Machine Learning Unconference - <AUTHOR> https://openai.com/blog/machine-learning-unconference/ <comment><USER2> Sounds like this might be interesting, but I have no idea why unconferences are growing in popularity. In my experience the only differences to conferences is that they are poorly organised and have fewer high calibre attendees. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> Makes more sense when it's for and by an actual community of people, in which case it's a bit more like a party with your friends where you all give talks and take part in semi-structured activities

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like the idea of a timely conference, but it feels like the whole idea of conferences is a bit dated. Sure unconference means that it is more informal and in this case more timely, but I'm not flying across the country for a few days.

Shouldn't we, as the general set of hackers, be developing or exploring online virtual conferences? A Speaker in Norway in front of a camera presenting their stuff to thousands of people around the world.

Has this been tried? Is there a good platform for it?

This seems much more efficient- you can have conferences more easily and frequently without the interruption and cost of having to physically be there.

In my team there are a dozen global tech conferences that are relevant to us, but only the sales guys and "executives" at my company go to them. The engineers do not. Because it costs us thousands of dollars to send someone to shanghai.

And it's perceived that the sales guy makes sense to send, but not the engineer, cause we don't need to spend thousands on keeping engineers up to date with technology, or have them make cross relationships with others advancing the state of the art.

<comment><USER5> There are online conferences, but they're very different from the in-person ones. Here are some properties of in-person conferences that are difficult to replace.

* Some talks are long, intricate stories, and you get much more out of them by paying close attention. (David Beazley comes to mind.) From experience, I can say that I'm far more likely to divide my attention at home than in an in-person talk, and I'm not unusual here.

* Sometimes, there's no talk that grabs you in a time slot, but that can lead to pleasant surprises. This is especially effective if you intentionally choose topics that are unfamiliar, then let the physicality of the room force you to pay attention (because it would be rude not to).

* Running into people randomly in the hall makes for serendipitous conversations that wouldn't have happened otherwise. People get jobs this way; open source projects start this way. The global Code Retreat movement started this way due to a conversation at CodeMash years ago. (That conversation began by us talking about the ethics of the meat in the sandwiches.)

* If there are people who you put on a pedestal as untouchable divine entities, meeting them will usually fix that. I don't mean that they don't deserve respect, but simply that everyone is human. You might be appalled to learn that your favorite programming tool's author likes music that you find repugnant. This is valuable; we're people. You'll be less likely to appeal to authority unthinkingly if you've been appalled by authorities' taste in music.

* It's vulgar to put this so bluntly, but a lot of power is brokered in person at conferences. Not through mysterious back channel conspiracies, but through normal human interactions. If I've met you in person, I'm more likely to trust you; you're more likely to come to mind when someone asks "do you know anyone who can do x?"; etc. Anyone who doesn't participate is at a disadvantage here (and many surely don't care, which is fine).

(Source: I've spoken at about 40 conferences, give or take, and attended many without speaking as well; I've made a lot of friends who do the same; I shot an unpublished documentary that was sort of about this; and I have repugnant taste in music.)

<comment><USER6> I can't second this comment enough. On all fronts. 1000% accurate.

      > serendipitous conversations

To make this one concrete (and a little bit personal), I still remember that conversation in the airport after a conference when you said, almost offhand, "you travel enough, why haven't you looked into tracking airline miles yet?" Completely changed my life. Saved me thousands of dollars and made things much, much more comfortable. And that's just one example that's come to mind, and frankly, a minor one in the scope of everything.

Or, for a totally different kind of anecdote, near the end of Jim Weirich's life, I had the pleasure of speaking at many of the same conferences as him. While he was always warm to everyone he met, they were a chance to experience his wonderful person a number of times. The last time I spoke with him before he passed was one of those little offhanded "bump into you in the hallway" times at a conference.

It's not the same when it's not in person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting discussion on the Gitter about livestreaming the unconference vs online participation vs freenode #ml channels vs tensorflow slack rooms vs /r/MachineLearning. But actually, it seems the Gitter for OpenAI itself is a great place to start! Maybe someone could volunteer to provide "live notes" of the Unconference on this channel?

</comment><comment><USER8> Sounds interesting! I have been trying to get in touch with the OpenAI team in the last weeks concerning their program synthesis project (I have been working on static analysis & machine learning for the last two years and would be very eager to contribute some ideas) but so far haven't been successful. It seems they're either just unresponsive or overwhelmed by requests right now (I assume the latter).

Meeting the team at the conference seems like a great opportunity but I'm wondering whether this will be an effective way to get a collaboration started or learn how to participate in their efforts (as it would require a 20 hour trip from Berlin for me).

For me, the biggest questions right now are:

* How are they going to organize their work?

* What kind of contributions are they looking for?

I think it would be great to address these things at the conference.

<comment><USER9> Just had a look at your presentation "Learning from other's mistakes: Data- driven code analysis"

Can you share some links to your work with ML or related ?

<comment><USER8> We have a solution for static analysis of Python code online: [https://www.quantifiedcode.com](https://www.quantifiedcode.com)

Currently we're using machine learning mostly behind the scenes to optimize our hand-written patterns for analysis and refactoring, but we started working on a deep learning based system to improve our analysis, using data we've collected from the 10.000 software projects we are analyzing right now.

<comment><USER10> I would email greg brockman. I pestered him for advice one time and the amount of time he took to respond (and the amount of times he responded) was well beyond my expectation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Bryan Cantrill's USENIX talk "The Emperor's Wardrobe" discussed a lot of the issues that the Unconference is trying to solve.

<comment><USER12> Do you have a link to the talk, or a reference to it? It seems interesting.

<comment><USER11> Certainly, good sir. ;-)

[https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc16/technical- sessions/p...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc16/technical- sessions/presentation/cantrill)

There's audio and slides. No video, unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This sounds really exciting. SFO is a long haul for me (coming from RDU), but I applied and am hoping to get in. I'll definitely attend if possible. Hopefully they make decisions pretty quick, so people can book flights while they're still cheap(ish).

<comment><USER14> Did you look at the list of accepted attendees? Unless you can send a SMS text to someone at OpenAI, you're not getting in.

<comment><USER13> Probably, but all one can do is apply and hope for the best.</comment></comment></comment>


Startups Aim to Make Augmented Reality Easy & Cheap - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/biz/2011/02/augmented-reality-publishing-i.php

<comment><USER2> AR will remain a toy until we have workable heads-up displays, at which point it will become huge. We seem to be right on schedule for Halting State.</comment>


Ask HN: Am I the only Developer who's turned down offers to become a Tech Lead? - <AUTHOR> The standard progression at my organization seems to be Dev->Senior Dev-> Lead Dev.
I've been a Senior Dev for 3 years and have turned down 2 offers to become a Project Tech Lead. It seems to have surprised a bunch of people in the management so I'm getting second thoughts about whether I'm doing the right thing by bucking this trend.
My primary reasons for not becoming a tech lead are
1) I make enough money that at this point in my life, I'd rather have more personal time than money. 2) I feel like a Tech Lead's role is more stressful given the responsibilities. Why would anybody want to take on extra stress/responsibilites is beyond me.
3) I haven't felt any sense of 'stagnation' in my development career, I don't see why I should f* with it.
I'm looking for opinions about what other people would do in my situation. If you've taken a decision like this before, I'd love to hear about it. I feel a weird pressure to conform to this trend by watching my peers climb the ladder while I stay where I am. <comment><USER2> Yes, you should take the role. Here is my reasoning,

Tech leadership is different than tech development, very different. You cannot know if you have the skills to do it without trying it and giving it a shot.

If you want to build something bigger than something you can build yourself, you will need help. If you need help you will need provide leadership to that help so that your vision is realized. Communicating technical vision, while still being open to modifications of that vision, is a hugely valuable skill, worth double what you are currently making in salary.

So if you have the support of your management, and you go in saying "I'm just trying this out and don't get too comfortable here cuz I might suck at it." you will be able to 'safely' find your strengths (or weaknesses). Its important that you do this without getting an actual 'promotion' because if you aren't promoted then you won't need to be demoted if it doesn't work out. Your management gets to 'try it on' without risk and everyone wins.

If you do have this strength you can consider other paths in your career than the ones available with only coding skills.

What you do not want to do is get 'trapped' above your skill level. Which is to say you get promoted to a place where you can't be effective and the only option at that point is to leave.

</comment><comment><USER3> Personally, I have no interest in bearing responsibility for anyone except for myself and the work I do. I love to do what I do, I'm vocal in meetings and I try to shape peoples vision of the future of our products (I work in the financial sector). That does not mean I want to make it a full time job.

I have no desire, at least not at this time, to be anything more than I am today; a capable and creative developer that is part of a larger team. I leave it to someone else to manage our mess :)

</comment><comment><USER4> There are the obvious benefits to taking the role, but here some reasons I have turned down a similar role in the past:

* By the time you're good enough to be a tech lead, you may want to venture into consulting/contracting and earn more

* You may be in a position of trading development time for managerial duties, which you may or may not enjoy

* Depending on the politics, lead dev may be just below the proverbial corporate ladder glass ceiling

* A lead dev may ultimately spend more hours working to solve a particularly challenging technical problem, which may rest on your shoulders

* You may want to work somewhere else as an 'architect'. This is a very subjective job description, but could propel you faster if your aim is to climb the HR corporate ladder

* If the development environment is lacking now for you as a senior dev, it will lack just as equally as a lead dev

</comment><comment><USER5> The management types above you will never understand why you wouldn't want to move "up" the ladder to management. That's the way they're wired. If you're a techie, you may never be able to think, talk, and act the way that they do.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you can take the tech lead title and pay but keep coding. That's hugely frustrating. Read pg's essay _Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule_. You'll never have enough uninterrupted time during the day to be a maker, so you'll spend your days being a manager and nights trying to be a maker and do neither well. If you're going to be a tech lead, you need to drop coding and make a clean break to management.

</comment><comment><USER6> You are not alone, though I'm not one, but taking more responsibilities could mean more business trips, etc, which would contradict your list of priorities such as "being with your family more and watch your 1 year old kid grow". Some of my friends have taken a very conscious choice to NOT get promoted.

Another good example is to keep working in the coding, rather than spending more time in people. This is pretty OK in US (assuming you're in), but much less viable in China in general, where most people expects you to be managing people than developing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Shape the position. Don't let the position shape you.

</comment><comment><USER8> There's usually a lobotomy to be had somewhere between dev and lead. At least, that's been my experience.

Do what you love and don't be pressured.</comment>


Didn't make the YC11 cut? Quotes to the rescue... - <AUTHOR>

'Success is going from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.' Winston Churchill<p>'There are no short cuts to any place worth going.' Beverly Sills<p>'If everything seems under control you're not going fast enough.' Mario Andrretti<p>'To become a champion, fight one more round.' James Corbett<p>via It's not how good you are, it's how good you want to be by Paul Arden <comment><USER3> "Brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to show how badly we want something. "

~Randy Pausch, Last Lecture (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo>)

</comment><comment><USER4> "Apparently the most likely animals to be left alive after a nuclear war are cockroaches, because they're so hard to kill. That's what you want to be as a startup, initially. Instead of a beautiful but fragile flower that needs to have its stem in a plastic tube to support itself, better to be small, ugly, and indestructible."

\- PG in The hacker's guide to investors, Apr 2007

</comment><comment><USER5> "We are still young, we are still eager to make mistakes."

"It is not the string of wrongs past, but the wrongs to come that I must look forward to."

Sorry, don't remember the sources.

</comment><comment><USER6> I can't help myself <http://cheks.in/eRFqrz>

</comment><comment><USER7> "It's not whether you get knocked down, it's whether you get up." - <USER2> Lombardi

</comment><comment><USER8> "I get knocked down but I get up again -- you're never gonna keep me down" -- _Tubthumping_ by Chumbawamba

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H5uWRjFsGc></comment>


Ask HN: We are gaining some momentum from Stumble Upon, how do we keep it going? - <AUTHOR>

Our startup, nosweaters.com (Better gift ideas through Q & A) is experiencing a good traffic boost from stumble upon. It feels like a "foot in the door" kind of moment. My question is, what should we be doing in order to keep the traffic coming? Should we be looking into supplementary adwords campaigns? Should we use the traffic spike to convince bloggers we are relevant now? What is the next step? <comment><USER2> What is the quality of the traffic from stumble upon? One of my sites gets about 80% of it's traffic from stumble upon but it's terrible traffic. Nobody goes past the front page and nobody registers. In my case, it's nice for vanity (higher visit count) but useless otherwise.

However, if you want to boost that traffic, the best way is with stumble upon paid advertising. I'm sure they will say it doesn't, but running a paid campaign greatly boosts your 'organic' stumble upon traffic, in my experience (I've done several experiments with several sites). Plus, it's really cheap.

<comment><AUTHOR> In our case the users have been pretty engaged. Our bounce rate is around 40% with 99% of that traffic being stumble. We started with a paid campaign and that is how we got this far. Have you had experience with running one again to further increase traffic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do whatever it is that got the users to your site in the first place, only better.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but I'd take this time to learn what your users like and what they don't and make improvements.

And maybe email/tweet at influential bloggers.</comment>


Bobby Fischer: from prodigy to pariah (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/may/15/bobby-fischer-chess-downfall <comment><USER2> "...Garry Kasparov, Fischer's only rival for the title of best-ever player..."

That's not quite right. Both Kasparov and Fischer are definitely among the best players ever, but the list of contenders for the top spot is definitely longer than that. One might easily include Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, and a couple of others.

It's not really possible to say who the best player of all time is; some of the plausible candidates never played each other in their primes. One can estimate of course based on intervening games, but I'm not ready to put a lot of confidence in a model that has to judge how the Lasker of 1910 would fare against the Fischer of 1972, extrapolating over a span of more than sixty years.

<comment><USER3> Well you are entitled to your opinion but it is very likely you are wrong. The consensus among very many strong chess players,and historians is that the mantle of 'greatest player ever' is a toss-up between GK and RJF. This is based on many factors: peak rating,percentage wins/losses, fighting spirit and aversion to draws, quality of the opposition, quality of play, raw talent, statistical analysis of elo ratings, their contribution to theory and other factors. The phrase is not a whim of the reporter.

<comment><USER2> I am saying what I am saying for good reason. Back when I was active in chess (a decade or so ago), I read all kinds of articles and books about the great heroes of the game. There was general agreement in the chess community about who the dozen or so greatest players were, but no particular agreement on who was the very best. In a typical discussion, the cults of Fischer and Kasparov would always make themselves heard, but there were also advocates of Lasker and Capablanca, and some oddball who would insist on Morphy.

But perhaps things have changed. Got a pointer to a solid writeup on the issue?

<comment><USER3> I saw a good one once I think on ChessBase. I'll search for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been pissed off at Fisher for over 60 years!

In kindergarten or first grade my father taugh me how to play chess. A few months later, I beat him, and he never played me again, and I didn't play any more for quite a few years. My parents had been frightened that I would become a Bobby Fisher-like chess monster. It still rankles, even thought they may well have been right.

<comment><USER5> Have you seen the movie "Little Man Tate"? You might appreciate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A great, troubled man. It saddened me that I was the only person in the theater when the recent movie came out. As crazy as he was, I still think he deserves our respect.

<comment><USER7> Marketing my have been an issue. My father and I would both have been interested, and this is the first either of us have heard of it. He spends a great deal of time on chess computing forums so I have no idea how this one slipped by us. Tobey Mcguire?!? 'Pawn Sacrifice' is probably the biggest budget chess movie in 2 decades!

<comment><USER6> I thought it was a very well-made movie. You're right it probably was marketing. I really hope the film "the Queens gambit" can be made someday. That was going to be Heath Ledger's next project before he passed away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The story of Morphy dying surrounded by women's shoes is apocryphal.

<comment><USER9> That one is an urban myth of sorts i believe

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've listened to a few interviews with Josh Waitzkin and I have to say, not impressed with him as a human being. In his case, he is highly intelligent, but it doesn't escape the fact that he's kind of a lousy human being. Go listen to his interview with Tim Ferriss for example; he talks like he's robotically trying to figure out how to sling vocabulary words together to sound smart. At once point (paraphrasing here), he says something like: "we have create a sense of agency for the kids". Not long after, I stopped listening.

Just listening to him describe his life, he's a very self important type of person.

<comment><USER5> What's wrong with that quote? It seems like thr normal jargon of psychology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish this "chess makes you crazy" line would just die. If anything, chess kept Fischer sane. Chess gave Fischer focus and forced him to interact with people. He only truly went off the deep end after he stopped playing.

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LSWau3pTyIg](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LSWau3pTyIg)

</comment><comment><USER13> Have there been many great, mentally ill Go players?

</comment><comment><USER14> The mystery of HN front page... a 2011 article from the Guardian about a known topic not related to technology.

<comment><USER15> I've learned there's always a(n associative) trail of comments (sometimes from more than on thread) leading to such apparently random posts.

<comment><USER16> My understanding is that if it's in the front page, the community has decided it's interesting and a cool read, so no need to complain.

<comment><USER17> Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's just an uptick of submissions for the same url (multiple submissions count as upvotes) because it's popped up somewhere else such as reddit.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Desktop privacy & security of web browsers on Linux part 1: concepts and theory - <AUTHOR> https://www.nexlab.net/2016/08/06/desktop-laptop-privacy-security-of-web-browsers-on-linux-part-1-concepts-and-theory/ <comment><USER2> Improving Linux desktop security beyond "if you PWN one program, you PWN the whole desktop session" is going to be hard. X11 has no separation, so talking about this really only makes sense when using Wayland, which is no where near default yet.

A problem with this particular approach is that chrome-trusted for example will no longer have access to the session's DBus, so it cannot show any notifications for example. And DBus, like X11, does not provide any separation right now as far as I'm aware (it has support for authentication, but in practice, `external` is used most of the time which is based on UID).

The only variant that might provide a real security benefit here is the -paranoid one, as that those not share the X11 server session.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you read the post?

Yes, X11 has no separation, but you can use multiple X11 isolated sessions, like i do in this config i'm explaining in this post.

<comment><AUTHOR> ok, you readed it and awhere of the -paranoid with xpra. Great. anyway, there is no way to obtain perfect security, this is just a little improvements as I explained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is pretty much what Firejail [1] does (except the page trust level) and using it is fairly straight forward. I had some issues running separate X server though (as far as I know, this is still more or less experimental feature).

[1]: [https://firejail.wordpress.com/](https://firejail.wordpress.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, this isn't anything new, just an example setup of firejail and some sugar added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does someone run similar setup but with xpra + vm? Is it usable?

<comment><AUTHOR> not for sandboxing reasons, but i've used kvm + xpra for other things. It's usable, but of course the vm need a lot more resources</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to 100% turn off Google personalization for search? - <AUTHOR>

I have problem that me (I'm in US) and my college (he is Europe) are getting different results for a search a Google query. We use the following to turn off personalization:
- we added `&pws=0` to query
- we use browser in incognito mode.
Is there any way to turn off personalization completely including IP adress tracking? <comment><USER2> Use <http://scroogle.org/> instead

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you tried <http://disconnect.me/>?

<comment><AUTHOR> It does not help.

It seems like Google decides what to show by IP address - not sure if it based on history of queries from that IP address or based on location of IP address. The same query from my college's day work (just a couple of miles away) gives different results.

<comment><USER4> Build a seeks node, <http://www.seeks-project.info/>, configure it to only use Google search as backend. The both of you can then use the Seeks frontend instead of Google, and you'll get the same results.

Additionnally, you guys will benefit from each other's actions on results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#...

<comment><AUTHOR> We are using incognito browser (no cookies).</comment></comment>


Fantastic Fixes Help Your Sad, Pathetic Cubicle - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/multimedia/2007/12/gallery_cube_fixes

<comment><USER2> Stop wasting time making your cubicle acceptable.

Put that time and effort into getting out of cubicle land.</comment>


Relocating from San Francisco to Seattle: cost comparison - <AUTHOR> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+francisco+to+seattle+with+a+salary+of+$120000 <comment><USER2> Weather.

I'm a Californian who grew up in a "sunny" California city, and I've been living in Seattle for the last year. I've also spent a lot of time in San Francisco in my lifetime.

I, miss, the, sun. Every time I go back to California and visit family/friends, I start to realize how depressed I am up in the Pacific North West. I've had more that one person recommend that I take Vitamin D supplements, which is supposed to make me feel better.

The moral of my own personal story is... I'm moving back to California. I need sun. I'll pay a premium for the mental health of myself and my children.

How many days of sun are there in San Francisco compared to Seattle? If you had to live in a place with awesome tech scenes but with no sun, you might as well choose Seattle... it's cheaper.

<comment><USER3> For me, it's the opposite. Moving down to the Bay Area from Washington/Idaho, the amount of sun here is maddening. Seems like an unending summer of days exactly like the previous.

<comment><USER4> I'm like that when I visit CA. CA has no weather. No seasons. Just sun. It's ok for a week or 2, but after a while for me it's like spending a year at Disneyland. Starts to wear a bit thin. It gets tiring. I get sleepy.

<comment><USER5> Trust me: if you ever have to choose between no variation in crappy weather, and no variation in wonderful weather, you should choose wonderful. Disneyland is better than Mordor.

<comment><USER4> I'm not one of these people who thinks rain is crappy weather. Rain can be awesome. For me, variation is the main thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd like to put in a good word for Portland (no sales tax, great food):

[http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+franc...](http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+francisco+to+portland+with+a+salary+of+$120000&x=0&y=0)

<comment><USER7> I originally wanted to move there but there doesn't seem to be many jobs. :( Correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER8> "There _don't_ seem to be many jobs"

<comment><USER9> Well done, sir, well done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> OK, Wolfram Alpha kicks ass.

Here's the most interesting part:

| San Francisco, California | Seattle, Washington total sales tax rate | 9.5% | 9.5%

When people from California tell me it must be nice to live in a state like Washington, that doesn't have a state income tax, I like to torture them by pointing out that the lack of a state income tax is made up for by a high sales tax. Then they ask what the sales tax is, and I tell them.

<comment><USER11> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States)

"At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax, which can total up to 10.75% with local sales tax included."

"Washington has a 6.5% statewide sales tax."

What am I missing???

<comment><USER10> The point is that although our sales tax is high in Washington, partly because we do not have in income tax, it's still not as high as California, which DOES have an income tax--and a pretty hefty income tax at that.

Hence when we tell Californians that not having an income tax is not as great as it sounds because it means we pay an outrageously high sales tax, and then they realize that our outrageously high sales tax is lower than theirs, it is funny.

No ones pays as low as 6.5% here, though, because there are county and local taxes. The state is divided into a bunch of small regions for tax purposes (about 2.6 million locations), roughly corresponding to zip+5 regions, not not exactly. I've got a database giving the rate in each of these locations.

Checking that database, the minimum actual sales tax is 7%, the maximum is 9.5%, and the average (giving equal weight to each location) is 8.6%.

Here are all the rates, and how many locations have each rate:

      +</comment></comment></comment><comment>---+</comment><comment>----+
      | rate    | count(*) |
      +</comment><comment>---+</comment><comment>----+
      | 0.07000 |    22526 |
      | 0.07500 |    12404 |
      | 0.07600 |    38365 |
      | 0.07700 |   172606 |
      | 0.07800 |   258871 |
      | 0.07900 |   174886 |
      | 0.08000 |    65948 |
      | 0.08100 |   118239 |
      | 0.08200 |   148568 |
      | 0.08300 |    43973 |
      | 0.08400 |   115138 |
      | 0.08500 |   131129 |
      | 0.08600 |   224180 |
      | 0.08700 |   210720 |
      | 0.09200 |    41020 |
      | 0.09300 |   282441 |
      | 0.09500 |   622649 |
      +</comment><comment>---+</comment><comment>----+

<comment><USER11> Ahh, thanks. I was missing the irony. :-D

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think it's the most useful thing that I've seen WA do so far. I just wish it worked for Canadian cities.

</comment><comment><USER13> Actual cost of living calculators give better results than this. This one tells you how much your disposable income would change by keeping the percentile of your current salary constant: [http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_...](http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_start.asp)

(Hint: Move to Austin.)

</comment><comment><USER14> Too bad it's not working for Canadian cities.

</comment><comment><USER15> Also doesn't seem to take into account income and capgains tax rates; for a single person making >120k that is a substantial cost savings on its own.

<comment><USER16> It doesn't actually seem to take the salary you put in into account at all: it gives the same 24% cheaper for $30,000 salary and $120,000 salary, even though the ratios of expenses shouldn't be the same for those two cases. At the very least, the weightings should change: someone who makes $20,000 is probably spending more than 12% on groceries, while someone who makes $10m is probably not spending 12% on groceries (or 10% on utilities). And the ratio of housing prices isn't constant across all types of housing, either.

<comment><USER17> No, I'm pretty sure that means it's being stupid.

It gives exactly 24% less regardless of what salaries you put in and not changing the "% of total" or anything. That means that it's figuring out the difference in _average_ cost of living first, and then just reduces the salary you gave by 24% to get the equivalent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A shorter move: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+fra...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+francisco+to+oakland+with+a+salary+of+$120000)

</comment><comment><USER18> The vast majority of the difference in that particular comparison is housing- which must apply to buying houses, because comparing rents certainly doesn't give 45% difference. So... this data is meaningless unless you own your house here and plan on buying there, from what I can tell, which probably excludes most of us.

Edit: OK, I'm finding some cheaper rents, but I think my main analysis stands.

<comment><USER19> There's also the fact that Washington has no state income tax; that's 10% in Seattle's favor that isn't even accounted for (I looked up ACCRA cost of living indices and they are after-tax).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Compare to New York, [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+fra...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+francisco+to+new+york+city+with+a+salary+of+$120000).

Amazing how much more expensive living in New York is.

<comment><USER21> I've been thinking about moving to Houston. Imaging the difference if you had been in NYC:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+new+yor...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+new+york+city+to+houston+with+a+salary+of+$120000)

<comment><USER22> But then you'd be in Houston. NYC is expensive because people want to live there.

<comment><USER21> Houston has many pluses. Relatively cheap living is just one of them.

On the other hand, NYC is not for everyone and cost is only one reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As usual in WA, only works with that exact input. Give it any international city - silent fail.

<comment><USER24> It works for some of the bigger cities in the US though. I was comparing where I live now to where I lived before and it seemed pretty accurate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Check out this accidental discovery, note how the graphs remain nearly parallel over years (!)

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+seattl...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+seattle+vs+san+francisco)

Weird coincidence?

<comment><USER26> I would expect the crime levels to sort of coincide over the nation. In fact, they don't: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+seattl...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+seattle+vs+united+states) but it does seem that they do between these two cities. It is weird.

Here's something else: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+washin...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+washington+state+vs+seattle)

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+washin...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+washington+state+vs+united+states)

Hypothesis: the country at large has a crime rate. In addition there is a magic variable which only affects cities, but affects all cities:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+san+fr...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+san+francisco+los+angeles+chicago+vs+seattle)

<comment><USER13> Is "magic variable" the new street name for crack cocaine?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_(United_States)>

<comment><USER25> According to that very page, the crack epidemic is over.

Are drugs really the source of most crime? Kinda doubt that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'd love to see a list of 50 us cities or so with the lowest costs of living so i could pick one to move to.

Alas I searched "Cities in us with lower cost of living than washington dc" but wa didn't understand.

</comment><comment><USER28> The largest reduction is in housing (45% less in Seattle). However, unless your goal in moving IS to save money, I bet that most people would pay the same -- either upgrade to a larger place or move to a more desirable part of town.

Also, note that housing costs are based on housing sale prices. Rent is definitely higher in San Francisco, but it does not always follow housing sale prices.

</comment><comment><USER29> Dallas: [http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+franc...](http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+francisco+to+dallas+with+a+salary+of+%24120000&x=0&y=0)

Dallas, Houston and Austin are super cheap with fairly big tech cultures. Austin might even be worth living in too.

</comment><comment><USER30> huh? link gives me: "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure how to compute an answer from your input"

</comment><comment><USER31> How about where my investor is from:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+fra...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+san+francisco+to+chattanooga+with+a+salary+of+%24120000+USD)

</comment><comment><USER32> A Microsoft recruiter sent me something very similar to this the spring before I graduated from college.

</comment><comment><USER33> hmmm...this one's a little vaguer [http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+portland+...](http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relocating+from+portland+maine+to+portland+oregon+with+a+salary+of+$120000&x=0&y=0)

</comment><comment><USER34> Edit: totally responding to the wrong post. Tabs are confusing. Sorry guys.

<comment><USER35> Wrong post?

<comment><USER34> Indeed. Tabs are confusing! :'(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Seattle could really use one of those Arizona-style harassment laws to keep Californian prop-13 refugees out.</comment>


All iOS 7 WWDC 13 Slides Indexed in Evernote Public Notebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.evernote.com/pub/cmonterroza/wwdc13 Now that iOS 7 and NDA are lifted, enjoy! Just search for a keyword and Evernote will do it's magic. <comment><USER2> Cool, I guess, but if any stenography is on these slides you're not going to get a thank you card from Apple Legal.</comment>


Pro-China forum's plan to troll Hong Kong protesters foiled after doxxing - <AUTHOR> https://advox.globalvoices.org/2019/08/05/pro-china-forums-plan-to-troll-hong-kong-protesters-foiled-after-doxxing-retaliation/ <comment><USER2> >China has adopted real-name registration for all online platforms, as a result, finding the real identities and accompanying personal information proved to be easy for Hong Kong netizens.

That is an amusing twist.

I'm fairly sure I ran into what were at least a group of enthusiastic China supporters on Reddit who despite different usernames posted all misunderstood some western law, concepts, and often would provide the same western news stories as "proof" of their claims.... sometimes with the same url referer data...</comment>


Ask HN: What programming language to choose for coding interviews? - <AUTHOR> I'm preparing for coding interviews. So is there any particular language that interviewers prefer? What about if I go with C or python? <comment><USER2> I prefer a high-level language like Python for coding interviews so that I can use their string operations, list comprehensions, etc. and not have to manually "implement" the boring parts of the questions.

As an interviewer I would really rather not sit and watch someone write C on a whiteboard. Use whatever language you feel like you can skip to the interesting parts of algorithms. Even pseudo code could work.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been both an interviewee and an interviewer and honestly, in both roles, I prefer pseudo code.

As an interviewer, it gives me a chance to step back from noticing syntax errors and lets me focus on how the candidate thinks, reasons and explains her way through problems.

As an interviewee, I prefer pseudo code because I don't have to worry about syntax or minute details of a language. Instead, I can just focus on communicating how I'm working through the problem.

</comment><comment><USER4> The one you're most comfortable with.

Personally I choose Python given the option: easy to write, slices and comprehensions generally make algo question answers very terse.

</comment><comment><USER5> C is bad, a real bad choice. I was given a few options by a Google recruiter, and I felt more up to date with C than Java, so I went with that. He seemed to approve. Boy, it was a bad choice.

One interviewer laughed and asked me if I wanted to switch languages, right off the bat. In retrospect, that was gracious. He said I was probably not going to finish in time, but.. if I really wanted to.. I could give it a try. I kinda froze.

The last interview was more of looking at sample code / code review, and get this: it wasn't even in C, it was C++. Not what I expected! Turns out I should've been studying that, too. They are certainly similar, but it's just another curve ball.

Python is a much, much better choice, I now realize. I just wish they allowed JavaScript! My mistake.

</comment><comment><USER6> The obvious answer is to find out what language you'll be programming in if you get the job and use that. Otherwise just pick whatever you are most comfortable with and takes the least amount of mental effort for you to do the basics.

<comment><USER7> Be careful with that. Best to just ask that particular company, but for us, I'd rather you pick your most proficient (mainstream) language. If you pick our main language and are fumbling a lot, that looks worse than you fluently gliding through your preferred language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Whatever is easier for you but (if you can) target what they write in

</comment><comment><USER9> I think you need to go with one you are comfortable with.

That said - there will undoubtedly be bias depending on the company. For example I had a phone screen for a company that used Ruby and Go and I suggested C# and javascript because I don't know any Ruby or Go. I didn't get any further and this may have been a contributing factor.

</comment><comment><USER10> High level dynamic language with a good standard library (Python, Ruby). I've seen applicants waste half their interview time writing helper functions in C or write a bunch of classes in Java before getting started with the actual problem.

That said, it helps to use a language in the company's stack.

<comment><USER7> We used to have a question that happened to require parsing JSON. The majority of candidates using Java struggled hard and wasted so much time on this part. We ended up changing the question to have newline delimited input instead of JSON for those who wanted to use Java.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For actually solving issues live, Python makes the most sense.

But be prepared to read a lot of solutions to problems written with for loops, do-while loops, and other constructs that are not pythonic and don't translate as well to pythonic code.

In a way it's good, because it forces you to re-implement the algorithms in a way that makes sense to you, thereby increasing your chances of actually learning and retaining the information.

</comment><comment><USER12> Pseudo language would do for me and i expect candidate be more explicit her/his thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER13> C is OK. We'd love to see assembly language. Ideally you could show both, demonstrating that you can transform one into the other and have a good feel for what a compiler would do.

<comment><USER14> In that case why not just write the code in binary. If you have all the opcodes memorized that is pretty impressive.

<comment><USER13> We have plenty of people who could do that for typical x86 opcodes. It really does look good if somebody can do this, but we wouldn't expect it. Most of us need the processor manual. Sticking to the mnemonics and C is fine.

BTW, totally serious: I've had to write the code in binary several times. I know a few opcode representations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The iOS community is a good indicator that a python style language is preferred, people interview in Swift even for objective c roles.

</comment><comment><USER14> C standard library is not as good as python.

</comment><comment><USER16> So many Python zealots... Whatever you do stop this non-sense Python dictatorship

</comment><comment><USER17> Python please.</comment>


The Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerbergs of the future  - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/news/features/silicon-valley-2011-9/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure why anybody is comparing Zuckerberg to Jobs, really. Jobs co- founded arguably the most successful tech company of all time. He revolutionized the PC industry, then saved his company from near-death in his second act, followed by the small feats of revolutionizing the music, smartphone, and tablet markets. Oh, he also co-founded Pixar.

Zuckerberg? As far as anyone can tell, he's still a one-trick pony, who by most accounts, at least stole some of his single idea from his classmates. Though his valuation is through the roof, his business model is still not well established and could burst at any time.

<comment><USER3> I thought the whole HN mantra (and one echoed in this article) was that ideas are worth less than the paper they're written on, and that execution is everything? It's still a dick move to blatantly rip-off a peer like that, but still. He took a good idea and did well with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> BTW articles like these demonstrate why tech-PR is still a profitable business to be in.

I know many young founders who read articles like these, "30 under 30", "most innovative founders", etc and get depressed because they're never picked.

It's because they're rarely based on merit and more on who's pushing who in the tech-press circles.

<comment><USER5> > and more on who's pushing who in the tech-press circles.

I read that as "who's pounding who" - as that is also true

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does this article really compare a guy who created incremental searching of YouTube videos to Steve Jobs who brought personal computers (and computer style) to the masses? Bubble Boys is an accurate title.

<comment><USER7> Let's agree Woz brought computers to the masses while Jobs insisted on making them pretty enough the masses would buy them. ;-)

Actually, there is a whole lot of people who exerted a huge influence in the early personal computer explosion. Jobs and Woz often suck up all the credit the folks at Atari and Commodore also deserve.

<comment><USER6> I'll agree that Woz was able to simplify the Apple I so that it was affordable but it was Jobs who was able to market it to the masses. Like any substantial venture it was more than the work of two people. I argument is that the article about the "next Jobs" didn't demonstrate founders with the same level of breakthrough technology or market that Apple created.

<comment><USER7> I completely agree with you about the article. I was just pointing out Jobs and Woz, as brilliant as they are in their respective fields, were not the only ones responsible for the explosion of personal computing that happened in the late 70's and early 80's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The actual title is "Bubble Boys." I think that says it all.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can't believe I read even read the first page... It seems like the press is the press, even in the tech world. I doubt this author knows anything about Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerburg. Maybe the author saw the social network and thought he knew everything about the industry.

I could of also summed this up in a sentence or two. "Kid invents youtube instant and everybody wants to hire him." I don't doubt that he's smart but this article seems a bit ridiculous. It seems like tech stars are the next celebrities. So long to the days of nerds with the neck beard. Oh yeah, and actually making money.

Please excuse the rant, had to let it out.</comment>


Great Oxidation Event - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event <comment><USER2> Oxygen is such a beautiful double edged sword. We need it to live, but we need complex biochemical pathways to be able to survive it. If our ancestors hadn't evolved their way through this event we wouldn't be alive, but if the event had never happened we wouldn't be multicellular intelligent life forms. And now we need it to live.

<comment><USER3> And within a pretty tight range, too. I've heard that if O2 is more than 25% of the atmosphere, things would catch fire spontaneously; if less than 15%, they wouldn't be able to burn at all.

<comment><USER4> > I've heard that if O2 is more than 25% of the atmosphere, things would catch > fire spontaneously

Oxygen reached 35% during the Carboniferous. This lead to lifeforms taking advantage (e.g. giant invertebrates outside the seas) as well as rainforest wildfires as the oxygen levels significantly increased flammability of flammable materials (most of our coal dates back to these days, where rainforests would grow quickly, burn down to 10~20% charcoal by volume, and that charcoal would fossilise over time).

Somewhat oddly, very few things are hypergolic with oxygen, even LOX (which is as full of oxygen as you can get) or 100% oxygen atmosphere. Fuel will readily ignite, but it needs an ignition source of some sort.

This is in contrast with fluorine-based oxidants like ClF3, which is hypergolic with sand, asbestos, or water.

<comment><USER5> ... or test engineers!

<comment><USER6> I see what you did here, you In the Pipeline reader.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In "Oxygen: the molecule that made the world"[1], Nick Lane also mentions the theory that these cyanobacteria are the reason we have liquid water on earth, while mars (for example) doesn't.

It goes like this: early earth was subjected to solar radiations which hit our liquid water, splitting H2O into separate oxygen and hydrogen elements. The very light hydrogen atoms (as ions, or maybe H2?) were escaping into space while the oxygen was trapped by oxydizing rocks.

With the rise of cyanobacteria produced O2, the rocks became fully oxydized and O2 started to build up in the air: the split hydrogen would be more likely to recombine with atmospheric O2, keeping them on earth, and the ozone (O3) layer started to shield the water from these radiations in the first place, thus stopping the process and safeguarding our oceans.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198607830](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198607830) (very cool read mixing early earth history, the rise of life, geology, biochemistry and phylogenetics + Dr Lane is an excellent writer. Published in 2002, he has many more good updated articles about it.)

</comment><comment><USER8> Cyanobacteria is the most influential organism in the history of the planet. Nothing comes even close (arguably including humans). Nearly all of the energy processed in living organisms can be traced back to cyanobacteria (either via photosynthesis, or via consuming products of photosynthesis, or products of consuming products of ...). This extends to modern human energy usage via fossil fuels.

<comment> GuB-42 Humans make a big deal out of 0.01% CO2, a relatively inert gas.

Cyanobacteria turned 20% of the atmosphere into very reactive O2.

I like to point that out when people say that we are destroying our planet. Our planet will be fine with or without us, we are just hoping that it will be with us.

<comment><USER9> >Our planet will be fine with or without us, we are just hoping that it will be with us.

I like that, however I think hoping and doing something about it are two different things.

<comment><USER8> I think the point is: life as we know it will almost certainly outlive humans, by a lot. We're just hoping our ride will be somewhat lengthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If anyone finds this interesting, I highly recommend this lecture series: [https://www.audible.com/pd/A-New-History-of-Life- Audiobook/1...](https://www.audible.com/pd/A-New-History-of-Life- Audiobook/1629976687)

It covers the great oxidation event in some detail, and covers all of the super-early single cellular and multicellular life history in great detail.

</comment><comment><USER11> i've lost an hour or so recently reading about a more recent event after which there no longer were palm trees in the arctic: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event)

</comment><comment><USER12> > A chronology of oxygen accumulation suggests that free oxygen was first > produced by prokaryotic and then later eukaryotic organisms in the ocean > that carried out photosynthesis more efficiently, producing oxygen as a > waste product

So oxygen is a sign of life. Can we measure oxygen's spectral line from any exoplanets? Would enough O2 suggest our kind of life is more likely there? If we could survey exoplanet atmospheres in our neighborhood for oxygen would that tell us anything about the distribution of life?

<comment><USER13> Oxygen spectral lines are mostly distinct from the non-life planet ones, so I would be greatly surprised if we couldn't measure it and if astronomers didn't do that for each planet they observed by transition.</comment></comment>


Scotland rejects independence - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scotland-independence-no-vote-victory-alex-salmond <comment><USER2> I wrote this earlier but the discussion I posted it to originally is dead:

As a Scot who voted "Yes" I must admit I am disappointed with this result - but also not in the least surprised, this is pretty consistent with the polls.

However, thinking about it a bit more (even if it is 6am) - I'm actually pretty pleased with both the turnout and that 45% of people voted "Yes" \- a few years ago that would have seemed crazy.

In some ways this reminds me of the devolution referendum of 1979 - while the result then was also a "No" it raised the topic as a realistic alternative so when there was another devolution referendum a generation later it passed easily so now we do have an independent Scottish Government which has a fair amount of power within Scotland (although no powers over things like foreign affairs and defence).

I suspect that, just as in '79, the UK is in for a lot of political upheaval over the next decade and I suspect that now that independence has been introduced as something to be seriously considered that in a generation or so it might also look more sensible than it did at first.

My immediate concern is that I hope that everyone can put the differences introduced by the campaign behind them.

<comment><USER3> I read in The Economist that the No vote was bolstered by Scottish pensioners who fear for their retirement funds.

It's inevitable that the referendum will occur again (probably under a Tory majority government) and with those said pensioners not around; you'll get the result you wanted.

<comment><USER4> Won't you just have other pensioners then?

I read something along those lines somewhere else as well saying in 10/20 years all the old folks will be gone and they yes will win, but hasn't history shown us that idealistic young just turn to realistic oldies with time?

<comment><USER5> By then there will be new people of pension age, but they won't have actual pensions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's interesting to talk about the failure of polls to predict the magnitude of the result. Here are the results of the final polls from six major polling organizations, taken 1-3 days before the vote

      Organization    Yes     No      Number*
      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
      Opinium         0.479   0.521   1087
      ICM             0.477   0.523   1010
      Panelbase       0.474   0.526    954
      Survation       0.473   0.527    910
      YouGov          0.474   0.526   3043
      Ipsos Mori      0.474   0.526    951
      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
      TOTAL           0.475   0.525   7955

      * excluding undecided voters

On one hand they were accurate in that they forecast a "no" result with high probability - the proportion of "no" voters is more than four standard errors away from 50%; the standard error being

      s.e. = sqrt(0.475 * 0.525 / 7955) = 0.006

On the other hand, the final proportion of "no" voters was 55.3%, which is more than four standard errors away from the forecast value of 52.5%.

So the polls were significantly underestimating the proportion of "no" voters out there. A similar effect was seen in the Quebec independence referendum, where the polls actually predicted a slight advantage for "yes" but the final result was a decisive victory for "no".

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure because I don't know where you've sourced your data but where are the figures for undecided voters? That was always a large number and explains why your s.e. is too small.

<comment><USER6> That's a good point, and I've now corrected for that, but it makes very little difference to the top line result (that the polls underestimated the support for "no" by a large margin).

The proportion of undecided voters in these polls was about 7.1%.

Source is [http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion- polls](http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Politically it is very interesting and a result that in a lot of ways can bring about real change too (however, I do have obvious scepticism).

The tide is now with change as for the Union to continue change must happen. A lot of the high yes vote was not because people 100% believed Scotland should be independent but more they wanted change to the system (and I do believe a Scottish Parliment offered a better system), it did come with a lot of risk and a possible lose / lose for the people of the UK as a whole.

It opens up the question of representation for people of the regions of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. I think a lot of momentum has been gathered for something a kin to federal government in the UK and is something I would very much welcome.

In essence that is in a lot of ways what that Nationalists wanted... to keep the currency union and have essentially the same terms of attachment to the EU.

I voted no on the day after a long time believing in a yes, the tide of politcal change swayed me that we may ultimately be better in a UK that had the momentum with change to our representation. The no campaign however ran an abysmal campaign and it pained me to end up siding with them, and that was in more in spite of what they had to say.

Being part of the UK benefits Scotland's internal trade immensely and to think terms would have remained the same with the rUK who would have become a foreign nation at that point was naive. I think a Union with the UK has much the same arguments as staying in the EU with respect to trade, contracts and funding. It is just English nationalism and Scottish nationalism have picked differing sides.

<comment><USER5> I don't know how a federal system could work when England is about 80% of the population. The USA already has issues with California and Texas being so significant in terms of population, but England would dwarf both of them in terms of proportion.

The only way it could work would be to abolish England entirely and break it up into regions.

<comment><USER8> I think English regions should be split up too, and their is great desire for that. England is made up of many quite distinct regions, the problem is much of the power is concentrated in London and subsequently a lot of investment and money is poured into London and immediate surroundings. The fact that England has such a disparity in investment between it's first city (London) and second city (Birmingham) is a problem. It also isn't helping concentration of populations and jobs which remained close to London.

The issues Scotland has are felt throughout the UK, and Scotland therefore has a lot in common as far as wanting powers as do regions of England out with the immediate surroundings of London. This in essence is why this result could be better for the regions of England.

<comment><USER8> This is a lot of why I voted no. Scotland isn't unique in it's struggle in the UK against London concentrated power, it just in happens to have a get out clause from historical geography and politics. This does not mean we should leave behind those we have much in common with in the regions of England.

<comment><USER9> Please keep on that struggle.

David Cameron's goal from this referendum was to win and close down any suggestion of real reform. There's significant danger that just a few weeks of chatter about it remain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What is amazing about the Yes campaign is the odds they were up against: all but one newspaper were against independence, the one for is a weekly paper. We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias.

Even though the majority is for No, ~1.6m voted for radical change. This was not a "nationalist" movement. It was a movement of ideas (the breadth of the campaign has been astounding). A majority of the ~2m that voted No did not vote for the status quo: they just thought the risks too great.

<comment> UVB-76 > We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias

On the contrary, the media insisted for weeks the referendum was "too close to call", citing endless polls that generally favored the 'no' vote, but were close to 50-50. Obviously people vote more conservatively when it matters.

Meanwhile, the bookmakers, who actually had skin in the game, knew a 'yes' vote was unlikely, and reflected that in their odds.

<comment><USER11> Saying the referendum is "too close to call" is not the same as being even- handed (i.e. not having a bias).

They were biased because they consistently took a negative stance towards the potential ramifications (not chance of outcome) of independence.

<comment> UVB-76 The media thrive on fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

The possibility of Scotland voting for independence had that in spades; nobody really knew what it would entail.

Thus the media persisted in presenting it as a realistic, likely prospect, even when it was quite apparent (as per bookmakers odds) that a 'yes' vote was very unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> An English parliament based in say Manchester could be interesting, I wonder if they'll go for modern representative democracy or try to just expand the power of the current dysfunctional first past the post system?

"But Michael Gove, the chief whip, made clear that greater protections would have to be offered to protect the interest of English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs"

Notice he says its the MPs interests that need protecyes!, not who they represent.

<comment><USER13> Given this is a Hacker forum lets go one step further and ask "Does a modern society need a centralised seat of government at all?"

<comment><USER3> Exactly - powers should be devolved to councils. Not an English parliament.

<comment><USER14> If I trusted my council I would back this idea, but they have proved themselves to be about nothing but greed. The general feeling I get from speaking to people is that councils are not well liked at all and have a reputation for being rude, money-focused and arrogant.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, if they gave Greenwich Council any more power, I'd be moving out of the borough quick-damn-smart. They're bad enough with the limited powers they have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad, for one obscure reason. The few people I know in Scotland became terribly hostile over the last week. I mean really anti-English. I'm talking non-patriotic professional people I've known for 20 years.

It made me wonder what purpose further dividing of the world serves other than to introduce nationalism and protect primitive identities promoted by the politicians and media.

We're all humans. Do we need another line between groups of us?

<comment><USER2> "Do we need another line between groups of us?"

Actually, one of the reasons I voted "Yes" is because I'm in favour of the EU - I'd far rather have been part of an independent Scotland that _wanted_ to be part of the EU (even if there might have been a bit of a fuss about getting back in) rather than a part of the UK that seems destined to leave.

<comment><USER16> Agree with you there, but I'm taking a different approach. If the UK leaves the EU, I'll move into the EU. I doubt the UK will leave the EU though as most of it is manipulation and posturing.

<comment><USER17> US still needs their lapdog in the EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18>
      > For the no campaign there was relief: a spate of
      > authoritative polls in the final days of the campaign had
      > said the vote was on a knife edge, bringing Yes Scotland
      > within touching distance of victory after a dramatic surge
      > in support.

Did anyone actually believe the odds were close? I've been following the odds at the major betting exchanges for the last few weeks. I am not aware of any large exchange or bookmaker offering decimal odds lower than 3.00 at any point during that period. For the last few days it's typically been between 3.50 and 4.50. If anyone actually believed that the outcome of the referendum was "on a knife edge", they should have placed some very large bets on a "Yes" outcome.

<comment><USER19> What are these "major betting exchanges"? People often refer them but I've no clue where they go to find them. Google/Bing is turning up funny links as well.

<comment><USER18> Betfair is probably the best known in the UK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This referendum has convinced me that we should enfranchise 16 & 17 year olds for US elections. My main hangup before was that these people might be pressured by their parents into voting a certain way. It turns out not only do they have political minds of their own, their energy and intelligence was clearly a boost to the spirit of democracy so evident in this election.

As adults, we often romanticize our childhoods, because well .. they are by and large romantic. The experience of discovering the world and yourself is the centerpiece of youth, and it's important that we have that perspective reflected in our democracies.

<comment><USER21> >It turns out not only do they have political minds of their own, their energy and intelligence was clearly a boost to the spirit of democracy so evident in this election.

Does it? I would always assume that, but I'd shy away from claiming it without proof.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> almost magic how far some western countries have advanced - in most of the world the "separatist" is pretty much equivalent of "terrorist" and a valid reason to send tanks in while in UK they just let the vote happen (even though it would be a high treason just a couple hundred years ago there too).

<comment><USER2> The UK is unusual though - it is a "Union" with Scotland maintaining a lot of separate institutions that predate the union in 1707: notably the legal and education systems which are often completely different from those in the rUK. For the last while we've even had our own government here in Edinburgh.

So we were already a sort of a "country within a country" anyway.

<comment><USER23> Is rUK pronounced ruck or are-you-kay?

<comment><USER24> I think it was a typo. I've never heard of the term before.

edit: Oh, it seems it's a Scottish term for Rest-of-UK. TIL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> it's true that it would have changed a lot of things.

</comment><comment><USER26> Although most stories about politics are off-topic for HN, this one seems like the exception that proves the "most". Let's hold off flagging it unless the thread goes haywire.</comment>


Japanese Company Charges Its Staff $100 an Hour to Use Conference Rooms - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-20/charging-employees-for-conference-rooms-helps-disco-boost-profit <comment><USER2> Don't judge this article without reading ti. Fascinating system of game & market mechanics in an organization. It would work well for many people. One interesting thing is that they put in a penalty system for too much overtime to even try and use it to benefit employees.</comment>


Ask YC: YC (Dropbox) vs YC (ZumoDrive)? - <AUTHOR>

Sorry for the attempt to be cute with the title :) but seriously, isn't there a substantial overlap between these two? Does it matter if two YC companies end up directly competing? As a very occasional angel, I wonder how this works ... <comment><USER2> Due the fact that companies often evolve substantially from their original business models, it is impossible to make a lot of investments without at some point having clashes among your portfolios. A group that makes 40 per year couldn't possibly avoid such a thing.

<comment><USER3> And given the current funding climate, it would be great for such companies to merge.

<comment><USER4> Why?

Don't you think the transition period would dramatically hurt productivity? What about clashing cultures? M&A usually fails.

<comment><USER5> _M &A usually fails._

Yet a lot of YC companies will end up getting acquired.

<comment><USER6> A big company can accept that some of its acquisitions won't work out well. Small companies aren't as strong.

<comment><USER5> So what you're saying is that when it works, the reward is enough to offset the failures.

Given this, there is no reason startups should avoid merging simply because it "usually fails" (as the post above was suggesting)... In fact, it's a risk in the same league as doing a startup in the first place.

<comment><USER6> It's enough to offset the failures for a big company if they're any good at acquisition. For a startup the payoff has to be a heck of a lot more. The odds of the merger going bad are higher (too many chefs) and going bad means a total failure of both companies.

<comment><USER5> I think we're debating at cross-purposes.

The original statement was along the lines of - M&A usually fail, so there is no point in doing this for startups.

Now, maybe being a startup modifies the M&A rules in some or many ways - but I don't think it precludes M&A as a worthwhile option.

A merger in a high risk field might be a tipping factor - might improve your chances or getting a critical mass of users, funding, or some other key factor - so whilst the merger is risky, it modifies the chance of success in some critical way.

In the highly competitive field such as online storage, this kind of advantage may well be something worth pursuing -- I'm not 100% convinced in this case, but it does have some interesting implications.

So - totally agree - might be risky. Might be risky most of the time... But certainly not worth dismissing.

<comment><USER4> More like: they usually fail so proceed with caution

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Originally they weren't competing. ZumoDrive evolved out of Versionate. Even now there are significant differences in the way the two work. They should be able to both succeed.

<comment><USER8> Have you encouraged them to join? Dropbox has more customers and awareness. Zumodrive has better technology. They'd be stronger together than apart.

<comment><USER9> Hmmm, I'd like to see a formal comparison of the two. I haven't used zumodrive but I'm soooooo impressed with Dropbox. It's amazing.

I know this is against the grain, but Dropbox replaced SVN for our development projects. It's a lot easier for designers to use... SVN is too tedious.

<comment><USER10> _I haven't used zumodrive but I'm soooooo impressed with Dropbox._

One fundamental difference is that Dropbox syncs things between drives and cloud. Zumodrive only uses your local machine as cache. The difference is when you have 20 gigs in the service, a Zumodrive doesn't actually use up any of your HD space. On the other hand, you don't have to be connected to the internet to see/edit your Dropbox files, only to sync.

<comment><USER11> While is it true that Zumodrive by default uses local storage as a cache, if you have enough space you can set it to keep everything local.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I believe that PG has said in the past that YC has no problem investing in companies within the same market. If they are promising enough and the market is sufficiently large, it won't be an issue.

The storage market with these two companies seems like a pretty good example.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'd like to know the answer to this too, I feel like there are a ton of viable options out there now, but I am waiting to see who stands out as defacto.

The ZumoDrive/iTunes integration is truly innovative, though. Majorly cool!

</comment><comment><USER14> ZumoDrive turned me off instantly with their horrible Mac offering. I like the idea, but Dropbox actually has a real nice client on Mac.

<comment><USER15> I'm curious what it is you don't like about the ZumoDrive Mac client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nothing wrong with diversification. If it is good for the economy at large to have so many competing smaller entities, then perhaps it is good for an individual fund to have stakes in many competing smaller entities as well.

</comment><comment><USER17> I would love to see ZumoDrive support Linux. I've recently adopted Linux pretty much full time, and the Dropbox client for it is great; it really offers seamless integration.

Does anyone know if ZumoDrive plans to offer Linux support in the future? I have a huge flac library I'd love to be able to stream to my lower storage laptop. Heck, I'd store a ton of stuff in the cloud.

<comment><USER18> We are looking to support Linux soon :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> ZumoDrive is notably down right now.

500 - Internal Server Error Oops, something went wrong on the server. We'll investigate this ASAP. In the mean time, click here to go to our home page.

On every page :-(

<comment><USER19> It's back now :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I own AMD and Intel stock.

</comment><comment><USER21> Cloud living is pretty expensive :(

</comment><comment><USER22> Dropbox.</comment>


PyMiniRacer: Embedding JavaScript into Python - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sqreen.io/embedding-javascript-into-python/ <comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr:

PyMiniRacer bundles a plain V8. It uses its C++ interface to communicate with it. Executing a JavaScript string in a given context is done with the following steps:

1\. Take the JavaScript input as a Python string (in the MiniRacer.eval Python method);

2\. Pass it to V8 after a String::NewFromUtf8 conversion;

3\. Then V8:

           - compiles it with Script::Compile;

           - executes it with Script::Run;

4\. PyMiniRacer converts the result to an abstract binary interface;

5\. Return it to Python that will convert it using ctypes.

</comment><comment><USER2> Related show HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12210299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12210299)</comment>


Show HN: Feedback on this subscription commerce + charity project (eat05.com) - <AUTHOR>

So I've been working away at Cilantro in my free time (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2927607) ... and in working with local restaurants, I've learned a lot about the coupon and daily deal space.
I wanted to experiment with a subscription commerce model for restaurants. I just launched it today for my local area (San Luis Obispo):
http://www.eat05.com
Think of it as "Birchbox for Restaurants"
- Consumers pay $9 per month
- They get six to eight 2-for-1 restaurant vouchers
- $4 of the purchase goes to a local food charity (SLO Food Bank so far)
- It's free for restaurants to participate
Surprisingly, it's been easy to get restaurants on board. They're used to paying to run coupons, plus they lose less money than with daily deals. Now, I just need to see if consumers will pay for it. Eventually, I'd like to match restaurant vouchers/coupons with users' tastes (vegan, coffee drinker, night life, children, etc.).
Ideas, feedback and criticism welcome.
Would you pay for something like this in your town? <comment><AUTHOR> LINK: <http://www.eat05.com>

If you're curious about any tech, I used Unbounce for the home page. The signup area is a Rails 3.1 app on Heroku Cedar stack with SSL. Payment processing by Stripe. Oh, and Twitter Bootstrap natch.</comment>


What does "execution dependent" mean? (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://johnaugust.com/2009/what-does-execution-dependent-mea <comment><USER2> It's hard to think of many movies above the crap level that are not "execution dependent". An "execution independent" script has to be so good it works as a bad production.

The reverse is more likely. Action movies today are quite often great executions of a mediocre script. Especially action movies, most of which don't hold together if viewers have enough time between the explosions to think about the plot and dialogue.

Comedies, maybe. They're more script-driven.

<comment><USER3> I was thinking of Twilight. Was the choice of actors, location, fight directors etc. relevant to the success of the movie?

Or was it down to the plain jane Mary Sue the viewer could inject themself into that a sexy vampire was in love with for no real reason? (And in the sequel, a sexy werewolf is also in love with Mary Sue for... ...reasons?)

Like, I feel you could've cast this movie entirely differently, or had a different director, and so long as SexyWishFulfillment McVampire was good looking enough, you'd make bank, so long as you catered well to the demographic watching this dross.

<comment><USER4> Twilight was actually kind of revolutionary.

Till that point urban fantasy romance really focused on adult women, and thus had enormous amounts of graphic sex, violence, and BDSM.

Twilight was a story about a teenage Virgin, and a chaste vegetarian vampire. It was so safe reading even fundamentalist religious parents would let their kids enjoy it.

So it found a huge, until then untapped market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. I wonder if the concept is also applicable to startups. I would love to do a startup that wasn't execution dependent. But how would one know?

<comment><USER6> Buffett, on execution independence on the downside

> when a management with reputation for brilliance gets hooked up with a > business with a reputation for bad economics, it's the reputation of the > business that remains intact.

JDR, on execution independence on the upside

> the best business in the world is a well run oil company. The second best > business in the world is a badly run oil company.</comment></comment>


GitHub notifications on your menu bar - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ekonstantinidis/gitify

<comment><USER2> This will come in handy! You might want to submit this under "Show HN", though.

Also; do the notifications use OS X's notification center, or will the menu bar icon change color upon new notifications?

</comment><comment><USER3> I am tempted to make it work for bitbucket as well :)</comment>


Show HN: I've made a site that lists new cryptocurrency listings - <AUTHOR> http://cryptolistings.info <comment><AUTHOR> The site filters tweets from exchanges and lists tweets concerning new altcoin listings. Might be useful for some of you guys.

<comment><USER2> I'll definitely be using this. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How could I optimize YouTube to show more relevant videos? - <AUTHOR> Sometimes when I want to learn something, I'd open Youtube, do my search query, glance the results and choose 1-2 videos to watch. However, when I've learnt the stuff, I necessarily don't want to see more videos related to that subject. For example, I saw a video explaining how car clutch works. After watching that, it's not like I want to see 20 more videos about car clutches explained by 20 different people. Yet, those videos seem to pop up in the recommended section.
Things I've tried: 1) Use incognito mode for the subjects that I'm interested only once 2) Enhance the recommended section by removing the non-interesting channels from the list 3) Remove non-interesting videos from the search and watch history 4) Do queries to fake interests
Unfortunately, none of these seem to work. Almost everytime I open Youtube, I cannot find the videos I'd be interested in. I'm not sure want I want to see but most of the time it's hardly anything that is offered. <comment><USER2> My experience is that Chrome's incognito mode limits information but does not seem to do so in a way that affects Google's business model. For a clean slate, use a different browser or a whole different Chrome identity or run in a VM...or adjust your Google settings to forget about you (which means Google remembers that you're a person who they need to apply "forget about me" settings.

</comment><comment><USER3> Make a number of searches on "Artificial Insemination of Sheep", and you will get less car clutch stuff. The trouble is google thought your life's work was about clutches - you got lots.... As your search focus shifts, so will the adds/suggested videos. When your friend is away from his computer, repeat that AI of sheep search a few times.... sit back - laff.</comment>


Tilted Toilet: The corporate poo patrol is coming after your toilet time - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/battle-toilet-workplace <comment><USER2> I'm still not convinced this is a real thing. All the images seem to be renders. The link that's supposed to show that the BTA "approved" the toilet is just a press release. The Twitter and LinkedIn links just go to the home pages, not to any specific account.

At least the "pending" patent number seems to be actually pending.</comment>


Automatically invest in Bitcoin with spare dollars from your coffee - <AUTHOR> https://inwest.io/faq <comment><AUTHOR> We're using Plaid which is PCI compliance. Inwest only requests read permissions on transactions through Plaid to access credit/debit/banking card information. Inwest is not authorized to make purchases or transfer money through the credit card linkage with Plaid.

<comment><USER2> Interesting! love the idea. we need a simple, dummy proof way for the public to ease into crypto. as long as you have access to move funds</comment></comment>


Steve Jobs Lost Interview 1990  - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nMD6sjAe8I&feature=youtu.be&a <comment><USER2> Good one</comment>