Android hardware fails more than iPhone, BlackBerry - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/03/android-hardware-fails-more-than-iphone-blackberry-repairs-cost-carriers-2-billion/

<comment><USER2> It's meaningless to say "Android" hardware fails more often v. Apple iPhones and RIM Blackberrys; such a statement is like saying sedans fail more often v. BMW M3s and Toyota RAV4s. Apple and RIM are single companies, Android phones are produced by dozens. "LG hardware [or even "LG Android phones"] fails more often than iPhone, Blackberry", for instance, would be a far more useful study.

<comment><USER3> That's a cop-out. I bet you're totally OK with people saying "Android is destroying iPhone in the marketplace!". You can't have it both ways.

<comment><USER2> Android is an OS. It competes with iOS.

The LG Revolution is a phone. It competes with the iPhone.

Android is a fine OS. The LG Revolution is crap. In terms of hardware failure, the manufacturer means more than the software.

<comment><USER4> What you say is true.

I'm just not sure why that makes the comparison bad?

<comment><USER2> It's not a meaningful scientific basis for such a comparison. Choice of OS isn't a major factor in hardware quality. Nokia proves this; the N8 (Symbian), N9 (MeeGo), and Lumia 800 (WinPhone) are all of fairly similar quality (quite high, I might say); yet each runs a totally different operating system. Likewise, you can have two Android phones from different manufacturers (or even the same, in some cases) that are at very different extremes of hardware quality. A study such as [1] is far more meaningful, it's comparing manufacturer to manufacturer (the people responsible for putting the phones together) instead of OS to OS (as one phone could theoretically be sold with a different OS with no change in quality).

[1] [http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/cell-phone-comparison- study...](http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/cell-phone-comparison-study-nov-10)

<comment><USER4> I still don't see why this is not a valid comparison. Sure, hardware is independent from software (more or less) but that doesn't mean you can't meaningfully compare the two.

<comment><USER5> It does mean you can't meaningfully compare the two.

Are you saying that if people started installing Android onto iPhones (if it were possible) all of a sudden the hardware failure rates for iPhones would sky rocket?

<comment><USER4> Of course not! Why would you think that?

All this says is that devices running Android fail on average more often than iPhones – for whatever reason (regression to the mean, one designer and manufacturer vs many, lower priced devices, and so on). That's a perfectly valid comparison.

<comment><USER5> The comparison is invalid because iPhone/Blackberry devices are premium high cost devices with high quality control. A direct comparison will only work against other premium high cost devices with high quality control.

By comparing every Android phone on the market (from cheap to premium) to only premium devices you are always going to get a skewed result.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand. Why does that make the comparison invalid? That makes no sense at all.

You are naming one factor that might explain the difference – but that is exactly the point of such comparisons! To figure out what the difference is!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd like to see this broken down by manufacturer and model. Without that, all this tells us is "some Android phones are cheaply made", which is to be expected for an OS designed to be cheap and easy to put on hardware.

<comment><USER3> As I told the other poster; If you start doing this with Android "sales" as well then all will be good. At the moment when people talk about how is "winning" it's always the whole of Android vs. iPhone. Given that I think this report is perfectly acceptable.

<comment><USER7> Whether or not Android is "winning" has nothing to do with hardware reliability, which is the subject of this article. I'd personally like to see the reliability numbers broken out by OEM.

<comment><USER8> Right. This article isn't about who's "winning"; it's just a reminder that the benefit of hardware choice means that information is needed to make a good choice. Longer-term reliability information is more difficult to obtain than basic specifications, but it's still important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The Android fanboy behavior in this thread is absolutely appalling. People point out the logical inconsistency in wanting to lump Android together when it's a positive and split out when it's a negative and the result is mass downvotes? Disgusting. I'm at -5 on some of my posts. I wouldn't get that for calling someone a fucking asshole.

Some of you need to go reread pg's essay on ID.

<comment><USER6> You seem to be trying to make some kind of wider point about "Android fanboys", and in so doing you're accusing people of making statements about Android sales that they haven't made, and are irrelevant to the OP.

In reality, all I pointed out was that a report about hardware failure should come with statistics broken down by hardware manufacturer. The other "Android fanboys" that you're similarly decrying said the same. Your point would be valid if we were also saying, at the same time, that good and crappy Android phones put together beat Apple. Which we aren't. This isn't about Android "winning" or "losing"; it's about failing hardware, which is highly relevant for anyone selecting a phone, regardless of whatever ideological position one might take WRT smartphone software.

<comment><USER3> >The other "Android fanboys" that you're similarly decrying said the same.

No, the people I'm calling "Android fanboys" are the people who mass-downvoted me for stating something they didn't want to hear. On reddit I would expect this and go with it. It's appalling to see that kind of thing happening here.

<comment><USER6> You didn't respond to my point, which is that you're derailing the comment thread by accusing people of saying things they didn't say. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to downvote a comment, and it has nothing to do with being an "Android fanboy".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This thread is the perfect example of why I don't participate on HN as much as I do other communities. HN has great articles but the FOSS extremists run the comments.

1\. Repeated articles proclaim: Android overtakes the iPhone in sales. What does this mean? It means that Apple is selling less of 1 phone model than dozens of hardware manufacturers combined sell different phone models. So I guess Android fans want Android to be thought of as "one platform", all hardware vendors included.

2\. New article: Android hardware fails more than Apple iPhone (and Blackberry, et. al.) but suddenly "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU CAN'T COMPARE ALL ANDROID PHONES WITH ONE PHONE."

So, which is it? I figured this out a long time ago. The answer is it's whatever makes Android look better than iOS as a platform. The facts can change daily, just as long as Android is the winner.

<comment><USER3> This is exactly right. Anything Google-related has a similar problem. Android/Google is to HN as militant atheist is to reddit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Assuming that some hardware is of lesser quality than other hardware, and given the low cost (down to virtually free) of many Android devices, I'd expect more failures per unit.

Of course, it's entirely possible that certain Android devices have lower failure rates than their iPhone and BlackBerry peers. The study doesn't break it down by device.

If you don't want to think about it, then just choose a BlackBerry, with its 6% rate.

</comment><comment><USER11> Can we agree that when the customer goes out and buys an Android it's more likely his phone will fail than say when he goes out and buys BB or iPhone.

<comment><USER12> I think we can agree on that.

Of course, not many customers go out and search for "Android" phones. They buy the Galaxy from Samsung, the Droid from Motorola, the EVO from HTC.

Most non-tech people I know either don't know what Android is, or they treat it as a quality of a smartphone, such as "1GB RAM". If a smartphone says Android in the description it usually means they can continue to use the apps they used on their old device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Android phone repair costs carriers billions: study 'At the moment, Android is a bit of the Wild West,' says expert

Costly hardware failures are more common on Android devices than on Apple iPhones and Research In Motion BlackBerry phones, which have strict control over the components used in their devices

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45150844/ns/technology_and_scien...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45150844/ns/technology_and_science- wireless/#.TrLHX_Qg8zU)

</comment><comment><USER14> I was going to post this as a reply, but every thread here so far is talking about this.

Saying that "Android is the larget smartphone platform" is not in contradiction with the statement that it's unfair to treat all Android devices equally. Nexus devices are superior to other devices in terms of consistency, speed of updates and reliability. Sense and Blur laden devices are less likely to be updated and are historically buggier.

It makes sense to lump Android together to talk about a _software platform_ because those are the statistics that matter to mobile developers. They want to know where the users are. When it comes to phone, saying "Android phones fail more often", is only one abstract level above saying "Smartphones fail more often than dumb phones.".

While it's a true statement, it's not a complete statement. It seems to make sense to distinguish between manufacturers of Android phones when making these kinds of statements in my mind.

Note, I have no problem with this sort of an aggregate report. There just seems to be a lot of "AHA" and "Gotcha", by talking about Android as a brand and pointing out that Android is considered an "aggregate" for platform size comparisons.

<comment><USER15> > It makes sense to lump Android together to talk about a software platform > because those are the statistics that matter to mobile developers. They want > to know where the users are.

Not all Android phones are created equal - many have inferior hardware (which developers have to account for separately) and others are only capable of running ancient Android releases (which developers have to account for separately). I'm not sure a developer who is looking at bulk data for the Android platform is getting an accurate picture of the effort/payoff for developing an Android app.

<comment><USER14> Right, which is why there is also data available for what devices are on what versions and what percentages of users on what versions so that developers can choose a minimum level to target. This problem isn't unique to Android either, so I don't see how it changes what I siad.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but you're saying it makes sense for developers to consider Android to be one software platform when looking at marked numbers. I'm pointing out that this is just not true. It's much easier with iOS, for example, because unless you're targeting very old hardware you can assume everyone is running iOS 4 or 5 (or soon will be), and the screen size is universally the same across iPhones.

If you consider Android a single platform, then the Apple platform should be iOS (including the iPad and iPod touch), but most comparisons of phone numbers don't take these into account at all (for good reason IMHO).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hosted Subversion? - <AUTHOR>

Can anyone recommend a company that offers Hosted Subversion and ticket tracking? <comment><USER2> I work on the Project Kenai (<http://kenai.com/>) team at Sun, and we provide hosted source code repositories, ticketing, wikis, and a variety of other tools for project management.

We're still in beta, so you'll need an invite in order to actually create a project. Hit me up via email (my HN username at gmail.com) and I can pass along an invite if you're interested.

</comment><comment><USER3> SourceForge? Google Code?

Or do you mean something that keeps the source code private? I never really understood the point of private source code hosting; if it's on another company's servers, it's not really private anymore, and I'm sufficiently paranoid to distrust it.

<comment><USER4> I don't know about your ISP situation, but mine is rather unfriendly towards making my home-based servers visible to the outside world without paying a sharply more expensive "business" plan.

Further, I'd like to get my friends using a more sophisticated system of coding than emailing (or sneakernetting) zip files when they "remember" to. Some of the projects they need help on are contracting projects for companies, so public-facing anyone-can-access code is neither allowed nor acceptable.

A hosted arrangement means that it will also get backed up, and be more available.

<comment><USER3> I usually just host it off the same webserver that I host the site on. Yeah, this is terrible for security, but it's not really more terrible than having someone else host it. And you should be backing up your server anyway...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you mean for private repos, unfuddle.com offers both.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you used them before?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, for a couple of projects. It's been a pretty smooth experience imo.</comment></comment></comment>


Taking payment for Subscriptions  - <AUTHOR>

We want to be able to offer paid subscription accounts on our site for advanced features.  Any recommendations on what services to use to collect payments?
On a quick overview Amazon seemed incredibly expensive while something like Google checkout didn't seem to offer recurring payments.
What are the hidden gems you are using to facilitate these transfers?<p>Also, we are using Django. <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=200920> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=79066> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=125097> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=116503> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33505> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=73736> ...

<comment><USER3> Man, wouldn't it rock for Y!Hack to have a resource section?!

<comment><USER4> <http://ask.searchyc.com/> <http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/startupswiki/Ask_YC_Archive>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use PayPal and IPN to set up subscriptions. You can include a code in your link to indicate the frequency of payment. You can also provide links that allow a user to modify their subscription (eg, upgrade to the next plan). It's worked well so far.

<comment><USER6> +1 for PayPal and IPN, it's relatively easy to setup - no waiting around to get a merchant account etc. However we do have some reservations about abandonment rate through PayPal - a lot of users are put off by having to signup for an account with them if they are new to the service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> these guys are great:

<http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> I would look into Aria Systems: <http://www.ariasystems.com/product/billing> They have an implementation fee but they have outstanding services

</comment><comment><USER9> I used PayPal with it's Instant Payment Notifications for one time payments. It works ok for now.. I seem to recall something about recurring payments there. You might want to check their docs.

<comment><USER10> Advice: Once you find the page, bookmark it. It's really frustrating navigating around PayPal. You can get lost easily.

<comment><USER9> That's good advice!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just found internetsecure.com when I was looking for the same. Best I've found so far.

Paypal makes me uneasy because they've already locked my account once "for suspected security reasons". If I'm running a business, I can't just have my payment processor arbitrarily lock my account without further explanation.

</comment><comment><USER12> We use PayPal and Credit Cards (Visa, MC, Discover, and AmEx) through Chase Paymentech (<http://www.chasepaymentech.com/>). We don't support Google Checkout, because nobody uses it, but I do want to take a look at Amazon eventually.

</comment><comment><USER13> paypal is garbage, avoid them like the plague.

<comment><USER14> Some people might not like paypal but a vast majority of users will be hoping for this option (me for one). If you can add it as an option i'd recommend it.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. Installed user base and brand recognition aren't to be underestimated with a service to which people have to entrust their payment information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> <http://searchyc.com/payments></comment>


Next Rise of Silicon Valley or Why I Quit My Job For Facebook's Death Problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rudy-adler/the-next-rise-of-silicon-_b_683765.html

<comment><USER2> Similarly how should social networks handle the "in jail" problem? I tracked down a high school friend and someone helpfully(?) posted on his wall that he was currently incarcerated. What is the etiquette here? I goes he should have delegated updating his site to someone else.

</comment><comment><USER3> What strings do you pull to get featured on The Huffington Post for something that at this point is just a good project?

<comment><USER4> Two Rhodes scholar ex-McKinsey cofounders?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be nice if this article had two consecutive paragraphs on the same topic.

 _( puff )_

</comment><comment><USER6> Just have <http://www.deadmansswitch.net> send your passwords to a friend...

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a great idea. I'm excited by the potential for a cultural shift in the way we react to death. There are so many beautiful inspiring and funny life stories that we usually only get a chapter of with many people we know. A site like this can help us put the puzzle pieces together of that story and celebrate it with others. We spend so much money on death and yet the ceremonies pass so quickly and are often impersonal. This site helps us organize our loved one's life community to do something other than send flowers - to attend the Subway Series each year, to go camping at their favorite spot, to volunteer for a cause they cared about, or to create a foundation in their name that gives others an opportunity they were grateful for. Rituals are important for grieving and dealing with things we don't understand. Let's make new rituals that celebrate the beauty, the drama, or the devotion of that life that touched our lives.

</comment><comment><USER8> "No matter what happens, one thing is clear: it's never been easier to create a piece of technology. New tools and open source code allow anyone to quit their job and start the next great Internet startup."

No they don't. Tools never have been the biggest impediment to starting a successful startup. Idiots with good tools are still idiots.

</comment><comment><USER9> I understand the sentimental value of a site like 1000Memories, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how they will monetize the site. You're dealing with a very sensitive issue, so you can't really display AdWords or product placement. And if they charge money, will it be a lifetime fee or annual fee? Who will the custodian of the memory be? Who will make sure memories aren't vandalized?

I would like to see more before passing judgment.

<comment><USER10> I honestly think it would be easy to monetize; merely a matter of public perception. Consider that it hasn't stopped people from spending on coffins, dirt plots, tombstones, mausoleums, funeral parlors etc. The departed may or may not baulk at the cost, but affected next of kin are easily influenced when thinking of ways to commemorate a loved one. Keep it tasteful and you could easily eke a good profit.

<comment><USER11> Totally agree. have a quarterly or yearly charge of $30 or something. I would totally do that if someone close to me died. You could offer a way for the site owner to solicit donations if they can't afford it.</comment></comment></comment>


This Nordic Company's Four Secrets to Hiring (And Keeping) Great Talent Anywhere - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/40479040/this-nordic-companys-four-secrets-to-hiring-and-keeping-great-talent-anywhere <comment><USER2> > our current turnover rate is less than %1

Not the 1% I was aiming to be ha. Great company that I regret quitting.</comment>


Ask HN : Startup Building Process - <AUTHOR>

Hello :
When someone has an idea and want to turn it into reality, what are the common steps involved. I found pieces of documents but I havenot found a document that says some simple high level steps. I was thinking of some kind of task list / checklist for a startup. If it is in the form of process flow like MS project it will be even more helpful. Have any of you come across such a document? Here are some of them I think of : 1) Think of resolving a issue of daily life / have a great idea. 2) Build the code and a prototype. 3) Get some marketing. 4) Answer user questions(part of maintainance) 5) Maintain 6) Add features. etc.
Can you please let me know such a document or add your thoughts about it? Thanks and sorry about some basic questions? <comment><USER2> Read up on lean startups: [http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/09/lean- startup.ht...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/09/lean-startup.html)

There is a lot of information out there about customer development and creating Minimum Viable Products. Very interesting concepts.

</comment><comment><USER3> Release something ASAP and things will fallow. Or not. Less thinking about it, more time spent working on that first release. User response(or lack of it) will determine next steps.</comment>


Ken Olsen, Who Built DEC into a Power (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/technology/business-computing/08olsen.html <comment><USER2> OpenVMS is still among most reliable OS's & clustering ever created. First high-assurance VM software was done there. The Alpha processors' PALcode let us essentially do microprogramming in assembler code with its atomic execution having implications for concurrency work. Quite a few innovations of lasting importance under Olsen. I'm furious at his ass for not believing in desktops given DEC's accomplishments on other things. We may have been deprived of something awesome because of that.

Another thing to take away from DEC is motivation and process. DEC was a company made of engineers who built things engineers wanted to use. Such companies still wow crowds in headlines today and is a niche worth remembering. The other part was the quality-assurance regiment that I heard they used for VMS. They'd code new features for a week with tests, let tests run over weekend, and then spend entire, next week fixing problems rather than developing new features. This alternation made for some really robust code. They similarly payed close attention to design and operations with the collective result being systems that lasted years under load without reboot.

So, management failures & desktops aside, Ken Olsen and his company DEC exemplified some good, lasting lessons for creating and marketing high-quality systems. Worth remembering both for this.

<comment><USER3> I was a VMS admin for a few years. I have tremendous respect for DEC tech.

<comment><USER2> The VMS admins said they slept at night. Some didn't but it wasn't VMS that woke them up. Was that your experience? ;)

<comment><USER3> Yes. There was a level of quality and thought put into the systems that I haven't experienced since.

Just to provide some more contrast... Just about every other system had to be rebooted daily or every few days.

The problem with VMS was the hardware. Eventually the pain of being on slow, expensive machines allowed other companies to take more share. By the time the Alpha systems were ready, the Pentium (and soon Pentium Pro) was suprising every OS vendor.

<comment><USER2> "Just to provide some more contrast... Just about every other system had to be rebooted daily or every few days."

That's the biggest point I push on it: architecture and development processes that _worked_ in terms of reliability. It didn't emerge after billions of investment in whatever wasn't working. Just teams working 9a-5p building stuff, testing it, reviewing it, polishing it. And it totally worked.

"By the time the Alpha systems were ready, the Pentium (and soon Pentium Pro) was suprising every OS vendor."

People of the time period told me it was a combo of hardware and licensing cost. They said OpenVMS still cost a fortune while Windows and UNIX's (esp BSD's) were "good enough." That is, DEC & Compaq seemed to ignore the lessons of Worse is Better essay about the market power of an imperfect, mostly- working solution. They _might_ have gotten further lowering their price alone. Maybe still have to target commodity hardware, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> ... in 2011

<comment><USER5> Ok, we added 2011 and took out "dies at 84", since that signals recent news. The post might still make for a good historical discussion.</comment></comment>


Mixergy interview video analytics - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/my-video-stats-new/

<comment><USER2> This is actually a topic I'd love to hear more about. What are folks using for metrics on their video content?

<comment><USER3> I'm glad to hear that. I'm collecting tons of data. I didn't think anyone else cared as much. I'll show more of it.

I wish I could give you my username and password without compromising my account.

<comment><USER2> Awesome, I'll look forward to that.

One thing I've been thinking about is how to reliably compute metrics around video when you publish in many different places (e.g. iTunes, your site, embeds, etc.). Any insight you've got on that would be invaluable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wistia looks great, but the pricing seems too expensive. $39/mo for 400 views (of 5 minutes or less), $79/mo for 1200, $179/mo for 3,600. That's a lot when I can host videos for free on Youtube or Vimeo.

That being said, I'd love to use it on my site to assess the effectiveness of introduction and tutorial videos = )

<comment><USER3> I think Chris, the co-founder, has this in mind for people who want to use short videos to sell.

I wonder why he doesn't open it up to long content.

<comment><USER5> Andrew is definitely a special case when it comes to creating lots of engaging long form content.

That being said, we see many people adding their videos to youtube, vimeo, and hosting them with Wistia. YouTube is the worlds biggest video search engine so it's a no brainer. But if you're a business, the key is understanding who is watching your videos on your own site and how they're watching them.

We also see many other people doing much more than just hosting video. You can see many of the other sharing uses here: <http://wistia.com/product/tour>

<comment><USER4> If you don't mind me asking, how did you come up with the pricepoint? How large is your typical customer?

It seems to me that you're target audience would be larger, publicly-traded companies, not cash-strapped startups. As an example of how frugal startups can be, Andy Liu parks his car in 2-hour parking and moves it throughout the day instead of paying for a monthly parking pass (from Mixergy interview).

<comment><USER5> Great question. We actually have customers across the board, from public companies to 2-person startups. I'd say the thing that makes them typical is understanding how individuals watch their videos is important.

In the case of 2-person startup this might mean sending out pitches to investors and learning who's interested based how much time they spend watching demos. At the other end of the spectrum, it could be anything from empowering sales reps to compliance training.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> @Andrew Warner

It would be interesting to find out if the 25% are regular viewers or not. My suspicion would be they are not regulars.

Can you determine how many people click on the sponsor links to exit vs close the window.

Also, Do you have any stats for the videos without the advert at the start?

</comment><comment><USER7> I sense a split test coming with ads at intervals rather than the beginning.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it is the ads causing the bouncing. I think it is simple Internet-induced ADHD, the same thing which contributes to bounces everywhere else. I see similar curves in time-on-page for anything I do -- even at my best articles segmented by users referred from a trusted recommendation (e.g. a blog they respect). That is without any advertising whatsoever on my pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very interesting data. We don't have that much info on behavior on long interviews, thanks for sharing.</comment>


Did you try ixwebhosting.com? Don't waste your money. - <AUTHOR>

ixwebhosting.com destroyed my web business and their support asking me to be patient and wait. I have hosting service at ixwebhosting.com and website meteo-rs.com on it. This morning I find out that the website is down and I contacted their live 24/7 chat "support". Live chat support staff forwarded my problem to Ticket Center where another person took the ticket and forwarded it to another person, this person changed ticket status from 'Open' to 'Working' and again back to 'Open'. My website is still down. They already promised to me that the issue will be fixed in couple of hours. After couple of hours waiting I went to live chat support to ask what's going on. There I only received this message: "Your ticket is forwarded to our appropriate department. It will be replied as soon as possible." After several more hours of waiting I again received that message. My site is still down for tents of hours! Only what I get from their support is:"Please let me ask you to wait for the ticket reply. It will be replied once it is possible." When I ask for any time line, they say: "I'm sorry but there is no exact timeline available at the moment." Crappy hosting provider. Don't buy anything at ixwebhosting.com <comment><USER2>
        tsavo:~ mcd$ host meteo-rs.com NS14.IXWEBHOSTING.COM
        Using domain server:
        Name: NS14.IXWEBHOSTING.COM
        Address: 126.96.36.199#53
        Aliases:

        meteo-rs.com has address 220.127.116.11
        meteo-rs.com mail is handled by 10 mail407.ixwebhosting.com.
        tsavo:~ mcd$ host meteo-rs.com NS13.IXWEBHOSTING.COM
        Using domain server:
        Name: NS13.IXWEBHOSTING.COM
        Address: 184.108.40.206#53
        Aliases:

        meteo-rs.com has address 184.108.40.206
        meteo-rs.com mail is handled by 10 mail407.ixwebhosting.com.
        tsavo:~ mcd$ host -t ns meteo-rs.com 184.108.40.206
        Host meteo-rs.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
        tsavo:~ mcd$

Your registrar appears to have suspended your domain name or is having problems as there are no NS records published for your domain that are publicly viewable. IX's webservers are responding, though, the IP address that ixwebhosting is publishing is also not responding. Since they are a tucows reseller, and the name isn't visible in their root either, I would assume the domain was suspended by the registrar.

Getting that fixed will probably require sending verification that your name is First Name Last Name and that you can receive mail at email@example.com.

</comment><comment><USER3> Budget hosting is budget hosting, don't forget that _you_ are betting your business on it!

I would suggest:

1) Move your site to AWS or something while you wait for them to fix their problem.

2) Move your site to a more expensive hosting setup with better service / support

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the suggestions. I see what do you mean. But still I paid the service didn't get it for free.

<comment><USER4> I've worked at a hosting company before, and yes, it sucks when your site goes down. They know that, and it reflects badly on them if your site is down. It's quite possible that there's a problem which isn't just an easy fix. Once, the data centre where half our servers lived had a fault... well... explosion. And the fire department forced them to shut everything down for several days. It sucked, but it happens. They're not deliberately dicking you around.

Yes, you are paying for your hosting, but you're betting your business on a budget supplier. These companies work by selling to lots of small clients and cramming them onto a server as tightly as they can. Even so called "business plans" from them often don't come with any actual SLA. You are paying for the hosting space and bandwidth. Service is an added extra which they're giving you. Just because you're paying money doesn't mean that you're their most important client; you're just one of thousands of clients who are also paying them money.

If you're serious about running your business, you should go with a proper business host. It may be more expensive, but any one worth their salt will 1) have better, personalized support, and 2) will often have guarantees or insurance in case something horrible happens which takes your site offline for days.

One last thing - don't be too trusting of "99% uptime guarantees". They sound great, but your site can be offline for three whole days a year without them breaking that guarantee.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you think about this movie distribution model? - <AUTHOR>

We're trying an experiment with one of our feature films.  Alongside the full-featured, full-priced DVD we're making available a "Bootleg Edition" of the film which is produced as cheaply as possible (DVD-R, no special features, no fancy packaging, etc.) for about a quarter of the price of the "Standard Edition".
http://2soc.net/breakdown/bble.html
In addition to making the discs cheaper however we've made one other change to the Bootleg Edition copies:  They come with absolutely no copyright restrictions whatsoever.  Not only do we encourage customers to duplicate the film themselves but we explicitly encourage them to do this for-profit.
Our hope is that some creative folks will take what we have made and cut it up, part it out and recycle it into something new, and when they do, we want to allow them to distribute it however they see fit, as a new, separate piece of art.
We'll see what happens and we encourage anyone who takes us up on the offer to share their work with us we can contribute to promoting what they have done.  We're not exactly sure where this is going to lead but if it turns out interesting, we're planning to do the same thing with future releases as well.
We're curious what the Hacker News crowd has to say about this, as consumers, producers and entrepreneurs. <comment><USER2> Interesting. This might be that added value that opponents of the current digital distribution model is looking for.

Since you want this to be as widely spread as possible with the underlying concept attached to it, you might want to get in touch with PirateBay (and similar). They seem to like this kind of stuff and might give it front-page attention.

It will inevitably become an illegal* torrent sooner rather than later, but you might appeal to the group that thinks the current model of making money off of media is far from optimal.

* illegal: I might be a bit thick, but am I getting the rights to distribute (fileshare) this after I have bought the DVD-R, or can anyone do it? Filesharing today generally means torrent, which means that everyone downloading the torrent is also sharing it... I guess my question here is: I can share it, but can anyone legally download it from me?

I find the concept intriguing and I'm really looking forward to what other people here will say. Will keep an eye on where you're going from here!

PS. Not that I ever use PirateBay, of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're getting the right to distribute so you could certainly rip it and torrent it without any legal repercussions.

The only way I can come up with that you might be able to break the law with the Bootleg Edition would be if you used the disc as a weapon :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> It's a shame this did not make it to the main page, I was hoping to read some input from the community.

Did you have bad luck with the time you submitted the story, or so? During lunch hour? A lot of other submissions? I would genuinely have thought this would be of interest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me too :)

If I hear anything interesting elsewhere I'll post an update here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sounds amazing. NIN tried this recently and got some pretty amazing mixes out of it. You could consider starting a remix/fan/discussion forum and a featured work youtube channel.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm mostly surprised that your 'bootleg edition' is cheaper than the regular edition.

Sure, it doesn't have a box... but it has a lot of rights granted to it, and it has some cachet.</comment>


Falling Off The Ladder: How Not To Succeed In Academia - <AUTHOR> http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_02_04/caredit.a1100011

<comment><USER3> That was one hell of a downer to wake up to. I was in the sciences for a short stint (behavioral neuroscience) and could see the drudgery and political limitations from a mile away.

I made a very clear decision to put all that stuff on hold until I could somehow get involved in the sciences privately. I suppose that might be a pie in the sky thought, but it's better than filling out (scarcely granted) grant proposals all day.

</comment><comment><USER4> tl;dr: I failed because I stopped working hard and I was unambitious. And once I got tenure, I thought I could slack off, play the cello, go horseback riding and be a full time mom. But the system failed me too - it should have come up with a way for me to not work hard, but keep my job.

<comment><USER5> I think her more important point is that to be a "successful," scientist, you have to be a domineering, workaholic, self-promoter with connections. Perhaps there are other ways to do science that don't push out brilliant people who want broader lives.

<comment><USER4> I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists.

Science productivity is nonlinear. Simple numerical example: if it takes you 20 hours/week just to keep up with the literature, teaching duties, etc, a scientist who works 35 hours/week is only half as productive as one who works 50 hours/week.

Additionally, science is cumulative. Those extra hours you put in build up your skills. This means that not only does the 50 hour/week scientist produce 2x as much as the 35 hour/week scientist, but his/her skills grow faster. So after a year, the 50 hour/week scientist not only has twice as many productive hours as the 35 hour/week scientist, but he/she also produces more per hour.

You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary.

<comment><USER6> "Science productivity is nonlinear." - any citations for that?

<comment><USER4> As I'm sure you are aware, it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity. So no, neither I nor anyone else have citations related to this claim.

My claim is based primarily on inductive reasoning and personal experience. I know quite a few good scientists, none of whom have any semblance of a work life balance. And when I was a scientist, the job was as all consuming as doing a startup.

<comment><USER6> "it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity"

Stepping back from the original article, what I would say is that a lot of the problems in academia are perhaps caused by inappropriate rewards systems based on the idea that academic research productivity _can_ be measured over reasonably short timescales.

I'd actually be more in favor of much less overt short term performance evaluation for academics and accepting that some will, undoubtedly, squander this privilege while others would, I believe, more than reward society for this trust. Of course, this would probably be unacceptable politically as the emphasis there is often to minimize the negatives rather than to maximize the positives.

<comment><USER4> The problem is that the way the academic system is structured, the negatives are large and the positives are small. Take the author of this article - <USER2> was mistakenly given tenure, and she squandered 10-15 years of salary + unspecified severance.

The solution is simple - eliminate tenure. Then you can take a risk on a promising scientist - worst case, you fire him/her in a few years.

<comment><USER7> Er, she worked in the UK where tenure was abolished in the late 80's.

<comment><USER4> From the article:

"...I came home in 1989...to a _tenure-track job_ , running my own research lab at a University of London institute, where I remained until the sad demise of my career... _I got tenure_..."

<comment><USER7> Good point, I'd missed that.

All the same, I'm not sure how she was on the tenure track given that no UK academic appointed (or promoted!) after 20 November 1987 has tenure. Perhaps there is a more complex story with her date of appointment, or perhaps, given that Science is a US publication, she is simplifying a tenure track equivalent UK position for a US audience.

Reference for the legislation: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/part/IV/crosshea...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/part/IV/crossheading/academic- tenure)

But this is a side issue (my fault, I started it!), I'd agree with your basic point that tenure is a problem. Just, it's not the only problem and it wasn't the problem in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _This just does not happen in the male-oriented world of science in which, traditionally, dogs are keen to dine on dogs rather than share the bone between them, so to speak._

That sounded a little sexist to me, though I wonder if she meant that a woman with two children can't do as much science as a man in the same situation.

</comment><comment><USER9> tldr, don't be lazy, fail to network, and insecure in your abilities to the point where you stop trying.

Nothing specific to Academia there.

<comment><USER7> Is it not a little off to claim tl;dr and then call _her_ lazy?

<comment><USER10> It's entirely possible for both the author and haecib to be lazy. (I personally don't think the author came off as particularly lazy, though.)

<comment><USER9> I guess by lazy I mean, as the author put it, "I didn't work hard enough..."

And yes, it is entirely possible that I am lazy as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like her biggest problem is this:

 _However, I was always hampered by self-doubt. My initial conviction -- essential for anyone who wants to make it as a scientist -- that I could really make a difference, maybe even win a few prizes and get famous, eroded when I realized that my brain was simply not wired like those of the phalanx of Nobelists I met over the years; I was never going to be original enough to be a star._

Seriously, what the hell does this mean. I believe this kind of confidence problem could be fixed by better mentorship earlier in life and perhaps a cultivation of a more hackerish mentality.

<comment><USER12> It's also the wrong goal to begin with.

You should never worship what the price winners think, you should question it.

Also, you should care about ideas, not prices.</comment></comment>


Why Developers don't TDD: a podcast series - <AUTHOR> https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile-thoughts/ Starting at episode 14 : https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile-thoughts/ <comment><USER2> I've been a developer for many years, so most of the time I kind of know where I am going and have a map in my head guiding my development. I like test cases to help me with refactoring, but full TDD seems to slow me down when I try it.

I have found that TDD helps quite a bit when coaching a new developer. It sets up intermediate goals that are not as daunting to get to. Sometimes thinking about a big project can just seem overwhelming to someone that hasn't done it before.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like your points about when working with a new developer and how it creates intermediate goals. Are you Pair programming when doing this?

<comment><USER2> Sometimes, but more often just looking over other people's work or progress when I'm asked for help or advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Because I find that I do not fully understand a problem and it's potential solutions until I am working through it in reality.

<comment><USER4> I used to have that view of the world as well, that a lot of the programming I was doing was simultaneously exploring the problem space as well as working towards a solution and thus writing tests (let alone full blown TDD) wouldn't work.

I think that what changed my mind, other than the dubious joy of maintaining my own code a couple of years down the line, was the realisation that while I don't know the solution to the problem yet I do know what each function I'm writing is supposed to do and thats what I should be testing. As a side effect it also meant that the functions I was writing became smaller (easier to test) and it became easier to see what the end solution might look like because I could understand the intermediary steps more easily.

Or to put it another way, I might not know how to write the compiler, say, but I do know that I'll need to start off by reading a line of input and I can test that I'm doing that properly, etc.

<comment><USER5> >As a side effect it also meant that the functions I was writing became smaller (easier to test) and it became easier to see what the end solution might look like because I could understand the intermediary steps more easily.

I definitely use "it's hard to test this code" as a smell indicating refactoring is in order.

I've never tried TDD, but I suspect most of the value is that it forces people into practicing separation of concerns and other basic anti-ball-of-mud practices.

<comment><USER6> This is true, but you still go through a painful process of learning what that actually means.

My early sins included happily relying on field injection in Spring (don't), happily blasting stuff into Ruby objects (don't), mocking my software's world into an unrecognisable comic book universe of gravity-defying nonsense (don't) and so on.

A common criticism of TDD is that poor tests make things harder to change, not easier, and I believe it, because I have absolutely done that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The ideologies that developers publicly claim are often described as religions. One way they resemble religions is that people who espouse them don't live the way you would expect them to if they really believed in them.

<comment><USER8> XP (and by inference TDD) is often described this way.

But after one has practiced it for a while, it's hard to go back.

The way I describe it is this: When most people start as programmers, they write a big 1000 line file that should completely solve the problem. Then they run it, realize it was very wrong, and spend hours debugging it.

As programmers learn, they tend to practice "error driven development": they get an idea what they want to happen, they run the program (usually "hello world" to start), and slowly run, edit, run, edit until it evolves into what they want to see.

If you practice 2nd process above, you are one step away from TDD. You are still testing, you are just using manual tests. Once you learn to automate those tests easily, why wouldn't you TDD?

<comment><USER9> > When most people start as programmers, they write a big 1000 line file that > should completely solve the problem. Then they run it, realize it was very > wrong, and spend hours debugging it.

No, I start line by line, and tend to be thorough. When I start out there is zero complexity, everything I add to it I don't add blindly, with a "rough idea" of what it does. I know exactly what it does. I know where user input and other code ends, and my code begins, at the least, and how I normalize things that cross the threshold.

Yes, I'm talking about a solo dev making little things for their own needs, sure. I have the luxury of being as thorough and slow as I want, too.

It's not lazyness, the idea of tests actually excited me when I first heard about it. But for example, when I write a particle system, how would I test that? Do I test all combinations of parameters and then compare them with images, which takes a million years? How do I generate the images, with another particle system? How do I test that, in turn? It really does strike me as a "now you have two problems" kind of deal in that situation. In others, the code is just too trivial and unchanging to write a test.

What's a "real" application that has good and complete tests? Something like the GIMP, or Blender, or an audio editor, or a complex game? I wouldn't know where to look, and the tests I saw when browsing random github repos often seemed too simple to be useful, often just covering some "token input".

But what if your "escape string" function has a bug that kicks in at exactly 15 characters? What if your "get user ID from username" has a bug that ONLY happens when the string "whoops" is in the username? Fuzz everything? Who really does that for applications without serious security implications?

<comment><USER8> I'd love to know how to test graphics and audio programs, frankly.

TDD works very well for things with a defined input and output, including: 1\. compilers 2\. databases 3\. all web apps (output is the DOM)

In regards to the escape string, if there was a bug at exactly 15 characters, there must be a branch somewhere that isn't being hit, and it should be pretty easy using code coverage reports to find it, and generate the correct input sequence to exercise it.

When you get to fuzzing, you're hitting the edge of state-of-the-art. There is good research going on at automating some of that: [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/)

<comment><USER10> What I do for graphics (never had to test audio programs) is to make the actual graphics code as simple as possible - no logic, very few lines: just take this thing and put it on screen. This way, I can inspect it visually, test it manually once and be reasonably certain that it will work. (Which _can_ be incorrect, of course, but it's relatively rare. Lost a contract because of it once, so it can also be painful :D)

Put all the logic in a class that can be tested and that returns something that can be used in the "get this, put it on screen" part mentioned above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TDD (I lump together lots of extended practices here) is hard.

It's hard to learn from a book or blog post.

It's often hard to solve the many problems of "how do we test <behaviour X>?".

It's hard to know when to stop spiking and start test-driving.

It's hard to stick to it when you solo and you think "oh I can just skip a few steps here and come back afterwards".

It's hard to learn mockist style and statist style. Hard to go all-in on one style, then all-in on the other style, and then afterwards often hard to strike the right balance between them.

It's hard to deal with the vast universe of technologies which, having not been developed in a TDD fashion, are hard to test.

It's also hard being told your years of practicing amongst practitioners aren't real experiences. That you didn't see the remarkable speed and confidence it granted on massive codebases with hundreds of engineers in dozens of teams working for multiple companies on several continents for years on end.

</comment><comment><USER11> Tdd won't take off until developers realise they need to start thinking more.

If you don't understand the problem you're trying to solve well enough to write tests, you shouldn't start coding.

But too many developers just want to dive in and hack code together and try to figure it out as they go. The resultant code from this is almost always a tire fire.

Someone on hn a whole ago posted the quote "coding should be to software development what moving the pieces is to playing chess"

I couldn't agree more. I wish more developers would get this.

<comment><USER12> _If you don 't understand the problem you're trying to solve well enough to write tests, you shouldn't start coding._

Sometimes there are problems that are only really possible to appreciate after one starts coding. In many instances, I've found that attempting to build a prototype is the best way to understand the problem. In those instances, TDD is a huge mistake. It ties you to architectural decisions that you know you're going to change when you better understand the problem.

Contrast Ron Jeffries' attempt to build a sudoku solver using TDD with Peter Norvig's attempt [1].

[1]: [http://ravimohan.blogspot.com/2007/04/learning-from- sudoku-s...](http://ravimohan.blogspot.com/2007/04/learning-from-sudoku- solvers.html)

<comment><USER8> Peter Norvig's approach seems like the textbook way to TDD:

1\. Find a large body of known good input/output pairs 2\. create tests around that known good data 3\. create an implementation that produces the desired output from the given input

There's no reason Peter couldn't or shouldn't have started with the tests.

<comment><USER12> What you're describing is closer to what Ron Jeffries attempted than to what Peter Norvig did. It's Jeffries who started with input and output and then faffed about for five blog posts while attempting to figure out a way to get input to match output. What Norvig did was start by thinking about the representation of the problem and the constraints that the problem imposed. He then found a way to elegantly represent those constraints in code. And, only then did he write tests.

Moreover, the process you describe is quite similar to the parody of "how to draw an owl" [1]. It completely glosses over the fact that "create an implementation that produces the desired output from the given input" is where 99.5% of the complexity lies.

[1]: [https://i.kym- cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/572/078/d6d...](https://i.kym- cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/572/078/d6d.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Because tests have to match requirements and those are usually ambiguous or close to non-existent.

</comment><comment><USER14> Usually it's because we let TDD lapse, and suddenly the rebuilding the scaffolding to properly do TDD for a feature is more work than the feature itself.

</comment><comment><USER15> I know when I'm coding for me I don't because to me, tests don't solve the problem I'm out to solve at the time. I want _this_ thing, over _there_. A test does not get it there.

Now, once I'm done with getting that over there, _then_ I look at it and evaluate my level of testing I'm going to commit to it.

Some code, I can keep straightforward and narrative enough where even coming back a year later, I can pick it up and quickly move with it. Part of my secret to doing that is forcing myself to sit down with a saintly non- programmer, and talk them through it.

If I can get them to follow, I've got it nailed down. If I can't, I haven't whittled it down to it's simplest incarnation.

For all the other code... Let the test suites be written!

</comment><comment><USER16> Because I test everything thoroughly at the REPL as I am developing, and record my REPL tests.

Because I have been doing this for 35+ years and generally have acceptably low error rates without it.

Because I would rather invest test resources in runners that actually exercise the application at the UI layers and the API layers directly in a fully configured and deployed environment rather than trust mocked up unit tests. (Which CI can also do.)

Because tests can have as many bugs as the underlying code.

But, for teams of junior developers, I am all for it.

(I also will write some test harnesses/unit tests for aggressive or major refactorings.)

</comment><comment><USER17> Using a directory watcher to rerun ruby unit tests on file changes was something that helped me do more TDD. Having a terminal open and seeing it turn from red to green as tests start to pass on every save is a very satisfying feeling. Saving and manually re-running your tests after changing what should make the next test pass is not.

Edit: It was guard for those curious: [https://github.com/guard/guard- rspec](https://github.com/guard/guard-rspec)

</comment><comment><USER18> TDD wasn't a thing when I started coding, there's no software that I use or that has been influential to me that's developed using TDD. For my personal projects, I'll never use TDD, it's a crutch, I don't even jump into tests, I add assertions and then only add a test if I find a bug that wasn't obvious.

</comment><comment><USER19> TDD is great when you have a solid set of requirements. But when you are doing "Agile" and the requirements change every day, your tests can be invalidated almost instantly. If I was doing a reliability focused project TDD would be my first step. But that isn't the kind of project I work on.

</comment><comment><USER20> My fun test for TDD advocates is picking random GUI framework X and ask the presenter how to TDD a native GUI.

After all I am not supposed to show anything on the screen, send a shader to the GPU, or change any widget property without an existing test.

<comment><USER21> AFAIU TDD, it's beneficial to have an automated test than can check what I'd check manually if I didn't have automated tests (since automated checking is quicker, and is consistent). One benefit of writing a test before fixing code is it avoids the problem of writing a test which passes but doesn't actually check the broken thing. ("You have to write the test before or else you're doing it wrong" seems overzealous or cargo-culting to me).

Of course, as with anything, "it depends" and so if you're confident that adding more tests would hinder your development more than benefit it, sure.

Some programming tasks are difficult to get the system setup for test input, or for checking test output. But it's not like you're not going to check whether the program works, and so it seems beneficial to make an automated test if you can.

<comment><USER20> I fully support automatic testing as far as possible.

Now TDD cargo culting of writing tests before working code, or even actual design of data structures just seems nonsense to me.

It only works for CLI demos of simple tools, or data processing pipelines.

Anything else seems convoluted, without a sound architecture design, and just impossible in some scenarios, e.g. GUI code, UI/UX.

Tests should be a mix of unit, module and integration tests, written after the architecture design, overall UI/UX design process, performance analysis if the chosen data structures are the best ones for the case at hand.

<comment><USER22> Given that there are plenty of test harnesses that allow for testing of GUIs, what about GUIs do you think proves impossible for the TDD process?

<comment><USER20> Large majority only work for browser based GUIs,

Then overall they are only able to validate the UI position or widget properties, which are like 25% of the overall UI/UX of a GUI and HIG compliance behaviors.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are test frameworks for every tier of any application on any platform. People are getting it done.

Testing pixel presentation is a problem. Today, Automated macro tests can't describe in a program how the UI should look before the UI is built. The UI is simply too dynamic and subject to the whims of fashion. But writing tests first for the UI and smoke testing that the UI elements are there and basically function is doable.

Most devs struggle keeping their micro testable code seprate from presentation code. TDD is a great way to incur this requirement. Otherwise it needs to be tested in a slow macro UI test. If you're not familiar with the three tiers of the Test Automation pyramid, give Agile Thoughts episodes 1 through 4 a listen. It takes you through each stage of the pyramid and describes how macro (cutaneous and subcutaneous) and micro complement each other. [https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile- thoughts/](https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile-thoughts/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Tdd is writing tests and getting a side effect of production code.

Tdd feels like you are always after the next hit. Turn that red into green by hardcoding. All that matters is green.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is a very good article on the same topic by DHH. A great read if you haven't read it before:

> Test-first fundamentalism is like abstinence-only sex ed: An unrealistic, > ineffective morality campaign for self-loathing and shaming.

[https://dhh.dk//2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live- testing.html](https://dhh.dk//2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html)

<comment><USER22> To me this is confusing the level of abstraction tests sit with when the tests are written. You can write system tests first and you can write unit tests last, they are orthogonal.

I practice double-loop TDD, which involves writing a system level test to drive out some behaviour, then writing other integration or unit tests down through the layers until the system test passes.

<comment><USER8> I've heard this called "outside-in" testing.

<comment><USER25> I thinks this is more something like ATDD (acceptance test driven development) consisting in capturing specifications in acceptance tests and use them in a second loop to drive traditional TDD. Outside-in TDD or mockist TDD following Martin Fowler's vocabulary is just a TDD technique extensively using test doubles in order to define how actors collaborate or interact with each other to achieve the specifications.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed: * Step 1) (macro) ATDD one or more acceptance criteria * Step 2) (micro) TDD your code to get a macro test to pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What about languages with strong typing? Is it as useful as with, let's say, Ruby?

<comment><USER8> It's 100% as useful, but much more difficult to mock and inject.

<comment><USER27> > much more difficult to mock and inject

Isn't it just the opposite?

The whole reason of Mokito ( [https://site.mockito.org/](https://site.mockito.org/) ) is to make Java mocks easier by adding dynamic typing.

<comment><USER6> What you write in your tests, how you test, how you design the software and so on are altered by the language you work in. This is as it should be.

If I have a type system that prevents certain classes of defects, I gleefully accept that bounty.

If I have a type system that simplifies certain classes of tests, I gleefully accept that bounty.

I will happily rant and complain about all of them, but I will also try to program to the strengths of what I'm using. Wishing one language was a different language is a waste of everyone's time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a nice series, but the background music is too loud.

</comment><comment><USER29> There was a back-and-forth between DHH and some of the original TDD advocates a while ago, which I thought was pretty interesting.

Test-Induced Design Damage: [https://dhh.dk//2014/test-induced-design- damage.html](https://dhh.dk//2014/test-induced-design-damage.html)

And a resulting conversation between Kent Beck, Martin Fowler, and David Heinemeier Hansson: [https://martinfowler.com/articles/is-tdd- dead/](https://martinfowler.com/articles/is-tdd-dead/)

I think a lot can be learned from the exchange.

</comment><comment><USER30> Can someone recommend a podcast on TDD that is to the point?

I couldn't get into these because they seem more entertainment focused than technically focused.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is tough to do in a listening medium. Episode 12 covers a simple example that expresses the workflow and give you the general idea. [https://agilenoir.biz/podcast/012-an-example-of-doing- tdd/](https://agilenoir.biz/podcast/012-an-example-of-doing-tdd/)

Getting a copy of "TDD by Example" or buying a video course will get you further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Hey. I do.

<comment><USER32> Here's a question I find interesting, though: Do you TDD or do you write tests? _Lots_ of people write tests for their code. I don't know many people who actively embrace the idea of TDD -- where the testing activity is driving the other aspects of their coding. Even among the people who do, I know of very few people who agree on what the word "driven" means. I suppose I should be more inclusive and say that "driven" might just mean, "I write tests". I've had numerous people tell me that it is improper when doing TDD to modify production code to suit your tests (which, for me is a really weird definition of the word "driven" ;-) ).

If you do TDD, how do your tests drive your development and do you find that it is a concept that you are able to communicate to others easily?

Disclaimer: I have not listened to the podcast, but the combination of the title and this comment was too thought provoking to let slip by :-) Now I'm quite excited to find some time to listen to the podcast!

<comment><USER8> What I've found most people do wrong is start with unit tests, which test implementation not deliverable, then realize after writing a bunch of code they did it wrong.

I tend to write the acceptance test first.

e.g. #1 If I'm writing a web app I write a selenium test "as a user, when I click the button, I see X".

e.g. #2 If I'm writing a distributed database, I write a test "state should converge".

These acceptance tests (aka end-to-end, UAT, UI test) ensure the desired end state is tested for, then I work outside-in to create implementation, writing unit tests as needed along the way.

When I find people fail at TDD, it's usually due to the lack of knowledge, ability or infrastructure to approach the problem this way.

Small stories in the correct order are also critical. I agree with the "risk first" approach an article on HN described yesterday.

Source: I taught a course on TDD to some big enterprise clients.

<comment><USER33> The problem I find is that it takes quite a long time _after_ having a sketch solution to realize that it's a dead end.

You start with "as a user when I press the X button..." but you realize there is no way a button will do. The premise is flawed. It has to be a multiselect list. And this can't be a user thing, it has to be a config thing" and so on. That is: you can't (no one could) even _specify_ what is to be implemented without implementing one or more sketch solutions. You can specify the _user problem_ but not the solution. "as a user I need to do X". But a problem specification alone doesn't allow easily creating a test on any level.

If I were to do "TDD" I'd perhaps accept tests as being not the first step but the step before the final solution. Sketch solution(s). Throw away sketch. Tests. Final solution.

<comment><USER32> > Sketch solution(s). Throw away sketch. Tests. Final solution.

I think it's worth pointing out that this has been my interpretation of the general approach that XP originally took many years ago. If you know the general design that your story should take, you do a test first approach using your knowledge of what you are doing as a guide. However, if you _don 't_ have a good idea of the best approach to take, you "spike" a solution, throw away the code and then use test first to develop the "final" solution (hard to say "final solution" in XP, so I hope people understand what I'm saying here -- the solution that will be refactored over time as opposed to the solution that will be rewritten ;-) ). As the sibling thread pointed out, though, "test first" in the TDD sense is an iterative process and usually you write a test, satisfy it, write another test, etc, etc. You wouldn't want to write all your tests up front because it would constrain your design too much -- and then it wouldn't be "test driven", even if it is good ;-).

I find it especially interesting that you use the word "sketch", which is exactly the same word I use. For me the activity is based around trying to get my head around the basic composition in the design. But like you say, if you are unsure about the UX workflow, just banging out some code and looking at it can make you realise, "That work flow is just not going to cut it because it doesn't use/generate the information I need".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Because it's tedious and not as fun as just going for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> :-)

I actually enjoy writing well crafted code that does test and production functionality. Still, I admire your spirit. Just don't join my team. ;-)

<comment><USER34> Good idea. I'd take your code coverage down to single digits in one afternoon bam!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> TDD requires you to manually predict every possible failure mode and edge case before starting work. It is obviously complete nonsense. Pure snake oil designed to sell training and consulting, not to produce working software.

<comment><USER36> While I don't do TDD, I know this isn't correct. The idea isn't to prove every single possible way the code can go wrong. It's supposed to be an iterative process, this should do that small thing, write tests to prove it, then refactor updating your tests.

Saying it's just designed to sell training and consulting is ridiculous.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nicely said @voodootrucker. And I agree with @Tashoecraft. Lots of people get value from TDD. Unfortunately, some don't and assume it's the TDD process that's broke. Its not the tool's fault. It's also understandably difficult (though not rational) that groups of people have trouble adopting new practices like TDD. Agile Thoughts podcast exposes some of the social blockages starting with episode 14: [https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile- thoughts/](https://agilenoir.biz/series/agile-thoughts/)</comment></comment></comment>


This Bone Conduction Bluetooth Headset is the Best Headset You've Never Tried - <AUTHOR> http://thesmartphonechamp.com/motorola-bone-conduction-bluetooth-headset/ <comment><USER2> Please stop spamming blog spam.</comment>


99 Days at a Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeanhsu.com/?p=243

<comment><USER2> This does seem partially misguided - Tim Ferriss himself does say that he spends a lot more than 4 hours a week on projects, because he doesn't see that as work, instead they are projects he chooses to do because he enjoys them (similar to the author of this post).

<comment><USER3> I think the title of the book is misleading, it should be "the 4 hour work and 30 hour doing something you like that pays your bills week". But it is a lot catchier to call it 4 hour work week, which in my opinion is the only negative thing about this book. From the title, you think you don't have to work and get enough money to do whatever you want, which is just wrong.

If you like your job at the startup, you did exactly the right thing, there is nothing better than doing the job you like and even get paid for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Exactly the reason why i didnt like the 4 Hour work week by Tim Ferris. I enjoy what i am doing and would rather improve my work experience if i wont find it enjoying anymore than to travel around the world todo "fun" stuff while other people earn money for me.</comment>


The long, slow death of commercial Unix - <AUTHOR> https://www.networkworld.com/article/3339381/the-long-slow-death-of-unix.html <comment><USER2> paywalled.</comment>


Ask HN: A Decent Video Editing solution for a small Kickstarter project? - cupcake-unicorn

I'm helping a friend of mine with a small Kickstarter project. I've never really needed to cut together any serious videos, but I have resorted to something ridiculous like Windows Movie Maker when the need has come up, just to have an easy solution.
The problem is that I feel like I'm stuck between two worlds. On one hand, there are a ton of souped up, crazy video editing solutions that are overkill for me and would take too long to figure out how to do simple things. For example, was just looking into doing a simple text overlay in Blender/VirtualDub, and spent hours fiddling with things.
On the other side of the spectrum, there's a lot of really trashy options that range from pretty embarrassing to totally inappropriate for this project.
I feel like there's something I'm missing. I searched for ages and just couldn't find something the felt like the right fit. The closest was an app called PhotoFilmStrip, but that would only handle the pan and zoom, and I'd want some other (tasteful!) text, overlays, transitions, etc.
I don't have a Mac so no Mac apps, but anything else (Linux, etc.) is fair game. I feel like I often can find real gems on here that I can't find by searching so I hope I'll get lucky here. Thanks. <comment><AUTHOR> You could use Kdenlive, "a free and open-source video editor for GNU/Linux and FreeBSD" [1] [2].

[1][http://www.kdenlive.org](http://www.kdenlive.org) [2][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eHEAfNFJ0k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eHEAfNFJ0k)

<comment> cupcake-unicorn I did look into that, and it seemed to fit into the "overkill" category for me, although I didn't try it first hand since at the time I didn't have access to a Linux box.

There seem to be a lot of editors like that, and the high end ones, that are really for editing together actual short films, movies, etc. The fancy non- linear editors have so many bells and whistles that I get overwhelmed and bogged down in features. I have the kind of personality that I would start tweaking the video forever if I did something like this, and video editing isn't really something that I want to put a ton of research into or learn.

I'm looking for something that's geared towards making simple videos to showcase pictures, text, and videos of the person in charge of the Kickstarter cut in between. I'm certainly not making a movie, and like I said, there are apps that can do everything I want and more, but I really don't want to spend hours trying to do something simple. While the number of trashy Youtube videos generally outweighs the good ones, I'm sometimes surprised at the quality of ones by people just doing something like a makeup tutorial that don't really seem like they have much of a technical or artistic background. There's got to be something I'm missing.</comment></comment>


The journey of a first-time filmmaker through the eyes of a software engineer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gulnara/the-journey-of-a-first-time-filmmaker-through-the-eyes-of-a-software-engineer-part-3-post-7236e0d7fba2 <comment><USER2> Is there any reason you can't watch it online? (Apologies if you can and I'm missing it.) It's just that you say "exposure is everything", but to see this film I'd have to fly to New York and visit a film festival to see a 10 minute film.

<comment><USER3> Usually, festivals require that the movie is not distributed when you apply for a selection. I have yet to discover why, but it's probably because it makes them more attractive.

<comment><USER4> Yes, if everything was available online, it would take out the exclusivity of the major festivals (which also act as markets for films without distribution). Why brave Park City in January if you can just fire up the web browser and see everything. But this also works into the filmmakers favor if they make it into these festivals; over a week or weekend they can make some very important connections face to face even if their film isn't picked up, as well as gain valuable audience reaction that can be used to revise and tweak before release.

And there's really nothing like spending a week watching 3-5 films a day with enthusiastic crowds.

<comment><USER2> I enjoyed the article, but part of me was hoping - with her software background - she'd find some new lean approach to film making. I could be wrong, but the process of making a short film seems as cumbersome as making a feature. Pre-production, production, post-production, marketing, distribution. I know this will sound naive, but does making a short film have to be such an, um, production?

<comment><USER5> if you're aiming for high production values that you might find in a feature length film, then yeah. But you can find things on YouTube that are just a camera and a guy, that qualify as being a "short". Depends on what you want to achieve.

<comment><AUTHOR> very true, as a matter of fact you do not need to spend millions to make a great movie - "Tangerine" is a good example. However, the less amount of money you want to spend the more actual work you need to by yourself and unfortunately one can't know everything about everything.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Economist Brian Beaulieu at the Colorado CEO Forum (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.coloradoceoforum.com/12th%20Annual.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I attended this last week and had to share. It's very, very long, but it's the best macro-econ presentation I've ever seen. Really worth watching if you are thinking about macro factors over the next few years.</comment>


New Python library for FusionAuth.io - <AUTHOR> https://fusionauth.io/docs/v1/tech/client-libraries/python <comment><USER2> Is this built for Python 2 or 3?

<comment><AUTHOR> Python 3</comment></comment>


Y Combinator Day, Pt. 1 - <AUTHOR> http://mattmaroon.com/?p=183 <comment><USER2> You must have heard from YC by now? What's the verdict? I can't take the suspense!

<comment><USER3> We unfortunately did not get funded. Ironically, we suspect it was at least in part due to more of a strategic "political" reason than an insufficient idea. Our startup would have directly competed with a prominent current YC funded company which for obvious reasons is undesirable for YC, despite the fact we believe our approach is superior from a technical standpoint. The argument was that this current company is already "well established" and might already have momentum to expand into the area we proposed. They certainly aren't doing it yet though, and we build fast and never give up. I'm sure Larry and Surgey were told the same thing from investors about Altavista. History shows being "well established" doesnt mean squat. I wont get into any more specifics though, as we are still pursuing the idea and would like to keep it under wraps.

Paul, Jessica, and Trevor are really cool people though. As were the other teams present. We saw some good ideas and smart people. Without a doubt the next batch of startups will be very impressive. I wish all of those teams who were offered funding the best of luck!

<comment><USER4> > _The argument was that this current company is already "well established" > and might already have momentum to expand into the area we proposed._

Makes you wonder why they dragged you out there then!

<comment><USER5> I would guess that they liked the applicants (based on the applications) and wanted to see if they had any other ideas that they would be interested in pursuing.

<comment><USER4> Except that for this round pg said you don't need an idea in order to apply. That implies that they'll help decide on an idea if they like the founders, so an idea conflict should be resolvable by switching to something else pg et al. have in mind.

<comment><USER6> Let me just say this: "the idea doesn't matter" is a statement that we found to be highly, highly unreliable. Don't expect to get funded without a solid idea that is different. I'll elaborate on this later, but trust me on this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for the valuable info. Our interview is in less than 2 hours.. Talk about being nervous hah. Good luck on getting funded.

</comment><comment><USER7> Good luck to you. I'm nervous for your guys! The Y team seems to be people you can talk to, I guess that's why they're so attractive to entrepreneurs.

Either way, very exciting

</comment><comment><USER4> Condolences to anyone who got an interview and _then_ was turned down. That bites more than not getting an interview.

<comment><USER8> On the contrary. We got an interview and rejected last fall. It was a great experience to meet the four of them. I think we brought a great idea, a plan, and little diversity in our team (I was the only geek in our garage). We were swiftly rejected for reasons I'm not entirely sure , but thats why they have the money and I don't! At the least, Boston made for a great weekend getaway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks for all of the well-wishes. Pt. 2 was posted this morning.

</comment><comment><USER10> Good luck, let us know what the decision was!

</comment><comment><USER11> good luck!</comment>


2011 Beercamp (Great HTML5 Site)  - <AUTHOR> http://2011.beercamp.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but that's probably the least enjoyable experience that I've had on a website in recent times. It uses tons of fonts, few of which are actually readable. It doesn't degrade gracefully when JavaScript is disabled. It doesn't perform so great under Firefox 3.6. Overall, it's just unintuitive and confusing. It's an interesting concept but I'm not so sure the end justifies the means.

</comment><comment><USER3> This hurts my eyes, plus it took me 10 seconds to understand why the window was zooming when I was scrolling down.

Ground breaking. Not in a good way.</comment>


The United Kingdom Has Gone Mad - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/opinion/brexit-news.html <comment><USER2> FYI, this from before May resigned and even before the EU granted the 2nd extension to the article 50 deadline. It's from "April 2, 2019", May wrote the letter requesting the 2nd extension on April 5.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I should probably have added the month in the title.

I think it's still quite relevant though. Especially so after May's resignation - which seems to have left Boris Johnson at the head of the race to replace her.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Brexit already costs the UK massively. The pound dropped from $1.50 per pound in 2015 to $1.25 per pound in 2018. That is almost 20% destruction of wealth.

[https://qz.com/1626291/the-british-pound-is-on-a-record- losi...](https://qz.com/1626291/the-british-pound-is-on-a-record-losing- streak-against-the-euro/)

<comment><USER4> I don't think currency movements create or destroy wealth: at most, they just shift it around. I could just as easily argue that the drop in the pound _created_ wealth among the UK's trading partners.

What a drop in FX rate _does_ result in is a (possibly minor, possibly major) uptick in inflation as imports become more expensive. It also makes the country's exports more competitive since they're cheaper in relative terms.

Some countries actually see a low FX rate as desirable: reduction in the exchange rate is arguably one of the channels that made QE an effective policy.

<comment><USER3> Of course it always depends on the perspective: For a fisher man who wants to export seafood to the EU this is good news. For the average family which has to pay 20% more for everyday goods like vegetables from the Netherlands, not so much. However, Britain has a large trade deficit in goods and services, so in total it is bad news.

<comment><USER5> Also note that UK exporters have tended to bank the price difference rather than increase sales. Not good for increased employment. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/15/uk- exporter...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/15/uk-exporters- have-hoarded-gains-from-fall-in-sterling-says-ons)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From April 2nd.

Not that things are looking any better now, "no deal" is probably more likely now than it was then.

<comment><USER7> On the plus side some of the debate seems better than it was. Or am I imagining it? I was thinking of Farage vs Cable the other day - 5 min highlights: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0KV2cNZVXM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0KV2cNZVXM)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Brexit is boring. UK politicians are stupid. Why do they spend so much energy on something that won't help them? I'm sure the UK has bigger problems than highly educated french people coming to London or supporting their neighbouring countries with some minor EU fees.

</comment><comment><USER9> For the record, only England and Wales "have gone mad". Scotland and Northern Ireland voted solid _stay_.

<comment><USER10> Even Scotland voted around 1/3rd to leave. Without that Scottish leave vote the UK would have been majority remain. NI was closer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Correction, England (Outside London) and Wales has gone mad.

<comment><USER10> Without the Scottish or London leave voters, we wouldn't be leaving. The proportions varied across the UK, but it's the UK people that voted this way.

<comment><USER12> By a tiny margin, after a concerted misinformation campaign.

<comment><USER10> Correct, can't argue that. I just dislike this meme that gets bandied around that England voted one way and Scotland another - neither did so with a single voice, and this was not a vote at a member-country scale, but one in which every individual vote counted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Our politics has been stale and unrepresentative for some time, ticking along with party divisions that don't represent the political divisions of the populace any more.

The brexit fiasco has exposed this very well, and the main parties are tearing themselves to pieces over it.

I'm not especially keen to leave the EU, but I did consider voting that way precisely to provoke this. I still hope for meaningful political change in the uk to come from this time.

</comment><comment><USER13> This identification of knowledge stocks and flows is key:

> business has "been organized around stocks of knowledge as the basis for > value creation. The key to creating economic value has been to acquire some > proprietary knowledge stocks, aggressively protect those knowledge stocks > and then efficiently extract the economic value from those knowledge stocks > and deliver them to the market. The challenge in a more rapidly changing > world is that knowledge stocks depreciate at an accelerating rate. In this > kind of world, the key source of economic value shifts from stocks to flows.

> "The companies that will create the most economic value in the future," > Hagel says, "will be the ones that find ways to participate more effectively > in a broader range of more diverse knowledge flows that can refresh > knowledge stocks at an accelerating rate."

</comment><comment><USER14> The colonies were entirely dependent upon Britain until the Declaration of Independence was signed, a bold and surely terrifying act that seems to have worked out ok for the US.

The author dismisses the 'remote control' of the UK by Brussels and the fact that UK citizens can't even vote for their own laws or rulers, saying he "gets all that." I don't think so. If he did, he would understand why self determination is, to many people, more important than self protection. IMHO, this is the issue at the heart of Brexit.

<comment><USER15> Then again, the american revolutionary war did not start to gain independence, but to fight taxation without representation.

<comment><USER14> Yes, and Britain has the exact same problem with the EU.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article gives the whole effort too much credit, even naively so. Brexit is nothing more than an ambitious attempt by british money to avoid the expensive tax, aml and human rights legislation imposed by Brussels. Calling it out for what it is is the only possible way forward in my opinion - accusing disgruntled, starved, easily manipulated parts of the nation of being mad or stupid is just divisive and counterproductive.

<comment><USER7> I'm a remainer but there's more to it than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The wonderfully mad thing about UK politics is that the socialists are very much against the EU and for leaving, but their nominally socialist party, the Labour Party, is Remainer while their leader is a capitulating Brexiter, and grassroots conservatives are Brexiters while the Conservative Party is significantly Remainer with a (now ex) Remainer primeminister and remainer Chancellor of the Exchequor.

What makes a lot more sense it that while the ideological Economist Magazine and academic economists are Remainer (of the same 125 who jointly wrote to Thatcher telling her how wrong she was in 1982; that didn't turn out so well, haha!), Money Week (which is only interested in making money) and the capitalist pundits at the Daily Telegraph are essentially Brexiters.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wish these newspaper paywalls would take into account whether you actually read any of the articles you previously clicked into as part of your "free limit".

<comment><USER19> Isn't that what the "read more" button that loads the rest of the article does? Thought nytimes had those previously.

They have a pretty disgraceful cookie policy though, I don't think highly of an entity that produces this:

 _By clicking "I Accept" or "X" on this banner, or using our site, you consent to the use of cookies unless you have disabled them._

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Voters have _already_ voted, so what's the point of an article urging people to not believe the Brexiters?

</comment><comment><USER21> The usual fearmongering that the UK won't be able to trade with anybody anymore if it leaves the EU.

Actually countries that are not part of the EU have been trading for thousands of years. And Non-EU countries are even trading with EU countries.

It's quite the miracle.

<comment><USER22> Sure they trade. But when China slaps you with a tariff, as it has done for a thousand years, you no longer have a 400 million consumer gorilla on your side. Apparently, this is a good thing and testament to a country's sovereignty.

<comment><USER21> On the other hand, maybe the have few reasons to impose tariffs on "small" countries, because small countries never produce enough to threaten the local Chinese economy.

Also, again, many small countries seem to do fine without the EU. Presumably they still trade with China.</comment></comment></comment>


A Case Study of Our First Product Launch with Agile Methodology - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/crowdbotics/why-we-succeeded-in-agile-development-and-what-we-should-have-done-better-2bbb6de92795 <comment><USER2> I'm sure there's a 1000 arguments to be made for/against agile. I also think agile has been spread so much that orgs following the same model could be doing it completely differently in practice.

One thing I don't see often taken into consideration with agile is pace. Living in a world of never-ending sprints feels like aiming to run a marathon at 400m pace. The mindset of "go go go" favors doing over thinking. The reality is that things can take time to get done, and knowing what you are doing is better than mindlessly doing for the sake of getting a gold star at the end of a 2 week sprint only to spend a later 2 weeks correcting issues, todsing work, or changing course.

It can also be hard to innovate in such conditions. I've found that (reasonable) bouts of downtime can be productive in ways to refine/discover things not in the backlog. Sometimes when things are always fast paced there is no stamina left to experiment.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll be honest, my brain switches off every time I read an Agile article. There's so much obfuscatory terminology - methodology, sprint, scrum master - I always feel like it's all designed to confuse middle managers into buying Agile consulting and training services.

Of course, that's nothing to do with your platform. I like the website. How's business?</comment>


Apple reportedly wants to ditch Intel chips in Macs, hire its own SoC designer - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/apple-reportedly-wants-to-ditch-intel-chips-in-macs-hire-its-own-soc-designer-1101772

<comment><USER2> One more vacuous story based on nothing but wild speculation.

</comment><comment><USER3> One person to develop a chipset? Interesting.</comment>


PSA: You should remap your capslock key - <AUTHOR> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RemapCapsLock

<comment><USER2> While remapping CapsLock to left Ctrl is a great idea, it's also worth considering remapping left Alt to Ctrl (if you use Emacs) - that way, rather than sticking your pinky out to type while holding down Ctrl, you can hold Alt with your thumb. Probably less awkward. (Both beath bending your pinky down to the normal Ctrl, though.)

Also, changing CapsLock to Esc is a great idea if you use vi.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand why mahmoudimus's comment (my sibling) was killed. I've been considering trying to re-map my muscle memory to use ^C or ^[ instead of escape in vi, largely because my capslock key is an extra control.

Considering how much the position and size of escape varies among keyboards, it might be better to avoid it altogether.

<comment><USER2> His first comment on the site got voted way down, and when the admins block somebody, they can are still allowed to post - they're just invisible to people with showdead off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I remapped it to control and then got some use out of the caps lock light: <http://dustin.github.com/2009/02/09/caps-lock.html>

</comment><comment><USER5> I map mine to Alt/Option on the Mac. It fucking rocks!

Caps lock is useless. The only downside is that whenever I use someone else computer I find myself toggling Caps.

</comment><comment><USER6> I tried this, but it was too much hassle to learn :/

</comment><comment><USER7> As a touch typist, it has always seemed to me that making it easier to hit Ctrl with one hand than the other is going to build bad habits.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unfortunately MacOS doesn't let you remap it to Shift, which is what I usually mean to hit instead.

<comment><USER9> If you fill out a feature request at [http://sourceforge.net/search/?group_id=65339&type_of_se...](http://sourceforge.net/search/?group_id=65339&type_of_search=forums&group_forum_id=221238&words=capslock&search=Search)

I should be able to add it in to doublecommand soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Or, you know, learn to type accurately.

<comment><AUTHOR> The point isn't to avoid accidents, it's to avoid wasting a valuable spot on the keyboard.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do lawyers use to manage contract revisions? - <AUTHOR> I imagine something git-like would be useful here. Is there some ubiquitous software that most/all law firms are using? Or are they still passing word docs back and forth? <comment><USER2> Microsoft Word with edits most likely.</comment>