC time to do an excellent job, but the 1:1s help me pick my head up and think about bigger things.

<comment><USER9> > As a disclaimer, my boss scheduled a weekly 30min 1:1 when I started, but > with the caveat that we could make it less often if I found it not useful

I always preferred managers like this, who are not totally dogmatic about things like weekly meetings - instead doing what works best for each individual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >We work for 9.5 to 10 hours a day. Some people start early (7AM) some later (9:45AM), and go home accordingly.[1]

This is from the "Expectations" section of one of the linked "READMEs" (Forter's). Does anyone else this is a very aggressive expectation?

[1]: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sx5ssYb_xMrmwPpyjD5xP7Rv...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sx5ssYb_xMrmwPpyjD5xP7RvQ7cHweDYlRGn2SXztKw/edit#)

<comment><USER11> Forter is an Israeli company, unfortunately 10 hours/day is now a norm in Israel.

<comment><USER12> From my month in Israel working at a startup, it seems like long lunches and smoke breaks are also a norm. Maybe they compensate?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The best company I've ever worked for had no managers (beside owners). They made it to $1B, loved by HN crowd, their products used by many of you, and nobody ever wanted to manage anything there. People just discussed stuff and decided to do whatever looked super interesting. One team there had actually a person that was behaving like a manager, and that product completely flopped on the market.

<comment><USER14> If you mean Valve... there's a guaranteed low-effort revenue stream, the Steam client has been awfully stagnant (and the parts that are client-only, like your games library, are the most stagnant of all -- Steam has slowly added tools to help curate the store, but none of those things like tags have made their way to the library, and if you've ever binged at a few Steam Sales and bought some Humble Bundles boy could you use such tools). And a lot of the people responsible for the most beloved projects have left[1][2], and they've had a bonfire of consumer goodwill over the lack of a Half-Life 3 or Half-Life 2 Episode 3. Their last game release was in 2013 with Dota 2, unless you want to count letting Nexon release some free-to-play games using their branding and a VR demo.

What I'm saying is, maybe they could use some managers?

1) [https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/02/valve-chet-faliszek- writ...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/02/valve-chet-faliszek-writer-htc- vive-departure/) 2) [https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/kim-swift-leaves- valve-fo...](https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/kim-swift-leaves-valve-for- airtight)

<comment><USER15> > the Steam client has been awfully stagnant

I'll say. Every time I open it the only thing I can focus on are the close/minimise/maximise buttons that are still on the pre-Yosemite style.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I feel strongly that the kind of people who identify the need to create a document like this are probably not the people who most need such a document written about them.

That is, in order to feel it necessary to write something like this, you must be a manager who prioritizes answering the question "what can I do to maximize the happiness and productivity of my direct reports," over "what can I do to ensure my own personal success, regardless of anyone else." Such a person is already going to do the right things, and is much less likely to be hard to work with.

The people who really need these kinds of documents written about them are the ones who are actually difficult to work with - but for many very good reasons, that won't happen.

<comment><USER17> I think the publication of these are offering others the opportunity to be introspective of their management styles. While the document I wrote isn't necessarily covering anything I don't already tell and re-affirm to my direct reports, it was a great exercise in thinking through my management style and what it means to me. I hope that the more popular these things become, further conversations can happen in the community to figure out how to help those managers that might need that help, and help organizations identify potential problem areas in their org structures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A lot of these README's seem a bit samey. Is this a trend that was stared somewhere? Was there some dude middle-managers all look up to who suggested an example README that was used to provide inspration?

<comment><USER19> It's less about writing the same README, I think, and more about there being an industry consensus on what a "good" manager says and does.

<comment><USER18> Is there any verification that these are the good managers? (genuine question)

<comment><USER19> Oh no, I didn't mean to suggest these folks are or are not actually "good" managers, just that what they've all got here is congruent with my current understanding of what the literature tells us a "good" manager says and does.

I'm not trying to say any of it is accurate either, just pointing out the consistency being likely due to a shared set of sources rather than copying one another outright.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How about an employee README?

> This is how I prefer to be managed...

<comment><USER13> Employee_README.md:

I don't need a manager. Just tell me what you want and I'll make it for you without anyone messing up with my productivity. Thank you!

<comment><USER21> If I tell you what I want you won't be engaged or excited. Also, I may not tell you the right thing -- it may not play to all your strengths or what you are interested in right now.

If I tell you what the company goals are and our teams goals, and then ask you how you can use your unique talents to help us achieve those goals, you'll be much more engaged in the work, and also have a greater understanding of how your work fits into the rest of what your team and your company is doing.

Context, not control.

<comment><USER13> I firmly believe cooperative talented people can self-manage and drive vision better than any top-down authority. I can understand it won't work with people that go to work just for money though.

<comment><USER19> My boss has told me more than once that his goal is to get the people under him to fill the role he's currently filling as our direct manager. This is, according to him, the only way he can move upward. He currently does a decently large amount of work for us as a team, but he's trying to shift that work onto us, because as you're pointing out here, cooperative and talented people can indeed self-manage.

The problem he encounters is when that doesn't work out because no group is perfect, and frankly we're probably not ready to manage ourselves quite yet.

But I think you're onto something here, and I also think every one of the managers who wrote READMEs in this submission would agree with you. From a logistical standpoint, _someone_ has to attend all those meetings with other teams, with the leaders of the company to hear what they're thinking and translate it for the rest of the engineers, and make sure the boring stuff like vacation time, sick leave, etc. are being looked after.

It's not really about being in charge/calling shots, it's about taking a group of talented and smart people, and making sure they're getting the info they need to keep build cool stuff.

<comment><USER22> > It's not really about being in charge/calling shots

I believe, admittedly based only on personal experience and anecdotal evidence, that this attitude is shared by a vanishingly small minority of managers, at least in practice.

Even the manager you mentioned referenced "the only way he can move upward" which implies even _he_ ultimately wants to be in charge or call the shots in some hierarchical system, or am I reading too much into it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is phenomenal. Not only do I find some of the concepts mentioned in each README to be useful in my own work, but I also want to work for all of these managers!

<comment><USER24> All managers are people too. You just have to break through and you'll get to things like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wish the author balanced his praise with some criticism.

Right now, this article is positively fawning.

<comment><USER26> My bad. These were just my notes... Feel free to respond on medium with yours

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is excellent and exactly the motivation I need to keep hustling to stay independent.

</comment><comment><USER28> Reads like managers dictating how they are and how things are going to be.

Employee number whatever: Here are your new instructions, deal with it.

<comment><USER29> One of the READMEs specifically promised that the manager believes their paid job is to adapt to their reports' style, so, no.

<comment><USER30> And one spent a good third talking about how you should feel about termination, the risks thereof, and what you should do about it.

<comment><USER29> I reread them all but couldn't see it, sorry - which one was this?

(I mean, that sounds like a good thing. Firing people who aren't good for the team is an important responsibility of any manager who doesn't want the rest of their team to quit, so I would ideally want to know that my manager has at least thought about it a little.)

<comment><USER30> Welcome to Netflix and Me ( [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TPSwdqDqVfWG9anfiOjG...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TPSwdqDqVfWG9anfiOjGUjk0k6zQDij5xPvatPg7NFE/edit#slide=id.g3086af6854_0_150) ), including slides like "Are you afraid of being fired yet?"

<comment><USER29> Oh, that's the old version of [http://bit.ly/roy-slack- readme](http://bit.ly/roy-slack-readme) , which no longer has it (and I skipped reading the old version because I read the new one, thanks!).

My understanding is that Netflix intends to have an unusually high-firing culture (cf. their culture deck, "The unusual part is that we give adequate performers a generous severance package"), so if I'm at Netflix I absolutely want my manager to be up-front about how they interpret that and what signs I have that I'm an adequate performer and not a top one. By signing onto Netflix I _am_ afraid of being fired, but that reflects on the company and not on the manager. (And the answers this manager gave are good: statistics about firing and an explicit statement that it won't take you by surprise.) You'll note that the firing talk is gone from the current version, and the green/yellow/red performance stuff (which is generically useful) stays.

<comment><USER31> (Hi, I'm Roy Rapoport -- the author of both slide decks).

Referring to the Netflix version of the slide deck as "the old version" of the Slack version of the slide deck is inaccurate. I'm in a somewhat unusual position amongst the people whose READMEs were quoted, because I got to write one from both sides of the fence: As the established person welcoming a new member to the team (Netflix), and as someone joining a new organization (Slack). READMEs, for me, then end up looking very different.

It's also worth noting, as geofft notes, that Slack's culture and Netflix's culture are very very different, so the concerns of people within them would be different (and should be addressed differently). The concern that you might be fired was pervasive for new people at Netflix, and I sought to alleviate it; it's not a commonly-held concern at Slack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a great idea. I'm going make one of my own for my employees. Lots of great ideas in these.

</comment><comment><USER33> If you know how to read through the lines, these documents are pure gold. Bosses who say "work under/for me"? Stay away, egomaniacs. You always work for an organization, not an egomaniac. My job is to "give you context"? Weasel words alert. Fake freedom. The best is this one: "1\. you should do what you think is right 2. I can fire you"

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder how many direct reports these managers have. Does anyone have insight? I believe 1on1 is good from my experience in companies where there is a lot of change and a lot going on the #1 feedback I get is people want more information, more 1on1, more team time. With roughly 40 direct reports 1on1 is nearly impossible with the other demands.

<comment><USER17> At one time I had multiple teams with 16 direct reports - at that point it was very hard to have a weekly cadence for 1:1's with everyone, as that would've been 8 hours a week. My solution to this was to start with bi-weekly 1:1's, having 8 people scheduled one week, the other 8 the following week. Then each week I had office hours scheduled - this was time dedicated to the team to be able to book my time and was not allowed to be booked for any other meetings - this way people who wanted to meet on an off week could. The second step was determine who could (and wanted) to step up in to management roles - ultimately, this lead to promoting two managers under me, and moving their direct reports to being a monthly skip level 1:1, reducing my overall bi- weekly 1:1's across my part of the org.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "It's on github! Super cool."

</comment><comment><USER36> They all look very similar to me. I would love to see a gist with points from all of them.

</comment><comment><USER37> Pretending managerial shit is delicious won't make _corporate culture_ any more palatable.

Blah.

<comment><USER38> If you don't like "managerial shit", then all the more reason you are dependent on having a very good manager for your own sanity.</comment></comment>


Apple has stolen the wearables crown from Fitbit thanks to the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-now-leads-the-global-market-for-wearable-gadgets-charts-2018-3 <comment><USER2> Antidotally, I was a fan of Fitbit's focused model and owned several of their middle range devices. I ended up buying an Apple Watch for two reasons (one in FitBit's control and the other not).

1\. Connectivity with my iPhone was spotty. I mostly blame the iOS ecosystem for this; long-running apps will sometimes lose connectivity to BLE devices. This would happen even when they are in the background, probably how apps are suspended and resumed.

2\. Band quality, at the one year mark they the band would start to fall apart. Fitbit support, for their part, was always easy to get a replacement (usually free). But after the 3rd time, I kinda of felt that I shouldn't have to deal with that every year.

So when Apple announced the waterproof Series 2, it was right around the time my Fitbit was falling apart again. The Apple Watch (expensively) solved my two issue.</comment>


America Is Overrun with Bathrooms - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/why-do-american-houses-have-so-many-bathrooms/605338/ <comment><USER2> I was hoping this would be about _public_ restrooms, but alas -- it's about increasing numbers of bathrooms in suburban homes.

The article seems to take a subtle tone that this is bad... but as far as resource overconsumption goes, this would seem to be the least of worries.

It's not like it's taking up space that would otherwise go to something else. This is the suburbs, not Manhattan.

And let's face it: shared bathrooms are probably a top-5 source of family/marital stress, whether it's needing to use them at the same time while trying not to be late for work/school, dealing with soggy bathmats and strange smells, and just general overcrowding and messiness of hygiene products.

So hey: if you've got the money and have the time/money to keep them clean... it actually seems like one of life's luxuries that really does make your life better, no?

<comment><USER3> > shared bathrooms are probably a top-5 source of family/marital stress,

Huh, this is apparently one of those shared experiences that I have absolutely no experience with. I can't even imagine anyone in my family getting upset about a bathroom.

<comment><USER4> The connotations of "stressed" and "upset" are totally different.

<comment><USER3> Okay, but that only matters if you read my comment ultra-pedantically. Given the comment I was responding to, I should think it's obvious that you can extend my statement to: "I can't imagine anyone in my family getting stressed over a bathroom"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bathrooms are also a high margin item for homebuilders. Adding the rough-in plumbing for another bathroom takes minimal labor while a house is still being built, and builder-grade fixtures can probably be had for under $1000.

But because adding plumbing is an absolute pain in the ass after the house is built, and because the real estate industry has "more bathrooms = higher resale" programmed deep within its fabric, builders can charge several thousand dollars for them as an upgrade.

<comment><USER6> A big part of that cost is probably permits (and costs of compliance with new rules). I know someone (a do-it-yourselfer) who added a bathroom to their house in california and it required multiple inspections at various stages of construction. I know another person in the same city who has added bathrooms to houses he rents out and I'm fairly sure he doesn't bother with permits or inspections and his costs are minimal, getting a closet converted in a weekend.

<comment><USER7> A review before you begin, and independent reviews of the all the systems you hack by specialists of those systems - before you make it so you can't see anything - and followed by a final review stating the work was done correctly (for insurance) is the complaint? It seems your friend looked at the cost of a toilet and tile and thought in Home Depot, "I can do this," not realizing the TCO.

<comment><USER6> Well in defense of my friend, he is a mechanical engineer and certainly could do it, and did. He added an entire master bedroom and bath to an old house, doing most of the interior stuff himself. However some of the hoops he had to jump through were pretty silly. I'm sure there was plenty of regulatory capture by builders and contractors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hm, article talks about new homes coming with 10 to 20 bathrooms. I have never seen or heard of such a thing. There's no way that's for normal houses. If the ultra rich want mansions with 20 bathrooms, that's their business. There are worse things one could spend their money on.

I have always lived in places with around 1 bathroom per 2 persons. Sometimes though you'll have say 5 people in the house and 2 of them are using both bathrooms, both doing things that take a long time. At this point when a third person needs to use the bathroom, they are stuck with holding it or having to go outside. So I can see that getting closer to 1 bathroom per person can be reasonable. Not all the bathrooms need to be full baths. Having a utility bathroom near the front door for guests with just a toilet and limited storage or room to do things helps maintain a bathroom that isn't going to be occupied for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think the premise of "bathrooms per person" is wrong, from a European standpoint, or only transitively by "square meters => probably x people in this house/apartment".

Nearly all the people I know who have a small house in southern Germany have 1-2 "real" bathrooms, with toilet and shower/bathtub and another extra small toilet, often right at the entrance.

Bigger flats of 90m2+ often have a second bathroom, it can be just a toilet, or with a shower if the main one has a bathtub.

What I'm saying is.. 2 from a certain size is totally normal. 3 is rare, but possible. I've _never_ seen 4. But the houses have 2-5 people. I simply doesn't matter, we have such small houses (in cities) that you'd have the same size house with zero children or with up to 3 children. The number of bathrooms won't change unless you add one yourself, but there are not so many spare rooms... (Bit different if one floor is walled off completely to be a separate apartment, but I guess we can ignore these). (My parents' house was right in the middle here. One proper bathroom with toilet+shower, one additional small one with just a bathtub, a very small one with just a toilet next to the entrance. And the 2nd floor was supposed to be a separate apartment, thus another smallish one with toilet+shower).

But probably still 1-2 less than American houses...

</comment><comment><USER10> > _home that listed for $49.9 million. It featured eight bedrooms—and 20 > bathrooms. By any rational assessment, this is a ludicrous use of money, > space, and plumbing._

Assuming eight of those bathrooms are essentially unavailable to guests (because they are accessible only through the associated bedroom), and that a resident wants to throw a raucous party for Dunbar's number of people, the other 12 seem... adequate, I guess. Maybe. :)

<comment><USER11> Perhaps all bedrooms have two bathrooms? Such that they and they could go at the same time?

This leaves four more generally accessible bathrooms. Seems adequate, I guess. Maybe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe I just missed it amid all the overly florid prose, but I didn't see any actual numbers in there. The closest I noticed was this:

> "We went from two people per bathroom to one person per bathroom in the last > 50 years," says Jeff Tucker, an economist at Zillow. "That's amazing, > because postwar America was already rich and booming, and we just, you know, > kept building more bathrooms."

In the last 50 years the average age of the mother at the birth of her first child has risen from the 22-24 range (sources differ) to 27-30 now. Young homeowners taking longer to have children would lower the average number of persons per bathroom.

If you want actual numbers, follow the link the article gives in this sentence:

> Across the country, bathrooms are multiplying—including in apartments and > condos—even as American families and households are getting smaller

The link is on "apartments and condos" so you might expect that it is only about apartments and condos, but it actually goes to the "Characteristics of New Housing" page at census.gov [1], which contains a whole bunch of XSL downloads containing data over time on various characteristics of new housings, both single-family houses and multifamily units.

Eyeballing the "Bathrooms", "Bedrooms", and "Bathrooms by Bedrooms" downloads, it looks to me like much of the growth in number of bathrooms comes from growth in the number of bedrooms. Perhaps the question should be why is the number of bedrooms going up?

[1] [https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/](https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't know, but I don't think that having a single bathroom (I mean including both toilet and sink and shower or bath) is "typically" american.

I struggle (and I am 50+) to remember any house in Italy with a "full" bathroom but separate toilet room (and BTW at least one bathroom in the house has now a bidet).

Very poor houses (old and not renovated) had often once "minimal" toilets, with the WC but always with - even if minimal - washbasin.

Later some bathrooms (still mostly including a bidet) had not a shower like we are used to now, with a plate and glass/plastic cabin, but rather in the middle of the room with the bathroom tiles converging to a drain.

</comment><comment><USER14> While Europe may be more judicious with their allocation of bathrooms, in Canada – Vancouver, at least – they've proliferated in newer homes. A lot of newer 3 bedroom condos on the market cram 3 bathrooms into ~1100 square feet – often with one bathroom including a separate shower _and_ bath.

While this drives up the quantity of bathrooms on the real estate listing, the tight quarters mean that the other rooms are even smaller, while each bathroom lacks enough cupboard or shelf space for anything more than a couple towels and a spare roll of toilet paper. It's an odd tradeoff.

<comment><USER15> Same in Toronto. Saw many 1+den with 2 bathrooms. A way to sell the den as a second bedroom and you end up with 2 shitty small bathroom with no storage. Not a fan of this layout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> For those who have been to South Korea, you may have noticed not all stores have a bathroom. Many retail stores and restaurants are units of a larger multi story building that often has a shared public bathroom.

You lose the convenience of having a bathroom attached directly to the store itself, but gain the convenience of many more public bathrooms that don't require a purchase.

<comment><USER17> I think most malls all over the world have something like this. I think the plumbing effort to give each store its own fresh- and waste water plumbing would create extra cost and source of problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fascinating! I always wondered where the convention of putting toilets in the same room as the shower came from.

<comment><USER19> The fact that it allows them to put the pipes needed for all those items in the same place probably also helps. In a lot of places near me, the kitchen sink shares a wall with the bathroom because it's cheaper to do the plumbing that way. If the bathroom and kitchen were on opposite sides of the place, that means more work plumbing wise.

Plus, walls take up a lot of space. If we put the toilet in a different room, that would mean losing more space to walls (and configuration options). In my bathroom, the sink is in the front followed by the toilet followed by the shower. Walls (and the clearance that the doors would need) would mandate using a lot more space. Plus, you'd need more space for each bit not to feel claustrophobic. You don't feel like you're in a tiny box at the sink in my bathroom because it's open to the toilet and shower. If each section was only 3ft wide, it would feel really claustrophobic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is that a bad thing?

</comment><comment><USER21> Because they are too squeamish to ask for a toilet !</comment>


$199, 4.2" computer is Intel's first Raspberry Pi competitor - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/199-4-2-computer-is-intels-first-raspberry-pi-competitor/

<comment><USER2> 'It's notable that the MinnowBoard is an open hardware platform, a distinction that Arduino and BeagleBone can claim but Raspberry Pi cannot.'

Nice</comment>