Where are Docker images stored? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.thoward37.me/articles/where-are-docker-images-stored/ <comment><USER2> Images may also be stored in one of the available private registries. <shameless plug> As the Co-Founder, I am partial to Quay.io [[https://quay.io](https://quay.io)], which in my not so humble opinion has the best features, reliability, and support for businesses and organizations, but there are other options if for some reason Quay.io doesn't meet your needs. For those who prefer to self-host, we've also got an enterprise option, which brings all of the index and registry goodness behind your firewall. </shameless plug>

That said, we love the Docker ecosystem and way of doing things. A sibling comment mentioned how complicated Docker is, but I think when you realize that they are trying to offer DVCS like features and paradigms, you will realize that it is complicated for a reason. We all thought git was complicated at first as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Regarding the shameless product plug: Quay looks like a very cool product. Love the history and diff views. Glad to see pricing mimics Github model "pay for private, but public is free and unlimited". Awesome!

Regarding complexity in Docker: So here's the thing, people wanted npm, but they got git. How can we bridge the gap between a easy to use, out of your way package manager and a fully featured DVCS experience? I love the idea of merging them, but IMO, need to make the semantic model more accessible. Specifically, need to ensure concepts are properly orthogonal, not overloaded, and unambiguously defined. Might be too late to scrub this aspect though.

Some other general problems are things like checksums, fingerprints, image signing, etc. How to verify the validity of an image?

<comment><USER2> I will speak to the issues about which I am familiar.

Checksums are currently uploaded by the client and verified by the registry. Signing is on the roadmap[1]. I'm not sure what you mean by a fingerprint, would this be analogous to an SSH host key? What function would it serve if you already had a signature that only you could reproduce?

[1]: [https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/2700](https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/2700)

<comment><AUTHOR> A fingerprint is just a small, easy to recognize string that identifies a pub key of a trusted individual. It's helpful with recognizing the "trustfulness" of a release. More important than the fingerprint though is the pub key of the release engineer, and a web of trust to verify that key.

The process that is the gold standard for this, IMO, is what's used over at Apache Software Foundation.

[https://www.apache.org/dev/release- signing.html](https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html)

For those who aren't familiar with the topic, I'll illustrate with a release I made a few years ago, here's the release artifacts for Lucene.Net 2.9.2:

[http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/lucene.net/source/2.9.2...](http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/lucene.net/source/2.9.2-incubating/)

You'll find a .zip, .asc, .md5, and .sha1 file. The .zip is the release artifact. The MD5 and SHA1 are just two different hashes to prove that the package you got is not corrupt and is what it should be, similar to a checksum (note: these hashes should also be signed, IMO). The .asc is a signature for the release.

A signature is made from the release engineer's key pair and the release artifact. gpg can take the .asc and the .zip as inputs and tell you what pub key made the signature (and it reports it as a short fingerprint). If you've imported a trusted key into gpg, it will tell you that it's a verified and trusted key, and tell you who it was.

My pub key for ASF signing is available here:

[http://people.apache.org/~thoward/F1AADDE6.asc](http://people.apache.org/~thoward/F1AADDE6.asc)

If you pull all these files together and verify them, this should be your result:

$ curl -sSL [http://people.apache.org/\~thoward/F1AADDE6.asc](http://people.apache.org/\\~thoward/F1AADDE6.asc) | gpg --import gpg: key F1AADDE6: public key "Troy Howard (CODE SIGNING KEY) <firstname.lastname@example.com>" imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 (RSA: 1)

$ gpg --verify ~/Downloads/Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.2-incubating.src.zip.asc ~/Downloads/Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.2-incubating.src.zip gpg: Signature made Fri Feb 25 09:33:40 2011 PST using RSA key ID F1AADDE6 gpg: Good signature from "Troy Howard (CODE SIGNING KEY) <firstname.lastname@example.com>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 062B 4DAF 06F8 61CD 2E71 E40B 8EAA A8A8 F1AA DDE6

Anything else, and you should not use the release.

A good package and release system, like Docker Index/Registry should build these verifications in automatically. A tool like Quay can host pub keys, and can automatically sign images. The Docker Index API can be extended slightly to support fetching the signature. Docker itself could be extended to support "verified" mode, where it refuses to run images that don't have a signature, or fail key verification from a trusted set of keys.

Hmm.. maybe I need to write another blog post. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Holy crap this is complicated. (how docker works, not your write-up)

</comment><comment><USER4> (1) Who pays the bills for the public registry (docker.io) and why?

(2) Is there a future possibility similar to how so many Ruby projects fall down when GitHub goes down due to not 'pit-of-success-ing'[1] a copy of everything locally?

[1] [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/brada/archive/2003/10/02/50420.aspx](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/brada/archive/2003/10/02/50420.aspx)

<comment><USER5> Why do you '[1]' links?

<comment><USER6> Part of HN's convention, especially since there are often more than one link, is to use end-noted links rather than inline ones. This makes the prose easier to read, and still makes it easy to identify and annotate the importance of links.

<comment><USER7> I kind of wonder why HN doesn't support [Markdown- style]([http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link)) links. It _almost_ makes me miss Reddit.

I suppose it's to make it clear where links go, and discourage trolling... but browsers failing to show you where links go is a failing of browser chrome, and people who are concerned about that can install extensions that make link destinations more obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To put it another way:

1\. a Docker _registry_ is like (or maybe just _is_ ) an S3 bucket: a dumb, private object-store.

2\. A docker _index_ is a database-backed web service with a REST API, that clients talk to.

3\. The web service can generate temporary tokens that let you GET things from, and PUT things in, the bucket.

4\. The web service's database has a model of an image "project" similar to a Git repository: version history, branches, and other metadata.

5\. The bucket contains the image repository's "object pool." Just like git, when you pull a branch, the client downloads all the "objects" required to check out that branch.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there any way to run your own Docker repository?

Edit: Looks like the correct term is registry.

<comment><USER9> Yes, assuming you mean your own docker registry. Docker has open sourced [https://github.com/dotcloud/docker- registry](https://github.com/dotcloud/docker-registry)

Remember the registry deals with the actual data, and delegates auth and other stuff to an index. The docker-registry has a dummy implementation of an index that has no notion of authentication or authorization, so anything you push to your private registry is really public if you don't secure it with some other method.

For me, I wanted to have a real private registry with access control limited to my team. It turned out to not be too difficult to make our own registry+index implementation that is private by default. It has a basic web interface too. I've open sourced development of it [https://github.com/jimrhoskins/stevedore](https://github.com/jimrhoskins/stevedore) . It's still really rough, especially on the web interface stuff, but for push/pull operations with required authentication, it does the job now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "So why did it say that? I have no idea, but you can ignore it." \- because it is "uploaded" from the CLI tool to the daemon. See [http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/builder/#usage](http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/builder/#usage)

</comment><comment><USER11> I've started using quay.io to store my docker images. I have not used the service heavily (because I'm still building out my Dockerfiles), but what I have used has been great.

Docker.io is great to use to store images, unless you don't want them public. I have proprietary apps loaded on my images so making them public is not an option.

So far Docker is set to solve my scalability problem that i've been seeking for the past year. Since VMs are not ideal, I start with a farm of bare ubuntu servers and scale out to VM's in the cloud if needed. With Docker I can configure once and deploy to all of these nodes no matter how they were built. I stopped using Chef when I realized I could accomplish my goals with a fraction of the complexity and effort.

</comment><comment><USER12> Great writeup. I always appreciate somebody else doing a down-to-earth overview of something complicated. This post makes me wonder if some sort of flowchart or UML diagram of the docker system components wouldn't be a useful thing.</comment>


President Obama opens public petition to stand up for net neutrality - <AUTHOR> https://www.barackobama.com/net-neutrality/?utm_campaign=MISC&awesm=ofa.bo_q1fH&utm_medium=socnet&source=socnet_fb_MISC_20141119_bo_net-neutrality_addyourname_1&utm_source=fb&utm_content=20141119_bo_net-neutrality_addyourname_1

<comment><USER2> In other news:

 _Net Neutrality Emails Reveal a Cozy 'Social Network' Between the FCC and Telecoms_

[https://news.vice.com/article/net-neutrality-emails- reveal-a...](https://news.vice.com/article/net-neutrality-emails-reveal-a- cozy-social-network-between-the-fcc-and-telecoms)</comment>


Show HN: Homepagr.com, an information-dense "new tab" page - <AUTHOR> https://www.homepagr.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I created this to scratch my own itch, which was to keep track and organize all of the links that I use on a daily basis. For example, at work, I have a section for a project which has links to our Figmas, requirements documents, JIRA boards, and git repos in one section.

It has a browser extension, and also allows you to share your link list with other users.

Right now it is free (hopefully one day it can pay for itself...)

Would love your feedback!</comment>


Can Java Be Saved? - <AUTHOR> http://www.sleberknight.com/blog/sleberkn/entry/can_java_be_saved <comment><USER2> _SIGH_ Some people are such fashion idiots. We get it. You think Java is like wearing flares. It's unfashionable to you hip idiots.

You're having a blast hacking together your dynamic stuff without a care in the world. You love how you can type 3 less characters and get the same work done! Woo! High five! You have your repl setup so you can edit (and break) your website on the fly. Static typing? who needs it. Lets write our own type checking all over the code.

Meanwhile, people who don't care what is fashionable, are making awesome stuff in whatever language they assess does the job best.

For anyone who hates Java, I'd recommend:

      * Ignore everyone who writes Java commercially.
        *especially* corporates doing their massive TomCat
        beans getter/setter XML over engineered crap.
      * Do NOT use an IDE. You don't need to. It makes you
        output more code, and worse code.
      * Figure out your own concise style, and figure out
        the absolute strengths of Java (There's many).

I know it's ridiculous that at some point programmers may figure out that languages are largely irrelevant, but I hope it happens one day.

Talking of languages "Dying" is also quite ridiculous. Languages are 'alive' as long as people use them. Guess what? If a new JVM is never released, it still solves a massive class of problems.

A good programmer beats a good <language> programmer IMHO.

</rant>

<comment><USER3> "I know it's ridiculous that at some point programmers may figure out that languages are largely irrelevant, but I hope it happens one day."

One can't "figure out" that which isn't true ;P

As a proponent of language-oriented programming I can only disagree strongly with your statement. Languages are _supremely_ relevant. However it is true that with respect to a specific problem, the expressive difference between almost any two general-purpose languages pales in comparison to the difference between a general-purpose language and a domain-specific language specifically tailored to the task at hand.

In my as-of-yet-unreleased Common Lisp web framework, I have DSLs for:

\- HTML ("building", rewriting and outputting) \- CSS (building and outputting) \- Form validation \- Error message specification and customization \- Declarative configuration management (loading and dumping, eventually modifying too) \- and probably others I'm forgetting at the moment, plus a bunch of others I'm planning to do

I'm sure Java has equivalent stuff, the problem is that their solution has to fit in a rigid mold (object-oriented, java syntax) so there's a lot of cognitive resources wasted in translating back and forth between your mental model of what you want to do and how you must express it in Java.

<comment><USER2> Would shakespeare have been terrible if he had written everything in french?

Personally, I don't think so.

<comment><USER4> Would he have done as well in a language that didn't have adjectives or adverbs?

<comment><USER2> That's not a good comparison. You can do anything in any turing complete language. They're all equally expressive. If the language isn't expressive enough, make it so.

<comment><USER3> Isn't that contradictory?

If all turing-complete languages are equally expressive, how does adding another feature to a language that's already turing-complete can possibly make it more expressive than it already is? It was turing-complete before the addition and it's just as much turing-complete after the addition.

I'm not really impressed by turing-tarpit-style arguments. There's at least one thing I can do in Common Lisp that I can't in Java: Implementing new syntaxic constructs look exactly like they're part of the language. I won't bore you with a long laundry-list of other similar things.

In fact, you know what? If by the turing-completeness criterion all languages are equally expressive, then the important points of comparison between languages in terms of expressiveness are _necessarily_ matters other than turing-completeness.

Or would you argue that, say, x86 machine-language is just as expressive as say, Java? According to your turing-completeness argument that would seem like a yes. By the way, I do include a certain measure of "productivity" in my use of the word "expressiveness". Do you?

<comment><USER4> You are exactly right. Turing completeness is irrelevant when comparing languages, because it is a property of both. Turing complete or not, good luck programming your graphics card with Tcl or having boilerplate-free Java. It just isn't possible.

But the way I see it is, "it's not my problem if people want to write boilerplate all day" or that they like Java. Using Java does not take anything away from me, except possibly contributions to the community. (But then, the fanbois are rarely contributors to the community. This is true even for me!)

You will never convince axod that Java would benefit from new features. He is happy to be in a minority here (a "smug Java weenie"), and that happiness is worth more than potential increased productivity.

HN is a weird place for programming discussions. People here seem to think that making a website that people will visit and look at ads on is somehow correlated to code quality. It's not. It's just that you will enjoy making that website more when you aren't manually writing your own delegation functions, or writing "Foo foo = new Foo()".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Welcome to the bimonthly "Is Java dead ? Can it be saved ? Using Java, brain- dead ?" ad-infinitum . The reality is quite prosaic , does Java work for you ? This can also be re-phrased as Are you looking for a stable,robust language with tons of libraries + tools and lots of "developers" ? If yes, then consider Java.

If no, then look elsewhere , may be even at one of the languages running on the JVM. End of.

<comment><USER4> That's not what this article is.

Why bother reading when you can make a cynical comment instead, though?

<comment><USER5> I did read the inflammatory headline and the complete article and that was my takeaway from it.

You of course are welcome to your opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it interesting that the article mentions the "new" operator, since this particular language quirk has been a source of minor fascination to me. Presumably it was added to make Java look more like C++, even though many other parts of the language are quite different. The "new" operator is the only language feature I can think of that has no purpose other than appearance, and that comes at the cost of making the language just that little bit worse.

<comment><USER7> These comments by Guy Steele

[http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/m...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/msg04044.html)

[http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/m...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/msg04030.html)

on the LL-1 list seem to shed light on why Java has a hardwired "new".

<comment><USER6> Aha, interesting. So they were worried about having a specific operator for heap allocation.

It doesn't sound like a particularly clever design decision, because even very early on Java had static "newInstance" methods which rather seem to defeat the point. But I can see the reasoning behind it now, even if that reasoning wasn't very well thought through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is all irrelevant because most Java programmers now program in XML anyway. Except they like to think it's not programming, but "configuration".

<comment><USER9> I don't know why you were downmodded, that's an accurate description of most AOP shops. 10,000-line, version controlled "config files" are not unusual.

<comment><USER4> But it's not code, so it doesn't need testing or documentation. Think of the time savings!

<comment><USER9> Version controlled _if you're lucky_ too!

<comment><USER4> Uh oh, the Java downmod trolls are here.

I wonder how many accounts axod has created simply to mod down every post in "Java is not perfect" threads.

<comment><USER2> And I'll do the same in a few years time when this place is overrun with "Ruby is dead!", "Why Python is dead", "Is erlang the next COBOL" articles.

<comment><USER4> "Why Python is dead" was posted yesterday. ("No changes for three years.")

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> C# and Java may look similar, but they have drastically different ecosystems. C# can evolve much faster because Microsoft can drop their support of older versions and make them practically inviable. MS customers are used to the cycle and have learned to expect it. The large corporations that adopt Java, on the other hand, don't expect and don't want the language to change. They have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in code, and they won't let any vendor tell them it's obsolete.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think projects like Clojure are showing that the Java platform isn't necessarily about the Java language anymore, that the runtime and the class library can be used to great effect while getting passed Sun's unwillingness to evolve the language.

When was the last time Sun updated the bytecode format? I seem to remember it has been quite a while, like 1.3. I don't know, I haven't been steeped in Java for the last 3 years.

<comment><USER11> It appears it was round about the time of JRE1.5. Actually, that was the last major runtime update, that doesn't mean the bytecode format changed, though obviously how the runtime reacts to the bytecode is a significant consideration when developing a new language. Anyway, it doesn't seem like the JRE is a largely moving target.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The strange thing is that even though Java is very much backwards compatible, big vendors behave as if every new version would break everything.

I've had to move heaven and earth for an upgrade from 1.4.1 to 1.4.2 when Java 6 was just around the corner, and I hear that there are still many teams using Java 1.4.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's funny how an article about Java the language comes up and almost every single comment here is attacking either the article or the language. Like it or not, Java is one of the most popular languages, so there are going to be a lot of people who want to improve it to make it more usable.

As the article said, Microsoft has proven with C# that you can take a language and evolve it over time for the better. If Java the language wants to be viable and keep up with what programmers want from a language, then it's going to have to release an update with changes like the ones outlined in the article. I think the article hit the nail on the head with some of Java's biggest problems (though not all). These changes would make it so that Java could be used in the way a lot of people _want_ to use it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Funny that this article praises C#'s generics over Java's type erasures, when Rich Hickey specifically cited the latter, and the convenience it creates for dynamic languages, as a reason for choosing the JVM over the CLR for his implementation of Clojure.

</comment><comment><USER15> again, please don't upvote question headlines. cowardly journalism, easily abused, insubstantial stories. just don't do it.

<comment><USER2> Agree. Flag it instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> That's an excellent article, thanks Fogus!

Not only does it level some valid criticism, it also proposes (for the most part, omitting 'new' would break too much code) workable solutions.

<comment><USER17> I think that both sides of the argument are valid but I am more inclined to believe that keeping the language stable at least over the short term may be the better strategy.

Java thrives in environments where stability is a prime concern and Sun's commitment to maintaining backwards compatibility would inspire confidence.

The new languages that are being developed to run on the jvm reduces the need for Java to evolve as rapidly as some would like. If it is proven that these new languages solve problems better than java then it's only a matter of time before developers make the switch.

At this point when it's obvious what features are really desired then it Sun/Oracle may decide that adding those features to the Java language are appropriate.

In this way the new jvm languages sort of act like a research lab to test out new ideas to see which work better.

<comment><USER16> Java has some serious shortcomings that require you to write lots more code than actually necessary, to reduce that would be really really neat.

On top of that I can see one immediate benefit in implementing some of these, which is that to my eyes all java persistence layers are kludges, simply because of the way the language is structured.

This could make writing such software a lot easier and more reliable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Can Java Be Saved?"

Hopefully not. :)

<comment><USER16> Why hopefully not ? Java has it's uses.

I'm no 'fan' of the platform, but like any other programming language you can write anything in it, it simply has a 'niche' where it is a good tool when properly applied.

<comment><USER4> And what is this niche?

<comment><USER16> Software written for large corporations with a medium to high turnover in their staff where quality of programmer is less a factor than long-term maintainability of the project is.

As weird as it sounds, in that world java's lack of 'neat constructs' and tendency to solve things using 'boilerplate' is actually an asset, for the same reason that COBOL used to be an asset.

I've inherited a bunch of java code about 10 months ago now, so I've been more or less forced to come to terms with it, and even if I can't get over how tremendously kludgy it feels I would have a hard time getting this kind of performance out of other platforms on the exact same hardware.

Call it grudging admiration, I personally would have _never_ thought that you could do this and more with Java before being forced to get in to it.

There isn't a day though that I don't curse the language designers for making me go the long way around on just about anything that I could do in half the code (or less) in pretty much any other language that I have under my belt with the exception of assembler.

At this point in time, my main gripes with java are verbosity and an absolutely terribly kludgy feel to the interface with other parts of the library, it feels like wearing a straightjacket.

And it is exactly for that reason why enterprise types much really love it, my 'creativity' is limited to the point where anybody else facing the same problem would probably write more or less the same code.

Since joining this project I've basically just been busy condensing code and removing 1000's of lines of boilerplate by replacing it with the appropriate abstractions.

And by doing that I'm doing two things, I'm making the work marginally more interesting, secondly the other guy working on the project is slowly starting to see that cut&paste is not the way to go.

But that's my 'toolmakers' hat that I'm wearing, I'm pretty sure the that people that lead this project would rather have me work on 'features' because that is more productive in their eyes, my kind of 'productivity' will start paying off in the longer term.

Time will tell how it is all goes, for now my conclusion is that it is probably not the language that is 100% at fault, it is likely in large part attributable to the people that use it and promote it. And it will be a long time before I will be one of them, if ever.

If you've ever used UCSD-P with the dreaded P-code then you know roughly what I feel like about this job :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is just crying over spilt milk, isn't it?

Java got to be the COBOL of the 21st Century because of the boilerplate & etc, not despite it.

Immoral MegaCorporations like Java because they can segment large jobs and have armies of drones work on the small segments. Immoral MegaCorporations don't innately like productivity, they innately like Control Over Employees.

<comment><USER20> Uhh... it's not immoral to want manageable code. If any piece of code would depend on the programmer who wrote it, or require somebody in the top 10% then I'm sorry to say, but a lot less software would be written. It's not a perfect world, but I tend to value a workable compromise over an unworkable ideal.

<comment><USER21> If you're going to implicitly say that Java code is more "manageable" than alternatives, then you're going to have to provide citations, or at least meaningful stories of your experience.

The most important purpose of higher-level programming languages is to remove accidental complexities.

I can give you dozens of examples where Java fails to do that ... as opposed to other languages, some of them mainstream. Some examples ... nullable references, checked exceptions (which are a class of their own), no compile- time code contracts (the type-system is way too weak), concurrency based on shared state and mutexes, public/protected instance variables (with a god- awful getters/setters convention), no real closures (an anonymous class instantiation only captures final locals), no multi-dispatching (this could take care of half of all possible Java-related gotchas, at least), no pattern- matching operator (switch doesn't count). And the list can go on and on.

I've also worked on "big" code-bases written in Java. Some Java open-source libraries are truly beautiful, but these particular projects were not. On one of them it took one whole month to fix a bug that escaped us because of all the layers and all the boilerplate that was executing. This particular bug only happened like once a month, and debugging multi-threading Java code is a nightmare (I guess it could be worse).

Sorry, but this argument doesn't fly. I work in a Perl shop and not all programmers here are in "the top 10%" (I don't think either of us are). But with enough training and clear code-conventions (many of them coming from our community) ... our code base is quite manageable.

PS: I don't have anything against Java or Java programmers. I actually like it because of the available tools, libraries and because of the JVM, which is state-of-the-art.</comment></comment></comment>


Uber Suspends Drivers for Properly Registering Cars - k-mcgrady http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-auto-registration-gambit#.uskLBrQ1A

<comment><AUTHOR> > "Requiring Lyft drivers, including those who drive just a few hours a week, > to get commercial plates would essentially treat peer-to-peer transportation > the same as a taxi," said Lyft spokesperson Chelsea Wilson, noting that it > would undermine efforts to allow ride-hailing by other state agencies.

If someone is paid to provide you a service then they are not a peer, at least not in the context of that service.

Peer to peer would be car pooling.

George Orwell was worried about government corrupting language, but money and arrogance make corruption open to everyone.

</comment><comment><USER2> I would think the personal/commercial legal position will be, umm, clarified when insurance companies start denying personal insurance claims because the operators were "operating in a commercial activity". As I see it, never give insurance companies a chance to deny you coverage as they will if it's in their economic interest to do so.</comment>


You Can Now Pre-Order This Obscenely Expensive but Working Hoverboard - <AUTHOR> http://toyland.gizmodo.com/you-can-now-pre-order-an-obscenely-expensive-but-workin-1749602238 <comment><USER2> I'd be interested to know how the "$4,500 dock accessory" works; it seems odd that they'd have the capability to charge it fully in half an hour with an accessory that plugs into exactly the same wall socket as the normal charger, which takes 6 hours.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm really surprised they didn't just put a skirt on the bottom, and make it work like a hovercraft. You don't get the ability to shoot videos of nothing between it and the ground but you get a 5x improvement in efficiency.</comment>


Paul Graham on Uber and Lift Ban in Austin - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/paulg/status/731871426056065028 <comment><USER2> Uber and Lyft were not 'banned', they are refusing to follow regulations approved by actual VOTERS. [http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-04-22/chronicle- end...](http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-04-22/chronicle- endorsements/)

<comment> ryan-c Just because a vote went a particular way neither means that it is fair/good, or that it is the will of the people.

Voters have, in multiple instances, voted to deprive minorities of civil rights.

There is also a strong bias in what sorts of people vote. This "special election" had no other ballot items. Few people voted, probably because not a lot of people cared enough to go to a polling place. One of the demographics most likely to use uber/lyft is also least likely to vote.

On a personal note, I moved to Austin from the SF Bay Area a few months ago so that my spouse could pursue a PhD, and did vote on the issue. I don't really care about politics. I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday). I don't know who's more to blame, but I wish the city council and uber/lyft would stop their petty bickering and come to an agreement.

Edit: Also note that the vote result was actually "change nothing" \- the rules uber/lyft don't like were passed by the city months ago, but aren't in effect yet.

<comment><USER3> >I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday).

For next time...

[https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&...](https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=30357936,-97729147,11460&tbm=lcl&tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&fll=30.295702499999987,-97.73880020000001&fspn=1.307576286097948,2.3636602327767378&fz=9&oll=30.295702500000004,-97.73880020000001&ospn=0.5266116949786763,0.8269422496560992&oz=9&qop=1&rlfi=hd:;si):

<comment><USER4> I would love to know where people get the impression that taxis are a reliable, cost-effective service in the USA. Having lived in several major cities that were not NYC I've certainly never experienced it.

<comment><USER5> In many parts of Brooklyn, NY the car service companies are great. Some are reliable, some not. I have had so far positive experiences with companies I know are good. However Lift Line makes a very competitive price with these car service companies. The airport is a perfect example of when I use them. But service quality varies greatly -- some are always massively late and don't communicate, some are fantastic and cheap. Lyft has a more consistent experience feel, and that is valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just want uber and lyft back. The alternatives are awful. My friends have changed their weekend habits. I tried GetMe but it really sucks. Even the drivers were complaining the software had several bugs about billing, payment and mapping.

I don't think uber and lyft should have left over background checking and fingerprints. Idk which side will acquiesce first, I just hope someone does.

</comment><comment><USER7> If somebody suggested a new preventative drug for a rare disease, and offered zero studies to back it up, and suggested everyone should be required to receive it, they would get laughed out of the room.

Yet we still make public safety decisions on that kind of flimsy thinking all the time.

Either new regulations improve outcomes or they don't. But we'll never find out by yelling at each other, or by taking a poll. Governments could conduct science-based regulation if they wanted to, especially when it comes to public health and safety -- areas where there is broad agreement on the desired outcomes, just disagreement on what will actually achieve those ends.

Do these new regulations really improve safety? That's a testable hypothesis.

(It seems unlikely that they do, given the low background rate of rideshare- driver crime. But I'm open to evidence.)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm curious - Why does the Govt. have such a hard time regulating Uber in the US? In India, the state governments quite easily crack the whip whenever they deem it necessary. [http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/karna...](http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/karnataka- may-ban-surge-pricing-by-uber-ola-to-level-the-playing-field-for-cab- operators/50939743) [http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yes-we-ll-do-it- arvind-k...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yes-we-ll-do-it-arvind- kejriwal-on-suspending-surge-pricing-by-ola-uber/story- QUfbtCoggUmY9qqu4WU5mI.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> PG, Jeff Atwood, various others; at some point they all start believing their own hype and become actors playing themselves.

</comment><comment><USER10> In what kind of universe is "you must do actual background checks on drivers" a "ban".

<comment><USER11> In the kind of universe where "ban" means "anything that imposes a requirement on how we do business that we don't like".</comment></comment>


A hypothesis about how you might discover the next Twitter - grey-area https://twitter.com/paulg/status/898919987657805825 <comment><AUTHOR> I see the nastiness as a necessary evil of free speech platforms. Compare that to LinkedIn where there is virtually no nastiness and virtually no interesting conversations happening.

<comment><USER2> Probably makes some sense.. I mean Reddit is probably the most vulgar site on the planet... (next to 4chan, but I'm not a 4chan fan and I think reddit has way more market share to compare)

\-- and without the crazies I'm not sure it'd be as sticky as it is... Part of the fun is saying "you honestly believe that what the fuck is wrong with you?" Then getting banned from r/the_donald for being a 'libtard' /s

(disclaimer: voted for Bernie - proud libtard here)

<comment><USER3> reddit has become a collection of ideological silos where no real discussion or disagreement is allowed.

Few interesting conversations happen there, just 'circle-jerks'.

<comment><USER4> With some exceptions such as r/changemyview and r/science

<comment><USER5> And r/neutralpolitics, and a number of business-related subreddits.

<comment><USER6> Could you list a few of those subs you find interesting, business related or otherwise?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Retweet was invented by the users (RT:) just as commenting with the link to the original tweet (retweet with comment) was a user custom before Twitter did anything about it. Not sure how you force users not to invent their own ways to use a service.

<comment><USER8> Obviously it's only _partially_ helpful in their case, but you could do something like Reddit does: links to other tweets on Twitter would be "read- only", with no way to post or respond from the page you end up on. Pair this with not automatically rendering retweets on the main timeline, and it could go a long way toward neutering "retweet mobs".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Prevent madness systematically? I feel like it would be like orwellian world.

You can only tweet "good", "plus good" and "doubleplus good"

<comment><USER10> Criticism is violence

From what I've seen in some circles, they believe this.

<comment><USER11> Yes, the worst is the people who feel that "call-out culture" and SJWs are some form of oppression and destruction of the right to free speech.

<comment> qu4z-2 SJWs seem mostly harmless, if mildly annoying. Don't feed the trolls, and move on. It's a solved problem. They have as much right to free speech as anyone else.

That said, "Think of the women!" seems to be the new "Think of the children!": an excuse for pushing through terrible policies in a way that no-one can publicly object to. Frankly the most disgusting thing about that is what it implies about women's agency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area This article linked in the thread about how twitter became so angry is also a really interesting read:

[https://www.fastcompany.com/3063060/a-brief-history-of- the-a...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3063060/a-brief-history-of-the-angry- social-network)

And also this one on how to fix twitter abuse:

[https://artplusmarketing.com/putting-out-the-twitter- trashfi...](https://artplusmarketing.com/putting-out-the-twitter- trashfire-3ac6cb1af3e)

</comment><comment><USER12> FWD:Everyone is basically troll-proof because it requires the permission of each message contributor before a user can publish an email conversation. (Unless a message contributor has been anonymized.)

We've been mainly focused on building out the technology rather than promoting it so it remains to be seen how this model will work, but we made this design decision for largely the reasons that pg suggests. The theory is been to err on the side of starting with too much friction, and successively remove friction for people making positive contributions. This obviously means getting off to a much slower start than most other social sites, but with the benefit of avoiding the death spiral of negativity that kills most of the social sites that get initial traction -- Secret, Whisper, Yik Yak, etc.

<comment><USER13> I don't understand the first line. Is "FWD" an acronym, or are you imitating the subject line of a forwarded email?

<comment> grey-area It's a service that makes emails public

[https://www.fwdeveryone.com](https://www.fwdeveryone.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some people have thought about this topic for years, but Twitter ignores such knowledge because destroying civilization is more profitable. [http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of- asshole...](http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its- your-fault.html) [http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/)

<comment> grey-area _Some people have thought about this topic for years, but Twitter ignores such knowledge because destroying civilization is more profitable[https://twitter.com/anildash/status/898935261584801792](https://twitter.com/anildash/status/898935261584801792) [http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/) _

I think some charity is in order here - while it's easy to be mean (see what I did there), it's harder to propose real solutions that will work at scale, indeed lots of websites want to and no-one really has at scale (though many do much better than twitter). I think Paul Graham has been going on about this for years too, at least since he founded this site.

If Paul Graham was somehow associated with twitter I'd have more sympathy with your viewpoint but it's not some sudden epiphany. Ironically, the hot takes of twitter and retweet feature he's complaining about have been used here to misrepresent his views and present it as such for the sake of a cheap rhetorical point.

Also, twitter does have all three points in the article, but it's nowhere near enough (I think they fail at the third point but there are also other more concrete solutions they could try see my link below).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> To me, Mastodon is the next Twitter, and there is a lot less nastiness going on because the character limit per message is 400 characters, leading to a lot more nuanced and well thought out conversations.

It also helps that it is a decentralised platform, so there is no central censorship going on like on Twitter, which has the incentive to earn money and where the user is the consumer.

<comment><USER4> Wouldn't you say that there is more to this problem than content length and centralisation?

<comment><USER15> Like what?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find it interesting that Mastodon was built with a lot of input from communities frequently harrassed on Twitter.

It influenced early design choices (the "retweets" count is not proheminently displayed ; fine-grained options for muting/blocking/banning).

Plus, in the end, isn't per-community-moderation the only way to avoid the "one rule fits all" dictatorship?

</comment><comment><USER17> His point is broadly accurate, but is slightly ignorant of history with the implication that we need to invent "moderating Internet forums" over again.

I expect letting bluechecks moderate twitter would turn it from a libertarian dystopia into a corporate dystopia though; when the WSJ rediscovers neo-Nazis just to write articles about how well dressed they are, it's good that all the comments are mean to them.

</comment><comment><USER18> The key feature of Snapchat is that it allows you to communicate emotions. If you were forced to sign all your tweets with a facial expression, you could still upload text-only, and detect nasty/hostile facial expressions and ban such communications

<comment><USER19> Then watch your mentions fill with happy, smiling, racists.

(The idea of mandatory happiness is so absurd it was the premise of a Doctor Who story, "Happiness Patrol")

<comment><USER18> I said nothing about happiness. I also didn't suggest the images should be uploaded– just that they should be a key for uploading. I just said nasty/hostility (e.g. racists) should be avoided.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am blocked from seeing paulg's tweets, despite having never interacted with him. Perhaps the next Twitter won't arbitrarily prevent me from seeing some of its content for opaque reasons (and especially not in a way that makes it seem as though I've done something wrong, without telling me what that thing is).

That seems like a good feature for the next Twitter.

I think we fail to appreciate just how _weird_ this feature is. Presumably, paulg at some point saw some comment of mine that he didn't like. At this point he had three choices: 1) ignore it; 2) mute me, thereby preventing my idiotic words from ever reaching his eyes again; or 3) click a button that prevents me from ever seeing _his_ thoughts.

Wait, what? What is this crazy third option?

<comment><USER21> There's a bug (at least on mobile) that makes the "you are not authorized to view these tweets" message sometimes appear when it shouldn't. Have you tried reloading the page a couple of times?

(I'm guessing there's some authorization API endpoint that's slightly unreliable and "fails closed".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just screw software patents. What exactly is it about React that Facebook have a patent on ? How many patent trolls do we need before people see how ridiculous software patents are !?

</comment><comment><USER23> F2F conversations are an awful example if you're talking about excluding meanness.</comment>


Twitter launch Twitter Music - <AUTHOR> http://blog.twitter.com/2013/04/now-playing-twitter-music.html

<comment><USER2> Well... Their Spotify integration has some issues, I guess: <http://i.imgur.com/3d5J9po.png></comment>


SMS Spam from a Y Combinator Company? - <AUTHOR>

This morning (at 2am!) I started to get a bunch of text messages from a domain called "theflockapp.com."
There's no opt-out & no way to tell them to stop texting me (especially at 2am!).
I checked their FAQ & couldn't find anything there: https://theflockapp.com/faq
However, I surprised to find that it's an app created by a Y Combinator company, as the FAQ links to their team page: http://bu.mp/company/ourteam
The link in their text spam only takes me to download their app.
The best I can figure, is that to get them not to spam me, I have to 1) download their and 2) give them access to my Facebook account.
For reals?
PG or anyone else, could someone please ask them to knock this type of behavior off?  It really does seem over the line. <comment><USER2> Hi all, this is Dave, CEO of Bump (we make Flock). Just saw this thread, and though I've personally emailed with wdr1 already, I wanted to give everyone here the details.

These are not automated text messages coming from our servers. And they are not automated invites sent on behalf of users when they sign up for Flock. _They are intentional invitations sent directly by a real user._

The flow is: 1) User navigates to the Invite Friends page 2) User sees all her friends in her address book on her iPhone and taps on the ones she wishes to invite (phone numbers are shown below each friend) 3) User taps "Invite" button 4) User is taken to the native SMS UI with the contacts she chose in the To: field, which is editable, along with the link to download Flock, again, which is editable. 5) User must press "Send" on the SMS UI to send text messages to those friends.

You can see screenshots here: <https://bu.mp/aPGzVZ>

We've tried to make this flow as explicit and intentional as possible while giving existing Flock users a tool to invite their friends to use the app as well.

If there are examples of apps that do this better than we do, we'd love to hear about them so we can improve the flow.

-dave @ theflockapp.com

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, here's a screengrab of some of the texts: <http://imgur.com/8wNav>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm guessing someone you know who has you in their phonebook downloaded the app and then it has one of those aggressive "send this download link to all my friends" type of thing and it's created a chain reaction where you have shared friends who then hit you when they sign up and so forth and so forth.

<comment><USER4> That seems like quite a plausible explanation. However, it's a really scumbaggy and scammy move, especially without an obvious opt-out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reply with "STOP". That's supposed to be the universal "get me off this list" for SMS, though a bad actor might ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER6> So you want someone else to send an email to them?

Their email is clearly listed on the footer: firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I want them to give an opt out or, ideally, stop this behavior all together.</comment></comment>


Ithaca, Traverse City, and Roswell are great places to live if the world burns - <AUTHOR> https://bpodgursky.com/2019/09/10/it-turns-out-that-ithaca-traverse-city-and-roswell-are-good-places-to-hang-out-while-the-world-burns/ <comment> morten-oddvar 'Roswell.... is a real city, but the largest industry is "Leprino Foods, one of the world's largest mozzarella factories", which is likely not a first- strike military target.'</comment>


When a few hundred lines of javascript could equal $100 MM - <AUTHOR> http://garry.posterous.com/when-a-few-hundred-lines-of-javascript-could

<comment><USER2> My main gripe about the vast majority of travel websites is the complete lack of an "anywhere" option in the destination field. Sometimes I have a week off work, a set amount of cash and don't necessarily _care_ where I go. I just want to see all possibilities for destinations/flights etc. I think SkyScanner is the only site I've seen this option on.

<comment><USER3> <http://www.google.com/flights>

Select: departure airport, departure date, and return date (optionally price range). Do not choose a destination.

See: a map of destinations with price labels shown for major cities.

Set: the max price and see possible destinations fade away.

Click: on a destination dot on the map and instantly get details of available flights.

All without pressing a single "submit" button and without entering a single destination.

<comment><USER4> Trying to select Helsinki as departure airport: "Sorry, locations outside the US are currently not supported."

Ah well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find expedia.com to be equally terrible in this regard. In fact I have found that most travel oriented websites suffer from extremely poor UX, be they hotels, airlines, bus or train services.

I can understand the smaller hotels or bus companies, but there is no excuse for the larger players. The article is a bit presumptive in the cost, but it has to be affecting their bottom line.

<comment><USER6> I've been using hotels.com for many years now and they've actually gotten better and better during that time. Not as good as you might like, but still. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I admit the form reset is annoying, I don't see where the author shows any evidence that this usage pattern happens enough to make a difference.

Sure, when N gets large, every little bit helps. But if that behavior pattern only happens rarely, then changing it is unlikely to make much impact.

For all we know, their testing might have shown that folks who are planning trips between 2 options (flight to Vegas, no hotel needed, vs. flight to LA, hotel needed) wanted the form to reset so they didn't have to keep swiping and typing over leftover text in the fields. The frequency of usage patterns, weighted by their value to the business, would be a useful guide.

I'm not saying that the recommended change is the right or wrong thing to do, but I am saying that some data would really help back up any claims over size of impact. Otherwise, it's a good finding ruined by a totally exaggerated headline.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hipmunk has an amazing interface, but I have yet to actually use it to purchase a flight. Quite often I find better deals elsewhere. I really want to use it exclusively, but I just don't trust it to have the best data yet.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why on earth would someone abbreviate million as MM?

<comment><USER10> Pretty standard/common practice.

When discussing certain quantities, including money, it's common to use MM such as $100MM.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#Similar_symbols_in_ab...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#Similar_symbols_in_abbreviations)

<comment><USER11> > Pretty standard/common practice.

It's a common practise, but it's not a standard AFAIK. It's from latin mille which means 1000, so M=1000, and MM=1000000.

Unfortunately there is also a much more widely used international standard where k=1000 and M=1000000, so the M/MM forms are to say the least, confusing, and ought to be scrapped.

<comment><USER12> On the other hand, I've never seen anyone use 10M to mean 10k, so there doesn't seem to be any actual confusion caused by this.

1000 = k

1000000 = either m or M or MM

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When numbers get large, the more the little things start to matter. It must be exciting to see the changes happen live in front of you when you flick these 'little' switches.

<comment><USER14> Not that any of my clients would do this (or, candidly, I'd fire them), but suffice it to say I've heard of places where you can make enemies by being a wee bit too effective at plucking low-hanging fruit like this.

I think 9 figures is likely to be an exaggeration but say it is 7 figures (or low 8 figures) per year, which is probably pretty easy to verifiably achieve. Large corporations being what they are, there's a high probability that someone will be personally identified with the decision made 5 years ago which a) you're suggesting reversing and b) you're suggesting cost the company ~$40 million dollars. This combination makes you a threat to that person's career. Likely as not, that person is a VP, and they didn't get where they are without having political capital and favors owed to them by people who _also_ might have eventually risk getting demoted for gross incompetence if that were possible to do with "mere numbers." So you have to watch your back.

I once had a consulting proposal where I suggested that a process change could improve outcomes by let's call it $X0 million (and I was charging $X0k). Apparently a VP had sponsored the current process, at a cost of $X million, and he was directly in the line of signatures required to get the consulting gig approved. That ended that.

Startups/small companies aren't immune to this sort of pathology but you tend to get a lot less of it in my experience.

<comment><USER15> Gerald Weinberg discusses this problem in his "Secrets of Consulting", somewhere after proclaiming "it's always a people problem." One is hired as a consultant, and so one thinks the best approach is to recommend a change that likely achieves the best possible outcome for the client.

But in accepting this, the client would have to acknowledge the existence of this problem and all its potential consequences.

If I remember correctly, his recommendation is for a consultant to only improve matters by, say, 10%, making the client look good for hiring a consultant, making the consultant look good for delivering, and, what seemed to me just a happy side-effect, benefiting the client's organization.

The alternative, I suppose, is for the consultant to move on to greener pastures, and for the organization to see a 0% gain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I work for an airline and recently redesigned the flight search. Saw 10% increase in movement to next stage of the funnel.

I still don't feel like I can say 'increased turnover by £70million' in good faith though.

There is a limited market out there. For a small business a 10% uplift in conversion really = 10% more revenue. The same isn't necessarily true for a blue chip.

<comment><USER17> A 10% revenue can drive more than 10% increase in profits.

Sounds like you're doing a fine job of following patio11's advice (getting close to the money). Hope that works out for you! :)</comment></comment>


You are committing a crime right now (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right-now.html

<comment><USER2> Maybe add (2012) to the submission title?</comment>


Update on two pledge-related changes to OpenBSD - <AUTHOR> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=151268831628549 <comment><USER2> The first part, execpromises, has already landed:

[https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- cvs&m=151304116010721&w=2](https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- cvs&m=151304116010721&w=2) (Prev HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15906021](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15906021))

[https://man.openbsd.org/pledge](https://man.openbsd.org/pledge)

</comment><comment> yjftsjthsd-h So basically,

1: pledge that affects child processes

2: restricting access to parts of the filesystem

<comment><USER3> 3: utilizing this in software isn't as easy as you might think

That's the part that worries me. Stuff that's hard to get right in code, is often coded wrong.

<comment><USER4> In this context, it means "easy to enable, but if the child process does not handle errors correctly, it might be confused by all the pledge violation errors it gets for syscalls that used to always work". This is a bit unfortunate, and requires a implementor to apply a bit of elbow grease.

It specifically does not mean "hard to get right so that the intended security level is achieved". Such a scenario would be problematic.</comment></comment></comment>


Risk-First Software Development: A Quick Summary - <AUTHOR> https://riskfirst.org/Quick-Summary <comment><AUTHOR> Author here,

In Extreme Programming Explained, Kent Beck talks about how software development is all about balancing risk.

I've arrived at the same conclusion, and have been exploring this on in the Risk-First github project, which contains an argument about how this might be true and articles here about different types of software risk.

Hopefully this is useful to people here. Please feel free to ask anything.</comment>


Show HN: Command Line Résumé - <AUTHOR> https://cmd-resume.bbody.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> OP here, CMD Résumé was something I created to make my job applications stand out when I was just starting professional work and seeing jQuery Terminal ([https://terminal.jcubic.pl/](https://terminal.jcubic.pl/)). Despite a few "that's neat" from people, I don't think it really helped but over the year I have used it as a playground to try out technologies.

Github: [https://github.com/bbody/CMD-Resume](https://github.com/bbody/CMD- Resume)

<comment><USER2> The pdf command printed a Wikipedia link to the resume page. Are you making a joke (that I'm not getting)? Or is this a bug?

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know where to point it, so I just used the Wikipedia page as a placeholder. I created a PDF and am adding it in now :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sure let the recruiters and prospected employers do some work to get to your data.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, I did think of having a command that essentially output everything in one hit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a very eerie coincidence... Last week, I started to put up my own website[0], which I intend to initially serve as my online resume (after many years of relying on LinkedIn), and then later on to host my writings/blogs. This CLI/console mode was one of the ideas I had but later decided to defer it because it will take time from my other priorities. But now, thanks to your work, I won't need to spend so much time for it. Thank you for sharing this!

[0] [https://ric.dev](https://ric.dev)

<comment><AUTHOR> I am glad you found this useful! The resume is based on JSON Resume[0] which has a nifty tool which lets you generate from your LinkedIn profile [1]. Hope this helps!

[0] [https://jsonresume.org/](https://jsonresume.org/) [1] [https://jmperezperez.com/linkedin-to-json- resume/](https://jmperezperez.com/linkedin-to-json-resume/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a non-programmer, I'd like also very much to see something like that applied to some kind of personal Wikipedia.

<comment><AUTHOR> What kind of things would you have it provide?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Your page does not summon the on screen keyboard in iPadOS.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, unfortunately it isn't overly mobile friendly but I didn't realise it didn't work at all on iPadOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Alternative is the finger command in Unix like systems and CMD.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure I follow sorry.

<comment><USER7> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_protocol)

<comment><AUTHOR> I know the command just not sure what your suggestion is sorry

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The PDF command returns a Wikipedia link

<comment><AUTHOR> Placeholder link, fixing :)</comment></comment>


Chardin.js – overlay instructions - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/heelhook/chardin.js <comment><AUTHOR> And here's[0] a fork that adds support for some optional parameters:

\- data-documentation-text: Optional text for the suffix link, defaults to 'more...'

\- data-documentation-link: Optional link address, defaults to '#'

\- data-open-documentation-active-window: Optional attribute, if specified opens the link in current tab/window.

\- data-position: (left, top, right, bottom), where to place the text with respect to the element, defaults to 'bottom'

[0] [https://github.com/pegasuspect/chardin.js](https://github.com/pegasuspect/chardin.js)</comment>


Analysis in Higher Gauge Theory - <AUTHOR> https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2018/10/analysis_in_higher_gauge_theor.html <comment> ur-whale Would anyone on HN care to explain to physics laymen what Gauge theory is about in the first place?

<comment><USER2> A field theory is a theory that describes a physical phenomenon by fields and how they evolve and interact over time. A field is just a function that takes a point in space and time and gives you a value. You can model temperature as a function that given a point in space and instant in time gives you the temperature at that specific point in space and time. Or the wind velocity which will assign a vector indicating the direction and speed of the wind to each point in space and time instead of a single number as in the case of temperature - this is the difference between a scalar field and a vector field and there are other types of fields like tensor fields. A field theory then provides you with the equations that explain how fields change over space and time and how they interact with each other in case the theory has multiple interacting fields.

A gauge theory then is a special kind of field theory, one which is invariant under some symmetry transformation. You could for example come up with the idea to describe temperature with complex numbers instead of real numbers. The equations wouldn't really change, they would essentially just ignore the imaginary part of the temperature making 20°C, 20 + 42i°C, and 20 - 7i°C three different representations of the same temperature. In consequence you are free to adjust the imaginary parts of all the temperatures without this affecting your predictions.

As it turns out if you want to use field theory to describe quantum physics and if you want your field theory to have certain nice properties, for example making it obvious that the theory respects locality, then you are forced to use gauge theories, i.e. you are unable to write a field theory without those redundancies where several different values correspond to the same real physical state. In the example from above, the real temperature is of course 20°C but because of the way you would like to formulate your theory, you are forced to use complex numbers for the temperature and because the resulting theory is so nice to work with you accept this and just declare that all temperatures with the same real component are the same regardless of the imaginary part.

And while you often hear that the world is fundamentally made out of fields, that is not true, or at least it does not have to be true. Quantum field theory is one of our best tools to describe our world but the fields are just a nice and convenient mathematical tools, they are not in one to one correspondence with actually existing things.

<comment><USER3> Came back here to see this question answered. Was not disappointed. +10 for clarity :)

So, the phase of a wavefunction in QM makes it a gauge theory, then? It doesn't matter what the actual phase is at any point, but it does matter how it varies between one point and the next.

(For the physics layman - you might enjoy my game [https://omnisplore.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/learning- quantum...](https://omnisplore.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/learning-quantum- mechanics-the-easy-way/) )

<comment><USER2> _So, the phase of a wavefunction in QM makes it a gauge theory, then?_

There are two kinds of symmetries, global symmetries and local symmetries. In case of a global symmetry the same transformation is applied everywhere, for example moving all particles of a system to the right by one meter. In case of a local symmetry the transformation can vary over space and time, so you could move different particles by different distances, for example double the x coordinate.

Classical mechanics is invariant under global translations, it does not matter where the system is, here or one meter to the left, what matters are just differences between positions, the distances between particles. On the other hand classical mechanics is not invariant under local translations because it will alter the distances between particles. Local symmetries are a much stronger constraints than global symmetries which are essentially just a special case of local symmetries where the transformation parameters are fixed across space and time.

The wave function has a global symmetry, you can rotate the phase, but phase differences are important and you can therefore not apply different phase rotations to different parts of the wave function. On the other hand the relevant symmetries in gauge theories are local symmetries, so the global symmetry of the wave function is not what makes a theory of quantum physics a gauge theory. In case of electrodynamics it is for example the electromagnetic four-potential that has a gauge freedom, i.e. there are many different electromagnetic four-potentials that give rise to identical physically observable magnetic and electric fields.

<comment><USER3> Thanks - look forward to learning more when I have time. Are gauge theories something you encounter on the path to QFT?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dang, this link was greyed out for me when I had not previously clicked on it. FYI.

<comment><USER5> That couldn't have anything to do with HN but all with your browser. Most likely you do have clicked through to the URI another time before when the link was up and you just forgot because it is not anything you would or could remember, higher gauge theory I mean. That happened to me with a pdf as I will save too many pdfs to read and open too many pages in tabs to fit memory.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the only thing is I've never clicked on that link and I'm not knowledgeable enough, in any way, to understand "higher gauge theory".

It also seems I got several downvotes for my comment, trying to reach moderator dang, which I've seen other HNers do in the comments section, for example, when a title should be altered, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Developing autonomous delivery robots-the critical role of deep neural networks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/starshiptechnologies/how-neural-networks-power-robots-at-starship-3262cd317ec0 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I work for Starship Technologies - we're a company developing advanced self-driving delivery robots. I thought you might like to check out our new blog on how we utilise deep neural networks. I'd love to connect with you about this so feel free to get in touch. Thanks!</comment>


Open shift no longer free - <AUTHOR> Open shift removed thier free ongoing tier today! May as move on. <comment><AUTHOR> No other ongoing free options...was, azure look better now. Pass is poor subst without free tier!!!!</comment>


Long-winded speech could be early sign of Alzheimer's disease, says study - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/long-winded-speech-could-be-early-sign-of-alzheimers-says-study <comment><USER2> > Worsening "mental imprecision" was the key, rather than people simply being > verbose, however. "Many individuals may be long-winded, that's not a > concern," said Sherman.

For a minute I was worried I might be losing my mind. Thankfully I've always been garrulous, though I'm sure other people don't see that as a blessing.

<comment><USER3> Worrying for me still, heh. I'm both long winded and imprecise as hell. I constantly forget names of things / people. Though, i do suppose it's limited to that. Ask me to remember what something is called, who acted in what movie, etc and i fail to remember the specific names.

However i can remember the details of the movie, where i am, how to get places, where things are stored, etc. My memory worries me.

<comment><USER4> I have a terrible memory for names, and (relatedly?) have awful auto- biographiical memory, which is apparently a distinct thing from other forms of memory. I've got an average-ish memory otherwise.

I'd have trouble giving you specifics of what I did last week, for instance, and I'd be lucky if I could come up with more than one or two things from last month. Last year is a blur—I could come up with a handful of details, mostly anchored to holidays since it's easy to prompt myself with "I know Christmas happened, what did I do for that?" and the like. Forming parts of my life into any kind of narrative is incredibly challenging. I _hated_ those "what did you do over the Summer?" writing prompts elementary school teachers love to give the first week back.

Maybe your situation is similar. I don't have a diagnosis or anything, but pretty sure I'm affected by this:

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

<comment><USER5> Has that affected your career in any way, especially when interviewing?

It has certainly made interviewing hell for me. "Tell me about yourself," they say. My best attempts at explaining anything I've done sound like I'm spouting off random BS, even if it's as basic as how my ride in was or what I had for breakfast.

<comment><USER4> OH yeah, though (as you note) mostly interviewing. Those "tell me about a time when something went wrong" or "tell me about a time you had a conflict with someone" sorts of questions are really stressful. I damn near have to make something up (when prepping, not on the fly) to have anything resembling a satisfying answer to them. I just _cannot_ easily turn my experiences into narratives, most of the time.

<comment><USER6> ... I honestly can't tell if people in this thread are trying to be long- winded or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "... I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time..."

</comment><comment><USER8> "Ronald Reagan started to have a decline in the number of unique words with repetitions of statements over time," said Sherman. "[He] started using more fillers, more empty phrases, like 'thing' or 'something' or things like 'basically' or 'actually' or 'well'."

Seems like history might be coming around again on this one.

<comment><USER9> Had this thought within the hour listening to the business roundtable Trump hosted (on Youtube), before reading this article. Saw a very old interview on Charlie Rose yesterday and he (Trump) seemed sharper then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, that's a relief. I'm getting older, but I've actually been speaking less, mostly because it's a waste of time to speak when nobody is actually paying attention.

<comment><USER11> Well, I read your comment, if that's worth anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Assuming this is talking about Trump and politicians in general (since it's the Guardian and brought up Reagan), repetition is key in politics (or business) to drive home a point. How many times have we seen a product release that repeats ad nauseum, but it's deliberate. Also, being imprecise avoids having to stick to a promise. While I wouldn't say it's a great trait, it's probably still preferable to a politician who makes explicit promises and breaks them.

Anyhow, I have no doubt that it could be a precursor to Alzheimer's, but long- windedness can also be a conscious decision; it convinces enough people that you must know what you're talking about, since you're spending so much time talking about it.

Concise speech using appropriate vocabulary is overrated - it just flies over most people's heads, and if you don't pad your speeches with fluff, they'll mistake conciseness with having nothing to say. Skirting around issues whilst saying nothing using many words is usually a conscious choice among politicians and businessmen.

</comment><comment><USER13> When I read this, I assumed it was an indirect jab at Trump.

<comment><USER14> Of course it is. That's why it's published now and any evidence is cited from 2004[1] and 2016[2].

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/news041129-4.htm...](http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/news041129-4.html)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/02/a-decade- of-...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/02/a-decade-of-deadlock- over-alzheimers-treatment-may-be-drawing-to-a-close)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting but probably not Alzheimer's related: ever since my 60's-yo mother had a stroke (ICH) about 2 years ago, she now uses the "well" most often as embolalia when contemplating something because it takes her more mental effort now. Not sure how it relates to the possibility of an elevated Alzheimer's risk.

Clarity of thought is speaking less and saying more, which is a constant struggle to maintain health and energy against the inexorable march of entropy, per genes and habits.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Fred visited Bob after his graduation"

such a sentence could be ambiguous because it's not obvious who graduated. Some may argue it's bob

<comment><USER17> Some may argue that it's neither Fred nor Bob.

<comment><USER18> Some say they're still arguing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is basically every academic I know, including the missus. I daren't show her this...

</comment><comment><USER20> Long winded title could be a sign of long winded article

</comment><comment><USER21> Third time is a charm?

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=alzheimer&sort=byPopularity&pr...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=alzheimer&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastWeek&type=story)

<comment><USER22> There's nothing wrong with resubmitting an article, as long as it's not done excessively.

<comment><USER21> I never said there was something wrong. I simply pointed out that it took 3 times in 24 hours before the story gained traction. It was an interesting story. I'm glad it finally got traction.</comment></comment></comment>


DrawERD makes it easy to visualize your database structure - <AUTHOR> https://help.drawerd.com/ <comment><USER2> I read the link. They need some help with the English translation.

Note that MySQL Workbench does a good job of printing a schema diagram, even better with FKs.</comment>


Google "I am not a robot" captcha Beaten and Virus Simulator campaign - <AUTHOR> I beat Google's recaptcha (https://www.google.com/recaptcha/about/) using AWS Rekognition and AWS EC2 where I had one machine in each possible region (about 20) to keep their algorithm from giving me impossible puzzles. Seeing is believing, so I ran my system for 20 hours on THIS very website(each video is 10 hours long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N16tjueYqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alI13vlEJC4
Also the FunCaptcha(the one where you rotate some animals) but using Google Vision API:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5nL5P9FIqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6l-Ww5FSc
My channel(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkLdZAUsGiuQyT7Oq_0wz7Q) has videos of it running on S stackOverflow, Disqus, The Google Vision API website where I got a 0.7 score on V3 Captcha for 40 hours, reddit and this site(Hacker news).
Code: https://bitbucket.org/Pirates-of-Silicon-Hills/voightkampff/...
The readme is not up-to-date, but the relevant files are main.sh and funCaptcha.sh
You have to beat two things: -Click on the right images FAST ENOUGH -Make sure they don't blacklist your network and IP
V3 Recaptcha, in fact, only does the later. IP is easy: restart the EC2 machine. Network is hard, you need to switch between them and attempt no more than one puzzle per try. More when I make the video explainer...
I am making videos on how to set it yourself, hopefully done today. It runs on a GCP VM with a VNC server as "screen" and uses AWS EC2 as proxies. It's all a giant shell script.
I designed a new Captcha and will launch a crowdfunding campaign for it based on the fact that I beat the 2 main captchas in the market, but because some people I knew died from Covid I made an Indiegogo campaign for an app that warns you about surfaces you should not touch and finds people who are not wearing masks around you. This is why I am here.
Please spread the word https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/virus-simulator/x/2451533...
Ozymandias <comment><AUTHOR> For those asking about the Captcha I made: Its based on how you play this game I made:

[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/two-finger- game/id1526964426?i...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/two-finger- game/id1526964426?ign-mpt=uo%3D2)

Despite popular belief, you can't really multitask so the simple game of following a dot becomes extraordinarily hard with TWO dots. The signature of how you lose will tell the system if you are human

</comment><comment><USER2> Congrats, I guess. But I don't really follow the how you connected beating captcha to raising money to build a coronavirus app. And that app, I don't even understand how it is going to be useful since majority of the texts is about unrelated captcha stuff</comment>


Flight 1080 (1978) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.tristar500.net/library/flight1080.pdf <comment><USER2> For those wondering what this is about before jumping into the PDF. It is an article from the captain's perspective of a flight in 1977, where a Lockheed L-1011's left elevator jammed (corrosion) during take-off forcing the plane to pitch up.

The captain, Capt. Jack McMahan, was awarded the FAA's Distinguished Service Award for successfully landing the plane by using a thrust differential between the wing engines and tail engine to counteract the upward pitch, preventing a stall.

The (short) Wikipedia article can be found here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1080](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1080)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Video: [https://invidio.us/watch?v=x0cnGeYEGmk](https://invidio.us/watch?v=x0cnGeYEGmk)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think this is the incident that Captain VanderBurgh describes somewhere in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21535214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21535214)

<comment><USER3> I was wrong. Take a look at "Control Malfunctions & Flight Instrument Anomalies": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfNBmZy1Yuc&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfNBmZy1Yuc&feature=youtu.be&t=33m53s)

[edited]

<comment><USER3> "You see, right here, few of us, certainly not I, are clever enough, 'cause there isn't time to be clever. A critical flight attitude recovery requires training and rote response, 'cause there isn't time to think. You must respond to the training. And it's that response to their training, that initial move that saves the initial crisis, that buys the time to do all the clever things that we all think of, given time."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Spoilers for those who 've not yet read/viewed._

I'd run across this incident yesterday. Studying various technical disasters is something of a hobby/professional interest, and in particular, the responses of the humans involved.

I first watched the video @ColinWright lists in a comment ([https://invidio.us/watch?v=x0cnGeYEGmk](https://invidio.us/watch?v=x0cnGeYEGmk)), then read McMahan's own account (the PDF here). The _Washington Post_ ) also has an excelent article ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1978/10/08/t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1978/10/08/the- saving-of-flight-1080/bc18f021-691d-4b19-8041-dc03a089bf6d/)). Wikipedia has a brief article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1080](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1080)).

My first thouht on seeing the pilot's bio at the start of the video was "man, what a way to end that career". Reading about nose-up on takeoff and the failures of trim-control attempts brought to mind the 737 MAX story of the past year.

One concept I've been working on is the notion of a hierarchy of failure (or conversely, a success-chain) in problem solving: [https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/)

Two elements of that I've been revisiting is the diagnosis / root-cause steps. I'm thinking now that a minimal working diagnosis/root are helpful in crisis, but that rabbitholing into a precise diagnosis _when the immediate situation is critical_ can be a dangerous distraction. If you're flying an aircraft with souls aboard (or even just yourself and cargo), a sufficient grasp to regain minimal control and effect a safe landing is _usually_ enough. And the situation can evolve quite rapidly.... It's a tricky balance to strike.

As the video account continued, I was struck by each of McMahan's responses, and how each was clearly prudent, effective, and/or demonstrated exceptionally high situational awareness. The counterintuitive down-throttling during a pitch-up / stall situation. Throttle control over pitch and roll (a case where a three-engine design proves particularly useful), and moving the passengers forward (a thought I'd had before it was mentioned in the video). The choice of landing sites (and the surprising lack of alternatives in California -- things are really spread out -- though Bakersfield might have been one to consider). Electing for a water rather than land approach to LAX.

The only possible fault I could find was in not testing gear-down performance before final. In another, later incident, NWA 85, October 9, 2002, also with partial loss of control, the crew elected to drop gear early in order to assess aircraft performance. That flight also landed successfully. ([https://invidio.us/watch?v=RcAiu2FXeEk](https://invidio.us/watch?v=RcAiu2FXeEk))

UA232 also comes to mind as an impossible situation saved by excellent piloting, situational awareness, and crew resource management.

There are any number of sharp contrasts with exceedingly poor pilot/crew response. Two that stand out are Saudi Air Flight 163, with a fire on board. Despite a successful landing, all perished. ([https://invidio.us/watch?v=mYX5pBihw3c](https://invidio.us/watch?v=mYX5pBihw3c)). Or Air Florida Flight 90, which crashed into the Patomac, following a series of poor pilot judgements regarding anti-icing practices ([https://invidio.us/watch?v=gUOMZnFaMos](https://invidio.us/watch?v=gUOMZnFaMos)). Air France Flight 447 or the Tenerife incident (latter mentioned in McMahan's account) are other exemplars of poor response, situational awareness, or flagrant violations of procedure.

Good piloting is not always enough -- sometimes an aircraft is simply too crippled to fly, see Alaska Air 261. But in that grey zone between a well- behaving ship and one that won't stay in the sky no matter what, pilot skills matter. And McMahan was absolutely the hero of this story, with excellent assists from his cockpit crew. Speaking of which, it's notable that this short flight had a regular cockpit roster of three -- captain, copilot, and engineer.

The flight attendant response at the end caps the story. The WashPo article proves that not everyone is appreciative.

And, finally: the after-incident root cause analysis shows just how critical the smallest elements in a tightly-constrained system can be. Water intrusion into a bearing disabling control surfaces and leading to near complete loss of aircraft. The specifics of the fault making it extraordinarily hard to anticipate in advance, though I suspect that's now part of some design spec somewhere.

In all an excellent case study.

<comment><USER5> >Studying various technical disasters is something of a hobby/professional interest

What would be some recommended reading in this area? Not limited to airplanes

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> To armchair-quarterback a decades-old incident: I think it was definitely the wrong choice to continue to LAX knowing that field (and the entire coastal region) was IFR. They were essentially controlling the aircraft pitch (and airspeed/altitude) solely with thrust and configuration changes.

It's a miracle (and it speaks to the superb piloting abilities of the Captain/crew) that they were able to maintain a prescribed glideslope while in IMC.

Having flown in the area for several years, I know that the marine layer never (almost) extends east of the 'Peninsular Ranges' of San Diego / South OC. There are a number of clear-air diverts to the East (March/Ontario _Maybe_ , NAF El Centro, probably best) that certainly would have been a better decision(1), given the nature of their emergency.

Had the crew 'balled it up' on final approach due to vertigo or loss of SA in the clouds, I think it's likely that the mishap board would have found pilot error--due to poor selection of a landing site--as the final 'causal factor'(2) in the so-called Swiss cheese model that leads to a mishap.

Note 1: The pilot's concern with runway lighting is valid but I think a ten- minute breather above the clouds to coordinate with those fields would have answered the question on whether a tower was staffed. Pilot controlled lighting is also an option.

Note 2: And they would have balled up a large aircraft in one of the most densely populated areas in the U.S.

<comment><USER4> The question of landing choice highlights a number of concerns, all well- addressed especially in McMahan's account.

The region is California. Considered landing locations were San Diego (a notoriously short and crowded field with a difficult, over-city approach), Palmdale and Edwards AFB, both closed, Las Vegas and Phoenix, both requiring high-altitude flight over mountains with potential turbulence, and LAX, with a long runway and over-water approach.

I was surprised other inland fields, say, Bakersfield, weren't mentioned, though I'm also not a pilot and don't know the runway lengths or airfield situation generally.

The thing about a disaster is that you're operating under greatly increased constraints, and limited options. The question to be addressed is "what is the next best option?".

Given the circumstances of this incident, instrument approach to LAX still seems like a reasonable option. The principle fault lay in controls, not instruments, time-in-air was a risk, avoiding overland travel, and preserving the option of a sea ditching, were both prudent considerations.

It's possible that McMahan could have inquired as to viability of a Palmdale or Edwards landing with ATC, and it appears he didn't. Given his and crew's workload, that's understandable.

<comment><USER6> All good points. I suppose my bias is skewed by having a good amount of instrument time and realizing how much higher a workload can get during an instrument approach. I'll run it by some colleagues at work and see what their take is on it.

<comment><USER7> Something tells me the mainline Captain from the post also has "a good amount of instrument time."

<comment><USER6> Certainly, but the average HN user most definitely doesn't.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Redis: Crystal vs Ruby vs Node vs C vs Go vs Java - <AUTHOR> http://www.stefanwille.com/2015/05/redis-clients-crystal-vs-ruby-vs-c-vs-go/

<comment><USER2> Its still early days for Crystal (its not yet hit 1.0) however its encouraging to see more libraries becoming available for it, and also how good its performance is.

I like to keep an eye on the Crystalshards website to see what new libraries are being developed : [http://crystalshards.herokuapp.com/?sort=updated&filter=](http://crystalshards.herokuapp.com/?sort=updated&filter=)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://github.com/NodeRedis/node_redis#rediscreateclient](https://github.com/NodeRedis/node_redis#rediscreateclient)

I have a feeling the author didn't use hiredis when he benchmarked Node..</comment>


A Programmer's Work-day - <AUTHOR> http://climbing-the-hill.blogspot.com/2009/04/programmers-work-day.html

<comment><USER2> Schedule of a bipolar programmer (me):

Spent N days working 12 hours a day and enjoying it as hell.

Spent next N days watching sitcoms, playing Quake 3, chatting with people, learning new technology (passively), and being generaly apathetic and depressed.

</comment><comment><USER3> While not a programmer per se (I do data "stuff" like assembling reports, analyzing correlations, split tests) when I need to write code for an analysis I just come in extra early (0630) or stay extra late (2300) otherwise the meetings/phone calls/IMs/blah just completely kill my focus. That one day every couple weeks is where I get 50% of my real work done. I think it is far better to work one day with 5 hours more work than 5 days with 1 hour each. Otherwise any one of my numerous bosses may stay an extra hour late and interrupt my work flow when I'm actually trying to get stuff done.

<comment><USER4> I rarely sign on to IM while I'm working and if I do, I make sure to do it as invisible. It's just too much of a distraction.

Back when I worked in an office, my boss was pretty good about keeping me off the phone and out of meetings. Being self employed these days, meetings aren't as much trouble.

The phone still gets me sometimes, but it's usually something important.

<comment><USER3> I have to sign into IM at work, it is what we use to talk to each other when we are too lazy to get up :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I don't have a job per see, I once did a 30 day experiment of time- boxing and scheduling.

I did 4 hours every day. So each week, I clocked 28 hours per week. The hours were choked full of coding effort.

Mostly, I encountered difficult obstacles that would slow me for a day or two. I couldn't just solve it siting around so I go around to coding different projects.

It was actually a little understatement. I did a programming session in the middle of the experiment when I tried to develop a game in 48 hours for a contest. By the time I finish the project, I have a hard time protoyping newer versions of the game so I got something like last place.

I did a the same thing for a week back in the beginning of April. I ended up releasing a new version of a game I made but I worked really late. Mostly it is because I procrastinate until the last minutes. So quality of life suffered due to that. So I learn to not only time-box but also schedule my time so I don't end up hacking at strange hours.

I got time management down to a few set of tools that allow me to do a lot of solid coding. I can't get much better than that.

The actual major hinderance is the fact that I am extremely slow in term of programming speed. Veteran hackers can complete trivial games even with unit tests in mere hours while it takes me days or even weeks to accomplish the same feat.

</comment><comment><USER6> At first I thought this was a very accurate article, but then I realized it made no mention of sharing hilarious youtube videos.

</comment><comment><USER7> I feel lucky to have never worked long-term in an environment like this.

Quite often middle management doesn't feel the need to know what the process is (or rather, they can't grasp what goes on, so they become defensive), and so they lose touch and cause this despondency..

I think management in these places needs to wise up to how developers work. That way us devs are kept happy and stimulated (and don't spend all day on HN/digg/reddit), and they get results.

But alas, I'm sure nothing can break habits like sending emails in 12pt comic sans.

</comment><comment><USER8> "If you really need to have an 8 hour work day for some reason, you'll only find that the extra two hours ends up going into work-place play or dawdling"

Either you don't have enough to do or aren't passionate enough about what you're working on. What a shame. Start a business and have the opposite problem. There won't be enough hours in the day.

<comment><USER9> Well, you're here on HN...

<comment><USER10> With 13347 karma, 2190 comments and 1245 submissions! :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Usually I find that there's plenty of non-programming, semicognitive work to do that hits another part of the brain. E.g. testing strategies, good ways to properly document a system, etc.

Coding's just one part of the brain. Other parts are still ready to go.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's really simple.

Once the money starts flowing, it's hard for it to stop. Hence, laziness.

Getting it started flowing is the tricky part.</comment>


Windows 8 Metro is lots of pain for little gain - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/03/andrew_does_windows8/print.html

<comment><USER2> While I don't agree with the tone of the article, it matches my overall experience using Windows 8. In particular, the screenshot of the homepage is quite revealing. A lot of these positive reviews are based on MS marketing videos and someone messing around with it for 30 minutes. But anyone who has tried using it for a few days as their sole OS runs into a lot of issues that can't simply be explained by "beta". There are systemic design issues with Win8 where some "bugs" are by design</comment>


Can multi-cloud Kubernetes platforms make infrastructure prices comparable? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/runacapital/can-multi-cloud-kubernetes-platforms-make-infrastructure-prices-comparable-4b76f6933ec7 <comment><USER2> If you meant the management platforms (ex. Rancher) for multi-cloud clusters, it depends.

Infrastructure costs are x% (<20%?) of the e2e cost to run a business. As you go to multi cloud, you have to plan for operationalization, enablement, support plans. Then the business apps need to talk to cloud, internet and on- prem resources. Unless planned properly, you stand to run into issues that may take more time to troubleshoot.

Infrastructure prices are already comparable. How you use it matters. Someone may be using 10 instances of m5-xlarge at 10% utilization for example. Someone else may have automation in place to scale down the infrastructure and pay 70% less. Someone may decide to use non-optimal sizes of node instances, thereby causing numerous pod evictions and keep growing the cluster size on instance count. Someone else may just use the right type of instances for efficient binpacking.

How you use the infrastructure matter.

</comment><comment><USER3> No, because bandwidth can be a huge part of the bill and that falls outside of kubernetes operating scope.</comment>