How Apple Is Giving Design a Bad Name - <AUTHOR> http://fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name <comment><USER4> " _So often, the user has to try touching everything on the screen just to find out what are actually touchable objects._ "

This happened to me many times on iOS and I'm a (still young) software developer, being familiar with most user interfaces that happened since Windows 3.11 until now. To be honest, biggest culprits are third party apps, but they follow official guidelines and Apple's example. This was my biggest problem with Windows Phone too, with the whole transition to flat interfaces that don't give clues on what can be tapped. If this can happen to us, then other people don't stand a chance.

But you know what's worse? Every couple of years we change the UI just for the sake of change.

<comment><USER5> Same here. I'd also add OS X UI has gone downhill since the good old Tiger days, backporting all bad ideas from iOS.

Somehow, it feels like the hardware design guys at Apple took over UI design and seem to have broken all the guidelines created by their former HIG lab, which once was at the forefront of UI research [1].

Now it seems minimalism (flat design) for the sake of it trumps everything else. I miss cozier designs, and so do many other heavy users I think.

[1] [http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGuidelines.pdf](http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGuidelines.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one who has always thought of the Apple UI to have always been form over function/usability by a long shot?

I remember the first time I used an iMac: I spent about half an hour trying to figure out how to eject a CD. A context menu might not look very elegant but it's insanely useful and powerful and very easy to get the hang of. In the end I had to be told/taught that the way to eject the CD on a mac was to move the CD icon on the desktop to the trash (in the days of CD-RW drives, you'd think this would erase the CD).

That, to me, is the sheer definition of an un-discoverable feature.

The iPhone's lack of back button (and the fact that apps are very inconsistent in their back button placements) has brought me similar pains in getting simple things done.

<comment><USER7> That Apple was ever good at design was probably the relative side effect of other software and hardware developers being abysmally bad at it (probably due to monopolistic inefficiencies). And now that the competition is heating up and challenging Apple on the design front, the flaws that earlier would have been swept under the carpet by ardent fans, including me, are becoming difficult to disregard.

<comment><USER8> Uh, no. It's because they valued design highly, made it an indispensable part of their company, hired great designers, and gave designers like Jony Ive extraordinary power to shape products.

BTW, what flaws, precisely, have now magically become "difficult to disregard", but were entirely invisible before? Just a couple examples will do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think Android has surpassed iOS in terms of design and usability. I upgraded to a Android 5.0 recently (lightly modded by One Plus), and the design is really stunning. The icons have been redesigned to appear as though they they are made of actual flat material adding almost a hybrid 3d flat design that looks great. The colors are vibrant without being overwhelming. Messenger and Contacts applies a new color to your contacts which helps you keep in mind with whom you are speaking. All the Google apps exhibit similar colors and styles to add for consistency.

I'm not a designer and maybe its just personal preference, but I'm a long time Android user and this is the first time the stock Android has been pleasant to look at. I use other's iPhones and, despite the great display, the UI now appears rather dull in comparison.

[https://design.google.com/](https://design.google.com/)

<comment><USER10>
        > The production of beautiful objects is only one
        > small component of modern design…

As the authors say, and as Steve Jobs and Jony Ive have reiterated in almost every Apple product launch, how something looks is only a small part of the design Apple focuses on. Historically, the priority is how things _work_.

This is probably the most misunderstood aspect of Apple products. A screenshot of software XYZ may look just as thoughtful as an Apple product, but rarely in practice is that true.

<comment><USER11> What has OP misunderstood? That he or she _should_ prefer iOS over Android because of a demagogoic quote? It's unclear what your point is here.

That said, the other day I was using Google Maps for iOS and could not figure out how to switch directions from public transit to car. It seriously took me a few minutes of playing to realize how to do it. I feel like people implementing Material do it in a kind of perfunctory way and that can be lossy usability wise. On the other hand the Google Maps have a history of myopically introducing big UX changes that make the product worse, so why would I expect anything more from the team when implementing Material on iOS?

<comment><USER10> OP starts with:

        > I think Android has surpassed iOS in terms of
        > design and usability.

But then only describes how materials _looks_. Both Windows and Android have been plagued with attempting to make things look a particular way without consideration for how they _work_. Ironically, Apple is often criticized for exactly this, when in my experience they really do sweat the _work_ details.

I'm not saying OP should prefer anything over another thing, just that only talking about how devices look is missing the broader goals of design and usability.

<comment><USER12> Well, Android with Material started focusing a LOT on how things work, how animations have to seem natural, gives guidelines on language and explains how to structure your app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Moved from Windows to OSX a couple of years ago after hearing for so long how much better the Mac experience and usability was.

Some examples of why this was wrong:

1\. Cmd-Tab lets me select a hidden window but it won't show it!

2\. Many frequently used click targets are too small. For example, the close, minimise and maximise buttons.

3\. The close minimise and maximise buttons reveal their functions only when the mouse is over them.

4\. There's no reliable way to maximise a window.

5\. Despite really trying to go keyboard-only, it's very difficult to avoid using the mouse.

6\. The file browser doesn't show the aggregate size of selected files.

7\. Cmd+Down to open the selected file! Why not Enter?!

8\. I still have no idea which button Enter will press on a dialog box. There seems no way to make this clearer or to activate something like Alt+underlined_letter_of_desired_button_caption.

9\. There's no Cut operation, only Copy and Paste.

My MacBook Pro is awesome hardware but Windows is way ahead of OSX.

<comment><USER14> Cut can be done with CMD+C and then I think it's CMD+Alt+V for paste and remove original.

<comment><USER13> Thanks. There's no context menu option like in Windows so no one knows about this without googling.

<comment><USER15> Have I just walked into some alternate reality?

On my Mac, cut is command-x.

<comment><USER16> In the Finder it isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My pet peeve: when I try to click a button and just before I touch the screen it changes, so I hit completely another button (on Androod - but it is the same everywhere). So instead of cancelling a call I place another one, to a different person. No I didn't intend to call my mother in law!

The solution is so simple it hurts: if a clickable area has been shown less than X ms before the touch / click, ignore the event. Nobody can type this quick except for Superman, and he can change this via some setting, if you think he will be annoyed.

I am not sure why I haven't seen this solution anywhere yet. Do others not encounter this problem?

<comment><USER18> Can you give a more concrete example? I'm on Android, and I've never experienced that.

Your suggestion would only work for very undeterministic parts of the UI, though.

Good UIs are predictable, and sophisticated users "know" where to click and don't need to read buttons, so they're very fast. Enforcing some delay will make the system seem "laggy".

So now you have to make a distinction between "predictable parts of the UI" and "unpredictable parts of the UI" and everything's not all that simple anymore.

A better solution is to not to pop up random things at random times in random places.

<comment><USER17> I place a call and a callee is busy. I want to click "end call" button, but just a bit before that app figures out it can stop the call, so it switches back to main screen. The touch on the same spot now means something entirely else - so a new call is placed and I try to stop it in a fit of panic.

It happened at least 3 times in last two months.

Update: I am not suggesting adding a delay, that wouldn't help with anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Its a good article.

Force touch is a good example of this. Adding a new action without any signifier for its availability or its purpose when we already have a baffling mix of durations and gestures. Madness.

An innovation by a platform would be to invent a new way to aid discovery / learnability of a UI not just add a new input. For example gestures - <USER2> should be a system standard way to be told about the available gestures and their effect for each screen - a bit like browsing a menu to learn what a tool can do. Instead its left to each app to try and invent a tutorial mode.

<comment><USER20> Steve Jobs was against hiding features in modes, which is why the iOS lacked any kind of context menu until version 3, and Apple mice lacked right click for a long time.

Speaking of Apple's mice, they are some of the worst offenders in "looks good but don't try using it". There's the infamous hockey puck, and currently the Magic Mouse.

I use one when I'm desperate, but usually give up when it magically gives me hand cramps due to it's shape. A bar of soap is more ergonomic, and slides around better too.

This article isn't served well by it's sensational tone. If children can pick up something up and use it without training, then it's already doing a better job than a mouse, or even a keyboard, which you basically have to be literate to use.

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

<comment><USER21> I thought I was the only one that gets wrist pains after using the Magic Mouse. There's something really wrong with how that piece of hardware is designed it seems :/

<comment><USER20> Do you have big hands? I've used Microsoft mice since the Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 because it's easy to push around. I know people who hate it because it's too big for them though.

<comment><USER22> I'm very comfortable with the Apple mouse.

But that's a single data point. The problem seems to be that the industry has decided that everyone has the same standard pair of hands.

Which is nonsense, obviously. It's like selling shoes or clothes in a single standard size.

So what happens in practice is people keep trying different mouse models until they find one that happens to fit. For me, the Magic Mouse works fine. For someone else, it won't fit at all.

This is also a problem with design. In spite of a century of theory and history there's really no such thing as an ideal standard design, because everyone's cognitive needs/skills are different.

So what happens in practice is that "design" means "looks polished and expensive, and confers accessible social proof". This attracts a price premium, and that's where the feedback loop is in the market.

The feedback loops for usability are more diffuse and not nearly as strong.

The problem with Google's Material is that it doesn't understand the social proof element. It's purely utilitarian. (IMO it's not brilliant for usability either. But that's a different issue. _)

Apple's design language has been much better at creating social proof through aesthetics. As long as it keeps doing that, usability can be good-but-not- great and it will still be a commercial success.

_Never mind Windows 8/10 - the less said about that, the better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wish the authors had spent a few hours more honing their argument, because some of the points are really good.

Where it fell flat for me:

* The post was much too long. I was intently reading but soon realized that it was all over the place and started having to skip through to try to dig out the main points.

* They admitted that they weren't even working at Apple during the time when it was designing successful products.

* They admitted that iOS 9 solved many of the problems quickly at the end without saying which ones or how they failed and while introducing new problems (memory?) that only served to confuse the reader.

* The authors' argument was incoherent. It seems to be building up reasons why Apple's design was bad, but they are all over the place. "It's just bad" is not an argument. Lay the groundwork. Provide evidence for each point and evidence against arguments against those points. Tie it all up.

Some of the information in here would make great articles on their own, e.g. I'd like to read a full criticism of Apple's new font, how the Human Interface Guidelines list changes over the years and how it could be better, and the whole Dieter Rams piece would have made an excellent article even outside of the context of Apple's failures.

I think few that have been using iOS and OS X over the years would dispute that Apple has dropped the ball since Jobs' death. While much of Apple's design still trumps others', others have blindly followed Apple and done an ever worse job. (I'm looking at you, Windows 8, which was a reaction to both iOS's use in the iPad and the terrible AppStore trend introduced in OS X.) Hopefully, Microsoft, Google, and others have realized by now that leading and innovating doesn't mean copying or reacting out of fear to Apple's direction- it means hiring extremely creative people that understand user-centric design.

But, even though there are problems at Apple and with design worldwide thanks to Apple's mistakes, the authors of this post haven't made it much clearer _why_ they dropped the ball or how we can all understand how to avoid those problems.

</comment><comment><USER24> The authors, Don Norman and Bruce Tognazzini, have both been rather cranky in their writings for years. Sometimes Tognazzini seems almost too ready to criticize anything new.

cf: Tognazzini's "Top Ten Reasons the Apple Dock Sucks" ([http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html](http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html))

</comment><comment><USER25> He seems to diect a lot of critisim at iOS, basing it on design principles that appear to be more relevant to desktop computing. Discovering new features, undo, consistencey. These seem relevant when using a computer to create something, but less so on a phone which is usually used as a media consumption device.

<comment><USER26> I agree. Criticizing kindle reader because it lacks desktop functionality is comparing apples and oranges.

But we are talking smartphones here. If you claim that smartphone is no more than kindle reader with ability to call, then why is it _smart_ -phone? How can apple market it's phones with "25 billion apps downloaded"?

And eventually could you insist that owning a smartphone is somehow essential for modern life? You could just settle with dumb phone, books and old walkman. If smartphone is not essential then you can't make apps with the assumption that "everybody will have smartphone soon". If you don't assume that, smartphones are doomed to be a just luxuries.

Then stuff like "you need to optimize your website for mobile" is pretty much like saying "we need to optimize our streets for roller skating".

If you think that, I would honestly agree. I think smartphones are just a fad. But I would not bet on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Strangely composed article: "Norman" is introduced from nowhere along with the multiple authors.

Some valid points but all rather overstated ("destroying design") and finishes with admitting that a lot was fixed in iOS 9. However, that's not enough because another overblown article calls new features "secret"...

</comment><comment><USER28> You know, a lot of these features are so mindlessly piled that for an existing iPhone user it does not feel like cognitive overload.

But my mom used the newest iPhone last week -- she used iPhone 4 as her full time phone back in the day -- and she could not navigate Safari properly. That's how unusable the iPhone is now even for a legacy iOS user. Whatever happened to days when toddlers could figure out iPads? Is this really the company that brought sliding, tapping, pinching actions to touchscreens?

I think when it comes to Flat UI, Apple seriously lost the new design wars to Google. To add function, you need corresponding forms. Previously, Apple could hide the new function in the skeuomorphism wrapper and it didn't feel like too much on the plate. Form wasn't needed as it mimicked real world. With 7.0 and beyond, they tried to use the z-axis, but willingly chose form over function over and over again, and it shows! Google, on the other hand with their material design and paper element succeeded in wrapping together functionality in 3 dimensions, widgets (paper elements) and feedback based animation in such a way that the usability endpoint is very static to interact with the various functions. If you can use the Phone app on Lollipop, you can use anything.

And all this while Apple managed to put in yet another dimensions to somehow preserve their z-axis to two layers to make sure integrity of Flat UI is preserved. iOS' UI isn't just flat, it's also congested -- just like my flat table.

<comment><USER29> > Whatever happened to days when toddlers could figure out iPads?

Nothing happened to those days; they're still here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The aritcle is just vaguely describing user experience from a "first time user" point of view, which is clearly wrong, like someone is going to throw away his idevice after his first use. As a counter-point this might be true for websites or even some kind of apps, but not really for a device that is going to be your everyday thing.

I've been a regular user of windows and linux and while back, until I switched to a Mac a while back. It took some time tinkering and reading to get used to it, but once I got the hang it has become really productive - some gestures like three finger drag, switch panes, two finger tap to double click are some time savers.

"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." \- Abraham Lincoln

</comment><comment><USER31> I think too much time is spent thinking only "obvious" features are well designed. If it's not obvious it's poorly designed. It doesn't have to be this rigid dichotomy. I think Jason Fried put it best here: [https://medium.com/@jasonfried/the-obvious-the-easy-and- the-...](https://medium.com/@jasonfried/the-obvious-the-easy-and-the- possible-a09387ad3652) Some stuff should be obvious, but some can just be easy, and some - just possible. Putting things into those three buckets vs trying to cram everything into obvious is where we make well designed things.

</comment><comment><USER32> Agreed 100%, particularly the thing about thin fonts and lack of contrast. I'm 27 years old and I had to turn on the accessibility option "Increase contrast" on newer OS X versions to avoid getting headaches; so I went back to Mavericks. My next computer won't be a Mac, I'm not interested in using an OS that causes me literal pain. Seeing that Windows is going down that route too with terrible and blurry font rendering in Windows 10 seems like the only option is Linux, where at least you can adjust the UI to suit your needs.

</comment><comment><USER33> Using iOS means learning how to finger dance. Press-Press-Tap-Pause-Swipe- Pull-and-Slide!

For a laugh, I walked into a UX lab at this year's WWDC. I started to talk about my app in terms of GOMS - specifically Fitts law. There were two Apple UX engineers. He didn't know what the hell I was referring to. She did - <USER3> really enjoyed exploring the tradeoffs from a user-centered-design perspective. We discussed personas. Gesture cost. And the tradeoff of breaking an idiom. I hope she gets promoted.

I was introduced to GOMs by Jef Raskin. He also left when Jobs came back. I wonder if there is a tradeoff between product and UX. Parc had rigorous design during its downturn. Apple had great designers during its downturn. Maybe part of the magic is hiding the rabbit under the hat.

And then there's Apple Music [shaking head] geez.

</comment><comment><USER34> My foremost example of apple's form over function is actually the 'Form' of the hardware. Every apple product that I have touched the phones, pads and macbooks are a slippery nightmare. They are often thin enough to be impossible to grip and trying to get even thinner for no reason. They have clean slippery lines everywhere, edges sharp enough that I think it will give you deep cut if it falls in the proper angle again for no reason. The only saving grace I found with iphones is that for the thinner width the grip isn't as bad it would be otherwise.

I remember my fear of dropping my office macbook every time I had to move it the first few weeks and while I got rid of the fear mostly the device didn't get any safer to use.

The biggest crime of apple probably (if I'm attributing this right) is it has pushed the idea so much and corrupted the whole market and other companies that everyone now tries to be a 1mm thinner as if that makes it look any nicer and just makes it hotter or slower or lowers battery. I think the surface book (I have only seen pictures) might have better grip on the hinge side but even its edges look sharp if not as bad as the apple product.

Now if you talk about weight than at least has the benefit of usability when it gives you 3lb full power laptop. But even for a phone does it matter if its 135g vs. 145g?

</comment><comment><USER35> As someone who has actually found Apple's design principles to be stupid and dumbed-down to the point of being dumb, I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this article.</comment>


Timeline of audio formats - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_audio_formats <comment><USER2> I don't know why this popped up on the front page of HN today, but for anyone who enjoys the history of audio recordings, I highly recommend checking out UCSB's cylinder preservation and digitization project:

[http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/](http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/)

<comment><USER3> And the Great 78 Project is preserving 78 RPM records. [http://great78.archive.org/](http://great78.archive.org/) There are over 100,000 recordings available to stream online now. [https://archive.org/details/78rpm](https://archive.org/details/78rpm) (This collection also includes the Cylinder Archive for some reason.) The ones from George Blood are ripped 4 times at once with four tone arms with different needles, then each of the four gets equalized by a sound engineer and one is picked as the best. All 8 copies are uploaded to the Internet Archive. [http://great78.archive.org/preservation/](http://great78.archive.org/preservation/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > An audio format is a medium for sound recording and reproduction.

I expected stuff like AIFF, RIFF, WAV, and MP3 - interesting that that's the exact same term (non-native speaker here)

In German we have the word Tonträger [0] which doesn't seem to map to any direct translation on Wikipedia, I know those categories are sometimes diverging between the languages.

[0]: [https://dict.leo.org/englisch- deutsch/tontr%C3%A4ger](https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/tontr%C3%A4ger)

<comment><USER5> > Tonträger

Closest word in English is phonorecord, it's not really used by the general population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did I miss something or should this be near the beginning in 1898 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_recording](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_recording)

<comment><USER7> It's there but it's really easy to miss because it doesn't have a picture. I skimmed right past it on my first read!

That was a really interesting article, especially this part: "In 1949 at Fuld Hall in Rutgers University, Paul Braverman made a 75-minute recording of a Woody Guthrie concert using a wire recorder. The recording only came to light in 2001, and appears to be the only surviving live recording of Woody Guthrie; it was restored over several years and released on CD in 2007. The CD, The Live Wire: Woody Guthrie in Performance 1949, subsequently won the 2008 Grammy Award for Best Historical Album."

<comment><USER6> Great pick up!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All of this innovation and iteration at breakneck speed... and then nothing in ten years since the introduction of microSD. I imagine a combination of everything going cloud based and Wikipedia authors losing interest.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, they could have tracked the arguably fascinating series of digital formats, from P2P low bitrate mp3, lossless WAV, FLAC, M4A and whatever the big streaming players are using these days. Not to mention the wild and wooly world of wireless encoding via Bluetooth and others.

<comment><USER10> If you have the knowledge, you could add it. It's likely not disinterest, but lack of insight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A related topic, for which I'd like to see a compilation, is an encyclopedia of voice coding formats. Developed mostly for and by telephone companies, there have been numerous methods of encoding and compressing human speech for transmission, security, or storage. There is a Wikipedia page on the topic [1], but the subject is deep and the list is longer than Wikipeida can cover.

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

</comment><comment><USER12> Here I always recommend MP3: The Meaning of a Format by Jonathan Sterne. Fascinating read on how MP3 shaped music for a generation.

</comment><comment><USER13> Awesome list! A large bunch of the physical formats have been discussed by techmoan's channel on youtube.

</comment><comment><USER14> What about music boxes? Those go back farther and were a format of music. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_box](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_box)

</comment><comment> another-cuppa I would call many of these "music formats" rather than audio formats. Those punch cards and MIDI etc. don't actually represent audio at all. Even a deaf person could read and appreciate those.

<comment><USER15> Many of these formats didn't have enough bandwidth to support music when introduced. Most cassette formats were introduced specifically for dictation:

> The compact cassette technology was originally designed for dictation > machines, but improvements in fidelity led the Compact Cassette to supplant > the Stereo 8-track cartridge and reel-to-reel tape recording in most non- > professional applications.

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


Ruby's GIL and transactional memory - <AUTHOR> http://www.mikeperham.com/2013/12/31/rubys-gil-and-transactional-memory/

<comment><USER2> Pypy has a (currently, software) transactional memory branch that is trying to remove the python GIL without changing the semantics

[http://pypy.org/tmdonate.html](http://pypy.org/tmdonate.html) (has the best executive summary of what the branch intends to accomplish)

</comment><comment><USER3> Just like with Python, why would you even care about the GIL?

Writing single multithreaded apps with low-level locking hardcoded everywhere is now quite clearly NOT the right way to build software. If you don't use locks, i.e. only use lock-free data structures and immutable state, then you won't care about the GIL. And you can use multiple processes and interproccess communications in place of threading. On Linux, the difference in performance between threads and processes is very small. Most people who complain about the GIL have not even profiled multithreading versus multiprocessing. They are just bound and determined to reinvent the wheel in their own code base.

There is no reason why you can't leverage C++ (ZeroMQ) or Erlang (RabbitMQ) to do the hard bits and write the rest of your app in nice simple Ruby (or Python) scripts that are designed according to the Actor Model.

<comment><USER4> > Most people who complain about the GIL have not even profiled multithreading > versus multiprocessing.

This is a fair point, but the issue might be about memory usage, not speed. A unicorn setup might have two to eight worker processes to service HTTP requests. Even with copy-on-write-friendly garbage collection, the memory usage of each additional process is significant. On the other hand, a thread- based solution (using JRuby, for example) can maintain a threadpool with hundreds of worker threads because the cost of an additional thread is nearly negligible.

<comment><USER5> Why would you need hundreds of worker threads? If you're using an event-loop in each process (which you probably want if only to minimize context-switching overhead, and is how Unicorn does it), then you need only one process per physical core in the machine. Anything else will just sit in the runqueue and cause context switches.

There is definitely annoying memory overhead with multiprocess (vs. multithreaded) architectures, but it's on the order of 2x-8x, not 100x. And that's 2x-8x the _code size_ of the application, not _data size_ \- you only need duplicate interpreter objects, anything at the app or framework level (like templates or data files) can be stored in read-only shared memory or just COW'd with no writes. (It's technically not even every interpreter object - a number of function objects are completely static data that will never have additional references made, and so COW means they'll be shared perpetually between processes.)

<comment><USER6> > If you're using an event-loop in each process (which you probably want if > only to minimize context-switching overhead, and is how Unicorn does it)

Unicorn is a pre-forking multiprocess server so I don't know why it would be using an event loop.

Why threads over processes? Because memory isn't cheap when you don't own it yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Moore's law-scale performance improvements have increasingly come from harnessing multiple cores and much of Ruby is not taking advantage of this. The GIL can limit performance on multi-core systems. This is a serious problem worth tackling. Many on this thread defending just status-quo solutions seem to miss this point.

</comment><comment><USER8> I haven't read the linked paper yet, but if transactional memory can be used in a feedback loop with the developer to identify sources of resource contention (where, for example, more intricate locking could usefully replace both TM and the GIL) that sounds like a real win.

<comment><USER3> To me locking means waiting which means greatly reduced performance. That is the whole reason why event-based systems like NGINX and node.js are so popular.

Look at the first slide from this talk by Professor Michael Stonebraker to see why more locking is not such a good idea. [http://blog.jooq.org/2013/08/24/mit-prof-michael- stonebraker...](http://blog.jooq.org/2013/08/24/mit-prof-michael-stonebraker- the-traditional-rdbms-wisdom-is-all-wrong/)

Just because we can do it doesn't mean that we should do it.

<comment><USER9> > To me locking means waiting which means greatly reduced performance. That is > the whole reason why event-based systems like NGINX and node.js are so > popular.

I think you've got it slightly wrong. What do you think happens when one request is being worked on in effectively one green-thread-equivalent in node.js? Everything else is blocked until the current operation yields. That's an equivalent of a GIL, yet it doesn't "reduce performance". If you switched to multithreading + locking (making it run in a M+N scheduling model), you'd gain performance, not lost it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ruby needs JIT, then Incremental GC much more urgently then getting rid of GIL and getting TM.

</comment><comment><USER11> I thought Ruby 2 standard library was thread safe now ?

<comment><USER12> GILs are at a lower level than that. A GIL is used to protect the internal state of the interpreter.

You (or your standard library) need ruby-level locks in ruby code when you do things like increment a counter. E.g.: "obj.count = obj.count + 1".

The interpreter needs interpreter-level locks when doing things like looking up attributes from an object's dictionary or hash table or whatever ruby calls it. That's why you don't always need a lock around a simple assignment to avoid interpreter crashes: "obj.count = 0" is safe. Without a ruby-level lock around that, there is a race condition with the previous example, and resetting the count to zero may not have an effect if you're unlucky.

Without a GIL, however, you could have problems like the interpreter segfaulting (instead of throwing a nice execption that you can handle). You may also have problems like that assignment turning into an infinite loop, depending on ruby's implementation of hash tables.

And if accessing a hash table isn't safe, you can't even use ruby-level locks. How would you create a lock? You'd need to access classes or functions in a module. The module stores those things in a hash table, which you can't access without a lock. That's what the GIL is for.</comment></comment>


Story: Rejected from YC 2x, pivoted 3x, Omny Studio acquired by Triton Digital - <AUTHOR> https://andrewda.com/blog/omny-studio-acquired/ <comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to share our teams 7 year journey from idea to acquisition with some pictures and brief moments of the people that helped along the way.

It's been a rollercoaster of learnings, both up and down, and looking forward to the next chapter.</comment>


Dangers of Sitting - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/dangers-of-sitting <comment><USER2> So sitting is bad.

Last week it was standing : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050248](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050248)

It's starting to be difficult to know how to work !

(And yes, I know it's a matter of the duration you stay in the same position, but I found it funny that both topics pop out in the same week)

<comment><USER3> Article agrees with risks of standing and clearly says there is no winner here. Suggestion:

 _The best way for desk jockeys to avoid the sitting trap, research shows, is to not just stand but walk around — for a couple of minutes once an hour, or for five or 10 minutes a few times a day._

<comment><USER4> Maybe that is why coffee drinkers are healthier. Up for more coffee and/or bathroom every hour or so.

<comment><USER5> I think I heard Kent Beck refer to this as the 'pee-modoro' technique

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In India, we believe sitting with your leg hanging is not healthy. We usually sit on the floor which will restrict blood flow to the lower part of the body, resulting in more blood to the upper body where most of the vital organs are.

Yogis/Rishis sit for months in that cross legged posture without any issues.

Standing/Jogging/Walking is not the opposite of sitting. We need to learn how to sit properly

<comment><USER7> Are you referring to the Yogis who maintain specific positions for years, deforming their bodies into gnarled, unusable limbs? I wouldn't consider that healthy at all. I would consider them mentally ill.

<comment><USER6> :) I'm saying sitting comfortably on the floor with cross legged.

Sample : [https://a248.e.akamai.net/secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/eve...](https://a248.e.akamai.net/secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/6/1/c/0/600_458185024.jpeg)

[http://s.isha.ws/blog/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/20121119_CH...](http://s.isha.ws/blog/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/20121119_CHI_0248.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I once joked that ever since I've heard about how bad it is to sit down during hours, I've decided to lay down instead.

But is that really so silly? I used to work in front of a computer. I was sited all day and I can tell it got very uncomfortable. I had back pain and stuff. Now I spend most of my time on the bed, and my back is absolutely fine. The main drawback is my neck, but it's not nearly as inconvenient.

What I mean is : isn't the posture what is wrong with sitting instead of just inactivity? If so, does that mean we need something like the Altwork Station[1]?

1\. [http://altwork.com/](http://altwork.com/)

<comment><USER9> Serious question: do you have separate beds for sleeping/working? I've worked in bed during long periods of recovering from injury but I found it was very difficult to fall asleep at the end of the day because my body thought it was still 'in the office'. Now I work at a regular desk, and fall asleep within a couple of minutes of lying down at the end of the day.

<comment><USER8> Nope, I use the same bed. I do have difficulty to fall asleep though.

<comment><USER10> I spend most of my workday in a zero-gravity chair - I got a leather one off craigslist, but the cheap patio versions are just as comfortable (you can find a bunch on amazon). I have a monitor mounted above me and a keyboard in my lap, and it's never uncomfortable. I think for programming, being uncomfortable can definitely kill some productivity - at a normal desk, I'm intermittently thinking about and correcting my posture, or trying to shift myself to find a new comfortable position, and it interrupts my train of thought. And to feel like I'm not relaxing my ass into an early death, I'll get up and do a quick workout once every hour or two.

<comment><USER8> What do you use to mount the monitor?

<comment><USER10> A basic monitor arm attached to the front of the desk, and a 40" monitor mounted to it. (this one: [https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Single-Monitor- Display-M...](https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Single-Monitor-Display- Mounting/dp/B00MIBN16O/))

The downside is you can't really use the desk as a normal desk anymore, but if I need to write stuff or do non-computer work, I just do it elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ironically, when I worked at Bloomberg, I failed to get a stand up desk for myself. HR made people jump through so many hoops. A note from this doctor and an approval from that specialist, on and on. I tried for months. Then I brought in a swiss ball to sit on and it got taken away. And all of that was in 2014, not that long ago.

<comment><USER12> > Then I brought in a swiss ball to sit on and it got taken away.

Huh? Why?

Anecdotes like this make me hope I never have to work in a large company again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have an adjustable desk. It's really nice to be able to move around throughout the day, but for any thoughtful task that requires some amount focus, I have to sit. I'd like to read further collectively inconclusive research about that.

<comment><USER14> I have the exact same issue. I recently moved to an adjustable desk, and writing emails is fine standing up. It's when I need to have a 2-3 hour coding session that I _must_ sit down or I can't focus. I am wondering if this is learned behavior or if sitting down fosters creativity in some way. I'd love to see some science on it too.

<comment><USER15> It took me 6 months to make the switch. My standing desk has two computers, 2 keyboards, and 3 screens, soon to be more. I have both systems set up for working on different parts of the same project. I work for an hour on one, walk to the other, do some different work.

Switching to this kind of setup was both physical and mental. It was taxing assuming the right posture after years of sitting. My back isn't quite right, but it's a lot better now. Mentally speaking, sometimes I need to sit - I just can't do a certain thing standing up or I'm mentally exhausted and it starts manifesting physically. I actually sit on the floor now, it's uncomfortable and encourages me to stand after a while.

So, the net result is, I've incorporated both mental and physical movement into my work and life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Jog people. Seriously jog. To work, to the store... Smoothly, avoiding heel stomping (youll have calves in 3 days), to avoid joint pressure, especially at first. (my knees are still fucked up, but even then, I barely feel pain after 4 miles jog when I amort the landing properly).

2 miles per day will change your life. I now miss when I can't, I sleep better, I wake up better. It's a huge stress reliever, resets your mind, burns fat, opens your lungs, makes you hungry for healthier food (less pastry, more veggies and meat). bonus point: you get a tan

I couldn't "move" for three years and I notice the difference now that I can.

See you in 2 miles.

<comment><USER17> Why not cycling instead? Seems easier on the joints and muscles

<comment><USER16> I do indoor biking, for this exact reason. But, it has a much lower impact on my health. Maybe it's because indoor bike don't move, thus not involving as many muscle groups as real bike.

The efforts are not distributed the same way. Obviously biking will exercise your thighs but not much else. While running uses abs, all your legs muscles groups. I also believe that we're wired to be efficient at running and thus running tickles your body in better ways. Also there's a nice feeling when your center of gravity lifts up.

Even if I can go fast on a bike for 1 min, I can barely sprint that long and surely slowly and I end up exhausted differently. In the end I prefered what running brought me. It may be very subjective though, even if I enjoy all sports, I always had a thing for running.

This is all crude opinion, I'd love if anyone with bio/biomech knowledge could shed light on the subject.

<comment><USER18> Cycling is more fun than running for me but exactly because of all the reasons you mentioned I prefer running over cycling. What I also realized is that nothing works as good as running (at least for me) for weight loss if you also change your eating habits (you need to have a calorie deficit in order to lose fat).

For around 9 weeks I managed to go running for 10km every second day and then my two weeks vacation happened. I'm trying to get back in again because I'm extremely frustrated on days I don't go running. I cannot emphasize enough on the stress relieving part. For me it's around 50 minutes of complete peace of mind where the only things I focus are breathing and moving my body.

One thing I recommend is to track your runs because it's fun and interesting to see your improvement over time. Bonus points if you track your heart rate as well. :)

<comment><USER16> I use some android app (fitness run or something like this) to have logs. Google fit is nice even though it's not precise GPS wise (relies on Google Maps trip logs).

A smartphone is a bit annoying to carry and use, I might invest in a gps wrist so I can pause / resume with a button.

Right now I'm at 2x2.5km jogging + 5km of walk. And even though I don't have a calorie deficit, I already lost significant amount of fat and got back muscle mass (the bliss of sore muscles right? ;) I'm sure even with a normal diet it's a lot better to have a more active metabolysm as it is now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Who makes money by us being afraid to sit down? Makers of standing desks? [http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

<comment><USER20> i agree with others that the standing desk industry doesn't hold much sway, but at the same time, if some experts say sitting is the most dangerous thing a person does in a day, then some experts are laughably stupid.

why is this sort of thing so common? these articles taking a common fact of life and using it to tell their readers they're doing it wrong and killing themselves and everyone they love? why is that such a common tactic for getting eyeballs? i guess because it works. but is it good for people to injest so much of this?

to be clear, i'm not saying that there aren't adverse health effects from sitting too much, and i'm sure there's good science to back that up, but there's a lot of good science, most of which never gets a writeup in bloomberg. so why do we get so much of "dangers of sitting", or "you're walking all wrong", and on and on?

<comment><USER21> because in the past 30 years many more jobs have become just sitting around all day?

Sitting around all day is a relatively new phenomenon. And more than just sitting, but sitting basically in the same place all day.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that office behavior is one of the main factors in your health, considering it's 8 hours of the day

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Remember. Habits require easy accessibility.

You can make an adjustable desk for $0. I can take a recycle bin, trash can, cardboard box, another chair, books, another desk, --and place this item _on top_ of any desk -- then _just set my macbook on that_. You don't need a $500 electrical moving standing desk - they are annoying. I currently have my macbook on top of a planter on top of a desk (the height is perfect). I worked for 6 months ontop of 3 large legos.

If you _need_ to be hipster or require a mouse you can splurge on a nice one for $29.

[https://oristand.co/](https://oristand.co/)

<comment><USER23> Eh, I'd never stand up if I had to do all that. I prefer pressing a button to raise the desk to my preferred standing height.

Also, I use 3 screens. I'd like to see "oristand" do that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I know this well, but standing for more than about an hour is torture on my back. (I suspect my flat feet and tight hips contribute here.) I have no idea how to fix this.

<comment><USER25> Just deadlift.

3x per week. Start with an empty bar, then add 5lbs to the bar each time you deadlift. Once it gets so heavy that you can't add anymore, just back off to 1-2x per week and maintain the weight on the bar. It'll take you about 20 minutes each time and the bar and plates will take up about 4 square feet in your living room or garage when not in use.

Here's how you deadlift: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZrATR1O4E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZrATR1O4E)

You can get a barbell and plates on Craigslist for $250. If you decide that it ain't for you, you can sell your barbell and plates on Craigslist for $250. So there is no financial downside. But it has the potential to be the best $250 you have ever spent. On anything.

<comment><USER24> I can pull twice my bodyweight, actually.

<comment><USER26> Tight psoas could be a problem. When it's tight, it pulls your lower back vertebrae forward, creating significant shear force. There are stretches specifically for psoas. Try them, they might help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So I had all this: insulin problems, hypertension, anxiety and other problems.

I can say this is a real problem you should not underestimate.

But I can't agree with the title. I believe the underlying problem is lack of muscle movement. So standing all day will give you the same problems.

Muscles are a glucose buffer working tightly together with insulin. When this buffer doesn't work well your metabolism also doesn't work as expected and you will get all kinds of problems.

Take care of yourself and move as much as possible throughout the day.

<comment><USER16> Also sitting position I suppose. Sitting on the side of my bed is not the same as sitting on top of it. It puts pressure under my thighs and with bad blood flow would make my whole legs feel bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think it's important to keep in mind as with all things, correlation doesn't automatically mean causation - less healthy people are probably more likely to be drawn to less active jobs, for instance. Maybe there is a randomised intervention study that's been done?

</comment><comment><USER29> I only mean this statement partly in jest.

Buy everyone on your floor a Nerf gun.

<comment><USER30> This happened once in my office.

It wasn't as cool as it sounds, and also it just led to a lot of shooting each other from our desks.

<comment><USER29> That's the intent? A handful of us in my office have guns. The novelty wears off once you get sick of retrieving the ammunition. This is why my comment was only partly in jest.

My personal experience with getting away from my desk and walking more was spurred on from the discomfort of my DIY standing desk that I made (instructions for the desk are found at [0] and are not my own) and to quit smoking. I sustituted cigarettes with vaping and it's done more for my health and encouraging regular movement than I expected or intended.

YMMV of course, I live in a sub-tropical city in Australia and I'm fortunate enough to have a gorgreous river bank [1] and Botanical gardens at my offices offices front door [1]. You'd be less inclined to be outside in Middlesbrough in the UK where I am from or say, Seattle.

[0] - [http://www.ikeahackers.net/2012/07/on-off-standing-desk-a- la...](http://www.ikeahackers.net/2012/07/on-off-standing-desk-a-lack-desk- add-on.html)

[1] - [https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Brisbane+city&client=fire...](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Brisbane+city&client=firefox- b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKt62Au- zVAhXMybwKHcYzBrYQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=955)

[2] - [https://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-b- ab&biw=192...](https://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-b- ab&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Brisbane+city+gardens&oq=Brisbane+city+gardens&gs_l=psy- ab.3...23004.23280.0.233126.96.36.199.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy- ab..8.0.0.wm6EzRnLf5E)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Another perspective, "Sitting: Is It Hurting You?" > [https://gokhalemethod.com/blog/63827](https://gokhalemethod.com/blog/63827)

</comment><comment><USER32> _Cut sitting time to less than three hours a day, one group of researchers found, and you could lengthen your life expectancy by two years_

I care more about my quality of life than my life expectancy. Will I get 2 more years of quality life (decent mobility, self reliance, good mental health), or 2 more years of being confined to a bed in a nursing home as my mental faculties fade away?

<comment><USER33> I'm guessing that if you do something to improve your health enough that it adds years to your life, the rest of your health should be improved as well.

Meaning, maybe standing also improves your back and you ache less in later years.

It's hard for me to imagine doing something that improves your life expectancy at the expense of some part of your body.

This is massive speculation on my part.

<comment><USER34> This isn't a valid general principle. People who quit smoking late in life add extremely low-quality disabled life years.

<comment><USER35> As a general principal, I would disagree with the position that it's not valid. Certainly some people who quit smoking late in life prolong a painful cancerous demise, however I would imaging the worst of the low-quality disabled years are often a result of the limited, desperate nature of the available potential life-saving treatments: radiation/chemotherapy, etc. A significant percentage of smokers quit late in life and avoid those extremely low-quality disabled life years. Also, it seems perspective typically changes as 'quality of life' decreases, generally resulting in the desire for continued respiration;-)

<comment><USER34> Short version: you're thinking lung cancer. It's not, it's COPD, and it's near ubiquitous for people who have smoked a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've found 1-2 walks around the parking lot per day to be a great boost to my well-being. I usually do it solo (escape from open office overload), though at my last job one of the more senior people would usually round up a core group for a good half hour walk.

If anything, taking active breaks has been good for my career. Often I go when I finish a task/segment and the quiet, outdoor time give my mind a chance to wander and put things in context so that I can choose my next tasks effectively.

It's anecdotal, but I suspect that the people who eat lunch at their desk and don't get up all day aren't actually creating more value than those who take some time. A quick search indicates there are at least some studies backing this up [1]. I'd be curious if there is evidence that points the other way though.

[1][http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8548292](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8548292)

</comment><comment><USER37> I was working in visual effects where we were doing 9 to 11 hours per day of work at a desk. Nearly everyone ending up buying their own varidesk (varidesk.com) I can't recommend them highly enough, especially if you work at an office where you are provided a regular desk. Varidesks just sit on top of your regular desk. I liked using a standing desk so much, I bought a Geek Desk for home use. geekdesk.com If you get one, be sure to get a standing desk floor mat as well.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'd like to be able to sit much of the time but have frequent short periods of standing. But even adjustable standing desks don't really facilitate that well, and most of the adjustable standing desks I've seen are _worse_ sitting desks than a standard one.

My solution it to sit but every 45 minutes go for a 1 minute walk around the office. I'm not sure it's very effective but can't hurt too much

</comment><comment><USER39> Like anything health related, it really depends on many factors (overall health, genetics, other risk factors) as to weather sitting will have a significant effect on your health. For some, it may never affect them much. But, it won't be a short term thing - you won't know until after many years of sitting. The negative effects of sitting aren't the kinds of things you can reverse.

</comment><comment><USER40> And not one mention of developing blood clots

<comment><USER41> I have one of those under-desk exercise bikes. I don't know if it has any overall effect on my health, but it keeps the circulation going anyway.

I definitely recommend this particular model. It's smooth and quiet, works under a normal height desk, and is heavy enough that it doesn't slide around.

[https://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser- Wh...](https://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser- White/dp/B00B1VDNQA/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting- goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1503499919&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=deskcycle++exercise&psc=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> On modern occupational hazards....

"Alex, I'll take circular saws for $500"

Perspective people, perspective.

</comment><comment><USER43> I would say it's safe to assume most people here sit A LOT.

So what's the state of research regarding whether you can make up for it with vigorous activity?

Does sitting itself cause problems? Seems to be some hidden variable.

<comment><USER44> Last I remember (don't remember the source) they found that vigorous exercise elsewhere in the day doesn't make up for it.

<comment><USER43> The article says there is research that contradicts that though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Try sitting on an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_ball](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_ball)

</comment><comment><USER46> And yet they say standing desks are just as bad and that it's the lack of movement.

</comment><comment><USER47> reclining workstation ftw, and getting worthy exercise elsewhere... allows for it all, better sleep and better feeling back that I've had in years.

</comment><comment><USER48> If sitting is so bad why is meditation considered to be so good an' healthy?

[http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-11-19-ChairSittingGood...](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-11-19-ChairSittingGood.jpg)

My guess is this problem is not to do with sitting per se; it's how your (partly unconscious) attention is distributed. It's not just work/gaming/movie that requires bandwidth, the body needs some too. If you can't walk about then better posture and even little things like wiggling your toes might be helpful.

<comment><USER49> Maybe because you don't meditate for longer than an hour and sitting for less than an hour is unlikely to give you blood clots.

<comment><USER48> Some people _pay_ to meditate for days on end!

GP about blood clots. Likelihood of clotting also depends on sympathetic arousal:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629605/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629605/)

So stimulation arising from eating food, drinking coffee, work stress, etc, _whilst being seated_ would be a double whammy.</comment></comment></comment>


Golang Developer - <AUTHOR> Hey guys, I have been learning Golang and I am now looking for some hands on experience. If anyone has a project or has a repo that I could help with that would be sweet! <comment><USER2> Port [https://github.com/commonmark/cmark](https://github.com/commonmark/cmark) from C to Go.

Go has decent markdown parsers (I maintain one at [https://github.com/gomarkdown/markdown/](https://github.com/gomarkdown/markdown/)) but there is no parser that does CommonMark.

That would be a valuable addition to Go ecosystem and the project is well scoped (and there is existing test suite so you'll know if the code works or not).

<comment> le-mark Just curious why not call cmark from go with cgo? Would save a lot of effort porting.

<comment><USER3> Cgo has overhead and is slower

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Gorgonia Family (used for deep learning): [https://github.com/gorgonia/](https://github.com/gorgonia/)

I'm currently looking for contributors to help develop bindings for cudart (what is currently available is cuda driver API, cublas and cudnn, which is partially done due to the lack of cudart)

</comment><comment><USER5> I am working on daptin, which is a headless relations cms backend

[https://github.com/daptin/daptin](https://github.com/daptin/daptin)

</comment><comment><USER6> I work on zbuild, which is a cross-language build tool designed to make vending and versioning artifacts sane in large, multi-team environments. If you're interested, I can help you get started with a simple task or two: [https://github.com/dimes/zbuild](https://github.com/dimes/zbuild)

</comment><comment><USER7> Well not sure, if this helps. But I wrote a simple tutorial on locks and RWMutex. The project builds a simple in memory database, may be helpful to you: [https://github.com/antoaravinth/go_concurrency_tutorial](https://github.com/antoaravinth/go_concurrency_tutorial)

</comment><comment><USER8> Hi devgator, I coded a blockchain app in Golang.

[https://github.com/Grrrben/gocoin](https://github.com/Grrrben/gocoin)

Used it as a study in Golang myself and still love coding it. It's an open project, any enhancement would be appriciated!

</comment><comment><USER9> Not sure what interests you but I'm a fan of the backup app [Restic]([https://github.com/restic/restic](https://github.com/restic/restic)).

</comment><comment><USER10> I developed meli[1], which is a docker-compose alternative.

1\. [https://github.com/komuw/meli](https://github.com/komuw/meli)</comment>


Tim Draper Wants To Split California, Turn Silicon Valley Into Its Own State - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/tim-draper-six-californias-secede-silicon-valley-ballot-initiative/ <comment><USER2> I'll go you one further, Mr. Draper: California should be split up into six _countries_.

The plain fact is that the notion of "consent of the governed" is preposterous in any culturally diverse environment of more than a few million people.

Reasonable people wish to live differently, with different forms and amounts of government, religion, social norms, etc. So be it.

<comment><USER3> The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration, and so while what you say makes sense, it would change nothing in the long run unless it was accompanied by stricter immigration restrictions.

Otherwise these 6 new countries would soon be just as diverse as California is now.

<comment><USER2> Each new country, of course, would be able to set their immigration restrictions and loosely or as tightly as they wished. And, hey, this might actually reflect _the preferences of their citizens_ rather than the preferences of some remote elites.

It's crazy talk, I know.

<comment><USER4> Yes, crazy and wrong. Let me tell you how this is going to go. A bunch of wealthy people, of limited diversity, will make their own country and exploit all the poorer ones. I would have no problem with your plan if you can assure me that the wealthier country doesn't bully, pollute, wage wars or otherwise compromise the people or natural resources the poorer countries nearby.

<comment><USER2> Nah, sane and correct.

Massive super-states: bulwarks of peace, clean living and respect for both the individual and their local cultural groups... Sure, man. Whatever.

At least give it a chance in your brain: I know it doesn't fit the classic left/right divide, but would a continent of Switzerlands of varying cultures be that bad? Worse than todays USG?

<comment><USER4> I can assure you that the rich will group themselves away from the poor. So, I repeat: If you can assure me the wealthy won't take advantage of the poor, then I'm fine. But you can't assure me that. It's going to end up like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs)

>> _The series focuses on the antics of a family who live in a poor valley community and, as a result of pollution and radiation exposure, are all disabled or deformed. The pollution is the direct result of the lavish lifestyle of the rich community known as "The Hills", whose residents exploit and harm the valley residents with absolutely no regard for their safety or well-being.

Social commentary

Many reviewers and fans see the series as a commentary on social stratification. While the residents of the Hills live in wealth and economically dominate those in the Valley, there is no rallying cry for wealth redistribution or fairer working conditions._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a 4th generation native, I've been hearing ideas such as these since I was a kid. I can't tell you how many times the idea of how easy it would be to secede from the rest of the US was brought up, but this new one seems to take the crazy a little more public.

I'm a bit confused as to why in 30 years, anyone from "Silicon Valley" would give a damn about what those people from "West California" thought or why the Senators from West California would vote to get a new bridge in Silicon Valley for instance. This wouldn't create six Californias, it would dilute the power of California by breaking it up. Nor do I understand why the Federal government would allow such an obvious ploy to increase Senate representation.

I'm actually kind of surprised, given the almost Texas-level pride (minus the Texas-sized ego) Californians can have for our state that Draper would propose such a thing.

<comment><USER6> Yes, these ideas are evergreen in California. The "Jefferson" one in particular comes up constantly. There's only a tiny problem: all of "Jefferson" would contain a tiny (fewer than a million) population, would have essentially no economy other than timber and tourism, and currently runs an ENORMOUS budget deficit when considered by itself because the negligible economic activity produced by the timber industry wouldn't even pay for filling the potholes in the 1000s of miles of highways in the region, much less for fixing the bridges and staffing the rural fire departments and whatnot.

Of course the idea can't die because 1) rural poor people are particularly susceptible to "stabbed in the back" propaganda about how liberals are robbing them blind, and 2) incumbent timber owners are all too happy to peddle such propaganda because all they want is to clearcut the remainder of California's forests without interference from pesky laws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting, states _have_ been created in the past via splitting. Maine out of Mass., both W. Va and Kentucky out of Virginia, and Vermont from NY+NH, according to Wikipedia. [1] "Any such creation [must] be approved by the legislature of the affected state(s), as well as the United States Congress." [1]

Also according to Wikipedia, "Throughout the state's history, there have been more than 220 attempts to divide California into multiple states including at least 27 serious proposals." [2]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_Cali...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California)

<comment><USER8> "Any such creation [must] be approved by the legislature of the affected state(s), as well as the United States Congress."

Not strictly true.

It certainly wasn't the case for the West Virginians.

<comment><USER9> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The reasons:

1\. It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average.

2\. Competition is good, monopolies are bad. This initiative encourages more competition and less monopolistic power. Like all competitive systems, costs will be lower and service will be better.

3\. Each new state can start fresh. From a new crowd sourced state flower to a more relevant constitution.

4\. Decisions can be more relevant to the population. The regulations in one new state are not appropriate for another.

5\. Individuals can move between states more freely.

<comment><USER11> _> It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average._

On the other hand, California gains an _enormous_ amount of power every four years due to the huge number of electoral college votes it commands. No other single state has anything like California's 55 electoral votes; the next closest is Texas, which has just 38.

In other words, California, all by itself, gets a candidate 20% of the way to the magic 270 votes needed to win the Presidency. This makes it very hard for any serious candidate to ignore or otherwise bypass.

Splitting California up would dilute this power, allowing candidates to write off parts it more easily. It would be interesting to take the 2012 election results and map them to Draper's proposed new states to see how those "states" would have voted, had they existed then.

<comment><USER12> > On the other hand, California gains an enormous amount of power every four > years due to the huge number of electoral college votes it commands.

Since it consistently goes blue, national campaigns use California for token speeches, mainly for fundraising purposes in Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, California only matters for primaries, and for fundraisers.

<comment><USER14> Hasn't California's primary been in like freaking June.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I sort of like this idea, but in all honesty, I think the time for secessionist movements has passed. That's not a snarky comment about the Civil War--it just seems to me that the idea of having a sovereign state with a monopoly of force over some geographic terrain seems outmoded to me.

China Mieville wrote a novel a couple years back, _The City and the City_ , that is exactly the type of thing I want to see more of: pushing the boundaries of what we consider a plausible political entity. In it, there's one city but two governments that are both sovereign within its limits, and people choose to be part of one or another. I'm also reminded of the historical political mandalas of Southeast Asia--one city state might simultaneously be a client of two other states.

Is either the future? Of course not. But my point is that our vision of what governments have to look like is sadly limited, and our myopia has caused us to see the Eurocentric romantic state nationalism of the past two centuries as the only way for a civilization to exist. Think bigger, folks! (Or smaller, as the case may be.)

</comment><comment><USER16> Would California's perpetual budget problems be better solved by localizing the resources of a state government to be more accessible? Probably. Clearly California is (and has been for a long time) too big for its shoes, as evidenced by its complete idiocy when it comes to passing budgets that do what they're supposed to do. But, six states might be pushing things a bit. Economies of scale that can be had at a state level shouldn't be discounted entirely.

It would be interesting to see what would happen with things like:

      - state income tax (WA, for example, has none);
      - sales tax (OR, for example, has none);
      - minimum wage;
      - driver's license expiration periods (AZ only makes you visit the DMV once every 12 years to get a new pic & check vision)
      - gambling laws (because Nevada's not quite close enough for some people);
      - fruit checkpoints at the state line(s);
      - all the case law RE: California Supreme Court rulings -- opening this up for new precedents would be madness

<comment><USER5> _Would California 's perpetual budget problems be better solved_

California has a budget surplus.

A pretty large one in fact: $5.6 billion surplus by June 2015, with annual surpluses reaching $8.3 billion by the 2016-17 budget year.

<comment><USER17> I'll believe numbers for 2015-2017 when they arrive. What's the surplus for 2013?

<comment><USER5> It is on track to be about $851 million (the fiscal year ends June 30th)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I, for one, am glad California has still has some less liberal areas to keep it in line.

<comment><USER4> Seriously. As left as I am, this is crazy talk. SV can't just be its own state. This Silicon-valley-arrogance is out of control. They think they have it all figured out and know better than generations of wisdom before them. What if everyone who didn't like a few things decides to just not co-operate and run off? So now SV is its own state. San Francisco is going to be part of this state and it already has gentrification-type issues. What if those people get mad and wanna make their own state too? A state where the non-techs can keep their apartments and not be displaced by techies. So, now where do the techies live?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This proposal is clever in that it greatly increases the (former) state's power in the senate, but does so by splitting the state's senators 50/50 between both parties.

That would net republicans 2 more senators than they have today -- so if the state passes it, I imagine the republicans in congress might actually allow it to happen.

This would change the dynamic for presidential elections dramatically (thanks to our byzantine way of selecting a president); pulling away several "secure" democratic votes to republicans. I believe republicans already have a electoral vote per capita advantage, as seen in the 2000 election.

Also, a 55 star flag doesn't look so terrible: [http://i.imgur.com/5yKPsUR.png](http://i.imgur.com/5yKPsUR.png)

</comment><comment><USER20> Only his first point (about getting a fair number of senators) makes sense. Senate representation is a big problem for our country. Things have gotten to the point where many small states can flat out extort the US population as a whole. (Our terrible corn based ethanol legislation is an example of such extortion.)

Unfortunately, I do not think splitting CA will get us more senators. I am pretty sure that additional states have to be approved on the federal level. And considering Washington, DC. still to this day does not have Senate representation, I really really doubt the federal government would allow California to have 10 more senators.

<comment><USER21> The Senate representation is by design, so that large states cannot bully the small ones. Big states get more leverage in the House of Representatives and the smaller states are on equal footing with the larger states in the Senate. I think it is a good system.

What would you have the small states do, anyway? The representatives are acting in the interest of their constituents, which is what they are supposed to do. How many corn-producing states are there? More than the 25 states needed for a majority in the Senate? Really? Even so, how did it get past the House? If the representatives of the populous extorted states can't see how the corn legislation is bad, maybe those other states need better representation. Maybe California even supported it, since they are all environmentally-conscious (even if not always well-informed). Or maybe it is not actually bad legislation: Wikipedia [1] seems to claim that ethanol in gasoline replaces a harmful chemical that was polluting groundwater, but that ethanol producers were having problems staying afloat in the Panic of 2008-9.

The government was well-designed, please don't try to "fix" it. Instead, let's eliminate special interests buying harmful legislation, which is the real problem.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> See also: Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_\(proposed_Pacific_state\))

edit: oh, Jefferson is actually the name of the proposed northern state.

</comment><comment><USER23> Maybe some of the US's underrepresented territories should get a shot at statehood first.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Competition is good, monopolies are bad" is a blanket statement about one mechanism of cooperative benefit, gain from trade in competitive markets, against another mechanism of cooperative benefit, namely economies of scale. It is not self evident at all that competition is always good: there are necessarily diminishing returns along all the dimensions of cooperative benefit, and they trade off against each other non-linearly. Risk pools benefit from economies of scale. Breaking up CA requires an analysis of the social services affected. This is much, much more involved than the proposal indicates.

</comment><comment><USER25> Splitting CA into 2 different states (3 at most) would be more realistic but 6 is just over doing it. It feels like micro-fragmentation (see Europe).

The author is terrible at selling the idea. Where's the data? Where's the maps showing political segregation and population? Why don't they talk about how CA has terrible public schools, a massive jail population, and inefficient public transportation? And how splitting it up into separate states would allow different and unique ideas to compete and be tried instead of one set of rules being forced on an entire state of 38 million people.

</comment><comment><USER26> This will never happen. Those in power will not allow it.

<comment><USER27> Completely true. But it is an interesting thought experiment and provides some insight into our current system and some changes we may want to make.

<comment><USER28> We would have to change the American flag. Think about that for a second. There won't be citizen driven state changes in America, ever, without some form of revolt.

<comment><USER29> The American flag has changed 26 times since 1777, the most recently in 1960 when Hawaii's star was added. There are many challenges to breaking up California, "changing the American Flag" is one of the less significant changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> i have an intimate, decades-long knowledge of both northern and southern california, and let me tell you, they're basically the same thing.

anyone who tells you otherwise probably hasn't spent much time in _both_. the real differences run east-west, not north-south.

<comment><USER17> I think the proposed splits recognize this: of the 6, only the northernmost two are horizontal bands; the other frous are east-west splits.

I have a hunch the LA-to-Orange-County split might be awkward, or the meshing of three states in the Contra Costa-Sacramento-San Joaquin area. And though Alameda and Contra Costa might be comfortable with SF-San Mateo-Santa Clara- Santa Cruz-Monterrey-San Benito, they'd hate being in a state _called_ 'Silicon Valley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I like the general idea, but the current proposal isn't going to get much support because it splits the Bay Area in half. Doing that fails to recognize that a significant portion of people commute from the North Bay into the city. Not to mention that numerous agencies have been established to coordinate planning and environmental efforts in the area (ABAG, MTC, BART, and BAAQMD to name a few.)

I think the proposal would be stronger as a four-state solution:

1) a state similar to the proposed "Jefferson" state

2) the greater Bay Area/Monterey/Sacramento area

3) Central Valley & the south half of the Sierra Nevadas

4) SLO/SB/SoCal

</comment><comment><USER32> Just another whiny rich person trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

</comment><comment><USER33> The whole water management is going to be very interesting under such a plan. Might be good for agriculture and force a move to desalination plants.

</comment><comment><USER34> Question: If this were to actually pass in the State of California, would the only thing necessary after that be for the US Congress to accept six new states into the Union?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#New_states_and_federal_property)

<comment><USER35> > If this were to actually pass in the State of California, would the only > thing necessary after that be for the US Congress to accept six new states > into the Union?

Probably not; even if the ballot measure passed it would still probably have to pass the state legislature: the US Constitution requires consent of the State Legislature (not just "the State") to form new states from the territory of existing states, and in other circumstances (the similar restriction regarding rules for choosing Presidential electors), ISTR that the federal courts have looked specifically to the Legislature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> All of you that want to "disrupt" (I loathe that word) should just buy a boat and carry on without the rules and regulations. Uber could be a venture-funded startup and Transportation Network Company based in San Francisco, California that makes a mobile application that connects passengers with drivers of vehicles for hire and ridesharing services on a boat.

</comment><comment><USER37> I dislike this solution.

Draper's concerns mainly reference representation and regulation. Both of which can be achieved by (1) amending the CA and US Constitutions, and (2) delegating more power to the existing counties.

The waste inherent to operating five additional state governments, just to circumvent the status quo, does not seem appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER38> While I think this idea is interesting I can't see it happening in our lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER39> What federal approval would be needed for this?

It would be interesting if California added some regional government level between state and county, then devolved almost all state power to that level, in advance of any formal breakup.

<comment><USER35> > What federal approval would be needed for this?

Yes, by Congress.

> It would be interesting if California added some regional government level > between state and county, then devolved almost all state power to that level

California has been progressively devolving state powers directly to counties for many years, constrained largely by things that are tied to federal funding streams that require a single state agency to be responsible for the federal funding and to perform certain functions with regard to the statewide program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Can someone please answer what problem is being solved here?

</comment><comment><USER41> Hunger games ?

</comment><comment><USER42> or "tim draper and i want your attention"</comment>


Intel's new processor to process voice on device, not on the cloud, unlike Siri  - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/170668/intels-voice-recognition-will-blow-siri-out-of-the-water-because-it-doesnt-use-the-cloud/

<comment><USER2> Hmm yeah, sounds wizzy, but isn't Intel still having trouble getting a CPU with low enough power consumption to make a cell phone? Priorities?</comment>


Show HN: Deepdesigns.ai – Design a unique face covering with deep learning - <AUTHOR> https://deepdesigns.ai/ <comment><USER2> I scrolled for a while and I couldn't find a design that I liked.

In my opinion this would work much better if designs were based on abstract or post-impressionist art.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! Thank you for the suggestion, we considered it but weren't sure people would want it.

By the way, did you try mutating any of the designs? If you click on a design, the site generates related designs repeatedly and you can go as deep as you want. A lot of my favorite designs came from starting on an okay-looking design and mutating several times until I found something I really liked.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We just launched our store. The concept is simple: guide a deep learning model to create a one-of-a-kind design.

Any feedback is appreciated :)</comment>


From $80,000 a year to eviction - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/28/jobloss.hard.times/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

<comment><USER2> And I wanted to be an aerospace engineer who designed and flew his own spaceships.

Sometimes stuff doesn't work out.

These are "template articles." Usually you find these on the front page of msn.com not hacker news.

Find a person that fits template, big goals and dreams then X happened where X is drugs, economic downturn, accident, etc. Then move into how the world is scary and random, then get "expect advice." End with final quote about how world is scary and random.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. Most journalism is template articles (said as a former journalist).

<comment><USER3> So this could be adapted for generating said generic pieces: <http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does crap like this end up on the front page of HN, and why are people upmodding it but not commenting?

(I assume the people upmodding are not commenting because the comments are mostly negative (8 out of 10, at present).)

Is there a shortage of impressive hacks to submit and upmod? Is there something particularly pleasant about this place vs. Reddit or Digg? Are the words "Hacker News" only appearing for me?

</comment><comment><USER5> It's sad to hear stories like this (unemployment in our area is around 10% now) and layoffs aren't the employees' fault ...

BUT it also underscores the importance of (a) living at or below your means when you do have a job and (b) saving money for emergencies like this. Probably at the very least 2 or 3 months living expenses, which gives you time to job hunt, relocate, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> _"Here, the people earn millions of dollars with bonuses that are astronomical," said Dorlen, who is also the public education coordinator in New Jersey for the American Psychological Association. "There is a demoralizing aspect to having a huge salary and a huge bonus and then having to look for a job that is going to pay much, much less."_

Why would you need too look for a job if you had earned millions of dollars? Do you really need to live a 2 million dollars a year lifestyle the rest of your life just because you're used to make 2 millions a year? Gosh.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is there a site that _isn't_ elance, rentacoder, or stuff like that, where you can genuinely hook up with people who are looking for "odd job" type Internet work? Such as, write a press release, design a logo, help me with a business plan, yada yada.

If all these people are falling out of work and earning a pittance (that article claims she's now making $20k), then surely there are some pretty qualified people we could be paying $25 an hour to do stuff for us (who would have previously cost $100+).

You might think that'd be "taking advantage" of the recession, and sure, it is, but money in the pocket is better than no money.

<comment><USER8> they sometimes have that sort of thing in the gigs section of craigslist

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

I usually just chuckle when I hear that statement, but oh man does it apply here. Something about the first story doesn't add up, which unfortunately makes me less than sympathetic.

I don't see how she planned to go through years of law school with no money. Either she had enough money saved up for living expenses + tuition (in which case, she still should, as she would have saved 3/4 of that,) or she had a scholarship... in which case, she should have stayed enrolled until she found a job.

I get that the circumstances MIGHT have been unforeseeable, but Aesop knew it way back in the day, and it really seems like common sense.

<comment><USER10> I agree the first story doesn't add up. She's still making $20k with her part- time work - a lot of people are worse off! You can survive on $20k in the Detroit area. Instead, she lost her car and got evicted. I'm guessing she didn't prepare financially for being a student, and she still hasn't readjusted her expenditures.

<comment><USER11> Two years ago I owned my car and had a roommate so when I was unemployed for 6 months and it was no big deal.

Now my apartment is 1515$ a month an my car payment is 500$ a month. There is no way in hell I could pay that while making 20k / year. If your making X and drop down to 1/4 X then all those obligations that seemed reasonable at the time are just not possible.

<comment><USER10> Exactly, which is why if you drop down to 1/4X you need to move out of that $1500 apartment. If someone ignores the problem until your car is repossesed and you get evicted, there are people more deserving of sympathy.

Also, I think $1515 a month in Detroit gets you a castle with a moat around it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Both stories listed are the result of their own decisions. The first lady quit her job to go to law school and can't find work in her old field. The second example listed left his full-time job to get in the real estate business which was unstable even when he started (July 2007) and they are both wondering what went wrong. No one I've spoken with is anxious to move jobs right now and everyone seems to want to stay where they are until things brighten up. These people took risks that didn't pan out and that is why they are where they are.

<comment><USER13> If you haven't noticed, there were 70,000 layoffs this week.

In Tucson, people are scrambling for jobs. I'm in a position where my employment is ending in March and the jobs I see are extremely competitive. I'm in a good position relatively (strong savings, a competitive skillset for enterprise applications) but I'm extremely concerned.

(And yes, the plan is to attempt to generate revenue through some sort of startup if nothing comes along. This, of course, is the benefit of being a creator. My concern is that no one seems to be buying right now.)

<comment><USER14> New to Backtype. My contract recently ended, am invloved in my own job search..it's tough out there. Please reach out to the friends, business associates and colleagues that are struggling through these difficult times,help find there way. Remember what they did to help you in good times. Sometimes just listening helps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love the "advice" you get from mainstream media. Your life is wrecked up by a mix of bad decisions and bad luck, and the solution is to:

• Don't panic; • Find a support group, even if it's just an informal group of friends; • Seek employment counseling when available; • Be professional in your job hunt; • Network with other professionals; • Take time to exercise during hard times; • Spend valuable time with your family.

Ah, good! I was about to panic, become a hermit, be unprofessional in my job hunt, and avoid my family.

Okay, some of that advice is mildly valuable, but without additional detail, "Don't panic" is totally vacuous. Yeah, you're not going to be wrong, but it's not insightful either. It's why I typically avoid mainstream TV/newspapers - lots of unqualified "Don't panic" and "remember to exercise" type advice.</comment>