Ember v3.7 Released - <AUTHOR> https://emberjs.com/blog/2019/01/07/ember-3-7.html <comment><USER2> Ember is by far the best application framework out there (react is a view library). It's refreshing to see features come out of the box instead of having to roll your own react + mobx + react router. Build tools are easy to use and very transparent.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is ember still used? I always only hear that ppl nowadays use react, vue or angular. What does ember differently/better?

<comment><USER4> Probably much more than you would think.

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

Ember is firmly in the "Plateau of Productivity". It's stable, supported, but no longer the "new thing" so you don't hear much about it.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure how linking to an article about the hype cycle can be considered evidence of Ember's maturity relative to its peers.

Ember's 1.0 release was 2013 which is the same year React was announced. Yes Ember has earlier history as Sproutcore going back to 2011, but Facebook was using React internally since 2011 as well. I'd also argue that Ember 2.0 was pretty different from 1.0.

Angular is older, going back to 2009, but as 2.0 is a total rewrite as well as departure from where they started out I'm willing to let that one go. (It is also a complete tire fire so let's just ignore it altogether).

VueJS is arguably the "new kid". But really only just barely. The first release was Feb 2014. I'd hardly consider Vue immature at this point though.

I really don't see how one can argue it has a tangible maturity advantage here. I also think that most of the newer generation of SPA frameworks have learned lessons both from the previous generations and their peers (with the exception of Angular perhaps).

<comment><USER6> I didn't read that as evidence, simply a link to define the term "Plateau of Productivity".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I haven't got a chance using ember. But the rancher guys [https://rancher.com](https://rancher.com) seem to use ember a lot for their web app. And it looks solid. There's no doubt that ember is capable when it comes to handling complex application.

</comment><comment><USER8> In my opinion Ember's huge value added is Ember Data. I couldn't find anything compared to it in any other library/framework.

</comment><comment><USER9> Ember was the first web framework I tried to learn. Maybe my mind is too dense. Couldn't really figure out shit. I guess for a simpleton like me my mind works best with micro frameworks react or vue. I work as frontend engineer now.

<comment><USER10> This free tutorial helped me to understand the concept behind the framework. Actually, I can adapt this knowledge to other work also. [https://yoember.com](https://yoember.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm still really disappointed that Ember gave up on trying to compete with libraries like React on bundle size. I loved my experience with Ember, and I really like what they've done recently, but the fact that out of the box it's several times larger than an equivalent set of React libraries makes it hard to justify. It's super awesome if you're building complex, ambitious desktop web apps, but for simple, mobile-focused progressive web apps it just doesn't seem worth the extra bytes.

<comment><USER12> React and Ember.js is not an apple to apple comparison. React is a UI library, Ember.js is a framework. Glimmer would be a better comparison.

<comment><USER11> Right, which is exactly why I said "an equivalent set of React libraries" as opposed to just React.

<comment><USER13> Ember as you guessed, is not for simple apps. So an equivalent set of React libraries would have to do everything that Ember does---even when you are building an app that does not require all those parts.

It's not a fair comparison to talk about a simple mobile-only app, and complain that Ember is too large for bloating the bundle with things you will not use.

<comment><USER11> > bloating the bundle with things you will not use

The problem isn't that Ember has a lot of things you don't use; it's that the things that are there are much larger than their React counterparts. In terms of actual functionality, Ember doesn't provide anything that React+React Router doesn't. The difference in bundle size arises from the different ways Ember accomplishes the same end goal. This differences make it more suited to desktop apps loaded over high speed internet connections. My point is that as someone who's building PWAs designed to load as quickly as possible, it's unfortunate that Ember isn't even a possible contender due to the minimum bundle size.

<comment><USER13> I thought Ember provided:

\- Observable objects and enumerables \- Models with a relationship framework \- Controllers \- A dependency injection framework \- A templating system

In addition the router also provides:

\- Parsing of query strings in the router (React-Router does not do that) \- Explicit loading states \- Asynchronous routing

Whereas React-Router + React provides:

\- A router \- A view layer

I also don't understand your complaint about PWAs and bundle size. Aren't PWAs supposed to fully cache _all_ the Javascript after the first load so bundle size should be less important? And the competition to a PWA is a downloadable mobile app that's often many dozens of megabytes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Really excited to see what v4.0 brings!! Lots of hard work in the making.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this before, I'm writing this here again:

Ember is a complete frontend/SPA framework. 2 key advantages Ember.js has over other SPA solutions are server-side rendering and advanced acceptance/end-to- end testing.

\- You can do server side rendering with other frameworks however it is significantly easier and better to do it with Ember.js due to the way ember routing model and ember-data works. You can do acceptance testing with other tech stacks however they cannot be as fast as the usual ember acceptance testing stack + ember mirage. Mirage mocks your backend and introduces an in- memory ORM thus your tests wont ever need to hit your backend or the database, I wrote a better mirage alternative as mirage do have issues outside the context of this topic. Backend mocking comes with 3 major advantages and 1 major disadvantage:

Advantage 1: Your tests will be extermely fast(a speed cypress cannot compete with). Ember test suite knows exactly when your app starts, it can listen to the next visit, next Ember loop in the Run loop for async functions and execute immediately without timers. These are well defined and documented in the framework.

Advantage 2: Most web backends are not built on JavaScript, however current trend is to write acceptance tests in JS/node.js due to the all available ecosystem support in a certain SPA framework/library. Since your backend logic is most probably written in another language you cannot access the backend data in your frontend tests. Ember mirage replaces your backend thus you can access your backend data on acceptance tests for higher test quality. If your backend is written in node.js you can require your models and query them inside the tests thus not much there wont advantage here. For the majority of backends you will have to write your own hacky tool to query your backend if you want higher quality testing. Or you have to write your acceptance tests in your backend language which will be no doubt slower than ember tests + headless browsers that have JS API support.

Advantage 3: You can develop very complex frontend demo applications on the development mode with Ember mirage without a backend. There is a productivity advantage when your frontend developers are not backend developers/not familiar with your backend stack. You can source your backend API responses as Ember mirage fixtures thus eliminate the need for data preparation/model generations with factories for each frontend tests. Also you can easily create demo deployments for client meetings.

Disadvantage: - Sometimes you need to write your backend logic in Ember mirage routes. Ember mirage is still an alpha software and all these add up to the learning curve.

Ember.js has lots of potential and a mature ecosystem.</comment>


Tell HN: Australian government's driving test resources require Flash/Windows - <AUTHOR> I have just found that the Australian government's official driving test practice requires Adobe Flash Player. Moreover, the practice test modules "work best with Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge Browsers," according to their notice.
It is quite distressing that a government is requiring citizens to run Windows operating system and Flash to access its official resources, in this day and age. As a non-Windows user, I had some difficulties accessing this resource to prepare for the test. I fear that those that lack technical wherewithal to circumvent these difficulties might be being denied their right to access a freely available government resource.
Incidentally, all drivers in NSW state in Australia are required to sit this test in their course of progressing to full license.
- https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/licence/driver/tests/hazard-perception-test.html <comment><USER2> Visit your local library. I guarantee you they'll be running Windows and you can just do the test there.

Linux may have taken over the world but its percentages are still crappy in the desktop side of things. If you're gonna make the choice to use a minority desktop OS, you have to be prepared to deal with the fact we're still living in a Windows world and things like this can and will happen from time to time.

A typical person won't "lack technical wherewithal to circumvent these difficulties" because even the poorest folks are using Windows in one form or another. It's mostly the tech-heads who choose Linux, and they made their bed.</comment>


Ask HN: What about Python makes it popular for ML? - <AUTHOR> I don't have experience with Python, but from my only superficial point of view I don't see it much more powerful or flexible as a VHLL than, say, Ruby or Perl. What made Python the high level language of choice for machine learning? Was there just a couple influencers at the industry that decided to build ML libraries for it because Python is already a familiar language to them? Would the language choice been immaterial if they were working with a different high-level language? <comment><USER2> My two bits. A bit pedagogical, so apologies for covering things you might already know.

Python effectively started in the early 1990s. Perl was the hot new language for "scripting", but Perl 4 was lousy as an embedded language and didn't support extensions. This was fixed in Perl 5, which also made it possible to do complex data structures. I think early on the extension mechanism was also Unix-centric, and require a Makefile?

Tcl was amazingly easy to embed and extend. It was designed with that in mind. It wasn't so good at complex data structures. OO programming was an add-on, with several different available extensions. I also recall some problems with garbage collection of extension objects ... it's been a while.

Python was possible to embed, and easy to extend. It had support for more complex data types. It was a better fit than Perl 4 or Tcl for 2D and higher arrays. As such, it was picked up by the more numerically oriented developers, who used Python to, using the popular phrase from then, 'steer' computationally intensive jobs.

Python-the-language also changed to make it easier to support multi- dimensional array indexing, specifically for numerical computing.

(Perl at the time was very popular in bioinformatics, which at that time involved a lot of RE-style pattern matching, a lot of format munging, and a lot of making different pieces work together - things that Perl excels at. But not numerical computing.)

As a result, Python had several iterations of Numeric/numarray/NumPy while Perl, Ruby, and Tcl - languages which were used more by non-numeric subfields - did not.

Then came the web. First Zope, and later Django, helped make Python a popular language for web development. The easy extension mechanism made it easy to add all sorts of C extension modules.

And Fortran extension. And R extensions through adapters.

A lot of the early ML code was written in C, C++, Fortran, or R. The natural solution is to put the data into a NumPy array, pass it via some bindings to the other language, and continue to work with it in Python.

I don't think Perl and Ruby had the same level of numeric support + extensions, making it more difficult. Python got critical mass, and continued to grow.

People have been doing machine learning with Python since the 1990s. I can't think of who the "couple influencers" might be.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1) Libraries: scikit-learn, Pandas, numpy, make it easy to work with data.

2) Easy to learn but powerful, lots of examples online, lots of good books, great community.

3) IPython/Jupyter workbooks make it really easy to work through a solution and share it.

<comment><USER4> You just saved me from typing the same things more or less! hahaha ^_^

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The huge thing for python is it's ability to call out to lower level (faster) languages. From a machine learning point of view the ability to stuff data in to buffers cheaply to be consumed by C/fortran is what's important (all of those fancy math and data science libraries do the heavy lifting in c/fortran).

[https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3118/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3118/) for more of how this was accomplished to get a bigger picture of the story.

</comment><comment><USER6> Simplicity is one of the main traits of Python. It's conducive to prototyping and GTD in a quick fashion. Libraries like scikit and pytorch have also helped developers build larger solutions using smaller building blocks without worrying too much about implementations.

Python suffers from serious performance constraints nevertheless and productionizing an ML service that requires real-time analysis is going to take some effort. For such systems, folks usually tend to lean towards a hybrid stack.</comment>


How to See Mars Opposition and Closest Approach to Earth - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/science/see-mars-opposition-earth.html <comment><USER2> I'd advise to anyone living outside of city centers to step outside sometime when it is dark, and try to spot something in the sky. There is lots of things to spot!

You do not need a telescope, the naked eye is more than enough.

Not only the obvious ones like The Moon,Mars, Mercury and Jupiter can be seen, but you can see for example the ISS! Or any of the IRIDIUM satellites. Depending on the angle, they sometimes appear as quite a bright spot, streaking through the sky.

You can download one of multiple apps that tell you the time, expected path and expected brightness of these events, and then just step outside and watch.

Just try it sometime, I think you will like it.

<comment><USER3> Isn't Mercury too faint and too close to the Sun to see with naked eye?

<comment><USER4> It's pretty bright, but usually appears too close to the Sun to be seen. It usually goes through 3-4 periods per year where it can be seen after sunset (and similar for periods before sunrise). You can use a planet rise and set chart to find periods when it will be most visible. Shameless plug [1] for an Android app I wrote that does this. Unfortunately we're just now leaving a period where it could be seen after sunset. You'll be able to see it before sunrise in lat Aug/Sep, or after sunset around late Oct/Nov. It will be easier to find if you use binoculars first, then try with the naked eye once you know where to look.

Another interesting thing now is that you can see Venus before the sun sets. If you've never seen it before, find the location one night well after sunset, then look in about the same place the next night a few minutes before sunset. It's currently getting closer to the sun, so it will get harder to spot before sunset each day, but will remain obvious in the night sky until late Sept.

[1] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.principiap...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.principiaprogramatica.planetrisesetgraph)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Unfortunately for those with telescopes, there's been a planet-wide dust storm since middle of June that's made seeing any surface features difficult. It's related to it being a particular good opposition, since it's closer to the sun (and Earth) this time, the extra solar energy is contributing to the storm and it may take months to dissipate.

Observations from amateurs around the time the dust storm was going global: [https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/616612-2018-mars- oppositi...](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/616612-2018-mars-opposition- thread-post-your-observations-sketches-images/page-5)

<comment><USER4> >It's related to it being a particular good opposition.

Actually, it's not. Mars reaches perihelion about every 2 Earth years without encountering a dust storm of this magnitude. It's also important to point out that the distance of a planet to the Sun usually does not have a great effect on the weather. Even though Mars has a more elliptical orbit than most, the difference in light received at its closest/furthest points to the Sun only accounts to about .7 times the light received from the Sun.

<comment><USER6> 0.7 times sounds like a lot? If the Earth suddenly received 70% less light I think entire biomes would shift.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you like looking at the night sky, you should add the New York Times' astronomical calendar to your Google calendar (link at the bottom of the article). They have all these astronomical events, so I don't miss out on them even if they don't hit the regular news cycle.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for pointing that out!

For folks who don't use google/ios stuff, they even provide a webcal ics (source[1]):

[https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/nytimes.com_89ai4i...](https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/nytimes.com_89ai4ijpb733gt28rg21d2c2ek%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics)

1\. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/science/astronomy-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/science/astronomy- space-calendar.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mars opposition and closest approach during a total lunar eclipse eh

That's a lot of red at once

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't recall -ever- (which covers some time lemme tell ya) seeing Mars so big and bright as it is right now. Move over Jupiter!</comment>


Ask HN: Embedded systems job market? - <AUTHOR>

I'm thinking about what CS career to go into. It seems like embedded systems will just keep growing and is a pretty safe bet right? If there is another downturn in the economy, will this sector be badly effected or could it even grow in spite of the economic downturn? <comment><USER2> I would say embedded systems is more of a CE major than CS, but before you decide on what you want to major in, do take time to reflect on whether you would have worked on it even if you had no one paying you money for it. There are multiple fields that will just keep growing over the years, but you need to love it enough to have your learning keep growing with it as well!

It's likely you had some exposure to embedded systems either through a relative who works in the field or you saw a senior project, and that makes it interesting to you: you bet it is. However, it's very much an interdisciplinary field requiring in-depth understanding of the physics _and_ software of the device you are designing or developing against.

Consider building robots. I guess it's one of the applications of embedded systems that will just keep growing over the coming years, and will get more funding as companies try to automate their workflow to reduce costs.

Now, would you consider building robots on your own if no one paid you?

Then you must ask yourself: would you have enough drive to trace out and debug why your robot resets every time its motors start running at full speed even when you have already double checked "everything that could possibly go wrong"?</comment>


Let's Find the House of Your Dreams - <AUTHOR> http://www.clicbrics.com <comment><AUTHOR> Clicbrics is the first online real estate advisor in India to have both exclusive and non-exclusive property listings that aim to provide a personalized and an awesome consumer experience. Clicbrics founding team has experience from all domains of real estate. From Online Real Estate, Real Estate Private Equity, Real Estate Development as well as Brokerage, we understand the requirements of the consumer</comment>


The Hidden Power of Stack Overflow - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/03/the-hidden-power-of-stack-overflow.html <comment><USER2> > Similarly perilous is the fact that code changes very quickly. Android > development practices, as an example, have changed drastically over the last > few years, but the popular Stack Overflow solutions are still from 2013, > meaning that budding developers might be learning through outdated > solutions.

I'm a community-elected moderator on Stack Overflow, and I think this is the biggest problem - outdated answers. Stack Overflow was founded in 2008, now about 8 years ago. New and better answers that may be much better than sloppy 8 year old answer can take years to rise up to compete with the ranking of those answers, as the the default sorting mechanism is by net up/down votes.

I'd like that addressed, in a way that minimizes disruption. Accepted answers should be allowed to float in the rankings instead of being pinned at the top after a number of years. And there should be an optional "hotness" sort that primarily considers recent votes (say in the past year).

Until they do address it, the new, great answers will remain buried.

Others like to suggest Reddit's sorting method ( [https://redditblog.com/2009/10/15/reddits-new-comment- sortin...](https://redditblog.com/2009/10/15/reddits-new-comment-sorting- system/) ), but that doesn't consider recency (my main concern) - and makes sense for them because voting is frozen after a period of time, whereas we can still vote on 8 year old questions on Stack Overflow - so revenge-downvoting (which, while verboten, can slip through the cracks) would have an outsized effect.

</comment><comment><USER3> This site is being overrated by search engines. Every time I do a web search for anything related to computer programming, answers from stack overflow always appear at the top of the search results, even if they don't contain all of the search keywords, and I click and find something which doesn't answer my question.

</comment><comment><USER4> The importance of Stack Overflow cannot be understated. It literally is underpinning every facet of development from front-end to back-end and everything else in-between. I probably visit it at least three or four times a day. Also, you regularly see core contributors and even owners of open source projects answering questions on SO, which is great. The power of Stack Overflow is only hidden from those who probably would never have a reason to use it.

<comment><USER3> > The importance of Stack Overflow cannot be understated.

I agree with this part of your post, but the rest of it contradicts this statement.

<comment><USER4> What? Care to elaborate how the rest of my comment contradicts the statement?

<comment><USER5> You probably meant to say "cannot be overstated". "Cannot be understated" would mean that Stack Overflow is irrelevant.

<comment><USER4> Ah, yes. I didn't even notice I said "understated" it won't let me edit the comment now. Funny how a grammar mistake gets you downvoted.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Optimizations which made Python 3.6 faster than Python 3.5 [video] - <AUTHOR> http://pyvideo.org/pycon-us-2017/optimizations-which-made-python-36-faster-than-python-35.html <comment><USER2> More important than the optimizations themselves is the instrumentation they built up to reliably measure and monitor the performance.

One thing to keep in mind is that python 3 is still considerably slower than python 2 ( _edit_ ) in some areas such as startup times while it has gotten faster in most other benchmarks.

<comment><USER3> Its worth watching the video in its entirety. That's not true. Python 3.6 beats 2.7 in most benchmarks, its just that there are a few places where 3 is slower (like startup time) that make a lot of things look bad, but that don't actually affect "speed" as most people would consider.

<comment><USER4> The startup time fiasco was one of the reasons why Java never took over for GUI apps. Even though its unscientific, time to first usable interaction goes a long way in establishing "speed" in the users mind. You should see the hoops that Chrome jumps through to excel on this metric.

<comment><USER5> True, but:

      $ echo exit | time python2

gives an average time of 0.015s on my laptop, and

      $ echo exit | time python3

works out to about 0.039s. If you're spamming hundreds of processes from a looping shell script, the Python 3 overhead would probably start to grate. For anything manually launched, 40 milliseconds is still substantially close to instant.

<comment><USER6> I think the problem is pep8. For some reason, pep8 says you load your modules at the top of the file rather than when needed. Giant libraries often follow pep8, meaning something like "import pandas" loads hundreds of python files, which gives the absurd startup times.

I've seen some large code bases take 4 seconds to import, > 80% being unused code.

<comment><USER7> But couldn't that inefficiency be optimized away in the implementation? (Load imports lazily).

<comment><USER8> It can't be done automatically because imported can execute code. Since that's part of the semantics, you have to be lazy by hand.

<comment><USER9> Only on the first load ever. When modules are compiled to their byte code, they could get a "clean" flag if they don't execute code, which means they get loaded lazily next time.

<comment><USER8> Ok but figuring out what executes code might require executing code: consider non trivial use of meta classes, where an inconspicuous subclass actually invokes e.g. A registration process like a Django model class.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but, just spitballing here, could a substantial fraction of imported code benefit even with a very conservative heuristic?

In any case, given your points, it seems like a future Python version ought to introduce a new version of the import statement with lazy semantics (which, besides eliminating dead code, is also IMO the more correct/explicit behavior when importing symbols).

<comment><USER8> It'd be pretty easy to do the experiment, since you can override the import logic and do lazy imports, eg.

        class LazyModule:
            def __init__(self, name):
                self.name = name
            def __getattr__(self, key):
                mod = {}
                exec('import %s as mod', mod)
                self.mod = mod['mod']
                return getattr(self.mod, key)

        class LazyImporter:
            def get_module(self, name):
                return LazyModule(name)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> More reading linked at the end of the slides: [https://faster- cpython.readthedocs.io/](https://faster-cpython.readthedocs.io/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Ah, yes, the "rewrite it all in C" theory of optimization. Meanwhile, PyPy continues to be a thing, writing most of its core in RPython and spanking CPython in benchmarks. Why do we keep doing this?

<comment><USER12> From [https://faster-cpython.readthedocs.io/pypy.html](https://faster- cpython.readthedocs.io/pypy.html) (emphasis mine):

> \- _Bad support of the Python C API_ : PyPy was written from scratch and > uses different memory structures for objects. The cpyext module emulates the > Python C API but it's slow.

> \- _New features are first developed in CPython_. In january 2016, PyPy only > supports Python 2.7 and 3.2, whereas CPython is at the version 3.5. It's > hard to have a single code base for Python 2.7 and 3.2, Python 3.3 > reintroduced u'...' syntax for example.

> \- _Not all modules are compatible with PyPy_ : see PyPy Compatibility Wiki. > For example, numpy is not compatible with PyPy, but there is a project under > development: pypy/numy. PyGTK, PyQt, PySide and wxPython libraries are not > compatible with PyPy; these libraries heavily depend on the Python C API. > GUI applications (ex: gajim, meld) using these libraries don't work on PyPy > :-( Hopefully, a lot of popular modules are compatible with PyPy (ex: > Django, Twisted).

> \- _PyPy is slower than CPython on some use cases_. Django: "PyPy runs the > templating engine faster than CPython, but so far DB access is slower for > some drivers."

<comment><USER13> A lot of the db drivers are written in C so that would make sense. It's really just the same problem.</comment></comment></comment>


Telegram moves to protect identity of Hong Kong protesters - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-telegram-exclusive/exclusive-messaging-app-telegram-moves-to-protect-identity-of-hong-kong-protesters-idUSKCN1VK2NI <comment><USER2> They should only notify users if they both have each other's phone. Otherwise it is trivial to create several thousands of accounts and upload thousands of numbers from each to get a mapping between an id and a phone number. Here is a quote from a head of Russian company that claims to do this:

> A phone number used by [Telegram] account @silovikicat was discovered using > a program titled "Insider-Telegram" developed by the "Center of research of > legitimacy and political protest". The head of the "Center" Eugene > Venediktov explains: "Currently the database contains over 10 million of > numbers. We just go through all possible numbers and check whether they are > registered in Telegram: for example, we take all numbers starting with a > prefix +7911 and check them. You automatically see all contacts from you > address book in your Telegram, don't you? We just have a very "fat" address > book with phones of all users from our country."

> When a phone number provided by Eugene is added into an address book, > Telegram automatically matches it with account @silovikicat («Siloviks' > cat»).

Having a phone number means that the government can track its rough location and know owner's identity.

This also means that other messengers using similar contact discovery allow to de-anonymize its users the same way.

[1] (in Russian) [https://meduza.io/feature/2019/08/10/kto-takoy-tovarisch- may...](https://meduza.io/feature/2019/08/10/kto-takoy-tovarisch-mayor)

<comment><USER3> This feature should never have been enabled in this one-way manner but being a social platform means trying everything to get users tied down to it.

It's just like Venmo. I'm seeing users in my newsfeed because they're in my contacts but not because we added each other. Really bizarre.

<comment><USER2> Even better, Telegram should allow to register without a phone numbner (they could charge a little sum in Bitcoins if they are afraid that there will be bot registrations). This could even increase their user base because there are users who don't want to give away a phone number.

<comment><USER4> Agree, except for Bitcoin (or rather, have Bitcoin but Stripe and other options as well.)

<comment><USER5> That defeats the purpose, no?

<comment><USER4> No, only if you are

\- fighting someone who controls Stripe well enough to browse transaction logs

\- or you are fighting someone who can access your bank transactions (more likely in this case) and manage to correlate them correctly with Telegram account creation time

Both seems like huge steps forward compared to sms validation.

Furthermore: Bitcoin is not much safer for the ordinary citizen. If anything it is way easier to trace than cash and I guess slightly more different to trace than bank transfers.

Or am I missing something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The fix Telegram is working on would allow users to disable matching by > phone number. That option represents a balance between making it easy for > users to find their contacts and the privacy needs of those who rely on the > app for protection against state security agents.

> Telegram hopes to help protect Hong Kong protesters with the update, the > source said. But wide adoption of the optional security setting would make > the app far harder to use for the vast majority of its more than 200 > consumers, who rely on uploading phone contacts to identify friends and > family members on the app, the source said.

Make the match 2 way then.

If you both have reach other's number allow the match. If it's one sided - deny.

<comment><USER7> 200 consumers, ouch

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Protesters believe Chinese security officials have exploited the function by > uploading large quantities of phone numbers.

> The app automatically matches phone numbers with the user names in the > group. Chinese authorities then only need to request the owners of the phone > numbers from the local telecom service in order to learn the users' true > identities.

> Telegram has detected evidence that Chinese authorities may have uploaded > numbers to identify protesters, said a person with direct knowledge of the > situation.

Signal does/did this too: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12590979](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12590979)

<comment><USER9> > The app automatically matches phone numbers with the user names in the > group. Chinese authorities then only need to request the owners of the phone > numbers from the local telecom service in order to learn the users' true > identities.

This is a flaw common to services that rely on phone numbers as IDs. In many countries, one cannot purchase a SIM card without showing ID (and the seller makes a photocopy of the ID to provide to the authorities). That means that there cannot be true anonymity. Know the phone number, know the person.

I am always baffled when people claim that PGP-encrypted e-mail is passé because it leaks metadata, when Signal and Telegram leak metadata too and, furthermore, metadata that can be immediately associated with a specific person in many countries.

<comment><USER10> re: needing an ID for SIM cards, that's interesting!

Here in New Zealand, I can freely purchase any prepay SIM without ID and use it straight away. Most, if not all dairies carry them too.

<comment><USER2> In Russia one cannot (in theory; actually it's possible sometimes). In Japan an ID is required as far as I know.

<comment><USER11> In Japan ID is required for voice service, but I think not for data only.

<comment><USER5> You can't sign up for Signal with a data only SIM

<comment><USER12> Yes, you can. Data only SIM cards can receive SMS's. At least in Portugal they do.

<comment><USER5> Oh, interesting. I don't think they can in Japan

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If Telegram were protecting the identity of HK protestors they would say this.

If they were selling the HK protestors out to the Chinese government they would also say this.

True trustworthyness can only come from open source code and concepts designed into the protocol. I don't think this can be achieved on Apple's platform, might be possible on Android.

<comment><USER14> I am not sure how open sourcing the code would help? If they have a bad intent, they could publish a "clean" source code and deploy something else.

<comment><USER15> You can compile the open source and compare the result to the version on the store.

<comment><USER16> The protestors aren't using the encryption features. They just don't want their phone numbers to be revealed as being associated with the groups used to coordinate the demonstrations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > But wide adoption of the optional security setting would make the app far > harder to use for the vast majority of its more than 200 consumers, who rely > on uploading phone contacts to identify friends and family members on the > app, the source said.

This is false: regardless of Telegram's nags to upload my phone book to them, I find it quite easy to use the app without doing this.

<comment><USER18> You are correct.

I will never understand why apps that profess allegiance to privacy upload entire contact lists.

Sure, users will complain it's harder. They'll always complain, but you're protecting them _and their contacts who have NOT provided consent._

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> That's when you realize that every insignificant feature Signal was working on is actually freaking useful in real life.

Btw why all these apps require a phone #? Is it required by the gov?

</comment><comment><USER20> Can we stop referring to Telegram as an "encrypted app"?

End-to-end encryption only works in "secret chats" and voice calls. Outside of those, it's as encrypted as HN is (connection happens over TLS, but that's about it).

<comment><USER21> Also there are no secret chats on desktop client at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This should have been a feature from the beginning. Not everyone wants their Telegram profile to be discoverable by anyone who has their number.

</comment><comment><USER23> The only actual way to protect them is to purge any potentially compromising data immediately.

</comment><comment><USER24> the obsession with phone numbers is crazy, we should stop to use them as ID

<comment><USER25> A big pro of using phone #s is that it allows users to effectively take their social network with them from app to app instead of being locked in.

IMO phone numbers are a pretty terrible system (you would never ask people to remember dozens of IP addresses for all the websites they want to visit but historically people have been expected to remember phone #s for all the people they want to contact), but they are the system we have and it could be worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "But wide adoption of the optional security setting would make the app far harder to use for the vast majority of its more than 200 consumers, who rely on uploading phone contacts to identify friends and family members on the app, the source said."

With only 200 users on the app me thinks adoption will be fast - think they forgot a "K"

<comment><USER27> _> think they forgot a "K"_

an "M" \- 200 million users as of March 2018. [https://telegram.org/blog/200-million](https://telegram.org/blog/200-million)

<comment><USER28> That's pretty funny :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just a reminder that Telegram has shipped deliberate backdoors in the past [https://habr.com/post/206900/](https://habr.com/post/206900/)

It is terribly unlikely that they'd have their users best interest in mind.

<comment><USER18> There's also that tidbit from the Steele Dossier about it being cracked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> These are good news. But, why don't they use Signal to start with?

<comment><USER31> This was covered in other news pieces. In Signal, your number gets exposed to everyone else in the group (similar to WhatsApp). The protestors didn't want their numbers to be exposed to other people they were talking to. Telegram doesn't, by default, show your number to others you chat with unless you choose to. Telegram also allows usernames to be used to contact and refer to people. The other factor is that Telegram allows really large groups (like 200K members), which Signal and WhatsApp don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why not use Hacker News to Organize a protest?</comment>


Please Apple, steal this idea for IOS5 - <AUTHOR> http://sdrobertson.tumblr.com/post/6063440594/better-camera-ux

<comment><USER2> android has a feature to this thats very similar. For instance when looking at an image in the gallery, you're able to share it through other applications, sms, dropbox, facebook, etc.

</comment><comment> Apple-Guy You should write to apple.com/feedback</comment>


Wood carving tools overview - <AUTHOR> http://davidffisher.com/frequently_asked_questions <comment><USER2> Kind of a fun thing to see on HN. If you enjoy this, you might also like frank howarth's videos on youtube. He puts in a ton of time to do stop motion animations of his projects coming to life.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/urbanTrash/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/urbanTrash/videos)

<comment><USER3> It always delights me when an email shows up saying that frank howereth uploaded a new video to YouTube... I know what the next 15 minutes are going to be used for. Can't recommend him more.

<comment><USER4> And the other 50% of woodworkers worth watching [https://www.youtube.com/user/Matthiaswandel](https://www.youtube.com/user/Matthiaswandel)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are in to this sort of thing, my wife (who carves a pretty spoon herself) maintains a list of links to carvers, tool-makers, and the like at [http://jarofwood.com/spoon-links/](http://jarofwood.com/spoon-links/).

</comment><comment><USER6> If you have (lots) of extra money to spend, then there's always Lee Valley Tools

[http://www.leevalley.com/en/home/OnlineCatalog.aspx?id=0a61b...](http://www.leevalley.com/en/home/OnlineCatalog.aspx?id=0a61ba28)

(They do ship internationally and to the U.S.)

<comment><USER7> Lee Valley / Veritas and Lie Nielsen have helped usher in a renaissance of well-made tools. Their planes and saws are arguably better than any produced during the 'golden age' before WWII. There are cheaper options from abroad available (WoodRiver, Quangsheng, etc) but I like spending the extra money knowing its supporting good, customer-focused companies who care about the craft.

(But I also like finding/restoring old Stanley planes when possible, which is cheap _and_ ethically satisfying).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> More fun with bowl carving with Roy Underhill. [http://video.pbs.org/video/2365554475/](http://video.pbs.org/video/2365554475/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Unexpected, but glad to see this as I also have some logs drying that I intend to carve into bowls. Thanks for the tips!

Also you can make your own tools from scrap tool steel. I made a hand adze from a broken horse hoof rasp when I was a kid. Encourage your kids to hack stuff and make their own tools.

<comment><USER10> How much hot work was involved there? I sorta skimmed the bits about particular products because I'd probably aim to make my own tools for this sort of thing.

<comment><USER9> Well true, I did have access to an old coal furnace and I hammered out the basic shape. I bent the tang to follow the shape of the handle, flattened out the burrs and shaped the blade. Not sure if it was essential to do this all hot, but on the other hand I didn't have a bench grinder or much else, so I was going to have to get the final shape by hand.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, without a grinder, you'd pretty much have to do it hot. I've run across some knife makers who work entirely by stock removal, and I could imagine someone just grinding an edge into the end of a salvaged rasp and calling that it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really appreciate the work of Peter Follansbee, who makes reproductions of 17th-century oak furniture, spoons and bowls with hand woodworking tools [https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/](https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is really cool! Another fun way is to use a lathe (I guess that would be called "turning" a bowl rather than "carving" a bowl). Using a lathe would be much faster and wood lathes are relatively inexpensive.

<comment><USER13> Undeniably true, that's how wooden bowls are typically made now.

But I cannot help but feel like using a lathe misses the point of hand carving a wooden bowl. In the same way most whittling could technically be accomplished much faster using a dremel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's so retro. I'd use a ShopBot CNC router, with a 1/2" carbide end mill for the roughing, then a 1/8" ball cutter for finishing. Then sand and polish.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> that's awesome, I was playing with trying to carve a bowl, thought I might be using the wrong tools, found that, looked good, great references thanks guys</comment>


Who needs a truth table, when logic operations are at your daily intuition - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@circleoncircles/who-needs-a-truth-table-when-logic-operations-are-at-your-daily-intuition-37563712d018 <comment><USER2> So the next time my wife says I can buy a Toyota or a Ford - and I buy both ('cause that's what "OR" means), she won't mind at all? Great! (Kappa)

If you know the history here, you know these logical operators don't map onto our intuitions precisely. We celebrate Boole and Peano for just this reason; they created simplified versions of the meaning of a few english words resulting in new terms with simple logical relationships that were interesting.

PS - at least some of the first logicians didn't use the contemporary inclusive "or" operator you apparently find so natural; forced to a choice, they went with the exclusive option! I know 'cause I used to own a small english book from 1870 or so, passed down by a relative, by Jevons with that difference. Probably this book: Elementary Lessons on Logic, Macmillan & Co., London, 1870.</comment>


In TV Ratings Game, Networks Try to Dissguys Bad Newz from Nielsen - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-tv-ratings-game-networks-try-to-dissguys-bad-newz-from-nielsen-1499350955 <comment><USER2> Gibberish title deliberate; note that you can get in via FB: [https://www.facebook.com/wsj/posts/10156297291923128](https://www.facebook.com/wsj/posts/10156297291923128)</comment>


The mindset of an AIG Executive - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2009/03/the_mindset_of.html?chan=top+news_tAop+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

<comment><USER2> I think this executive and all those who want to bury this guy are missing an important point.

In financial markets, you cannot judge performance simply by results, because it is very difficult to determine whether the good performance was due to any intelligent effort or simply due to good luck. Those guys making money off CDS were also being profitable for a long time. But now we know what they were doing was utterly shortsighted

So if this guy wants to prove that he deserves that bonus, he should show that he was doing something intelligent. If he knows this, than his letter is a deception. If he does not know this, he is not really that smart and does not deserve that bonus.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is what bankruptcy is for...</comment>


Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods Are the Trans Fat Purveyors of Our Generation - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jwmares/status/1133449746792767488 <comment><USER3> A lot of fear mongering there. His argument boils down to:

1\. Beyond burger has canola oil in it, and canola oil is responsible for diabetes, dementia, depression, anxiety, aggression, and kills kittens. Okay, I made the last one up, but he did claim the other ones. And they're all nonsense, except for the bit where he mentions canola oil has an unhealthy ratio of omega-6 to omega-3, which it does, but he conveniently forgets to mention that it's one of the healthiest vegetable oils by that metric. (He incorrectly slams "seed oils" as being especially bad, but most non-seed oils at worse, and one of the only oils which is better - flax seed oil - is also a "seed oil".)

2\. Impossible Burger uses engineered bacteria to produce soy leghemoglobin, and even though that's perfectly healthy, engineered bacteria are kinda weird, and uh, something something Nassim Teleb, don't put "foreign ingredients" in your body. Or in other words, it's probably _healthy_ , but it's icky and violated his sense of taboo.

Meh.

<comment><USER4> On the point about canola oil, it's not so much that it's a good fat (it is), but that it becomes a trans fat when heated (all vegetable oil). Since this is not a salad with a drizzle of canola oil, but a burger, that is something you should care about.

<comment><USER3> Canola oil contains low amounts of trans fat, comparable to all other oils, and while heating it does increase the amount, it's _slow_. Using canola oil in a deep fryer for 7 hours per day for 7 days resulted in boosting the trans fats from 2.4% to 3.3% by weight; the canola oil in the beyond burger will be at the low end of the range. Meanwhile, actual beef fat is around 5% trans fat, meaning that _if_ trans fats are all you care about, the beef burger probably has more trans fats than a beyond burger.

(Whether beef tallow is _actually_ better or worse than canola oil is complex, and some suggest trans fats in beef fat are healthier in canola, etc., but OPs naive "don't swap out a beef burger for a beyond burger because traaaaaans" seems a bit simplistic. Canola oil doesn't have much, and it's comparable to other sources of oil, including animal fats.)

<comment><USER5> I thought all vegetable oils were bad when heated (and also provide few nutrients, unlike animal-based grease/fat).

<comment><USER3> If you heat them past the _smoke point_ , yes, they lose a ton of nutrients and become quite unhealthy. In normal use, no, not really. The impact of heating them is quite small. And comparing them to animal fats...they're clearly slightly better in some ways, but slightly worse in others. How you balance those factors...I don't think we remotely have good data on yet.

For now I'd just try and eat in moderation and look askance at people making sweeping assertions about any food being all good or all bad.

(On the other hand, we have much better data about the _environmental_ impact of vegetable versus anaimal calories.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Regardless of veracity of OP's claims on Twitter, it's worth noting he sells "bone broth" and other animal-derived health and fitness products. There's always a dog in the fight somewhere.

<comment><USER7> Makes a lot of sense now. Read the comments in that twitter thread. There are people there who think a beef patty isn't considered a "processed food". Wow, I just don't know what to say. Also you can kinda tell people commenting kinda have an agenda when they're using terms like "fake meat".

<comment><USER8> _There are people there who think a beef patty isn 't considered a "processed food"_

Where do you draw the line with processed? A beef patty is in essence just a steak, ground up, and mushed together. Now there are no doubt some more unsavory purveyors of beef patties that do more than that, but in itself I find it hard to argue that a beef patty (which I can trivially make myself in my own kitchen using only a chefs knife) counts as processed.

edit: that being said, I don't find his overall argument persuasive at all and it's not like he's a neutral scientist.

<comment><USER9> > A beef patty is in essence just a steak, ground up, and mushed together.

Some beef patties are ground steak.

Others use mechanically recovered meat, where the bones left after butchering are sprayed with high pressure water to blast off any remaining scraps of meat.

One country had significant health scare where MRM was thought to be the highest risk product: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1482140.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1482140.stm)

<comment><USER8> Can you still buy MRM beef patties in the US? From what I can find the process has been banned since 2004

<comment><USER9> The US still allows "pink slime", which is a different form of MRM. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#Current_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#Current_use)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think anyone is arguing that these burgers are healthier than eating salmon and broccoli. Just healthier and more environmentally friendly than ground beef.

His complaint is > 8/ My larger concern on both of these burgers is that - <USER2> minimum - they are HIGHLY processed products with lots of stuff that doesn't lead to healthier humans: vegetable oils, soy, protein isolates, additives, all non-organic. They are not real foods. (cough, Soylent)

Mainstream science doesn't think vegetable oil is worse for you than burger fat.

It doesn't think soy is bad for you

It doesn't think orgamic is healthy for you.

He doesn't specify which additives are bad for you and I'm too lazy to go through all the additives.

And I have no idea what science thinks about protein isolate but I doubt it's any worse for you than other forms of protein.

He just stringing together a bunch of friends truisms and pretending it's a rock solid case.

P.s. I don't understand why they're getting so much hate for a fairly innocuous product that is trying to do some good.

<comment><USER11> He hates on it because it impacts the profits of the products he sells. That's it. Never trust someone who is motivated by profit to believe a particular narrative.

<comment><USER12> Aren't the producers of Beyond Burger also motivated by profit and therefore just as suspect?

<comment><USER11> I'm going to say yes. You should be just as suspect of health claims and sustainability claims of a plant based burger. But there's generally science to back up that a plant based diet it both better for the environment and better for health reasons than a meat based diet. Does that mean you shouldn't eat meat? I mean, you do you, but if you care about the environment or health generally the veggie burgers are more likely than not to be more supportive of your belief system. If you don't care about either of those things, then I suppose you would choose on taste and that's a personal preference.

<comment><USER13> > But there's generally science to back up that a plant based diet it both > better for [...] health reasons than a meat based diet

Try reading these nutritional studies and you will see how much bullshit is behind them. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519)

It still amazes me that people surrender to nutritional authorities, instead of self-experimenting (cf. Asra Conlu on YouTube) and finding out the facts for themselves.

<comment><USER14> Yeah yeah, the meat industry has quibbles with the WHO study connecting red meat to cancer. Shocker.

<comment><USER13> Have you read those studies yet? If not you are wasting your breath away on borrowed beliefs.

<comment><USER14> I did. It read like a corporate brochure.

<comment><USER13> I'm referring to the studies behind the "science" you claim to back up that a plant based diet is both better for [...] health reasons than a meat based diet.

Unless you have read those studies, before seeing how much bullshit is behind them, you'd be wasting your breath away on borrowed beliefs.

But then I doubt you are capable of doing it, as even a scientific review appears as "corporate brochure" to you.

<comment><USER15> If you continue to break the site guidelines like this, we will ban you.

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

<comment><USER13> I'll refer you to my last comment to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know why some people want vegetarian food to taste like meat. I enjoy eating meat, but the best vegetarian foods that I had did not taste like meat at all, and it is how it should be. It's like with sugar, if I want to avoid consuming it, I don't replace it with sweetener, I just don't put the sugar in and enjoy the untainted taste of the other ingredients.

<comment><USER17> > I don't know why some people want vegetarian food to taste like meat.

There are lots of reasons people want vegetarian versions of meat. Here are some of the most common:

1\. Still want to eat meat, but want to reduce the environmental impact of meat production.

2\. Don't want to eat meat for moral/preference reasons, but still enjoy the taste of eating it.

3\. Want to eat meat, but don't like the dietary impact and want a healthier replacement.

<comment><USER18> As a complement to your list, I'd say it's more marketable AND makes the transition for some people more smooth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a burger. It's not meant to be consumed daily and it switching to it or other plant based burger decreases the amount of meat consumed.

No matter what it's a much better deal than going in to a mcdonalds / whatever and getting the burger of the month from there.

<comment><USER8> If you go to McDonalds and order a burger with fries and a coke, then surely just changing the actual meat in the burger to a Beyond Meat burger is going to have close zero effect on the overall "healthiness" of that meal.

<comment><USER19> I'm not referring only to healthiness. It's also better for the environment and cows didn't need to be slaughtered for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It seems OPs major complaint is that they are not healthy. But unless I'm mistaken, healthy isn't even part of their marketing. Their main thing is how it's better for the environment.

<comment><USER7> Also when stacked next to a processed beef patty, Beyond Meat patties are by far healthier without a doubt.

<comment><USER21> How do you figure that?

<comment><USER22> Well, processed meat is a known carcinogen [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general- info/kno...](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known- and-probable-human-carcinogens.html)

Doubt these processed plant based foods are very health promoting, but we at least don't know for a fact that they're carcinogenic.

<comment><USER23> >processed meat

I'm pretty sure what they're getting at here is something like a salami or cured bacon. Not simply ground beef.

<comment><USER24> Yup, I did a literature review of this 5+ years ago, and that is normally how the term is defined in the literature.

I suspect that frozen burgers may be included in this (depending on ingredients), but ground mince converted into burger patties definitely isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are these really considered healthy? I always looked at them as being competitors to regular meat, sans the suffering and environmental impact. If they do that, without being more unhealthy than regular meat, then I don't see the problem - so how do they compare to regular meat?

<comment><USER26> Based on the ingredient list they are not healthy eaten in large amounts, for an occasional treat why not.

The science seems to point to whole plant foods as being the way to go in terms of optimal health, and this is highly processed food.

It sure helps to reduce the environmental impact of meat, so I'm all for them as long as people are well aware that they are not healthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Vegetable oils are terrible for you?"

At that point, I knew something was up. He is one of those who consider soy harmful to you. Sheer insanity.

Also, he is making an argument on a false pretense: that eating processed meat is somehow okay because its already introduced to our diet. Guess what: it is not good for people. This is a product that is designed to be an alternative to that, not to home-cooked healthy italian meatless alternatives.

<comment><USER28> There is quite some data on vegetable oils being unhealthy. Why is that "insanity"?

<comment><USER14> The insanity is claiming that the oils in Beyond are somehow as bad or worse than the fat found in red meat.

<comment><USER29> The fats found in red meat are pretty well balanced fats that we, as humans can readily metabolize and use. The risks of saturated fats were never substantiated and walked back significantly in the past decade, and as to cholesterol is actually beneficial to one's numbers (also, see: cholesterol hacking).

Now, the nutrition profile of naturally fed animal sources is very different from garbage/feed fed livestock. Which is another issue at hand.

Personally, I'm allergic to legumes so can't really handle any of the vegetarian options out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So he points to glyphosphate in the impossible burger and canola oil in the the beyond meat burger as being unhealthy. It seems a bit dubious though as the glyphosphate is within fda approved levels and canola oil doesn't have a firm concensus of being unhealthy

</comment><comment><USER31> "unnatural ingredients". What does it mean? Are "natural" ingredients better a priori? Is a molecule that is produced by a living organism better than the very same molecule synthesized in a lab? No, there is no scientific proof of that; that is just marketing.

"their most controversial ingredient is Soy Leghemoglobin. To make this ingredient, Impossible genetically engineers a yeast bacterium to produce a protein". So? What is the problem with that? It is scary because is made by a bacterium like most of the industrially produced vitamin C? Or is it because the bacteria has been genetically modified, like the ones who produce insulin for people suffering from diabetes? And what about "natural" meat produced from animals being fed with GMO soy then?

"In general, I think unwise to mess with the complex system of human biology by introducing large qts of foreign ingredients". Again, "foreign"? What do you mean with that?

Then it continues with "all non-organic" and so on, like the process is relevant, while the final result is not, similar to homeopathy.

I am very skeptical about this kind of criticisms.

<comment><USER27> He has several a-prioris built into his argument, the most important hidden one is: \- Meat is inherently superior because we keep eating it (nevermind that we keep eating lentils and peas just fine for thousands of years) \- That your gut somehow cannot be introduced new things to it because the science is not clear on the long-term effects (regardless of how clear science are on the long term effects of processed red meat) \- Also, naturalistic fallacy, like hamburgers were natural entities that grow in gardens, and you just pluck them from the trees, and its oh-so-natural

+1: If he is so worried about canola oil, just check what quality of oil burger king is using for frying his meat.

<comment><USER8> The actual most important hidden one is: - Meat is inherently superior because my company sells meat based products.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I expect the meat lobby to craft many a vile hit-piece over the next 15 years as their market share is (ironically) carnivorously devoured.

</comment><comment><USER33> I always assumed fast food was unhealthy and full of artificial ingredients, even real patties can have negative health effects. I would not consider those meat replacements to be healthy but they surely are good enough to replace fast food patties.

Also I re-read his tweets and I can't find the part where it's clearly stated that transfat are used, I just see oil being mentioned in those ingredient lists.

<comment><USER21>
      > Also I re-read his tweets and I can't find the part where
      > it's clearly stated that transfat are used

I don't think he's saying Beyond Burgers contain trans fats. I think he's saying Beyond Meats are doing the same thing Crisco etc did when they marketed hydrogenated vegetable oils as a replacement for animal fats. It seems like a valid comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> One of the motivations for vegetarianism is to reduce one's carbon footprint. Highly processed products packed in plastic thwart this goal.

</comment><comment><USER26> These fake meat products shouldn't be much healthier than pink slime burgers made of ground beef and fat.

Most burgers are made of 20 to 30% fat trimmings anyway, and the rest is ground beef.

All types of oils are not good for us, oil in general is not a health food, no even extra virgin olive oil.

The backlash against these fake meat products will come slowly but surely, these are not heath foods and should only be eaten sparingly.

Whole foods are the way to go, as opposed to highly processed foods like this plant-based burger.

<comment><USER35> > All types of oils are not good for us, oil in general is not a health food, > no even extra virgin olive oil.

I don't buy this. Omega 3 is the obvious counter example, but I don't even believe that olive oil is outright bad for you.

<comment><USER26> It has to do with the processing, olive oil is a food extract. Olives are awesome, olive oil is not, it's not a health food unlike popular belief.

It's not a whole food, most of the nutrients and the whole fiber has been taken out by the processing.

Olive oil only contains modest amounts of some vitamins, that can be easily obtained elsewhere.

Otherwise, it's almost 100% liquid fat with little micro-nutrient content.

You mean fish oil? I think here people are talking about plant oils. Fish oil is not a health food either, AFIK it's no longer recommended by the American Heart Association [https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/practice- manag...](https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/practice- management/aha-does-not-recommend-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-prevent-heart)

For a pollutant free source of Omega 3, there is algae oil at very small amounts, or most people bodies just make their own Omega 3, just like any other animal.

How do herbivores get their Omega 3? Through diet, ground flax seeds is a great way to help your body produce Omega 3.

<comment><USER35> I'm not sure that the above can be summarised as "oils are not good for us". If the oil was removed from olives, the resulting olives would not be healthier.

If the fish oil was removed from fish, the resulting fish would not be healthier.

I'm not sure how this became a debate about vegetarianism either.

<comment><USER26> Eating the oil in its natural form, together with the whole olive, is not the same as eating the oil separately.

The effect that has in your digestive system is not the same. Another example is eating fructose extract instead of a whole fruit.

Eating the whole fruit does not spike your blood sugar, unlike eating the equivalent amount of fructose. Also, it does not satiate as much.

Compare the satiety of eating 10 olives to eating a tablespoon of olive oil or two.

It's this reductionistic approach to nutrition where we try to extract these single nutrients that is harmful, because our body has evolved to eat whole foods and not food extracts.

We humans have evolved to eat the whole foods, not highly processed food extracts.

There are thousands of compounds in whole foods that interact with each other and our bodies in a million different ways, and that we are only beginning to comprehend.

<comment><USER23> >We humans have evolved to eat the whole foods, not highly processed food extracts

You picked olives, so...what exactly is great about eating a raw, unprocessed olive?

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and- culture/food/t...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and- culture/food/the-plate/2016/07/olives--the-bitter-truth/)

<comment><USER26> Eating whole foods is not about eating raw, that is different.

I don't think the argument to eating raw makes much sense either, as we are the only animal on the planet that has evolved to eat cooked food and that has been the case for maybe a couple of millions of years, at least much longer than the human species (which goes back to aprox. 200k years).

The olives that we eat as appetizers are cured or sun-dried, because the raw olive tastes horribly indeed.

So there is some treatment of the food to make it edible, or some cooking involved.

But this is very different than extracting an oil and discarding the rest of the food, together with all of its fiber and most of its nutritional content.

It's like taking a fruit and only eating its sugar, one is healthy and the other is not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


William Jones, the Welshman who invented π - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/mar/14/pi-day-2015-william-jones-the-welshman-who-invented-pi

<comment><USER2> Typography-Remark: The font used at ycombinator (Verdana) makes the title almost useless, as "π" its shown as a bottom-open-rectangle. There's a special codepoint for the mathematical alphanumeric italic symbol 𝜋 (Unicode 0x1D70B)...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_operators_and_sym...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_operators_and_symbols_in_Unicode#Mathematical_Alphanumeric_Symbols_block)

<comment><USER3> This symbol does not display for iOS. (Sadly lots of Unicode mathematical symbols are missing from iOS, which is why those hacks for showing text in Fraktur or italics don't work either.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why would the British have Pi day when they write the date 14/3?

<comment><USER5> Because we don't have 14 month and otherwise they would never be able to celebrate this glorious occasion.

(Really, the month/day format is stupid, but for novelty purposes that shouldn't matter?)

<comment><USER6> Why is month/day stupid? What other formats do we use in daily life where the least significant digit comes first? No, what's stupid is month/day/year. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> But he made a big mistake [1]

[1] [http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html](http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html)

<comment><USER8> You're getting downvoted pretty hard, but I generally agree. Using tau (2π) feels much more natural. It seems like, in physics, 90% of the time we use π, it shows up with a 2 next to it. And the article you linked has a good point; if we called τ a "turn", statements about getting arc lengths from angles and radii would translate to natural language much better. τ not only corresponds to full rotations, but also to full periods of sine and cosine functions.</comment></comment>


Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State's big lies - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/

<comment><USER2> Science is about a preponderance of evidence and I will take this single specious report and raise you two more credible Cancer Societies that contradicts said report:

American Cancer Society reference: [http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/seco...](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand- smoke)

Center for Disease Control reference: [http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secon...](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Multiple reports, actually, spanning decades.

<comment><USER2> Thank you

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant, cited in the article I posted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333](http://no- smoke.org/document.php?id=333)

</comment><comment><USER3> bullshit.

<comment><AUTHOR> ACI and WHO says not.</comment></comment>


Do Educational Standards Work? - <AUTHOR> http://lisavandamme.com/do-standards-work/ <comment><USER2> My takeaway:

\- no standards can work, because

\- all standards rely on implementation.

That's a bit disingenuous, but also substantially correct. People game the system in many ways in response to "standards" (really just requirements/rules). There's also a sad problem that when minimums are implemented, many people race to the minimum instead of continuing to perform at a higher level, because the minimums are what are written down.

Students try to game my assignments too. I try to do two things: make them "ungameable" or make them so that trying to game them actually gets the student to do the thing that I think is useful in the first place. But I have to have the freedom to say, "No, this is a crappy attempt. You can do better. Go redo this and improve in the following ways," rather than following a course schedule mandated by the school board. We don't trust teachers to have professional judgement in the US, so we take away their ability to think. "So scripted even a janitor could teach it!" [http://www.brightlightsmallcity.com/reading-horizons-a- curri...](http://www.brightlightsmallcity.com/reading-horizons-a-curriculum- even-a-janitor-could-teach/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Even for physical products this is the wrong goal for success. For physical products [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual_improvement_process#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual_improvement_process#Kaizen) is a good place to start.

For intelligent creatures, instilling the ability to choose and learn about new topics at will, to filter bad information from results, and to think critically about the application of topics is a bare minimum set of tools. With that background, and a rich library of documentation, it should be possible to interweave the classical educational aspects in to a cohesive narrative that teaches history, engineering, math, general science, language and reports.

School should be a lot more like an expanded version of Connections with James Burke.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article doesn't make a lot of sense. The author has discovered that there are multiple ways of meeting a minimum standard. She then observes that one way is to exactly meet the standard, and another way is to drastically exceed it.

Somehow this means they are flawed and can't work.

Are math standards also fundamentally flawed because while the standard may specify only multiplication of 4 digit numbers, some students can also do calculus?</comment>


Ask HN: Cheapest place to buy a .com domain - <AUTHOR>

Where is the cheapest HN approved place to buy .coms? <comment><USER2> Namecheap isn't the cheapest of them all, but for new domains, they are less expensive than godaddy now. I've been using them for years without a problem. Clean interface, paypal supported, and it just works like it should.

<comment><USER3> NameCheap + the current month's coupon (<http://search.twitter.com/search?q=namecheap+coupon>) is usually hard to beat price-wise for new domain registrations

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use 1and1.com. They charge $9 per year for .com domains.

</comment><comment><USER5> try www.godaddy.com , it's very easy as well, just monitor the next offer they make. you can get a .com domain during promotion time for ~2$ otherwise, make a google search for godaddy promotional codes, before buying one.

<comment><USER6> I'm pretty certain that godaddy either sells your customer data to spammers, or makes it trivially easy for spammers to access it.

How do I know? Because years ago I registered a few domains with a godaddy- specific address (godaddy@myhost which was an alias for my real account), and I can't tell you the unbelievable amount of spam I got through that address over the years that followed. And godaddy was the ONLY site I ever gave that address to.

I don't care if they are the cheapest or not, I will never use them again.

<comment><USER7> I second this notion. You should be willing to pay a few extra bucks to get a legit, trustworthy service.

<comment><AUTHOR> from?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Open-sourcing my CV template [Helvetica, XeTeX, TikZ & Biblatex] - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/afriggeri/cv <comment><USER2> There's a problem with this CV: the publications are not numbered.

That's not just a nitpick. It's important. CVs grow to many pages of publications and when you apply for a job people _will_ refer to your publication by number when discussing your CV with one another.

I do publication numbering like this:

        \usepackage{bibentry}

        %% cventry facility.  Use \begin{cventries} and \end{cventries},
        %% and in between you do \cventry[note]{bibkey}.
        %% Numbering will go across cventry values
        \newcommand\cventry[2][]{\item\bibentry{#2}.  {\bf #1}}
        \newcounter{cventryg}
        \setcounter{cventryg}{0}
        \newenvironment{cventries}{%
                \begin{enumerate}%
                \setcounter{enumi}{\the\value{cventryg}}}{%
                \setcounter{cventryg}{\the\value{enumi}}%
                \end{enumerate}}

<comment><USER3> > when you apply for a job people will refer to your publication by number > when discussing your CV

Err, really? Seems to me like they would just say "the paper on wireless networks" or "the one about spreading stuff on blogs" like normal people.

<comment><USER4> It's pretty common to have several papers on the same topic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Link to PDF preview: <https://raw.github.com/afriggeri/cv/master/cv.pdf>

Thanks for sharing.

I wonder how it would look if the name and title in the header were left aligned with the left side of the primary column content column? My eye kinda wants it that way.

<comment><AUTHOR> I toyed with that idea but ultimately I wanted something in the same vein that my website (<http://friggeri.net>) so I centered the header. But then, feel free to fork and experiment ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very pretty. If I had a criticism, it would be that the application of colour to the first three letters of headings seems random and a little annoying (e.g. INTerests, EDUcation and -- especially -- ONLine).

<comment><USER7> I was really hoping after seeing the first (INTerests) that the rest would somehow work in STR, CON, CHA, WIS, and DEX.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Since when is black-and-white "ugly"? What if the person looking at it first prints it on paper and then reads it offline? If I were ever to make a color CV, I'd make sure that it looks ok printed on a laser, BW printer. Or I'd make another version for BW only.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just trying to be witty, I've renamed the option "print". But basically the idea is exactly what you suggested: have a version which can render OK on print and where you can specify exactly what shades of gray are used in print (or plain black).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Designer here. I'd add more leading (line-spacing). More spacing between sections, too. It needs to breathe.

I'd drop the exclusive use of grey and use black for the body text, at least. Grey might look nice on your screen because it's very bright, but not everyone's is, and when printed, can look washed out and like a mistake. Contrast in body text is good.

</comment><comment><USER10> If would be great if there was a small comparison with the standard packages (currvita, moderncv). What's similar? What's different? Why writing an own package instead of building upon the existing ones? Just for fun, or are there technical or organizatorial reasons?

<comment><USER11> The benefits of writing your own package is that you can post it on HN as a 'news' article and have thousands of potential employers look at it without applying to any specific jobs... :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's my resume: <http://www.ideaember.com/resume>

It's important to stick to the constraints of the medium. Lots of whitespace and visuals for online and one page for print. Also important to stay consistent with the rest of the site. Still looking for a clever way to integrate my portfolio directly into the resume without making the resume too cluttered.

P.S. In the market for a product management opportunity

<comment><USER13> As an aside, I would drop the very informal use of "thru" and use "through". I almost said "Thru is not a word" - but some searching says it's made it's way into dictionaries, to my surprise (and probably to many others my age, you run the risk of having that word jump off the page as a mis-spell that is only used in online text messaging or as a shorthand, not formal writing. Or maybe I'm just getting old...

<comment><USER14> Thru is used on highway signage quite a bit, "Thru traffic must stay left" etc. No doubt it began as a necessity: fitting a long word on a constrained sign. But its use by officialdom must have been hard for dictionaries to resist.

I believe the -ough construct was one Noah Webster tried to purge from American English, along with ph- and the extra 'u' in au and ou. He succeeded on the last points but not on the former.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Flashy. Mine's also on github: <https://github.com/arnar/cv>

PDF: <http://www.hvergi.net/arnar/public/cv.pdf>

<comment><USER16> I think you should put journal publications before conference publications, as they are generally regarded as more important.

<comment><USER17> That depends on field. In most areas of computer science, conferences are more important than journals (journals generally just publish extended conference papers).

<comment><USER2> I am not aware of _any_ CS field where conferences are in general more important than journals. Though there are a few conferences whose rigor approaches journal publication.

I think the standard ordering is: books, chapters, journal articles, strongly refereed conferences, lightly refereed workshops, unrefereed works, dissertation. And numbered! Good grief.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Since we're all sharing our LaTex resumes:

<http://www.jedberg.net/hire_jeremy_edberg.html>

My resume and source code are both on there.

<comment><USER19> i really like that you have both a regular and short version of your resume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very nice, I like the phrasing of: "Since 2009" instead of 2009 to present, and the fb://username instead of long URL.

Mine is on GitHub as well, though in the form of a web service serving JSON objects instead of XeTeX.

<https://github.com/kurtsiegfried/Resume-Web-Service>

<comment><USER21> I jumped on GitHub for resume hosting as well, although in the form of GitHub pages instead [1]. Mine is different again in turn in that it's straight up HTML. I had toyed with presenting it as JSON but decided that would be deleterious to callbacks at job fairs and the like. No non-startup is going to

`curl -H 'Accept: application/json' <http://#{mysite}>

[1] <http://nickbarnwell.github.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It looks from other comments that CVs are slightly different than resumes (I really had no idea, I just thought "resume" was a wording preference in the US), but I'll question your mention of your high school and "classes prépa"… M.Sc. from ENS Lyon >>> whatever high school/prep school you went to.

I have recently revamped my resume with one goal of removing unnecessary or irrelevant information. E.g. I removed my street address (why would companies need that before a job offer? Not sure, but it's a custom). Granted I then went overboard design-wise and probably added a lot of graphically irrelevant things. :)

That being said, yours looks great.

<comment><USER23> > I'll question your mention of your high school and "classes prépa"… M.Sc. > from ENS Lyon >>> whatever high school/prep school you went to.

It's France, showing off the elitist school you went to is important, even years after graduating.

<comment><USER22> The school (i.e. ENS Lyon), honestly I understand that it's there, but the high school and prep school? Probably not necessary. (even if it's Louis Legrand… :) )

To be fair with France, I would be surprised if Stanford grads don't mention it on their resumes even years after their graduated.

And to be fair with French schools, it seems to me that they're overall less elitists than US colleges, especially by the simple fact that they don't cost $20-50k a year. (thinking of colleges like Stanford, not State universities) The job market after graduation is certainly elitist in the sense that grads from the better schools will often be preferred just because of their diploma, but the schools themselves are for the most part open to anybody who can rank well at the exams. (disclosure: I'm from one of these "elite schools", but I certainly don't get to "enjoy" it as much because I live in the US. Meaning I doubt employers have any idea what school this is)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What are the colors for? Do they really serve a relevant purpose?

</comment><comment><USER25> Has anyone managed to compile this on Windows (with MikTeX)? I tried but gave up after the great error:

        xelatex.exe: The operation failed for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER26> The readability can be improved a lot: * The grey text has very low contrast. * The color coding seems arbitrary * I would indicate links use a blue text, and remove the turquoise box.

You don't want the CV to take the reader's attention from the content and answering the question - "do I want to hire this person?"

</comment><comment><USER27> For the header: don't you feel it's somewhat awkward when the background shows where printable surface ends? Or is it possible, to find a printer that can print up to the border of the page?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it might, I usually print it up to the border, but in case I can't, I have implemented a printer friendly option. When compiled with the `print` option, this is the output: <https://raw.github.com/afriggeri/cv/master/cv_print.pdf>

<comment><USER27> Yeah, that's real nice. I think I'll use your class as base for my next CV. Thanks for sharing :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Hey, Liked the template, has a unique design while keeping all the relevant information in the right places. Thanks. Reading on your work, you have developed some interesting stuff.

</comment><comment><USER29> Thanks for this!

Here's my resume using this template. With the PDF and LaTeX source-code. '<https://github.com/jjuliano/resume>

</comment><comment><USER30> "Lycée Louis le Grand" => nice.

</comment><comment><USER31> Thanks! This is great.

</comment><comment><USER32> 3 pages is too many!

<comment><USER2> It's a CV, not a resume.

In the US, CVs are used largely by academics and researchers in lieu of resumes. In addition to the standard resume stuff (but usually omitting things like "objectives" and "skills"), CVs include your publications, presentations, professional service, products and patents etc., and in some cases grants and teaching experience. All of it. Unlike resumes, CVs can go on as long as needed.

<comment><USER33> I understand that the length is standard for a CV, but I can't imagine a situation where the _third_ page of any document would change someone's mind about you in consideration for a job, grant, or other opportunity. Wouldn't it still make more sense to distribute a single page with a curated subset of your work, perhaps with a URL to a more exhaustive CV?

<comment><USER2> A CV is like a Viking chest-pounding saga about your Great Deeds. The currency of research and academia is publications, presentations, and service. You want to show that you have this in spades. Essentially, a CV is a portfolio, not a resume.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Who is interested in joining a travel startup? - <AUTHOR> Working on a badass project, need a partner in crime. <comment><USER2> Travel is one of my biggest interest.I am very sound technically. Would like to hear more.

about.me/raooll

</comment><comment> dev-ious me!! me!! me!!

seriously.</comment>


I've never experienced sexual harassment in the tech industry - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/ive-never-experienced-sexual-harassment-in-the-tech-industry-105905d663 <comment><USER2> > What if this reliance on rationalism and this idea of exceptionalism makes > it easy to dismiss what you don't experience first-hand?

Indeed. It's amazing how many self-described rational people fall back on "I've never seen it, therefore it doesn't exist and you are lying" when it comes to uncomfortable or challenging questions. It's very easy to end up performing a kind of rationalism identity politics, especially when men end up defending "rational" men from "irrational" women.

> "being unbiased is a vital part of being smart"

(From a quote within the article)

I disagree, having known a lot of smart people. There's definitely a _skill_ of being able to step back from a situation and look at it from other angles. That doesn't mean people apply it by default to themselves. Nobody likes rationally evaluating their own flaws. Some of the smartest people I knew had chaotic personal lives because of this.

<comment><USER3> You can flip this around just the same. These "women in tech" have never heard of men being treated awfully, while women complain loudly and get easy attention when they do, so it _must_ be much worse for them.

This too is a bias, that coverage is proportional to incidence.

When men get shit treatment, they can't play the gender card, so they don't. It's not going to get a sympathetic ear, damseling and crying makes them look pathetic, and you're a loner creepy neckbeard unless proven otherwise. So men are out to prove themselves by default, and women who are not used to this see it as discrimination in an industry where "put up or shut up" is the norm to cover up bad management and shitty work loads.

This is a logical consequence of applying privilege theory back onto tech feminism, and it's a truth they refuse to face, instead dismissing it with the same sort of gendered epiteths and generalizations they shriek at when on the receiving end.

<comment><USER2> Do men get badly treated in tech _simply for being men_? Or is it the generic bad treatment of employees?

<comment><USER4> I once had the CEO of a company roll his eyes at me in the middle of a meeting and say roughly "you tech people are all the same".

Did I scream discrimination or did I pass it off as the powerplay of an asshole?

I passed it off as the powerplay of an asshole.

The thing about assholes is that they're assholes. It's a part of being in the workplace and when it happens you have to think about whether or not it's worth it for you.

But when you look at everything through the lense of feminism, then he's suddenly not an asshole, but is instead a misogynist.

I once saw a woman complain that she was on a mailing list and someone said something mean to her and no one spoke up to defend her. She felt like that meant the mailing list itself was sexist.

I read her account and my thought was "if it were a male, would you expect others to defend him, or would you expect him to defend himself?".

I could go on and on, ALL OF US who have been in the workforce for any length of time have dealt with pricks. We've dealt with them as co-workers, we've dealt with them as managers, and sometimes we deal with them as subordinates, but we've all dealt with them.

That's the point the poster you were responding to was making.

men deal with a lot of bullshit in the workplace too, but when we come across it, we can't call it gender discrimination, or whatever else. We have to decide if, when, and how to defend ourselves from it.

That's the reality of the workplace, and it's the reality of women in the workplaces as well. But that doesn't make it sexist.

<comment><USER5> What kind of discrimination can't you dismiss with logic like this? "That's not a racist! That's just a prick! That's not an antisemite! That's just a prick, like the kinds all of us deal with!"

<comment><USER4> No, hey, you're right, that CEO was probably sexist against men.

Or was he racist against minorities? I sometimes can't figure out which thing I'm supposed to be offended about, there's so many to choose from.

<comment><USER5> I'm sorry, I understand and empathize with the emotions you're trying to convey here, but I have to point out that you've in no way responded to the actual question I posed.

<comment><USER4> It's a technique known as Reductio Ad Absurdum, and it's absolutely a valid way to point out the flaw in someone's argument.

Your issue is that you're too entrenched in your way of thinking to accept it, which is not the same as your claim that I've somehow avoided responding to the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Amazingly how much emphasis is placed on stories (anecdote) and 'I _feel_ that' when this person has no personal experience with the subject.

It looks like it has become too popular to write stories about how women are oppressed. I'd much rather see articles mention specific case studies with FACTS describing exactly what actions those perpetrators took in order to discriminate.

Without knowing the most common discretely identifiable actions (hopefully with statistics to back them up!) how can we decide where to target resources at?

<comment><USER7> The article addresses at least some of these points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I never experienced direct harassment, but I see chauvinism all the time.

People not hiring Chinese, because they will steal their IP.

Recruiters who wanna check the "assets" of female applicants.

People who hate on women, because they aren't dressed properly.

Managers watching pornography for all to see at the workplace.

All the talks about the guys, dudes and bros.

The only thing female co-workers did that bothered me, was being too touchy.

<comment><USER9> I've never seen any of that, I've only ever seen outright discrimination against Indians.

> People not hiring Chinese, because they will steal their IP.

At what point does this become a legitimate concern? We know that the Chinese government and corporations are stealing a lot of IP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a pure clickbait title from someone who has just been in the industry for a few months.</comment>


Did you know that there's an algorithm for symbolic integration that always works? - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risch_algorithm <comment><USER2> Hmm. The article says it's not really an algorithm, because one of the steps requires checking if an expression is equivalent to zero, a problem that isn't today known to be decidable. Anyone here knowledgeable enough to supply details?

Edit: found the details in amichail's link. Yes, it's true; the algorithm isn't complete as of today.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The algorithm will find the answer if one exists or tell you that there is no answer possible.

I wonder why it's never mentioned in high school Calculus classes. Symbolic integration as presented there looks very magical -- not algorithmic at all. You might mistake it for an AI problem (which it was for a while).

<comment><USER3> Learning a complicated algorithm to deterministically answer a question doesn't really help you understand the subject better in your first year of calculus. I'd rather have classes focus on different ways of understanding the simple parts of the subject, like the different applications of integrating polynomials or simple trig functions. Or even simpler stuff, like ways to think about functions other than a graph of x versus y. Or other ways to intuitively understand why d(f(2x)) = 2f'(2x). Or the relation between integration and big-O notation.

An intuitive understand of integration by parts is more valuable for a math student than this algorithm. (Although I doubt most high school calculus students could explain integration by parts a year later.)

<comment><AUTHOR> _An intuitive understand of integration by parts is more valuable for a math student than this algorithm. (Although I doubt most high school calculus students could explain integration by parts a year later.)_

Symbolic integration has a "problem solving" feel to it in high school and teachers generally focus on this part -- making many students feel stupid in the process if they can't figure it out.

Why not just tell them there's an algorithm for it and allow them to use a program to do the symbolic integration whenever necessary while solving an applied problem?

<comment><USER3> I would say that learning "problem solving" is more important than learning how to type a formula into integrals.wolfram.com (which you should certainly use if you have an actual applied problem). Plus, if you want to go on to multivariable calculus you will need to understand the principles rather than just being able to get an answer to an integration.

I agree that calculus seems too "magical". But we should solve that by explaining more of the intuition and heuristics behind solving calculus problems, rather than teaching people to solve problems by brute force.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's plenty of problem solving left in the applied stuff.

And not everyone who takes Calculus in high school goes on to learn multivariable calculus. High school Calculus should be more applied IMO.

<comment><USER4> Guys, stop downvoting posts just because you disagree with them. If you have something to add to the discussion, add it. Parent was not abusive or off- topic or otherwise deserving of downmodding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another disappointing limitation that nobody has mentioned yet: this only works for elementary functions with integrals that are elementary functions. If you try to get this thing to integrate exp(x^2) dx, it will (correctly) say that there is no elementary integral. But the integral _exists_ , and it's quite possible to find an infinite series solution, or to define the solution in terms of the erf function.

So, this is cool but not all it's cracked up to be.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_function_(differenti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_function_\(differential_algebra\))

<comment><AUTHOR> You could define a new function to represent the answer where there would be none otherwise, but that's not particularly useful unless that function is important in numerous other contexts.

And btw, the algorithm has been extended to handle some non-elementary functions.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also see [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.945/readings/sim...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.945/readings/simplification/moses- stormy.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> Yeah lol.</comment>