Moonset: Something is Afoot Down at NASA - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2010/01/moonset/

<comment><USER2> The death rate for manned space missions is absurdly high. At the same time, robotics, AI, and remote control technology have all made incredible progress. Unmanned missions are much cheaper. So, an unmanned program is a greater bang for the buck, and a greater bang per death. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_accidents_and_incidents>.

Let's say China sent people to Mars tomorrow. What could they learn about Mars that we couldn't learn by sending our robots there, similarly equipped? Manned space missions are now almost purely about bragging rights; the first person to do X in space was from nation Y. Who cares? It's just propaganda.

<comment><USER3> Unmanned missions are not only safer, but a lot cheaper. It's sending human habitats to the moon and back compared to sending a package one-way.

I'd be very exited to see the moon as a testbed for robotic technologies. With little effort we could make a moon base before anybody even goes there. Or useful stuff, like a telescope.

You have cheap energy, lots of space, some building materials and time. Could be a lot worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good? NASA has spent decades pouring money into scientifically-useless programs like the shuttle and space station, while starving out the robotic missions that actually produce results. Spirit and Opportunity were such a slam dunk, it's hard to believe we're still having this discussion.

The Constellation program has been a particularly sad example of NASA's refusal to face reality. It was conceived as a cynical political stunt by the Bush administration, and essentially abandoned the day after it was announced. NASA should have faced the fact years ago that Constellation never had and never would have the budget or popular and political support required to get back to the moon.

</comment><comment><USER5> Really. What do we expect after gutting the aerospace industry in 1970, and approximately every 8 years after that. Sure, it keeps profits high for (more- or-less hourly) engineering work, as you have beginners doing it, at beginner's rates. But between the Iron Hand of the FAA, the oddities of the Black Space Program and politics, nobody can have a career in aerospace, so it doesn't attract decent people, much less imaginative innovators.

<comment><USER6> As a former aerospace major I have to agree. When I entered the program, Boeing was scaling back their programs and lots of engineers were heading back to school. The consensus I got from former engineers and some professors was it would have been wiser to go into mechanical. Then, if the aerospace jobs fall out you can coast by designing pumps or something.

I remember some joke about aerospace engineers and working in fastfood.

<comment><USER7> I remember graduating with my CS degree and having multiple job offers, and my electrical and mechanical engineering friends having the same. And the lone aerospace guy in our circle with no job prospects at all. And he'd probably worked the hardest of all of us. Sad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Prediction: China will go to the moon or perform some other feat of manned space exploration as a way of claiming the mantle of leadership for the 21st century.

<comment><USER9> They will secretly build their ship in full view in orbit, surprising everyone when they attach boosters at the last minute and rocket out toward Jupiter. They will name their ship after Chinese rocket scientist Qian Xuesen, and it will run into trouble in the vicinity of Europa.

<comment><USER8> If they accept a 10% or so cancer risk per crewmember, they can launch a chemical rocket mission as 4 pieces using a variation on Mars Direct. But to do this, they would need in-situ fuel production in place a year earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Much of the gloomy commentary on this announcement, Cringely's included, is uninformed. (And statements like "NASA has had zero success in relying on outsourced systems" are just bizarre.) Canceling the Constellation program is a _positive_ step, and an essential one---it makes possible the very dream, bold human spaceflight, that Cringely seems to be mourning. At the very least, read the Augustine Commission's summary report; it's only 12 pages. Note their statement of the goal of space exploration: "human expansion into the solar system". That's cause for excitement, not mourning.

</comment><comment><USER11> It makes sense; there's no real reason for the government to own and operate a spaceflight company. The exciting stuff in aerospace is happening in private companies, and especially in smaller ones.

Manned spaceflight doesn't have many good arguments in its favor, and in any case, if the government wants to get involved, why not buy the tech from a contractor? That's how pretty much all military technology works, and as wasteful and inefficient as it is, it's probably a step up from direct government ownership.

<comment><USER12> NASA has always purchased most of the technology for manned spaceflight systems from contractors.

<comment><USER11> Ah, I didn't know that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The moon is incredibly boring when Europa & Titan are within the reach of our unmanned probes. I know it's not quite as exciting to the average person but it's just a more realistic approach to space exploration at this point.

</comment><comment><USER14> Are there any history buffs out there who can shed some light on this for me? Is there any link between a civilizations' predilection for exploration and its' longevity?

<comment><USER15> Yes and no. (As it happens, my current book du jour is "The Collected What If".)

The Greek, Roman, Islamic, and Frankish empires all became huge due to the need for exploration and conquest, usually from a relatively small number of people. Their massive growth led to greater wealth and cultural exchanges, which enriched the empires, sometimes at the cost of conquered territories and peoples. That, in turn, usually led to stability.

The great exception to this is of course the Mongol Empire. They were the largest empire in history, led by just a few people, and they were incredibly destructive. They had a certain distaste for cities and everything that they represented (education, culture, liberalism), so they became an unstoppable destructive force. The "What If" book claims that some regions of the world are still feeling of the effects of this. But, the empire only lasted for around a hundred years.

I'd say that a civilization's thirst for exploration and adventure is one of the traits which would tend to lead to longevity, but others include a respect for education, intellectualism, and liberalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's worse than having a mission you can't accomplish? No mission at all. What's worse than no mission at all? A changing mission every 4 or 8 years as a new administration takes office.

I'm finding it really hard not to say something political -- pretty angry right now. I'll simply note that for whatever reasons manned spaceflight at NASA has lost its luster with large hunks of the American public. And like every other political spending program, if there is not a large group of people pushing for it, it's going to get cut.

<comment><USER17> People tend to think it's a lot more of the federal budget than it is: "For example, in 1997 the average estimate of NASA's share of the federal budget by those polled was 20 percent." From <http://bit.ly/aAg7I3> Er, try 0.58%. But this misconception is a real problem: if people think there's just _tons_ of money in there, cuts don't seem like a big deal; in fact, they seem entirely reasonable.

Add to that the unwillingness of our political class (both parties) to do _anything_ about spending and cost growth on defense, medicare, and medicaid and you've severely limited "what you can cut" to NASA and a handful of other programs, even though cuts to those are a fractional percent of the budget and barely enough to even register over a 10-year window.

Leadership takes hard decisions. Our "leaders" have shown no interest in same.

<comment><USER6> Not to mention that out of the 50 states only 3 really benefit from the NASA budget. Aerospace tends to be highly concentrated around Alabama, California, Florida, and DC (obviously). Without the support of the 47 other states NASA becomes an obviously easy target.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Full Movies on youtube - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I have learnt a lot from youtube, watching BBC documentaries, watching videos from KA and from Standford videos however now i am able to also entertain myself by watching full movies.
How is this possible ? I know that youtube has limits to video sizes of 10mins unless you request to be able to upload larger videos if you are producing your own content that is educational or informative.
But does this apply for full movies as well ? The movies range from old martial arts movies which I used to watch as a kid to recent movies up to 2007 and i have to say its pretty cool.
Arent there any copyright issues around movies (full movies) being uploaded ?
Thanks <comment><USER2> YouTube lifted their limits on videos for some users: [http://youtube- global.blogspot.com/2010/12/up-up-and-away-lo...](http://youtube- global.blogspot.com/2010/12/up-up-and-away-long-videos-for-more.html)

"Starting today, we'll begin allowing selected users with a history of complying with the YouTube Community Guidelines and our copyright rules to upload videos that are longer than 15 minutes."

...

"This launch has been made possible in part by the continued advances in our state-of-the-art Content ID system, as well as our other powerful tools for copyright owners. Over 1000 global partners use Content ID to manage their content on YouTube, including every major U.S. movie studio and music label. We remain as dedicated as ever to building and improving the most sophisticated technology in the world to help copyright owners protect their rights. "

</comment><comment><USER3> There is also something like youtube.com/boxoffice which youtube launched for showing full length bollywood movies. Youtube also partners with major production companies and they too can upload full length videos.

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends if the filmmaker is the one uploading the movie, as I have been in the past!</comment>


Analysis of all .com domain names - <AUTHOR> http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/march22012/index.html Domain Name Analysis - Deep dive into all the .com domain names;  the most popular substrings, most common starting and ending letters.  Neat animation too. <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing. I'll look at this later.</comment>


SpaceX Halts Rocket Launch 10 Seconds Before Planned Liftoff - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-18/spacex-halts-launch-of-rocket-10-seconds-before-planned-liftoff <comment><USER3> There's an old quote that seems applicable here:

"It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground."

<comment><USER3> Since I'm embarrassed by how many votes this is getting without any citation, I'll just point out that I probably first learned about it from something Tory Bruno (CEO of ULA, the company that launches the Atlas and Delta rockets) said, seen here:

[https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/776854635055284224](https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/776854635055284224)

This morning, it was posted by Doug Wheelock:

[https://twitter.com/Astro_Wheels/status/832972785152573441](https://twitter.com/Astro_Wheels/status/832972785152573441)

It appears to be said by many people before them, in different forms - I can't find any information about who first coined the phrase.

<comment><USER4> This is also a common statement at skydiving dropzones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is far from the closest to launch SpaceX has called an abort. Many may not remember 3 years ago when they called the abort at T-1 after main engine ignition: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0k_0PTLnI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0k_0PTLnI)

To be honest, though, neither case is really abnormal. There's a whole reason it's "T-minus" and "T-plus". T-zero is the point of no return (on the STS, this was when the solid boosters were fired). An abort at any point before then is still considered normal. Aborts __after __T-zero are anomalies.

(FWIW, even the STS has aborted take-off post-main-engine ignition: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bkYP3pU76I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bkYP3pU76I) . The main difference between the SpaceX Falcon and the STS is that the Falcon is capable of re-igniting its engines almost immediately, making a same-day re-attempt of a post-engine-ignition abort possible. The STS main engines require a manual reset, making abort post-engine-ignition more costly.)

<comment><USER6> It wasn't an abort, but the Mercury-Redstone 1 had a "T-plus" stop time [0]. It attempted to launch and the engine shut down immediately after lift off. It didn't explode, the escape rocket jettisoned, the capsule deployed its drogue, and the the rocket settled back on the pad untethered [1]. It came to be referred to as the "four-inch flight".

After considering some risky ways to deal with the fully-fueled rocket, flight control ultimately decided to wait until the LOX boiled off. Chris Kraft declared, "That is the first rule of flight control. If you don't know what to do, don't do anything."

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury- Redstone_1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Redstone_1) [1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4V7JfeTSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4V7JfeTSU)

<comment><USER7> And if you like stories like that, "Failure is not an option" by Gene Kranz is a must-read/listen. It seems every single flight of the early American Space Program was a nail-biter.

<comment><USER8> When you're responsible for it, or even a part of it, every moment is a nail- biter. You know exactly what can go wrong and how bad it could be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Musk tweeted last night that there was a potential leak issue that might cause a scrub during the launch. They added an automatic check for the problem, and it appears that's what caused the scrub.

Since this is a launch to the ISS, the launch window was tiny- miss it by a second, you've missed it completely.

They'll fix the issue and probably try again tomorrow.

Edit: my mistake, Musk has tweeted that there was another probably-unrelated- maybe-issue, and they called it off just to be safe. Still, provided the minor issue doesn't turn out to be something more major, tune in tomorrow at 9:30 am EST.

<comment><USER10> Ars now says that Musk is claiming to have _personally_ scrubbed the otherwise "green" launch due to irregularities he spotted in a control system for the upper stage. Not sure we are getting any full story yet. Not sure he has full a story yet to give.

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/behind-the-scenes- of...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/behind-the-scenes-of-spacexs- historic-launch-from-pad-39a/)

Does he literally have a finger on an abort button? I find that very hard to believe.

<comment><USER11> NASA provided a live video of the launch prep. Maybe an hour before the launch, the commentator discussed two issues, and said that for both of those issues, they would make a call on it at T-1 minute.

Later on, the video showed SpaceX launch control center, with a group of people huddled together talking - I'm assuming they were discussing the issues.

One of those issues was resolved quite a while before the launch, but not a lot was said about the second issue - the second-stage engine actuator.

The launch was scrubbed at T-00:00:15. In the SpaceX video [1], you hear someone saying "Hold hold hold", followed by "Launch abort is started".

If I were to speculate, I'd suggest that the second-stage anomaly went away, but no-one could explain why. I think the launch was scrubbed, not because someone said "This will go wrong", but because no-one could say "This will go right". Even if Musk did personally scrub the launch, it was for an issue that had been an ongoing discussion for maybe an hour, and that they had already determined would be a (literal) last-minute decision.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1834&v=V5bG37hzw...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1834&v=V5bG37hzwqk)

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the link.

I find the people that work on this stuff fascinating!!

To have that much precision (with 15 seconds left, left just stop).

I can right-click and deploy some changes to a production server or run a database script that has a massive impact on the data.

But to imagine that many movings parts (ie those workers specifically involved in the launch) and to have those parts all working together. A database change has a massive impact to "our data". When a launch goes wrong - really puts into perspective what "massive" really means...

Amazing!

<comment><USER13> think...

#> shutdown -h now

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just can't get over how terrible an idea a PayPal founder starting a rocket company sounded. "Good ideas often sound bad," no joke. I was a pretty harsh critic of SpaceX in its early days (I was an aerospace engineer and have followed private spaceflight since its inception) and once they got over some failures and staffing issues, they've really blown me away.

<comment><USER15> Alt-space community laughs about some aspects of "traditional aerospace" mentality for about quarter of century if not more. It's mostly about their opinion that rockets somehow are rocket science, pardon the pun.

Given how glacial rocketry progress was by early 2000 it's no wonder people from outside of the industry were pretty annoyed, not to say more. Elon Musk isn't exactly alt-space guy - that would closer describe John Carmack or others - but the effect which he produced on world rocket industry is nevertheless pretty healthy.

It's probably hard to believe that SpaceX is just a correction to a industry which got too swamped with status quo. Somebody - may be SpaceX itself - <USER2> actually demonstrate not only reasonable results, but significant innovation.

<comment><USER14> Aeronautics is just as stagnant. Whenever news of new small aircraft startup hits HN though, most comments are negative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The right call was made, yet they still need to start showing that they can regularly launch without blowing up on the pad, cargo and all. In other words, this was the right choice in a bad situation.

<comment><USER17> SpaceX need to show they can launch frequently, period. Higher launch frequency with lower reliability is a market that aligns with SpaceX's commercial customers.

<comment><USER18> If I have a hugely valuable payload, why would I entrust it to a company that has a reputation of launching when they shouldn't?

Scrubbing a launch is a much smaller deal than blowing up and losing the payload.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, I mean they're both undesirable outcomes given a competitive market, but one is "sub-optimal", the other is a catastrophe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The webcast showed T - 0:00:13

<comment><USER20> That's what the timer reading froze at, but is that the same as the time when an abort sequence was initiated?

This is the first time that I saw a livestream where an abort happened, so I'm curious. Is the timer freeze standard?

<comment><USER11>
      is that the same as the time when an abort sequence was initiated?

You can watch it on SpaceX' video - the instruction 'hold hold hold" is given at T-00:00:15, the clock freezes a couple seconds later, and shortly after that, you hear "launch abort is started".

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1834&v=V5bG37hzw...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1834&v=V5bG37hzwqk)

      Is the timer freeze standard?

It's mission dependent. Some missions allow for the clock to be paused, then resumed [1]. Some missions have prearranged holds [2] built into the mission plan.

For a mission to the ISS, the launch window is too short to hold then resume, so a hold on an ISS launch is effectively a launch abort.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_launch_countdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_launch_countdown)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built- in_hold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built-in_hold)</comment></comment></comment>


WhatsApp 'Delete for Everyone' feature lets you unsend embarrassing messages - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-delete-unsend-message-for-everyone-before-read-how-to-use-how-does-it-work-a8022816.html <comment><AUTHOR> WhatsApp now lets you unsend messages, making them completely disappear from a conversation. They'll be hidden from both yourself and the other people in the chat.</comment>


YouTube Blog is super spammy (see comments) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=2J_iwL4szts

<comment><AUTHOR> It is too bad they don't take better care of their comments.

It is also too bad that there is no easy way to let them know.

I never try to give feedback to Google anymore because googlegroups feels like a bottomless pit. There are so many posts and I doubt my feedback will ever be seen.

That's one big problem I see with google's user relationship - <USER2> discourages user-input (mine at least).</comment>


Show HN: Bitmelo – An editor for pixel art games that works in your browser - <AUTHOR> https://bitmelo.com <comment><AUTHOR> Developer Here!

Bitmelo is a game editor and engine for making small pixel art games. You can code, draw tiles and tilemaps, design sound effects, view the documentation, and playtest your game, all without having to break focus by switching applications.

Bitmelo was born from my desire to have the most friction free game development experience possible. It's heavily inspired by fantasy consoles such as Pico 8 and Tic 80, however while I love the simple nature of their API's I wanted to have a development experience that wasn't constrained by the same limitations as the games you make in them.

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks cool !</comment>


Visualizing Bayes' theorem (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://oscarbonilla.com/2009/05/visualizing-bayes-theorem/ <comment><USER2> I'm still quite fond of the Lego example:

[https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2015/2/18/bayes-theorem- wi...](https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2015/2/18/bayes-theorem-with-lego)

<comment><USER3> The neat thing about the lego example is it uses overlapping grids instead of overlapping circles.

Overlapping circles are familiar -- everyone made venn diagrams in primary school.

Problem is it's notoriously subjective to use circles to map to some quantity. Visualization blogs are rife with examples of people riffing on visualizations that confuse mapping circle radius vs. circle area to some quantity.

Using a grid (or legos) is nice because it eliminates that area-vs-radius ambiguity.

<comment><USER4> As soon as I've learned bayes theorem myself, I'll go on and teach my 9 year old daughter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems to me to be the best way to understand Bayes' theorem, with natural frequencies being the best way to mentally compute with it. E.g. for the breast cancer example,

\- Imagine there are 1000 women who participate in routine screening

\- 1% → 10 of these have breast cancer

\- 80% → 8 of these will get positive mammograms

\- 990 don't have breast cancer

\- 9.6% ≅ 10% → 99 of the 990 get positive mammograms

So that the probability of having breast cancer, given a positive mammogram, is ≅ 8/99 ≅ 8%.

There is a bunch of research on natural frequencies being generally the best way to reason about this sort of thing.

<comment><USER6> I attempted a way to visualize that example (with natural frequencies) here:

[https://medium.com/@eshan/why-nobody-understands- mammograms-...](https://medium.com/@eshan/why-nobody-understands- mammograms-81b53f9eb769#.v118lzu8u)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Isn't this the bog standard way to visualize Bayes' theorem?

Still appreciate it though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Took a entire module on Bayesian Method in University.

Failed it.

Gave the exam a second time - this time I spent the whole summer studying it - failed it again :(

At this point I think bayesian methods is one of those things like Monads - you either understand it or you never will.

Hopefully there is someone out there who finally writes a good book to explain it to the masses of simpler minds.

<comment><USER9> > At this point I think bayesian methods is one of those things like Monads - > you either understand it or you never will.

Add organic chemistry to that list. I can write a program from scratch that will accurately simulate how two organic molecules react using density functional theory, but I'll be darned if I ever understand those little diagrams and arrows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "people with cancer" (designated as A), and "people with no cancer" (or A)

Presumably the second "A" is supposed to appear as some symbol for "not A"? On my screen it just appears to say A.

</comment><comment><USER11> Bayes Theorem is easy. But determining its components can get tricky.</comment>


Camjacking: Click and say Cheese - <AUTHOR> http://homakov.blogspot.com/2013/06/camjacking-click-and-say-cheese.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting. This is why Macs have the webcam light hardware-enabled; if the webcam goes on, the green light goes on. That way, at least you know it's started recording.

</comment><comment><USER3> Works in Chrome, Firefox however shows the flash dialog with a large grey box around it.

</comment><comment><USER4> This should be marked as (mildly) NSFW</comment>


Salmonella outbreak linked to onions in 43 US states - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/08/health/onions-salmonella-outbreak/index.html <comment><USER2> [https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals- safety...](https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety- alerts/thomson-international-inc-conducts-voluntary-recall-red-yellow-white- and-sweet-yellow-onions-because)

<comment><USER3> I love how these onions are sold under fifty different fictitious brands, many of which are using highly misleading labeling and packaging. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it seem dishonest to sell California onions in a bag that prominently announces "UTAH ONIONS" and doesn't say "California" on it anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Three weeks ago I bought a red onion. I have no idea if it was one of the affected brands. I have been eating it ever since, nearly every day, mostly raw on sandwiches. I've consumed maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of it.

Question: can I infer from not getting sick yet that my onion is not one of the contaminated ones? Or does the way this works is that only parts of the onion are contaminated, and it is possible that by chance I simply haven't gotten to the contaminated part and I should discard this thing?

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/newport-07-20/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/newport-07-20/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Planet money had a really good episode about the romaine salmonella outbreak. The problem was that the water supply was tainted because it would go through protected federal land and the feces of the animal grazing on the land would get into the water supply. I wonder if this is the case for the onions.

</comment><comment><USER7> Why can't this salmonella be cooked out safely?

<comment><USER8> You don't always cook onions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> And the UK govt wants to lower its food standards to do a trade deal with the states :)

(No offence to any american friends. I love your country, but your food has some problems.)

<comment><USER10> The country famous for BSE is in a bit of a glass house when it comes to farming practices.

<comment><USER9> Sure, we're not great. But it blows my mind that you would ever want to _lower_ the quality of the food you are eating.

<comment><USER11> It wouldn't make sense in a world with infinite and free food, but that is not the world we live in.

<comment><USER12> The UK isn't suffering from food shortages. Not yet, anyway.

Allocation between rich and poor is an issue, but the net imports and production are enough to cause widespread obesity.

<comment><USER11> There doesn't need to be a food shortage - the question is what percent of income do the poor spend on food, and would they spend less if they could?

<comment><USER13> Bear in mind that food poisoning isn't free. It is not in society's interest to have people off work sick, taking up medical capacity, and dying early. The advances in food safety over the 20th and 21st century was a great social good, and backsliding would be bad.

I do think that one problem, particularly in societies like the US where people don't go to their GP very frequently, is that it's pretty hard to measure impacts, because there's little reliable data on mild (but economically impactful) cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There would be no outbreak if farmers didn't use animal manure to fertilize their vegetable crops. That's the real source of salmonella.

<comment><USER15> As a layman, it would seem more desirable to use pasteurized manure than petrochemical based fertilizers.

<comment><USER16> Is this based on anything other than an gut distrust of "chemicals"? I am, admittedly, a layman as well, but my understanding is that fertilizers are essentially distillations of the important elements (Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphate) which you would get from manure, but without the risk of food poisoning.

<comment><USER17> It's a good way to dispose of the manure. It's beneficial to the soil and pretty much any other disposal will cost more than spreading it on fields.

Chemical fertilizer is used because it increases yields well beyond crop rotation (and because minerals are depleted over time).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ruin your own UX to spend less time on social media - <AUTHOR> https://www.edwardwatson.com/posts/ruin-instagram <comment><USER2> If you want to spend less time on social media, just do it. Don't overthink it...</comment>


How to get a job when you have no connections - <AUTHOR> http://www.karenx.com/blog/how-to-get-a-job-when-you-have-no-connections/ <comment><USER2> «Write a song about the company and send them a video of you singing or rapping it. Like to bake? Send them a homemade cake decorated with the company's name and your contact info. Love to run? Use a phone GPS running app to draw your route on a map, then go to a large field and run a path in the shape of the company's logo. You get the idea – anything goes.»

Seriously? I stopped reading here. What kind of company will hire a programmer, an architect or a lawyer that bakes a cake with their logo in it? I hope none, for the world's sake...

<comment><USER3> Now programmers/software engineers are in a quite special position, especially in SV and similar locations, where it is a seller's market.

For most others it is about getting noticed, if a hiring manager has 100 CVs sent to him or her, how will you stand out? Baking a cake will not help you if you don't have a good CV/qualifications but it will help you get noticed and stand out.

Another way, which is just as silly as baking a cake is to buy adwords with the hiring managers name [1]. It is a novel strategy to get noticed.

Point is that it is much easier if you have a network to rely on for introductions, weak ties are very important when job hunting. So if you don't have any network to support you, you have to become creative in order to get noticed.

[1]: [http://mashable.com/2010/05/13/job-google-ad- words/](http://mashable.com/2010/05/13/job-google-ad-words/)

<comment><USER4> > especially in SV and similar locations, where it is a seller's market

I keep hearing this, but it's not at all what I experienced last time I went on a job hunt.

<comment><USER5> What is your background and skills?

<comment><USER4> My skill set consists mainly of lots of iOS (worked on over 2 dozen apps in the store, including _major_ brands), Mac development, Ruby + Rails (more experience in the backend side of things than the HTML/CSS/JS portion), but I've dabbled in a lot of things over the years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just in case it wasn't obvious, the OP is the same person who was on the HN front page recently for her "Dance in a Year" site:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6017758](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6017758)

Programmers, designers, etc., should follow her example. I don't mean create a site about yourself dancing...but _create something of interest about something you care about_...web devs have a huge advantage here in being able to disseminate their work in a cheap, creative medium.

</comment><comment><USER7> The simplest solution - make connections.

\- Find someone who works for the company (on their website, or linked-in, whatever). Tell them who you are, and ask if there's any jobs available. They'll probably send you to a hiring manager, along with some kind of recommendation. If you've already been vetted by a team member, you're streets ahead of all the anonymous resumes the hiring manager gets.

\- Go to a meetup, conference, or some other industry event. Talk to people.

Everyone with a job knows a hiring manager, and the hiring manager will trust them more than all the job seekers banging on their door.

This might fail if you want to work for Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. I've heard Apple employees tend to get stalked a lot by people who want to work for Apple, so they've got the same kind of defences that hiring managers have. You'd probably need to really stand out to convince them you're the kind of person they should introduce to their boss. But these companies already have pretty active recruitment. You want to target the companies with poor recruitment (i.e. most companies).

Most companies kind of know they need more staff, but can't be bothered going through the process of advertising, weeding out hundreds of unqualified candidates, then having to pick between the 2-3 good candidates who get on the shortlist. It's almost as stressful for them as it is for the applicants. If a good candidate presents themselves before they've bothered advertising, they'll often take them without bothering to advertise (expensive), weed through the chaff (time consuming), and picking from the shortlist (stressful) ... all of which creates the risk that they'll either not find the right person, or hire someone who doesn't quite fit simply because they felt they were the best of a bad bunch. And if they don't like you, it's easy enough to say "sorry, no positions are currently available".

<comment><USER8> > _Find someone who works for the company (on their website, or linked-in, > whatever). Tell them who you are, and ask if there 's any jobs available. > They'll probably send you to a hiring manager_

Have you actually tried that? Did it work?

I tried getting an introduction 2 foreign tech companies in Japan. One from an ex-coworker and another from a friend of a friend. In both cases the position was not in their team, and they told me there was nothing they could do for me, I'd have to apply by sending my resume via the company's website. Which I did, and then got no response.

And these were people I know and am in good terms with, e.g. I have met person1 several times since he left the company, and have been to person2's place. I wouldn't even bother contacting a random person.

To be fair, I have managed to get introductions at 2 other companies, but in both cases they weren't highly-sought tech companies.

<comment><USER9> My (admittedly limited, but not null) experience with Japanese business culture suggests that things may be a bit different there. From my understanding, it takes a very long time for trust between businesses (in my case), or between businesses and employees to be forged. The people you talked to may not have had enough pull yet to make anything happen outside of their own teams.

<comment><USER8> Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm talking specifically about Japanese branches of _foreign_ tech companies like Google and Facebook (though the actual companies were different).

> My (admittedly limited, but not null) experience with Japanese business > culture suggests that things may be a bit different there.

On the contrary, if a Japanese company is hiring and I know someone who works there then I'm 99% sure my resume won't be redirected to /dev/null. Very likely I'll get an interview, otherwise at least a polite but human-written refusal letter.

<comment><USER7> As I said, the less broken the recruitment process, and the more desirable the company, the harder it is to create a backdoor.

For most companies, recruitment is so broken that a lot of managers will try to hire staff in a way which avoids the formal recruitment process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some other Ideas:

\- Find out some info about someone influential in the company you want to work for, camp outside their office, follow them home, then make a big design of the company logo (slightly improved) on their front lawn, using gasoline, and set it on fire! It'll be memorable, take time and effort and show a penchant for fun.

\- Inception, make them think that it was their idea to hire you. Ref: Darren Brown/Inception

<comment><USER11> You left out throwing a rock through their window with your CV wrapped around it. And changing their desktop wallpaper to an image of you doing something funny. And modify their cellphone ringtone to a musical piece of you singing "Hire me maybe!".

(Restraining orders and getting hired are the same thing, right?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I got the job I have now from meeting the CEO of the company on a train to London. He was sat next to me and saw me applying for a job at one of his competitors & politely asked me what I thought I was doing. After 40 minutes of me showing him my C.V, my university work and explaining why I really wanted my job in digital marketing, he offered me an interview for an internship.

Of course I had to impress him enough to get the internship and impress the company enough to work there full time now, but it was meeting the CEO that got me the opportunity in the first place. I thank that random moment of pure chance for making that connection.

Connections are great, but most of us don't have them from the get go. So I guess we have to make them.

I love this article though. Deffo something I'd do if I was trying to break into an industry or area where I know no one.

<comment><USER13> Being lucky is hardly a strategy, though.

<comment><USER10> Unless Jdfmiller was sitting next to the CEO on a train, applying for a job with a rival competitor in his clear view... by design!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised they didn't recommend the best job hack of all: work for free.

Seriously, find some business you're interested in (less than 10-20 employees ideally), work directly for/with the CEO or main decision maker and work for free for 3 months. Entrench yourself in their business & make yourself indispensable. THEN, when your time comes up to leave, they're not only going to feel the pain of physically missing you, but you'll also have LEVERAGE so you can actually negotiate a salary (rather than just taking whatever they give you).

<comment><USER3> I personally find it unprofessional to work for free. If you do not create enough value to warrant at least minimum wage, the company shouldn't bother hiring you in the first place. Working for free is exploitative and skews the job market.

That said, your strategy may work, making yourself indispensable is a brilliant strategy in general but how will you live for those three months? Especially if you are just out of school or similar. I am also not sure how it will affect your salary - compared to a person who would get hired (with a salary) straight away.

<comment><USER15> Rich people / daddy pays for my cellphone/car/rent tactic.

People find it distasteful because they can't "compete" on that level. Having even just the basics covered indefinitely goes a long way, especially if you're actually working on a career of any sort. Opens up unpaid internships and fun little entrepeneurial experiments that wouldn't be possible if you had to work a paying 9-5 to cover the rent.

I know this because there were tactics I had to pass up because I've had to pay my way (food, rent, bills, the works) since I was 17.

<comment><USER3> This is very true. If you have the possibility to do entrepreneurial experiments or similar, do it! I don't wish to begrudge anyone that, I am of the opinion that you should just any competitive advantage you have in your favour. Be it rich parents or a very creative mind. It is unfair, for those who can't 'compete' in that advantage but that is life I guess?

But I still believe unpaid internships/work for free is a bad thing, with a few exceptions such as unpaid internships in exchange for college credits. It basically benefits no one in the long run. Not companies, not the economy, not the individuals.

<comment><USER16> > This is very true. If you have the possibility to do entrepreneurial > experiments or similar, do it! I don't wish to begrudge anyone that, I am of > the opinion that you should just any competitive advantage you have in your > favour. Be it rich parents or a very creative mind. It is unfair, for those > who can't 'compete' in that advantage but that is life I guess?

Oddly enough this is a form of using existing connections and social networks to find work. You are simply using resources that aren't directly related to the company you are working for.

That said, you are displacing workers who do not have existing wealth and family connections to back their life. They cannot reasonably work for free and compete with your existing resources/wealth/support. Doing this isn't ethical and promote systemic unemployment of those who cannot work for low wage or free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think if you find yourself in a situation where you're baking a cake to get a job as anything other than a bakery chef, you need to rethink your life.

<comment><USER18> People are starting to take the whole "creative resume" thing to absurd extremes. But there's a valid point hidden in this blog post, which is to say, standing out from the crowd isn't easy. Startups need people with hustle, and showing some hustle isn't a bad thing.

Hustle doesn't necessarily imply competence, however, which is why she suggests #3 ("Show them you can do the job").

But the thing people miss about gimmicks is that they have to be _relevant_ : to you, to the job, to the company. Gimmicks for gimmicks' sake (logo drawing, cake baking, etc.) are just silly.

<comment><USER19> Baking a cake probably makes a candidate stand out about as much as bothering to write a cover letter. It might be more effort, though.

<comment><USER20> I very rarely write cover letters, but I do remember getting an interview once and being told specifically that they weren't impressed by my resume but loved my cover letter.

Even after that I still rarely take the time to do it.

<comment><USER18> N = 1, but whenever I've hired, I've definitely noticed cover letters, or lack thereof. Not bothering with a cover letter tells the hiring manager that you are just shotgunning resumes out there and didn't spend too much time thinking about the company fit.

In fact, so few people seem to write cover letters these days -- let alone compelling ones -- that they can be a strategic differentiator in their own right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you "do something that obviously took a lot of effort and time" doesn't that just make an employer think that you are a bit desperate, and sacrifice any leverage you might have at a later point in negotiations?

<comment><USER22> No. It shows you care. Would you send in a CV with spelling mistakes? No. So why not spend some time and energy making your application stand out?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Find job listings, write a professional looking resume, apply for job, no?

I've never got a job through connections, always through listings and agents, and I've done pretty well out of it. Is this no longer good enough?

</comment><comment><USER24> Apply for lots and lots and lots of jobs. Make applying for jobs your job. The few times I didn't use a connection to get a job I probably applied to somewhere between 50-100 positions that I thought I might like.

Don't stop applying just because you get an interview. I walked away from a number of good jobs because I didn't like the people I interviewed with. Having more applications out there meant I didn't have to start the pipeline up again.

Don't give up on places that don't hire you within a couple weeks. In those cases where I did get a job this way, it was usually one of the earlier applications a month prior where I took that position. Some places, even fast and nimble startup like companies might take a few months to reach back.

Google usually takes among the longest in my experience. Months after I start my job search they finally get back to me.

</comment><comment><USER25> 4: Go on Craigslist. Find somebody who wants something done. Tell them you can do it. Take their money and try to do the thing.

<comment><USER26> Are you sure you got the order right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> As someone who is entering the job market for the first time with no connections to speak of, this was a nice read. I just wish it had been longer.

I think the hard part is coming up with an way of setting yourself apart. I partially agree with other readers that baking a cake doesn't make much sense, but the idea still holds. With so many resumes to go through, pretty much anything that doesn't get you trashed immediately is good.

<comment><USER28> > I think the hard part is coming up with an way of setting yourself apart

Do stuff.

It's really as simple as that. Do stuff. And by stuff, I mean stuff beyond homework.

So when I ask what have you done, you can share stuff with me.

If you don't do anything, why would I hire you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As soon as I read she got her inspiration from a scripted reality show, I closed the page.

<comment><USER30> I and my wife posted comments to the author's blog and the comments were deleted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'd find this advice a lot more credible if it were accompanied by examples of it actually working. If someone spent a long time on some irrelevant GPS drawing of a logo it would creep me out.

</comment><comment><USER32> OR, develop your skills such that you pass through their interview with no problem.</comment>


Performance Improvements in .Net Core 3.0 - <AUTHOR> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/performance-improvements-in-net-core-3-0/ <comment><AUTHOR> Wow, this is a seriouslu long post, detailing a _lot_ of improvements!

Many take advantage of vectorisation using .NET Core's new hardware intrinic capabilities, many are through further "Spanification", and many are through cleverly reducing allocations.

Also interesting that a lot of these improvements have been contributed by the community - seriously impressive stuff!</comment>


$2B and Counting - <AUTHOR> https://news.spotify.com/us/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-counting/ <comment><USER2> Spotify has been claiming to make huge payments to the industry, and no one tries to deny that. But artists constantly complain about payments to them...

This stuff needs to be more transparent, for both the artists and the fans' sake.

<comment><USER3> Artists should bear the risk on their own then, and self-publish directly to Spotify and iTunes and negotiate their own rates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great response by the company. It's hard being the head of the pack of a new field the spotlight is on them the most.

</comment><comment><USER5> I just want to point out that by Spotify's own accounting, they pay out an average of less than a penny per play. For someone like Taylor Swift who would otherwise be selling an album on iTunes for $12.99, this is massive pay cut.

<comment><USER6> Are you sure that it's a massive pay cut for Taylor Swift, or is it just less money going to the point-of-purchase and the labels?

Further, I wonder what time frame this would no longer be true. Seemingly+, the $12.99 album on iTunes is a 1-time purchase. If someone listened to 1 TS song every day for a year, that's $3.65. Somewhere around 4 years is the break-even point in this admittedly constructed argument. My point, however, is with streaming we have to reference a time-frame, because I'm willing to be over a thousand year period the streaming model is more lucrative. (Think about how much software has switched to a SAAS, aka streaming, model... granted, many differences surrounding IT support and upgrades, but I'm not trying to draw a close analogy...)

\+ outside of the record industry's desire to have consumers re-license the music for every different format that comes out...

EDIT - formatting</comment></comment>


Porn in the USA: red states are the biggest consumers - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

<comment><USER2> Headline is extremely misleading.

From the study: ( <http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf> )

"Furthermore, I found no significant relationship between subscriptions to this adult entertainment service and presidential voting in 2004, based on poll data by congressional district."

If porn-consumption co-varied with "Conservativeness," the correlation found at the state level would carry down to red/blue American Congressional districts.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another alternative theory: they're less willing to violate copyright to get their porn.

Yet another alternative theory: they have more sex in general and porn buying is proportional. (Those communities have lots of sex, more than blue states.)

Variation: they have standards standards that aren't met by "free" porn.

</comment><comment><USER4> "One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.

\--> Alternative theory: There's less adult bookstores, tougher licensing/zoning/legal codes, and less other real life outlets where people can come in a baseball hat, pay cash, and leave, so they choose online more.

<comment><USER5> Take a drive down the expressway in West Virginia or South Carolina and you will see big billboards with busty women on them for roadside strip clubs and videostores.

There are strip clubs all over most southern cities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone surprised?

<comment><USER7> Yes, but...I should have seen it.</comment></comment>


Show HN: B/W vision for Chrome – see the visual grid of your design - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/black-and-white/amdnjmpcoialaikdldjbnkipmckdheie

<comment><USER2> Very cool! Sent it to the design folks at my workplace.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like this, surprisingly I actually prefer the black and white versions of many sites. A reminder to keep things simple and not overdo it.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on finding big brands to advertise on my site. - <AUTHOR>

I have a facebook app which is getting some serious traffic (2m+ visitors a day). It should easily be enough for a big-brand ad deal, but I have no idea where to start. Are their 3rd party companies which act as the middle man and help negotiate ad deals like this for a cut? Is hiring a full time ad sales person the way to go? Do companies like Coke expect a rich presentation selling them on the merits of advertising on your site, or is a short email and traffic stats enough to get their attention?<p>Sorry, not going to post the link. In this instance it's the idea (and it's easily reproducible), not the execution.. <comment><USER2> Analyze your demographics. Most likely, you have certain age/sex/regional groups over-represented in your 2m+ visitors.

The better you know your audience, the better you can find an advertiser who will be interested in reaching them.</comment>


Google's Chief Works to Trim a Bloated Ship - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/technology/googles-chief-works-to-trim-a-bloated-ship.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> This is off-topic and doesn't address the actual content of the article, but... "Trim a Bloated Ship"? That metaphor could use some work. How does a ship bloat? And wouldn't a bloated ship float pretty well? If you use the common meaning of trim (honestly, how many mariners read the NYT?), isn't cutting bits off a ship a bad thing?

I guess it could be worse. I'll give thanks that Thomas Friedman didn't write it.

<comment><USER3> It means it has too much pork. They should trim the fat so they don't have as much red tape. Once they're on track, it'll be full steam ahead and smooth sailing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The risky part is driving people away from Google products and services via uncertainty. Is now the time to put all your eggs into the Google Voice basket? Buy a bunch of Chrome PCs? I understand why they have to do it but it will definitely cause some people to adopt more of a wait-and-see approach.

<comment><USER5> This is what Microsoft understands that Google doesn't. Your platform users come first, before anything else. Microsoft assured that their platforms were good because they used their own platforms themselves. For eg. all Microsoft windows software would use the same API's that third-party developers would use.

You look at Google and for them the platform and developers are secondary. API's are not only an afterthought (such as in Google+) but they are something that other people use, not Google.

They kill services and API's because they don't need them and it doesn't effect them - but it does effect the users. I can still run SimCity or Test Drive on Windows 7, which makes me, as a user, confident that Microsoft will never throw me under the bus. This means that if you are an IT manager, you can make multi-million dollar purchasing decisions knowing that the technology will still be around and supported since Microsoft use it themselves.

Google could kill any API, and they have, and it doesn't impact themselves because they don't use these API's themselves, but they are asking developers to.

Google will never become the Microsoft of the web until they start using their own API's and until they start respecting their customers with long-term support.

<comment><USER6> Yegge, is that you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This could mean a lot of potential opportunity for start-ups. If Google is shedding products because they don't fit with their core mission or business requirements, those might be some great areas to get into for different/smaller companies.

In the end, they will probably focus on general purpose products with super large user bases (docs, maps, email, android, social network, offers, payments etc). Around those, will still be a big ecosystem for other companies.

I'm curious if products like SketchUp, Picnik, Desktop and Orkut will also be sunset soon.

<comment><USER8> I think SketchUp is too important for getting 3d buildings into Maps. Picnik is being used for photo editing in Google+. Desktop has already been killed. Orkut...No idea. My guess is Orkut will be around in the short term but will get replaced with Google+ in the next couple years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Trimming a bloated ship" made me immediately think of layoffs. Then I read the article, and the tone was quite different, it looks like he's just re- focusing efforts and killing unpopular projects.

IMO, "Me Too" products only make sense if you have the valid hope to be able to offer something better than the existing products. Gmail for example was vastly better than any existing popular browser based email client. Facebook is sufficiently "good" and hard to improve further, so I'm afraid Google will have a hard time coming up with something that will convince people to make the switch.

<comment><USER10> Speaking personally as an avid Google+ user, I think that while it's fair to compare the two (Google+ and Facebook) I think they're approaching the same problem from two different angles. Google+ is becoming my source for meaningful posts, I see a lot more worthwhile content on Google+, whereas Facebook has become something I use a lot less because it's filled with the mundane comments of someone's day to day life. I think there's room for both types of posts and with Google+ focusing on the circles and who you share your posts with it allows you to filter out the noise and see what you want to see. Google+ right now, is in its infancy and I think it's unfair to dismiss it completely (you didn't but I often see people here on Hacker News doing so) as the uses of Google+ are still being fleshed out. Right now I would say Google+ is like Twitter without any character limits, but also like Facebook in that it has more of a focus on socializing. It's an evolution of online social networking in my opinion and as its use spreads into more groups of people it starts to really shine. For example, I keep a circle called "Tech People" in it are various people related to technology, some I know personally others notable tech celebs and developers. What I love about this circle is how I can open its stream and see various posts from people like Guido Van Rossum to Tim O'Reilly where they discuss issues in technology, their careers, development, etc. Then at the same time I have a circle dedicated to Art (I didn't want to make it too specific to something like photographers or anythingf) where I can turn to it to see posts on new photos from people like Trey Ratcliff, or interesting music from another user. The point is, Google+ has become a way for me to organize my interests and notable people that share these interests while also allowing me to socialize with my friends from my hometown by keeping a circle for them. Facebook may have groups, but Google+ makes circles a key feature of the network and that's where I think the true distinction lies. Google+ lets you segregate your various connections in life into circles and hinges on this fact, Facebook has groups as an afterthought and that's what I truly think divides the two.

<comment><USER11> Fyi, comments that big are hard to read without separating them into paragraphs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _"We don't want to be left with a complicated array of good-but-not-great > services."_

Sounds like Steve got his point across.

<comment><USER13> As much as we all like Steve, I kinda doubt he was the only one with that insight.

<comment><USER12> From the biography:

 _Page came to Jobs for advice on how to be a good chief executive officer, and while Jobs' immediate reaction was to say "f-you" to Page, he remembered how HP co-founder Bill Hewlett advised him in his younger days.

"Figure out what Google wants to be when it grows up. It's now all over the map," reads the biography's account of Jobs' interaction with Page. Later Jobs came to Page with a sharp advising tone, warning Google was making products "that are adequate but not great. They're turning you into Microsoft."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Moving from an engineering/technology company to a marketing/product company. It needs to happen, or your companu becomes schizophrenic (like Google has been). But doing so without killing the technology culture is hard (I can't think of any successes changing this late off the top of my head). I hope he succeeds.

I do like Page's focus on "sit down and work it out in person". So much time wasted trying to do that over email.

<comment><USER15> Apple somewhat with the transplant of objective-c and next step into apple?

<comment><USER14> I thought about Apple, but I'm not sure it fits. The company Apple is today is the company that Jobs kept trying to build for 40 years. Proportional fonts and rounded buttons are the result of products, not technologies.

Had he had a weaker personality and Woz a more assertive personality, then I think Apple would have needed to make that shift.

<comment><USER16> Well, I think the transition from the Apple II to the Mac was a little like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reading this article while I'm reading Stephen Levy's "In the Plex" is interesting. Stephen argues this is all part of Google's nature and that Page and Brin are convinced the "montisorian way" will figure it out one day...

I think he's right in many ways, Google definately doesn't work anything like Apple does, it'll just be interesting how Google comes out the "midlife crisis"

<comment> brown9-2 Excellent point - if Page had a certain amount of power when a triumvirate ruled Google, what has really changed now that he is the sole CEO? Does he suddenly have immense influence now where he had none before?

It sounds just like a nice PR push really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In theory it's great since it _should_ result in products that are more complete instead of the continuous stream of promising, but I got bored developing the tedious bits half-assery that has tended to come out of Google.

In practice, for every Buzz that gets rightfully killed, we lose an invaluable resource like Code Search.

<comment><USER19> And why the half-assery that is google docs? That is something that with nothing but hard slog-work could be awesome... but it's like an awkard notepad.exe + features.

So far, the only thing they have succeeded in is search. Analytics is the best free analytics service out there that I know, with an interface like spaghetti. Adwords? Ugh... it's hideously banal to work with. Rant over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.</comment>


In Castoria - <AUTHOR> https://www.jehsmith.com/1/2019/06/in-castoria.html <comment><USER2> You know that feeling when you wake up from a weird dream? Reading this gave me that feeling.</comment>


Show HN: Beating the Turing Test - <AUTHOR> https://decentium.org/almstdigital/beating-the.d <comment><USER2> I had an experience like this with a stranger on [https://sysop.chat/](https://sysop.chat/) (as seen before on HN!) where he 'emulated' a text adventure. It was quite fun to see the story he built and the mistakes he made while typing (it's a real-time experience).

I hope to see more fun ways to communicate, like this one.

<comment><USER3> You might enjoy "Sleep is Death", a two-player game where you collaborate to create a story: [http://sleepisdeath.net](http://sleepisdeath.net)

<comment><USER4> I was just thinking about this game and couldn't remember what it was called. Thanks for Baader-Meinhoffing it to me

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Link to the site: [https://johan-nordberg.com/](https://johan-nordberg.com/)

The knocker alone is very impressive. Well done!</comment>


DewDrop – A Formal Language for Social Networks - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop <comment><USER2> _I have no idea how this will turn out, but i have some intuition. Suppose you shorted bitcoins in 2010, selling 10,000 bitcoins you didn 't for $0.10 apiece. You'd earn yourself a profit of $1,000 - and if you didn't pay them back, you'd be $3,000,000 in debt today. I really think this kind of network could change the world. If you defect against people trying to make the world better, by trolling us - you are standing in the way of human progress. We are building a record book that essentially blocks trolls from the public discourse - is trolling that group of people really a good idea?_

man what

<comment><USER3> I have a huge problem with the word troll. Call me oldschool, but to me a troll is someone who claims to believe something when they really don't, and that just can never be proven either way. So why even go there? Trolls just like anyone else make statements, those statements are either off-topic or can be dealt with. If they're very aggressive, or just wrong in their claims, there is no need for the additional charge "troll". "Don't feed distractions", "don't feed negativity", "don't waste time on this, it's red herring because [insert solid argument here]", having rules for accepted behaviour, those and more all work perfectly fine, and they have the added benefit of not making someone an unperson with the word "troll".

The author(s) really just could put two things they said in separate places together:

> Mob mentalities seize hold of "the villian of the moment", and no person has > any incentive to stick up for someone who is the 'bad guy du jour' of the > crowd, regardless of whether or not all claims are merited.

and

> With dewDrop, those making the baseless charges can just be denied, with the > subject issuing a DISTRUST statement. Anyone who trusts the subject can now > immediately know to distrust those issuing the baseless claims - as well as > anyone who trusted them.

... surely you can see how the combination of those two things could be a problem, right? I mean, what is a "baseless claim", who gets to decide that, and how?

I've been baselessly called a troll before simply because my claims were NOT baseless, and I asked others to back up their claims about me. And the best bit is, the FB page admin let that thread exist as long as someone else calling me a troll had the last word; but when I replied, insisting that just calling someone names does not constitute addressing what they said, and that my points stand, the whole thread got deleted like 30 mins later, and I had to fish the whole comment thread out of a browser process dump with a hex editor because I was so dumbfounded.

In my eyes then and now, I wasn't trolling, I was throwing pearls to pigs; I posted a "wall of text" which I had indeed thought about quite a bit in a forum where 99% of all responses to anything ever posted is just "you're doing a great job, keep it up, it would be so great if everybody was aware that you're just so great". Which is not even something I disagree with, I just wanted to _add_ to that :/ But oh well, I was banned from posting too, though that I only realized weeks later when I pondered wether to translate something for that page, because they asked for volunteers.

So.. sure, I can flag a whole page with ten thousands of likes as "they all suck at reading comprehension, admin may even be dishonest", but where would the fact that I can back my claim up, and they can't, that I'm the one fishing that stuff out of memory which they swept under the rug, fit in there? What if I don't want to flag a whole page? What if I think someone is absolutely wrong about topic A, or for some reasons unable to learn, but has no stake in topic B, or is intellectually honest about it even though they do?

Sorry for rambling, but the anecdote I described actually did hurt me a bit when it happened. It's the discussion equivalent of getting killed by a drone without trial, simply not cool. Now imagine one "trusted admin" being able to simply delete the voice of people from this vague group of everybody representing "human progress"... ugh!

It's tricky over the web, but in person, the idea is generally, the more healthy and sane you are yourself, the easier you notice the bad "vibrations" others send out. It's just we usually are all over the place or unhappy ourselves, but the less you are, the easier you notice the patterns and disguises around you. And while we don't have pheromones and body language and a lot of other things over the web, I do feel something more limited but similar applies there too, it just can't be formalized easily and tattooed to people's foreheads or user ID, just like we can't do that with character, sanity, intelligence, knowledge, and all the other things that go into the one word "trust".

"I trust this person" is just one simple word for something you could not fully describe in a book. I trust various people to various degrees, each relation is completely unique, and I cannot easily or at all transfer my experiences with a person in one area to another area. I would also never say "Oh, you need a (dis)trust relationship with person X you never met? Here, just copy mine". It's like I wouldn't make a copy of my toothbrush for them, I'd rather help them get their own. Of course that's not entirely true, we gossip and criticize or laud others in their absence all the time, and we take that into account; but I would rarely let that keep me from getting to know a person, at least from even getting a first impression of my own. I know people do that, but I consider it harmful.

If anything, the very idea that someone would rather talk about the person who said something, than what they said, would count _against_ them in my books. I'd say "the" (any) mob itself is standing in the way of its own progress, the appeal to authority or current consensus, sometimes expressed in just numbers, and always coming with labels. To put a point on it, the problem is that too many people can't or don't want to think for themselves or examine evidence, not how to do it for them (kinda like IMHO the problem is also that people don't configure the software they use or read manuals, not _just_ what the best default setup or tutorial would be). Tools can help people reach maturity, but they cannot replace maturity, which to me implies such things as critical thinking and _climbing_ that "hierarchy of disagreement", instead of getting stuck in one of the lower floors.

Last but not least, either you require each physical human to have just one root identity, or you already have lost to anyone willing to make more than one account, if not hundreds. If it can be done it will be done, if it can lead to influencing what people vote or buy, doubly so. This already happens, sure, it would just be more of that, but the more it was trusted the worse it could be abused.

If you read this far, thanks, and apologies :)

<comment><USER4> long post, i'll do my best:

> what is a "baseless claim", who gets to decide that, and how?

the idea is that everyone int he system can decide for themselves what is baseless and what is not.

every single statement, every single claim can be evaluated by all parties to decide, is this true, is this false.

there are plenty of things people have claimed publicly and then recanted - like, say the made up allegations of gang rape ([http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/uva-fraternity-to-sue- roll...](http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/uva-fraternity-to-sue-rolling- stone-over-false-rape-accusation/)) - the idea is that anyone who latched onto that ahead of time and said "this is true" gets that tracked and responded to later.

<comment><USER3> > every single statement, every single claim can be evaluated by all parties > to decide, is this true, is this false.

Okay, but then where does this translate to people getting "tagged" as trustworthy or not, etc.? What effect does that have on statements they made? Even if it's up to the users -- that text really makes it seem like tagging people as trolls just because X trusted people tagged them so as desirable or useful.

To me there are kind of two ways to look at trust (or affinity in general), as something by which we weighs actions or opinions of another person ("if enough people I trust label X as Y, that influences how I view them"), or as a short- hand for how we feel about the individual decisions of another person ("all these people did ask for evidence when most people were ready to lynch X for Y, which increases my trust for them"), maybe using that as the first assumption when faced with new things they do or have opinions on, but generally just being a "bonus score" after the fact, if you will. In practice it's a bit of both.

But if you have to follow the chain of arguments anyway, or the reasons why someone is labeled as something, what use is the label? And if you don't follow it, and just "assume there is a good reason for the label", you get fun stuff like a 17yo girl telling a boy she's 18 like he is, them having sex on her initiative, and him being labeled a sex offender for 20 years even though she pleaded for him to be left alone. It's not "sex offender for having lied to by a girl with stuck up parents who was 17 when he was 18", it's just "sex offender". The same with "troll", "(not) reputable", etc. The truth is as fine-grained as the actual course of events, and while labels are sometimes useful, it can be dangerous when they develop a life of their own so to speak, in our imagination.

> anyone who latched onto that ahead of time and said "this is true" gets that > tracked and responded to later

By those who came to the conclusion. Likewise, everything who says "hah, it's not true", get "responded to" by everyone who insists it's true regardless. So what was gained?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Incentivize people to admit they have erred - a public record of you > apologizing shows you try to right your wrongs

But, in any objective discussion, it should not matter _who_ is saying something, nor should his/her reputation matter. We should stick to the facts and leave "ad hominem" out of this.

<comment><USER6> Very good point, I didn't see that at first, although I'm thoroughly skeptical. My guess is, the author comes from a context where a high level of social control is customary and desired. My taste is just the opposite.

<comment><USER4> > a high level of social control is customary and desired.

a high level of social control is customary because i live in the world as it is now. but that is NOT the world i desire to live in.

the way things work now, social control is implicit and heavily enforced. by making it explicit, you can reduce the extent to which it's enforced - and by speaking in formal languages, you can show that anyone who makes a claim gets credit for being right, regardless of their station in life or how big their audience is.

<comment><USER6> Except that there are just too many areas where "being right" is in the eye of the beholder. How would you make sure that your formalism is only used in areas where "objective truth" can be established? It could just as easily be abused for crusades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The introduction points rightly to a broad range of problems in our internetted communications. However, I highly doubt that any formal or automated system can help with that. For starters, how would you force users to use it in a consistent, or even correct way?

Even if we assume it just works, it's only good for people who want to live in a village where they're always the same person to everyone else. I don't want that. I want to live in a city where 3 blocks down the street they never even heard my name or saw my face. I want the freedom to be a "good citizen" in one circle and an absolute a-hole troll in another. And if that should violate anyone's minimum requirements for bigotry it's really none of my concern.

[Edit: Wording]

</comment><comment><USER7> I do not think many individuals have a (personal) benefit by adhering to these rules.

Also, people like to keep implicit grey areas in their opinions. To have space for 'I did not mean it that way'. There is a small politician in every one of us ;-)

<comment><USER4> the latest version of this, i'd like to add certainty weights, so you can express the numerical extent of your confidence in your claims.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool idea, but to data mine human communication, software must come to understand their language, rather than trying to get people to change their language #ddv2 DISAGREE [https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop](https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop)

<comment><USER9> This reminds me of a funny rule, I heard some years ago (in the context of the Semantic Web): If you allow people to supply their data, they either won't do it or they'll do it wrong. #ddv2 DISARGEE [https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop](https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This sounds similar to FOAF -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_\(ontology\)) \-- and more generally similar to concepts from the semantic web. Why not build on these existing formats?

</comment><comment><USER11> If you put in rules to follow people simply won't. Especially trolls. That's kind of part of their definition, isn't it?

But what people forget is that you can communicate without text boxes as well. There are already social non-verbal communications in place.

Simple examples are liking something, sharing it, seeing a group post or chat message (with or without responding). Being online or not is also a way to say you want to communicate or not.

It is possible to force people into a non-textbox communication by giving them buttons instead. Sometimes both options (text and button) already is enough for people to use the button because it's simpler.

There are also experiments to fight trolls by only giving specified communication buttons instead of text boxes, e.g., in the online card game Hearthstone.

One problem you can't fight that way is the problem of interpretation. In the example of Hearthstone the winner of a card game might say "Thanks" hoping to end the game with a polite statement, while the opponent who lost might interpret it as "haha, look at how I beat your ass, noob".

Spamming and Trolling is also still possible, because you can make anything annoying by doing it too often. E.g., someone you just added to your FB friendlist goes through your history and likes every single status message, uploaded picture and shared link you posted.

</comment><comment><USER12> This puts way too much weight into offense inherently being negative. All offense is is something striking way outside your sensibilities, and you not even attempting to process what was said. This culture of punishing people for having differing opinions is a genuine road to hell.

</comment><comment><USER4> author here - i was wondering why this got picked up.

i've been working on the respect matrix ([https://github.com/neyer/respect](https://github.com/neyer/respect)) which is a simpler version that gets the kernel of the idea present in dewdrop.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is very insightful and a great bit of innovation. I believe that the biggest impact of this would be in internal projects and collaborative groups; managing the dialogs and controlling noise - building consensus and shoring up what is known to be true (or false). It's very difficult to build a pyramid of knowledge in a corporate today.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This could be done right now in Twitter. People would just tweet these statements and a server would calculate public ratings and statuses.</comment>


Girl Talk: Create More Value Than You Capture - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rafaelcorrales.com/2010/11/create-more-value-than-you-capture.html

<comment><USER2> He's not the first musician to do this. Although there's some appeal to the "free-beer-sell-peanuts" business model, I can't help but feel that if it caught on, the logical end-state would be all musicians giving away their music for free, and they'd have the same problem attracting attention as when they could sell records for a profit.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm betting, without even hearing the album, but based on his prior work, that the album is chock full of samples he couldn't get cleared but wanted to include, so he decided to just release it anyway. And, as mentioned above, he's not the first person to be in that situation.</comment>


"Socket activation is a messy mixture of three different things" - vezzy-fnord https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-994548-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html#7581522

<comment><AUTHOR> > \- It requires a central registry of all the sockets you need, for all your > services. Like a Microsoft Windows registry. It's a database of everything > that's running on your system; this defeats the essence of modularity.

So central repositories are now a tool of the devil, no matter what? If anything, this seems like a great win for modularity: from the outside you can interact with it as if it was all part of one whole, while the actual implementation can be replaced piecemeal without shattering the illusion.

> \- systemd claims this makes the boot time faster: since all the sockets are > already created, every service can connect to every other one and start at > the same time. But this is not true, or true to a very little extent: if > service A depends on service B and they start in parallel, A will only be > able to run as long as it writes to B (and the buffer is not full); as soon > as it needs to read from B, it will hang until B is up and capable of > writing to A. Parallel start-up of services via pre-opened sockets is only > able to perform the first writes in parallel; contrary to what Lennart says, > this is not where you gain the most booting time. You gain a little time, > for a major decrease in reliability.

Looks like he's misunderstood the point of parallel boot. The aim isn't to make A+B, where B depends on A, boot quicker. The big win is that you can now safely also start C at the same time, which is from a different dependency tree.

<comment><USER2> > So central repositories are now a tool of the devil, no matter what? If > anything, this seems like a great win for modularity: from the outside you > can interact with it as if it was all part of one whole, while the actual > implementation can be replaced piecemeal without shattering the illusion.

Central repositories are a dangerous thing. A great win for modularity? I'm not so sure - the bigger the repository the less replaceable it is at the end of the day. I'm not really sure why skarnet makes this argument anyway, since (x)inetd or its replacements also work as a "central repository" of sockets for socket activated services.

> Looks like he's misunderstood the point of parallel boot. The aim isn't to > make A+B, where B depends on A, boot quicker. The big win is that you can > now safely also start C at the same time, which is from a different > dependency tree.

He's not talking about parallel boot, he is talking about what advantages socket activation (supposedly) brings to the table while parallel booting. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Central repositories are a dangerous thing. A great win for modularity? I'm > not so sure - the bigger the repository the less replaceable it is at the > end of the day.

As long as the repository has a well-defined API then that can be replaced just as easily as any other single piece, right?

> I'm not really sure why skarnet makes this argument anyway, since (x)inetd > or its replacements also work as a "central repository" of sockets for > socket activated services.

Same for me on that one.

> He's not talking about parallel boot, he is talking about what advantages > socket activation (supposedly) brings to the table while parallel booting. > :)

Is this really all that different? My understanding was that the point of socket activation was that you'd no longer need to explicitly order when services would start.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Note for those who (maybe) don't know: skarnet is the author of S6 [1], a supervision suite similar (and yet different) to daemontools/runit.

1\. [http://skarnet.org/software/s6/](http://skarnet.org/software/s6/)</comment>